Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission 08/06/2026

Good morning and welcome to the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Um, can I get a roll call, please? >> Yes. Good morning, commissioners. Just a really quick um housekeeping here. Uh, for those of us that are new to the chambers, you can unmute your mic just by hitting um the big button that says mic or you can turn it off when uh by hitting the same thing. Um, the county has also asked us that there be no food or drinks in the chamber. We did bring coffee for you that you can enjoy in the room to my left. >> Okay. Commissioner Hurst. Commission alternate Hurst. >> Uh, present. >> Commissioner Alternate Shiffron >> here. >> Commissioner Durpa. >> Commissioner Koig >> here. >> Commissioner Martinez >> present. Commissioner Downey >> here. >> Commissioner Leonor here. >> Commissioner Kellenti Johnson here. Commissioner um Calrans Exofficial Hill >> here. >> Commissioner Jensen >> here. >> Commissioner Keely >> here. >> Commissioner Clark >> here. >> And Commissioner Montino >> here. >> You have a quorum. >> Thank you. And without any additions or deletions to the consent and regular agenda, >> we posted to our website handout handouts for items 6, 14, 17, and 18. >> Thank you for that. And now we're going to go on to oral communication. This any communication um addressing the commission Unified Corridor Investment Study and the Santa Cruz Watsonville multimodal corridor program call for a zero emission passenger rail project. Your own studies show that it will take upgrades to existing bridges to have passenger trains especially in Capola. So why are you requiring CALR to replace the two bridges in Aptos drew in phase three of the highway widening with heavy freight ones? That needs to be changed. Why are you fighting over a few parking spots in Aptoass when you need a parking garage to handle the estimated 100 daily passengers for the train? What are you going to do about Lelva and Capola where you also need parking garages? Why were parking garages left out of your budget? Perhaps the cost would have killed the project in the first place. County supervisors have a mandate to you that this project is for passenger service, not heavy freight, and that parking garages need to be added to your estimates. And we only have, I think, one here. Uh, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good morning, Fred Guyger, Santa Cruz. Uh, here we are again. Uh, time goes by, the dollars trickle. We're talking tens, hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm here to ask you to take a look at alternatives. There is u very many questions about both the PRT PRT and the rail reports that come up with uh some apparently inaccurate figures. The the rail numbers seem to be way off when compared to other similar projects. the PRT uh had questions like uh how many people per car fit? So they demoted PRT and that's one of many examples I could give you if I had more than 20 seconds. You need to spend a small fraction of the money that you're spending on major projects to take a look at alternatives. The two studies you had on the rail and the PRT alternative are very flawed. And I'd be glad to talk about it more, but I have to say goodbye. Thank you. [clears throat] Good morning. I'm Brett Garrett um from Santa Cruz and I agree with Fred's comments just now. Um it seems like there's been a lot of focus on maybe the wrong problem using the rail corridor instead of providing the best transportation which um doesn't need to be on the rail corridor. Um anyway, I have some following comments from Mike Saint who cannot be here today, but I agree with his comments as follows. We need to give personal rapid transit a chance. When we even mention PRT, people say it hasn't been tried. It hasn't been a tried and proven mass transit system. But let's get look at some numbers from the metro bus system which began service in 1968. Peak wrership was in 2001 with 8 million passengers after 57 years. Last year it had 5.3 million passengers, a 32% decline over 24 years. So that's a a red flag. and maybe a wakeup call that um that we should also look at alternatives such as PRT to help improve transportation and yeah thank you >> thank you anybody else in chambers public comment seeing none anybody over soon >> we do not have any speakers online >> right with that um I'm going to close that portion of the meeting and go on to consent but before I go to the consent agenda I want to acknowledge commissioners Derpa being here and commissioner um Kelly Johnson. So, thank you. Um and with that on the consent agenda, if anybody have any questions on the consent agenda? Seeing none, um put out for the public the consent items on the agenda. >> Good morning, Chair Monosino and commissioners. Matt Ferrell speaking for Friends of the Rail Trail. We are supportive of the recommendation for a seismic analysis of the Capitol Trestle, but we want to reiterate our support is conditioned on preservation of the um rail as part of any replacement project. Thank you. >> Thank you. Excuse my ignorance, but I thought I had to wait till six actually came up to speak, but he spoke on it. So, uh, I have a question for you on the Capitol agreement. Is it for light passenger or is it for heavy freight because that bridge can't handle heavy freight? And so, I would like someone to say, what is the plan for that Capola memo of understanding of what they're going to build there? Yeah, this is not a time for an answer and question answer, but someone will give you an answer. >> So, come back when six comes up. >> No, this is already on six. This is not a question and answer portion. >> Any other comments? Uh, go ahead, Commissioner. >> I think it's okay to answer the question. Um, the staff report indicates that the Capitol study is going to be for trail on the rail line. It's not for either freight or um passenger rail as I understand it. >> Staff can correct me if I'm wrong. Okay. >> Thank you. Anybody else is in chambers? Seeing none, anybody over Zoom? >> Yes. Brian Peoples. >> Hi, this is Brian Peoples with Trail Now. We absolutely support item number six, moving forward with the seismic um analysis and upgrades for the Capitol Trestle. Thank you. >> That was your last speaker. >> Thank you. Uh without bring it back for the commissioner's um action or direction. >> Move to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> So it's been moved and second. Um uh we we don't have to do a roll call because everybody's here. So, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any nos? Seeing none, any abstensions? None. Um, consent agenda passes. So, now we're going to move on to the regular agenda. Commissioner's report. Any commission? Commissioner Downey. >> Good morning. Thank you. Can you hear me? >> Yes, I can. >> Yes. Great. Uh, so last week the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District announced our CEO, Corey Aldridge, was appointed to the California Transit Association's new transit funding task force, which will advise association staff on priorities for upcoming negotiations concerning greenhouse gas reduction fund expenditures. And this includes the appropriation of remaining legislative discretionary funding and the potential revision of investment priorities outlined in Senate Bill 840. The task force also will identify and evaluate potential new state revenue sources and help guide the association's efforts to secure additional funding during the 27208 legislative session. Having Central Coast representation on this task force gives us a voice in state funding decisions that could affect how Metro serves our residents who rely on us every day. Metro also announced Chief Planning and Innovation Officer John Erggo has been selected to serve on the California Transit Association's Advisory Committee and that provides strategic input and technical guidance for the implementation of key California Department of Transportation policies. These include California TRA Calrans district plans, director's policy, and future updates. committee members coordinate with multiple CALR divisions, partner agencies, and transit advocates from across California. His appointment ensures Metro will have a strong voice in statewide policy decisions. So, congratulations to both of them. Uh planning for the second annual week without driving held this year from October 1st through 8th is underway with an emphasis this year on sharing the stories of non-drivers. Almost onethird of our local population are disabled who cannot drive, those who can't afford a vehicle or gas, those who are too young to drive or choose not to drive, and our friends and family members who have aged out of driving. The decisions we make affect their freedom to move in our community and this week highlights their challenges. So what we fund, plan, and build prioritizes their safety. Uh last year many of our commissioners and other elected officials participated by getting out of your cars, taking the bus, riding your bikes, and walking during the week. Thank you, Sher. [snorts] Uh and expect to hear more uh soon about what you can do this year. Go Santa Cruz County will again host the week without driving contest where every trip logged during the week will be entered to win prizes from local businesses. So please check your calendars now and mark them to attend our countywide event which is planned for Friday, October 2nd from 4:00 to 7:00 at the Capola Mall near the Metro Transit Center. Our focus this year will be on family fun activities and events will include local pedestrian safety agencies and advocates and opportunities to try out bikes, learn to ride the bus, and about the importance of protecting non-drivers who are all of us when we step out of our car. the county department of development and infrastructure, the community traffic safety coalition, Santa Cruz metro, cruising together Santa Cruz County, and this commission are this year's hosts. So, please contact us for more information. Thank you. >> Thank you for that report. Um, any any other commissioners? Uh just want to acknowledge our ribbon cutting this week and also want to congratulate you know on on naming um our uh the Panther Yellow uh beach park beach parking lot to our commissioner that's been a longtime commissioner you know Andy Sheriff. I want to thank you for all your service, you know, uh your dedicated service so so many years and guiding guiding our community and our transportation, you know, needs over all these years. I really want to acknowledge you. [applause] I I also want to um take this opportunity to um uh appoint the ad hoc committee um for commissions to de develop a review response for the grand jury report. Um and they will be got a list um commi commissioner manu um commissioner the serurpa commissioner keley myself and commissioner um Gary >> Jerry I'm sorry Jerry um will be u um so keep up for an email with some potential dates to um to meet because it's like it's this is going to be hard So, um, with that, I'm going to go on to, um, the director's report. We usually the bypass com public comment. Um but I'll allow it. Go ahead. >> Do what's right. And uh one of the things I mentioned was public input. Uh well other than giving us longer time at the microphone uh I think this commission as well as the board members or even instead of the board members you you're basically investigating yourself which doesn't you know inspire a lot of public confidence when the RTC investigates what's wrong with the RTC. So um I would suggest a different method of going about uh res this response which did according to the grand jury's recommendations on many issues include the public and not just the commission members. So I would like you to consider that and think about you know the big picture here. How does this look to the public? How effective is it going to be with a limited input from only the members that are on the board. So I think that's a consideration that's necessary. Thank you for uh extending public comment whether we should have been here or not. That's that's that's good PR right there. >> Yeah. Thank you. I'm Brett Garrett and I I agree with Fred's comments just now. Um the the word I saw in the agenda that there would be a committee and it it looked kind of like the emphasis might be on damage control possibly in the form of rebuttals to the grand jury report. I'm I'm not sure about that. But I just want to recommend that the emphasis should be a transparent process to implement recommendations and also improve processes going forward. One possibility would be to set up a community advisory committee that could provide public transportation experts, low income representation, transportation advocates, and so forth. It could be similar to the community advisory council of Central Coast Community Energy. Um, thank you very much. >> Thank you. Good morning, Chair Monosito and commissioners. Matt Ferrell speaking for Friends of the Rail and Trail. [snorts] Uh Friends of the Rail and Trail supports um recommendation one from the grand jury regarding the development of a capital project advancement framework for future capital projects. The assessment used in our opinion between different projects being managed by the commission is uneven and not equal and we uh urge you to use a comprehensive format for advancing capital projects. Thank you. >> Thank you. Were there anybody over? >> Yeah, go ahead, >> Mr. Chairman. Um having observed grand jury reports for better part of four decades at various public agencies, uh I think the civil grand jury process is uh quite helpful in the sense of uh folks who are volunteers who look into the operations of public agencies. Might be a school district, might be our entity, might be a county, might be whatever it is. and uh those volunteer citizens take their work very seriously. I have found over the years that those reports are somewhat uneven but under the law we are required as a public agency to respond. It is it is outlined in the law how that works. This is not something where we are investigating ourselves as has been said here. This is they have already looked this is a civil grand jury. This is not a criminal grand jury. This is a civil grand jury and they look at the operations of government and those operations that they raise questions about uh are the operations that we're required under law to respond to. And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate I think being appointed to this body to help develop our our public response. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Thank and thank you for the for that response. Anybody over? >> We do have a speaker, Brian Peoples. >> Hi, this is Brian Peoples from Trail. Now, we submitted a response and at the uh essentially what we're asking for is the RTC to recognize their failures and be ex be accountable. And we specifically see the the two decades worth of time spent on this rail plan as one of the driving problems with this organization. You're ran by a political machine rather than [snorts] smart transportation solutions. We also advocate not to include those commissioners on this board who have been advocating for rail for decades and continue to push for rail even though it's not feasible in any way. So, we hope that you don't have any commissioners that were rail advocates and we expect you to be accountable and come up with real solutions. Thank you. Thank you. With that, I'm going to close that up um and go on to the director's report. [clears throat] Thank you. Good morning, commissioners and members of the public. I have a short director's report today. Um you can go to the next slide. On Tuesday, we hosted a ribbon cutting ceremony in celebration for the new paved parking lot and resting restroom facilities at Panther Yellow Bank Beach. About 50 people came out to celebrate this exciting milestone in the North Coast Rail Trail project, including some of you commissioners, city and county elected officials, community leaders, and community members. Representatives from the offices of Senator John Leard and Assembly Member Gail Pelerin also attended and presented the RTC with a California Legislature certificate of recognition. The new parking lot and restroom facilities provide greatly improved access to the beach and surrounding coastal areas for visitors traveling along Highway 1. By opening the parking lot and restrooms ahead of the full North Coast Rail Trail completion, the RTC aims to enhance public access and convenience while progress continues on the larger trail system. The event also included a special presentation to commission alternate member Andy Shiffron in recognition of his 50 plus years of service to the commission. The pan the Panther Beach parking lot was dedicated to him. Um, congratulations, Commissioner Shiffron, and thank you for your many years of dedicated service to the RTC. Next slide, please. Um, I have a quick construction update on the North Coast Rail Trail, which uh, the construction is continuing. These new amenities mark a key milestone in the ongoing construction of the 7 and a half mile North Coast Rail Trail with construction currently focused on the north end of the project near uh Davenport, including construction of the trail and construction of another parking lot and restroom facility in Davenport. Um the project is expected to be completed before the end of the calendar year and the trail is not currently open to the public but we look forward to opening it later this year for the community to enjoy. Next slide please. Construction on the Highway 1 auxiliary lane bus on shoulder and Mar Vista overcrossing project is also continuing to progress nicely. As part of the construction work, the southbound Highway 1 offramp at Bay Avenue was closed on Sunday and is expected to remain closed for approximately four months as crews reconstruct the ramp as part of the bus on Shoulder facility. Detours are in place and drivers should plan accordingly if they plan to travel throughout this area. Other work on the project includes rebuilding the Park Avenue southbound on ramp, widening work on the shoulders to prepare for the auxiliary lanes and drainage improvements, and work on the Marv Vista overcrossing. Construction of the deck of the bicycle pedestrian overcrossing is complete and crews are now working on finishing the pedestrian railing. Ongoing construction updates can be found on the RTC website and we um suggest that folks sign up for our e-news as well. Next slide. The RTC was recently awarded a CALR planning for sustainable communities grant to continue climate resiliency planning work along the branch line at two additional locations in South County, which included an amendment to the work program and budget as part of a consent item that uh was approved just now. This planning study aims to develop climate resilient concepts threatened by climate hazards along the southern portion of the Santa Cruz branch rail line, including Gallagghan Slooh and the Paharo River flood plane and farmland areas south of the Paharo River. This planning effort expands on the climate resilience work underway as part of the climate resiliency study for the branch line. Next slide. We have some upcoming community outreach. Um staff from the RTC and the Resource Conservation District are hosting a community workshop on Thursday, August 27th at 6 PM at the Seymour Marine Discovery Center. And this outreach is about our San Vicente and Wadell coastal resilience planning study. The planning study focuses on climate adaptation along Highway 1 and the branch line near Davenport and Big Basin State Park. These transportation corridors are facing growing risks from sea level rise, severe storms, and coastal flooding. The goal of the planning study is to develop concepts that will protect this critical infrastructure while restoring nearby marsh habitats. More information on the project and upcoming outreach can be found on the RTC website. And that concludes my director's report. Thank you. Any commissioner's questions, comments? >> Commissioner Hurst. >> Well, thank you very much, director. Uh I I really appreciate the focus on South County and the challenges that uh exist and the progress that can be made. And so, thank you very much for that focus. And in addition, you know, the Highway One construction, I did go through that uh this morning on my 14-mi one hour uh trip up here, and it um it certainly does improve the uh the circumstances from what it was previously. There's still a lot of improvements to go, but I say thank you very much to the entire commission for all the Highway One improvements that are hopefully going to uh finally be finished someday. and that we can actually get moving and it it won't take an hour to go 14 minutes, 14 miles. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other commissioners? And seeing none, I'm going back to the public to wear on the commissioners report. Seeing none here. Anybody over Zoom? Jack Brown. >> Hey, good morning, commissioners. I just wanted to uh also bring up which I don't think was included in the in the commissioner's report, but has been very important for us bike riders, is the uh pilot of the new delineators on uh uh high on SoCal Drive. Um there are two different types that are being done on the one on the westbound, one on the eastbound side. Um really liking the ones on the eastbound. They're more like what's on water. um but very sturdy, much better than what we've had in the past and hopefully we continue uh getting good results from this and we can redo the delineators uh along the roadway and uh hopefully treat the SoCal uh corridor as the jewel of our uh bike infrastructure until the coastal corridor is completed. Thank you. >> Thank you. I think someone in the public led away in in chambers. >> And I just wanted to really thank you um uh u director for and also the commissioner for continue supporting our south county and continue the improvements. But it's very important for our rail and continue those improvements and hopefully all commissioners can be able to continue to support that because it's important for our for city of Wasbe and in South County. So I I thank you for that support. Thank you. >> Thank you. With that, I'm going to close up um a portion of the the meeting and move on to the Calrance report. >> Good morning. Uh I'd like to focus on two things this morning. Uh first you heard about the sustainable planning grants that our SECRTC received. Uh Calrans is gearing up for next fiscal year. Uh so on the 19th of August, we will have our annual uh meeting and we'll we'll go through what that process is and and provide uh directions and guidance accordingly. The second part to this um everybody's well aware CALR is busy out there. I wanted to focus on uh Santa Cruz 9 and if you can bring that up. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, today was first day of school for a lot of kids across the county and across the state. Um, there are a lot of people out there. There's a lot of of moving cars, moving bikes, moving pedestrians. Uh, pay attention, be advised. Um, they're out there and and we would like to get everybody safely to and from wherever they are going. Um, but I I wanted to focus on this because uh this has been several years in the making. Um, there will be complaints. Uh we are well aware of what's going on. Um and we are we are watching, monitoring and adjusting. We have crews out there. Uh we have CHP out in force uh looking trying to to see where issues are and how we can adjust accordingly. Um you are going to hear complaints. Uh the reality is you heard an hour for 14 miles. Um, Highway Nine is a two-lane road and there are a lot more people out there trying to get through that in the summertime uh than it probably will ever be able to handle. Um, it takes us years to get to this point, but we are going to be building for several years. And I just want I think this visual right here uh which is is construction of of nine projects over the next five years in this corridor uh just highlights how much effort and and time and impact we will have um to the constituents when we get done. It's going to be great. Uh but it it's going to be a little messy getting to that point. Um and so I just I thought it would be important to to highlight this. It's it's on our website. Um we are are trying to communicate it out in every way we know how. Uh but it we're doing our best. Uh we are trying to to uh be as least impactful as possible while getting as much done so that we make it better for people in the future. Uh whether it's a new sidewalk near the high school, um whether it's it's new pavement, guard rail, striping, whatnot. Um there's just a lot going on there. So, uh, and with that, uh, if you have any questions. >> Thank you. Any commissioner questions? Commissioner Jensen. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, I was wondering if we could get, um, an update on the Park Avenue on ramp uh, construction schedule. Um, uh, where we are with that, um, at the present time with the closure of the Bay Avenue Porter exit, um, [clears throat] obviously uh, traffic's really backed up and we just like to be transparent to the community to see if we have an update on those. um with the Park Avenue opening. And then my follow-up question to that is the um on-ramp northbound to Bay Avenue um on to Highway 1. Um I think that'll be scheduled for some closures and if we have any um uh dates around what that proposed construction might look like. >> Yes, our director of capital projects, Amina Abuamara, is um ready to answer that question. If you could please step aside. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um, thank you, Commissioner, for your question. And, um, the Park Avenue uh, southbound on-ramp has been closed uh, for a little while and it'll continue to be closed until the end of September. That's the uh, that's the current schedule for it. There's a lot of work there. the whole u on-ramp was basically reconstructed. Um they're gearing up now for getting the aggregate bays and uh and paving and then striping and all that. So it'll take until the um the end of September. So yeah, we are uh we apologize for the inconvenience, but that's how the the schedule is for right now. And I think your second question was about BA Porter. Yeah, Bay Porter um the the northbound uh on-ramp. >> So the Bay Porter uh northbound on and off ramp will have some work. Uh initially we the team the construction team Calrans and us were thinking that while the southbound uh offramp is closed for about four months since last Sunday as our director uh has mentioned we thought that the we could align that work. It's it's not as long as the four months needed for the southbound offramp. So we thought it's about a month each for for each of these u the northbound onramp and off-ramp. So we thought we could do it at the same time to utilize uh you know construction going on. But at the same but but but that thinking was also we want to evaluate the impact of closing the the southbound uh offramp and see if that makes sense to within that four months to start closing one of these other ramps. And we thought and it it turned out that it's not really very u public convenience that we do that. So, so we have uh held held back and uh it's not going to affect the schedule. We're going to do the uh on and off ramp on the northbound uh after we open the southbound um offramp. So, that that's realizing that we want to try and make this as as better for the public as possible. It is still inconvenient closing ramps, but that's what we have to do. >> Great. Thank you for that. I appreciate your flexibility looking at that. Thank you. >> Sure. Thank you, Commissioner. >> Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner U Martinez. >> Thank you and good morning everyone. I want to start off by thanking our partners at CALR and maybe want to talk a little bit more about these Highway 9 improvements um for the benefit of the public. Um first of all, congratulations to all the children who are starting school this morning. you know, we have thousands of kids who are now in their classrooms, um, including my own. And so, it's a really important day. And in preparation for this, my office has been receiving a number of phone calls about residents who are concerned about the various um, construction projects along Highway 9. I mean, not just phone calls. I can't walk through town without people talking about this. Um, and I really want to extend my gratitude to Calrans, um, and everyone on your team who has been in close contact with my office about potential improvements and ways that we can help to, um, make this couple of weeks a little bit easier for folks. Um, so for example, in response to some initial feedback that we got, CALR was willing to adjust the location of some temporary lane barricades to reduce a bottleneck that was happening around Highway 9 and Graham Hill. Um, we've also worked with CALR to adjust the timing of the traffic signals at the main lights and to continue to monitor that and make those adjustments as we see the traffic patterns go back to their normal routines during the holiday or during the start of school. Um, we have also agreed with you um to kind of slow down non-urgent work during this kind of two-eek period when families are adjusting to their new routines. And and I want to recognize that that comes with cost. There's only some a short window of good weather when projects can happen. So, when we ask for a delay to non-urgent work, it does push things out. Um, similar to the county public works, they've been willing to delay some of the non-urgent projects during this time. So, I appreciate the county public works. And I also know that you're working with the CHP, the sheriff's office, and um, other partners just to communicate and try to be present during this time. And, you know, these projects, like you shared, they're they're a long time coming. Our residents have asked for these improvements for years. And there are real safety implications. For example, the Felton safety improvement project to create a sidewalk between the intersection and the school has it's a priority to me. It's a priority to many families and it does come with some some congestion while we're building it, but families and children are going to be a lot safer when this project is done. So, I really appreciate the public's patience during this time and their continued communication. My office sent out a newsletter about these safety improvements and about traffic on um August 4th and that's available on my county website, the Santa Cruz County um board of supervisors and we'll continue to provide updates. But my last question is if if residents want updates from CALR, how might they be able to access that from you? >> Uh we have a website. Um we have multiple spots where you can find this information out. We have a public information office that they can contact as well. Um, and I I think we have a Facebook or something like that, but I don't do Facebook. So, um, but, uh, there are multiple ways to to contact us. Um, and if you just Google Calrans, you're gonna you're going to find us. So, >> thank you. Thank you very much. I I appreciate the the patience of the residents and I appreciate your work to bring these safety improvements to Highway 9. >> Yeah, we we are listening. Um, we try to make as many adjustments as we can while continuing to move forward. Um, and it's I guess this shows it all. Uh, it's going to be an iterative process over over the next several years. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Coney. >> Thank you, Chair. I want to return to the subject of the uh Bay Porter offramp on Highway One. Um the pretty impactful closure uh is really the primary exit to get to Capitol Village and so Kell Village. Um I'm just curious what kind of outreach uh was done before the closure. I mean I know that I've I saw one or two comments in uh through through the RTC's channels. And so I guess the the broader question is what is the the protocol for outreach from either RTC or CALR uh before a major closure like this? Um and then also why why this particular time frame um was selected you know really the busiest tourist season for uh this part of our county which really depends on tourism. >> Sure. Um so unfortunately you know the busy season in Santa Cruz um the summertime is also the peak uh season for construction because some of these major improvements such as bridges or retaining walls major structures cannot be done in the wintertime. they have to be done when the weather's nice where they can complete the work um efficiently and as quickly as possible so that it limits the amount of disruption to the public. So that's just the the unfortunate um truth about how public construction projects work. um in terms of the outreach that our agency has done. So we partner with CALR obviously to do significant amount of outreach for um for the overall project and as well as um any you know impactful closures that we are proposing. So um on a normal basis we put out regular updates through our channels and that includes uh an e-news we have social media um our outreach team is really on top of it and we work with CALR similar to um the updates on Highway 9. Uh the public information office partners with our uh our staff to um put the information out through their channels as well. Um, in addition to that, we have changeable message signs that we put out um prior to closures just for those who we missed. We also do radio interviews every so often. Like we try very hard to get the word out and um you know, we've been talking about this project for I don't know six years now. And we've had various touch points of outreach um throughout the project development. And um we invite those who are interested in in hearing more um to subscribe to our e-news and to follow our um you know you could sign up specifically to receive Highway One News or Highway 9 News. Um and so we we uh encourage folks to sign up for those. Um and we just try to be as as open and forthcoming with information as we possibly can. >> Thank you. Thank you. And I just want to make comments for Calrans. You know, although it wasn't highlighted, we also have a lot of projects in Watsonville uh on Highway One, on Highway 152 and 129 uh which for the for the most part, yeah. Um people have commented, but it's mostly positive comments of improvements, especially sidewalk improvements and you know along those lines. So, I just want to thank you. >> Anybody else? See none. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um, hi Bill. O, over the past I would say six weeks or so, I've been getting my office has been getting a lot of complaints about what's going on on Highway One. And the main uh I think issue that they're bringing up is that they understand the work needs to happen, but they don't ever see any workers working. And then so I you know I inquired on behalf of the public to am and I you know understood that like some of the work is going on at night but then I'm on the highway at night right because I go to a lot of different events that end very late and again I myself are I'm not seeing any work going on at night. Um, so I'm wondering if somebody could just help me understand. Is it like vacation season for for our contractor partners? No, [laughter] >> because this isn't this it's important like we we're everybody's been very very patient and um we just want to see work actually getting finished. Yeah, >> it's a very legitimate concern that you think, okay, why are the all these closures and nobody's working, but I can assure you that they are working. I I by double check with the resident engineers and construction team several times that there is some work that we don't see as public. For example, the work that has been going on over the last few days when the bay bay uh uh bay bay port uh southbound offramp was closed is not really visible to everybody because it's the what they're doing right now is they're dis disconnecting the electrical work because they there going to be some demoing of the barrier rail and part of the retaining wall and all that. So they have to disconnect the electricity. And this sometimes happens with with a crew that is kind of like not really visible. They're working from under the ramp, under the bridge. And they're going to be also installing temporary poles, temporary electrical poles, but while they're they're doing this work. So this work wasn't visible to the to the public. They thought the ramp was closed for a few days. Nobody's working. But it but there is work and it's conse consequential work that you have to do this before you do this before you do this. Very soon you're going to see some work on the on like like real construction work on the on the ramp. Um the other thing is about the the some drainage work that happens and the drainage work that happens also is is not totally visible because it's to the side of the uh of the ramp sometimes and adjustment of uh you know basically some uh some covers and things like that that are not basically also uh visible. The the the last thing I want to say is that you know the the work at night is uh is depending also on the window that they choose to to to to work. So it might not be for the all all night long but u you know they they choose the hours that are less impactful to the public that they could do the work. So the work could have happened like maybe in an hour or two and it's done. So that when you pass that the work was done but again it's you know sometimes during night it's not too busy. So they it it makes sense not to keep on shifting the car because all of that comes with expense. So it's closed. We know it's not that impactful to the to the traffic at night. So they do the work and then they go. That's what happens sometimes. >> Thank you. Um, you know, and I will uh say I I want to express my gratitude because um your team and the Calrans team has come together at many community meetings that we've held with some of the clubs and the chambers and I think you're coming into the APTA chamber soon to give another presentation. So I really appreciate that and I think that really illuminates the work that's being done, how it's getting done, the cost and the design. Um, so I really appreciate you making the time to educate the the public. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Thank you. Um, Commissioner Fabian. >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Um, also I'd like to echo what uh, Chair Montino said about um, the sidewalks that are being repaired in Watsonville. Um, I've seen it firsthand because I drive every day to drop off my son and uh, on Riverside those sidewalks were horrible. So, thank you for that. But one concern that I do have is that um Calron was doing some work on a section of Main Street in Watsonville and the payment was repaired, but the striping was done. Like I felt like it was a firering and really it's horrible. And uh I heard it from some people in Watsonville. So, I just thought I would bring it up to you and uh please, you know, let's let's take a little bit more time to uh stripe our streets well because people do get confused with those lines that are just >> Yeah. >> horrible. I'll note um if we're working on sidewalks, guaranteed um the last thing we do is pave and then we stripe. So, uh that striping I'm sure is temporary striping. Um, it's there just to make you aware you're in the middle of a construction zone, so you you're already should have a heightened alertness. Um, it's there for a short time before the next cut or the next patch or the next whatnot. Um, and they'll do that continuously through the construction project until we get done. Um, once we pave it black, you'll see very bright, very wide stripe and and you'll know it's ours at that point. >> Yeah. and and and I feel like the work is already completed and the lines are still there. It's a section from Freedom Boulevard to Fifth Street. >> I'll take that. >> And then there's another uh striping that was done at the uh uh from not from Union Street, but um uh where the police station's at to Riverside on the main street section. >> And it's just like it just doesn't make any sense. So, it's something to look at. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. >> Thank you. With that, I'm gonna go out to the public. >> Thank you, Bill Beacher. Again, um next year or in the following year, Calrans will be starting phase three of the Highway One widening. In that, it calls for the two bridges that go over the highway now to be taken out. And in your website, it calls for two heavy freight bridges to be to replace them. Hello. I mean, the RTC has a report that calls for a zero emission passenger rail project. Why are we going to spend that much extra money to put in a freight, heavy freight bridges in Apas? I'm a taxpayer. I don't want to pay for that. Now, it also says the RTC and the county board of supervisors haven't made it clear what the hell we're going to be doing with the rail. If you read the sentinel, there are a gazillion number of letters that come in. Nobody knows what's going on. You guys have to make this clear that it is a zero emission passenger rail project, not a heavy freight one. Thank you. And get your job done. >> Thank you. Anybody else in chambers? >> Yes. >> U being that we have our children coming in this coming week. Um I have a suggestion that you know because we have a lot of problems in you know the construction especially in the area Freedom Boulevard main street in Green Valley and being the concern that we have some of the parents about it and now that the kids are riding bicycles [snorts] electric bicycles is that's another problem that we're facing. So it's any way that we can be able to have a coordination between the law enforcement especially the first week to be available to be able to prevent any any accidents within within that week at least be able to so they can parents can be able to understand because I know CALR the police department and also uh it will be able very helpful for the kids so hopefully there's no fat fatalities in that, you know, because of the constructions and all the construction going on and then the parents driving all over the place, bikes all over the place. So maybe the first week we can be able to coordinate between the law enforcement and culture so we can be have a safety week for the for the for the people going to school this first week. That's my suggestion. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Seeing no one else, um, anybody on over Zoom? Yes, Jack Brown. >> Morning, commissioners. Uh Jack Brown from Apptos. Just a couple things I wanted to bring up. Uh last month, we had a a kind of a unique situation with CALR where District 4 decided to clear out encampments and clear brush on what I call the Lexington funnel at the on Highway 17 north uh during morning rush hour traffic. Um which caused a lot of pandemonium for us living in District 5. and it just felt like there was not very good communication between districts on that if that could be looked at in the future uh especially in that choke point. Uh second item I wanted to bring up was around the uh Marv Vista bridge which I believe the construction is mostly uh under Calrance. The bike detours on uh uh McGregor are kind of like halfway done. The signs are missing for anybody that is going westbound. Um, and then for eastbound there's a bike detour off McGregor, but it goes down Mar Vista. It doesn't tell users when to get onto like Seidge. Uh, if that can please be fixed. That's a very unsafe area. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You have no other speakers. >> With that, I'm going to uh close that portion up. So, thank you uh for that report. And then we're going to go on to item 17, which is Coastal Rail Trail Southern Segment Project Contract Award. Commissioner Monaceto, I'll be recusing myself from that item. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Don. >> Do I get the clicker? >> Yeah, she's coming right behind you. >> Fantastic. Chair Monosino, commissioners, thank you. My name is Riley Gerbrandt of your staff, senior transportation engineer and project serving as project manager on the Coastal Rail Trail Southern Segments project. And I'm excited to be here before you today. This is a exciting project. Um we're going to be talking about the contract for the professional engineering services. Aha. We tested this before. We know it does work. Um, today we're recommending authorization for um to authorize the executive director to negotiate a contract for professional engineering services with our recommended consultant HDR Engineering Incorporated for the Coastal Rail Trail Southern Segments project. for the project um approval and environmental documentation phase of the project for a uh contract not to exceed amount of about $4.5 million. Over the next few minutes, I'll be talking you through the project background, the scope of work, the cost, and the schedule, and ending with the staff recommendation. So, first a little background. The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission purchased the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line in 2012. And the Coastal Rail Trail has been uh considered the spine of the Monterey Bay Scenic Sanctuary uh trail network. Um and more than 18 miles of that uh coaster rail trail have either been already constructed, are in construction, or are in development phase. The southern segments project is the next um phase of the project and it's exciting as it brings 12 new miles of the coastal rail trail beginning in rail Delmare in the north heading through the city Watsonville and ending in Paharro junction in northern Monterey County. The MBSST network master plan refers to these segments as segments 13 through 20. Uh this next slide here shows you what we're working with for this project. Um in the north we are in the coastal area where we're dealing with coastal erosion, bluffs and sensitive habitats. And then the landscape changes as we go from north to south. Um moving inland, the alignment crosses bridges, drainage channels and goes alongside active agricultural land. And when we enter uh the urban area of the city of Watsonville, we it changes to dealing with congested right away, street crossings, utilities, and the like. Um but as you know, um the vision of this project is exciting and it's really going to take a multid-disciplinary um well well-informed competent team to execute this project. And that's why we're excited to have our team members with HGR Engineering joining us on this project. And we've got Chris Ogara and Tyler Lures with us here today. Um they're serving as a project manager and as project engineer on the project. And what this uh you know once fully constructed, this project brings safe, low stress walking and biking connections in and around the city of Watsonville. Um and then going north through Rio Delmare connecting with segment 12 in Aptas. And the project supports our county's climate goals and advances equity by bringing new active transportation infrastructure to South County where the community has been asking for some time for for new active transportation um infrastructure. So what's what's this contract going to deliver? On this slide, you'll see that this contract is going to be providing your project scoping and developing uh conceptual alignments for the trail, preliminary engineering, initial rightaway services, and then SQA environmental review including the technical studies, draft and final environmental document um and public outreach along with overall project management and coordination. That's what's um before you today for this initial contract award. Future optional phases um such as final design, neper review, um environmental rightaway services and construction support are not part of this initial award, but we would come forward back to the commission um if and when those services are are um needed. So the project contract project contract was developed um in solicited in accordance with the RTC's adopted procurement policy. Two proposals were received in response to the RFP. One from engine HGR engineering and another from Mark Thomasson Company. A selection panel from including staff from the RTC, the city of Watsonville, and the county of Santa Cruz evaluated the proposals and determined um a ranking with HGR being the highest ranked team to complete the scope of work. HGR's cost proposal is for a not to exceed contract amount of 4,497,545 um with an initial uh three-year contract term. Um the contract would be funded by measure D active transportation category funds. And as a quick note on the fiscal uh side, the funding was already programmed in the RTC's um five-year measure D plan as well as included in the RTC's adopted budget under a placeholder allocation. Now that staff knows the exact contract amount, um the budget amendment before you today simply align um that with the anticipated contract expenditure categories. So, the staff recommendation before you today is to authorize the executive director to negotiate and execute contract TP2603 with HDR Engineering Incorporated for a not to exceed amount of $449 497,545 to complete the P AED phase of the Coastal Rail Trail Southern Segments project and to amend the approved fiscal year 2627 budget accordingly. And with that, um, myself and the project team are here if you have any questions. >> Um, but before we get on to questions, I could I just want to, uh, compliment you on the, um, on the staff report because really digestible that, easy to easy to go over. Um, commissioner questions, comments, commissioner, um, uh, Shepard, >> I know this is time for questions, so uh, that's what I'll do. But I can't help but say that I'm really happy to see this coming forward. Uh, it's been a long time coming and it's does indicate a real serious commitment to uh, moving forward with the South County Trail. Uh, one question I have is is the contract is for three years. Is that the estimated time that it's going to take to complete the tasks in the contract or do you have some sense of the timing of that? >> Yes, we uh it's not going to anticipated be the full three years, but we're allowing for um the three-year contract in case there's additional public outreach or um things come up through project scoping um that need some more time to work through. But um we're anticipating more like around a 2-year maybe slightly under slightly more um time frame. >> I just want to mention because often times these stages of a project are a very rough indication of how much the project could actually cost and often times the rule of thumb in my experience is like 10%. Uh and so I think what we're really talking about is a very significant cost for this project and you know I just I know staff will work hard to try to find the outside funding to make that uh available but I think there is going to be a need for an ongoing commitment by the commission to pursue this project and bring it to completion. My real substantive question has to do with the scope of work and the role of the commission in the process. uh as I read the scope of work the and my understanding of it is the the consultants will analyze up to four potential alignments um initially and then from that there'll be a decision as to what sort of what is the preferred alternative and that preferred alternative which is a secret term is like the the the preferred alternative to be look what looked at at the secret in the secret document In the past, um, with some of the other segments, the commission has approved more than one preferred alternative. We've had two preferred alternatives given the, you know, the the concerns in the community. What isn't clear in the scope of work is who gets to decide that. And my expectation is and I think it should be made clear that the commission should make the decision as to the one or more preferred alternatives. All the alternatives will be looked at as alternatives but the really detailed analysis if there's only one preferred alternative will be with that alternative. So it's a it's a very significant decision and I think it's one that the commission should make. The contract isn't clear about that. Uh so I guess I'll start out by with my question is what's your intention uh what's the staff's intention as to how that decision will be made? >> That's a great question and thank you commissioner alternate shifin. Um normally in a project you know it depends on the project and the level of interest that the governing body has in the project. So for some projects the the project development team will do the work you know normally we go out and we go to the community um after the the project teams defined you know what are we trying to achieve with this project go to the community and we then are doing our scoping and you know it might be 10 you know initial concepts that people are throwing out there you know they're they're going to be the the community is going to be bringing forward ideas and so that you know gets refined over time and and the aim is to to bring you know the preferred alternative at the end of that scoping phase. Um depending on the commission's direction staff can you know the commission can make the decision on what the preferred alternative is um or in some of their projects the project development team would recommend a preferred alternative. So it it's kind of undefined now, but it is uh an option for the commission to uh review the staff recommendation on a preferred alternative and make the final decision. >> Yes. And Sarah, >> we could take that direction. This project um you know oftent times you have projects that are a little more straightforward um that the you know preferred alternatives pretty you know a little more obvious. In this case, we have multiple alignments. We have San Andreas Road. We have the branch line. We have, you know, Beach Street and Beach Road involved. And so, um, because of that, I think it's probably appropriate to bring something back to the commission in the future before proceeding with, um, circulation of the draft environmental document because that's where the preferred alternative would be identified. >> We could take that direction. Thanks. >> Thank you. Um, Commissioner Jensen, then Commissioner Hurst. >> Yeah. Uh, thank you. Um, one thing I was wondering if you could comment on um maybe the lack of interest in turning in proposals since we only had two. Um, is there a is there a reason behind that? Do you think? Um, just looking for some comments, >> you know? Um, obviously I I don't know specifically, but um there are we we always cast as wide a net as we can. Um we always we on the on the back side, you know, we communicate with uh partners that we worked with before and make sure that we um advertise the RFPs um as widely as we can. Um the firms that we got proposal from proposals from have been, you know, very engaged with this process and these particular projects. So, while I can't say with, you know, certainty why we only received two, I know that the two that we did receive proposals from have been very tracking this this opportunity um very closely. So, it's possible that um maybe that's the reason why we just got the two. >> Okay, perfect. And um my other u comments just follow up to I think uh Andy's comments. Um, as I read through the grand jury, you know, report and stuff, there's a couple items that stuck out to me that I think we should maybe use as um um a guiding uh direction as we move forward. I just wanted to go over and just read both those out loud and then just make sure they could be like a check and balance for us. says, you know, one was key policy choices were not adequately grounded in realistic assessment for the corridor fiscal constraints, engineering requirements, and legal represent legal limitations and fiscal costs. And the second one says, "As a result of the regional transportation committee and the public having spent years debating options in some cases that were not viable given financial and engineering realities, you know, with these type of new approach and stuff, um, are we going to be able to make sure that those are two forefront questions that we're going to be able to evaluate at this time going into this type of contract?" >> Yes, definitely. >> Okay, I appreciate that. I think we just really need to focus on moving forward in a you know uh maybe a different direction and having the correct information in front of us so we can make decisions and move this project forward wherever that direction is. So thank you >> commissioner Hurst. >> Uh thank you very much chair. I'm glad to see the focus on equity for South County here and and I know that there's uh it's good to have some choices too and I'm not sure how those choices will sort themselves out or what the input will be about that but my question is how are you going to work with the uh city of Watsonville and their existing downtown specific plan and where the trail intersects with the urbanized environment. How is that going to uh coordinate with uh the existing plans that the city of Watsonville may have? >> It's great. Um our RT your RTC staff are coordinating with the city of Watson of staff very closely um you know for some recent grant applications for instance our two staff got together and discussed the different visions that the city Watsonville staff have and what they're pursuing um looking how the RTC can support the city staff and align with the city staff. Um and as this project continues forward we're going to have the city staff on the PDT. um they're going to be actively involved with us in in making decisions and um looking at information. So, active coordination um being in in in close um discussions and is how we're going to approach this project. >> Exactly what I wanted to hear and I hope it'll be real and uh real communication will take place. You know, how the trail gets into Watsonville is important, too. There's a couple of different alternatives that uh you know, one of them being through the Harkin Slooh, the existing rail line through there and such. You know, I I was fortunate enough to to ride the demonstration trains through the Slooh and it's just a magnificent view and it certainly be a huge tourist attraction to roll through, ride through, walk through. But, you know, there's also the coastal alignment uh on San Andreas that would be extremely scenic as well. And so, and I'm sure there's some other choices as well. So, I'm I'm really glad to hear that there'll be [clears throat] uh close dialogue and planners planning together on this. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, Scene. Um, Commissioner Clark. >> Yeah, good morning, Riley. Um I would like to echo the comments regarding the staff report. Uh thank you for that excellent information. It makes it very digestible for us and easy to make decisions on. My questions are framed around there's some legitimate concerns out there uh that have been raised in the community and then there's some noise in the ether too and so um my my uh intent here is just to take those on head on and get the information out there. Um this project as it stands now does it presuppose any outcome? >> No. >> Thank you. And would this project be applicable and necessary regardless of what direction we go and whatever decision we make in terms of trail alignment, ultimate interim, any of these. >> So part of what our project will do is identify what is the need. you know what do we there's a project but it's got to deliver some sort of need. So the first step is what is that need and then how is the project going to deliver that. So that's one of our first steps that we're going to do. >> Great. Thank you. That um that addresses those issues. Thank you. >> Thank you. With that seeing another commissioner questions and we go out to the public like to weigh this item at the agenda. >> Thank you. We've step forward. Thanks. Good morning, Brett Garrett. Again, um one, um the agenda says exhibit B will be posted by July 31st. I have not been able to find exhibit B. Um but my main comment is um kind of hearkening back to the grand jury recommendation R3 um urges to evaluate options including interim hybrid and ultimate trail configurations for segment 13 to 20 and I do see some of that happening in this but but it means we should do some thorough engineering work and cost analysis before deciding whether it's an interim trail or an ultimate trail or whatever. Um what I see in the um attachment is that the preliminary engineering is to take place following identification of the preferred alignment alternative which means that the preferred alternative is decided before realistic pricing is determined and I don't understand that. I'm very concerned about it. Thank you, >> Chair Montesino and commissioners. Matt Frell for Friends of the Rail and Trail. Uh we support design alternatives which do not remove the rail line and we especially support proposed segment 17B alternative between Buista and San Andreas and Paharo station. This alternative was suggested by and has the support of Watsonville leadership. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. See um no one else. Um, anybody in Overson, >> Jack Brown. >> Good morning, commissioners. I support moving forward with this planning effort. I ask the scope not presume railway trail is the preferred long-term outcome. It sounds like you're going that direction, but please give rail with trail, interim trail, and permanent trail through rail banking equal consideration through the environmental process. I also the commission to require early order of magnitude cost estimates for each alternative. One lesson from Zepert is that meaningful cost information came too late in the process. Early cost estimates along with realistic funding strategy will help the public understand whether additional local taxes or long-term financial commitments may be required. Finally, whenever feasible, please keep the trail within the rail corridor. Diverting trail users onto roadways should not should only occur when absolutely necessary and be supported by a transparent engineering and safety analysis. Um, lastly, um, for I also want to bring up was, uh, for for true equity, let's start the trail in Watsonville and work our way north. Let's give them something that they'll love. Thank you, >> Brian. Brian Peoples. >> Hi, this is Brian Peoples with Trail Now. we support moving forward with um the engineering development plans. However, we absolutely recommend the preferred trail be the interim trail and it's simple. It's simple to understand the public wants you to spend our money effectively. That's why you had a grand jury report. Also, the results of the elections of Tony Nunez uh being elected fourth district shows the public is tired of the ongoing wasted time on the ultimate trail and the train. It is absolutely your responsibility to act as though it's your money. Pretend like the money you're spending is your money. And it's fairly simple. understand where the most coste effective approach is. So please don't waste our time with more studies for an ultimate trail. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You have no other speakers. >> With that, I'm going to close it up and bring it for commissioners's uh direction. >> Go ahead. Well, um, just to get it start the discussion, I'd be willing to make a motion to approve the staff recommendation with the additional direction that the preferred alternative returned to the commission be for uh, its selection >> and then I'd like to uh speak to that if I if I if I could [clears throat] really in a way the public testimony uh, raised a question that I'd like to ask staff about in terms of um what's going to what kind of work is going to be done to get to the preferred alternative. Um the reference has been made a few times to the grand jury report and as I read the grand jury report and we tend to read it the way we want to read it. Um the grand jury report did raise significant concerns about the way the rail studies have been carried out, but it did kind of indicate that the trail study had really looked at the kind of engineering costs uh that were known at the time before the grants were um were applied for for sections 8 through 12. Um, as it turns out, those estimates were wrong, uh, because nobody really anticipated how much it would cost to build the do the bridges and do the structures, uh, the protection structures. But the the notion as I read the the contract is that in this case there was the intention to do you know somewhat detailed as much as could be afforded to the 30% level for the uh for the preferred project. So, and I think that the goal of that is to really understand before going after the construction grants what the project might actually cost. But there having uh one one um speaker really talked about should we really do that kind of analysis for all the options because um there are going to be up to four of them and there certainly needs to be at least three of them um as far as I'm concerned the So what is your sense of how much information is going to be collected before we get to the decision on the preferred alternative. >> Um, so there's a lot of questions in there. Um, but but I'm kind of summarizing what you're you're saying as um we'd like there's an interest in getting as much information as possible about as many alternatives as possible before making a decision what the preferred alternative is. And yes, that can be done, but you've we need to balance cost versus um what what that achieves. So, anytime that you you know carry on multiple alternatives through um longer through a process that comes with additional cost like significant additional cost. So, you're trying to balance um determining as early in as possible what what the preferred alternative is. so that you can narrow down the scope of you know your your cost expenditures. There is in this scope um the option for for doing um higher level work on up to two alternatives um through environment or through task B which is the preliminary engineering phase. Um so we have accounted for for some of that already. Um and there there is an option for the commission you know as as you included in your um action there to this you know the commission making a decision on what proceeds into the the SQA analysis. Um what we're we're trying to do with the current cost or the current scope of work is to you know develop the preliminary engineing up to about 30%. You know these are um and and know as much as we can at that level before getting through the SQL analysis. >> Okay. I I I'm just concerned given the history with the other trail segments of the community controversy that it's not going to surprise me uh although it will disappoint me that we're going to be faced with a similar thing here. We've heard some testimony today about options that should be eliminated or options that should be focused on. And um I'm just concerned that this that's that the staff through working with the consultant recognize that this is a potentially controversial process and it needs to be there needs to be public significant public input which I think is in intended but I think there may need to be and it's up to staff to determine some decision points where the commission would get reports Um so one we're not wasting money and but two we are looking at things that are going to be important in ending up with some um defensible cost estimates because I think that's the real concern that we as we've seen with some of the other segments um you know we go forward thinking that one option is preferred and then find out that we can't possibly afford to pay it and I think that is something we really you have to try to avoid in um the you know this next phase. So it's just really uh a suggestion in the end that perhaps as the public process uh develops and the consultant work develops around the different alignments. If it becomes clear that there's one or two that maybe need to fall off for one reason or another, it may be worth bringing that to commission to see whether the commission would agree to that. so that the consultant can really focus on those options that seem to be the most feasible. On the other hand, that staff doesn't make that decision and then get the commission mad at you because you got rid of an option that people really want to have further consideration. It's, you know, given our experience, I think it's a it's going to be a complex process to uh narrow down what south the south county trails are really going to look like. And that's very well described and I think you um did a very um conveyed that very well and and staff are aware of um those concerns and we we do hear the community concerns um and some of the the echoes out there as uh Commissioner Clark called them. So um thank you very much for for conveying that to us. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? >> Commissioners, >> thank you. You know, uh, advancing equity should not be controversial. It should be a fundamental goal that we have. And therefore, you know, we need to examine these alternatives. And I'm in favor of the alternatives that uh do not remove the the rail line. And so as we move forward, I think that, you know, bring bringing equity to Watsonville and South County in whatever way we can is important, but I think it's also important not to cut off the future. And sometimes it might cost a little more to do something that's going to uh yield some more results in the future. And we should not uh cut off our nose despite our faith. and we should advance equity at any time we can. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. See you know and commissioners. >> I just would like to thank um Riley um for the work that has already gone into this and I really look forward to seeing the results of this study. 4 million something is a lot of money to award to an agency to help us plan the best way forward um for those segments. and I am so excited this is getting started. Um so I just wanted to express my gratitude um on behalf of my constituents and our South County. Thank you. >> Thank you. And with that um all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any seeing none no abstensions? Motion passes. So, we're going to move on to um number 18 um which is the issuance of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Measure D sales tax revenue bonds staff report please. >> Good morning commissioners. My name is uh Nisha Singh. I'm the director of internal services. I'm here to present um one of the exciting uh projects that we are taking. We are trying to bond against measure D highway and active transportation. So this is a slide for you to understand as to what we are borrowing and how we are borrowing those funds. Thank you. As you know we have uh we come to commission for five-year plan. We come with the strategic implementation plan and we come with cash flow model for measure D to commission and get their approval on various factors as to where where the revenue should go and how we should fund those revenues and uh as you know we in 2016 we got approved from measure D that's the major source of revenue for RTC So this is a little background of how we uh get those uh fundings and how we allocate those funding. Cash flow model is one of the biggest uh item that we go through every year. We try to analyze how much money do we have, how we got get this revenue and what all projects are we funding and thereafter we decide as to how to fund these projects and um available cash at the year end and try to understand our position at that particular year end. Okay. So that's a basic background of uh measure D and how we get our funds and how we allocate it. Is it working? Okay. So, um I missed out on Okay. So, this is a highway project financing need. As you can see, we have three phases with highway. Phase one, phase 2, and phase three. If you talk about phase one, it's almost complete. There's a minimal funding required, which we are about to pay uh pretty soon. When we talk about phase two, which is Bayport to state park, that is almost 65% complete. From this borrowing need, we are planning to borrow close to 50 million for highway in this fiscal year. For this borrowing needs, we're going to have phase 2 which is 65% complete and we're going to fund the remaining from the borrowings. When you talk about phase three, which is state park to freedom and the segment 12 for rail trail, that's that project is about to start in fiscal year 2627. That's the major primary focus for Brun proceeds. As as you can see on the right side, we are talking about how much revenue do we receive for measure D. As we know, we have 6.5 million that comes from measure D every year. Um there is a capital expenditures that we are anticipating close to 129 million in next 5 years for phase 2 and phase 3 combined together. When you look at the maximum cash flow deficit, that's basically an assumption telling you that if we do not go for this borrowing, we're going to have a deficit of 83.7 million. So our plan is to go for a borrowing needs of 50 million in this fiscal year and then we are planning to go for a next uh borrowing of 50 million in fiscal year 2829. Uh with this I'm going to show you our cash flow model for the next five year which is the main concerning uh flow of information that you let you know as to how we are planning these funings. As you can see uh the upper portion shows you without bonding. It shows you how much funds do we have at current position. At the end of fiscal year 2627 if you want to see 5.77 can't okay as you can see at the fiscal year 2526 5.7 million is what we have as a cash with us for highway when you go forward with fiscal year 2627 you can see there's the beginning balance which is the carry forward from the prior year then you're adding the interest and you're adding all the sales tax revenue that you're getting close to 6.7 million and then we have the capital expenditure which is close to 27 7 million that we are planning to expend in this fiscal year which is fiscal year 2627. This leads to a ending balance of 14 million. As you go forward that 14 million every year uh with the expenditure of 35 40 14 3.7 is turning all almost close to 80 million by the end of fiscal year 3031. As you know we have already uh decided we're going to go for the phase three. We have state and f uh federal and state borrowings that we uh have already received and this project will uh will cost us this much almost 80 million by the next five years. So that's the reason we are borrowing. So if you go for the second scenario which is with with borrowing if you see that situation we have on the bottom which is a bond proceeds we have added added 50 million as the bond value. With this bond value uh there comes a cost. So initially two years we are planning to just have an interest after 2 years we're going to add the interest in principle that will lead to 3.5 3.8 3.8 and later on it'll turn into close to 4 um four yeah 3.8 million it'll stay at 3.8 28 million. This is the first borrowing that proceed that I'm talking about which is 2026 proceed. When you talk about 2028 and 29 proceed which we are planning to anticipate if you see 50 million across the line from 2829 fiscal year we are planning to borrow close to 50 million that 50 million would lead to uh initial 3 years of just interest payment of 2 million and after that it's going to lead to a principal uh an interest payment of 1.5 million. So in total u so sorry that's wrong that'll lead to a total of 4.2 million in the later years. So if you overall talk about the highway project and the borrowing and the needs and the cash flow HDL has given us a projection that since we have um got the measure D our initial revenue was close to 17 million as you can see currently it's close to 27.5 million it has grown grown over the years and the same projection they have used for the further years where they are anticipating a close to u 3% increase over the next 30 years cumulatively that will lead to our revenue close to 8 million, 9 million and 10 million in the future years which is 5 to 10 years down the lane. With that anticipation we are uh with this borrowing of initial 50 million and the next 50 million we're going to have 100 million on total death and the payment would be for principal and interest would be close to uh 8 million in total for highway just for highway. So that will be netting it out your revenue 8 million your expenditure net million you're left with no funds for initial uh fiscal year till maybe 3031 and then you'll try to accumulate a little bit of uh leftover money that you could be utilized in the future years but that's so minimal that I wouldn't consider that as a major source of revenue I would keep it as a contingency value for the future needs that come in for maintenance and any other projects that we have so this is a overall highway cash flow model which uh uh lets you know that highway is capable enough to take this borrowings. This is an anticipation based on multiple factors. If you talk about initial borrowings, it's based on 4% rate of interest and it's based on the market condition right now and uh we haven't added on the earnings that we are planning to put that unutilized funds into the market like a secured funds into the market and earn some sort of return on that. So that has not been added to this. The other anticipation that we have that HDL will increase 3% yearly and our revenue will go forward based on the market condition and it has been very stable. We have close to 5 billion in sales tax revenue over in fiscal year 2627. Uh so this anticipation is based on that we borrow currently 50 million and then we spend 35 40 14 and 3.7 in the future years which is a very uh uh which we need to assess after a couple of years and we see how much cash balance we have. So it's a very uh hypothetical situation for the next borrowing. This this shows that uh as I mentioned that highway is already capped after the second boring it will be. So if you see the fiscal year 32 to 3 uh7 you see that everything is capped. The revenue is in the orange color which is close to 8 million and the expenditure will be close to uh 8 million and then it'll be capped and after you go close to fiscal year 2039 it keeps on dropping and then you have a little margin of revenue in the future years. So overall if you see the green line represent 27.5 million which is going at a 3% rate of increase in the future years and it's going up to close to 40 to 50 million by the end of uh fiscal year 4647. With this uh now I move on to the active transportation project and its financing needs. As you know we have coastal rail trade project which we are funding from um bron proceeds. We have segment five segment 8 to 9 and segment 18 phase 2 to three. These are the major projects that we are undertaking and uh the borrowing needs of 20 million will help us uh accomplish these projects. If you see on the right side that's the cost of next 5 years what we require from active transportation to give it which is close to 23.7 million. We have an expenditure of close to 57.3 million. This doesn't take into account what all state and federal grants that we have received for these projects. When you talk about the deficit, it's close to 10.5 million and estimated borrowing needs is 20 million in this fiscal year and then it's a big assumption that we're going to borrow in fiscal year 2829 almost 10 millions. If you see this is the cash flow model for active transportation for next 5 years. As you can see our beginning balance is close to 8 million which is our ending balance of fiscal year 2627. That means that is the cash that we have for active transportation as it's six or eight. Okay. Uh that's the cash that we have as of today. When you go to fiscal year 2627, we are anticipating that we are going to have a revenue of 4.5 million and we're going to have an expenditure of 23 million. That leads to a negative balance of 10 million. That 10 million is being carried forward in the future years to anticipate how much do we actually need. So the first slide on the top you'll see without bonding. that that shows us what money do we need and how quickly do we need it. Whereas if you go to the bottom section which tells you okay now with the bond proceeds we're going to borrow 20 million with this 20 million we're going to pay the bond proceeds of 800,000 for the first issuance which is 20 million and going forward when you have in fiscal year 29 we're going to borrow again 10 million based on the deficit and that payment will be close to 400,000 uh and moving forward it'll be close to the total payment of these 30 million would be close to 2.3 million uh as I said highway doesn't have any more capacity to do any more project. Whereas uh on the contrary active transportation do have a high amount of capacity to function and uh has a remaining balance that could be utilized in future future projects. This is the active transportation revenue and depth uh services um graph which shows green line which is your uh measure D full 27.5 million again and then you show the orange line which shows about the active transportation uh allocation which is significantly different from highway as you see uh when you talk about the expenditure and the brawn pro bond proceeds there's a lot of margin which is left and that margin is growing over the years starting uh even with fiscal year 2019 9. So we have a capacity in that end. If you talk about the series bond, okay, this basically outlines as to how we are going to borrow this. There is uh there's going to be an issue which would be a fixed rate and tax exempt. We're going to have a credit uh which will be our um uh we will pledge the entire measure D fund against the borrowing. So it will not be just a one project highway or active transportation. It'll be entire uh it'll be the entire measured D fund which is 27.5 million that will be borrowing and then you talk about the rating we're going to go for S&P rating as you know RTC never had any rating for us we are since we are a small organization our rating are anticipated to be around uh double A category but let's see we just gave the presentation and we should have those answers pretty quickly when you talk about the structure so we are planning to have two years of without uh principal le payment we'll just pay interest and after 2 years we'll try to uh have interest and principal. This is a very common phenomena where you have the major projects and you're trying to uh fund those project in the initial years and in the later years you add the principle as well as the uh interest. Whereas the when you talk about the sale we'll take it into the competitive market since our rating will be higher and we are uh we have a good reputation. It's better for us to take it in the open market, have everyone come and bid for these uh bonds and we'll take the lowest bidder. When you talk about the source and uses, this basically outlines u how much is our actual borrowing and uh how much is the additional premium that we need to pay. How much is the payments that we're going to have like 620,000 is our cost of issuance which is anticipated. Major cost of issuance is like the commission um underwriter fees that goes almost close to 0 75. So it could vary. That's the reason um we have asked commission to go up to 75 million. We have asked in our resolution that we should borrow up to 75 million. Basically the reason is this so that if we have a bidder who comes and says oh I'm going to have 72.5 as your uh uh par value and after that we're going to give you a discount. So your net value would be same as 70 million after deducting all the co cost of issuance. So that's the only reason that we don't have to come back to the commission. The second reason is uh there is always uh borrowings in the denomination of 5,000 as per our financial consultant KN&N. So that's the reason we have asked commission to go up to 75. We're just going to borrow 70 and 75 is just a uh cushion margin that we have kept so that in case uh there's a variance we can actually proceed with the issuance. Um this is a uh this shows as to how we going to borrow. So initially what happens is currently we get the CDFA money we uh uh it goes directly to county and county pays us uh county gives us the receipt. Whereas when the bonds proceed will come into the picture, there'll be uh a mediator. There'll be a US bank as a trustee who will come in play who will take all the measured D money, take all the bonds proceed with uh and take keep aside the bond proceed, the principal and the interest from 27.5 million and allocate the rest to us. And based on that remaining allocation, we are not going to touch any direct allocation for city, county and everyone. They'll be paid full. it'll be just our highway and active transportation category which will receive less revenue. So this overall uh defines as to that we are hedging the entire funds and how will the flow of money come into play. These are the documents that I' have added into staff report for approval like uh uh security legal resolutions. there is uh uh amendment and restate agreement for CD CDTFA to give the money directly to uh our US bank as a trustee and then we have a master indenture which is between us and the US bank and first supplemental indenture that's the same document whereas if you see uh the other documents are like notice inviting bids for people to come and bid for our bonds then notice to intend to sell and the purchase agreement bond purchase agreement these are the basic documents that has been given by the bond council to us to proceed with this borrowing. Whereas if you see the last one which is uh the debt management policy, it's always uh um a mandatory requirement for us to go for this uh policy so that we are rated better and we had a debt policy in case there's a conflict of interest at the later point of time. So that's a debt policy that been provided as along with the resolution and the other documents that we have. Uh this is basically the timeline that defines as to how we're going to go about it. We have already gone with meeting with S&P we are here today to get your approval for series of bond and uh we have uh so furthermore we'll price our bonds in the market and we'll have a closing series on that date and by that date we should have our funds available for the major projects. Uh so with this I would like to recommend that we approve the resolution for borrowing up to 75 million uh authorizing executive directors to take all the necessary steps and take all the signatures and get get funding approved and then lastly to adopt a debt management policy which will help us facilitate the process. If you have any questions I'm here I have the team KN&N and other uh bond council to give all the answers. >> Thank you >> Commissioner Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, thank you for that presentation. I thought it's quite good. Um, to be certain about this, uh, this is a, as I understand it, my experience would tell me this, uh, that, uh, it's fairly common to have a revenue source that's predictable and extends over a considerable t period of time. Not 100% predictable, but pretty predictable. And it seems to me that what pushes against that is the uneven pattern of expenditures over time. So voters adopt measure D. They say we want these things done. Commission says all right we're going to undertake these things and we have this dedicated revenue source. So the borrowing seems to me from a policy point of view to be a very good thing provided there's a couple of sideboards around it. One is we're not pledging 100% of every revenue that's coming in, but we are pledging a significant portion of future revenue for projects that the voters said are contained in Measure D. And we want those things done. The borrowing uh the interest rate that we'll be paying somewhere in that 4% range depending upon what the street says the moment we go out to sell the bond. But assuming that it's in that range, I think we're pretty sure that the cost of projects, labor, and materials are going up significantly faster than 4% a year that we would be paying on the interest for borrowing against a revenue we can relatively predict. [snorts] So, if that's the architecture of the deal, >> it seems to me that it makes good sense to borrow money today and make the investments and pay it back with cheaper dollars in the future >> so that we can get project delivery as close to on time as we can. Is that the basic structure of this deal? >> Yes. Uh so mostly agencies uh either go pay as we go or they borrow so that they can expedite the project and get all the fundings in one go and then they can speed up the project and re reduce the cost of inflation that might be coming in the future years. So as you delay the cost of doing that project is significantly higher. So as today the labor cost and all those as you said you're absolutely right. So either you do pay as you go or you take the borrowings and expedite the project to up to the completion and then uh >> yes you're absolutely correct with this. >> Okay. One one other question Mr. Chairman. Thank you. One other question and that is uh the pledged revenue is only not that it's insignificant but there's a box around what our liability is in terms of we're borrowing this money. We're pledging this revenue, not any other revenue, any other color dollars that come in to the RTC. It's this revenue. Is that right? >> No. Uh that's uh that's not the right statement. Uh we are pledging complete 27.5 million in case highway doesn't have a capacity to pay it back or active doesn't have a capacity in the future to pay it back. >> Uh US bank will directly take the money up front. They don't uh and then after that how we allocate will come back to commission. if there's a extreme situation but it hasn't I think our sales tax has been very consistent over the years and HDL has a done a great job in predicting the market uh and estimating the various factors as to what will uh come back as a revenue. So, >> so what what recourse would a bond holder have >> uh if we are pledging measure D revenues and a bond holder believes that they aren't going to get repaid or they're not out of that source, what's their recourse? They can dig deeper into our resources. >> Um, we may have >> Good morning. Good morning. Brian Forbath from Strain Yaka RTC's bond council. Great to be here with you this morning. It's a great question. So these bonds are payable solely from measure D revenues. There's no other obligation of the commission or any other funds. But all of it's a gross pledge of measure D revenues >> comes from CDTFA gets deposited in with the trustee. There's a flow of buckets as the money comes out. you pay, you know, interest and principal and then it gets released from the pledge, goes back to RTC and then gets dispersed to the various buckets that you all have established. >> So, I'm going to stay there for just a second if you could. Thank you, my friend. Um so let's let's say that that we go ahead with this borrowing, we issue the bond, we're undertaking the projects, um and for whatever reason the world goes into an absolutely fantastic uh you know global financial crisis, we won't be the only ones with a problem in that event. But but assuming that for a second and our revenue uh drops significantly as a result of that and we have a bond payment uh that is coming due and our sales tax that portion of our sales tax that's measure D is not sufficient to cover that. We're not going to default on a bond. So, we have to cure that problem because if we default, if any public agency defaults on a bond, they're not going to sell another bond or they will, but the price will be ridiculous. So, I don't imagine any of that is going to happen. Don't imagine any of that is going to happen to the point where we are uh on the edge of a default. But in the event that those circumstances unfold, because that's always what you do when you're borrowing. It's like what is the extent and what is my protection against going against other assets if I default? >> So there the bond investors have no ability to go against other assets of RTC. It's in your equipment and your assets or bank accounts or anything. The only pledge and lean they have is on the MA measure D sales tax revenues. And if the commission or whoever other bodies members of commission decide out of their own generosity or whatever that they want to solve this on their own that's that's not an obligation of anybody and to do. >> Thank you. You're welcome. Appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, that that leads me to believe still that this is breadandut kind of borrowing that is done by public agencies all the time. we know what this agency is about, what we're supposed to do under measure D, what the basic big three buckets are that we're using uh to fund those uh activities that the voters approved. So, I think this I know we're going to get uh further input and so on, but I I think this is there's nothing exotic about this at all. uh what public agencies do to make sure you get your projects done uh on time and on budget that if you can forecast what your cost increases are going to be in your borrowing costs and there's a delta between them go ahead and do it as far as I'm concerned. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you and thank you for that, you know, explanation coming from a former treasur the county [laughter] >> commissioner Sheriff. Yeah, just to um Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Ship. >> Go ahead. >> I'll be quick. Um, first of all, let me just say, wow. Uh, you have such a grasp on this. Uh, I really hope that a spaceship doesn't land and take you away somewhere. Um, because your your grasp on this is really uh very good, very solid, like none other I've seen. Um, also too, if they want to come after the commission for any of this data, I have a left-handed bowling ball they're welcome to have. So um [laughter] but but onto my question here and it's just to kind of dubtail on Commissioner Keely's question. Let's say that there is said financial crisis and interest rates swing wildly one direction or another in the course of this does that have an effect and if so what effect would that have? >> The um the obligations that are being issued are fixed rate obligations. So they the the interest rate that the commission is going to pay on its bonds will be fixed [snorts] at the date of pricing or when we close the bonds. And if there's an event default uh there's no right of acceleration of bond owners. The bond owners just continue to get paid as revenues would come in. If that answers your question. >> And well and let me just one quick followup. In the event interest rates fall, would that be a situation we where we'd be able to leverage that at all? >> So, the the bonds are going to be structured with a a 10-year optional redemption provision, which Mrs. Shik could talk about more in more detail, but so there will be opportunities in the future um to refund these bonds for potential savings if the markets cooperate. Yes. >> Great. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Go ahead. >> Good morning, Commission. Melissa Schik with KN&N public finance and I've been working closely with staff and bond council on your transaction. Um to address the question with regard to declining revenues and the repayment of debt, uh I just want to draw your attention back to the graphs that Nisha showed with you and to remember that we're pledging all of measure D revenues, but we're sizing the bonds only within the highway and active transportation programs. So, we're not leveraging the full extent of the revenue stream. And that's really important because then we have something an embedded debt service coverage, meaning we're not borrowing all of measure D. We're only borrowing within the program areas where the bond proceeds are advancing projects. Um, and that's really important. So for the current transaction we expect that total measure D revenues will be five times the debt service due on the bonds. If we take into account the second borrowing that Nisha walked you through. We um estimate that total measure D revenues will be over two and a half times the total debt service on the two bond transactions. Um, so that's a really important feature with your borrowing and the way your expenditure plan is set up and the rating agencies love that, right? Like they love to see that embedded coverage and know that actually you can't borrow all of measure D because you have obligations to the neighborhood programs and other programs within your expenditure plan. >> Thank you. That's a good answer, Commissioner Shiffron. Thank you. Uh thank you for the presentation. Lots of numbers uh coming by uh fairly fast. I I do have a few questions. I want to sort of approach the questions that Commissioner Keley raised and responded to slightly different way. I I think sort of worst case that if there's really a sharp reduction in sales tax uh because the bond uh debt service is such a low percentage of the current total measure D money the likelihood that there would be any uh default is pretty impossible. However, if there is a significant the point I want I I I think is the case if in fact measure D revenues decline the debt service will be paid off the top we're assuming and the whole bond process is based on the assumption that there will be sufficient money in the highway fund and in the active transportation fund to pay the debt service and not affect any of the other categories. Correct. >> But it's important I think to recognize if there is a significant decline in overall sales tax revenue, it is possible that the amount of revenue going to highways and act transportation would not be sufficient and that would mean at least in the short term um reduction in the amount of money going to the other categories. Now, we could consider that alone, but I think it's important to recognize in that kind of worst case situation that it's not measured because the bond holders are going to get paid no matter what. >> It's just whether anybody else is going to get paid is what is the question. So, is that kind of the correct understanding? In case there's a worse scenario, we'll come back to commission and we'll give the different uh opportunities and options to choose from that either you can take active transportation for the shorter period of time like a small loan or you can go with the rail or any other categories and uh we'll present those scenarios in case such a uh situation occurs. But even if you see with covid which was like a huge uh uh pandemic and our revenue didn't significantly go lower. So if if the whole economy goes down that then we going to come back again to the commission. >> Okay. Thank you. The my real questions have to do with the you know what we're talking about here is money and how to get more money and it's [clears throat] all based on the fact that we're going to need the money and I think that that might be it might be helpful for the commission and the public to have a better understanding about why we need the money. As I understand it, for the highway project, we really need the money in the hundred million dollars overall, the 50 million in the short term to complete the project that's under construction now from Bay to State Park, but more importantly to pay the local share of the project from state park from free [snorts] state park to freedom >> freedom to state park >> freedom to state park. So those are projects that have been through the process. The ERS have been done. We've got very very significant outside grants that are paying for uh a a huge >> portion the major portion of that pro those projects but there's a gap and the measure D revenues on an annual basis are not sufficient to close that gap. So that's why we need to borrow for the highway fund. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's absolutely correct. We have other state and federal revenue coming in and uh our share because we have to preund everything from our own u money. That's the reason that's the local share that we have. We're going to preund everything and we're going to submit our reimbursement to federal and state. So that's the reason we require all these funds together with us so we can do those transactions and get the refund. So let me the highway fund is pretty clear to me because we're only talking about two projects. >> Sure. >> But so let's talk about the active transportation and why we need the bonding for the active transportation. >> Okay. It's is some of it going to be potentially needed for 8 through 12 or and to what extent is it really are we really building uh the capacity to do 13 through 20 because my understanding was uh if we're fortunate the cost of doing 8 through 12 will be in the grants but what we were really going to need money for the in the future and what's not sufficient in the act transportation fund is for the South County Trail. Is that a correct understanding about why we're going to need the to do bonding for active transportation? >> I can call upon Grace to answer that question, but I do have some slides which can uh reflect as to how much we are borrowing and how much grants do we have for active. >> Morning commissioners. Grace, please leave your step. Sarah, it looked like you might want to respond. So, I wanted to give you a chance first. I was going to give a 10,000 foot view of just a history. I know that you're aware of the history of the decision to to bond um and the decision to borrow was uh was made before we applied for these large grants that we've since received luckily. Um but I want to just point and give perspective to um you know in 20 2020 we prepared a strategic implementation plan for measure D that outlined kind of our strategy around this and the commission at that time um you know shortly after the strategic implementation plan was prepared um they accepted this approach to borrow because it is it is a smart thing to do to bring money forward so that our community can experience the transportation improvements sooner, right? Um if we just go off of pay as you go revenue, it's um you know those projects are going to we're going to get less project, right? So part of this is about stretching our dollar. Uh but uh as part of the strategic implementation plan, we have our um cash flow model that is based on expenditures programwide. So every dollar that we have programmed, this commission has programmed is year-over-year. Like those are the amounts that we're assuming we need to fund, right? So if we've uh program funds to uh North Coast segment 5, yes, that's included in it's like an overall program expenditure uh need. So basically we're running out of cash in the program based on the programming that this commission has already approved. Um but with that if you want to add more detail that >> I think that was a great overview but to answer part of your question is yes we expect that the existing program fundings when you combine the state potential federal funding and the local measure D funding will cover the the interim trail cost as currently estimated. you brought up an item um a question in the earlier item about cost estimates at early um kind of design when you were speaking with Riley. So right now the interim trail design is around 30%. So we still have a lot to learn. We've tried to keep up with escalation rate costs and estimates as well as unit cost estimates but we will we'll have updated cost estimates going forward. So the cash flow model that you saw presented by Nisha does assume that the um interim trail can be constructed within segments 9 through 12 with the existing um nine sorry 9 through 11 with the existing programmed funding. >> Let me follow up on that because I think I tend to not like bonding uh because it has interest payments and it means we you know we're paying now but we're paying for a long time. I I can support it when we really need the money and I can see for the highway project that we really need the money as projected. It isn't quite as clear to me why we need the money for the trail. Um my understanding was and and I think it's important to let people know we're borrowing because we we want to do the projects and we can't do the projects if we don't borrow. Uh, and I think that's true for the highway projects and I think it's it's probably true for the trail project once we go beyond um segment segments 8 through 12. At least that's my understanding of it. So, as we move forward with uh 13 through 20, um I as I've been thinking about it, it's less clear to me why we need a bond for $10 million in 2627 when there isn't really a need for it uh in terms of funding any project or at least it doesn't appear to be a need for it. And so, sort of correct me on that. Um, I want to bond when we need to bond, but I don't think we should bond unless we need to bond. And things tend tend to take longer than you think they're going to take, as we well know. So, you know, not having a bunch of money sitting in the bank that we're paying interest on, uh, that we're not using is, you know, not necessarily the best way forward. So help me with understanding why we need the um active transportation bond in 2627. >> Okay. Um I think it really alludes to what Sarah was saying is that we can't we don't have the pay as you go funds to advance the projects right now and and we want to stick to the schedule that we have for delivery of segments 9 through 11 or 8 through 11 and we do not have sufficient funds on a pay as you go basis to do that. So really the earlier bonding is to be able to to construct those projects. Um for future projects in South County, we don't have cost estimates for the construction of those projects. So we would need to return to the commission once we do get to that phase. You know, Riley presented on developing the um pre-construction phase, the environmental phase, and that will inform the cost of the construction of those projects in the future. So the to try to answer your question most simply, we do not have the pay as you go capacity in these early years to advance the projects 9 through 11 and that's why we're pursuing bonding. >> So that seems to contradict the notion that um the grants are going to cover the cost. Is it a is it a re reimbursement problem that we're having that what we need to do is spend the money upfront and then they'll be reimbursed out of the bonds? Is that why we need I mean if the bonds are going to I mean if the grants are going to cover the cost of the project then theoretically we shouldn't need to bond but if we're not going to get the grants until we've paid for essentially paid for much of the project then I can understand why we would need to bond. So, we will be reimbursed for it, which will help us down the road, but we need a bond because we don't have enough money in the account to pay for the construction as it has happens until we get reimbursed. Is that really what's going on? >> Um, no. So, I think a key piece of that I maybe didn't make clear is that the funding, the complete the funding for the trail projects is a combination. It is the state funding, the grants that we received as well as the previously programmed measure D funding that we are advancing into earlier years to complete the construction. So, it's a combination of that funding. >> So, we're our commitment to the local share of A through 12 is um based on the funds we don't have essentially funds that we're expecting to get, >> not on a pay as you go basis, >> right? So they're not available now. The our expectation is they will be available over the next several years and the bond will cover it during that period. So it's essentially uh paying for the local share uh until we get the local until we get the measure D funding that will cover the local share. And I know Sarah had alluded to this and and we talked about this earlier, but it is very real the escalation rates that we're facing and bonding can be an uncomfortable conversation and debt service can be an uncomfortable conversation when you're talking about public funds, but really the strategy is to try to get ahead of that escalation. We're facing serious cost increases every month, not just yearly on the escalation rates. So, we can't predict the future, but that's a serious part of our conversation we have as staff and coming to you with this recommendation. >> Okay. Um, thank you very much. I I just wanted to make clear what the why they were needed, how the public is going to benefit, how these projects are going to benefit by having the bonding, and I think you've made that clear. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Commissioner Downey. >> Yes. Thank you for the presentation. It was very thorough and easy to understand. Um, I think back to 2016 when we passed Measure D, uh, especially that component of the trail. And I'd like to know since we've been talking like up through segment 12 for these projects, where does that leave 13 through 20 um, in this scenario with bonding? I could take a stab at that. So um as Nisha's presentation showed, we're kind of tapping out the highway program, but we may have some capacity in future years um in the active transportation program. So we uh as staff were aware uh you know thinking about the future and the um delivery strategy of the South County Trail projects. it's going to be really important to um try to preserve some additional you know revenues so we have some leftover so that we could then use um measure D funds maybe future you know when we're going for grants we're going to need to commit Measure D as our local match and hopefully among other funds that you know maybe other agencies want to also chip in on these important projects but um but really we want to replicate the success that we've had for the north county in the south county. And so that's really our intent looking, you know, five years down the road. But the first things first is get the project started, which is Riley's presentation, which was fantastic. And then secondly, we have to manage our funds very uh diligently so that we have enough money left to pledge a local match for future um very large grants that we hope to obtain to build these uh amazing improvements for South County. And I just wanted to clarify, does this measure do you send sun down in 2047? Does it? >> Yes, it's a 30-year measure and uh 2047 is uh when it sunsets >> and the current projects that we were just describing. When do when do we hope for uh their completion if this bonding is uh successful >> for the highway program? It's a probably around 2031 would be the completion of the improvements to the phase 3 project. And then for the coastal rail trail projects, there's several of them. So I'll defer to Grace on that. >> Um for the segments we've been talking about today related to the bonding segments 8 through 11, we're looking at a completion date of around 2030. Okay. >> Start construction in 2027 is our current schedule. >> Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, I'll go out to the public to end this item at the agenda. [clears throat] Anybody in chambers? Hi, I'm Brett Garrett. I want to make sure you have read the comments from Linda Wilshen, former executive director of RTC from 1985 to 2005. This is the attachment for item 18 on the website. I'll just try to read her number 14 to summarize. I'll read as much as I can. The RTC staff report is proposing to mortgage future measure D revenues so that CALR can initiate construction of a highway 1 widening project that was not included in the 2016 measure D approved by voters and for which a current estimated total project cost and sequencing has not been made public. that after years of construction will offer no traffic relief to Highway One drivers in the short term or long term and that will severely limit local measure D funds for other possible Highway 1 corridor operational improvements, interchange projects, traffic management, and related projects. Please make sure you read this. It's it's a longer it's longer than what I read, but it's from a former executive director of the RTC, and it's very important. Please read it. >> Thank you. >> [laughter and clears throat] >> Hello again. Well, um I'm sure you've all memorized the 2019 EIR. In case you haven't, let me remind you uh a couple of [snorts] statistics there. They're predicting a traffic speed increase of four miles an hour from 24 26 to 30 miles an hour. Uh there's a uh no guarantee how long that's going to last. We all know about induced demand. Uh the question is uh you know is this a permanent construction project because as soon as we get the three lanes done it's it's a mess up at the fish hook $127 million uh worse than it's ever been. So then there's the next move say okay let's start building four lanes. Uh I came from Los Angeles when they built the 14 lane Santa Monica freeway within 10 years it was a parking lot at rush hour. I mean, I think folks are earnest in trying to do something here that'll help, but this is proven not to be the way to go. Uh, you know, this this phase is obviously on its way, although I think borrowing is sort of irresponsible when it's not really necessary. Thank you. So, I think take a better look, please. >> Hi, Mark Lee from Santa Cruz County. I'd like to uh encourage you to look at the economics of what you're about to pass. You're putting the county into extreme debt service here. In 2024, the project environmental review included that this segment 12 would only increase traffic by four miles per hour. Think about that. You're spending 70 to 90 million. only out of the 260,000 people that are living here in the county, 50% of the people only work full-time. The rest of us are working part-time or on lowinccome salaries. Think about the debt service that you're putting the the future generations into. Furthermore, this in the EIR section that you paid for your consultant under the EIR in n 2019 2.51.16 the pre the the EIR indicated that there was discernable negligible improvement. You're spending $90 million to gain four miles per hour gain from park segment 9. Please do not pass this authorization. It's a waste of taxpayers money. >> Thank you, sir. >> Debbie Bulier, I urge you not to issue millions in bonds with the lion's share going towards widening Highway One from State Park to Freedom. Measure D did not address this section of Highway One. widening state park drive to freedom was not approved by the voters. The EIR as has been said predicts insignificant congestion relief. Taxpayers cannot afford this enormous expenditure. Anyone paying attention to the national news of extreme weather exacerbated by climate change knows we must invest in reducing carbon emissions. Measure D money should be used for road repair, neighborhood safety projects, transit, and active transportation, not for widening the highway that we did not vote for. >> Thank you. See no one else in chambers. Anybody oversee? >> You do not have any speakers. >> All right, I'll bring it back to the commissioner for um direction. as >> so it's been moved and second and other questions. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any nos? No. So the motion passes. So thank you. Uh with that we're going to go on to um I get back in my place. [laughter] Uh review of the items uh to be discussed in close session. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chair. We have four items for close session today. The first two items are public employee uh performance evaluation and labor negotiations related to the executive director. And then the remaining two items are conference with legal counsel both under anticipated litigation. And with that um we are ready for close session. >> Do we expect any report report? >> I do not anticipate any reportable action today. Right. >> Well, thank you. With that, um, any public comment? >> Good morning, Commissioners Grace. I'm now speaking as a member of public on my own time. Um, I'm item on the close session. Um, the RTC has proposed key decisions to maintain significant grants during the almost two-year period that director Christensen has been the director. It's also made careful decisions about cost increases on highway projects, all focused on multimmoal limit mobility. Sarah has provided clarity to the RTC on the landscape for the project delivery and how that works for Highway One and Coastal Rail Trail and State grants. We've observed that as the director and with the support by RTC, we have become a more transparent agency. And we've also been able to receive the feedback of the public and advance equity goals. Where staff need support is to create a positive work environment that encourages multi-d disciplinary decision-making and support for an environment that retains staff and is fiscally responsible with staff resources. We've been known as an agency that's lean and um very effective and we want to continue to serve in that capacity. This will any kind of um work conditions that are difficult create distractions, reduces staff's energy, and takes away from the focus of our goals. I hope you can ask important questions to help RTC get there. Core staff are the folks who are putting their names on their staff reports and developing the work to you, providing the analysis and making recommendations that receive review by your director. We appreciate your attention to supporting our staff and committ continuing to be committed to the public through the RTC. >> Thank you. Um with that, any other uh comments? Any public comment? You see anybody? >> No. Over Zoom. >> You have no speakers. >> All right. With that, I'm closing up. So, until the next meeting. Thank you.