 Hang on not yet I'm gonna go ahead and call the RTC meeting for June 6th to order and We'll begin with a roll call Commissioner Rotkin Commissioner Bautorf here Commissioner Gonzalez. Yeah, Commissioner McPherson Commissioner Leopold Commissioner alternate Mulher Commissioner Coonerty Commissioner Caput Sorry Commissioner alternate shifrin Commissioner Kauffman Gomez president Commissioner Johnson Commissioner Brown here Commissioner Bertrand and Commissioner low Great before we get started. I just want to take a moment to acknowledge that today is a d-day and 75 years ago our American spot for freedom in the foreign country and I just want to acknowledge all those that served and or died in that battle So I'd just like to take a moment of science with silence really quickly. Thank you Thank you for that. I appreciate it Okay with that we'll go on to all communications This is a time when people from the public can address us on any item that is not on the agenda You'll be given three minutes to speak Please come up. Thank you. Welcome. Mr. Peoples. Thank you Brian Peoples executive director of trail now Last night. I was went to the parish pub to watch the Warriors play The parish pub is about is in Aptos village about 10 feet from the tracks and person sitting next to me Conversation I said well, do you know what's going on with the tracks and the training he said, yeah We're putting in a train there. I said well, you're looking forward to that He said yeah, I'm looking forward to taking it driving down to seascape Taking the train downtown and I said well the train doesn't go downtown It's not till 20 2040 That the plan is why don't you take the bus? He said no, I'd rather just drive He said well, I said well, what do you drive? He says I drive a Tesla. I Said and he I said oh you just bought a Tesla He said yeah, I bought a Tesla because it's it's designed to drive itself So I'm gonna dial in the address I want to go to the cars can be in my driveway and it's going to take me directly there And he's and I said well Okay, he said well, I you know, I don't want to sit at a bus station. I don't want to ride a bus I want direct service We basically as we talked We talked about the viability of his car Driving him directly just from point A to point B and he saw that as a value What we talked about a little more was the the likelihood of 60 trains a day Traveling through Aptos village going 45 miles an hour 10 feet from parish pub And I said, you know, what would it what would the game be like if we were sitting here in every 15 minutes? A train was going by big multi-ton train traveling by 10 feet He said well that wouldn't work the building would shake every 15 minutes. Are you kidding me? Yeah, virtually Aptos village will be shut down every 15 minutes because you got this train Traveling through all the cross guards go down. It's really not realistic what we concluded. It was good We had this conversation because he didn't understand but then I said well, what could you imagine if it was a world-class continuous trail? Running along the coast he would say he says yeah, that would be great. I said, yeah, you could ride He says yeah, but my wife can't ride. She can't walk. I said well, that's okay With what the future will be is pedicabs rickshaws mobility that don't require Bustle fuel engines doesn't require even electric So what we came to the conclusion? I'm missing your clock, so I know my time, but anyways What we conclude it was it really was an idealistic That a train was going to be traveling along the coastal corridor. I also talked about Asked him about hidden beach trestle Did he like hidden beach trechels because they'll have to tear that trestle down? To have 60 trains a day Traveling 45 miles an hour, so it's not realistic And I think it's important for us as community leaders You to be realistic in your expectations of how to improve transportation Thank you. Thank you for your comments Anyone else like to address the Commission? Ain't none will close our communications move on. Are there any additions or deletions to the agendas? Yes, thank you, chair bottle. There is a handout for item 11 replacement pages for item 17 a handout for item 23 And handout for item 25 and replacement pages for item 26 and Additionally, staff and legal counsel recommend the addition of a closed session item relating to anticipated litigation pursuant to government code section 5495 6.9 d2 two cases There is a need to take immediate action to consider an offer of settlement which came to the attention of the Commission on June 5 subsequent to the agenda being posted because the statute of limitations relating to one of the anticipated causes of action Will expire prior to the Commission's next regular meeting The addition of this item requires a determination of two-thirds of the members of the Commission present or if less than two-thirds of the members are present a unanimous vote That there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the agency Subsequent to the agenda being posted Commissioner Rockman Addition to our agenda based on the emergency conditions that were under that I believe meet the Requirements of the Brown Act second motion and a second any further discussion Name of the public have a comment Ain't none all in favor. I opposed Motion carries unanimously Thank you Okay, thank you for that those additions it takes us to the consent agenda These are items that are normally dealt with all in one motion. Is there anyone from the board would like to pull anything on the consent agenda? Anyone from the public have a comment on the consent agenda move the consent agenda Motion and second for the consent agenda all in favor. I opposed consent agenda carries unanimously Hey Takes us to the regular agenda, which is any commissioner have reports on any related RTC items Commissioner Rodkin Two brief comments first of all, I wanted to appreciate our staff having read through this packet It was a lot of stuff here and I just had to read it and understand it Somebody had to actually like research this write it and produce this material It's an impressive amount of work that goes into one of these agendas and I just wanted to make a comment about that and thank our staff for their fine work and In short and they have to do it in a short period of time as well secondly, there have been a number of letters to the editor in the paper and some comments on our RTC meetings about the Long process that we're involved in to actually develop a mass transit alternative on the Unified court on the corridor through the county and I just want to say We're about to embark on spending between scores and maybe more than a hundred million dollars On a public transit project and the idea that we might take a little bit of time to study What might be the best option for that makes an awful lot of sense and the idea that somehow we're dragging our feet Taking too long You know we could we could have should have done this years ago when we had no money to actually even do the study much Less the actual production of the thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense And so I think people should understand what we are doing We have made a unanimous decision that we want to have a public transit option on that quarter That's that that's something that's already been decided. Some people are still trying to undo that decision or go back I don't think we're going there. It was a pretty clear Two years of work and a lot of public input made a decision and then we decided we better be sure about what exact mode of transit we want on that corridor and So we had a comment this morning from mr. People's about you know this big heavy train that's going to shake the foundation of every building We haven't decided what kind of public transit is going to be on there Whether it would be a bus whether it might be a train a tram of some kind those if it is 60 trips or whatever it is I don't think anybody on this Board believes that it's going to be a diesel train You know like like a cow train or something runs on the track over over the hill We're talking about a much smaller form rail doesn't require it to be a large diesel train So that's a study. We're doing we need to do that in a serious way And it will take us some time and we're smart to take the time to do that and get it right Because we don't want to waste a hundred million dollars on a project. It doesn't work. That's my comment Thank you. Thank you for those any other commissioner comments director McCurff and efficient Yeah federal government, I think just they approved a disaster relief bill and something of concern that's going to be facing us the FHW a federal highway assistance We usually get extensions For up to six years. At first it was two years, but that has been extended Historically and now the administration is seems like it's going to cut back on how much you can go out and address these disaster relief bills that we've had so much experience with unfortunately especially in the 16 17 air Disaster areas or years we I think this county had half of the damage on roads of the whole state and If we don't get that funding or that extension for that funding it's going to cost this county of millions of dollars Or we're going to have to find out how to make up that That money if we don't get those extensions approved, but It's kind of fuzzy right now exactly how much it's going to be but it's going to be in the millions of dollars And it could really hit us hard and it's just a forewarning. It's going to be coming at us here pretty soon Thank you for that update Could I add to that that maybe it would make sense to follow up on that to get an item on our agenda So that the Commission could potentially take action We can't take action on it today since it's not on the agenda, but this is a very serious concern in terms of the relationship between California and the federal government and that has particularly deleterious effects potentially on Santa Cruz So I would ask that we have this agenda is done the next Commission meeting with the staff Identifying potential actions that Commission could take in response to the concerns that have been raised That's good. Yeah, we'll know more about the details of it. I think that's proper Okay, thank you. We'll add that to Mr. Preston We'll add that to the agenda in August. Thank you Any other commissioner comments? Okay, we'll move on to the director's report. Thank you chair Bob. Hope I'm sad to announce the resignation of Brooke Miller as RTC legal counsel Brooke Miller Announced last month that she will be leaving the office of County Council for a position in San Diego Brooke has been RTC's lead attorney for the past five years Although I have only worked with Brooke for six months. I have a great appreciation for her knowledge and expertise in serving the RTC I have been working with Brooke to prioritize her limited time with the With County Council on a plan to cover RTC's legal needs Brooks last day is Tuesday, June 11th. I I'm also very happy for Brooke. I know this is a good move for her and her family And you know good people deserve good things. So we will find a way to press on which leads right into Request for proposals for legal services RTC has been using the legal services from the County of Santa Cruz since its inception Earlier this year County Council Dana McRae and I met to discuss RTC needs and the County resources Although County Council has provided excellent services the workload associated with RTC's legal needs Has grown with the increases and responsibilities and complexities associated with both owning a rail line and becoming a self-help County RTC's use of County's limited legal resources has become more challenging for the County Additionally, there are potential legal issues between the County and RTC which could result in conflicts of interest when sharing legal counsel For those reasons County Council has advised RTC to obtain outside legal services for future legal needs County Council has worked with the RTC to prepare a request for proposals for a full Service legal firm the following is the proposed schedule for the procurement of a legal services firm Tomorrow we will issue the RFP Proposals will be due from consultants on July 8th the panel will Review and rank proposals from July 8th to 10th Interviews will take place July 15th and or 16th We will recommend a consultant for approval to the RTC board at the regular meeting on August 1st And we will provide the consultant with notice to proceed on August 9th of all goes as planned. I Have reached out to chair Bautorf in terms of his interest in being part of the panel and he is interested and I have also received interest from Commissioner Coonerty to be on the panel Commissioner Coonerty is an attorney and would be an excellent choice to serve on the the review panel In addition to that Dana McCrae has indicated that she is available to serve on the panel Okay With that I'm going to move on to the next item unless you want to talk about this I just want to see if there's any comments from commissioners on that selection of that panel I think that the the selection that mr. Preston has put together is a good group, and I think it will serve the commission well We're gonna miss the services of our previous attorney for sure. Yeah Right. We want to appreciate Miller's efforts that she's put forth and some really pressing issues that we've had over the recent years and I think this is a good process that time has come that we need to have our own Journey Right. Commissioner Schiffrin. Yes, I just also just wanted to express my appreciation to for all the work that Brooke has done for the Commission, I think it's really been valuable and her competence is really Meant a lot and I think it's a real loss and hopefully we'll end up with a through this process with that's competent and attorney Yeah, Brooke I think we all echo that that we appreciate your work and the way you deliver to us It's understandable and concise and it's very valuable. So thank you, and we all wish you well in your new endeavors. Thank you Okay with that carry on with your report moving on the status of the rail line storm damage contracts Staff has been working hard to deliver the 2017 storm damage contracts to construction this season There's been considerable progress on the development of plan specification and permits But the start of construction is subject to the receipt of permits and the following and following all of the permit conditions At our last board meeting the Commission authorized and I have subsequently started entering into contracts For a construction management firm to assist in the final packaging of the phase one construction contracts Which include five of the eight storm damage projects including the washout near Harkins slew Services include procurement and management of a construction contract with a qualified low bid contractor Although the phase one contracts are still expected to be advertised this summer The receipt of final permits the contract award date and the necessary lead time to start construction may not allow for construction of the washout near Harkins slew this season if this is the case I will likely recommend that the RTC award a contract this year, but any field work subject to permit conditioned work window restrictions May need to be suspended until next season Work at sites not subject to work window restrictions is expected to proceed as construction contracts are approved and awarded I will continue to update the Commission on the delivery of all storm damage contracts on the rail line With respect to the Monterey Bay Sanctuary scenic trail There will be a public hearing on the appeal of the planning of the city of Santa Cruz's planning Commission's Initial study mitigated neck negative declaration for phase two of segment seven of the MB SST at their meeting on June 11th, 2019. There is a misprint in my handout I say the meeting is at 11 o'clock is actually at their afternoon session 1230 the item will likely be heard and the neighborhood of 230 The grand opening ceremony for the segments eight San Lorenzo River trestle bridge project was held on Wednesday, May 22nd The 10-foot wide cantilevered bicycle and pedestrian path has been opened now for over two weeks This project was implemented with the city of Santa Cruz using multiple fund sources including measure D The Scott Creek Lagoon and March restoration project Last month the RTC received notice that it has been awarded 237 thousand six hundred ninety dollars and grant funds from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service For the scots Creek Lagoon and March restoration project one of thirty eight statewide projects selected to receive funding for multiple benefit ecosystem restoration projects under fish and wildlife Proposition one and proposition 68 grant programs the Scots Creek project will develop a Restoration design that includes a modern transportation corridor for highway one, which will allow the ecological condition and dynamic dynamic I can't speak today dynamism dynamism of the scots leak Lagoon March and Dune system while also planning for Climate change resiliency RTC staff will will be collaborating with Caltrans district five and the resource conservation district on this project The grant will continue The critical work of this project team and the federal and state resource agencies that have been developed to date for the Scott Creek Lagoon March restoration project The rail line alternatives analysis and the 2019 Raul pollution conference Staff is working on finalizing a draft RFP and scope of work for a planned alternatives analysis for high-capacity Public transit on the Santa Cruz branch rail line RTC and Metro staff is scheduled to bring the scope of work for the alternatives analysis to the RTC and Metro boards For input at their board meetings on June 27th and 28th respectively Work is expected to commence in September 2019 and be completed in early 2021 The 2019 revolution conference will be held on September 8th through 11th in Vancouver, British Columbia The theme of this year's conference is building livable communities with transit It's very important to note that the transit at this conference is not just rail transit It's all transit there will be over 75 thought and discussion provoking workshops ranging from cutting policy overviews to practical hands-on strategies last year RTC sent two staff members to the conference in Pittsburgh This year I plan to attend this conference with ginger die car who is leading the RTC's effort on the alternatives analysis The conference topics and schedule coincide well without of the alternatives analysis And I expect the conference to be beneficial for RTC staff working on the study The triennial performance audit every three years the RTC goes through a triennial performance audit as required by the Transportation Development Act the RTC hired the firm and Michael Baker International and Derek Wong as the lead auditor as part of the audit the hired Auditor reaches out to commissioners for input on the audit the audit work will be starting soon So do not be surprised if you hear from the auditor Internal staffing changes last month. I announced that I appointed Tommy Travers transportation Planning tech to a provisional planner position to temporarily fill the RTC's vacant planner position To temporarily fill Tommy's planning tech position RTC recruited and has hired a provisional planning technician Jason Thompson effective June 17 2019 Jason graduated in 2016 from Cal Poly with a Bachelor of Science in Forestry and Natural Resource Management He has experience working with utility companies many of which cross the Santa Cruz branch rail line He also served as a consulting arborist with Davey Davey resource group and is Has skills and GIS Earlier this month RTC brought in an engineering intern Brian Zamora on board Brian is studying for an associate degree in civil engineering at Cabrillo College But plans to transfer to a four-year university That concludes my report Any questions of the director Commissioner Gotham go ahead Sorry, can we go back to the Harkins Lou project? Yes only have a very small window and So we're not can we go do anything up to that point? Because I know that that's a big issue that we have with the migration And so we just won't satisfy this window. So we're not going to do anything for another year Can you give me a little bit of what we can do what we can't do? so the work window is in the neighborhood of August through October So We don't have the permits in place yet, and it's now the beginning of June We also have to advertise the contract and select a bidder and then the bidder would have to have you know Provide a lot of their submittals. I'm not saying that the project will definitively not go I'm just letting you know that it's at risk How much we can do would really be dependent upon the contractor schedule and how we package the contract There are creative ways of doing this and I plan to employ everything I can to try to get as much work done this year as possible If there are some of the work cannot be completed this year It would be that work would be suspended until next season's work window Yeah, just keep me apprised on how we're progressing on that because it affects Watsonville primarily here. Thank you understood What is next next year's work window? It would be the same period of time But in 2020 as opposed to 2019 so August through October is when we're allowed to work Pretty challenging window Any other comments? Comments from the public on the directors. Thank you Brian people's trail now First we're hopeful that this commission can respond back to the California Transportation Commission on their Revenue stream to operate the train that they're proposing CTC California Transportation Commission is actively requesting that that be provided on public transit along the coastal corridor, I think we're Recommending that you rephrase that as mass transit The stipulation that only publicly or government funded operated Transit be part of the study Is not really appropriate it basically eliminates the probably warning of the most effective modes of transit based off of the unified corridor study unified corridor studies showed that a trail designed as for transportation significantly outpaced any type of Train or bus system on that corridor so limit in so I encourage you we encourage you to use the term mass transit in Your analysis and not public transit finally we Really want to emphasize the value of the coastal corridor and keeping it closed for years Especially as highway one widening occurs You're going to need some mitigation with the widening of highway one You're going to mean to open that corridor even as an interim gravel trail We're really asking that you work with the local community The local community is willing to step up and contribute millions of dollars to bring it to an interim solution We're we're we're actually really reaching out and asking that you say hey, can we use this corridor today? Even as a gravel trail We're actually in contact with your Contractor progressive rail and there's some positive discussions there going on that rather than an excursion train rather than using it for You know a diesel operated excursion cream. Can we use this resource today? To help mitigate the coming Traffic nightmare with a widening of highway one so I encourage you to think outside the box How could we use it today got it? You got to do a lot of studies figure it out But is there a way to use it today at least from Manresa? To Santa Cruz as an interim gravel trail Thank you. Thank you Any other comments? Okay, we're gonna close that item Miss Lowe, I'm gonna have you hold off on your report after the public hearing at this time We're gonna move to item 25, which is a 930 scheduled public hearing presentation on measure D five-year program Spy Rachel are you doing this? Okay, good My staff is always multitasking That's great It seems some of the hide this slide. Is it working? Let me just see if we can there we go Gonna keep coming with all the hidden ones I Tried to truncate it so you didn't get bored with certain slides that are made me geared towards the Folks who don't know anything about measure D, but good morning commissioners. Thank you for Having me this morning to talk about our exciting measure D program As everyone recalls measure D was approved by voters in November of 2016 it required more than two-thirds of voters in our county to say yes to Funding some of the backlog of transportation needs in our community focusing on priority projects. I Hit the forward arrow. Yeah, okay, so measure D is a half cent sales tax on transaction and use tax which is in place for the next 30 years it started to be collected in April of 2017 and it generates about 20 million dollars per year to fund local priorities that Cannot be taken by the state. This was a very important thing over the years state funding has been very unpredictable And so we really wanted to make sure we had a local funding source available that can't be taken by them that we could use to leverage other grants and It measure D includes several taxpayer oversight Measures within it. There's audits. There's taxpayer oversight committee made up of citizens And there's a lot of public outreach Involved and opportunities for the public to weigh in on exactly how we spend these funds So measure D Included an expenditure plan and this identified how we're going to spend the measure D funds And this was approved by the voters. So this is you know, not very discretionary funding We have to give 17% of the measure D funds to the Trail program and 30% of the funds go out to cities and counties for projects selected by them with a slight Tiny 2% of it going to highway 9 and highway 17 programs the rail quarter gets 8% of the funds and then 20% of the funds are split between Santa Cruz Metro and lift line for Transportation for seniors and people with disabilities. Well the expenditure plan identifies this general split of the funds It doesn't spell out exactly what dollars are going to be used every single year So what we do is we have a in the measure it requires these five-year program of projects Which give everyone the opportunity to say hey over the next five years This is how we're proposing to use the revenues that are expected for each of these categories or buckets And so it's the way that we make sure that there's a transparent public process to provide interim input on how these funds are spent So the first bucket I'm going to talk about is the highway bucket this is 25% of the measure D funds and Asset fourth in the expenditure plan That was approved by the voters it funds auxiliary lanes bicycle and pedestrian crossings over highway one The freeway service patrol program which provides roving tow trucks to clear out incidents so that There's non-recurring Congestion is cleared out of there if someone drops a mattress off the back of their truck things that would completely shut down the highway sometimes we have roving tow trucks out there during commute and Summer hours to make sure that we can keep meet people moving and then it also has some funding for the safe on 17 California highway patrol increased enforcement on highway 17 to slow people down and hopefully save some lives And it also includes funds for traveler assistance and transportation demand management programs The five-year plan that's before you today, which is exhibit a I believe of your packet Includes funds to is really focused on using these measure D funds to leverage other state and federal grants and so we've included in there some funding for auxiliary lanes between So Cal and State Park Drive and those are on the map down there. It's two different sets of auxiliary lanes We've of course already finished the environmental document on the first set between So Cal and 41st Avenue and what are well into final design on that That project also includes a bicycle and pedestrian bridge near Shanna clear Connecting, you know one side of the freeway to the other without folks having to go through the sometimes confusing inner change of So Cal Avenue to get over between Dominican Hospital and the coastal side It also includes funds for the cruise 5-1-1 program and traveler information programs and new this year We've included a hundred thousand dollars for that program to provide as incentives and to look at other Transportation demand management programs that might be offered by other entities These might be things offered by city of Santa Cruz is doing a major downtown Program for instance or ecology action has some programs that they're Promoting that you know would help in the interim Well, we're waiting to construct new projects on highway one to get people going and into carpools and Finding alternatives and then it also includes funds as mentioned before for the California Highway Patrol We bumped up the funds a bit and this is related to an item that the Commission had on its agenda last month Which was a report from the California Highway Patrol on incidents on highway 17 to just really Increase how much we're able to do out there and then ongoing funds for the freeway service patrol But we we are holding in reserve a large portion of the funds this year We want to really try to use these measure D funds to leverage state grants and go after things new programs That are discussed in then in the next agenda item Through the Senate bill one competitive grant programs for instance. It also does include as does the rail and Trail buckets a portion of some matching funds that were needed for a resource mitigation grant to do some advanced mitigation Throughout our county The next bucket I'm going to talk about is the coastal trail bucket This is 17% of the funds and this is primarily for the Monterey Bay sanctuary scenic trail project, which includes trails both on the rail corridor as well as Trails along the entire coastline So this primarily funds development of the trail as well as construction and maintenance of the corridor Groundbreaking for the first section of trail as mentioned by director Preston was just last month for The bridge over San Lorenzo River So for those who aren't familiar with the trail project, which I don't know is anyone in the county But maybe some folks overall it is a 50 mile network of trails 32 miles of it happened to be on the rail line as the spine between Davenport and Watsonville It serves a ton of destinations in our county schools parks job centers Residences half the population of the county lives within a mile of this trail So we do have a goal to construct the whole thing within the next 10 years And so folks are actively working to make that happen So the next thing I want to talk about are the sections of trail that are included in the five-year plan So For and if you don't mind just kind of tapping through one at a time So the first section is segment five is up there on the north coast and there's funding in there to Leverage grants and we're hoping to use some of that to access some additional federal lands grants and other grant programs But it also has funds to finish environmental review and at least the first phase of that project There's two point one million dollars for segment seven Which is the in the city of Santa Cruz a million of that is for the section that's going out to bid next month between natural bridges and California Avenue and Bay Street and Santa Cruz and then a million dollars has been added for phase two Which would be between California and Bay intersection down to the wharf There's two million dollars in the plan for segments eight and nine which go out through 17th Avenue and again that funding is matching some existing active Transportation program grants that were secured by the city of Santa Cruz for pre-construction phases but also anticipated to be used to secure additional grants for the construction phase of the project then we have New to the program this year is four million dollars to the county of Santa Cruz for segments ten through twelve of the trail with the Exception of the portion that goes through the city of Patola bed Essentially, this is going from 17th Avenue down to Aptos Creek Road and in Aptos village the goal is to start environmental review next year and then use the measure typically environmental review takes two to four years for these Trail sections that it may be a little bit longer or more complicated And so then based on completion of that environmental document the project will be better situated to go after other grants So the goal there is to get this thing going get it shelf ready so that it can compete for funds and then we have two point 95 million dollars for segment 18 in Watsonville this goes from Lee Road down to Walker Street right in downtown Watsonville and To a lot of that funding is expected to be used to leverage other grants there's an additional million dollars that is needed and was requested by city of Watsonville and Staff as discussed last month would intend to Support Watsonville in securing some additional funds and if for some reason they just are not successful in doing that in future years as As the project gets closer to construction The one that phase of the project won't really be ready until 2021 for construction the Commission could reconsider that at future five-year plan updates. So our recommendation is to stick with just the 2.95 million dollars at this time On the next project is the eight percent of the measure D funds that go for the rail corridor And these are primarily for preserving the existing railroad infrastructure maintaining You know tracks Bridges making some emergency repairs But it also includes within measure D expenditure plan analysis of different Uses of the rail corridor and so within the five-year plan. We have included funds for Environmental review of whatever maybe comes out of that alternatives analysis so that we can get dig deeper into what the environmental impacts of any kind of Transit on the rail corridor might have The next category is 30% of the funds go for what we have called the neighborhood projects button with it but bucket within the Expenditure plan, but within that is 10 million dollars over 30 years for the San Lorenzo Valley Highway 9 corridor and Within the five-year plan. We are recommending that The Commission reserve a significant portion of these funds for projects that are being identified as priorities through the currently almost completed Highway 9 Corridor plan which the Commission will consider at your June 27th meeting So today we're not designating all of those funds out But we do recommend million dollars within the five-year plan for one project that has Repeatedly come up as one of the highest priorities, which is looking at what kind of pedestrian improvements could happen between Graham Hill Road and the San Lorenzo Valley school complex. That's where the high school middle school and elementary school are There's also within the neighborhood bucket five million dollars over 30 years for the highway 17 wildlife crossing Caltrans is Rapidly progressing on the final design for that project and hopes to start construction in 2021 we won't have Generated the full five million dollars that are designated for that by the time of the project's ready for construction So we will be looking at using some of those five year five million dollar funding to pay that debt service on potential bonding that we might need to do or other kind of Funding arrangements that we might have so that that will be discussed in more detail later this year when you consider the overall 30-year implementation plan for Measure D funds also within the 30-year neighborhood bucket, which the Commission does not have discretion over is that You know as I mentioned before the majority of these funds are allocated by a formula To cities and the county for any projects that they have chosen that are transportation related that Are at least within the overall expectation of what is required by measure D They cannot use these funds to supplant other funds that they used to use for those same Transportation purposes, but it is meant to be supplemental funds for each jurisdiction the roads in our county They're in bad shape. There's you know overall we have a very low pavement condition index That is a scale of zero the road is completely dirt to a hundred brand new beautiful asphalt that you can rollerblade on without You know falling over like a really nice roller-skating rink and most of our roads are in what's considered failed or very poor condition and so It varies by jurisdiction some of the jurisdictions have roads that are in a little bit better shape the county's been definitely struggling with their Hundreds of miles of roadway to keep up It also can be used to improve sidewalks and as well as do bicycle and pedestrian projects Go on to the next slide this kind of just shows you the breakdown of how those funds are going out for fiscal year 1920 So that you can see the range of amount of measure D funds that go to each jurisdiction And so this has been a huge success It was critical this money along with some Senate bill one funds that are going directly to local jurisdictions are really helping them address at least some of the backlog that Has been there the formula that those funds are distributed includes a combination of looking at the population of the jurisdiction How many lane miles there are in the jurisdiction and also where the sales tax was Generated so since this is a transaction and use tax if someone from Santa Cruz buys a car in Santa Clara County We still get the funds that were generated in Santa Clara County back to the city of Santa Cruz because that's where the residents is So moving on I just wanted to share even though this is not the subject of Commission decisions I just wanted to share with you a couple of pictures of some of the projects that neighbor that jurisdictions have done this is a before and after photo of A roadway in Boulder Creek that the county rehabbed and you can see the crocodile pavement next to the nice smooth pavement there and then some of the jurisdictions have put some of their funds into public education programs working with schools to Teach kids how to safely cross the street or ride their bikes and be street smart in general and then down there in the corner Is a picture of the city of Capitola's green bike lanes that they put at freeway interchanges to try to eliminate conflicts between bicycles and and autos as folks are trying to speed on to the highway and then the final bucket I wanted to talk about briefly is the transit and paratransit bus get 16% of overall measure D funds are allocated directly to Santa Cruz Metro for projects selected by Metro they have primarily used those on Maintaining existing service that otherwise would have had it been cut as well as using the funds to leverage other grants to Replace vehicles that are past their useful life now The Commission does have at need to take action on the other bucket which is 4% of the funds that go to community bridges for its Lit flying paratransit program The reason why the regional transportation Commission takes action on that is because lift line is the only agency receiving Measure D funds that does not have a public agency board And this is the opportunity for a public agency board to take action and give the public an opportunity to weigh in on what their proposed uses of funds are so here's just a couple slides on pictures of some of the things that are done there and as far as lift lines five-year plan recommendation They are proposing to use their funds to fund two new drivers continue to fund two new drivers This is allowed Lift line to expand their service from five days a week to seven days a week It provides door-to-door service for folks who can't ride the fixed route system or For other reasons need this paratransit service. It also includes new driver training which also serves as a Substitute if other drivers are out ill unexpectedly It also includes a lot of outreach to folks There's a lot of house-balanced seniors and and folks with disability in our community and so lift line is really focused on getting them active getting them to meal sites and Scheduling so part of that is all scheduling the rides and dispatching the vehicles. So a lot of Staff time is involved in that. It's also they were plan on using measure D funds to leverage grants for vehicles and a new operations facility So today You have a couple actions before you one is to review the five-year proposed use of funds and that's in exhibits a through F of Your packet Consider public input. We did hand out yesterday and it's up at the table Some input that we received from the public in writing the majority of those comments are focused on Are supporting different components of the proposed use of funds over the next five years But there's also identifications of some priorities that Santa Cruz Metro or some of the local jurisdictions should consider as part of their measure D five-year buckets so that 30% neighborhood and 16% to Metro And then there's a few I think there were two or three comments opposing either any use of funds on the rail or any use of funds on Highway one So for those of you that didn't get to rapidly read through The 20 or so comments that we receive that's my very very short summary But they're all very thoughtful comments, but you'll also hold a public hearing to receive additional input today Each of the local jurisdictions is also Concurrently has been looking at their own five-year plans Some agencies adopted their five-year plans as early as last April City of Watsonville for instance will be considering their five-year plan next week Metro will be considering its five-year plan At the end of the month and same thing with the county as part of their overall budget processes so The RTC of course saw a preview of these plans last month we took aim to consideration comments that were made and The only modification from what you saw last month was to integrate that The funding for the match for the advanced mitigation projects so With that we would just recommend that you direct staff to once you Make your final decision on this five-year plan to amend the budget and also to direct us to start going after grants to use these Measure D funds to maximize what we can get back as a community. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have Rachel, thank you for that presentation any questions of miss Mora Connie director Bertrand Thank you for your report I think Community ridges has definitely stepped up in terms of the extra funding What's the interaction between RTC and community ridges to ensure these services are provided The services themselves. Yes, sure. Um, and I'm sure that Kirk Yep, he's in the corner over there. So if you have more questions the director of the fine is here today The commission has a couple different things in place one is our elderly and disabled transportation advisory committee Has lifeline provide reports on a semi regular basis. In fact, I think monthly they say here's what we've been working on But they also reviewed these their five-year plan proposal provided feedback Adjustments were made but the biggest thing and this is not unique just to the lifeline funding But for all the funds each agency is required to prepare an audit of their funds and provide an expenditure report that says here Is how we actually spent the funds and that's then reviewed by the Independent taxpayer oversight committee and there's an item at the end of your agenda that talks about their findings from how folks used funds in the first fiscal year, so that's The majority of the process. Okay, it is public funds. So I appreciate that involvement I did talk to executive director guy about this issue Some about last week or a week and a half ago. I did receive an inquiry from business in capitol The business is on Bay Avenue right near the Bay Porter Underpass right and they had been reached out to by a lawyer saying that you might have an encroachment issue And I noticed and on page 2512 You deal with funding for encroachment. So it you know, I could I could get a response later I just wanted to know if there's any validity to this inquiry not now necessarily Unless guy you already did this. So since we last spoke jock, I have the RTC has received several calls from Members of the public who have been approached by an attorney that's soliciting business along highway one, right? And they submitted this letter to all of these folks saying that the RTC is I'm going to proceed with eminent domain actions to take Property of theirs along the highway one corridor That is Absolutely untrue and in almost every case The Oxlain projects that are proceeding There's only one where of the project level environmental document has been completed and the majority of that project Can be completed within the The state right-of-way the only exception is near the new pedestrian bridge that's being proposed All of the other projects are not far enough along to even start contemplating Right away, although we are looking at what the right-of-way needs are of each project as we decide to move forward The second set of Oxlain projects, which go from Bay Porter the State Park Drive Again, the Oxlain's can be completed primarily within existing right-of-way the only exception is that the Capitola Bridge replacement project and then also at the Marvist Bridge replacement project, which is actually a separate project from the highway one project We're doing the county's gonna lead that project So there's very little right-of-way that's required to complete what we're proceeding on For the highway one project. So it's very unfortunate that this attorney felt the need to contact all of these property owners They basically looked at the programmatic environmental document for the HOV lane project and most of the property requirements for that are associated with HOV lanes and most of those are associated with the Various bridges and overcrossings the interchanges That we're not proceeding with the unified corridor study Identified HOV lanes as a long-term improvement that would be done Somewhere in the neighborhood of 2035 So when an attorney says that the RTC is moving forward with a plan to Take the right-of-way in the near future. It's absolutely false It's scare tactics and it's very unfortunate because it's just caused a lot of turmoil with the residents and businesses along highway one and a lot of staff time and trying to explain what's going on Thank You director. I appreciate that response. I have one other question on page 25 13 So as you know capital is always concerned about the Analysis of the bridge the trestle rather in Capitola and I note that the inspection has been completed 1819 but what are we going to get a report on that? We have been working with our consultant to get a report on all of the bridges that they've completed reviews on the preliminary results is the capitol a bridge is adequate for the Roaring camp train to go over for now There is going to be additional work over time needed for the capitol of trestle Funding has been identified to do somewhat of a feasibility study, but we're still waiting for additional details and You know as to when it would be best to move forward Considering the fact that we're also looking at an alternative analysis on the rail corridor It's important to kind of know what sort of transit we're talking about Going over that bridge before we really start looking at options of how we would it would Either repair it replace it or do something otherwise to make sure that we provide a safe structure through Capitola Okay, I appreciate that can we get something preliminary? I understand you don't want to give a final report because like you said we don't really Antis we don't really know what the anticipated use is going to be But if the Roaring Camp vehicles could go over there that that's pretty substantial I think in terms of being able to handle that load Yeah, I'll see if I can put something together either for the meeting later this month or August 1st. Thank you director No further questions Commissioner Cabot If you could explain a little bit more I Realize population is one of the categories you know for Priority and also road miles site generated if you can explain that a little bit more Sure, and I might have our deputy director tag team on this but essentially the way that when the ordinance was first being written all of the local jurisdictions came together and Discussed how to distribute the measure D funds and so the ordinance itself spells out that formula of distribution of funds but for the site portion of it is if someone buys a hair comb in city of Capitola the revenues generated from the half-cent sales tax on that item were made are to go back to Capitola if someone buys a washing machine in Watsonville the city of Watsonville maintains that funding because it is there now for certain products Primarily in our county automobiles if someone buys a automobile in Santa Cruz County in Capitola that lives out in Merced we do not get the sales tax for that From the measure D half-cent sales tax the county of Merced actually gets that money And so that's not even looked at in in the revenues that are coming to our county and so That said if someone from Watsonville by by Zekar in Capitola the revenues from that sales tag the measure D sales tax go back to Watsonville And we have hired a consultant that looks over all of the Board of Equalization Numbers to look at it and make sure that there aren't errors and that is how it is determined Does that explain it a little bit more? It does I just I'm just trying to get a picture of Well, we're talking about District 4 really doesn't have like you know big shopping center or mall and The business that's generated by you know other parts of the community and other parts of the community Do have more money and more places to shop, but when you look at the population of district 4 the per capita income is very low and So there in a sense even though the population is much bigger They're getting short changed in it to a certain degree By the amount of money that they're able to spend from their salaries So within the funds that go out to the county of Santa Cruz They the county of Santa Cruz is not required to split their funds between districts one through five That is up to the Board of Supervisors on how they distribute their funds measure G Just says this amount's going to the county of Santa Cruz this amount's going to the city of Capital of Scots Valley Santa Cruz and Watsonville beyond that how the county itself decides if they want to put more money into district 4 Or into district 3 within the share that they get that's up to the county Commissioner Johnson Thank You chair So talk to me a little bit about Cruz 5 1 1 and incentives you you inserted a hundred thousand dollars for incentives to Alternative transportation help me understand that or as discussed at past commission meetings the commute solutions or the cruise 5 1 1 program includes a variety of different services and Some of those are provided by our TC staff and that includes our 5 1 1.org A cruise 5 1 1.org website which provides traveler information from road conditions to carpool information to transit information Etc. But there's some services that are sometimes better suited or to do in partnership with Perhaps not non-profit agencies or local jurisdictions and so this would provide funding and seed money Which we recommend including as part of a comprehensive Call for projects to see what proposals might come forward From different agencies and entities of their ideas on how to really help people and assist people Get out of their cars and use alternative transportation And so some of the types of programs that we've funded in the past have included things like employer site Assistance and so sometimes there might be one major employer site that is just struggling to Connect their own employees who are all going to the same exact parking lot every day To instead provide some assistance to them to make sure that they're able to encourage their own employees To carpool with one another and to get some cars off our roads So that's just one example. Do you remember their resources board in the incentive program that the RTC tried to implement? That was such an abject failure that you had to give back $30,000 because of that contract you couldn't provide even a fraction of the promises that you had said that you would provide and The name Paul McGrath comes to mind in terms of what he did successfully But the RTC could not do yet. Here. We are Going down kind of the same path of a hundred thousand dollars, you know a hundred thousand dollars here a hundred thousand dollars there And pretty soon you're talking about real money. I'll quote Everett Dursksen from that he was talking about billions of course and You know, I think sometimes we have to learn from history You're not very good at in terms of providing incentives getting people out of their cars Community solution is a is pretty much a failure because we don't really do that. Everybody here on staff is aware of getting You know people out of their cars yet everybody pretty much drives their cars to work and probably drove here to this commissioner meeting so That's just one thing and I'm just not a fan number one of 511 because it replicates what people are doing with this thing all the all the time with with ways and other other means of providing their own sort of means of getting out of traffic although Again, we are curtailed in terms of what our options are because if you drove down here If you drove down here and saw the you know what traffic look like going northbound They could those people can call the 511, you know 20 times in an hour for Alternatives, but what's the alternative for those people coming out of Watsonville? I mean it was five miles of nothing but Gridlock and you know in 2016 there was a measure D that we're talking about today and the the the the the words that were expressed against Scott us Santa Cruz County moving again So it's been almost a thousand days since that pass and here we are and it's pretty embarrassing I think because when you look at the purpose of priority productivity of this agency trying to do what was Advertise It's just not there. The second thing is is that? You know as as a representative of scott's valley and also the fifth district a supervisor and so forth Supervisorial I guess five You know we're talking about about 50,000 people Scott's Bell. I did the math. It's kind of rough but Over 30 years our citizens will probably pay in close to 45 million dollars for measure D and right now where we are Probably going to get back five or six and the same can be said for District five there's another 40,000 people up in those up in highway nine area from Ben loman to Felton and so forth They're gonna probably put in 200 million dollars and I'm seeing you know 10 10 million dollars over 30 years for highway nine for The school and so forth Yet, they're all sorts of analyses Studies all throughout the corridor in highway one And if I'm if I'm and I'm not gonna put words in his mouth, but if I'm Bruce MacPherson if I'm who I am There's not a lot of love for for district five and all this because I'm seeing Marvisa for 13 million Crossing and and all this stuff and you know segment here and segment there What's what's in it for district five, what's in it for scott's valley that is meaningful And the last thing I'll look at everybody laments the local roads Just how terrible they are and just how much more they need well When are we gonna really take that seriously? I mean five point seven million dollars sounds like a lot but Everybody says it's just not enough because of the condition of our roads are just terrible terrible terrible Well, you got to start spending some money if you really think it's that bad, so That's my limit. Okay Thank you Commissioner Kaufman Gomez Yes, thank you. I have a couple comments one For the segment 18 now that I'm identifying what segment numbers go with which areas knowing that the 18 is actually the Lee road With us being about a million on the shortfall And the comments that were made that you know Watsonville in South County need a bit more help I would encourage going you know This is a county board of supervisors decision on reallocation of the funds to help a project like that along We've done so much on the Watsonville end of it. We've done so much on the measure D end of it So it's in your hands to go ahead and advocate for Watsonville to go ahead and see about coming up with some of that Shortfall so that we can get some of those trails put together So I'm hoping that we see that happening and we have some fruition The the second item that I wanted to bring up is I'm on the Tamsie as Nonetheless, I'm attending the the meetings over in Salinas as well And they've done really well with leveraging their grant money for the safe routes to school I think that they had over a million dollar grant that has just come in to help out with the 44 schools and I was really impressed with one of their projects and I know we're putting some money towards safe routes to school here they called it a traffic garden and Marina and in seaside there's two elementary schools that they did a pop-up and that gives us an example of the use of funds and possibly road changes for the safe routes to school and I'd like to see us if there's if we can see any of the projects use or Have some of that as an example so that we can show communities how to make a safe route to school In terms of a wish list of here's what it could look like so that we can actually see a little bit more interest and Getting people to start seeing some of these changes they can go in you know We may not always have the money for it, but let's visualize some of these so we can get a little bit more Interest in our community especially in those areas and I know our focus for example like doing something with San Lorenzo and and doing this kind of a traffic garden with a pop-up like that so that the residents of San Lorenzo Valley that are Going the safe routes to school Could could see what we could do and work towards that goal and we can all get a better visual of what we want to Put our money towards that will help with the safety component and as well as leverage I I haven't received a price of how much it costs for them But obviously if that's a good model for us to use to be very impressive of getting more money to leverage That's what they've done successfully, and I think that we should be able to have those opportunities here and that's just one example of Money leveraged safe routes to school and showing that as an example I'm encouraging that also with the city. We're doing a lot for the downtown a lot more bicycle lanes and more pedestrian friendly environments, and I'm encouraging our city To look at this as a concept so that people can get a feel for these type of changes that we're looking to put millions of Dollars into so I'm hoping that we can get a little bit of feedback out of that And be able to use it as an opportunity for more leverage Thank you any other commissioner comments commissioner shifrin. I just have a question out I'm not gonna try to refight the rationale for measure D in the first place and its allocation formula I really have a question about the Capitola bridge Study my understanding was that it was going to include consideration of the possibility of The rail the a trail being a built sort of can't deliver to the bridge it's kind of what was done around the San Lorenzo River Bridge and I was told at the time that that was going to be part of the study to look at the possibility of widening the bridge in some way to make that happen and It wasn't mentioned in the report on The structure itself, but I just I'm wondering when we're going to find out about whether there is the possibility of having that widening project That is part of the scope so on 25-13 item 3a the description is Analysis of feasibility for building a trail on the bridge through capitol and over so Cal Creek and so that is part of the scope of What it would be analyzed from what well that was funded? 1920 that's what I'm asking is when will that be done? When will we get to see that study? We have to first decide when the right time to start the study is Oh, we haven't done this study yet No, we have not done the study to to see if If it can be can a levered off my initial impression is it likely cannot be you know due to the fact that it's actually five different bridges And the condition especially of the wrought iron section is extremely poor One of the things that we will have to do when we analyze What can be done on the bridge is have a good understanding of what the live load is of Whatever transit vehicle is going across the bridge so that adds a whole new level of complexity to You know the engineering calculations that all need to be done So I'm a little tentative to just press forward with the study If I don't feel as if we have all of the information that the study will yield results that will be useful So I'm taking my time and and trying to find one the best time to move forward with that is But I understand there's been a lot of public interest and this commission would like to know What can be done with the capitol attress all and you give a bullpawk estimate of when that your Tentative decision will be finalized and it'll be possible to move forward with the study Well, I know for sure after the alternatives analysis is done and that would be We expect to do that most of next year and complete it by January of 2021 If there's an opportunity to start sooner, you know based on preliminary results I can certainly look at whether it would make sense to start doing something a little bit sooner than that. Okay. Thank you Commissioner Rudd I just wanted to respond briefly to some of Randy's comments that first of all, I Share his concern about whether the incentive program will be effective. I'm not I don't he's already decided it's hopeless But I'm not there So I do want staff to understand that it's really hard to get people to get out of their single occupancy cars and a Lot of efforts to try and do that have not been very successful I support the idea of spending some money this year to try and see what we can do if you look at that line of Cars coming north on highway one in the morning if people carpool that would make a huge I mean a small percentage of them carpool to make a huge difference in the problem And it's worth a little bit of effort to see where we can go So I guess we're on the same side on the question of not just sort of Taking it for granted that we should just keep funding this program and some because we ought to be trying to incentivize it So we're just going to keep throwing money at it So I do plan to look carefully this year at how the how the program works I do we what kind of success we have with it his other comment I share Andy Schifrin's comment that I'm basically how the money gets divided and measure D was already worked out early on it's part of the plan We don't have control over that And I want to remind people that Santa Cruz County is the second smallest county in California to 58 counties the only smaller county is the city of County of San Francisco and The people who live in the 5th district don't just stay in the 5th district 25% of them commute over the Roughly commute over the hill to San Jose to work just like the rest of the county A huge number of them have to go shopping and Capitola Because they don't have they can't find what they want in the district in terms of what's being available as to people in the city of Santa Cruz and and Watsonville at times as well and so Just where the money gets spent on a particular road or a particular project is not necessarily the only benefit to the people That live in that district or that city We're a unified county and the whole idea of this measure D was to try and see if we couldn't do something in a unified way For the whole county, so I really disagree with Randy I think that somehow the 5th district has been left out of this or that they're not being treated fairly I think there was a pretty extensive process to figure out based on a variety of factors What's a fair way to share this money around the county? And I think measure D does a pretty good job of doing that You're never going to make everybody happy with how you make the final decision Well, I appreciate the comments. I want to remind everybody I want to get to the public hearing So I'm looking for questions right now any questions of miss Morricone. So you have a question I'd love to take it at this point Thank you for that presentation at this point I'd like to begin the public hearing and allow the public to come up and weigh in Is there anyone if the public would like to address the Commission on the measure D five-year plan? Good morning commissioners I'm David Van Brink a 30-year resident of the city of Santa Cruz and a board member of the Friends of the Rail and Trail On behalf of Friends of the Rail and Trail we wish to express our enthusiasm for many of the measure D allocations in general but of course most especially for the imminent funding for various development stages for of the Rail Trail segments seven parts one and two segment five segments eight nine segment 18 and segments 10 11 and 12 It's forward motion on a vision that goes back two decades and more and we're happy to see it becoming real one segment at a time The allocations meet the obligations of measure D Please approve the staff recommended five-year allocation as detailed Thank you all the Commission and the RTC staff for the great work you do. That's thank you for those comments welcome Good morning Commissioners, I just wanted to Address you for a moment. I did ride my bike in here Some of you asked well who who rode their bikes or who maybe took a rapid transit or math or the bus in and By the way, I was on the bus yesterday trying to catch a bus from Water Street into Watsonville and the driver said well you can catch the 91 in six minutes and it wound up being cancelled because schools out I would have thought that the schedules for the 91 would have changed when the on the 12th when the schedule book does but either way the the reason I wanted to talk to you was on the measure D funding You do have and I pointed this out in Capitola last month. I believe it was or two months ago The road is segmented with a slew and if you had a simple pontoon bridge to connect it then kids could get to Pajaro Valley High School from the tentative segment 18 Also Harkin slew road is segmented it is Divided by the slew there and if you had a pontoon bridge then that would allow the citizens of La Selva Beach and the citizens of Watsonville to exchange on a bicycle rather than have to negotiate San Andreas and Beach Street, which has again Beach Street has no bike lane It's 40 miles an hour and is very pothold It's not a safe street and I'm just saying that I don't think it could be that expensive to put in a Pontoon bridge across these two slews and connect what's already existing there It would also make it safer for people to try to bicycle for the first time We're talking about well, how can we get people out of their cars? Well Provide them a safe way to do it and I'm saying this has roadways already there It would be almost car-free because the cars couldn't get across those pontoon bridges You know, they'd just be like the pontoon bridges that are out near a lagoon and I just plead with you to have staff Direct staff to Look at measure D and leverage it with other grants and implement that project I was heartened to hear that the RTC is going to be working on Scots Creek I bicycled up to Half Moon Bay last week and I Saw the project area and I thought that'll be fantastic. And why can't we do that right here in Watsonville and? Connect us. Thank you for those comments Yeah, I think she's gonna help her hello commissioners My name is Janet Edwards, and I'm on the measure D oversight committee and I just want to let you know that the reports that we got was 244 pages of all the audits that occurred in every division and they are wonderful out of it's there are nothing Found that wasn't correct. So that has been done and my public comment is on the highway one between Soquel Avenue and Actually 41st That's where I live The when the freeway backs up it comes into the neighborhood. They think that they can work around Going places, but they really can't so my area. I live right there in the gross road area is a disaster It's been improved Commissioner McPherson helped with Mr. Leopold to make sure that the Apps directing people where to go where there's less traffic doesn't include our area because it can't support it and people that live there are just Angry about the traffic So any improvements we can do in that area will will pay the whole county back because it will improve the the freeway and make sure that people stay on the freeway and not come into the neighborhoods Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your comments and thank you for serving on the oversight committee Nice everything so adjustable. Hi. My name is Judas by culture I've been a resident of the Santa Cruz County since 1999 and it's my first time attending since C's RTC and I'm really very very impressed of how things are going I'm passing out of Suggestion for part of the problem cutting out of Aptos village I live in day Valley and I transferred go through that quarter Four or five times a day sometimes and it's except for a little bit of time, you know after rush hour It's a mess So what I would like to do is have you look at the intersection right after Aptos Creek There's now a block of people not being able to turn because it's during rush hour Which I understand because it really gets backed up what I'd like to do is suggest that if we could make a slight Road increase meant on the right-hand side so that through traffic could keep going through and There would be with this with the stoplight could make a left turn because There's a tremendous amount of ways to get to highway one and and believe me We will we will use them all because we're stuck. We have to get out You know, we want to get to work. We want to get things done It's basically taking a little bit of public. Well, there's a Parking lot there that could be widened into a little passing lane And then the stoplight could have a left turn And it would let people go down the hill and over onto Center Street to get highway one rather than going on Soquel with the three stoplights and there's no stoplights except one going that direction so I just wanted to Put that as a possibility of making that intersection a little easier to get through because it backs up all the way to trial Coach, I mean, it's just all the way back there. So One other quick thing. I I don't know how highway 17 fits in this at all Is is is there anything being done with highway 17 making it safer? Okay, I just I'm one of the over 300 accidents that happened and January of last year My car spun out and I went down the cliff and the only thing that stopped me was a tree from going 45 feet down I have been traveling that road since 1960 never had any accidents at all. That road is terrible And I'm you know, I'm thrilled because that tree saved my life because it's stopping my car a little bit flipped up So and I the it's there was over 300 accidents just in the month of January So I really hope that somebody can get that road. It's it's not built for the traffic that's going on But thank you very much. We're constantly trying to improve that. So thank you for your comments. Hi My name is Kathy Marino. I'm a fifth generation Santa Cruz County native And I think you're doing a great job, and I want to thank you very much. I love this County. I All the work you've been doing is just overwhelming I do want to say that I think something for everyone That was on one of the first slides of the presentation is very very important. I I've seen this County with just no overpasses and one lane this way and one lane that way on the highway And now I see what it's like now even with more lanes. I think it's very important to keep the rail corridor For trail and public transit, and I am glad that you're doing the study to see what kind of public transit you want and pretty much I think The freedom for people to travel Especially seniors like me and disabled people. I think that's corridor is going to be very very important They won't have to be waiting for lift line or having family members pick us up or anything like that And I want to stop driving before I start going the wrong way like my dad used to do so Thank you very much. Thank you welcome Welcome. Good morning chair botto our members of the Commission. My name is Murray fonts. I'm principal engineer with the city of Watsonville and as Someone from Watsonville. I want to express appreciation for the additional revenue that measure D has generated Watsonville benefits from it Greatly, we're using the funds from the neighborhood projects bucket To leverage further funding for safety projects for multimodal transportation projects and for reconstruction projects also We're appreciative of the uniform corridor study that took place recently and how it identified That Watsonville is looking for additional commute options and we recognize that the projects proposed with the highway corridors With the rail corridor and the transit and paratransit benefit Watsonville residents, and we're grateful for that With regards to the coastal trail Watsonville did request 3.8 million dollars to assist with its segment 18 rail trail project and received 2.8 and the recommendation is for 2.8 million dollars in funding Well, we'd like it all we recognize that the 2.8 will give us something to work with to leverage And we're hopeful that there'll be other grant opportunities to secure the funding or we can use our own funds either through SB 1 or measure D And we're heartened that staff is considering that if the time comes and we want to build it and the money's still not there that We can work together. We've always found RTC staff to be Supportive and we appreciate the ongoing efforts. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Ponds Good morning chair Commissioners, my name is Gina Cole and I'd like to introduce myself today as the new executive director of bike Santa Cruz County Congratulations. Thank you. I'm really tickled to be here To echo David, I would like to thank you for your continuing support of and of all the projects relating to active transportation the rail trail and everything that you are working towards to Help save the planet help encourage folks to make good decisions for themselves for transportation Thank you for allocating funds to support the highway 9 improvements. These are going to help keep keep kids getting to school safely And that's everyone's priority. It should be everyone's priority The bike and pedestrian bridges are another priority and moving these projects forward is an important piece to increasing traffic safety for everyone Regarding the distribution of funds. We ask that you factor in projects that are non infrastructure related When you're considering that allocation There are a lot of support programs that are non infrastructure related, but they also move The whole idea of active transportation forward And they encourage people in different ways to use those forms of transportation. Thank you so much Thank you and good luck in your new position Hi Brian people's trail now You know, we originally opposed measure D when it first came out But the commission shifted the money from the train to Metro and then we came out and supported it Maybe not as not known as well as actually our supporters provided most the money funding to Make measure D successful. So that's something to remember when we talk about What we hear from mr. Johnson the concerns and frustrations we have many of them many of our supporters feel double-crossed The reason they feel double-crossed is because you've locked up the coastal corridor for decades And you're not allowing us to use it for today for transportation solutions and you're focused on public transit Versus enabling citizens to use that resource today You know not only what you spend the money on is important But how you spend the money and when you say how you spend is do you spend it efficiently and Segment seven of the trail is a good example of not being efficient in your spending You're spending millions more to accommodate this short half a mile trail That really you don't need to do when you're spending when you can just pull the trail tracks up and and look at more Effective ways to do it. So the point is is how you spend that money because you don't have a lot of money And if you're going off spending millions just to prove a point, you know to say hey, we've we've built the trail We're successful We support widening highway one all the way to Larkin Valley. We support going to the state This was one of the reasons we support at measure D go out as a self-help county get more money widen the highway The reason is because that's our main corridor We want to keep all the heavy traffic congestion on that so that they're not driving through our neighborhoods They're not taking shortcuts and about the carpool thing I was Dealing helping initiate carpools 30 years ago So I have a lot of experience in it and it comes down to this Nobody's gonna carpool unless they have an all unless they get a special lane unless they have a real dedicated a I'll carpool a bus pull if you give me that dedicated lane So when you do widening of the highway, those are the things you want to do Specifically about the Capitola trestle. We're hopeful. Yeah, we know that it's not going to we're questioning Whether it's going to be able to sustain the roaring camp trains going over in addition to the load capacity We want to know, you know, can you do 60 trains a day and at 45 miles an hour? Because those are what you currently your plan says you're going to have 60 trains a day Driving along the corridor and that's not right. Thank you. Good morning morning I'm Tom Nord and I live in the highway 236 Boulder Creek community A few concerned citizens here have started a group to bring safety awareness and highway improvements that we perceive be perceived to be and Dire need to keep us safe With the influx of new and growing numbers of commuters and the uncontrollable speeding violations Our hope is to save a life that will surely be lost without the improvements that need to be made Our group has invested in signage and we have held a community meeting We have two more slated this summer in July and September We are currently working with our representatives in the Fifth District along with law enforcement from Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office and the CHP We have secured the sheriff's roadside radar on two occasions recently in our compiling data To present to the CHP in hopes that proof be made of the validity of our safety improvement requests We also hope to publish an informative flyer That may be distributed to the community for support of our improvement requests Our actions at this point are self-funded by a volunteer group We live in a rural area and CHP the CHP proposed mostly to our south on Hayway 9 and highway 17 Where they are most effective The danger is real as our efforts will reflect as we move forward We hope that with measure defunding we can achieve traffic studies required by Caltrans to Substantiate our claims of traffic violations and the danger to pedestrians cyclists golf course as well as golf carts as Well as motorists We also hope that we you would join us in our effort to make the people that work and live here in our community Safer for generations to come. Thank you. Thank you for those comments Councilman Hurst welcome. Good morning commissioners little Hurst resident of Watsonville City Councilman in Watsonville But I actually live in the second district and so there's a lot of folks in the Pajaro Valley You see them every day. You see them lined up on the freeway. You see them in the morning You see them in the evening There's a lot of folks They need some relief and so I'm here to support the auxiliary lanes. I think you have a good plan I think it's a Positive plan. I think you've got the cash flow to do some wonderful things in the community Let's focus on what real needs are and and stay and stay on task with it Supporting active transportation is very important relieving the congestion on highway one is very important and I want to also go on record and supporting public transportation because it is public monies and The public needs transportation, so let's support public transportation. Thank you. Thank you Anyone else like to address us and this public hearing on measure D Seeing none, we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing before I bring it back for discussion and action just a couple things of clarification want to remind the Commission that the that the Distribution formula negotiated for measure D is not something that we can negotiate or change so we are that is we are stuck with that and number two is Director, I know a while back in a couple means we asked to bring the issue of 5 1 up 5 1 1 up for a future agenda item You have any plan when you Have planned to bring that to us We do we've we've talked about it internally It'll probably be in August or September That we could do that. We ain't we anxiously await that. Thank you And with that I'll open it up for discussion and Commissioner Gonzalez you are Thank you That's on that one Anyways, I just want to make some comments. I do support transit and I do support the auxiliary lanes But I also think with measure D. There's a little clause in there says that it's called collaboration between Different agencies and and and I bring this up because it's really important that a harkenslough bridge and a harkenslough road and A lee road project be completed for the safety of our children that they go to attend probably high And also we always change we're always talking about changing the mentality of of our our community to get out of cars What best method is but to teach our kids to be able to ride a bike or be able to walk to school safely? And the lee road project for me is that it's being able to educate our community that they don't need to get On a car to get to school and they can also go ride a bike safely on the roads if we can get these bridges To connect these two roads Lee road and harkenslough and then complete the harkenslough project also to go all the way through to bonavista I think it'd be beneficial to the whole county and to the folks that need to move through the county But also it would for me it'd be really beneficial for our kids that are in most needs which are our migrant kids They're sitting up there on bonavista and the USDA housing farm project They're sitting up there They have to go all the way around their parents have to go all the way around get on highway one to bring them to the High school when they're actually just two blocks away and there's no way for these kids to do that So what we're doing is we're educating our kids that you need to get on a vehicle to get to your destination versus Working collaboratively with district two which that part of the segment falls under Would benefit our community and would actually educate our future Commuters to use transit to get off the vehicles and I think that's the purpose of all this and and hopefully that we can work together Collaborate and get in these kind of projects completed. Thanks. Thank you commissioner shifrin Yes, I just wanted to say that I think the five-year plan represents what the commission's talked about for quite a while in terms of High-priority projects and I'd like to move the staff recommendation I have a motion for staff recommendation a second. We're going to continue the discussion on this I'm going to start down this end commissioner Bertrand Yeah, do you have a comment? Oh, you don't okay, then we'll go to Commissioner Kaufman Gomez Yes, I also concur with our my fellow council member regarding the priorities And I know that we were leveraging as much as we possibly can with a measure D A million seems like it's it's within reach and I know that we need to see what we can to put a little bit of applied pressure and hopefully some negotiating on the County Board of Supervisors position to help offset that difference Because we do know that it could take you an hour to go about six blocks from that high school for the Transportation jam up that it creates which then backs everything else up that's on the south end And we quality of life makes a big difference in doing these type of improvements and We already know what it feels like going on the parking lot of probably one as it is so I really encourage Let counsel for especially South County counsel know when you're going to be discussing this at the County Board of Supervisors for the allocation of funds But I certainly hope that you all Supervisors understand what kind of impact this is in Helping us offset that difference so that we can actually see that goal get achieved here for South County Commissioner McPherson. Yeah, first of all, I don't want to let it go Unappreciated how much we do appreciate the voters of Santa Cruz County approving of measure D in November of 2016 We wouldn't even have me having this discussion that we have millions of dollars more than we would have otherwise Not had had that not passed I mean one who would really helped as many others did Establish this formula it was on vehicle miles traveled need region geographic region It was I think it was a very good formula that we followed and it reaches many people as we could I think an important aspect of that was the number one priority was number neighborhood projects That gets 30% of the the funding from the measure G pod measure D projects and I think another thing is that Everybody can claim that it wouldn't have passed without this segment or that segment in it and they're right If any of them would have been left out, it wouldn't have passed by a two-thirds vote I think was 30 is sixty eight point four percent but So the value of all of the modes of transportation that we're addressing are Very important and they're more important to whoever you're talking to Sees the needs and we are filling as many needs as We can and stretching the dollars as far as we can I think it's a Herculean effort of what this staff has put together and followed this And I think it's very important that people recognize Realize we do have an oversight committee that we are following the mandates of measure D and how it was presented to the voters so All of this is needed everybody needs more believe me I think I get as many calls on transportation related issues as any other subject on the face of the earth Well, there's some there's some others that are trying to gain on that right now, but anyway I just want to say I think this program or this the measure D was put it put out there before voters in a very very Reasonable way and the way we're trying to implement it to reach all modes of transportation and all regions of the Santa Cruz County We're doing what the voters wanted us to do and I just want to appreciate what the staff did has done and also For the voters approving measure D two years ago Any other comments commissioner Brown So, yeah, I just want to add my My comments of appreciation to the voters and also to staff for for helping us understand the You know how these buckets are being used and you know providing us this information Rachel Your your reports are always really Clear and and really very much appreciated and staff. I also want to just add my support for Getting Moving on segment 17. I you know, I understand the One million dollar shortfall there, but having heard now that that we have the possibility of should other funds not be forthcoming Finding a way to to support that in coming years, you know, just want to say that I fully support that and We'll do whatever we can from the north end of the county to help get segment 18 moving Thank you. Any other comments Commissioner Bertrand good Make a wild dash First of all, I was very encouraged to see someone from Boulder Creek 237 come here and a neighborhood organization I lived in Boulder Creek for 10 years and I understand how difficult it is to Get neighbors that generally live far apart from each other to organize around issues They did so because it is a serious issue. I commuted over the hill for 10 years like I said and Multiple accidents spin outs in front of me and stuff like that quite precarious So I really reach out to this group. I commend you for getting together This is a kind of civic involvement we need and that's a kind of civic involvement that actually gets bodies like this to do things So my kudos to you Also having looked on highway nine for many years I think the project that the RTC has put together working with the community the community means that have entailed The suggestions have been folded into the project are very good The crosswalks the widenings the the other things that are in there are very good I wish I could have participated in that but not living in that area. I didn't actually have that chance those are my comments Thank you. Thank you I think this is a favorite topic for me to discuss Measured because I always think in the back of my mind. Where would we be without this? We wouldn't even be having this conversation. I know a lot of people take credit for Who got that over the finish line, but I think it was definitely a collaborative issue that got us there And I also want to back up Commissioner Brown's comments here I think that we as a regional transportation commission work best when we do work regionally and with regards to the Watsonville projects We all know that they're valuable and necessary and I and I have great confidence in staff and and there are pursuance of Grants to fund this project and I did hear in the in the background that if those proven successful We're going to find means to accomplish these projects. So I think that's something we can all be proud of So with that we have a motion and a second all in favor aye opposed no The motion carries over the number is but one dissension you have that. Thank you Okay, I'm going to go backwards to now to the CalTrans report miss low Thank You mr. Chair. Good morning commissioners. I Have one announcement to make with regard to our leadership at the Department of Transportation Director Laurie Berman has announced her retirement date as of the for the end of June We have not heard word yet about who will replace her effective July 1st but she's had a Long and very pause a long career at CalTrans very has made a very positive impact Of course, she's been the director since March of 2018 appointed by Governor Brown. We'll miss her. I Want to congratulate San Cruz County on their grant award from the CalTrans sustainable Transition planning grant program for four hundred fifty thousand dollars to prepare their act of transportation plan It's a great thing to have so many jurisdictions Coming into this fold on really focusing on those opportunities in their community We're doing the same thing CalTrans is also working on its active transportation plan and in support of that Our staff participate in the open streets event that was held here over the weekend in Watsonville Maybe some of you saw us there. We received over a hundred surveys from folks who were very enthusiastic and interested in in their community and Increasing their opportunities to move around more safely while they're walking and bicycling. So we're very excited about that The information in your packet on projects is up to date I know there are there you may have questions on those but We're just continuing on all of our work Also, you know, some of it is storm damage related. We're very Working hard with you on the emergency relief projects in the county very aware of the Situation here with regard to the federal reimbursement. Our director is planning to meet together With folks in Sacramento later this month on that topic That's my report any questions for miss low commissioner cap With one fifty-two It's has crosswalks and pedestrian safety and Enhancements and also it's mentioned twice pedestrian signal upgrades also one fifty-two which one Would be at 152 and merchant That is listed on on the hand out there the Caltrans report. It's identified as project number 21 And that's a minor what we call a minor shop project includes multiple locations Okay, and the list is there on the far right Okay, thank you. That's it. That's gonna be a great project and I think it's gonna do a lot to Make it a lot safer for the high school kids that are at Watson the high school and One thing that I could probably mention in all three categories 24 25 and 26. I'll only mention it once But how much pressure are we getting now? From the federal highway money that a lot of it's being withheld especially from from the California aspect Federal highway money, how does that affect Caltrans also? I know it affects us as it trickles down I Right now there is there's not money being withheld from Caltrans from the federal government I believe the reference you might be making to the emergency relief program has to do with time frames for delivery on ER on ER's emergency relief and there are only certain Reasons for which extensions can be granted and they're holding fast on a Narrow set of reasons for those extensions. So the meeting that is is being scheduled is for the next series the series of projects that Were from storm damage in the 2017 Okay, are you is the state affected the same as the county for example? We spent money that we had to spend money immediately after the big storm about two years ago and We always were relying on federal money to reimburse us That I'm sure that's affecting the state also the state operates under that's under those same rules Thank you Commissioner Bertrand Thank you I don't know if you're the right person to ask this question But I get this many times and that's the parking on the seaside of Davenport Highway one and I don't know who really has jurisdiction over that area I suppose part of its RTC, but there must be a with issue for Highway one Can you tell me a little bit more about that like how could we best address that and what kind of agencies would be? Involved in doing that or the two that I just mentioned Sure the area in Davenport has been on our radar for some time and there's a proposal That RTC has been pursuing through that's called a flap grant federal lands access program grant to change the Parking and build some access improvements there Maybe I don't know if you would like to take it at this time to to provide any update on that But it is parking along the state highway is subject to Different codes, but if it's in the right of way or out of right of way is determined on that But I don't know if I want to jump in without I can add a little bit if you like it is actually part of the Trail project okay, the dung goes on the rail line for the manorabay Sanctuary trail segment five So a portion of it does does include improvements for parking there at that parking lot now that that section of Segment five that includes parking lots doesn't have full funding yet for construction But it is it is going through the process for Went through environmental and it's going to go through design and so on and we're working to get the funding for that as well You know I cringe when I see families going across that highway to get to the other side, so the sooner the better. Thank you Okay, can mr. Schifrin could I follow up on that because? There has been conversations with Caltrans about putting a traffic signal there and That's not part of the commission's rail trail project going up to Davenport that Existing director was talking about there as usual. There are money problems and there are other sort of technical issues as well, but the third district office of the at the county is Trying to pursue that project with the public works department At this point. We're looking for funds for designing Designing the traffic signal For years there was a name movement on the Bear Creek crossing until that lady and her kids got an accident A lot of us remember that from a long time ago So that is a to me a very serious issue going across highway one for the families come up to Davenport And really enjoy the beach in the town of Davenport. So like I said the sooner the better Commissioner Kaufman Gomez. Yes, thank you. Well, I don't see it on the plans here I know that we had a Caltrans grant for our downtown since our downtown is a highway corridor and I just wanted to know if there's anything you can provide us in terms of Working alongside of the city of Watsonville for what our downtown plan and scope is when it came to council We didn't have Caltrans there. So I don't know how The communication is working with Caltrans to help us with what that generalization or the plans look like and in engagement of How we work together collaboratively with the options and whatnot So can you sort of help me out a little bit about that particular downtown highway corridor project? Mr. Gomez, I think I'd have to follow up with you and after consulting with my staff we do work Closely with our local agencies who are developing these type of plans so that they're They're that they're solid All right, I'll look forward to that. Thank you Any other questions? Okay, we'll accept that report and we'll take us to item 26, which is a transportation funding update and priority projects Miss Marconi you're back I am Commissioners this morning. I have before you an item that was requested actually by County of Santa Cruz Public Works staff to discuss our process for selecting projects to receive the discretionary funds that are Under the decision-making authority of the Regional Transportation Commission Every other year we do come to you about this time to start talking about some of the state programs that are forthcoming With our primary focus usually on the state transportation improvement program Which is one of the funding sources that the Commission has discretion or over with Subject concurrence with the California Transportation Commission because our proposals for that funding are due by December 15th of every odd year, but essentially before you today You're I'm going to provide you with updates on not just the STIP funds But also some other funding sources that both RTC has discretion over and some which are Potentially exciting opportunities to use our measure D and other funds to leverage identify Some priority projects and get direction from you on which projects and concurrence from you on which projects We should be pursuing for various grant programs And that includes both the RTC discretionary and the state and federal grants and then to provide seek your direction or input On some of the different options for how we select projects for the RTC's discretionary funds So I'm going to start off with talking about the discretionary funds that what funds does this board have Authority over and are you very responsible for selecting as set forth in state and federal laws? There are basically four key funding sources right now, although typically in the past We've only had two There is the state transportation improvement program, which has ranged dramatically over the years in 2016 the amount of funds were negative $7 million and we ended up seeing a significant project in our county deleted from the state transportation improvement program Because gas tax revenues had not kept pace with Projects in other years. It's been closer to about three million dollars a year. I am cautiously optimistic with voter rejection of propositions six last November and Approval by the legislature of Senate bill one that the stip finally has at least for the foreseen future some stability That said Caltrans is the agency that prepares a fund estimate of exactly how much stip funding is going to be available it is all primarily based on gas tax consumption and So there are assumptions that they make on how much people are going to be purchasing How many gallons of fuel we know cars are getting more efficient? The result is over time that pot is going to keep shrinking It's not going to keep growing in Just given our current vehicle fleet trends So that that is one funding source But we are based on very preliminary estimates Anticipating that the commission will have discretion over five to seven million dollars of new funds through fiscal year 2025 for projects in our region That could totally change the CTC staff fund estimate is going to be coming out in 10 days or so and so we'll have that draft fund estimate and have a better estimate But this is based on the statewide estimate that there might be six hundred million dollars a year in new capacity The second funding source is the surface transportation block grant program In the past this was called the regional surface transportation program with the fast act the feds changed the name And so now we have new acronym soup to add to our mix as discussed two years ago And we still call it the rstp program oftentimes and because we're a smaller county The regional transportation commission is given the opportunity to trade our federal dollars for state dollars Though the federal eligibility rules still apply and state law state and highway code section 182.6 States that the regional agency in this case the RTC shall apportion the funds for projects implemented by cities counties and other Transportation agencies on a fair and equitable basis based upon an annually updated average allocation amount and Projects will be nominated by cities county transit operators and other public transportation agencies through a process that directly involves local government reps, which Are you? so for both the STIP and RSTP exchange funds the types of projects that are eligible for those funds are are very wide transit projects bicycle projects local street and road repair projects major highway projects rail projects that whole you know bicycle and pedestrian education programs are eligible for the STBG RSTPX funds commute solutions and our freeway service patrol program There's a wide variety of projects that are eligible for those two funding sources The third funding source that one time only The feds in 2018 Decided to throw in a new program called the highway infrastructure program It was a one-time shot of funds our county share of that funding. It's federal. There's no exchange of it. It is about $680,000 and the funds need to be obligated which basically means all your pre construction work is done And you're ready to go out to construction by 2021 and those funds are limited so rural minor collectors or local access roads By compared projects ferry projects, which isn't really eligible in our county because we don't have a ferry program Transit projects and other transportation planning studies are the thing that are not eligible highway projects Local road projects local bridge projects those all remain eligible for that funding And they need to be projects that are capable of going through the federal environmental review process and procurement process The third funding source which is new Semi-new to us is from Senate bill one and this is the portion of funds that the regional transportation Commission gets because we have measure D in our county The funds currently the formula for distributing these funds which is set by the California Transportation Commission is based on a split between Northern and Southern California counties, so they look at how much revenue is generated by everyone's sales tax and use taxes that are Dedicated to transportation they split the funds on a revenue basis north and south and then they split the funds on a Population basis by county what that means for our county is we get one share based on our population And then we split it between metro and RTC so RTC's discretionary share of that money is about $300,000 a year and we have two years of that funding Maybe three CTCs still debating what their final guidelines are going to say To program this year and then finally as discussed in the prior item We've set aside a hundred thousand dollars for of measure D funds from the highway bucket to look at ways to get people moving That don't require major infrastructure projects And those will be discussed in further detail in the future. So those are the discretionary funds You know measure D has a lot of other funds, but they're really constrained by what's set forth in the expenditure plan So they're not wide open. We can't use funds from the highway bucket on highway 129 they're really supposed to be focused in on highway 17 and highway one There might be some flexibility within some other categories, but you know the trail program It's really focused on the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail. It's not focused on using some of those funds on Highway 236 for instance. So there's there's a lot of constraint around those measure D funds And so we don't consider those RTC discretionary funds Some of the other funds that are available in the near-to-term are shown on attachment three on page 26 17 of your packet So the California Transportation Commission will be issuing a call for projects later this year with Applications do we think in January or a little bit later in 2020 for in the case of the active transportation program for the solutions for congested corridors program and Competitive pot of the local partnership program So for the congested corridors program, there's 250 million dollars a year set out in Senate bill one for that program We anticipate the CTC will program at least two years of funds Maybe three this next cycle for the local partnership program There's 90 to a hundred million dollars a year that goes into that competitive pot So there have been debates at the state level What if we don't do any of it as a competitive pot and we give a hundred percent out by formula our formula share would go from 300,000 to 600,000 a year in that scenario, but we anticipate that through a competitive pot We could get access to you know 10 20 million dollars of that funding And so we've been advocating that for us because we're a small county and our formula share would be relatively small It's advantageous for our county to advocate for a larger competitive pot so that we can really access more funds Similarly on the active transportation program There's been a push by some of the larger counties in the state to have a larger portion of those funds only go to the Very largest counties in our state Leaving us to fight over smaller and smaller amounts of funds but we are hopeful we were encouraged that Senate bill 152 just kind of Petered out and in the Senate recently and that the CTC will still have a large competitive pot that some of the major Bicycle and pedestrian projects and needs in our county could compete for so I wanted to kind of give you a baseline on Here's some of the funding sources that are we're gonna be looking at in the near future and then point you to Attachment one sorry to bounce around a tiny bit, but it's the way my brain works Sometimes isn't exactly the way the staff reports organized so on attachment one you have a list of projects that have been identified in the past as Regionally significant projects Generally my definition of regionally significant projects, which is not mine alone our projects that may be cross-jurisdictional boundaries or a project in one jurisdiction that might serve a large portion of folks that are coming from other areas You know right off the top of my head the highway one and nine intersection kind of comes to mind is something that we've identified as a regional project What rather than just a city of Santa Cruz project because of the number of commuters going through that intersection? Similarly on the south side, you know the highway 152 and whole hand road project is not just serving the Unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County even that's located in the unincorporated area lots of Watsonville residents use that a lot of visitors coming to Santa Cruz County I use it on a regular basis to go over a heck of pass because it's so beautiful now to go other places But you know there's a lot of roads in our county that are regionally significant And it's hard to draw a strict line on this is a regional project and this isn't but these projects on attachment one It's a preliminary list. It is built off of lists that the Commission has seen since I think as early as 2011 it integrates the preferred scenario of the unified corridor investment study and the priorities that were identified there for the near term as well as Some of our ongoing needs in our county ongoing local street and road preservation ongoing metro services and Addressing the backlog of vehicle replacements, you know bicycle and pedestrian projects throughout the county and Safe safety and education programs What's not on the first page are some of the projects that Caltrans has not been able to include in the shop Some of the projects that were identified by the community even at today's public hearing, but at past public hearings or through written comments On page two are some other projects that have been identified as priorities But we don't see them as priorities for applying for grants in 2019 and 2020 So we would like the Commission today to provide some feedback on this list. Are there things on page two that should bump up to page one? currently we are planning on going after the Senate bill one congested corridors and local partnership program funds for What I'm calling a unified Santa Cruz to Aptos project, which can includes the auxiliary and bus lane bus on shoulder lanes from 41st Avenue down to State Park Drive It also includes sections of the rail trail that can meet the deadlines for that grant which are segments Seven phase two and segments eight and nine of the trail project. It includes bicycle and pedestrian Buffered bike lane on Soquel Drive down to Aptos as well as some intersection improvements on Soquel Avenue and Drive So that's that's what we've been kind of focused on and this is you know You've heard about that in the past from my co-worker Sarah Christensen But that's where we're headed and we want to make sure are we headed in the right direction on that also? We anticipate applying for some of the Commission's own RTC Discretionary funds for some of these projects that have been continually identified as a priority as regional projects So we are looking for input today on that list as well and now I'm going to talk about just what our process has been over time on On selecting projects for the RTC's Discretionary funds. So as mentioned before there's two main sources. I mean 300,000 of LPP funds isn't nothing But it's it's pretty small and It all goes through the CTC So it has a lot of strings attached and we we tip last time we wanted to make sure to focus our share of those funds on as Few projects as possible But the way the Commission has done it in the past is we have when there's multiple funding sources available as I mentioned before Sometimes there's no stip funds. We have consolidated the process rather than issuing two Calls for projects having two sets of applications that folks have to prepare and go through their boards to get authorization to submit and then Having the Commission look at different funding options at different times We've we've oftentimes consolidated it when there was actually stip funding available There the reasons that we have supported a competitive Consolidated process are many and they're listed on page 26 stash dash four of your Packet, but I'd say the key one is the RTC serves the entire County. We're not just a City of X Y or Z or a transit agency We're looking at all of the transportation needs and as demonstrated by the public they expect us to Address a wide range of transportation needs in our County It's not just one type of project. It's not just one project in one area It includes a combination of projects that are implemented by local jurisdictions Metro Non-profit agencies Cal Trans the Regional Transportation Commission. So it's really that we serve as a We serve the entire County and we want to look Holistically at what the needs are and then make the best decisions that we can on how to spend the funds The other thing is that the Regional Transportation Commission out of all the transportation funding that's available for transportation projects You have discretion over less than five percent of the funds there's a lot of funding that does go out by formula already to Cal Trans for the state highway operations program for instance to cities in the county through the gas tax program and Senate bill one RMRA funds there's funds that are Restricted to transit projects for instance, and then there's a lot of discretionary funds that exist We don't have discretion over it the California Transportation Commission has discretion over it the federal government might have discretion over it Etc. But what the Commission has control over as Much as you hear about the needs from everyone is only five percent of the funds And so we want to make sure that we're being really efficient on how we spend those funds and strategic on how we invest them so We are mandated by the state and feds to do a performance based evaluation to make sure we're considering what was in our regional transportation plan and the sustainable community strategy for our county and Then to select projects and consider what the community wants and our process provides a very transparent process for folks to provide input We have Public hearings. We also go to our three advisory committees the bicycle elderly disabled and technical advisory committee for input on the process and project selection It also gives the community the opportunity and the Commission to fund projects that Maybe otherwise wouldn't get funded. I mean today I heard about highway 123 I mean 236 I heard about 152 I heard about Electric buses that folks want in the in the letters on measure D more road repairs street lights on Granite Creek Overcrossing in scott's valley of highway 17. There's a lot of different projects. And so through this process the Commission can Help determine where to give those funds and give the public a chance to weigh in it also provides us with a lot of flexibility the Stip funds as much as we have discretion over how they spend it's our Program, we don't always have discretion when they're available or what's gonna happen at the state legislature or with the state economy There are regularly instances where a project has been programmed in the Stip for many years for instance the Harkin slew road bike ped crossing and Then something happens one year at the state level and all of a sudden the state pulls the funds from that project What the Commission has said is that for that project specifically that you would commit future Stip or STBG funds to that projects It's six point four four million dollars if the project is not successful in receiving other funds Unfortunately this last cycle of the active Transportation program that project Almost got funded and it was only through a tiebreaker with a project that could be constructed two years earlier That it did not get funded So we're very optimistic that that project will get funded in the future But if that doesn't happen two years from now I'm gonna be coming to you saying the Commission's on record saying we're gonna fund this project And here's how we need to spend six point four four million dollars And let's let's codify that The finally I also wanted to just mention that The nice thing about having the Commission funds go through a competitive process is and sometimes through a consolidated Process as it provides you with the opportunity to strategically invest the funds so that you can use these funds to leverage other grants Using our funds to do some pre-construction work on projects to get them shelf ready Makes them that much more competitive later on and so that is another reason that we have been doing our process As it has been that said there's other options the County of Santa Cruz for instance has expressed interest in And and many agencies and sometimes us with other agencies we want to bypass the middle man Just give them you the money that sounds great easy peasy I'll follow whatever the rules are associated with the funds. That's not a terrible idea Sometimes that makes a lot of sense sometimes it doesn't and so the Commission today needs to kind of weigh what which which way You know makes more sense to you There's also options to not consolidate all of our competitive programs into one consolidated grant application There are absolutely some agencies who would like to see us run a competitive process for the 600,000 and local partnership program funds. I have to say that would be a lot of time Agencies would have to submit an application for that 600,000 the Commission would review them We'd go to all our committees for that small amount of money That's why in general we tend to consolidate the funds instead, but that's not impossible that that's something that we could make happen The other options that exist are not do a competitive process at all and program a hundred percent of the region's share of funds to projects that are identified to projects like those identified on Attachment one that is what many of our peer agencies in the state do there are many agencies LA County for instance Which is one of the biggest they don't do a competitive process. They've identified Here's our priority list and we're moving forward with this priority list We're not gonna do a call for projects for any of our funding sources others do a mix They have some funds that they give out by formula not the stip funds. I think there's some pretty There's some bureaucratic reasons that it would be complicated to go to the CTC for small amounts of funds and just generally the CTC doesn't want to see anything under a million dollars let alone anything under a hundred thousand dollars coming first at allocations It's a cumbersome bureaucratic process and so they really appreciate it when regions focus their stip funds on on larger projects But that said the Commission could decide to split some of our our competitive discretionary funds our discretionary funds by formula To program through either a competitive process or only to set aside for large our priority regional projects or Someone's project that came up today that you want to make sure just this one year We want to focus the funds on this one safety congestion bike pad whatever issue it might be So today we do recommend that you talk about all these different options. Give us feedback Do you like the way we've been doing it? Do you think there's better ways to do it? The County of Santa Cruz's letter on on why they are Thinking that a formula distribution of the STBG and our STP exchange funds are in your packet But I think with that I'm gonna leave it to your questions, and I know this is a complex topic with lots of acronyms I Thank you for that presentation I Expect a lively discussion on this topic. So I want to get to the public. So I'm just gonna remind everybody I'm just looking for questions right now and clarification for Miss Marconi questions. Yes I have a question about what the staff recommendation is because the packet that was sent out essentially recommended that the The commission approved going forward with a competitive process We then recently and I just found it in my and hard copy here got a revised staff recommendation Which was that the staff continue to meet with its stakeholders for input and return in August with a proposed process So given that there are these two approaches that have been suggested the the commission's competitive process for all these funds and the county's recommendation which may be other jurisdictions are supporting that the RSTP funds be Allocated by formula if I'm understanding it correctly is it true that staff is now recommending that the Commission not make a decision today but let staff work with Jurisdictions to try to get a consolidated recommendation to come back to us in August of September Is that am I understanding what's going on correctly? That is correct. That is very well said exactly what's going on Thank you for clarifying that Commissioner Schifrin I mean that said if the Commission today says You know there's concurrence on the board that you know Yes, we generally think we should only have a competitive process or we generally think we should do some sort of mix We would come back in August or September saying okay for funds that are going out by formula. Here's the process for funds that are going through a competitive process Here's the process for funds that aren't going through a competitive process and are going to be set aside for priority projects Here's what the process is so we would outline those in more detail if folks want to see what our normal competitive process Process looks like the April ITAC Agenda item did outline that but after this staff report already was 28 pages. I decided not to include all that this time around Have a question Commissioner Schifrin go ahead Commissioner Mulharn Thank you very much. I'd sorry Did this this particular policy go through ITAC you mentioned that the process was discussed in April But was this did this go through ITAC this staff report did not though the list that's on page 24 much of that did go to the ITAC and then as far as the list that's on page 26x-6 of some of the different varied ways of going this exact text wasn't given to them But the formula versus competitive consolidated process was discussed The the amend the amended staff recommendation Makes it seem to me like this probably should have been discussed at ITAC before it came to the Commission It was discussed at ITAC Before it came to the Commission a lot of the ITAC members were not present and then reached out to us after We issued this staff report Which was consistent with what we discussed at the ITAC meeting and that's why I revised the staff report and said okay Let's go back and try to work together one more time. So we could come up with a Joint recommendation that tries to address all of these issues since a decision does not need to be made today Okay And and how in 25 years ago? How did the RTC decide to create this competitive pool for these so these discretionary funds? So in I wasn't quite 25 years ago But in 1998 that was the first year that the Commission was able to select the projects for state transportation improvement program funds because Senate bill 45 for the first time engaged the regions in a more Active way in selecting projects for STIP funds and so it was at that time That was the first time we issued a competitive process for STIP funds as far as the RSTPX funds I know that's as early as 1991 when iced tea the Federal Transportation Act was approved and included a big portion of funds for something other than just highway and transit Our agency at that time also had congestion mitigation air quality fund CMAC funds and we did a consolidated process of RSTP and CMAC funds and Ran those through a competitive process now There have been times over the last 25 years that the Commission has not issued a call for projects and instead Designated almost a hundred percent of its RSTP funds on the highway one environmental document for instance or used almost all of its Discretionary funds to finish the purchase of the rail corridor. So there have been instances where the Commission has said There's I think been a few other projects I can't they are not coming to mind right now, but where the Commission has said, okay We're gonna issue a competitive process except for two million That's gonna go to project X Y or Z that had cost increases or are things like that and sometimes They've been projects that the Commission takes the lead on and sometimes they've been projects that other agencies have taken the lead on But the Commission has identified as a priority. I think Mission Street might have been in Santa Cruz might have been one of the other projects and And the STBG funding is particularly attractive because it can be used for a wide range of programs Both RTC priorities and local priorities Correct and and that we're able to wash the federal dollars for state dollars, which helps expedite project delivery And and what is our cost for overseeing this competitive process administrative cost overhead? I Don't think we've really estimated in that way I have to say writing this staff report took a lot more time than I expected it to take but um, yeah, you know, I'd say generally Probably a hundred hours of staff time goes into each competitive cycle Upfront and that's kind of preparing the application and then there's additional staff time associated with reviewing all the applications that come in So if we have 40 applications that are each 50 pages long takes a little bit longer Sometimes it takes us, you know Six hours to go through all those applications So so I have to say it it varies and we haven't been doing record keeping in that way I was curious because in your in your discussion here It sounds like a lot of hand-holding of the local jurisdictions through the process that there's a lot of staff direct interaction Through identifying the projects and how to make the projects more competitive and that sort of thing So it seems like a like a staff intensive process having a competitive process You know the intensive the most intensive part I think is not the project selection although to do four project selection processes Just quadruples the work not just for our agency, but local agencies who then submit applications It comes actually afterwards when we're once projects are chosen There's a lot of work that goes into going to the CTC for allocation requests making sure folks have followed the State and federal rules on their projects Cal Trans partners with us on a lot of this oversight And so regardless of if it's a formula funded project or a competitive process Those that work still is ongoing Thank you Commissioner Rodkin, I just want to make a process suggestion Which is we should hear from the public on the whole item, but we should divide the question When we discuss it to the process issues that have been opened up here And then talk about questions about what's on the list or where people want to move the priorities and not mix those two Conversations together because it'll get messy and I would do the how we're going to handle it first before we get to the You know moving the items around after we hear from the public We'll have that discussion that that's good to good advice Commissioner Johnson had a question, but I think he left so I don't any other questions I'm going to go ahead and open it up to the public now for comments on this item. Anybody from the public like to weigh in on this one Okay, we'll bring it back to us Commissioner Rodkin your suggestion is you or you wanted to do deal with these By different numbers. No, I just I just want to say first we should Have there's two discussions here one of which is the people want to move something from the second priority list up to The first priority and so forth that should be done second first We should decide Which Rachel I thought did a good presentation on what you know What are our options for how this is going to be handled and I have I have a comment on that first item But let's go and do that Let's have two items the first item will be to discuss how we're going to allocate the money And then secondly, we'll go back to attachment a and see if there's any items we wish to change the priority on Okay, so we're going to be on item one right now, which is the recommendation for the funds So I wanted to comment on that and you've got the force Thank you. I I want to first appreciate the This is strange staff report because it started off with the staff arguing pretty much for one kind of a process And then obviously there's been a change in how it should maybe be handled, which was described to us I think clearly earlier, which I think it's fine. I think that was a good way that it happened It's all too easy for agencies the transit district and the cities and the county And other Agencies to fight over this kind of stuff. It's pointed out. It's 5% of the funding But it it leaves a lot of time and so forth So I appreciate why the staff would like to try and find a way to consolidate the process And there's a good defense of why that would be something good to do here on the other hand I really want to appreciate our executive director's decision, which apparently this is where this must be coming from that Maybe this can be worked out between these agencies that are more informal level first so that we don't have a big public fight about how to Distribute the funding it's a 5% it's still a lot of money and people definitely all need it for a variety of projects So my sense is we should let that process happen. We should find out it's very possible that there are ways I mean for example the transit district concern is that we not have funding That's traditionally gone to the transit district now become more discretionary and somehow slip away from us Because we're in a situation where basically anything we lose means we're going to cut her out somewhere And that's we don't have projects that are not about putting traffic service on the road So that's our interest in this discussion Cities and the counties have you know to what extent they want to have a competitive process first a formula So I put some confidence that it may not work out But I have confidence that if this the various staffs Try to like work these things out it would be great And that's a huge improvement over sometimes the way these things have been fought it fought out in the past in the county So I'm going to wish you know my view would be Let's leave it to the director to go meet with the transit district in the cities and the county folks in public works and so forth to Figure out is there some way we can do this that would help consolidate part of the process take less staff time But maybe not just have it all be Consolidating into a single process in some way and I don't know enough about what would be the efficient ways to consolidate things And that'll certainly come out in that process So that's my hope for how we will resolve this question. Let them meet we'll come back in August and not August in our next meeting and And try and you know, do they work something out? Is there an alternative here that actually makes makes sense because again when you read the report you've got these In the revised when you've got things that are crossed out and things that are underlined Now I support the things that are underlying where this is trying to go But then there's a lot of argument in the actual body of the thing telling us why we should do something different than the actual Recommendation so I don't think it'd be helpful for us to try and have a huge debate about you know that let's get our Staff's various not just our staff But the staff of the various agencies to try and see if they can work this stuff out and then I look forward to it Input from our mind. I don't have any changes on the second part of this discussion But I think we need to have that we need to have that discussion But I think we should let this let them try and see if they can come back to us with a process that actually could work for everybody Commissioner Mulhern and then Chiffrin go ahead Commissioner Mulhern Thank you again that as far as I understand it the the STBG program was established to help fund Federal aid streets and highways here. Well, I'll just read it to you here provides flexible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects to preserve and improve the Conditions and performance of any federal aid highway bridge and tunnel projects on public road pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure transit capital projects So it's a wide it's a wide range of projects Representing local government though with what jumps out at me is the states and localities then that localities to me indicates that this the cities in the county should be preeminent over over this decision I Understand that that there are our regional needs identified by the RTC and that this money would be attractive for those projects But putting the RTC projects in direct competition with local government priorities. I Think is the wrong way to go about it That we at the county have as I'm sure everyone has heard many many times if 600 miles of roads to maintain it about half of Which are are considered federal rate routes federal aid routes and so this this money Could be very well used by our jurisdiction to improve the conditions for surface streets for for everyone countywide our having to compete with cruise 5-1-1 or some future rail project or whatever to in order to resurface our streets and roads is Is frustrating for for us at the county because we have we struggle with with with even maintaining our roads our PCI for Example on just on our federal aid routes has declined in the past six years from from 72 to 56 and that's just in six years and I realized it's a paucity of local local streets and roads funding and That I think further underscores the need for us to to find better ways to fund these particular types of roads I mean miss more acony in her her staff report for measure D But even I mentioned that that most of our roads are in in fair and or failing condition And so I don't I don't think that our local streets and roads should have to compete with I don't know cruise 5-1-1 for example for for money to to resurface our roads I also understand the concern about the the the instability of STIP But I think with measure D and SB 1 that probably should be less of a concern I know that we had no STIP funding. We had to raid our STPX Funding a couple of years ago or several years ago or whatever it was in order to fund our projects But in order in order to I think Improve the situation for our local governments I'm prepared to make a motion that the STBG our STPX funding Will be apportioned in a fair and equitable manner to the city's and county by formula and That that money shall no longer be considered discretionary by the RTC And that a committee composed by the city managers and the county administrative officer or their delegates Shall be formed to establish this formula and to develop a policy ensuring that maximum flexibility for use of this money We'll go to the city's and county For the use of the STBG our STPX money and furthermore that the ITAC Will be delegated responsibility for developing this methodology that's mentioned in whatever this bullet point for is the direct staff To continue to meet with the stakeholders that the ITAC will be Responsible for developing this methodology for the remainder of the discretionary funds, which is basically STIP But I understand LPP F funds in HIP currently are in play I also understand that there's there's a 1.2 million dollar balance in the RSTPX fund So perhaps that can be at play too But that would be my motion that we have The the city's Administration come up with a method out for with a formula for dispersing the SP STBG our STPX money Directly to the cities in the counties that it no longer be considered discretionary and That the ITAC develop a methodology for the remaining discretionary RTC funds second Okay, I got a motion by Mohr and I'm gonna take a second by Bertrand further discussion Commissioner Johnson, thank you chair. So I say excuse me. I'm sorry commissioner Schiffer and I'd said you were next my my apologies I'm gonna Pass for now. Okay, commissioner Johnson. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you chair. So I like this idea because you know in almost every other segment of our society when you mentioned bypass the middle man It seems to make sense. It's one of those things that say, oh, I don't have to pay retail and Again in theory local control is supposed to be we always value who that phrase because local control is something that is Important to us because it gives gives us a feeling that we can make a difference on on On that level so You know one of the arguments that I heard was well We can leverage these funds by keeping them and you know going with grants and so forth But I think cities and counties are very very Eligible to do the very same thing if they have the money to do so and then they're directed At the priority projects for that particular entity so I'm in I'm in full support of this because I I think that A formula is fair I'll leave it at that Commissioner Kaufman Gomez. Yes, I There's there's a lot to absorb here especially for one of the newer commissioners And there's a lot that I don't know that I'm trying to get up to speed on on knowing and on this particular issue It seems to be that kind of a little bit of a mushy area for me fully Comprehending what we're making a decision on without having an idea of what our staff impact is and I certainly think that it would Likely go that direction in terms of an allocation of a formula of some sort But I would feel more confident knowing what my staff have to do with looking this over that works with this on a day in and day out basis of of the money coming in how they're Putting together their paperwork and that the process of requesting the money and how they're prioritizing their projects I'd like to see them come up and have some sort of a part of the ITAC and And the outreach to the the different Jurisdictions before I'm comfortable to say that's the direction we want to go and then go back on it I would rather have them flush this out Help them help me understand this better on something that I'm going to be taking a vote on and that they have some Input before we say that we're ready to do formula and then go back to them on this So I'm hesitant to say yes until I know that all the ducks are in a row and the people that this would impact in the And the agencies and the Jurisdictions have that have weighed in on this as well and help me advise What we're going to be taking this vote on so I'm hesitant at this point for those reasons I'm not Necessarily opposed to the some of the ideas That Patrick expressed about how some of this might work out, but I think it would be a very big mistake for us to Decide that the ITAC is going to make this decision That we're already going to how we're going to carve up the the Stip money which has traditionally gone to the transit district And I so I'm going to oppose the motion I'm not against that the motion itself being presented to the people that are having this discussion as a one useful way to Think about resolving it, but I think it's premature I think again one of the problems we've had in the past are these big Horrible fights going on between the you know the transit district and the RTC Over these questions about how funding the sources that you know one group depends upon or how those things get worked out I don't Disagree with the concept that you know the roads shouldn't necessarily be competing with the 5-1-1 system There's a bunch of comments that Patrick made I that I tend to agree with But I'd rather have our staff work this out and bring it back to us as a process that these other folks have vetted and worked out sort of along the lines of What what member Kauffman Gomez has expressed? I think it would be a much better way So I'm going to vote no on the motion. Thank you But I'm going to let the commissioner more and clarify that just because I'm so so what the motion the motion is to delegate to our City managers and County Administrator officer to develop a Formula for disbursing specifically SB DG Rstpx money to the to the local jurisdictions and separately for other discretionary funds such as STIP for ITAC Which includes Metro to discuss a methodology for the the fair distribution of that money Thank you for that curve could save me the time and Commissioner Schifrin go ahead Just to clarify the motion If the if I understand the motion, it's to distribute the Rstp funds Only to the county and the cities so there would be no money for the transit district. There'd be no money for any Any other kind of projects it would just or even to support a Caltrans project it would all go for Distribution to the cities in the counties am I am I understanding that correctly? That would be my impression of that. Okay, I then I'm gonna put the Assistant Planning Public Works director of the city on the spot since he's here and There are two issues before us right right now in terms of the motion on the floor is essentially to distribute the funding to Rstp funding by formula solely to the cities in the county the staff recommendation is to take some time to have the staff work with the Public Works directors to Try to work out a mutually acceptable approach Are you this staff recommendation is new? It's different from the recommendation that originally came out. I'm just wondering whether your You you're supportive of the motion on the floor or whether you could be supportive of the staff recommendation Chair commissioners Christian I this is Christian I work city of Santa Cruz We are the Public Works Department is supportive of an apportionment of the Biformula of STBG and STP exchange funds And that part of the recommendation I believe there's some gonna be some time needed to figure out what that formula is and for The cities in the county to figure that out So let me just clarify Would you does that mean you're not supportive of the staff recommendation to take some time to work out the process? I think that's There will be a little time needed to work out the process, but we are supportive of the formula allocation and I don't know exactly whether supportive at going through the itac or some other process But I think that's for you to determine But we are supportive of the formula process. Thank you Just one clarification since we are in Watsonville, I'd just like to bring up Public Works director fonts just to say here's input on this also I don't want to just pick a North County representative from Public Works and I Guess the question I'm going to ask is if you're supportive of the motion on the floor City of Watsonville staff feels that this issue needs to be discussed more and some of the questions that have been raised need To be addressed before it should be accepted There have been funding sources available as Commissioner Schifrin pointed out to other agencies in cities and the county Non-profits transit RTC So if the funding is being reallocated we feel that all those sources or all those potential recipients should be addressed So we support the revised Staff report that there should be further discussion and these should be worked out and brought before the Commission at a later date Okay, thank you and one one more one more of a public works representative from the county here So would you like to come up and just share your input just so I have everybody's opinion on this Thanks for the opportunity a Steve Wiesner assistant director public works here for the county of Santa Cruz and While we appreciate the great work that staff does here at RTC We almost always agree with everything they recommend and the great work that you're that your commission does as well You know we look at these federal dollars if you look at how they come to us They come to the states by formula the states a portion amount to the local regions by formula Our colleagues in other regions within our state Receive these funds by formula. We don't think that there should be a huge argument or competition over these funds They're perfect for taking care of our federally routes and we're seeing our federal aid routes rapidly Deteriorate in condition and that you know when you see our payment condition index drop from a 72 Down to a 56 in six years. That means we're starting to fall off the cliff Now all the projects that have been funded through the RSTP STBG program through the years are great projects We don't argue that What we're arguing for is let's take over care of our most important federal aid routes that carry the most traffic These are commute routes so Cal San Jose Road so Cal Drive Bear Creek Road, these are the roads that people use to get in and out of our County These are also critical evacuation routes and we're watching the deterioration. We're all seeing it And so what we're asking for is a formula split Informations in the letter that we wrote to the RTC. Frankly, we didn't expect this item would come up this quickly Usually this is an item that's brought in August. I don't think the ITACs had a real robust discussion over this as well So, yeah, the county's fully supportive of the motion. That's before you Thank you One more one more to call it. I asked Mr. Wiesner a question and Do you I understand that you're fully supportive of the motion on the floor? Does that mean you oppose the motion that the the staff recommended motion because you did just sort of say something that Made sense for the ITAC to talk about this more that the ITAC really hasn't ever had there's it's not much of a motion It's provide direction. I mean there's not much there's not much of an action for you to take today if you look at your report It's to provide direction. And so, you know We've discussed this it's been glossed over at the ITAC is what I would I would say now I wasn't at the last meeting where a discussion did take place and I think a lot of the key members of the ITAC Weren't there either We've tried to have this discussion over the years. This is not a new item this has come up many times over the last 20 years and And I feel like there's been plenty of discussion all the facts are available You guys you can take a look at how other regions do this But it's a lot of staff time for us to have to compete for these funds a B it it brings a lot of Unpredictability as to what our pavement management program is going to be I mean we use the lion's share of these rstp STBG funds for pavement preservations on our federal aid routes and that's if you look at historically what we recommended projects for That's what we've make recommended projects for now What I will say is that we always get a little bit of what we asked for but if you look at the county we've got 50% of the population and we've got almost 67 or 68% of all the lane miles in the county to take care of now doing improvements is great And I know that we need to balance all the transportation dollars that we have in our region But if we're not taking care of what we already have at the expense of creating more stuff that we're not sure How we're actually going to be able to take care of into the future, you know We think that's the wrong way to go, especially with the funding source like this, which is we can rely on it It's it's an annual funding source that we don't even get to actually have an opportunity to compete for but once every two years Traditionally, so we can't tell our board how much money we're going to get what roads We're going to be able to do what the project limits are going to be what we get to tell our board is We're going to go ask for this funding and we're going to do our best to like Ask for it in a way that geo balances the funding, which is what we do we go We try to get money for every portion of the county Now we've got 600 miles of roadways that we have to take care of a lot more lane miles And it's all the way from Watsonville to Davenport, you know to the summit, right? And so it would be nice for us to be able to rely on these funds Which today we really can't because the changing priorities and the politics of the day really dictates Where these monies go? To bike education open streets You know cruise five stuff like this, so that's what we're competing with I think that if you look at the local jurisdictions the county and the four cities that are the primary responsible Jurisdictions to take care of our federal aid routes. I think most of us would agree Let us know what we're getting so we can actually count on it Thank you for those comments. I have one more person to bring up here before before Bear on the put you on the spot I want to get a little input from Metro as they see a problem with these STVG RSTPX funds being distributed to local jurisdictions Thanks for the spot. I know I'm not going to comment on that because I'm not informed enough But I would Metro would hardly endorse the staff recommendation to go talk about it That just seems the more appropriate path at this point. Thanks. Thanks for those comments. Okay. I'll bring it back Oh, Rachel you know you're just gonna go Sure, go ahead. I can wait until after commissioner Johnson, but May I go again, please go ahead so Before the alternative staff recommendation There was an expectation that we were going to go ahead with the original staff expectation Not wait till August not wait till September to move forward with it, but there's been there's been an intervening concern by different members by county by Our public works by the city of Santa Cruz's public works that what we're doing right now Forgoing local control and you know dispersing money A lot of times by those seven famous words of I'd like to move staff Recommendation because that happens all the time and then there's 11 and zero vote on it Whereas when you if our various jurisdictions get this money We can have a more robust discussion where we want to spend it But because the money emanates from our jurisdictions from our cities in the county and from our people And yet we want to give it over to you all make some sort of I guess Conjure up, you know ideas that kind of make sense and then now we vote on it I like local control. I have to be very honest with you and You know to forego and then have another you know do it I think in some ways that this body sometimes does best is you know more discussion That's what let's have more discussion and Sometimes that's really good, but sometimes it's not and I think just kind of I mean we've heard from representatives of people who are Concerned about the burdensome and onerous Process of having to deal with this competitive process It's not good. So Eliminate the middleman. Okay, you said it you that those were your words Rachel and Give us the control of that money Is best for our cities and it's best for our county and I that's why I support this motion Commissioner Gonzalez Yeah, I just really quickly on this. I'm divided. I represent the city of Watsonville the city councilman, but I'm also representing Metro and Looking at this and looking at it twice It kind of left Metro out and so that worries me And doing this action like this so I'd rather take some time and really study this out and wait till August So we can really come up with some good conclusions on what's the best formula because I mean what what's been put out May look good for the county, but it may not may may not be really that awesome for the cities So I just want to really make sure that the whatever is going to be formulated that Our transit system, which is county-wide is is not ill-affected We're just a clarification Commissioner Mohr, I'm gonna put you on the spot here again to repeat your motion for us. Okay, I think there's Slight confusion at least in my head Okay, so that our STPX STBG funding Shall be apportioned by formula to the cities and the counties the formula to be decided by a committee composed of city and city and county managers or their designees and that the STBG RSTPX money will no longer be considered discretionary, but just passed through funds to the local jurisdictions Furthermore that the ITAC will be delegated with developing a methodology for dispersing the remaining discretionary funds in the RTC pool such as STIP HIP or LPPF funds What whatever those discretionary funds might look like the ITAC then which is composed of our Public Works staff from all the various entities and the Metro will come up with a methodology that will ensure a fair Distribution to the various agencies who can apply Okay, I'm gonna weigh in real quick and then I'm gonna Commissioner Gonzalez brings up some good points. I while I initially feel like I'm in favor of this motion I have reservations because I am wearing a metro hat here also I I'm I'm not sure that I came here tonight today to decide I was comfortable with bringing this coming back in August and making a decision then Getting some input, you know, I do want to get input from Public Works directors. We're gonna say we're gonna go ITAC I think ITAC has a role in this and And I'm also want to get input from the stakeholders Metro and anybody else that wants to weigh in But with that being said, I still support the ideas of cities and county having control of this money So I'm struggling that I was gonna offer a friendly amendment to your motion, but I don't think I'm gonna do that at this point I'm just gonna say that I struggle with Making their decision now to do that money again, I do totally Support the committee because I believe that a lot of I know my city capital for sure And some other cities have not really comfortable with the distribution formula as it went out And when I think about roads and maintenance and I look at how capital is impacted by cut-through traffic Somewhere if we're gonna dedicate money to paving streets There's got to be some concession for the volume of cars that come through that town So I really appreciate the fact that the the five city manager for city managers the CEO are gonna get together and come up with the formula I think that's great and I have great confidence that those five people will come up with a solution that works for all of us so That's just my way and that's why I feel like I'm not gonna support this motion as it's made at this point Commissioner Schifrin Yes, I think the a problem that I have with the motion is that it seems to be saying that The Commission staff has no role in the decision whatsoever and how Federal funds are distributed throughout the county and I think that's really a mistake In the past as I understand it the itac has played a key role in working with the staff coming up with approaches that find try to find a balance between what the various jurisdictions want and we all each jurisdiction wants more and There's never enough for each jurisdiction to get as much as they really would like and so it's it's problematic and we have a There's two parts to this motion one part says This is the way the rstp fund should be distributed Which is by formula, but the other part is let's turn over the whole decision-making process to itac and I can't go along with that So what I would like to do is to make a Propose a motion to amend the motion on the floor and the amended motion would be to approve the staff recommendation to continue To that the staff continue to meet with the stakeholders and return at the RTC, but that the Commission is a substitute motion you're going to make or we Okay, let's call it a substitute. Thank you I just want to get a substitute motion that the RTC there would be the staff recommendation with the added direction and it would be the Commission's intention to approve the distribution of the rstp funds by formula to the local jurisdictions second Okay Just say say say that again to me because it yeah, I'm not I'm not sure that I think I know you wanted to go But I'm not sure if you took me there if I got there, okay So the the motion is I'll just read what the staff recommendation is direct staff to continue to meet with its stakeholders for input and Return to the RTC in August or September with a proposed process and timeline for program the Programming the RTC's discretionary funds with the added direction that the Commission's intention is to allocate the rstp funds By formula by formula to the local jurisdictions. Thank you I completely understand that because it Commissioner Caput. Oh, is there a second on that amendment? Commissioner Brown has a second on that I Just want to make it clear it seems to me that People want to put it off till August to make a firm decision on this you know, so Which which one of these is the last one is allowing it to go to August The mode I would like to make an amendment that we don't put it off to August September We say August is that a friendly amendment? I'll accept that if it's if staff can live with it I think staff can live with it. I think part of the the reason why I think staff may have said September or August Is that there are negotiations that are going to happen and around, you know, they're Funding for transportation is so complicated And I really want to thank Rachel for trying to make have make enough sense out of it So that we could have at least an inkling of what's how complicated it is, but there is state for federal There's what we've already allocated. There's some projects in the works. I don't know all the consequences So I think that may if they can do it in August. I think that would be the preference. Thank you for that I want a commissioner cap. It's finished. Okay, then I'm gonna go to Commissioner Brown You're clear that that the second motion does put it off till August to allow the groups to discuss that helps a lot I just would like to have an opinion from the from guy Put you on the spot here, but I Don't think putting it off till August is gonna cause too much trouble, but what is your outlook on this? My first comment before I forget is there is no itaq meeting before now in August. We go dark in July So that doesn't provide us with a whole lot of time to be able to do this via the itaq I can certainly meet with the public work directors And city managers the city administrator whomever you want But it might not be I might not be able to do it as part of the itaq meeting I think it's in the recommendation doesn't necessarily say itaq it just as meets with stakeholders So I think the the the the idea of that motion is intact You know, I have to as the executive director of the RTC Remind the commission that my primary responsibility is is to deliver regional projects That is why we Continue to advocate for the most amount of flexibility in trying to make decisions Because there have been a lot of regional priorities that have been identified by this commission that you know, I Would like to be able to deliver for for the commission and for the community of Santa Cruz County That said I also understand the challenges that your local Public work directors Have to deal with with respect to maintenance of the roadways and I do know that Having this a certain amount of money that is dedicated For for maintenance would be very helpful and to knowing that would be very helpful There have, you know, it's also important to remember. This is not the only fund source That's available for these uses that there are other fund sources that the counties in the cities can use for for maintenance purposes this is the one of the most flexible fund sources out there and Money has been programmed for maintenance purposes to the cities in the counties over the years it is definitely a Slippery slope, you know to be in my position and Rachel's position in trying to do what's best for the region If I was one of the cities I'd probably be advocating for the exact things that the cities in the counties that are asking for But I would also understand the argument that if you really want to see certain projects done such as highway one or the Monterey base Coastal trail That The more leverage and more flexibility we have when putting together funding plans the better off We're going to be I'm heading to Sacramento after this meeting to meet with CTC staff I'm also meeting with the CTC commissioner to talk about our grant applications for future projects One of the things that they really like to see when awarding grants Is that there is a firm commitment from the local governing body? To have teeth in the game. We do have some teeth in the game I mean we've we have measure D that that provides money and also provides money for local roads and maintenance 30% the highest percentage of the pod. I do know that past Other agencies that I've worked with Programmed a hundred percent of their stipends on the state highway system so that could be something that is discussed as part of my discussions with the other agencies but You know you start doing something like that where rsdpx is going to go to the cities and the counties for maintenance The stip may go to the state highway system. Well, where does that lead Metro? so You know you start taking these big fund sources and and dedicating them for certain things and you're taking away your flexibility You know decision-making, you know, I get what Randy says his staff comes up with a recommendation and you provide a motion to follow it But ultimately You guys are the decision-making body and if you wanted us to put all of the funds on Maintenance projects for the cities in their regions We could do that either by formula or we can do that even as part of the call for projects So there's Numerous options that are available. It's just very difficult when you have competing priorities because all of them are very good Needs and things that I think everybody wants to see done. It's just Very very hard to give everything to everybody when there's only a small percentage That's available to collectively to the group to try to decide how how best to use. Thank you Commissioner Brown. I Would just thank you for that response Guy and I I do want to say I want to I concur with some of my colleagues who have said suggested that given the complexity of These funding sources and and the kind of the implications of making decisions in these different potentially different ways I also prefer This alternative motion the substitute motion because I think it would be nice to have RTC staff have the time to to have those conversations with our stakeholders with local jurisdictions I also support Local control of these funds and you know and addressing those really really important needs at the local level I understand the the debate and the reason for it another reason that I think I want to support this Substitute motion and taking a little more time is the question in my mind about our ability as a region as a county to leverage Funds and which projects actually you know are competitive for for match grants etc And I think our the RTC staff has done a really good job of that. That's not to say other local jurisdictions Aren't good at getting matching funds for their local projects But it is an empirical question that can't really be answered Without trying those in and so we're in that position of projecting what might be The most effective in in leveraging outside money additional outside money so I just would prefer at this time that we give that a little more time for for Stat the respective staffs to work it out. So that's why I Seconded and will be supporting MacPherson. Yeah, I'm I was ready to support the initial motion and do like that Where that's headed because I think it's it gives each jurisdiction the funding for transportation that it should and its local control and really more predictability to but if if If we go with the substitute motion, it could we could come back to what was the initial motion by mr. Mulherrn like to get his take on that what he thinks but I Can't say that I'm really a hundred percent behind the substitute motion But I do I am supportive of the initial motion as it was made Okay, Johnson Bertrand and then back to Mulherrn go ahead commissioner Johnson Thank You chair so I'm hearing from the executive director that we have an obligation responsibility for regional projects But by definition by giving the money to five separate entities As far as Supervisorial districts are and all the cities Those are regional projects that will get done. You can't You know at some point We have to start giving loyalty to our constituents and not just the RTC staff and By that I mean we put so much into terms of how they interpret and where where those things are needed and what those staff reports But our people are fully competent to do that. We've heard it from from the Various from the county from the city if if our if our people were here from scott's valley They say the very same thing And you know I respect Metro I think it's good, but they get their half cent and As far as measure D funds are concerned they get a nice big portion there at what point does that tail stop wagging this dog? I mean I know we have Metro representatives on this board, but I guess I'm just really torn if I keep hearing about how bad roads are and You know, it's a catastrophe and yet What what do we want to do? We want to talk about it more and we want to defer it more and And I just think the original motion was in some ways very benign. Okay, we're going to Use formula then we're going to talk about it with the various entities and then use that as a road map on How we're how these funds are going to disperse be disperse yet Here we are, you know with alternate motion with You know and now staff is going to come back With recommendations on whether or not this you know Patrick Mulhern's Motion makes sense and I boy I wonder where that's going to go Like I say, I'll repeat again originally staff was going to go with with with Competitive and we were all set to just you know rubber stamp that but all of a sudden a common sense Recommendations comes forward and then now we have to think about it again. Okay Commissioner Bertrand so city capitol is going through its budget process as I imagine other agencies in the county and There's a disquiet I think and the disquiet is we see our infrastructure starting to get worse and worse the PCI goes worse and worse and The issue is in front of our residents on a daily basis Makes commutes harder as a county Assistant manager said We don't have good routes for a variety of raisins and this is one of them and that's funding Getting over the hill the such like that So the disquiet in my mind is how do we fund things in capitol? Scots Valley Watsonville County Santa Cruz City of Santa Cruz have I believe the same sense of disquiet The other sense of disquiet I believe is where our priorities are Okay, and I think I sort of parse it out correctly, you know, we're we're trying to figure out from a focused regional or from a focus to the city and what everyone in Their mind from the day they or from the time they leave their house to go to work or to go to shopping and stuff like that We're other priorities And so when I say disquiet, I think it's time to get back to something that's more focused on the individual person Because we're gonna be having in the next couple years some real hard decisions in terms of funding Things that just keep our cities going We won't have the extra to do things that are Aspirational projects for the county we just won't and also It's a sense that I think is very important to the people live in this county that The agencies that are responsible for keeping up the infrastructure are actually responsive There are times when we go to the cities and to the county residents to ask for support In funding for our projects If we don't deliver on the things that they see the bread and butter type issues right now They're not going to support us in the future for things that do sound good, but the benefit is not necessarily understood or maybe not tangible So I did support and I do support rather the first the first Proposal by Patrick if the second proposal passes I think this body will have a chance to try to sort of figure out how to best move forward Rachel's presentation was very good and It gave us a better understanding of the sources of the funding in a way that I haven't yet seen So I really appreciate that thank you for that and I could see why it took so long to prepare that staff report And also I see in the staff report the need to be flexible So I completely understand that and it's very hard to be flexible when we have these competing requirements But I think ultimately the main requirement is that we solve real problems on an everyday basis And that's why I keep saying that I think there's a sense of disquiet I think the public is starting to realize that funding is going to become harder and harder and harder to get They're going to realize that as the CPI goes up They're going to realize that when they drive from here to there when they have traffic jams and stuff like that I think they want real focus on the things that they see are going to have the major impact So if we decide a formula and if the people at the table are the ones that actually have to deliver those Projects, I'm totally for that And if we have some flexibility because there are things on a regional level that really do need long-term planning I'm also in favor of that too. Those are my comments. I Know this could go on for a long time. I just want to make a comment. What did we pass this today? I take an action today or in August or September You know the funds aren't going to be held up by any means I think what's important here is is you know, I initially supported Commissioner Mulherrn's proposal I think a lot of us do in theory What's important here for this body to do is to main respect for all of our cities for all of our public works directors and for all of our Stakeholders and I think that's the reason why there was some reservation on some members on this commission and why the second the substitute motion had a little bit more light and so We can go back and forth. I don't want to be punitive. I don't want to be any more You know negative comments towards any people because I think this is good for all of us in the end So if somebody else wants to talk, I'll allow that but I'm I'd like to clarify my motion if I could please do and and it is a Really hard dilemma that the Commission is I mean we hear often that highway one is the biggest problem in the county We're hearing today that the problems on the streets are the biggest problem in the prop in the county Well, they're all the biggest problem in the county and they're all They all have a insufficient amount of money to do something about it our RSTP The the RSTP funds have been used to help as I remember the staff report has helped pay for the EIR on the highway widening project That was a very high priority We're in a it's a it's a they're difficult choices and the the Clarification that I wanted to make in my motion is that the motion is is regarding this round of funding because I think something Unusual is happening here, which has happened in the past particularly for the county We had a storm disaster in the county that really caused tremendous problems on rural roads If we're not able to get the federal highway money or the FEMA money and even if we're able to get that money The measure D funds the SB1 funds are going to be eaten up Just trying to bring the the roads that were hit by the disaster up to Up to you know backed so that they are not one lane, but they're back to the way where they were So I think the county had particularly has a problem right now And although I appreciate the assistant public works director from the county talking about how this is a long-term concern It's really I think bubbled to the surface this time around because of the particular The particular Funding crisis that the county is in regarding the many many miles of road that the county is responsible for And I think that's part of why There's a support from commissioner Cunative to at least in this funding round to be able to allocate the funds by by formulas so that that the jurisdictions will have a Set amount of money that they know will be available that I think at least in the county is going to help to Respond to the disaster so I just wanted to clarify that from from From my perspective and making the substitute motion. It really is looking at this is where we are now and I think it's justifiable to do it this year Because of that particular problem that we're having whether we want to do it on an ongoing basis or not I think that can be up for discussion when it comes back. We can do that Two more last comments. Okay commissioner Rodkin So I don't want to be put in the position of arguing For one other point of view, you know with the transit district and explain like I it's not like I believe the county roads are fine And they don't need the money. It would be ridiculous position to take But I need to point out that in terms of actually changing how people get around and dealing with climate change and All these kinds of issues the transit district is an absolutely essential Possibility for us we have worse transit service in this county than we did 20 years ago Worse than it was 20 years ago. Everybody else is moving towards. Let's get people into public transit and That's the way and especially if we're going to move towards electric buses And that's how we're going to address these issues the transit district because of federal priority problems and the gas tax issues has less money now in terms of its purchasing power then we had 20 years ago and the result of Voting for the main motion not the substitute motion will be to take money from the transit district. That's where it's going to go That's what that's the actual effect of what will happen with that first motion So I'm not trying to sit here and argue for a formula that puts the money in the transit district I'm saying give our executive director a chance to carry out what he's proposed to us Informal process of meeting with the public works directors and the leaders of the various agencies and work out a process the substitute motion I'm gonna I don't want to propose a third Substitute motion. I'll support this the substitute motion is at least getting us to the point where we can work this out But let's have an informal process that brings us back Perhaps something can be worked out that doesn't harm the transit district that gives the county and the cities the Stability and knowledge they need to figure do some planning about how the road maintenance issues I think these people can probably work something out if they can't we'll be where we are now and that's fine We'll have to make a hard decision But I'd rather avoid that because that will take the form of me arguing for the transit district Against County roads, and I don't want to be there. I don't think I have to be there But the first motion pushes me in that direction. Thank you Commissioner coffin Gomez and then we're gonna vote Okay, so let me wrap up some of the comments based on all of the feedback that I've been hearing The first thing that I haven't heard back and forth is We're gonna go ahead and rely on a road show to make a formula decision When it was a very complex process of even how that formula decision was reached for even the measure D Because everybody feels that they got an uneven portion of that whole measure calculation So a concern I have is saying that that's what they're gonna do you making the road show and everybody has a different in interpretation of what they want as their formula base to use and We're voting to say yes you go out there and do that and bring it back to us And I don't know that we have the feasibility of having that occur and negotiating on a road show Without really having more involved with a robust discussion of those decision makers The the staff recommendation the staff recommendation is gonna be based off of doing that with the feedback that you're getting all The way around and I think that that's what's effective when the staff come forward with a recommendation is that they've had that Conversation with all of the stakeholders and whether the ITAC is that stakeholder or not We we know that we're not gonna have them as an opportunity if we're gonna do something now For something to be brought back to us. So there's a missed opportunity there for some of that conversation to occur And and the stakeholders do have a say in this matter as well as the agencies that have been relying on our TC to give them that extra bit of money and We we've had three in our audience that would be potential stakeholders here And I would certainly like to have enough opportunity and time that we're allowing those conversations to occur and that I know that there is some haste involved because there's you know We've heard of what we want to make sure that we can put it on our budget sheet to know that we're gonna be receiving Somewhat of a percentage in that it's a reliable source of funding, but for me I hesitate to do something prematurely And I want to make sure that we have everything flushed out before it comes to us instead of us piecemeal Something that says we're gonna rely on a Formula that we don't know what it is how it's gonna impact everybody what everybody's feedback is gonna be and then an agency that we won't have a meeting or subcommittee that there won't be a meeting from and that Ultimately, we'll probably do a formula I don't think that there's gonna be you know something on that but To in order for us to get that result within the time frame that we have to work with I feel that we're we're premature and making this vote to do that decision today And I would recommend staff rec the initial staff recommendation of let's hold this until we've got everything together and come back with a polished Report and with the consensus and feedback from all of the stakeholders that will be impact by this Was that a motion making a third substitute motion? No, I would just I would Just I just wanted to be clear motion the substitute motion I would say the substitute motion could do that in the end I mean that's not it does not resolving the issue and the question of what that formula is my question now to the Commission is is everybody clear of the substitute motion by commissioner Schiffer Do we know what we're voting on we're not voting on the first motion by commissioner Muller in the second motion Which is just pretty much item four in red on on the sheet with the with the Inclusion that the that it's based on trying to derive a well the intention of the commission The added direction is that the intention of the commission is to support the distribution of the rstp Funds on a formula basis correct for this year for this year. Thank you. So one year one year Okay Just for clarification it would be for this round of funding this round of funding is for multiple years Okay, and okay for this round and how many what is the multiple years? Well three to five. I mean there's five with stip and three with ours And it would be for this round not this round. Yes. I'm sorry Well, the formula would only be associated with rstp exchange funding and I believe we're talking about four years Rachel for that at least three Word August is taken out of it No, we allowed that it may not happen by August It we that that never got a second actually and it was just it's gonna remain August or September It's when staff gets back because the what we're all doing here is making sure that we talk to all the right people before We come back. We're actually not making a vote today to make a decision on it We're just giving direction on how to proceed with an intention with an intention absolutely with an intention not not Decisive, okay, so I think I'd like to have a roll call vote on this Somebody have a roll Okay Commissioner alternate Mulharn Thank you, since I'm looking really for long term Resolution of this this kick punting it for three years isn't going to satisfy my needs. I'm going to vote no Commission alternate shuffling. I Commissioner Brown I Commissioner Johnson, no Commissioner Caput. Yes Commissioner Rockin I Commissioner Gonzalez I Commissioner Boturf I Commissioner McPherson Commissioner Koffman Gomez, no Commissioner Bertrand I Until I take your time 7-4 The motion passed 7-4 the motion passes 7-4. Thank you. Thank you for that lively discussion as anticipated Okay, oh, yeah, no, we still have one more to finish up and that was on attachment a We pulled this off and that was does anybody will want to make a recommendation to move any item from the list up From my page two to page one Or down or in any input on attachment a whatsoever Commissioner Bertrand. I'd like to get the focus on the Davenport crossing moved up To me that's a public safety Accident waiting to happen Davenport Highway 1 crossing. Okay. Yes. That's why I'd like to move up That's why I asked all those questions. That's pretty much focused on that I'm not sure the mechanism how we move that up I don't know if that's a consensus of the board or if that's a feeling shared by Commissioner Bertrand Got I got I'm just trying to see if there's anybody else that feels that that way I don't know what it takes to move an item up whether it takes a consensus of a number of people Is there any other items that anybody wishes to Way in on commission There there we there are a couple and I appreciate that for highway nine that are the on the near term projects And then it says to be determined highway corridor improvements. I I mean, so we're just focusing on those two which are plenty. I know I comparatively but I'm not sure what that means You know mid-term priorities So you the I obviously your the focus is on the corridor improvements and the Graham Hill Road Glen Arbor and then there's but you're In having him on the future grant cycles, there's other things to do and highway nine I mean, we all know that is that pretty much what you're saying then In the highway nine plan there are the San Lorenzo Valley Corridor plan It identifies 34 projects. Some of those are identified as short-term needs Some of them are identified as mid and longer-term needs and so when the commission deliberates on the final plan next month There have been some shifts from what was in the draft plan based on the extensive public comment We receive these are not staff recommendations Usually these are based on all the public input that we received that there are shifts of some projects from the short-term category to the long-term category and so Whatever results and it's important to note that sometimes who the lead agency these aren't just projects that the RTC takes the lead on So for instance the Davenport crossing that might be something that then You're asking the County of Santa Cruz to go after grant funds to try to deal with that Davenport crossing on highway nine It might be asking Caltrans or the County of Santa Cruz to go after grants to fund those short-term priorities But those will be identified and clarified through that process And so we didn't want to identify every single thing on this list today because we want to finish that Planning process and there's no amounts on the future grant cycle proposal So I'm just concerned. There's only so much money out there and even those that are priority projects are not going to Be done anytime soon or mint some of them many of them So I'm just a concern that if we start adding other you know from the grant cycles the future grant cycles is that less than the Capability of us getting the near-term projects. I I'd like to stick with the near-term projects. I think that's a great list of And it's varied throughout the county I'm just concerned that if we start adding other things that we might weaken our ability to get the funding appropriate funding for the ones that are on the priority list That that is a factor There's only so much staff time that every single agency staff have to prepare applications the application that the Commission usually puts out I can say some city of Santa Cruz staff turn it out in about two hours If we're doing a build grant application for the federal gov We're going to spend about 300 hours at least preparing that application an active transportation program grant people spend weeks of Five staff people plus consultant teams to put together those applications So it definitely varies depending on the project and so the more things that you're asking us to go after grants and asking Your staff to go after grants There there is a capacity limitation on staff time. All right. I'd be really hesitant to add anything on to the priority list myself I'm just going to share that I'm impressed that we're seeing this highway bike pedestrian bridge That's on here is one of the top items. It's been bumped around and it's been recycled Several times over it used to be a clover leaf that's been shortened So I still want to make sure that we have some really good Motion forward to continue with that so that we can actually start to see some movement and some pavement done and That that particular safety can you clarify which project you're doing? It's the highway one bike ped bridge over Harkin slew road and Yes, it's a long time coming that that the students have been out there for over a well over a decade and It just needs to be prioritized for us and we need to make sure that it remains and focus up there and We're we've seen it drop off and then come back again, and we need to make sure that we don't lose sight of that one Thank you Rodkin so that Randy's left, but so he wouldn't be disappointed. I'll move that we accept the staff priority list and attachment one As printed okay of a motion by Rodkin second by Gonzalez any other discussion all in favor I any opposed Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay All right takes us on to item 27. This is highway one Bay Porter State Park auxiliary cooperative agreement Caltrans Sarah welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon to you Thank you I'm Sarah Christensen. I'm the Senior transportation engineer with the RTC. I also manage the highway one quarter Investment program of projects here to talk about a new project that we're hoping to get started It's the highway one auxiliary lanes project between the Bay Porter interchange and the State Park Drive interchange The two items that we're requesting approval on are for a cooperative agreement with Caltrans for the environmental phase of the project and To award a professional engineering services contract To the selected consultant. Thank you. So this project proposes to construct northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes between the Bay Porter interchange and Park interchange as well as Park to State Park It also includes the replacement of the Capitola Avenue overcrossing It includes retaining walls and sound walls It includes bus on shoulder improvements between those interchanges utility relocations and pavement Rehabilitation so we began discussions with Caltrans earlier this year on who would make sense to be the implementing agency for this project We developed a scope of work with Caltrans staff shared that scope of work with them they Came back with a work plan A proposed work plan with a cost and a schedule associated with that work plan for them to do the work with their own forces This is Caltrans district 5 the Cost they came up with was 2.815 million dollars with a schedule of 30 months We weren't totally satisfied with that and so at that point we decided to Release an RFP to hire a consultant assuming the RTC as the lead agency for the environmental phase of this project The bids came back and The proposed cost that we have before you is 2.35 million which includes contingency and project management and a proposed schedule of 20 months and Schedule is really critical for this project because We want to include this project as well as auxiliary lanes between 41st and so Cal as a single Package When for cycle 2 of the solutions for congested corridors program and the local partnership competitive Program, which Rachel mentioned has a call for projects later this year and so we want to combine those two projects and a value about a hundred million dollars total and Schedule is critical and if we were to go with a 30 month schedule. We would have missed the programming years for cycle 2 and so we are hoping to get this going quickly and Demonstrate project readiness on this important project for the county So the cooperative agreement that we have began negotiating with Caltrans on assumes RTC as the implementing agency for the environmental phase With Caltrans providing oversight Caltrans will be the lead agency for sequel and NEPA Final design right-of-way and construction phases will be subject to a future cooperative agreement to be negotiated later And this cooperative agreement we're hoping to get your approval today Because it's needed to get our STIP allocation in August so the materials are due this month, which is why we're bringing this to you now So with that we recommend that you approve the resolution authorizing the executive director to negotiate and enter into a Cooperative agreement with Caltrans contingent on legal counsel review So that's the first item the second item as I mentioned we put out an RFP in March Proposals were due at the end of April We received a whopping eight proposals, which is great It means that there was a lot of competition and it means that we're going to have a really top-notch consultant working for us We had a selection panel of six who reviewed those proposals and shortlisted four consultants We interviewed those consultants on May 13th and we're able to Select the top-ranked consultant later that week on May 17th The selected consultant was Mark Thomas and company The reason they were selected is because they had the best technical approach for traffic and environmental studies for this project They also included a sub-consultant CDM Smith who? Had done a lot of previous studies on the highway one corridor. They did all the traffic studies for the tier one project And they're also the consultant for bus on shoulder, which provides a cohesive Approach to the corridor for bus on shoulder elements They proposed a 20-month schedule and a fee of 1.83 million, which is within the budgeted amount that we have for this project And so with that we recommend Approval of the resolution authorizing the executive director to sign an agreement with mark thomas and company for the environmental phase of this project If we start today on the environmental phase We could be construction ready At the end of 2022 and that would fall within the cycle two years