Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
C-4959 - (Revised) Master Funding Agreement No. C-1-2776 for M2 Comprehensive Transporation Funding Programs, (includes Measure M2 Tier 1 Environmental Cleanup Program)
OCTA February 11, 2021 Mr. David Webb City of Newport Beach — Public Works 100 Civic Center Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Agreement No. C-1-2776, City of Newport Beach, "M2 CTFP Master Funding Agreement" — Letter Agreement No. 12 Dear Mr. Webb: This Letter Agreement serves as the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) approval to amend Agreement No. C-1-2776, Attachment A-11 "Projects List." OCTA is deleting Attachment A-11, in its entirety, as identified in Article 4 "Responsibilities of Agency," paragraph A, and in lieu thereof is inserting the revised "Project List," attached hereto as Attachment A-12, which is incorporated and made a part of the Agreement. All provisions set forth in Master Funding Agreement No. C-1-2776 apply. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Alfonso Hernandez at (714) 560-5363. Please execute this Letter Agreement and return the signed original to the attention of: Luis Martinez, Associate Contract Administrator, Procurement Contracts Administration and Materials Management Department 600 South Main Street, 4'h Floor Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (714) 560-5767, Email: Imartinez1@octa.net Upon full execution of the Letter Agreement, the effective date will be November 1, 2020. Accepted and Agreed Kia Mortazavi Executive Director, Planning Orange County Transportation Authority David Webb Director of Public Works City of Newport Beach Pia Veesapen Director, Contracts Administration & Materials Management Orange County Transportation Authority Date AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ATTACHMENT A-12 LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 12 M2 CTFP MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT City of Newport Beach - Project List Project Description CTFP Amount Programmed Fiscal Year Board Date Letter Agreement No. Project 0 "Regional Capacity Program" Newport Boulevard Widening (Engineering) $ 225,000 2011-12 6/27/2011 West Coast Highway Widening at Old Newport Boulevard (Engineering) $ 270,000 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Newport Boulevard Widening (Right of Way) $ 3,048,413 2014-15 4/8/2013 4 Newport Boulevard Widening (Construction) $ 1,194,000 2014-15 4/14/2014 7 West Coast Highway and Superior Ave/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvement (Phase 2) $ 780,000 2020-21 5/11/2020 11 Cumulative Program Total $ 5,517,413 Project X "Environmental Clean Up" Newport Blvd Bio swale Part A Litter Removal Project $ 78,975 2011-12 8/8/2011 1 Newport Blvd Bio swale Part B Litter Removal Project $ 78,975 2011-12 8/8/2011 1 Balboa Coves Litter Removal Project $ 49,125 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Newport Bay Marina Trash Skimmer Litter Removal Project $ 72,695 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Newport Dunes Litter Removal Project $ 90,000 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Dover Drive Litter Removal Project $ 89,250 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Pelican Point Litter Removal Project $ 82,500 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Carnation Ave Litter Removal Project $ 726,810 2013-14 2/25/2013 4 Domingo Drive Litter Removal Project $ 106,000 2013-14 9/23/2013 6 Big Canyon Restoration Wetlands Project $ 1,592,780 2014-2015 4/14/2014 7 Bayview Heights Restoration/Mitigation Project $ 305,000 2014-2015 4/14/2014 7 Corona del Mar Water Quality Improvement and Litter Removal Project $ 250,000 2014-2015 4/14/2014 7 Newport Bay Trash Mitigation Project $ 125,726 2018-19 9/10/2018 8 Newport Bay Trash Mitigation Project Phase 2 $ 55,099 2019-20 9/9/2019 9 Newport Bay Trash Interceptor Project $ 500,000 2020-21 10/12/2020 12 Cumulative Program Total $ 4,202,935 Page 1 of 2 AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ATTACHMENT A-12 LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 12 M2 CTFP MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT City of Newport Beach - Project List Project P "Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program" San Joaquin Hills Road Corridor $ 220,000 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Newport Coast Drive Corridor $ 260,000 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Cumulative Program Total $ 480,000 Project V "Community Base Transit" Balboa Island/Corona del Mar Microtransit Feasibilty Study $ 58,500 2020-21 4/13/2020 10 Cumulative Program Total $ 58,500 Total (All Projects) $ 10,258,848 Page 2 of 2 OCTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Tim Shaw Chairman Steve Jones Vice Chairman Lisa A. Bartlett Director Doug Chaffee Director Laurie Davies Director Barbara Delgleize Director Andrew Do Director Michael Hennessey Director Gene Hernandez Director Jose F. Moreno Director Joe Muller Director Mark A. Murphy Director Richard Murphy Director Miguel Pulido Director Michelle Steel Director Donald P. Wagner Director Gregory T. Winterbottom Director Ryan Chamberlain Ex-Officio Member CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Darrell E. Johnson Chief Executive Officer November 8, 2019 Mr. David Webb City of Newport Beach — Department of Public Works 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Agreement No. C-1-2776, City of Newport Beach, "M2 CTFP Master Funding Agreement" — Letter Agreement No. 9 Dear Mr. Webb: This Letter Agreement serves as the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) approval to amend Agreement No. C-1-2776, Attachment A-8 "Projects List". OCTA is deleting Attachment A-8, in its entirety, as identified in Article 4 "Responsibilities of Agency", paragraph A, and in lieu thereof is inserting the revised "Project List", attached hereto as Attachment A-9, which is incorporated and made a part of the Agreement. All provisions set forth in Master Funding Agreement No. C-1-2776 apply. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Alfonso Hernandez at (714) 560-5363. Please execute this letter agreement and return the signed original to the attention of: Luis Martinez, Associate Contract Administrator, Procurement Contracts Administration and Materials Management Department 600 South Main Street, 4th Floor Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (714) 560-5767, Email: Imartinezl@octa.net Upon full execution Accepted and Agreed Kia Mortazavi Executive Director PI. • ing Orange' County Transportation Authority %/ Virginia Aadessa Director,,Contracts Administration & Materials Management Orange County Transportation Authority e ie er agreement, the effective date will be September 23, 2019. /A. /q.19 Date David Webb Director of Public Works City of Newport Beach Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ATTACHMENT A-9 LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 9 M2 CTFP MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT City of Newport Beach - Project List Project Description CTFP Amount Programmed Fiscal Year Board Date Letter Agreement No. Project 0 "Regional Capacity Program" Newport Boulevard Widening (Engineering) $ 225,000 2011-12 6/27/2011 West Coast Highway Widening at Old Newport Boulevard (Engineering) $ 270,000 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Newport Boulevard Widening (Right of Way) $ 3,048,413 2014-15 4/8/2013 4 Newport Boulevard Widening (Construction) $ 1,194,000 2014-15 4/14/2014 7 Cumulative Program Total $ 4,737,413 Project X "Environmentai=Clean-Up" Newport Blvd Bio swale Part A Litter Removal Project $ 78,975 2011-12 8/8/2011 1 Newport Blvd Bio swale Part B Litter Removal Project $ 78,975 2011-12 8/8/2011 1 Balboa Coves Litter Removal Project $ 49,125 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Newport Bay Marina Trash Skimmer Litter Removal Project $ 72,695 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Newport Dunes Litter Removal Project $ 90,000 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Dover Drive Litter Removal Project $ 89,250 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Pelican Point Litter Removal Project $ 82,500 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Carnation Ave Litter Removal Project $ 726,810 2013-14 2/25/2013 4 Domingo Drive Litter Removal Project $ 106,000 2013-14 9/23/2013 6 Big Canyon Restoration Wetlands Project $ 1,592,780 2014-2015 4/14/2014 7 Bayview Heights Restoration/Mitigation Project $ 305,000 2014-2015 4/14/2014 7 Corona del Mar Water Quality Improvement and Litter Removal Project $ 250,000 2014-2015 4/14/2014 7 Newport Bay Trash Mitigation Project $ 125,726 2018-19 9/10/2018 8 Newport Bay Trash Mitigation Project Phase 2 $ 55,099 2019-20 9/9/2019 9 Letter Agreement No. 9 Total $ 55,099 Page 1 of 2 AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ATTACHMENT A-9 LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 9 M2 CTFP MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT City of Newport Beach - Project List Cumulative Program Total 3,702, 935 Project P "Regional Traffic':Signal Synchronization Program - San Joaquin Hills Road Corridor $ 220,000 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Newport Coast Drive Corridor $ 260,000 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Cumulative Program Total $ 480,000 Total (All -Projects) $ 8,920,348-: Page 2 of 2 C.J , OCTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Lisa A. Bartlett Chairwoman Tim Shaw Vice Chairman Laurie Davies Director Barbara Delgleize Director Andrew Do Director Lori Donchak Director Michael Hennessey Director Steve Jones Director Mark A. Murphy Director Richard Murphy Director Al Murray Director Shawn Nelson Director Miguel Pulido Director Todd Spitzer Director Michelle Steel Director Tom Tait Director Gregory T. Winterbottom Director (Vacant) Ex-Officio Member CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Darrell E. Johnson Chief Executive Officer September 21, 2018 Mr. David Webb City of Newport Beach — Department of Public Works 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Agreement No. C-1-2776, City of Newport Beach, "M2 CTFP Master Funding Agreement" — Letter Agreement No. 8 Dear Mr. Webb: This Letter Agreement serves as the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) approval to amend Agreement No. C-1-2776, Attachment A-7 "Projects List". OCTA is deleting Attachment A-7, in its entirety, as identified in Article 4 "Responsibilities of Agency", paragraph A, and in lieu thereof is inserting the revised "Project List", attached hereto as Attachment A-8, which is incorporated and made a part of the Agreement. All provisions set forth in Master Funding Agreement No. C-1-2776 apply. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Brianna Martinez at (714) 560-5857. Please execute this letter agreement and return the signed original to the attention of: Luis Martinez, Associate Contract Administrator, Procurement Contracts Administration and Materials Management Department 600 South Main Street, 4th Floor Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (714) 560-5767, Email: Imartinezl@octa.net Upon full execution of Accepted and Agr=ed 1111141, Kia Mortazavi Executive Director, PI ,410 Orang County Transportation Authority agreement, the effective date will be September 10, 2018. Virginia adessa Direct r ontracts Administration & Materials Management Orange County Transportation Authority /(2/( (7( Date avid Webb Director of Public Works City of Newport Beach Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ATTACHMENT A-8 LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 8 M2 CTFP MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT City of Newport Beach - Project List Project Description CTFP Amount Programmed Fiscal Year Board Date Letter Agreement No. Project 0 "Regional Capacity Program" Newport Boulevard Widening (Engineering) $ 225,000 2011-12 6/27/2011 West Coast Highway Widening at Old Newport Boulevard (Engineering) $ 270,000 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Newport Boulevard Widening (Right of Way) $ 3,048,413 2014-15 4/8/2013 4 Newport Boulevard Widening (Construction) $ 1,194,000 2014-15 4/14/2014 7 Cumulative Program Total $ 4,737,413 Project X "Environmental Clean Up" Newport Blvd Bio swale Part A Litter Removal Project $ 78,975 2011-12 8/8/2011 1 Newport Blvd Bio swale Part B Litter Removal Project $ 78,975 2011-12 8/8/2011 1 Balboa Coves Litter Removal Project $ 49,125 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Newport Bay Marina Trash Skimmer Litter Removal Project $ 72,695 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Newport Dunes Litter Removal Project $ 90,000 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Dover Drive Litter Removal Project $ 89,250 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Pelican Point Litter Removal Project $ 82,500 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Carnation Ave Litter Removal Project $ 726,810 2013-14 2/25/2013 4 Domingo Drive Litter Removal Project $ 106,000 2013-14 9/23/2013 6 Big Canyon Restoration Wetlands Project $ 1,592,780 2014-2015 4/14/2014 7 Bayview Heights Restoration/Mitigation Project $ 305,000 2014-2015 4/14/2014 7 Corona del Mar Water Quality Improvement and Litter Removal Project $ 250,000 2014-2015 4/14/2014 7 Newport Bay Trash Mitigation Project $ 125,726 2018-19 9/10/2018 8 Cumulative Program Total $ 3,647,836 Page 1 of 2 AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ATTACHMENT A-8 LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 8 M2 CTFP MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT City of Newport Beach - Project List Project P "Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program" San Joaquin Hills Road Corridor $ 220,000 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Newport Coast Drive Corridor $ 260,000 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Cumulative Program Total $ 480,000 Total (All Projects) $ 8,865,249 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR M2 COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAMS THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 is effective this icg day of -11)111 2014, by and between the Orange County Transportation Authority, 550 South Main Street, P.O. Box 14184, Orange, California 92863-1584, a public corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "AUTHORITY"), and the City of Newport Beach, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY") each individually known as "Party" and collectively known as the "Parties". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, by Agreement No. C-1-2776 dated October 13, 2011, as last changed by Letter Agreement No. 6 dated November 18, 2013, AUTHORITY and AGENCY entered into a Master Funding Agreement that defines the specific terms and conditions and funding responsibilities between AUTHORITY and AGENCY for Comprehensive Transportation Funding Programs (CTFP) and Local Fair Share Program Net Revenues; WHEREAS, currently Letter Agreements and Amendments to the Master Funding Agreement (Amendments) are numbered sequentially as issued; and WHEREAS, the Letter Agreements are sub -agreements to the Master Funding Agreement; and WHEREAS, the AUTHORITY and AGENCY desire to separate the Letter Agreements from the Amendments and assign separate numbering conventions to each; and Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 WHEREAS, due to the change in the numbering convention for the Letter Agreements and Amendments, this Amendment No. 2 will revise the numbering for Amendments to Agreement No. C-1- 2776 issued to date as follows: Amendment No. 5 (Revised) dated July 1, 2013 is changed to Amendment No. 1, with the subsequent Amendments to the Master Funding Agreement to be numbered sequentially beginning with this Amendment No. 2; and WHEREAS, the next Letter Agreement to be issued will be No, 7 with Attachment A-7; Letter Agreement No. 5 and Attachment A-6 will not be used; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY is revising the audit language with no change to the maximum cumulative obligation; and NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed by AUTHORITY and AGENCY that Agreement No. C-1-2776 is hereby amended in the following particulars only: 1. Amend ARTICLE 5. DELEGATED AUTHORITY page 6 of 10, to delete in its entirety and in lieu thereof insert: "The actions required to be taken by AGENCY in the implementation of this Agreement are delegated to its Director of Public Works, or his/her designee, and the actions required to be taken by AUTHORITY in the implementation of this Agreement are delegated to AUTHORITY's Chief Executive Officer or designee." 2. Amend ARTICLE 6. AUDIT AND INSPECTION page 6 of 10, last changed by Amendment No. 5 (Revised) (now identified as Amendment No. 1) dated July 1, 2013, to delete in its entirety and in lieu thereof insert: "AUTHORITY and AGENCY shall maintain a complete set of records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Upon reasonable notice, AGENCY shall permit the authorized representatives of the AUTHORITY to inspect and audit all work, materials, payroll, contracts, books, accounts, and other data and records of AGENCY for a period of five (5) years after final payment by AUTHORITY for CTFP projects. For the Local Fair Share program, upon reasonable notice, AGENCY shall permit the authorized representatives of the AUTHORITY to inspect and audit all Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 work, materials, payroll, contracts, books, accounts, and other data and records of AGENCY for a period of five (5) years after expenditure of funds or five (5) years after final payment of debt service where local fair share revenues were pledged, whichever is longer. AUTHORITY shall have the right to reproduce any such books, records, and accounts. The above provision with respect to audits shall extend to and/or be included in contracts with AGENCY's contractor(s)." 3. Amend ARTICLE 8. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS page 9 of 10, Paragraph L, to update AUTHORITY's contact information. To AGENCY: To AUTHORITY: City of Newport Beach Orange County Transportation Authority 100 Civic Center Drive 550 South Main Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863-1584 ATTENTION: David A. Webb ATTENTION: Michael Le Director of Public Works Associate Contract Administrator Tel: (949) 644-3330 Tel:(714) 560 — 5314 E-mail: dawebb@newportbeachca.gov E-mail: mle1(octa.net Page 3 of 4 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The balance of Agreement No. C-1-2776 remains unchanged IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 2 to Agreement C-1-2776 to be executed as of the date first above written. CITY OF NEZ\_QD T BEACH ORANGE C. UNTY TR s NSPORTATION AUTHORITY By: By: Rush N. Hill, II Mayor ATTEST: By: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FOR By: Aaron C. Harp City Attorney !/ , 2 6/ (6-1Dated: Meena Kat- is Manager, Capital Projects APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Kennard R. Smart, Jr. General Counsel Page 4 of 4 OCTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS OE gory T V5,itetbottorrr Chairman Shawn Nelson Vice Chairman Patricia Bates Director Lori Donchak Director Gad Eastman Director Matthew Harper Director Michael Hennessey Director Stee Jones Dirr;-:tor Jeffrey Late; ay Director Gary A. Miller Director John Moorl„ch Director Al Murray Director Janet "tguyen Director Miguel Puledo Director Tim Snat Director Todd Spitzer Dh'actor Frank Ury Director Ryan Chmmbenain Ex-Officio Member CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Darrel! Johncon Ce Executive Oir.;er 1: 27 July 24, 2013 Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: OCTA'S AMENDMENT NO. 5 (REVISED) TO MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT No. C-1-2776 Dear Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find one copy of the above referenced subject for your records. Should you have any contractual related questions, please feel free to contact Megan Bornman at (714) 560-5064 or by e-mail at mbornman@octa.net. Sincerely, Marla Ewing Senior Office S a ist Contract Administration and Materials Management Enclosure(s) Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AMENDMENT NO. 5 (REVISED) MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR M2 COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAMS THIS AMENDMENT NO. 5 is effective this / day of J s� 2013, by and between the Orange County Transportation Authority ("AUTHORITY"), and the City of Newport Beach, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, by Agreement No. C-1-2776 dated October 13, 2011, as last changed by Letter Agreement No. 4, AUTHORITY and AGENCY entered into a Master Funding Agreement that defines the specific terms and conditions and funding responsibilities between AUTHORITY and AGENCY for Comprehensive Transportation Funding Programs (CTFP) and Local Fair Share Program Net Revenues; WHEREAS, AUTHORITY is revising the audit provision language with no change to the maximum cumulative obligation; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY is updating the contact notice information; and NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed by AUTHORITY and AGENCY that Agreement No. C-1-2776 is hereby amended in the following particulars only: 1. Amend ARTICLE 3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORITY, page 4 of 10, Paragraph G, to delete in its entirety and in lieu thereof insert: "AUTHORITY, or agents of AUTHORITY, may upon close-out off each PROJECT(s) under this Agreement, perform a technical or field review to ensure that CTFP Guidelines were followed. Page 1 of 3 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Such review may be performed after an acceptable final report has been submitted for each PROJECT(s). If the review determines that any of the activities performed are ineligible for CTFP funding, AGENCY must return the amount of funding used to perform the ineligible activity to AUTHORITY in accordance with Article 4.G." 2. Amend ARTICLE 6. AUDIT AND INSPECTION, page 7 of 10, line 1, to delete "a period of four (4) years" and in lieu thereof insert "a period of five (5) years." 3. Amend ARTICLE 8. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS, page 9 of 10, Paragraph L, lines 12 through 20, to update AGENCY notice information. To AGENCY: To AUTHORITY: City of Newport Beach Orange County Transportation Authority 100 Civic Center Drive 550 South Main Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863-1584 ATTENTION: David Webb ATTENTION: Marvin Cruz, Senior Contract Public Works Director Administrator (949) 644-3311- dawebb(5 newportbeach.ca.gov (714) 560 — 5568/ mcruz(c(7octa.net Page 2 of 3 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The balance of Agreement No. C-1-2776 remains unchanged IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 5 to Agreement C-1-2776 to be executed as of the da first above written. CITY OF NE BEACH ORANGE COUN TR4NS1;ORTATION AUTHORITY By: . Ors �i By: David A. Webb Public Works Director ATTEST: By: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: til Leonie Mulvihill Assistant City Attorney Dated: 1 1J Meena Katakia` Manager, Capital Projects APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: -101--rjrtign-C Kennard R. Smart, Jr. t General Counsel Page 3 of 3 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Gregory T. NQnlerhobom Chairman Shawn nelson We Chairman Pal ricia Bales Director Lori Donchak Director Gan Eastman Director Matthew Harper Director Michael Hennessey Diector Sieve Jones Director Jeffrey Lanoway Director Gary A. Miller Director -John Moorlach Director AI Murray Director Janet Nguyen Director Miguel PulNo Director Tan Shaw Director Toac Spitzer Director Frank Ury Director Ryan Chamberlain Ex-OyCio Member CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Danes Johnson Chief Executive Otrcet te/ LRIX ,4'/kzr CA IYIC/7/L May 9, 2013 Mr, David Webb City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Agreement No. C-1-2776, City of Newport Beach, "M2 CTFP Master Funding Agreement" — Letter Agreement No. 4 Dear Mr. Webb: This Letter Agreement serves as the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) approval to amend Agreement No. C-1-2776, Attachment A-3 "Project List". OCTA is deleting Attachment A-3, in its entirety, as identified in Article 4 "Responsibilities of Agency", paragraph A, and in lieu thereof is inserting the revised "Project List", attached hereto as Attachment A- 4, which is incorporated and made a part of the Agreement. All provisions set forth in Master Funding Agreement No. C-1-2776 apply. The following additional provision to the subject project was approved by the Board on February 25, 2013: 1. Tier 2 Project X "Environmental Clean Up Program" projects that have used extended Operations & Maintenance (O&M) periods for match reduction must include semi-annual reporting and expenditure verification of matching funds including backup documentation as part of the semi-annual review (SAR) reporting process and include in the M2 Eligibility Expenditure Report due within six months of the end of the jurisdiction's fiscal year. Failure to provide reporting and or evidence of on -going in -kind services for the life of the committed O&M period will result in disqualification of Agency participation on future competitive calls for Comprehensive Transportation Funding Programs (CTFP) projects. Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street/ P.O. Sax 14184/Orange/California 92863-1584 7(714) 560-OCTA (6282) Agreement No. 1-2776, City of Newport Beach Master Funding Agreement — Letter Agreement No. 4 Page 2 If you have any questions, you may contact Roger Lopez at (714) 560-5438 Please execute this letter agreement and return the signed originals to the attention of Marvin Cruz, Senior Contract Administrator at (714) 560-5568, mcruz(c�octa.net. cepted andAgr ed flavi David Webb Executive Director, Planning Director of Public Works Orange County Transportation Authority City of Newport Beach Meena Ka Department Manager Orange County Transportation Authority 13 Date AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ATTACHMENT A-4 LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 4 M2 CTFP MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT City of Newport Beach - Project List Project Description CTFP Amount Programmed Fiscal Year Board Date Letter Agreement No. Project 0 "Regional Capacity Program" Newport Boulevard Widening (Engineering) $225,000.00 2011-12 6/27/2011 West Coast Highway Widening at Old Newport Boulevard (Engineering) $270,000.00 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Newport Boulevard Widening (Right of Way) $3,048,413.00 2014-15 4/8/2013 4 Cumulative Program Total $3,543,413,00 Project :X' Environmental Clean Up" Newport Blvd Bio swale Part A Litter Rernoval Project $78,975.00 2011-12 8/8/2011 1 Newport Blvd Blo.swale Part B Litter Removal Project $78,975.00 2011-12 8/8/2011 1 Balboa Coves Litter Removal Project $49,125.00 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Newport Bay Marina Trash Skimmer Litter Removal Project $72,695.00 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Newport Dunes Litter Removal Project $90,000.00 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Dove Drive Lifter Removal Project $89,250.00 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Pelican Point Litter Removal Project $82,500.00 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Carnation Ave Litter Removal Project $726,810,00 2013-14 2/25/2013 4 Cumulative Program Total $1,268,330.00 ( `; AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ATTACHMENT A-4 LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 4 M2 CTFP MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT City of Newport Beach - Project List Project P "Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program" San Joaquin Hills Road Corridor $220,000.00 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Newport Coast Drive Corridor $260,000.00 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Cumulative Program Total $480,000.00 Total (All Projects) $5,291,743.00 OCTA AFFILIATED AGENCIES Orange County Transit Dislrrcl Local Transportation Authority Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Consolidated TransPaiaWon Service Agency Congestion Management Agency Service Authority for Abandoned Vehicles September 7, 2012 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, GA 92663 Distributett: etralittfita, ems +e�rrctor t% Alm tr.-- CA M Crny Subject: Agreement No. C-1-2776, City of Newport Beach, "M2 CTFP Master Funding Agreement" — Letter Agreement No. 3 Dear Mr. Webb: This Letter Agreement serves as the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) approval to amend Agreement No. C-1-2776, Attachment A-2 "Projects List". OCTA is deleting Attachment A-2, in its entirety, as identified in Article 4 "Responsibilities of Agency", paragraph A, and in lieu thereof is inserting the revised "Project List", attached hereto as Attachment A-3, which is incorporated and made a part of the Agreement. All provisions set forth in Master Funding Agreement No. C-1-2776 apply. The following additional provisions to the subject project was approved by the Board on August 13, 2012: Project X "Environmental Clean Up Program" anticipates using in kind services such as ongoing operation and maintenance of projects must include semi-annual reporting and expenditure verification of matching funds including backup documentation as part of the semi-annual review (SAR) reporting process and include in the M2 Eligibility Expenditure Report due within six months of the end of the jurisdiction's fiscal year. Failure to provide reporting and or evidence of on -going in -kind services for the life of the project will result in disqualification of Agency participation on future competitive calls for Comprehensive Transportation Funding Programs (CTFP) projects. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Roger Lopez at (714) 560-5438. Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange /California 92863.1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) Agreement No, 1-2776, City of Newport Beach Master Funding Agreement — Letter Agreement No. 3 Page 2 Please execute this letter agreement and return the signed original to the attention of Marvin Cruz, Senior Contract Administrator at (714) 560-5568, mcruz@octa.net. Upon full execution of the letter agreement, the effective date will be August 13, 2012. Accepted and Agreed Kia Mortazavi ITavid A.1Nebb Executive Directo nning Public Works Director Orange County Transportation Authority City of Newport Beach Meena Kate' Department Manager Orange County Transportation Authority Date AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ATTACHMENT A-3 LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 3 M2 CTFP MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT City of Newport Beach - Project List Project Description CTFP Amount Programmed Fiscal Year Board Date Letter Agreement No. Project 0 "Regional Capacity Program" $225,000.00 2011-12 6/27/2011 Newport Boulevard Widening (Engineering) West Coast Highway Widening at Old Newport Boulevard (Engineering) $270,000.00 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Cumulative Program Tote/ $495,000.00 Project X "Environmental Clean Up" Newport Blvd Bio Swale Part A Litter Removal Project $78,975.00 2011-12 8/8/2011 1 Newport Blvd Bio swale Part B Litter Removal Project $78,975.00 2011-12 8/8/2011 1 Balboa Coves Litter Removal Project $49,125.00 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Newport Bay Marina Trash Skimmer Litter Removal Project $72,695.00 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Newport Dunes Litter Removal Project $90,000.00 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Dover Drive Litter Removal Project $89,250.00 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Pelican Point Litter Removal Project $82,500.00 2012-13 8/13/2012 3 Cumulative Program Total $541,520.00 Project P "Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program" San Joaquin Hills Road Corridor $220,000.00 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Newport Coast Drive Corridor $260,000.00 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Cumulative Program Total $480,000.00 Total (All Projects) $1,516,520:00 OCTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Paul G. Clash Chairman Grog Winterbottom Vice Chairman Jerry Amante Director Don Bankhead Director Patricia Bates Director Bill Campbell Director Carolyn Cavecche Director Larry Crandall Director William J. Dalton Director torn Gaaftoway Director Don Hansen Director Michael Hennessey Director Peter Herzog Director ,loin Moorlach Director Shawn Nelson Director Janet Nguyen Director MiguelPulido Director Cindy Coon Governor's Ex-Ot%io Member CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Will Xempton Chief Executive Officer May 11, 2012 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Distributed:11' Il)— Accounting CAMM FPA PM Kr Vendo CAM, 19-4opeii Subject: Agreement No. C-1-2776, City of Newport Beach, "M2 CTFP Master Funding Agreement" — Letter Agreement No. 2 Dear Mr. Badum: This Letter Agreement serves as the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) approval to amend Master Funding Agreement No. C-1-2776, Attachment A "Projects List". OCTA is deleting Attachment A, in its entirety, as identified in Article 4 "Responsibilities of Agency", paragraph A, and in lieu thereof is inserting the revised "Project List", dated and effective April 23, 2012 attached hereto as Attachment A-2, which is incorporated and made a part of the Agreement. Attachment A-2 reflects the addition of newly approved project funding and is exclusive of Semi -Annual Review adjustments. All provisions set forth in Agreement No. C-1-2776 apply. The following additional provisions apply to Project P project(s) approved by the Board of Directors on April 23, 2012: 1. In -kind or soft match shall be itemized by Lead Agency and or participating cities. 2, The Lead Agency agrees to ensure that technical representatives from the project's Traffic Forum meet and participate regularly during the entirety of the project. 3. The Lead Agency agrees to manage the project for all participating agencies. 4. The Lead Agency agrees to develop and execute an agreement with the participating agencies outlining the roles and responsibilities, flow -down contractual elements, and project match share for completion of the project consistent with the Measure M Comprehensive Transportation Funding Guidelines and referenced documents, the project application, and this letter. 5. The Lead Agency agrees to provide updated timing plans, traffic counts, and other appropriate data to OCTA in formats consistent with the ROADS database at the completion of the Primary Implementation phase of the project. 6. The Lead Agency agrees to cooperate with OCTA and coordinate outreach efforts for the Primary Implementation phase project. Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street/ P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863.1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) Agreement No. C-1-2776, City of Newport Beach Master Funding Agreement — Letter Agreement No. 2 Page 2 If you have any questions, you may contact Roger Lopez, Project Manager at 714-560-5438. Please execute this letter agreement and return the signed original to the attention of Marvin Cruz, Senior Contract Administrator at 714-560-5568, mcruz[a�octa.net. Kia Mortaiavi Executive Di.r, Planning Orange County Transportation Authority Meena Katakia ' Department Manager Orange County Transportation Authority Date: and Agreed en G. Badum orks Director of Newport Beach AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ATTACHMENT A-2 LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 2 M2 CTFP MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT City of Newport Beach - Project List Effective April 23, 2012 Project Description CTFP Amount Programmed Fiscal Year Board Data Letter Agreement No. Project 0 "Regional Capacity Program" $225,060.00 2011-12 6/27/2011 Newport Boulevard Widening (Engineering) West Coast Highway Widening at Old Newport Boulevard (Engineering) $270,000.00 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Cumulative Program Total $495,000.00 Project X "Environmental Clean Up" Newport Blvd Bio swale Part A Litter Removal Project $78,975.00 2011-12 8/8/2011 1 Newport Blvd Rio swale Part B Litter Removal Project $78,975.00 2011-12 8/8/2011 1 Cumulative Program Total $157,950.00 Project P "Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program" San Joaquin Hills Road Corridor $220,000.00 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Newport Coast Drive Corridor $260,000.00 2012-13 4/23/2012 2 Cumulative Program Total $480,000.00 Total (All Projects) $1,132,950.00 AFFILIATED AGENCIES Orange County Transit Oistnct Local Transponatiion Aufhoiffy Service AUNony for Freeway Emergencies Pursandafed raru¢cnatlon Servico Agency Congestion Management Agency Service Authority for Abandoned Vehictes Distributed; iof13111 Accounting CAMM FPA PM A rfy LG7nG1 A4/ 12i 0 Vendor K-A-I CA rn September 8, 2011 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Agreement No. C-1-2776, City of Newport Beach, "M2 CTFP Master Funding Agreement' — Letter Agreement No. 1 Dear Mr. Badum: This Letter Agreement serves as the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) approval to amend Agreement No. C-1-2776, Attachment A "Projects List". OCTA is deleting Attachment A, in its entirety, as identified in Article 4 "Responsibilities of Agency", paragraph A, and in lieu thereof is inserting the revised "Project List", attached hereto as Attachment A-1, which is incorporated and made a part of the Agreement. All provisions set forth in Master Funding Agreement No. C-1-2776 apply. The following additional provisions to project(s) approved by the Board on June 13, 2011 and August 8, 2011: Project X "Environmental Clean Up" and Project P "Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program" projects using in kind services such as ongoing operation and maintenance of projects must include semi-annual reporting and expenditure verification of matching funds including backup documentation as part of the semi-annual review (SAR) reporting process and include in the M2 Eligibility Expenditure Report due within six months of the end of the jurisdiction's fiscal year. Failure to provide reporting and or evidence of on- going in -kind services for the life of the project will result in disqualification of Agency participation on future competitive calls for CTFP projects. If you have any questions, you may contact Roger Lopez at (714) 560-5438 Please execute this letter agreement and return the signed original to the attention of Marvin Cruz, Senior Contract Administrator at (714) 560-5568, mcruzCo�octa.net. Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Strout/ P.O. Box 14184 / orange /Calfornia 92863-1584 / (7141 560-OCTA (6282) OCTA ment No. 1-2776, Cdy of Newport Beach eter Funding Agreement — Letter Agreement No. 1 Page 2 Acce Kia Mortazavi Sfe.,4ef . Badum Executive Director, Plapning bli orks Director Orange County Transportation Authority Ci /a Newport Beach Meena Katakia .—. Department Manager Orange County Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority 550 Scorn Main Shoat/ P.Ot Sox 14184/Orange /Califoria 92863-1524 1(714) 560-OCTA (6222) October 4, 2011 Mr. Dave Kiff City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 I am pleased to inform you that on September 26, 2011, the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors conducted a public hearing and approved an amendment to the Measure M Ordinance No. 2. The purpose of the amendment was to allow agencies which qualify as an "Eligible Jurisdiction" under Ordinance No. 3 (Measure M2) to also be an "Eligible Jurisdiction" under Ordinance No. 2 (Measure M). This change reduces the level of administrative efforts for our respective agencies and allows us to direct more of our resources toward transportation improvements. This amendment will go into effect on October 26, 2011, and a copy of the amended Ordinance No. 2 is attached for your records. Should your agency have any questions regarding the amendment, please contact Kia Mortazavi, Executive Director, Planning, at (714) 560-5741 or kmortazavi@octa.net. Sincerely, Ao Ke,441N----- Will Kempton Chief Executive Officer WK:ar Attachment c: Public Works Director ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. 2 AMENDED: September 23, 1991 November 25, 1991 May 23, 1994 May 13, 1996 June 9, 1997 December 10, 2001 September 13, 2004 September 24, 2007 March 8, 2010 September 26, 2011 Measure M Amendments Ordinance Amendment 1. September 23, 1991 ■ Procedures and Recommendation for Amendments to the Measure M Ordinance 2. September 26, 2011 ■ Agencies which qualify as an "Eligible Jurisdiction" under Ordinance No. 3 (Measure M2) to also be an "Eligible Jurisdiction" under Ordinance No. 2. (Policy Resolution No. 3, Section 11 CI, subsection b) Expenditure Plan Amendments 1. November 25, 1991 ■ Reallocation of Funds Within Freeway Program 2. May 23, 1994 ■ Reallocation of Freeway Program Funding Between 1-5 and SR-91/SR-55 3. May 13, 1996 ■ Cost Savings Transferred to CURE Accounts 4. June 9, 1997 ■ Amendments to Local Streets and Road Component 5. December 10, 2001 ■ Amend Freeway Program to Add SR-22 at $203 Million 6. September 13, 2004 ■ Amend Freeway Program to Advance SR-22 and Additional $123.7 Million 7. September 24, 2007 ■ Modify SR-57 Description Consistent with Project G in Measure M2 and Increase Funding by $22 Million ■ Expand Limits of SR-22 to Include the West County Connection Improvements and Increase Funding by $10 Million 8. March 8, 2010 ■ Decrease SR-57 Funding by $22 Million Revised 9/29/10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Local Transportation Ordinance Number 2 The Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance PREAMBLE A. Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 180050, the Orange County Transportation Commission has been designated as the Orange County Local Transportation Authority (the "Authority) by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. B. There has been adopted a countywide Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Plan, dated May 22, 1989, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 180206 (the "Plan) which will be administered by the Authority. C. The Plan provides for needed countywide facility and service improvements which will be funded, in part, by a retail transaction and use tax of one-half (1/2) of one percent (1%). SECTION 1. TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the Revised Orange County Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance. SECTION 2. SUMMARY This Ordinance provides for the establishment and implementation of a retail transaction and use tax (the "Retail Tax") at the rate of one-half (1/2) of one percent (1 %) for a period of twenty years (20) and for the Authority to issue bonds for transportation purposes. SECTION 3. IMPOSITION OF RETAIL TRANSACTION AND USE TAX A. Subject to approval of same by the electors, the Authority hereby imposes, in the incorporated and unincorporated territories of the County, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code and Division 19 (commencing with Section 180000) of the California Public Utilities Code, the Retail Tax at the rate of one-half (1/2) of one percent (1 °/D) for a period of twenty (20) years commencing April 1, 1991. i 2! 3I 4 5i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1311 14 15 16 17 18 19, 20 21 22 t 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 B. The Retail Tax shall be in addition to any other taxes imposed by law, including any existing or future state or local sales tax or transaction and use tax. The provisions of California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 7261 and 7262 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 4. AGREEMENT WITH STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION A. Prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, the Authority shall contract with the California State Board of Equalization (the "State Board of Equalization") to perform functions incident to the administration and operation of this Ordinance. B. The relationship between the Authority and the State Board of Equalization shall be specified in a companion Ordinance which shall be adopted when the electors approve the Retail Tax. SECTION 5. INTENT AND PURPOSES A. All of the gross revenues generated from the Retail Tax plus any interest or other earnings thereon (collectively, the "Retail Tax Revenues") after deduction of amounts payable to the State Board of Equalization pursuant to Section 4 hereof and after deduction of costs for the administration of the Plan as provided herein, shall be used solely for the transportation projects and programs described in the Plan. B. The specific projects and programs to be implemented pursuant to this Ordinance as well as the Growth Management Program (as hereinafter defined) required by this Ordinance are described in the Plan. As used herein , the term "Growth Management Program" shall mean and refer to the Orange County Division, League of California Cities, Countywide Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program, Countywide Growth Management Plan Component, dated June 15, 1989, which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. C. All local jurisdictions and special jurisdictions in Orange County (the "County") are encouraged to seek all available funding from private and public sources to further the purposes of the Plan and this Ordinance. 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 D. It is the intent of the Authority to provide a forum for the discussion and resolution of countywide transportation planning and related issues. SECTION 6. BONDING AUTHORITY A. "Pay as you go" financing is the preferred method of financing transportation improvements and programs under this Ordinance. However, the Authority may use bond financing as an alternative method if the scope of planned expenditures makes "pay as you go" financing unfeasible. B. Upon approval by the electors of the ballot proposition described in Section 15 herein (the "Ballot Proposition"), the Authority shall be empowered to issue bonds (the "Bonds"), pursuant to the provisions of Division 19, Sections 180250 through 180265, of the California Public Utilities Code, for the transportation purposes described in Section 12 herein. The Bonds shall be payable from the Retail Tax Revenues. SECTION 7. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REQUIREMENTS A. It is the intent of the Legislature and the Authority that the Retail Tax Revenues allocated pursuant to this Ordinance for local street and road projects be used to supplement and not replace existing local revenues being used for transportation improvements and programs. B. Under state enabling legislation (Public Utilities Code Section 180200), a local jurisdiction cannot redirect monies currently being used for transportation purposes to other uses and replace the redirected funds with Retail Tax Revenues. To meet said requirement of State law, each local jurisdiction is hereby required to maintain a minimum level of local streets and roads expenditures in conformance with the following requirements (the "Maintenance of Effort Requirements"): 1. The minimum annual level of local streets and roads expenditures for each jurisdiction shall be based upon an average of the expenditures in each jurisdiction for the purposes of local street maintenance and construction over the five (5) year period from Fiscal Year 1985-86 through Fiscal Year 1989-90. 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 2. Within six months after approval of the Retail Tax by the electors, the Authority shall, through a cooperative process with all affected jurisdictions, adopt a method for calculating minimum expenditures including a means for taking into account extraordinary expenses or special circumstances, including, but not limited to, state and federal grants, redevelopment and bond financing. 3. Within six months after approval of the Retail Tax by the electors, the Authority, through a cooperative process with all affected jurisdictions, shall adopt a method for determining minimum expenditures in newly incorporated cities, areas annexed to existing cities, and for making corresponding, appropriate adjustments to the County's minimum expenditures because of such incorporation(s) and/or annexation(s). C. An annual independent audit may be conducted by the Authority to verify that the Maintenance of Effort Requirements are being met by the local jurisdictions. D. Any local jurisdiction which does not meet the Maintenance of Effort Requirements in any given year shall not receive any Retail Tax Revenues in such year. Any Retail Tax Revenues withheld because of failure of an otherwise eligible jurisdiction to comply with the Maintenance of Effort Requirements shall be redistributed pro rata to remaining eligible jurisdictions. SECTION 8. POLICY RESOLUTIONS A. Statements of policy ("Policy Resolutions") may be adopted by the Authority and be affixed to this Ordinance by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Authority. These Policy Resolutions shall have the same authority as other provisions of this Ordinance. B. Policy Resolutions shall be consistent with the Plan adopted May 22, 1989, and shall be designed to clarify this Ordinance. However, -the Policy Resolutions may elaborate or expand upon the generalized statements included in this Ordinance C. Policy Resolutions clarifying this Ordinance, numbered consecutively and in resolution format, shall require at least two readings and one public hearing before the Authority before becoming effective. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 D. The intent of each Policy Resolution shall be to provide clear operating instructions for the administration of this Ordinance and the Plan. In the event of any conflict, the provisions of the Plan shall supersede the provisions of this Ordinance and any Policy Resolution, and the provisions of this Ordinance shall supersede the provisions of any Policy Resolutions. SECTION 9. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS A. Retail Tax Revenues may be expended by the Authority for salaries, wages, benefits, overhead, auditing, and those services, including contractual services, necessary to administer the fiscal aspects of this Ordinance; however, in no case shall the annual expenditures for the salaries and benefits of the staff of the Authority exceed one percent (1 %) of the Retail Tax Revenues. B. Costs of performing or contracting for project -related work shall be paid from the Retail Tax Revenues allocated to the appropriate purposes as set herein. C. The Authority may contract with any public agency or private firm for planning or programming purposes. D. An annual independent audit shall be conducted to ensure that the Retail Tax Revenues expended by the Authority under this Section 9 are necessary and reasonable in carrying out its responsibilities under this Ordinance. SECTION 10. ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT A. Pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIIIB of the State Constitution, the appropriations Limit for the first year of the Authority has been established as $500,000,000. B. Such appropriations limit shall be subject to adjustment as provided by law, and all expenditures of Retail Tax Revenues are subject to such appropriations Limit SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES A. This Ordinance and all of its Resolutions shall become effective on April 1, 1991, only if a majority of electors voting at the election requested to be held November 6, 1990, vote to approve the Ballot Proposition. 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 B. The Authority may begin work on the projects and programs described herein when a majority of the electors voting November 6, 1990, vote to approve the Ballot Proposition. SECTION 12. USE AND SAFEGUARDS OF USE OF REVENUES A. Retail Tax Revenues shall be used solely for transportation purposes, including (i) the costs and expenses provided herein, (ii) legal actions related hereto, (iii) the construction and improvement of state and federal highways, (iv) the construction, maintenance, improvement, and operation of local streets, roads and highways, and the transit services and facilities (including bus, fight rail, rapid transit and commuter rail services and facilities) described in the Plan. B. The following safeguards are hereby established to ensure strict adherence to the limitation on the use of Retail Tax Revenues set forth in Section 12.A. above: 1. A transportation trust fund ('Trust Fund") shall be established by the elected County Auditor -Controller (the "Auditor -Controller") to maintain all Retail Tax Revenues. 2. interest earned on the Retail Tax Revenues deposited into the Trust Fund shall be maintained in the Trust Fund and added to the Retail Tax Revenues for purposes of allocation pursuant to this Ordinance. 3. The Auditor -Controller shall certify annually whether the expenditures from the Trust Fund have been spent on the specific transportation purposes identified in the Plan. 4. Timelines shall be established by the Authority for each major project detailed in the Plan and quarterly reports on meeting these timelines shall be brought before the Authority in public meetings. 5. The Authority may contract for planning services and services for developing a countywide transportation model. No more than five percent (5%) of all Retail Tax Revenues shall be used for planning services or for services for developing such countywide transportation model. 6 9 10.: 11' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18.. 19 20 21 Z2� 45 ?6 7.7 rg t0 ;l 6.. No Retail. Tax:Revenues=shall be used by a. local jurisdiction for other than transportation purposes. Any jurisdiction which violates this. provision -shall be deemed ineligible to receive Retail Tax Revenues for a period of fire(5) 'years. :SECTION -13. AMENDMENTS A. Amendments to Plan. I. The Authority .may annually.review:and propose amendments tothe' .Plan toprovide for the use of additional federal, state and local funds .to account'. for unexpected revenues;.or to take. into consideration unforeseen circumstances:: 2. *The Authority shall establish a process .to propose amendment(s)to the. Plan which -shall ensure that all' affected agencies participate in the development of the proposed amendment(s). The :Authority shalt hold a public hearing .On proposed amendments prior to adoption... - . 3.. No . amendments 'to the -Plan which; change the .funding -categories, programs or projects identified on page 18 of the Plan shall be :Made unless they are first approved by a two-thirds vote of the Citizens Committee. 4. in addition to Section 13A3 above; any proposed changes in -expenditures among the four major 'funding categories of freeway projects, regional street and. road projects, local street and road .projects,' and transit projects identified on...page 18 of the Plan shall "-be _ratified :by the electors before going into effect The Authority. shall .call for a special election to place the matter before -the electors. 5. Amendments to the Plan `must be passed by a roll call vote of the Authority members, must •be entered into the minutes of the Authority, and • mush have a majority of the .members- concurring with the proposed amendment(s). Subsequently, the .Authority shall give written notice to the County Board of Supervisors and the city council of each city in the County and. shall provide each entity with a -copy ofthe proposed amendment(s) pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 1.80207. 7 3 4 8 6. Proposed .amendments to the Plan shall become effective 45 days after notice is given. B. Amendments to Ordinance. 1. All' amendments. subsequent to the effective date of this Ordinance. to Part 1 of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are • not inconsistent with Part 1.6.of Division 2 of the California Revenue and 91 Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1-.6 of Division 2: of -the. California Revenue and. • 10 TaxatiOn Code; shall automatically' become a part- of this -Ordinance; provided, however, that' 11 rib Such amendinents shalloPerateeo.aS to affect the-rate:of tax. irnposed by this -Ordinance. 12 " • Z. '• the Authority. .shall .establish Si. process tio. propose..ainendment(s) to this 13 14 15 16. 17members of the Authority, rnus be entered into the minutes ofthe Authority, and must have 'a 18majority,of the members ofthe Authority concurring.with-the -proposed amendments . • 19' 204.. • Proposed Amendments to this:Ordinance shall. become effective 30 days , 21after notice is given to affected agencies: • 22 • • :SECTION 14.. SO./RA.E3ILITY... • 23 A. • If any section, -part, Clause- or phrase Of. this Ordinance is for any reason held 24' invalid or. unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the .remaining portions shall not 25 be affected but shall remain in fUll force and effect. • • • ' 26 27 B. If a state law is 'passed in the...future .Whidh-: prevents .local jurisdictions. from 28 establishing standards for any of the growth management Performance standards Specified in 29 the Plan ("PerformanceStandards"), the Authority may . elect to delete or modify the Ordinance which ensures that the affected agencies receive notice of proposed Ordinance amendments. 3. *.Arriendrnertis to. thisOrdinance must be .passed by 'a roll .call vote ofthe 30. requirements for those Performance•Standards. 31 2 31 4i 5 6 7� 8 9; 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 19 20 21 22 `1 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 29 30 31 SECTION 15. REQUEST FOR ELECTION A. Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 180201, the Authority hereby requests that the County Board of Supervisors call a special election to be conducted by the County on November 6, 1990 to place the imposition of the Retail Tax before the electors. B. To avoid any misunderstanding or confusion by Orange County electors, the Local Transportation Authority requests that the matter being placed before voters be identified as "Measure M". C. The proposition to be placed before the County electors on the November 6, 1990 ballot shall contain a summary of the projects and programs in the Plan and shall read substantially as follows: THE REVISED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT. The purpose of this measure is to improve the quality of life, relieve traffic congestion, and improve air quality in Orange County by: 0 Expanding the present Los Angeles to San Diego commuter rail service throughout Orange County; 0 On I-5, the Santa Ana Freeway, adding up to three lanes in each direction from the Los Angeles County line to San Clemente; 0 Rebuilding the 1-5/1-405, El Toro "Y" Interchange; 0 On State Route 91, adding an additional lane in each direction and improving major interchanges from Los Angeles to Riverside; 0 On State Route 55, the Costa Mesa Freeway, adding a new lane in each direction between the Riverside and Santa Ana Freeways; 0 Synchronizing traffic signals on major streets throughout Orange County; 0 Improving maintenance and rehabilitation of streets and roads; 0 Requiring each city and the County to adopt a growth management program to require a balance between land development and traffic impacts; 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 0 Increasing transit service and providing discount fares for senior citizens and the disabled; 0 Empowering an independent Citizens Oversight Committee with a chairman elected by all Orange County voters to guarantee that all funds generated by this measure shall be used only for transportation purposes; 0 Requiring that any proposed change in the amount of funds for rail transit, freeway, regional and local street improvement expenditures be brought back to the voters for their approval; Shall the Orange County Local Transportation Authority be authorized to (I) establish by ordinance, a one-half (1/2) of one (1) percent retail transaction and use tax for a period of twenty (20) years with an appropriations limit of $500 million dollars, with the proceeds placed in a trust fund to be used solely for traffic improvement and growth management and (II) issue bonds payable solely from the proceeds of such retail transaction and use tax? Date: 7 A - `74g7 Approved as to form: Parker and Coven By: Attoydeys for Orange County Transportation Cor=ission 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 POLICY RESOLUTION NO. 1 CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE This Policy Resolution No. 1 is adopted by the Orange County Local Transportation Authority pursuant to Section 8 of the Revised Orange County Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms contained herein shall have the same meaning as in the Ordinance. 1. PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION. A citizens committee is hereby established for the purpose of overseeing compliance with the Plan, specifically the duties and responsibilities set forth in Section V hereof (the "Citizens Committee"). The Citizens Committee shall be organized and convened before any Retail Tax Revenues are collected pursuant to the Ordinance. II. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS. The Citizens Committee shall consist of nine (9) members. The composition of the Citizens Committee membership shall be subject to the following requirements and/or restrictions: A. Geographic Balance. The membership of the Citizens Committee shall be geographically balanced at all times as follows: 1. There shall be at least one (1) member of the Citizens Committee appointed from each of the County's supervisorial districts (individually, a "District" ); and 2. There shall be no more than two (2) members of the Citizens Committee appointed from any one District. 3. The elected Orange County. Auditor -Controller (the "Auditor -Controller") shall be a member and chairman of the Citizens Committee. B. Reappointment: Maximum Term. 1. Citizens Committee members who have resigned, been removed, or whose terms have expired may be reappointed; provided, however, that no person other than the t 2 3 4 2. Upon the resignation or removal from office of any Auditor -Controller and 5 upon the expiration of the elected term of any Auditor -Controller, the successor Auditor -Controller shall 6 serve as a member of the Citizens Committee. 7 ID. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP SELECTION PROCESS. The members of the Citizens 8 Committee shall be selected and appointed in accordance with this Section III hereof. 9 10 A. Membership Recommendation Panel. 11 1. The Authority shall contract with the Orange County Grand Jurors 12 Association for the formation of a committee membership recommendation panel (the "Panel to 13 perform the duties set forth in this subsection ll1 A. if the Orange County Grand Jurors' Association 14 refuses or fails to act in such capacity, the Authority shall contract with another independent 15 16 organization selected by the Authority for the formation of the Panel. 17 2. The organization contracted by the Authority shall form a five (5) member 18 Panel to screen and recommend potential candidates for Citizens Committee membership in 19 accordance with this Section III A. 21 22 applications from potential candidates for membership on the Citizens Committee. No currently elected 23 ; or appointed city, district,, county, state or federal official will be eligible to serve as a Citizens 24 Committee member, except the elected Auditor -Controller. Subject to the foregoing restriction, the 25 Panel shall evaluate each potential candidate on the basis of the following criteria: Auditor -Controller shall serve as a member of the Citizens Committee for a period in excess of six (6) consecutive years. 20 3. The Panel shall be charged with soliciting, collecting and reviewing 26 a. Commitment and ability to participate in Citizens Committee 27 meetings; 28 29 b. Demonstrated interest and history of participation in community 30 ' activities, with special emphasis on transportation -related activities; and 31 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 c. Lack of conflicts of interest with respect to the allocation of Retail Tax Revenues. 4. The Panel shall recommend to the Authority at least three (3), and no more than five (5) candidates from each District for initial membership an the Citizens Committee. Thereafter, the Panel shall recommend to the Authority at least three (3) and no more than five (5) candidates for filling each vacancy on the Citizens Committee. B. Initial Members. 1. Membership Term. Three (3) of the initial Citizens Committee members shall be appointed for a term of three (3) years; three (3) of the initial Citizens Committee members shall be appointed for a term of two (2) years; and two (2) of the initial Citizens Committee members shall be appointed for a term of one (1) year. 2. Appointment. The initial members of the Citizens Committee shall be appointed by the Authority in the following manner. The Authority shall place the names of the candidates recommended by the Panel on equally -sized cards which shall be deposited randomly in a container. In public session, the chairman of the Authority will draw a sufficient number of names from said container to allocate Citizens Committee membership iri accordance with the membership requirements and restrictions set forth in Section II hereof and otherwise in the order of the names drawn as follows: a. The first person whose name is drawn from each District shall be appointed to serve a three (3) year term until all three (3) year terms have been allocated. Thereafter, the first person whose name is drawn from each District shall be appointed to serve a two (2) year term. b. After one (1) candidate from each of the five (5) Districts is appointed to serve as a Citizens Committee member pursuant to subsection (i) above, the remaining members of the Citizens Committee shall be appointed in the order of names already drawn, but not previously assigned a term and thereafter in the order of names drawn by the chairman of the 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Authority, with the remaining two (2) year terms to be filled first and the one (1) year terms to be filled thereafter. C. Vacancies. Vacancies on the Citizens Committee, however caused, shall be filled by the Authority in accordance with this Section iII C. Said vacancies shall be filled annually on or about July 1 to replace members whose terms are expiring, and at such other times as are necessary to replace members who have resigned or been removed. 1. Membership Term. Each new member of the Citizens Committee shall be appointed for a term of three (3) years; provided, however, that any new member appointed to replace a member who has resigned or been removed shall serve only the balance of such member's unexpired term, unless reappointed thereafter. 2. Appointment The Authority shall place the names of the candidates recommended by the Panel for filling vacancies on equally -sized cards which shall be deposited randomly in a container. In a public session, the chairman of the Authority will draw one (1) name from said container for each vacancy on the Citizens Committee. The persons whose names are so drawn shall be appointed by the Authority to fill said vacancies. IV. RESIGNATIONS; REMOVAL. A. Resignations. Any member of the Citizens Committee may, at any time, resign from the Citizens Committee upon written notice delivered to the Authority; provided, however, that such resigning member may continue to serve on the Citizens Committee until a successor member is appointed to serve such member's unexpired term. B. Removal. Any Citizens Committee member who has three (3) unexcused absences from meetings of the Citizens Committee shall be removed from serving as a member of the Citizens Committee. An absence from a Citizens Committee meeting shall be considered unexcused unless, prior to or after such absence (i) the absent member submits to each of the other members a written request to excuse such absence, which request shall state the reason for such absence and 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15! 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 any specie! circumstances existing with respect to such absence; and (ii) a majority of the other Citizens Committee members have agreed to excuse such absence. C. Acceptance of any public office as referred to in Section IIlA3 hereof or the filing of an intent to seek public office by a member of the Citizens Committee, including a filing under California Government Code Section 85200, shall constitute such member's automatic resignation from the Citizens Committee. V. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The Citizens Committee is hereby charged with the following duties and responsibilities: A. Promptly after being appointed to the Citizens Committee, the initial members shall convene to adopt such procedural rules and regulations as are necessary to govern the conduct of Citizens Committee meetings, including, but not limited to, those governing the calling, noticing and location of Citizens Committee meetings, as well as Citizens Committee quorum requirements and voting procedures. The Citizens Committee may select its own officers, including, but not limited to, a Citizens Committee co-chairman who will be the primary spokesman for the Citizens Committee. B. The Citizens Committee shall approve, by a 2/3 vote, any material amendments to the Expenditure Plan or any portions of the Plan proposed by the Authority which change the funding categories, programs or projects identified on page 18 of the Plan. C. The Citizens Committee shall review the growth management plan for each jurisdiction solely to determine if the plan prepared and certified by each includes the elements specified in the countywide Growth Management Program. 1. The Citizens Committee shall use a checklist to determine if the Growth Management Element of each jurisdiction, if and when required by the Growth Management Program; has: a. Specified traffic level of service standards; b. Adopted planning standards for fire, police, library, flood control, parks and open space, and other locally determined needs; 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 c. Adopted a development mitigation program; d. Adopted a development phasing program e. Developed a seven-year capital improvement program; f. Participated in inter jurisdictional planning forums; g. Addressed a balancing of housing options and job opportunities; and h. Adopted a transportation systems management ordinance. 2. A Growth Management Element, as required by the Growth Management Program, shall be adopted by each local jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code, which governs procedures for adopting elements of a general plan. Neither the Authority's nor the Citizens Committee's review hereunder shall include a determination as to the adequacy of such Growth Management Elements and components thereof. Each jurisdiction shall determine the adequacy of its Growth Management Element, and any legal challenge to such adequacy shall be brought against such jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of statutes and case law goveming legal challenges to the adequacy of general plan elements. 3. Once the Citizens Committee has reviewed. the growth management checklist as described in Section VC1 above, it shall forward its finding to the Authority. If the Authority determines that the checklist is fulfilled, and the requirements of the Policy Resolutions and the Ordinance are met, the Retail Tax Revenues shall be allocated to the jurisdiction pursuant to the Ordinance. 4. The Citizens Committee shall hold an annual public hearing to determine whether the Authority is proceeding in accordance with the Plan. In addition, the Citizens Committee may issue reports, from time to time, on the progress of the transportation projects described in the Plan. D. The Citizens Committee shall place priority on each jurisdiction's development of a seven-year capital improvement program and shall ensure that all expenditures proposed in a 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 jurisdiction's seven-year capital improvement program conform with the transportation purposes identified in Policy Resolution No. 3. E. Except as otherwise provided by the Ordinance, the Citizen's Committee may contract, through the Authority, for independent analysis or examination of issues within the Citizens Committee's purview, including a performance audit of the Authority. The Citizens Committee may also, through the Authority, hire staff to assist the Citizens Committee in discharging its duties hereunder. F. The Citizens Committee may submit a written request to the Authority to explain any perceived deviations from the Plan. The Authority's chairman must respond to such request, in writing, within sixty (60) days after receipt of the same. Date: — 7e9 Approved as to form Parker and Covert Atto eys for Orange County Transportation Coffin 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 POLICY RESOLUTION NO. 3 EXPENDITURES AND ALLOCATIONS Amended May 23, 1994; Amended June 9, 1997 This Policy Resolution No. 3 is adopted by the Orange County Local Transportation Authority pursuant to Section 8 of the Revised Orange County Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). Except as otherwise defined here, all capitalized terms contained herein shall have the same meaning as in the Ordinance. 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR ALLOCATIONS OF RETAIL TAX REVENUES. The allocation of Retail Tax Revenues by the Authority shall be subject to the following requirements: A. For State Highway Projects 1, The Authority shall make every effort in allocating Retail Tax Revenues to maximize state and federal funding to the County in the following manner: a. No Retail Tax Revenues shall be allocated in any year from any State Highway Project as defined in Section VIII hereof until the Authority has made findings at a public meeting that: (1) the County is receiving, at a minimum, its fair share of funds from state and federal sources for Freeway Projects, Transit Projects, Highways and Arterials and Local Street and Road Projects (each as defined in Section VIII hereof); and (ii) the state has not reduced any allocations of state funds to the County as the result of the addition of any local revenues. b. In determining whether the County has received its fair share of such funds the Authority shall consider all relevant factors including: (i) the degree to which the County is receiving its statutory County minimum funding for all budgeted, expended and programmed state and federal transportation funds, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (ii) the policies and project approval actions of the California Transportation Commission, the State Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") and divisions of the Federal Department of Transportation. c. If the Authority is unable to make the findings described above, the Authority may amend the Plan to maximize the receipt of state and federal funds received within the County. d. The Authority shall annually report on progress in obtaining state and federal transportation funding and on progress in completing the transportation projects described in the Plan. 2. All state improvements to be funded with Retail Tax Revenues, including project development and overall project management, shall be a joint responsibility of Caltrans, the Authority, and the affected local jurisdiction(s) or special district(s). All major project approval actions including the project concept, the project location, and any subsequent change in project scope shall be jointly agreed upon by Caltrans, the Authority, and the project sponsors, and where appropriate, by the Federal Highway Administration and/or the California Transportation Commission. 3. The Authority may allocate the Retail Tax Revenues to accelerate projects described in the Plan which are anticipated to be funded through the State Transportation improvement Program if: a. Caltrans demonstrates that a significant acceleration can be accomplished using Retail Tax Revenues; and b. The state commits to refunding those Retail Tax Revenues through cash: reimbursements or by accelerating or completing other Plan projects and programs. 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 4. If the refund of acceleration funds pursuant to subsection A 3 of this Resolution would significantly impact the implementation of any project or program described in the Plan, the Authority may seek to amend the Plan. 5. Prior to the allocation of Retail Tax Revenues for construction or improvements of any State Highway Project, the Authority shall obtain written assurances from the appropriate state agency that once the State Highway Project is constructed to at least minimum acceptable state standards, the state shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation of such State Highway Project. 6. Construction of State Highway Projects identified in the Plan shall be the number one priority of the Authority, B. For Transit Projects: Prior to the allocation of Retail Tax Revenues for construction of any Transit Project, the Authority, in cooperation with affected transit operators and agencies, shall determine the entity to be responsible for the maintenance and operation thereof. C. For Local Street and Road Projects: Prior to the allocation of Retail Tax Revenues for any Local Street or Road Project, the Authority, in cooperation with affected agencies, shall determine the entity(ies) to be responsible for the maintenance and operation thereof. D. For Other Local Transportation Proiects: In addition to Local Street and Roads Projects, jurisdictions may use Local Revenues (as defined in Section II C1 below) for any transportation purpose allowed for expenditure of tax 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 revenues under Article XIX of the Cafifomia Constitution, if the Authority has found that the jurisdiction has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The jurisdiction has included the transportation expenditure in its approved seven-year capital improvement program. 2. The jurisdiction makes a finding that streets and roads within the jurisdiction are adequately maintained and not in need of rehabilitation or reconstruction. 11. ALLOCATION OF RETAIL TAX REVENUES: A. Subject to the provisions of the Ordinance and Section I above, the Retail Tax Revenues shall be allocated as follows: 1. First the Authority shall pay the State Board of Equalization for the services and functions contracted for pursuant to Section 4 of the Ordinance. 2. Second, the Authority shall pay the administrative expenses of the Authority pursuant to Section 9 of the Ordinance. 3. Third, the Authority shall satisfy the debt service requirements of all bonds issued pursuant to the Ordinance that cannot be satisfied out of separate allocations. B. After providing for the allocations described in Section A hereof, and subject to the averaging provisions of Section E hereof, the Authority shall allocate annually the remaining Retail Tax Revenues (the "Net Tax Revenues") as follows: 1. 43% to Freeway Projects; 2. 11% to Regional Street and Road Projects; 3. 21% to Local Street and Road Projects; and 4. 25% to Transit Projects. 4 2! 3' 4 5' 6 11 7 8 9`, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 11 C. The allocation of 21 % of Net Tax Revenues to Local Street and Road Projects pursuant to Section 11 B3 above shall be made as follows: 1. An annual allocation, equal to 14.6 percent of Net Tax Revenue (the "Local Revenues") shall be made available to Eligible Jurisdictions (as defined in Section II Cl b) for Local Street Maintenance and Improvements (as defined in Section VII below). a. The allocation of the Local Revenues to each Eligible Jurisdiction shall be determined as follows: (i) 50 percent to each Eligible Jurisdiction based on the ratio of each Eligible Jurisdiction's population for the immediately preceding calendar year to' the total County population (including incorporated and unincorporated areas) for the immediately preceding calendar year, both as determined by the State Department of Finance. 'Amended May 23, 1994) (ii) 25 percent to each Eligible Jurisdiction based on the ratio of each Eligible Jurisdiction's existing County Master Plan of Arterial Highways ("MPAH") miles to the total existing MPAH miles within the County as determined annually by the County; and (ill) 25 percent to each Eligible Jurisdiction based on the ratio of each Eligible Jurisdiction's total taxable sales to the total taxable sales of the County for the immediately preceding calendar year as determined by the State Board of Equalization. b. The County and/or any city within the County shall be an "Eligible Jurisdiction" if the Authority has found that the County or such city has satisfied and continues to satisfy, either the requirements of Orange County Local Transportation Ordinance No. 3 (Measure M2), or all of the following requirements: (i) Adopted the provisions of the Growth Management Program. 5 2 3 4 5 6. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (ii) Adopted a Local Transportation Demand Management Program (as described in the Growth Management Program) approved by the Authority. (iii) Agreed to expend all Net Tax Revenues received within three years of receipt. The Authority may grant an extension of the three-year limit, but extensions shall not be granted beyond a total of five years from the date of the initial funding allocation. Failure to expend Net Tax Revenues within the time limits set forth above will make an otherwise Eligible Jurisdiction ineligible to receive additional Net Tax Revenues until reinstated as an Eligible Jurisdiction by the Authority. (iv) Adopted a Traffic Circulation Plan consistent with the MPAH. (a) Within six months after approval of the Retail Tax by the electors, the Authority, through a cooperative process involving the County and all of the cities within the County, shall adopt a definition of, and a process for, determining consistency of each jurisdiction's Traffic Circulation Plan with the MPAH. (b) If the County and two-thirds of the cities cannot agree to a definition of, and a process for determining, the consistence of each jurisdiction's Traffic Circulation Plan with the MPAH, Retail Tax Revenues shall nevertheless be allocated to each Eligible Jurisdiction. In that event, each Eligible Jurisdiction may spend Retail Tax Revenues on Local Street Maintenance and Improvements as each Eligible Jurisdiction deems appropriate on Highways and Arterials which Eligible Jurisdiction determines to be consistent with those shown on the MPAH. In any case, Net Tax Revenues may not be spent in a manner which is inconsistent with or obstructs the implementation of the MPAH. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (v) Adopted a Local Pavement Management Plan and adequately funded the same. (vi) Satisfied the Maintenance of Efforts Requirements set forth in Section 7 of the Ordinance. (vii) Adopted a seven (7) year capital improvement program that includes all transportation projects programmed by the Eligible Jurisdiction for receipt of Retail Tax Revenues. c. The Authority may phase the requirements in subparagraphs (1i), (iv) and (v) of this subsection 1.b pursuant to a comprehensive streets and roads eligibility program to be adopted by the Authority in order to give cities and the County reasonable time over a period of up to five years to comply with such requirements. d. A determination of non -eligibility shall be made only after a hearing has been conducted before the Authority and a determination has been made by the Authority that the city or County is not an Eligible Jurisdiction as provided hereinabove. 2. An allocation of Net Tax Revenues shall be made available to Eligible Jurisdictions solely for expenditure on improvements to.the roadways shown on the MPAH. Distribution and expenditure of these Net Tax Revenues shall be consistent with Division 19 of Calfomia Public Utilities Code and, unless such Division 19 otherwise requires, shall be governed by the policies and guidelines of the Combined Transportation Funding Programs as appropriate. [Amended June 9, 1997; Amended May 23, 1994] 3. An allocation of the lesser of 3.2 percent or $5 million of Net Tax Revenues, which annual allocations in the aggregate shall not exceed $100 million during the term of the 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Ordinance, shall be made available to Eligible Jurisdictions for GMA improvement Projects (as defined in Policy Resolution No. 2 to the Ordinance). . [Amended June 9, 1997] D. The award to Eligible Jurisdictions of the 11 percent of Net Tax Revenues allocated to Regional Street and Road Projects shall be deterrnined pursuant to a countywide competitive procedure adopted by the Authority and pattemed after those contained in the Federal Aid Urban, OCUTT and the AHFP programs as follows: 1. The Authority shall set allocations annually for regional competition in areas, including, but not limited to, the following categories: a. Smart Streets; [Amended May 23, 19941 b. Regionally significant interchanges; c. Intersection improvement programs; d. Traffic signal coordination; and e. Programs encouraging Transportation Demand Management or Transportation Systems Management. 2. In determining the allocation of Net Tax Revenues to each competitive category, the Authority shall establish criteria for determining priority including, but not limited to: a. Inclusion of a project in an adopted Seven -Year Capital Improvement Plan, as defined in the Growth Management Program; b. Nomination of the project by more than one GMA; c. Nomination of a project by a single GMA; and d. Nomination of a project by an individual city or the County. 8 E. With the exception of funding for Local Street and Roads Projects, in any given year, the Authority may allocate Net Tax Revenues on a different percentage basis than required by Section 11 B hereof in order to meet short-term needs and to maximize efforts to capture state, federal, or private transportation dollars, provided the percentage allocations set forth in Section II B hereof shall be achieved during the twenty-year term of the Retail Tax. Ill. PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING. Retail Tax Revenues shall not be used to replace private developer funding which has been or will be committed for any project. IV. ALLOCATION OF REPLACED FUNDS. If additional funds become available for a specific project or projects described in the Plan, the Authority may allocate the. Retail Tax Revenues replaced by the receipt of those additional funds, in the following order of priority: first, to Plan projects and programs which provide congestion relief in the geographic region which received the additional funds; second, to other projects and programs within -the affected geographic region which may be placed in the Plan through the amendment process described in Section 13 of the Ordinance; and third, to all other Plan projects. V. TIMING OF DISBURSEMENTS AND SEPARATE ACCOUNTING OF FUNDS. [Amended May 23, 1994] A. The .Authority shall disburse Net Tax Revenues to Plan • projects and programs as necessary to meet contractual and program obligations, and the Authority may withhold disbursements until needed to meet contractual project or program obligations, except that Net Tax Revenues Allocated for Local Street and Road Projects pursuant to Section 11 C1 above shall be paid to Eligible Jurisdictions within 60 days after receipt by the County. B. Each agency receiving Net Tax Revenues shall maintain a separate accounting of such funds. Any interest earned on such Net Tax Revenues shall be expended only for those purposes for 9 which the Net Tax Revenues were allocated or shall be returned to the Authority. The Authority shall have the right to audit such accounts. [Amended May 23, 1994] VI, IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES. Upon approval by the electors of the Retail Tax, the Authority shall adopt ordinances, rules and administrative procedures in addition to the local rules required to be provided pursuant to this Ordinance, and shall take such other actions as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities to implement the Plan and this Ordinance. Vll. DEFINITIONS. A. Eligible Jurisdiction. "Eligible Jurisdiction" shall mean the County or a city in the County which satisfies the requirements of Section II C lb hereof. B. Freeway Projects. "Freeway Projects" shall mean all construction and improvement of freeways and usable portions thereofdescribed in the Plan. C. Highways and Arterials. "Highways and Arterials" shall mean the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of highway and arterial street facilities, including all interstate highway routes and any other facilities so designated in the Plan, and all purposes and activities necessary and convenient thereto. D. Local Pavement Management Plan. "Local Pavement Management Plan" shall mean a system to monitor the condition of and perform periodic maintenance and rehabilitation of streets, roads and highways. E. Local Street Maintenance and improvements. "Local Street Maintenance and Improvements" shall mean the maintenance, operation and construction of local streets and roads and all activities and purposes necessary and convenient thereto, including all purposes allowable under Article XIX, Section 1(a) of the State Constitution. 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 F. Local Street and Road Proiects. "Local Street and Road Projects" shall mean those street maintenance and local road projects as defined in the Plan. G. Local TSM Program. "Local TSM Program" shalt mean those projects and programs to increase the capacity of the transportation system as described in the Plan. H. Regional Street and Road Projects. "Regional Street and Road Project" shall mean those streets and projects defined in the Plan. I. State Highway Projects. "State Highway Projects" shall mean projects far the construction or improvement of any State Highway as described in Section 24 of the California Streets and Highways Code. J. State Transportation Improvement Program. "State Transportation Improvement Program" shall mean the transportation capital improvement program adopted by the California Transportation Commission pursuant to California Government Code Section 14529. K. Smart Streets. "Smart Streets" shall mean the 220 miie network of arterial streets described in the Plan. [Amended May 23, 1994] L. Traffic Circulation Plan. 'Traffic Circulation Plan" shall mean the Traffic Circulation Element of a local general plan as defined under California Govemment Code Section 65302. M. Transportation Demand Management. "Transportation Demand Management" shall mean those programs and projects to reduce demand on the transportation system as defined in the Plan. N. Transportation Systems Management. "Transportation System Management" shall mean those programs and projects to increase capacity on the transportation system as defined in the Plan. 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 O. Transit. "Transit" shall mean all expenditures necessary and convenient to the construction, operation, and maintenance of transit services and facilities including the acquisition of vehicles and right-of-way. Transit services include, but are not limited to, bus, Tight rail, rapid transit, commuter rail services and facilities, and carpools and ridesharing in private vehicles. P. Transit Facilities. `Transit Facilities" shall mean all transit facilities constructed, maintained or improved pursuant to this Ordinance and Plan. Q. Transit Proiects. `Transit Projects" shall mean all projects described in the Plan for the construction, maintenance, improvement and operation of Transit Facilities. Date: r' Approved as to foam Parker and Covert Attoeys for Orange County Transportation Commission 12 ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: COUNTYWIDE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPONENT 14 from the Authority, focal jurisdictions, working through the City -County Coordination Committee 15 16 designated by resolution of the County and the League of California Cities, Orange County Division (the 17 "Coordination Committee"), or a successor, shall adopt administrative requirements to implement the 18 ! Growth Management Program in each local jurisdiction. Any amendments to the adopted 19 administrative requirements, including guidelines and administrative procedures, shall be prepared and 20 21 approved by the Authority. [Amended May 23, 1994] 22 B. As a further prerequisite to receiving Retail Tax Revenues from the Authority, within six 23 months after approval of the Retail Tax by the electors, local jurisdictions, working through the 24 ; Coordination Committee, shall approve growth management areas ("GMAs") to facilitate multi- 25 jurisdictional cooperation on traffic projects and improvements within GMAs ("GMA Improvement ; POLICY RESOLUTION NO. 2 2 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT 4 <r mended May 23, 1994 5 This Policy Resolution No. 2 is adopted by the Orange County Local Transportation Authority pursuant 6 to Section 8 of the Revised Orange County Traffic improvement and Growth Management Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms contained herein shall have 8 the same meaning as in the Ordinance. 9, 10 . GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREAS. 11 A. In order to receive Retail Tax Revenues from the Authority, local jurisdictions must meet 12 the requirements of the Plan and specifically those requirements relating to growth management which 13 are described in the Growth Management Program. As a prerequisite to receiving Retail Tax Revenues 27 28 traffic impact areas. Following establishment of the GMAs, changes in GMA boundaries may be made 29 by an agreement approved by the affected local jurisdictions and approved by the Authority. [Amended 30 May 23, 1994] 31 C. if the local jurisdictions, working through the Coordinating Committee, are unable to establish GMAs within six months after the approval of the Retail Tax by the electors, the Authority 26 Projects"). The boundaries of each GMA shall be designed to focus on multi -jurisdictional, high -volume 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 may determine alternate provisions relative to the allocation of Retail Tax Revenues under this Policy Resolution. D. The Authority shall consider a regional, countywide geographic balance in allocating Retail Tax Revenues to GMA Improvement Projects. Factors which shall be considered in determining the allocation of such funds shall include, but not be limited to, regional significance/benefit, amount of local matching funds, and any existing or new development traffic mitigation fee program: E. The procedure for allocation of Retail Tax Revenues to Local jurisdictions for GMA Improvement Projects shall require the jurisdictions to participate in the following Process to receive these funds: 1. Jurisdictions within each GMA shall participate in multi jurisdictional forums convened by the Coordination Committee to examine regional improvements needed within the GMA. 2. The GMA-based multi jurisdictional forums shall recommend to the Authority a list of GMA Improvement Projects that will be implemented cooperatively participating jurisdictions to ensure that traffic impacts from new development are mitigated. F. The Authority shall allocate Retail Tax Revenues for GMA Improvement Projects to the jurisdictions which will perform the project work. ll. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLANS. A. In order to minimize duplication, the Growth Management Program shall be reconciled with the state mandated Congestion Management Plan ("CMP") through a cooperative process involving local jurisdictions, the Coordination Committee, and the local agency charged with implementing the CMP. S. No reconciliation of the Growth Management Program and the CMP shall prevent a local jurisdiction from establishing, for the purposes of the jurisdiction's own growth management plan, a level of service standard which is stricter than the levels mandated by the CMP. 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 III. DEVELOPMENT PAYS ITS FAIR SHARE. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Ordinance or this Policy Resolution, each new development project shall be conditioned to require payment of the project's fair share of traffic improvement programs and projects implemented by the local jurisdiction as a development mitigation or congestion management measure. A project's fair share shall be determined in accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq. ALANGE CO . SPORTATJON MM sSI N , 1 Dana W. Reed, Chairman Date: r' .Z — To Approved as to form: Parker and Covert By: An eys for Orange County Transportation Commission 3 ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: COUNTYWIDE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPONENT Revised 6-15-89 Amended 9-23-91 Amended 5-23-94 INTRODUCTION The Traffic improvement and Growth Management Program is designed to achieve a cooperative process among Orange County's local jurisdictions to promote traffic improvement and stronger planning on a countywide basis. The program is also fashioned to maintain local authority over both land use decisions and the establishment of specific performance standards while considering regional impacts. In recognition of differing needs, the program is structured to distinguish between developed and developing communities. White a future sales tax for transportation is intended to alleviate existing transportation problems, the program also is designed to assure the mitigation of the future residential, business, and commercial on the need for new facilities. The Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program reflects the intent of the Cities and the County of Orange to create a process that results in the maintenance of the quality of life in Orange County through sound planning for growth. The program envisions each jurisdiction adopting a Growth Management Element to their General Plan as a high visibility means to demonstrate a commitment to maintaining Orange County's quality of life. GROWTH OF THE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROCESS The goals of the Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program shall be to: • Outline each agency's plans and efforts to develop multi -jurisdictional traffic solutions through well-defined cooperative planning process; • Specify traffic level of service standards; Promote alternative forms of transportation and overall system efficiency by maximizing use of the existing transportation network through Transportation Demand Management (TDM); [Amended September 23, 19911 • Provide funding for construction and maintenance of street, road and highway facilities; • Require a locally collected and administered traffic mitigation fee to guarantee that new development pays its fair share toward dealing with traffic generated by the new development; • Foster a better balance of jobs and housing and attempt to reduce the length of commuter trips through careful planning; • Provide that local jurisdictions, where applicable, establish performance standards for fire, police, library, flood control, and other infrastructure services based on local criteria; ® Require the phasing of new development to insure that service level goals are achieved; • Envisions the creation of a deficient intersections program to promote funding matches between local fees and proceeds from the sales tax corrected deficiencies. LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS Portions of the monies received from future transportation sales tax will be retumed to local jurisdictions (the Cities and the County) for use on local, subregional, and regional transportation improvements and maintenance projects. The intent of this program is to condition receipt of all such funds on compliance with a Traffic improvement and Growth Management Program as described below. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS The Orange County Local Transportation Authority' will annually review local jurisdictions' Seven -Year Capital Improvement Programs and allocate transportation sales tax funds to cities, the County, and other eligible agencies as provided in the Countywide Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program. [Amended September 23, 1991] At its option to receive local street maintenance and improvement funds from the Authority, each jurisdiction shall submit a statement of compliance with the Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program. The Authority shall conduct an administrative review and distribute funds based on a jurisdiction's certification of compliance regarding the Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program. The Authority shall review this statement at a minimum of every five years and make findings regarding the jurisdiction's efforts. If the jurisdiction's efforts are found in compliance, the jurisdiction will be allocated its share of local street maintenance and improvement funding. [Amended September 23, 1991] The Orange County Transportation Commission is currently designated by the Board of Supervisors as the Transportation Authority responsible for administering the proceeds of an Orange County sales tax for transportation. Due to ongoing discussions regarding the nature of regional and subregional transportation planning, including transportation consolidation issues and the possible formation of the Orange County Council of Governments, it is possible that a different or expanded transportation planning agency could assume the Transportation Authority function in the future. Because of great variation among jurisdictions, it is expected that the Authority will need some flexibility in determining compliance with the Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program. Generally, this flexibility may take the form of the Authority establishing specific deadlines for achieving one or more requirements as a condition of receiving local street maintenance and improvement funds. Nothing in this program, however, shall be construed to imply that the Authority may interfere with the land use decisions of local jurisdictions. The Authority's flexibility in determining eligibility to receive funding is limited solely to determining if a jurisdiction has adopted, if and where required by this plan, the jurisdiction's method of applying: traffic level of service standards; planning standards for fire, police, library, flood control, parks and open space and other locally -determined needs; a development mitigation program; a development phasing program; a seven- year capital improvement program; and is participating in inter jurisdictional planning forums; has addressed housing options and job opportunities; and has adopted a transportation demand management ordinance. [Amended September 23, 1991] TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program recognizes that Orange County contains both developed and developing communities. Generally, existing developed communities already contain public facilities necessary to support general plan land use elements, but may require new or improved additional transportation facilities to implement circulation elements and the regional system. Developing communities still need additional public facilities to bring their general plans into balance. The Traffic improvement and Growth Management Program also recognizes the need to promote multi jurisdictional forums to implement facilities, which support several jurisdictions. The Program envisions the establishment of Growth Management Areas (GMAs) based upon groupings of local jurisdictions. The GMAs will enable local jurisdictions to focus their mutual concerns, coordinate improvements, and implement those improvements cooperatively through inter -jurisdictional forums. The GMAs are to be defined in terms of developed or developing communities for purposes of the Traffic improvement and Growth Management Program requirements. Inter jurisdictional forums, consisting of officials within identified GMAs are to be convened annually to discuss developments with multi jurisdictional impacts and to promote dialogue on appropriate mitigation measures. Nothing in the Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program shall be construed to limit any jurisdiction's ability to coordinate or cooperate with other jurisdictions not contained in the same Growth Management Area. [Amended May 23, 1994] To receive its local street maintenance and improvement funds, each jurisdiction must, except where otherwise specified: Adopt a Growth Management Element Each jurisdiction is to adopt a Growth Management Element of its General Plan to be applied in the development review process. Developed GMAs shall include within their element, sections 1, 3, and 4. Developing GMAs shall include within their elements section 1 through 4 inclusive. in addition, all jurisdictions must comply with, but not necessarily include with their element, sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 below unless otherwise specified. The City -County Coordination Committee, or successor agency, shall prepare guidelines and administrative procedures to aid local jurisdictions in the development of Growth Management Elements. Local jurisdictions shall develop their Growth Management Element within one year after receipt of the guidelines which shall be prepared within six months of an election containing a sales tax measure for transportation improvements or implementation appropriately taken through the City - County Coordination Committee. 1. SPECIFY TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS to implement local jurisdiction service level goals. Each jurisdiction shall determine how traffic LOS standards are to be applied to their General Plan land use and circulation elements and specific land use categories. Each jurisdiction shall comply with its adopted standards. The general target standard for each jurisdiction should be LOS(D) for intersections, but it is recognized that jurisdictions may establish lower LOS standards for certain intersections in urbanized areas. Level of Service (LOS) would be measured by the Traffic Level of Service Policy Implementation Manual established by the Authority, as reviewed and approved by the City -County Coordinating Committee or successor agency. Any issues with respect to the application of the Traffic Level of Service Policy Implementation Manual shall be referred to the County Transportation Commission's Technical Advisory Committee, or successor committee, for review and recommendation to the Authority. In the event that an intersection(s) exceed(s) the applicable Traffic Service standards, local jurisdictions, in consultation with inter jurisdictional forums, shall establish appropriate mitigation measure or determine that a given intersection is subject to a finding of special circumstances. Any intersection that presently exceeds the local Traffic Service standard and which will be brought into compliance in the most current Seven -Year Capital Improvement Program shall be considered to be in compliance with the applicable standard. In cases where an intersection is not brought into compliance in the most current Seven -Year Capital Improvement Program, for reasons beyond the control of the goveming jurisdiction (e.g. ramp metering effects, traffic generated outside the jurisdiction or state highway designation), it shall be added to a Deficient Intersection List. Projects located within the same GMA as the projects contributing cumulatively, or individually, 10% or more of the traffic using an intersection will be assessed a mitigation fee determined by the involved local jurisdictions and locally administered as part of their Seven -Year Capital Improvement Program. [Amended September 23, 1991] The Authority, jointly with affected local jurisdictions, shall determine and periodically review the application of Traffic Level of Service Standards on routes or regional significance such as Smart Streets. The review will take into account trafficoriginating outside the County or jurisdiction, environmental issues and financial considerations. Local jurisdictions, through the inter -jurisdictional forums with the Authority, shall jointly determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts within their boundaries. [Amended May 23, 1994} Transportation Capital projects necessary to meet and maintain the Traffic Service standards are to be included in the required Seven -Year Capital Improvement Program. [Amended September 23, 1991] 2. ADOPT PLANNING STANDARDS, maintained through capital projects, for the following items, based on local criteria (required for developing GMAs only). a. fire d. flood control b. police e. parks and open space c. library f. other items as determined by each jurisdiction Capital projects necessary to meet and maintain the Service standards are to be included in the required Seven -Year Capital Improvement Program. 3. ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION program to ensure that new growth is paying its fair share of the costs associated with that growth. Local jurisdictions, for the most part, already impose fees for a variety of purposes, including site specific traffic improvements. Only a few jurisdictions impose fees for regional traffic mitigation. To meet the requirements of this section, each jurisdiction shall: A. Adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that development is paying its share of the costs associated with that development. The program will be coordinated through inter jurisdictional forums within the GMAs. B. Each jurisdiction shall impose or continue an existing traffic impact mitigation fee for improvements within its boundaries and GMAs. Inter jurisdictional planning forums shall determine minimally acceptable impact fee levels for application within their specific GMA. Such fee levels will serve as a base amount for impact fees for jurisdictions within a GMA, but individual jurisdictions may impose greater levels if they so desire. C. Ensure that new revenues provided by a sales tax increase measure shall not be used to replace private developer funding which has been committed for any project. In addition, the Authority, in cooperation with inter jurisdictional forums and local jurisdictions, shall: A. Develop a program of regional traffic mitigation projects needs as determined in, but not limited to, the 20-Year Master Plan for Transportation Improvements. B. Determine the most feasible methods of mitigating regional traffic impacts. Existing traffic impact fees shall be taken into consideration by the Authority. 4. ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT PHASING AND ANNUAL MONITORING PROGRAM to ensure that service goals are achieved. Jurisdictions shall prepare, in conjunction with the Seven -Year Improvement Program, a phasing and monitoring program for development entitlements and circulation improvements within their jurisdictions. These phasing and monitoring programs shall also ensure that infrastructure is added and development proceeds so that balance between public facilities demand continues. The program shall provide reasonable lead time (five years from first grading permit or three years from first building permit) to design and construct improvements. In developed GMAs, phasing programs shall be limited to development entitlements tied to transportation improvements only. The annual monitoring program would also serve to provide a performance monitoring mechanism to identify potential deficiencies and corrective measures. The costs of the annual monitoring program may be an eligible expense from the proceeds of the annual increase in the sales tax for transportation improvements. [Amended September 23, 1991] 5. PARTICIPATE IN INTER -JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING FORUMS TO REDUCE CUMULATIVE REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT. Local jurisdictions, in cooperation with the City -County Coordination Committee or successor agency, shall establish inter jurisdictional forums at the GMA level to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts and coordinating improvements in transportation and other facilities at the inter jurisdictional level. The Authority will support these efforts by an ongoing countywide comprehensive transportation planning process in which all jurisdictions shall assist in developing and participate. As part of this process, a uniform database of traffic impacts will be created based on a countywide transportation computer model developed using proceeds from an increase in the sales tax for transportation improvements. It is recognized that, in consultation with local jurisdictions, the existing transportation computer model maintained by the County would serve as the basis for this process. Small area models used to determine the impacts of development of the circulation system shall be based on the countywide models and shall use standardized modeling assumptions and conventions. Standardized modeling would provide an opportunity to test proposed amendments to individual jurisdictions' General Plan Transportation and Land Use Elements and to assist cities and the County in determining the impacts of development projects proposed for General Plan Amendments. This also provides for the development of common standards with which to calculate traffic impacts across the jurisdictional boundaries. Input for the model should include such items as each jurisdiction's Seven -Year Capital Improvement Program of transportation projects (see Section 6) and the projects of Federal, State and regional agencies such as Ca!trans, transit operators, and the Southern California Association of Governments. In addition, the computer model database should include each local jurisdiction's anticipated land use development projects reasonably expected to be constructed within the next five years. [Amended September 23, 1991] 6. DEVELOP A SEVEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM to meet and maintain both its adopted Traffic Service and Performance Standards. Each jurisdiction shall determine the capital projects needed to meet and maintain both its adopted Traffic Level of Service and Performance Standards Capital financing programming will be based on proposed development to be constructed during (at a minimum) the following seven-year period. The Capital Improvement Program shall include approved projects and an analysis of the costs of the proposed project as well as a financial plan for providing the improvements. [Amended September 23, 1991] 7. ADDRESS HOUSING OPTIONS AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES as related to transportation demand on a city, subregional, and countywide basis. [Amended September 23, 1991] 8. ADOPT A TRANSPORATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) ORDINANCE or alternative mitigation to reduce single occupancy automobile travel. To promote carpools, vanpools, altemate work hours, park and ride facilities, telecommuting and other traffic reduction strategies, the Authority recognizes the model Transportation Demand Management Ordinance developed by the Orange County Congestion Management Program Technical Advisory Committee, for use by local jurisdictions in developing local ordinances for adoption and implementation. Cities with a small employment base, as defined in the model ordinance, may adopt alternative mitigation measures in lieu of adopting a TDM ordinance. [Amended September 23, 1991] Revised c Improvement and Growth Management Plan ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION March 2010 Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Plan Expenditure Plan (1988 $ x million) :'itmQ�re l°n F L' f3 .xr Freeway Projects Project 1-5 (Santa Ana Freeway) between 1-405 (San Diego Freeway) and 1-605 (San Gabriel Freeway) 1-5 (San Diego Freeway) between 1-5/1-405 Interchange and San Clemente 1-5/1-405 Interchange S.R. 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) between 1-5 and S.R. 91(Riverside Freeway) S.R. 57 (Orange Freeway) between 1-5 and Lambert Road S.R. 91 (Riverside Freeway) between Riverside County Line and Los Angeles County Line S.R. 22 (Garden Grove Freeway) between S.R. 55 and Valley View Street Freeway Sub -total Regional Street and Road Projects Project Smart Streets Regionally Significant Interchanges Intersection Improvement Program Traffic Signal Coordination Transportation Systems Management and Transportation Demand Management Streets and Roads Sub -total Cost $ 743 $ 52 $ 66 $ 44 * $ 22 $ 95 * $ 303 $ 1,325 Cost $ 120 $ 70 $ 100 $ 50 $ 10 $ 350 Local Street and Road Projects Project Master Plan of Arterial Highway Improvements Streets and Roads Maintenance and Road Improvements Growth Management Area Improvements Local Street and Road Sub -total Cost $ 100 $ 450 $ 100 650 Transit Projects Project Pacific Electric Right -of -Way LOSSAN Intercity Rail Program LOSSAN Commuter Rail Riverside Commuter Rail High -Technology Advanced Rail Transit Elderly & Handicapped Fare Stabilization Transitways Transit Sub -total Cost 15 20 215 40 340 20 125 775 $ 1,325 $ 350 $ 650 $ 775 TOTAL $ 3,100 * Pursuant to Resolution No. 94-03 dated 4/11/94, these projects shall be first in priority for State Transportation improvement Program funds. ** Measure M project budget, assuming a 2004 construction date, is $327 million. Pursuant to Resolution No. 04->oc dated 9/13/2004, OCTA shall pursue reimbusement of $123.7 million in Transporation Congestion Relief Funds This page replaces the previous page 18, in accordance with the OCTA Board action dated 318/10 Amendment March 8, 2010 18 Orange County Freeway Projects O ANAHEIM ■ 0 + 0 O ❑ O • ❑ 0 O • 0 GARDEN O • 0 CLEVELAND GROVE O ■ 0 ORANGE 0 v0 o NATIONAL SANTA ANA HUNTINGTON BEACH 0 O❑ 0 FOREST 900 ORANGE 0 COUNTY O O IRVINE I-5 & 1405 Interchange MISSION VIEJO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO Legend ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ S.R. 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-5 (Santa Ana Freeway) ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ S.R. 57 (Orange Freeway) 1-5 (San Diego Freeway) • • • • • • S.R. 91 (Riverside Freeway) ;. 1-5 & 1-405 Interchange 19 Orange County Freeway Project Descriptions Santa Ana Freeway Improvement for the San Diego Freeway (I-405) to.the Los Angeles County Line Description: Rebuilding of the Santa Ana Freeway is critical to the county's continued mobility. This project forms the centerpiece of the 20-Year Master Plan of Tr-ansporta- tron Improvements. Fifty percent of all Orange County residents live within three miles of this facility and two- thirds of all jobs lie in this transportation corridor. The staged improvements call for the addition of up to three lanes in each direction, rebuilding the freeway -to - freeway interchanges, and providing soundwalls and environmental mitigation, The project begins where I-5 separates from the 1-405 and continues north to the Los Angeles County line. Two of the new travel lanes will be dedicated to carpools. Within this length of freeway is the I-5/SR 57/SR 22 interchange. This is the nation's seventh busiest interchange. This interchange and all other intermediate interchanges will be improved as part of this project. Traffic on 1-5 north of I-405 was 160,000 vehicles per day in 1988 and in the future the vehicular demand is expected to increase to over 260,000 daily. Costs: The overall cost of the I-5 project is estimated to be $1.6 billion. Existing state and federal resources are expected to fund $1.1 billion with the sales tax revenue providing the additional $550 million to complete the project. Implementation: Construction will start immediately. Sales tax revenue would be used to augment funding, alleviate cash flow constraints, and accelerate project delivery by 10 years. San Diego Freeway (I-5) from the I-54-405 Confluence to San Clemente Description: Current plans for 1-5 south of the confluence call for adding one carpool lane in each direction, building soundwalls and other environmental amenities. This project includes the segment of 1-5 from the 1-405 confluence. to San Clemente near the San Diego County line, a distance of approximately 12 miles. In 1988, the freeway carried approximately 170,000 vehicles per day and forecasts show demand to increase to over 230,000 daily. Costs: The estimated capital cost for this section of the 1-5 improvement is about $80 million. Implementation: Project construction is scheduled to begin during the first 10-year period of the plan. I-5/I-405 Interchange Description: The need for improving one of the county's busiest interchanges has been identified in numerous studies. In 1988 over 260,000 vehicles a clay traveled through this interchange and forecasts show this demand will grow to over 350,000 vehicles daily. This project calls for the construction of bypass and feeder lanes along 1-5 for the "El Toro Y" interchange. This will greatly improve traffic movement between the Santa Ana Freeway and the San Diego Freeway, as these facilities are widened to add three new lanes in each direction (including carpool lanes) on the 1-5, and carpool lanes to the San Diego Freeway. Costs: The capital cost in 1988 dollars is estimated at $55 million. Implementation: Construction will begin within the first five years of the 20-year program. This project plays a critical role in the improvement of the I-5. 20 Orange County Freeway Project Descriptions Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) from the Riverside Freeway to Interstate 5 Description: The 20-Year Master Plan of Transportation improve- ments calls for the addition of two new general purpose lanes to the Costa Mesa Freeway for a distance of approximately six miles, In 1988 Route 55 carried about 180,000 vehicles per day and forecasts show demand to exceed 190,000 in the future. Auxiliary lanes are also planned, in addition to providing soundwalls and other environmental mitigation measures. Costs: The current estimated capital cost (1988) is approxi- mately $200 million, Implementation: Construction is scheduled for the second 10-year period of the plan. Orange Freeway (SR 57) from the Los Angeles County Line to Interstate 5 See Updated Project Description on Page 21.a Riverside Freeway (SR 91) from the Los Angeles County Line to the Riverside County Line Description: Long-range plans call for the addition of one carpool lane in each direction on the Route 91 from Riverside County line to Los Angeles County line. The first phase of this project on Route 91 extends from the Riverside County line and terminates at the Orange Freeway. The second phase extends from Route 57 to the Los Angeles County line. In addition to the carpool lanes, plans for the freeway include rebuilding the freeway -to -freeway interchanges and providing soundwalls and other environmental mitigation features. About 210,000 vehicles used this freeway in 1988 and forecasts show demand to exceed 240,000 in the future. Both Los Angeles and Riverside counties have plans to improve SR 91 within their jurisdictions. Costs: The capital cost for these improvements is $400 million. Implementation: Construction of Phase I improvements is scheduled for the first 10 years of the plan and Phase II improvements will occur during the second 10 years. Additional Information for the Orange Freeway (SR 57) from the Los Angeles County Line to Interstate 5 is on page 21.a, in accordance with the OCTA Board action of 3/8/2010 Amendment March 8, 2010 21 Orange Freeway (SR 57) from the Los Angeles County Line to Interstate 5 Description: The 20-Year Master Plan for Transportation Improvements calls for the addition of one carpool in each direction to the orange Freeway for it entire length within Orange County. This covers a distance of about 12 miles. In addition, soundwalls and other environmental amenities will be added. In 1988, this freeway carried over 210,000 vehicles per day and forecasts estimate this demand to grow to over 280,000 daily. Los Angeles County plans for additional lanes that extend the improvements north to Route 60 in Diamond Bar, The 2007 Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan lists additional improvements for this corridor under "Project G - Orange Freeway Improvements." Use of available Measure M1 funds will enable Orange County to leverage state funds and deliver the improvements earlier should any additional M1 funds become available. Costs: The 1988 capital cost estimate for this improvement is $22 million. The-eest-of--pre- construction work on the early action R Gwe4 a ensure nn improvement en th Implementation: The current schedule slates the Orange Freeway improvements for the first five-year period of the plan. i; rnvement wRl Design and environmental clearance of the latest Orange Freeway improvements are nearly complete and construction is expected to begin in late 2010. References: 1. Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan, July 2006. 2. Renewed Measure M Early Action Plan, Draft Report, Orange County Transportation Authority, July 16, 2007. Add: 3. Renewed Measure M Early Action Plan Review, December 14, 2009 This page is a revision in accordance with the OCTA Board action of 3/8/2010 Amendment March 8, 2010 21.a Garden Grove Freeway (State Route 22) from Route 55 to Interstate 605 Including West County connection improvements Description: State Route 22 is the last major freeway in Orange County slated for measure M-funded improvements. In 2000, over 174,000 vehicles a day traveled on this freeway and forecasts show demand increasing to over 212,000 daily. At the west end, SR-22 connects with Interstate 405 and Interstate 605 — "West County Connection." This freeway segment carries over 430,000 cars today and future demand is projected to reach 526,000. Plans call for the addition of carpool lanes in each direction along with auxiliary lanes, freeway -to -freeway carpool connectors, interchange improvements, and environmental mitigation. Costs: The Measure M contribution for this project shall not exceed $303 million in 1988 dollars. These funds will leverage existing Federal, State, and Local sources that are providing over $235 million for improvements. In 2007, an additional $400 million of new state and federal funds were made available to the West County Connection. Implementation: Design of the project will begin immediately. Construction is targeted to begin by 2004. Sales Tax revenues would be used to augment funding from other sources. Design of the West County Connection improvements will begin in 2007 and construction is scheduled to begin on 2009. References: State Route 22/West County Connection Project Report, Caltrans, March 2003 This page replaces the former page 21.5, and is a revision in accordance with the OCTA Board action dated 9/24/2007 Amendment September 24, 2007 21.b Fact Sheets SR-221405/605 HOV Connectors Project Description: This project proposes to construct direct HOV connectors from SR-22 to 1-405 (between Seal Beach Blvd. and Valley View St.) and from 1-405 to 1-605 (between Katelia Ave. and Seal Beach Blvd.) with a second HOV lane in each direction on 1-405 between the two direct connectors. This project is Phase II of the SR-22/WOCC widening project. Phase I added an HOV on SR-22 between Glassell Avenue in the City of Orange and Valley View Street in the city of Garden Grove, plus auxiliary lanes between SR-55 and Valley View Street. Corridor Description: State Route 22 (SR-22) is an east -west transportation corridor that provides connections to five major Interstate 5, 405 and 605, and State Routes 55 and 57 and that crosses most of the major north -south arterial corridors in Central Orange County. Funding: Total project Cost: $400,000 CMIA Funds Recommended: $200,000 Local Match; $200,000 Project Schedule: Ready for advertisement: Mid 2009 Construction award: Early 2010 Construction complete: Mid 2012 This page is a revision in accordance with the OCTA Board action dated 9/24/2007 Amendment September 24, 2007 21,c Orange County Streets and Roads Projects MAPNOTTOSCME Legend BREA IMPERIAL ANAHEIM WY. STATE COLLEGE BLVD. ORANGE CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST MISSION VIEJO SANJUAN CAPISTRANO Super Streets Freeways Please note: The following projects are included under Orange County Street and Road Projects but not shown on map: 1, Regional Interchanges 2, Intersection Improvement Program throughout Orange County 3. Signal Coordination throughout Orange County 4. Local Transportation Systems Management and Transportation Demand Management Plans (TSM/TDM) 5. Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County 6, Streets Maintenance and Local Roads Projects 7. Growth Management Area Improvements 22 Orange Comity Streets and 14 ©ads Project, Descriptions Super Streets Throughout Orange County Description: The Super Street Program for Orange County is a 220- mile network of arterial streets targeted for improve- ments designed to increase their ability to carry traffic. These improvements consist of traffic signal synchroni- zation, restriping/widening roadways to increase the number of travel lanes, intersection grade separations, bus turnouts, removal of on -street parking, and intersec- tion improvements. The Super Street Network includes 21 major arterial streets throughout Orange County such as Beach Boulevard, Katella Avenue and El Toro Road. Costs: $120 million of sales tax revenue is targeted for Super Street improvements, Implementation: Improvements would be phased over the 20-year program, and coordinated with other local improve- ments. Regional Interchanges Description: The goal of the program is to further enhance the local street interchanges at key freeway junctions such as the interchanges of I-405 and Warner Avenue, and Route 22 and Beach Boulevard. The program also would direct connections between the transitway system and local streets, for example at Route 57 and Cerritos Avenue. Local agencies would be required to provide dollar- for-dollar.matching funds. All freeway and major street junctures throughout Orange County are eligible.. Improvements will be coordinated with other freeway projects and phased in over 20 years. Costs: $70 million of sales tax revenue is targeted for this program. Intersection Improvement Program Throughout Orange County Description: The 20-Year Master Plan of Transportation Improve- ments recommends that 100 of the county's most congested street intersections such as the intersections of Bristol/MacArthur Boulevard, El Toro Road/ Rockfield and State College Boulevard/Imperial Highway be identified and scheduled for improvement. This program will help alleviate traffic bottlenecks present in Orange County. The schedule shows these improvements to span the full period of the plan. Costs: $100 million over a 20-year period is recommended for this program. Signal Coordination Throughout Orange County Description: With 29 cities in Orange County, the number of jurisdictions can complicate the coordination of traffic signals between city boundaries. This element of the 20-Year Master Plan of Transportation improvements calls for financial assistance to cities and the County of Orange in timing traffic signals where streets cross city boundaries. 23 Costs: $50 million over a 20-year period is targeted for these improvements, Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County Description: The County of Orange currently provides $4 million annually to complete the construction of major streets countywide. Over 80 percent of the county's road system has been constructed. Additional funding is proposed that, when combined with county and other Local funds, will help complete the system. Construction will occur throughout the 20-year program. Costs: $100 million is allocated to construct and improve local streets and roads. Orange County Streets and Roads Project Descriptions Local Transportation Systems Manage- ment and Transportation Demand Man- agement Plans (TSM/TDM) Description: Transportation system and demand management focus on increasing the present capacity of the transportation system for the movement of people rather than of vehicles at a relatively low capital cost. Thus, these strategies center on increasing the occupancy of vehicles and spreading the demand for travel to times when facilities have excess capacity. These measures include carpooling and vanpooling programs, park -and -ride service development, removal of on -street parking, parking management, and controlling delivery and operations of commercial vehicles. Also included are bicycling, alternative work hours, development of site amenities to encourage high occupancy use, such as transit shelters and preferential parking, and reversible traffic lanes to add capacity to the peak direction. This element of the 20-Year Plan for Transportation Im- provements calls for each city to develop and implement TSM/1'DM strategies. Implementation of these im- provements will occur throughout the Iife of the 20-year program. Costs: $10 million is required for this program. Growth Management Area Improvements Description: An important component of the plan is the formation of Growth Management Areas that will blend local and regional planning perspectives and traffic control tech- niques. These areas will be established by grouping local jurisdictions with similar land use and transporta- tion characteristics. This program element will focus on addressing cumulative regional traffic impacts of devel- opment. Specifically, funds will be used to complete traffic improvements crossing city/county boundaries. Under no circumstances may local government use funds from the program to subsidize costs which should be borne by developers. Costs: $100 million over a 20-year period is targeted for this program. Streets Maintenance and Local Roads Projects Description: This program element offers cities funds for street maintenance and local traffic improvements. The program is designed to supplement city and county expenditures on road projects and will require continua- tion of local investment in the street and road system. Specifically, to receive these funds cities must: • adopt a Growth Management Plan as called for in the 20-Year Master Plan; • adopt a local Pavement Management System that will eliminate the need for costly road reconstruc- tion and adequately fund such a system; • adopt a local Transportation Systems Management plan to make better use of the road network; • agree to complete improvements within three years or return the funds; and • adopt a local traffic circulation plan that is consis- tent with the countywide Master Plan of Arterial Highways. This is a countywide program to maintain and improve over 5,000 miles of local streets and roads and will extend over the entire 20-year program. Costs: Previous studies have indicated that an initial investment of $200 million is needed to bring all deficient streets into good repair, and an annual allocation of $36 million 'for routine maintenance. It is proposed to allocate $450 million towards such needs that, when combined with local resources, will provide substantial new funding for Orange County streets and roads. 24 Orange County Transit Projects 1 t4 i t i i i Existing Rail Right -of -Way — — — — High -Technology Advanced Rail Transit Transitway Development Program CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST ORANGE COUNTY SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO Lossan Intercity Rail Program and Lossan Commuter Rail • • • • • • Riverside Commuter Rail Please note: Included under Orange County Transit Projects but not shown on map is the Senior Citizens/Disabled Reduced Fares Program. 25 Orange County Tansil P1OQ ec' Descriptions Rail Transit Right -Of -Way Protection Description: Right-of-way (ROW) protection on the Pacific Electric/ Southem Pacific West Santa Ana Branch from Santa Ana to Los Angeles County line. Location: Central and west part of the county. Goes through the cities of Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Stanton, Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, and La Palma. Technology and Ridership Estimates: The future technology to be considered in this corridor and on this alignment would be some type of rail transit. Due to the long-term nature related to implementation of service, revised ridership estimates are not available. There are previous studies conducted by OCTC and OCTD which do provide ridership estimates. Depend- ing on the rail system the segment is connected to, the daily ridership for the year 2000 is forecast at 10,000- 15,000_ Costs: $50 million would be reserved for this project and used by the OCTC to preserve the right-of-way opportunities on this alignment. Implementation: It is assumed that the ROW would be purchased during the first five years of the program. Issues/Comments: 1. The Southern Pacific (SP) right-of-way (ROW) from Beach Blvd. to Downtown Los Angeles is being con- sidered for abandonment by SP. This ROW along with the existing ROW owned by OC: I D could provide a future rail transit connection to the Century Freeway rail transit line and Los Angeles County's rail transit system. The distance is approximately five miles. 2. The O(JID now owns the Pacific Electric (PE) ROW from Santa Ana to Beach Blvd. (7.miles). The City of Garden Grove proposes to develop parcels through their redevelopment agency at future station locations at Euclid and Brookhurst. The city proposes to purchase approximately 6,100 feet of the ROW and provide an acceptable financial package to OCTC and OCTD that would not preclude the development of rail transit in the future. The city also proposes to minimize the repur- chase price of the ROW when needed for rail transit development. The development of rail transit in this corridor could be started within the next 20 years. References: 1. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor, Transit Element, Alternatives Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Report, OC:I'D, February 1984. 2. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor, Multimodal Alternatives Analysis, Preliminary Findings Report, OCTC, December 1984, 26 Orange County ' r°ans t Prod eet Descrip ions LOSSAN Corridor Intercity Rail Service Description: The LOSSAN corridor extends for 128 miles between the downtown areas of Los Angeles and San Diego, and is second only to the Northeast Corridor in ridership on the Amtrak rail passenger system. This rail line (Santa Fe) links communities in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego. At this time, over six million people reside within five miles of this rail line. There are currently nine stations with five of them in Orange County. Amtrak's present service in the LOSSAN corridor includes eight daily trains in each direction, The future proposal calls for two additional trains to be added. Location: The project uses the Santa Fe/Amtrak line from the San Diego downtown to the Los Angeles Central Business District (CBD), a distance of 128 miles with 47 miles in Orange County. Technology and Ridership Estimates: The technology currently used for this service is diesel- electric locomotives pulling up to six passenger cars. The cars are approximately 85 feet long and can operate at high or low platforms. Based on current usage and the implementation of two new roundtrips, the ridership is forecasted to be 8,000 riders per day. Costs: A capital development program that includes funding by all three counties, Amtrak, the State of California, and Santa Fe Railroad has been developed that will allow for expansion of service to 10 trains per day in each direc- tion, Orange County's share of this program is approxi- mately $20 million. Any required operating assistance would be paid by the State and Amtrak. These services are very close to having full farebox recovery on operating and maintenance costs and are therefore priced for intercity type service and not priced to encourage daily commuter use. Implementation: If the funding program can be put in place, service could begin as early as 1993. Issues/Comments: This program requires the cooperation of the three counties, Caltrans, Amtrak, Santa Fe, and the local communities to be implemented successfully. References: 1. Los Angeles -San Diego (LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study, 1986-1987, LOSSAN State Rail Corridor Study Group, Consultants -Wilbur Smith & Associates, Morrison-Knudsen Engineers, and Arthur Bauer & Associates. 2. Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor Status Report and Proposed Commuter Rail Implemen- tation Program, Report to Orange County Transporta- tion Commission, June 16, 1988, staff consultant - Sharon Greene & Associates. 3. LOSSAN Corridor Rail Status Report, OCTC, September 29, 1988. 27 Orange County Tr sit Project Desc apt ons LOSSAN Corridor Commuter Rail Service Description: The proposed commuter rail service in the LOSSAN Corridor specifically will be directed at the needs of persons commuting on a daily basis. Train schedules, station locations, and fare policy will be set to accom- modate the needs of these commuters. The initial service calls for two peak period trains inbound from San Clemente to Los Angeles on weekday mornings and two peak period trains outbound from Los Angeles to San Clemente on weekday evenings. The service calls for nine stations in Orange County and four in Los Angeles County. The additional stations in Orange County include Mission Viejo, North Irvine, and Buena Park. The Irvine station (Spectrum area) is included in the nine stations. The commuter trains would supple- ment the intercity trains that are proposed and currently operated by Amtrak. It is also proposed that the project acquire the Santa Fe right-of-way (ROW) from Fullerton to the San Diego County line in cooperation with San Diego agencies. Based on the activities proposed for this project, these actions would constitute the fust.step in developing a major backbone rail transit system for Orange County. Location: The project uses the Santa Fe/Amtrak line from the San Clemente/Oceanside area to the Los Angeles central business district. Technology and Ridership Estimates: The technology to be used for this service would be similar to the current Amtrak service. It is estimated that the initial service would attract 2,000 riders per day in the peak periods. Ridership will increase over time as additional commuter service is scheduled. Costs: A capital development program has been proposed that would include the purchase of the Santa Fe ROW, provision of equipment to provide the service, and the development of three new stations at Mission Viejo, North Irvine, and Buena Park. The service would require operating assistance as the farebox is estimated to fund 40-50 percent of the annual costs. The capital cost estimate for Orange County's share is $108 million and for operating subsidy is $22 million for the balance of the 20-Year Plan period. Implementation: The service could begin as early as 1993, if funding is in place. Issues/Comments: The implementation of this project and this ROW as the backbone rail transit corridor is dependent on the successful negotiation and purchase of the Santa Fe ROW south of Fullerton. This project, as well, needs the full cooperation of all three counties (L.A., Orange, and San Diego). References: 1. Los Angeles -San Diego (LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study, 1986-1987, LOSSAN State Rail Corridor Study Group. 2. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor MultirriodaI Alternatives Analysis, Commuter Rail Element,1984, Orange County Transportation Commission. 3. LOSSAN Corridor Status Report and Proposed Commuter Rail Implementation Program, report to OCTC, June 16, 1988. 4. LOSSAN Corridor Rail Status Report, OCTC, September 29, 1988. 28 Orange County Transit TPro ec DescrEptk ms Riverside Commuter Rail Service Description: This proposed project operating on Santa Fe trackage would be a cooperative and jointly funded program with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCI'C). The proposed commuter rail service would begin in downtown Riverside and terminate at the Irvine station (Spectrum). Four trains per day in each direction are proposed. Of the four daily trains, two would be routed directly to Irvine, while the other two serve destinations in Placentia, Fullerton, and Anaheim before rejoining the other route at the Chapman station in Orange. Seven new stations/stops are proposed in Orange County. The initial directional service is proposed to begin during the morning peak period and operate four south - bound trains on 20-minute headways. A similar return set of trips would be operated during the evening peak period. The route going directly to Irvine would be approximately 50 miles and the route through Fullerton and Anaheim would be 56 miles long. Location: The project would use Santa Fe ROW between River- side and Irvine. Technology and Ridership Estimates: The technology to be used for this service would be the same type as the current Amtrak service on the LOSSAN corridor. It is estimated that the proposed service would attract 6,400 riders per day in the peak periods. Costs: The Feasibility Assessment study estimated Orange County's share of the capital costs at $55 million and the operating costs at $25 million (through the end of the 20-Year Plan period). The Riverside County share will be funded through their one-half cent sales tax that passed in November 1988. Implementation: This service will be initiated during the second 10 years of the plan. Issues/Comments: The key issues to be addressed by the two agencies (OCTC and RCTC) are the financial arrangements, priority of expenditures, and the funding splits. References: 1. Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Service, Feasibility Assessment, Interim Report, Oel C and RCTC, July 1988, prepared by Schiermeyer Consulting Service and Sharon Greene & Associates. 2. Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Service, Feasibility Assessment, Final Report, OCTC and RCTC, December 6, 1988, prepared by Schiermeyer Consulting Service and Sharon Greene & Associates. 29 Orange County Transit Project Descriptions High -Technology Advanced Rail Transit Description: This project would further develop the existing rail right-of-way and initiate a high capacity urban rail system in Orange County. This 20-Year Plan element will also provide matching funds to encourage local development of extensions to major activity centers. The primary improvements will be along the LOSSAN rail corridor and designed to provide frequent train service between south and north Orange County with nine stops at San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, Mission Viejo, Irvine, North Irvine, Santa Ana, Ana- heim, Fullerton, and Buena Park. The extension will provide access between the primary rail system and employment centers. Two of the potential candidate projects are the Anaheim People Mover Project and the Irvine Spectrum to John Wayne Airport Fixed Guideway transit line that could ulti- mately extend further west to the South Coast Metro area and beyond. Location: This project would use the Santa FelAmtrak line from San Clemente to Buena Park. Technology and Ridership Estimates: Selection of technology, ridership estimates and system costs need further analysis and studies. Costs: The total capital cost _of the urban rail improvements could exceed $800 million. Rail extension costs will be determined pending selection of technology. It is recommended that $340 million be allocated toward this system. System connectivity, ridership/performance and availability of matching funds will be used as criteria to determine the relative priority of investment in the system. Implementation: Planning work on this project will begin immediately. The goal is to implement the project(s) during the second 10 years of the plan. Reference: Transit Strategy Report, April 1989, Orange County Transportation Commission, prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 30 Orange County ransit Protect Desdlliptiols Senior Citizens/Disabled Persons Reduced Fares Description: This project would stabilize fares for senior citizens and persons with disabilities on all forms of public transit including OCTD bus and dial -a -ride programs, City of Laguna Beach system, the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) and any rail service that is implemented. The OC.1 D fare for seniors on the Local fixed routes is 40 cents in the peak period (weekdays only) and 10 cents in the off-peak; the Handicapped fare is 85 cents in the peak period and 40 cents in the off-peak; and on the demand responsive system the fare is 80 cents at all times. OC11) service accommodates approximately 80 percent of the current users. Location: This would apply to all of Orange County. Technology and Ridership Estimates: Based on today's usage of the public transit system, there are about 10,000 daily transit rides. Costs: it is estimated that a fare stabilization program would cost about $1 million per year, or $20 million over 20 years. Implementation: This could be implemented immediately if an additional funding source is available. References: Short Range Transit Plans and Transportation Improve- ment Programs for fiscal years 1989-1993 and fiscal years 1990-1994 for OC:ID, City of Laguna Beach, and CTSA. Transitway Development Program Description: The transitway development program is a 19.4-mile program for the I-5, SR55 and SR57 corridors from the SR91 to the 1-405 corridor. The program is made up of freeway -to -freeway connectors and other projects which • can be implemented separately. In addition to these projects, Park -and -Ride lots are needed to complete the system. For the transitway program to function as approved, all of the components should be in place to receive maximum benefits, but substantial benefits are attainable with each project. Location: Central county on the SR57, I-5, SR55, and 1-405 freeways. Technology and Ridership Estimates: The transitway lanes would be used by buses and other high occupancy vehicles such as carpools and vanpools. The total expected usage of the transitway segment would be 22,000 daily transit trips and 50,000 carpool- user/daily-person trips. Costs: A portion of this program ($154 million) is funded using existing resources and is incorporated into the I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway) improvements. Forty-six million dollars of federal funds is also assumed for the remainder of the program. An additional $125 million in sales tax revenues is targeted for direct freeway -to -freeway connectors between Routes 57 and 91 and Routes 405 and 55, and Park -and -Ride facilities. Implementation: Projects will be implemented over the 20-year program in conjunction with freeway improvement projects. References: 1. A Transitway Development Program for Orange County, October, 1986, Orange County Transit District. 2. A Transitway Development Program for Orange County, Concept Design Final Report, February, 1989, Orange County Transit District. 3. A Transitway Development Program for Orange County, Concept Design Final Report, Plans and Profiles, May, 1988, Orange County Transit District. 31 Growth Ma rgernen Description: The Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Man- agement.Plan requires each city and the county to adopt a Growth Management Element of its general plan to be eligible to receive new transportation revenue, if new revenue is approved by Orange County voters. Under this plan each local agency is required to: • outline each agency's plans and efforts to develop multijurisdictional traffic solutions through a well-defined, cooperative planning process; specify traffic level of services; • promote alternative forms of transportation and overall system efficiency by maximizing use of the existing transportation network through Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management gDM); • require a traffic mitigation fee to guarantee that new development pays its fair share toward dealing with traffic generated by the new developments • foster a better balance of jobs and housing and reduce commuter trips through careful plan- ning; • encourage local jurisdictions, where applicable, to establish performance standards for fire, police, library, parks, open space, flood control, and other infrastructure based on local criteria; • require phasing of new development to ensure that service level goals are achieved; • . pursue additional revenue to upgrade recre- ational areas and to acquire additional open space. The countywide Revised Traffic improvement and Growth Management Plan emphasizes good planning, improved cooperation between neighboring cities, and requires that development pays its fair share toward dealing with traffic generated by that new development. With this approach, new transportation revenue, in the form of a one-half cent sales tax measure, would be focused on curing existing transportation and traffic deficiencies while a new traffic mitigation fee will help pay a fair share of the cost of infrastructure required by new residential, commercial and industrial growth. Measure M Amendments & Staff Reports September 23, 1991 Amendments to the Measure M Ordinance October 28, 1991 Reallocation of Funds in the Measure M Freeway Program November 25, 1991 Public Hearing on Revision to the Measure M Expenditure Plan for the Freeway Program (Reallocation of Funds) April 11, 1994 Amendments to Measure M Ordinance and Plan May 23, 1994 Public Hearing on the Proposed Amendments to Measure M Ordinance No. 2 (Reallocation of Freeway Program Funding between I-5 and SR-91/SR-55) March 25, 1996 Proposed Amendment to the Measure M Expenditure Plan May 13, 1996 Public Hearing on Amendment to the Measure M Expenditure Plan (Cost Savings Transferred to CURE Accounts) June 9, 1997 Public Hearing for Amendment to Measure M Ordinance (Amendments to Local Streets and Road Component) December 10, 2001 Measure M Amendment Public Hearing to add SR-22 (Amendment to Freeway Program to add SR-22 at $203 Million) September 13, 2004 Public Hearing to Amend Measure M Expenditure Plan to Advance SR-22 an Additional $123.7 Million September 24, 2007 December 14, 2009 January 25, 2010 March 8, 2010 August 22, 2011 Public Hearing to Amend Measure M Expenditure Plan Related to SR-57 and SR-22 Renewed Measure M Early Action Plan Review — Recommendation to remove $22 Million from SR-57 Request for Public Hearing to Amend Measure M Expenditure Plan for the Freeway Program Public Hearing to Amend Measure M Expenditure Plan for the Freeway Program Measure M Closeout Status and Ordinance Amendment — Agencies which qualify as an "Eligible Jurisdiction" under Ordinance No. 3, to be also an "Eligible Jurisdiction" under Ordinance No. 2. September 26, 2011 Measure M Ordinance Amendment Public Hearing Revised 9/29/11 AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ATTACHMENT A-1 LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 1 M2 CTFP MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT City of Newport Beach - Project List Project Description CTFP Amount Programmed Fiscal Year Board Date Letter Agreement No. Newport Boulevard Widening (Engineering) $225,000.00 2011-12 6/27/2011 Cumulative Program Total $225,000.00 Newport Blvd Bio Swale Project Newport Blvd Bio swale Project Part A Litter Removal Part B Litter Removal $78,975.00 $78,975.00 2011-12 2011-12 8/8/2011 8/8/2011 1 Cumulative Program Total Tr $157,950.00 ohm Cumulative Program Total To $0.00 Distributed; Accounting' ardor CA M 1 MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 2 BETWEEN 3 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 4 AND 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6 FOR 7 M2 COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAMS 8 THIS AGREEMENT is effective this {'J day of 0clip it 9 between the Orange County Transportation Authority, 550 South Main Street, P.O. Box 14184, Orange, 10 California 92863-1584, a public corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as 11 "AUTHORITY"), and the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663, 12 a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY"). 13 RECITALS: 14 WHEREAS, Voters approved Renewed Measure M (M2) on November 7, 2006; and 15 WHEREAS, Orange County Local Transportation Authority Ordinance No. 3 outlines the M2 16 Transportation Ordinance and Investment Plan to fund transportation facility and service improvement 17 programs for a period of thirty years commencing on April 1, 2011; and 18 WHEREAS, AUTHORITY and AGENCY agree that M2 funding is subject to AGENCY fulfilling 1g M2 eligibility requirements; and 20 WHEREAS, AUTHORITY's Board of Directors approved the Renewed Measure M Eligibility 21 Guidelines - Local Agency Preparation Manual on January 25, 2010 and subsequent amendments on 22 March 14, 2011 and April 11, 2011; and 23 WHEREAS, AUTHORITY's Board of Directors approved the Comprehensive Transportation 24 Funding Programs (CTFP) Guidelines on March 22, 2010; and 25 WHEREAS, AUTHORITY will periodically update the Renewed Measure M2 Eligibility 26 Guidelines - Local Agency Preparation Manual and the CTFP Guidelines whereby the most recent Page 1 of 10 2011, by and L\Carnni Marvin\Cooperat ve Agreements1CTFP Master Funding AgreemenMgrearnentMc-1 2778 Ciiy of ttewpori aeach.d 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT NO, C-1-2776 update is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY has approved AGENCY's competitive project(s) (hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT(s)") as specified in Attachment A "Projects List" to receive funding under the CTFP; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY has determined that AGENCY's PROJECT(s) has met the requirements of and is eligible under the CTFP Guidelines; and WHEREAS, AGENCY's "Project List" may be amended to include new projects with each competitive call for projects and will be incorporated by Letter Agreement executed by both parties and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the Letter Agreement may include additional requirements for PROJECT(s) funded with sources other than M2 or Local Fair Share Net Revenues sources; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY and AGENCY agree that Local Fair Share Program Net Revenues are distributed on a formula basis to eligible jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, payment terms for this Master Funding Agreement will be in accordance with Chapter 10 of the CTFP Guidelines; and WHEREAS, this Master Funding Agreement defines the speck terms and conditions and funding responsibilities between AUTHORITY and AGENCY for CTFP and Local Fair Share Program Net Revenues; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY's Board of Directors approved this Master Funding Agreement on June 27, 2011; and WHEREAS, the AGENCY'S City Council approved this Agreement on the {� day of 50TCMt3Ery 2011; NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed by AUTHORITY and AGENCY as follows: ARTICLE 1. COMPLETE AGREEMENT A. This Agreement, including any attachments incorporated herein and made applicable by Page 2 of 10 L:\CemmWlarvin\Cooperative Agreements\CTFP Master Funding AgreementMAgreements\C-1.2776 Cily of Newport Beach.docx 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 reference, constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the term(s) and conditions(s) of this agreement between AUTHORITY and AGENCY and it supersedes all prior representations, understandings, and communications. The invalidity in whole or in part of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of other term(s) or conditions(s) of this Agreement. The above referenced Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference herein. B. AUTHORITY'S failure to insist on any instance(s) of AGENCY'S performance of any term(s) or condition(s) of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of AUTHORITY's right to such performance or to future performance of such term(s) or condition(s), and AGENCY's obligation in respect thereto shall continue in full force and effect. Changes to any portion of this Agreement shall not be binding upon AUTHORITY except when specifically confirmed in writing by an authorized representative of AUTHORITY by way of a written amendment to this Agreement and issued in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. C. AGENCY's failure to insist on any instance(s) of AUTHORITY's performance of any term(s) or condition(s) of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of AGENCY'S right to such performance or to future performance of such term(s) or condition(s), and AUTHORITY's obligation in respect thereto shall continue in full force and effect. Changes to any portion of this Agreement shall not be binding upon AGENCY except when specifically confirmed in writing by an authorized representative of AGENCY by way of a written amendment to this Agreement and issued in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE 2. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT This Agreement specifies the roles and responsibilities of both AUTHORITY and AGENCY as they pertain to the subjects and projects addressed herein, Both AUTHORITY and AGENCY agree that each will cooperate and coordinate with the other in all activities covered by this Agreement and any other supplemental agreements, including Letter Agreements, which may be required to facilitate purposes thereof. Page 3 of 10 L:VCammWlarvinVCooperative Agreements\CTFP Mester Funding AgreementlAgreementsVC•1-2776 City of Newnan 6eadt.do 2 6 7 10 14 15 :16 17 21_ 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ARTICLE 3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORITY AUTHORITY agrees to the following responsibilities for funding of PROJECT(s): A. AUTHORITY shall allocate M2 Net Revenues as specified in Ordinance No. 3 and pay AGENCY in accordance with the policies and procedures contained in the CTFP manual and AUTHORITY's Board of Directors approved PROJECT budgets. B. AUTHORITY shall provide guidance and oversight of the M2, state and federal funds in compliance with M2 eligibility guidelines, CTFP Guidelines, state and federal funding requirements and allocation and reporting requirements, C. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of an acceptable initial payment CTFP invoice and within sixty (60) days for an acceptable final payment invoice for eligible expenditures, AUTHORITY shall, in accordance with Chapter 10 of the CTFP Guidelines, remit to AGENCY the required reimbursement for applicable planning, environmental, engineering, right-of-way and construction activities. D. AUTHORITY shall pay Net Revenues allocated for the Local Fair Share Program to eligible AGENCY within sixty (60) days of receipt by AUTHORITY. E, AUTHORITY shall process any required Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) amendments, Subject to state and federal regulations and guidelines prepared by the Southem California Association of Governments. F. At the request of AGENCY, AUTHORITY shall, in accordance with AUTHORITY specification and no cost to the AGENCY excluding installation and removal expenses, provide signage for all construction PROJECT(s) that are in excess of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000) and exceed a ninety (90) day construction schedule. G. AUTHORITY, or agents of AUTHORITY, may upon close-out of each PROJECT(s) under this Agreement, perform an audit and or technical review to ensure that CTFP Guidelines policies and procedures were followed. Such audit shall be performed within one hundred and eighty (180) days of AUTHORITY receiving the final report for each PROJECT(s). If the audit or technical review Page 4 of 10 L1Camm'MarvinlCooperative AgreernenlsCCTFP Master Funding AgreementlAgreementsC -1-2776 City of Newport aeacft.docx 2 7 10 11 12 13 14 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 determines that any of the activities performed are ineligible for CTFP funding, AGENCY must retum the amount of funding used to perform the ineligible activity to AUTHORITY in accordance with Article 4.G. ARTICLE 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AGENCY AGENCY agrees to the following responsibilities for PROJECT(s): A. AGENCY or AGENCY's designee will act as the lead agency for all phases of the PROJECT(s) identified in Attachment A, approved for M2 funding. B. AGENCY agrees that M2 funding is subject to AGENCY meeting all of the requirements outlined in the M2 Eligibility Guidelines and CTFP Guidelines. C. AGENCY agrees to implement and complete PROJECT(s) funded under this Agreement in accordance with the CTFP Guidelines, M2 Eligibility requirements and application submitted to AUTHORITY. D. AGENCY agrees to submit all PROJECT information to the Federal Transportation Improvement Program and OCFundTracker during semi-annual reviews and as requested by the AUTHORITY in accordance with the prescribed deadlines, E. AGENCY agrees to obligate funds in the programmed year in accordance with the CTFP Guidelines and adhere to any additional requirements identified in any and all Letter Agreement(s) amended hereto. F. AGENCY agrees to enter into and required Letter Agreement for PROJECT(s) approved by the Board to define specific funding and reporting requirements. G. AGENCY shall return funds expended on activities, other than those approved by the AUTHORITY's Board of Directors, within thirty (30) day's of AUTHORITY's written demand. Any AGENCY which uses funds for other than transportation purposes shall be deemed ineligible to receive funds for a period of five (5) years. H. AGENCY agrees to dispose of any acquired right-of-way in excess of the required transportation use. Excess right-of-way must be identified at the time of initial payment submittal and Page 5 of 10 L:1CammW1aMn\Cooperative Agreements\CTFP Master Funding AgreemenMgreements\C-1-2776 City of Newport aeach.docx 1 2 ?4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 prior to the disposal process. Resolution of any issues regarding whether or not a right-of-way is excess to the transportation improvement will be by the mutual agreement of AUTHORITY and AGENCY. Excess land acquired with CTFP funds shall be sold by AGENCY in accordance with Government Code Sections 54220-54232 and proceeds from the sale shall be returned immediately to AUTHORITY. AGENCY will comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations, including the Renewed Measure M2 Eligibility Guidelines — Local Agency Preparation Manual and the CTFP Guidelines, which are incorporated herein by reference. J. AGENCY shall install and remove signage for all competitively awarded construction PROJECT(s) that are in excess of $500,000 and exceed a 90 day construction period in accordance with AUTHORITY specifications during construction period. AGENCY may request AUTHORITY furnished signage or it may choose to provide AGENCY furnished signage so long as said signage conforms to AUTHORTY specifications as follows: Si9nage shall include a Measure M2 logo that is a minimum of twelve inches (12") tall, an OCTA logo that is a minimum of three inches (3") tall (image files provided by OCTA upon request), verbiage stating "Street Improvements Funded by Measure M" in Myriad Pro, bold condensed font at two hundred and fifty six (256) pt. and "Your dollars at Work" in Myriad Pro, bold condensed font at one hundred and eighty (180) pt. ARTICLE 5. DELEGATED AUTHORITY The actions required to be taken by AGENCY in the implementation of this Agreement are delegated to its Public Works Director, or his/her designee, and the actions required to be taken by AUTHORITY in the implementation of this Agreement are delegated to AUTHORITY's Chief Executive Officer. ARTICLE 6. AUDIT AND INSPECTION AUTHORITY and AGENCY shall maintain a complete set of records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Upon reasonable notice, AGENCY shall permit the authorized representatives of the AUTHORITY to inspect and audit all work, materials, payroll, books, Page 6 of 10 L:\CammlNlarvin\Cooperative Agreements1CTFP Master Funding AgreemenNAgreements\C-1-2776 City of Newport Beach.docx 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 26 MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT NO, C-1-2776 accounts, and other data and records of AGENCY for a period of four (4) years after final payment, or completion of audit by the AUTHORITY, or after final payment of debt service where local fair share revenues were pledged, whichever is longer. For purposes of audit, the date of completion of this Agreement shall be the date of AUTHORITY's payment of AGENCY'S final billing (so noted on the invoice) under this Agreement. AUTHORITY shall have the right to reproduce any such books, records, and accounts. The above provision with respect to audits shall extend to and/or be included in contracts with AGENCY'S contractor(s). ARTICLE 7. INDEMNIFICATION A. AGENCY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless AUTHORITY, its officers, directors, employees and agents from and against any and all claims (including attomey's fees and reasonable expenses for litigation or settlement) for any loss or damages, bodily injuries, including death, worker's compensation subrogation claims, damage to or loss of use of property alleged to be caused by the negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct by AGENCY, its officers, directors, employees or agents in connection with or arising out of the performance of this Agreement. B. AUTHORITY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless AGENCY, its officers, directors, employees and agents from and against any and all claims (including attomey's fees and reasonable expenses for litigation or settlement) for any loss or damages, bodily injuries, including death, worker's compensation subrogation claims, damage to or loss of use of property alleged to be caused by the negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct by AUTHORITY, its officers, directors, employees or agents in connection with or arising out of the performance of this Agreement. C. The indemnification and defense obligations of this Agreement shall survive its expiration or termination. ARTICLE 8. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS A. Term of Agreement: This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect through final acceptance of PROJECT by AUTHORITY, or until March 31, 2041 whichever is later. This Agreement may be extended at the mutual consent of both parties Page 7 of 10 L:1Camm\MarvinCooperative Agreements\CTFP Master Funding AgreemenMgreements\C-1.2776 City of Newport Beach.docx "2 '3 4 5 6 r7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 B. Termination: This agreement is null and void if PROJECT is not awarded. However, AUTHORITY agrees to reimburse AGENCY for any costs incurred up to the official date of notification to AGENCY that PROJECT will not be awarded. C. AUTHORITY and AGENCY shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statues, ordinances and regulations of any govemmental authority having jurisdiction over the PROJECT(s). D. Legal Authority: AUTHORITY and AGENCY hereto consent that they are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that, by so executing this agreement, the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. E. Severabitity: If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held to be invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, to any extent, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and each term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shalt be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. F. Counterparts of Agreement: This Agreement may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute the same agreement. Facsimile signatures will be permitted. G. Force Majeure: Either Party shall be excused from performing its obligations under this Agreement during the time and to the extent that it is prevented from performing by an unforeseeable cause beyond its control, including but not limited to; any incidence of fire, flood; acts of God; commandeering of material, products, plants or facilities by the federal, state or local government; national fuel shortage; or a material act or omission by the other party; when satisfactory evidence of such cause is presented to the other Party, and provided further that such nonperformance is unforeseeable, beyond the control and is not due to the fault or negligence of the Party not performing. H. Assignment; Neither this Agreement, nor any of the Parties rights, obligations, duties, or authority hereunder may be assigned in whole or in part by either Party without the prior written consent of the other Party in its sole and absolute discretion. Any such attempt of assignment shall be deemed Page 8 of 10 L:1CammtMarvin Cooperative Agreements\CTFP Master Funding AgreemenMgreements\C-1-2776 City of Newport Beach.docx 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 void and of no force and effect. Consent to one assignment shall not be deemed consent to any subsequent assignment, nor the waiver of any right to consent to such subsequent assignment. Obligations To Comply with Law Nothing herein shall be deemed nor construed to authorize or require any Party to issue bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness under the terms, in amounts, or for purposes other than as authorized by local, state or federal law. J. Governing Law: The laws of the State of Califomia and applicable local and federal laws, regulations and guidelines shall govern this Agreement. K. Litigation fees: Should litigation arise out of this Agreement for the performance thereof, the court shall award costs and expenses, including attomey's fees, to the prevailing party, L. Notices: Any notices, requests, or demands made between the parties pursuant to this Agreement are to be directed as follows: To AGENCY: To AUTHORITY: City of Newport Beach Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863-1564 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ATTENTION: Marvin Cruz, Senior Contract Administrator A i I bNTION: Stephen G. Badum, Public Works Director Tel: (949) 644-3311 Email: sbadumCanewportbeach.ca.gov Tel: (714) 560 — 5568 Email: mcruzCc�octa.net Page 9 of 10 L.9CammWlaNin\Cooperative Agreements\CTFP Master Funding AgreemenMgreements1C-1-2776 City or Newport Beach.docx 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P 26 MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 This Agreement shall be made effective upon execution by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement No. C-1-2776 to be executed on the date 3 gist above wr en. CITY OF By: Keitia1Pagawy Michael F. Henn Mayor ORAN e e TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY By: pton xecutive Officer ATTEST: APPROV 3+ AS TO FORM: By: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FO AAttorney Leonie Mulvihill Assistant City Attorney AA-1 � �LRk By: Kennard R. Smart, Jr. General Counsel APPROVAL RE Kia Mort Executive Director, Planning Dated: Dated: /0- `7_/ Page 10 of 10 L;\CammWarvin\Cooperative Agreements\CTFP Master Funding Agreement\Agreements\C-1.2776 City of Newport Beach.docae AGREEMENT NO. C-1-2776 ATTACHMENT A M2 CTFP MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT City of Newport Beach - Project List Project Description CTFP Amount Programmed Fiscal Year Board Date Letter Agreement No. Newport Boulevard Widening (Engineering) $225,000.00 2011-12 6/27/2011