The complete STA Board Meeting Packet is available on STA’s Website at www.sta.ca.gov (Note: STA Board Meetings are held at Suisun City Hall, 6:00 p.m. on the 2nd Wednesday of every month

except August (Board Summer Recess) and November (Annual Awards Ceremony.)

MEETING AGENDA

5:30 p.m., STA BOARD SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Suisun City Hall Council Chambers 701 Civic Center Drive Suisun City, CA 94585

Mission Statement: To improve the quality of life in Solano County by delivering transportation projects to ensure mobility, travel safety, and economic vitality.

Public Comment: Pursuant to the Brown Act, the public has an opportunity to speak on any matter on the agenda or, for matters not on the agenda, issues within the subject matter jurisdiction of the agency. Comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes per speaker unless modified by the Board Chair, Gov’t Code § 54954.3(a). By law, no action may be taken on any item raised during the public comment period although informational answers to questions may be given and matters may be referred to staff for placement on a future agenda of the agency. Speaker cards are required in order to provide public comment. Speaker cards are on the table at the entry in the meeting room and should be handed to the STA Clerk of the Board. Public comments are limited to 3 minutes or less.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): This agenda is available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Govt. Code §54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation should contact Johanna Masiclat, Clerk of the Board, at (707) 399-3203 during regular business hours at least 24 hours prior to the time of the meeting.

Translation Services: For document translation please call: Para la llamada de traducción de documentos: 對於文檔翻譯電話

Đối với tài liệu gọi dịch: Para sa mga dokumento tawag sa pagsasalin: 707-399-3239

Staff Reports: Staff reports are available for inspection at the STA Offices, One Harbor Center, Suite 130, Suisun City during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday. You may also contact the Clerk of the Board via email at jmasiclat@sta.ca.gov Supplemental Reports: Any reports or other materials that are issued after the agenda has been distributed may be reviewed by contacting the STA Clerk of the Board and copies of any such supplemental materials will be available on the table at the entry to the meeting room.

Agenda Times: Times set forth on the agenda are estimates. Items may be heard before or after the times shown.

ITEM BOARD/STAFF PERSON

1. CALL TO ORDER/ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE(5:30 p.m.)

Chair Price

2. CONFIRM QUORUM/ STATEMENT OF CONFLICT Chair PriceAn official who has a conflict must, prior to consideration of the decision; (1) publicly identify indetail the financial interest that causes the conflict; (2) recuse himself/herself from discussing andvoting on the matter; (3) leave the room until after the decision has been made. Cal. Gov’t Code§ 87200.

STA BOARD MEMBERS Jim Spering Lori Wilson Elizabeth Patterson Thom Bogue

(Vice Chair) Harry Price

(Chair) Ronald Kott Ron Rowlett Bob Sampayan

County of Solano City of Suisun City City of Benicia City of Dixon City of Fairfield City of Rio Vista City of Vacaville City of Vallejo

STA BOARD ALTERNATES Erin Hannigan Mike Segala Lionel Largaespada Steve Bird Chuck Timm Donald Roos Dilenna Harris Robert McConnell

1

The complete STA Board Meeting Packet is available on STA’s Website at www.sta.ca.gov (Note: STA Board Meetings are held at Suisun City Hall, 6:00 p.m. on the 2nd Wednesday of every month

except August (Board Summer Recess) and November (Annual Awards Ceremony.)

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

4. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

5. ACTION FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Bid Protest Recommendation for the Vallejo Transit Center – YorkStreet Improvements ProjectRecommendation:Approve the following:

1. Accept staff’s recommendation to reject FBD VanguardConstruction Inc.’s bid protest and award the York StreetImprovement Project to O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc.; and

2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract with O.C.Jones & Sons, Inc., and any relevant documentation for thepurpose of completing the construction project, subject to LegalCounsel approval.

(5:35 – 5:45 p.m.) Pg. 3

Janet Adams Bernadette Curry

B. Re-Programming and Advancing 2020 Surface TransportationImprovement Program (STIP)Recommendation:Approve the programming of the 2020 STIP for Solano County asfollows:

1. Reaffirm $5 million for Construction Phase of the SR37/Fairgrounds Dr. Interchange Project for FY 2021-22;

2. Reaffirm $152,000 for Planning, Programming, and Monitoring(PPM) activities for FYs 2023-24 through 2024-25;

3. Reaffirm $98,000 for Construction Phase of Vine Trail in Napafrom Calistoga to St. Helena;

4. Reprogram $4 million for Construction Phase of Solano I-80Managed Lanes Project FY 2021-22 (Caltrans);

5. Advance $30M in Advanced STIP Shares for Construction Phaseof Solano I-80 Managed Lanes Project in Fairfield and Vacaville– FY 2021-22 (Caltrans Project Sponsor); and

6. Approve Resolutions of Local Support for SR37/Fairgrounds Dr.Interchange Project & Solano I-80 Managed Lanes Project inFairfield and Vacaville.

(5:45 – 5:55 p.m.) Pg. 27

Janet Adams

6. ADJOURNMENTThe STA Board’s next regularly scheduled meeting is at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday,December 11, 2019, at the Suisun Council Chambers.

STA Board Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 13, 2019 (STA’s 22nd Annual Awards – City of Fairfield)

6:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 11, 2019

2

Agenda Item 5.A November 6, 2019

DATE: October 29, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Janet Adams, Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects

Bernadette Curry, STA Legal Counsel RE: Bid Protest Recommendation for the Vallejo Transit Center – York Street

Improvements Project

Background: Consistent with STA Board direction, staff has been proceeding with the implementation for the Vallejo Transit Center – York Street Improvements Project (Project). The STA was awarded and Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) funds for the transit and pedestrian improvements for SolanoExpress near the existing Vallejo Transit Facility. In working with Solano County Transit (SolTrans) and the City of Vallejo, it was determined the appropriate location for these improvements was along York Street directly to the east of the existing SolTrans transit facility.

Additionally, the City of Vallejo has an approved Complete Streets vision for the downtown area, known as the Downtown Street Scape Project. Several phases of this vision have been completed. Within the same block as these transit improvements on York Street, is a high priority for the City for the Downtown Street Scape Project. At the February 2019 STA Board meeting, a $1 M swap of State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF) with future One Bay Area Grant Cycle 3 funds was approved. As such, the project that is proposed for construction is the transit and pedestrian improvements for the entire one block section of York Street between Sacramento and Marin Streets.

The Project is funded with a combination of STAF and Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) funds. These capital improvements are expected to be completed by early 2020.

Discussion: As mentioned above, the Project will be completed by early 2020. The Project plans were prepared by HQE, Inc., STA’s design engineering consultant. In accordance with legal requirements, the construction of this project was advertised in the Vallejo Times-Herald.

On May 8, 2019, the STA Board authorized the Executive Director to enter into a contract up to 120% of the Engineers Estimate, or $2,595,000. The project was originally opened bids on July 16, 2019 with only one bidder, FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. with a bid price of $2,806,130.55, an amount substantially over the Engineer’s Estimate of $2,163,000. Based on discussions with staff from the City of Vallejo Public Works, the decision was made to rebid the work to provide other contractors busy bidding other work and could not commit the resources to bidding this project the opportunity to bid on the work if re-bid.

3

As such, the project was re-bid with a new bid opening of October 8, 2019. Five contractors submitted bids on October 8th. As part of the contract requirements, there is a Disadvantaged Veterans Business Enterprise (DVBE) goal of 3% which is required because a portion of the project funding is from the State Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP). The 5 bidders were:

BIDDER

BID AMOUNT DVBE COMMITMENT

O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc. $1,558531.50 3.07%

California Highway Construction Group, Inc. $1,862,345.00 5.00%

Granite Rock Company $1,934,644.00 4.05%

FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. $2,096,135.00 6.04%

Lister Construction, Inc. $2,347,232.00 Non-Responsive The apparent low bidder was O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc. The bid package for the apparent low bidder, O.C. Jones & Sons Inc., was then analyzed for compliance with the contract documents including the verification of the Bidder’s Bond, verification of the bidder’s Contractors License with the State License Board, verification that the bidder has not been debarred by the Department of Industrial Relations, and an evaluation of the bidder’s DVBE commitment to meet the contract goal of 3%. FBD Vanguard Construction Inc. submitted a Bid Protest on October 16, 2019 in conformance with Section 3-1.09 of the Special Provisions. The protest alleged that the three (3) lowest bidders (O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc., California Highway Construction Group, Inc. and Granite Rock Company) did not comply with Section 2-1.15 of the Special Provisions requiring conformance with Section Mil. & Vet. Code section 999 et seq. As it relates to the claims against O.C. Jones & Sons Inc., the protest specifically alleges “OC Jones & Sons, Inc. listed Kukahiko, Inc. for the electrical items from their intended subcontractor St. Francis Electric. Kukahiko, Inc. is not an electrical manufacturer and is just passing through the quote #JTM100819J from Jam Services Inc., who is also an electrical supplier and therefore violates Mil & Vet Code § 999.” FBD Vanguard Construction Inc. further contends that O.C Jones & Sons, Inc. bid should be considered non-responsive due to this issue. WSP, the construction manager for the project, has confirmed that Kukahiko, Inc. is a certified non-manufacturer DVBE (State Certification ID 2010738) with the State Department of Governmental Services in conformance with the requirement of certification requirements of Mil. & Vet. Code § 999(b)(5)(B). O.C. Jones Inc. certified Kukahiko, Inc. as contractually responsible for supplying the lighting and camera equipment for the project under Bid Item No. 54 which would appear to be considered a distinct element of the work as defined under Mil. & Vet. Code § 999 (b)(5)(B)(i)(I). Supplying this equipment necessarily entails entering into a contract with O.C. Jones, managing the submittal and approval process, providing a bid price, ordering fabrication, managing the QC process, providing payment to the manufacturer/distributor, scheduling delivery and addressing warranty issues all of which would imply conformance with the code requirements. As a non-manufacturer, electrical, DVBE subcontractor supplying specialty electrical components of this nature for projects of similar scope would appear to be a normal business function for Kukahiko, Inc. and a common industry practice. FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. states it basis for Kukahiko, Inc. not conforming to the requirements of Mil. & Vet. Code § 999(B)(ii) are that it is not an “electrical manufacturer” 4

and is merely passing through a quote from JAM Services, another electrical supplier. However, nothing in Mil. & Vet. Code § 999 limits materials to be provided directly by a manufacturer, nor does it prohibit a non-manufacturing DVBE supplier, such as Kukahiko, Inc. from, contracting with specialty electrical distributer, such as JAM Services, to supply materials to meet its commitments as a supplier. In consideration of the above, Kukahiko, Inc. appears to be performing a “commercially useful function” as defined under Mil. & Vet. Code § 999 (b)(5)(B)(i)(I-V) and does not appear to meet the classification of an “extra participant” warranting disqualification under Mil. & Vet. Code § 999(B)(ii). Based on the forgoing, staff and legal counsel recommend rejecting FBD Vanguard Construction Inc.’s protest and awarding STA Contract No. 20191 – VTC York Street Improvements Project (Re-Bid) to O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc. Details of the Bid Protest, Evaluation Checklist and the tabulation of all bids are attached (Attachment A). Notice of the evaluation was submitted by letter to FBD Vanguard on October 29, 2019. Staff did not undertake a review of the of the protest claims made by FBD Vanguard Construction Inc. relative to California Highway Construction Group, Inc. and Granite Rock Company as it appears O.C. Jones is the responsible low bidder in this instance rendering any further consideration moot. Fiscal Impact: The costs for the construction contract and construction administration for the Project will be funded with STAF and TIRCP funds. Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. Accept staff’s recommendation to reject FBD Vanguard Construction Inc.’s bid protest and award the York Street Improvement Project to O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc.; and

2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract with O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc., and any relevant documentation for the purpose of completing the construction project, subject to Legal Counsel approval.

Attachment:

A. FBD Vanguard Construction’s Protest Letter. dated Oct. 15, 2019 B. WSP Recommendation of Award to OC Jones & Sons, Inc. Letter dated Oct. 24, 2019 C. STA Letter dated October 29, 2019 to FBD Vanguard Construction Inc. D. This attachment has been provided to the STA Board Members under separate cover.

Bid Evaluation Checklist, STA Contract No. 20191 Bid Summary, FBD Vanguard Construction In. Bid Protest and Protest Responses.

5

This page is left intentionally blank.

6

uard CONSTRUCTION

OCTOBER 15, 2019

Solano Transportation Authority Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects One Harbor Drive Suisun City, CA 94585

RECEIVED

OCT 1 6 2019

SOLANO TRANSPORTATION

AUTHOIUTY

RE: VTC YORK STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 20191 BID DATE OCTOBER 8, 2018 L T-01 PROTEST LETIER

To the attention of the Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects,

This letter shall serve as FBD Vanguard Construction's formal protest Per Section 3-1.09 BID PROTESTS of award to any bidder other than the lowest responsive bidder, FBD Vanguard Construction, as the first three bidders all failed to meet the mandatory 3% DVBE participation requirement per the contract documents Section 2-1.15.

In review of Section 2-1.15, the bidders must "Comply with Mil & Vet Code§ 999 et seq.", which states the following definition to qualify towards a goal as a DVBE supplier, in particular subsection (ii):

(B) "Disabled veteran business enterprise contractor, subcontractor, or supplier" means a personor entity that has been certified by the administering agency pursuant to this article and thatperforms a commercially useful function, as defined in clause (i), in providing services or goodsthat contribute to the fulfillment of the contract requirements:

(i) A person or an entity is deemed to perform a "commercially useful function" if a person orentity does all of the following:

(I) Is responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work of the contract.

(II) Carries out the obligation by actually performing, managing, or supervising the work involved.

(Ill) Performs work that is normal for its business services and functions.

(IV) Is responsible, with respect to products, inventories, materials, and supplies required for thecontract, for negotiating price, determining quality and quantity, ordering, installing, if applicable,and making payment.

(V) Is not further subcontracting a portion of the work that is greater than that expected to besubcontracted by normal industry practices.

(ii) A contractor, subcontractor, or supplier will not be considered to perform acommercially useful function if the contractor's, subcontractor's, or supplier's role islimited to that of an extra participant in a transaction, contract, or project through whichfunds are passed in order to obtain the appearance of a disabled veteran businessenterprise participation.

1 550 GREENVILLE ROAD, LIVERMORE, CA 94550 (PH) 925-245-1300 (FX) 925-245-1007

ATTACHMENT A

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

3260 Lone Tree WaySuite 104Antioch, CA 94509

Tel.: +1 925 756-2381Fax: +1 925 756-2385wsp.com

October 24, 2019 05.01.001

Janet AdamsDeputy Executive Director/Director of ProjectsSolano Transportation Authority (STA)One Harbor Center, Suite 130Suisun City, CA 94585

SUBJECT: Recommendation of Award to O.C. Jones & Sons Inc.REFERENCE: STA Contract No. 20191 – VTC York Street Improvements Project (Re-bid)

Ms. Adams,

Sealed bids for the STA Contract No. 20191 – VTC York Street Improvements Project (Re-bid) were received and openedat 11:00 am on October 8, 2019. Five (5) bids were received by STA and reviewed by WSP:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT DVBE COMMITMENT

O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc. $1,558531.50 3.07%

California Highway Construction Group, Inc. $1,862,345.00 5.00%

Granite Rock Company $1,934,644.00 4.05%

FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. $2,096,135.00 6.04%

Lister Construction, Inc. $2,347,232.00 Non-Responsive

The apparent low bidder was O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc. The bid package for the apparent low bidder, O.C. Jones & Sons Inc.,was then analyzed for compliance with the contract documents including the verification of the Bidder’s Bond,verification of the bidder’s Contractors License with the State License Board, verification that the bidder has not beendebarred by the Department of Industrial Relations, and an evaluation of the bidder’s DVBE commitment to meet thecontract goal of 3%. The Bid Evaluation Checklist and the tabulation of all bids are attached for your reference.

FBD Vanguard Construction Inc. submitted a Bid Protest on October 16, 2019 in conformance with Section 3-1.09 of theSpecial Provisions. The protest alleged that the three (3) lowest bidders (O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc., California HighwayConstruction Group, Inc. and Granite Rock Company) did not comply with Section 2-1.15 of the Special Provisionsrequiring conformance with Section Mil. & Vet. Code subsection 999 et seq et al. As it relates to the claims against O.C.

ATTACHMENT B

21

Page 2

Jones & Sons Inc., the protest specifically alleges “OC Jones & Sons, Inc. listed Kukahiko, lnc. for the electrical itemsfrom their intended subcontractor St. Francis Electric. Kukahiko, Inc. is not an electrical manufacturer and is justpassing through the quote #JTM100819J from Jam Services Inc., who is also an electrical supplier and therefore violatesMil & Vet Code § 999.” FBD Vanguard Construction Inc. further contends that O.C Jones & Sons, Inc. bid should beconsidered non-responsive due to this issue.

Military and Veterans Code § 999 states:

(B) “Disabled veteran business enterprise contractor, subcontractor, or supplier” means a person or entity that has been certifiedby the administering agency pursuant to this article and that performs a commercially useful function, as defined in clause (i), inproviding services or goods that contribute to the fulfillment of the contract requirements:

(i) A person or an entity is deemed to perform a “commercially useful function” if a person or entity does all of the following:

(I) Is responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work of the contract.

(II) Carries out the obligation by actually performing, managing, or supervising the work involved.

(III) Performs work that is normal for its business services and functions.

(IV) Is responsible, with respect to products, inventories, materials, and supplies required for the contract, for negotiating price,determining quality and quantity, ordering, installing, if applicable, and making payment.

(V) Is not further subcontracting a portion of the work that is greater than that expected to be subcontracted by normal industrypractices.

(ii) A contractor, subcontractor, or supplier will not be considered to perform a commercially useful function if the contractor's,subcontractor's, or supplier's role is limited to that of an extra participant in a transaction, contract, or project through which fundsare passed in order to obtain the appearance of a disabled veteran business enterprise participation.

In applying the code cited above to O.C. Jones & Sons Inc. situation, Kukahiko, Inc. is a certified non-manufacturerDVBE (State Certification ID 2010738) with the State Department of Governmental Services in conformance with therequirement of certification requirements of Mil. & Vet. Code § 999(B). O.C. Jones Inc. certified Kukahiko, Inc. ascontractually responsible for supplying the lighting and camera equipment for the project under Bid Item No. 54 whichwould appear to be considered a distinct element of the work as defined under Mil. & Vet. Code § 999 (B)(i)(I). Supplyingthis equipment necessarily entails entering into a contract with O.C. Jones, managing the submittal and approvalprocess, providing a bid price, ordering fabrication, managing the QC process, providing payment to themanufacturer/distributor, scheduling delivery and addressing warranty issues all of which would imply conformancewith Subsections Mil. & Vet. Code § 999 (B)(i)(II) and Mil. & Vet. Code § 999 (B)(i)(IV). As a non-manufacturer, electrical,DVBE subcontractor supplying specialty electrical components of this nature for projects of similar scope would appearto be a normal business function for Kukahiko, Inc. and a common industry practice as required by Mil. & Vet. Code §999 (B)(i)(III) and Mil. & Vet. Code § 999(B)(i)(V).

FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. states it basis for Kukahiko, Inc. not conforming to the requirements of Mil. & Vet.Code § 999(B)(ii) are that it is not an “electrical manufacturer” and is merely passing through a quote from JAM Services,another electrical supplier. Nothing in Mil. & Vet. Code § 999 limits materials to be provided directly by a manufacturer,nor does it prohibit a non-manufacturing DVBE supplier, such as Kukahiko, Inc. from, contracting with specialtyelectrical distributer, such as JAM Services, to supply materials to meet its commitments as a supplier. In considerationof the above, Kukahiko, Inc. appears to be performing a “commercially useful function” as defined under Mil. & Vet.Code § 999 (B)(i)(I-V) and does not appear to meet the classification of an “extra participant” warrantingdisqualification under Mil. & Vet. Code § 999(B)(ii).

Based on the forgoing, we recommend awarding STA Contract No. 20191 – VTC York Street Improvements Project (Re-Bid) to O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc.

WSP did not undertake a review of the of the protest claims made by FBD Vanguard Construction Inc. relative toCalifornia Highway Construction Group, Inc. and Granite Rock Company as it appears O.C. Jones is the responsible lowbidder in this instance rendering any further consideration moot. This recommendation should in no way be considered

22

Page 3

a legal opinion or construed in anyway as providing legal advice. WSP recommends that STA’s Counsel review ourrecommendation and provide further direction to the Authority before proceeding to Award.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (209) 986-6540.

Sincerely,

Scott Frenette, CCMConstruction Manager

Attachments: Bid Evaluation Checklist, STA Contract No. 20191 Bid Summary, FBD Vanguard Construction Inc. Bid Protest and Contractor ProtestResponses

cc: B. Littell (WSP)File : 05.01.001, 12

23

This page is left intentionally blank.

24

October 29, 2019

Mr. Dominic Sposeto FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. 550 Greenville Road Livermore, CA 94550

RE: Notification of Board Recommendations for Bid Protest Reference: STA Contract No. 20191 – VTC York Street Improvements

Dear Mr. Sposeto:

Reference is made to the bid protest you submitted to the Solano Transportation Authority (STA) on October 16, 2019 regarding the three low bidders failing to meet the 3% Disadvantaged Veterans Business Enterprise (DVBE) participation goal. STA staff has concluded that the protest is without merit. We have reviewed the submitted bid proposals for O.C. Jones & Sons Inc., California Highway Construction Group, Inc. and Granite Rock Company along with their respective Certified DVBE Summaries. Each of the proposals conform the requirements of Mil & Vet Code § 999 and are considered responsive relative to the DVBE participation goal of 3%. Attached for your information is the analysis of the bid protest performed by WSP, STA’s Construction Manager.

The STA Board will be issuing a formal decision regarding the protest on Wednesday, November 6th at 5:30 pm at Suisun City Hall located at 701 Civic Center Blvd, Suisun City, CA 94585. The meeting is open to the public and you are welcome to attend. Feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions at jadams@sta.ca.gov.

Sincerely,

Janet Adams, STA Deputy Executive Director

Enc.

ATTACHMENT C

25

This page is left intentionally blank.

26

Agenda Item 5.B November 6, 2019

DATE: October 25, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Janet Adams, Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects

Anthony Adams, Project Manager RE: Re-Programming and Advancing 2020 Surface Transportation Improvement

Program (STIP)

Background: The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from state gas tax which is placed into the State Highway Account. The STIP is composed of two sub-elements: 75% to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), with projects decided by regional agencies, and 25% to the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). STA is responsible for programming the RTIP and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) programs the ITIP. The STIP cycle is programmed every two years and covers a five-year period. Historically, Solano County averages about $10M per STIP cycle in population shares of STIP funds (the RTIP) share for Solano.

The California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1 (SB1) in April of 2017. This Bill raised the state gas tax, among other revenue sources, to help fund transportation improvements. The passage of this bill means that STIP shares will be more stable in the future and as the gas tax, which funds the STIP, will include a Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjuster.

2020 STIP Fund Estimate and 2018 STIP Commitments The 2020 STIP Fund Estimate is significantly less than what was originally estimated. This decrease in expected funds is primarily due to a delay by the Board of Equalization to increase the gas tax in 2018. This gas tax increase was projected into 2018 STIP share estimates, and without the additional revenue, 2020 STIP shares were decreased. The 2020 STIP fund estimate for Solano County is $9.212 M. $5M of this amount has been previously prioritized in the 2018 STIP for SR 37, but not yet programmed to a particular project along that corridor; STA is proposing the project is the Fairgrounds Dr. Interchange project. This funding will match bridge toll funding to be committed to the project. The remaining $4M in STIP shares is available to be programmed for Fiscal Years 2023-24 – FY 2024-25 and is considered to be new programming capacity.

Discussion: Solano STIP Funding Priorities and Previous Commitments The STA Board has prioritized three regionally significant projects that will seek funding from newly created SB1 funding categories. The prioritized projects that are eligible for this funding include the Solano I-80 Managed Lanes, I-80 Westbound Truck Scales, and I-80/I-680/State Route (SR) 12 Interchange. With the large project costs associated with these funding priorities, a larger local match will need to be made available to be competitive in the future. The STA’s Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is one of the few available to STA to provide match funding for I-80 Corridor projects.

27

Upcoming SB1 Funding Opportunities and MTC STIP Requirements SB1 has several competitive programs that the STA and member agencies are eligible for. The upcoming call for projects for the Solutions for Congested Corridors (SCC) and Trade Corridor Enhancements (TCEP) programs will take place in April 2020, with applications due in June, 2020. The STA has been coordinating with California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), Caltrans, and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to submit the Solano I-80 Managed Lanes project for the Solutions for Congested Corridors program. MTC recently informed STA that they are requiring a funding commitment from the applicant’s current STIP cycle, as well as future STIP cycles, for MTC to support the application for SCC funding. To comply with MTC’s STIP requirement the new funding available in the 2020 STIP, $4M, must be programmed to the Solano I-80 Managed Lanes project. MTC is also requiring STA’s future STIP cycles be committed to this project in the amount of $30M. With an average STIP cycle availability of $10M, this $30M future commitment would roughly equate to three STIP cycles worth of funding for Solano. Revised 2020 STIP Recommendations At the October 9th STA Board meeting the following projects were approved for 2020 STIP funding:

• $5M: 2018 STIP funds SR37 Fairgrounds Dr. Interchange Improvements - FY 2021-22 (STA Project Sponsor)

• $3M: 2020 new STIP funds Jepson Pkwy, 4-lane widen, Canon Rd to south of Leisure Town Rd – FY 2024-25 (City of Fairfield Project Sponsor)

o City of Fairfield would commit to funding any remaining shortfall • $1M: SR 12 Rio Vista Downtown Complete Street – FY 2023-24 (Caltrans Project

Sponsor) – to match Caltrans SHOPP funding and local funds provided by Rio Vista. • $152K Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (FYs 2023-24 and 2024-25) • $98K Vine Trail – Calistoga to St. Helena

The revised 2020 STIP staff recommendations, based on SB1 program criteria and MTC’s regional STIP requirements are:

• $5M: SR37 Fairgrounds Dr. Interchange Improvements - FY 2021-22 (STA Project Sponsor)

• $4M: Solano I-80 Managed Lanes Project in Fairfield and Vacaville – FY 2021-22 (Caltrans Project Sponsor)

• $30M in Advanced STIP Shares: Solano I-80 Managed Lanes Project in Fairfield and Vacaville – FY 2021-22 (Caltrans Project Sponsor)

• $152K Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (FYs 2023-24 and 2024-25) • $98K Vine Trail – Calistoga to St. Helena

In the event that the Solano I-80 Managed Lane Project is not selected for SB1 competitive funding, the $4M that is recommended to be programed to that project will be redirected back to Jepson Parkway and SR12 Rio Vista Downtown complete projects. Funding Plans for Projects Removed from 2020 STIP For the Jepson Parkway Phase 2C project, previously proposed for $3M in STIP funding, the STA and the City of Fairfield will seek funding through the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant. A combination of Fairfield impact fees, Regional Transportation Impact Fees (RTIF), and grant funding will make up the funding plan for this project in the future.

28

For the SR 12 Rio Vista Downtown Complete Street project, previously proposed for $1M in STIP funding, STA will seek a combination of Clean Air funds and Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 to complete the funding plan. The project also qualifies for grant funding sources such as the Active Transportation Program. Fiscal Impact: This action will program funding for priority projects. Of the project recommended, the SR 37/ Fairgrounds Dr. Project will be sponsored by the STA. The $152,000 in PPM funds will be included in the STA Budget for FY’s 2023-24 and 2024-25. Recommendation: Approve the programming of the 2020 STIP for Solano County as follows:

1. Reaffirm $5 million for Construction Phase of the SR 37/Fairgrounds Dr. Interchange Project for FY 2021-22;

2. Reaffirm $152,000 for Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) activities for FYs 2023-24 through 2024-25;

3. Reaffirm $98,000 for Construction Phase of Vine Trail in Napa from Calistoga to St. Helena;

4. Reprogram $4 million for Construction Phase of Solano I-80 Managed Lanes Project FY 2021-22 (Caltrans);

5. Advance $30M in Advanced STIP Shares for Construction Phase of Solano I-80 Managed Lanes Project in Fairfield and Vacaville – FY 2021-22 (Caltrans Project Sponsor); and

6. Approve Resolutions of Local Support for SR37/Fairgrounds Dr. Interchange Project & Solano I-80 Managed Lanes Project in Fairfield and Vacaville.

Attachment:

A. Click here for immediate review and printing: MTC 2020 RTIP Policies B. Resolution of Local Support for SR37/Fairgrounds Dr Interchange Project C. Resolution of Local Support for Solano I-80 Managed Lanes Project in Fairfield and

Vacaville

29

This page is left intentionally blank.

30

09/20/16

ATTACHMENT B Resolution of Local Support

Resolution No. 2019-02

Authorizing the filing of an application for funding assigned to MTC and committing any necessary matching funds and stating assurance to complete the project

WHEREAS, Solano Transportation Authority (herein referred to as APPLICANT) is submitting an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $5,000,000 in funding assigned to MTC for programming discretion, which includes federal funding administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and federal or state funding administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) such as Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) funding, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding, Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside/Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funding (herein collectively referred to as REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING) for the SR 37 Fairgrounds Dr. Interchange Improvements Project (herein referred to as PROJECT) for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (herein referred to as PROGRAM); and

WHEREAS, the United States Congress from time to time enacts and amends legislation to provide funding for various transportation needs and programs, (collectively, the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT) including, but not limited to the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) (23 U.S.C. § 133), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) (23 U.S.C. § 149) and the Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside (23 U.S.C. § 133); and

WHEREAS, state statutes, including California Streets and Highways Code §182.6, §182.7, and §2381(a)(1), and California Government Code §14527, provide various funding programs for the programming discretion of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, and any regulations promulgated thereunder, eligible project sponsors wishing to receive federal or state funds for a regionally-significant project shall submit an application first with the appropriate MPO, or RTPA, as applicable, for review and inclusion in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and

WHEREAS, MTC is the MPO and RTPA for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay region; and

WHEREAS, MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) that sets out procedures governing the application and use of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and

WHEREAS, APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and

WHEREAS, as part of the application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING, MTC requires a resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:

• the commitment of any required matching funds; and• that the sponsor understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING is fixed

at the programmed amount, and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected tobe funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and

• that the PROJECT will comply with the procedures, delivery milestones and funding

31

09/20/16

deadlines specified in the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised); and

• the assurance of the sponsor to complete the PROJECT as described in the application, subject to environmental clearance, and if approved, as included in MTC's federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and

• that the PROJECT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and

• that the PROJECT will comply with all project-specific requirements as set forth in the PROGRAM; and

• that APPLICANT has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective Congestion Management Agency (CMA), MTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation and transit projects implemented by APPLICANT; and

• in the case of a transit project, the PROJECT will comply with MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised, which sets forth the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan to more efficiently deliver transit projects in the region; and

• in the case of a highway project, the PROJECT will comply with MTC Resolution No. 4104, which sets forth MTC’s Traffic Operations System (TOS) Policy to install and activate TOS elements on new major freeway projects; and

• in the case of an RTIP project, state law requires PROJECT be included in a local congestion management plan, or be consistent with the capital improvement program adopted pursuant to MTC’s funding agreement with the countywide transportation agency; and

WHEREAS, that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and WHEREAS, there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and WHEREAS, APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and

WHEREAS, MTC requires that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the APPLICANT is authorized to execute and file an application for funding for the PROJECT for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING under the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT or continued funding; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT will provide any required matching funds; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING

for the project is fixed at the MTC approved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be funded by the APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT does not expect any cost increases to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands the funding deadlines associated with these funds and will comply with the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project Funding

32

09/20/16

Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) and APPLICANT has, and will retain the expertise, knowledge and resources necessary to deliver federally-funded transportation and transit projects, and has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective Congestion Management Agency (CMA), MTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation and transit projects implemented by APPLICANT; and be it further

RESOLVED that PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete application and in this resolution, subject to environmental clearance, and, if approved, for the amount approved by MTC and programmed in the federal TIP; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT has reviewed the PROJECT and has adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and be it further

RESOLVED that PROJECT will comply with the requirements as set forth in MTC programming guidelines and project selection procedures for the PROGRAM; and be it further

RESOLVED that, in the case of a transit project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised; and be it further

RESOLVED that, in the case of a highway project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s Traffic Operations System (TOS) Policy as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 4104; and be it further

RESOLVED that, in the case of an RTIP project, PROJECT is included in a local congestion management plan, or is consistent with the capital improvement program adopted pursuant to MTC’s funding agreement with the countywide transportation agency; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING funded projects; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, City Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and be it further

RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application; and be it further

RESOLVED that the MTC is requested to support the application for the PROJECT described in the resolution, and if approved, to include the PROJECT in MTC's federal TIP upon submittal by the project sponsor for TIP programming.

33

09/20/16

Instructions for Using the Resolution of Local Support

• A project sponsor receiving Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), Active Transportation Program (ATP), Regional Improvement Program (RIP), or other regional discretionary funds must adopt a resolution of local support prior to grant funds being added to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The template to be used is found on the MTC website: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/federal-funding/obag-2

• Sponsors should always use the template posted on the website to ensure they have the latest version.

• The sponsor may not make changes to the template with the exception of format changes or additional language to suit the jurisdiction’s resolution conventions. These changes may not modify or condition / limit the MTC resolution language. If your legal counsel feels strongly about making language changes given specific circumstances surrounding a project, he/she needs to discuss these with the MTC General Counsel.

• The three bulleted statements on page 2 of the resolution that apply to transit, highway, and RTIP projects may be deleted, if they do not apply.

• After a project sponsor has adopted a resolution of local support for a project, it does not need to go back to the board if the project subsequently receives additional grants from the above fund sources, unless the project scope has changed significantly. If there are scope changes the sponsor should consult with MTC programming staff.

• The resolution of local support must be transmitted to MTC when a project / grant funds are added to the TIP. The sponsor will attach a PDF of the adopted resolution to the Fund Management System (FMS) application when the sponsor requests a TIP amendment. A schedule containing upcoming due dates for TIP revisions can be found at: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/tip/tip-revisions-and-amendments If you have further questions regarding the resolution please contact the following MTC staff: Mallory Atkinson (STP/CMAQ funds) at matkinson@mtc.ca.gov or 415-778-6793 Kenneth Kao (ATP/RIP funds) at kkao@mtc.ca.gov or 415-778-6768 Adam Crenshaw (TIP and FMS) at acrenshaw@mtc.ca.gov or 415-778-6794

34

09/20/16

ATTACHMENT C

Resolution of Local Support Resolution No. 2019-01

Authorizing the filing of an application for funding assigned to MTC and committing any necessary matching funds and stating assurance to complete the project

WHEREAS, Solano Transportation Authority (herein referred to as APPLICANT) is submitting an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $4,000,000 in funding assigned to MTC for programming discretion, which includes federal funding administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and federal or state funding administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) such as Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) funding, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding, Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside/Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funding (herein collectively referred to as REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING) for the Solano I-80 Express Lanes Project (herein referred to as PROJECT) for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (herein referred to as PROGRAM); and

WHEREAS, the United States Congress from time to time enacts and amends legislation to provide funding for various transportation needs and programs, (collectively, the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT) including, but not limited to the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) (23 U.S.C. § 133), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) (23 U.S.C. § 149) and the Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside (23 U.S.C. § 133); and

WHEREAS, state statutes, including California Streets and Highways Code §182.6, §182.7, and §2381(a)(1), and California Government Code §14527, provide various funding programs for the programming discretion of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, and any regulations promulgated thereunder, eligible project sponsors wishing to receive federal or state funds for a regionally-significant project shall submit an application first with the appropriate MPO, or RTPA, as applicable, for review and inclusion in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and

WHEREAS, MTC is the MPO and RTPA for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay region; and

WHEREAS, MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) that sets out procedures governing the application and use of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and

WHEREAS, APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and

WHEREAS, as part of the application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING, MTC requires a resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:

• the commitment of any required matching funds; and• that the sponsor understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING is fixed

at the programmed amount, and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected tobe funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and

35

09/20/16

• that the PROJECT will comply with the procedures, delivery milestones and funding deadlines specified in the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised); and

• the assurance of the sponsor to complete the PROJECT as described in the application, subject to environmental clearance, and if approved, as included in MTC's federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and

• that the PROJECT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and

• that the PROJECT will comply with all project-specific requirements as set forth in the PROGRAM; and

• that APPLICANT has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective Congestion Management Agency (CMA), MTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation and transit projects implemented by APPLICANT; and

• in the case of a transit project, the PROJECT will comply with MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised, which sets forth the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan to more efficiently deliver transit projects in the region; and

• in the case of a highway project, the PROJECT will comply with MTC Resolution No. 4104, which sets forth MTC’s Traffic Operations System (TOS) Policy to install and activate TOS elements on new major freeway projects; and

• in the case of an RTIP project, state law requires PROJECT be included in a local congestion management plan, or be consistent with the capital improvement program adopted pursuant to MTC’s funding agreement with the countywide transportation agency; and

WHEREAS, that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and WHEREAS, there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and WHEREAS, APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and

WHEREAS, MTC requires that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the APPLICANT is authorized to execute and file an application for funding for the PROJECT for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING under the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT or continued funding; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT will provide any required matching funds; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING

for the project is fixed at the MTC approved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be funded by the APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT does not expect any cost increases to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands the funding deadlines associated with these

36

09/20/16

funds and will comply with the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) and APPLICANT has, and will retain the expertise, knowledge and resources necessary to deliver federally-funded transportation and transit projects, and has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective Congestion Management Agency (CMA), MTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation and transit projects implemented by APPLICANT; and be it further

RESOLVED that PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete application and in this resolution, subject to environmental clearance, and, if approved, for the amount approved by MTC and programmed in the federal TIP; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT has reviewed the PROJECT and has adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and be it further

RESOLVED that PROJECT will comply with the requirements as set forth in MTC programming guidelines and project selection procedures for the PROGRAM; and be it further

RESOLVED that, in the case of a transit project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised; and be it further

RESOLVED that, in the case of a highway project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s Traffic Operations System (TOS) Policy as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 4104; and be it further

RESOLVED that, in the case of an RTIP project, PROJECT is included in a local congestion management plan, or is consistent with the capital improvement program adopted pursuant to MTC’s funding agreement with the countywide transportation agency; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING funded projects; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, City Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and be it further

RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application; and be it further

RESOLVED that the MTC is requested to support the application for the PROJECT described in the resolution, and if approved, to include the PROJECT in MTC's federal TIP upon submittal by the project sponsor for TIP programming.

37

09/20/16

Instructions for Using the Resolution of Local Support

• A project sponsor receiving Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), Active Transportation Program (ATP), Regional Improvement Program (RIP), or other regional discretionary funds must adopt a resolution of local support prior to grant funds being added to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The template to be used is found on the MTC website: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/federal-funding/obag-2

• Sponsors should always use the template posted on the website to ensure they have the latest version.

• The sponsor may not make changes to the template with the exception of format changes or additional language to suit the jurisdiction’s resolution conventions. These changes may not modify or condition / limit the MTC resolution language. If your legal counsel feels strongly about making language changes given specific circumstances surrounding a project, he/she needs to discuss these with the MTC General Counsel.

• The three bulleted statements on page 2 of the resolution that apply to transit, highway, and RTIP projects may be deleted, if they do not apply.

• After a project sponsor has adopted a resolution of local support for a project, it does not need to go back to the board if the project subsequently receives additional grants from the above fund sources, unless the project scope has changed significantly. If there are scope changes the sponsor should consult with MTC programming staff.

• The resolution of local support must be transmitted to MTC when a project / grant funds are added to the TIP. The sponsor will attach a PDF of the adopted resolution to the Fund Management System (FMS) application when the sponsor requests a TIP amendment. A schedule containing upcoming due dates for TIP revisions can be found at: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/tip/tip-revisions-and-amendments If you have further questions regarding the resolution please contact the following MTC staff: Mallory Atkinson (STP/CMAQ funds) at matkinson@mtc.ca.gov or 415-778-6793 Kenneth Kao (ATP/RIP funds) at kkao@mtc.ca.gov or 415-778-6768 Adam Crenshaw (TIP and FMS) at acrenshaw@mtc.ca.gov or 415-778-6794

38