HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03252014 - C.90RECOMMENDATION(S):
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Conservation and Development, or designee, to execute Cooperative
Agreement No. 28SW.01 (Exhibit A) among Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA), the Cities of San Ramon, Lafayette, and Orinda, and the Towns of Moraga and Danville, to enable
disbursement of approximately $1,323,700 in Measure J (2004) Subregional Transportation Needs Program funds to
the County in annual increments through 2034, to fund transportation projects and programs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund. 100% Measure J funds,
BACKGROUND:
In 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J to continue a half-cent sales tax to fund transportation
projects and programs throughout the County. One component of Measure J is the Subregional Transportation Needs
Program, or Program 28c, which is a funding source for the County's subregions' transportation projects and
programs. Program 28c funds are distributed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to all the
Regional Transportation Planning Committees, including the Southwest Area Transportation (SWAT) Committee.
To streamline the process, a single multi-party cooperative agreement between CCTA and all six SWAT member
jurisdictions, including Contra Costa County, was proposed to disburse Program 28c funds. CCTA approved the
cooperative agreement at its January 15, 2014 Board meeting (Exhibit B). Under the cooperative agreement,
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 03/25/2014 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
ABSENT:Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Contact: Robert Sarmiento, (925)
674-7822
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of
Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: March 25, 2014
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc: John Cunningham, John Kopchik
C. 90
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Date:March 25, 2014
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Execution of SWAT-CCTA Program 28c Cooperative Agreement
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
CCTA will agree to:
• Disburse Program 28c funds for revenues collected through FY 12-13 as soon as the cooperative agreement is
fully executed
• Make annual disbursements thereafter in November through 2034
• Use the customary 50/50 population and road miles formula used by CCTA to distribute other Measure J funds
The County allocation is estimated to be $1,323,700 over the life of Measure J, subject to revenue fluctuations
(Exhibit A).
County Counsel has reviewed the cooperative agreement and has approved it as to its form.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If the cooperative agreement is not approved and authorized, Program 28c funds will not be available as a funding
source for County transportation projects and programs.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Cooperative Agreement No. 28SW.01
Exhibit B - January 2014 CCTA Board Meeting Packet
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 28SW.01
This COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (this “AGREEMENT”) is effective this ____day of
_______________, 2014 among CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a local
transportation authority (“AUTHORITY”), CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of California (“CONTRA COSTA”), TOWN OF DANVILLE, a municipal corporation of the
State of California (“DANVILLE”), the CITY OF LAFAYETTE, a municipal corporation of the State
of California (“LAFAYETTE”), the TOWN OF MORAGA, a municipal corporation of the State of
California (“MORAGA”), the CITY OF ORINDA, a municipal corporation of the State of California
(“ORINDA”), and the CITY OF SAN RAMON, a municipal corporation of the State of California
(“SAN RAMON” and together with AUTHORITY, CONTRA COSTA, DANVILLE, LAFAYETTE,
MORAGA, and ORINDA, the “PARTIES” and each separately, a “PARTY”).
RECITALS
THE PARTIES ENTER THIS AGREEMENT on the basis of the following facts, understandings and
intentions:
A. Pursuant to the Measure C Sales Tax Renewal Ordinance (#88-01) “hereinafter
MEASURE C”) as amended by (#04-02), hereinafter referred to as “MEASURE J” approved by the
voters of the Contra Costa County on November 2, 2004, CONTRA COSTA, DANVILLE,
LAFAYETTE, MORAGA, ORINDA, AND SAN RAMON (each, a “PARTNER JURISDICTION” and
collectively, the “PARTNER JURISDICTIONS”), and AUTHORITY desire to enter into this
AGREEMENT to define a framework to enable the parties to utilize Program 28c funds in
MEASURE J.
B. PARTNER JURISDICTIONS shall propose programming Program 28c funds to any
project or program identified in the Measure J Expenditure Plan or eligible under the provisions
of the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act (“PROJECT”) and AUTHORITY shall
disburse collected funds under Program 28c as provided herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth above and the
rights and obligations set forth in this AGREEMENT and other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged , AUTHORITY and each PARTNER
JURISDICTION hereby agree to the following:
SECTION 1
PARTNER JURISDICTIONS AGREE:
1. On September 1st of each year to submit a form indicating how Program 28c
funds were expended for the previous fiscal year and how much, if any , of the funds are
remaining.
2. Commit to not use Program 28c funds for staff time, unless it is directly related
to a project funded by Program 28c.
3. Each PARTNER JURISDICTION shall maintain true and complete records in
connection with the PROJECT, and shall retain all such records for at least thirty-six (36) months
after the delivery of the form to the AUTHORITY as provided in Section 1.
4. To allow the AUTHORITY to audit all expenditures relating to the PROJECT
funded through this AGREEMENT. For the duration of each fiscal year of the PROJECT, and for
four (4) years following each fiscal year of the PROJECT, or earlier discharge of the AGREEMENT,
PARTNER JURISDICTION will make available to the AUTHORITY all records relating to expenses
incurred in performance of this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 2
AUTHORITY AGREES:
1. To disburse Program 28c funds to PARTNER JURISDICTIONS in March 2014 for
revenues collected for Fiscal Year 2012-2013, and thereafter make annual allocations to
PARTNER JURISDICTIONS starting in November for the previous fiscal year, from November
2014 until November 2034 using a 50/50 population and road miles split formula as provided in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
1. Term. The term of this AGREEMENT shall commence on ___________, 2014 and
shall remain in effect until terminated as provided in Section 9.
2. Additional Acts and Documents. Each PARTY agrees to do all such things and
take all such actions, and to make, execute and deliver such other documents and instruments,
as shall be reasonably requested to carry out the provisions, intent and purpose of the
AGREEMENT.
3. Amendment. This AGREEMENT may not be changed, modified or rescinded
except in writing, signed by all partied hereto, and any attempt at oral modification of this
AGREEMENT shall be void and of no effect.
4. Assignment. This AGREEMENT may not be assigned, transferred, hypothecated,
or pledged by any PARTY without the express written consent of the other PARTIES.
5. Binding on Successors. This AGREEMENT shall be binding upon the successor(s),
assignee(s) or transferee(s) of the PARTIES. This provision shall not be construed as an
authorization to assign, transfer, hypothecate or pledge this AGREEMENT other than as
provided above.
6. Indemnification.
a. AUTHORITY hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, assume all liability for
and hold harmless each PARTNER JURISDICTION, its officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, to the maximum extent allowed by law, from all actions, claims, suits,
penalties, obligations, liabilities, damages to property, costs and expenses (including, without
limitation, any fines, penalties, judgments, actual litigation expenses and experts’ and actual
attorneys’ fees), environmental claims or bodily and/or personal injuries or death to any
persons (collectively, “CLAIMS”) arising out of or in any way connected to AUTHORITY its
officers, agents, or employees in connection with or arising from any of its activities pursuant to
this AGREEMENT. This indemnification shall survive the termination of the AGREEMENT and
shall apply except as to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of a PARTNER JURISDICTION.
b. Each PARTNER JURISDICTION hereby agrees to indemnify, defend,
assume all liability for and hold harmless AUTHORITY and its member agencies, officers,
employees, agents and representatives, to the maximum extent allowed by law, from all
CLAIMS arising out of or in any way connected to the PARTNER JURISDICTION, its officers,
agents or employees in connection with or arising from any of its activities pursuant to this
AGREEMENT. This indemnification shall survive the termination of the AGREEMENT and shall
apply, except as to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of AUTHORITY.
7. Compliance with Laws. AUTHORITY and each of the PARTNER JURISDICTIONS
shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations regarding the work
performed and the reimbursements requested .
8. Notices. All required or permitted payments, reports, demands and notices may
be sent by regular mail or electronic mail. Notices that are mailed by regular mail shall be
deemed delivered two (2) business days after deposited in the mail. Notices may be personally
delivered and shall be deemed delivered at the time delivered to the appropri ate address set
forth below. Notices delivered by electronic mail shall be deemed received upon the sender’s
receipt of an acknowledgment from the intended recipient (such as by the “return receipt
requested” function, as available, return electronic mail or other written acknowledgment of
receipt); provided that, if such notice is not sent during normal business hours of the recipient,
such notice shall be deemed to have been sent at the opening of business on the next business
day of the recipient. Unless and until notified otherwise in writing, a PARTY shall send or
deliver all such communications relating to this Agreement to the following address:
Hisham Noeimi
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
hnoeimi@ccta.net
John Cunningham
Contra Costa County
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
Tai J. Williams, AICP
Town of Danville
510 La Gonda Way
Danville CA 94526
twilliams@danville.ca.gov
Tony Coe
City of Lafayette
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 210
Lafayette, CA 94549
tcoe@ci.lafayette.ca.us
Shawna Brekke-Read
Town of Moraga
329 Rheem Blvd
Moraga, CA 94556
sread@moraga.ca.us
Lawrence Theis, P.E.
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
ltheis@cityoforinda.org
Lisa Bobadilla
City of San Ramon
2401 Crow Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583
lbobadilla@sanramon.ca.gov
9. Termination of Agreement. A PARTY may terminate this Agreement at any time
by giving written notice of termination to each of the other PARTIES which shall specify the
effective date thereof; provided that any notice of termination shall be given at least thirty
(30) days before its effective date.
10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire agreement among AUTHORITY
and the PARTNER JURISDICTIONS relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. All PARTIES
acknowledge they have not relied upon any promise, representation or warranty not expressly
set forth in this Agreement in executing this Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement is
void or otherwise unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force
and effect. Any changes to the terms and provisions of this Agreement or affecting the
obligations of the PARTIES set forth in this Agreement shall be by written amendment signed by
all PARTIES.
11. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared unconstitutional,
invalid, or beyond the authority of a PARTY to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement which shall continue in full force and
effect; provided that the remainder of this Agreement can, absent the excised portion, be
reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the PARTIES.
12. Waiver. No waiver by a PARTY of any default or breach of any covenant by the
other PARTIES shall be implied from any omission to take action on account of such default if
such default persists or is repeated and no express waiver shall affect any default other than
the default specified in such waiver and then such waiver shall be operative only for the time
and to the extent stated in such waiver. Waivers of any covenant, term or condition contained
herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term
or condition. No waiver of any provision under this Agreement shall be effective unless in
writing and signed by the waiving PARTY.
13. Controlling Law and Venue. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be
governed by the laws of the State of California and venue shall be in Contra Costa County.
14. Authority. All PARTIES executing this Agreement represent and warrant that
they are authorized to do so.
15. Counterparts. This AGREEMENT may be executed in counterparts.
16. Limitations. All obligations of AUTHORITY under the terms of this AGREEMENT
are expressly subject to the AUTHORITY’S continued authorization to collect and expend the
sales tax proceeds provided by MEASURE C and MEASURE J. If for any reason the AUTHORITY’S
right to collect or expend such sales tax proceeds is terminated or suspended in whole or part,
the AUTHORITY shall promptly notify PARTNER JURISDICTIONS, and the PARTIES shall consult
on a course of action. If, after twenty five (25) working days, a course of action is not agreed
upon by the parties, this AGREEMENT shall be deemed terminated by mutual or joint consent;
provided, that any obligation to fund from the date of the notice shall be expressly limited by
and subject to (i) the lawful ability of the AUTHORITY to expend sales tax proceeds for the
purposes of this AGREEMENT; and (ii) the availability, taking into consideration all the
obligations of the AUTHORITY under all outstanding contracts, agreement to other obligations
of the AUTHORITY, of funds for such purposes.
[Signatures on the following pages]
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
__________________________________________
By: Janet Abelson, Chair
Date ________________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: Malathy Subramanian, General Counsel
Date_________________, 2011
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
__________________________________________
By:
Date ______________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sharon Anderson, County Counsel
_________________________
By: Deputy County Counsel
Date_______________, 2014
TOWN OF DANVILLE
__________________________________________
By: (Name, Title)
Date ________________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: , City Attorney
Date_________________, 2014
CITY OF LAFAYETTE
__________________________________________
By: (Name, Title)
Date ________________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: , City Attorney
Date_________________, 2014
TOWN OF MORAGA
__________________________________________
By: (Name, Title)
Date ________________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: , Town Attorney
Date_________________, 2014
CITY OF ORINDA
__________________________________________
By: (Name, Title)
Date ________________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: , City Attorney
Date_________________, 2014
CITY OF SAN RAMON
__________________________________________
By: (Name, Title)
Date ________________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: , City Attorney
Date_________________, 2014
Exhibit A
Jurisdiction 50/50 Population &
Road Miles Split (%)
Program 28c Allocations
through FY2034*
Program 28c Allocations
through June 30, 2013
County 20.78 $ 1,323,700 $ 138,783
Danville 21.16 $ 1,347,906 $ 141,321
Lafayette 13.74 $ 875,247 $ 91,765
Moraga 9.1 $ 579,676 $ 60,776
Orinda 12.28 $ 782,244 $ 82,014
San Ramon 22.94 $ 1,461,294 $ 153,208
SUM 100% $ 6,370,067 $ 667,867
* subject to change as Measure J revenue forecast is revised
Authority Board Meeting AGENDA
(Full packet with attachments available at www.ccta.net)
This meeting is scheduled to be audiocast live on the CCTA website.
Visit our Meetings & Agendas page to tune in.
DATE: Wednesday, January 15, 2014
TIME: 6:00 pm
PLACE: Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 110
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Agenda\Draft Jan 15 2014 Auth Agenda.docx
COMMISSIONERS Janet Abelson, Chair Kevin Romick, Vice Chair Newell Arnerich Tom Butt David Durant Federal Glover
Dave Hudson Mike Metcalf Karen Mitchoff Julie Pierce Robert Taylor
ALTERNATES Candace Andersen John Gioia Wade Harper Dave Hudson Ron Leone Sherry McCoy Mary Piepho
Karen Stepper Don Tatzin
EX-OFFICIOS Amy Worth, MTC Joel Keller, BART Myrna de Vera, Public Transit Bus Operators
Executive Director Randell H. Iwasaki
A. CONVENE MEETING: Janet Abelson, Chair
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public are invited to address the Authority
regarding any item that is not listed on the agenda. Please complete one of the speaker
cards in advance of the meeting and hand it to a member of the staff.
1.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Authority Minutes of December 18, 2013. (Attachment-Action)
2.0 CONSENT CALENDAR:
2.A Administration & Projects Committee: (As the APC did not meet in January, the
following items are being referred directly to the Authority.)
2.A.1. Monthly Project Status Report. Staff Contact: Ross Chittenden (Attachment -
Information)
2.A.2 Accept Monthly Accounts Payable Invoice Report for November 2013. The
accompanying report provides a listing of invoices paid in alphabetical order by
vendor or payee name for the month of November 2013. Staff Contact:
Randall Carlton (Attachment - Action)
Authority Board Meeting AGENDA
January 15, 2014
Page 2 of 5
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Agenda\Draft Jan 15 2014 Auth Agenda.docx
2.A.3 Acceptance of Annual Measure J Compliance Audits for the Year Ended June
30, 2013. Each year the Authority selects Measure J recipients for compliance
audits to evaluate that the use of funds are in conformance with standards
established by the Authority. For the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2013, TY Lin
International Inc., California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and
County of Contra Costa were selected. The audits have been submitted and are
recommended for acceptance by the Authority. In the Auditor’s opinion, the
recipients complied in all material aspects with Authority standards. Staff
Contact: Randall Carlton. (Attachment – Action)
2.A.4 Acceptance of Annual Single Audit for the Year Ended June 30, 2013. Federal
regulations require an independent audit on funding awards greater than
$500,000 (referred to as the “Single Audit” report). For the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2013, the auditor noted that the Authority complied with the
requirements as applicable to Federal awards. Staff Contact: Randall Carlton.
(Attachment – Action)
2.A.5 Approved Contract No. 395 with Koff & Associates for Total Compensation
Study. The Authority has received qualifications in response to RFQ 13-4 to
review the Authority’s current compensation structure and conduct a total
compensation market survey to compare Authority salaries and benefits as
compared against other comparable public agencies. Koff & Associates
submitted the most applicable set of qualifications and proposed scope of
services in response to RFQ 13-4. Staff recommendation calls for the Authority to
approve a contract with Koff & Associates to provide these services with a
budget not to exceed $12,000. Staff Contact: Randall Carlton . (Attachment –
Action)
2.A.6 City of Pleasant Hill – Contra Costa Blvd Improvements (Project 24026) –
Request for Appropriation of Additional Measure J Funds for Construction and
Construction Management. The City of Pleasant Hill requests appropriation of
$750,000 from the Regional Transportation Needs Funding Category, and
$92,000 from the Major Streets: Traffic Flow, Safety and Capacity Improvements
Funding Category of in additional Measure J funds for Construction of the Contra
Costa Blvd Improvements project. Staff seeks authorization for the Chair to
execute Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01 with the City of Pleasant Hill, and
approval of Resolution 14-02-P in the amount of $750,000, and Resolution
13-03-P Rev. 1 in the amount of $92,000. Coop Agreement No. 28C.01,
Resolution 14-02-P, Resolution 13-03-P Rev. 1. Staff Contact: Amin AbuAmara.
(Attachment – Action)
2.A.7 State Route 4 (SR4) Bypass: Widen to Four Lanes – Laurel Road to Sand Creek
and Sand Creek Road Interchange (Project 5002/5003) – Amend Resolution for
Construction Contract No. 337 to Increase the Construction Allotment. Staff
seeks approval of an amendment to increase the Construction Allotment from
Authority Board Meeting AGENDA
January 15, 2014
Page 3 of 5
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Agenda\Draft Jan 15 2014 Auth Agenda.docx
$26,862,792 to $31,323,339. The increase is funded with $5 million in Measure J
funds and will allow construction of the second Sand Creek Road Undercrossing
under an approved Construction Contract Change Order . Resolution 12-12-P
Rev. 1. Staff Contact: Amin AbuAmara. (Attachment – Action)
2.A.8 Senate Bill 751 – Update on New Legal Requirement. Senate Bill 751, which
takes effect on January 1, 2014, requires all agencies to publicly report the vote
of all Board members. Staff Contact: Randall Carlton. (Attachment –
Information)
2.A.9 East Contra Costa Rail Extension (eBART) (Project 2001) – Request to Substitute
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds. The eBART project
has currently $13 million in STIP funds that are not available until July 1, 2015.
BART needs the STIP funds now in order to fully fund the eBART Maintenance
Facility Completion, Trackwork, Systems and Station Finishes Contract (04SF-
130). BART is proposing to provide $13 million in local/state funds to eBART in
return for programming the $13 million in STIP funds on another BART project.
Staff recommends approval of the fund substitution . Staff Contact:
Hisham Noeimi (Attachment – Action).
2.A.10 Legislation (No report this month.)
2.A.12 Hercules Intermodal Transit Center (Project 4001) - Authorization to Execute
Agreement No. 383 with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. for Construction
Management Services. Staff seeks authorization for the Chair to execute
Agreement No. 383 with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. in the amount of $995,000
to provide construction management services for the Hercules Intermodal
Transit Center Project (4001). Staff Contact: Ivan Ramirez. (Attachment – Action)
2.B Planning Committee: (As the PC did not meet in January, the following item is
being referred directly to the Authority.)
2.B.1 Approval to Distribute the Final Measure J Calendar Year (CY) 2012 & 2013
Growth Management Program (GMP) Compliance Checklist for Allocation of
Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 and 2014-15 Local Street Maintenance and
Improvement Funds. Staff requests approval to distribute the Calendar Year
2012 and 2013 GMP Checklist to local jurisdictions. Staff Contact:
Martin Engelmann (Attachment – Action)
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
3.0 MAJOR DISCUSSION ITEMS:
As the Planning Committee did not meet in January, the following item is being referred
directly to the Authority:
Authority Board Meeting AGENDA
January 15, 2014
Page 4 of 5
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Agenda\Draft Jan 15 2014 Auth Agenda.docx
3.B.2 Presentation Regarding the Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan. The
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) prepared and adopted a Contra
Costa County Mobility Management Plan and will present it to the Authority for
its consideration and adoption. The plan identifies a need and provides a
blueprint for Contra Costa to establish a Mobility Management function. Staff
Contact: Peter Engel (Attachment – Action)
4.0 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
4.A Administration & Projects Committee: (As the APC did not meet in January, the
following item is being referred directly to the Authority.)
4.A.11 Subregional Transportation Needs Program (Program 28c) Allocation Request.
Staff seeks authorization for the Chair to execute Cooperative Agreement No.
28SW.01 with the Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT)
jurisdictions and for the Executive Director to make non-substantive changes, if
needed. At its October 7, 2013 meeting, SWAT recommended allocation of its
share of the Subregional Transportation Needs Program (Program 28c) between
its six jurisdictions based on “50/50” population and road miles split formula.
Measure J Expenditure Plan allocates 0.235% of Measure J annual sales revenues
to Program 28c. Staff Contact: Hisham Noeimi (Attachment – Action)
4.B Planning Committee: None
5.0 CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS: None
6.0 ASSOCIATED COMMITTEE REPORTS:
6.1 Central County (TRANSPAC): Report of January 9, 2014 (Meeting handout if
available)
6.2 East County (TRANSPLAN): Report of January 9, 2014 (Meeting handout if
available)
6.3 Southwest County (SWAT): (Note: SWAT Meeting of January 6, 2014 canceled)
6.4 West County (WCCTAC): (Note: next meeting scheduled for January 31, 2014)
7.0 COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS:
7.1 Chair's Comments and Reports
7.2 Commissioners' Comments and Reports on Activities and Meetings
7.3 Executive Staff Comments (Attachment – Information)
Authority Board Meeting AGENDA
January 15, 2014
Page 5 of 5
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Agenda\Draft Jan 15 2014 Auth Agenda.docx
8.0 CALENDAR
8.1 February/March/April 2014 (Attachment – Information)
8.2 Calendar of Upcoming Events (Attachment – Information)
9.0 CLOSED SESSION: Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov. Code 54957.6) Agency
Designated Representative: Janet Abelson, Chair. Unrepresented Employee: Executive
Director
10.0 RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION – Report on Action Taken in Closed Session
11.0 ADJOURNMENT to Wednesday, February 19, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.
* Footnote: In accordance with Government Code Section 84308, no Commissioner shall accept, solicit, or direct a
contribution of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) from any party, or his or her agent, or f rom any
participant, or his or her agent, while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use is
pending before the agency and for three months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding if
the officer knows or has reason to know that the participant has a financial interest, as that term is used in Article
1 (commencing with Section 87100) of Chapter 7. Any Commissioner who received a contribution within the
preceding 12 months in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) from a party or from any
participant shall disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding and the Commissioner shall not make,
participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his or her official position to influence th e decision.
A party to a proceeding before the Authority shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution in an
amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) made within the preceding 12 months by the party, or his or
her agent, to any Commissioner. No party, or his or her agent, shall make a contribution of more than two
hundred fifty dollars ($250) to any Commissioner during the proceeding and for three months following the date a
final decision is rendered by the agency in the proceeding. The foregoing statements are limited in their entirety by
the provisions of Section 84308 and parties are urged to consult with their own legal counsel regarding the
requirements of the law.
ANY WRITINGS OR DOCUMENTS pertaining to an open session item provided to a majority of the Authority less
than 72 hours prior to the meeting shall be made available for public inspection at 2999 Oak Road, Suite 100,
Walnut Creek, California, during normal business hours.
PUBLIC COMMENT: The public may comment on any matter on the agenda, or related matters not on the agenda,
by completing a speaker card (available in meeting room), which should be provided to a CCTA staff member.
Public comment may be limited to three minutes (or other such time period as dete rmined by the Chair), in
accordance with CCTA’s Administrative Code, Section 103.4(b).
TRANSLATION SERVICES: If you require a translator to facilitate testimony to the Authority, please contact Danice
Rosenbohm at (925) 256-4722 no later than 48 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting. Si usted requiere a un
traductor para facilitar testimonio a la Authority, por favor llame Danice Rosenbohm al (925) 256-4722, 48 horas
antes de la asamblea.
ADA Compliance: This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a
disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown
Act (Cal. Govt. Code Sec. 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability -related modification or accommodation should
contact Danice Rosenbohm (925-256-4722) during regular business hours, at least 24 hours prior to the time of the
meeting.
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
MEETING DATE: December 18, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Janet Abelson, Newell Arnerich, Tom Butt, David Durant,
Dave Hudson, Mike Metcalf, Karen Mitchoff, Julie Pierce,
Kevin Romick, Robert Taylor
Ex-Officio Representatives: Myrna de Vera, Amy Worth
STAFF PRESENT:
Randell Iwasaki, Amin AbuAmara, Brad Beck, Randall Carlton,
Ross Chittenden, Martin Engelmann, Jack Hall, Brian Kelleher,
Matt Kelly, Susan Miller, Hisham Noeimi, Ivan Ramirez,
Linsey Willis, Mala Subramanian (Authority Counsel),
Danice Rosenbohm (Executive Secretary)
MINUTES PREPARED BY: Danice Rosenbohm
A. CONVENE MEETING: Chair Abelson convened the meeting at 6:06 p.m.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENT: Ralph Hoffmann, Walnut Creek resident, member of Contra Costa
County’s Advisory Council on Aging (CCC-ACOA) and Senior Mobility Action Council
(SMAC), and Central Contra Costa Transit Authority’s Citizens Advisory Committee,
stated that the buses do not run frequently enough and that additional funding for
public transportation was needed. He said that County Connection would be offering
free transit between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. through its Link door-to-door
service for seniors and disabled riders on a six-month trial basis.
1.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Authority Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2013.
ACTION: Commissioner Romick moved to approve the Authority Meeting Minutes of
November 20, 2013, seconded by Commissioner Pierce. The motion passed
unanimously, 8-0. (Commissioners Arnerich and Hudson had not yet arrived.)
2.0 CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Items recommended by the following committees:
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 2 of 19
ACTION: Commissioner Mitchoff moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by
Commissioner Pierce. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0. (Commissioners
Arnerich and Hudson had not yet arrived.)
2.A Administration & Projects Committee:
2.A.1 Monthly Project Status Report. Staff Contact: Ross Chittenden
2.A.2 Accept Monthly Accounts Payable Invoice Report for October 2013. The
accompanying report provides a listing of invoices paid in alphabetical order by
vendor or payee name for the month of October 2013. Staff Contact:
Randall Carlton
2.A.3 Listing of Contract Change Orders (CCOs) Greater than $25k for Construction
Contracts Less than $15M, and Greater than $50k for Construction Contracts
Larger than $15M. CCOs are used during a project’s construction phase to adjust
the construction price to reflect agreed-upon changes in the plans, schedule, or
in the working conditions that the contract was originally based upon. Authority
policy requires that this list be submitted to the APC for information. Staff
Contact: Ivan Ramirez
2.A.4 Authorize Amendments to Various Agreements. Staff has identified four (4)
Agreements which have expired or are due to expire within the upcoming
months. These Agreements are with Cardno Entrix, Mark Thomas & Company,
Inc. and URS. Staff seeks authorization to extend the terms of these
Agreements. No other changes are proposed, and there are no financial
implications to the amendments. Staff Contact: Susan Miller
2.A.5 State Route 4 – Balfour Road Interchange – Phase 1 (Project 5005).
2.A.5.1 Authorization to Execute Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 354
with Quincy Engineering, Inc. for Design Services. Staff is seeking
authorization for the Chair to execute Amendment No. 1 to Agreement
No. 354 with Quincy Engineering in the amount not-to-exceed $372,000
for additional design services. Staff Contact: Jack Hall
2.A.5.2 Authorization to Execute Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 369
with Kinder Morgan for the Purchase of Long Lead Time Items. Staff
seeks approval for the Chair to execute Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
No. 369 with Kinder Morgan to increase the scope and fee by
$2,865,000, for a total agreement value of $3,530,000. The additional
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 3 of 19
fee is for the purchase of long lead time items needed for the booster
pump facility relocation. Staff Contact: Jack Hall
2.A.6 State Route 4/State Route 160 Connector Ramps (Project 5001) - Authorization
to Execute Agreement No. 387 with Rajappan & Meyer Consulting Engineers,
Inc. for Design Services During Construction. Staff seeks authorization for the
Chair to execute Agreement No. 387 with Rajappan & Meyer Consulting
Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $500,000 for design services during
construction. Staff Contact: Ivan Ramirez
2.A.7 City of Richmond – Richmond Parkway Lighting (Project 9002) - Request for
Appropriation of Measure J Funds for Construction and Construction
Management. The City of Richmond is requesting an appropriation of
$1,500,000 in Measure J funds for construction and construction management.
Staff seeks authorization for the Chair to execute Resolution 13-59-P to fund this
appropriation. Resolution 13-59-P. Staff Contact: Jack Hall
2.A.8 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Project - Segment 2 (Project 1106S2) - Authorization to
Execute Amendment No. 3 to Cooperative Agreement No. 90.11.18 (District
Agreement No. 04-2439) with Caltrans for the Construction of an Extension to
Soundwall No. 3. Staff is seeking authorization for the Chair to execute
Amendment No. 3 to the Construction Cooperative Agreement No. 90.11.18
(District Agreement No. 04-2439) with Caltrans to extend Soundwall No. 3
through a construction change order to the Caltrans administered construction
contract. Staff Contact: Susan Miller
2.A.9 Interstate 80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Improvements (Project 7002).
2.A.9.1 Utility Agreement No. 384 with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Staff
requests authorization for the Chair to enter into Utility Agreement No.
384 with PG&E, in the estimated amount of $290,002, to relocate its gas
facilities and accommodate the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road interchange
improvement project. Staff Contact: Hisham Noeimi
2.A.9.2 Utility Agreement No. 385 with East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD). Staff requests authorization for the Chair to enter into Utility
Agreement No. 385 with EBMUD, in the estimated amount of
$2,118,200, to relocate its facilities and accommodate the I-80/San
Pablo Dam Road interchange improvement project, and authorization
for the Executive Director to make non-substantive changes to the
agreement if needed. Staff Contact: Hisham Noeimi
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 4 of 19
2.A.9.3 Utility Agreement No. 386 with West County Wastewater District
(WCWD). Staff requests authorization for the Chair to enter into Utility
Agreement No. 386 with WCWD, in the estimated amount of $355,805,
to relocate its facilities and accommodate the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road
interchange improvement project. Staff Contact: Hisham Noeimi
2.A.10 State Route 4 Highway Operational Improvements (Project 6006) –
Authorization to Begin Negotiations and Issue a Notice to Proceed to Mark
Thomas & Company, Inc. for Project Initiation Document (PID) Services. Staff
seeks authorization to enter into negotiations with Mark Thomas and Company
on scope and fee for Project Initiation Documentation services for the SR4
Operational Improvements Project (6006) and following a satisfactory conclusion
of those negotiations, to issue a Notice to Proceed in an amount not-to-exceed
$100,000. Staff Contact: Susan Miller
2.A.11 Adoption of the 2013 Measure J Strategic Plan. Staff recommends approval of
Resolution 13-51-P adopting the 2013 Measure J Strategic Plan. A draft of the
Plan was presented at the November Authority meeting. The Plan reflects
revised financial assumptions, anticipated project schedules, and input from the
Regional Transportation Planning Committees on priorities. Resolution 13-51-
P. Staff Contact: Hisham Noeimi
2.A.12 Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore (Project 1001) – Authorization to Execute
Cooperative Agreement No. 90.16.07 with Caltrans and Alameda County
Transportation Commission (ACTC) for Landscaping. Staff recommends
approval of Cooperative Agreement No. 90.16.07, authorizing the Executive
Director to make non-substantive changes, and authorizing the Chair to sign the
agreement. Staff Contact: Hisham Noeimi
2.A.13 State Route 4 Widening – Loveridge Road to Somersville Road (Project
1406/3003) – Authorization to Execute Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No.
234 with URS Corporation Americas (URS) for Design Services During
Construction. Staff is seeking authorization for the Chair to execute Amendment
No. 5 to Agreement No. 234 with URS in the amount of $70,000 to provide
additional support services including the preparation of electronic construction
As-Built Plans and Right-of-Way Engineering services to support Caltrans with
the decertification of excess project parcels. Staff Contact: Susan Miller
2.A.17 State Route 4/State Route 160 Connector Ramps (Project 5001) – Award of
Construction Contract No. 377. The Authority Advertised, and will also Award,
and Administer (AAA) the construction contract for Project 5001. Bid op ening for
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 5 of 19
the project was held on November 13, 2013. Under law, the project must be
awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. Staff actions include
reviewing and evaluating all bids received and subsequently issuing a preliminary
Recommendation of Award. Staff requests that the Authority adopt Resolution
13-57-P, which authorizes the Executive Director to award the construction
contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder and authorizes the
Chair to execute Contract No. 377. Resolution 13-57-P. Staff Contact:
Ivan Ramirez
2.B Planning Committee:
2.B.1 Approval to Issue Annual Urban Limit Line (ULL) Policy Advisory Letter. Staff
has prepared a draft ULL policy advisory letter for Authority review and approval.
Adopted Authority policy requires that all local jurisdictions be advised annually
in writing of the requirements for compliance with the Measure J ULL. Staff
Contact: Martin Engelmann
2.B.3 PDA Investment and Growth Strategy Update. As part of the OneBayArea Grant
(OBAG) program, MTC requires congestion management agencies (CMAs) like
the Authority to prepare a Priority Development Area (PDA) Investment and
Growth Strategy. The PDA Strategy is required to set OBAG funding priorities to
support, encourage, and accelerate PDA development. The Authority adopted its
Initial PDA Strategy in April 2013. The first annual update is due to MTC by May
1, 2014. The focus of the 2014 PDA Strategy Update will be on assessing housing
policies, infrastructure needs and funding needs as well as on potential changes
that would make regional policies more consistent with market and community
conditions in Contra Costa’s PDAs. Staff seeks Authority concurrence of the
outline, approach, and schedule for the Update. Staff Contact: Brad Beck
2.B.4 PDA Planning Grant Approach and Schedule. During FY 2012-13 through 2015-
16, the Authority will receive $2.745 million in federal funds thr ough MTC to
support local PDA planning efforts. To provide this support, the Authority will
conduct a consultant selection process to develop a list of consultant teams with
the skills needed to work on the different planning studies requested by local
agencies. In parallel, staff will release a call for proposed PDA planning studies
to local jurisdiction that have PDAs, and will select projects to be funded through
the program using the criteria identified in the Initial PDA Strategy. Authority
staff and local staff will then work out the details of the planning study, including
the consultant team assignments. Staff seeks Authority approval of the proposed
approach and schedule for the PDA planning grant program. Staff Contact:
Brad Beck
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 6 of 19
2.1 NEW ITEM: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Extend the Schedule for
Agreement No. 368 with Atkins North America, Inc. for Continued Support
2013 Congestion Management Program (CMP) and Multimodal Transportation
Service Objective (MTSO) Monitoring Effort. Staff seeks approval of this
amendment which extends the schedule for Authority Agreement No. 368 with
Atkins North America Inc., including analysis and reporting of the Action Plan
MTSOs and CMP Level-of-Service (LOS) standards, and authorization for the
Chair to execute the agreement. Staff Contact: Matt Kelly
End of Consent Calendar
3.0 MAJOR DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Chair Abelson stated that there was a request by staff to take Agenda Item 3.B.2 out of order .
There were no objections.
3.B.2 PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of Proposed 2013 Congestion Management Plan
(CMP) Update. As the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Contra Costa,
the Authority must prepare a Congestion Management Program (CMP) and
update it every other year. State law requires that the Authority adopt the CMP
update at a noticed public hearing and submit it to MTC. For the 2013 CMP
update, this action by the Authority will be taken through the adoption of
Resolution 13-60-G. Resolution 13-60-G. Staff Contact: Matt Kelly
ACTION: Commissioner Mitchoff moved to adopt the Final 2013 CMP Update, approve
Resolution 13-60-G, and authorize staff to make non-substantive edits as needed
prior to transmittal to MTC, seconded by Commissioner Romick. The motion
passed 7-1, with the dissenting vote by Commissioner Butt. (Commissioners
Arnerich and Hudson had not yet arrived.)
DISCUSSION: Matt Kelly, Associate Transportation Planner, stated that the Congestion
Management Program (CMP) Update was a requirement established in 1991 by
the California state legislature for Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs). As
the CMA for Contra Costa, the Authority must update the CMP at least every
other year. Mr. Kelly noted that the 2013 CMP Update would be the 11th for
Contra Costa.
Mr. Kelly stated that the legislature used CCTA’s Growth Management Program
(GMP) as the model for the CMP legislation. He said that for several CMP
requirements, Contra Costa defers to its GMP to satisfy the goals of the CMP.
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 7 of 19
Mr. Kelly said that in addition to technical updates to the required elements, a
major focus for the 2013 update was an update to the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP), which he said was a listing of projects and programs that would
be seeking regional, state or federal funding over the next seven-years. Mr. Kelly
explained that staff focused on ensuring that local project sponsors updated all
existing project information and added any new projects that had emerged since
2011, which was done through two open Calls for Projects. Mr. Kelly stated that
the CIP was unconstrained in its funding, and grew from a total value of $10.5
billion in 2011 to over $11.1 billion in 2013.
Mr. Kelly noted that another primary focus was to demonstrate the consistency
between the current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), known as Plan Bay
Area, and the Contra Costa CMP.
Mr. Kelly stated that the draft CMP was circulated for comments in July, which
resulted primarily in updates to the CIP project listing, and significant updates to
the Transportation Demand Element chapter as a result of comments by
TRANSPAC staff.
Mr. Kelly said that in November staff submitted the draft CMP to MTC, and that
it met all consistency requirements. He noted that MTC’s Planning Committee
recently approved all seven Bay Area CMPs, and that adoption by the full
commission was scheduled for January Mr. Kelly stated that staff was requesting
adoption of the Final 2013 CMP, approval of Resolution 13-60-G, and
authorization to transmit the Final CMP to MTC.
Chair Abelson opened the Public Hearing. There were no public comments, and
the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Butt stated that he was somewhat torn on the issue, and noted
that the 7-year CIP included a total of approximately 53% for new roads in the
Arterial/Roadway, Expressway, Freeway, and Interchange project types. He said
that traffic in the Bay Area had reached levels not seen in over ten years and
would only get worse, and that you cannot build your way out of congestion.
Commissioner Butt said that he was concerned about the amount of greenhouse
gases being emitted into the environment, and that the gravity of the situation
was not being taken seriously enough. Commissioner Butt said that he would be
voting no on the item.
Commissioner Pierce said that she believed paving roadways was important for
express buses and continuous HOV lanes. She said that the only way to improve
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 8 of 19
capacity was to put more people in vehicles and make the trips more expedient,
to incentivize people to carpool and use transit.
Commissioner Durant said that he agreed that the Authority should continue
investing more in multi-modal transportation, however the Authority’s
investment of approximately $4.3 billion in bike, pedestrian, rail, rapid transit
and intermodal infrastructure investments reflected a serious commitment.
Matt Kelly clarified that the arterial roadway category encompassed many
projects from the jurisdictions, and that it was difficult to identify appropriate
categories for projects which involved entire streets.
Chair Abelson commented that as leaders of the community, members of the
Authority should commit to using transit whenever possible to demonstrate that
it can work. She noted that if the roads were not good she would not have been
able to use transit to attend the meeting. Chair Abelson said that she was
supportive of the work that had been done on the 2013 CMP Update and
planned to vote yes on the item.
Representative Worth arrived at 6:23 p.m.
3.A.14 Legislation. Will Kempton, Executive Director of Transportation California, will
make a presentation on a proposed constitutional amendment that would
provide a new source of transportation funding to address the State’s critical
roadway and transit preservation fiscal crisis. Working in collaboration with the
California Alliance for Jobs, a final determination will likely be made in January
about pursuing such a measure in 2014.
ACTION: None taken – information only
DISCUSSION: Will Kempton, Executive Director of Transportation California, discussed
initiatives proposed at the State level to increase funding for transportation.
He began by highlighting the success of Contra Costa as the first self-help county
to incorporate a growth management strategy as part of its sales tax measure,
sponsoring the largest fee-supported investment in transportation across the
State of California. Mr. Kempton also noted that he had the honor of serving as
the contracted Executive Director of the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and
Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) for a number of years. He congratulated the
Authority on the effective and rapid completion of the Caldecott Fourth Bore
project.
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 9 of 19
As former Director of Caltrans, Mr. Kempton commended Randy Iwasaki for his
fine work as his Chief Deputy of Caltrans and later as the Director of Caltrans,
and particularly his help and assistance with the Bay Bridge project. Mr.
Kempton noted that Randy Iwasaki had been both his predecessor and successor
at Caltrans.
Mr. Kempton provided background on Transportation California. He explained
that the transportation gas tax had been heavily relied upon as the backbone for
transportation funding for many years, but with a more fuel efficient fleet, an
increasing number of electric vehicles, and a decline in purchasing power, the
gas tax was losing its effectiveness. Mr. Kempton said that something needed to
be done to restore funding for transportation.
Mr. Kempton noted that there had been a significant amount of transportation
infrastructure investment over the past 7-8 years, which was funded by
Proposition 1B bonds approved by the voters in November 2006. He said that
while the funds had been effectively managed by the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) and projects efficiently delivered by Caltrans and local
agencies, bond funds would soon be running out. Mr. Kempton stated that a
comprehensive needs assessment conducted by the CTC revealed that over the
next 10 years there would be a shortfall of $295 billion.
Mr. Kempton stated that Transportation California had developed a package of
improvements for consideration by the Legislature and potentially the voters to
deal with the problems that California is facing. He explained that the package
would provide for the investment of cap and trade dollars that are made
available for investment in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
transportation improvements. Mr. Kempton said that Transportation California
also supported lowering the voter approval threshold to 55 percent, which could
raise approximately $300 million per year among (up to) six more self-help
counties, and would allow counties like Contra Costa to continue to extend their
sales tax programs for transportation purposes.
Mr. Kempton stated that because of the surplus projected at the State level,
there could be an opportunity for re-capturing (for a period of time) truck weight
fees, or approximately $938 million per year, currently going toward debt service
on transportation-related bonds. He explained that while the bonds were issued
as general obligation bonds, debt service on those bonds was being paid with
transportation dollars.
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 10 of 19
Mr. Kempton stated that if the public was going to be asked to pay more for
transportation, the system needed to be made more efficient, accountable, and
transparent.
Mr. Kempton stated that on November 18th, Transportation California in
conjunction with the California Alliance for Jobs, filed an initiative with the
Attorney General to increase the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) by 1 percent , which
would be done incrementally over a period of 4 years and would generate
approximately $3 billion in revenue that could be dedicated to transportation.
He stated that voter research indicated that the public views maintenance of
existing infrastructure as the biggest problem, and that the initiative would
therefore be dedicated to “fix it first.” Mr. Kempton outlined the proposed
allocation of funding, which includes 25 percent to cities and 25 percent to
counties for the repair of local streets and roads, 40 percent to the State
Highway Operations and Protection Program for system improvements, and 10
percent for transit. He explained that transit did not score as highly statewide as
it might locally, and that they tried to achieve a balance that would appeal to
voters if the decision is made in January or February to move forward with a
ballot measure for a decision by voters in November 2014.
Mr. Kempton said that whether or not the initiative moves forward,
Transportation California had increased awareness of the transportation
problem in California and would continue its work to raise more revenues and
support transportation, vital to the State’s economy and quality of life.
Chair Abelson asked how the combined total of 50 percent for cities and counties
could be used. Mr. Kempton responded that it was restricted to the
rehabilitation of the local streets and roads system, and could include sidewalks.
Commissioner Metcalf asked for clarification of timeframe for the potential
ballot measure. Mr. Kempton responded that the objective was for the initiative
to the voters in November 2014, and that a decision would be made mid to late
January following a poll test of the ballot language in early January.
Commissioner Metcalf also asked if any of the revenue would be directed toward
high speed rail. Mr. Kempton responded that the revenue could be used only for
the repair and rehabilitation of existing transportation infrastructure.
Representative Worth thanked Mr. Kempton for his leadership on the issue. She
noted that earlier in the day MTC had adopted the framework for the cap and
trade revenue that will flow into the Bay Area, and committed to using the funds
for transit capital maintenance and operations of the system.
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 11 of 19
Commissioner Taylor asked about other ballot measures slated for November
2014. Mr. Kempton responded that there were a number of other competing
measures including transportation sales tax measures being contemplated by
local agencies, but that he was encouraged by the increased awareness
(indicated by the polling that had been done) of the transportation system
problem.
Randy Iwasaki asked if there was any regulation reform tied to the proposed
initiative. Mr. Kempton responded that there were no specific reform measures
contingent upon the passage of the initiative, but that improvements to
transportation system investments were essential elements of the larger
package.
On behalf of the Authority, Chair Abelson thanked Mr. Kempton for the
informative presentation.
Mr. Kempton said that CCTA staff would be kept apprised of the progress and
that a report back to the Authority would be provided in early 2014.
Commissioner Hudson arrived at 6:29 p.m.
4.0 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
4.A Administration & Projects Committee:
4.A.15 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Management Letter for the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013. The purpose of the CAFR is to provide an
independent assessment and audit of the Authority’s financial statements to
accurately portray financial activities that occurred during the fiscal year. The
auditors, Macias Gini & O’Connel (MGO) will provide a brief overview of the
statements. Staff Contact: Randall Carlton.
ACTION: Commissioner Taylor moved to accept the Fiscal Audit and Management Letter
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, seconded by Commissioner Pierce. The
motion passed unanimously, 9-0. (Commissioner Arnerich had not yet arrived.)
DISCUSSION: Randy Carlton, Chief Financial Officer, stated that the Fiscal Audit and
Management Letter for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013 was discussed in
detail with the Administration and Projects Committee (APC), and that there
were no additional comments or direction provided by the committee. Mr.
Carlton said that the audit was a clean report and resulted in no adverse findings
or instances of noncompliance, material weaknesses or comments. He noted
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 12 of 19
that there were no new management letter findings and that all prior year
findings had been addressed. Mr. Carlton noted that the Authority was in the 3rd
year of a positive trend in sales tax revenues, at pre-recession levels, not taking
into account inflation. He stated that the Authority was successful in leveraging
its Measure J dollars to increase grant funding, which represented 42 percent of
all revenues as compared to 24 percent in the prior year.
Mr. Carlton noted that the 2012 bond sale raised needed capital and enabled the
Authority to accelerate project delivery, with $197 million being spent on
transportation projects – an increase from $65 million in the prior year – with
management expenses increasing only $300 thousand over the prior year. He
also noted that the Authority remained well within its 1 percent administrative
limitation, and that it did not exceed any major budgetary expenditure
categories in the general fund. Mr. Carlton stated that the Authority’s financial
health remained strong, with revenues increasing, cost of borrowing low, and a
strong AA+ credit rating.
Lastly, Mr. Carlton said that bound color copies of the report, which was
included in the APC packet, were available by request.
Chair Abelson thanked staff for the good work.
4.A.16 Authorization to Execute Agreement No. 390 with the Contra Costa Water
District (CCWD) for Los Vaqueros Pipeline Work. Staff seeks authorization for
the Chair to execute Agreement No. 390 that requires CCWD to pay the
Authority for Los Vaqueros Pipeline Longitudinal Utility Encroachment Exception
work, estimated at $1,817,000. Staff Contact: Jack Hall
ACTION: Commissioner Taylor moved to authorize the Chair to execute Agreement No.
390 with Contra Costa Water District, seconded by Commissioner Durant. The
motion passed unanimously, 10-0.
DISCUSSION: Jack Hall, Associate Engineer, said that Agreement No. 390 with the Contra
Costa Water District (CCWD) related to the relocation of the Los Vaqueros
Pipeline (LVP) appurtenances as part of the Authority’s upcoming Balfour
Interchange project. He explained that in 1994 an agreement was made
between the State Route 4 Bypass Authority and CCWD requiring construction of
the 90 inch Los Vaqueros Pipeline – the only extended emergency water supply
for over 500,000 Contra Costa residents – outside the Bypass right-of-way. The
CCWD tried to install the pipeline outside of the Bypass right-of-way, however
the Superior Court it would not allow condemnation of property for installation
of the pipeline because the Bypass (at that point) was speculative.
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 13 of 19
The agreement was amended in 1995 with the provision that the CCWD would
be responsible for relocation of the LVP if construction on the Balfour
Interchange was started within 20 years (by June 2015).
In early 2012, the Bypass Authority obtained funding to start design on the
SR4/Balfour Road Interchange project, and selected an engineering firm to
develop plans to relocate the LVP, prior to construction of the SR4/Balfour
Interchange, at a cost estimated at $20 million.
Mr. Hall said that while Caltrans had insisted for over 20 years that the LVP be
relocated outside of State right-of-way, the Authority submitted a Longitudinal
Utility Encroachment Exception (LUEE) request to leave the pipeline in place that
had been tentatively approved by Caltrans and would save Contra Costa
taxpayers approximately $18.4 million. He thanked Ross Chittenden for leading
the effort with Caltrans and the CCWD to address the issue.
Mr. Hall noted that the final agreement, which reflected a revised final cost
estimate for the Contra Costa Water District Los Vaqueros pipeline work of
$1,580,000, had been included in the meeting handout packet .
Commissioner Durant asked for clarification on the revised agreement. Mr. Hall
responded that in addition to the revised cost for relocation of the LVP
appurtenances, the revised agreement included language beneficial to the
Authority, making CCWD responsible for costs that exceed the revised estimate,
and a provision for the Authority to be reimbursed for costs to date if the LUEE
falls through.
Commissioner Arnerich arrived at 6:59 p.m.
4.A.18 2014 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Fund Exchange
Proposal: Staff seeks authorization to pursue a fund exchange proposal with
MTC to advance 2014 STIP funds for I-680/SR4 (Phase 3) - $8.3 million and I-
80/San Pablo Dam Rd (Phase 2) - $9.2 million from FY 2017-18 to FY 2015-16.
The final agreement will be presented next month. Staff Contact:
Ross Chittenden
ACTION: Commissioner Pierce moved to authorize staff to pursue the fund exchange
proposal, seconded by Commissioner Arnerich. The motion passed unanimously,
10-0.
DISCUSSION: Ross Chittenden, Deputy Executive Director for Projects, stated that staff
was proposing a $27 million fund exchange with MTC in Measure J funds for a
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 14 of 19
like amount of federal funds He stated that the arrangement was mutually
beneficial, as MTC would get non-federal funds to use for programs ineligible for
federal funding, and the Authority would get a combination of its own STIP funds
and $27 million in new STIP funds two years earlier than usual.
Mr. Chittenden said that the fund exchange would enable the Authority to
complete the first phase of the 680/4 interchange two years early. He said that
an exchange of such magnitude was unprecedented for the Authority, and that
preliminary discussions indicated that the MTC funding would come at no risk,
additional cost or interest, providing the exchange is repaid over three years.
Mr. Chittenden said that following Authority concurrence and approval, staff
would negotiate an agreement and return to the Authority for final approval in
March or April.
Commissioner Pierce said that the fund exchange was very exciting and would
enhance safety through the interchange in Central County sooner than later.
4.1 NEW ITEM: Funding Proposal for I-680 Southbound Carpool Lane Completion
Project (Project 8001). Staff will present a funding plan for the I-680
Southbound Carpool Lane Completion Project. The funding plan protects nearly
$20 million in Regional Measure 2 committed to projects in the county, leverages
$19 to $24 million in regional funds and allows the project to be under
construction in 2016. Staff seeks authorization to a) amend the 2014 STIP to add
$10 million to the Project, b) amend the 2013 Strategic Plan to increase Measure
J funding commitment to the Project by $4.9 million, subject to TRANSPAC
concurrence, and c) develop a proposal to commit $5 million from various
sources (2014 STIP, Measure J I-680 Corridor Reserve, other) that will be
matched by MTC in the event the California Transportation Commission does not
approve over programming the 2014 STIP. Staff Contact: Ross Chittenden
ACTION: Commissioner Durant moved to authorize staff to pursue the funding plan as
outlined in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Hudson. The motion
passed unanimously, 10-0.
DISCUSSION: As a motion to approve the item was made immediately, no staff report
was provided.
Commissioner Metcalf asked how a 20 percent reduction could be achieved
through Value Engineering. Mr. Chittenden explained that the primary change
from the initial design related to a four-foot buffer between the general purpose
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 15 of 19
lane and the express lanes which had been reduced to a maximum of two feet,
which would allow the elimination of a large retaining wall near Rudgear Road.
He said that ramp reconfigurations and widening could result in additional cost
savings.
Mr. Chittenden stated that environmental approval was expected in Spring 2014,
after which the redesign would be addressed. He said that staff would report on
progress at a later date.
Commissioner Metcalf asked about the source of funding in the case of a
shortfall. Mr. Chittenden responded that while there was Measure J funding
available in the I-680 Carpool Lanes/Transit Corridor Improvements category,
MTC staff was highly motivated to partner with the Authority to achieve
successful completion of the I-680 segment of the Express Lane Network.
Commissioner Arnerich said that he thought the funding plan was a good
solution and that he would be supporting it.
4.2 NEW ITEM: Pay for Performance Program. The Authority has a policy of
providing rewards to recognize exceptional employee performance. The
Executive Director is requesting approval to grant awards of up to $1,000 per
employee for those employees that have met the criteria. To be eligible, an
employee must have received an “excellent” rating on their employee
performance appraisal in the past year. Staff Contact: Randell Iwasaki
ACTION:Commissioner Hudson moved to Authorize the Executive Director to grant Pay
for Performance awards of up to $1000 per eligible employee, seconded by
Commissioner Arnerich. The motion passed 8-2, with dissenting votes by
Commissioner Mitchoff and Commissioner Romick.
DISCUSSION: Chair Abelson noted that she had advised the Executive Director to include
the Pay for Performance item on the agenda, however it was already provided
for in the Authority’s approved Budget. She stated that the past year included
many successes as intended by the program, and encouraged the Authority to
support it.
Commissioner Mitchoff said that while she agreed with the comments made by
the Chair, she would not be supporting the item because she does not believe in
pay for performance programs.
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 16 of 19
Commissioner Metcalf agreed that the year had been remarkable, but said that
the public might question how all employees could be considered excellent. He
asked if there were any implications of the bonuses being “non-PERSable.”
Mala Subramanian, Authority Counsel, stated that the Pay for Performance
Program was considered a bonus program and not salary, and therefore should
not be challenged.
Commissioner Arnerich noted that the Town of Danville has had a similar
program for over twenty years, which had been very effective for motivating and
retaining employees. He stated that it was important for the Executive Director
to be allowed the ability to manage his employees within the guidelines already
approved by the Authority, and noted that the award was a very modest amount
of money.
Commissioner Pierce said that she agreed that the program was good, and that
the Authority might want to consider doing the same for the Executive Director.
Ms. Subramanian responded that the Executive Director was specifically
excluded from the program when the policy was approved, but that the policy
could be revised going forward.
Commissioner Romick asked whether the bonus would be disclosable as part of
the employee’s compensation, available as a public record. Ms. Subramanian
said that the bonus would be included with other compensation and that the
bonus amount would be difficult to identify.
Commissioner Durant said that he agreed with Commissioner Pierce that the
program should also apply to the Executive Director, and should be placed on a
future agenda soon for Authority consideration. He said that the program was a
very good first step for motivating and inspiring already exceptional staff.
4.B Planning Committee None
5.0 CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS:
5.1 Letter dated December 9, 2013 to CTC Chair Ghielmetti RE: Bay Area Congestion
Management Association Comments on Draft Active Transportation Program
A letter dated December 6, 2013 to the California Department of Transportation
from the Bay Area Congestion Management Agencies regarding MTC’s
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) Principles was included
in the meeting handout packet.
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 17 of 19
6.0 ASSOCIATED COMMITTEE REPORTS:
6.1 Central County (TRANSPAC): The report of December 12, 2013 was included in
the meeting handout packet.
6.2 East County (TRANSPLAN):
6.3 Southwest County (SWAT): (Note: December 2, 2013 meeting canceled)
6.4 West County (WCCTAC): Report of December 6, 2013
7.0 COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS:
7.1 Chair's Comments and Reports
Chair Abelson said that it had been a fantastic year.
7.2 Commissioners' Comments and Reports on Activities and Meetings
Representative deVera provided an update at the request of the Bus Transit
Operators on the schedule for implementation by MTC of the Clipper card on
County Connection, TriDelta Transit, and WestCAT. She stated that the three
East Bay operators had been advocating for expedited implementation of Clipper
since 2010, however MTC had deferred implementation because Clipper
hardware was technically obsolete and the region did not have sufficient Clipper
units for the East Bay fleets. She reported that the new generation hardware was
still under development, and that pricing, contractual changes, and major
changes to Clipper were being deliberated. Representative deVera said that MTC
was preparing to go out to bid in approximately 12 to 18 months for potentially a
new vendor and different program structure.
Commissioner Pierce reported that she had attended the Focus on the Future
Conference, held November 17-19, 2013 in San Diego, and that it was one of the
best Focus on the Future conferences to date. As the Authority’s representative
on the California Councils of Government (CalCOG) and the second Vice
President of the organization, she participated in the CalCOG conference which
immediately followed at the same location. She highlighted some of the topics
discussed, and said that holding the conference in the same location was a cost
effective and convenient option for so many who routinely attend both
conferences.
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 18 of 19
Commissioner Arnerich thanked Randy Iwasaki, Ross Chittenden, and Susan
Miller for their assistance with the I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Gap Closure soundwall
and landscaping projects.
Commissioner Metcalf said that he had participated in the Port of Oakland tour,
which he enjoyed very much. He mentioned that the tour included the airport,
which is now a part of the Port of Oakland.
Commissioner Romick thanked Ross Chittenden and CCTA staff for improvements
made on State Route 4, on which traffic was moving faster and more smoothly in
the westbound direction.
Commissioner Hudson said that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
had recently discussed SB 1339, asked that the Authority’s representatives on
MTC keep the Board apprised of developments.
7.3 Executive Staff Comments and Reports
Randy Iwasaki reviewed his Executive Director’s report. He also noted that with
the Caldecott Fourth Bore opening, the traffic flow toward Oakland had
improved greatly due to better geometry, and that the Authority had opened 15
lane miles of new roadway on State Route 4, paid for largely by local sales tax
measures. Mr. Iwasaki said that the Port of Oakland provides 73,000 direct jobs,
and that the port was looking for partnerships, much like CCTA. He wished
everyone a happy and safe holiday season.
8.0 CALENDAR:
8.1 Meeting Calendar: January 2014/February 2014/March 2014
Chair Abelson noted that both the APC and PC January meetings had been
canceled.
8.2 Calendar of Upcoming Events
9.0 CLOSED SESSION Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation. (Closed Session
to be held in the Diablo Conference Room, Suite 100.)Significant exposure to litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) (1 case)
The Authority adjourned to closed session at 7:37 p.m.
Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
December 18, 2013
Page 19 of 19
10.0 RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION - Report on Action Taken in Closed Session.
The Authority reconvened in open session and there was no action taken during closed
session to report.
11.0 ADJOURNMENT to Wednesday, January 15, 2013, at 6:00 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m. to Wednesday, January 15th at 6:00 p.m.
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2014
Subject Monthly Project Status Report
Summary of Issues This report outlines the status of current Measure projects. It also lists
all completed projects.
Recommendations None – for information only.
Financial Implications None
Options
Attachments A. Monthly Project Status Report
Changes from
Committee
N/A
Background
The Project Managers for all Measure C and Measure J projects update the status of those
projects for the Board’s information on a monthly basis.
2.A.1-1
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Active Projects ................................................................................................................. 4
SOUTHWEST COUNTY ............................................................................................................. 4
a. Caldecott Fourth Bore Project (1001/1698) .................................................................... 4
b. I-680 Auxiliary Lanes, Segment 2 (1106S2) ...................................................................... 5
c. Santa Maria Intersection Improvements (1623/1623 W) – No changes from last
month ............................................................................................................................... 6
d. I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps Project (8003) – No changes from last month ............. 6
CENTRAL COUNTY ................................................................................................................... 7
e. Commerce Avenue Extension (1214) ............................................................................... 7
f. Pacheco Boulevard Widening (1216/24003) ................................................................... 9
g. Martinez Intermodal Station – Phase 3 (4002/27001) .................................................... 9
h. Pacheco Transit Hub (2210) ........................................................................................... 10
i. Interstate 680 / State Route 4 Interchange Improvements – SR4 Widening (Phase 3)
(6001) ............................................................................................................................. 11
j. SR242/Clayton Road Ramps (6002/6004) – No changes from last month .................... 11
k. I-680 Southbound HOV Gap Closure (8001) .................................................................. 12
l. Comprehensive Wayfinding System – Central County BART Stations (10001-03) ........ 13
m. Electronic Bicycle Facility at Central County BART Stations (10001-04) ........................ 13
n. Marsh Creek Road Upgrade (24001) – No changes from last month ............................ 14
o. Court Street Overcrossing – Phase 1 (24005) – No changes from last month .............. 15
p. Buskirk Avenue Widening – Phase 2 (24006)................................................................. 15
q. Contra Costa Blvd Improvements (24026) ..................................................................... 16
r. Geary Road Improvements – Phase 3 (24007) .............................................................. 17
s. Clayton Road/Treat Boulevard/Denkinger Road Intersection Capacity
Improvements (24028) .................................................................................................. 18
WEST COUNTY ...................................................................................................................... 19
t. Atlas Road Bridge Project (3111) – No changes from last month ................................. 19
u. Hercules Rail Station (4001) ........................................................................................... 19
v. I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange (7002) ............................................................... 20
w. I-80/Central Avenue Interchange (7003) ....................................................................... 21
2.A.1-2
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 3
x. Interstate 80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (7005) ......................................................... 22
y. Marina Bay Parkway Grade Separation (9003) .............................................................. 23
z. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Access Improvements at El Cerrito Plaza
and del Norte BART Stations (Project 10002-01) .......................................................... 24
aa. Electric Bicycle Facility at West County BART Stations (10002-03) ............................... 24
bb. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Access Improvements at El Cerrito Plaza
and del Norte BART Stations (Project 10002-01) – No changes from last month ......... 25
cc. Comprehensive Wayfinding System for West Contra Costa BART Stations
(10002-05) ...................................................................................................................... 26
EAST COUNTY ........................................................................................................................ 26
dd. SR4 Widening: Loveridge Road to Somersville Road (1406/3003) ................................ 26
ee. SR4 Widening: Somersville Road to SR160 (1407/3001) ............................................... 27
ff. East County Rail Extension (eBART) (2104/2001) – No changes from last month ........ 30
gg. SR4/SR160 Connector Ramps (5001) ............................................................................. 31
hh. SR4 Widen to 4 Lanes – Laurel Road to Sand Creek Road & Sand Creek Road
Interchange – Phase 1 (5002 & 5003)............................................................................ 33
ii. SR4 Balfour Road Interchange – Phase 1 (5005) – No changes from last month .......... 34
2. Completed Projects ........................................................................................................ 35
SOUTHWEST COUNTY ........................................................................................................... 35
Measure C ............................................................................................................................. 35
CENTRAL COUNTY ................................................................................................................. 36
Measure C ............................................................................................................................. 36
Measure J .............................................................................................................................. 37
WEST COUNTY ...................................................................................................................... 37
Measure C ............................................................................................................................. 37
Measure J .............................................................................................................................. 37
EAST COUNTY ........................................................................................................................ 37
Measure C ............................................................................................................................. 37
Measure J .............................................................................................................................. 37
2.A.1-3
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 4
1. Active Projects
SOUTHWEST COUNTY
a. Caldecott Fourth Bore Project (1001/1698)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description Construction of a fourth bore between Contra Costa and
Alameda Counties.
Current Project Phase Construction.
Project Status
Now that the tunnel is open, functional/integration testing continues. Construction activity is
focused on finishing the road realignments for the tunnel approaches: installation of the
center dividers and removal of the pop-up system that was used for the change of flow in the
previous center bore. Verification and validation of the tunnel systems contin ues. The
landscaping design plans are being finalized and Caltrans is expecting to advertise the project
for bid in January/February 2014.
Issues/Areas of Concern
Several outstanding concerns could affect the completion date and final cost of the project.
Changes introduced by State Fire Marshal and other design changes have resulted in
additional costs. Caltrans and the contractor are making progress to finalize the
additional costs incurred during the tunnel construction.
In August and September 2013 $14.930 million dollars in ARRA funds for construction
capital and construction support were added. Amendment 5 to the Caltrans
Construction cooperative agreement reflected this addition. With these funds, the
project is expected to be fully funded and will likely complete with a positive reserve.
2.A.1-4
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 5
b. I-680 Auxiliary Lanes, Segment 2 (1106S2)
CCTA Fund Source Measure C, STIP
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description Construction of northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes on
I-680 between Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon and Sycamore
Valley Road in Danville.
Current Project Phase Construction.
Project Status
Construction of the auxiliary lanes began on March 21, 2013 and is anticipated to be
complete in spring 2014. Work is progressing along both sides of I-680 between Crow Canyon
Road and Sycamore Valley Road. All soundwall construction along the east side of I-680 is
complete. The soundwall construction previously started along the west side of I-680 just
north of the Greenbrook Drive overcrossing will be finished once the contractor completes
activities in the immediate vicinity of the soundwall, which are critical to the construction
schedule.
Lean Concrete Base (LCB) was placed along the widened area of northbound I -680 as part of
the new roadway structural section. The remaining concrete pavement layer along
northbound I-680 was delayed because of cold temperatures during December. The
placement of LCB in the southbound direction of I-680 was delayed because of the heavy rain
during in early December.
Construction of the auxiliary lanes project is approximately 64% complete.
The Town of Danville has requested that an extension to Soundwall No. 3 northward to
connect to the existing soundwall located approximately 200 feet south of Jewel Terrace be
constructed as a construction change order at the Town’s cost. To document the funding and
scope changes to the project, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Town of
Danville and the Authority, and an amendment to the Caltrans Construction Cooperative
Agreement were considered and approved respectively, at the November and December
Authority meetings.
The project area will be landscaped after the construction of the auxiliary lanes is com plete.
The landscape design is underway and is expected to be complete in early 2014.
2.A.1-5
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 6
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
c. Santa Maria Intersection Improvements (1623/1623 W) – No changes from last month
CCTA Fund Source Measure C
Lead Agency City of Orinda
Project Description Improvement of traffic lane signing and striping, traffic signal
hardware and overhead signage.
Current Project Phase Design and Environmental Clearance.
Project Status
The Authority appropriated $75,000 for design and environmental clearance in
November 2010. The latest version of the signal, signage and striping plans was presented to
the Orinda City Council on August 21, 2012, with no significant changes. The City staff and
design consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., then attended a City/County Engineering
Advisory Committee (CCEAC) Phase II peer review of the 90% design on September 5, 2012.
The plans were recommended for approval with minor modifications. The City received
comments from Caltrans on the encroachment permit submittal and is currently reviewing
these comments. The City is working with Caltrans on review of the design of the revised
Camino Pablo striping. The City’s intent is to have the project ready to bid and construct in
spring 2014.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
d. I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps Project (8003) – No changes from last month
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description Provide direct HOV connector ramps from/to I-680 at or near
Norris Canyon Road.
Current Project Phase Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED).
2.A.1-6
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 7
Project Status
The project team has developed preliminary geometrics for an additional alternative to be
studied that would include a direct ramp access at Executive Parkway . Because of the
addition of the new alternative and the time required to develop the appropriate studies for
the new alternative, the environmental clearance phase is expected to extend until late 2014.
The draft environmental document is scheduled for release for public comment in
spring 2014.
Issues/Areas of Concern
The project has received a high level of community interest, with a number of local residents
voicing strong concerns about the proposed direct HOV ramps at Norris Canyon . In response
to the community concerns, an additional alternative lo cation for the direct ramps was
identified at Executive Parkway and the public outreach efforts were increased to provide
multiple opportunities for community involvement. The project scope will include addressing
local traffic circulation concerns and community impacts and the environmental document
will be an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA). The
development of the EIR/EA will be coordinated with the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) environmental document for Express Lanes on this segment of
Interstate 680.
CENTRAL COUNTY
e. Commerce Avenue Extension (1214)
CCTA Fund Source Measure C
Lead Agency City of Concord
Project Description Extend Commerce Avenue between Pine Creek and Waterworld
Parkway and rehabilitate the pavement section on Commerce
Avenue between Concord Avenue and the end of Commerce
Avenue near the cul-de-sac.
Current Project Phase Design & Right-of-Way (ROW).
2.A.1-7
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 8
Project Status
The project is in the right-of-way phase. The City’s ROW agent met with all property owners,
completed appraisals and prepared offers. Acquisition contracts have recently been
approved by the City’s legal department and the City is having the contr acts executed by
property owners. The City Council approved ROW contracts for three property owners in
December 2011. An offer was made, accepted and signed by the fourth owner in December
2012. The City Council approved the right-of-way contract with the fourth property owner at
their February 26, 2013 meeting.
Payment was made to the fourth property owner for the right-of-way, as required. Responses
to the latest round of design and right-of-way comments were sent back for review in
June 2013. The City met with Flood Control District (FCD) staff in early July to discuss the
remaining outstanding issues. Significant progress was made on resolving outstanding
design issues.
City Engineer & staff met with Deputy Chief Engineer/FCD staff in October 2013 to discuss the
remaining issues. FCD cannot complete their review of the responses to comments until
plans, specifications, and structural calculations are provided by the City’s design consultant.
This will require a new contractual agreement that cannot be executed until additional funds
are obtained.
The City has requested an additional appropriation for ROW funds from CCTA. CCTA is
looking into the request and requested additional information from the City. Although the
plans are 95% complete, construction is rescheduled to summer 2014 and may be delayed
again, depending on the length of the ROW process with the last property owner.
Measure J Strategic Plan amendment (Item 20) was approved in late July 2013 and it added
$885,000 in funds to the project from savings on the Ygnacio Valley Road Project. City staff
has requested appropriation of some of these additional funds from CCTA. CCTA staff is
reviewing the request in light of the updated information for the project and verifying tha t
the project is/will be fully funded to complete construction of the project .
Issues/Areas of Concern
The City is experiencing challenges related to Right -of-Way Acquisition that have delayed the
project and may increase overall costs. The City is addressing the issue of compensation to
Waterworld. Impacts to the project will depend on negotiations with Waterworld, based on
the loss of parking spaces caused by the project.
2.A.1-8
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 9
Based on extended comment periods requiring design changes from County Flood Control, as
well as additional ROW exhibits/issues for County Flood Control, the designer is currently out
of funding. The City is exploring other possibilities of funding in addition to Measure funding.
f. Pacheco Boulevard Widening (1216/24003)
CCTA Fund Source Measure C/Measure J
Lead Agency Contra Costa County
Project Description Widening of Pacheco Boulevard from Blum Road to Arthur Road in
the Martinez area to provide a two-way center left-turn lane and
bicycle lanes.
Current Project Phase Environmental clearance (has begun, but is currently on hold).
Project Status
Measure C funds were used to environmentally clear a portion of the project near the
Railroad overcrossing and acquire part of the right-of-way. The City of Martinez is expected to
begin the environmental clearance in 2014 for the segment between Arnold Drive and
Sunrise Drive.
Issues/Areas of Concern
Project has a funding shortfall and requires coordination with the State to replace the railroad
overcrossing. $5.9 million is allocated for the project in the 2013 Measure J Strategic Plan.
g. Martinez Intermodal Station – Phase 3 (4002/27001)
CCTA Fund Source Measure C/Measure J
Lead Agency City of Martinez
Project Description Project acquired land north of the railroad tracks to construct new
road access to the north parking lot, add 425 parking spaces, build a
pedestrian bridge over the tracks and construct a vehicle bridge
over Alhambra Creek to provide a second connection to the parking
facility near Berrellesa Street.
Current Project Phase Design, Right-of-Way, Engineering and Construction.
2.A.1-9
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 10
Project Status
Design of the parking lot is complete and construction is underway and scheduled for
completion in early 2014. The two existing warehouses are currently being used as indoor
sports facilities are incorporated into the parking lot design and construction . The City has
acquired the necessary right-of-way parcel for the construction of the vehicle bridge over
Alhambra Creek. Construction of the parking lot began in July. The City is coordinating design
and permitting requirements for other project elements, including the Ferry Street entrance,
the railroad pedestrian overcrossing and the vehicular bridge over Alhambra Creek with the
East Bay Regional Park District, the Union Pacific Railroad and PG&E. Permitting and design
for these other project elements is expected to be complete in 2014 with construction to
follow in 2015.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
h. Pacheco Transit Hub (2210)
CCTA Fund Source Measure C
Lead Agency CCTA/City of Martinez
Project Description Construction of a transit hub at Pacheco Boulevard and Blum Road.
The project will relocate and expand the existing Park & Ride lot to
provide 116 parking spaces and 6 bus bays for express and local bus
service.
Current Project Phase Construction.
Project Status
The City of Martinez opened construction contract bids on May 30, 2013 . The City awarded
the contract to Bay Cities Paving and Grading, Inc. in July. The project schedule shows
construction completion to occur in spring 2014. A groundbreaking ceremony was held on
September 4, 2013.
A construction change order is being negotiated that will add electric vehicle charging stations
and security cameras to the project. The majority of the concrete flatwork and grading is
complete. Paving is tentatively scheduled for December 2013 (weather permitting), with the
installation of site improvements to follow.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
2.A.1-10
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 11
i. Interstate 680 / State Route 4 Interchange Improvements – SR4 Widening (Phase 3) (6001)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J, Measure C, STIP
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description The Project will widen SR4 in the median to provide a third general
purpose lane and shoulder in each direction from Morello Avenue
to SR242, an approximate four-mile distance. The improvements
would add capacity in both directions on SR4 including the
I-680/SR4 Interchange. Work includes widening of bridges within
the project limits.
Current Project Phase Environmental Revalidation and Design.
Project Status
Project is proceeding with environmental revalidation and design. Project Development
Team (PDT) meetings are occurring monthly. Several project focus meetings have occurred
with Caltrans including further environmental scoping, geometric review of non-standard
features, right-of-way and utility coordination. An additional stakeholder meeting with
Contra Costa Flood Control District was held to review the county hydrology model. A
Supplemental Project Report (PR) may be required because of scope changes.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
j. SR242/Clayton Road Ramps (6002/6004) – No changes from last month
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description The project will provide operational improvements near Clayton
Road and SR242 to improve circulation within the Concord Central
Business Area. Improvements may include constructing an on-ramp
and associated acceleration/weaving lane to northbound SR242
near the intersection of Clayton Road and Market Street in Concord
and an off-ramp and associated deceleration lane from southbound
SR242 near Clayton Road.
Current Project Phase Project Approval/Environmental Documentation (PA/ED).
2.A.1-11
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 12
Project Status
The PSR/PDS was signed on May 24, 2013. A meeting was held on June 19, 2013 at Concord
City Hall to inform Concord local businesses about the project. A consultant contract
amendment to authorize the project approval and environmental documentation phase was
approved in July 2013. The environmental phase has begun and regularly scheduled PDT
meetings with Caltrans began in November 2013.
Issues/Areas of Concern
Project has a funding shortfall.
k. I-680 Southbound HOV Gap Closure (8001)
CCTA Fund Source Regional Measure 2, Measure J
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description The project will add an HOV lane on southbound I-680 between
North Main Street in Walnut Creek and Livorna Road in Alamo, a
total of more than five miles. When complete, I-680 will have a
continuous HOV lane in the southbound direction of I-680 from
Martinez to the Alameda County line.
Current Project Phase Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED).
Project Status
The comment period on the environmental document closed on November 20, 2013. Formal
comments were received from 12 individuals and agencies. Responses to comments have
been drafted and are under review by Caltrans. The consultant team is also preparing
responses to comments on the Draft Project Report and preparing the final Project Report for
Caltrans circulation along with the final environmental document in late January. Data
collection for the I-680 Express Lane Conversion Project has begun along with traffic analysis
scoping.
Issues/Areas of Concern
The project has a funding shortfall caused by costs associated with widening the mainline,
ramp widening and infrastructure improvements for ramp metering, resurfacing and safety
features. The preliminary geometric design accounts for the planned High Occupancy Toll
2.A.1-12
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 13
(HOT/Express) lanes that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is authorized to
operate and has begun to implement with CCTA. While combining the express lanes project
with the Gap Closure Project provides an opportunity to reduce total costs, additional funds
are also needed. CCTA management and MTC management have agreed on a strategy to fully
fund the Gap Closure work by reducing scope and adding RM2, STIP and Bay Area
Infrastructure Finance Authority funds.
l. Comprehensive Wayfinding System – Central County BART Stations (10001-03)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
Project Description Create and implement a cohesive, integrated wayfinding system for
Central County BART stations. This project will provide overhead
and wall signage, transit information displays and real-time transit
information at each of the four Central County BART stations.
Current Project Phase Design/Construction.
Project Status
Authority appropriated $2,600,000 for design and construction of improvements on
January 20, 2010.
BART will be re-releasing an RFP for design, construction and installation of wayfinding
signage at Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord and North Concord stations. It is anticipated
that contract award will be in spring 2014 with construction Notice to Proceed (NTP) in early
summer 2014. Construction on all stations will be complete within 20 months of construction
NTP.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
m. Electronic Bicycle Facility at Central County BART Stations (10001-04)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
Project Description This project will provide bicycle storage facilities (electronic lockers,
cages, racks, etc.) at the four Central County BART stations
2.A.1-13
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 14
(Concord, N. Concord, Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill) to meet
projected 2015 demand.
Current Project Phase Construction.
Project Status
The Authority appropriated $905,000 for design and construction of improvements on
January 20, 2010. An electronic locker contract was awarded to eLock Technologies, LLC of
Berkeley, for $2,334,384 to supply BART with approximately 1,008 lockers throughout the
next five years. For FY 14, two stations will receive additional bicycle lockers, funded entirely
or in part by Measure J funds. The stations are North Concord (8 additional spaces) and
Walnut Creek (72 additional spaces). A Notice to Proceed (NTP) was issued on October 16,
2013 with delivery of lockers to begin in December 2013 and run through January 2014.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
n. Marsh Creek Road Upgrade (24001) – No changes from last month
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency City of Clayton
Project Description Widen existing two-lane roadway between Regency Drive and
Clayton city limits to provide two full-width travel lanes, bike lanes,
shoulders and pedestrian paths.
Current Project Phase Design and Environmental Clearance.
Project Status
Authority appropriated $100,000 for design and environmental clearance activities that
include preliminary engineering, engineering design and environmental studies on
September 21, 2011. Ten or more years ago, the City approved a Specific Plan for the entire
area along Marsh Creek Road and staff is attempting to implement that plan. Aerial
topography mapping is complete. Staff is developing and evaluating typical cross-sections.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
2.A.1-14
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 15
o. Court Street Overcrossing – Phase 1 (24005) – No changes from last month
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency City of Martinez
Project Description The project will construct a 19-foot wide bicycle, pedestrian and
emergency vehicle overcrossing to span Joe DiMaggio Drive, the
four tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad and Marina Vista to
connect North Court Street (within the Martinez Waterfront Park)
with Court Street at Escobar Street. The construction of this
overcrossing will provide a grade-separated crossing of the Union
Pacific Railroad, improve safety and reduce congestion for
pedestrian and bicycle traffic accessing the Martinez Waterfront.
This project is considered the first phase of a two-phase project.
The second phase will include a parallel 28-foot wide, two-lane
overcrossing that would carry vehicular traffic over Marina Vista,
the Union Pacific Railroad and Joe DiMaggio Drive.
Current Project Phase Conceptual Engineering.
Project Status
Authority appropriated $200,000 for Preliminary Studies in October 2010. The City selected a
consultant through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process to complete a scoping
document for this project. Work on the scoping document began in fall 2011 and was
complete in early 2013. The preferred alternative identified was constructing a vehicular
bridge over Alhambra Creek from Berrellesa Street to the Intermodal parking lot north of
the railroad.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
p. Buskirk Avenue Widening – Phase 2 (24006)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency City of Pleasant Hill
Project Description This is the final phase of a two-phase corridor improvement project
to increase capacity and improve operations, circulation and
2.A.1-15
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 16
pedestrian/bike access by constructing additional travel lanes,
improving signalization, alignment and pedestrian facilities. The
project limits are from 500 feet south of Lamkin Drive to
Hookston Road.
Current Project Phase Construction.
Project Status
The project contractor, Ghilotti Bros., Inc. completed the majority of all project improvements
within the current construction stage in December. This includes full depth asphalt concrete
(FDAC), concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, installation of decorative street and pedestrian
lighting and installation of the traffic signal system. PG&E has completed its underground
conversion work. Comcast and AT&T’s conversion work is scheduled to be complete by
January 2014. The project is on schedule and anticipated to be complete within the Ghilotti’s
allotted contract working days and by September 2014. Additional information is available on
the City’s web page for the project at www.pleasant-hill.net/Buskirk.
Authority appropriated $7,532,950 of Measure J funds for construction at their
November 2012 Board meeting.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
q. Contra Costa Blvd Improvements (24026)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency City of Pleasant Hill
Project Description Contra Costa Boulevard Improvements project consists of
intersection geometry modifications, traffic signal upgrades,
sidewalk repair or installation, ADA curb ramp installation,
pavement rehabilitation, bike lane striping, median island
modification, street light replacement and landscaping modification
along Contra Costa Boulevard between Chilpancingo Parkway and
Viking Drive.
Current Project Phase Construction Advertising.
Project Status
2.A.1-16
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 17
The City is currently in the process of re-advertising for project construction. The City was
recently able to secure an additional $750,000 in funding for project construction. A pre-bid
meeting was held on December 19, 2013, and bid opening is scheduled for January 14, 2014.
The construction contract is expected to be awarded in February 2014, with ground -breaking
scheduled for the middle of March 2014.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
r. Geary Road Improvements – Phase 3 (24007)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency City of Pleasant Hill
Project Description The Geary Road Improvements, Phase 3 project will complete the
third and last phase of a corridor improvements project along
Geary Road. The purpose of this three-phase improvement project
is to increase operations and pedestrian/bicycle safety through the
construction of continuous dual left-turn lanes, exclusive bike lanes
and pedestrian sidewalks. Other necessary improvements, including
drainage and street lighting will also be included . This is a
cooperative project between the cities of Pleasant Hill and Walnut
Creek, as the city limit line runs down the middle of Geary Road.
Current Project Phase Construction.
Project Status
Environmental work and final design are complete. Construction of the project’s first phase,
the Geary Road/Pleasant Hill Boulevard intersection improvements, was initiated in summer
2013, with construction of the second (and final) phase to follow in January 2014. An
appropriations request for Measure J construction funds for the second phase was approved
by the Authority at the September 18, 2013 meeting. The Walnut Creek City Council awarded
the construction contract for the second phase of work to Bay Cities Paving & Grading on
November 19, 2013.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
2.A.1-17
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 18
s. Clayton Road/Treat Boulevard/Denkinger Road Intersection Capacity Improvements
(24028)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency City of Concord
Project Description The Clayton Road/Treat Boulevard/Denkinger Road Intersection
Capacity Improvements will upgrade traffic signal phasing at the
intersection and widen the eastbound Treat Boulevard approach to
include two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through-lanes and one
right-turn lane. The proposed project will improve the system-wide
signal coordination along Clayton Road during peak periods.
Current Project Phase Design and Right-of-Way.
Project Status
The Authority approved a request for appropriation at their July 18, 2012 meeting for
$432,600 to cover Environmental Clearance, Design Services, Right-of-Way Services and
proportional administrative costs for the project.
A Phase II City County Engineering Advisory Committee (CCEAC) peer review of the 95% plans
and specifications was held on April 23, 2013. The CCEAC recommended approval of the
plans and specifications, the Technical Coordinating Committee concurred with the
recommendation and the Authority approved the recommendation at their June meeting.
The City is working to acquire right-of-way (ROW) and is planning to request a Measure J
appropriation for ROW funds as soon as preliminary costs are available. Construction is
scheduled to begin in spring 2014.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
2.A.1-18
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 19
WEST COUNTY
t. Atlas Road Bridge Project (3111) – No changes from last month
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency East Bay Regional Park District
Project Description The project will construct a road bridge over the Union Pacific
Railroad in Richmond to provide access to Point Pinole Regional
Shoreline. It will provide both a vehicular and a separated
pedestrian/bicycle trail connection to the shoreline.
Current Project Phase Final Design.
Project Status
The East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors approved an amendment to the
engineering consultant contract for the extra work requested by the City of Richmond. The
$19,000 amendment will fund the redesign of the bridge (making the trail wider and roadway
narrower). The final bid documents are substantially complete. The project is expected to go
to bid for construction by April 2014.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
u. Hercules Rail Station (4001)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J, Measure J TLC, Measure J PBTF, STIP
Lead Agency City of Hercules
Project Description Construction of the Hercules passenger rail station (including
interim parking, station platform, signage, plazas, etc.) and track-
related improvements (including retaining walls and signal
equipment relocation). The City of Hercules now commonly refers
to this project as the “Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Project”
to scope the project for both rail and ferry transit service. This
multi-modal center would unite the Amtrak intercity rail (Capitol
Corridor), WestCAT local and regional busses and the Water
Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) transbay ferry service
with additional access for cars, pedestrians and bicyclists.
2.A.1-19
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 20
Current Project Phase Construction.
Project Status
The project will be implemented in sequential phases. The fully funded initial phase of the
project will include the Path to Transit (John Muir Parkway/Bayfront Boulevard/Bayfront
Bridge/Refugio Creek Greenway and Creekside Trail/North Channel) and the San Francisco
Bay Trail and Site/Track Preparation (Grading/Utility Relocations/Retaining Walls). Phase 1C
includes the rail station anticipated to begin construction in 2016.
The site preparation work was complete in August 2013. The San Francisco Bay Trail project
was bid and the City Council awarded the project on July 23, 2013. On November 20, 2013,
Authority approved Agreement No. 04W.02 with the City of Hercules to provide construction
management services. The Authority also authorized staff to enter into scope and fee
negotiations with Ghirardelli Associates , Inc. for construction management services for the
SF Bay Trails Element.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
v. I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange (7002)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency CCTA/City of San Pablo
Project Description Reconstruction of existing interchange to provide improved
pedestrian and bicycle access.
Current Project Phase Design and right-of-way.
Project Status
The project will be completed in two phases: Phase 1 will relocate the El Portal Drive on-ramp
to westbound I-80 and reconstruct the pedestrian overcrossing that serves the Riverside
Elementary School; and Phase 2 will reconstruct the San Pablo Dam Road interchange and
build the McBryde Connector Road (MCR) west of I-80. A significant funding shortfall exists to
complete Phase 2. Detailed design plans for Phase 1 are 95% complete and right -of-way
activities are well underway. Utility relocations agreements have been executed for the
project.
2.A.1-20
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 21
Issues/Areas of Concern
Staff continues to work with the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) to
address issues raised by the Department of Education and Department of State Architect to
support landing the pedestrian overcrossing on school property. Staff is also coordinating
with the City of San Pablo to determine EBMUD’s liability for the relocation cost of a water
main along El Portal Drive.
w. I-80/Central Avenue Interchange (7003)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description Improve overall traffic operations at the I-80/Central Avenue
Interchange and along Central Avenue between Rydin Road and
San Pablo Avenue.
Current Project Phase Preliminary studies/planning and environmental clearance is
complete. Awaiting City of Richmond approval to proceed with final
design for the Operational Improvement Project.
Project Status
Two projects were identified from a feasibility study completed in July 2009. The first project
installs operational improvements to close the Central Avenue westbound traffic movement
onto the I-80 westbound on-ramp during weekend peak hours and reroute traffic to the
adjacent I-580 eastbound on-ramp at Rydin Road. The project obtained California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) clearance in
June 2012. Staff presented this project to the Richmond City Council in April 2012. The
Richmond City Council requested staff to do more outreach work with the project’s adjacent
neighborhood councils. Staff met with neighborhoods and businesses in May, June and
July 2012 to get project support and to answer questions about the project.
Staff will be making a presentation at the Richmond City Public Safety/Public Services
Standing Committee January 2014 meeting to update the Committee on the project and
community outreach effort. After this presentation, staff intends to present the project and
the outreach Richmond City Council to seek agreement to proceed with the design and
construction of the project. If approved, final design is scheduled to follow that in spring
2014 and construction will be scheduled for fall 2014.
2.A.1-21
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 22
The second project identified in the feasibility study is a road realignment project to connect
Pierce Street and San Mateo Street south of Central Avenue to enable some traffic
enhancements, including adjusting the spacing of traffic lights on Central Avenue. The project
will be led by one or both of the cities of El Cerrito and Richmond.
Issues/Areas of Concern
Some concerns have been raised about environmental and traffic issues for both projects.
These issues have been addressed in the environmental document studies for the Operational
Improvement project and will be considered in the environmental document for the second
project.
x. Interstate 80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (7005)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency Alameda County Transportation Commission
(Alameda CTC)/CCTA/Caltrans
Project Description Utilize state-of-the-practice Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
technologies to enhance the effectiveness of the existing
transportation along I-80, San Pablo Avenue and crossing arterials in
Alameda and Contra Costa counties between the Carquinez Bridge
and the Bay Bridge. The project funding plan includes
Proposition 1B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA)
funds and Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP) funds.
Current Project Phase Construction.
Project Status
The project consists of six construction and procurement contracts:
• Sub-project #1 - Software & Systems: Integration (SI); work began in January 2013 and
will continue through summer 2015.
• Sub-project #2 - Specialty Materials Procurement; work began in December 2012 and will
continue through spring 2014.
2.A.1-22
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 23
• Sub-project #3 - Traffic Operations Systems (TOS); construction began in June 2011 and
was complete in August 2012.
• Sub-project #4 - Adaptive Ramp Metering (ARM); construction began in December 2012
and will be complete in summer 2014.
• Sub-project #5 - Active Traffic Management (ATM); construction began in January 2013
and will continue through winter 2014.
• Sub-project #6 - San Pablo Corridor and Arterial Improvements; construction began in
September 2011 and will be complete in spring 2014.
Project partners are currently working on project documents that will govern the
implementation of the project, including an operations and maintenance plan, incident
response plan, system integration plan, configuration management plan, public outreach plan
and a signal timing flush plan.
A project website is now available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/projects/80icm/
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
y. Marina Bay Parkway Grade Separation (9003)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency City of Richmond
Project Description The project will construct a roadway undercrossing at the
intersection of Marina Bay Parkway and BNSF/UP railroad tracks
between Regatta Boulevard and Meeker Avenue in the City of
Richmond. The undercrossing will replace an existing at-grade
crossing.
Current Project Phase Construction.
Project Status
The City awarded the contract to Gordon N. Ball, Inc. for an amount not to exceed
$27,382,470.10 on June 18, 2013. Construction commenced on July 8, 2013, beginning with
utility relocation work. On November 25, 2013, Deep Soil Mix (DSM) wall construction was
complete. The precast bridge abutments shells are being installed in the second of up to six
2.A.1-23
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 24
weekend work windows (closed to railroad traffic). The current critical path work is road
excavation and installation of tie-backs through the DSM walls. The project schedule shows
construction completion to occur in spring 2015.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
z. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Access Improvements at El Cerrito Plaza and
del Norte BART Stations (Project 10002-01)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
Project Description The project proposes to develop concept plans and cost estimates
to upgrade, modernize and improve the appearance of the
El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito del Norte BART stations to improve
efficiency, conserve energy, promote alternative access modes and
generally enhance the customer experience at these stations.
Current Project Phase Preliminary Engineering.
Project Status
Authority appropriated $125,000 for preliminary engineering o n April 17, 2013. The project is
95% complete and is planned for completion by December 2013 .
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
aa. Electric Bicycle Facility at West County BART Stations (10002-03)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
Project Description This project will provide bicycle storage facilities (electronic lockers,
cages, racks, etc.) at the three West County BART stations (El Cerrito
Plaza, El Cerrito del Norte and Richmond) to meet projected
2015 demand.
Current Project Phase Construction.
2.A.1-24
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 25
Project Status
The Authority appropriated $402,000 for design and construction of improvements on
January 20, 2010. An electronic locker contract was awarded to eLock Technologies, LLC of
Berkeley for $2,334,384 to supply BART with approximately 1,008 lockers throughout the next
five years. For FY 14, the El Cerrito Plaza station will receive 24 additional bicycle spaces and
El Cerrito Del Norte will receive 20 additional spaces. A Notice to Proceed (NTP) was issued
on October 16, 2013, with delivery of lockers to begin in December 2013 and run through
January 2014.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
bb. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Access Improvements at El Cerrito Plaza and del
Norte BART Stations (Project 10002-01) – No changes from last month
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency City of El Cerrito
Project Description The project proposes to develop concept plans and cost estimates
to upgrade, modernize and improve the appearance of the
El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito del Norte BART stations to improve
efficiency, conserve energy, promote alternative access modes and
generally enhance the customer experience at these stations.
Current Project Phase Preliminary Engineering.
Project Status
Authority appropriated $125,000 for preliminary engineering on May 15, 2013. The City is
currently working with its consultant team (MIG and Fehr and Peers) to develop multimodal
policies and analyze potential projects to support a mode shift towards transit, pedestrian
and bicycle access at the City’s two BART stations and San Pablo Avenue. Identification of
projects has involved regular team meetings, public input, monthly coordination meetings
with BART, as well as working with other agency and non-governmental stakeholders,
including AC Transit and East Bay Bicycle Coalition. Preferred projects will then enter concept
development, CEQA analysis and cost estimating.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
2.A.1-25
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 26
cc. Comprehensive Wayfinding System for West Contra Costa BART Stations (10002-05)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
Project Description Create and implement a cohesive, integrated wayfinding system for
West County BART stations. This project will provide overhead and
wall signage, transit information displays and real time transit
information at each of the three West County BART stations.
Current Project Phase Design.
Project Status
The Authority appropriated $1,600,000 for design and construction of improvements on
January 20, 2010.
BART will be re-releasing an RFP for design, construction and installation of wayfinding
signage at Richmond, El Cerrito del Norte, El Cerrito Plaza stations. It is anticipated that
contract award will be in spring 2014 with construction Notice to Proceed (NTP) in early
summer 2014. Construction on all stations will be complete within 20 months of
construction NTP.
Issues/Areas of Concern None.
EAST COUNTY
dd. SR4 Widening: Loveridge Road to Somersville Road (1406/3003)
CCTA Fund Source Measure C/Measure J
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description SR4 widening from two to four lanes in each direction (including
HOV Lanes) between Loveridge Road and Somersville Road. The
project provides a median for future mass transit.
Current Project Phase SR4 mainline construction.
2.A.1-26
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 27
Project Status
Construction along Loveridge Road and the other local streets is complete with the exception
of minor punch-list work.
All SR4 lanes in the westbound direction, including ramp auxiliary lanes, were opened to
traffic in mid-December. Additional SR4 lanes in the eastbound direction, including ramp
auxiliary lanes, were opened to traffic in early November. The current lane configuration
eastbound is temporary until construction further east in the corridor is complete.
The remaining activities along the SR4 mainline consist of earthwork grading and installing
electrical conduits and underdrain systems in the median for eBART, replacement of
identified cracked concrete pavement panels, removal of the contractor’s temporary concrete
batch plant and construction of a storm drainage detention basin at the location currently
occupied by the concrete batch plant.
The project construction is approximately 98% complete.
Issues/Areas of Concern
Discussions were successful to determine methods to accelerate the work and to coordinate
the open-to-traffic date with the SR4/Somersville project. A Notice of Potential Claim
regarding cracked JPCP panel repair costs has been submitted and a hearing will be scheduled
with the dispute review board.
ee. SR4 Widening: Somersville Road to SR160 (1407/3001)
CCTA Fund Source Measure C/Measure J
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description State Route 4 will be widened from two to four lanes in each
direction (including HOV Lanes) from Somersville Road to
Hillcrest Avenue and six lanes to SR160, including a wide median for
transit. The project includes the reconstruction of the Somersville
Road Interchange, Contra Loma/L Street Interchange, G Street
Overcrossing, Lone Tree Way/A Street Interchange,
Cavallo Undercrossing and Hillcrest Avenue Interchange.
Current Project Phase Construction.
2.A.1-27
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 28
Project Status
The project is divided into four segments: 1) Somersville Interchange; 2) Contra Loma
Interchange and G Street Overcrossing; 3A) A Street Interchange and Cavallo Undercrossing;
and 3B) Hillcrest Avenue to SR160.
Segment 1 - Somersville Interchange
Final construction bid item and punch-list work is complete along both the north and south
sides of the freeway and at the new bridges and eBART facilities. Final striping is complete
on Mainline SR4 in the Eastbound and Westbound directions, the Somersville Interchange
Ramps and on the Somersville Road/Auto Center Drive reconstruction. Project Acceptance
letter was issued by Caltrans this month. Administrative closeout paperwork, including final
Change Orders and final payment documents, remain to be finalized.
Segment 1 construction is approximately 100% complete.
Segment 2 - Contra Loma Interchange and G Street Overcrossing
Construction of the Segment 2 widening began in March 2012 and is anticipated to be
complete in summer 2015.
Retaining wall and soundwall construction, north and south of the freeway, east and west of
G Street have continued. Work includes construction of pile caps, footings, walls, structure
backfill and miscellaneous drainage.
Work on the new Contra Loma Undercrossing continued in December with superstructure
and approach slab construction.
Construction of the northbound eastern half of the new G Street Bridge ove r SR4 is well
underway, with slope paving and bridge rail work in progress.
Traffic detour construction for mainline traffic switch construction continued in December.
Segment 2 construction is approximately 58% complete, through November 2013.
Segment 3A - A Street Interchange and Cavallo Undercrossing
Construction of the Segment 3A began in August 2012 and is anticipated to be complete in
July 2015.
2.A.1-28
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 29
During the month of December, project work has continued with construction of the A Street
Bridge superstructure concrete and prestressing steel construction. Change order wingwall
construction work is also in progress. Progress on these activities has been impacted by low
temperature weather in December.
Along the outside westbound lanes and ramps, soundwall, roadway excavation, embankment
and subgrade work is in progress. Construction of associated drainage structures is also in
progress.
Remaining local street construction and sign installation is continuing at Lone Tree/A Street
and at Drake Street.
Segment 3A construction is approximately 43% complete through December 2013.
Segment 3B - Hillcrest Avenue to SR160
Construction of Segment 3B began in March 2013. Construction is anticipated to be complete
in November 2015.
Construction of Retaining Walls (RW) 6, Soundwall 1 cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) piling, and
RW 5, 7 and 6 barrier rail is in progress along the south of SR4, East and West of
Hillcrest Avenue. Construction of Retaining Wall 4 at Sunset and Hillcrest is in progress.
Soundwall Masonry work is mobilizing to start work at the East end/South side of the project.
Eastbound mainline construction work is continuing with placement of aggregate subbase,
lean concrete base (LCB) and Joint Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP ). Progress on these
activities has been significantly impacted by low temperature weather in December.
Permanent and temporary drainage systems necessary to provide proper drainage for the
upcoming rainy season have been constructed along the north side of the highway and
throughout the project.
At Hillcrest overcrossing, construction is in progress for tieback walls, soil nail walls and
retaining walls at each abutment.
Segment 3B construction is approximately 21% complete through December 2013.
2.A.1-29
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 30
Issues/Areas of Concern
Segment One - Somersville Interchange
A Notice of Potential Claim regarding 2013 time impacts is under review by Caltrans staff.
Segment 2 - Contra Loma Interchange and G Street Overcrossing
None.
Segment 3A - A Street Interchange and Cavallo Undercrossing
Because of a misalignment at Lone Tree/A Street Bridge discovered during construction,
redesign and modification of the wingwalls is required. This issue may cause a critical path
delay to the project of up to three weeks.
Segment 3B - Hillcrest Avenue to SR160
None.
Segments 0, 1, 2, 3A, and 3B
BART has requested Certificate of Conformance requirements be included as part of the
signoff and hand-over of the completed eBART work. Discussion is ongoing regarding
requirements for construction, documentation and survey of the eBart work to ensure
conformance with the eBART requirements.
Use of virgin aggregate base material in the median for eBART may be required in lieu of
recycled material. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit compliance
requires use of virgin rock in exposed median areas, whereas the materials specification
allows use of recycled material. This issue will likely affect all segments of the SR4 project.
ff. East County Rail Extension (eBART) (2104/2001) – No changes from last month
CCTA Fund Source Measure C/Measure J
Lead Agency BART/CCTA
Project Description Implement rail transit improvements in the SR4 corridor from the
Pittsburg Bay Point station in the west to a station in Antioch near
Hillcrest in the east.
2.A.1-30
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 31
Current Project Phase Final Design and Construction.
Project Status
BART is the lead agency for this phase. Construction of the Transfer Platform and eBART
Facilities (Contract 110) in the median to Railroad Avenue is continuing. Construction of the
parking lot and maintenance facilities for the Antioch Station (Contract 120) is well underway.
The overall construction work for Contract 110 is 95% complete . Installation of the train
control and communication systems continues. Testing will be the final phase.
Most of the work is complete for the parking lot area for Contract 120 . Work continues on
curb and gutter, as well as the bus shelters. Paving of the lot will occur in late September/
October. The foundation footings for the maintenance building are complete. The contractor
is currently working on utilities and structural steel work for the building .
Coordination between BART and CCTA is ongoing because the construction is directly north
and adjacent to the Segment 3B construction area . A master integrated schedule has been
developed for the eBART and SR4 construction contracts.
Issues/Areas of Concern
Coordination of SR4 highway construction contracts and eBART contracts continues. BART,
MTC and CCTA have developed a strategy to fund the design of the Pittsburg Railroad eBART
station for possible inclusion in Contract 130, the rail contract.
gg. SR4/SR160 Connector Ramps (5001)
Project Fund Source Bridge Toll Funds, ECCRFFA
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description Complete the two missing movements between SR4 and SR160,
specifically the westbound SR4 to northbound SR160 ramp and the
southbound SR160 to eastbound SR4 ramp.
Current Project Phase Construction.
2.A.1-31
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 32
Project Status
Caltrans has approved the final plans and the right-of-way certification. The construction
contract advertisement period began on September 19, 2013 and six bids were opened on
November 13, 2013. Staff reviewed and evaluated all bids received and subsequently issued
a preliminary Recommendation of Award for approval at the December 2013 Board meeting.
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) approved the design in early August 2013 and review of the
Construction and Maintenance Agreement with UPRR is underway. The California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved the new crossings application on September 5, 2013.
Issues/Areas of Concern
The Project requires a Construction and Maintenance (C&M) Agreement with the Union
Pacific Railroad, which was submitted with the 95% plans. The project will be advertised with
a contractor-restricted workaround the railroad area until the C&M approval is complete.
ii. SR4 Mokelumne Trail Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing (portion of Project 5002) – No changes
from last month
CCTA Fund Source Measure J
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description Construct a pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing near the
Mokelumne Trail at SR4. The overcrossing will include a multi-span
bridge with columns in the SR4 median. Bridge approaches will be
constructed on earthen embankments. The path width is
anticipated to be 12 feet wide.
Current Project Phase Design.
Project Status
The 35% complete plans were submitted to Caltrans on November 6, 2013 for review and
approval.
BART announced that the recommended new station location for a future eBART extension
should be at a location adjacent to the pedestrian overcrossing. Impacts of this decision will
need to be considered.
2.A.1-32
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 33
Issues/Areas of Concern
Construction funding for the project has not yet been identified.
hh. SR4 Widen to 4 Lanes – Laurel Road to Sand Creek Road & Sand Creek Road Interchange –
Phase 1 (5002 & 5003)
CCTA Fund Source Measure J and East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Finance
Authority (ECCRFFA)
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description Widen SR4 from two to four lanes (two lanes in each direction) from
Laurel Road to Sand Creek Road and construct the Sand Creek
Interchange. The interchange will have diamond ramps in all
quadrants with the exception of the southwest quadrant.
Current Project Phase Construction.
Project Status
Substantial bridgework on the four bridges of the project; the Lone Tree Way Undercrossing
(Right), the Sand Creek Bridge (Right), the Sand Creek Road Undercrossing (Right) and the San
Jose Avenue Undercrossing (Right) has have been completed. In late October, traffic was
switched to the new eastbound and westbound alignments. This traffic switch alleviated
significant congestion on eastbound SR4 at Lone Tree Way. SR4 is now a full freeway
between Lone Tree Way and Sand Creek. Work is beginning for the change order to construct
the new westbound Sand Creek Road Bridge Undercrossing (Left), Sand Creek Bridge (Left)
widening and additional roadway improvements.
Issues/Areas of Concern
The Authority approved a Contract Change Order (CCO) to construct the se cond Sand Creek
Road Overcrossing Undercrossing (Left) in this contract. Initial discussions have begun
continued involving the Authority, the SR4 Bypass Authority, ECCRFFA, Project Designer,
Caltrans and the Contractor to develop the best schedule to complete this work. Widening of
the Sand Creek Bridge is also subject to this additional CCO. The 100% plans have been
completed and submitted to Caltrans for final approval. The authorization of this work would
extend the project completion from April 2014 to December 2014.
2.A.1-33
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 34
ii. SR4 Balfour Road Interchange – Phase 1 (5005) – No changes from last month
CCTA Fund Source Measure J (subject to approval of the 2013 Measure J Strategic Plan
update), East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Finance Authority
(ECCRFFA)
Lead Agency CCTA
Project Description The Phase 1 project will include a new SR4 bridge crossing over
Balfour Road providing one southbound and one northbound lane
for SR4; northbound and southbound SR4 loop on -ramps, servicing
both westbound and eastbound Balfour Road traffic; and
northbound and southbound SR4 diagonal off-ramps.
Current Project Phase Design.
Project Status
Project Development Team (PDT) meetings with Caltrans are occurring on a monthly basis. In
July 2013, Authority approved an amendment to the Kinder Morgan agreement for design
services to relocate the existing petroleum booster pump station in the interchange area. A
Longitudinal Utility Exception Request from Caltrans for Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)
to leave a 90-inch water line within the project limits in place has been tentatively approved,
saving taxpayers an estimated $18 million. The designer has submitted the 65% design and
structural type selection has occurred. Design is anticipated to be complete in late 2014.
Issues/Areas of Concern
Additional funding was identified with the approval of the 2013 Measure J Strategic Plan
Update, however additional project features have been required, resulting in a shortfall. Staff
is evaluating actions to eliminate the shortfall.
2.A.1-34
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 35
2. Completed Projects
SOUTHWEST COUNTY
Measure C
1104 I-680/Stone Valley Road I/C, 1998
1105 I-680/El Cerro Boulevard I/C Ramp Signalization, 1994
1106 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Segments 1 & 3, 2007
1107 I-680/Fostoria Way Overcrossing, 1994
1600 Moraga Rd. Safety Improvements, 2005
1602 Camino Pablo Carpool Lots, 1996
1607 Moraga Way at Glorietta Boulevard & Camino Encinas, 2001
1608 Moraga Way Safety Improvements, 2002
1609 Moraga Way /Ivy Dr. Roadway Improvements, 2004
1611 Mt. Diablo Corridor Improvements, 2001
1612 Moraga Rd. Corridor Improvements, 2005
1621 St. Mary’s Rd. – Phase 2, 1999
1622 Moraga Rd. Structural & Safety Imp., 2005
1624 Bryant Way/Moraga Way Improvements, 2005
1625/1625SW Moraga Way Rehabilitation & Improvements, 2011
1711 St. Mary’s Rd. Improvements, 1995
1715 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Imp. – Phase 1, 1996
1716 Stone Valley Rd. Circulation Improvements, 2003
1717 Camino Tassajara Circulation Improvements, 2004
1718 Crow Canyon Rd. Improvements, 2001
1719 Sycamore Valley Rd. Improvements, 2008
1720 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Widening – Phase 1, 1997
1801 Camino Pablo (San Pablo Dam Corridor), 1996
2206 I-680/Sycamore Valley Road Park & Ride, 1998
2209 San Ramon Intermodal Transit Facility, 1996
2.A.1-35
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 36
3101 Iron Horse Trail – Monument to Alameda County Line, 1994
3103 Reliez Valley Road Trail – Phase 2, 2003
3106 St. Stephens/Bryant Way Trail, 1998
CENTRAL COUNTY
Measure C
1101 I-680/Burnett Ave. Ramps, 1995
1103 I-680/North Main Street Bypass, 1996
1108 Route 242/Concord Ave. Interchange, 1997
1113 Route 242 Widening, 2001
1116 I-680 HOV Lanes, 2005
1117 I-680/SR4 Interchange, 2009
1203 Alhambra Avenue Widening, 2011
1205 Taylor Boulevard /Pleasant Hill Rd./Alhambra Rd. Intersection Imp., 2000
1209 South Broadway Extension, 1996
1210 Monument Boulevard/Contra Costa Boulevard/ Buskirk Ave. Imp., 1996
1215 Geary Rd. Improvements, 2002
1217 Bancroft/Hookston Intersection, 2004
1218 Buskirk Ave. Improvements, 2005
1219 Iron Horse Trail Crossing at Treat Boulevard, 2010
1220 Ygnacio Valley Rd. Slide Repair, 2008
1221 Contra Costa Blvd Signal Coordination 2009
2208 Martinez Intermodal Facility – Phase 1, 2001
2208 Martinez Intermodal Facility - Phase 2, 2006
2296 Martinez Bay Trail, 2007
3102 Walnut Creek Channel to CC Shoreline Trail, 2001
2.A.1-36
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
December 31, 2013
Page 37
Measure J
8002 I-680 Southbound Carpool Lane Extension (restripe), Nov 2011
24027 Ygnacio Valley Road Permanent Restoration – Phase 2
24029 Old Marsh Creek Road Overlay, 2010
WEST COUNTY
Measure C
1300 Richmond Parkway, 1996
1501 SR4 (W) Gap Closure – Phase 1, 2002
1503 SR4 (W) Willow Ave. Overcrossing, 1996
2302 Richmond Transit Village BART Parking Structures (2302)
2303 Hercules Transit Center, 2009
Measure J
9001 Richmond Parkway Upgrade Study, 2008
EAST COUNTY
Measure C
1401 SR4 (E) Willow Pass Grade Lowering, 1995
1402 SR4 (E) Bailey Rd. Interchange, 1996
1403 SR4 (E) Bailey Rd. to Railroad Ave., 2001
2101 BART Extension to Pittsburg/Bay Point, 1996
3110 Marsh Creek Trail Overcrossing at SR4, 1997
3112 Big Break Regional Trail, 2010
Measure J
5006 Vasco Road Safety Improvements Project – Phase 1, 2011
5010 SR4 Bypass: Segments 1 and 3, 2008
2.A.1-37
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2014
Subject Accept Monthly Accounts Payable Invoice Report for November 2013
Summary of Issues The accompanying report provides a listing of invoices paid in
alphabetical order by vendor or payee name for the month of
November 2013.
Recommendations It is recommended that this report be accepted.
Financial Implications N/A
Options N/A
Attachments A. Monthly Accounts Payable Invoice Report for November 2013
Changes from
Committee
N/A
Background
Authority policy calls for a monthly report to be submitted to the Executive Director, APC, and
the Authority Board providing detail of invoices paid. The report includes a listing of all invoices
paid during the month of November 2013 in alphabetical order by vendor name. The report
also includes reimbursements for employee travel, training and other miscellaneous business
expenses in accordance with the Authority’s policies. Any inquiries related to this report can be
directed to the Authority’s Finance Department at 925.256.4725.
2.A.2-1
Invoice Number Invoice Description Status Payment Date Invoice Net Amount
Vendor 42 - AC TRANSIT
ARO0000588 Nov 2013 FY13 AC Transit SPP21 Safe Trans for Child Paid by Check #15117 11/08/2013 30,000.00
Vendor 42 - AC TRANSIT Totals $30,000.00
Vendor 61 - AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC
02-37387135 8/31/13-9/27/13 CT373 SR160 Connector Ramps CM Srvcs Paid by Check #15147 11/15/2013 11,835.76
Vendor 61 - AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC Totals $11,835.76
Vendor 272 - ASSOCIATED SERVICES
3-90383 Misc Office Suppies Paid by Check #15118 11/08/2013 3.12
Vendor 272 - ASSOCIATED SERVICES Totals $3.12
Vendor 294 - ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC (formerly PBS & J)
1175939 7/1-7/31/13 Atkins CT 368 2013 CMP & MTSO Monitoring Effort Paid by Check #15098 11/01/2013 26,040.00
1178537 8/1-9/30/13 Atkins CT 368 CT368 2013 CMP & MTSO Monitoring Effor Paid by Check #15148 11/15/2013 5,165.23
Vendor 294 - ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC (formerly PBS & J) Totals $31,205.23
Vendor 337 - ATOMIC CRAYON
0102803 Oct 2013 Element CMS/Web Hosting Svcs Paid by Check #15149 11/15/2013 586.30
Vendor 337 - ATOMIC CRAYON Totals $586.30
Vendor 326 - BARBARY COAST CONSULTING LLC
13-07-45 August 2013 CT328 Audit & Strategic Communications Plan Paid by Check #15099 11/01/2013 7,750.00
Vendor 326 - BARBARY COAST CONSULTING LLC Totals $7,750.00
Vendor 341 - BAY CITIES / MYERS JV
CT 351 Est. #10 10/21/13-11/20/13 CT351 (Ant 3001) CON SR4/SR160 Seg 3B HC/C Paid by Check #15176 11/22/2013 1,122,438.51
Est No. 018 10/21/13 - 11/20/13 12-12-P / CT337 CON Bid Items Laurel Rd / SC Paid by Check #15176 11/22/2013 692,635.62
Vendor 341 - BAY CITIES / MYERS JV Totals $1,815,074.13
Vendor 39 - BKF ENGINEERS
23-13090177 7/22/13-8/18/13 CT327 MSJ CSS Somersville/SR160 Seg 2 -Design Paid by Check #15119 11/08/2013 29,622.81
Vendor 39 - BKF ENGINEERS Totals $29,622.81
Vendor 384 - BRIAN KELLEHER
Accounts Payable Invoice Report
Payment Date Range 11/01/13 - 11/30/13
Report By Vendor - Invoice
Summary Listing
Run by Brian Kelleher on 12/19/2013 04:44:54 PM Page 1 of 9 2.A.2-2Attachment A
Invoice Number Invoice Description Status Payment Date Invoice Net Amount
100313 10/06/13-10/08/13 Misc OS Trvl Exp Scottsdale AZ Paid by Check #15150 11/15/2013 189.86
110613 09/05/13-09/09/13 Misc Reimb Paid by Check #15150 11/15/2013 42.44
Vendor 384 - BRIAN KELLEHER Totals $232.30
Vendor 287 - CACTUS CAFE
434168 11/8/13 SR4 Bid Interviews Paid by Check #15151 11/15/2013 71.23
434171 Hercules ITC Interview panel members lunch Paid by Check #15151 11/15/2013 57.54
Vendor 287 - CACTUS CAFE Totals $128.77
Vendor 187 - CALIFORNIA QUALITY PRINTING
130511 Oct 2013 ID Tag Type-set Paid by Check #15152 11/15/2013 63.77
Vendor 187 - CALIFORNIA QUALITY PRINTING Totals $63.77
Vendor 117 - CALPERS -OPEB
P/R 11/1/13 OPEB Medical Retirement Paid by Check #15100 11/01/2013 8,672.40
P/R 11/15/13 OPEB Medical Retirement Paid by Check #15153 11/15/2013 8,602.06
Vendor 117 - CALPERS -OPEB Totals $17,274.46
Vendor 329 - CALPERS 457 PLAN
P/R 11/1/13 PERS Def Comp Paid by Check #15101 11/01/2013 7,959.64
P/R 11/15/13 PERS Def Comp Paid by Check #15154 11/15/2013 7,959.64
Vendor 329 - CALPERS 457 PLAN Totals $15,919.28
Vendor 115 - CALPERS-HEALTH BENEFITS
1249 PERS Health Premium Paid by Check #15177 11/22/2013 27,820.95
Vendor 115 - CALPERS-HEALTH BENEFITS Totals $27,820.95
Vendor 116 - CALPERS-RETIREMENT SYSTEM
P/R 11/1/13 PERS Retirement Paid by Check #15102 11/01/2013 18,506.57
P/R 11/15/13 PERS Retirement Paid by Check #15155 11/15/2013 18,359.70
Vendor 116 - CALPERS-RETIREMENT SYSTEM Totals $36,866.27
Vendor 119 - CALTRANS-DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14002505 July-Sept 2013 90.14.21 PH4 SR4 Widening CON Somersville Rd I/C Paid by EFT #175 11/05/2013 3,149,216.50
14002513 July-Sept 2013 90.14.21 P4E1 SR4 Widening CON Somersvill I/C Paid by EFT #176 11/05/2013 265,236.96
14002517 July-Oct 2013 90.14.20 04-2168 Loveridge to Somersville Paid by EFT #174 11/06/2013 5,437,637.56
14002530 July - Sept 2013 90.14.22 SR4 Seg 2 PH4 CON Contra Loma/G st I/C Paid by EFT #177 11/06/2013 2,980,582.02
14002531-2 July-Oct 2013 90.14.22 RM2 Seg2 CON Contra Loma/G st I/C Paid by EFT #178 11/06/2013 45,267.72
14002542-2 July-Sept Oct 90.14.23 RM2 (eBART) SR4/Lone Tree Wy Intrchg Paid by EFT #179 11/06/2013 1,557,607.17
14002543-2 July-Oct 2013 90.14.23 RM2 (eBART) SR4/Lone Tree Wy I/C Paid by EFT #180 11/06/2013 30,051.09
Vendor 119 - CALTRANS-DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Totals $13,465,599.02
Vendor 183 - CCTA - CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Run by Brian Kelleher on 12/19/2013 04:44:54 PM Page 2 of 9 2.A.2-3
Invoice Number Invoice Description Status Payment Date Invoice Net Amount
9/27/13-10/25/13 9/27/13-10/25/13 Petty Cash Misc Office Expenses Paid by Check #15120 11/08/2013 474.54
Vendor 183 - CCTA - CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Totals $474.54
Vendor 40 - CITY OF ANTIOCH
#16 9/30/12-6/30/13 14.07.02 Antioch - Plan Checking Paid by Check #15121 11/08/2013 6,812.50
#17 7/1/13-8/31/13 14.07.02 Antioch - Plan Checking Paid by Check #15156 11/15/2013 2,952.50
Vendor 40 - CITY OF ANTIOCH Totals $9,765.00
Vendor 369 - CITY OF BERKELEY
#3 Berkeley April-August 2013 01CS.01 ACCMA Caldecott Tunnel Imprvmnt Paid by Check #15103 11/01/2013 89,939.39
Vendor 369 - CITY OF BERKELEY Totals $89,939.39
Vendor 35 - CITY OF CLAYTON
FY12-13 2.09%FY12-13 2.09% MSJ Addtn'l LSM Paid by Check #15104 11/01/2013 28,927.00
Vendor 35 - CITY OF CLAYTON Totals $28,927.00
Vendor 49 - CITY OF CONCORD
FY12/13 2.09%FY12/13 2.09% 'Off Year' MSJ LSM pmt Paid by Check #15105 11/01/2013 273,328.00
Vendor 49 - CITY OF CONCORD Totals $273,328.00
Vendor 52 - CITY OF MARTINEZ
#1 13-28-P 7/1/13-9/30/13 13-28-P Mtz Intermodal Station PH3 CON Paid by Check #15122 11/08/2013 449,173.90
#2 09-01-P 7/1/13-9/30/13 09-01-P Pacheco Transit Hub / Park & Ride Lot Paid by Check #15122 11/08/2013 40,143.79
FY 11-12 LSM FY 2011-12 18% LSM City of Martinez Paid by Check #15106 11/01/2013 458,886.00
Vendor 52 - CITY OF MARTINEZ Totals $948,203.69
Vendor 10 - CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
9/13 2011-22 Sept 2013 10-23-G.TRANSPAC FY11 MJ1002 CommuteAlt Paid by Check #15123 11/08/2013 10,513.11
9/13 2012-27 Sept 2013 FY12 TRANSPAC 511 ContraCosta 11MJ21C SPP21 Safe Trans Paid by Check #15123 11/08/2013 6,315.89
9/13 2012-32 Sept 2013 11-15-G.TRANSPAC FY12 11MJ17CE CommuteAlt Paid by Check #15123 11/08/2013 1,676.00
9/13 2013-18 Sept 2013 12-24-G.TRANSPAC FY13 12MJ17CE CommuteAlt Paid by Check #15123 11/08/2013 27,187.76
9/13 2013-40 Sept 2013 12CC04 511 CC Comprehensive Trip Reduction Program Paid by Check #15123 11/08/2013 57,263.16
FY 11-12 LSM FY 2011-12 18% LSM City of Pleasant Hill Paid by Check #15107 11/01/2013 453,991.00
Vendor 10 - CITY OF PLEASANT HILL Totals $556,946.92
Vendor 57 - CITY OF RICHMOND
#1 J-6 7/1/13-8/31/31 11-50-P Marina Bay Pkwy Grade Seperation- CON/CM Paid by Check #15108 11/01/2013 579,402.73
Vendor 57 - CITY OF RICHMOND Totals $579,402.73
Vendor 173 - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DCD
FY 12-13 E 18% FY 2012-13 18% LSM Contra Costa E Paid by Check #15109 11/01/2013 523,759.00
FY 12-13 SW 18%FY 2012-13 18% LSM Contra Costa SWest Paid by Check #15109 11/01/2013 460,908.00
FY 12-13 W 18%FY 2012-13 18% LSM Contra Costa West Paid by Check #15109 11/01/2013 481,858.00
Run by Brian Kelleher on 12/19/2013 04:44:54 PM Page 3 of 9 2.A.2-4
Invoice Number Invoice Description Status Payment Date Invoice Net Amount
FY12-13 C 18%FY 12-13 18% Off Year LSM Contra Costa Central Paid by Check #15109 11/01/2013 628,511.00
FY12/13 2.09%FY12/13 2.09% 'Off Year' MSJ LSM pmt Paid by Check #15109 11/01/2013 272,212.00
Vendor 173 - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DCD Totals $2,367,248.00
Vendor 382 - CSMFO - CAL SOCIETY OF MUNI FIN OFFICERS
2013 ROC/BK 12/11/13 CSMFO&CMTA Joint Investment Acct Trn'g Paid by Check #15157 11/15/2013 150.00
Vendor 382 - CSMFO - CAL SOCIETY OF MUNI FIN OFFICERS Totals $150.00
Vendor 60 - DKS ASSOCIATES
0053020 8/10-9/6/13 DKS CT 365 Action Plans for 2014 CTP Paid by Check #15110 11/01/2013 47,477.52
0053320 9/7-10/4/13 DKS Action Plans for 2014 CTP Paid by Check #15178 11/22/2013 37,579.68
Vendor 60 - DKS ASSOCIATES Totals $85,057.20
Vendor 17 - DYETT AND BHATIA
11-453-28 10/1-10/31/13 Dyett & Bhatia Planning Related Srvcs for GMP/CMP Paid by Check #15179 11/22/2013 7,809.60
Vendor 17 - DYETT AND BHATIA Totals $7,809.60
Vendor 64 - ENDSIGHT
47814 8/16/13-8/20/13 Setup New Work Stations Paid by Check #15111 11/01/2013 987.50
48112 9/25/13-9/30/13 Set-up workstation for D Spears Paid by Check #15124 11/08/2013 337.50
47954 Oct. 2013 Monthly IT Support Paid by Check #15111 11/01/2013 3,955.00
20208 Desktop for Brad Beck Paid by Check #15111 11/01/2013 1,272.50
20209 HP Elitebook for Jack Hall & Hisham Noeimi Paid by Check #15111 11/01/2013 2,985.69
CM-20215 CM - Issued against Inv# 47814 Paid by Check #15111 11/01/2013 (500.00)
20223 Oct 2013 SonicWall Renewal Paid by Check #15124 11/08/2013 685.00
20230 Oct -10/18/2013 Warranty Server Paid by Check #15124 11/08/2013 1,374.00
48268 Nov 2013 Monthly IT Support Paid by Check #15158 11/15/2013 3,955.00
Vendor 64 - ENDSIGHT Totals $15,052.19
Vendor 16 - FEHR AND PEERS ASSOCIATES INC
89837 8/31-9/27/13 CCC Safe Routes to School ~ needs assess. & Tech su Paid by Check #15180 11/22/2013 2,000.15
Vendor 16 - FEHR AND PEERS ASSOCIATES INC Totals $2,000.15
Vendor 208 - GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC - GFOA
0187120 FY2014 1/1/14-12/31/14 C.Sayles Annual Membership #300187120 Paid by Check #15159 11/15/2013 150.00
Vendor 208 - GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC - GFOA Totals $150.00
Vendor 352 - GRAY-BOWEN CORP
14-7360-7362 Sept 2013 SR4 Somersville/SR160 Paid by Check #15125 11/08/2013 18,335.97
7358 9/1/9/30/13 CT 366 MSJ Public Outreach & Polling for 2014 CTP Paid by Check #15181 11/22/2013 72,872.35
Vendor 352 - GRAY-BOWEN CORP Totals $91,208.32
Vendor 36 - HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Run by Brian Kelleher on 12/19/2013 04:44:54 PM Page 4 of 9 2.A.2-5
Invoice Number Invoice Description Status Payment Date Invoice Net Amount
86-22643 9/1/13 - 9/30/13 CT211 Harris & Assoc - Corridor Mgmt SR4 to 160 Paid by Check #15126 11/08/2013 3,589.22
Vendor 36 - HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Totals $3,589.22
Vendor 146 - HISHAM NOEIMI
10/2-24/2013 10/2-10/24/2013 Misc Expense Reimbursement Paid by Check #15127 11/08/2013 103.83
Vendor 146 - HISHAM NOEIMI Totals $103.83
Vendor 356 - IVAN RAMIREZ
110613 09/25/13-10/31/13 Misc Travel Exp Paid by Check #15160 11/15/2013 130.31
Vendor 356 - IVAN RAMIREZ Totals $130.31
Vendor 141 - JACK HALL
110413 10/08/13-10/29/13 Misc Travel Exp Paid by Check #15161 11/15/2013 120.91
Vendor 141 - JACK HALL Totals $120.91
Vendor 98 - JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO
14-W8X89000 8/24/13-9/27/13 CT332 - CM SR4 Widening LT/Hillcrest Seg 3A Paid by Check #15128 11/08/2013 109,285.81
W8X86900-30 8/24/13 - 9/27/13 CT271 MSJ SR4/LTW Interchange Project 3001 Paid by Check #15128 11/08/2013 131,263.30
Vendor 98 - JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO Totals $240,549.11
Vendor 353 - KEYSTONE PUBLIC AFFAIRS, LLC
0000135 October 2013 CT359 Federal Advocacy Srvcs.Paid by Check #15129 11/08/2013 2,000.00
Vendor 353 - KEYSTONE PUBLIC AFFAIRS, LLC Totals $2,000.00
Vendor 181 - LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP
P/R 11/1/13 Lincoln Deferred Comp Paid by Check #15112 11/01/2013 638.46
P/R 11/15/13 Lincoln Deferred Comp Paid by Check #15162 11/15/2013 638.46
Vendor 181 - LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP Totals $1,276.92
Vendor 387 - LINSEY WILLIS
10/1/13-10/29/13 10/1/13-10/29/13 Misc Expense Report Paid by Check #15163 11/15/2013 223.40
Vendor 387 - LINSEY WILLIS Totals $223.40
Vendor 373 - MAILROOM EQUIPMENT REPAIR
10292013-02 Repair/Maint/Jamming postage meter Paid by Check #15130 11/08/2013 181.47
Vendor 373 - MAILROOM EQUIPMENT REPAIR Totals $181.47
Vendor 14 - MARK THOMAS AND COMPANY INC
12-19771 9/2/13 - 9/29/13 CT358 SR4 Mokelumne Ped Overcrossing Paid by Check #15131 11/08/2013 15,174.10
19767 9/2/13-9/29/13 CT305 MSJ CSS/Engineering Srvcs SR4 @ Somersville Paid by Check #15131 11/08/2013 13,919.60
19769 9/2/13 - 9/29/13 5002 - CT335 SR4BP Sand Ck Rd I/C & Laurel Paid by Check #15131 11/08/2013 8,654.60
31-19768 9/2/13 -9/29/13 CT317 Aux Lns Seg 2 - Sycamore Vly/Crw Cnyn Paid by Check #15164 11/15/2013 17,713.58
Vendor 14 - MARK THOMAS AND COMPANY INC Totals $55,461.88
Run by Brian Kelleher on 12/19/2013 04:44:54 PM Page 5 of 9 2.A.2-6
Invoice Number Invoice Description Status Payment Date Invoice Net Amount
Vendor 306 - MGO - MACIAS GINI & O'CONNELL LLP
190832 PE 10/31/13 CT319 FY12/13 Single Audit Paid by Check #15165 11/15/2013 3,394.00
190834 PE 10/31/13 CT319 FY12/13 ~ MSJ Audit / TYLin Paid by Check #15165 11/15/2013 4,231.46
190905 PE 10/31/13 CT319 FY12/13 ~ Caltrans MSJ Audits Paid by Check #15165 11/15/2013 1,610.46
191137 PE 10/31/13 CT319 FY12/13 Basic Financial Statement Paid by Check #15165 11/15/2013 12,894.93
191145 PE 10/31/13 CT319 FY12/13 Professional Services Paid by Check #15165 11/15/2013 3,511.25
Vendor 306 - MGO - MACIAS GINI & O'CONNELL LLP Totals $25,642.10
Vendor 274 - NELSON STAFFING
5359369 10/14/13-10/20/13 Admin Clerk Temp Paid by Check #15113 11/01/2013 1,280.00
5360090 10/21/2013 - 10/27/2013 Admin Clerk Temp Paid by Check #15132 11/08/2013 1,600.00
Vendor 274 - NELSON STAFFING Totals $2,880.00
Vendor 167 - NORTH AMERICAN TITLE ESCROW ACCOUNT
416-013-020 Peres parcel #63755 12-65-P I-80/San Pablo Dam Rd I/C PH1 Paid by EFT #181 11/18/2013 265,000.00
416-022-007 Cruz/Castellanos #63750 12-65-P I-80/San Pablo Dam Rd I/C PH1 Paid by EFT #182 11/18/2013 313,000.00
Vendor 167 - NORTH AMERICAN TITLE ESCROW ACCOUNT Totals $578,000.00
Vendor 342 - NOVAVIA SOLUTIONS, LLC
CC1-2013-09 9/1-9/30/13 Real Time Ridesharing Pilot Prog Srvcs Paid by Check #15182 11/22/2013 400.00
CC1-2013-10 10/1-10/31/13 Real Time Ridesharing Pilot Prog Srvcs Paid by Check #15182 11/22/2013 7,332.61
Vendor 342 - NOVAVIA SOLUTIONS, LLC Totals $7,732.61
Vendor 7 - OFFICE MAX INCORPORATED
963075 Misc Office Supplies Paid by Check #15133 11/08/2013 169.02
Vendor 7 - OFFICE MAX INCORPORATED Totals $169.02
Vendor 13 - PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, INC
40-530373 7/12/13 - 10/4/13 MSJ - CT214 PB Americas I-80/Central Ave PSR Paid by Check #15166 11/15/2013 4,612.73
Vendor 13 - PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, INC Totals $4,612.73
Vendor 18 - PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC
1309B330-43 6/29/13 - 8/30/2013 CT261 Construction Engineering Caldecott Paid by Check #15167 11/15/2013 359,386.84
Vendor 18 - PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC Totals $359,386.84
Vendor 271 - PCI - PARKING CONCEPTS, INC.
140609 Nov 2013 Parking for 18 empl Paid by Check #15134 11/08/2013 1,190.00
Vendor 271 - PCI - PARKING CONCEPTS, INC. Totals $1,190.00
Vendor 139 - PETER ENGEL
10/15-20/2013 10/15/2013-10/20/2013 Misc Expenses Paid by Check #15135 11/08/2013 418.19
Vendor 139 - PETER ENGEL Totals $418.19
Run by Brian Kelleher on 12/19/2013 04:44:54 PM Page 6 of 9 2.A.2-7
Invoice Number Invoice Description Status Payment Date Invoice Net Amount
Vendor 166 - PG&E - PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
1160645 Pmt in full for CT378 ID #1160645 NB 680 on-ramp Crow Canyon Paid by Check #15136 11/08/2013 9,570.71
Vendor 166 - PG&E - PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC Totals $9,570.71
Vendor 350 - QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.
12-11163 8/1/13-8/31/13 CT354 Proj 5005 ~SR4 Balfour Rd Intrchg Paid by Check #15137 11/08/2013 264,864.33
Vendor 350 - QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. Totals $264,864.33
Vendor 338 - RAJAPPAN & MEYER CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC
22-31009 8/17/13-9/13/13 CT329 Base Work SR4BP/SR160 Connector Ramps PSE Paid by Check #15138 11/08/2013 223,508.18
Vendor 338 - RAJAPPAN & MEYER CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC Totals $223,508.18
Vendor 260 - RANDELL IWASAKI
9/27/13-10/30/13 09/27/13-10/30/13 Misc Expense Reimbursement Paid by Check #15168 11/15/2013 52.52
10/31/13 10/27/13 Misc Overnight Expense Reimbursement Paid by Check #15168 11/15/2013 335.29
Vendor 260 - RANDELL IWASAKI Totals $387.81
Vendor 360 - REHABILITATION SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Sept 2013 Sept 2013 FY13 SPP20 Add. Paratransit Rehab Srvcs Paid by Check #15139 11/08/2013 2,965.90
Vendor 360 - REHABILITATION SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Totals $2,965.90
Vendor 37 - S&C ENGINEERS, INC
18-2164 8/24/13-9/20/13 Item #2 ~ CT330 CSS RM2 SR4/HC Ave/SR60 Seg B Paid by Check #15169 11/15/2013 220,521.57
Vendor 37 - S&C ENGINEERS, INC Totals $220,521.57
Vendor 357 - SENIOR HELPLINE SERVICES
74 July 2013 FY14 SPP20 Add. Paratransit Senior Helpline Srvcs Paid by Check #15170 11/15/2013 7,875.00
75 August 2013 FY14 SPP20 Add. Paratransit Senior Helpline Srvcs Paid by Check #15170 11/15/2013 7,875.00
76 Sept 2013 FY14 SPP20 Add. Paratransit Senior Helpline Srvcs Paid by Check #15170 11/15/2013 7,875.00
Vendor 357 - SENIOR HELPLINE SERVICES Totals $23,625.00
Vendor 73 - SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT PLAN TRUST
Dec 2013 Dec 2013 Prepaid Dental Ins Preium Paid by Check #15171 11/15/2013 3,236.70
Vendor 73 - SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT PLAN TRUST Totals $3,236.70
Vendor 78 - SMITH, WATTS & MARTINEZ, LLC
10-1030 Oct 2013 Legistlative Advocacy Services Paid by Check #15140 11/08/2013 4,000.00
Vendor 78 - SMITH, WATTS & MARTINEZ, LLC Totals $4,000.00
Vendor 270 - STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE
8027405087 Misc Office Supplies Paid by Check #15141 11/08/2013 223.20
Vendor 270 - STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE Totals $223.20
Run by Brian Kelleher on 12/19/2013 04:44:54 PM Page 7 of 9 2.A.2-8
Invoice Number Invoice Description Status Payment Date Invoice Net Amount
Vendor 248 - SVF OAK RD WALNUT CREEK CORP
Dec 2013 Rent Dec 2013 Rent Paid by Check #15183 11/22/2013 26,739.50
Vendor 248 - SVF OAK RD WALNUT CREEK CORP Totals $26,739.50
Vendor 366 - SVS - SILICON VALLEY STAFFING GROUP, INC
1024961 WE 10/20/13 Proj Dept Admin Asst Temp Paid by Check #15114 11/01/2013 1,342.00
1024997 WE 10/27/13 Project Dept Admin Asst/Temp Paid by Check #15172 11/15/2013 1,408.00
1025032 WE 11/3/13 Project Dept Admin Asst/Temp Paid by Check #15172 11/15/2013 1,716.00
Vendor 366 - SVS - SILICON VALLEY STAFFING GROUP, INC Totals $4,466.00
Vendor 388 - TAM - TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN
10252013 Oct 25, 2013 CMA Directors Mtg-lunch Paid by Check #15142 11/08/2013 56.55
Vendor 388 - TAM - TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN Totals $56.55
Vendor 71 - TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS
50895413-0 11/01/13-11/30/13 Phone & Internet Services Paid by Check #15173 11/15/2013 894.43
Vendor 71 - TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS Totals $894.43
Vendor 67 - TOWN OF DANVILLE
FY11-12 LSM FY 2011-12 18% LSM Town of Danville Paid by Check #15115 11/01/2013 536,747.00
Vendor 67 - TOWN OF DANVILLE Totals $536,747.00
Vendor 68 - TOWN OF MORAGA
FY 11-12 LSM FY 2011-12 18% LSM Town of Moraga Paid by Check #15116 11/01/2013 265,243.00
Vendor 68 - TOWN OF MORAGA Totals $265,243.00
Vendor 38 - TY LIN INTERNATIONAL INC.
9-1309234 8/3-8/31/13 ~CT339 Design Srvcs during CON @ Somersville Paid by Check #15143 11/08/2013 51,929.61
Vendor 38 - TY LIN INTERNATIONAL INC. Totals $51,929.61
Vendor 317 - UNUM LIFE INSURANCE
Dec 2013 DEC 2013 Prepaid Life Ins Premiums Paid by Check #15174 11/15/2013 1,569.16
Vendor 317 - UNUM LIFE INSURANCE Totals $1,569.16
Vendor 11 - URS
27-5670342 8/31/13-9/27/13 CT316 I-80/San Pablo Dam Rd. Interchange PS&E Paid by Check #15175 11/15/2013 60,993.47
Vendor 11 - URS Totals $60,993.47
Vendor 263 - USPS - HASLER (POSTAGE)
102813 10/28/13 Replenish Postage Meter Paid by Check #15144 11/08/2013 2,000.00
Vendor 263 - USPS - HASLER (POSTAGE) Totals $2,000.00
Run by Brian Kelleher on 12/19/2013 04:44:54 PM Page 8 of 9 2.A.2-9
Invoice Number Invoice Description Status Payment Date Invoice Net Amount
Vendor 177 - WELLS FARGO
10/1 - 10/31/13 Wells Fargo - ROC Oct. 13 Paid by Check #15184 11/22/2013 689.29
Vendor 177 - WELLS FARGO Totals $689.29
Vendor 193 - WestCAT - WESTERN CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
1047 Oct 2013 FY13 WestCAT SPP21 Safe Trans for Child Paid by Check #15145 11/08/2013 7,000.00
Vendor 193 - WestCAT - WESTERN CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Totals $7,000.00
Vendor 320 - WMH CORPORATION
12-SR242-27 9/2/13-9/29/13 CT321 6002- SR242/Clayton Rd Ramp Proj Study Rpts Paid by Check #15146 11/08/2013 29,552.13
13-SR4-03 9/2/13 - 9/29/13 CT372 ENV/EIR I-680/SR4 I/C Paid by Check #15146 11/08/2013 31,460.58
Vendor 320 - WMH CORPORATION Totals $61,012.71
Grand Totals $23,601,557.56
Run by Brian Kelleher on 12/19/2013 04:44:54 PM Page 9 of 9 2.A.2-10
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2014
Subject Acceptance of Annual Measure J Compliance Audits f or the Year
Ended June 30, 2013
Summary of Issues Each year the Authority selects Measure J recipients for compliance
audits to evaluate that the use of funds are in conformance with
standards established by the Authority. For the Fiscal Year ended June
30, 2013, TY Lin International Inc., California State Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and County of Contra Costa were selected.
The audits have been submitted and are recommended for acceptance
by the Authority. In the Auditor’s opinion, the recipients complied in all
material aspects with Authority standards.
Recommendations Staff recommends acceptance of the Measure J Compliance Audits for
the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013.
Financial Implications There are no financial implications of the recommended action to
accept the financial reports.
Options N/A
Attachments A. TY Lin International, Inc. – Independent Auditor’s Measure J
Compliance Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013.
B. California State Department of Transportation - Independent
Auditor’s Measure J Compliance Report for the Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2013.
C. County of Contra Costa - Independent Auditor’s Measure J
Compliance Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013.
Changes from
Committee
N/A
Background
Authority Resolution 08-05-A (Revision 1) specifies policies and procedures for conducting
compliance audits related to the expenditure of Measure J funds by other recipients, including
contractors and public agencies. The purpose of the audits is to verify that recipients of
Measure J funds follow adopted rules and that the funds were used solely for the purpose
designated by the Authority. The Resolution specifies that at least three compliance audits are
conducted each year. On May 2, 2013, the Authority selected TY Lin International, Inc.,
2.A.3-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 2 of 2
California State Department of Transportation, and County of Contra Costa for compliance
audits. Entities are selected from one of three categories. The categories and the entities
selected include the following:
Category 1 - A jurisdiction, agency, or firm receiving more than $500,000 in Authority
funds. California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was selected related to
the receipt of $64,241,099 for the Caldecott Improvement Constructions and
Construction Services Agreement (Cooperative Agreement No. 90.16.04).
Category 2 - A consultant receiving more than $25,000 in Authority funds. The firm of
TY Lin International, Inc. was selected related to the receipt of $2,292,183 of Measure J
funds for Preparation of Final Design Documents State Route 4 Widening (Contract No.
204).
Category 3 - A local jurisdiction receiving Measure J Local Street Maintenance (return to
source) funds. The County of Contra Costa was selected related to the receipt of
$1,975,401 for 18% funds and $260,370 for 2.09% Additional Local Street Maintenance
funds.
Staff recommends accepting the compliance audits. In the auditors’ opinions the recipients
have complied with Authority standards and requirements, in all material respects.
2.A.3-2
2.A.3-3
Attachment A
2.A.3-4
Attachment B
2.A.3-5
Attachment C
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Staff Report STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2014
Subject Acceptance of Annual Single Audit for the Year Ended June 30, 2013
Summary of Issues Federal regulations require an independent audit on funding awards
greater than $500,000 (referred to as the “Single Audit” report). For the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, the auditor noted that the Authority
complied with the requirements as applicable to Federal awards.
Recommendations Staff recommends acceptance of the Single Audit for the Fiscal Year
Ended June 30, 2013
Financial Implications There are no financial implications of the recommended action to
accept the financial report.
Options N/A
Attachments A. Single Audit Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013
Changes from
Committee
N/A
Background
The Single Audit, also known as the OMB A-133 audit, is an audit or examination of an entity
that expends $500,000 or more of Federal funds for its operations. The objective of the Single
Audit is to provide assurance to the Federal government as to the m anagement and use of such
funds by recipients such as states, cities, universities, and non-profit organizations.
During the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013, the Authority received funds subject to the Single
Audit requirements. The funds subject to examination and compliance are listed on Page 5 of
the accompanying report. In summary, the Authority expended $2,626,048 of Federal funds
and according to the auditor, the Authority complied with the requirements applicable to these
funds. The audit also notes the status of prior year findings. There are no open items from
prior year audits.
2.A.4-1
2.A.4-2
Attachment A
2.A.4-3
2.A.4-4
2.A.4-5
2.A.4-6
2.A.4-7
2.A.4-8
2.A.4-9
2.A.4-10
2.A.4-11
2.A.4-12
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2014
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Projects - APC Items\02A5 - Total Comp Study.docx
Subject Approve Contract No. 395 with Koff & Associates for a Total
Compensation Study
Summary of Issues The Authority has received qualifications in response to RFQ 13-4 to
review the Authority’s current compensation structure and conduct a
total compensation market survey to compare Authority salaries and
benefits against other comparable public agencies. Koff & Associates
submitted the most applicable set of qualifications and proposed scope
of services in response to RFQ 13-4. Staff recommendation calls for the
Authority to approve a contract with Koff & Associates to provide these
services with a budget not to exceed $12,000.
Recommendations Staff seeks authorization for the Chair to execute Contract No. 395 with
Koff & Associates.
Financial Implications The contract value is capped at $12,000 for the proposed scope of
work. This amount includes a few additional billable hours as a
contingency should the Authority request the consultant to provide
additional information or services.
Options N/A
Attachments A. Proposed Contract No. 395 with Koff & Associates
Changes from
Committee
N/A
Background
On November 20th the Authority approved issuing Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 13-4 to
obtain a human resources consultant to conduct a Total Compensation Study (TCS). The RFQ
called for interested firms to submit qualifications for preparing a comprehensive salary and
benefit study of Authority staff positions. The TCS will provide the Board and Executive Director
with a current review of the Authority’s compensation structure in comparison to the
employment market for similar positions. This review will provide data on the total employer
cost incurred by the Authority for salaries and benefits by position. A second level of the study
2.A.5-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 2 of 2
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Projects - APC Items\02A5 - Total Comp Study.docx
will include specific recommendations regarding the Authority’s compensation system. The
policy objective of the study is to ascertain information related to the Authority’s continued
interest to be an employer of choice, attract and retain a quality workforce and receive
recommendations on the Authority’s compensation system from an independent third party.
The Authority requested qualifications from six firms who either requested consideration or
were identified by staff as a firm potentially interested in submitting qualifications. The
Authority received two submittals by the closing date of December 18th. Two firms answered
the RFQ and indicated that, due to other commitments, they would not be submitting
qualifications. Two firms did not respond to the RFQ. The two firms that submitted
qualifications were Bryce Consulting and Koff & Associates.
Staff has reviewed the qualifications of the two firms, including the proposed scope of work,
approach, understanding of the Authority’s objective and budget. This analysis demonstrated
that Koff & Associates best meets the objectives of the Authority. Koff & Associates is a woman-
owned and certified small business enterprise. The firm specializes in public sector human
resources consulting. Founded in 1984, Koff & Associates is located in Emeryville of Alameda
County. The firm has extensive and relevant experience in the public sector, especially in the
“niche” market of transportation authorities, special districts, etc.
In regard to process, a critical step will be for the project manager of Koff & Associates to assist
in a workshop-style session with the APC. This early phase of the project involves discussion of
the study methodology and consensus building on the comparator agencies. The RFQ
specifications called for a scope of work to include 10 comparator agencies. Early involvement
of the APC and Executive Director in the study, prior to the consultant’s gathering of data, is
highly recommended. This workshop is tentatively planned for February 6th.
The TCS will quantify and compare the Authority’s total cost of staff positions in a consistent
(apples-to-apples) fashion against the selected comparator agencies’ employer cost of like
positions within the market study area. The TCS will also review employer-employee cost
sharing policies regarding pension benefits. The consultant will be expected to make related
observations and recommendations should the Authority be an outlier on that matter. Staff will
work with the consultant to obtain TCS data for the APC and Executive Director within the
timeframe for Authority consideration of its salary and benefit policy for next fiscal year
beginning July 1, 2014.
2.A.5-2
AGREEMENT NO. 395
KOFF & ASSOCIATES, INC
HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES - TOTAL COMPENSATION STUDY
This agreement is made as of January 15, 2014 between Koff & Associates, Inc., 6400 Hollis
Street, Suite 5, Emeryville, CA 94608 (“Consultant”), and the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority, a local transportation authority created and administered pursuant to Division 19 of
the California Public Utilities Code, and having its office at 2999 Oak Road, Suite 100, Walnut
Creek, California 94597 (“Authority”).
In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and agreements stated herein, the parties
do agree as follows:
1. Scope of Work. Authority desires to and hereby engages Consultant during the term of
this agreement to perform human resources consulting services. The services to be
performed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are described in the Scope of
Work set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
The aggregate of such services is hereinafter referred to as the “Work”.
2. Payment. Authority shall pay Consultant for the performance in the Work hereunder in
accordance with the terms set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. The not-to-exceed amount for this contract is twelve thousand
dollars ($12,000.00).
3. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be effective beginning from the date of this
agreement and end upon the timely completion of the Scope of Work, subject to earlier
termination as set forth in Paragraph 12 hereof.
4. Ownership of Studies and Plans. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall to
the best of its collective ability impart to the Authority knowledge, information, ideas,
suggestions, advice, and services requested by the Authority, and Authority shall have
right to make use of the same at any time it may desire without consideration to
Consultant. All drawings, specifications, descriptions, plats, field notes, surveys, studies,
reports, and other documents furnished by Consultant in the course of or as a result of
performing the Work shall be the property of the Authority and may be used by the
Authority for any purpose whatsoever. Consultant assigns to the Authority all rights in
the nature of copyright, trademark, patent, and right to ideas, in all versions prepared
now or later by Consultant in connection with the Work. Consultant agrees to take such
actions as are necessary to protect the rights assigned to the Authority in this
Agreement, and to refrain from taking any actions which would impair those rights.
Consultant’s responsibilities under this Paragraph shall include, but not be limited to,
placing proper notice of copyright on all versions as the Authority may direct, and
refrain from disclosing any versions to any third party without first obtaining the written
permission of the Authority. Consultant shall not use Work, or permit to use, with
connection to any other project without first obtaining the written permission of the
Authority.
2.A.5-3
Attachment A
2
5. Availability of Consultant. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be
available to the Authority as may be required to successfully accomplish the Work
within the timeframe established by the Authority for each specific assignment.
Consultant shall be available for consultation during the hours normally worked by the
Authority’s employees unless otherwise agreed on by the Authority and Consultant.
6. Confidential Information. In the performance of the Work, Consultant may be exposed
to confidential information of the Authority and others. Consultant shall not disclose to
anyone not employed by the Authority nor use, except on behalf of the Authority, an
such confidential information acquired by him/her in the performance of the Work,
except as authorized by the Authority, in writing, and, regardless of the term of this
Agreement, Consultant shall be bound by this obligation until such time as said
confidential information shall become part of the public domain. Information regarding
all aspects of Authority’s business and information concerning the Work (either directly
or indirectly disclosed to the Consultant, or developed by Consultant in the performance
of the Work) shall be presumed to be confidential except to the extent that same shall
have been published or otherwise made freely available t the general public without
restriction. Consultant also agrees to not disclose to the Authority any information
subject to any obligation of confidence to any third person.
7. Books and Records. Consultant agrees to make, keep, and maintain, in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles and practices consistently applied from year to
year, complete books, records, invoices, and records of payments related to Work while
it is being performed and to retain for a period of three (3) years following completion
of Work all such materials.
8. Inspection of Books and Records. Authority shall have the right to examine, and make
copies, either directly through its authorized representatives or agents, during business
hours all Consultant’s books, records, accounts, correspondence, instructions,
specifications, surveys, plans, drawings, receipts, manuals, and memoranda insofar as
they are pertinent to this Agreement. Consultant’s accounts shall be organized to
provide the segregation required by the Authority. Authority’s right to inspection shall
not apply to Consultant’s trade secrets or other client or proprietary information
properly designated and asserted as such.
9. Indemnification. It is mutually agreed and understood, relative to the reciprocal
indemnification of Authority and Consultant:
a. Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, Authority, its officers,
employees, and agents, from and against any and all losses, expenses, liens,
claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character (including
those of the parties hereto, their agents and employees) for death, personal
injury, property damage or any other liability, damages, fines or penalties
(except where reimbursement of fines and penalties is prohibited by applicable
law) including costs, attorneys fees and settlements (approved by Consultant),
resulting in any act performed by, or omission on the part of, Consultant, its
2.A.5-4
3
servants, employees, subcontractors, invitees or licensees, arising out of or in
connection with the Work.
b. Authority shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, Consultant, its officers,
employees, and agents, from and against any and all losses, expenses, liens,
claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character (including
those of the parties hereto, their agents and employees) for death, personal
injury, property damage or any other liability, damages, fines or penalties
(except where reimbursement of fines and penalties is prohibited by applicable
law) including costs, attorneys fees and settlements (approved by Authority),
resulting in any act performed by, or omission on the part of, Authority, arising
our of or in connection with the Work.
10. Certificates of Insurance. Before commencing Work, Consultant shall provide Authority
with certificates evidencing the existence of insurance policies, issues by carriers and in
amounts and on forms acceptable to the Authority, providing coverage as specified in
Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Consultant shall
maintain such insurance in effect until the third anniversary date of this agreement.
Insurance will not be cancelled or any charge made in with policy without ten (10) days
written notice to the Authority.
11. Independent Contractor. Consultant shall be in the relationship of independent
contractor with the Authority, and nothing herein shall be construed as creating, at any
time, the relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto, nor shall
this Agreement be construed as creating any relationship whatsoever between
Authority and Consultant’s employees. Consultant shall have sole authority and
responsibility to employ, discharge, and otherwise control its employees, and neither
Consultant, nor any of its employees are or shall be deemed to be employees of the
Authority. Accordingly, Consultant and its employees shall not be entitled, as a result of
this agreement, to any benefit under any employee benefit plan presently in effect or
that may be put into effect; nor will Consultant and its employees be considered
employees of the Authority for purposes of any tax or contribution levied by any
federal, state, or municipal government or for any other purpose.
12. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon notice to the other
party, given in a manner authorized by Paragraph 15, in accordance with this Paragraph
12. Upon notice by the Authority, Consultant agrees to stop Work. If Consultant gives
notice of termination, it agrees to continue the Work for a 30-day period, or such lesser
period that is equal to the remaining term of the Agreement if notice is given within 30
days of the termination date, provided in Paragraph 3 above, or such lesser period as
determined by the Authority. Upon termination, Consultant agrees to forward to
Authority all papers, reports, and other documents on Work. In the event of such
termination, Authority shall be liable for charges accrued to date that the Consultant
ceases Work, not to exceed 30 days (unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the
Authority), plus such additional charges as are determined by Authority to be
reasonably essential for terminating the Work. Termination shall not affect Consultant’s
obligations with respect to Paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 hereof.
2.A.5-5
4
13. Assignment and Subcontracting. Authority reserves the right to assign this Agreement
at any time, and Consultant hereby consents to any such assignment by Authority.
Except as expressly set forth in Exhibit D, which Exhibit D is incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth, any assignment of this Agreement or the subcontracting of any
performance of Consultant hereunder by Consultant without the prior written consent
of the Authority shall be void.
14. Attorney’s Fees. In the event of litigation between the parties with respect to this
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in connection with such litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
15. Notices. Any notice, demand, or request which may be permitted, required, or desired
to be given in connection with this Agreement shall be given in writing and directed to
Authority and Consultant as follows:
If to the Authority: Randall Carlton
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
If to Consultant: Georg S. Krammer
6400 Hollis Street, Suite 5
Emeryville, CA 94608
Notices shall be either (i) personally delivered (including delivery by UPS, Federal
Express, or another courier) to the offices set forth above, in which case they shall be
deemed delivered on the date of delivery to said offices; (ii) sent by telecopier (fax), in
which cases they shall be deemed delivered on the date sent; provided however that
any notices sent by telecopier (fax) shall also be sent by overnight courier on the same
day; or (iii) sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, in which case they shall be
deemed delivered on the date shown on the receipt unless delivery is refused or
delayed by the addressee, in which case they shall be deemed delivered on the date of
deposit in the US Mail.
16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement (including all exhibits attached hereto, each of which
is incorporated into this Agreement by reference), constitutes the entire understanding
between the parties with respect to the transaction contemplated herein, and all prior
or contemporaneous oral or written agreements, understandings, representations and
statements are merged into this Agreement. This Agreement may only be amended or
modified, by a written instrument executed by Authority and Consultant. Notice of
termination in accordance with Paragraph 12 shall be given in writing by the terminating
party to the other party in a manner authorized by Paragraph 15.
17. Headings. The headings of various Paragraphs in this Agreement are for convenience
only, and are not be utilized in constructing the content or meaning of the substantive
provisions hereof, and shall be of no legal force and effect.
2.A.5-6
5
18. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of California, notwithstanding its choice of law provisions. The
parties agree that any legal action arising under this Agreement shall be subject to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the state or federal courts within the State of California.
19. Time. Time is of the essence in this Agreement and Work.
20. Severability. If any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement is for any
reason held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity,
illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions of this Agreement, and
this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision
had never been contained herein.
In witness whereof, both parties hereto shall be deemed to have executed this Agreement as of
the day and year written above.
KOFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Georg S. Krammer, Chief Executive Officer
Janet Abelson, Chair
Dated:
Dated:
2.A.5-7
6
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
Koff & Associates, Inc. shall perform tasks consistent with their written submission in response
to Request for Qualification (RFQ) 13-4 for a Total Compensation Study. Specific tasks include
the following:
A. INITIAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW/MEETINGS WITH STUDY PROJECT TEAM & MANAGEMENT STAFF
This phase includes identifying the client project team (Chief Financial Officer, other staff, and
Board Committee, as appropriate), contract administrator, and reporting relationships. Our team
will conduct an orientation and briefing session with the study project team and executive staff to
explain process and methodology; create the specific work plan and work schedule; identify
subsequent tasks to be accomplished; reaffirm the primary objectives and specific end products;
determine deadline dates for satisfactory completion of the overall assignment; determine who
will be responsible for coordinating/scheduling communications with employees, executive staff,
and the Board of Directors; and develop a timetable for conducting the same.
Included in this task will be the gathering of written documentation, identifying current
incumbents, and assembling current class descriptions, organizational charts, salary schedules,
budgets, personnel and compensation policies and procedures, previous classification and
compensation studies (which K&A has), and any other relevant documentation.
Authority terminology and methods of current compensation procedures will be reviewed and
agreed to. We will discuss methodology and agree to a compensation format and identify
appropriate comparator agencies, benchmark classifications to be surveyed, and benefits to be
collected for compensation survey purposes. We will respond to questions.
B. IDENTIFY COMPARATOR AGENCIES, BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS, AND BENEFITS TO BE COLLECTED
During the initial meeting with the study project team, we will discuss the total compensation
study factors that need to be agreed upon. We will identify and provide justification for
appropriate comparator agencies that will be included in the external market survey, which will
be the foundation of ensuring that the Authority’s salaries for the studied classifications are
competitively aligned with the external labor market. We will also identify those classifications
that will be surveyed in the market (i.e., benchmark classifications), with the intention of
internally aligning the remaining classifications with those that were surveyed. Finally, we will
determine/confirm the list of benefits that the Authority wants to be included in the total
compensation data gathering process.
1. Determination of Comparator Agencies
The selection of comparator agencies is considered a critical step in the study process. Using the
following factors to identify appropriate comparators, we will receive approval before
proceeding with the compensation survey.
2.A.5-8
7
Our recommended methodology is that we involve the study project team, executive staff, and
the Board of Directors (i.e., Board Committee) in the decision-making process of agreeing as to
which agencies are included, PRIOR to beginning the study. Our experience has shown that this
is the most successful approach. The factors that we review when selecting and recommending
appropriate comparator agencies include:
Organizational type and structure – While various organizations may provide overlapping
services and employ some staff having similar duties and responsibilities, the role of each
organization is somewhat unique, particularly in regard to its relationship to the citizens it
serves and level of service expectation. During this iterative process, we will review the
comparators that K&A has utilized in the past, as well as propose new agencies, and discuss
the advantages/disadvantages of including current and/or any newly proposed
comparators.
Similarity of population served, agency demographics, agency staff, and operational and
capital improvement budgets – These elements provide guidelines in relation to resources
required (staff and funding) and available for the provision of services.
Scope of services provided – While having an organization that provides all of the services at
the same level of citizen expectation is ideal for comparators, as long as the majority of
services are provided in a similar manner, sufficient data should be available for analysis.
Labor market – The reality of today’s labor market is that many agencies are in competition
for the same pool of qualified employees. No longer do individuals necessarily live in the
community they serve. Therefore, the geographic labor market area (where the Authority
may be recruiting from or losing employees to) will be taken into consideration when
selecting potential comparator organizations.
Cost of living – The price of housing and other cost-of-living related issues are some of the
biggest factors in determining labor markets. We will review overall cost of living of various
geographic areas, median house prices, and median household incomes to determine the
appropriateness of various potential comparator agencies.
The RFQ asks for ten (10) comparator agencies, which is within the range we typically
recommend.
2. Determination of Benchmark Classifications
“Benchmark classes” are normally chosen to reflect a broad spectrum of class levels. In
addition, those that are selected normally include classes that are most likely to be found in
other similar agencies, and therefore provide a sufficient valid sample for analysis. Internal
relationships will be determined between the benchmarked and non-benchmarked
classifications and internal equity alignments will be made for salary recommendation purposes.
Because the Authority is a fairly small organization, we recommend surveying most, if not all,
classifications. Based on the list provided in the RFP and our past experience with the Authority,
we may not need to survey the Senior Engineer, Senior Transportation Planner, or
Administrative Clerk, as they can be internally aligned with other classifications that we would
normally survey. Of course, we are flexible to survey all classifications. It is our understanding
that the Executive Director will not be included in the study.
2.A.5-9
8
3. Determination of Salary and Benefits Data to Be Collected
In addition to base salaries, benefit data elements for a total compensation study normally
include at least the following, which are generally available to all staff in a specific job
classification. Shown below are descriptions of those benefits that we normally collect (which
can be modified to include any other information the Authority desires):
Monthly Salary – The top of the normal, published salary range. All figures are presented
on a monthly basis. We normalize the salary data to reflect working hours and/or “spiking”
of retirement or other benefits.
Employee Retirement – This includes two figures: the amount of the employee’s State or
other public or private retirement contribution that is contributed by the agency and the
amount of the agency’s Social Security contribution.
Retiree Medical – With healthcare cost rising and retiree healthcare and liabilities increasing
for many public agencies, we typically collect retiree health information as well. However,
we do not roll this cost into our total compensation analysis but report it separately by
describing what the policies/liabilities are.
Insurance – This typically includes Health, Dental, Vision, Life, Long-Term Disability, Short-
Term Disability, Employee Assistance Program (EAP), and other insurance coverage.
Leave – Other than sick leave, which is usage-based, leave is the amount of days off for
which the organization is obligated, including vacation, holidays, administrative and/or
personal leave. All days will be translated into direct salary costs.
Deferred Compensation – This is any deferred compensation provided to all members of a
classification, either as an employer matching contribution or as a straight dollar or
percentage contribution.
Other – This category includes any other benefits that are available to all employees within
a classification and not already specifically detailed.
C. DATA COLLECTION
Our firm does not collect market compensation data by merely sending out a written
questionnaire. We find that such questionnaires are often delegated to the individual in the
department with the least experience in the organization and given a low priority. We
conduct all of the data collection and analysis ourselves to ensure validity of the data and
quality control. This approach also ensures that we compare job description to job description
and not just job titles, therefore ensuring true “matches” of at least 70%, which is the
percentage we use to determine whether to include a comparator classification or not. Our
job analysis method is the whole position analysis approach.
Objective factors in the whole position classification methodology include:
1. Education, Training, and Certifications/Licenses
2. Experience
3. Problem Solving/Ingenuity
4. Attention/Stress (Concentration/Time Pressure & Interruptions)
5. Independence of Action/Responsibility
6. Contacts with Others/Internal/External
7. Supervision Received and/or Given to Others
2.A.5-10
9
8. Consequences of Action/Decisions Made on the Job
9. Working Conditions
10. Physical/Mental Demands
We typically collect classification descriptions, organization charts, salary schedules, personnel
policies, MOUs, and other information via website, by telephone, or by an onsite interview.
With the prior knowledge from the data gathered directly from each comparator agency and
our experience in the public sector human resources field, our professional staff makes
preliminary “matches” and then schedules appointments by telephone, and sometimes in
person, with knowledgeable individuals to answer specific questions. We find that the
information collected using these methods has a very high validity rate and is generally
substantiated by employees, management, as well as governing bodies.
D. ANALYSIS AND PRELIMINARY DATA REVIEW (DELIVERABLE)
Compensation data will be entered into spreadsheet format designed for ease of interpretation
and use. The information will be presented in a format that will identify the comparator
positions used for each classification comparison. Information will be calculated based upon
both average and median figures allowing the Authority to make informed compensation
decisions. Other elements of the compensation survey report are:
Agencies surveyed;
Comparable class titles;
Salary range maximum/control point;
Number of observations; and
Percent the Authority’s salary range is above/below the market average/median value.
In addition, we will include any type of statistical representation and analysis that the Authority
desires such as 60th, 70th, or any other percentiles.
Benefit data will be displayed in an easy-to-read format. You will receive three sets of
spreadsheets per classification, one with base pay, one with the benefits detail, and one with
total compensation statistical data. In addition, we are often asked to collect “other” benefits
(as listed in the benefits section above), which we typically report on a separate spreadsheet.
E. DRAFT COMPENSATION FINDINGS/ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS/PROJECT TEAM MEETING (DELIVERABLE)
We distribute our draft findings to the Authority. After the Authority’s preliminary review, K&A
will meet with the study project team and other stakeholders (including executive staff and the
Board Committee, as desired) to clarify data, to receive requests for reanalysis of certain
comparators, and to answer questions and address concerns. This provides an opportunity for
the study project team and other stakeholders to review and question any of our recommended
benchmark comparator matches.
If questions arise, we conduct follow-up analysis to reconfirm our original analysis and/or make
corrections as appropriate.
2.A.5-11
10
F. INTERNAL RELATIONSHIP ANALYSIS/INTERNAL ALIGNMENT (DELIVERABLE)
To determine internal equity for all studied positions, considerable attention will be given to this
phase of the project. It is necessary to develop an internal position hierarchy based on the
organizational value of each classification. Again, we utilize the “whole position” analysis
methodology as described above in Section C.
By reviewing those factors, we will make recommendations regarding vertical salary differentials
between classes in a class series (if recommended), as well as across departments. This analysis
will be integrated with the results of the compensation survey.
The ultimate goal of this critical step of the process is to address any potential internal equity
issues and concerns with the current compensation system, including compaction (i.e.
compression) issues between certain classifications. We will create a sound and logical
compensation structure for the various levels within each class series, so that career ladders are
not only reflected in the classification system but also in the compensation system, with pay
differentials between levels that allow employees to progress on a clear path of career growth
and development. Career ladders will be looked at vertically, as well as, horizontally.
G. COMPENSATION STRUCTURE AND RECOMMENDATION DEVELOPMENT (DELIVERABLE)
Depending on data developed as a result of the internal analysis, we will review and make
recommendations regarding internal alignment and the salary structure within which the classes
are allocated, based upon the Authority’s preferred compensation model. We will develop
recommendations for salary ranges for all classifications based on median and/or mean salaries
from the comparable agencies. We will also assess the number of pay grades needed.
Finally, we will evaluate benefit offerings in the labor market and make recommendations for
better alignment and/or different benefit offerings as indicated by the analysis and best
practices.
Draft recommendations will be discussed with the study project team and management prior to
developing an Interim Report.
H. DEVELOPMENT OF DRAFT FINAL AND FINAL REPORT AND DELIVERABLES
A Draft Interim Report of the Compensation Study will be completed and submitted to the
Authority for review and comment. The report will provide detailed compensation findings,
documentation, and recommendations. The report will include the following information:
A set of all market data spreadsheets;
A proposed Salary Range/Plan document;
Any alternative compensation plans identified; and
A guide for the Authority in implementing, managing, and maintaining the
compensation system, policies, and procedures.
2.A.5-12
11
We will conduct an in-depth review of the draft compensation report with the study project
team. Any needed corrections, clarifications, or modifications will be discussed at this time.
Once all of the Authority’s questions/concerns are addressed and discussed, a Final Compensation
and Staffing Report will be created and submitted in bound format. The Final Report will
incorporate any appropriate revisions identified and submitted during the review of the draft
report.
I. FINAL PRESENTATION
Our proposal includes multiple meetings and conference calls and weekly oral and written
status/progress updates to the study project manager. We will also be prepared to develop and
present our reports and future impacts of any recommended changes to the Executive Director,
as well as, other Authority executive staff, as desired.
Regarding the involvement of the Board of Directors, we recommend at least one initial meeting
regarding the comparator agencies and benchmark classifications to be included in the total
compensation study, one interim study session (to discuss the initial findings of the total
compensation study, i.e., preliminary data), and one final presentation of our Final Reports. Of
course, we are flexible to have more or less interaction with the Board of Directors, based on
the Authority’s preferences.
The scope of work may be amended by mutual written agreement of the parties.
2.A.5-13
12
EXHIBIT B
COMPENSATION
The fee to provide the Scope of Work and incorporated into this agreement as Exhibit A shall be
$11,340, plus expenses not to exceed $300. Consultant will submit monthly invoices based on
task completion in the previous month. The fee may be increased for additional consulting at
the composite rate of $105 per hour to a maximum contract value of $12,000. Additional
consulting must have prior approval by the Authority. Invoices are to be submitted with
sufficient detail satisfactory to the Authority noting the achievements on tasks in the work
scope. Accepted invoices are due to Consultant on a net 30 days basis.
2.A.5-14
13
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE
Consultant shall provide the following types of insurance, with Consultant’s normal
limits of liability but in no event less that the minimum limits indicated below. Authority
shall be named Additional Insured with Cross Liability Endorsement with respect to
Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability Policies:
TYPE OF COVERAGE MINIMUM LIMITS OF LIABILITY
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
Each Accident $1,000,000
Employers Liability $1,000,000
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY
Each Occurrence $1,000,000
Commercial General Aggregate Liability $1,000,000
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Including coverage for all owned, hired, or non- $1,000,000
Owned automotive equipment used in connection
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
Each Occurrence $1,000,000
Aggregate $1,000,000
2.A.5-15
14
EXHIBIT D
ASSIGNMENT & SUBCONTRACTING
Permitted Assignees: None
Permitted Subcontractors: None
2.A.5-16
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2014
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Projects - APC Items\Amin's City of Pleasant Hill, Ccntra Costa Blvd Appropriation\02A6 BL City of Pleasant Hill, CCBlvd
Appropriation BL Correct Version.docx
Subject City of Pleasant Hill – Contra Costa Blvd Improvements (Project 24026)
– Request for Appropriation of Additional Measure J Funds for
Construction and Construction Management
Summary of Issues The City of Pleasant Hill is requesting appropriation of additional
$842,000 of Measure J funds construction and construction
management for the Contra Costa Blvd Improvements (Project 24026).
The additional cost is to fully fund a gap in funding due to higher than
expected bids when the project opened bids in August 2013.
This project will construct many improvements along Contra Costa
Boulevard between Chilpancingo Parkway and Viking Drive. Among
these improvements are intersection geometry, traffic signal upgrade,
sidewalk repair or installation, ADA curb ramp installation, pavement
rehabilitation, bike lane striping, median island modification, street light
replacement and landscaping.
Recommendations Staff recommends approval of Cooperative Agreement 28C.01, and
Resolution 14-02-P in the amount of $750,000, and Resolution 13-03-P
(Rev. 1) in the amount of $92,000 for a total appropriation of $842,000
in additional funds for construction and construction management of
this project.
Financial Implications The 2013 Measure J Strategic Plan contains sufficient funds
programmed for this project to fund this request.
Options 1. The Authority could choose to alter this request
Attachments A. Letter from the City of Pleasant Hill, dated December 2, 2013.
B. TRANSPAC Letter of Approval, dated November 20, 2013
C. Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
D. Resolution 14-02-P
E. Resolution 13-03-P (Rev. 1)
F. Contra Costa Blvd. Improvements (Project #24026) Fact Sheet.
2.A.6-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 2 of 2
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Projects - APC Items\Amin's City of Pleasant Hill, Ccntra Costa Blvd Appropriation\02A6 BL City of Pleasant Hill, CCBlvd
Appropriation BL Correct Version.docx
Changes from
Committee
N/A
Background
The Contra Costa Boulevard Improvements (Project #24026) project scope consists of
intersection geometry modifications, traffic signal upgrade, sidewalk repair or installation, ADA
curb ramp installation, pavement rehabilitation, bike lane striping, median island modification,
street light replacement and landscaping modification along Contra Costa Boulevard between
Chilpancingo Parkway and Viking Drive. The Authority appropriated $783,000 to the project for
Construction and Construction Administration costs in February 2013. The City of Pleasant Hill
opened bids for the project in August 2013. The lowest responsive bidder exceeded the
project’s budget for construction by 24%. The City Council rejected all bids with the intent to
seek additional funding sources, restructure the project bid documents and go out to bid again
in early 2014.
The City was recently able to secure approval from TRANSPAC for $750,000 in Measure J
Funding Category No. 28, Subregional Transportation Needs (See Attachment B). The City also
has $92,000 in Measure J funds remaining for the project as a result of the 2013 Strategic Plan
update. The revised project cost is $4.8 million, and is now fully funded with $1.6 million in local
funds, $1.2 million in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) federal funds, $1.2 million in
Measure J funds, and $0.8 million in Measure J Subregional Transportation Needs. Construction
is currently scheduled for spring 2014.
Accordingly, the City is requesting additional Measure J appropriation of $842,000 for
construction and construction administration ($750,000 in Subregional Transportation Needs;
and $92,000 in remaining Measure J funds) to the project. Staff seeks authorization for the
Chair to act on the above mentioned resolutions and exe cute Cooperative Agreement No.
28C.01, appropriation Resolution 14-02-P, and appropriation Resolution 13-3-P (Rev. 1).
2.A.6-2
2.A.6-3
Attachment A
2.A.6-4
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Cooperation
Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County
2300 Contra Costa Boulevard, Suite 110
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(925) 969-0841
November 20, 2013
Randell H. Iwasaki, Executive Director
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Re: Status Letter for TRANSPAC Meeting – November 14, 2013
Dear Mr. Iwasaki:
At its meeting on November 14, 2013, TRANSPAC took the following actions that may be
of interest to the Transportation Authority:
1. Received reports from Martin Engelmann, CCTA Deputy Director Planning on the
Vision, Goals, and Current Issues for the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan
(CTP) when What is an Action Plan? and Discussion Paper: Refining the Vision
and Goals for the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan: Issues and
Opportunities had been presented.
2. Unanimously approved the request of the City of Pleasant Hill for the allocation of
$750,000 Measure J Line 28a funds to complete the financial plan for the Contra
Costa Boulevard Improvement Project (Chilpancingo Parkway to Viking Drive),
with a future discussion of a protocol for the use of Line 28 funds.
3. Received a report on legal services for Joint Powers Agency (JPA) Formation.
4. Received a report from Lynn Overcashier, 511 Contra Costa.
TRANSPAC hopes that this information is useful to you.
Sincerely,
Barbara Neustadter
2.A.6-5
Attachment B
Mr. Randall H. Iwasaki
November 20, 2013
Page 2
TRANSPAC Manager
cc: TRANSPAC Representatives; TRANSPAC TAC and staff
Dave Hudson, Chair – SWAT
Kevin Romick – TRANSPLAN
Martin Engelmann, Hisham Noeimi, Danice Rosenbohm, Brad Beck (CCTA)
Jerry Bradshaw – WCCTAC
Janet Abelson – WCCTAC Chair
Jamar I. Stamps – TRANSPLAN
Andy Dillard – SWAT
June Catalano, Diana Vavrek, Diane Bentley – City of Pleasant Hill
2.A.6-6
Master Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
between Contra Costa Transportation Authority &
Pleasant Hill
MASTER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 28C.01
BETWEEN
THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AND
THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
This AGREEMENT is made and entered into on ______________2014 by and between the
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL hereinafter referred to as "PLEASANT HILL" and the CONTRA
COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY hereinafter referred to as "AUTHORITY",
collectively, “the parties”.
RECITALS
1. AUTHORITY and PLEASANT HILL pursuant to the Measure C Sales Tax
Renewal Ordinance (# 88-01 as amended by # 04-02), hereinafter referred to as "MEASURE J,"
approved by the voters of Contra Costa County on November 2, 2004, hereby desire to enter into a
Cooperative AGREEMENT to define a framework to enable the two parties to work cooperatively
in developing transportation improvements for Contra Costa Blvd Improvements at PLEASANT
HILL in Contra Costa County.
2. PLEASANT HILL desires to make certain transportation improvements to
PLEASANT HILL facilities in Contra Costa County, as described in Exhibit A to this
AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT".
3. The PROJECT is eligible for funding under the “Subregional Transportation
Needs” project category in MEASURE J.
4. AUTHORITY plans to authorize specific funding amounts in one or more
resolutions for purposes of accomplishing PROJECT, pursuant to specific request(s) for
appropriation of funds by PLEASANT HILL. Each funding appropriation resolution will set forth
additional conditions if any, purpose, and timing for release of identified funds to PLEASANT
HILL for PROJECT. A chronological listing of appropriation resolutions will be included in and
made a part of Exhibit B (attached), which is hereby incorporated into this AGREEMENT and
made a part hereof. Exhibit B will be updated with each new appropriation resolution. Each request
for appropriation of funds will include the most current overall financial plan for the PROJECT.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the AUTHORITY and
PLEASANT HILL do hereby agree as follows:
2.A.6-7
Attachment C
Master Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
between Contra Costa Transportation Authority &
Pleasant Hill
SECTION I
PLEASANT HILL AGREES:
1. To submit the initial request for appropriation of funds to the AUTHORITY for
specific components of the PROJECT detailing the project scope, schedule and proposed funding
plan at least 60 days before the funds are needed.
2. To apply any funds received under this AGREEMENT to the PROJECT
consistent with the terms and conditions specified in the funding appropriation resolution approved
by the AUTHORITY.
3. To allow the AUTHORITY to audit all expenditures relating to the PROJECT
funded through this AGREEMENT. For the duration of the PROJECT, and for four (4) years
following completion of the PROJECT, or earlier discharge of this AGREEMENT, PLEASANT
HILL will make available to the AUTHORITY all records relating to expenses incurred in
performance of this AGREEMENT.
4. To provide invoices and progress reports consistent with Exhibit C, along with
the summary of expenditures to date, and to maintain strict accounting of all eligible expenses for
which future reimbursement will be requested.
5. To prepare a report on an annual basis within ninety (90) days of the last day of
the AUTHORITY's fiscal year which itemizes (a) the expenditure of all funds for the PROJECT,
and (b) progress to date in its implementation.
6. To comply with the AUTHORITY’s policy on the management of MEASURE J
Projects (Resolutions 13-38-P & 08-05-A Rev. 1) and all other applicable policies that the
AUTHORITY may adopt in the future, which are available in the most recent version of the
AUTHORITY’s Strategic Plan or on its website.
7. To be responsible for evaluation of prospective consultants and contractors
retained by PLEASANT HILL and subsequent award of work consistent with this AGREEMENT
and any appropriation resolutions.
8. Upon request, to provide copies to the AUTHORITY of all executed contracts
and other PROJECT documents between PLEASANT HILL and consultants, contractors and
others, involved in the PROJECT. Copies of such executed contracts shall be retained for four (4)
years following completion of PROJECT or earlier discharge of this AGREEMENT.
9. To be responsible for PROJECT financing and to provide management of
consultant and contractor activities, including responsibility for schedule, budget and oversight of the
services, consistent with the scope of any appropriation resolution.
10. If the PROJECT involves construction, to install a sign approved by the
AUTHORITY consistent with the specifications included in Exhibit D of this AGREEMENT
2.A.6-8
Master Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
between Contra Costa Transportation Authority &
Pleasant Hill
(attached), that identifies the Contra Costa Transportation Authority as a funding source, no later than
30 days after the commencement of construction.
11. With respect to funding the acquisition of rights-of-way, the AUTHORITY's
bond indenture or other financing agreement may prevent the deposit of financing proceeds into an
escrow account, unless any interest earned on the escrow account is restricted so that it cannot exceed
the yield on the AUTHORITY's bonds or notes. To the extent that the AUTHORITY, pursuant to a
request from PLEASANT HILL, funds right-of-way escrows with financing proceeds,
AUTHORITY will notify PLEASANT HILL, and PLEASANT HILL agrees to comply with any
required restrictions on investment yield.
12. If the PROJECT involves right-of-way acquisition, to follow the requirements of
California state law and the Federal Uniform Acquisition and Relocation Assistance Act. If
applicable, PLEASANT HILL shall transfer to AUTHORITY a share of the net proceeds, after
deducting auditable costs of sales, resulting from the sale of excess lands purchased in whole or in
part with financing proceeds provided by the AUTHORITY. The AUTHORITY’s share of these
proceeds shall be in the same proportion as the AUTHORITY’s financing proceeds used in the
original purchase of the parcel.
SECTION II
AUTHORITY AGREES:
1. In response to a request from the PLEASANT HILL for appropriation of funds,
provided notice of cancellation or termination of this AGREEMENT pursuant to Section III,
paragraph 2 hereof, has not been given, to consider Resolution(s) consistent with available funds and
any relevant components of the AUTHORITY’s Measure J Strategic Plan then in effect to finance
specific work components for the PROJECT, setting forth the level of funding, purpose, timing, and
scope of work to be performed by PLEASANT HILL pursuant to this AGREEMENT. Such
resolutions will be incorporated into Exhibit B (attached), and by this reference made a part hereof.
If warranted, funding resolution(s) may authorize advances or wire transfers to PLEASANT HILL
to address anticipated cash flow needs.
2. To transfer funds to PLEASANT HILL for the purposes described in the relevant
resolution subject to PLEASANT HILL’s compliance with, and in the manner specified in Exhibit
C (attached).
3. To provide timely notice if an audit is to be conducted.
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
1. Term: This AGREEMENT will remain in effect until discharged or terminate as
provided in Paragraph 2 below or in this AGREEMENT.
2.A.6-9
Master Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
between Contra Costa Transportation Authority &
Pleasant Hill
2. Termination: This AGREEMENT shall be subject to termination as follows:
a. Either party may terminate this AGREEMENT at any time for cause
pursuant to a power created by the AGREEMENT or by law, other than for breach, by giving
written notice of termination to the other party. Such notice shall specify both the cause and the
effective date of termination. Notice of termination under this provision shall be given at least ninety
(90) days before the effective date of such termination.
b. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by a party for breach of any
obligation, covenant or condition hereof by the other party, upon notice to the breaching party. With
respect to any breach which is reasonably capable of being cured, the breaching party shall have
thirty (30) days from the date of the notice to initiate steps to cure. If the breaching party diligently
pursues cure, such party shall be allowed a reasonable time to cure, not to exceed sixty (60) days
from the date of the initial notice, unless a further extension is granted by the non-breaching party.
Upon termination, the non-breaching party retains the same rights as a party exercising its right to
terminate under the provisions of paragraph 3(a), except that the canceling party also retains any
remedy for breach of the whole contract or any unperformed balance.
c. By mutual written consent of both parties, this AGREEMENT may be
terminated at any time.
3. Indemnity: It is mutually understood and agreed, relative to the reciprocal
indemnification of AUTHORITY and PLEASANT HILL:
a. That neither AUTHORITY, nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be
responsible for, and PLEASANT HILL shall fully indemnify and hold harmless AUTHORITY
against any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
PLEASANT HILL under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
PLEASANT HILL under this AGREEMENT. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.4, PLEASANT HILL shall fully indemnify and hold the
AUTHORITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury as defined by Government Code
Section 810.8 occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by PLEASANT HILL
under this AGREEMENT or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to
PLEASANT HILL under this AGREEMENT.
b. That neither PLEASANT HILL, nor any officer or employee thereof, shall
be responsible for, and AUTHORITY shall fully indemnify and hold harmless PLEASANT HILL
against any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
AUTHORITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
AUTHORITY under this AGREEMENT. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.4, AUTHORITY shall fully indemnify and hold the PLEASANT
HILL harmless from any liability imposed for injury as defined by Government Code Section 810.8
occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTHORITY under this
AGREEMENT or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to
AUTHORITY under this AGREEMENT.
2.A.6-10
Master Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
between Contra Costa Transportation Authority &
Pleasant Hill
4. Notices: Any notice which may be required under this AGREEMENT shall be in
writing, shall be effective when received, and shall be given by personal service, or by certified or
registered mail, return receipt requested, to the addresses set forth below, or to such addresses which
may be specified in writing to the parties hereto.
June W. Catalano
City Manager
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Randell H. Iwasaki
Executive Director
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
5. Additional Acts and Documents: Each party agrees to do all such things and take
all such actions, and to make, execute and deliver such other documents and instruments, as shall be
reasonably requested to carry out the provisions, intent and purpose of this AGREEMENT.
6. Integration: This AGREEMENT represents the entire agreement of the parties
with respect to the subject matter hereof. No representations, warranties, inducements or oral
agreements have been made by any of the parties except as expressly set forth herein, or in other
contemporaneous written agreements.
7. Amendment: This AGREEMENT may not be changed, modified or rescinded
except in writing, signed by all parties hereto, and any attempt at oral modification of this
AGREEMENT shall be void and of no effect.
8. Independent Agency: AUTHORITY renders its services under this
AGREEMENT as an independent agency. None of the AUTHORITY’s agents or employees shall
be agents or employees of PLEASANT HILL. PLEASANT HILL renders its services under this
AGREEMENT as an independent agency. None of the PLEASANT HILL’s agents or employees
shall be agents or employees of the AUTHORITY.
9. Assignment: The AGREEMENT may not be assigned, transferred, hypothecated,
or pledged by any party without the express written consent of the other party.
10. Binding on Successors: This AGREEMENT shall be binding upon the
successor(s), assignee(s) or transferee(s) of the AUTHORITY or PLEASANT HILL as the case
may be. This provision shall not be construed as an authorization to assign, transfer, hypothecate or
pledge this AGREEMENT other than as provided above.
11. Severability: Should any part of this AGREEMENT be determined to be
unenforceable, invalid, or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such
determination shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this AGREEMENT which shall
2.A.6-11
Master Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
between Contra Costa Transportation Authority &
Pleasant Hill
continue in full force and effect; provided that, the remainder of this AGREEMENT can, absent the
excised portion, be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties.
12. Counterparts: This AGREEMENT may be executed in counterparts.
13. Survival: The following provisions in AGREEMENT shall survive discharge or
termination of this AGREEMENT.
a. As to PLEASANT HILL:
Section I, paragraph 2 (obligation to apply funds to PROJECT)
Section 1, paragraph 3 (obligation to allow audit and retain records)
Section I, paragraph 5 (for the year in which discharge or termination occurs
only, to prepare an annual report to the AUTHORITY)
Section I, paragraph 8 (obligation to provide copies)
Section I, paragraph 9 (obligation to continue to manage PROJECT)
Section I, paragraph 12 (obligation to reimburse funds on sale of excess land)
b. As to AUTHORITY:
Section II, paragraph 2 (obligation to provide funds for work completed prior to
termination without cause)
Section II, paragraph 3 (obligation to provide notice of audit)
c. As to both parties:
Section III, paragraph 2b (rights that survive termination)
Section III, paragraph 3 (indemnity obligations)
14. Limitation: All obligations of AUTHORITY under the terms of this AGREEMENT
are expressly subject to the AUTHORITY's continued authorization to collect and expend the sales
tax proceeds provided by MEASURE C and MEASURE J. If for any reason the AUTHORITY's
right to collect or expend such sales tax proceeds is terminated or suspended in whole or part, the
AUTHORITY shall promptly notify PLEASANT HILL, and the parties shall consult on a course of
action. If, after twenty five (25) working days, a course of action is not agreed upon by the parties,
this AGREEMENT shall be deemed terminated by mutual or joint consent; provided, that any
obligation to fund from the date of the notice shall be expressly limited by and subject to (i) the
lawful ability of the AUTHORITY to expend sales tax proceeds for the purposes of the
AGREEMENT; and (ii) the availability, taking into consideration all the obligations of the
AUTHORITY under all outstanding contracts, agreements to other obligations of the
AUTHORITY, of funds for such purposes.
2.A.6-12
Master Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
between Contra Costa Transportation Authority &
Pleasant Hill
SPONSOR NAME CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
by: by:
June W. Catalano, City Manager Janet Abelson, Chair
ATTEST:
by: by:
Randell H. Iwasaki
Executive Director
APPROVED as to form: APPROVED as to form:
by: by:
Janet Coleson Malathy Subramanian
City Attorney Legal Counsel
2.A.6-13
Master Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
between Contra Costa Transportation Authority &
PLEASANT HILL
Exhibits
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 28C.01
between
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
and
PLEASANT HILL
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Regional Transportation Needs funding category in Measure J will provide funds to
construct improvements to the PLEASANT HILL Contra Costa Blvd Improvements.
Potential improvements include:
- Intersection geometry modifications, traffic signal upgrade, sidewalk repair or installation,
ADA curb ramp installation, pavement rehabilitation, bike lane striping, median island
modification, street light replacement and landscaping modification along Contra Costa
Boulevard between Chilpancingo Parkway and Viking Drive.
2.A.6-14
Master Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
between Contra Costa Transportation Authority &
PLEASANT HILL
Exhibits
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 28C.01
between
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
and
Pleasant Hill
EXHIBIT B
Chronological Listing of Fund Appropriation Resolutions
Project
Number
Resolution Number
DATE
FUNDS
APPROPRIATED
CUMULATIVE
TOTAL
0
TOTAL FUNDS
APPROPRIATED
0
2.A.6-15
Master Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
between Contra Costa Transportation Authority &
PLEASANT HILL
Exhibits
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 28C.01
between
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
and
Pleasant Hill
EXHIBIT C
Method of Payment
1. PLEASANT HILL will submit, no more often than monthly, invoices to the AUTHORITY
which includes all costs of the PROJECT for the stated time period.
2. The monthly invoice shall include the following;
A. PLEASANT HILL expenses (if eligible)
1. A listing of staff time providing the name, number of hours worked and charge rate for
each. The allowable overhead PLEASANT HILL Staff charge may not exceed 50%. Staff working on
activities chargeable to more than one funding resolution (design versus environmental activities for
example), should show the appropriate split in hours for each resolution.
2. An itemized list of all other direct costs with identification of the activity to which the
expense is chargeable.
B. Consultant/contractor expenses
1. A listing of the prime consultant/contractor and any sub-consultant/sub-contractor labor
costs, broken out by funding resolution.
2. An itemized list of all other non-labor costs with identification of the activity to which
the expense is chargeable.
3. If the above two items are prepared by PLEASANT HILL, a copy of the
consultants/contractor invoice should be attached as backup to the above information.
C. Certification
The following statement will be included "We hereby certify that the funds requested by PLEASANT
HILL are to reimburse PLEASANT HILL for project costs already incurred and have not been included
in a previous invoice request."
D. Invoice summary
The following page presents an example of the monthly summary report to be provided with each invoice.
All of the information should be provided.
2.A.6-16
Master Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
between Contra Costa Transportation Authority &
PLEASANT HILL
Exhibits
E. Progress Reports
PLEASANT HILL will submit a progress report that summarizes the activities covered by the invoice.
3. No detail of PLEASANT HILL or consultant/contractor expenses will be required if total costs
are less than $1,000 for the month. The above mentioned detail will be required on the next invoice
totaling more than $1,000.
4. The AUTHORITY will process reimbursement to PLEASANT HILL within thirty (30)
working days after receipt by the AUTHORITY of a monthly invoice, containing all of the information
required under item 2 above. The AUTHORITY reserves the right to adjust future reimbursements
should subsequent review indicate that an invoice included ineligible costs. AUTHORITY may
reimburse PLEASANT HILL either by check, or at AUTHORITY's discretion, by wire transfer from its
sales tax bond proceeds construction account.
2.A.6-17
Proponents Name INVOICE SUMMARY 10-Oct-07
Project: 9848
Project Description Period Covered (9/1/07 to 10/1/07)
Invoice Number: 62319
I. Proponent Expenditures - Direct Labor
Person
Position
Hours
Rate
Amount
Total
Smith,
Mike
Senior
Engineer
16.00
24.56
392.96
Ross, John
Project
Manager
3.5
29.58
103.53
Total Direct Labor:
496.49
Overhead
@
35.00%
173.68
Total Direct Labor This
Period
670.17
II. Proponent Expenditures - Direct Expenses
Total Direct Expenses by Proponent for Resolution 07-51-P
1,000.46
Resolution: 07-51-P
Vendor
Description
Total
Quick Copy
Reproduction
78.65
The Blueprint Shop
Bluelines
251.64
Total Direct Expenses
330.29
2.A.6-18
Master Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01
Between Contra Costa Transportation Authority &
PLEASANT HILL
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 28C.01
between
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
and
PLEASANT HILL
EXHIBIT D
Approved Signs for Construction Projects
PLEASANT HILL shall install signs consistent with the specifications detailed in Exhibit D-1 or
Exhibit D-2, (attached), if PROJECT involves construction.
2.A.6-19
Date: January 15, 2014
Resolution: 14-02-P
Resolution adopted: Coop Agreement: 28C.01
Proponent: City of Pleasant Hill
Resolution revised: Amount: $750,000
RESOLUTION 14-02-P
RE: APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL IN ACCORDANCE WITH COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
NO. 28C.01
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan and Ordinance 04-02 (hereinafter "Expenditure
Plan") includes $30,600,000 in 2004 dollars, for the SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS funding category; and
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (hereinafter "Authority") and the City of Pleasant Hill have entered
into Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01regarding the funding of projects eligible under the SUBREGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS funding category; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill has submitted a Request for Appropriation of additional Funds dated December 2,
2013, and an overall financial plan for the project pursuant to the above referenced Cooperative Agreement; and
WHEREAS, funds are included in the Authority's budget in item SPP28.C.24026; therefore be it
RESOLVED, (1) that the Authority finds the Request for Appropriation of Funds consistent with the Expenditure Plan
and with Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01;
(2) that the Authority appropriates $$750,000 to the City of Pleasant Hill pursuant to the scope of work
and conditions set forth in Attachment A of this RESOLUTION, which is incorporated herein as though set
forth at length;
(3) that funds will be disbursed to the City of Pleasant Hill in accordance with the provisions of
Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01but not to exceed, on an annual basis, the amounts programmed by
fiscal year, as shown in the Program of Projects in the 2013 Measure J Strategic Plan as amended; and
(4) that this appropriation shall expire three years from authorization date; and
(5) that this RESOLUTION is incorporated into Exhibit A of Cooperative Agreement No. 28C.01, which is
enclosed as Attachment B to this RESOLUTION.
__________________________________
Janet Abelson, Chair
This RESOLUTION was entered into at a meeting
of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
held January 15, 2014 in Walnut Creek, California
Attest: ___________________________________
Danice J. Rosenbohm, Executive Secretary
Attachments: "A" - Scope of Work and Conditions
"B" - Updated Exhibit A of Coop. Agrmt. No. 28C.01
Attachment D
2.A.6-20
Date: January 15, 2014
Resolution: 14-02-P
Resolution adopted: Coop Agreement: 28C.01
Proponent: City of Pleasant Hill
Resolution revised: Amount: $750,000
ATTACHMENT A
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION 14-02-P
Date: January 15, 2014
Amount of Funds: $750,000
Appropriated to: City of Pleasant Hill
Program Category: SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Specific Project: Contra Costa Blvd Improvements
Appropriated For: Construction and Construction Administration
Scope of Work: Construction and Construction Administration (CM, Material Testing, Survey staking, staff charges, etc.)
Other Conditions: None
Staff Comments: None
Total funds Programmed in the 2013 Measure J Strategic Plan (x 1000):
Period Nominal Dollars
FY 13 0
FY 14 750
FY 15 0
Total 750
Total authorization to date:
Total funds appropriated to date under Cooperative Agreement 28C.01for the Contra Costa Blvd Improvements are $750,000.
2.A.6-21
Date: January 15, 2014
Resolution: 14-02-P
Resolution adopted: Coop Agreement: 28C.01
Proponent: City of Pleasant Hill
Resolution revised: Amount: $750,000
ATTACHMENT B
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 28C.01 between the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the City of Pleasant Hill
EXHIBIT A
Chronological Listing of Fund Appropriation Resolutions
Project Resolution Number Date Funds Appropriated Cumulative Total Number
24026 14-02-P 1/15/2014 750,000 750,000
TOTAL FUNDS APPROPRIATED: 750,000
2.A.6-22
Date: January 15, 2014
Resolution: 13-03-P (rev-1)
Resolution adopted: Coop Agreement: 24C.02
Proponent: City of Pleasant Hill
Resolution revised: Amount: $92,000
RESOLUTION 13-03-P (Rev. 1)
RE: APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL IN ACCORDANCE WITH COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
NO. 24C.02
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan and Ordinance 04-02 (hereinafter "Expenditure
Plan") includes $80,400,000 in 2004 dollars, for the MAJOR STREETS: TRAFFIC FLOW, SAFETY AND CAPACITY
IMPROVEMENTS funding category; and
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (hereinafter "Authority") and the City of Pleasant Hill have entered
into Cooperative Agreement No. 24C.02 regarding the funding of projects eligible under the MAJOR STREETS: TRAFFIC
FLOW, SAFETY AND CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS funding category; and
WHEREAS, in February 2013, the Authority appropriated $783,000 to the City of Pleasant Hill for construction and
construction management of the Contra Costa Blvd Improvements project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill has submitted a Request for Appropriation of additional Funds dated December 2,
2013, and an overall financial plan for the project pursuant to the above referenced Cooperative Agreement; and
WHEREAS, funds are included in the Authority's budget in item SPP24.C.24026; therefore be it
RESOLVED, (1) that the Authority finds the Request for Appropriation of Funds consistent with the Expenditure Plan
and with Cooperative Agreement No. 24C.02;
(2) that the Authority appropriates $92,000 to the City of Pleasant Hill pursuant to the scope of work and
conditions set forth in Attachment A of this RESOLUTION, which is incorporated herein as though set
forth at length;
(3) that funds will be disbursed to the City of Pleasant Hill in accordance with the provisions of
Cooperative Agreement No. 24C.02 but not to exceed, on an annual basis, the amounts programmed by
fiscal year, as shown in the Program of Projects in the 2013 Measure J Strategic Plan as amended; and
(4) that this appropriation shall expire three years from authorization date; and
(5) that this RESOLUTION is incorporated into Exhibit A of Cooperative Agreement No. 24C.02, which is
enclosed as Attachment B to this RESOLUTION.
__________________________________
Janet Abelson, Chair
This RESOLUTION was entered into at a meeting
of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
held January 15, 2014 in Walnut Creek, California
Attest: ___________________________________
Danice J. Rosenbohm, Executive Secretary
Attachments: "A" - Scope of Work and Conditions
"B" - Updated Exhibit A of Coop. Agrmt. No. 24C.02
Attachment E
2.A.6-23
Date: January 15, 2014
Resolution: 13-03-P (rev-1)
Resolution adopted: Coop Agreement: 24C.02
Proponent: City of Pleasant Hill
Resolution revised: Amount: $92,000
ATTACHMENT A
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION 13-03-P (rev- 1)
Date: January 15, 2014
Amount of Funds: $92,000
Appropriated to: City of Pleasant Hill
Program Category: MAJOR STREETS: TRAFFIC FLOW, SAFETY AND CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS
Specific Project: Contra Costa Blvd Improvements
Appropriated For: Construction and Construction Administration
Scope of Work: Construction and Construction Administration (CM, Material Testing, Survey staking, staff charges, etc.)
Other Conditions: None
Staff Comments: None
Total funds Programmed in the 2013 Measure J Strategic Plan (x 1000):
Period Nominal Dollars
FY 13 0
FY 14 1249
FY 15 0
Total 1,249
Total authorization to date:
Total funds appropriated to date under Cooperative Agreement 24C.02 for the Contra Costa Blvd Improvements are $1,249,000.
2.A.6-24
Date: January 15, 2014
Resolution: 13-03-P (rev-1)
Resolution adopted: Coop Agreement: 24C.02
Proponent: City of Pleasant Hill
Resolution revised: Amount: $92,000
ATTACHMENT B
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 24C.02 between the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the City of Pleasant Hill
EXHIBIT A
Chronological Listing of Fund Appropriation Resolutions
Project Resolution Number Date Funds Appropriated Cumulative Total Number
24006 10-15-P 5/19/2010 700,000 700,000
10-49-P 11/17/2010 2,900,000 3,600,000
12-63-P 11/14/2012 7,532,950 11,132,950
24007 11-09-P 4/20/2011 1,054,000 12,186,950
12-51-P 9/19/2012 470,000 12,656,950
13-43-P 9/18/2013 7,876,000 20,532,950
24026 11-41-P 10/19/2011 130,000 20,662,950
11-42-P 10/19/2011 330,000 20,992,950
11-41-P (rev-1) 2/20/2013 (3,294) 20,989,656
11-42-P (rev-1) 2/20/2013 (82,706) 20,906,950
13-03-P 2/20/2013 783,000 21,689,950
13-03-P (rev-1) 1/15/2014 92,000 21,781,950
TOTAL FUNDS APPROPRIATED: 21,781,950
2.A.6-25
2999 Oak Road Walnut Creek, CA 94597 (925) 256.4700 www.ccta.net
Contra Costa Boulevard is the longest regional
arterial in the City of Pleasant Hill, with an average
daily traffi c volume of over 30,000 vehicles. The
corridor traverses commercial and business centers it
the City (e.g. Downtown Pleasant Hill and Sun Valley
Mall), and it provides vital access to key educational
facilities (e.g. Diablo Valley College). The current
roadway confi guration was designed back in the
1940s and 1960s and is in need of redesign and
improvement.
The project will greatly improve the overall traffi c
circulation along Contra Costa Boulevard, and
provide a much needed bike lane along the corridor.
The improvements will also be designed specifi cally
to address the various vehicle/bicycle/pedestrian
operational issues that currently exist along the
Contra Costa Boulevard corridor.
Contra Costa Boulevard (CCB)
was previously known as Contra
Costa Highway 21 and served the
county for many years. With the
construction of I-680, State-aided
construction was approved to make
CCB four lanes from Boyd Road to
Taylor Blvd to serve as a freeway
bypass while construction of the
section between Monument and
Willow Pass Road was completed
in 1964.
Did You Know?
Contra Costa Boulevard Improvements
PROJECT #24026
2.A.6-26
Attachment F
2999 Oak Road Walnut Creek, CA 94597 (925) 256.4700 www.ccta.net
Source ($ in millions) Amount
Measure J $ 1.2
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $ 1.2
Local Funds $ 1.6
Measure J Subregional Transportation Needs
(TRANSPAC)$ 0.8
Total Project Cost $ 4.8
DESCRIPTION
The project scope consists of intersection geometry
modifi cations, traffi c signal upgrades, sidewalk repair or
installation, ADA curb ramp installation, bike lane striping,
median island modifi cation, street light replacement and
landscape improvements along Contra Costa Boulevard
between Chilpancingo Parkway and Viking Drive.
STATUS
Design is complete.
Contra Costa Boulevard Improvements (cont.)
PROJECT #24026
SPONSOR
City of Pleasant Hill
LOCATION
Pleasant Hill and Concord
SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY STUDIES/PLANNING: Completed
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: Completed
DESIGN: Completed
RIGHT-OF-WAY: Completed
CONSTRUCTION: Spring ‘14 - Fall‘14
CONTACT
City of Pleasant Hill
Mario Moreno
Engineering Division Manager
(925) 671-5252
mmoreno@ci.pleasant-hill.ca.us
FUNDING PLAN
2.A.6-27
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2013
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Projects - APC Items\02A7 - SR4 Sand Creek Rd I-C & 4-Lane Widenining Res 12-12-P Amendment BL.docx
Subject State Route 4 (SR4) Bypass: Widen to Four Lanes – Laurel Road to Sand
Creek and Sand Creek Road Interchange (Project 5002/5003) – Amend
Resolution for Construction Contract No. 337 to Increase the
Construction Allotment
Summary of Issues In April 2012, the Authority awarded the construction contract for the
State Route 4 Bypass: Widen to Four Lanes – Laurel Road to Sand Creek
and Sand Creek Road Interchange project (PROJECT) to
Bay/Cities/Myers JV; and established the Construction Allotment
consisting of the construction contract bid amount, supplemental funds,
owner-furnished materials and contingency at $26,862,792 to be
funded from California Transportation Commission allocated State
Proposition 1B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account .
In September 2013 the Authority approved going forward with the
Contract Change Order for the second Sand Creek Road Undercrossing
(in the westbound direction) to be funded from approved Amendment
No. 5 to the Measure J 2011 Strategic Plan that reprograms $5 million to
the Project. The Contract Change Order was executed in December
2013.
Recommendations Staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-12-P (Rev. 1) to increase
the Construction Allotment from $26,862,792 to $31,323,339.
Financial Implications The 2013 Measure J Strategic Plan contains sufficient funds
programmed for this project to fund this request.
Options N/A
Attachments A. Resolution 12-12-P, Rev. 1
Changes from
Committee
N/A
2.A.7-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 2 of 2
Background
At the time of contract award, the Authority established the Construction Allotment consisting
of the construction contract bid amount, supplemental funds, owner -furnished materials and
contingency at $26,862,792 to be funded from the California Transportation Commission
allocated State Proposition 1B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account , and construction
started in June 2012.
In July 2013, the Authority approved Amendment No. 5 to the Measure J 2011 Strategic Plan
that reprograms $5 million to the State Route 4 Bypass: Widen to Four Lanes – Laurel Road to
Sand Creek and Sand Creek Road Interchange project to complete the funding of a Contract
Change Order to add the construction of the second Sand Creek Road Undercrossing (in the
westbound direction). In September 2013 the Authority approved going forward with the
Contract Change Order, and the Contract Change Order was executed in December 2013.
Amended construction allotment will be as follows:
Amended
Construction
Allotment (as of
January 15, 2014) Fund Source
Bid Items $ 23,500,000 CMIA
All Approved and Pending CCOs $ 936,551 CMIA
State Furnished Material $ -
Supplemental work (or funds) $ -
CCO for second Sand Creek Rd Bridge $ 6,357,186 $4,470398 Measure J, $1,886,788 CMIA
Approx. 7% Contingency (remaining work)* $ 529,602 Measure J
TOTAL $ 31,323,339
2.A.7-2
RESOLUTION 12-12-P (Rev. 1)
RE: AMEND RESOLUTION FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR STATE ROUTE 4 BYPASS:
WIDEN TO FOUR LANES – LAUREL ROAD TO SAND CREEK & SAND CREEK ROAD
INTERCHANGE (PROJECT 5002/5003) PROJECT — CONTRACT No. 337
WHEREAS, under Resolution 12-12-P, the Authority awarded the construction contract for the
State Route 4 Bypass: Widen to Four Lanes – Laurel Road to Sand Creek & Sand Creek Road
Interchange project (PROJECT) to Bay/Cities/Myers JV; and
WHEREAS, also under Resolution 12-12-P, the Authority established the Construction Allotment
consisting of the construction contract bid amount, supplemental funds, owner -furnished
materials and contingency at $26,862,792 to be funded from California Transportation
Commission allocated State Proposition 1B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account ; and
WHEREAS, construction started in June 2012; and
WHEREAS, in September 2013 the Authority approved going forward with the Contract Change
Order to add a second bridge at Sand Creek Road, and the Contract Change Order was executed
in December 2013, and
WHEREAS, in July 2013, the Authority approved Amendment No. 5 to the Measure J 2011
Strategic Plan that reprograms $5 million to the State Route 4 Bypass: Widen to Four Lanes –
Laurel Road to Sand Creek & Sand Creek Road Interchange project to complete funding a
Contract Change Order to add the construction of the second Sand Creek Road Undercrossing
(in the westbound direction); and
THEREFORE NOW BE IT RESOLVED, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority hereby:
Amends Resolution 12-12-P to increase the Construction Allotment to $31,323,339 to fund the
work of the original contract and the Contract Change Order. The amended Construction
Allotment will be as follows:
2.A.7-3
Attachment A
Amended
Construction
Allotment (as of
January 15, 2014) Fund Source
Bid Items $ 23,500,000 CMIA
All Approved and Pending CCOs $ 936,551 CMIA
State Furnished Material $ -
Supplemental work (or funds) $ -
CCO for second Sand Creek Rd Bridge $ 6,357,186 $4,470398 Measure J, $1,886,788 CMIA
Approx. 7% Contingency (for all remaining
work)* $ 529,602 Measure J
TOTAL $ 31,323,339
_______________________________
Janet Abelson, Chair
This RESOLUTION was entered into at a
meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority held January 15, 2014 in Walnut
Creek, California.
Attest: _________________________________
Danice J. Rosenbohm, Executive Secretary
2.A.7-4
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2013
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Projects - APC Items\02A8 SB751 Requirement.docx
Subject Senate Bill 751
Summary of Issues Senate Bill 751, which takes effect on January 1, 2014, requires all
agencies to publicly report the vote of all Board members.
Recommendations Legal requirement – for information only
Financial Implications None
Options N/A
Attachments A. Memo dated December 23, 2013 from Best Best & Krieger
RE: SB 751
Changes from
Committee
N/A
Background
2.A.8-1
See attached.
38043.10000\8501592.1
To: Contra Costa Transportation Authority
From: Best Best & Krieger LLP
Date: December 23, 2013
Re: SB 751: New Law Requires Agencies to Publicly Announce Votes
BACKGROUND
The Legislature recently adopted Senate Bill 751, and this new law will take effect on
January 1st. SB 751 requires all agencies to publicly report the vote of all Board members.
While this does not require the Authority to conduct a roll-call vote for all matters, agencies must
ensure that it is clear how each Board member voted on each matter. If the vote is unanimous,
this will be very easy. However, if there are dissenting votes, the Chairperson or Clerk may need
to publicly announce the dissenting votes and clarify which member dissented if it is unclear. In
addition, all votes should be reflected in the meeting minutes.
ANALYSIS
S.B. 751 amends Government Code section 54953 to require that “…[t]he legislative
body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention of that
action of each member present for the action.” The legislative history of S.B. 751 indicates that
the Legislature was concerned that it had become difficult for members of the public to
accurately track the votes of individual members, especially for larger boards and councils. The
intent of this bill was to avoid this confusion so it was clear how each member voted. (See
Senate Floor Analysis of S.B. 751 (August 13, 2013), p. 2.)
Some have questioned whether S.B. 751 will require agencies to conduct all votes by roll
call. Roll call votes are most likely not required for two reasons. First, section 54953 requires
that agencies simply “publicly report” votes. By contrast, the section explicitly requires a “roll
call” vote for actions taken during a teleconference meeting. The use of these different terms is
most likely intentional, and a formal roll call vote is not required for all votes. Second, nothing
in the legislative history indicates an intent to require a formal roll call vote. Rather, the
Legislature was simply concerned with ensuring the public could accurately track votes.
In light of this, the Authority will need to ensure that beginning January 1st the votes of
each Board member is accurately recorded. Theses votes should be recorded in the meeting
minutes. If a vote is unanimous, this will be easy to report as unanimously approved. However,
if there are dissenting votes, the Authority will need to ensure it is clear who dissented. This can
be difficult with simultaneous “ay” or “nay” votes, and the Chairperson or Clerk may need to
clarify after votes how each person voted or at least who dissented. If there is a split vote, the
Chairperson should first ensure he or she knows who dissented and then report the action. For
example, a 3-2 vote could be reported as “Motion passes 3-2, Board members Smith and Jones
dissenting.”
2.A.8-2
Attachment A
- 2 -
38043.10000\8501592.1
We hope this has been helpful in explaining the new requirements of S.B. 751. Please let
me know if you have any questions.
MALA SUBRAMANIAN
2.A.8-3
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2014
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Projects - APC Items\02A9 - eBART STIP Subst.docx
Subject East Contra Costa Rail Extension (eBART) (Project 2001) – Request
to Substitute State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Funds
Summary of Issues The eBART project has currently $13 million in federalized STIP funds
that are not available until July 1, 2015. BART needs the STIP funds
now in order to fully fund the eBART Maintenance Facility
Completion, Trackwork, Systems and Station Finishes Contract (04SF -
130).
Since it is unlikely that the California Transportation Commission
(CTC) will be able to advance the STIP funds, BART is proposing to
provide $13 million in local/state funds to eBART in return for
programming the $13 million in federalized STIP funds on another
BART project (Station Modernization project).
Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the fund substitution in order to keep
the eBART project on schedule.
Financial Implications None
Options The Authority could decline the STIP fund substitution, resulting in
potential delays to the eBART project.
Attachments A. Letter from BART dated December 24, 2013
Changes from Committee N/A
Background
The eBART project has currently $13 million programmed in the STIP that are not available until
July 1, 2015. BART needs the STIP funds now in order to fully fund the eBART Maintenance
Facility Completion, Trackwork, Systems and Station Finishes Contract (04SF-130). In addition,
since the eBART project is not federalized, the substituted funds must be from local/state-only
sources.
2.A.9-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 2 of 2
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Projects - APC Items\02A9 - eBART STIP Subst.docx
Since it is unlikely that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) will be able to advance
the STIP funds, or provide State-only funds, BART is proposing to provide $13 million in
local/state funds to the eBART Project in return for programming the $13 million in FY2015-16
STIP funds on another BART project (Station Modernization project).
In November 2013, the Authority appropriated $30.856 million in Measure J funds for Contract
04SF-130. The contract will be funded from multiple sources including ECCRFFA ($20 million),
STIP ($13 million substituted), Local ($0.8 million), and AB1171 Bridge Tolls ($11.9 million), for a
total estimated cost of $76.6 million.
2.A.9-2
2.A.9-3
Attachment A
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2014
Subject Hercules Intermodal Transit Center (Project 4001) - Authorization to
Execute Agreement No. 383 with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. for
Construction Management Services
Summary of Issues Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. was selected to provide construction
management services under RFP/RFQ 11-8 for the Hercules Intermodal
Transit Center (ITC).
At the Authority Board meeting on November 20, 2013, approval was
given for staff to begin negotiation on scope and fee, and once
negotiated, issue a Notice-to-Proceed (NTP) in an amount not to exceed
$100,000.
The NTP was issued on November 21, 2013.
Staff has concluded its negotiations with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. on
scope and fee.
Recommendations Staff recommends authorization for the chair to execute Agreement
No. 383 with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. for construction management
services in the amount of $995,000 with a term of the agreement
through December 31, 2016.
Financial Implications All costs incurred by the Authority or its consultants will be reimbursed
by the City of Hercules and/or will be charged directly to the Measure J
funds programmed for the ITC project.
Options The Board could elect not to approve this request. However,
construction of the project has been underway since July 2013, and
Ghirardelli Associates is currently operating under a limited NTP.
Construction management services are needed to continue
administration of the construction contract.
Attachments A. Construction Management Scope of Services
2.A.12-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 2 of 2
B. Cost Proposal dated December 16, 2013
Changes from
Committee
N/A
Background
Based on the evaluation performed under RFP/RFQ 11-8, a ranked consultant eligibility list for
construction management services was established in September 2011. The next three highest
ranked firms remaining on the list submitted proposals for the construction management
services for the San Francisco Bay Trail element of the Hercules ITC project. Staff interviewed
the three teams on November 12, 2013. Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. was selected as the most
qualified to perform the required services.
At the Authority Board meeting on November 20, 2013, approval was given for staff to begin
negotiation on scope and fee and once negotiated, issue a Notice-to-Proceed (NTP) in an
amount not to exceed $100,000. The NTP was issued on November 21, 2013.
Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. has developed a scope and fee proposal for the project which are
included as Attachment A and Attachment B.
On July 29, 2013, the construction contract for the San Francisco Bay Trail Element of the
project was awarded by the City of Hercules. Through Agreement No. 04W.02 with the City of
Hercules, the Authority will administer this construction contract and the following Utility
Relocation contract. In addition, the City of Hercules is requesting that the Authority advertise,
award and administer (AAA) the two subsequent construction contracts: the Path to Transit and
the Transit Loop.
The San Francisco Bay Trail Element of the Hercules ITC project will close the gap from the
Hercules ITC to the City of Rodeo, and provide preparation work for the rail station track
located in the Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way. The work will consist, in general, of
earthwork, paving, constructing retaining walls, landscaping, and relocating utility lines.
2.A.12-2
Attachment A
Scope of Services
City of Hercules Intermodal Transit Center
San Francisco Bay Trail Project
Federal-Aid Project No. TGR2DGL5117(011)
Pre-Construction Services
None Required
Construction Phase
1. Document Control
a. Maintain project files in accordance with LAPM procedures
2. Labor Compliance
a. Track/review contractor’s certified payrolls
b. Perform Labor compliance interviews
3. Construction Inspection
a. Prepare daily reports
b. Take project photos
c. Inspection of contractor work for compliance with contract documents
d. Document non-conforming work and corrective action
4. Change Order Preparation and Processing
a. Evaluate contractor change order requests
b. Negotiate change orders
c. Prepare/process change order documents
5. Claims Review and Analysis
a. Review/analyze contractor notice of potential claims
b. Respond to and document City’s position on notice of potential claims
c. Review and respond to construction claims
6. Schedule Review
a. Review/approve contractor’s baseline schedule submittal
b. Review/approve contractor’s monthly updates
c. Review/approve Contractor’s time impact evaluations (TIE)
7. Submittals
a. Review/track/approve contractor’s submittals
2.A.12-3
Attachment A
8. RFIs
a. Review/track/approve contractor’s RFIs
9. Project Meetings
a. Attend weekly progress meetings
b. Attend monthly schedule meetings
c. Attend monthly progress payment meetings
d. Attend monthly change order meetings
e. Attend other meetings as required
f. Prepare meeting agendas and minutes
10. Progress Payments
a. Review Contractor monthly invoices
b. Prepare independent quantity calculation sheets for all quantities paid
c. Segregate monthly progress payments by funding source as required
11. Safety
a. Review contactor’s safety procedures
b. Perform monthly project site safety review
c. Document safety issues and verify corrective measures have been taken
12. Third Party Coordination
a. Coordinate with all third party stakeholders including
i. Kinder Morgan
ii. Shell Oil
iii. East Bay Regional Park District
iv. Environmental agencies
b. Monitor compliance with third party permits
13. Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP)
a. Review and approve SWPPP plans and amendments
b. Perform weekly site inspections for SWPPP compliance
14. Material Testing
a. Perform QA material testing in accordance with Caltrans LAPM and Caltrans
Construction Manual requirements
b. Document all material test results
c. Document non-conforming test results and corrective action taken
15. Source Inspection
a. Perform source inspection for material fabricated off-site in accordance with
LAPM and Caltrans Construction Manual requirements
16. Construction Staking
a. Perform construction staking in accordance with Chapter 12 of the Caltrans
Survey Manual
2.A.12-4
Attachment A
Post Construction-Project Close Out
1. Prepare As-builts
a. Maintain updated as-built plans in Ghirardelli field office
b. Review/approve Contractor’s as-built plans at project completion
2. Punchlist
a. Prepare punchlist
b. Document completion of puchlist items
3. Dispute/Claims Resolution
a. Resolve outstanding claims and disputes at contract completion
4. Proposed Final Estimate/Final Estimate
a. Prepare Proposed Final Estimate
b. Negotiate final payment with contractor
c. Prepare Final Estimate
5. Final Inspection
a. Coordinate final inspections with City and other third parties
b. Prepare final acceptance forms
6. Transfer Files to the City of Hercules
2.A.12-5
2.A.12-62.A.12-6
2.A.12-72.A.12-7
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2014
Subject Approval to Distribute the Final Measure J Calendar Year (CY) 2012 &
2013 Growth Management Program (GMP) Compliance Checklist for
Allocation of Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 and 2014-15 Local Street
Maintenance and Improvement Funds
Summary of Issues Staff has prepared the final Measure J CY 2012 & 2013 GMP Checklist
for release to local jurisdictions in January 2014. Jurisdictions will have
until June 30, 2015 to submit the checklist, which covers payment of
Measure J Local Street Maintenance and Improvement (LSM) Funds for
FY 2013-14 after July 1, 2014, and subsequent-year payment on the
anniversary of the first payment.
Recommendations Approve distribution of the Calendar Year 2012 & 2013 GMP Checklist
for distribution to local jurisdictions.
Financial Implications Approximately $13.6 million in 18 percent LSM funds is expected to be
available for FY 2013-14 for payment to local jurisdictions found to be in
compliance with the GMP. The precise amount will be known after June
30, 2014.
Options N/A
Attachments A. Final Draft Measure J CY 2012 & 2013 GMP Compliance Checklist.
B. Comments from TRANSPAC, December 16, 2013.
Changes from
Committee
N/A
Background
The Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP), as amended, requires that every two
years the Authority allocate LSM funds to cities, towns and the county, subject to submission of
a Statement of Compliance by the local jurisdiction and findings made by the Authority.
2.B.1-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 2 of 4
The Biennial Compliance Checklist provides a vehicle for measuring local jurisdictions’
fulfillment of the requirements of the Growth Management Program. The last compliance
review cycle covered the CY 2010 & 2011 reporting period. Jurisdictions in compliance with the
CY 2010 & 2011 checklist received FY 2011-12 LSM funds, with the second-year’s funding, also
known as the “off year” (in this case, FY 2012-13) allocated automatically on the one-year
anniversary of the first year’s allocation.
Attachment A includes the Draft-Final CY 2012 & 2013 GMP Checklist for distribution to local
jurisdictions. In accordance with Authority Resolution 01-01-G (rev. 1) staff recommends that
the Authority distribute the Checklist at the end of January 2014.
The requirements of the Checklist may be summarized as follows:
Action Plans: Local jurisdictions are asked to summarize steps taken during the
reporting period to implement the actions, programs, and measures called for in the
applicable Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance.
Development Mitigation Program. Local jurisdictions must report on the status of their
existing Development Mitigation Programs which consist of two parts: a local program
to mitigate development impacts on non-regional routes, and a regional program
developed by the relevant Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC) that
establishes fees, exactions, assessments, or other measures to fund regional and
subregional transportation projects.
Housing Options. Each jurisdiction must demonstrate reasonable progress in achieving
the objectives in its Housing Element. The jurisdiction must complete a report that
illustrates this progress in various ways. This report may be provided in the form of the
annual housing report that the local jurisdiction submits to the state Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD). Additionally, jurisdictions must
incorporate policies and standards to support transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access in
new development.
Traffic Impact Studies: This question pertains to the preparation of traffic impact
studies. As part of the development review process, each local jurisdiction is required to
prepare a study for projects estimated to generate more than 100 net new peak -hour
vehicle trips (Note: lower thresholds may apply).
Participation in Cooperative, Multi-Jurisdictional Planning. Each jurisdiction must
continue its current efforts to participate in an ongoing, multi-jurisdictional, cooperative
planning process through the RTPCs.
2.B.1-2
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 3 of 4
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. Jurisdictions must continue to prepare five-
year capital improvement programs, including approved projects and an analysis of the
costs of proposed projects. The program must outline a financial plan for providing
proposed improvements.
Transportation Systems Management Program. Also known as “TDM,” (Transportation
Demand Management), local jurisdictions are required to adopt a TSM/TDM ordinance
or resolution that is consistent with the Authority’s “model” to promote the use of
transit, ridesharing, bicycling, walking, flexible work hours, and telecommuting as
alternative to solo driving. Cites/Towns that do not have a large employment base may
use an alternative approach other than an Ordinance/Resolution.
Maintenance of Effort (MoE). Measure J requires that local jurisdictions use Measure J
LSM funds for roadway maintenance and improvement projects that are above and
beyond a set amount of expenditures established in the original Measure C Ordinance
based upon historical general fund expenditures. Backfilling the General Fund with
Measure J LSM funds is prohibited.
Posting of Signs. For projects exceeding $250,000 that are funded in whole or in part
with Measure J funds, a sign must be posted, acknowledging that the project is funded
by Measure J. Sign specifications are provided by the Authority.
Growth Management Element. In the last reporting cycle, local jurisdictions were
required to update their Growth Management Elements (GME) based upon the new
Model Growth Management Element created by the Authority. The GME is the
jurisdiction’s main platform for outlining goals and policies for managing growth and
requirements for achieving those goals. Jurisdictions are encouraged to supplement
their GMEs with any elements outside of the Model GME that may be helpful in
achieving the objectives of the Growth Management Program as well as local General
Plan goals and policies. At present, all of the local jurisdictions have completed the
updates required under Measure J.
Urban Limit Line (ULL). Jurisdictions must have a voter-approved ULL to be considered
in compliance with the Measure J GMP. The ULL may conform to the countywide line, or
a jurisdiction may adopt its own Local Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line to fulfill this
requirement.
2.B.1-3
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 4 of 4
Comments Received
The draft CY 2012 & 2013 Checklist was circulated for review in October 2013. Comments were
received from TRANSPAC. In addition, the Authority’s Growth Management Program (GMP)
Task Force convened on December 18th, 2013 to review the Checklist.
TRANSPAC Comments: In a letter dated December 16th, TRANSPAC supported the
incorporation of the spirit of the changes recommended in a memorandum from
November 7, 2013 (see Attachment B). These changes were primarily with regard to the
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Program. A first suggestion was to
exchange the work “Systems” with “Demand.” A second request was to delete
reference to the provision in Measure J that allows cities with small employment bases
to adopt alternative mitigation measures in lieu of a TSM ordinance or resolution. The
TRANSPAC letter supports incorporation of the “spirit of the changes”, presumably in
recognition of the fact that changing the terminology, or omitting the reference (to
alternative measures) would be in conflict with the voter -approved language of the
Measure J GMP. Accordingly, staff defers these changes to the upcoming work on
amending the TSM Ordinance/Resolution, where the spirit of these suggestions could be
worked in by the 511 Coordinating Committee. Authority staff recommends keeping the
Checklist language true to the voter-approved ballot measure.
GMP Task Force Comments: The GMP Task Force had a number of comments and
questions, ranging from the electronic format used in the web -based version, to
questions about the Housing Report requirements. These are being addressed t hrough
updates to the Authority’s website, where the Checklist files will be available in a more
user-friendly environment, and changes to the Checklist instructions, which are
currently under revision and will be posted when the new Checklist is distributed.
Next steps
Following distribution of the checklist, local jurisdictions may submit their co mpleted Checklists
as early as April 1, 2014 for allocation of FY 2013-14 funds after July 2014. The Checklist is due
no later than June 30, 2015. Payment of the “off-year” FY 2014-15 LSM funds occurs
automatically on the anniversary of the first year’s payment.
2.B.1-4
Compliance Checklist – DRAFT FINAL
Reporting Jurisdiction: _______________________________________
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 1
Measure J Growth Management Program Compliance Checklist
1. Action Plans YES NO N/A
a. Is the jurisdiction implementing the actions called for in the
applicable Action Plan for all designated Routes of Regional
Significance within the jurisdiction?
b. Has the jurisdiction implemented the following procedures as
outlined in the Implementation Guide and the applicable Action Plan
for Routes of Regional Significance?
i. Circulation of environmental documents,
ii. Analysis of the impacts of proposed General Plan amendments
and recommendation of changes to Action Plans, and
iii. Conditioning the approval of projects consistent with Action
Plan policies?
c. Has the jurisdiction followed the procedures for RTPC review of
General Plan Amendments as called for in the Implementation
Guide?
2. Development Mitigation Program YES NO
a. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented a local development
mitigation program to ensure that new development pays its fair
share of the impact mitigation costs associated with that
development?
b. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented the regional
transportation mitigation program, developed and adopted by the
applicable Regional Transportation Planning Committee, including
any regional traffic mitigation fees, assessments, or other
mitigation as appropriate?
2.B.1-5
Attachment A
Compliance Checklist – DRAFT FINAL
Reporting Jurisdiction: _______________________________________
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 2
3. Housing Options and Job Opportunities YES NO
a. Has the jurisdiction prepared and submitted a report to the
Authority demonstrating reasonable progress in providing housing
opportunities for all income levels under its Housing Element? The
report can demonstrate progress by
(1) comparing the number of housing units approved, constructed
or occupied within the jurisdiction over the preceding five
years with the number of units needed on average each year to
meet the housing objectives established in its Housing Element;
or
(2) illustrating how the jurisdiction has adequately planned to meet
the existing and projected housing needs through the adoption
of land use plans and regulatory systems which provide
opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing
development; or
(3) illustrating how its General Plan and zoning regulations
facilitate improvement or development of sufficient housing to
meet the Element’s objectives.
Note: A copy of the local jurisdiction’s annual report to the state
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is
sufficient.
b. Does the jurisdiction’s General Plan—or other adopted policy
document or report—consider the impacts that its land use and
development policies have on the local, regional and countywide
transportation system, including the level of transportation
capacity that can reasonably be provided?
c. Has the jurisdiction incorporated policies and standards into its
development approval process that support transit, bicycle and
pedestrian access in new developments?
2.B.1-6
Compliance Checklist – DRAFT FINAL
Reporting Jurisdiction: _______________________________________
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 3
4. Traffic Impact Studies YES NO N/A
a. Using the Authority’s Technical Procedures, have traffic impact
studies been conducted as part of development review for all
projects estimated to generate more than 100 net new peak-hour
vehicle trips? (Note: Lower traffic generation thresholds
established through the RTPC’s Action Plan may apply).
b. If the answer to 4.a. above is “yes”, did the local jurisdiction notify
affected parties and circulate the traffic impact study during the
environmental review process?
5. Participation in Cooperative, Multi-Jurisdictional
Planning YES NO
a. During the reporting period, has the jurisdiction’s Council/Board
representative regularly participated in meetings of the
appropriate Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC),
and have the jurisdiction’s local representatives to the RTPC
regularly reported on the activities of the Regional Committee to
the jurisdiction's council or board? (Note: Each RTPC should have a
policy that defines what constitutes regular attendance of
Council/Board members at RTPC meetings.)
b. Has the local jurisdiction worked with the RTPC to develop and
implement the Action Plans, including identification of Routes of
Regional Significance, establishing Multimodal Transportation
Service Objectives (MTSOs) for those routes, and defining actions
for achieving the MTSOs?
c. Has the local jurisdiction applied the Authority’s travel demand
model and Technical Procedures to the analysis of General Plan
Amendments (GPAs) and developments exceeding specified
thresholds for their effect on the regional transportation system,
including on Action Plan MTSOs?
2.B.1-7
Compliance Checklist – DRAFT FINAL
Reporting Jurisdiction: _______________________________________
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 4
YES NO
d. As needed, has the jurisdiction made available, as input into the
countywide transportation computer model, data on proposed
improvements to the jurisdiction’s transportation system, including
roadways, pedestrian circulation, bikeways and trails, planned and
improved development within the jurisdiction, and traffic patterns?
6. Five-Year Capital Improvement Program YES NO
Does the jurisdiction have an adopted five-year capital
improvement program (CIP) that includes approved projects and
an analysis of project costs as well as a financial plan for providing
the improvements? (The transportation component of the plan
must be forwarded to the Authority for incorporation into the
Authority’s database of transportation projects)
7. Transportation Systems Management Program YES NO
Has the jurisdiction adopted a transportation systems management
ordinance or resolution that incorporates required policies
consistent with the updated model ordinance prepared by the
Authority for use by local agencies or qualified for adoption of
alternative mitigation measures because it has a small employment
base?
8. Maintenance of Effort (MoE) YES NO
Has the jurisdiction met the MoE requirements of Measure J as
stated in Section 6 of the Contra Costa Transportation
Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance (as amended)?
(See the Checklist Instructions for a listing of MoE requirements by
local jurisdiction.)
2.B.1-8
Compliance Checklist – DRAFT FINAL
Reporting Jurisdiction: _______________________________________
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 5
9. Posting of Signs YES NO N/A
Has the jurisdiction posted signs meeting Authority specifications
for all projects exceeding $250,000 that are funded, in whole or in
part, with Measure C or Measure J funds?
10. Adoption of the Measure J Growth Management
Element YES NO N/A
Has the local jurisdiction adopted a final GME for its General Plan
that substantially complies with the intent of the Authority’s
adopted Measure J Model GME?
11. Adoption of a voter-approved Urban Limit Line YES NO N/A
a. Has the local jurisdiction adopted and continually complied with an
applicable voter-approved Urban Limit Line as outlined in the
Authority’s annual ULL Policy Advisory Letter?
b. If the jurisdiction has modified its voter-approved ULL or approved
a major subdivision or General Plan Amendment outside the ULL,
has the jurisdiction made a finding of consistency with the
Measure J provisions on ULLs and criteria in the ULL Policy
Advisory Letter after holding a noticed public hearing and making
the proposed finding publically available?
12. Other Considerations YES NO N/A
If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure J have
been satisfied in a way not indicated on this checklist, has an
explanation been attached below?
2.B.1-9
Compliance Checklist – DRAFT FINAL
Reporting Jurisdiction: _______________________________________
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 6
13. Review and Approval of Checklist
This checklist was prepared by:
Signature Date
Name & Title (print)
Phone Email
The council/board of ___________ has reviewed the completed checklist and found
that the policies and programs of the jurisdiction as reported herein conform to the requirements
for compliance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management
Program.
Certified Signature (Mayor or Chair) Date
Name & Title (print)
Attest Signature (City/Town/County Clerk) Date
Name (print)
2.B.1-10
Compliance Checklist Attachments
Reporting Jurisdiction: _______________________________________
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 7
Supplementary Information (Required)
1. Action Plans
a. Please summarize steps taken during the reporting period to implement the actions,
programs, and measures called for in the applicable Action Plans for Routes of Regional
Significance:
b. Attach, list and briefly describe any General Plan Amendments that were approved during the
reporting period. Please specify which amendments affected ability to meet the standards in
the Growth Management Element and/or affected ability to implement Action Plan policies or
meet Traffic Service Objectives. Indicate if amendments were forwarded to the jurisdiction’s
RTPC for review, and describe the results of that review relative to Action Plan
implementation:
Provide a summary list of projects approved during the reporting period and the conditions
required for consistency with the Action Plan:
2. Development Mitigation Program
a. Describe progress on implementation of the regional transportation mitigation program:
3. Housing Options and Job Opportunities
a. Please attach a report demonstrating reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities
for all income levels. (Note: A copy of the local jurisdiction’s annual report to the state
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is sufficient).
2.B.1-11
Compliance Checklist Attachments
Reporting Jurisdiction: _______________________________________
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 8
c. Please attach the jurisdiction’s adopted policies and standards that ensure consideration of
and support for walking, bicycling, and transit access during the review of proposed
development.
4. Traffic Impact Studies
Please list all traffic impact studies that have been conducted as part of the development
review of any project that generated more than 100 net new peak hour vehicle trips. (Note:
Lower traffic generation thresholds established through the RTPC’s Action Plan may apply).
Note whether the study was consistent with the Authority’s Technical Procedures and whether
notification and circulation was undertaken during the environmental review process.
5. Participation in Cooperative, Multi-Jurisdictional Planning
No attachments necessary.
6. Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
Please attach the transportation component of the most recent CIP version, if the Authority
does not already have it. Otherwise, list the resolution number and date of adoption of the
most recent five-year CIP.
7. Transportation Systems Management Program
Please attach a copy of the jurisdiction’s TSM ordinance, or list the date of ordinance or
resolution adoption and its number.
2.B.1-12
Compliance Checklist Attachments
Reporting Jurisdiction: _______________________________________
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 9
8. Maintenance of Effort (MoE)
Please indicate the jurisdiction’s MoE requirement and MoE expenditures for the past two
fiscal years (FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11). See the Instructions to identify the MoE
requirements.
9. Posting of Signs
Provide a list of all projects exceeding $250,000 within the jurisdiction, noting which ones are
or were signed according to Authority specifications.
10. Adoption of the Measure J Growth Management Element
Please attach the adopted Final Measure J Growth Management Element to the local
jurisdiction’s General Plan.
11. Adoption of a voter-approved Urban Limit Line
The local jurisdiction’s adopted ULL is on file at the Authority offices. Please specify any
actions that were taken during the reporting period with regard to changes or modifications
to the voter-approved ULL, which should include a resolution making a finding of consistency
with Measure J and a copy of the related public hearing notice.
12. Other Considerations
Please specify any alternative methods of achieving compliance for any components for the
Measure J Growth Management Program
2.B.1-13
2.B.1-14
Attachment B
2.B.1-15
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2014
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Planning - PC Items\03B2-Brdltr.Mobility Management.doc
Subject Presentation Regarding the Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
Summary of Issues The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) prepared and
adopted a Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan and will
present it to the Authority for its consideration and adoption. The plan
identifies a need and provides a blueprint for Contra Costa to establish a
Mobility Management function.
Recommendations 1. Adopt the Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan as a blueprint
for a countywide mobility management function for
implementation;
2. Authorize Authority staff to work with MTC staff to redirect an
awarded New Freedom Cycle 3 Grant to begin implementation of
the mobility management function; and
3. Bring back to the Authority in Spring of 2014 details and options
for implementing the Mobility Management Plan.
Financial Implications The Authority was awarded a Federal New Freedom grant by MTC for
$96,000. The recommendation would redirect the use of these funds
from a web enabled database to the implementation of the Mobility
Management Plan.
Options 1. Adopt the plan with recommended revisions.
2. Adopt any combination of the three stated recommendations
3. Do not approve any recommendations
Attachments A. Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
Changes from
Committee
N/A
3.B.2-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 2 of 4
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Planning - PC Items\03B2-Brdltr.Mobility Management.doc
Background
In FY 2007-08 CCCTA was awarded a Cycle 2 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5317
“New Freedom” grant in the amount of $80,000 to develop a Mobility Management Plan to
include recommendations, goals, objectives, actions, timeline, and a funding plan for the
establishment of a Mobility Management Center. CCCTA applied for the funding on behalf of
multiple agencies countywide which met bi-monthly under the auspices of the Transportation
Alliance. The Transportation Alliance included all of the public transit operators that operate in
Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Health and Human Services staff, RTPC staff, and
staff from various social service agencies that provide transportation and CCTA. The purpose of
the group was to coordinate services and better transportation options for seniors, people with
disabilities, and low income families.
CCCTA agreed to submit an application with the understanding that the plan was to be a
countywide effort and not be restricted to the CCCTA service area. Matching funds to the grant
were provided by CCCTA, East Contra Costa Transit Authority (ECCTA) and West Contra Costa
Transit Authority (WCCTA).
What is Mobility Management?
“Mobility Management is the utilization of a broad mix of service delivery and support
strategies that are directed primarily at the travel needs of seniors, persons with disabilities,
and low income individuals. These strategies often integrate with and support other public
service solutions provided to the larger public transit and paratransit rider populations.
Mobility Management is not one solution but a toolkit of solutions that are tailored to the
service needs of the special population groups.”
Effective mobility management has been shown to reduce costs and increase service through
coordination of existing resources and the establishment of new programs, when necessary, to
enhance travel options for these populations. It is because of this that the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) has embraced the development and implementation of
mobility management throughout the Bay Area.
MTC, the programming agency for Federal New Freedom funds, has made mobility
management a priority in its criteria for evaluating New Freedom project applications. M TC has
also identified mobility management as a primary principle in addressing coordination and
efficiencies in paratransit services in its recommendations regarding sustainable paratransit
services in its Transit Sustainability Plan adopted by the Commission in May 2012.
3.B.2-2
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 3 of 4
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Planning - PC Items\03B2-Brdltr.Mobility Management.doc
The Mobility Management Plan
In January 2012, the County Connection entered into an agreement with Innovative Paradigms
to complete the resource inventory and develop a Mobility Management Plan. Since then,
Innovative Paradigms has conducted significant outreach including: interviews with transit
agencies, human service agencies, and advocates for seniors and the disabled. Additionally,
three countywide transportation summits were held and input was received from the public,
city and County staff, and the Contra Costa County Paratransit Coordinating Council. CCTA
staff worked closely with CCCTA throughout the Plan’s development.
Mobility management relates to administering functions associated with the mobility needs of
seniors and those with disabilities. These functions can include: travel training, improved ADA
eligibility, centralized maintenance, volunteer driver programs, centralized information,
technical assistance, etc.
To implement mobility management in Contra Costa County, the report recommends the
establishment of a Mobility Management Oversight Board to be staffed with executives from
County Connection, Tri-Delta Transit, WestCAT, AC Transit, Contra Costa Transportation
Authority, BART, and three executives representing human service agencies. This Board will
guide the formation of a mobility management program and will be responsible for securing
funding, hiring a mobility manager, and establishing by-laws and performance standards.
Ultimately it is envisioned that the mobility management “center” could implement several
programs that could aid in improving coordination and operating efficiencies of multiple
transportation providers.
Potential mobility management functions described in the plan include:
Travel Training: Create a program to teach bus riding skills on all county transit systems.
Improved ADA Eligibility Process: Institute a refined countywide ADA eligibility process,
possibly an in-person assessment approach, to improve the accuracy of the eligibility
determinations.
Agency Partnerships: Work with human service agencies so they can provide
transportation to their clients who currently use the ADA paratransit service operated
by the transit agencies.
Centralized Maintenance: Evaluate the viability of a centralized maintenance program
directed at serving the unique needs of the human service community who are
operating a variety of vehicles in their programs.
3.B.2-3
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 4 of 4
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Planning - PC Items\03B2-Brdltr.Mobility Management.doc
Volunteer Driver Program: Expand volunteer driver programs throughout the County as
an inexpensive means of serving difficult medical and other trip needs for seniors and
persons with disabilities.
Central Information Program: Expand information availability by making meaningful
resource information available through a central referral mechanism.
Advocacy Role of Mobility Management: Determine the level of advocacy appropriate
for a new Coordinated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) in Contra Costa County
and include the new agency in all transportation planning processes.
Technical Assistance Program: Include technical support as one of the services of the
newly created CTSA to assist the human service community and other agencies in
planning, grant management, and other technical functions.
Driver Training Program: Establish a professional and consistent driver training program
for human service agencies; offer driver training services relating to special needs
populations to existing paratransit providers.
Prior to implementation of any of the above services, a dedicated source of funding will need to
be identified to administer the program and pay for any services implemented. An initial role of
the Mobility Management Oversight Committee will be to identify long term funding
opportunities as well as a permanent agency structure.
CCCTA, as the grantee and lead agency on the development of the plan, adopted the Plan on
October 10, 2013.
Next steps
CCCTA has requested that the Authority adopt the mobility management plan and foster the
development of the mobility management function to the next step. Some seed funding has
been identified for this first step including a previously approved Cycle 3 New Freedom grant
awarded to CCTA. The grant was awarded to convert a database of county service providers
into a user-friendly web-enabled data resource. With the opportunity to seed the formation of
a true mobility management function in the county, it might make more sense to redirect those
funds. CCCTA also has some Cycle 2 funds that could be redirected to move the project
forward.
If authorized by the Authority, staff will develop more defined options for the implementation
of a mobility management function and present them for Authority consideration this Spring.
3.B.2-4
County Connection
Contra Costa County Mobility
Management Plan
Final Draft
October 17, 2013
3.B.2-5
Attachment A
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
2
Contra Costa County
Mobility Management Plan
October 17, 2013
Prepared for
County Connection
by
Innovative Paradigms
3.B.2-6
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 1: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 6
Background .................................................................................................................. 6
Methodolgy and Outreach ............................................................................................ 6
Chapter 2: MOBILITY MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS ................................ 8
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency ............................................................ 9
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency Models .............................................. 11
Legal Setting .............................................................................................................. 13
Governing Structure ................................................................................................... 14
Sample Consolidated Transportation Services Agency Operating Budget ................ 15
Chapter 3: FUNCTIONS ............................................................................................. 19
Travel Training ........................................................................................................... 19
ADA Eligibility Process ............................................................................................... 20
Agency Partnerships .................................................................................................. 24
Coordinated Vehicle Maintenance ............................................................................. 25
Volunteer Driver Programs ......................................................................................... 26
Central Information Program ...................................................................................... 28
Advocacy Role of Mobility Management .................................................................... 29
Technical Support ...................................................................................................... 30
Chapter 4: IMPLEMENTATION STEPS ...................................................................... 32
Phase I: Adoption of Plan ........................................................................................... 32
Phase II: Mobility Management Oversight Board ....................................................... 33
Phase III: Form CTSA ................................................................................................ 34
Phase VI: Functional Programs ................................................................................. 35
Implementation Timeline ............................................................................................ 36
Appendix 1: Stakeholder Planning Group ................................................................ 37
Appendix 2: Case Studies .......................................................................................... 38
3.B.2-7
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection) has taken the lead in
managing the planning process for the development of a mobility management plan for
the entire County. This Plan resulting from that effort is meant to guide implementation
of a broad array of services under the mobility management framework. The starting
point for the planning process is the definition of the concept.
Mobility Management is the utilization of a broad mix of service delivery
and support strategies that are directed primarily at the travel needs of
seniors, persons with disabilities, and low income individuals. These
strategies often integrate with and support other public service solutions
provided to the larger public transit and paratransit rider populations.
Mobility Management is not one solution but a toolkit of solutions that are
tailored to the service needs of the special population groups.
This Plan recommends the formation of an organization to take the lead in implementing
a broad range of mobility management strategies. Specifically, a Consolidated
Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) is recommended for Contra Costa County. A
CTSA in the County would provide the vehicle through which the list of desired services
could be deployed. The creation of a Mobility Management Oversight Committee is
recommended to undertake the tasks needed to establish the CTSA . Options for
funding the program are identified. A draft startup budget and a draft sample initial
annual operating budget are included in the Plan. An initial budget of $325,000 is
proposed for each of the first two years of full operation following the formation phase.
The Plan acknowledges the contributions and relationships of the existing human
service agencies in the County. It recommends careful attention to the roles of these
organizations relative to the new CTSA and that funding considerations always be
based upon a thorough analysis of the impacts of coordinating efforts between these
existing organizations and the new agency.
The Plan suggests a number of service strategies responding to transportation needs
identified in the planning process. These gaps were vetted through outreach efforts
with community stakeholders that work with seniors, persons with disabilities, and
persons with low-income. The specific strategies proposed for Contra Costa County are
listed on the following page:
3.B.2-8
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
5
Travel training: Create a program to teach bus riding skills on all county transit
systems.
Improved ADA Eligibility Process: Institute a refined countywide ADA eligibility
process, possibly an in-person assessment approach, to improve the accuracy of
the eligibility determinations.
Agency Partnerships: Work with human service agencies so they can provide
transportation to their clients who currently use the ADA paratransit service
operated by the transit agencies.
Centralized Maintenance: Evaluate the viability of a centralized maintenance
program directed at serving the unique needs of the human service community
who are operating a variety of vehicles in their programs.
Volunteer Driver Program: Expand volunteer driver programs throughout the
County as an inexpensive means of serving difficult medical and other trip needs
for seniors and persons with disabilities.
Central Information Program: Expand information availability by making
meaningful resource information available through a central referral m echanism.
Advocacy Role of Mobility Management: Determine the level of advocacy
appropriate for a new CTSA in Contra Costa County and include the new agency
in all transportation planning processes.
Technical Assistance Program: Include technical support as one of the services
of the newly created CTSA to assist the human service community and other
agencies in planning, grant management, and other technical functions.
Driver Training Program: Establish a professional and consistent driver training
program for human service agencies; offer driver training services relating to
special needs populations to existing paratransit providers.
3.B.2-9
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
6
Chapter 1: METHODOLOGY
Background
The Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan was commissioned by the County
Connection. It was derived from a Countywide outreach process, involved agencies
throughout the entire County, and offers strategies applicable to the entire County. The
Plan’s technical basis is derived from input from transportation experts representing
many agencies and the experience of the consulting team.
The Plan is intended to guide long term development of mobility management projects
that fill gaps in existing transportation services and are sustainable both on the basis of
organizational structure and funding. Traditional transportation services, such as public
transit, are increasingly challenged to meet the needs of a diverse population. Public
transit or “mass transit” is designed to carry large amounts of riders. Public transit
includes fixed-route bus and rail service for the general public and paratransit bus
service for disabled individuals in the community as described in the Ame ricans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Although public transit provides an appropriate means of
transportation for a majority of riders, there is an increasing population that requires
specialized transportation. The result is increased emphasis on specialized programs
that enhance transportation services and provide alternatives to fill gaps that seniors,
persons with disabilities, and persons with low-income face. These are broadly defined
as mobility management strategies. Effective mobility management strategies are those
that coordinate with existing transportation services including: public transit, community
based, and human service transportation programs. These strategies fill gaps often lost
through public transit and will vary based on the demographic group being served.
Examples of mobility management strategies specific to Contra Costa County are
detailed in Chapter 3.
The identification and pursuit of these service delivery strategies is not enough to meet
the need. Only through institutional commitment and appropriate institutional structures
can these unique delivery strategies be provided. A CTSA will provide the framework
for that process in Contra Costa County.
Methodology and Outreach
The process used to construct the Plan involved the following steps:
Establish overall project direction and objectives: This initial planning stage involved
discussions with the agencies managing the planning process, in particular County
3.B.2-10
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
7
Connection and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). The result was the
broadening of the objective of the project to include consideration of the full range of
mobility management options and structures for the County as opposed to a “one-stop”
information referral project.
Identify appropriate mobility management functions and service delivery structures
through technical analysis and community input : The analytical portion of the planning
process was strongly supported by extensive community input. Activities involved
meetings with community agencies to identify needs and to present technical options.
The results of this process became the list of strategies included in the Plan.
Formal advisory input: The planning process was supported by two levels of advisory
input. The first was the formation of an ad hoc Stakeholders Advisory Committee. This
group represented varying interests throughout the County and included a cross section
of agency types and geographic perspectives. The direction provided by this group was
invaluable to the direction of the Plan. Among the most important outcomes of the
advisory committee was recognition that an institutional framework was necessary to
deliver the creative service options that are needed. The Plan defines both the
structure recommended and the functional programs that were identified by the
community and Advisory Committee.
The second level of advisory input was in the form of three Summit meetings held
throughout the County. These Summits were structured to solicit input and feedback on
specific mobility management options. Input from the participants was extremely helpful
in defining the elements of this Mobility Management Plan.
Throughout the outreach process, stakeholder input was elicited to identify the
challenges that their target population face when traveling throughout Contra Costa
County. These findings were used to design strategies to fill the gaps that are detailed
in Chapter 3. Throughout the outreach process the overarching theme was the lack of
coordination amongst human service agencies, transit operators, and
private/public/non-profit agencies. Although there are many providers of transportation,
there is no central focal point for coordination, implementation, and enhancement of
transportation options for these special needs populations. The recommendations in
this Plan provide a comprehensive approach to address the challenges identified
through outreach to the community.
3.B.2-11
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
8
Chapter 2: MOBILITY MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS
Mobility management is one part of a complex matrix of transportation services in any
urban area. The “public transportation system” is made up of a number of elements that
interact and often overlap. The major components of a public transportation system
are: fixed-route bus service for the general public, paratransit bus service for individuals
with disabilities as described in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and mobility
management/human service transportation serving the specialized transportation needs
of the population. These three elements have traditionally operated independently of
each other.
In a coordinated transportation system, the three elements work in a more integrated
fashion to serve certain targeted populations, specifically individuals with disabilities, the
elderly, and persons of low income. This can result in service and cost efficiencies that
yield benefits for the individual riders, public agencies, and smaller human service
transportation providers. Within a coordinated transportation system , public transit,
community based and human service agencies work with one another to refer riders to
the service that is most appropriate for their functional abilities. Presently there are
agencies in Contra Costa County that refer riders, but throughout the planning process
there has been an emphasis on expanding and enhancing these efforts in a coordinated
fashion. The quantitative and qualitative impacts of integrating a coordinated
transportation system are captured in this Plan.
Though “mobility management” has often been defined narrowly to focus on one -stop
call centers, this Plan takes a broader view. The concept goes far beyond minimal trip
planning efforts for individuals to much broader strategies capable of improving service
delivery to much larger numbers of individuals. No one strategy can serve all of the
needs of the special needs groups targeted and for this reason the Plan consists of a
variety of programs each meeting some aspect of the overall demand. This Plan
includes strategies that exceed available funding and sets forth a list with recommended
priorities. It also suggests approaches to funding intended to create a viable and
sustainable program.
3.B.2-12
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
9
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency
Elements embodied in the concept of mobility management have been a part of the
transportation service delivery framework for many years. Only recently have these
elements been referred to as mobility management. Federal coordination requirements
are now placing renewed emphasis on strategies to increase coordination in California
such as the formation of CTSAs.
When the State passed AB 120, the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act, it
allowed county or regional transportation planning agencies to designate one or more
organizations within their areas as Consolidated Transportation Service Agencies
(CTSAs). The goal was to promote the coordination of social service transportation for
the benefit of human service clients, including the elderly, disabled individuals, and
persons of low income. AB 120 specified the following strategies of service
coordination through the use of CTSAs:
Cost savings through combined purchasing of necessary equipment.
Adequate training of drivers to insure the safe operation of vehicles. Proper
driver training to promote lower insurance costs and encourage use of the
service.
Centralized dispatching of vehicles to efficiently utilize rolling stock.
Centralized maintenance of vehicles so that adequate and routine vehicle
maintenance scheduling is possible.
Centralized administration of various social service transportation programs to
eliminate duplicative and costly administrative functions. Centralized
administration of social service transportation services permitting social service
agencies to respond to specific social needs.
Identification and consolidation of all existing sources of funding for social service
transportation. This can provide more effective and cost efficient use of scarce
resource dollars. Consolidation of categorical program funds can foster eventual
elimination of unnecessary and unwarranted program constraints.
The CTSA structure is unique to California. While other states are beginning to
implement coordinated transportation projects, only California has the state legislated
model of the CTSA. Thus, for three decades, initiatives to coordinate human service
transportation programs in California have been largely guided by AB 120. There is a
new focus on CTSAs as the appropriate entity to implement the programs embodied in
the federal legislation that provides funding for mobility management projects . Other
communities are seeking to create new CTSAs or designate existing organizations as
CTSAs to combine the State and federal legislation into service delivery mechanisms
3.B.2-13
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
10
that have resources and focus to achieve real coordination. A significant dialogue is
underway throughout California regarding the role of the CTSA and its ability to meet
both the federal and State coordination requirements.
In January 2013, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) circulated a Draft
Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan Update which
recommends the designation of CTSAs to facilitate sub -regional mobility management
and transportation coordination efforts.
What is a CTSA Intended to Do?
While no two CTSAs are structured the same way or provide exactly the same services,
there are common objectives to be found in all CTSA activities:
Increase transportation options for seniors, the disabled, and persons of low
income.
Reduce the costs for public transportation.
Identify and implement efficiencies in community transportation operations.
What Can a CTSA Look Like and Accomplish?
CTSAs in California have taken on a variety of forms and within those various forms
they provide a range of services. The most successfu l CTSAs have embraced the
concept of human service coordination and mobilized efforts to creatively use resources
to accomplish great things in their local communities. While all forms of CTSA have the
potential to achieve the objectives of the concept, e vidence provided through a review
of available CTSA documentation and case studies indicates that certain structures may
be more conducive to successful project implementation than others.
AB 120, the California legislation creating CTSAs along with the subsequent federal
guidance on human service transportation coordination offers a general concept of a
mobility management agency. Within that guidance is great latitude to mold the concept
to the unique circumstances of a local community. The most succ essful CTSAs have
built a creative array of programs serving a broad population of persons in need. The
typical target populations include the disabled, elderly, and low-income individuals.
Many studies including planning efforts in Contra Costa County have documented the
substantial unmet needs of these groups and the need for additional specialized
transportation capacity programs capable of targeting these potential riders. As the
definition of need is broadened to include young children and possibly other groups, the
volume of need becomes even more extensive.
3.B.2-14
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
11
Well refined CTSAs have addressed the broad variety of needs in creative ways. They
have typically used limited funds in creative ways to achieve substantial results. For
example, efforts in other counties have included joint funding of service provided by
human service agencies for their own client populations. Some communities combine
funding for transportation programs with other sources. Examples of non-transportation
funding that are sometimes used to support transportation services include Regional
Centers, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Area Agency on Aging.
An effective CTSA is an organization that serves as a broad facilitator – or champion -
of transportation coordination. The role typically means that the agency is well
connected in the transportation and human service community and is a leader in
creating solutions to travel needs. This is often accomplished through negotiating
cooperative agreements between agencies to coordinate the use of funds, acquiring
capital assets (e.g. vehicles, computer equipment, etc.), and buying fuel and electricity
for vehicles (e.g. joint fuel purchase). Service delivery can range from: coordinating a
volunteer driver program to managing a travel training program for fixed -route service
and can include the facilitation of direct service delivery through contracts with social
service agencies. An important consideration is that most functions that a CTSA can
perform can be offered through any of a variety of structural models.
Consolidated Transportation Service Agency Models
AB 120 requires that CTSAs be designated by a transportation planning agency. In
Contra Costa County, this entity is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
According to statute, each CTSA designated must be an agency other than the planning
agency. The range of options for CTSA designation as defined in law are:
A public agency, including a city, county, transit operator, any state department
or agency, public corporation, or public district, or a joint powers entity created
pursuant to the California Government Code Section 15951.
A common carrier of persons as defined in Section 211 of the Public Utilities
Code, engaged in the transportation of persons, as defined in Section 208.
A private entity operating under a franchise or license.
A non-profit corporation organized pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with
Section 9000) of Title 1, Corporations Code.
Within these broad legal definitions, a number of alternative CTSA structure models
have emerged. These or possible variations are open for consideration for application
in Contra Costa County. The following are the principal structural options for CTSA
organizations in the County.
3.B.2-15
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
12
Single Purpose Non-profit Agency: In California there are limited examples of
non-profit agencies that have been designated as a CTSA that provide a wide
range of transportation programs and services. Noteworthy examples of existing
non-profit CTSAs are Outreach in Santa Clara County, Valley Transportation
Services in San Bernardino County, and Paratransit, Inc. in Sacramento County.
Outreach and Escort of Santa Clara County served as the CTSA in the County
for several years before its designation was rescinded by MTC. It was recently
re-designated by MTC and is currently the only CTSA in the nine county Bay
Area. Among the provisions associated with this re-designation was an
agreement that Outreach would not submit a claim for TDA Article 4.5 funds.
Access Services in Los Angeles was created largely to manage the ADA
paratransit program in LA County but was also designated the CTSA. It was
created through action by public agencies to address ADA and coordination
issues.
Multi-Purpose Non-profit Agency: There are examples in California where a
multi-purpose non-profit agency has been designated the CTSA. This is typically
a situation where a strong non-profit organization with an effective infrastructure
wishes to champion transportation issues and adds those functions to a broader
list of agency activities. Ride-On of San Luis Obispo is an example of this form
of organization. Ride-On was originally the United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) affiliate
in San Luis Obispo and still serves in that capacity in addition to its transportation
responsibilities. There are many examples of non-profit organizations that have
created major transportation programs under an umbrella that includes nutrition
services, housing programs, food banks, and other common human service
functions.
County Government: In many rural California counties, transportation services
are provided by the County. Often this includes providing public transit services.
This is a common structure in smaller or rural counties. Several counties have
been designated CTSAs. Often, though not always, transportation services are
provided through the public works department. Counties such as Glenn and
Colusa are examples of this form of CTSA.
Public Transit Agency: In some California counties the local public transit agency
has been designated the CTSA. This applies to both legislated transit districts
and Joint Powers Authority (JPA) agencies. It is typically in smaller counties that
the transit agency has been designated. Examples of transit agencies that are
3.B.2-16
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
13
CTSAs are El Dorado Transit, Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (Bishop), and the
Mendocino Transit Authority. All of these are JPAs.
Of the models presented above the non -profit agency model has historically been the
most notable in terms of implementing programs with long-term sustainability. Non-
profit agencies such as Outreach and Escort, Ride-On, and Paratransit, Inc. have
delivered successful coordinated transportation programs throughout California for
many years. Each of these organizations continues to evolve to meet the needs of the
communities they serve. Non-profit organizations have typically been the most
successful CTSA model for a number of specific reasons. These include:
Specific Mission: Non-profit CTSAs have been established with a human
services perspective focused on special needs populations and programs
dedicated to fulfilling these unique needs. This differs from public transit
agencies whose primary mission is to serve large groups of travelers (“mass”
transportation). Human service transportation often plays a very small part in
an organization with a mass transit mission.
Entrepreneurial style: Non-profit CTSAs have often been created by
transportation professionals seeking to apply creative approaches to the hard
to serve needs of special population groups.
Flexibility: Non-profit CTSAs typically have more flexibility to create and
operate new programs than governmental agencies.
Applicable laws: Non-profit corporations are subject to different laws than
public agencies such as labor laws. This fact can provide more latitude to
structure services with unique operating characteristics than most public
agencies.
Access to funds: Non-profit corporations may be eligible for funds that are
not available to other organizations. Such funds may contribute to fulfilling
the mission of the agency. An example would include the priority given to
non-profit corporations applying for FTA Section 5310 funds.
Legal Setting
The legal basis for establishing and managing CTSAs is contained in the California
enacted Transportation Development Act (TDA). This broad set of California laws and
regulations concerning transportation funding and management contains the various
provisions governing CTSAs. The CTSA portion of the TDA is a relatively small part of
a much larger law concerning funding for all modes of transportation and certain specific
funding sources available to all counties for transportation purposes.
3.B.2-17
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
14
The two funding sources included in TDA are:
Local Transportation Fund (LTF): derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax
collected within the county and
State Transit Assistance Fund (STA): derived from the statewide sale tax on
gasoline and diesel fuel.
The portion of the TDA creating CTSAs states that such agencies are eligible to claim
up to 5% of the LTF for community transportation purposes.
The Act also specifies the process through which a CTSA may be designated. The
designating agency may promulgate regulations specific to the CTSA as well as the
duration of the designation. The length of CTSA designation varies throughout
California. For a number of CTSAs, the term of designation has evolved over time. For
example, Paratransit, Inc. in Sacramento was designated the CTSA in 1981 for a one
year period. This designation was reviewed and extended later in multi -year
increments. In 1988, the designation was extended “without a time limitation” and has
retained designation to this day.
The oversight of claimants for TDA funds including CTSAs are subject to two audits.
The first is an annual fiscal audit that must be submitted within 180 days of the close of
each fiscal year and the second is a triennial performance audit. This periodic audit
conducted according to specific guidelines, evaluates the performance of a TDA
claimant and could serve as the basis for determining the future of a CTSA.
Governing Structure
An area of CTSA oversight that is not contained in the TDA law and regulations is the
local governing structure of the designated agency. If a CTSA is a public agency, the
governing board of that agency would traditionally oversee receipt and expenditure of
public funds. Since a CTSA can be a County, a transit agency, or other government
agency, it would be subject to the scrutiny of a board that is otherwise responsible for
fiduciary oversight. A CTSA may also be a non -profit corporation. The governing
structure may vary substantially among non -profit corporations. Many traditional
charitable non-profit corporations have self -appointing boards. This typically means
that interested members of the community may be appointed to the board by the sitting
board members. Ride-On in San Luis Obispo is an example of this type of governing
structure.
3.B.2-18
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
15
There is precedent in California for a non-profit corporation to have a board of directors
whose make-up is governed by political agreement associated with its structure.
Paratransit, Inc. began as a traditional non -profit corporation with a self-appointing
board. Later in its evolution, local public agencies formed an agreement associated
with Paratransit’s designation as a CTSA that included specific appointing authority to
local governmental jurisdictions. This revised structure provided the desired level of
oversight and representation.
Valley Transportation Services (VTrans) in San Bernardino County was created in 2010
to serve as the CTSA for the San Bernardino urbanized area. The Bylaws of this newly
created non-profit agency specified that its Board of Directors be appointed by San
Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), Omnitrans (the public transit agency),
and by San Bernardino County. This publicly appointed governing board structure
reflected the importance of oversight in a case where large amounts of public funding
are made available to a non-profit agency. VTrans, as the designated CTSA, is eligible
to receive an allocation of local sales tax Measure I for transportation purposes.
An effective and functional Board of Directors for a new non -profit CTSA should be
made up of approximately seven to nine members. Because of the management of
large amounts of government funds, it is appropriate that public agencies appoint
members to the new Board. A typical structure might include appointments by CCTA,
Contra Costa County, each transit agency, and some human service agency
representatives. Appointing agencies can usually appoint from their own membership
or from the community. In some cases, governance structure formats are established to
require representatives of the service population (e.g. disabled representatives or
seniors). These decisions would be debated by the Oversight Board recommended as
a key implementation step.
Phased Implementation: Sample Consolidated Transportation Service Agency
Operating Budget
Various phases will be necessary to achieve full implementation of a CTSA in Contra
Costa County. Each phase in the process will have its own budget. This will allow for
clear delineation of the costs of each phase. The first phase is preparatory to
establishing an operational CTSA. It consists of the formation of an Oversight Board to
guide development of the CTSA concept, establish its legal framework, determine a
governance structure, and make final budget and operating decisions. The Oversight
Board phase of the project is proposed to be funded by two sources: 1) funds
remaining on the Innovative Paradigms Mobility Management planning contract and, 2 )
reallocation of New Freedom funds that had been granted to the Contra Costa
3.B.2-19
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
16
Transportation Authority for phase 3 of initial planning process. In combination, these
funding sources provide adequate funding for formation functions.
Once the functions to be performed by a new CTSA are determined, a budget for the
early operation of the organization can be developed. The budget will depend on
whether a new agency is created or the CTSA designation is added to an existing
organization. This will determine whether the entire infrastructure of an organization is
necessary or if staff and other support services are added onto an existing agency.
Administrative overhead will be an important element to identify. The staff capacity of
the CTSA will have an impact on the organization’s ability to build programs and to
manage the range of functions that a CTSA is capable of performing.
In the growth stage of a CTSA, considerable time and effort (staff resources) will be
necessary to forge partnerships with other organizations, prepare grant applications,
implement service functions, etc. For discussion purposes, two CTSA budgets for
Contra Costa County are presented below. The first is a startup budget intended to
capture the cost of organization formation, creation of basic o rganization infrastructure
such as accounting and business management functions, and early staffing functions
that eventually lead to dedicated management. The second budget is a pro forma first
year operating budget. It presents a basic structural budge t for the first year of
operation. It does not present operating costs for the various programs that might be
operated. The initial organization budget is to support the pursuit of operating programs
with their necessary funding and interagency coordination.
It presents general cost estimates for overhead but does not include costs for individual
program elements. Significant refinement would be necessary with actual
implementation. However, the sample budget serves as a presentation of basic cost
items to guide decision making relative to structure options. This draft budget is based
on the premise that a new stand-alone agency would be created to operate the CTSA.
The budget therefore includes the financing necessary to lease office space, equip and
staff the office, and initiate selected startup service delivery projects.
3.B.2-20
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
17
COST CATEGORY Cost Estimate Notes
Professional Services
Management Consulting $75,000 Temporary management
Legal Services $40,000 Legal: document prep, filing
Accounting Services $40,000 Tax filings; accounting setup
Temporary Operating Expenses
Office space $0 Possibly donated by agency?
Misc. office expense $10,000 Materials; travel; Bd expense
Filing fees; etc $2,000 Incorporation, etc.
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $167,000
Innovative Paradigms Contract $20,000
New Freedom Grant (CCTA)$147,000
TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $167,000
CTSA Formation Budget
[Estimated formation expense; approximately 6 months]
FUNDING SOURCES (existing)
3.B.2-21
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
18
COST CATEGORY Cost Estimate Notes
Staff
Executive Director $140,000 Salary, taxes, benefits
Administrative Assistant $49,000 Salary, taxes, benefits
Direct Expenses
Office Space $72,000 2000 sq ft @$3 / sq ft
Utilities $5,400 $450 / mo
Professional Services $35,000 legal; accounting
Phone $3,600 $300 / mo
Supplies $3,600 $300 / mo
Insurance $3,000 $3,000/ yr
Travel $1,000 $1,000 / yr
Misc Expense $12,000
Functional Programs
Travel Training Cost to be determined
ADA Eligibility Process Cost to be determined
Agency Partnerships Cost to be determined
Coordinated Vehicle Maintenance Cost to be determined
Volunteer Driver Programs Cost to be determined
Central Information Program Cost to be determined
Advocacy Role Cost to be determined
Technical Support Cost to be determined
Reserve
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $324,600
MTC Grant $205,000
Other $120,000
TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $325,000
CTSA Operating Budget: New Nonprofit Corporation
FUNDING SOURCES (potential)
3.B.2-22
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
19
Chapter 3: FUNCTIONS
The actual functions or services provided by CTSA s and the methods through which
they are delivered can vary widely. One major influence on the overall effectiveness of
a CTSA is the amount of available funding that the organization has to manage or
direct. Some funds do not have to actually flow through the agency. Other funds are
directly managed by the agency and can be used to provide direct services or to “seed”
projects through other agencies using various grant management strategies.
The service functions that were supported by the stakeholders and the public in Contra
Costa County are defined below. Some of these have been under consideration by the
community for several years. Others emerged as priorities through the planning
process. A subsequent implementation step would be to set priorities among the listed
strategies and prepare precise implementation plans and budgets.
Travel Training
Existing Travel Training Programs in Contra Costa County
Some travel training programs currently operate in Contra Costa County. These
programs have limited scope both geographically and relative to the clientele that are
included in the programs.
County Connection has a travel ambassador program but staff time to manage it
has been cut.
Tri-Delta Transit operates a “Transit Orientation Class” four times per year to
familiarize individuals with the fixed-route transit system. The agency also offers
one-on-one travel training upon request. Coordination with high schools that
offer travel training is also done by Tri-Delta.
Contra Costa ARC and Futures Explored provide travel training for their
consumers and receives a stipend from the Regional Center of the East Bay
(RCEB) to provide this service.
Independent Living Resources (ILR) of Solano and C ontra Costa Counties has
an informal travel training program for clients of their agency. ILR staff will
provide training to clients on an as needed basis.
3.B.2-23
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
20
Proposed Countywide Travel Training Program
There are several potential elements in a full scale travel training program. Each is
defined below.
Travel Training or Mobility Training – The most intensive level of travel training is
based upon one-on-one instruction for difficult cases. Often the trainees are
developmentally disabled and require extensive and repetitive instruction in order
to achieve transit independence. The trainer will work with a client usually for
several days to instruct them on how to use the transit system to get to their
destination.
Bus Familiarization – This type of training is less intensive and generally can be
done in several hours. Typical bus familiarization training would be for a person
or group to learn how to read transit schedules and/or take a single trip to a
major destination such as a mall. This is also common for physically disabled
individuals who need instruction on the use of the special equipment on standard
transit buses such as wheelchair lifts, kneeling features, audio stop
announcements both internal and external, farebox usage, etc. Bus
familiarization is sometimes done in the field in active transit service. In other
cases, this training is conducted at the transit facility using out-of-service transit
coaches.
Transit Ambassador/Bus Buddy Program – Transit ambassador or bus buddy
programs can take several forms. The program usually matches a trainee with a
trainer. Typically the trainee and trainer will have something in common -
perhaps both are seniors going to a congregate meal site. Transit ambassad or
and Bus Buddy programs typically use volunteers to teach transit riding skills.
Financial Implications
Moving riders from the ADA service to fixed-route transit can produce dramatic savings
for transit agencies. For example, a rider traveling to and from a day-program Monday-
Friday using a paratransit service costing $31.00 per one-way trip that is trained to use
fixed-route transit costing $8.00 for the same trip can produce dramatic savings for the
transit operator.
In addition to the financial implications, a rider that transitions from an ADA service to
fixed-route transit has increased mobility and independence. This transition allows a
rider to travel without the need to schedule a ride as required when using paratransit
services. Travel training is an example of a mobility management strategy that
3.B.2-24
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
21
enhances existing public transit by moving riders from paratransit service to the less
expensive option of fixed-route.
ADA Eligibility Process
Eligibility Assessment Options
The FTA does not prescribe a particular eligibility process and a number of models are
in use across the US. Whatever process is selected by a local transit operator must
simply meet the established FTA criteria outlined above. In addition to the paper
application process currently in use by Contra Costa County transit operators, three
other types of eligibility procedures are in use by transit operators in other communities.
The three principal alternative approaches are: telephone interviews/asse ssments,
web-based assessments, and in-person eligibility assessments. ADA eligibility experts
debate the accuracy of the various assessment models. While telephone and web -
based options are less expensive than an in-person process, the lack of personal
contact and observation and the lack of functional testing make refined eligibility
determinations, or conditional eligibility, difficult to assign. Yet some communities
strongly endorse the telephone and web-based options.
Telephone Based Eligibility
Some agencies rely primarily on telephone interviews for eligibility determinations.
These are usually conducted by high level professionals such as occupational
therapists who conduct a comprehensive conversation on the phone with the applicant,
and in a very few cases where a determination cannot be made, the applicant will be
referred for an in-person assessment. Such assessments can be conducted at an
applicant’s home or other designated site. Eligibility outcomes are relatively similar to
those of in-person assessments, though the ability to apply eligibility conditions is
arguably more challenging.
Web-Based Eligibility
Web-based assessments have been pioneered by a Southern California firm. This
model has been applied in nine paratransit programs, rang ing from those in smaller
communities such as Victor Valley and Butte County, CA (population in the 200,000
range) to larger systems such as Richmond, Virginia and North San Diego County
(population in the 600,000 to 800,000 range). The web-based model is based on the
premise that, since most applicants are found fully eligible, and since most systems that
use in-person assessments have yet to apply their eligibility conditions, transit agencies
that are fiscally constrained should not be spending signific ant sums on transporting
3.B.2-25
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
22
applicants to in-person assessments and burdening applicants with travel to an
assessment location.
Under this model, applicants need to create an on -line account, complete the
application and then mail or e-mail a healthcare form completed by a professional who
is familiar with their abilities. This information is then reviewed by the professional on
the evaluation team who has specific expertise in the disability that is the basis for the
person’s application. Team members include medical doctors, physical and
occupational therapists, registered nurses, social workers etc. Eligibility outcomes are
relatively similar to those from in-person assessments in terms of the breakdown of
eligibility categories, but not in terms of level of detail. On average, about 56% of the
36,000 applications that have been reviewed so far have been determined fully eligible,
38% conditional (includes 11% temporary), and 6% ineligible. In a small number of
cases, if determinations cannot be made remotely, the firm sets up in-person functional
assessments locally. Appeals have remained below 1% of the total number of
certifications.
Assessment costs range from $45 to $70 per application. While the relatively lower
costs of these assessments have been appealing to a number of agencies, some of the
shortcomings that have been cited by paratransit eligibility experts include:
The model relies too heavily on applicants’ ability to use technology (although
these are often completed by caseworkers and other professionals, and
exceptions are available for those who cannot use the web)
There is limited ability to have a discussion with the applicant about the full range
of mobility options afforded by in-person assessments.
The inability to observe applicants ambulate in -person places a significant limit
on the evaluator’s ability to establish reliable and informative eligibility conditions.
An in-person assessment process results in the greatest accuracy. The ability to
personally observe applicants, discuss their functional limitations, and perform
structured functional evaluations results in a much greater level of accuracy. Th ough
typically more expensive to perform than assessment models, many operators have
determined that the refined ability to introduce conditions for ADA paratransit use make
the additional expense of the assessment cost effective. Most of the major transit
operators in the US have already introduced in-person assessments. Of the top 10
transit agencies, Boston was the last to introduce an in -person process in December,
2012. As interest in applying conditional eligibility as a cost control tool increases , more
agencies are implementing in-person eligibility as the means to achieve that objective.
3.B.2-26
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
23
In-Person Eligibility
An in-person ADA eligibility process typically consists of a number of steps in order to
more precisely evaluate an applicant’s ability to ride the bus, access bus stops, and to
come to a definitive decision as to functional capability. The shift from a paper process
to an in-person approach is based upon the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) focus
on a functional model of eligibility versus a medical model. With a paper process, the
emphasis is typically on the function of the applicant’s disability.
Steps common to an in-person eligibility process include:
1. In-person interview of the applicant during which details of cond ition can be
established by a trained interviewer.
2. Various transit skill functional tests that help the interviewer verify certain abilities
relating specifically to transit riding.
3. Selected use of professional verification if the interviewer needs further
information to establish details of conditions that are not readily apparent to the
interviewer.
An in-person process usually takes between 30 and 90 minutes to complete depending
upon the nature of the individual’s disability and the resulting need fo r various functional
tests. In order to render consistent and accurate determinations, the interview and any
skills tests are conducted in a very uniform and “scientific” manner. Interviewers are
typically trained to a high level of proficiency in evalua ting information provided by the
applicant and in interpreting information gathered during functional tests or from medical
professionals. Thorough documentation of each assessment is then compiled. This
becomes the basis for reviewing any case that is appealed by the applicant.
Financial Implications
Financial implications for an ADA eligibility process vary amongst the models. There is
typically a continuum of costs associated with the various processes with the in-person
assessment being the most expensive. However, transit agencies that transition from a
paper ADA eligibility application process to in-person assessment process typically
realize an approximate 15% drop in applications. The drop in the application rate is one
key method for controlling ADA paratransit costs. Another is the application of trip by
trip eligibility using the conditional determinations made during an in -person process.
With specific conditional information, operators are beginning to direct some ADA trips
to fixed-route if the individual has been determined to be capable of taking that trip on
3.B.2-27
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
24
regular transit. While often starting incrementally, accurate mode assignment can also
become a significant cost control tool.
As important as any cost control factor relating to the introduction of a refined eligibility
process is the consistent application of determinations. At the present time, each
operator in Contra Costa County makes its own eligibility determinations. Yet once
made, the determinations apply to all operators in the Bay Area through the Regional
Eligibility Database (RED) system. The application of determination criteria varies
across operators. A countywide system would begin to standardize the application of
eligibility criteria to result in more consistent eligibility determinations among County
operators and perhaps lead to a more consistent regionwide process.
Agency Partnerships
One of the most effective tools available to CTSAs is partnering with community
agencies to deliver trips more efficiently and at lower cost than those through traditional
ADA paratransit service. An underlying concept in partnership agreements is shared
cost contracting. This concept has proven effective in many communities and is now
being replicated in others both within and outside California. This approach to service
delivery builds on the resources of community agencies and offers partial support of
their transportation through subsidized maintenance, insurance, or other technical
contributions. Another form of community partnership involves the payment to an
agency for the provision of its own transportation service through some combination of
funding sources. The resulting service is far less expensive than traditional door-to-
door service commonly provided today under ADA guidelines. Since virtually all clients
of these agencies are ADA eligible, they could simply be added to the growing numbers
of ADA riders. Instead, agency clients are carried on agency vehicles more efficiently
and at lower cost. Higher quality service for the client also results from the dedication of
the agency to its clients, the stability of routine pick-up and drop-off schedules, and the
often shorter trip length due to the proximity of individuals to programs.
There are two advantages of this program to transit operators.
By moving agency trips off ADA service, the 50% subscription cap in any given
time period on ADA demand response service, which cause s service denials
under ADA, can be avoided.
Reporting of CTSA agency trips can bring more federal funding into a region
through formula programs. Some CTSA’s report trips directly into the National
Transit Database (NTD). Counting these trips increases the formula funding
3.B.2-28
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
25
available to a region through 5307. Agency trips typically qualify as part of the
ADA trip total.
Financial Implications
In locations where successful agency trip models have been deployed , cost savings for
moving trips off ADA service are dramatic. Honolulu, Hawaii has such a model where
trips performed by the local ADA service provider at a cost of $38.63 for a one-way trip
are now being completed by a human service agency for $4.85 a one-way trip, with over
55,000 trips performed in the first year of operation. An annual savings of $1,857,900
resulted.
A dramatic result of agency trip programs is the quality of service that riders experience.
Using an agency trip model, the riders are generally transported by program staff. Staff
members are generally familiar with the individual’s disabilities and special needs, which
general public ADA paratransit drivers are often not prepared to manage. Agency trips
also typically exhibit shorter trip length, and routine pick-up and drop-off schedules. The
combination of these factors results in service that is much higher in productivity than
public paratransit services.
Coordinated Vehicle Maintenance
A major program function that can be performed by a CTS A is coordinated vehicle
maintenance. In such a program, a central maintenance provider operates a garage
servicing a broad range of vehicles. Participation in the maintenance program is
voluntary but brings with it such benefits that make it appealing to community agencies
from a business perspective. Typically, there are many advantages to the social service
community in participating in a program designed to meet its unique maintenance
needs. A primary benefit is the overall safety of the CTSA fleet. With services being
provided according to rigorously structured maintenance standards, overall fleet safety
is ensured. The central provider works with agency customers to ensure compliance
with such requirements as CHP inspections and all OSHA regulations.
The beneficial features of a coordinated maintenance program are listed below:
Specialized Expertise
A centralized maintenance program that services paratransit-type vehicles (typically
cutaway buses) develops specialized expertise that is not routinely available in
commercial repair shops. This includes familiarity with wheelchair lifts, cutaway
chassis, brake interlock systems, fareboxes, mobility securement systems, and other
unique features.
3.B.2-29
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
26
Central Record Keeping
A centralized maintenance program normally provides record keeping systems that help
to ensure compliance with local laws and regulations as well as agency specific
reporting on costs, maintenance intervals, life-cycle costs, vehicle replacement
schedules, etc.
Loaner Vehicles
A feature of a centralized maintenance program that is often cited as a “life saver” by
participating agencies is the use of a loaner vehicle that is similar in size and
configuration to the basic vehicles of the participants. This can be very beneficial to
small agencies that do not have many or, in some cases, any backup vehicles.
Specialized Schedules
A common feature of a centralized maintenance program is having business hours that
best serve the client agencies. This can mean operating during evening hours or on
weekends when commercial shops are often closed. Carefully crafted work schedules
can greatly assist agencies by obtaining inspections and repairs when conven ient to the
customer.
Fueling
Centralized fueling can also be a great benefit to agencies. It allows for careful
monitoring of the fueling process and fuel usage. It also provides the opportunity for
lower prices due to bulk purchasing and guaranteed availability in times of shortage.
Volunteer Driver Programs
Volunteer driver programs are an efficient method of providing transportation options in
a community. These programs can take various forms, including: curb-to-curb, shared-
ride transportation to common destinations, and highly specialized door-through-door
service to riders with very specific needs. Whatever model is used, these programs are
an important element in a community’s transportation framework. Volunteer driver
programs models can vary significantly depending on the focus of the service. Volunteer
programs typically involve some expense with the level of expense varying depending
upon the service model employed. Two common approaches of volunteer driver
programs include:
Shuttle Model: In a volunteer shuttle operation, the driver is a volunteer but does
not provide transportation with their personal vehicle. Instead, the volunteer
typically drives an agency vehicle with the agency incurring expenses for all
operating costs except the driver. The key cost saving element of this model is
3.B.2-30
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
27
the wages saved through the use of volunteers. Volunteer driver shuttles are
often a curb-to-curb, shared-ride service that transport riders to common
locations. Many shuttle programs require advance reservations, eligibility criteria
(such as age), and a fee to ride.
Volunteer driver shuttles enhance transportation options for their passengers and
assist with moving trips to the service that otherwise may be taken on ADA
paratransit.
Door-through-Door Model: This volunteer model typically involves a volunteer
driving their own vehicle. The driver is not compensated for his time but may be
reimbursed at a mileage rate to cover operating expenses such as use of
personal gas. The door-through-door model is typically used to provide
specialized transportation service for riders that need a high -level of assistance.
In the door-through-door model, the driver may escort the passenger from the
point of origin to the destination and wait for the passenger at the destination.
The service delivery approach for a door-through-door program varies but can
include:
o Matching riders with volunteer drivers
Using this approach the agency recruits volunteers and matches
the volunteer with a rider. Some programs schedule the rides with
the driver and rider, and some “assign” a driver with a rider who
coordinate trips without involving the agency.
o Rider finds their own driver
Using this model the rider finds their own driver and schedules trips
with the driver as necessary.
o Mileage reimbursement
Some door-through-door volunteer driver programs offer mileage
reimbursement for eligible trips. Reimbursement rates vary.
No matter the service delivery approach door-through-door models provide a
highly specialized means of transportation for an often vulnerable population.
These programs fulfill a growing need in communities presently only being
transported by fee-based service providers.
3.B.2-31
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
28
Contra Costa County has a robust volunteer driver network. The County has multiple
examples of both shuttle and door-through-door programs. These programs are
tailored to the niche that they serve and provide an efficient method of t ransporting
riders. These agencies also work collaboratively with one another to ensure that riders
are provided the service that best suits their functional abilities.
Financial Implications
Contra Costa County volunteer driver programs enhance the transportation matrix by
providing transportation options for residents, moving trips off ADA paratransit, and
offering a highly specialized means of travel for riders that cannot use other
transportation options. These programs, in effect, provide a resource to residents that
would otherwise use ADA paratransit, providing both quantitative and qualitative
benefits to the community.
Central Information Program
A central information program is often considered the heart of a mobility management
program. While this Plan includes an information program as an important element, it is
only one of many forming a complete mobility management program. There are two
primary call center functions: providing simple information referral and more
sophisticated trip planning services.
The simplest call center is a referral service. In this case a caller would be asked
questions by the call taker and referred to the appropriate agency.
Examples of Call Centers in Contra Costa County:
Contra Costa Crisis Center 211 connects callers with community services, such
as food, shelter, counseling, employment assistance, and child care. Callers are
asked a series of questions to determine which services they are eligible for and
then referred to the appropriate agency.
Contra Costa 511 is a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program that promotes alternatives to single occupant vehicles including
carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, biking, public transit, and walking.
Area Agency on Aging (AAA) Information and Assistance (I & A) provides seniors
and their families with information on community services and programs that
solve the problems faced by Contra Costa seniors.
The central information program for Contra Costa County is meant to enhance the
existing call centers and be a resource for persons needing to find information on public,
3.B.2-32
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
29
private, and human service transportation in the County. This could include detailed
transit route and schedule information, eligibility information, fares, as well as
information on private and non-profit transportation providers. The central information
program for Contra Costa County will serve as a point of contact for residents to call to
receive both transportation referral services and trip planning assistance. The call
center was brought up as a helpful mobility management elem ent during discussions
with stakeholder groups.
Advocacy Role of Mobility Management
A mobility management CTSA can play an important role in advocating for the needs of
the population groups that it represents. Because the CTSA works closely with
agencies and individuals in the human services sector, it is often in a strategic position
to advocate for these special needs populations.
There are several alternative approaches or levels of advocacy that the mobility
management program can take. The advocacy role for a mobility manager can vary
widely depending on the existing conditions in the area that is being served. Possible
levels of advocacy are listed below.
Information Source: Mobility Manager serves as a source of “expert” information
for other agencies in the community on issues relating to special needs
population.
Special Needs Representative: Mobility Manager represents special needs
populations in transportation decision making venues.
Active lobbying for special needs populations: Proactive advocacy for special
needs groups including initiating proposals for funding and service
improvements.
The new CTSA in Contra Costa County would have some level of advocacy
involvement simply by the nature of its position in the transportation mix. Such a role is
typically defined by the Board of Directors who represent diverse interests in the
County. A balanced advocacy role contributes to the overall effectiveness of the
agency in the institutional mix in the service area.
3.B.2-33
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
30
Technical Support
Mobility management agencies can provide a variety of support services that benefit
local human service transportation providers. Whether due to lack of staff, technical
experience, or funds, many organizations are not able to fully utilize the resources
available to them. A CTSA has the ability to assist agencies by supplying technical
assistance that can allow for increased funding, expansion of existing programs,
implementation of new projects, and development of a more highly trained staff.
Grant Writing
CTSAs have the potential to significantly impact available transportation services within
their geographic area by supporting local agencies in their efforts to secure grant
funding. Completing grant applications can be confusing and overwhelming. While
larger agencies often have staff dedicated to the preparation of grant applications,
smaller public and non-profit human service agencies usually assign this responsibility
to a program manager or other administrative team member. A human service agency
may not have the time or the expertise to seek out grant opportunities and submit
applications.
Many human service agencies are intimidated by Federal or State grant application
requirements and, although some agencies have projects that could qualify for grant
funds, choose not to apply. Though grant programs are changing as a result of the
passage of MAP-21, the newly enacted federal transit funding program, grants still
contain rigorous requirements for management and reporting. Programs such as 5310
are available to agencies and now can be used in part for operations. Yet such grants
carry complex requirements that a CTSA can help agencies fulfill.
A CTSA can provide the expertise and the technical support necessary to complete
grant applications for local agencies. CTSA staff time can be dedicated to staying
current on specific grant requirements and application instructions. This type of time
commitment is often difficult or impossible for human service agencies to achieve.
CTSA staff can provide assistance through local grant writing workshops, mentoring
local agencies, and physically preparing grant applications.
Grant Management
Grant management is a complex process that often prevents agencies from applying for
funding. The data collection and reporting requirements can be daunting. Often
agencies look at the amount of the grant award and determine that the staff time
necessary to oversee the grant is not worthwhile.
3.B.2-34
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
31
A CTSA can assist human services agencies in its region by providing grant
management services or by offering training in grant management. In either case, the
CTSA staff takes on the role of expert advisor based on its in -depth understanding of
the rules and regulations required by each grantor. It can then provide advice and
assistance in matters such as:
Compliance with grant reporting requirements,
Development of recordkeeping systems,
Data collection techniques,
Understanding of sub-recipient agreements in FTA grants, and
Compliance with DBE and Title VI requirements.
The CTSA can go so far as to prepare and issue reports on behalf of the grant recipient
or sub-recipient, if necessary.
Driver Training and Professional Development
California state law is very specific about the requirements for driver training programs,
including the qualifications for instructors. For a variety of reasons, agencies may have
difficulty operating their own training programs. The driver corps may be small, the
need for training classes may be infrequent, or the agency may not have the resources
to employ a certified driver instructor. A CTSA can help meet the demand for qualified
instruction in a variety of ways:
Employing a fully certified instructor to teach driver training classes, to which
agencies can send new drivers,
Coordinating between those agencies that have their own programs and those
that do not in order to fill available training “slots”, and
Making materials and speakers available so they can be used as part of ongoing
required safety training.
3.B.2-35
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
32
Chapter 4: IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Successful implementation of the Mobility Management Plan for Contra Costa County
will require a series of actions crafted to maintain the consensus that has emerged
around the overall concepts contained in the Plan. Success will be evident in the level
of community and agency support for the approach, the ability to obtain the necessary
funds to achieve implementation, and the efficiency of the resulting structure. This Plan
proposes the formation of a CTSA in the County. This has been well documented
throughout the planning process. The basis for this recommendation is the long-running
dialog in the County regarding mobility management activities with little actual
implementation occurring. The planning process identified that a major impediment to
action is the lack of a structural platform to serve as the vehicle through which action is
accomplished. That vehicle has now been identified as a CTSA. Further, careful
consideration has been given to alternative legal structures for a CTSA. The result of
that dialog has been the agreement to pursue a non -profit corporation model. The
principal basis for recommending this structural model is the level of success in other
communities that have adopted this structure.
The steps or phases necessary to achieve successful implementation are defined here.
They are presented in a level of detail consistent with the discussions throughout the
planning process. It is clear that moving forward will require expertise in governance,
finance, mobility management functional tools, and other very specific experience.
Such resources have also been discussed throughout the planning process.
Phase I: Adoption of the Plan
The first step toward implementation of the Plan is its adoption by the Board of Directors
of County Connection. As the sponsor of the planning process, County Connection is
the first level of approval of the Plan and its recommendations. The County Connection
Board should consider the implications of the Plan and adopt it both as the sponsoring
agency and also as one of the key implementing agencies in the County. Concurrence
of the other transit operators particularly WestCAT and Tri-Delta Transit should be
sought to demonstrate the support of the transit community for the Plan. Their support
will strengthen subsequent steps in the implementation process. It will also give the
Transportation Authority what it needs to move the process forward. In adopting the
Plan, County Connection should also officially forward the Plan on to the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA) as the countywide agency best suited to manage
Phase II of the implementation process.
3.B.2-36
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
33
Phase II: Formation of a Mobility Management Oversight Board
An Oversight Board of critical agency representatives is the appropriate mechanism for
Phase II of the process. This Board should be formed to guide discussion of the critical
details of the CTSA formation process including makeup of the governing board, roles
and responsibilities of the agency, identification and commitment of seed funds to
create the organization, and other legal and procedural details. The Oversight Board is
proposed to include: Executive staff from County Connection, Tri -Delta Transit,
WestCAT, AC Transit, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, BART, and three
executives representing human service agencies.
As a tool for use in guiding the efforts of the Mobility Management Oversight Board, it is
recommended that as set of Guiding Principles be adopted to ensure that the interests
and objectives of the affected agencies are represented and officially noted. Such a
tool can help to keep the efforts of the participants focused and inclusive. A preliminary
set of Guiding Principles is proposed below:
Guiding Principles
Recognize Existing Agencies’ Roles: Many agencies in Contra Costa
County currently provide services under the broad definition of mobility
management. The role and interests of these agencies should be
recognized and included in the formation of a CTSA and in the future
allocation of resources to our through that organization.
Minimize administration: The CTSA will require a management structure
in order to accomplish its mission. In creating such a structure, care
should be taken to minimize administration in order to maximize the
allocation of scarce resources to functional programs.
Broadly Analyze Resource Allocation Decisions: One of the roles of a
new CTSA will be to pursue resources for the implementation or
continuation of functional programs. In so doing, the CTSA should as a
matter of policy prepare an analysis of the impacts of alternative resource
allocation strategies that can be considered by all affected agencies in the
CTSA service area.
3.B.2-37
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
34
Mobility Management Oversight Board Structure and Functions
Oversight Board defines CTSA by-laws, board structure, and performance
standards
Oversight Board serves as advisory body after CTSA has been
established
Oversight Board consists of:
Executive staff representative of each of the following agencies:
County Connection
Tri-Delta Transit
WestCAT
AC Transit
BART
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Three human service agencies
Phase III: Form a CTSA as the Mobility Management Agency
Form a CTSA for Contra Costa County approximately twelve (12) months
following formation of the Mobility Management Oversight Board.
Establish a non-profit corporation to serve as the mobility management
agency for the County.
MTC designate the non-profit corporation as the CTSA for Contra Costa
County
Fund setup and initial operation of the CTSA through a combination of
funding provided by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
and MTC for a minimum period of two years.
Establish a governance structure for the non-profit corporation through
appointment of Directors to the governing Board by public agencies in
Contra Costa County.
Allocate funds for an interim budget to cover agency formation expenses
and initial management activities.
Allocate a combination of funds totaling $300,000 to $400,000 per year for
initial CTSA operation.
Funding
CTSA pursues available grant opportunities.
CTSA works with transit operators to allocate funds to mobility
management programs which move riders from ADA service.
3.B.2-38
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
35
CTSA works with MTC to identify discretionary funds.
CTSA participates in new funding opportunities to include funding
specifically for seniors, persons with disabilities, persons with low-income,
and the CTSA.
CTSA enters into a dialog with the transit operators, MTC, and the
Transportation Authority regarding allocation of TDA Article 4.5 as defined
in statute. Action on this issue would only follow the achievement of
consensus regarding this funding source. The most logical allocation of
TDA to a new CTSA would follow transfer of trips from the transit
operators to services coordinated through the new CTSA.
Phase IV: Functional Programs
Direct the CTSA to establish priorities among the identified functional
programs for Contra Costa County.
Develop grant applications through community partnerships for the
implementation of functional programs.
3.B.2-39
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
36
Implementation Timeline
Date or Time Period Activity
Obtain Transit Operator Support August - October, 2013
CCCTA Board Adoption October, 2013
Form Oversight Board September - October, 2013
CCTA Presentation September - October, 2013
Oversight Board hires Manager January, 2014
Oversight Board conducts performance review January, 2015
CTSA Implementation Time Line
(approximate)
3.B.2-40
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
37
Appendix 1
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
Stakeholder Planning Group
Charlie Anderson WestCAT 510-724-3331 charlie@westcat.org
Christina Atienza WCCTAC 510-215-3044 christinaa@ci.san-pablo.ca.us
Laramie Bowron CCCTA 925-680-2048 bowron@cccta.org
Heidi Branson Tri-Delta Transit 925-754-6622 HBranson@eccta.org
Mary Bruns LaMorinda Spirit Van 925-284-5546 mbruns@ci.lafayette.ca.us
Sam Casas City of Richmond 510-621-1258 Samuel_Casas@ci.richmond.ca.us
Laura Corona Regional Center of the East Bay 510-618-7726 lcorona@rceb.org
Peter Engel CCTA 925-256-4741 pengel@ccta.net
Carol Ann McCrary Contra Costa ARC 925-595-0115 cmccrary@arcofcc.org
Teri Mountford City of San Ramon Senior Center 925-973-3271 tmountford@sanramon.ca.gov
Penny Musante Futures Explored 925-284-3240 pennymusante@futures-explored.org
Ann Muzzini CCCTA muzzini@cccta.org
Joanna Pallock WCCTAC 510-215-3053 joannap@ci.san-pablo.ca.us
Elaine Clark Meals on Wheels 925-937-8311 x 122 eclark@mowsos.org
Kathy Taylor Meals on Wheels 925-937-8311 x 119 ktaylor@mowsos.org
Debbie Toth RSNC Mt. Diablo Center for Adult Day Health Care 925-682-6330 x 111 dtoth@rsnc-centers.org
John Rodriguez Contra Costa Developmental Disabilities Council 925-313-6836 John.Rodriguez@hsd.cccounty.us
Elaine Welch Senior Help Line Services 925-284-6699 elaine@seniorhelpline.net
3.B.2-41
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
38
Appendix 2
CTSA Case Studies
Overview
Case studies can be a useful tool in understanding how the experiences of other
agencies or communities may offer guidance in a current decision process. Relative to
the Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan, a key underlying concept in
implementing creative change in the County is consideration of the formation of a
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA). The guidelines within the
Transportation Development Act (TDA) regarding formation of CTSA’s are broad and
offer the opportunity for a variety of approaches regarding their formation and operation.
What follows are illustrative case studies defining the approaches taken by other
California communities to the formation and operation of CTSAs. Each goes into detail
regarding such issues as:
What approach led to the formation of the CSA? (Single agency application,
competitive process, action by a major public agency, etc.)
What is the governing structure of the CTSA?
How is the CTSA funded?
What are examples of the functional programs operated by or funded by the
CTSA?
The CTSAs selected for case studies are:
Paratransit, Inc., Sacramento: This was the first CTSA designated in
California and has served as a model for the formation of others. It is a
501(c)3 non-profit corporation.
Valley Transportation Services (VTrans), San Bernardino : This is among the
newest CTSAs in California incorporated in 2010. It is a 501(c)3 non -profit
corporation. In less than three yeaxrs, VTrans has become a major service
provider in urbanized San Bernardino County.
Access Services, Los Angeles: The Los Angeles CTSA, Access Services,
was formed in 1994. It also is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation. It provides a
range of services throughout LA County.
CTSA of Stanislaus County: The CTSA in Stanislaus County was established
in 2010. It is somewhat unique in the fact that the operator of the CTSA was
chosen through a competitive process.
3.B.2-42
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
39
Mendocino Transit Authority: This is a Joint Powers Authority transit agency
in Mendocino County. This agency serves both as the transit operator and
the CTSA. It greatly enhanced its emphasis on human service coordination
with the hiring of a Mobility Management Coordinator in recent years.
3.B.2-43
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
40
Paratransit, Inc. – Sacramento
Organization Structure Summary
CTSA Designation: 1981
Organization Type: 501(c) 3 corporation
Board Structure: 9 member board of directors, established through an
agreement among governmental jurisdictions
Paratransit, Inc. is a non-profit transportation agency originally incorporated in
July, 1978. The agency’s incorporation, built on the emerging concept of human
service transportation coordination, was an early attempt to demonstrate the
potential benefits of service coordination and the centralization of service delivery
functions and administration under one organization.
Soon after its incorporation, Paratransit, Inc. served as a model for legislation
being authored by the Assembly Transportation Committee to encourage
coordination statewide. Assemblyman Walter Ingalls authored Assembly Bill
(AB) 120, the Social Service Transportation Improvement Act. This landmark
legislation included a provision calling for the designation of a Consolidated
Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) in each California county. Paratransit,
Inc. was the first such agency designated in California.
Approach to Formation
Paratransit Inc. applied directly to SACOG (formerly SRAPC) for designation as
the CTSA. No other agency at the time approached SACOG and no other
agency was considered for designation as the CTSA.
Paratransit was designated the CTSA in the Sacramento area on July 16, 1981.
At the same time it was authorized to claim up to the full 5% of TDA funds
authorized under the law. The initial CTSA designation was for one year. Later
designation periods varied between one and three years with the term typically
becoming longer as the community became confident in the performance of the
organization. In 1988, the CTSA designation wa s set without time limitation
subject to rescission for performance issues.
3.B.2-44
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
41
Paratransit operates as a non-profit CTSA in a partnership with Sacramento
Regional Transit District (RT). The two organizations are well respected in
regional decision making in the Sacramento area serving together on the
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Technical Coordinating
Committee that oversees funding allocations. Paratransit has formal ties to RT
on two levels. First, RT has the authority to appoint two members of the
Paratransit Board of Directors (see Governance below). Further, Paratransit
provides all complementary ADA paratransit service within the RT District under
a collaborative agreement with RT. Paratransit’s operation of the CTSA in
parallel with the ADA service allows for maximum of service through unique
agreements with many other community agencies.
Governing Structure
Paratransit was initially incorporated with a self-selected and appointed Board of
Directors. This model is common among human service organizations. The
initial Board Members were mostly senior staff (Executive Directors in most
cases) of other community organizations in the Sacramento area. These
incorporating Directors had worked through the issues surrounding creati on of a
new single purpose transportation organization and thus supported the concept
and direction. Within three years of its incorporation, Paratransit was receiving
increasing amounts of local government funding. The major local jurisdictions
then chose to institutionalize the governance of the agency through what became
known as the Four Party Agreement. Parties to this agreement were the City of
Sacramento, County of Sacramento, Sacramento Regional Transit District, and
the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). This agreement set
forth terms concerning Board structure, financial commitments, asset transfers to
Paratransit, oversight by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, etc. The
Four Party Agreement served as the structural guide to the CTSA until it was
replaced by a new Collaborative Agreement in December, 2012.
The critical provision of the CTSA designation concerned the agency’s governing
structure. The Four Party Agreement set forth the required Board of Directors
makeup and appointing structure. A nine member Board was established to
replace the original self-appointing Board. The Board today is made up as
follows:
3.B.2-45
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
42
Two members appointed by the City Council, representative of the
general public (non users).
Two members appointed by the County Board of Supervisors,
representative of the general public (non users).
Two members appointed by the Board of Directors of the
Sacramento Regional Transit District.
One member appointed by SACOG representing any city or county
with which Paratransit contracts for service.
Two members, one appointed by the City Council and one
appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, representing the
user community.
CTSA Operating Details
Paratransit, Inc. operates a large array of programs under the mantle of the
CTSA. Most are directly related to the objectives for a CTSA outlined in the
original AB 120 legislation.
The most noteworthy of the Paratransit CTSA programs is its partner a greements
with local community agencies. For many years, Paratransit has refined the
concept of shared cost contracting, wherein the partnering organizations each
contribute a portion of the cost of service for specific client populations. Working
with 8 local agencies today, Paratransit contributes some of the funds it derives
from TDA Article 4.5 and the local option sales tax (Measure A) to a funding mix
with the agencies. This results in the agencies transporting their own clients at a
far lower cost and higher service quality than through the standard ADA
paratransit service (which Paratransit, Inc. also operates under contract to Sac
RT). This highly successful program has dramatically increased system capacity
over what could be funded through the traditional ADA paratransit program. It
serves as a cornerstone of Paratransit’s CTSA functions.
In addition to partnership agreements with local human service organizations,
Paratransit has operated a maintenance program for its own vehicles and for
those of other community agencies. Today this operation, dating back 30 years,
provides services for over 50 organizations ranging from local non -profit human
service agencies to Sacramento State University to private Medicaid transport
operators.
3.B.2-46
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
43
For many years, the agency has operated a large travel training program aimed
at training individuals, many developmenta lly disabled, to ride the fixed-route
transit service. This program has recently expanded in other regions including
Spokane, Washington, San Joaquin and Santa Clara Counties in California, and
Honolulu, Hawaii. Over the years this program has trained thousands of
individuals to ride the bus, thus saving an enormous expenditure on ADA
paratransit service.
3.B.2-47
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
44
Valley Transportation Services (VTrans) – San Bernardino
Organization Structure Summary
CTSA Designation: 2010
Organization Type: 501(c) 3 corporation
Board Structure: 7 member board of directors, specified in Corporate Bylaws
Valley Transportation Services (VTrans) is among the newest CTSAs in
California. It was designated as the CTSA by the San Bernardino Transportation
Commission (SANBAG) in September, 2010.
Approach to Formation
The concept of a CTSA had been included in the San Bernardino County local
sales tax measure as a recipient of a portion of the tax receipts. Yet at the time
of passage of the tax (Measure I) no CTSA existed in the County. To accomplish
formation of a CTSA, SANBAG commissioned a study of alternative approaches
to a CTSA with the intent that the study would result in a formal recommendation
of the appropriate structure of the CTSA for the San Bernardino urbanized area.
The study considered all structural options and concluded with the
recommendation that a new 501(c)3 corporation be created to be d esignated as
the CTSA. VTrans incorporation was completed in October, 2010.
The provision of the local sales tax measure calls for the allocation of 2% of the
tax proceeds to the CTSA. Funding began to accrue in 2009 and was made
available to VTrans immediately upon formation. The 2% funding level in the tax
measure provides approximately $2 million per year for VTrans operations.
These local funds have been used very successfully to date as local match to
leverage federal funds (see CTSA Operating Details below).
3.B.2-48
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
45
Governing Structure
The VTrans Bylaws specify its governing structure. The structure is dictated in
part by the large amount of public funding received by the agency and also by
the intent to involve the major governmental organizations in its governance.
The Board of Directors of VTrans consists of the following:
Three appointed by San Bernardino Associated Governments (must be
representative of the San Bernardino Valley)
Two appointed by San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors (must be
representative of the San Bernardino Valley area)
Two appointed by Omnitrans – must be representative of designated
population
Both SANBAG and San Bernardino County have chosen to appoint members
from the community. In certain cases, these have been former elected officials
from the area. Omnitrans has chosen to appoint two members of its own Board
of Directors. The Omnitrans Board is made up entirely of elected officials of the
represented jurisdictions. Thus its appointees are elected officials. Also included
in the Bylaws is the right of SANBAG to appoint an ex-officio member. It has
chosen to appoint a senior transportation executive to this post. The original
corporate Bylaws did not provide for staggered terms for Board Members. This
has since been corrected. Board terms are three years with a limit of two
consecutive terms.
CTSA Operating Details
VTrans was interested in beginning operation very quickly following formation. In
order to do so, the agency retained a very experienced CTSA executive on a
contract basis to serve as its initial Executive Director. That individual was
vested with full authority to manage the startup of the agency including money
management, hiring authority, etc. Early startup steps included the selection of
office space, full office setup, establishment of the accounting system,
development of operating policies, and negotiation of initial operating
agreements. The final step in the contract called for the Executive Director to
guide the selection process for a permanent Chief Executive Officer. That
permanent CEO took over in January, 2011.
3.B.2-49
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
46
Among the initial operational steps undertaken by the new agency were the
application for federal funds to create a new travel training program and the
formation of partner agreements with human service agencies to serve as
transportation providers for agency clients. These newly created services took
passenger trips off of the ADA paratransit system and onto a service with agency
vehicles and drivers. Initial response was overwhelming ly positive regarding
both service quality and cost savings.
VTrans has gone on to establish a volunteer driver program, partner on a grant
applications, and expand agency trip participation by bringing in additional
operating agencies. VTrans is presently in the final stages of creating a
maintenance program for human service agencies in the San Bernard ino area by
opening its own facility staffed with agency employees.
3.B.2-50
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
47
Access Services (ASI) – Los Angeles
Organization Structure Summary
CTSA Designation: 1994
Organization Type: 501(c)3 corporation
Board Structure: 9 member board of directors
Approach to Formation
In 1990, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) adopted
an Action Plan and established a CTSA to begin coordination of Social Services
transportation. The adopted plan called for the CTSA to implement and operate
an information and referral service for social services transportation as well as
provide technical assistance and training to local service providers. In 1991, in
response to the mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the
mission of the CTSA was expanded to include the implementation of a regi onal
ADA paratransit system for the Los Angeles County region.
In 1994, shortly after its formation, the successor to the LACTC, the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) determined that the
mission of the CTSA could best be fulfilled if the CTSA were a stand-alone
independent agency. From this action, Access Services was established and
designated as the CTSA for Los Angeles County per California Government
Code Article 7, Section 6680.
Agency Structure and Functions
Access Services Incorporated (ASI) was established in 1994 and was designated
as the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) for Los Angeles
County by LACMTA (Metro). ASI is a public non-profit corporation and as the
CTSA, administers the Los Angeles County Coordinated Paratransit Plan on
behalf of the County’s 43 public bus and rail operators. ASI facilitates the
provision of complementary ADA paratransit services under the name “Access
Paratransit.”
3.B.2-51
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
48
In its role as Access Paratransit, ASI enters into and administers federally funded
regional contracts with independent private transit providers. The agency also
leases vehicles to the regional providers at $1 per month to help facilitate the
provision of service under the contracts. In total, the Acces s Paratransit system
provides more than 2.3 million rides per year to more than 74,000 qualified
disabled riders in a service area of over 1,950 square miles. Access Services
receives its funding from Proposition C sales tax, Federal 5310 grants, and fare
box revenue.
As the designated CTSA in Los Angeles County, ASI is in charge of the
development and implementation of regional coordination of social service
transportation to seniors, persons with disabilities, youth, and the low-income
populations.
ASI operates as the ADA provider offering com plementary service to the fixed-
route operations of LACMTA and local municipal operators. Its governing
structure is separate from that of LACMTA but provides for the transit agency to
appoint one of its Board members.
Governing Structure
ASI is governed by a nine-member board of directors with one appointment by
each of the following.
1. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
2. City Selection Committee’s Corridor Transportation Representatives
3. Mayor of the City of Los Angeles
4. Los Angeles County municipal fixed-route operators
5. Los Angeles County local fixed-route operators
6. Los Angeles County Commission on Disabilities
7. Coalition of Los Angeles County Independent Living Centers
8. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
9. Alternating appointment by the municipal and local fixed-route operators
CTSA Operating Details
Access Services performs a variety of functions as the CTSA. In 2009, ASI will
sponsor over a dozen workshops in conjunction with Caltrans, C alACT, the
3.B.2-52
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
49
National Transit Institute, and other organizations. These professional
development opportunities are available to public and non-profit agencies
providing specialized transportation in Los Angeles County and their
employees/affiliates (private sector applicants). Most of these programs are low
or no cost and are subsidized by Access Services CTSA program.
In addition to training and education, ASI provides brokerage services, technical
assistance, joint procurement, and travel training under the auspices of the
CTSA.
For FY 2009-2010, the CTSA portion of the ASI Budget is projected to be
$223,103, which represents 0.24% of the agency’s total operating costs of
$92,350,473.
3.B.2-53
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
50
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency of the Stanislaus Region
Organization Structure Summary
CTSA Designation: 2010
Organization Type: 501(c)3 corporation
Organizational Approach: Contract with Paratransit, Inc. to serve as CTSA
Approach to Formation
A comprehensive Stanislaus County Transit Needs Assessment was prepared in
2009. This study identified a number of transportation service gaps in the County
and recommended formation of a CTSA to address the variety of identified
needs. The Stanislaus County Council of Governments (StanCOG) sponsored
the study and directed implementation. StanCOG chose to create a CTSA and
prepared a Request for Proposals (RFP) defining the responsibilities of the CTSA
and openly solicited proposals for this service. This is a unique approach to the
selection of an agency to serve as a CTSA.
Proposals were received by two agencies to serve as the Stanislaus County
CTSA. One was submitted by Catholic Charities of Stanislaus County. This
local non-profit agency operated a small volunteer driver program in the county in
addition to other human service functions. The other proposal to serve as the
CTSA was submitted by Paratransit, Inc. of Sacramento. This large non -profit
corporation (see case study above) already served as the CTSA in Sacramento
County and had more than 30 years of experience as a CTSA operating agency.
StanCOG chose to designate Paratransit Inc. as the CTSA for Stanislaus
County. StanCOG entered into a three year contract with Paratransit with two
option years. A separate Resolution was also adopted designating Paratransit
as the CTSA for Stanislaus County.
Consolidated
Transportation Services
Agency of the Stanislaus
Region
3.B.2-54
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
51
Stanislaus Governing Structure
Paratransit Inc. is a Sacramento based corporation that does business
throughout California and a number of other States. It has served as the CTSA
in Sacramento County since 1981. Technically, the Stanislaus CTSA is governed
by the Board of Directors of Paratransit, Inc.
To ensure local participation in governance, an advisory committee to StanCOG
was established specifically to oversee the CTSA. This Mobility Advisory
Committee (MAC) meets on a periodic basis to review operations and outcomes
of the CTSA.
CTSA Operating Details
The Stanislaus CTSA has no dedicated funding source. Instead, the CTSA
claims TDA funds under Article 4.5 as provided for in the law. The amount of
funding that is claimed each year is negotiated among the transit operators and
through a review of program objectives with StanCOG. The expectation of the
CTSA as it was formed was that it would use the local TDA allocation to leverage
federal funds to operate agency programs. Within the first year of existence, the
CTSA successfully sought Federal JARC and New Freedom funds to support
operations. Because of the 80% federal share of these programs as mobility
management projects, the CTSA was able to lever an initial $100,000 TDA
allocation into a $400,000 budget is its first year. TDA allocatio ns in subsequent
years have increased along with additional successful grant applications.
The Needs Study that led to the formation of the CTSA established priority
programs for implementation. These specifically included a volunteer driver
program to provide door-through-door service beyond ADA requirements and a
travel training program to operate for all 5 transit operators throughout the
County. Both programs were created within the first year of operation. The
CTSA presently has a full time staff of three. These employees of the CTSA
perform travel training and manage an expanding volunteer program. In addition,
the CTSA staff provides technical assistance to StanCOG and other County
agencies regarding transportation issues and programs.
3.B.2-55
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
52
Mendocino Transit Authority
Organization Structure Summary
CTSA Designation: 1981
Organization Type: Joint Powers Authority: Transit Authority
Board Structure: 7 member board of directors as set forth in the JPA
The Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) is a Joint Powers Agency created in
1975 to provide transportation services within Mendocino County. The agency
was designated as the CTSA for Mendocino County in 1981 by the Mendocino
Council of Governments (MCOG).
The designation was accomplished through the use of a Minute Order by the
COG and has been in effect since 1981. MTA has not had to re -apply in order to
maintain its status as CTSA.
Mendocino Transit Authority Governing Structure
The MTA Board has seven appointed members.
3 appointed by the County Board of Supervisors
1 appointed by the City of Ukiah
1 appointed by the City of Point Arena
1 appointed by the City of Willits
1 appointed by the City of Fort Bragg
Membership on the JPA does not require a board member to be an elected
official. Currently, about half of the membership consists of elected officials.
CTSA Operating Details
The Mendocino Transit Authority has substantially enhanced its efforts to provide
a range of mobility management services in recent years. The hiring of a Mobility
Management Coordinator was a major step in this development for the Authority.
3.B.2-56
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2014
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Projects - APC Items\04A11 - Program 28c Allocation.docx
Subject Subregional Transportation Needs Program (Program 28c) Allocation
Request
Summary of Issues At its October 7, 2013 meeting, the Southwest Area Transportation
Committee (SWAT) recommended allocation of its share of the Sub-
regional Transportation Needs Program (Program 28c) between its six
jurisdictions based on “50/50” population and road miles split formula.
Measure J Expenditure Plan allocates 0.235% of Measure J annual sales
revenues to Program 28c. The program is described in Measure J
Expenditure Plan as follows: “SWAT will propose programming these
funds to any project or program identified in the Expenditure Plan or
eligible under the provision of the Act.”
Recommendations Staff seeks authorization for the Chair to execute Cooperative
Agreement No. 28SW.01 with SWAT jurisdictions, and for the Executive
Director to make non-substantive changes, if needed.
Financial Implications Based on the revenue projection adopted, part of the 2013 Measure J
Strategic Plan – approximately $6.37 million – would be allocated to this
program over the life of Measure J, of which $667,867 has been
accumulated through June 30, 2013.
Options The Authority could propose changes to the cooperative agreement
Attachments A. Letter from SWAT dated October 7, 2013
B. Cooperative Agreement 28SW.01
Changes from
Committee
N/A
Background
At its October 7, 2013 meeting, the Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT)
recommended allocation of its share of the Subregional Transportation Needs Program
4.A.11-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 2 of 3
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Projects - APC Items\04A11 - Program 28c Allocation.docx
(Program 28c) between its six jurisdictions based on “50/50” population and road miles split
formula.
Measure J Expenditure Plan allocates 0.235% of Measure J annual sales revenues to Program
28c. The program is described in Measure J Expenditure Plan as follows: “SWAT will propose
programming these funds to any project or program identified in t he Expenditure Plan or
eligible under the provision of the Act.”
To streamline the process, a single multi-party cooperative agreement between the Authority
and all six SWAT jurisdictions is proposed to disburse Program 28c funds. Under the proposed
cooperative agreement, the Authority will agree to:
Disburse Program 28c funds in March 2014 for revenues collected through FY 2012-13;
Make annual allocations thereafter on November 2014 through November 2034;
Use the 50/50 population and road miles formula included in SWAT letter (attachment
A).
On the other hand, SWAT jurisdictions will agree under the cooperative agreement to:
Submit on September 1 of every year a form indicating how Program 28c funds were
expended and how much is remaining;
Commit to not use Program 28c funds for staff time unless it is directly related to a
project funded by Program 28c;
Agree to audit, retention of records, and other standard items normally included in
Measure J cooperative agreements.
Based on the revenue projection adopted, part of the 2013 Measure J Strategic Plan –
approximately $6.37 million – would be allocated to this program over the life of Measure J, of
which $667,867 has been accumulated through June 30, 2013.
The following table shows the allocation amounts by jurisdiction:
4.A.11-2
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 3 of 3
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Projects - APC Items\04A11 - Program 28c Allocation.docx
Jurisdiction 50/50 Population &
Road Miles Split (%)
Program 28c Allocations
through FY2034*
Program 28c Allocations
through June 30, 2013
County 20.78 $ 1,323,700 $ 138,783
Danville 21.16 $ 1,347,906 $ 141,321
Lafayette 13.74 $ 875,247 $ 91,765
Moraga 9.1 $ 579,676 $ 60,776
Orinda 12.28 $ 782,244 $ 82,014
San Ramon 22.94 $ 1,461,294 $ 153,208
SUM 100% $ 6,370,067 $ 667,867
* subject to change as Measure J revenue forecast is revised
4.A.11-3
4.A.11-4
Attachment A
4.A.11-5
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 28SW.01
This COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (this “AGREEMENT”) is effective this ____day of
_______________, 2014 among CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a local
transportation authority (“AUTHORITY”), CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of California (“CONTRA COSTA”), TOWN OF DANVILLE, a municipal corporation of the
State of California (“DANVILLE”), the CITY OF LAFAYETTE, a municipal corporation of the State
of California (“LAFAYETTE”), the TOWN OF MORAGA, a municipal corporation of the State of
California (“MORAGA”), the CITY OF ORINDA, a municipal corporation of the State of California
(“ORINDA”), and the CITY OF SAN RAMON, a municipal corporation of the State of California
(“SAN RAMON” and together with AUTHORITY, CONTRA COSTA, DANVILLE, LAFAYETTE,
MORAGA, and ORINDA, the “PARTIES” and each separately, a “PARTY”).
RECITALS
THE PARTIES ENTER THIS AGREEMENT on the basis of the following facts, understandings and
intentions:
A. Pursuant to the Measure C Sales Tax Renewal Ordinance (#88-01) “hereinafter
MEASURE C”) as amended by (#04-02), hereinafter referred to as “MEASURE J” approved by the
voters of the Contra Costa County on November 2, 2004, CONTRA COSTA, DANVILLE,
LAFAYETTE, MORAGA, ORINDA, AND SAN RAMON (each, a “PARTNER JURISDICTION” and
collectively, the “PARTNER JURISDICTIONS”), and AUTHORITY desire to enter into this
AGREEMENT to define a framework to enable the parties to utilize Program 28c funds in
MEASURE J.
B. PARTNER JURISDICTIONS shall propose programming Program 28c funds to any
project or program identified in the Measure J Expenditure Plan or eligible under the provisions
of the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act (“PROJECT”) and AUTHORITY shall
disburse collected funds under Program 28c as provided herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth above and the
rights and obligations set forth in this AGREEMENT and other good and valuable consideration,
4.A.11-6
Attachment B
the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged , AUTHORITY and each PARTNER
JURISDICTION hereby agree to the following:
SECTION 1
PARTNER JURISDICTIONS AGREE:
1. On September 1st of each year to submit a form indicating how Program 28c
funds were expended for the previous fiscal year and how much, if any , of the funds are
remaining.
2. Commit to not use Program 28c funds for staff time, unless it is directly related
to a project funded by Program 28c.
3. Each PARTNER JURISDICTION shall maintain true and complete records in
connection with the PROJECT, and shall retain all such records for at least thirty-six (36) months
after the delivery of the form to the AUTHORITY as provided in Section 1.
4. To allow the AUTHORITY to audit all expenditures relating to the PROJECT
funded through this AGREEMENT. For the duration of each fiscal year of the PROJECT, and for
four (4) years following each fiscal year of the PROJECT, or earlier discharge of the AGREEMENT,
PARTNER JURISDICTION will make available to the AUTHORITY all records relating to expenses
incurred in performance of this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 2
AUTHORITY AGREES:
1. To disburse Program 28c funds to PARTNER JURISDICTIONS in March 2014 for
revenues collected for Fiscal Year 2012-2013, and thereafter make annual allocations to
PARTNER JURISDICTIONS starting in November for the previous fiscal year, from November
2014 until November 2034 using a 50/50 population and road miles split formula as provided in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
1. Term. The term of this AGREEMENT shall commence on ___________, 2014 and
4.A.11-7
shall remain in effect until terminated as provided in Section 9.
2. Additional Acts and Documents. Each PARTY agrees to do all such things and
take all such actions, and to make, execute and deliver such other documents and instruments,
as shall be reasonably requested to carry out the provisions, intent and purpose of the
AGREEMENT.
3. Amendment. This AGREEMENT may not be changed, modified or rescinded
except in writing, signed by all partied hereto, and any attempt at oral modification of this
AGREEMENT shall be void and of no effect.
4. Assignment. This AGREEMENT may not be assigned, transferred, hypothecated,
or pledged by any PARTY without the express written consent of the other PARTIES.
5. Binding on Successors. This AGREEMENT shall be binding upon the successor(s),
assignee(s) or transferee(s) of the PARTIES. This provision shall not be construed as an
authorization to assign, transfer, hypothecate or pledge this AGREEMENT other than as
provided above.
6. Indemnification.
a. AUTHORITY hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, assume all liability for
and hold harmless each PARTNER JURISDICTION, its officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, to the maximum extent allowed by law, from all actions, claims, suits,
penalties, obligations, liabilities, damages to property, costs and expenses (including, without
limitation, any fines, penalties, judgments, actual litigation expenses and experts’ and actual
attorneys’ fees), environmental claims or bodily and/or personal injuries or death to any
persons (collectively, “CLAIMS”) arising out of or in any way connected to AUTHORITY its
officers, agents, or employees in connection with or arising from any of its activities pursuant to
this AGREEMENT. This indemnification shall survive the termination of the AGREEMENT and
shall apply except as to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of a PARTNER JURISDICTION.
b. Each PARTNER JURISDICTION hereby agrees to indemnify, defend,
assume all liability for and hold harmless AUTHORITY and its member agencies, officers,
employees, agents and representatives, to the maximum extent allowed by law, from all
CLAIMS arising out of or in any way connected to the PARTNER JURISDICTION, its officers,
4.A.11-8
agents or employees in connection with or arising from any of its activities pursuant to this
AGREEMENT. This indemnification shall survive the termination of the AGREEMENT and shall
apply, except as to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of AUTHORITY.
7. Compliance with Laws. AUTHORITY and each of the PARTNER JURISDICTIONS
shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations regarding the work
performed and the reimbursements requested .
8. Notices. All required or permitted payments, reports, demands and notices may
be sent by regular mail or electronic mail. Notices that are mailed by regular mail shall be
deemed delivered two (2) business days after deposited in the mail. Notices may be personally
delivered and shall be deemed delivered at the time delivered to the appropri ate address set
forth below. Notices delivered by electronic mail shall be deemed received upon the sender’s
receipt of an acknowledgment from the intended recipient (such as by the “return receipt
requested” function, as available, return electronic mail or other written acknowledgment of
receipt); provided that, if such notice is not sent during normal business hours of the recipient,
such notice shall be deemed to have been sent at the opening of business on the next business
day of the recipient. Unless and until notified otherwise in writing, a PARTY shall send or
deliver all such communications relating to this Agreement to the following address:
Hisham Noeimi
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
hnoeimi@ccta.net
John Cunningham
Contra Costa County
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
Tai J. Williams, AICP
Town of Danville
510 La Gonda Way
Danville CA 94526
twilliams@danville.ca.gov
4.A.11-9
Tony Coe
City of Lafayette
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 210
Lafayette, CA 94549
tcoe@ci.lafayette.ca.us
Shawna Brekke-Read
Town of Moraga
329 Rheem Blvd
Moraga, CA 94556
sread@moraga.ca.us
Lawrence Theis, P.E.
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
ltheis@cityoforinda.org
Lisa Bobadilla
City of San Ramon
2401 Crow Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583
lbobadilla@sanramon.ca.gov
9. Termination of Agreement. A PARTY may terminate this Agreement at any time
by giving written notice of termination to each of the other PARTIES which shall specify the
effective date thereof; provided that any notice of termination shall be given at least thirty
(30) days before its effective date.
10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire agreement among AUTHORITY
and the PARTNER JURISDICTIONS relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. All PARTIES
acknowledge they have not relied upon any promise, representation or warranty not expressly
set forth in this Agreement in executing this Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement is
void or otherwise unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force
and effect. Any changes to the terms and provisions of this Agreement or affecting the
obligations of the PARTIES set forth in this Agreement shall be by written amendment signed by
all PARTIES.
11. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared unconstitutional,
4.A.11-10
invalid, or beyond the authority of a PARTY to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement which shall continue in full force and
effect; provided that the remainder of this Agreement can, absent the excised portion, be
reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the PARTIES.
12. Waiver. No waiver by a PARTY of any default or breach of any covenant by the
other PARTIES shall be implied from any omission to take action on account of such default if
such default persists or is repeated and no express waiver shall affect any default other than
the default specified in such waiver and then such waiver shall be operative only for the time
and to the extent stated in such waiver. Waivers of any covenant, term or condition contained
herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term
or condition. No waiver of any provision under this Agreement shall be effective unless in
writing and signed by the waiving PARTY.
13. Controlling Law and Venue. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be
governed by the laws of the State of California and venue shall be in Contra Costa County.
14. Authority. All PARTIES executing this Agreement represent and warrant that
they are authorized to do so.
15. Counterparts. This AGREEMENT may be executed in counterparts.
16. Limitations. All obligations of AUTHORITY under the terms of this AGREEMENT
are expressly subject to the AUTHORITY’S continued authorization to collect and expend the
sales tax proceeds provided by MEASURE C and MEASURE J. If for any reason the AUTHORITY’S
right to collect or expend such sales tax proceeds is terminated or suspended in whole or part,
the AUTHORITY shall promptly notify PARTNER JURISDICTIONS, and the PARTIES shall consult
on a course of action. If, after twenty five (25) working days, a course of action is not agreed
upon by the parties, this AGREEMENT shall be deemed terminated by mutual or joint consent;
provided, that any obligation to fund from the date of the notice shall be expressly limited by
and subject to (i) the lawful ability of the AUTHORITY to expend sales tax proceeds for the
purposes of this AGREEMENT; and (ii) the availability, taking into consideration all the
obligations of the AUTHORITY under all outstanding contracts, agreement to other obligations
of the AUTHORITY, of funds for such purposes.
4.A.11-11
[Signatures on the following pages]
4.A.11-12
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
__________________________________________
By: Janet Abelson, Chair
Date ________________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: Malathy Subramanian, General Counsel
Date_________________, 2011
4.A.11-13
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
__________________________________________
By:
Date ______________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sharon Anderson, County Counsel
_________________________
By: Deputy County Counsel
Date_______________, 2014
4.A.11-14
TOWN OF DANVILLE
__________________________________________
By: (Name, Title)
Date ________________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: , City Attorney
Date_________________, 2014
4.A.11-15
CITY OF LAFAYETTE
__________________________________________
By: (Name, Title)
Date ________________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: , City Attorney
Date_________________, 2014
4.A.11-16
TOWN OF MORAGA
__________________________________________
By: (Name, Title)
Date ________________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: , Town Attorney
Date_________________, 2014
4.A.11-17
CITY OF ORINDA
__________________________________________
By: (Name, Title)
Date ________________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: , City Attorney
Date_________________, 2014
4.A.11-18
CITY OF SAN RAMON
__________________________________________
By: (Name, Title)
Date ________________, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: , City Attorney
Date_________________, 2014
4.A.11-19
Exhibit A
Jurisdiction 50/50 Population &
Road Miles Split (%)
Program 28c Allocations
through FY2034*
Program 28c Allocations
through June 30, 2013
County 20.78 $ 1,323,700 $ 138,783
Danville 21.16 $ 1,347,906 $ 141,321
Lafayette 13.74 $ 875,247 $ 91,765
Moraga 9.1 $ 579,676 $ 60,776
Orinda 12.28 $ 782,244 $ 82,014
San Ramon 22.94 $ 1,461,294 $ 153,208
SUM 100% $ 6,370,067 $ 667,867
* subject to change as Measure J revenue forecast is revised
4.A.11-20
Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2999 Oak Road, Ste. 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925-256-4700 Fax: 925-256-4701 Website: www.ccta.net
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
January 15, 2014
Governing - FutureStructure Transportation Webinar: December 10, 2013
I was invited to speak about maintenance, funding and air quality issues associated with our
transportation system. The other speaker was Professor Stephanie Pincetl, Director, California
Center for Sustainable Communities at UCLA.
CTF Liaison Meeting: December 11, 2013
I chair the California Transportation Foundation’s Caltrans liaison subcommittee. I participated in
the meeting via telephone. Our subcommittee discussed partnering awards, scholarships and
the Annual Transportation Education Symposium.
Smart Parking: December 16, 2013
We hosted a meeting with Carter Mau, BART, Lafayette Council Member Don Tatzin, Lafayette
City Manager Steve Falk and Streetline Vice President Ken Voss to discuss a potential partnership
to provide a smart parking solution for the City of Lafayette.
Port of Oakland Tour: December 16, 2013
Matt Kelly, Peter Engel, Amin AbuAmara, Ivan Ramirez and I toured the Port of Oakland. We
learned about the value of the Port of Oakland to the economy of California.
Supervisor Training - Preventing Harassment in the Workplace: December 17, 2013
Supervisorial staff at CCTA attended a 2-hour training/refresher course on this important topic.
The training was administered by ADP.
CTF Board Meeting: December 19, 2013
I attended the California Transportation Foundation Board Meeting in Walnut Creek. I could not
attend the Holiday lunch because I had to get back to the office to chair the National Freight
Advisory Committee’s Research, Innovation, and Technology subcommittee 2-hour
teleconference that we hold every two weeks.
New Telephone Services: December 20, 2013
We found better pricing on our phone service and switched over to a different company. We’ll
be saving about $400 a month with this change.
MRP 2.0 Steering Committee Meeting: January 6, 2014
I was asked to join this committee to help negotiate the next Municipal Region Stormwater
Permit (MRP). This meeting focused on the complete streets policy and moving the region
toward implementation of a green street program. I was happy t o hear that the regional
7.3-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2999 Oak Road, Ste. 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925-256-4700 Fax: 925-256-4701 Website: www.ccta.net
participants liked the complete streets policy because I signed DD -64 R1 Complete Streets –
Integrating the Transportation System before I left Caltrans. The focus of the group was
integrating sustainability issues with transportation programs and how to fund those initiatives.
Denis Cuff Interview: January 6, 2014
I was interviewed by Denis Cuff of the Contra Costa Times regarding artwork on soundwalls and
retaining walls, based on my experience at Caltrans and CCTA. He noticed artwork in other parts
of California but only recently in the Bay Area, and was interested in when we started doing this.
Southern California has had spot examples of artwork on its soundwalls going back a few
decades, and my first recollection was the murals along the freeways in Los Angeles, which were
painted to commemorate the 1984 Olympics. In the Bay Area, in 2001 I approved the placement
of the sailboats on the retaining wall on the east side of I-80 near the Carquinez Bridge.
Recently, CCTA funded the delta scene on the soundwalls and retaining walls along SR 4 , and the
oak leaves on the retaining walls near the I-680 Auxiliary Lane Project, themes which fit well with
the respective communities.
SR4 Widening Segment 3B Project Partnering Session: January 8, 2014
Ross Chittenden, Ivan Ramirez and I participated in the partnering session for SR 4 contract 3B.
This project is progressing well. There were no outstanding issues brought forward at this
meeting. CCTA is in charge of the contract administration for this project. All pro jects
administered by CCTA have a partnering specification. However, because of the success of
accelerating Loveridge and the overwhelming support, we are taking a look at what it will cost to
accelerate this contract so we can finish the corridor earlier than expected.
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting: January 12- 14, 2014
Ross Chittenden and I attended the 93rd annual TRB meeting in Washington, DC. I also attended
the international Data Analysis Working Group on January 11, 2014. The annu al meeting attracts
over 10,000 transportation experts from around the world. I participated on the “Rethinking the
Transportation Organization” panel on Sunday.
7.3-2
Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2999 Oak Road, Ste. 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925-256-4700 Fax: 925-256-4701 Website: www.ccta.net
MEETING SCHEDULE
Meetings are held in CCTA’s Board Room (Suite 110) unless otherwise noted.
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Full Authority Board (CCTA) February 19, 2014
March 19, 2014
April 16, 2014
Third Wednesday of the month
at 6:00 PM
Administration & Projects Committee (APC) February 6, 2014
March 6, 2014
April 3, 2014
First Thursday of the month
at 8:30 AM
Planning Committee (PC) February 5, 2014
March 5, 2014
April 2, 2014
First Wednesday of the month
at 6:00 PM
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) January 22, 2014
February 26, 2014
March 26, 2014
April 23, 2014
Fourth Wednesday of the month (generally)
at 6:00 PM -
Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC)
February 20, 2014
March 20, 2014
April 17, 2014
Third Thursday of the month
at 2:30 PM
Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC)
January 27, 2014 *
February – No Meeting
March 17, 2014
April – No Meeting
Third Monday of every other month
at 2:30 PM
Countywide Bicycle & Pedestrian
Advisory Committee (CBPAC)
Fourth Monday of every other month
at 11:00 AM (generally)
January 27, 2014
February – No Meeting
March 24, 2014
April – No Meeting
** Please note that due to the MLK Holiday, the PCC Meeting will be held on the 4th Monday , on January 27th
COMMISSIONERS: Janet Abelson, Chair Kevin Romick, Vice Chair Newell Arnerich Tom Butt David Durant
Federal Glover Dave Hudson Mike Metcalf Karen Mitchoff Julie Pierce Robert Taylor
8.1-1
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
Calendar of Upcoming Events
January 15, 2014
Winter 2014 Location Event
January 16, 2014 Pittsburg City Hall State Route 4 Loveridge and Somersville Milestone
Celebration
January 24, 2014 Stockton San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) Meeting
January 30, 2014 Sacramento Northern California State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) Hearing
January 29-30, 2014 Sacramento area California Transportation Commission (CTC) Meeting
February 11, 2014 Sacramento California Transportation Foundation (CTF) - Annual
Transportation Forum
Spring 2014 Location Event
Spring 2014 - Date TBD Public Release of 2014 CTP Update
Spring 2014 - Date TBD Danville I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Opening Announcement
Spring 2014 - Date TBD Antioch/Oakley Groundbreaking - SR4/160 Connector Ramps
March 20-21, 2014 Orange County California Transportation Commission (CTC) Meeting
March 28, 2014 TBD San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) Meeting
May 2014 (Date TBD)Sacramento California Transportation Foundation (CTF) Annual
Transportation Awards
May 21-22, 2014 San Diego area California Transportation Commission (CTC) Meeting
May 23, 2014 TBD San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) Meeting
Summer 2014 Location Event
June 25-26, 2014 Sacramento area California Transportation Commission (CTC) Meeting
July 25, 2014 TBD San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) Meeting
August 20-21, 2014 Silicon Valley California Transportation Commission (CTC) Meeting
Fall 2014 Location Event
Fall 2014 - Date TBD Brentwood Ribbon Cutting - SR4 Widening and SR4/Sand Creek
Interchange Project
September 26, 2014 TBD San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) Meeting
October 8-9, 2014 Central Valley California Transportation Commission (CTC) Meeting
December 5, 2014 TBD San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) Meeting
December 10, 2014 Inland Empire California Transportation Commission (CTC) Meeting
8.2-1
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk