Presented by:

Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority

Tom ZlotkowskiExecutive DirectorJuly 17, 2014

Presentation for Presentation for

Connector Update - July, 2014Connector Update - July, 2014

Location and General Information

Project Description and History

Project Implementation and Phasing

Recent Activity and Accomplishments

Anticipated Next Steps

Scheduled Segment Milestones

Opportunities and Challenges

Project LocationProject Location

Selection of General Alignment

Elk Grove

Folsom

El Dorado County

Rancho Cordova Sacramento

County

Alignment Kammerer/Grant Line/White Rock Roads

Kammerer

Gra

nt Lin

e

White Rock

Length: 33.41 miles

Width: 4 to 6 lanes

Signals: 25 + -

Interchanges: 10

Speed Limit: 40-55 MPH

Sidewalk/Trail: Continuous

JPA SouthEast Connector:

From I-5 south of Elk Grove (Hood Franklin Road) through Rancho Cordova to Highway 50 in El Dorado County, just east of El Dorado Hills (Silva Valley Parkway

Project HistoryProject History

Studied by Caltrans in mid-90s Studies abandoned due to cost and priorities

JPA History 2004 Sacramento County Sales Tax Extension

Studied extensively by SACOG (2005-2006)

Selected Project Alignments/Governance recommended by SACOG

Joint Powers Authority Formed (2007)

JPA MakeupSacramento County

El Dorado County

City of Elk Grove

City of Rancho Cordova

City of Folsom

(one vote format)

Selection of General Alignment

Elk Grove

FolsomEl Dorado

CountyRancho Cordova

Sacramento County

Activities of Significance Activities of Significance

2011 Certification of PEIR and Selection of Preferred Alignment (Amended and Re-certified March, 2012)

2012 Economic Impact Analysis (December, 2012)

2012/2013 Design Guidelines and Committee Work (initial adoption, March, 2013; Rev. 3.0 Nov. 2013)

2013 Initial Draft Plan of Finance (Initial adoption, March, 2013; Rev. 2.0 Jan. 2014)

2013 Design-Build Legislation AB 401 (September 2013)

2014 Environmental Phasing Strategy (May 2014)

2014 Sacramento County General Plan Amendment (May 2014)

Programmatic Environmental Impact Report

Programmatic Environmental Impact Report

Programmatic Environmental Impact Report

Programmatic Environmental Impact Report

SACOG Phase 1 Study

(November 2006)

Pre-scoping (2008-2010)

Public Input Opportunity

Notice of Preparation (February 2010)

Public Input Opportunity

Scoping Meetings(February/March 2010)

Public Input Opportunity

Technical Studies

Draft EIR Circulated (March –May, 2011)

Public Input Opportunity

Final EIR/responses to comments (Minimum 10

days) (Aug/September 2011)

Public Input Opportunity

Final PEIR Public Hearings and

Certification (2011)

Public Input Opportunity

Board adoption of Corridor Alignment

Notice of Determination

JPA Member Agencies amend General Plans to

align with adopted corridor

Project Level Environmental Analysis

Begin

PEIR Certified March 2012 Selection of General Alignment Identification of Mitigation Measures Adoption of MMRP ECOS settlement agreement on legal

challenge Current Related Activities Explore

Mitigation Strategies through SSHCP

Complete General Plan Amendments

Project Level Environmental Documents

NEPA Determination

Economic Impact AnalysisEconomic Impact Analysis

Economic Impact AnalysisEconomic Impact Analysis

Construction $830.9 Million in New Economic Output 5,448 New Full Time Jobs $23.03 Million in New Indirect Business

Taxes

Importance of the Connector As Regional Accelerator and Catalyst

$2.5 Billion in New Output 25,015 New Jobs $1.06 Billion of new Labor Income $1.6 Billion of New Value Added (GRP) $182.2 Million in New Indirect Business

Taxes

Economic Impact AnalysisEconomic Impact Analysis

“This project has the SINGLE LARGEST OVERALL ECONOMIC IMPACT POTENTIAL compared to other projects (Airport, Downtown Arena) in terms of Increased Vibrancy and Overall Economic Prosperity for Region.”

Dr. Sanjay Varshney, Ph.D. Dean – CSUS Business

School

Project Design GuidelinesProject Design Guidelines

12

JPA Board

PDTProject Team TAC

SCC

SAC

Inpu

t

Ensures the Connector has the following characteristics:

Uniform in character, appearance, and blends with communities

Effectively located access to maximize efficiency of the corridor

Integrated modes of travel Well-coordinated, efficient traffic operations Implements sustainable solutions Maintains integrity of regional transportation

systems Cost-effective implementation of the project

Project DesignGuidelines

Project DesignGuidelines

Initial Plan of FinanceInitial Plan of Finance

Includes: Cost Estimate

methodology and breakdown by segment

Project implementation and phasing

Funding and Finance mechanisms

SEGMENT DESCRIPTION

A

4 laneexpressway, on Kammerer Rd from the I-5/Hood Franklin IC to Bruceville Rd & 6 lane Thoroughfare from Bruceville Rd to SR99

B4 to 6 lane thoroughfare, from SR 99 to Bond Rd

C4 lane roadway, on Grant Line Rd from Bond Rd to Calvine Rd (Sheldon Area)

D4 to 6 lane expressway, on Grant Line/White Rock Rd from Calvine Rd to the Sacramento‐El Dorado County line

E4 to 6 lane thoroughfare, on White Rock Rd from the County line to US 50/Silva Valley Pkwy IC

Project SegmentsProject Segments

A1 A2B

C

D1

D2

D3 E1E2

Bru

cevill

e

Rd

Bond Rd

Calvine Rd

Jackson Hwy

White Rock Rd

Latrobe Rd

99

I-5

County Line

5 Major Categories Used

(Project Delivery, ROW, ROW Administration, Environmental, Construction)

Project Cost EstimatesCost Estimate Methodology

Project Cost EstimatesCost Estimate Methodology

Major Segment Roadway Segment

Total Project Cost Estimate % of Total

A I-5 to State Route 99 $ 76,194,000 17%

B State Route 99 to Bond Road $ 56,746,000 12%

C Bond Road to Calvine Road $ 25,471,000 6%

D Calvine Road to El Dorado County Line $275,635,000 60%

EEl Dorado County Line to US-50/Silva Valley Parkway $ 22,354,000 5%

456,400,000$ 100%

Project Delivery Costs; 14%

Right-of-Way; 6%

Right-of-Way Administration;

1%

Environmental Mitigation; 5%

Construction (includes sus-

tainability), 62%

Construction Con-tingency; 12% Consistent with Project

PEIR

Project Delivery Method: Design-Build/CMGC/?

Broken Down by Segment

Project Segmentation: Smaller Sub-Segments for flexibility - A1, A2, B,

C, D1, D2…

Two–Phased Approach:Phase 1: Construct “Backbone Facility” - capacity for between five to fifteen years

Phase 2: Finish corridor for full buildout – six lane segments, interchange conversions

Project Implementation and Phasing

Project Implementation and Phasing

Major Segment Segment Roadway Segment

Phase 1 Cost Estimate

Phase 2 Cost Estimate Total Costs

A1 I-5 to Bruceville Road $ 44,444,304 $ 1,553,552 $ 45,997,856

A2 Bruceville Road to State Route 99 $ 24,099,838 $ 6,096,544 $ 30,196,382

B B State Route 99 to Bond Road $ 45,850,190 $ 10,896,296 $ 56,746,486

C C Bond Road to Calvine Road $ 24,810,822 $ 660,000 $ 25,470,822

D1 Calvine Road to Jackson Road $ 35,384,781 $ 15,336,192 $ 50,720,973

D2Jackson Road to White Rock/Grant Line Road $ 45,450,559 $ 61,139,733 $106,590,292

D3White Rock/Grant Line Road to Sacramento/El Dorado County Line $ 69,371,880 $ 48,951,704 $118,323,584

E1 El Dorado County Line to Latrobe $ 10,653,793 $ - $ 10,653,793

E2 Latrobe to US-50/Silva Valley Parkway $ 11,700,235 $ - $ 11,700,235

311,766,403$ 144,634,021$ 456,400,424$

A

D

E

Connector JPA Measure A Funds - $118.0M

Federal and State Regional Funds - $136.9M

Member Jurisdiction Developer Fees - $197.0M

Fair Share Contributions - $23.8M

Member Jurisdiction Direct Contributions - $2.3M

Potential Revenue Sources - $80M

Funding and Finance Mechanisms

Measure A; $118.00

Fed/State; $136.90

Dev. Fees; $197.00

Other Contribu-tions ; $23.80

Member Direct; $2.30

Potential; $80.00

Measure A Fed/State Dev. Fees

Other Contributions Member Direct Potential

Anticipated next stepsAnticipated next steps

Discussion, Development, and Execution of Reciprocal Use and Funding Agreements to Address: Funding contributions Timing and Sequencing of segment

construction Future access requests Overall JPA authority

Refine Alignment Right of Way Assessment and

Acquisition Further Technical Development

Schedule for segment milestones

Schedule for segment milestones

Segment

Segment A Kammerer Road

Segment D2Jackson to White Rock Road

Segment D3Prairie City to County Line

Segment ECounty Line to Latrobe

Schedule

Dec 2015 – certify NEPA document

Winter 2014 – Initiate PA/ED process: NEPA/CEQA

Fall 2014 – Initiate PA/ED process: CEQA

2014/2015 – Initiate PA/ED process w/ D3

Opportunities and ChallengesOpportunities and Challenges

Opportunities Stated project transportation benefits

Economic growth potential – Jobs!!

Provides opportunities for other necessary infrastructure

Single largest local road project in region will raise capabilities and capacities

Improved jurisdictional relations amongst members

Introduce design-build as procurement option

Opportunities and ChallengesOpportunities and Challenges

Challenges Stakeholder Outreach and education

Jurisdictional sovereignty and policy sensitivity

California enviro-political climate

Project “Champion” vacancy

Financing capacity and construction cash flow

Competing local government priorities

Lack of perceived “immediacy of need”

Advocacy deficiency

QuestionsQuestions

www.connectorjpa.net