 You ready? Yes, we are. Okay. Good morning, everyone. This is Thursday, May 7th at 9 a.m. at the monthly meeting of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, here with Bruce McPherson. And we do have our members now on the video. Please call the roll. Commissioner Bertrand. Here. Commissioner Brown. You're on mute. Commissioner Johnson. Here. Commissioner Kaufman Gomez. She's raising her hand. Commissioner Caput. I think I saw a red Leo. I'm sorry. I'll do it. Commissioner Caput is present. Commissioner Coonerty. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Commissioner Alternate Schifrin. Here. Commissioner Friend. Here. Commissioner Leopold. Here. Commissioner McPherson. Here. Commissioner Bator. Here. Commissioner Gonzales. Here. And Commissioner Rotkin. Here. I don't see our Caltrans folks on the line just yet. There's Dan. She's right here. Oh, I'm sorry. I mean, I... I mean, Lowe is here. She's here. Lowe. Here. You're on mute. No. Okay. Yes. That completes it. Okay. The roll call. We'll go to item number two on oral communications. A member of the public may address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda. Is there anybody that is on the line that would like to address us on an item that is not on the agenda? Seeing none. Is that correct? It is correct. Okay. We'll move to the additions or deletions to the consent and regular agenda. Are there any additions or deletions? Thank you, Cap. Chair McPherson, there is a replacement page for item number 12. There is a handout for item number 20. There is a handout for item number 25. And I want to make note that the handout for item number 25 has the page numbers at the bottom incorrect. They have a reference to 26. So that is the handout for item 25, the emergency bridge repair. All of those handouts are available on our website. Very well. Okay. We will go, any other, that's it. We'll go to the consent agenda. We have items numbers four through 18 on the consent agenda. Is there any item on the consent agenda that a member of the commission would like to pull? Commissioner McPherson, can you give us a minute? It looks like our participants are having a little bit of trouble logging in and we're working with CTV. So can we just hold for just one minute to see if we can get them? Thank you. We need to do a fix to the link on our agenda to allow people to log in. So if we can just pause for just a minute. It looks like the link that you had given us for our agenda has expired. Can you do something about that quickly? Remember for community TV, a general number that we normally call? I can. He hasn't responded. Ian, are you on the phone? Are you on line? Community TV? Ask Lynn. Lynn, are you able to hear us? We're having issues with the link to the, for the community members. Lynn, if you're responding, you're muted. We just received a link from community TV so we'll be posting that shortly. Okay, we have our solution to the issue and they're gonna be posting the new link shortly. Is there any reason for us to go back through oral communications? There probably will be some folks that would like to speak. So maybe we will have to go back. Okay. That correct Steve? That is correct. And I would recommend that we go back and do oral communications again. Yeah, Bruce, you didn't think you're gonna get away without oral communication. Just one meeting please. Yeah, whatever. Okay, so the link is getting posted and we are responding to phone calls and we'll get participants on the line as quickly as we can. Are we ready to go now or are we still? Steve, should we continue with the agenda and then go back? We should actually, if it's very close to coming back online, we should just hold until people can actually access it again. Very good. Okay, we are. We're about a minute or two away. Yeah, I'd recommend we continue to hold them. Thank you. Grace, Tommy and Amanda, I just sent you an email with the correct link if you wanna go ahead and forward that to your consultants. Okay, it looks like they're coming on. We have four participants already logged in so we'll be getting them trickling in now. Okay, so we can recall the meeting to orders. Is that correct now? That is correct. Okay, welcome everyone. Thank you for your patience. I'm Chairman Bruce McPherson of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission and welcome to our May 7th monthly meeting of the commission. We have already taken role and we do have a quorum. The second item on the agenda is oral communications for the public to address us on any issues that are not on today's agenda. Is there anybody who would like to address us on an issue that is not on today's agenda? We have anyone? I don't see. If you would like to address us and you're joining us by computer, please raise your hand or go ahead and speak. Seeing no one or hearing no one. We'll move on to item number three, additions or deletions to the minutes. I'm sorry commissioner. I have Rachel Morricone raising her hand. Oh, excuse me. Okay, go ahead. Hi, because of the the web link, I recommend you guys holding off on oral communications until a new, the meeting ID is posted on the RTC website. It didn't seem to be on there. I have people already joining Rachel. It's been shared. Oh, thanks. I think we're okay to move forward, commissioner McPherson. Okay, we'll repeat the additions or deletions to the consent and regular agenda. We have, I think three. That's correct, chair McPherson. There is a replacement page for item 12, a handout for item 20 and a handout for item 25. And I note that the handout for item 25 has eight numbers at the bottom that imply that it's actually out of 26, but that is item 25. Next, we will move to the consent agenda. The items number four through 18. Any comments first from the committee, any commissioner on the consent agenda? Yes, Mr. Chair. This is Zach. I just wanted to make sure that we knew of the, of my conflict on item seven. I have a personal financial conflict in that my home was within 500 feet of the rail corridor. So I'll recuse from number seven. I have the same issue with item 25 on the regular agenda. Thank you. Very well. Okay. Any other comments from the commissioners? Any comments from the public? I don't see any hands going up. Okay. I'll move to consent agenda. Move by Schifrin, seconded by... Gonzalez. Gonzalez. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Passes unanimously with recusal by supervisor friend on item number seven. Do we need a roll call? Do we need a roll call? Yeah. As a teleconference meeting, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me to do a roll call. Got it. Excuse me. Go ahead. Please. Jochen, commissioner Gonzalez. Aye. Commissioner Bautorf, commissioner Leopold, commissioner Friend. Aye with the number seven, recusal. Thank you. Commission alternate Schifrin. Aye. Commissioner Caput. Aye. Commissioner Kaufman-Gomez. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Aye. Commissioner Brown. Aye. Commissioner Bertrand. Aye. And commissioner Low, I believe, does not vote. So we are going to... First and tonight, it passes unanimously. We will go to our regular agenda, item number 19, commissioner reports. Are there any oral reports from commissioners? Seeing none. Does anybody have a... I do not see any hands. Okay. Seeing none, we will move on to item number 20. The director's report from Guy President, our executive director. Chairman Pearson, if I could, I'm seeing a message in the chat from wants to offer public comment for an item not on the agenda. So I'm not sure if we can kind of wear that would fit, but I just wanted to learn each of that. We should have done that earlier. Is there a comment on an item not on the agenda? Yeah, that's what it says. Well, we should have done that under oral communications. Maybe there was a reason he couldn't get on. Yeah. He said the published web link was not, he was dealing with that challenge. Okay. Can we, I'll go back under the circumstances and give him a chance to comment. Can we do that? Is that it? Yeah, you can, Mr. Chair. Okay. And can you let him make a comment or an oral communications on an item that's not on the agenda? You can go ahead and speak. Oh, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yeah. This is, I'm Brett Jarrett from Santa Cruz and I sent you all extensive comments regarding the transit corridor alternatives analysis, milestone two, public feedback is being sought in a vacuum because we don't know how the scores were determined. There is no indication of the data that's used or whose opinion is being represented in these scores. I spend a lot of time delving into the details and I find the assigned scores highly questionable even on very basic items. For example, what's the capital cost for a diesel light rail system? The 2015 rail feasibility study said under $10 million per mile, but this report says over $20 million per mile. Which is it? I don't like diesel, but this is basic stuff and the information should be accurate. So what about regulations? This report literally says bus rapid transit is not compatible with any regulation listed. That is greenhouse gas emissions, coastal commissions, proposition 116. But there's no context to say how it's inconsistent with the regulations. We just don't know what they're saying. I think the report contradicts itself in saying BRT is not consistent with regulations but should be studied further. There's probably a logical explanation, but it really needs to be explained. And I'm very grateful that the report shows personal rapid transit is much more consistent with the regulations than bus rapid transit. But I still wanna know why as someone reading this report, the details are just missing. And in other categories where personal rapid transit received a low score, I'd also like to see explanations of why. I send a lot of data and documentation to show why I believe these low scores are incorrect. I'd love to meet with any of you who can explain the logic behind the scores. And I'd also love to discuss my vision for an elevated personal rapid transit system with anybody. BRT would allow social distancing. Right now we're being told, don't ride the bus, don't even carpool. The alternatives analysis really needs to include technology that can work during a pandemic. And an elevated system can be installed with no effect on the railroad tracks. So if freight is a priority, which isn't up to me, but if freight is a priority, we can have both elevated PRT and conventional freight. So my requests are number one, please reveal the thought process behind the assigned scores. Number two, please don't accept the report as it stands. I believe the scoring is flawed and the results are flawed. And number three, please include elevated PRT in the final short list of alternatives. Thank you very much. That concludes my comments. Thank you. I have Michael St. wishing to speak. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. Just barely got on. There's been some technical things happening with your Zoom stuff, but not to waste any more time. Good morning, commissioners. Michael St. was campaigned for sustainable transportation. I hope everyone is doing well and staying safe. During this COVID-19 pandemic, we've been looking for a silver lining when it comes to our transportation priorities. We are basically experiencing a global and dramatic reduction in traffic congestion for obvious reasons. Reduction in air pollution, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and also lower traffic in accident fatalities. I have three questions to ask you commissioners on making the transportation decisions for our county, which is the RTC. The first question, is this crisis the opportunity we've been waiting for to change our transportation goals? Is the pandemic an opportunity to rethink our transportation priorities? The last question, so how do we learn from this crisis? We know it's technically feasible and economically possible to make this a win-win. We just need to get our political mindset to shift our collective behavior and make the temporary upside permanent. This is our moment to use this as an opportunity to future proof our transportation, systems to be more flexible, equitable and resilient and sustainable. Almost 50 years ago, the Netherlands used the oil crisis of the 1970s to redesign its road policies, to focus on people, not cars and prioritize the cheapest, quickest and easiest ways to get around their cities and towns. This was mostly done with bicycles linked with local and regional public transit. Are we going to embrace this opportunity and try and follow the Netherlands brave example or return to the status quo of widening highways for single occupancy vehicles, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing accidents and fatalities on our highways? Our congestion is not an infrastructure capacity problem, it's a work culture issue. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other comments from the public under oral communications? I do not see any more raised hands. Okay, we were not allowed to reply on those comments, but thank you for your input. Now we will move to item number 19, commissioner reports, are there any oral reports? Go back to that. Seeing or hearing none, the director support, item number 20, Executive Director Guy Preston. Thank you, Chair McPherson and commissioners. There's been a lot of discussion regarding COVID-19 and specifically the COVID-19 economic impacts and what effects they may have on the RTC budget. RTC staff continues to monitor the economic impacts of COVID-19. RTC's budget includes several revenue sources, including federal funding, state funding, and local funds. Our biggest concern for revenue decreases continues to be sales, use, transaction, and gas taxes, particularly the Transportation Development Act funding and measure D. RTC employs the services of Hinder Leiter, the law mess and associates for revenue projections of measure D, our transaction and use tax dedicated to transportation. RTC staff has attended several meetings with HDL associates over the past month to discuss potential impacts to both statewide sales tax in general, as well as measure D specifically. Statewide HDL projects expected year to year revenue decreases for current and next year as follows. Fiscal year 1920 and projected minus 9.9% change and fiscal year 2021 minus 1.5%. Locally HDL projected year to year revenue decreases for measure D as follows. Fiscal year 1920 minus 12.2% and fiscal year 2021 minus 4.4%. So for our fiscal year 2021 budget, that compounded effect is approximately 17% decrease from the budget that we recently approved. It's important to note that HDL's forecast is built on what they consider to be the most reasonable scenario based on certain assumptions, such as the shelter in place will end in May. The virus runs its course by the end of September with no return of the virus, unemployment, household debt, such as mortgage, credit cards, auto loans, expected to be a lag on economic afterwards. Local sales and use tax declines are expected to continue through the end of 2020 with only moderate gains and regrowth thereafter. Businesses with tight profit margins like restaurants and those carrying heavy debt like large retailers may not be able to recover and eventually close permanently. Stimulus checks will most likely be spent on food, housing, mortgage, rent, and other essentials, some of which is not taxable. And there would be a 20 to 30 month recovery play and strength of the recovery will depend on consumer confidence. On April 16th, 2020 RTC staff met with recipients of Measure D and TDA revenues to review potential impacts of COVID-19 on the RTC budget and local revenues, including Measure D, TDA, and state grants. All of the local jurisdictions were in attendance. Agencies fully understand that the direct allocations of Measure D revenues and payments on TDA claims will be lower than previously projected. Jurisdictions were reminded that Measure D does not have a reserve and payments are based on actual revenue receipts. Although TDA does have a reserve, agencies are aware that the reserve is not expected to cover the full amount of the expected revenue drop. The reserve is approximately 8% of TDA revenues. Recipients showed a preference to immediately use the TDA reserve to offset decreases in revenue with a full understanding that this action would lead to greater impacts the next year's claims. Staff has considered the timing for RTC budget amendments considering that there is less than two months remaining in this fiscal year, the lag in payments from the state and the relative uncertainty of revenue projections. Staff recommends only minor fiscal year, 19-20 budget amendments needed to account for changes to RTC's management of projects such as the one included in today's agenda package. For the recently approved 2021 budget, staff will propose a revised budget for an RTC meeting late in June. Staff has also queried commissioners for a date in June and I encourage you to respond to that because this is a very important meeting that we need to have prior to the end of fiscal close and the going dark in July. This timing will provide staff with the time needed to refine the budget impacts and then propose budgetary impacts with the budget and administration personnel committee. As the impacts of COVID-19 proceed, it will likely be necessary to return to the budget and administration personnel committee and the RTC during fiscal year 2021 with further budget amendment recommendations. With that, I'll move on to the Santa Cruz branch rail line, 2017 storm damage projects. RTC has made significant progress on the delivery of the 2017 storm damage projects. The construction package for storm damage sites, one and two was advertised on April 3rd, 2020. Sites one and two are located adjacent to Harkinslew and Gallaginslew near mile post five and 5.1 which put the Santa Cruz branch rail line out of service north a mile post five. The repair work includes new cross culverts, wind walls, grating, drainage improvements in the repair of embankments and railroad ballast ties and rails. The bid opening date was originally set for April 28th with the intention of awarding construction contract at today's RTC meeting. Staff received a request to extend the bid opening after considering the request. Staff agreed to extend the bid opening to May 13th. Assuming the RTC receives an acceptable bid, a staff plans to request the admissions approval to award a construction contract at the May 21st Transportation Policy Workshop. Construction is expected to be completed this summer. RTC is completing the bid package for storm damage site three adjacent to Sumner, Avian New and Abtloth. The project will repair the damaged slope embankment on the east side of the rail tracks. The project is expected to be advertised and constructed later this year. RTC plans to advertise a construction package for storm damage sites for site, excuse me, site four later this month. Site four is located in Avtos near Harriet Avenue and will repair a damaged slope embankment and drainage culvert. RTC plans to request award at a subsequent RTC meeting with construction anticipated this year. RTC's environmental consultant has started work on environmental studies needed for permanent applications for storm damage sites for permit applications for storm damage sites five and six, which are located on the North Coast. Due to the environmental sensitivity of those two sites, construction is not expected until next year. RTC advertised a construction package for storm damage site seven yesterday. Site seven is located on the southern rail bridge over crossing of highway one and Avtloth. The repair work includes replacing the protective railing and fencing on the railroad bridge. The bid opening date is set for May 26th. Assuming RTC receives an acceptable bid, staff plans to request the commission's authority to award a construction contract at the June 4th RTC meeting. I have an update on the regional conservation investment study. RTC staff is working with the Resource Conservation District of Santa Cruz County to develop the Santa Cruz County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy or the RCIS. The RCIS will identify environmental conservation priorities and link potential environmental mitigation for proposed transportation projects to conservation projects. The first meeting of the stakeholder group was April 28th via Zoom webinar. 48 stakeholders with a direct interest in conservation or transportation planning in Santa Cruz participated in the meeting. These agencies and individuals are either responsible for resource and transportation project oversight or depend on the resource or their livelihood or programs. Stakeholders will provide input on resource inventories, management strategies, conservation goals, objectives, priorities and strategies. The first major RCIS deliverable will be the existing conditions report which is scheduled to be completed in August 2020. Once finalized, the Santa Cruz County RCIS can help to expedite delivery of transportation projects by facilitating regional advanced mitigation planning. Additional information on the RCIS can be found on the RTC's website. Finally, I have an update on the Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis. The online activities for the Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis is ending on May 11th. Staff has also met with local partners and is already working on analyzing public input in preparation of a final staff recommendation on the screening analysis and the short list of alternatives to be presented at the June 4th RTC meeting. That concludes my report. Okay, thank you very much. Very much understood about the uncertainty of the budget situation for us and every other governing agency. Is there, I just want to be clear, did you say, did we need, was a contract going to be approved or do we need to have a special meeting later this month of the commission to approve any of these contracts? We are looking at having a TPW meeting as scheduled later this month. It would be on the third Thursday of this month. We are also looking at, I'm sorry, Yusenia. Oh, sorry, I was sorry about that. That's a transportation policy workshop. TPW, for those who don't know. Okay, go ahead. That's correct. And that's our regularly scheduled, although I have been counseling quite a few of them. We're trying to get so many projects out now and make sure that we meet our construction windows. So we will be having our TPW meeting this month. We'll be having our regularly scheduled June 4th RTC meeting. And then due to the break in July, we also need to have a second meeting in June. The TPW meeting date is a little early for when we expect to have the contract ready for your approval and also the revised budget. So we're looking for a new date at the end of June and staff has reached out to commissioners to find an acceptable date. Very well. Okay. I just, we want to finish commenting on this and get comments from the commissioners or the public. We will, after this though, we'll skip over and come back to the Caltrans report. We have a 930 public hearing scheduled, but I'd like to finish the discussion on this item before we go to item number 22. Are there any questions from the commissioners on the director's report? Yes. This is Andy, I do and I raised my hand in case you can see raised hands. That might be a good way when a number of people want to speak to figure out who to listen to. I had a question for the executive director regarding the relationship with the rail contractor. Given that some of the projects won't be done until 2021, how does that affect our contract will we have to change that contract with progressive rail in terms of when they're going to be able to get on the line beyond Watsonville? So there's two phases to our ACL. The first phase would be for them to have the lineup of mile post seven. We expect to be able to provide that to them later this year. There's no change needed. We anticipated that in the ACL that it may take some years to get the storm damage jobs completed. We did extend the requirement for them to submit their plan for recreational train traffic by a year. It's now March of 2021. If we are able to complete all of the storm damage jobs up to Santa Cruz, we could hand over the line to them up to Santa Cruz by prior to March, 2021. But the way the contract reads, we're supposed to complete all the work all the way up to Davenport. Because of those two locations on the North coast, there is the possibility that we may not finish those jobs, but we're really shooting towards trying to get those permits done so we can complete all this norm damage jobs and they can submit their plan by March, 2021. We would not have to do much to change the contract. We've already changed it one time, but if we need to amend their contract to provide more time for recreational traffic up to Davenport, we could do that. Thank you. Any other comments from the commissioners? Commissioner McPherson, we do have a member of the public who had tried to get in earlier and also has a comment on our consent agenda. Sally Arnold, Steve, I don't know if we can continue to go back to that. Very briefly, the oral communications, then did she want to comment on this report as well? I don't see her raising her hand for this item, but she did request to speak on the consent agenda. Well, it's already been approved, but very briefly, if you would make your comments, thank you, commissioner McPherson. I'm sorry, I was trying quite a while to get logged on. We just had the wrong number. But anyway, it's very simple. I just wanted to look at number item six about the E&D tax report minutes. I was at that meeting and when I was reading over the minutes, I see that there's a piece that may have been, it may not be entirely clear right now, the minutes to say, quote, E&D tax preferred rail line alternatives, but I think what the secretary perhaps meant to say would have been more clear to say that E&D tax prefers the rail alternatives. It's a subtle difference, but that seems to me that it may have been misunderstood. So, and you can check with Veronica, the chair, I'm sure she would confirm that. But anyway, E&D tax as well as the BAC both clearly voted that they preferred the rail alternatives and I just wanted to make sure that commissioners understood that from the minutes. That's all I needed to say and thank you for letting me slip in there. Very well, thank you. Thank you for your attention. We will go back to the director's report. Any other commissioners have any comments from on the director's report? Are there any comments from the public? I do not see any raised hands in the public. So if you didn't raise your hand. Okay. We will just move on. There's no action needed on that that I can see. We will now move to item number 22, a public hearing schedule for our to discuss our 2020 unmet transit needs, paratransit and transit needs. There's a, first of all, I want to thank the group that put this together to let us know what their, how many needs we have and they're nearly 50, I think about 48 to be exact, but there are about 11 that are high priority as well. So they would probably be getting the most attention. I would like to entertain a staff report. Thank you. This is Amanda Marino, an RTC transportation planner. I hope you all can hear me okay. Good. So I'll go ahead and get started. So TDA statutes require transportation planning agencies to use TDA funds for local street and road projects to consult with their designated social services, transportation advisory councils to annually identify unmet transit needs of transit dependent or disadvantages disadvantaged persons and determine if unmet transit needs can reasonably be met. Although the RTC does not allocate TDA funds to local street and road projects, and therefore is not required to perform an analysis of unmet transit needs, the RTC solicits regular input on unmet paratransit and transit needs to provide as a useful tool to prioritize needs in the region. The 2020 unmet paratransit and transit needs list is shown in attachment one with updates since the 2019 unmet paratransit and transit needs list using underline and strikeout. The unmet needs are prioritized using high, medium and low rankings and within each category there are three levels indicating to what extent the needs if addressed would advance the regional transportation goals. The development of the 2020 unmet paratransit and transit needs list considers needs identified through collecting input from the elderly and disabled transportation advisory committee from the staff of Santa Cruz Metro Community Bridges Lift Line serving as the coordinated transportation services agency and the volunteer center. Information is also gathered from the project sponsors during the development of grants submitted to the federal transit administration 5310 program in comments submitted by members of the public partner agencies, RTC staff and RTC commissioners. Additionally, for the first time in many years some of the items have been removed from the unmet needs list thanks to the measure defunding. The draft 2020 unmet paratransit and transit needs list was posted to the RTC website and a notice of availability was sent to interest groups senior living facilities, senior centers local jurisdictions and transportation service providers. Public input was received using the online form included as attachment to staff. Just received a comment from UCSC, UC Santa Cruz after the deadline requesting that we include the need for on-campus paratransit service providing service between campus to campus destinations on the unmet needs list. Staff recommendation will also include this addition of the item. So that- Do you know how that would be rated or as the committee UCSC's request? It didn't have time to get rated under our categories of H1, H3, or M3 or whatever. Is that correct? Yeah, we just received this comment just earlier this morning. I don't know if Grace she was, she communicated this comment to me. I don't know if she has any input about whether it would be a high, medium or low priority. Okay. This is Grace Bladeslee from RTC staff. Based on our high, medium and low priority definitions I informed UCSC that we would recommend it as a medium priority. And that's because the definition for medium priority is that it supplements existing service. They do have some service for campus to campus care transit from campus to campus destinations but they have a serious to higher demand. So this would be identified as a medium priority in terms of the graduated scale. It would probably receive a two because of the number of people served and affects the measures that are identified on the graduated scale. So I'm thinking this through as we have this morning quickly, we would recommend it as a medium two. Okay. And then I'll just keep going with the recommendation. So the elderly and disabled transportation advisory committee and staff recommend that the regional transportation commission adopt the 2020 unmet paratransit and transit needs list, including the addition for the need for additional UCSC on campus paratransit service to supplement existing transportation services due to increased demand as a medium priority and other revisions as appropriate following the public hearing and consider the unmet paratransit and transit needs list as funding becomes available. Thank you. Thank you. Again, I want to thank the elderly and disabled transportation advisory committee for their efforts in this report. There are any comments from commissioners? I have a question, Mr. Dr. Kern. Go ahead. How does the taxi fare program work or how's it anticipated to work? I'm particularly concerned about people go to dialysis. Pretty exhausting experience. I would agree. So would you be able to answer that question? Yes. Are you referring to the taxi script program? Yes, I am. Thank you. That program provides subsidized fares for taxi services There have been some challenges with the availability of taxi services which you might notice that we've added a new item this year on the unmet needs list for transportation network services. So additional paratransit services that are provided through transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft because we have seen a reduction in the availability of transit services and that's on page 22-4 or number six. So really there is a greater need for wheelchair accessible vehicles for taxis and transportation network company services. So on-demand services that are paratransit. So traditionally a way to meet some of that need was through subsidized fares for taxi trips through taxi script. Specific to dialysis, I would defer to Kirk and to talk about the services to dialysis program. Yes, this is Kirk and program director from Lyft line. Would you like me to explain the taxi script program and how it relates to dialysis at this time? Sure, please. The taxi script is the subsidized program that Lyft line provides for enrolled clients and they're able to use that taxi script 24 seven for any of the medical appointments. And there is a shortage of accessible wheelchair vehicles that taxi currently has zero in Santa Cruz. In Watsonville, they do have wheelchair accessible vehicles. So anybody needing wheelchair accessible vehicle from Santa Cruz we instructed to call Watsonville but those are longer rides. So we're kind of trying to resolve the issue and come up with other ideas how we could have subcontractors that could participate in the taxi script program. But there's been challenges because they're really that we're very limited. But as far as dialysis, we're willing to work with them more if they want to schedule rides during the time that Lyft line provides service so we can use our regular paratransit vehicles and our drivers, which we have plenty available. It just seems that the Alliance has decided not to refer these dialysis rides to Lyft line for whatever reason, I've been trying to work with them for about a year and a half now to encourage them but we're not getting any positive results. But dialysis has the ability to shift schedules around so they meet our hours more. But they're actually not referring any clients to us. I think 18, 19 fiscal year was below 50. So any more questions I could clear up? Thanks for your answer. Do you need help on working with the Alliance? I mean, any other kind of facilities or structural help or staff help? Any help would be appreciated if there would be a way to encourage the Alliance and remind them that Lyft line is there to help and support would be appreciated. Thanks for your efforts, I appreciate it. Any other comments from commissioners? Don't see any raised hands. We don't see any, okay, any other, anything from public input? Do we have any members of the public who would like to address us? Yes, so we have Michael St. first please and you have three minutes. Report staff, I really appreciate it. Just wanted to make a couple suggestions on about three of the items here under 22. Number 24, excuse me. I want to thank you for including EVs as an option for purchase in the 5310 grant program and also number 25, the charging infrastructure. I do believe that should be a little bit higher priority since most people are concerned about where they're gonna charge their vehicles. Number 29, basically the next two comments are due to our Mid County suggestion, IE 41st Avenue interchange. I believe we need projects in that Capitola area, 41st Claire's Capitola Road to promote walkable communities and to actually calm our streets and not increase the car usage. The most important thing for this, of course, is a sustainable community and more transit will be necessary for this to happen. Under 29, you talk about service nonstop or express service over to San Jose and Scotts Valley Transit. I would suggest more Mid County transit service to San Jose or Scotts Valley Transit for the 17 Express to Deirdre Station and to improve and actually increase the metro station there at Capitola Mall and someway combine it with the new development that may happen there. Number 43, once again improvements to Capitola, make it actually a transit center similar maybe to Scotts Valley, maybe even a little bit bigger. There is a lot of people that live in that area and it'd be really nice if we can make that walkable. I think RTC should work with Capitola on that development and provide the transit necessary. And also there's probably gonna be housing there and maybe some affordable housing. So it'd be nice to have people walking instead of driving cars around and around circles around that mall area. And that's pretty much I had. Thank you for the report. I think it's all positive stuff. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sain. Any other comments from the public? We have Sally Arnold who'd also like to speak. Hi, I'm Sally Arnold from Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail. I've also appreciated reading this list and the thoughtful comments. I wanna point out that the rail corridor because there will be an ADA accessible path parallel to the transit on that corridor, by definition any light rail there will have excellent accessibility. And we also need to remember that we will want high quality pedestrian and bike and wheelchair access to and from the corridor. You know, those connecting streets will need to be accessible. And also reading over the comments, I noticed that several people in Aptos and La Selva Beach were hoping for better transit service and a light rail stop in Aptos Village and in La Selva Beach would give residents of those areas car free access to the rest of the county and might answer some of their concerns. So thanks for all you're doing on this and it's exciting to see how many different projects can all link together to provide good service for our residents. Thank you. Any other public comments? I do not see any more raised hands. I do see Commissioner Brown wanting to speak. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Well, I'd make a quick comment that it's very different. You know, what a difference a year makes. We were talking about unmet paratransit needs and the ability to fill some of those gaps last time around. And the picture isn't quite as rosy this year. So it's just kind of striking to think about that. But I did have a question actually about, I think it's on, it's 22.4, the number seven. I wasn't around for the change in the Santa Cruz Metro Paracruz program. And so I'm just wondering who, you know, what that universe of people who lost paratransit services looks like now. Those services been met by other programs like Community Bridges. Or could they be met that way? And kind of what's the gap there? I don't know if Amanda or Grace have a brief answer to that or a suggestion? You know, we have not done a recent analysis of that. I know that Community Bridges has been providing service to those areas that are now outside of the AD required transit that was provided when there was fixed route service, particularly in San Lorenzo Valley and in the areas down by Aptos. But I think Metro or Community Bridges would be more appropriate to answer those questions. Okay. Yeah, my assumption was Community Bridges might be filling some of that gap. And I just was wondering if there was anything that they wanted to say. Or can you respond to that? I have a comment about it. This is Mike. Mike Grodkin. There's a small number of people that were affected by this, but they were definitely affected by it. And not all of them have had their needs met by any alternative solution. We tried to do what we could to figure out where we connect people. And we actually took, our staff at Metro took some time to try and figure out how we can connect people to other existing services that would meet their needs. But the bottom line is there are some people who definitely lost transit services and do not have an alternative at the present time. It's not huge numbers we're talking about. It's literally like 20 people. But those 20 people are having serious problems as a result of it, I'm sure. So it's not a problem that got solved completely in any way. Thank you, Mike. Any other public comments? I remember 22. I do not see any other raised hands. Okay. There's a recommendation to accept the report from staff in the committee. You need to, we'll need to close the public hearing. We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion and then go to a roll call vote. I would move the recommended actions. This is John. Leopold's motion, Rotkin second, to approve the recommendation from the staff. Please call the roll. Commissioner Rotkin. Aye. Commissioner Gonzales. Aye. Commissioner Botorf. Aye. Commissioner McPherson. Aye. Commissioner Leopold. Aye. Commissioner Friend. Aye. Commissioner Alternate Schifrin. Aye. Commissioner Caput. Aye. Commissioner Kaufman-Gomez. Aye. Commissioner Johnson. Aye. Commissioner Brown. Aye. Commissioner Bertrand. Aye. Commissioner Low. Aye. I've heard that. That motion passes unanimously. We will move on to go back to item number 21, Eileen Low from the Caltrans. We'll give a monthly updated report. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Can you hear me okay? Yes, okay, I welcome. All right, good morning. Low, I hope everybody's healthy and doing well. I wanted to start on a somber note by saying we have an annual tradition in the spring to honor fallen workers, highway workers. As you know, in the history of Caltrans, we've had 189 highway workers that have lost their lives in the line of duty. Eight of those were from district five. Thankfully, we've not added any to that list this year. We would normally have a physical gathering to honor the memory of these workers. We're not doing that this year, but we are doing other creative ways of honoring their memories. And district five has released a video, an eight minute video. And I'd like to follow this meeting by giving you a link to that video if you're interested in seeing it as well. Thank you. Meanwhile, Senate bill 743, the law that establishes vehicle miles traveled as the metric for analyzing trans, transportation impacts. We have, Caltrans has released a final implementation memo as of April 13th. This outlines the certain circumstances in the framework of how we're moving forward in that transition. There are two technical documents also that are currently out for review and comment. One is referred to as the transportation analysis framework document. And the other is called the transportation analysis under CEQA document. They're also referred to by their acronyms respectively, the TAF and the TAAC. The TAF is the framework document that addresses how we will be evaluating things like induced travel demand and project level impacts and evaluating those changes in urban and rural environments. The TAAC, the TAAC looks at methodologies for CEQA and determining significance levels with those impacts and identifying potential mitigation measures. Both of those documents are out for review until June 15th. They're available at our website and there is a portal to submit comments electronically. I would also be happy to forward that link to you following today's meeting. In addition, Caltrans will be holding two webinars, one on each of these documents in the next two weeks. On Monday, May 11th from one to three is a webinar on the TAF, the transition analysis framework. And on Friday, May 15th from one to three, we will have a similar webinar on the TAAC document. So I really encourage you and your member agencies to join us for those good forums to get a holistic view of the program and ask questions and provide your feedback. And then lastly, you have the updated list of projects in your agenda packet and we've got quite a bit of activity still under construction. We're doing our best to keep all of those contracts on schedule underway. And our staff are many, I think we're in that neighborhood of 80 to 90% of our staff who are eligible to telework are teleworking and we're keeping our project delivery activities on schedule as best as we can. So we know that maintaining the good work of infrastructure investment is part of what California depends on for a vibrant economy. So we're carrying quite a lot, quite a big load forward. Any questions? Commissioner Leopold? Thank you. Thank you for the report Ms. Lowe. I live by the 41st Avenue over crossing and they've been doing curb cuts. To improve accessibility, but it's been going on for months. You know, there's four of them and it seems like an endless project. I think we're into a month three or four of this. Do you have any sense of when these projects might get done so they can be safe again for pedestrians? Yes, that project is scheduled to be done completely done in December. I will see if I can get more information about the timing of the pedestrian work on 41st and some of the other over crossings. Yeah, it would just be very helpful. People do walk over that bridge every day and right now to get around the construction is fairly dangerous. So anything you can do to speak that along would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Are you making a difference? Yes, I had a question. Will you please send the links to the webinars to us as well? Yes, I will do that. Thank you. I don't see any other raised hands. Okay. Any comments from the public? I do not see any raised hands on that either. Okay. This does not require any action. I don't think from just the acceptance of the report. Thank you very much. We will now move to item number 23, the fiscal year 2021 Article 4 and Article 8 Transportation Development Act or TDA claims for Santa Cruz Metro Volunteer Center Community Bridges Bike to Work and Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency. I think Mr. Luis Mendez is going to report on this. Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. It will be a bit of a tag team on the staffer board that will start off. And then Transportation Planner Manager Marino will provide information on the transit and specialized transportation services claims and Thomas Travers will provide information on the bicycle and pedestrian claims. So as you know, the Transportation Development Act is one of the main funding sources for transportation in Santa Cruz County. And it derives from a quarter percent of the state's seven and a quarter percent sales tax. That quarter percent for TDA is returned to each county where it is collected for the Transportation Development Act funds. And the primary purpose for those funds is for transit. And so in accordance with the state law and the RTC rules and regulations, the RTC annually provides apportionment for claimants under TDA through its budget process and then the claimants access the funds through a claims process. Now the RTC did approve a budget in April and the claims that you see here in this staff report are consistent with that budget. And that budget provides funds for Santa Cruz Metro, for community bridges, the volunteer center, the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency and the bike to work under TDA. In addition, there are also state transit assistance funds that are part of this. Those funds generate from the sales tax on diesel and the state provides estimates on what that funding would be and that funding can only be used for transit specialized transportation services. So those who are being claimed accordingly by the services for the Premier of Santa Cruz Metro and then community bridges. Now the claims from Santa Cruz Metro, community bridges, the volunteer center and the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency were provided to the Elderly and Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee for review and approval and the bike to work and the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency claims were provided to the bike committee for review and approval and both of the committees recommend approval of the claims as submitted. So now Amanda will proceed with the information on the claims for transit specialized transportation. Thank you, Louise. So Santa Cruz Metro submitted a fiscal year 2020-2021 TDA Article IV funds claim in the amount of $7,628,850 in a state transit assistance and STA state of good repair claims in the amounts of $4,494,411 and $735,009. Santa Cruz Metro proposes to use these funds to assist with operating the fixed route bus service, the Americans with Disabilities Act mandated pair transit service pair crews and other capital projects including facility repairs and improvements, instruction projects, vehicle replacements and ticket vending machines. Santa Cruz Metro also projects to provide 74,785 one-way pair crews rides and over 5 million bus rides in fiscal year 2020-2021. In fiscal 2019-2020, new single ride tickets were introduced to help shorten wait times, boarding the Highway 17 Express in local routes, Metro conducted an onboard survey and ride check to enhance its understanding of riders, demographics, travel patterns, satisfaction with Metro services and preferences in the use of various technologies and Metro also collaborated with the city of Santa Cruz by issuing 4,000 Go Santa Cruz bus passes to Santa Cruz Downtown employees for one year pilot project to test the appeal of public transportation for new users who work in the downtown area. Additionally, Community Bridges submitted a fiscal year 2020-2021 TDA Article 8 funds claim in the amount of $749,501 in state transit assistance STA claim in the amount of 100,000 contingent upon the approval by the city of Santa Cruz to act as their claimant. Community Bridges proposes to use these funds to provide 21,803 rides in the form of medical rides, taxi script rides, meals on wheels rides and elder day adult day health care rides. Lifeline, a program of Community Bridges provides specialized transportation free of charge to low income seniors and disabled individuals of Santa Cruz County, many of whom are unable to use the traditional public transit or complimentary paratransit. STA funds are projected to provide 1,414 rides that include out of county medical rides, veterans transportation, veterans shuttle in Watsonville, same day medical transportation and transportation to the downtown senior center. In fiscal 2019-2020, Lifeline provided more than 65,500 rides in the past fiscal year at no cost to passengers. Lifeline now operates daily from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. and hours of operations are extended in the case of emergencies, special occasions and special requests. Lifeline also coordinates and schedules taxi rides provided outside of business hours. Lifeline use awarded LC top funding to purchase a small nine passenger, fully electric paratransit bus and two level three charging stations. The chargers will be located at Community Bridges Fleet Facility in Watsonville and another in Felton at the Mountain Community Resource Center. And additionally, the volunteer center submitted a fiscal year 2020-2021 TDA article eight funds claim in the amount of $89,226 and $7,151 in unallocated funds from previous years for a total of $96,377 contingent on the approval from the city of Santa Cruz to act as their claimant. The volunteer center is requesting early allocation of funds in May 2020 due to the increased need to scale immediate program services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These funds will be used to administer the new grocery shopper program which is a fully vetted volunteer program to provide food, grocery and medication pickup services to serve seniors over the age of 60 and older adults that are health compromised. The volunteer center also currently gives rides to dialysis patients and the service has not been interrupted during the shelter in place order. The new program continues to serve the same specialized transportation populations to service by the volunteer center's transportation program in fiscal year 2019-2020 and should the COVID-19 shelter in place order be lifted and it is safe for seniors to enter the community the volunteer center will resume their regular transportation program. In fiscal year 2019-2020, the volunteer center provided approximately 4,600 rides in the last fiscal year and it's estimated that each ride from start to finish is on average 17.9 miles long with a total of 82,340 projected service miles per year. The volunteer center launched a custom computer application called the transportation hub that allows them to enter ride requests and match them with drivers based on distance and availability. The volunteer center adapted this application to accommodate the volunteer center grocery shopper program and we'll use it to match participants to volunteers. The elderly and disabled transportation advisory committee reviewed and recommend that the regional transportation commission approve the TDA claims as they have been submitted. COVID-19 TDA revenue impacts resulting in TDA apportionments being adjusted accordingly have also been communicated to claimants as well as the elderly and disabled transportation advisory committee. Claimants are participating in this meeting and are able to address any questions. Transportation planner, Thomas Travers will now provide information on the bicycle and pedestrian claims. Thank you. Thanks, Amanda. This is Tommy Travers, staff at RTC. I'm also the primary staff to the bike committee for about the past year. The County Health Services Agency or the HSA has two TDA claims. The first is for $65,000 for one year to help fund the Community Traffic Safety Coalition. The CTSC serves Hanna-Crews County residents through efforts to prevent bicycle and pedestrian injuries and deaths and increase the use of safe alternative modes of transportation. The CTSC meets bimonthly and relies heavily on HSA staff to lead the group. The CTSC and its subgroup of South County Bike and Pedestrian Work Group has led the creation of the Vision Zero implementation plan for the city of Watsonville last year and that's now underway in Watsonville. The CTSC also worked on two planning projects that assessed barriers to walking and biking at elementary schools. And the CTSC is currently in the process of developing a Vision Zero work plan for coordination with the other local jurisdictions in the county for future Vision Zero plans. The Ride and Stride program is the second HSA claim. That's also for $65,000 for one year. The Ride and Stride program is a bicycle and pedestrian school education program, planning to provide interactive classroom education to at least 2,500 elementary school students across the county next year and also collaborate with Ecology Action in the WalkSmart program that puts things into practice and has safe walking field trips outside schools. The program also provides traffic safety presentations to parents and participates in several community events, providing education and helping to distribute free helmets and lights. They track the number of participants that they've reached as well as connecting student and teacher evaluations of the program. Both the CTSC and the Ride and Stride program are able to use grant funding and in kind contributions to increase the impact of their programs. Next, the Ecology Action has a claim for $60,000 to help pay for their bike to work and bike to school programs, which are a lot more than just bike to work day. They hold community events. They have online friendly competition programs and they partner with schools and employers for education and encouragement. Ecology Action reported that in 2019, 20,000 youth and adults participated in their bike to work programs, including over 7,000 K through 12 students on the spring and fall bike to work and bike to school days and nearly 2,000 adults on the bike to work days. They track participant data, including the program's impact on vehicle miles traveled, estimated emissions reductions and the number of participants who are new to bicycling. Ecology Action partners with many different community groups and secures donations of time, services and cash from private companies in order to increase the impact of TDA funds for their suite of bike to work programs. The HSA's claims were reviewed by both the bike committee and the elderly and disabled committee as well and the bike to work claim was reviewed by the bike committee. Staff from HSA and Ecology Action gave talks to the committee, provided summary reports and discussed recent changes due to COVID-19 restrictions, affecting both the current fiscal year and COVID-19 plans for increasing online and bilingual outreach and education for the next fiscal year. RTC staff made HSA and Ecology Action staff aware that TDA funds may need to be reduced next fiscal year due to sales tax revenue declines. And some members of the bike committee asked that if the RTC determines next year that claim funds need to be reduced, that the committee is consulted for their input on how funds would be prioritized for those programs. That's all I've got. I think back to Louise. Yes, thank you Tommy and thank you Amanda. So now I will wrap up and here I would say there's no fiscal impact because the funds are consistent with the RTC budget but or the claims are consistent the RTC approved for next fiscal year but COVID-19 has changed the fiscal budget that was approved by the commission in April was done with revenue after both TDA transfer development act and state transportation assistance or state transit assistance estimates prior to COVID-19 and since then COVID-19 pandemic has taken hold and resulted in shelter in place orders which are having a significant impact on the economic activity that generates both the TDA and SDA revenues therefore it is anticipated that the revenue estimates provided for fiscal year 1920 will not be met and that the revenue estimates for fiscal year 2021 producing January and February must be revised. However, because the duration of the social changes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic is still very uncertain. It is too early to provide estimates that take into account the full economic impacts of the pandemic. Preliminary estimates for measure D revenues provided by RTC consultant as communicated by your executive director during his director's report indicate that there would be a reduction of about 12.2% in this fiscal year compared to the last fiscal year and an additional reduction of 4.4% for next fiscal year compared to what is expected for this fiscal year and revenues would start to rebound in fiscal year 21-22. Now, because the revenues are derived in the same transactions as measure D revenues similar impacts are anticipated for the TDA revenues. The RTC has a reserve fund for TDA that is 8% of estimated revenues. This means that if indeed fiscal year 1920 revenues decreased by about 12.2%, the TDA reserve fund will be insufficient to meet all of the TDA claim commitments approved for funding through fiscal year 1920. If the TDA reserve fund is fully used which is anticipated would be the case to meet the TDA commitments that the RTC has approved thus far through fiscal year 1920, there will not be any reserve funds available in fiscal year 2021 to help meet the claims in this report. Therefore, the RTC will need to consider revised TDA apportionments that are below the amounts of the claims in this report. This report recommends approval of the claims consistent with the approved RTC fiscal year 2021 budget. However, RTC staff will return to the RTC as soon as possible which is anticipated to be June with proposed provisions to the budget. And if the preliminary estimates hold the reductions would be about 17% from the amounts in this report potentially. Payment on these claims would be adjusted should the RTC amend the fiscal year 2021 budget and apportionments and transfers in the act of apportionments that are in the budget. Payment amounts for the STA claims will be based on the actual STA funds approved by the state and received by the RTC from the state. Now the resolution, the language in the resolutions that are in front of you for consideration today does allow for modification of the payment amount should the RTC modify its budget and reduce apportionments for the TDA payments. So with that, both of the committees, as was explained earlier, recommend approval of the claims as had been submitted and so does staff. And with the recognition that staff will return to the commission to make adjustments to TDA apportionments accordingly based on the impacts of COVID-19. And we do have the representatives from all of the claimants that are available and they can provide any answers to any questions that you may have specific to their claims. That concludes our staff. Thank you. Thank you, Luis. It's understandable the budget uncertainties of this and every other governing agency as well. There was a request from bike to work to get back to them if there's some adjustments. I would assume that you would talk with each of these volunteer center community bridges before you came back in June. I mean, it's going to be what it is and it'll impact everyone, I think. So will you be talking to each of those agencies prior to getting back to us in June? If in fact you stay with that schedule? I don't know, Dave. We would be and while I'm ready, we've been having conversations with the claimants and they are aware that adjustments are likely and those adjustments would be reductions. And we do anticipate going to the budget administration personnel committee before coming to the commission as well. So that's our plan. Very well. Any comments from the commissioners? Yes. This is Andy Schifrin, a couple. One is when will we find out what the final month's TDA revenue is? Do we find that? It seems to me we probably won't find that out until the next fiscal year. So how is that going to work if I'm correct that the final fiscal year, 1920 fiscal year revenue won't be known until the next fiscal year? That is a great question. Yes, we do get payments each month. And so they generally come about the middle of the month or so, sometimes a little bit later. And the payments that we get are actually for the estimated amount for two months prior to that. However, we do just account for them as we receive them for our operating purposes, which means that we may not see the full effect of the reduction in revenues of COVID-19 that's in this fiscal year, until next fiscal year, but that means that that effect will be accounted for in the next fiscal year. So yeah, I mean, you're right. There is still uncertainty on when we will know fully the impact of COVID-19 in this fiscal year and that probably won't be until, it won't be until the end of the fiscal year. So yeah, the commission as, since the commission has a reserve fund, we will use that to make payments as needed. However, some of the, I believe at least one of the payments isn't, wouldn't get done in this fiscal year. It would not be until next fiscal year. So, there are ways that the RGC can use to sort of have cash flow accordingly to make payments as necessary. So if I'm understanding you correctly, it may not be until we may need to have another, at the commission's August meeting, there probably would need to be a budget update that would kind of finalize what happened at the end of 1920 and make any adjustments to our reserves and to the claim for 2021. Is that correct? That may be necessary, yes. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Andy. I think it's a good question. Probably this, my suggestion that we're going to continue the discussion, but we approve the recommendation with the addition that we review this for an updated realistic fiscal analysis in August or something of that nature. I have a question. Commissioner Batariff. Yeah, thank you so much, Chair. You know, Andy kind of covered my question because I was confused as to whether we were going to be discussing whether those TVA reserve funds would be used in our special meeting at the end of June but it now sounds like we're going to take a look at evaluating that in August. So whether it's June or August, I think it makes sense then. So Andy, thank you for clarifying that. Chair, this is Randy. Yes, Randy Johnson. It is, the very person. So I have a problem with this just from the standpoint of, you know, everything is in terms of projection. And we think that because we have some quote experts that say this is going to be a 12.2% reduction and before that it might be 4.4% in the subsequent years. We really don't know. I mean, it could be a lot worse. It could be three times as worse. And the message that we're sending out is that it's okay status quo, business as usual. And if things come back a little bit worse, then we'll make adjustments then. But that's really kind of the reverse the way it should be. We should make the reductions now. And if things quote get better, then you make the adjustments and you kind of get a jump on things. And fully, you know, totally using your reserves and then notifying people that, oh, we're short. We're now going to have to make the reductions. Just doesn't comport with I think what every other agency I think in the county is doing in terms of cuts, recognition that this is totally serious and that we really don't know the full economic impact that it's gonna have. It could be, it could go from bad to worse to unacceptable just to catastrophic. And so I think that's the kind of tenor and tone that we should approach this issue with. So for that reason and for the way I voted on the last one, I can't really support this. I recognize that a lot of the goals and objectives in this are good. But I just think that the approach is just a little bit backwards. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Sharon Leopold. Thank you. You know, at the county, we're trying to use our reserves to get through this fiscal year until we have a better sense of what's gonna be happening for next fiscal year. It's a reasonable approach, especially for those entities that have staff or activities that are ongoing and that we're trying to finish out the year. The idea that next year, I think everybody's now very aware that next year there's gonna be a lot less resources and that people will have to plan accordingly. But trying to help people finish out the commitments that they made this year is one of the ways you use a reserve fund to soften the blow. And I'm glad we had the foresight to create that reserve fund and to use it during a time of crisis like this. All the years it took us to build up that reserve fund and to have it go away. So quickly is just a marker of how deep this hit economic is. But we should use it to help soften the blow as we move into whatever our next phase is in terms of resources. I'm gonna be supporting the motion. Commissioner Rockin. I wanna say that I agree with Randy actually in terms of where we need to go and make our decision if it's gonna be in August. That's the time when we probably don't, it will not serve us to just hope it's gonna get better or sort of keep a sort of steady case or something. But I was persuaded by the staff argument that two months to finish out the year makes some sense. And we still don't know now what cuts we would exactly make. We don't really have a very good picture. So I support the staff presentation here, but I want Randy to understand that I share his view to the point that when this comes back to us in August, I'm gonna be somebody who generally favors cutting more sooner rather than later because I think that's probably serves us pretty well. And it's a mistake to just keep going in the next one and sort of carry it on, see if we can limp on with the minimum cuts or something. I think we're gonna be making drastic cuts in August if that's when we actually make the decision, but I'm prepared to support the staff for recommendation at this point. Commissioner Schifrin. Yes. I think our agency is unusual compared to the, at least the city of Santa Cruz and the county of Santa Cruz in terms of when the budget is done, the county has its budget hearings in June. The city has its budget hearings also makes it, the city council makes the Santa Cruz city council makes it their decision in June. I think we always do it early so that we can notify the various agencies that we help fund what the picture might look like in the next year and they can put their budgets together on that basis. As I understand the staff recommendation, there is gonna be a budget report at the end of June. And I think at that point, there'll be more information on the, you know, what next year might look like and we'll be in the same boat that the cities and the counties are gonna be in in terms of trying to decide how much reduction is gonna be necessary based on the uncertainty about revenues and local revenues and the uncertainty about revenues from other sources. So I mean, I think at this point since the staff has been very clear that all the claimants just how uncertain everything is but then leaving it up to them to make their own budgetary decisions with the understanding about where we are and then keeping us informed once in June and then again in August so we can see how we have to adjust for this year. Seems like a very reasonable approach for me rather than sort of try to figure out what might be worst case and sending out all sorts of reductions when we don't really know just how bad it's going to be might lead other agencies to plan for a reduction of services that is far more that could be much more than they are actually gonna be required to reduce. So I think the staff approach makes sense to me and after we hear from the public and it becomes appropriate to make a motion I would certainly be my intention would be to support the staff recommendation. Mr. Mendez. I guess if I may add commissioners which might help as you're considering this the total amount of claims in this report is about $14 million or so it's a huge amount but once you approve these payments don't go out immediately. I mean I think the only payment that will be done by June will be the payment to the volunteer center which is a little less than $100,000. The other payments are made on a quarterly basis as revenues are coming in and so on. So it gives the commission time definitely lots of time to make adjustments as you proceed through the fiscal year and then the claims for the bicycle pedestrian claims they get their money as a reimbursement as they spend it and they invoice and the commission pays them. So it does give the commission time to make adjustments throughout the year. Mr. Bertrand? Mr. Bertrand? He's trying to turn his audio on. Okay. I don't know what's going on. I'll knock you there. Any, anyone else on the commission that would like to speak until Jack gets on? I don't see any other hands except for commission. Bruce? I don't have any. Coffman, Ms. Enian? Commissioner Coffman-Gomez? Thank you. I have a couple of questions that I know about this. What is the reserve policy for us to take the draw on the TDA, the 8% that we have? And the other part is have we discussed anything about the potential stimulus that might offset some of the losses for some of these programs? Yeah, the TDA reserve that's available to the commission is specifically for TDA claims. So the policy is, yeah, the RTC can use that reserve to make good on its commitments in this TDA claims that the commission approves. And in terms of the impacts of the stimulus, we are aware that Santa Cruz Metro will have access to funds that come through the federal stimulus package. We don't yet know whether that will fully cover any reduction in revenues to Santa Cruz Metro. And so that's part of what we're communicating with Metro under the claimants and so on as we proceed and then make recommendation or craft some sort of recommendations that will come back to you. So to clarify, the 8%, you can take that full draw. The moment we need it, it isn't something that needs to be trickled out for the next year or two. It could be drawn immediately from that reserve. It can be drawn immediately from the reserve. Yes, it's up to the commission. You can certainly decide not to use it, but it's available for the commission to draw on it. Yes. Commissioner Bertrand, are you able to speak now? Yeah, I did have a little difficulty with my charger. Yeah, I prefer to have more information before I make a decision. Something has such a large impact on the community. So I generally support the staff recommendations. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Narotkin. I'm just going to make the motion, seeing no one else raise their hand. Should we get public comment first? Yes, thank you, I'll do that. Okay, so we have Mr. Piet wanting to speak. Hi, can you hear me, commissioners? Yes. Just want to thank staff, Tommy, for the presentation, a review of Bike to Work Day. Just summed it up very nicely and also want to thank the entire commission for funding Bike to Work Day for many decades. It is national bike month, even though in Santa Cruz, we won't be participating due to the shelter in place ordinances and social distancing. So Bike to Work Day has moved a lot of its program delivery to online. So we've been developing online bike safety and bike encouragement content and other digital content to serve what on the street looks like a growing need for people to have bike information with less cars on the road due to shelter in place and the need for people to get out of their homes, being mostly cooped up throughout the day. Families are out riding bikes on quieter streets. Individuals are getting exercise and fresh air and a little bit of mental relief from the whole crisis that we're all experiencing. Another indicator that biking is up is that the bike shops are busier than ever. Some bike brands are running out of kids' bikes due to increased demand. So I'm just giving you those indications in terms of trying to meet the transportation needs as they evolve during this time of COVID. People are looking for a way to get around that retains their social space. And you can do that. You can do social distancing pretty well on a bicycle. So Ecology Action will continue to work to meet the growing cycling demand and needs of the community by shifting to online resources and when shelter in place restrictions lesson will look to have some in-person engagement that fits the needs of social distancing and making sure we don't increase the spread of the coronavirus. So I just want to thank the commission for their support and hopefully you can look at what are the changing transportation needs of the community and be able to meet them. I know it's hard to do so with windowing resources to be able to fund transportation programs. Thank you very much. Gina Cole. Good morning commissioners. Thank you for taking my raised hand. I would follow in Piazz comments that over here in Watsonville working from home, I have definitely seen an increase in folks on bikes. My neighborhood, the evening time is a steady stream. I can attest to our bike shop in town not having stock, not being able to get stock in bicycles from suppliers that keeping the money where it's needed right now is really important. A bike has become a really vital piece of transportation for a lot of folks in town, not just for recreation and stress relief, but also I've seen more bikes outside of shops. People are shopping on their bikes more. Again, the influence of shelter in place and the influence of more people working at home and seeing bikes as a vital transportation method has been really awesome. So again, I appreciate all of your comments and all of your thoughtfulness and I hope that you will continue to support the allocation of these funds. Thank you. I do not see any more hands up for comments. Okay, we will return it to the commission for motion. Any action? I'll move that we support the staff recommendation on this item. I second. And I asked for a friendly amendment that there be an added direction that the commission receive an update at its August meeting. Yes, that's friendly. I agree to that. Very good. Move by Schifrin, seconded by Bertrand. Please call the roll. Commissioner Rotkin. Aye. Commissioner Gonzalez. Aye. Commissioner Bator. Aye. Commissioner McPherson. Aye. Commissioner Leopold. Aye. Commissioner Friend. Aye. Commissioner Alternate Schifrin. Aye. Commissioner Caput. Aye. Commissioner Kauffman-Gomez. Aye. Commissioner Johnson. Aye. Commissioner Bertrand. Aye. Commissioner Brown. Aye. Motion carries with one no vote from Commissioner Johnson, as I understood it. We will move on to item number 24. Amendments to the Highway 1 Auxiliary Lanes and Bus on Shoulder Project, the State Park Drive to Bay quarter, Consultant Contract and Caltrans Cooperative Agreement and Senate Bill 1 solutions to congested corridors and local partnership program matching funds. Sarah Christensen from Senior Transportation Engineer will be making a presentation, I believe. Sarah Christensen, is she going to make a presentation here? Yes, she's trying to unmute her self-government. Oh, I got it. Aye. Hi, good morning, commissioners. This is Sarah Christensen, Senior Transportation Engineer. Here today to give a self-report on a request to amend a consultant contract and cooperative agreement with Caltrans for a Highway 1 project, as well as to inform the commission of our intent to apply for two competitive grant applications this June, the solutions to congested corridors program and the local partnership program and to request approval of committing matching funds for this grant application. So, today the request for approval is a number of items that are related to the Mar Vista Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing. First is to amend the Consultant Contract and Caltrans Cooperative Agreement for the Highway 1 Bay Porter to State Park Auxiliary Lanes and Bus on Shoulder Project to combine that project with the Mar Vista Bicycle and Pedestrian Project into one project associated with that programming action to amend the RTIP and request the CTC amend the STIP to combine those projects and finally a budget amendment to make those adjustments, assuming it's a single project. The second resolution included in my staff report is related to the grant application and that is to request approval of an amendment to the Measure D5 year plan for the Highway Corridors Program to commit a match for cycle two of the Senate Bill 1 solutions to congested corridors program and local partnership program grant. And so just bear with me, this is a lot of information and it's somewhat of a two-part staff report. So first I'm gonna just dive right into the Mar Vista Bridge item. So the Project Development Team or PDT recommends combining the Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing at Mar Vista Drive into the Highway 1 project that's underway. It's in the Environmental and Preliminary Engineering phase which is the auxiliary lanes and bus on shoulder improvements between the Bay Porter interchange and the State Park Drive interchange. And the reason that we recommend combining these two projects is because there's substantial overlap in the scope of work of these two projects. There's a ton of information and work that's already been done by our consultant to do the environmental studies within the same area. If you're familiar with the area, Mar Vista Bicycle Pedestrian Overcrossing is between the Park Avenue and State Park Drive interchanges. Combining the two projects has a lot of efficiency benefits that we wanna take advantage of. The main benefit is to the schedule of the project. We can have environmental clearance on the Bicycle Pedestrian Overcrossing at Mar Vista Drive within one year in comparison to if it was a standalone project, it would be a two-year process. The other benefit to combining these projects is that the combined project will be eligible for cycle two, Senate Bill 1 funds, the Solutions to Congested Corridors Program and Local Partnership Program which we are targeting for these projects. With the combined project, we could have everything fully funded. And if we were to keep them separate, we would have to wait until cycle three to have the Mar Vista compete for those funds. And we recommend that this approach would be more competitive overall. It would provide a more multimodal application and there's a lot of benefits to combining it. So we recommend combining these projects in order to do so. It requires an amendment to the consultant contract. We have a consultant under contract who started back in July on the environmental studies and the engineering for the project. The amendment amount would be $444,728. And this would cover the additional scope for the engineering and environmental analysis work. And we think that this is fair and reasonable. We also would need to amend the cooperative agreement with Caltrans to add the scope of the Mar Vista bridge into the cooperative agreement. And we've already began this process in talking to Caltrans about this. And there's an attachment of the draft amended co-op to the staff report. The other recommendation would be to amend the regional transportation improvement program or RTIP. And that would make the RTC, the implementing agency for Mar Vista because currently the RSTPX funds that are currently programmed for the Mar Vista environmental phase have the county as the implementing agency. So the RTIP amendment would bring those funds back to the RTC with some of the RSTPX funds remaining with the county because they are a key partner in this project and they want to stay heavily involved and have some oversight role for the project because they will essentially own this bridge once it's built. Let's see. So with that, I recommend to amend the consultant contract and Caltrans cooperative agreement, amend the RTIP and request the CTC to amend the STIP to combine the projects and to amend the budget accordingly. So that sums up everything for the Mar Vista high school pedestrian over crossing and now I'm going to move into the Senate bill one, solutions to congestive corridors program and local partnership program grant applications. This is a really exciting effort that we've had at the RTC. We have a talented team of folks who are working on this application. And so I just want to shout out to staff, specifically at Ginger die car who's been really working hard on this application and she's really bringing things together for it. So we are proposing a transformative package of multimodal projects that increase options for travel, reduce congestion and improve safety for residents and visitors to Santa Cruz County for cycle two of the competitive Senate bill one funding programs. The co applicants will be the Santa Cruz metropolitan transit district and the County of Santa Cruz with the key partner being Caltrans. And the package of projects includes the auxiliary lanes and bus on shoulder improvements on highway one between Morrissey Avenue and State Park Drive. So that is the two highway projects that we have under development right now. One being the 41st to Soquel project that one is in the final design phase that's scheduled to be construction ready this fall. And the second project is in the environmental phase which is the auxiliary lanes and bus on shoulder improvements between the Bay Porter interchange and the State Park Drive interchange. The package of projects on highway one also includes two bicycle and pedestrian overcrossings Lynette, Chanticleer Avenue and Lynette Marvis to drive. It also includes the replacement of the Capitola Avenue overcrossing. And the third project that we are including in the application is somewhat of a new project with the County of Santa Cruz Public Works Department as the implementing agency for this project. They have put together some preliminary engineering documents for an adaptive signal control and transit signal priority project along Soquel Avenue Drive between La Fonda Drive to State Park Drive. This includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements at all of the intersections as well as buffered and protected bike lanes for the majority of the project link. So this multimodal package of projects it really stemmed from the preferred scenario of the Unified Corridor Investment Study which was approved by this commission in 2019. And that document also serves as a multimodal corridor plan which is a requirement of these funding sources. So the two programs have almost $700 million statewide available for competitive projects. And our total ask between the three projects is around 100 million across the two programs. And we think that we have a pretty good chance at success of getting these projects funded. And the reason that we believe that is because the package of projects that we are proposing is truly multimodal. They're very unique and they're considered innovative and high profile on a statewide level. So we're getting a lot of attention because we're the only county that has legislation in place that allows transit buses to operate on shoulders of major highways. We have the legislation and other counties want the legislation and nobody has been really able to pass their own legislation. And so on a statewide level, there's a lot of other regions that are rooting for this project to be successful so that it is kind of a proof of concept that will allow potentially implementation of similar facilities on other routes and other regions across the state. And so we have a lot of attention on this, the bus on shoulder element of the project and it's really an exciting project to be a part of. So the CTC who administers the two funding programs, they require a demonstration of a commitment of matching funds. And so we have requested that the commission approve an amended five year plan for the highway program of measure D and that would add a match of $10 million for the, I'm sorry, the Bay Porter to State Park project, which includes the Marvissa Bicycle and Pedestrian over crossing. So that project currently does not have a competitive match and adding the 10 million will make our match a lot more competitive and it's gonna give us the best opportunity to get funded in cycle two without even having to consider revenue bonds of measure D. The other highway one project, which is the 41st to SoCal project, that project has a pretty healthy match already. We requested the CTC to advance the step funds for that project and program additional funds to construction of that project. And that totals 6.835 million of SIP plus a 1.64 million of the federal highway infrastructure program funds. And so that's totally almost eight and a half million dollars of matching funds for that project, which we're happy with that amount. And so we do not recommend adding any additional funds. In fact, we reprogram some measure D funds from that project over to, or we're proposing to reprogram them over to the Bay Porter to State Park project in order to provide a balanced and healthy match for both projects, giving us the best opportunity to get funded. And the SoCal Avenue Drive project for the signals, bicycle pedestrian improvements, the County has over five and a half million dollars of local funds that they are committing to that project. That will obviously be a separate commitment from the County of Santa Cruz. And with that, I recommend that the commission approve the attached resolution to program the matching funds for the highway one projects by mending the five-year plan for the highway quarter investment category of measure D. And that was an attachment to my staff report. Okay, thank you very much. I want to thank the, I just want to thank the commission for forward-looking bus on shoulder program. Anything that includes efficiency and these kinds of projects is welcome. It's this day and age especially. So congratulations to the staff for putting this together. And I think it does have good support system. It appears from the state level as well. So, but I would entertain any comments from the commissioners. Richard Rockin. I echo Bruce's comments. I think staff has done a great job here. And like, thankfully we have good partners that are working well as well. My question is, do I understand correctly that on Soquel Avenue, there'll be additional lane or lanes added at various intersections so that buses can have priority when they get to that intersection and ask other people that are backed up at the intersection, is that? And there's going to be technology that allows them to change the light for them to go when they get up there. Commissioner Rockin, this is Sarah Christensen. So my understanding is that the project that's proposed on Soquel Drive does not include additional widening to add a bus lane, but it does include improvements to the signal that would give the buses priority. So when they get close to the intersection, but they're not necessarily number one, they can still trigger the lights in the direction they move. Can you repeat that? Sorry, there was a little bit of movement. So when they get close to the intersection, even if they're not the first in line, they can trigger the light to change so that they can move forward more quickly than if they had to wait for the other direction to keep moving across in front of them. Is that what'll happen? There's not a special... Right, so that's correct. And if a bus was approaching and the light was, say, about to turn red, it might trigger the light to stay green longer to give that green to the bus. Thank you. That clarifies my question. Commissioner Schifrin. Yes, thank you. I appreciate the staff recommendation, though it's kind of overwhelming to try to keep all these funding sources straight, the money just sort of rolls around in my head. So I can't say I completely understand what's happening, but since all the money is coming out of the... So much of it is being proposed to be matched if it works out and it's all coming out of the right category and measure D, I think it's all fine. All these projects, though, if I understand it correctly that Steph talked about, are dependent on the EIR that was done for the widening overall, especially the Soquelta to 41st Avenue. And I just wanted to see if there was any updates that could provide on the lawsuit that was challenging the environmental documents for that project. Sure. We don't receive detailed updates from Caltran on that because we're not a named party to the lawsuit, but we have heard that the litigation should be wrapped up by the end of this year. So we're gonna be construction ready before that for 41st to Soquel. So that's all. So what does wrapped up mean is, I mean, it's wrapped up, there's a case, I guess it's still before the superior court. So are you saying that the expectation is that there's gonna be a decision at the superior court level by the end of the year, there's still the ability to appeal it or is it at the appellate court when the decision is expected? I believe it's a superior court. I don't know 100% for sure. Okay, thank you. My understanding is we'll have a ruling by then Commissioner Schifrin, if we don't, we'll get an update to clarify that for you, but our understanding is we would have a ruling by then. I'm sorry, I don't know if there was somebody speaking over. I think Kirk was trying to clarify something. Maybe not. Go ahead, Guy. My understanding is we will have a ruling by the superior court by that time. Of course, we don't know what that ruling would be, but my experience with these calendar rounds projects is we generally did not get stays so we can usually move forward with projects even if there isn't a field. Sarah, when you said the end of the year, did you mean the end of the calendar year or the end of the fiscal year? It was the end of the calendar year. Thank you. Commissioner Brown. I thank you. Thank you to the staff for putting together this report and trying to help us walk through a very complicated process and funding streams and all of that. And I think it does make sense to remind the projects. I appreciate the thought that's gone into this. I'm not sure about the timing I wanted to ask about this because it seems to me that this is that spring 2021 is a pretty optimistic projection and for moving it forward. And so I'm just trying to figure out because I know this has been in the works for a long time. I think there are people who are concerned, neighbors, maybe who live approximate to the Mar Vista potential bikehead bridge and their kids go to school on the other side. So, and it's been in the works for a while, perhaps the responsibility is shifting back now to the RTC from the county. And I think people are just concerned that this might actually lead to more delays. So I'm wondering if you could just speak to that for a moment. Sure. So just to clarify the spring of next year, milestone for that project is for the environmental review, not for when construction began. So, the project that would start construction in the spring would be the 41st to SoCal project, which includes the Chanticleer bicycle pedestrian over crossing. So can you repeat your question about the Mar Vista concern for combining the projects? Well, I'm just asking because there are people who have been following this for a long time and have wanted to get that Mar Vista over crossing, you know, get it in motion. And it just, there's some concern that it seems to be delayed again now by bringing it back into the EIR process for the highway for Oxlings. So, and again, I recognize that what you're saying here is that it's likely to move it up and I understand the efficiency piece, but I'm just asking because people have raised concerns and said, we've been waiting for a long time and we're trying to figure out what this means. Right, and you're right, this project has gone through a few different delays for various reasons. And that's one of the main reasons why the PDT really put our heads together to see how we could best get this project back on track. We've also gotten heavily involved with the engineering side of the bridge because there were some concerns with the geometry of the bridge and where the landings were located with respect to right of way or environmental concerns. And we have gone back to the drawing board and come up with a bridge that avoids the majority of the right of way impacts that had previously been anticipated as well as the environmental impact. So we're really working hard to get this project. Two big risks to projects is, you always wanna try to limit your right of way impacts and your environmental impacts. And by going back to the drawing board on the bridge geometry, we really were able to mitigate those risks largely by modifying the alignment of the bridge and the location of the landing. So I don't have any more information about the geometry at this point, but I do plan to make regular updates to the commission about the progress of these projects. And yes, the bridge does have a lot of interest. I know the local community in the Optos C-Cliff area. Excuse me, there's a lot of interest in this project. And that's why we are continuing to partner with the County of Santa Cruz Public Works Department for the community outreach aspects of the project. And they're gonna be heavily involved in helping us get the word out and make sure that we are proposing improvement that's gonna really, truly benefit all users in that area. So hopefully that answered your question. Yeah, thank you, that's really helpful. Commissioner Johnson and then Commissioner Schifrin. Thank you. So when I look at this project and the progress that has been made, I don't know if it's a seminal moment in terms of the Transportation Commission. I think the citizens of this county, when they look at transportation, this is a type of project that I think they envision to kind of help meet the transportation needs of the county. And it's just my compliments, Sarah. And I know you work with the team and everybody associated with it. But the creativity, I think the efficiency, the initiative, the grant possibilities, all coming together is just like kudos for moving forward on something that for the longest time is just kind of set without much progress. So obviously I fully support something like this and I just want to congratulate everybody involved from the executive director on down to the commission for that matter of seeing this for what it is, a multimodal for Eileen and her department, everybody working together to kind of bring something that can make a difference in transportation in the county. So thanks again. Commissioner Schifrin. Yes, I wanted to follow up on Commissioner Brown's comments regarding the environmental review of this project. My understanding is that it's not hearing off the Highway 1 EIR at all. It's going through separate environmental review. There'll be a separate environmental document for this component of the project. Is that my understanding? If there are problems with the overall EIR, it won't affect the Mobistabit Bridge project. Am I correct in that? That is correct. So the Bay Porter to State Park Auxiliary Lanes and Bison and Shoulder project was and is proposing a standalone environmental document not hearing off of the Tier 1 document. And that was due to just the various risks associated with that. And the Mobistabit Bridge will now be a part of that. And the type of document that's proposed is an EIR EA. And so that is, you know, the PDP decided to go with that type of document to really mitigate any project delivery risks associated with environmental challenges. So they're coming in Santa Cruz County, unfortunately. So that's the proposed approach right now for the project. And we're on schedule for an environmental review period, a public review period of this fall for that project. And it will be the combined project as well. So you're expecting to draft the EIR by this fall? Yes, we are. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the commissioners? Is there any public comment? Yusinni is on mute, I'm not sure. Is there anybody from the public that wanted to address us on this? Yes, Gina Cole. Okay. Thank you, commissioners. The biggest concern that we have from like Santa Cruz County is just the fact that this has been generations now or at least a generation of folks that have not had access with this particular project. And we're worried that the can will get kicked down the road as if it's attached to the highway project. And one of the concerns that we have is that if it is attached that there is a way to uncouple it from any delays that might come about from the auxiliary lanes and the bus on shoulder work, as Sarah mentioned, is an occurrence in our county. So that was just the two cents that I wanted to put in is that it's been on the to-do list for a really long time and it just keeps getting further and further down. Overall, it's one of those things that we really dream of is having a safe and direct route from home to school, a safe and direct route from home to shopping. It's things that we're dreaming about over here in Watsonville as well. And we just don't want it to be delayed any longer. So thank you for taking my comments. Any other questions from the public or comments? I do not see any other raised hands commissioner. Okay, we'll come back to the commission and just to say congratulations for everybody to putting this together. This is one of the real pluses we could see over the last several years about putting a project potentially together that's gonna be a tremendous benefit and get here sooner rather than later. So thank you everyone again. I've moved the staff recommendation. Second. Moved by Schifrin, seconded by Brown. Brown, excuse me, excuse me, Brown. Okay, we'll call the roll. Commissioner Rockin. He had just stepped out, I know. Well, he's new days dad, trying to turn his mute on. Aye. Commissioner Gonzalez. Aye. Commissioner Batorv. Aye. Commissioner MacPherson. Aye. Commissioner Leopold. Aye. Commissioner Friend. Aye. Commissioner Alternate Schifrin. Aye. Commissioner Caput. Aye. Commissioner Kaufman-Gomez. Aye. Commissioner Johnson. Aye. Commissioner Brown. Aye. Commissioner Bertrand. Aye. That was unanimous. Very good, unanimous vote. We will now move to item number 25 and to be reminded that commissioners that friend will recuse himself from voting on this issue. It's a construction contract award emergency bridge repair of Ballas Timber-Tressel at mile post 4.87. I think that there are Christians that is making this presentation. Hi commissioners, me again. This item is a informational item. It is not requesting any approvals that haven't already been granted. So as you recall, I made a pretty detailed lengthy presentation back on March 19th at the Transportation Policy Workshop or TPW meeting about the need to respond to an emergency repair of a Timber-Tressel out near Harkinsloo at mile post 4.87. So just to give you an update, general update, since that time we have issued several contracts and we've been very hard at work with getting the repair underway. Today, the executive director has issued emergency sole source contracts totaling about $193,000 for the following services and materials. So we entered into a professional engineering services contract with rail pros to prepare the construction documents for the bridge repair. We entered into a contract with Harrison Associates to help with the environmental permit process and monitoring and that is underway. We've entered into a construction management services contract with rail surveyors and engineers and they are on board to help with the procurement of a contractor as well as the administration of the construction. We got some early construction work going, mainly the clearing and grabbing activities and some of the earthwork activities related to re-establishing the drainage, clearing the tracks, there was a landslide that was covering the tracks that was allowing or not allowing access by rail to the site. So they were able to clear the access route, stabilize some of the slopes and restore the drainage and that contract was a time of materials contract with industrial railways for an amount not to exceed 50,000. And finally, we did proceed with ordering the timber materials that are required for the replacement of bent three. And the reason we did that is because these timber members are not really a shelf item, you can't go pick them up at Home Depot or they're not readily available, if you will. So we made the order back in April to start the process, they're cut to order and then treated and then shipped. And so that process takes four to six weeks. And so we did process a purchase order for those timber members and that was in the amount of $8,222.60. So for the remaining construction work, the remaining construction work consists of some additional earthwork, some armoring at various vents and the replacement of bent three. We received two bids, one from Stacey and Whitback for $589,500 and one from an industrial railways company in the amount of $517,208. So those bids excluded the timber materials, obviously because we have already ordered them so we will furnish the materials they will install. So we wanted to give an informational update on this item mainly because those two bids are in excess of what we had reported back in March 19th, the engineer's estimate given at that time was in the magnitude of $200,000 or $300,000. The engineer's estimate which was put together by rail pros was $330,000 and that the reason for the higher costs for this project I believe are due to the access challenges associated with the project. So the construction manager, RSE and staff analyzed the two bids. They were similar but they had some very distinct differences specifically the Stacey and Whitback bid was a lump sum bid and the industrial railways bid was a time of materials bid and those were preferences expressed by each contractor. We see the time of materials bid as an opportunity to potentially save costs if we are able to manage the construction closely we can actually complete the overall repair for less than the bid amount of 517,000 and we have contracted a construction manager as I mentioned earlier to do the daily inspections and to monitor construction. They have a lot of experience with managing bridge repair projects. So we recommend entering into a construction contract with industrial railways. They were the lower bid at the time of materials contract and we just wanted to get any questions or feedback from the commission at this point in terms of fiscal impacts we do not need to amend the budget for the rail infrastructure preservation because we had already included sufficient budget for several projects that did not get going on construction for various reasons mainly delays associated with environmental permits. And so a lot of the budget that is in fiscal year, 1920 is going to be unused. And so there is sufficient budget and programming capacity for that reason. And so staff recommends entering into a contract with industrial railways to complete the construction. And if we do that this week, then we are scheduled to complete the repair mid to late June as the timeframe. So with that, I could take your question. Very much. I think Trina Cobb and Gomez. Thank you. I hope that this doesn't bounce on the sound. What are the access challenges that make this bid more expensive? So the way that engineer estimates are put together, they are using unit rates from recent projects. So rail projects, they have a lot of experience with putting together construction documents for bridge repairs. And they use projects that were bid on a statewide basis. And most railroad bridges are on say the mainline UP. This is way kind of off on the branch and there's not a lot of contractors around except over the hill. And that's kind of why we haven't had a whole lot of, less than what we would want of interest by contractors just because it's so remote and any contractors who are working on our line would have to travel. And obviously during this time that imposed a lot of challenges. And then just this part of the line between Lee Road in Watsonville and the next Northernmost grade crossing at Buena Vista, it's about a four mile section of the rail line and it's very, very remote. The only way that you can get in is by rail. And so unless you negotiate an agreement with an adjacent property owner in the grade's work it's really difficult to get in any other way except by rail. And so that's really sums up the access challenges because you can't just pull a concrete truck up to the bridge, you have to bring that concrete truck in by rail and there's a lot of challenges associated with that. There's special equipment that's needed. So that's really where the challenges lie. Any other questions from commissioners? I just wanted to note, just to note for the record we had an email from Brian Peeples about this. I did not agree with his comments but people should be aware that I basically sum up his comments by saying basically trust that staff would be able to stay on top of the management of this and therefore he would run away from us and leave to larger costs. They don't accept that comment but we should be aware that we do have that comment from the public. And he did send it out to all commissioners and staff and it will be posted on our website. And I'd actually like to address that comment. You know, I come from a heavy civil construction background when I first went out to this project site and I did have to hike over a mile out there I brought commissioner Gonzales out there. So he got to see just the challenges of access that we're dealing with. I initially wanted to get a contractor on board at time and materials. When I worked for the state of California and I had 18 emergency storm damage shelves all of those jobs were done by emergency time and material contracts because it's really hard to quantify exactly how much work is going to need to be done. Even if you go with a lump sum contract you are dealing with significant risk of contractor claims and requests for change orders because you don't have detailed surveys you don't have detailed plan sheets. I was a little bit surprised when Ralph Rose recommended that we consider getting bids on this project because I didn't really think that we were gonna get good solid bids. The contractors are gonna bid all their risk in the project and even when they bid their risk in the project they can still submit contract claims contractor claims to ask for additional compensation. But I figured, you know, maybe the contracting industry was hungry due to the COVID-19 issue maybe there wasn't a lot of work out there maybe we would get some good competitive bids. We had a really difficult time finding contractors that were interested in this project and a lot of it had to do with the access issues. But I do think that once we get a contractor on board that we do have the professional consulting services available and monitor a construction those people would be on board even if we went with the lump sum contract to protect us from contractor claims. So we'll be able to manage this contract we'll be able to effectively direct the work and make sure that the armoring that needs to take place at all of those bids are done in a proper manner and at the most cost effective way. It was my initial assessment that we would likely be doing this job at a time of materials contract. We tried to get bids on the contract bids are considerably higher and I really don't recommend going with the higher bids. Thanks. I had another comment actually I really had something to let him go first. Yeah, I just wanted a little bit of clarification because I know being behind people's comments I think he had a misunderstanding about that our staff was gonna be there eight hours a day overseeing this project. In my understanding it's our construction management company that's gonna be overseeing this project. That's correct. Right. Primarily that'll be correct. We do have a hired resident engineer if you will who will be there daily doing inspections. We also have myself and our maintenance staff who does have a lot of experience with construction inspections and we will be periodically visiting the site as well but we do have every working day that the contractors out there our contracted instruction manager will be monitoring the work. Thank you. Yeah, because that site is not really accessible. Locking it with Mr. Guy. You really have to see the distance that has to be traveled and working in construction I understand the amount of the efforts we're gonna have to take to get that work done out there in time. Mr. Rockin. So I assume that this would go to closed session but we're in some way pursuing the people responsible for the washout in the first place which was the badly diverted water off of agricultural fields nearby or something. Is that under process of some kind? We're working on that still, yes. Nothing to report out at this time. Thank you. Any other comment from commissioners? Any comments from the public? I do not see any raised hands at this time. Okay, we did get the notes from Mr. Rockin about Mr. Peoples sending in a written concern about it. I think they entertain a motion from, we have a staff recommendation. Chair, I don't think it was part of the whole. You're totally right. We are warning you to approve this. You already gave me authorization. Oh, I just wanted to cook this. I got it. I felt it was my transparent responsibilities to come back to you and let you know that our cost estimates were higher. I'm sorry, I remember now. Yes, that's good. Thank you. I'm glad to see this project moving forward. Yeah, but it has to be done. Okay, we don't need any other motion. That ends the agenda items that we have the next meetings and all likelihood will be teleconference again. It'll be Thursday, June 4th at 9 a.m. And if we do have a meeting site, it'll be in Watsonville at the city council chamber. I think other than that, we will adjourn. We're all gonna have a TPW meeting in May. Oh, excuse me, okay. Yes, but the commission means the next one will be June 4th. Do you know other action necessary? Move to adjourn.