Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Tri Valley Transport CITY C L AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 2, 2004 SUBJECT: Adoption of the Th-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan 2004 Update Report Prepared by: Melissa Morton, Public l/Vorks Director ATTACI-IMENTS: 1) Resolution, together with Exhibit "A" TH-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan 200~ Update 2) Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement 3) Adopted Rbsolution 87-03 4) Financial Report from the Tri-Valley Transportation COuncil Treasurer RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving the TH-Valley Transportation ~~'"~' Council Strategic Expenditure Plan 2004 Update FINANCIAL STATEMENT: There is no cost to the City associated with the development o~, the TH-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan 12004 Update. DESCRIPTION: On January 28, 2004, the TH-Valley Transportation douncil (TVTC) unanimously approved an update to its Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP), authorizing Staff to forward the plan to the seven-member jurisdictions for local adoption. The SEP is a policy document that ga,ides the expenditure of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) revenue and ret~resents a statement of priorities for transportation projects for the Tri-Valley area. The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement pertaining to the TH-Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation (JEPA) (Attachment 2) specifies that the SEP must be reviewed at least onc~ every two years by the TVTC, and each revision shall require unanimous approval by the TVTC, Th~ initial ' SEP was identified in the JEPA to fund one project - the TVTC's share of the 1-580/1-680 Inter,change Flyover project at $5.5 million. The current SEP was adopted by the TVTC in 1999 as tBe first amendment to the initial SEP and describes project priorities and the implementation schedule for funding ten other projects on the TVTDF' list over a 15-year period (as shown in Exhibit "A" to the Resoluti on). COPIES TO: Scott Haggerty, TVTC Chair ~ o:xrrrc~sEv Update\agst_2004 SEP Updateadoption. doc 1 ~0 Z ITEM NO. ~ The proposed SEP 2004 Update represents a second amendment to the SEP and incorporates the concurrences reached, and reflects the following actions taken, by the TVTC through an extensive two- year update process: 1. An interim adjustment in the TVTD Fee rates, including the allocation of $100,000 in TVTDF funds to fund the fee nexus study update. (Approved by the City Council on May 20, 2003 per Resolution 87-03 shown in Attachment 3); 2. The adoption of Addendum I to the JEPA to reflect the interim TVTD Fee adjustment. (Approved by the City Council on May 20, 2003 as part of Resolution 87-03 shown in Attachment 3); and 3. A proposed amendment, as reflected in the SEP 2004 Update, to advance a loan up to $0.5 million from the 1-580 HOV Lane project to be repaid in the future. This loan would be used to fu?d the utility relocation component of the Vasco Road Safety Improvements project. The total revenue credited to the TVTDF trust account through January 2004 is approximately $22.1 million, including fees remitted by member agencies and earned interest. From these funds, a cumulative total of $15 2 million has been disbursed to TVTDF projects, leaving a balance of approximatel'y $6.9 million in the trust account (shown in Attachment 4). The TVTDF disbursements ~nclude the ~recent appropriations of $0.8 million to the 1-580/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications project and $4.0 million to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station project. ! The proposed SEP 2004 Update reflects current revenue projections based on the interim TV D Fee adjustment. The plan also provides updated information concerning estimated costs, status, funding plan and scheduling targets for individual TVTDF projects. The TVTC funding allocations approved for TVTDF projects under the current SEP Will remain unchanged under the proposed SEP 2004 ~pdate. Most of the project funding is generated by sources other than the TVTD Fee program, including ~386.7 million in non-TVTDF funds, equivalent to 50% of the total project cost estimate of $763 m~lhon. The current TVTC project allocations only cover approximately 6.7% of the total project cost, leaving $325 in unfunded cost. In order to adopt the proposed SEP 2004 Update, the governing bodies of all seven-member jurisdictions must act to approve the plan. It is anticipated that the SEP will undergo another review within the next two years following completion of the fee nexus study update and subsequent TVTC actions. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the Th-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan 2004 Update. Page 2 %~,~. RESOLUTION NO. - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTION OF THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL STRATEGIC EXPENDITURE PLAN 2004 UPDATE WHEREAS, each of the Tri-Valley jurisdictions adopted the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) for the Th-Valley Transportation Development Fees (TVTDF); and ' WHEREAS, in compliance with the JEPA requirements, the Tri-Valleyjurisdictions approved the first amendment to the Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) in 1999; and WHEREAS, the JEPA specifies that the SEP must be reviewed at least once every two y~ars by the Tri-Valiey Transportation Council (TVTC) and each revision shall require unanimous approval lby the TVTC; and WHEREAS, the first amendment to the SEP encompassed eleven regional transportation improvement projects, as listed in Section 8 of the JEPA; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of the first amendment to the SEP, the 1-580/1-680 Inter6hange project has been completed and other projects are currently under design or construction; and WHEREAS, an interim adjustment in the TVTD Fee rates, including the allocation of $100,000 in TVTDF funds to finance the fee nexus study update, was adopted by the seven-member jurisdictions in 2003; and WHEREAS, Addendum I to the JEPA was adopted by the seven-member jurisdictions in 2003 to reflect the interim TVTD Fee adjustment; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2003, the City of Dublin adopted Resolution 87-03 approving implementation of the proposed TVTD Fee adjustment and Addendum I to the JEPA, and amending Resolution 89-98 which established a TVTD Fee for future developments within the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, as part of the SEP 2004 Update, the TVTC agreed to advance a loan o( up to $0.5 million from the 1-580 HOV Lane project (to be repaid in the future) to fund the utility relqcation component of the Vasco Road Safety Improvements project; and · WHEREAS, the TVTC funding allocations approved for TVTDF projects under the current SEP will remain unchanged under the proposed SEP 2004 Update; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate at this time to update the SEP to reflect current revenue projections based on the interim TVTD Fee adjustment, the completion status of TVTDF projects, changes to project funding plans and scheduling targets, and project funding priorities; and WHEREAS, the TVTC unanimously approved the SEP 2004 Update during its meeting .on January 28, 2004, and authorized forwarding the plan to the seven-member jurisdictions for, local adoption; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Th-Valley Transportation Council Strhtegic Expenditure Plan 2004 Update, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby approved. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of March, 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mawr ATTEST: City Clerk G:ITVTCISEP Update[reso_2004 SEP Update adoption.doc 2 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION - 04 TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL STRATEGIC EXPENDITURE PLAN 2004 UPDATE WITH INTERIM FEE ADJUSTMENT "PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION" I. Introduction II. Project Descriptions and Status Reports III. Project Priorities IV. Project Funding V. Project Sponsors Table 1 - TVTDF Funding Plan Table 2 - Project Revenue Sources I. INTRODUCTION The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) and its constituent members adopted the "Tn- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance" (TVTP/AP) in 199.~. The Plan marked a common understanding and agreement on the Tri-Valley's transportatidn concerns and directions for improvements. Among other things, the TVTP/AP presented eleven specific transportation improvements to be given high.priority for funding and implementatidn (Table 1). These eleven projects were subsequently included in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF), which was adopted by the TVTC and ratified by all seven-member jurisdictions in 1998. In 1999, the TVTC adopted a Strategic Expenditure Plan ("Expenditure Plan") for the TVTDF to establish a funding plan for the regional fee projects. Since that adoption, a total of $20,085,877 million in fees and $131,383 in interest were remitted by member agencies through June 30, 2003, bringing the subtotal of revenue remitted to $20,217,260. The TVTDF Trust Fund earned $754,461 in interest income over this time period to bring the to~al revenue credited to the fund to $20,971,721. From these funds a cumulative total of $10,453,082 has been disbursed, leaving a balance-of $10,518,639 to spend on the TVTDF projects at the end of fiscal year 2003-04. In July 2000, the TVTC updated the TVTP/AP, which was included in the 2000 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Subsequently, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) issued the 2001 Update to the Regional Transportation Plan. In addition, new funding sources, such as the renewal of Measure B in Alameda County, have been approved by the voters. This update to the Expenditure Plan incorporates and builds upon these updates to the regional and sub-regional transportation outlook for the Tri-Valley area. In addition, some of the original list of transportation improvement projects have been completed, and schedules and funding for others have changed. Furthermore, an interim fee adjustment, approved by the TVTC at its April 2003 meeting and subsequently adopted by all seven member jurisdictions, are reflected in this plan. This report summarizes progress-to-date on implementation of the original projects and includes revisions to the Expenditure Plan. Amendments to the Expenditure Plan require the unanimous approval of the seven TVTC member jurisdictions. Following approval of this Final Revised Draf~ Strategic Expenditure Plan by the TVTC, it will be referred to the member jurisdictions for comment and ratification. Revenues from the TVTDF program have been applied to several of the 1999 Expenditure Plan's original list of high priority projects: · 1-580/I-680 Interchange The Expenditure Plan appropriated $5.6 million to the Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA) as the "local match" for this regional improvement during fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. This amount included approximately $4.2 million in funds provided to the project to fulfill its funding needs and $1.4 million in reimbursements to the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton for prior contributions. This project was completed in June 2002 and the TVTDF obligation for the funding of the project has been satisfied. 2 Revised: 2/12/2004 · State Route 84 Corridor Improvements The Expenditure Plan initially programmed $1.5 million to the City of Livermore for completion of preliminary engineering and environment review for improvements to State Route 84 between 1-580 and 1-680. During fiscal year 1999/00, $1.2 million was appropriated to the City of Livermore, as requested, for preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR). The PSR has been prepared and is expected ~o be approved by Caltrans in Spring 2003. · 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange The Expenditure Plan appropriated $1.6 million !n fiscal year 2002/03 for improvements to the 1,680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange on the Dublin/San Ramon border. Design of this project was completed in 2003, with construction to expected begin in Winter 2004. · West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station The Expenditure Plan approPriated $4.0 million to West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station project in fiscal year 2003/04. This project has moved closer to implementation as an innovative private/public partnership involving the Cities ~f Dublin and Pleasanton, BART, and a partnering private developer. Additionally, several of the remaining Expenditure Plan projects have been completed or are advancing toward construction: · 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road) Preliminary Engineering and Environmental review for this project have been completed. Final design is nearlY complete, with construction slated to begin in fiscal year 2004/05. · 1-580/Foothili Road/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications The Expenditure Plain' initially programmed a total of $1.6 million for this project. $0.8 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2003/04, with the remaining to be appropriated in fiscal years 2009/10 arid 2010/11. Project construction is cUrrently underway for the proposed improvements on t~he Dublin side of the freeway only. This portion of the project is referred to as Phase 1, arid Phase 2 will consist of all of the proposed improvements on the Pleasanton side of t,he freeway. Pleasanton has elected not to implement Phase 2 at this time. The Dublin side oftBe freeway currently experiences safety issues related to traffic weaving from the diagon~al westbound off-ramp to make a lef~ turn at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Bouleva,t'd intersection. This traffic weaving condition is critical due to the close proximity of Dublin Boulevard to the 1-580 interchange. The project will create a s~gnahzed off-ramp ~ntersect~on, which Would eliminate this weaving problem. Phase 1 project cons. truct~on is expected to be completed in Winter 2004. The Phase 2 project on the Pleasanton side will occur in tl~e future. · 1-680 I-IOV Lanes (Sunol Grade) High Occupancy Vehicle (HDV) lanes on northbound a~td southbound 1-680 over the Sunol Grade were included in the TVTP/AP and in the Expenditure Plan, although no funds were appropriated for this project. Subsequently, the ~I- 680 HDV lanes over the Sunol Grade benefited from Federal and State attention, and were funded by those sources. At this time, the HDV lanes are under constructiOn, and no TVTDF funding appears to be needed to complete this project.. 3 Revised: 2/12/20~4 · Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements The City of San Ramon recently completed . I improvements to Crow Canyon Road from Bolhnger Canyon Road to the Alameda County Line. The improvements included an extension of the westbound truck climbing lane, and widening in the eastbound direction to provide for an exclusive right-turn lane at Bollinger Canyon Road. The transmon to a two-lane roadway at the County Line was also ~mproved, and a major landslide was stabilized. The remaining work on this project includes safe~y improvements on approximately 7 mile segment of Crow Canyon Road from East Casti-o Valley Boulevard in Alameda County to the vicinity of the Alameda County/Contra Costa County limit line. This project will consider design alternatives for roadway alignment, lane and shoulder widths, and roadway curvature for enhanced traffic safety and operations on Crow Canyon Road within Alameda County. · Vasco Road While this project was initially included as part of the Expenditure Plan, r~o funding was initially programmed for this project. During fiscal year 2003/04, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council authorized a loan of up to $0.5 million for the utility relocation portion of the project from the 1-580 HOV Lane Project, contingent upon certain conditions detailed in the TVTC action of October 22, 2003. Further, the TVTC directed that this project will be included for consideration in the next update of the Fee Nexus Study. Following are updated summaries of the remaining Expenditure Plan projects, focusing on revisions to their schedules and funding plans. The project summary sheets include the projects' descriptions, schedules and funding plans. No new projects are proposed to be added to the Expenditure Plan at this time. The funding and scheduling targets from the individual projects have been compiled in Table 1, yielding an estimate of the cash flow requirements and revenue estimates for the TVTDF Expenditure Plan. Table 2 shows sources of funding for the eleven high priority projects, including TVTDF funds. Since the TVTDF is a development fee, which is not appropriate for securing bonded debt, the Expenditure Plan is based on a "pay-as-you-go" balancing of projected revenues and expenditures over the term of the Plan. 4 Revised: 2/12/2004 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND STATUS REPORTS The eleven projects included in the TVTDF Proofam are described on the following pages. The!e descriptions include the involved agencies, the current cost estimates, the status o£ the project, t~he current gunding situation for the project, the schedule, and a synopsis of the need for the project. Thi~'s · I information has been obtained fi.om a variety of sources and represents the most current available information on each project. The locations of these projects are described in Figure A. Maps showih~g the location and limits of each project area are included for reference. The TVTDF projects are as follows: 1. 1-580/I-680 FLYOVER AND HOOK RAMPS 2A. STATE ROUTE 84 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMEIqIS - 1-580 TO 1-680 2B. ISABEL ROUTE 84/I-580 INTERCHANGE 3. 1-680 AUXILIARY LANES BETWEEN BOLL1NGER CANYON ROAD AND DIABLO ROAD 4. WEST DUBLIN-PLEASANTON BART STATION 5. I-580 HOV LANES FROM TASSAJARA ROAD TO VASCO ROAD 6. 1-680 HOV LANES FROM STATE ROUTE 84 TO TOP OF SUNOL GRADE 7. 1-580fFOOTHILL ROAD-SAN RAMON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODII~ICATIONS 8. 1-680/ALCOSTA BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS 9. CROW CANYON ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 10. VASCO ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 11. EXPRESS BUS SERVICE 5 Revised: 2/12/2004 1.680 Auxiliary Lanes ~ 8. ~.VaSco ?' 1.6801AIcosta '" Rd. i Crow Interchange ,~Ca~nyon o ° ~ ~ · ~.~- ~ ~ ~ 7. ~ 1. 5. ~ l~80~oothil~Sa. '~" Flyover !-580 HOV Ramon Interchange ~ ~{~, ~ST A¥~ BART Station Rt. 84 Corridor B 1-680 HOV LEGEND Not t~ Scale m Project Location TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure Index Map A II 8~-202 - 1/99 - LH Pro,iect No. 1 1-580 -680 Flyover and Hook Ramps InvolVed Agencies Caltrans and the Alameda County Transportation Authority Description The project consists of the construction of a southbound to eastbound flyover, a northbound to eastbound direct connector, southbound on and off hook ramps and a northbound on ramp. Cost Estimate The total project cost is approximately $120 million. Status The project is COMPLETE. Funding Most of the project is funded by Measure B. TVTC initially appropriated $5.6 million in TVTDF match funds, including approximately $4.2 in funds provided to the project to fulfill its funding needs and $1.4 million in reimbursements to the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton for prior contributions. Schedule The project is COMPLETE. Need The project was approved by the voters of Alameda County as a portion of the Measure B sales tax program. 6 Revised: 2/12/2004 Construct Hook Ramps Previous Improvement · Remove. Ramp Construct Flyover Remov~ Remove Ramp =o~struct Direct Connector LEGEND North ' ~ Project Location Not tq Scale TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure 1-580/I-680 Flyover and Hook Ramps (Completed June 2002) 1 I I I I 89-202 - 6/02 - CK Project No. 2A State Route 84 Corridor Improvements: 1-580 to 1-680 Involved Agencies Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, Alameda County, and Caltrans Description This road improvement project will be constructed in several stages with] a variety of funding sources. The ultimate configuration is expected lo consist of six lanes on Isabel Avenue from 1-580 to Stanley Boulevard an~d four lanes from Stanley Boulevard to 1-680. The total length of the projelct is approximately 10 miles. , Cost Estimate Total project cost is $254 million for the roadway portions of the project. (See Project No. 2B for the companion 1-580 interchange portion). Status In December 2003, State Route 84 was relocated from First and Holmes stree ts through downtown Livermore to the Isabel Avenue Corrdior connecting to 1-580 at the Airway Boulevard Interchange. Route 84 is mostly a two-lane undividbd roadway between 1-580 and 1-680 with short four-lane divided sections between Jack London Boulevard and Airway Boulevard, and also approaching 1-680. The 1 PSR identifies Route 84 to be improved to expressway standards with four anes between 1-680 and Stanley Boulevard and six lanes between Stanley Boulevai'd and a new interchange at 1-580. The TVTC funded ($1,164,000) preparation o~ a Project Study Report (PSR) for this project. The PSR is complete and was approved by Caltrans in September 2003. The PSR defines this project identifies implementation phases and the costs associated with those phas6s. Alameda County's new Measure B. program includes $70 million for! a four-lane facility from 1-580 to Vallecitos Road plus possible improvemer/ts through the Pigeon Pass section of Route 84. Funding The TVTC allocates $24 million in future TVTDF funds for this project. Schedule An initial phase project ($41.9 million) from Isabel Avenue through Pigeon Pass could begin in 2003/04 and be completed in 2009/10. This lint!al phase includes truck-climbing lanes, which could be constructed by Caltrans as part of their SHOPP funded safety improvement project to be completed in 2006 There is no current schedule for completion of the new · Measure B project to widen Isabel Avenue to four lanes between 1-580 arid Vallecitos Road. Project Need The project would relieve traffic congestion on portions of 1-680 and 1-5~0 in Tri-Valley as well as improve access to regional routes from portions 0f Livermore and Pleasanton. The existing two-lane roadway between Livermore and 1-680 is operating at capacity during peak commute periods. / 7 Revised: 2/12/20~)4 segmept (~ stag~ 1: constd~ct initial interchange with 2 lane overpass; extend Portola ,See Project 2B to isabel and remove Portola ramps, description Stage 2: Construct 6 lane overpass/.:.,/~ and ultimate interchange. ./ 1~ asanton · ~ Livermore Segment (~) Construct 4/6 lane expressway. Segment (~ Stage 1: Construct uphill truck lanes; improve deficient curves. Stage 2: Construct 4 lane expressway. Note: Segment (~ is TVTDF Project 2B Segments (~ and (~) are TVTDF Pr°ject 2A LEGEND North Not to ~Scale ~ Project Location TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure State Route 84 Corri. dor Improvements 1-580 to 1-680 2A III 89-202 - 3/02 - LH Pro,iect No. 2B Isabel Route 84/I-580 Interchange Involved Agencies City of Livermore and Caltrans Description This project consists of a new partial-cloverleaf interchange on Isabel Avenue/Route 84 at 1-580. The ultimate configuration includes a 6-lane overcrossing. The interchange project will be constrUcted in two phases. The project includes removal of ramps at the adjacent Portola AvenUe interchange and construction of a new roadway connection on the noffh side ofi-580 between Portola Avenue and the new interchange. Cost Estimate The total cost of the interchange is $98 million. The initial Phase I projelct is estimated to cost $70 million, and the Phase II project to complete the interchange is estimated to cost $28 million. Status A Project Study Report for the interchange has been approved. The ED/PR for Phase I is underway, and it is expected to be approved in 2004. Phase I design will begin in 2004. Construction is expected to be complete in 2008. Funding Funding for the Phase I interchange includes Measure B ($25 million), STIP ($27 million), TEA 21 ($10.4 million), and City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fees ($7.6 million). Funding for Phase II will be City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fees and other funding that may become available. Schedule The initial Phase I interchange will be complete in 2008, and the full interchange is expected to be complete by 2025. Project Need The interchange project will provide direct access from 1-580 to future State Route 84 located along the Isabel Avenue corridor in Livermore · I This project will improve traffic conditions in downtown Llvermore as well as partially relieve traffic conditions in the 1-580 and 1-680 corridors in T~'i- Valley. 8 Revised: 2/12/2004 N. CANYON PKWY. Construct \ New InterChange \\ \ To N. Livermore Ave, ~1-- To Airway Blvd. Interchange AIRWAY BLVD. LEGEND North Not to Scale ~ Project Location 'I'VTC Expenditure plan Figure Isabel Route 84/!-580 Interchange 2B I I I II 89-202 · 3/02 - LH Project No. 3 '1-680 Auxiliary Lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road in San Ramon and Diablo Road in Danville Involved Agencies Contra Costa Transportation Authority and Cities of Danville and San Ramon Description This project will construct both northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes in t~he 1-680 corridor from Bollinger Canyon Road in San Ramon to Diablo Road ~n Danville. These improvements include an additional 12-foot lane between interchanges in the northbound and southbound directions, retaining walls, arid sound walls in the corridor. Also included are ramp improvements and structuke widening over Laurel Drive between Sycamore Valley Road and Diablo Roa3. The project will be constructed in three segments: (1) Diablo to Sycamore; (¢) Sycamore to Crow Canyon; and (3) Crow Canyon to Bollinger. Cost Estimate Segment 1 $13.8 million Segment 2 $33.2 million Segment 3 $8.6 million TOTAL: $55.6 million (includes project development and construction.) ' Status A Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) was completed in February 2000. T~e environmental document was approved in October 2002. I Funding The project will be funded with a variety of sources, including STIP, Measure C, and development fees (TVTDF: $12.0 million and SCC JEPA: $8.5 million). The TVTC programmed $12 million in future TVTDF funds for this project. Schedule Final Design for Segments 1 and 3 is nearly complete. Assuming that regiortal · I fees can be advanced, construction of both of these segments could begin m fiscal year 2004/05. Construction of Segment 2 is scheduled to start in 2007, and is dependent upon securing additional STIP funds. Project Need Traffic studies of future conditions along 1-680 indicate that peak hour traffic volumes on the existing six mixed flow lanes and two HOV lanes already exceeds capacity at some locations. The auxiliary lane project is not intended to increase freeway capacity per se, but will mitigate operational problems caused by merging and diverging vehicles at interchanges. The highest need, in terms of alleviatihg existing congestion, is in Segment 1. 9 Revised: 2/12/2004 ~PiiCAL AUXILIARY LANE SCHEMATIC auxiliary lane · ~ ~,~.///~~ ~ off-ramp'~ SYCAMORE VALL?~./ ~'~,f~ Construct Auxiliary Lanes RD. No~ Not to Scale LEGEND minim, Proleot Location TVTC Expenditure Plan , Figure 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes 3 II II II G9-202 - 11/98 - LH Pro,iect No. 4' WeSt Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station Involved Agencies BART, City of Dublin, and City of Pleasanton Description The project is the construction of the West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station and related transit improvements. The project is a joint public and private venture to build a station on the active BART line, in the median ofi-580. The related transit improvements such as the patron parking garages, kiss-ride and bus drop- offs will be located on both the north (Dublin) and south (Pleasanton) sides of thc freeway on property owned by BART. Cost Estimate $53 million ($58 million-escalated to midpoint of construction) in 2003 dollars. Status Included in Track 1 of the adopted MTC 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Included in Track 2 of the adopted renewal of the Measure B Alameda County transportation sales tax. The West Dublin Specific Plan (including the transit oriented development) was adopted by the City of Dublin in December 2000. The EIR for the station was certified by the BART Board in April 2001. The agreement between the Master Developer and BART has been negotiated for the project. The proposed transit village around the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station will likely include residential units, hotel facilities, and office space. Funding The project will be funded utilizing public and private financing mechanis - available under the Califomia Infrastructure Finance Act. Fund sources inclu, le lease revenues, tax increments, station revenues and grant sources. The Alame~ la County Congestion Management Agency has a $I0 million commitment to the project (all of which has been programmed as of January 2004). Though ~e project is included in the Measure B program, its placement in Tier 2 makes it unlikely to receive actual revenues without a dramatm increase m sales tax receipts over the next twenty years. The TVTC has allocated $4 million !in TVTDF funds for this project during fiscal year 2003/04. Schedule Bonds to finance the project have a target sale date of Fall 2004, with final design and construction activities to commence within a year of the bond sale. The project has a current planned opening date in Spring of 2007. Project Need The construction of the proposed West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station will address demand that exists within the Th-Valley for BART service. 10 Revised: 2/12/2004 Existing Dublin-Pieasanton BART Construct W. Du~ BART Station ~-,. North Not to Scale LEGEND D Project ~ocetion TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Improvements 4 I 89-202 - 11/98 - LH Project No. 5 1-580 HOV Lanes from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road Involved Agencies Cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore, Alameda County, and Caltran Description Construction of approximately 8.2 miles of High Occupancy Vehic!e (HOV) lanes on 1-580 from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road. After addition of these HOV lanes, this segment of 1-580 will have a total of four mixed lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. Three alternative locations four the HOV lanes are being considered: Alt. 1) in the existing median, Alt. 2) designating the' inner-most lanes as HOV lanes and widening, for ~n additional mixed lane on the outside of the existing roadway, and Alt. 3) wldemng the median for future BART and constructing an additional lane on the outside of the roadway. Cost Estimate Costs of the three alternatives are $80 million for Alternative 1, $1228 million for Alternative 2, and $200.5 million for Alternative 3. Status A Project Study Report for the project has been completed and approved by Caltrans. Caltrans is proceeding with environmental studies of the three alternatives. The environmental work should be complete by 2004. The Policy Advisory Committee on the 1-580 Corridor/BART To Livermore Study has passed a motion recommending that a future transit alternative in the corridor should be located in the 1-580 median and that Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative for the future HOV lanes. Funding $25 million in state Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds have been appropriated for this project. $45 million of future STIP funding !is planned. Additional funding is needed. The TVTC programmed $8 millio~n in future TVTDF funds for this project. Schedule The environmental work for this project should be complete in 2004. ~t that time, a decision on which alternative to pursue probably will be made~. Project Need This project is needed to increase overall person-trip capacity in the 1-580 corridor. Traffic forecasts show that travel demand on 1-580 through the Tri-Valley will exceed the capacity of the existing freeway. Adding HO~V lanes wOuld encourage carpooling and provide travel timesavings ~or existing as well as future express bus services in the corridor. 11 Revised: 2/12/2004 VA$CO RD. Z C3 ' 13. \ / N. I, JVERMORE AVE. Pro,iect No. 6 1-680 HOV Lanes from State Route84 to Top of Sunol Grade Involved Agencies Caltrans and Alameda County Description Construct approximately 3.5 miles (seven total lane-miles) of HOV lan'~s on 1-680 from SR 84 ramps to the top of Sunol Grade at Mission PasS. After adding these lanes, 1-680 Would have three mixed lanes and one HOV lane in each direction of this segment. Cost estimate Construction of the southbound 1-680 HOV lanes between SR 84 arid Calaveras Boulevard in Milpitas is 'expected to cost approximately $~0 million. The portion within the Tri-Valley area (SR 84 to the top of t~e Sunol Grade) constitutes about 35 percent of the total mileage, or approximately $29 million. Status This project to construct the highest priority southbound HOV lanes hhs committed funding from other sources. It is likely that the northbou6d HOV lane will receive outside funding also. This is a regional project th}tt involves three counties, the CMAs, Caltrans, and MTC. In addition, the 1- 680 Phase II Corridor Study will address future needs of the corridor. Funding STIP, Federal, TCRP, and potential ACTIA funds will be utilized. No TVTDF funds are included for this project. Schedule The southbound project was environmentally approved in September 200.0. The northbound project environmental studies are underway and a drfif~ document was circulated to the public in 2002. Project Need The southbound lanes of 1-680 through the Sunol Grade constitute le second most congeSted commute in the Bay Area. Congestion occurs foI a period of three to four hours each weekday. 12 Revised: 2/12/20~)4, NILE8 CANYo/ Construct HOV Lanes LEGEND North mmm~ Project Location Not to Scale TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure 1-680 HOV Lanes From SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade · (Tri-Valley Portion) 6 ! II 89-202 - 11/96 - LH pro,iect No. 7 1-580/FOothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications Involved Agencies City of Dublin and City of Pleasanton i Description To enhanCe safety and improve traffic operations at the interchange, the design of the existing 1-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road four-quadrar~t cloverleaf interchange will be modified, replacing the westbound and eastbound off loops with diagonal ramps. The two remaining off-ram~s would be signalized at their intersections with the local street. In addition, the eastbound diagonal off-ramp will be widened to two lanes and a 700- foot eastbound auxiliary lane on 1-580 will be constructed. The project Is located within the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. Cost Estimate $4 million for the entire project Status Project construction is currently underway for the proposed improvemen[s on the Dublin side of the freeway only. This portion of the project referred to as Phase 1, and Phase 2 will consist of all of the proposed improvements on the Pleasanton side of the freeway. Pleasanton h~ts elected not to implement Phase 2 at this time. / Funding The total cost to construct Phase 1 is approximately $2.0 million; the Ci!y of Dublin will use $1.2 million of its 20% set-aside TVTDF revenues Io partially fund Phase 1 construction. The TVTC appropriated $0.8 million in TVTDF funds in fiscal year 2003/04 for the Phase 1 project in Dublih. The TVTC also allocates an additional $0.8 million in future TVTDF fun~s for the Phase 2 project in Pleasanton. Schedule Construction of Phase 1 is expected to be completed in Winter 2004 o address traffic safety issues. Project Need The project is needed to ensure adequate access to/from West Dublin- Pleasanton BART station. In addition, both the Pleasanton and Dubl}n sides of the freeway currently experience safety issues related to tr~c weaving from the diagonal off-ramps to make a left turn at the fiist intersection removed from the interchange This traffic weaving conditiOn is more severe on the Dublin side of the freeway due to the close proximity of Dublin Boulevard to the 1-580 interchange. The project would createl a signalized off-ramp intersection, which would eliminate the weaviOg problem. 13 Revised: 2/12/20~4 .... . .~Phase 2 Phase % ' "',Install Relocated Ramp · . ~ " Remove Install Traffic Signals. t t SAN RAMON RD. I t I ! /.... I I I I ! t " % % ~ Remove Ramps' t . nstall ~ Install "" Traffic · Relocated .." Signals · ', Ramp % % Auxiliary Lane ! I I I I / Ndrth - "/ Not toi Scale TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure 1-580/Foothill Boulevard Interchange Modifications 7 II IIII 69-202 · 2/02 - CK Pro,iect No. 8 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange Modifications Involved Agencies Caltrans and City of San Ramon Description Reconstruct the southbound off' ramp and add a new on ramp at tt~e 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange to improve operations at the interchange. This project includes closing the existing southbound ramp and removing a traffic signal, building new southbound on/off ramp, s to the north of Alcosta Boulevard, and connecting to San Ramon Valley Boulevard with a new signalized intersection. Cost Estimate~ $9.6 million Status The PSR for this project, which was funded by Measure C, is complet& This project is included in the City of San Ramon CIP program and project design was completed in 2003. The SCC JEPA designates $2.66 million for the project. TVTC appropriated $1.6 million to this project in fiscal year 2002/03. Project construction is expected to start in Winter 2004. Funding $2.66 million is identified in the Southern Contra Costa JEPA for this project. The TVTC appropriated $1.6 million to this project in fiscal year 2002/03. Other funding sources include $4.34 million in local funds and $3.5 million in 1998 STIP funding. Schedule See Status above. Project Need The current interchange is a tight diamond with a busy intersection of tWo arterials immediately adjacent to the interchange. Reconstruction of the southbound ramps into a buttonhook design will remove the middle Of three closely spaced traffic signals on Alcosta and improve safety and capacity in the area. The interchange traffic volumes are projected to increase as a result of growth in the area. ~ $13.5 million including improvements to the northbound on and off ramps. 14 Revised: 2/12/2004 Construct New Ram and Traffic Sig Remove Ramp North Not to Scale TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure 1-680/Alcosta BOulevard Interchange Modifications 8 89-202 - 11/98 - LH Pro,iect No. 9 Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements Involved Agencies Alameda County ~ Description Safety improvements on approximately 7 miles of Crow Canyon Road frown East Castro Valley Boulevard in Alameda County to the vicinity of t~e Alameda/Contra Costa County limit line. This project will identi~ alternatives that address considerations such as roadway realignment, l~.~e and shoulder width, roadway curvature and design speed to improve tral~c safety and operations. Cost Estimate $25 million Status Project is currently in an advanced stage of project development. Funding The Alameda County CMA has identified $3.4 million of Tier 1 funds and $2.7 million of Tier 2 funds for this project in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. Schedule The Development Phase is expected to be finalized by Winter 2004. Project Need This project will provide improved roadway safety by straightening sharp curves as well as improving traffic flow 15 Revised: 2/12/2004 \, Construct , Safety ~ Improvements '\ \ \ \ ~ot to LEGEND ~ Pronj~t ~o~ion WTG Expondituro Plan Crow Can~on ~oad Oafot~ Impr°~om,nt~ Pro,iect No. 10 Vasco Road Safety ImprOvements InVolved Agencies Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority Description This safety project will straighten the alignment of the most northerly on,~- mile segment of Vasco Road. This project includes shoulder widening, curves, grade modifications, and the addition of truck climbing lanes t.o improve traffic operations. During the environmental phase, the need to relocate underground high-pressure gas lines was identified and the project cost was increased. A PSR for Phase II is currently being prepared. Cost Estimate $40 million for a three-mile segment Status A PSR, Survey, Preliminary Design and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Phase I have been completed. The next phase of right of way acquisiti6n and utility relocation' will start during Summer 2004. Design lis approaching 70% completion. The NEPA process will be completed during Summer 2004. The construction cost estimate for Phase I, whific includes the utility relocation, is $19.2 million.) Funding Funding for the project was included in the Traffic Congestion Relief Program, 2002 STIP, and local funds, which includes government tax arid developer fees. However, there is a shortfall for this project due to relocation of underground high-pressure gas lines, overhead power transmission lines, and telephone lines that conflict with the propos6d roadway alignment. Schedule Construction is expected to start Summer 2004 Project Need This project is needed as a safety improvement. It is intended to mat~:h recent two lane improvements completed in Contra Costa County. It would eliminate sharp curves, narrow lanes and add shoulders. Althou h the projected 2010 volumes exceed capacity of the existing and planned two-lane roadway, this project is not intended to address the potent!al capacity deficiency. Additionally, this project will allow a propos6d express bus route between the City of Brentwood, the LawrenCe Livermore National Laboratory, and business centers along the 1-580/1-680 corridors. 16 Revised: 2/12/2004 Construct Vasco Rd. ~,/Improvements ~ I Livermore City Limit · r~ RAYMOND RD. North Not to Scale LEGEND ~ ~ Project LOcation TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure Vasco Road Safety Improvements 10 II II II 89-202 - 2/02 - CK Project No. 11 Express Bus Service Involved Agencies Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority Description Capital costs to cover express routes. Service will be provided to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station from the BART owned Greenville Ro~td property. Service to run on weekdays during AM and PM peak hours with headways consistent with BART train headways and timed to meet all trains during the scheduled service hours. Project implementation ~is contingent upon construction of 1-580 HOV lanes (see Project No. 5). Cost Estimate $2.5 million, for capital costs only Status LAVTA has proposed this as an alternative (both short and long term) to the 1-580 Corridor study group charged with examining future BART-tO- Livermore options. This option will assist in the development ofmitigati0n efforts for the 1-580 corridor traffic congestion issues. Funding The Alameda County CMA has identified $5.0 million of Tier 1 funds for this project in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. This project may be eligible for the Regional Gas Tax, and may be included in the new Alameda County Measure B sales tax program. In addition to other existing transit funding sources, private sector funding from either the business or residential development community could be cultivated to match specific express route costs. No TVTDF funding is currently programmed for this project at this time. Schedule To be determined. Because this project requires no PSR or preliminary engineering work, the amount of time from concept to implementation is relatively short. Project Need Express Bus Service will provide the Tri-Valley with a flexible alternative to heavy rail or auto facilities. Flexibility is a benefit, allowing for changes in the access of successful employment centers. As development in axed beyond the Tri-Valley continues, congestion and commute times will grow and frustrated commuters wdl continue to seek out alternate ways to get to work. Express bus routes can transport riders directly to job sites and they can link people to existing and highly successful fixed transit lines such as BART and the Altamont Commuter Express. 17 Revised: 2/12/2004 III. PROJECT PRIORITIES In 1999, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council established nine priorities as part of the First Amendment to the Strategic Expenditure Plan. Priority 1 was to fund the local share of the 1- 580/I-680 Flyover and Hook Ramps Project. Approximately $5.6 million in TVTDF funds was provided as the local match for this regional improvement. This project is now complete and the TVTDF obligation for the funding of the project has been fulfilled. The TVTC has also provided $1,164,000 in TVTDF funds for the preparation of the Project Study Report (PSR) for the State Route 84 Corridor Improvements project between 1-580 and 1- 680 (Project 2A). This PSR is complete and was approved by Caltrans in September 2003. Caltrans has prepared the PSR for the 1-580 HOV Lanes project from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road (Project 5) using State Traffic Congestion Relief Programs funds. Caltrans has also prepared the PSR and the Project Report (PR) for the 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes project between Bollinger Canyon Road and Diablo Road (Project 3). Since the last Expenditure Plan update, the TVTC has appropriated $1.6 million for Project 8 (I-680/Alcosta Boulevard), $0.8 million for Project 7 (I-580/San Ramon Road), and $4.0 million for Project 4 (West Dublin/Pleasant0n BART station). TVTDF funding is limited, and it is important to direct the funds to the highest priority projects. A balance of $10,518,639 (as of June 30, 2003, and does not reflect all of the appropriations listed above) is currently available in the TVTDF Trust account to spend on the TVTDF projects. Criteria identified in the J-EPA to guide priorities are Project Readiness, which is the ability to move directly to final design and construction; Project Funding, which is the ability to leverage outside funding for the project; and Project Effectiveness, which is the ability of the project to address congestion and/or safety concerns. Based on these criteria, the priorities established by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council for this Second Amendment to the Strategic Expenditure Plan are as follows. A. INITIAL PRIORITIES Priority 1. Fund $0.8 million of the "Phase 1" 1-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications project (Project 7) in 2002/03..Project construction is currently underway for the proposed improvements on the Dublin side of the freeway only. This portion of the project'is referred to as Phase 1, and Phase 2 will consist of all of the proposed improvements on the Pleasanton side of the freeway. Pleasanton has elected not to implement Phase 2 at this time. The total cost estimate for the Phase 1 project is $2.0 million. It will be funded wiih approximately $1.2 million in Dublin's 20% set-aside TVTDF funds and the $0.8 million in TVTDF funds. The Dublin side of the freeway currently experiences safety issues related to traffic weaving from the d~agonal westbound off-ramp to make a left turn at the San Ramon Koad/Dubhn Boulevard intersection. This traffic weaving condition is critical due to the close proximity of Dublin Boulevard to the 1-580 interchange. The project would create a signalized off-ramp intersection, which would eliminate this weaving problem. This project meets the criteria of readiness to mo~ve 18 Revised: 2/12/2004 directly to final design and construction, funding leverage, and effectiveness in addressing safe~y concerns. This priority has been fulfilled with the appropriation of $0.8 million to the projdct during fiscal year 2003/04. Priority 2. Fund $1.6 million of the 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard project (Project 8) in 2002/03. This project is located between the 1-580/1-680 Flyo:ver project and the 1-680 Auxiliary Lane project. The project has a cost estimate2 of $9.6 million and it will be funded with $2.66 million in SCC J-EPA funds, $3.5 million in 1998 STIP funds, $4.34 million in local funds, and the $11.6 million in TVTDF funds. The PSR and project design is complete, with construction to begin 'in Winter 2004. This priority has been fulfilled with the appropriation of $0.8 million to the project during fiscal year 2002/03. B. PRIORITIES TO BE RECONSIDERED IN THE FUTURE Priorities to be reconsidered in the future by the TVTC are listed below. Priority 3. Fund $4 million for public transit projects, which include the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station project (Project 4) and/or the Express Bus project (Project 11) in 2003/04. The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (Project 4) benefits both the 1-580 and 1-680 corridors. Funding sources for this project include lease revenues, tax increments, station revenues and grant sources. The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency has a $10 million commitment to the project (as indicated in the RTP). Though the project is included in the Measure B program, its placement in Tier 2 makes it unlikely to receive actual revenues without a dramatic ~ncrease ~n sales tax receipts over the next twenty years. Any TVTDF funds allocated to the project should be on the same timetable as other funding for the project. This priority has been fulfilled with the appropriation of $4.0 million to the project during fiscal year 2003/04. Priority 4. Start accumulating funds for the initial phase of the Route 84 Expressway project (Project 2A). No TVTDF funds are allocated to the Isabel Route 84/1-580 Interchange project (Project 2B). Priority 5. Start accumulating funds for the design and construction of the 1-680 Auxiliary Lane project in Contra Costa County (Project 3). Priority 6. Start accumulating funds for construction of the 1-580 HOV project (Project 5). Priority 7. Fund the "Phase 2" 1-580/Fo'othill/San Ramon Road interchange project (Project 7). Priority 8. No TVTDF funds are allocated to the 1-680 HOV Lanes from SR 84 to Top of Sur/ol Grade project (Project 6). The Crow Canyon Road project (Project 9) is a lower priority project that is not recommended for TVTDF funding for the next ten years of the program. The Vas~o 2 $13.5 million including improvements to the northbound on and off ramps 19 Revised: 2/12/2004 Road project (Project 10) will be considered for funding as part of the next Fee Nexus Study update. IV. PROJECT FUNDING Under the previous SEP, dated January 1999, the TVTDF was projected to raise approximately $70 million through year 2013. Eighty percent of this TVTDF revenue was allocated by the TVTC, while 20% of the fee revenue may be designated by member agencies for one or more ~f the projects listed in the JEPA. Each agency may designate up to 20% of the funds it collects for the specific project. TVTDF revenue projections under the current SEP 2004 Update include an adjustment to the TVTD Fee amounts for "MF Residential", "Office" and "Industrial" uses to match the percent level of the Nexus Fee for "SF Residential", effective 2002/03. Based on this fee adjustment, the TVTDF is projected to raise approximately $93.9 million through year 2013, including $75.1 million in 80% TVTDF revenue. The TVTC has committed $56.9 million out of the projected $75.1 million in 80% TVTDF revenue to fund the following projects, which are deemed the highest priority for funding in the next ten years. The TVTC commitments include the initial TVTDF project allocations from the previous SEP (totaling $56.8 million) plus an additional $0.1 million for updating the 1996 fee nexus study, as shown in Table 13. The non-committed portion of the 80% TVTDF revenue (see projected cash flow in Table '1) can be used for expansion of funding for the next, more extensive SEP update to fulfill unmet project funding needs and possibly fund new TVTDF projects, as deemed appropriate by the TVTC. Project 1. 1-580/1-680 Interchange: $5.6 M in total local share provided Project 2A. Route 84 Expressway, 1-580 to 1-680:$24.0 M Project 3. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes in Contra Costa County: $12.0 M Project 4. West DPX BART Station: $4.0 M Project 5. 1-580 ltOV Lanes: $8.0 M Project 7. 1-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange: $1.6 M ($0.8 M for Phase I) Project 8. 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange: $1.6 M Project 10. Vasco Road: $0.5 M4 Project 11. Express Bus: a portion of the $4.0 M for Project 4 The funding and scheduling targets for these projects have been compiled in Table 1. The other eligible TVTDF projects either will be funded by other funding sources or have a lower priority for TVTDF funding at this time and may be funded beyond the ten-year timeframe. 3 These projections are based on the build-out of certain jurisdictions during steady economic environments. A more detailed analysis of forecasted revenues will be conducted during an upcoming fee nexus study update. 4 This reflects an advance of up to a $0.5 million loan from the 1-580 HOV Lanes to be repaid in the future. 20 Revised: 2/12/20~)4 The Contra Costa agencies designate their 20% portion of TVTDF revenue collected to the I-6~0 Auxiliary Lane project. The four Alameda County agencies will direct their 20% funds to other projects. Since the adoption of the TVTDF program in 1998, the total 20% funding collected l~y the Alameda County jurisdictions is approximately as follows: · Pleasanton: $1.04 million (project use to be determined) · Livermore: $1.91 million (to be used on the SR 84 project) · Dublin: $1.35 million (to be used on the 1-580/San Ramon Interchange project'. · Alameda County $0.03 million (project use to be determined) Other potential funding sources for the TVTDF projects are described below. A. New Measure B - The new Measure B program includes major funding for TVTC projects ~in Alameda County including the West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station (Project 4) in TierS2 funds, Express Bus Service (Project 11), State Route 84 Corridor Improvements (Project 2A), and Isabel Route 84/1-580 Interchange (Project 2B). B. TEA-21 - Funding is available for a variety of transportation projects in the new federal transportation legislation. C. STIP - This is a State funding program that is available on a competitive basis for a variety Of transportation projects. I). Local Funds This source includes local Traffic Impact Fee programs, developer contributions, and other local funds. E. Measure C - This funding source includes only those projects designated for funding in the half-cent sales tax program in Contra Costa County F. SCC JEPA - This is a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement in Southern Contra Costa County that provides funding from new development for transportation projects in southern Contra Costa County. Funding sources for TVTDF projects are shown in Table 2. 21 Revised: 2/12/2004 V. PROJECT SPONSORS Project sponsors have been designated for each of the eleven TVTDF projects. The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement pertaining to TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation defines "Project Sponsor" as "the Party designated in the Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) to oversee the use of Tri-Valley Transportation Development 'Fee revenues in the development of a specific regional Transportation Improvement Project. The Party designated as Project Sponsor may be, but need not be, the lead agency for environmental clearance or the agency responsible for the design or construction of the project itself." Project sponsors are listed below. Project 1. 1-580/1-680 Local Share (Complete) ACTA Project 2A. Route 84 Expressway, 1-580 to 1-680 Livermore Project 2B. Isabel Route 84/1-580 Interchange Livermore Project 3. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes Danville Project 4. West Dublin/Pleasanton (DPX) BART Station Dublin Project 5. 1-580 HOV Lanes PleaSanton Project 6. 1-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade Pleasanton Project 7. 1-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange Dublin Project 8. 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange San Ramon Project 9. Crow Canyon Road Improvements Alameda County Project 10. Vasco Road Safety Improvements Alameda County Project 11. Express Bus LAVTA 22 Revised: 2/12/2004 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation BY AND AMONG. The County.of Alameda, The County of Contra Costa, The City of Dublin, The City of Livermore, The City of Pleasanton, The City of .San Ramon, And The Town of Danville JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic MitigatiOn This JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entere~ into this 22nd day of April, 1998 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to Government 1 Code §6502 by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ("Contra Costa"i, a political subdivision and body corporate and politic of the State of California; .the] CITY OF SAN RAMON ("San Kamon"), a municipal corporation d~ organized~nd existing under the laws of the State of California; and the TOWN OF DANVILLE ("Danville"), a municipal corporation dulY Organized and existing under the laws ~f the State of California; the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ("Alameda County", together with Contra Costa, the "Counties"), political subdivision and body corporate and politic of the State of California; the CITY OF DUBLIN ("Dublin"), a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California; :he CITY OF LIVERMORE ("Livermore"), a municipal corporation duly organized an,/l existing under the laws of the State of California; the CITY OF PLEASANTON ("Pleasanton", together with the other cities and town, the "Cities"), a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. The Cities and Counties may. be referred to collectively as the "Paities." RECITALS This Agreement is based on the fOllowing facts and circumstances: A. Tri-Valley Development Area. There exists in Alameda County and Con.ltra Costa County a geographical area comprising the San Ramon Valley, Livermore Valley and Amador Valley. This Tri-Valley area contains the Ci~ies and portions of the Counties. The approximate boundaries of the Tri-Vall~y Development Area are shown on the map attached as Exhibit A. B. Impact of Development. The Association of Bay Area Governments fore~:asts that by the year 2020 the Tri-Valley Development Area will contain an additional 157,000 new residents, 58,000 new households and 121,000 ne jobs. The traffic imPact from these new residential units and commercial U'ses, as well as additional development beyond the year 2020, will adverSely affect the quality of life for the existing residents of the Cities and Counties within the Tri-Valley Development Area unless those regional impacts are mitigated by off-site street improvements. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 1 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation lune 2, 1998 C. Regional Projects. The Cities and Counties have identified, through the Tri.- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance' (the Plan), regional Transportation Improvement Projects, listed in Section 8 of this Agreement, which are designed to help mitigate the regional impacts'of forecast development within the Tri-Valley Development Area. D. Tri-Valley Regional Fee. State law allows the Cities and Counties to establish a fee on all new development within the Tri-Valley Development ea which would finance ail or a portion of these Transportation Improvement Projects. E. Collection and Use of Improvement Fees. The Parties agree to collect fe es for the Transportation Improvement Projects on a uniform basis and to use the fees collected in a coordinated manner to provide for financing and construction of the Transportation Improvement Projects. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree: Section i. Pa ..rties 'The Parties to this Agreement are the Cities and Counties. Section 2. Definitions a. "ACTA" refers to the Alameda County Transportation Authority, a k:gal entity created by statute. ACTA and several of the Parties are parties to separate agreements, entitled "Local Match Agreements," whereby such parties have committed to provide funding to ACTA for constructio .~ of the 1-580/680 Interchange improvements. b. "GroSs Floor Area" refers to the sum of the area at each floor level, including, but not limited to, cellars, basements, mezzanines, penthouses, corridors, lobbies, stores, and offices, that are included . within the principal outside faces of exterior walls, not inclUding architectural setbacks or proiections. Included are all stories or area~ that have floor surfaces with clear standing head room (six feet'a~eSixa, inches minimum) regardless of their use. Where a ground level . or part thereof, within the principal outside faces of the exterior walls i~ left unenclosed, the gross area of the unenclosed portion is to be considered Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 2 of 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation June 2, 1998 as a part of the overall square footage of the building. All unroofed areas and unenclosed roofed-over spaces, except as defined above, are to be excluded from area calculations. 'The gross area of any parking garages within the building shall not be included within the gross are~ of the entire building. c. "Industrial" refers to developments for the purpose of manufacture o fabrication of products, the processing of materials, the warehousing !of merchandise for sale or distribution, research and development of industrial products and processes, and the wholesaling of merchandise. d. "Land Use Entitlement" means a permit or approval granted for a development proiect as that term is defined in Government Code {}66000. e. "Multi Family Residential" refers to buildings or parts thereof desigm'.d and used exclusively as a dwelling unit among other dwelling units, either on the same parcel (e.g., apartments and mobile home parks) or~ under separate ownership (e.g., condominiums, townhomes, duplexes, or duets). ' f. "Office" refers to developments for the purpose of housing non- I commercial, non-manufacturing businesses. ~ g. "Other Uses" refers to land use categories not implicitly included within the land use categories of "Single Family Residential", "Multi Family Residential", "Retail", "Office", or 'Industrial", and for which alternative rates can be found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual or in a list of peak-hour trip rates that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council has explicitly approved. h. "Project Sponsor" refers to the Party designated in the Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) to oversee the use of Tri-Valtey Transportation Development Fee revenues in the development of a specific regional! TranSportation Improvement Project. The Party designated as Proi~ct Sponsor may be, but need nOt be, the lead agency for environment~ clearance or the agency responsible for the design or construction oFthe project itself. i. "Retail" refers to developments for the purpose of the retail sale of ! merchandise and services, t Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 3 !of 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation June 2, 1998 "Single' Family Residential" refers to detached buildings designed for J' occupation as the residence of one family. ' k. "Subsidized Housing Development' refers to housing facilities developed by public agencies, limited dividend housing corporations, or nonrprtfit corporations, and maintained exclusively for persons or families of vevy low, low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the He ~th and Safety Code. 1. "Transportation Improvement Projects" or "Projects" refers to those public improvements required to mitigate the regional traffic impact,, of development within the Tri-Valley Development Area as specified in Section 8. ~ m. "Treasurer" refers to the finance director or treasurer of the Party ~ unanimously selected by the TVTC to act as Treasurer pursuant to Laqis Agreement.. . to n. "Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee" or "TVTD Fee" refers the fees to be imposed by the Cities and Counties on development within the Tri-Valley Development Area. The project list for the Tri'. Valley Transportation Development Fee is in Section 8 of this Agreement. o. "TVTC" refers to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council which is dei ~ned in the "Joint Powers Agreement by and among the County of AlameC[a, County of Contra Costa, Town of Danville and Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon," dated March I, 1991. Section 3. Purposes This agreement is made pursuant to Law for the following purposes: a. To establish a framework for the enactment by the Parties of a Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTD Fee), a uniform regional fee on development within the Tri-Valley Development Areh not legally precluded from the fee, to fund all or part of the necessary transportation improvements identified in the Plan. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 4Iof 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation June 2, 1998 b. To help resolve regional traffic problems through implementation of'~ he Plan and the TVTD Fee program. ' nl c. To establish funding goals for identified Transportation Improveme t Projects and to seek commitments regarding funding for the Transportation Improvement Projects. d. To establish mechanisms for collecting, managing and disbursing the TVTD Fee and to formalize institutional arrangements for the implementation of the Projects to be constructed with fee revenues. Section 4. Dutie~ of Treasurer The Treasurer shall' perform the following Duties: a. Keep a record of all TVTD Fees paid to the Treasurer by any Party; I TVTD Fees retained by any Party pursuant to Section 6(b); and all , disbursements and expenditures made by the Treasurer in accordanc with this Agreement; b. Remit all TVTD Fees, including interest earned thereon, to ACTA o~ a quarterly basis until ACTA has received $5,548',300 (less any contribution by Parties subiect to reimbursement pursuant to Sectio¢ 7.d), Which is the total amount due to ACTA under all of the PartiesI' Local Match Agreements; ' c. Coordinate with the Parties and ACTA to assure that no more than $5,548,300 in TVTD Fees and contributions are paid to ACTA, by the Treasurer from the Joint TVTD Fee Account; d. ReimburSe Parties from the Joint TVTD Fee Account pursuant to Section 7; e. Calculate interest due on reimbursements to Parties, pursuant to Se Iction f. Transmit monies from the Joint TVTD Fee Account to Project Spo sors for the planning, design and construction of the Transportation Improvement Proiects listed in' Section 8' and in accordance with th~ SEP; ][oint Exercise of Powers Agreement. Page 5 of 2 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation lune 2, 1998 g. Reimburse project developers from the Joint TVTD Fee Account pursuant to Section 15; h. Prepare reports required by Government Code §66000 et .seq. annuall.y in a form that can be used by each Party to comply with Govemmen~ Code {}66000 et seq. ("AB1600"); ~ i. Account for all monies from the Joint TVTD Fee Account received ir accordance with Government Code §6505; j. Keep a record of the Treasurer's time and expe~.ses in performing th~ Treasurer's duties hereunder; and k. Other duties as Specified by law or-as required by the TVTC. Section 5. Collection of Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees. Each Party agrees to collect the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee on development located within the Tri-Valley Development Area that receives a Lane Use Entitlement from that Party. The amount of that fee is described in Section To accomplish the collection of fees, each Party agrees: a. To adopt the necessary ordinance(s) and/or resolution(s) to authori~ the collection of the Tri-Valley Transportation DeveIopment Fee wi~n its jurisdiction; 'Transportati© b. To require each project developer to pay the Tri-Valley , n Development Fee prior to issuance of building permits for the proje{t to the extent permitted by law. c. To levy the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee on all development projects not legally precluded from the fee. d. To apply the fee on all "significant" changes to existing development agreements adopted after January 1, 1998. The TVTD Fee shall be applied to all' components of a project that are subject to an amended or renewed development agreement. As used herein, "significant" means any of the following: (i) change in land use type (e.g., office to retail!); (ii) intensification of land use types (e.g., increases in square footage of approved Office); (iii) extension of term of development agreements Joint Exercise-of Powers Agreement page 6 of 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation. June 2, 1998 and (iv) reduction or removal of proiect mitigation requirements or conditions of approval. e. To exempt from the fee public schools, Subsidized Housing Development, and the governmental buildings owned by any public entity unless a Party can and does impose the TVTD Fee on governmental buildings of a public entity other than one of the Parti,~.s. Section 6. Tri-¥alley Transportation Development Fee Accounts a. Each Party shall place the TVTD Fees in an interest-bearing individtial account to be used specifically for the Transportation Improvement Proiects. The deposits in each account shall be invested in the same manner as other funds of the Party. For investment purposes the fmtds may be pooled with other funds as long as separate accounting is maintained and the account is credited with the investment earnings b. A "Joint TVTD Fee Account~' shall be established by the "Treasurer". ~ Each Party shall transmit to the Treasurer within 30 days of the end of each quarter not less than 80% of all TVTD Fees colleCted by that P~rty during the quarter, and any interest or income generated on such 80% amount, together with notification of the Transportation Improvement ProjeCts that the Party intends to fund with the retained portion of ~he revenues. ~ · at c. Each party shall.maintain a current record of all funds retained by tl~ Party, including interest or income on such funds and annually furnish the Treasurer an accounting for inclusion in any audit of TVTD Fee~. Section 7. . Payments to ACTA and Reimbursement for ACTA Local Match Contributions a. Payment to ACTA for 580/680 Interchange Proiect. Commencing th the first quarter after the Fee Effective Date, the Treasurer shall' paylto ACTA all of the TVTD Fee revenues received from all Parties, inducing interest earned thereon. Such payments shall continue on a quarteny basis until ACTA has received $5,548,300, less any contnbuuons by Parties subject to reimbursement pursuant to SeCtion 7.d. of this . Agreement. ~ Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 71 of 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation June 2, 1998 b. Satisfaction of Local Match Agreements for the 580/680 Interchange · Project. Several of the Parties have individual agreements with ACT~k to provide Local Match Funds for the 580/680 interchange project. It is the intent of all of the Parties that the TVTD Fees collected by the ! Parties shall be used to satisfy these Local Match Agreements. In order to carry out this intent, the Treasurer, as part of the quarterly payments to ACTA described in Section 7.a, shall provide ACTA and each of the Parties with an accounting tracking each Party's total cumulative payments until ACTA has received $5,548,300, less any contributions by Parties subject to reimbursement pursuant to Section 7.d of this Agreement. c. Shortfall in Payments to ACTA. The purpose of this subsection is toI specify how a shortfall will be funded. At the end of any fiscal year, if ACTA has received (via the Treasurer~) less than the total cumulative amount (up to and including the cumulative amounts for that fiscal year) that ACTA should have received from Parties with Local Match Agreements, ACTA shall dec~are a shortfall and shall notify the Treasurer. The Treasurer and ACTA shall determine which Party (or Parties) is short in its cumulative Local Match obligation through the fiscal year for which there is a cumulative shortfall. If there is only one Party that is short, that Party shall fund the shortfall. If more than one Party is short, then those Parties shall fund the shortfall as follows: The amount of each Party's shortfall in its cumulative Local Match obligation shall be compared to the amount of that Part?s cumulative Local Match obligation, expressed as a percentage. That percentage shall be multiplied by the amount of tl~e shortfall in order to determine each Party's share of the shortfall. When ACTA receives monies from the Party (Parties), ACTA'shall declare the shortfall funded. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 81of'21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation lune 2, 1998 EXAMPLES Cumulative Local AmoUnt Paid to 1. Match Treasurer/ACTA Shortfall Obligations City X $ , 600,000 $ 700,000 City Y $ 300,000 $ 300,000 City Z $ 300,000 $ 200,000 ,,, TOTAL $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $0 In this example, even though City Z is $100,000 behind in its cumulative obligation to ACTA, there is no Shortfall, and hence City Z owes no additional revenues, because ACTA has received the total amount of the cumulative Local Match obligation through that fiscal year. Cumulative Local Amount Paid to 2. Match Treasurer/ACTA Shortfall Obligations City X $ 600,000 $ 700,000 City Y $ ,30°'000 $, 300,000 ,City Z $ ,, 300,000 $ !50,000 TOTAL $ 1,200,000 $1,150,000 $50,000 In this eXample, there is a $50,000 shortfall. City Z will need to fund the $50,00'3 shortfall from sources other than'TVTD Fees. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 9 of 2 I TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation June 2, 1998 Cumulative Local Amount Paid to 3. Match Treasurer/ACTA Shortfall Obligations City X $ 600,000 $690,000 City Y , $ 300,000 $200,000 City z $ 300,000 ,$ ioo,ooo,,,, TOTAL $1,200,000 $990,000 $210,000 In this example, there is a $2 I0,000 shortfall. Because there are two Cities that h ye a shortfall, City Ys shortfall' ($ I00,000) is compared to its cumulative Local Marc obligation ($300,000)'. That percentage is 33.33%. Therefore, City Ys share of thel shortfall is $70,000 [$210,000 x 33.33%]; City Z's share of the shortfall is $140,000 [$210,000 x 66.67%]. City Y and City Z will need to fund these shortfalls from I sources other than TVTD Fees. d. ' Reimbursement for Contributions Made Prior to Fee Effective Date. Within sixty days of the Fee Effective Date or its designation as Treasurer, whichever occurs later, the Treasurer shall request from ACTA a statement specifying the contributions by the Parties to AC [~A for the 580/680 interchange project prior to the Fee Effective Date · which have been found by the ACTA Board to meet its "Policy on I Reimbursement or Credit" (~ hereto). Based on this statement and following payment to ACTA of $5,548,300 (less any contributions by Parties subject to reimbursement pursuant to this subsection),' th, Treasurer shall reimburse the Party or Parties that made such contributions, in the chronological order such contributions were m,' ~[e, together with 5% annual simple interest calculated from the Fee Effective Date, with the exception of the following contributions: i. County of Alameda, $45,000, ii. City of Dublin, $111,700, iii. City of Livermore, $111,700, iv. City of Pleasanton, $203,700, Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page I 0 of 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation June 2, 1998 v. City of San Ramon, $10,000, and vi. Town of Danville, $9,600. Such reimbursement shall be from TVTD Fees only and shall be mac as such revenues are available until all contributions have been reimbursed, s As of April 16, 1998, the only Parties which have made contribution which qualify for reimbursement pursuant to this subsection (d) are he City of Dublin and the City of Pleasanton. These Parties are entitle to reimbursement in the following unounts: City of Dublin City of Pleasanton 1. Southerly extension 1. Southerly extension of I-58 O/Hacienda of I-580/Hopyard N.B. Bridge $51,000 N.B. Bridge $115,000 2. Needed project right-. 2. 1-580/'rIopyard of-way (Enea Property) Interchange $552,500 Landscaping $220,000 3. Improvements to 3. Southerly extension Dublin Boulevard of 1-580/Hacienda ~ N.B. Bridge $51,000 4. Needed project right- of-way (Rosewood Drive) $43,416 Total $753,500 Total $429,416 o Additional contributions by these or other Parties for the 580/680 interchange project prior to the Fee Effective Date which are found by the ACTA' Board to meet its "Policy on Reimbursement or Credit" (~) will also be entided to reimbursement pursuant to this subsection (d). All such contributions will be credited by ACTA against such Parties' obligations. For example, the contributions by Dublin and Pleasanton through April 16, 1998, will reduce Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 11 of 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation June 2, 1998 those Parties' Local Match. obligations by $753,500 and $429,416, respectively, and will reduce the total Local Match obligation to ACTA from $5,548,300 to $4,365,384. Thus, if the only contributions to the 580/680 interchange project prior to the Fee Effective Date are the foregoing contributions by Dublin and Pleasanton, the total Local Match obligation will be met once ACTA has received $4,365,384. ate If a Patrt e. Reimbursement for Payments Made After Fee Effective D . t y' after the Fee Effective Date, meets its obligation to ACTA for Local Match Funds for the 580/680 interchange project from any source ot~er than TVTD Fee revenues, the Treasurer, upon written request by the~ Party and after ACTA has certified that it has received $5,548,300 (~ess any contributions by Parties subject to reimbursement pursuant to section 7.d), shall reimburse the Party for such contribution, togethe with five percent annual simple interest calculated from the date of payment to ACTA~ Reimbursement shall be from TVTD Fee revenu only and shall be made only after the Treasurer has reimbursed any Parties for the contributions they made prior to the Fee Effective Da ce, pursuant to Subsection (d) above. Section 8. Transportation ImprOVement Pro!ects The Tri-Valley TransPortation Development Fee shall be used to fund all or a poJ tion of the costs of the following projects: t a. Improvements to the 1-580/I-680 interchange: construct a southbound 1- 680 to eastbound 1-580 flyover and associated improvements (not to exceed $5,548,300) b. Improvements to State Route 84 between 1-580 and 1-680 c. Auxiliary lanes along 1-680 from Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon 13~oad d. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station e. 1-580 HOV lanes between Santa Rita Road and Greenville Road f. 1-680 HOV lanes from the State Route 84/I-680 interchange to the .op Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 12 of 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation lune 2, 1998 of the Sunol Grade g. Improvements to the 1-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Boulevard interchange h. Improvements to 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange i. Crow Canyon Road safety improvement west of Bollinger Canyon R, ad j. Vasco Road safety improvements north of 1-580 within Alameda County k. Express bus service in the Tri-Valley area Notwithstanding the foregoing, the TVTD Fee imposed and collected by the Cou ~ty of Contra Costa shall not be used to fund the Proiects specified in subsections (d) and (k) above. Section 9. Tri-Valle. y Transportation Development Fee Amount The initial Tri-Valle¥ Transportation Development Fees shall be as ILand Fee Per Unit Use Type Single Family Residential $1,500 Dwelling unit Multi Family Residential $1,050 Dwelling unit Office $1.00 Square foot of gross floor area Retail $1.00 Square foot of gross floor area Industrial $0.75 Square foot of gross floor area Other Uses $1,500 Average a.m./p.m, peak hour tri * Joint ExerciSe of Powers Agreement Page 13 of 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation lune 2,11998 * Peak-hour trips will be determined from the latest revision to the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual or other rate schedule as agreed to by the TVTC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties may provide in their implementing ordinance or resolution that an applicant for a Land Use Entitlem mt who is dissatisfied with 'the number of peak-hour trips, as calculated bY the Part~, may appeal the determination to the Party's legislative body. If such an appeal granted by the Party, and the Party adjusts the number of peak-hour trips, the Party shall have such decision ratified by five members of the TVTC. Absent st :h ratification, the Party shall pay the difference between the actual fee imposed an the fee set forth in this Section 9 or the Party shall notify the applicant that the fujl amount of the fee must be paid by the applicant. Section 10. Effective Date of Fee The parties desire that the Tri-Valley Tiansportation Development Fee shall be · effective in each jurisdiction on the same date. Accordingly, each party shall time the adoption of its resolution or ordinance i~posing the fee in such a manner that th& fee shall be effective as of September 1, 1998 ("the Fee Effective Date"). Section 1 I. Strategic Ext~enditure Plan a. The initial Strategic Expenditure Plan ("SEP") is the 580/680 interchange project described in Section 8.a. 1 b. The TVTC shall prepare and, by a unanimous vote of the TVTC, forward to each Party a £~rst amendment to the SEP in the form of : "Circulation Draft" SEP, within six months of the Fee Effective Dar le. The SEP, as amended, shall include project cost and revenue estimat~es forthe TVTD Fee, a prioritization plan and a timeline for project delivery. It shall also include reasonable requirements for ] indemnification and insurance, as appropriate for individual proiects, and shall include requirements that Proiect SpOnsors or other entities which construct any of the Projects defend and indemnify the PartieIs. The SEP shall also include guidelines goveming credit and/or l reimbursement for entity-constructed Projects and developer-constructed Projects as authorized by, and. consistent with, Section 7(d) and (e) iand Section 15 (a) and (b) , respectively. Appropriate capital improvement procedures shall be reflected in the SEP. Any TVTD Fees retained by Joint· Exerdse of Powers Agreement Page 14 of 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation June 2, ii 998 the parties and not transmitted to the Joint TVTD Fee Account shall also be refleCted within the SEP. The SEP shall also include guidelines to assure that prOject Sponsors do not reCeive TVTD Fee revenues-- '~frOm the Treasurer (pursuant to Section 4(f)) for a Project in amounts mo~e than are authorized in the SEP. ' I c. The "Circulation Draft" of the first amended SEP (and all subseque!t amendments) must be reviewed and approved unanimously by all of the Parties.. The SEP must be reviewed at least once every two years by the TVTC. Each revision shall require unanimous approval by the TVT~ ~. d. The TVTC shall consider the following criteria when establishing thc priority of Transportation Improvement Proiects in the S.EP: (i) Proiect Readiness: Ability of Proiect Sponsors to move .direc~ ly to final design and Construction, which could be represented by, among other things, completion of en~ronmental doCUmental,ion, inclusion of the proiect in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, preparation of plans, specifications an ~1 estimates. (i~i) Proiect Funding: Ability of project to "leverage" other funding, eligibility of the proiect for external funding, or commitment ,ff external funding. (iii) Proiect Effectiveness: Ability of the proiect to address traffic congestion or safety problems. Section 12. Time of Pa.vment The TVTD Fees shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit to th~ extent permitted by law. Section 13. Tri-Valley Fee Ad.iustments a. Each Party shall include an automatic adiustment of the TVTD Fee as of March i of each year in its fee resolution or ordinance. The adiusu, nent shall be based on the increase or decrease in the Engineering News- 1_ e Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area for page 15tlof 21 loint Exercise of Powers Agreement TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation June 2, I998 period ending December 31 of the preceding calendar year. b. In additiOn to the automatic adjustment provided in the TVTD Fee the Parties may agree to adjust the TVTD Fee to reflect revisions in the proiect list in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, progr~ m revenue, increases in land values over the inflationary increase or other factors. The amount of such adiustments shall be included in a wril ~en addendum to this Agreement that shalI be approved by each Party ~ ~d · in amendments of each adopted fee resolution or ordinance. Concer Led efforts shall be made to attract and obtain other funds from other available revenue sources for which the projects are eligible. Section I4. Administrative Costs Up to one percent of the TVTD Fees received by the Treasurer may be used to c(~ver the administrative costs of the' party acting as the Treasurer and other costs associated with the TVTD Fee. Acceptable costs shall be specified in the SEP. Section 15. Credit or Reimbursement for Developer-Constructed Project.~ The Parties shall provide in their implementing ordinance or resolution that a developer who constructs all or part of one of the Transportation Improvement Projects may be eligible for a credit or reimbursement, as provided herein. No crt lit shall be applied and no reimbursement shall be made until the Parties have been f ally reimbursed pursuant to Section 7(d) and (e). a. Credit or Reimbursement for Project Funded in sEp. A develop~,,r be eligible for a credit to be applied against payment of the T~ may Fee if the developer constructs all or a part of one of the TransportatiOn Improvement Projects that is, at the time the developer enters into a~. agreement for construction of such project, included in the prioritiza~tion plan of the SEP as a project to be funded. A developer may be eligible for a reimbursement if the cost of constructing such a Transportation Improvement Project, or a part such project, exceeds the amount of the TVTD Fee to be paid by the developer. The amount of reimbursement shall equal the difference between the cost of constructing all or a part of the Transportation Improvement Project and the TVTD Fee for the development project Joint Exerdse of Powers Agreement Page 16 ,f 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation June.2, . 998 Reimbursement shall be from TVTD Fee revenues only, and the right to reimbursemeni shall termiriate ten years.from the' date the devel0 2er entered into the agreement for construction of the project. The amount of the credit, or th4 credit and reimbursement roger2 Ler, shall be in an amount equal to the cost of the Transportation Improvements Project or portion thereof, as set forth in the SEP,, and shall be caiculated by the Public Works Director or City Engineer of the Party granting the credit (and approved by the TVTC Technical Advisory Committee). The credit, or the credit and reimbursement together, shall be calculated at the time the developer enters into an ~,.. agreement for construction of the Transportation Improvement F roject and posts bonds. The credit shall be granted at the same time. ()nce calculated, the amount of reimbursement shall not increase for ~nflauon nor shall it accrue interest· b. Reimbursement'for Projects Not Funded in SEP. If a devel0 ..~,. .. constructs all or a part of a Transportation Improvement Project ~at is not, at time the developer enters into an agreement for Constructi on of such project, included in the prioritization plan of the SEP as a p::oject to be funded, the developer may be eligible for be reimbursement from the'Treasurer, provided that the SEP is subsequently revised to ir dUde the improvement in the prioritization plan as a project to be funded. In · such event, the amount of reimbursement shall be calculated by the Public works Director or City Engineer of the Party in which th~ development is located (and approved by the TVTC Technical Ac~visory '" Committee) and shall be equal to the cost of the project or portiop . thereof, as set forth in the SEP: The amount of the reimbursemettt shall" be calculated when the developer enters into an agreement for 'construCtion of the Transportation Improvement Project and post s bonds. Once calcUlated, the amount of reimbursement shall not' increase 'for inflation nor shah it accrue interest. Reimbursement ~hall be from TVTD Fee revenues only, and the right to reimbursemen~ shall terminate ten years from the date the developer entered into the agreement for construction of the proiect. Section 16. ' 'Amendments · This Agreement may be amended at any time by an amendment mutUally exe ted by the Cities .and Counties. Such amendmeht~ shall be approved bY the governing "" Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement .... '." " Page } 7 Of 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation , Jtme~i2, i998 board or council of each Party. . . Section 17 .... . Interpretation o.f Agreement Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to hold any Party liable to any o her Party, or any person not a party hereto, for the design, construction, instatlatic,n, inspection, operation, maintenance and/or repair of any of the Transportation' Improvement Projects because the first Party collected TVTD Fees that were used for the design, construction, installation, inspection, operation, maintenance and/or repair of.any Transportation Improvement Project. This Agreement is..designe~ to implement the subvention or disbursement of public funds from one public ag~ acy to another and accordingly is not an agreement as defined in Government Code... §~g95. A Party is not liable to another Party for the inadvertent failure or legal inabilil y to collect a TVTD Fee. ~ Section 18. "::".'-. Term of Agreement This Agreement shall remain in effect from the Effective Date in the opening paragraph until the Projects listed in Section 8 have.been ~ully constructed and or acquired. The TVTD Fee to be adopted by the Parties shall remain in effect m Ltil the Transportation ·Improvement Projects are fully constructed and/or acquired. NotWithstanding the preCeding paragraph, any Party may withdraw from the Agreement and terminate its TVTD Fee by giving written notice to all Parties ,~ ~ithin 30 calendar days of the unanimous vote by.the TVTC forwarding the Circulatit~n Draft of the first amendment of the SEP (see Section 11 (b)), provided no such withdrawal or termination of Fee Collection shall become 'effective until the full mount of the partiesl Local. Match payments for the 1-580/680 Proiect described in' Section 8(a) has been made to ACTA and the reimbursements for the 1-580/681 Proiect provided in Section 7(d) and (e) have been made. Section 19. AttOrneys' Fees If legal action is necessary to enforce this agreement, the prevailing Par~y is end led' to reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees against the Party found to have bre ached the agreement. . Joint Exercise 0f'Powers Agreement page 8 of 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation ' june ~-, 1998 Section 20. Powers. The powers of this Agreement shall be exercised subject to the restrictions upon tae exercising of such powers by the Treasurer, as provided in §6509 of the Government Code. ~ Section 21. Sole Aereement This Agreement is the sole agreement on the subject matters of this Agreement between the parties. Section 22. No Agency. or Entity Created By entering into this Agreement, the Parties are not creating a separate agency or -entity. Section 23. Sienatures This 'Agreement may be signed in counterparts with the signature pages attached form a complete document. APPROVED BY: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA Its: . Clerl~ of the Board of Supermsors Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 19 ~of 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation June 2,. 1998 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ~ ~ By: . By.:. Its:.. Its: President~ Board of SupOrvisors ~ferk~of~ Board o~Supe~Sors . CI~ O~ S~ ~om its: . ~'~ -- TO~ OF D~LLE Attest: ~ Tom Clerk' CI.TY OF DUBLIN' Attes~ ~.~ . City ~,,le~ Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement ' Page 20 6f 21 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation June 2, 1998 CITY OF LIVERMORE ItS: -¥' -:7 --: - Attest: ~~4~ ~' City Clerk CITY OF PLEASANTON citY Cler~ f/ (/~' d/ . -, J:\V4PD~MNRSW~I 14\050~GREE\1998\TVTDF/PA. 804 EHS:r]a Joint Exercise of Power, s Agreement Page 21 ~f 2 I TVTD Fees' for Traffic Mitigation June 2, *1998 RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION AI~ PROVING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED TRI-VAL~EY TRANSPORTATIOI i~ DEVELOPMENT (TVTD) FEE ADJUSTMENT, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EX]I;CUTE ADDENDUM I TO THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL (TVTC) JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION 89-98 ESTABLISHING A TVTD FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS i WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN WHEREAS, cac~h of thc Tri-Vallcy jurisdictions adopted the Joint Exercise of Powers A~cemcnt (JEPA) for thc Tri-Vallcy Transportation Development Fccs (TVTDF); and WHEREAS, in 11998, the City Council adopted Resolution 89-98 imposing a TVTD Fee; ~tnd WHEREAS, all TVTC jurisdictions have resolved to cooperatively participate and adopt~uniforrn TVTD Fee rates; and WHEREAS, the !TVTD Fee applies to new development in all seven member jurisdictiofls within the Tri-Vatley area; and WHEREAS, revenues from the TVTD Fees are used to fund the regional transportation improvements identified )n the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTP/AP) and the Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP); and WHEREAS, the TVTC commissioned a "fee nexus study" in 1996 to establish the TVTD Fee based on traffic impact~ from new development, and the costs for the transportation impr6vements identified in the TVTP/Ap; and WHEREAS, the adopted fee in 1998 for Office development was only 10.3% of the resulting fee from the "fee nexus study" for this type of land use; and WHEREAS, the adopted fee in 1998 for Industrial development was only 11.5% of the resulting fee from the "fee nexus study" for this type of land use; and WHEREAS, the 1-580/1-680 Interchange Improvements project is now complete; and WHEREAS, the~ estimated total cost for the existing ten TVTDF projects has incre~ased by approximately 65%; and~ WHEREAS, th construction cost index for the San Francisco Bay Area has risen by approximately 14% since the adoption of the TVTD Fee in 1998; and WHEREAS, an :stimated $10.2 million in cash flow deficit is anticipated to occur by fi~, cal year 2009-10 based on the em rent expenditure plan and the scheduling requirements ofTVTDF projecl s; and WHEREAS, the gap between fee revenues and regional transportation improvement costs has left some projects unable to be fully funded, and will likely result in the delayed delivery bf these improvements; and WHEREAS, Subsection 13.b of the JEPA specifies that for non-automatic TVTD Fee adjustments agreed upon by the Parties, the amount of the adjustment shall be included in ~ written addendum to the JEPA that shall be approved by each Party and in amendments of each ado~pted fee resolution or ordinance; and WHEREAS, the seven member jurisdictions of the TVTC voted unanimously in favor of an interim fee adjustment to the current TVTD Fee rates during the TVTC meeting on April 23,200~; and WHEREAS, as part of its approval of the interim fee adjustment proposal, the TVTC also approved the proposed Addendum I to the JEPA Agreement and appropriation of $100,000 for the preparation of an updated fee nexus study; and WHEREAS, the TVTC has directed each member jurisdiction Party .to the JEPA to ~:approve implementation of the proposed TVTD Fee adjustment and execute Addendum I to the JEPA t.o reflect this rate change; NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows: 1. Implementation of the interim TVTD Fee adjustment schedule as listed in paragraph 4 below is approved. 2. The Mayor is authorized to execute Addendum I to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining to Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation. 3. Appropriation of $100,000 in TVTD Fee funds for the preparation of an updated fee nexus study is approved. 4. Attachment D of Resolution No. 89-98 is hereby amended as follows to reflect the adj tsted fee rates: I Land Use Type Fee Per Unit Single Family Residential $1,711 Dwelling Unit Multi-Family Residential $1,087 Dwelling Unit Office $3.07 Square Foot of Gross Floor Area Retail $1.14 Square Foot of Gross Floor Area Industrial $2.08 Square Foot of Gross Floor Area Other $685 Average AM/PM Peak Hour Trip* *Peak-hour trips will be determined from the latest revision to the Institute of TranSportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual or other rate schedule as agreed to by the TVTC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an applicant for a Land'Use Entitlement who is dissatisfied with the number, of peak- hour trips, as calculated by the City/County, may appeal the determination to the Councili/~.oard of Supervisors. If such an appeal is granted by file CounCil/Board of Supervisors, and the Council/Board of Supervisors adjusts the number of peak-hour trips, the City/County shall have such deeisic~n ratified by five members of the TVTC. Absent such ratification, the full amount of the fee must be p~tid by the applicant. -2- 5. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. The revised fee rates shall be effective 60 days after adoption of this resolution, provide~ that a similar amendment is adopted by the other member jurisdictions of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20t~ day of May, 2003. AYES: ' Councilmembers McCormick, Omvetz, Sbranti and Zika, and Mayor Locld~art NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None~ ATTEST: G:\CC-MTGS~003-qtr2~vlay\5-20d)3~reso TVTD fee adjustment, doc (Item 6.1) -3- TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL Transportation Services Division 510 La 'Gonda Way, Danville, CA 94526 Millie Greenberg To: Tri-Valley Transportation Council Supervisor District 3 Contra Costa County (W) (925) 820-8683 From: Eva Howard, TVTC Treasurer Date: January 21, 2004 Scott Haggerty Supervisor Subject: Financial update ending June 30, 2003 Alameda County 0g) (510) 272-6691 BACKGROUND Newell Americh Councflmember The Treasurer is required to present a financial status report to member' Danville - (800) 280-0910 agencies annually. The attached report has been prepared to provide cumulative information on fees received by member agencies through ~une 30, 2003. Claudia McCormick Cotmcilmember , Dublin DISCUSSION (W) (925) 833-6650 , (H) (925) 828-1672 Per the attached accounting, a total of $20,085,877 million in fees and $1!31,384 in interest have been remitted by member agencies since the September 1998 fee implementation. The TVTDF Trust Fund has earned $754,461 in interefit income Steve Brozosky Councilmember to bring the total revenue credited to the fund by the Treasurer to date to Pleasanton $20,971,722. From the funds a total of $10,453,082 was disbursed as follbws: (925) 846-8727 · City of Pleasanton, Finance Department - staff time from Septembe~ 1998 to Tom Reitter August 2001 - $25,257; Councilmember · ACTA - I580-680 interchange project - $4,194,094; Livermore · City of Dublin - reimbursement for their contributions - $995,127; (W) (925) 422-1468 · City of Pleasanton - reimbursement for their contributions - $462,078; (H) (925) 443-3326 · City of Dublin - fees retained that they collected, as a deduction from City of Pleasanton's 20 % set-aside accOunt for their share of expenditures f6r the I580/San Ramon Interchange Project - $53,979; Dave Hudson · The City of Livermore - Route 84 Corridor Project - $1,164,144; Councilmember · Contra Costa County - administration cost from January 26, 2000 through San Ramon lanuary 24, 2001 out of the 1% Administration Account - $8,000; (925) 828-1822 · City of Pleasanton - Refund of the 20 % set-aside fees plus LAIF inte~rest througl~ June 30, 2001 - $689,499; · Citv of Dublin - additional interest owed from 20% set-aside account- $1,492 · Alameda County - additional interested owed from 20% set-aside account - $6 · City, of Livermore - refund of the 20% set-aside fees plus LAIF interest through March 31,: 2002 - $1,191,189; ~ · City of Livermore - additional interest owed from 20% set-aside account - $68,217; · Citv of San Ramon - I680 Interchange project- $1,600,000 This leaves a balance of $10,518,639 allocated to the following subaccounts: · Alameda County - $51,831 · Dublin - $2,966,444 · Livermore - $4,242,471 · Pleasanton- $1,269,079 · Contra Costa County -$1,278,510 · Danville - $344,572 · San Ramon- $180,163 · TVTDF Admin - $185,569 It is very important to note that the above "allocation" of balances to the various accounts is based on disbursements being allocated on a prorata basis against the "balances" in the subaccounts at the time of disbursement. This is similar to a "first in, first out" approach. Therefore, the timing o~ receipts and disbursements impacts the allocated balance in each account. If for any reason the JPA were to dissolve and dollars given back to the agencies, the disbursements would need to be reallocated. One way to do this would be to allocate total disbursements based on cumulative revenues remitted by each agency. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Accept Financial Report Disbursements/Credits taken through June 30, 2003: 1580/680 Flyover ACTA for 1580/680 flyover match requirement $4,194,094.00 To Dublin for their contribution to 1580/680 $995,126.52 To Pleasanton for their contribution to 1580/681 $462,078.38 Subtotal $5,651,298.90 20% Local Accounts 20% Deposits taken back by reducing future fees transmitted * See below to TVTC by Alameda County and Dublin Refund 20% accounts Pleasanton $689,499.09 Alameda County (residual amount) ** $6.02 Dublin (residual amount) ** $1,492.21 Deduction to Pleasanton 20% account for San Ramon/Foothill Rd work $53,978.52 (Dublin tookcredit by reducing fees submitted to TVTC Refund 20% accounts Livermore $1,191,188.56 Livermore (remaining balance) $68,217.69 Subtotal $2,004,382.09 Administration · Admin to Pleasanton annually from FY98-99 through FY00-01 $25,257.48 Admin to Contra Costa County pd Jan 01 $8,000.00 Subtotal $33,257.48 Highway 84 Advance to Livermore for Highway 84 $40,000.00 Advance to Livermore for Highway 84 $1,124,144.00 Subtotal $1,164,144.00 Projects To San Ramon for 1680 Interchange project $1,600,000.00 Subtotal $1,600,000.00 GRAN DTOTAL $10,453,082.47 · Dublin and Alameda County took back most of their 20% deposits by deducting them from future fee transmitals to TVTC. Ala Co took back $900.00 and Dublin took back $83,524.89. These amounts were netted from fees, and therefore, do not show on this disbursement log. ** Because Ala Co & Dublin took back most of their 20% accounts per above, only some residual interest income remained on deposit for TVTC to disburse. 2/12/2004 5:13 PM TVTC Cumulative Resources Uses of Fund 0603 Disbursements Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Preliminary update through January 27, 2004 6/30/03 Beginning Balance $10,518,639.06 Receipts: Fees/Interest from Jurisdications 1,150,207.99 Disbursements: City of Dublin - Project #7 - "Phase 1" 1-580/Foothill Rd/San Ramon Rd Interchange Modifications Project (800,000.00) City of Dublin - Project # 4 - West Dublin/Pleasanton Bart Project (4,000,000.00) 1/27/04 Ending Balance $6,868,847.05 Respectfully submitted, Eva Howard TVTC Treasurer 1/28/2004