tahoe transportation district...

53
TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT AND TAHOE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Friday, January 8, 2010 commencing at 9:30 a.m., the TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) BOARD OF DIRECTORS and the TAHOE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (TTC) will conduct its regular meeting at the Tahoe Center for Environmental Sciences, 291 Country Club Drive, Room 141, Incline Village, NV. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that on Friday, January 8, 2010 commencing at 8:30 a.m. at the same location, the Budget Finance Committee will meet. The agenda will be as follows: 1) Proposed FY 2010 Budget Revision, 2) November FY 2010 Financial Statement of Operations, 3) Approval of TTD Task Orders, 4) Pass Approval of Receipt and Pass-Through of Matching Funds for Operating Grants Related to BlueGo Routes Connecting to Douglas County and Carson City. (Committee: Ms. Santiago, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Garner) *This meeting is open to all members of the public. January 4, 2010 Carl Hasty District Manager NOTE: Items on the agenda without a time designation may not necessarily be considered in the order in which they appear on the agenda. The following location, Carson City Public Works, 35050 Butti Way, Carson City, NV, will be available for participation by teleconference. For those individuals with special needs who desire to attend this meeting, please contact Judi White at (775) 589-5502. This notice has been posted at the TRPA offices, the North Tahoe Conference Center, the North Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, Zephyr Cove Post Office, Stateline Post Office, and Tahoe Valley Post Office.

Upload: others

Post on 03-Nov-2019

13 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT AND TAHOE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETINGS

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Friday, January 8, 2010 commencing at 9:30 a.m., the TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) BOARD OF DIRECTORS and the TAHOE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (TTC) will conduct its regular meeting at the Tahoe Center for Environmental Sciences, 291 Country Club Drive, Room 141, Incline Village, NV.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that on Friday, January 8, 2010 commencing

at 8:30 a.m. at the same location, the Budget Finance Committee will meet. The agenda will be as follows: 1) Proposed FY 2010 Budget Revision, 2) November FY 2010 Financial Statement of Operations, 3) Approval of TTD Task Orders, 4) Pass Approval of Receipt and Pass-Through of Matching Funds for Operating Grants Related to BlueGo Routes Connecting to Douglas County and Carson City. (Committee: Ms. Santiago, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Garner)

*This meeting is open to all members of the public. January 4, 2010 Carl Hasty District Manager NOTE: Items on the agenda without a time designation may not necessarily be

considered in the order in which they appear on the agenda.

The following location, Carson City Public Works, 35050 Butti Way, Carson City, NV, will be available for participation by teleconference. For those individuals with special needs who desire to attend this meeting, please contact Judi White at (775) 589-5502.

This notice has been posted at the TRPA offices, the North Tahoe Conference Center, the North Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, Zephyr Cove Post Office, Stateline Post Office, and Tahoe Valley Post Office.

TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) TAHOE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (TTC)

Meeting Agenda Tahoe Center for Environmental Sciences January 8, 2010 291 Country Club Drive, Room 141 9:30 a.m. Incline Village, NV 89451

All items on this agenda are action items unless otherwise noted. I. CALL TO ORDER AND GENERAL MATTERS

A. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum of TTD/TTC B. Approval of Agenda for January 8, 2010 C. Approval of Minutes of December 11, 2009

II. PUBLIC INTEREST COMMENTS

All comments are to be limited to no more than five minutes per person. The Board is prohibited by law from taking immediate action on or discussing issues raised by the public that are not listed on this agenda.

III. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT IV. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (TTC) BUSINESS ITEMS

Item Action Requested Page A. 2008 Federal Transportation Improvement

Program (FTIP) Formal Amendment #13 Open 30-day public comment period as required in TMPO Public Participation Plan

1

V. ADJOURN AS TTC AND RECONVENE AS TTD VI. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) CONSENT ITEMS

Item Action Requested Page A. Proposed FY 2010 Budget Revision Approval 3

B. November FY 2010 Financial Statement of Operations

Acceptance 8

C. Approval of TTD Task Orders Approval 10

D. Approval of Receipt and Pass-Through of Matching Funds for Operating Grants Related to BlueGo Routes Connecting to Douglas County and Carson City

Approval 12

VII. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) BUSINESS ITEMS

Item Action Requested Page A. Status Report Regarding TTD Public Outreach

Plan Discussion and Acceptance

13

Item Action Requested Page

B. Report on Caltran’s Finding Letter from its 5311 Grant Audit as it Relates to District Responsibility for a 1999 Sub-Recipient Grant Award

Informational 16

C. Approval of Sub-Recipient Grant Award Agreement Between TTD and TMPO for FY 2008 FHWA Grant Funds

Approval 20

D. Adoption of TTD Funding Criteria and Project Authorization Findings

Approval 26

E. Project Schedules Update and Progress Report Informational 30

F. Approval of State Route 28 Corridor Management Plan Development as Next Phase of the North Demonstration Bike Trail Project

Approval 39

G. Approval of Use of Project Delivery Agreements for District Related Work

Approval 41

VIII. DISTRICT MANAGER REPORT IX. BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT

TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT / COMMISSION BOARD MEETING MINUTES

December 11, 2009

TTD/C Board Members in Attendance: Andrew Strain, SS-TMA, Chair Will Garner, Placer County, Vice Chair Don Morehouse, Washoe County Steve Teshara, Member at Large Ron McIntyre, TNT-TMA Norma Santiago, El Dorado County Nancy McDermid, Douglas County Bruce Grego, City of South Lake Tahoe Dan Doenges, Carson City (via conference call) Alan Tolhurst, APC Appointed Representative Anjanette Hoefer, U.S. Forest Service

Others in Attendance: Russ Nygaard, El Dorado County Travis Lee, Douglas County Carl Hasty, Tahoe Transportation District Alfred Knotts, Tahoe Transportation District Joanie Schmitt, Tahoe Transportation District Nick Haven, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Karen Fink, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Judy Weber, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Rhonda McFarlane, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Judi White, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and Tahoe Transportation District Dennis Crabb, Esq., Legal Counsel (via conference call)

I. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT AND TAHOE TRANSPORTATION

COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL

A. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum The meeting of the Tahoe Transportation District and Tahoe Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Strain at 9:04 a.m., at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Roll call was taken and it was determined a quorum was in attendance for the TTD/TTC.

B. Approval of TTD/TTC Agenda of December 11, 2009

Mr. Hasty requested a change in the order of the agenda. Motion/second by Mr. Teshara/Mr. Grego to approve the TTD agenda for today’s meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Motion/second by Mr. Teshara/Mr. Grego to approve the TTC agenda for today’s meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes - December 2009

C. Approval of TTD/TTC Meeting Minutes for October 9, 2009 Motion/Second by Mr. Teshara/Ms. Santiago to approve the TTD and TTC minutes with minor changes by Mr. Teshara. Motion passed, with Mr. McIntyre abstaining.

II. PUBLIC INTEREST COMMENTS No public interest comments were made.

III. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr. Garner gave a report regarding the finance committee meeting. IV. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (TTC) BUSINESS ITEMS

A. 2008 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Formal Amendment #12 Mr. Haven explained the remaining balance of ARRA funds need to be programmed in order to keep the funds in the basin. There is a question of eligibility of the TE portion of the funding for bikeway striping. The bikeway striping funding request may have to be removed, because it is considered maintenance, not new construction. The change can be done, if necessary, through an administrative amendment. No comments have been received yet regarding the amendment. Mr. Tolhurst noted that it’s not a bike lane, unless it is striped. Mr. Tolhurst feels striping is part of the project, not a maintenance issue. Public Comment: Peter Eichar, El Dorado County resident, supports the use of any monies available to re-establish the bike lanes. Action Requested: Recommend Approval to TMPO Governing Board Ms. Santiago moved to recommend approval of FTIP Formal Amendment #12 to the TMPO Governing Board, with the possibility of having to remove dollars for bike trail striping. Public comments made at today’s meeting are to be included in the public record. Mr. Teshara seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Morehouse and Mr. Lee arrived at 9:15 a.m. Ms. McDermid arrived at 9:20 a.m.

V. ADJOURN AS TTC AND RECONVENE AS TTD VI. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) CONSENT ITEMS

A. Adopt Record Retention Schedule Policy B. FY 2010 Revenue Versus Expense Report C. Authorization to Surplus Richardson Circulator Vehicles and Trams

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes – December 2009 2

D. Reaffirmation of District Support for TART Service in Incline Village and Entering into Two Section 5311 Pass Through Grants Mr. Garner pulled Item C for discussion. Ms. Santiago motioned to approve Consent Items A, B and D, Ms. McDermid seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Garner asked for clarification of Item C regarding the vehicles and suggested putting the revenue back into passenger transportation. Mr. Hasty noted that staff is not yet clear if the District will be able to retain any revenue received from sale of the vehicles. Staff’s next step upon approval by the Board is to contact Caltrans and the State for a decision regarding the surplus sale of these vehicles. Ms. McDermid moved to approve Item C, seconded by Mr. McIntyre. Motion passed unanimously.

VII. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) BUSINESS ITEMS

A. Annual Adjustment to Rental Car Mitigation Fund Program, Chapter 95 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances Mr. Teshara suggested that although this item is listed as informational only, in the future it should be set up to take action that no adjustment is necessary. Action Requested: Informational Only

B. Proposed FY 2010 Budget Revision for Review and Discussion The draft FY 2010 Revised Budget was handed out for review. Mr. Hasty explained that staff is not looking for adoption at this time. Staff will review today and answer any questions. A final revised budget will be submitted at the next board meeting. Mr. Garner asked why the District is doing a pass through purchase of a bus for the City of S. Lake Tahoe. The explanation Mr. Hasty was given is that the purchase of these buses is piggy-backed on a Minnesota Department of Transportation contract and the idea was that since the District is tax-exempt, there would be no sales tax charged. Mr. Hasty does not know if that is really going to be applicable and in the future, it will make more sense for the city or STATA to piggy-back on such a contract. Chair Strain requested an assessment from staff of what is at risk and not guaranteed. Mr. Hasty made a clarification on page 3 under Work Element 3.5, the $125,000 is being used for the NDOT agreement for the inter-local agreement for the design on intersection improvement project on State Route 28. Action Requested: Discussion and Direction

C. Proposed TTD Funding Criteria and Associated Findings Mr. Knotts reviewed the staff summary and attachments. Mr. Teshara pointed out that the evaluation score should be noted in the findings. Mr.

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes – December 2009 3

McIntyre felt the last criterion – “Does the project assist in achieving the mission of TTD?” should be weighted higher to prevent a project from possibly receiving a passing score, while not assisting in achieving the mission. Mr. Teshara suggested the Board accept the criteria as presented today in order to take action on the subsequent agenda item and ask staff to rework the criteria slightly. Mr. Hasty suggested using the criteria as a starting point, as another project is being suggested by TCPUD. Ms. Santiago left the meeting at 11:00 and was replaced by Russ Nygaard, Deputy Director for DOT. Action Requested: Discussion and Decision Mr. Teshara made the motion to accept the funding criteria and findings as presented by staff with two caveats, 1) that the findings should reflect the scoring of a project, and 2) there is Board direction to have further work done on the criteria based on the Board’s comments today and the funding criteria returned to the Board for review at a future meeting. Mr. McIntyre seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

D. Authorization to Provide Project Development Support to the California Tahoe Conservancy and City of South Lake Tahoe for El Dorado Beach East Project and Adoption of TTD Project Funding Findings for the Project Mr. Knotts noted that on page 46 of the staff summary, second paragraph under Discussion the ‘score’ should reflect 90 points as shown on Attachment B, not 95 points as written. Public Comment: Peter Eichar, with the California Tahoe Conservancy, noted his appreciation for the Board’s consideration of this project. He added that it is a great first step for the Tahoe Conservancy, TTD, City, and County as a collaborative partnership that can capitalize on the monies that are available. Action Requested: Discussion and Approval Based on the findings prepared by staff, that the project is eligible and reaches the appropriate scoring level as determined and also that it fits within our financial capability to approve these funds, Mr. Teshara moved to approve the allocation and authorize staff to take the necessary actions to move forward. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

E. Transit Level of Service Report Jurisdictional Reports Under TRPA Chapter 33 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances The staff summary sent with the initial packet was incorrect. The correct staff summary was sent out Thursday and dated December 10, 2009.

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes – December 2009 4

Ms. Fink reviewed the TRPA annual distribution of allocations. Mr. Tolhurst noted as far as the allocations go, no one is using all their allocations and that next year there will be a new regional plan and the whole allocation system will be revised. Actions Requested:

1. For the TTD Board to review the TLOS Reports and provide TRPA staff and the Performance Review Committee (PRC) with a recommendation regarding the release of 2010 residential allocations;

2. For the TTD to provide a recommendation on using a new baseline to evaluate the South Shore system moving forward; and

3. For the TTD to provide a recommendation to the three South Shore jurisdictions to submit a letter requesting consideration of a “measureable commitment” to transit no later than Friday, January 29, 2010.

Motion/Second by Ms. Santiago/Mr. Garner. Motion passed unanimously.

F. Direction on Establishment of a Board Executive Function for the

Purposes of Timely and In Depth Consultation with Staff on District Operations Chair Strain explained more timely communication is needed between Board and Staff from a strategic thinking standpoint and would like the Board to consider the creation of an executive committee that would be able to meet more frequently in order to improve the ability of the District to be rapid in response and timely to market. Ms. McDermid would prefer the informal method of meeting, as different projects and issues come up. Ms. Santiago agreed with Ms. McDermid. Mr. Garner had a dissenting opinion on establishing an executive function, formal or informal and believes anything that has merit to be discussed at an executive committee should come directly to the Board. Mr. McIntyre agreed and stated committees make recommendations to the full body, unless they are entitled by the full body specific action to do something. Mr. Teshara stated there is a middle ground option to consider. He is supportive of an informal approach and feels it is necessary to do something. Mr. Grego suggested creating ad hoc committees that would be specific to a project. Mr. Crabb noted that if the Board decides to establish ad hoc committees, it would be more workable and create less legal problems to establish one ad hoc committee, as necessary, to review specific issues, rather than establishing four separate ad hoc committees. Mr. Garner stated the Board should get more involved in the monthly meetings and the meetings may have to be longer, as opposed to having another committee meeting. Ms. Santiago agreed with Mr. Grego. Mr. Hasty noted decisions would continue to be made by the Board. The committee would assist in the development of ideas, collaboration and vetting of the ideas that lead to decisions. Mr. McIntyre sincerely supports ad hoc regional strategic planning. Mr. Morehouse suggested the Board might

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes – December 2009 5

need to interact with the Community Advisory Board in Incline Village within Washoe County.

Action Requested: Discussion and Decision Mr. Teshara motioned to authorize the Chair, subject to legal counsel’s advisement, to create informal, geographically based ad hoc committees for the purposes of strategic consultation and to enhance collaboration. Mr. Grego seconded the motion. Mr. Grego asked how large can the ad hoc committee be. Mr. Crabb clarified it has to be less than a quorum and a quorum is five for the TTD Board and they can meet via telephone or video conference. The motion passed with Mr. Garner opposing.

G. Status of District Contracts and Approval of Refinement to Adopted

Contract Procedure Chair Strain explained he asked Staff to refine the contract procedures in order for the Board to have a greater awareness of the status of projects. Mr. Hasty also recommended starting the regular Board meeting at 9:30, allowing the Finance Committee a full hour to meet. Action Requested: Discussion and Approval Ms. Santiago made a motion for approval of the refinement to the adopted contract procedure relevant to work or task order approvals for review by the finance committee and placement on the Board consent calendar for items in excess of $10,000.00. Ms. McDermid seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

VIII. DISTRICT MANAGER REPORT

Mr. Hasty reported that he attended the study session of CalTIP, the insurance pool the District belongs to. He was very impressed, noting there are a lot of resources available through CalTIP, besides receiving liability insurance. He will be asking the Deputy Director of CalTIP to do a presentation to the Board of their services, including the risk management services that are available. There was a discussion before the City Council this week regarding the Caltrans charter for the 50 Loop Road project. The discussion was continued to the January meeting, in order to address some concerns of Mr. Grego. A copy of the Charter was available to review at the meeting. Staff is working to finish some of the asset management matters and wrapping up the annual audit.

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes – December 2009 6

The District received a request from a citizen in Douglas County regarding the potential closure of the Stateline post office asking the District to weigh in on the concern that if everything moves to Zephyr Cove, the VMT’s will increase. SSTMA has also been concerned with this issue. STATA has made a request regarding the January 8 meeting. They are shifting their meeting from January 1 due to the holiday to January 8 at 1:00. As the District’s meeting is scheduled to be at North Shore, they are requesting the Board to move our meeting to the South Shore, since a number of board members are on both boards. Mr. Hasty feels there would be enough time to complete our meeting on the North Shore and members would make it to their next meeting. Mr. McIntyre asked for a brief status report of our priority projects, specifically the Stateline Bikeway. Mr. Knotts gave a brief update.

IX. BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Chair Strain noted he saw Mr. Hasty’s presentation to City Council on the local cable channel and it was very well done. Mr. McIntyre asked about the bus shelter project. Mr. Knotts explained that a Prop 1B grant was awarded specific to a bus shelter in El Dorado County. Mr. McIntyre noted Placer County and the Resort Association are committing funds for bus shelters and felt it appropriate to look for other monies for these shelters. Mr. Garner mentioned there could be an opportunity with Prop 1B funds that were committed for the transit center, now that the transit center is fully funded. Mr. Teshara had two requests for next month’s board meeting, one is continuing the discussion of the postal service. The District doesn’t really have authority to deal with the post office closure, however the District was involved in the preparation of postal service master plan in 2000, and to help Mr. Haven, staff should include an agenda item next month where the Board would direct Staff to write a letter to TRPA, requesting the TRPA to communicate with postal service on the proposal to close the Stateline post office, reminding the postal service of the master plan and the review process required for a change of use. Second, there was an issue this year where the Washoe RTC cut money for contributions to TART to run the North Shore transit service. The money was replaced with NDOT grants, but it brought back into focus the issue of the institutional overlap where Incline Village and Crystal Bay are part of the Tahoe MPO and part of RTC, the MPO for the Truckee Meadows, conflicting jurisdictions. This issue should be brought up to the Nevada TRPA Oversight committee. Mr. Teshara would like to see a proposed letter on the agenda next month to be presented at the next Oversight meeting after the first of the year.

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes – December 2009 7

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes – December 2009 8

Mr. Garner noted the Tahoe City Transit Center will have to be re-bid due to irregularities during the first bidding process. Mr. Tolhurst expressed appreciation of the way the jurisdictions keep things moving during winter storms. Ms. Hoefer noted one committee has decided there are too many Round 11 proposals for the amount of money available and projects may be removed.

X. ADJOURNMENT

Respectfully Submitted: Judi White Executive Assistant Tahoe Transportation District

(The above meeting was recorded in its entirety, anyone wishing to listen to the aforementioned tapes, please contact Judi White, Clerk to the Board, (775) 589-5502.)

Date: January 4, 2010 To: Tahoe Transportation Commission (TTC) From: TMPO Staff Subject: 2008 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Formal

Amendment #13 Requested Action: Initiate 30-day Public Comment Period for the 2008 FTIP Formal Amendment #13 beginning January 11, 2010. Background: The CSLT, El Dorado County, and the CTC began a planning process for 56 acres of land within the center of the city that includes Campground by the Lake, El Dorado Beach and Bike Path, the Recreation Center, the Ice Arena, Senior Center, Museum and Art Building, known initially as the “56 Acres Project.” Following two years of vigorous public participation and site planning activities, a conceptual master plan for the 56 Acres Project was developed in December 2007. In March of 2008, the Conservancy awarded additional grant funding to the city for design drawing (DD) and construction drawing (CD) development, environmental analysis and development permits for the El Dorado portion of the 56 Acres Project area, now known as the Lakeview Commons Project. The planning funds were to cover El Dorado Beach, in addition to three parcels immediately to the east of El Dorado Beach, known as El Dorado Beach East. One parcel is owned by Inn by the Lake, the other two by the CSLT. However, due to reasons beyond the control of the project team, additional costs were incurred during design development, and the three parcels were omitted from full DD and CD development. The City Planning Commission approved the El Dorado Beach Project on May 14, 2009; however, the three parcels were not a part of this permit approval. The recently approved TRPA permit (June 24, 2009) did not address these three parcels either. On July 6, 2009, TTD staff received a letter from Peter Eichar, CTC Recreation and Access Planner, outlaying the situation described above. Included in that letter was a formal request from the CTC for financial assistance from the TTD in the amount of $70,000 to develop design concepts for the three parcels mentioned above, as well as two additional parcels directly to the east. Due to the fact all of these parcels were omitted from the final design of the Lakeview Commons Project, an opportunity exists for the TTD to assist the CTC and the CSLT in project development work for the El Dorado Beach East Project, specifically design concepts and related preliminary engineering.

JAW/jdw AGENDA ITEM: IV.A. . January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 1

JAW/jdw AGENDA ITEM: IV.A. .

Discussion: In order for this project to move forward, it has to be programmed in the FTIP due to the federal monies being provided by the TTD for the project. TMPO would like to initiate the public comment period for the El Dorado Beach East Project beginning January 11, 2010 as Formal Amendment #13. This project is not financially constrained, so certain phases of the project will be programmed in the outer fiscal years of the current 2008 FTIP.

El Dorado Beach East to Ski Run Bike Trail Project (New Project)

1. Add FLH funds of $70,000 to PE to FY 2009/10 2. Add CTC funds of $750,000 to PE to FY 2011/12 3. Add CTC funds of $3,000,000 to RW to FY 2015/16 4. Add CTC funds of $3,500,000 to CON to FY 2017/18

Comments will be solicited from the public on the 2008 FTIP Formal Amendment #13 through 5:00 p.m. February 11, 2010. Written comments can be submitted to Judy Weber at the following:

Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization Attn: Judy Weber, Transportation Planner

P.O. Box 5310 Stateline, NV 89449

Or via email: [email protected]

Additional Information: If you have any comments or questions regarding this item, please contact Judy Weber at [email protected] or (775) 589-5203.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 2

JS/jw AGENDA ITEM: VI.A.

MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2010 To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors From: TTD Staff Subject: Proposed FY 2010 Budget Revision Action Requested: It is requested the Board approve the revised FY 2010 Budget. Discussion: The proposed revised FY10 budget was presented at the December 11, 2009 TTD Board meeting for review and discussion. Staff’s assessment of the proposed changes to the budget is as follows: 1.) Confirmed Agreements The following revenue and expense projections may fluctuate in amount, but any expense generated will be 100% reimbursed. These categories represent 96% of the total budget:

• FTA-Capital Bus • FTA-Grant Match • FTA-RTAP • FLH Half Percent • Regional Contributions • Misc. State & Local • Pass Through

2.) Projected Adjustments The CNG Fuel Sales and Rental Car Mitigation revenues were reduced based on anticipated market cut backs, which included STATA’s reduction in operations. Staff accordingly cut anticipated expenses for these programs. Included in the cut backs were STATA’s and TNT-TMA’s transit operations management fees. Staff has been in contact with both parties to keep them apprised of the situation. Should revenue be higher than budgeted, staff will return to the Board to discuss how to use the revenue, with considerations to retiring past year’s deficits and beginning to build a cash reserve. 3.) Combination of Firm & Projected Member Contributions forecast $30,000 as firm, with the remaining $25,000 as uncommitted.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 3

JS/jw AGENDA ITEM: VI.A.

Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Carl Hasty at (775) 589-5501. Attachments:

A. Proposed FY2010 Budget

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 4

DRAFT Tahoe Transportation DistrictFiscal Year 2010

Revised Budget ProposalJanuary 8, 2010

ATTACHMENT AJanuary 4, 2010

FY2010 Adjustment FY2010Approved Proposed Proposed

Revenues

FTA-Capital Bus 2,340,000$ (731,915)$ 1,608,085$ FTA Grant Match 588,000$ (14,053)$ 573,947$ FTA ARRA Capital Bus 450,000$ (450,000)$ -$ FTA RTAP -$ 2,946$ 2,946$ FLH 1/2% 3,579,380$ (1,088,460)$ 2,490,920$ Federal Grant Revenue 6,957,380$ (2,281,482)$ 4,675,898$

CNG Fuel Sales 125,000$ (36,025)$ 88,975$ Rental Car Mitigation Revenues 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ Fees for Service Revenue 225,000$ (36,025)$ 188,975$

Regional Contribution 60,000$ -$ 60,000$ Other Revenues 60,000$ -$ 60,000$

Local Member Agencies Contributions 50,000$ 5,000$ 55,000$ Local Revenue 50,000$ 5,000$ 55,000$

Misc RevenueMisc State & Local Revenue -$ 62,258$ 62,258$ Sale of Fixed Asset -$ -$ -$ Total Misc Revenue -$ 62,258$ 62,258$

Pass Through RevenueUSFS Round 9 (SNPLMA) -$ 26,000$ 26,000$ City of South Lake Tahoe (Bus) -$ 387,592$ 387,592$ Placer County ARRA (NDOT) -$ 54,726$ 54,726$ Placer County FTA 5311 (NDOT) -$ 189,991$ 189,991$ Pass Through Revenue -$ 658,309$ 658,309$

Revenue Total 7,292,380$ (1,591,940)$ 5,700,440$

Expenses

Federal Grants & MatchFTA Buses & Cutaways 3,378,000$ (1,296,167)$ 2,081,833$ FTA Professional Fees -$ 5,040$ 5,040$ FTA Staff & Overhead -$ 7,020$ 7,020$ RTAP Travel & Training -$ 2,504$ 2,504$ FLH Capital Projects 2,879,380$ (1,110,438)$ 1,768,942$ FLH Projected Program Support 250,000$ 50,115$ 300,115$ FLH Staff and Overhead 450,000$ (28,137)$ 421,863$ Total FTA Grants Expenses 6,957,380$ (2,370,063)$ 4,587,317$

CNG Fuel StationCNG Facility Rent 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ CNG Insurance -$ 3,744$ 3,744$ Utilities 120,000$ (39,769)$ 80,231$ Total CNG Expenses 125,000$ (36,025)$ 88,975$

RCMFJS/jw AGENDA ITEM: VI.A.January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 5

DRAFT Tahoe Transportation DistrictFiscal Year 2010

Revised Budget ProposalJanuary 8, 2010

ATTACHMENT AJanuary 4, 2010

FY2010 Adjustment FY2010Approved Proposed Proposed

Insurance 7,500$ (5,704)$ 1,796$ Professional Services (Legal) 5,000$ 2,500$ 7,500$ Professional Services -$ 1,500$ 1,500$ Acounting & Auditing 3,500$ (3,500)$ -$ Transit Op Mgmt: TNT-TMA 40,000$ (20,000)$ 20,000$ Transit Op Mgmt: STATA 40,000$ (20,000)$ 20,000$ Rent -$ 1,400$ 1,400$ Travel -$ 660$ 660$ Vehicle Maint Service 4,000$ (4,000)$ -$ Total RCMF Expenses 100,000$ (47,144)$ 52,856$

Regional ContributionsSalaries, Benefits & Expenses 10,000$ (10,000)$ -$ Travel -$ 4,900$ 4,900$ Professional Services 50,000$ 1,500$ 51,500$ Total Regional Expenses 60,000$ (3,600)$ 56,400$

Member ContributionsSalaries, Benefits & Expenses 50,000$ (11,335)$ 38,665$ Professional Services -$ 125$ 125$ Total Member Contribution Expenses 50,000$ (11,210)$ 38,790$

Misc ExpensesProfessional Fees -$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Capital Improvement -$ 15,000$ 15,000$ License & Permits -$ 3,000$ 3,000$ Total Misc. Expenses -$ 33,000$ 33,000$

Pass Through ExpensesUSFS Round 9 (SNPLMA) -$ 26,000$ 26,000$ City of South Lake Tahoe (Bus) -$ 387,592$ 387,592$ Placer County ARRA (NDOT) -$ 54,726$ 54,726$ Placer County FTA 5311 (NDOT) -$ 189,991$ 189,991$ Total Pass Through Expenses -$ 658,309$ 658,309$

Expense Total 7,292,380$ (1,776,733)$ 5,515,647$

Revenue Total 7,292,380$ 5,700,440$ Expense Total 7,292,380$ 5,515,647$ Net Gain/(Loss) -$ 184,793$

Projected Fund Balance as of 6/30/09 (175,121)$

Projected Fund Balance @ 6/30/10 9,672$

JS/jw AGENDA ITEM: VI.A.January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 6

ATTACHMENT AJanuary 4, 2010Tahoe Transportation District

FY 2010 BudgetREVISED

FLH Capital ProjectsWork Element 3.1 - US 50 Stateline Corridor/Loop Road Project

Contracts 520,000.00 Wood Rodgers, ESI, Design Workshop, Regional Planning Partners

Services 8,000.00 Meeting Room Rentals, Legal Notices, Postage, Reproduction/Printing and Advertising/ Public Relations

Work Element 3.2 - Lake Tahoe Waterborne TransitContracts 300,000.00 HDR, ESI, Regional Planning Partners, Design Workshop

Services 8,000.00 Meeting Room Rentals, Legal Notices, Postage, Reproduction/Printing and Advertising/ Public Relations

Work Element 3.3 - Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway Facility ProjectContracts 520,000.00 EDAW, ESI, Regional Planning Partners, Design Workshop, Lumos Engineering

Services 8,942.00 Meeting Room Rentals, Legal Notices, Postage, Reproduction/Printing and Advertising/ Public Relations

Work Element 3.4 - California State Route 89 Realignment/Fanny Bridge ProjectContracts 250,000.00 Wood Rodgers, ESI, Design Workshop, Regional Planning Partners

Services 8,000.00 Meeting Room Rentals, Legal Notices, Postage, Reproduction/Printing and Advertising/Public Relations

Work Element 3.5 - Nevada State Route 431/28 Intersection Improvement ProjectContracts 125,000.00 Nevada Department of Transportation

Services 13,000.00 Meeting Room Rentals, Legal Notices, Postage, Reproduction/Printing, Advertising/ Public Relations and License/Permits

Work Element 3.6 - Other ProjectsServices 8,000.00 Meeting Room Rentals, Legal Notices, Postage, Reproduction/Printing and

Advertising/ Public RelationsTOTAL FLH Capital Projects $1,768,942.00

FLH Program SupportWork Element 1 - TTD Administration and Outreach

Professional Fees 1.1 5,000.00 LegalServices 1.1 2,226.00 Meeting Room Rentals & Legal NoticesServices 1.2 300.00 SuppliesServices 1.3 7,378.00 Travel & Training

Work Element 2 - Program Management for Projects and ServicesServices 2.2 55,591.00 Travel, Training, Advertising & Public RelationsContracts 2.2 25,000.00 Design WorkshopContracts 2.4 164,000.00 ESI, Regional Planning Partners, Tallac Applied EcologyProfessional Fees 2.4 16,000.00 ESIServices 2.5 3,900.00 Travel, Training, Dues & Subscriptions

Work Element 5 - Capacity Development for Projects and Transit ServiceProfessional Fees 2.5 16,000.00 AuditServices 5.3 4,720.00 Travel, Training, Dues & Subscriptions

TOTAL FLH Program Support $300,115.00

FLH Staff & OverheadWages 267,951.29Admin & Overhead 153,911.26

TOTAL Staff & Overhead $421,862.55

JS/jw AGENDA ITEM: VI.A January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 7

JS/jw AGENDA ITEM: VI.B.

MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2010 To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors From: TTD Staff Subject: November FY 2010 Financial Statement of Operations Action Requested: It is requested the Board accept the latest Financial Statement of Operations for July 1, 2009 through November 30, 2009. Background: Staff has completed analyzing financial information for the first five months of FY 2010. Discussion: Overall, the District appears to have ended up with a net loss of $13,644.91 for the month of November 2009. This loss was expected, due to the timing of CNG Revenue and Rental Car Mitigation Fees. The cash fund balance is negative $10,068.70, which is approximately $165,052.78 more than the start of the fiscal year. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency advanced cash to the District in the amount of $166,367.65 through November 2009. The District’s payables equaled $272,315.73 and the receivables totaled $915,477.95, which includes the City of South Lake Tahoe’s grant match of $611,517. Upon Board approval of the Revised Budget request, Staff will begin utilizing the variance feature on the attached report. Fiscal Analysis: The District appears to be in line with the Revised Budget for FY 2010. Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Joanie Schmitt at (775) 589-5227 or [email protected]. Attachment:

A. Financial Statement of Operations

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 8

Tahoe Transportation DistrictFinancial Statement of Operations

For Period July 1, 2009 through November 30, 2009

ATTACHMENT AJanuary 4, 2010

Recap by Grouping Actual Budget ActualNovember Annual YTD Variance %

FLH 1/2 Percent Funding 65,117.82 3,579,380.00 441,402.63 3,137,977.37 12.33%FLH 1/2 Percent Expense (65,117.84) (3,579,380.00) (441,402.35) (3,137,977.65) 12.33%Net Gain / (Loss) (0.02) 0.00 0.28 (0.28)

Federal Grant NV 58-0001 Revenue 0.00 2,790,000.00 23,293.00 2,766,707.00 0.83%Grant Match 0.00 588,000.00 64,847.00 523,153.00 11.03%Total Federal Grant Revenues w/Match 0.00 3,378,000.00 88,140.00 3,289,860.00Federal Grant NV 58-0001 Expenses 0.00 (3,378,000.00) (1,040.00) (3,376,960.00) 0.03%Net Gain / (Loss) 0.00 0.00 87,100.00 (87,100.00)

Federal Grant RTAP Revenue (22.50) 0.00 1,423.50 (1,423.50) N/AFederal Grant NV RTAP Expenses 0.00 0.00 (1,231.50) 1,231.50 N/ANet Gain / (Loss) (22.50) 0.00 192.00 (192.00)

State & Local Revenue 0.00 0.00 16,406.00 (16,406.00) N/AState & Local Expenses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/ANet Gain / (Loss) 0.00 0.00 16,406.00 (16,406.00)

TRPA Revenue 6,666.67 60,000.00 33,333.34 26,666.66 55.56%Contract Expenses (11,678.77) (60,000.00) (35,606.82) (24,393.18) 59.34%Net Gain / (Loss) (5,012.10) 0.00 (2,273.48) 2,273.48

Member Contributions 0.00 50,000.00 30,000.00 20,000.00 60.00%Miscellaneous Revenues 0.00 0.00 12,852.06 (12,852.06) N/ATotal Other Revenue 0.00 50,000.00 42,852.06 7,147.94Member Contributions Expenses (3,239.18) (50,000.00) (14,908.69) (35,091.31) 29.82%Net Gain / (Loss) (3,239.18) 0.00 27,943.37 (27,943.37)

Rental Car Mitigation Revenues 1,149.50 100,000.00 33,869.00 66,131.00 33.87%Rental Car Mitigation Expenses (916.38) (100,000.00) (4,165.77) (95,834.23) 4.17%Net Gain / (Loss) 233.12 0.00 29,703.23 (29,703.23)

CNG Fuel Sales 0.00 125,000.00 30,092.92 94,907.08 24.07%CNG Fuel Expenses (5,604.23) (125,000.00) (24,111.54) (100,888.46) 19.29%Net Gain / (Loss) (5,604.23) 0.00 5,981.38 (5,981.38)

Passthrough Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/APassthrough Expenditure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/ANet Gain / (Loss) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

RECAPRevenue 72,911.49 7,292,380.00 687,519.45 6,604,860.55 9.43%Expenses (86,556.40) (7,292,380.00) (522,466.67) (6,769,913.33) 7.16%Net Gain / (Loss) (13,644.91) 0.00 165,052.78 (165,052.78)

Fund Balance -175,121.48FY 2010 Gain/(Loss) 165,052.78 Cash Balance @ 11/30/09 (166,367.65)Fund Balance @ 11/30/09 -10,068.70

JS/jw AGENDA ITEM: VI.B.January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 9

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VI.C.

MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2010 To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors From: TTD Staff Subject: Approval of TTD Task Orders Action Requested: It is requested the Board approve the issuance of Task Orders to assist in carrying out the TTD Work Program, including the TTD Capital Improvement Program. Background: At the December 11, 2009 Board meeting, staff gave an update regarding the TTD’s contracting activities to date. Also at the December meeting, revised contracting procedures were presented and approved by the Board. The new procedures require all task orders in excess of $10,000 be presented to the Finance Committee, as well as the Board, for action prior to full development and execution. Discussion: Since the December meeting, staff has identified several task orders required for program and project development activities. The task orders, the scope of services, and anticipated financial expenditure associated with the agreements are shown in the table below:

Firm Work Element

Type of Agreement

Phase Work to be Performed/Deliverable

Cost

Wood Rodgers

3.6 – Other Projects (El Dorado Beach East)

Task Order Preliminary Engineering and Design

Survey and design work

$70,000

Design Workshop

2.2 – Capital Improvement Program

Task Order Public Outreach

Development of project simulations

$40,000

EDAW 3.3 – Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway Project

Task Order Preliminary Engineering and Design

Development of two (2) 10% Concept Design Plans for Edgewood property

$20,000

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 10

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VI.C.

Staff will bring other contractual and task order agreements before the TTD Finance Committee and Board in a timely manner to ensure that there are no impacts to program and project development activities. Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact associated with this item is $113,000. All expenditures associated with this item are accounted for in the existing TTD Work Program and/or TTD Capital Improvement Program. Work Program Impact: All work associated with this effort will be captured under various elements of the existing Work Program. Therefore, there is no need to amend the Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Work Program. Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Alfred Knotts at (775) 589-5503.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 11

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VI.D.

MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2010 To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors From: TTD Staff Subject: Approval of Receipt and Pass-Through of Matching Funds for Operating Grants

Related to BlueGo Routes Connecting to Douglas County and Carson City Action Requested: It is requested the Board approve accepting a pass-through grant match in the amount of $372,500 from the charitable investment fund of Big George Ventures, LLC for the BlueGo system operated by the South Tahoe Area Transit Authority (STATA) for FY 2010. Background: For the last two years, Big George Ventures, LLC has provided a grant from its charitable investment fund to the BlueGo transit system on an annual basis. STATA, which operates the system at the South Shore, is a 501 (c) (4) organization and is not eligible to receive the grant match directly. STATA has asked the District, which is eligible, to receive the grant match and pass the grant match to STATA. This request has been approved by the matching organization. Discussion: The District sits on the Board of STATA and has a vested interest in its successful operation. The District also has a large number of the system’s buses titled in its name. This private sector match contribution is both generous and fulfills a need, namely leveraging grant funds for operations. Service would diminish in the Douglas County and Carson City connection routes without it. Lastly, the District has in place an existing agreement with STATA for the pass through of operating funds. Fiscal Analysis: This appears to be a relatively simple exchange. The primary expense will be the staff time to address the accounting, with minimal management time necessary. The District will book the funds as revenue and the expense as a pass through. Work Program Analysis: This appears to fit within the routine time allotted for fiscal administration and management. It should not amount to any significant use of additional time. More Information: If you need more information, please contact Carl Hasty at 775-589-5501.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 12

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.A.

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 4, 2010 To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors From: Carl Hasty, District Manager Subject: Status Report Regarding TTD Public Outreach Plan Action Requested: It is requested the Board review, receive and accept this Status Report, with further direction to staff as appropriate related to development of a specific public outreach and education plan. Background: With Board adoption of its Work Plan, the District has embarked on a major Capital Improvement Program, a program that involves many partners. As discussed by the Board in September, an effective program of public outreach and education will be needed to inform and support the timely advancement of projects identified in the Work Plan. The Board agreed to support the development of a “campaign approach” that addresses and promotes a program of projects - projects that add value to the community, the environment, and the economy. The Board and staff recognized the importance of customizing projects to address specific needs within our geographically diverse areas. As an initial step in the development of a public outreach campaign, a random telephone survey of voters was conducted in the North Lake Tahoe area September 14 through 16, 2009 and September 21 through 24, 2009. The purpose of this survey was to sample voter awareness of the Tahoe Transportation District and perspectives on the importance of transportation and transit projects in the area. There were two survey samples. One involved 400 registered voters (residents 18+) living within the 22 voting districts that comprise the Tahoe Basin portion of eastern Placer County. The second was among 400 registered voters living in Incline Village. This sample was among registered voters (residents 18+) residing in the ten voting districts located within Incline Village.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 13

Summary of Survey Findings: Knowledge of the Tahoe Transportation District In Incline Village, 68 percent of those surveyed indicated they had heard of the Tahoe Transportation District. However, approximately two-thirds of these respondents did not know whether the TTD was a division of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency or a stand-alone agency; only 29 percent said they knew the TTD to be a stand-alone agency. Among those who had heard of the TTD, 59 percent rated it favorably. In the Basin portion of eastern Placer County, 69 percent of those surveyed said they had heard of the TTD. Thirty-four percent of these respondents were aware that the TTD is an agency separate from the TRPA; 13 percent believed the TTD to be part of the TRPA. Among those who had heard of the TTD, 50 percent rated it favorably. Levels of Priority Placed on Transportation Improvements In the Basin portion of eastern Placer County, 15 percent said transportation improvements were a Very Top Priority; 43 percent said they were Absolutely Necessary. Another 30 percent said they were Probably Necessary. Five percent said they were Probably Unnecessary; two percent said they were Absolutely Unnecessary; and six percent were undecided. Combining the two top categories - Very Top Priority and Absolutely Necessary, 58 percent of those surveyed placed a high priority on transportation improvements; another 30 percent felt they were Probably Necessary, for a total of 88 percent of those surveyed. In Incline Village, 14 percent said transportation improvements were a Very Top Priority; 24 percent said they were Absolutely Necessary. Another 40 percent said they were Probably Necessary. Nine percent said they were Probably Unnecessary; three percent said they were Absolutely Unnecessary and nine percent were undecided. Combining the two top categories - Very Top Priority and Absolutely Necessary, 38 percent of those surveyed placed a high priority on transportation improvements; another 40 percent said they were Probably Necessary, for a total of 78 percent of those surveyed. What Should Be the TTD’s Areas of Focus? In the Basin portion of eastern Placer County, the areas of focus which generated double digit support were:

• 24 hour, year-round bus service; more efficient bus schedules, 23 percent including service off the highway

• Reduce traffic congestion 19 percent • More public transit, including trains and waterborne 12 percent

In Incline Village, the areas of focus which generated double digit support were:

• Reduce traffic congestion 12 percent • Improve existing roads 12 percent • More bike paths; encourage biking; safety improvements on paths 10 percent

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.A.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 14

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.A.

Level of Awareness of High Profile Projects As part of the eastern Placer County portion of the survey, respondents were queried as to their awareness of a high profile transportation project. The Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project has been in the planning and development process for well over ten years. Among respondents, 53 percent said they had heard of the project; 47 percent said they had not. In Incline Village, the potential for improvements at the intersection of Nevada State Routes 28 and 431 has been discussed for several years. As part of its adopted Work Plan, the TTD is working with the Nevada Department of Transportation to help fund project studies and an environmental review of proposed alternatives. Incline respondents who indicated awareness of this project talked about it in terms of a roundabout. They were typically not aware of the broader study of multiple alternatives. Discussion: As part of developing the Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project, the TTD recognizes that Placer County has conducted a very robust program of public workshops, meetings, educational outreach, and public hearings over many years. The fact that just over half of those surveyed indicated awareness of this high profile project underscores the challenge we face as a District, in collaboration with our project partners, in developing and implementing a successful public outreach and education plan. Similarly, in the case of intersection improvements at Nevada Highways 28 and 431 in Incline Village, the need for effective public outreach was clearly identified. Professionals who plan and develop transportation projects understand that people tend to view and react to project proposals based on a wide variety of factors, including socioeconomic circumstances (e.g., age, employment, education), and personal preferences for mobility. Transportation projects also play an important role in land use, community design, and environmental improvements. An effective public outreach and education plan for a major transportation project of a Capital Improvement Program must address the diversity of its mission. District Staff looks forward to Board and project partner discussion and input as we seek to develop and implement an effective public outreach and education program. Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Carl Hasty at (775) 589-5501.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 15

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.B.

MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2010 To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors From: TTD Staff Subject: Report on Caltran’s Finding Letter from its 5311 Grant Audit as it Relates to

District Responsibility for a 1999 Sub-Recipient Grant Award Action Requested: Informational only, no action is required from the Board at this time. Background: In 1999, the District received a grant from Caltrans as a sub-recipient of a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5311 grant for the purchase of a bus. The District gave the bus to the City of South Lake Tahoe (CSLT). It was reported that ATM took the bus out of service in 2005 and stripped it for parts, four years before its expected useful end life. The four years is the balance of federal interest or value in the bus. Caltrans discovered this in an audit of 5311 grants with CSLT conducted earlier this calendar year. Caltrans sent a letter to the District on December 22, 2009 informing Staff of their findings and expectations (Attachment A). Staff believes a miscalculation of value has been made and that the value remaining is approximately $51,000. Discussion: The Caltrans finding is to be expected given the asset management regime of the past. The audit letter underscores why the District has been taking steps to update its asset management procedure and process this past year. There are at least two ways of resolving this matter with Caltrans. One is to pay the sum by the date Caltrans specifies and another is to invest the value into a new bus. It is the latter that staff will pursue with the latest bus purchases from NABI. Staff believes the current purchase of buses that are being delivered this month can be credited consistent with federal regulations for reinvestment of federal interest.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 16

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.B.

Staff has initiated contact with Caltrans and is pursuing resolution, including a clarification of outstanding value. Staff will draft a response letter by January 15, 2010 as requested and report to the Board on progress. Fiscal Analysis: Staff believes the outstanding value is closer to $50,600. If Caltrans does not agree with the valuation, it will be closer to $73,000. Staff believes the purchase of buses the District is currently in the process of making have more than enough local funds that a corresponding amount can be credited against the federal interest. If Caltrans does not agree with this approach, then the District will need to find the funds to repay Caltrans. Work Program Analysis: This is an administrative matter that fits within the time programmed for asset management. Staff will also be working with District Counsel and partners to amend existing agreements to improve and correct asset management procedures and practices. More Information: If you need more information, please contact Carl Hasty at 775-589-5501. Attachment:

A. Caltran’s letter dated December 22, 2009

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 17

ATTACHMENT A January 4, 2010

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.B.January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 18

ATTACHMENT A January 4, 2010

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.B.January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 19

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.C.

MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2010 To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors From: TTD Staff Subject: Approval of Sub-Recipient Grant Award Agreement Between TTD and TMPO for

FY 2008 FHWA Grant Funds Action Requested: It is requested the Board approve the District’s sub-recipient grant agreement for FY 2008 Federal Lands Highway funds with the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization (TMPO), subject to District Counsel’s review and approval of the final agreement. Background: As a result of the Fiscal Year 2008/2009 Fiscal Audit, the District’s auditors informed Staff that the MOU between the District and TMPO adopted in September 2008 did not satisfy compliance requirements for the allocation of federal funds, specifically the half percent funding. It was recommended that a formal sub-recipient grant agreement modeled after the agreement between TMPO and the Federal Highway Administration be developed and executed to memorialize that the TTD is a sub-recipient of these funds. The attached draft is adapted from said agreement and has been reviewed by District Counsel (Attachment A). TRPA/TMPO Counsel is currently reviewing the agreement as is TRPA/TMPO Finance. Any change requested by either the TRPA/TMPO Counsel or Finance is subject to review by the District’s Counsel. Discussion: Staff believes that the current draft substantively captures the necessary agreement and that any revisions will be minor and clarifying in nature. The Board should review the attachment and approve the adoption of the final agreement subject to District Counsel review and approval. Fiscal Analysis: The cost of the agreement is limited to Staff and Counsel time. The absence of the grant agreement and a finding of non-compliance may jeopardize future grant awards and the existing TTD Work and Capital Improvement Programs.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 20

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.C.

Work Program Analysis: Work on the agreement falls within the allotted staff time for administration of the District’s operation. Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Carl Hasty at (775) 589-5501. Attachment(s):

A. Draft Statement of Work, Reimbursable Agreement, September 8, 2009

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 21

ATTACHMENT A January 4, 2010

STATEMENT OF WORK

REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENT NO. _________________

September 8, 2009

I. Introduction: The purpose of this agreement is to provide payment to the Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) as a sub-recipient to the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization (TMPO) activities in the Lake Tahoe region. Public Law No. 110-244, 122 Stat. 1572 (H. R.1195), which amends SAFETEA-LU authorized Section 101(n), dictates “in addition to other funds made available to the Lake Tahoe Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Secretary of Transportation shall set aside one half (1/2) of one (1) percent of all funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 204 of title 23, United States code, for the Lake Tahoe region. These funds shall be made available to the Lake Tahoe Region Metropolitan Planning Organization to carry out the transportation planning process, environmental review, preliminary engineering, and design to complete environmental documentation for transportation projects in the region.”

II. Location: Within the jurisdiction administered within the TMPO. III. Work Required: Transportation planning, environmental reviews, preliminary

engineering, and design to complete environmental documentation for transportation projects in the region. The specific transportation planning activities will be reflected in the most recent TTD work program. The specific project related activities will be reflected in the most recent TMPO Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP).

IV. Breakdown of Costs: The following represents a breakdown of the costs, as agreed to

by TRPA, TMPO and TTD: • The remaining funding dictated by the language above (Part I. Introduction) will be

transferred to TTD via this agreement. This will be considered a lump sum amount to be drawn upon throughout the period of performance.

V. Deliverables and Schedule: Annual copy of approved Work Plan. Quarterly progress

reports detailing milestones, budget, activity type, description of activity, percent of progress completed on activity, anticipated date of completion of activity, and any potential issues that will affect the Work Plan. In addition, since payment will be made on a monthly basis, invoices and a project and staffing report will be submitted monthly that corresponds to the annual work plan and quarterly progress reports.

TRPA will review the delivery plan, to be provided by TTD to the TRPA for the work described in Item III, Work Required. TTD will provide to TRPA a general summary describing the procurement methods and processes to be used for internally delivered work products. TRPA will review for reasonableness and good business practices. This plan is to be approved by TRPA prior to payment for the work described under this agreement.

VI. Period of Performance: This Agreement will be in effect commencing on the date that

the Agreement is signed and will terminate on September 30, 2011.

CH/jw - 1 - AGENDA ITEM: VII.C.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 22

ATTACHMENT A January 4, 2010

VII. Technical Representative: The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative for TRPA is Nick Haven and the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative for FHWA’s reimbursable agreement is Richard Huso, Program Scoping Engineer, FHWA and can be contacted at 720-963-3559 or by emailing [email protected].

VIII. Agreement Contacts:

FHWA Finance POC: Regina Monroe, 720-963-3460 TRPA Program POC: Nick Haven, 775-589-5256 or [email protected] TRPA Finance POC: Kathy Tomascak, 775-589-5279 or [email protected] TTD Program POC: Carl Hasty, 775-589-5501 or [email protected] TTD Finance POC: Joanie Schmitt, 775-589-5227 or [email protected]

IX. FHWA Furnished Data: N/A X. Financial Administration

A. Total Agreement Amount: $3,992,710 B. Payment: TTD will receive payment on a monthly basis, upon receipt of an

invoice of costs incurred and authorized. If payment cannot be made within 30 days, TRPA will notify TTD in writing providing an alternate payment schedule and providing the reason the payment cannot be made within 30 days. TTD is limited to eligible and allowable costs with back-up data. Back-up data includes all documents needed to support the requested reimbursement, such as record of contract payments, receipts, payrolls, and so on. TTD should not incur costs which exceed the maximum cost stated in this Reimbursable Agreement without authorization from the TRPA. Such authorization will be in the form of a modification to this agreement signed by the TRPA Contracting Officer.

C. Prompt Payment: The Government considers payment as being made the day a check is dated or the date of an electronic funds transfer (EFT). All days referred to in this clause are calendar days. However, when the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, TRPA may make the payment on the following working day without incurring a late payment penalty. The due date for making payments by TRPA is the 30th day after receipt of a proper invoice from the agency, or the 30th day after acceptance of services performed or supplies delivered. The Prompt Payment regulations do not require payment of interest penalties if based on improper submission of invoices and incorrect EFT information provided by TTD.

D. Method of Billing and Proper Submission of Invoices: The TRPA shall pay TTD, upon the submission of proper invoices, the prices stipulated in the agreed upon cost budget for services rendered or supplies delivered, as stated in the Statement of Work. TTD must submit an acceptable invoice to TRPA acceptable to FHWA-Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) that, at a minimum, includes the following:

• Name and mailing address • Finance contact with phone number and e-mail address • Accounting information • Agreement number • Billing period • Documents supporting all costs submitted for reimbursement, i.e., rental

agreements, POV mileage sheet, printing/copying invoices, etc. or itemized financial summary of expenditures in accordance with accepted cost budget.

CH/jw - 2 - AGENDA ITEM: VII.C.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 23

ATTACHMENT A January 4, 2010

Submit support documents and Progress Report to:

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Attn: PO Box 5310 Stateline, NV 89449 and/or Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, CO 80228 Attn: Richard Huso

Submit invoice to: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Attn: PO Box 5310 Stateline, NV 89449 and/or Federal Lands Highway A/P, AMZ-150 PO Box 25710 Oklahoma City, OK 73125 or Federal Lands Highway A/P, AMZ-150 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73169 Or e-mail: [email protected]

E. Administrative Fee: Unless otherwise explicitly stated in this Agreement, TRPA

shall not be liable for any additional administrative fees.

XI. Modifications: Any modifications to the Agreement must be made in writing and agreed to by both parties. Such authorizations are not binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the agencies.

XII. Agreement Completion: When TRPA has accepted all deliverables, TTD will provide a

written project evaluation and final accounting of project costs to TRPA’s contact. XIII. Termination: Either agency may terminate this agreement upon 90-calendar day (or as

designated in the statement of work) prior written notification to the other agency unless in breach of the agreement. Either agency will notify the other in case of breach specifying the nature of the breach and giving 30 days for remedy. If remedy is not made after 30 days this agreement may be terminated with written notification.

CH/jw - 3 - AGENDA ITEM: VII.C.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 24

ATTACHMENT A January 4, 2010

CH/jw - 4 - AGENDA ITEM: VII.C.

If this agreement is terminated by TTD, its liability shall extend only to the release of its work products and related materials to the TRPA by the effective date of termination. If this agreement should be terminated by the TRPA, its liability shall extend only to pay for the actual and reasonable costs of the items/services rendered and the costs of any non-cancelable obligations incurred in accordance with the terms of this agreement prior to the effective date of termination.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 25

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.D.

MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2010 To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors From: TTD Staff Subject: Adoption of Revised TTD Funding Criteria and Project Authorization Findings Action Requested: It is requested the TTD Board of Directors adopt the revised TTD Project Funding Criteria and Project Authorization Findings. Background: At the December 11, 2009 Board meeting, staff presented draft scoring criteria and findings against which proposed projects would be screened, prior to the TTD Board authorizing either the allocation of funding and/or staff time to carry out the project. The criteria developed by staff took into account consistency with regional planning documents, funding sources, and the TTD mission, as well as the overall significance of the project and its benefits to the Lake Tahoe transportation system and environment. The criteria were also weighted to ensure that if projects do not meet certain eligibility requirements, they would no longer be considered for funding by the TTD. In addition to the development of scoring criteria, staff also developed associated findings for use by the Board when adopting or approving a project for funding. While the criteria and findings were approved by the Board at the December 11, 2009 meeting and used for approval of the El Dorado Beach project, Staff was directed to make some minor modifications to the criteria and findings prior to final adoption by the Board. One specific recommendation from the Board was related to the criteria ensuring the project being considered is consistent with the TTD mission. Discussion: After further consideration and review of the other criteria, Staff determined that the mission consistency criterion was redundant and that consistency is captured under other scoring criteria. Therefore, Staff has removed this criterion from consideration and added a finding in the findings section, related to the TTD mission to reaffirm consistency. As a result of this modification, ten (10) points were reallocated to other criteria of significance as shown below:

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 26

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.D.

Criteria Original Points Available Revised Points Available

Does This Project Assist in achieving the Mission of the TTD?

10 Points

0

Does the Project have a major transportation element or improve a public transportation facility?

10 Points

15 Points

Is this Project Consistent with the Environmental Improvement Program Goals and Policies?

5 Points

10 Points

Lastly, Staff included the overall score of the project funding evaluation in the findings. The revised scoring criteria and associated findings are included in this staff summary as Attachment A and Attachment B, respectively. Fiscal Analysis: Impacts to the Fiscal Year 2009/2010 TTD Budget will be realized under Work Element 3.6 – Other Projects on a project by project basis following project authorization by the Board. Funding for specific projects will be allocated from the un-programmed FLH balance. Work Program Analysis: All work associated with preparing this report is captured within existing TTD Work Program. Therefore, there is no need to amend the fiscal year 2009/2010 Work Program. Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Alfred Knotts at (775) 589-5503 or via email at [email protected]. Attachments:

A. Draft TTD Funding Criteria B. TTD Project Authorization Findings

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 27

ATTACHMENT AJanuary 4, 2010

Criterion Meets Criteria Does not meet Criteria Points Awarded

Are the project and phases eligible for funding as described under Title 23 Section 204 of the United States Government Code? 20 points 0 points

Is the Project regionally significant? 10 points 0 points

If no, is the Project significant to a local jurisdiction? 5 points 0 points

Is this Project consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan Goals and Policies? 20 points 0 points

Is this Project Consistent with the Environmental Improvement Program Goals and Policies? 10 points 0 points

Does the project involve 2 or more jurisdictions/partnering entities? 5 points 0 points

Does the Project have a major transportation element or improve a public transportation facility? 15 points 0 points

Does the Project have foreseeable funding to proceed to the next phase? 5 points 0 points

Total Points Possible 100 points

Total Points Awarded

Note: Project must have a score of greater than 80 points to be considered for funding by the TTD Board

TTD Project Funding Evaluation Criteria

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.D.January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 28

ATTACHMENT B January 4, 2010

Tahoe Transportation District Project Authorization Findings

The Tahoe Transportation District Board makes the Following Findings Related to the ______ Project:

The ________ Project is consistent with the Regional

Transportation Plan’s goals and policies; and The _________ Project substantially improves and/or is

required to complete a comprehensive multimodal transportation system for the Lake Tahoe Basin; and

The __________ Project received a Funding Evaluation

Score ____ which makes the _________ Project eligible for funding; and

The tasks to be undertaken for the _________ Project are

eligible to be funded by Federal Lands Highway Program as it relates to Section 204 of the United States Government Code; and

The TTD hereby finds that the ____________ Project meets

all of the Project Authorization Findings; AND is consistent with the adopted Mission of the Tahoe Transportation District.

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.D. January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 29

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.E.

MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2010 To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors From: TTD Staff Subject: Project Schedules Update and Progress Report Action Requested: Informational item. No action requested. Background: As part of the effort to achieve the mission of the Tahoe Transportation District, the Board has identified several regionally significant transportation projects as priority projects in which the TTD would undertake as the lead agency, utilizing the half percent funding made available through the technical corrections bill. The projects identified by the Board are as follows:

• Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway Facility Project • US 50 Stateline Corridor/Loop Road Project • Lake Tahoe Waterborne Transit • Nevada State Route 431/28 Intersection Improvement Project • California State Route 89 Realignment/Fanny Bridge Project

At the June 2009 Board meeting, Staff presented baseline project schedules for the above-referenced projects. As part of that discussion, Staff also proposed to provide regular project schedule updates to the Board as a means to keep members of the Board, as well as members of the public, apprised of progress in implementing the TTD’s Capital Improvement Program. Discussion: To honor the request of the Board, updates have been made to the baseline project schedules which are provided as Attachment A. The date listed under the column titled “Revised Completion Date” reflects any adjustments made to the baseline schedule. Since the August 2009 report, only minor modifications have been made to the project schedules. In addition to the Project Schedules updates, Staff has also prepared to the following additional information to outline recent accomplishments related to critical path items and/or major project milestones:

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 30

Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway Facility Project

• Staff completed alignment walk-throughs with members of the Working Group, most notably TRPA and USFS staff to discuss issues related to each alignment and associated solutions.

• The Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway Facility Project Working Group (Working Group) held a Stakeholder Workshop on November 18, 2009 in Incline Village to review and seek input on the Alternatives Evaluation Matrix for the portion of the trail from Sand Harbor to Round Hill Pines Beach. The Workshop was well attended and the Working Group and consultant team received valuable input regarding potential alignments.

• The environmental analysis for the South Demonstration Project is underway and all necessary information required to conduct the analysis (biological inventories, botanical inventories, survey information, etc.) has been collected, with the exception of the Land Capability mapping and coverage verification. This information will be collected at the beginning of the 2010 field season after which the Draft EA will be completed and circulated.

• Staff held a meeting with representatives from Edgewood to discuss the need for an easement and review the proposed alignment. Edgewood representatives requested modifications to the proposed alignment to minimize impacts to the golf course and conflicts with golf play. Edgewood raised additional concerns related to impacts to their sign and recently completed landscaping and fence structure. Staff, with assistance from the consultant team, is developing a revised alignment and additional aesthetic treatments to address these concerns. A meeting is scheduled with Edgewood representatives, specifically, Lew Feldman, on January 12, 2010 to review the revise alignment.

• More robust scenic and biologic (Osprey) assessments were completed for the North Demonstration Project alignments to determine if the Project is feasible in terms of permitability. A meeting was held on December 10, 2009 with representatives from the Nevada Division of Wildlife and TRPA to discuss the findings and recommendations of the resource assessments. At the conclusion of the meeting, it was determined that with appropriate mitigation and monitoring, both project alignments still appear to be feasible and should therefore continue to be developed for full environmental analysis.

Lake Tahoe Waterborne Transit

• Staff executed a contract with HDR Engineering on October 7, 2009 as authorized by

the Board. • Staff executed a Task Order with HDR Engineering on October 19, 2009 to initiate the

Transit Alternatives Analysis Phase of the Project. • Staff held a kick-off meeting with representatives from HDR on October 19, 2009 to

review the Scope of Work and Project Schedule. As part of this meeting, several approaches to the Project were discussed that would assist in developing a concrete Purpose and Need Statement to drive the Project.

• The development of the Purpose and Need statement is in the process of being developed, as is the identification of representatives for the establishment of stakeholder groups.

• Per a request from the Executive Director of the California Tahoe Conservancy, Patrick Wright, a meeting with staff was held on December 1, 2009 to discuss the status of the Project. Future collaboration with the CTC will occur throughout the development of the Project.

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.E.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 31

US 50 Stateline Corridor/Loop Road Project

• Staff has been working with the City of South Lake Tahoe to address concerns and a

request for information from the City of South Lake Tahoe City Manager related to the Project Charter.

• Staff, in coordination with Caltrans, submitted responses on November 23, 2009 to the City of South Lake Tahoe City Manager regarding the request for additional information in preparation for the December 8, 2009 City of South Lake Tahoe City Council meeting. This included a formal meeting with Mr. David Jinkens, City Manager and John Greenhut, Public Works Director.

• Staff attended the December 8, 2009 City of South Lake Tahoe City Council meeting to facilitate execution of the Project Charter by the City of South Lake Tahoe. This item was continued, pending assurances from project sponsors related to concerns over right of way, traffic congestion, and increases in noise to nearby residential neighborhoods.

• Staff executed a Task Order with Wood Rodgers to initiate the next phase of the project which is Project Approval/Environmental Documents phase.

• Aerial survey information was collected in October 2009 to update base map information to further develop preliminary design and engineering of the project alternatives.

• An administrative draft of the Project Study Report was submitted to the Project Development Team (PDT) for review and comment prior to the January 7, 2010 PDT meeting.

• Staff is continuing to work with the City of South Lake Tahoe and Caltrans to resolve concerns raised by the City of South Lake Tahoe as to obtain approval of the Project Charter by the City of South Lake Tahoe.

• Overall project schedules and budgets are being managed as necessary to ensure successful project implementation.

Nevada State Route 431/28 Intersection Improvement Project

• NDOT is continuing to work on preliminary design and engineering of the intersection

improvements. • Level of Service and accident data has been collected by NDOT to evaluate and

determine warrant for intersection improvements, which confirmed an operational improvement of the intersection is warranted.

• Additional design work is currently being conducted and a public meeting for the project is anticipated to occur in late February or early March.

• A draft Cooperative Agreement has been developed by NDOT and has been reviewed by TTD. Finalization of the Agreements is presently underway.

California State Route 89 Realignment/Fanny Bridge Project • Staff executed a Task Order with Wood Rodgers on November 4, 2009 to reinitiate the

Project. Primary tasks included in the Task Order included Stakeholder Coordination, Kick-off and Project Development Team Meetings, Background Research, Data Collection, Development of Project Strategy, and Project Work Plan.

• A Core Project Development Team meeting was held on November 19, 2009 at the project site, which was attended by representatives from the TTD, consultant team, Caltrans, and Placer County.

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.E.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 32

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.E.

• The Wood Rogers consultant team obtained and reviewed all previously developed deliverables from the previous project implementation effort and is in the process of developing a Background Research/Project Reconnaissance Memorandum and associated Work Plan.

• Wood Rodgers continues to obtain additional project information from firms associated with the previous project effort that were not available at the TTD and/or TRPA offices (e.g. CAD files for new base maps).

• Staff has been reviewing and distributing previously completed reports/deliverables to appropriate members of the PDT and consultant team to develop a new Scope of Work/Task Order for the Project.

• In coordination with Caltrans, staff will be developing a new Cooperative Agreement for the Project.

Other Projects El Dorado Beach East Project

• Staff received approval from the TTD Board of Directors on December 11, 2009 to

provide Project Development Support for the Project • Staff, in coordination with the California Tahoe Conservancy, is in the process of

developing a Scope of Work in the form of a Task Order to initiate the Project. This will be complete following approval of the Task Order from the TTD Board of Directors

Transit Shelter Project

• Construction funding for this project was to be funded by Proposition 1B, which is

currently frozen by the State of California. Staff will initiate the Project upon authorization to proceed from the State of California.

Fiscal Analysis: There is no specified cost for this action that is not captured within general project development costs associated with each project. Work Program Analysis: All work associated with preparing this report is captured within existing TTD Work Program and associated project level work plans. Therefore, there is no need to amend the fiscal year 2009/2010 Work Program. Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Alfred Knotts at (775) 589-5503 or [email protected]. Attachment:

A. Project Schedule Update

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 33

ATTACHMENT A January 4, 2010

Baseline Project Schedules Update (Yellow highlights denote changes since last report.)

US 50 Stateline Corridor/Loop Road Project

PHASE MILESTONE/PRODUCT STATUS/ BASELINE

COMPLETION DATE

REVISED COMPLETION DATE

Existing Conditions • Initial Data Collection Complete N/A • Field Review Complete N/A • Existing Operational Analysis Complete N/A Formulating and Evaluating Alternatives Analysis

• Year 2030 Analysis – No Build and w/ Alternatives

Complete N/A

• Draft Operations Analysis Memorandum

Complete N/A

• Preliminary Alternative Alignments

Complete N/A

• PDT Meeting to Review Alternatives

Complete N/A

• Draft Project Study Report Complete N/A • Final Project Study Report October 2009 February 2010 Environmental Documentation • Draft CEQA/NEPA/TRPA ED March 2011 On Schedule • CEQA/NEPA/TRPA Public

Meeting April 2011 On Schedule

• Final CEQA/NEPA/TRPA ED July 2011 On Schedule • Adopted CEQA/NEPA/TRPA

ED September 2011 On Schedule

Right of Way • Initial ROW Negotiation June 2011 On Schedule • Final ROW Acquisition March 2012 On Schedule Site Improvement / PS&E • Develop 30% Level Design March 2011 On Schedule • Develop 60% Level Design January 2012 On Schedule • Develop 100% Level Design June 2012 On Schedule Construction • Bid and Award October 2012 On Schedule • Begin Construction May 2013 On Schedule • Construction Close out October 2014 On Schedule Post Construction • Year 1 Revegetation/Irrigation October 2015 On Schedule • Year 2 Revegetation/Irrigation October 2016 On Schedule • Project Effectiveness Monitoring October 2017 On Schedule

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM : VII.E. January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 34

ATTACHMENT A January 4, 2010

Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway Facility Project

PHASE MILESTONE/PRODUCT STATUS/

BASELINE COMPLETION

DATE

REVISED COMPLETION

DATE

Existing Conditions • Initial Data Collection Complete N/A • Preliminary Base Map Complete N/A • Initial Resource Assessment Complete N/A • Corridor Reconnaissance Complete N/A • Conduct Initial Working Group

and Public Meeting Complete N/A

• Project Website On-going N/A Formulating and Evaluating Alternatives • Interagency Coordination On-going N/A • Development of Design

Parameters Complete N/A

• Final Base maps Complete N/A • Opportunities and Constraints

Evaluation Complete N/A

• Draft Alternative Alignment Feasibility Analysis Study

Complete N/A

• Alternative Alignment Feasibility Analysis Public Meeting

Complete N/A

• Scenic Assessment Complete September 2009 • Final Alternative Alignment

Feasibility Analysis Study October 2009 March 2009

Environmental Documentation • South Demonstration ( SD) Project Public Scoping Meeting

Complete September 2009

• North Demonstration (ND) Project Public Scoping Meeting

August 2009 March 2010

• Draft NEPA/ TRPA ED –Demo Projects

March 2010 July 2010

• NEPA/TRPA Public Meeting April 2010 August 2010 • Final NEPA/TRPA ED June 2010 September 2010 • Adopted NEPA/TRPA ED August 2010 October 2010 Right of Way • Initial ROW Negotiation April 2010 September 2010 • Final ROW Acquisition August 2010 February 2011 Site Improvement / PS&E • Develop 30% Level Design –

SD March 2010 On Schedule

• Develop 60% Level Design - SD September 2011 On Schedule • Develop 100% Level Design -

SD February 2011 On Schedule

Construction • Bid and Award – SD April 2011 On Schedule • Begin Construction – SD May 2011 On Schedule • Construction Close out - SD October 2012 On Schedule Post Construction • Year 1 Revegetation/Irrigation October 2013 On Schedule • Year 2 Revegetation/Irrigation October 2014 On Schedule • Project Effectiveness Monitoring October 2015 On Schedule

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM : VII.E. January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 35

ATTACHMENT A January 4, 2010

Lake Tahoe Waterborne Transit

PHASE MILESTONE/PRODUCT STATUS/

BASELINE COMPLETION

DATE

REVISED COMPLETION

DATE

Existing Conditions • Initial Data Collection Complete N/A • Initial Resource/Landside

Facility Assessment Complete N/A

Formulating and Evaluating Alternatives

• Draft Site Selection Study Complete N/A

• Final Site Selection Study Complete N/A • Draft FTA Level Alternatives

Analysis January 2010 February 2010

• Final FTA Level Alternatives Analysis

March 2010 June 2010

• Select Locally Preferred Alternative

April 2010 July 2010

Environmental Documentation • Draft CEQA/ NEPA/TRPA ED December 2010 On Schedule • CEQA/NEPA/TRPA Public

Meeting January 2011 On Schedule

• Final CEQA/NEPA/TRPA ED April 2011 On Schedule • Adopted CEQA/NEPA/TRPA

ED May 2011 On Schedule

Site Improvement/Preliminary Engineering

• Develop 30% Level Design—Landside Facilities

January 2011 On Schedule

Site Improvement/PS&E • Develop 60% Level Design—Landside Facilities

June 2011 On Schedule

• Develop 100% Level Design—Landside Facilities

January 2012 On Schedule

Right of Way • Initial ROW Negotiation July 2011 On Schedule • Final ROW Acquisition January 2012 On Schedule Construction • Bid and Award April 2012 On Schedule • Begin Construction May 2012 On Schedule • Construction Close out October 2012 On Schedule

• Develop Fleet Specifications October 2011 On Schedule Capital/Rolling Stock Acquisition • Bid and Award February 2012 On Schedule • Accept Rolling Stock April 2013 On Schedule Post Construction • Year 1 Revegetation/Irrigation October 2012 On Schedule • Year 2 Revegetation/Irrigation October 2013 On Schedule • Project Effectiveness Monitoring October 2015 On Schedule

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM : VII.E. January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 36

ATTACHMENT A January 4, 2010

Nevada State Route 431/28 Intersection Improvement Project

PHASE MILESTONE/PRODUCT STATUS/

BASELINE COMPLETION

DATE

REVISED COMPLETION

DATE

Existing Conditions • Initial Data Collection Complete N/A • Field Review Complete N/A • Existing Operational Analysis Complete N/A Formulating and Evaluating Alternatives Analysis

• Alternative Analysis Complete N/A

Environmental Documentation • Draft /NEPA/TRPA ED August 2009 May 2010 • NEPA/TRPA Public Meeting August 2009 June 2010 • Final CEQA/NEPA/TRPA ED October 2009 August 2010 • Adopted CEQA/NEPA/TRPA

ED October 2009 August 2010

Right of Way • Initial ROW Verification Complete N/A • Final ROW Acquisition N/A N/A Site Improvement/PS&E • Develop 60% Level Design April 2010 June 2010 • Develop 100% Level Design August 2010 On Schedule Construction • Bid and Award October 2010 On Schedule • Begin Construction May 2011 On Schedule • Construction Close out October 2011 On Schedule Post Construction • Year 1 Revegetation/Irrigation October 2012 On Schedule • Year 2 Revegetation/Irrigation October 2013 On Schedule • Project Effectiveness Monitoring October 2013 On Schedule

California State Route 89 Realignment/Fanny Bridge Project

PHASE MILESTONE/PRODUCT STATUS/

BASELINE COMPLETION

DATE

REVISED COMPLETION

DATE

Existing Conditions • Initial Data Collection Complete N/A • Field Review Complete N/A • Existing Operational Analysis Complete N/A • Preliminary Base Mapping Complete N/A Formulating and Evaluating Alternatives Analysis

• Reinitiate Phase of Project Complete N/A

Environmental Documentation • Reinitiate Phase of Project October 2009 March 2010 Note: Full Project schedule will be developed upon re-initiation of Project and development of Scope of Work with Consultant and Caltrans

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM : VII.E. January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 37

ATTACHMENT A January 4, 2010

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM : VII.E.

El Dorado Beach East Project

PHASE MILESTONE/PRODUCT STATUS/

BASELINE COMPLETION

DATE

REVISED COMPLETION

DATE

Existing Conditions • Initial Data Collection TBD N/A • Field Review TBD N/A • Existing Operational Analysis TBD N/A • Preliminary Base Mapping TBD N/A Formulating and Evaluating Alternatives Analysis

• Reinitiate Phase of Project TBD N/A

Environmental Documentation • Reinitiate Phase of Project TBD N/A Note: Full Project schedule will be developed upon approval of Task Order by TTD Board and development of Scope of Work with Consultant and CTC

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 38

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.F.

MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2010 To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors From: TTD Staff Subject: Approval of State Route 28 Corridor Management Plan Development as Next

Phase of the North Demonstration Bike Trail Project Action Requested: Approve Staff initiating the development of a SR 28 Corridor Management Plan – Phase 1 related to the North Demonstration Project (Incline Village to Spooner Summit segment) of the Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway Project. Background: The South Demonstration Project or south leg of the Nevada state line to state line bike trail is in the project planning phase and the environmental analysis is being developed for it. Although the North Demonstration Project was initially on a parallel path related to project development, concerns were raised by Project Development Team members related to the feasibility of this segment due to environmental and topographic constraints. To address these concerns, additional preliminary assessments were conducted which caused delays in the project schedule. These assessments have been recently completed and reviewed by regulatory and land management agencies all of which concluded that the construction of a trail for the length of the entire project is feasible, including the North Demonstration Project which begins in Incline Village and ends at Sand Harbor State Park. The feasibility study for the north demonstration project or north leg has been completed. It is apparent that this project leg presents greater challenges than the south as it relates to impacts to wildlife and scenic standards. However, the feasibility report and resource specific assessments indicate that these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. An impact that has not been part of these efforts but is of great concern to Nevada State Parks is parking for the north trail project. The Park leadership’s concern is that a bike trial will worsen an already problematic parking situation and negatively impact the park, and the natural resource along the highway. In addition there have been long standing safety concerns related to roadside parking, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 39

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.F.

Discussion: The District will not be able to proceed on the next phase of the north demonstration project planning without addressing the parking concerns, issues, and solutions. A resource management plan for the corridor can be the mechanism to satisfy this need. If the District is going to continue to lead the effort to get the north trail leg planned it will need to lead the effort to develop a corridor management plan. Staff has had positive discussions on this idea with Nevada State Parks, NDOT, USFS, Nevada State Lands, Washoe County, and Federal Highways. All have agreed with the need and expressed interest in participating. Pieces of this management plan now exist thanks to the bike feasibility study and the older East Shore Access Plan for parking along the SR 28 Corridor between US 50 and Incline Village. Nevada State Parks is adding to it having recently initiated a Request for Proposals for a capacity study for Sand Harbor Park. One last piece of information that is missing is a safety audit for the corridor. NDOT has expressed its interest in conducting one. If the bike trail is to be built these long outstanding management issues, especially related to parking and access must be adequately addressed and a solution created. Staff is proposing to formally establish and work with the Project Development Team to determine the best method and means to compile what is known and develop a corridor management plan that addresses parking, access, scenic, erosion, and other resource management issues along the stretch of SR 28 from the junction at US 50 to Incline Village. Expected outcomes will be management agreements, resource restoration project identification, safety improvements, parking solutions, and outreach needs among others. Ultimately staff is expecting to create the capacity to develop the bike project along the corridor. The work should be done within the calendar year and would be considered Phase 1 of a multi-phase effort from Incline Village to Spooner Summit. This step is more involved than what is typical for the next phase of project planning for a bike trail, but the existing conditions are not typical and warrant remedy before the bike trail can go forward. Addressing parking along the corridor has been attempted before, and has had its share of politics. Finding parking solutions and potential changes in resource management will require substantial public outreach and education as well as support from the many entities that have management jurisdiction over the area in one form or another. Fiscal Analysis: The exact cost of this project phase is unknown at this time and is dependent on the selected approach. The bike trail project has budgeted funds and this phase will be funded from the Federal Lands Highway program funds allocated to it. Once the cost is known staff will bring the contract and/or task order to the Board for approval. Work Program Analysis: The work program has time allotted for the next phase of the bike trail project for the north leg however this step may require more time than planned. Staff will be able to assess any change in the work program more accurately once the project plan has been developed. Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Carl Hasty at (775) 589-5501.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 40

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.G.

MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2010 To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors From: TTD Staff Subject: Approval of Use of Project Delivery Agreements for District Related Work Action Requested: Approve use of project charters, cooperative agreements, lease/license agreements, memorandums of understanding, and/or memorandums of agreement with project team members, including local, state, federal, and regional agencies and non-governmental partners for District-related work. Background: The District Vice Chair asked for this topic to be on the agenda for Board discussion relevant to the SR 89/Fanny Bridge Project as it is anticipated that one or more of these agreements will be required through the life of the Project. Typically, capital projects involve more than one agency or project partner, especially within the Tahoe Basin. It is customary in a project delivery process (e.g. Caltrans and Lake Tahoe Storm Water Quality Improvement Committee) to use a variety of interagency agreements to guide project planning and memorialize agency agreements and to ensure participation in implementation and operation of the project. Project charters are used to define project purpose, guide project development, and define roles. Cooperative agreements or memorandums of understanding (MOU) are also used to specify roles, responsibilities, and expectations. Discussion: The District is involved with these types of agreements in the US 50 Stateline Core/Loop Road and Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway projects. A MOU is being developed with NDOT for the State Route 28/431 Intersection Improvement Project in Incline Village and will come to the Board for approval when ready. Additional charters and agreements will be necessary for the operation and maintenance of this project, as well as for the ferry alternative analysis. Updates of the SR 89/Fanny Bridge Project agreements will also be necessary. Additional agreements are desired with the reviewing agencies, similar to what have been developed for water quality improvement projects within the environmental improvement

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 41

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.G.

program (EIP), as outlined in the Stormwater Quality Improvement Committee Project Delivery Process. Staff is requesting that the Board approve the appropriate and prudent use of agreements for projects that involve one or more parties. Each individual agreement will be developed in close coordination with District Counsel and will come before the Board for action as an independent matter. Fiscal Analysis: There is no specified cost for this action that is not captured within general project development costs. Staff time and legal review costs are typically the type of expenses related to these agreements. Work Program Analysis: These types of administrative agreements do take time to draft, review, and manage. Time exists in the work program for these activities as part of planned project management activities. Judicious use of agreements and standardization will help minimize the amount of time needed. Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Carl Hasty at (775) 589-5501.

January 2010 TTD Meeting Packet Page 42