SIERRA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION P.O. Box 98-DOWNIEVILLE, CALIFORNIA9 95936  COMMISSIONERS  PAUL ROEN- CHAIR SHARON. DRYDEN LILA HEUER  SUE MCILRAVY- VICECHAIR JOYI MARKUMd NANCYROGERS PAUL CUETO  TERATLEBLANC-COUNTTALTERMATE BILL. MERTION-CIYOFIOTALTONATERMTE  WEDNESDAY MAY22,2024 10:00. A.M.  SIERRAVILLE SCHOOL 305 SOUTHLINCOLN SIERRAVILLE, CA  MINUTES  1. Call to Order:  This meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. by Chair Roen  Roll Call:  Commissioner Present: Cueto, Mcllravy, Dryden, Rogers, Markum, Roen  Commissioner Absent: Heuer A Quorum was established.  Staff Present: Bryan Davey, Executive Director; Kaylon Hall, Transportation  Planner and Suzanne Smith, Executive Secretary.  Also in attendance: Dawson Stroud, Regional Liaison, Caltrans - District 3; Magdalene DeBerg, Executive Director, Incorporated Senior Citizens of Sierra County; Sandra Loving, President, Golden Rays Senior Citizens, Inc.; Joyce White, Vice President, Golden Rays Seniors Citizens, Inc.; Kathy Williams, Transit Coordinator, Golden Rays Introduction: Mr. Davey introduced Sierra County's Transportation Planner, Kaylon Hall. Miss. Hall greeted the Commission and stated she recently graduated from California State University, Sacramento, she was born and raised in Downieville and  Senior Citizens, Inc.  happy to be here.  2. Pledge of Allegiance: Led by Miss Hall  3. Approval of Agenda current Commissioners.  There was an amendment to the posted agenda correcting the heading of the agenda updating Commission Action: Commissioner Mcllravy moved to approve the agenda as amended;  seconded by Commissioner Cueto; motion carried by consensus.  4. Approval of Minutes    Commission Action: Commissioner Cueto moved to approve the minutes of March 27, 2024; seconded by Commissioner McIlravy; motion carried by consensus.  5. Announcements: No announcements were made.  6. - Public Comment Opportunity: No public comment was given.  7. Transit Issues Status of SB-125  Mr. Davey explained that the SB 125 - Formula-Based Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program and Zero Emission Transit Capital Program funding is approximately $600,000 that has been infused into the transit system for funding over the next few years. It was anticipated to start utilizing this funding in the 24-25 fiscal year oft transit services. Both transit providers were asked to submit expanded budgets considering the SB 125 funding and the SSTAC meeting was held with these funds in mind. Unfortunately with the current state budget crisis, it appears the SB 125 funds are on hold. Mr. Davey explained he has asked for revised budgets from both transit providers to mirror last fiscal year's budget of $75,000. Mr. Davey stated that all the budgets before the Commission today are prepare including the SB 125 funding. Mr. Davey is recommending the Commission approve the original budgets as proposed with a limitation of issuing both transit contracts at $75,000 based on revised budgets from Golden Rays Senior Citizens, Inc. and Incorporated Senior Citizens of Sierra County until the SB 125 funding is received. Mr. Davey further explained that the information received is not directly from CalSTA. He has inquired several times and hasn'tg gotten ai response directly from CalSTA.  10:10a.m. Public Hearing - Unmet Transit Needs  Chair Roen opened the Public Hearing at 10:10 a.m. Mr. Davey reported the SSTAC: met and minutes from the meeting are available ifr requested. There were no comments from the public at the meeting. The two (2) definitions were made which have been the same for many years. Mr.  Davey read; Unmet Needs:  "A lack of available ransportation-related services supported by adequate and reasonable findings which restrict or prevent movement of people within Sierra County as identified ini the Regional Transportation Plan. Due to Sierra County's geographical diversity, the cost oftransit services are much higher than in an urban setting, insufficient funding and constrictive funding parameters are ai need that has been identified as an unmet need. Priority should be given to the persons with disabilities and the elderly (defined as age fifty-five and older) who do not have available transportation or transit, due toj physical or financial reasons, and to levels ofl local services not presently provided or which are not provided at a desirable level." The definition of Reasonable to Meet is as follows: The transit programs as they currently exist fulfill the County's needs that are reasonable to meet for the upcoming fiscal year as    a) Any transportation service that offers equitable access to all persons including the young, economically disadvantaged, elderly and disabled, that when evaluated against such criteria as equity, timing, feasibility, economy, community acceptance and cost effectiveness, that service can generate the required five percent (5%) fare box recovery b) At transportation system, that when implemented, meets ai five percent (5%) fare box return and does not exceed a yearly total operating cost in transit funds of $249,743.70. This amount is the total programmed by Sierra County Transportation Commission for operations oft the transit services within Sierra County, tol be divided between the  match.  geographic areas of Sierra County east and west.  Mr. Davey asked ift there is any discussion on the proposed definitions? Commissioner Mcllravy asked what the 5% fare box looks like in the transit budget? Mr. Davey explained that in the 1970's the Transportation Development Act (TDA) was put inj place setting forth the one quarter percent (44%) sales tax for the Local Transportation Fund (LTF). Within the TDA there are various farebox ratios. Some are 50%; some are. 25% and some are 15%. In addition to those ratio'sis aj provision that the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) which is the Sierra County Transportation Commission (SCTC), can make a finding that a lower farebox ratio can be implemented ifitis necessary. [Public Utilities Code $ 99405(c)]. Mr. Davey continued to explain that the Commission has never adjusted the farebox ratio since the 1970'ss stating that getting a 10% farebox ratio from each provider did not overwhelm the budget to the point where funds were actually expending more than the farebox return. Last year there was an audit exception due to exceeding that 10% farebox ratio. Mr Davey suggested implementing al lower farebox ratio for the Commission to avoid having another audit exception going forward stating that both transit providers have agreed to keep the 10% farebox as 10%1 is ai reasonable farebox match for both Golden Ray's Senior Citizens, Inc. and Incorporated Senior Citizens of Sierra County transit systems. Mr. Davey explained that the ratioi is only applied to the LTF giving an example that ifa transit provider has a budget of $100K then the transit provider's 10%1 farebox match would be $10K. Each provider manages their operations and set their fares in accordance with their operating program. The Commission does not tell the transit providers how to operate their system. Transit providers are obligated toj pay at least a 10% farebox match which can also come from donations or other contributions. The Commission funds 90% of the transit providers operations cost with the combination of the LTF and Grant funding that comes from the FTA. The 5% ratio only applies to the LTF: funding that is expended throughout the fiscal year.  Chair Roen closed the Public Hearing at 10:21 a.m.  Commission Action: Commissioner McIlravy moved to adopt Resolution 2024-07 establishing the definition of those transit needs that are reasonable to meet during FY 2024-25; seconded by Commissioner Cueto; motion carried unanimously by roll call  vote.  Discussion and report on status ofTransit Fund and Transit Services  A fund estimate spreadsheet was distributed showing the ongoing tabulations of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), State Transit Assistance (STA) and State ofGood Repair (SGR).    Mr. Davey reported year to date total funds from the 14% sales tax (LTF) is $74,178.97, STA fund is $28,254.00 and SGR is $4,081.00. Total operations costs are $249,744.00, 5311 Grant fund is $62,400.00. Mr. Davey explained that the 5311 Grant fund will decrease to $48,000 for the current year allocation stating the decrease does impact the overall budgeting however, the $77,731.38 Covid funding is available to absorb the difference. Also, looking to the future ofthe SB 125 providing amble funding to support transit services throughout Sierra County. With that Mr. Davey asked ift there were any questions pertaining to transit funding and transit services. Commissioner Dryden asked a question regarding the purchase oft the new transit vehicle; when is it arriving and which transit provider is receiving it? Mr. Davey answered by confirming that Golden Rays Senior Citizens, Inc. are the recipients of the new transit vehicles due to arrive within the next month stating the new vehicles is waiting for final inspection before delivery. Mr. Davey also stated that the cost is being carried over to the FY 2024-25 budget as the funds will not be expended until after. June 30, 2024. Commissioner Markum asked if the new vehicle is a hybrid vehicle. Mr Davey answered that the new transit vehicle is gasoline. A short discussion ensued regarding Alternative Fuel Vehicles and the California state requirements tol be in compliance with by the year 2030. ISCSC Director, Ms. DeBerg asked Mr. Davey to clarify where the 5311 Grant funds gets allocated? Mr. Davey answered that the 5311 Grant fund is allocated 100% to transit operations. Mr. Davey further explained the transit operation budget is a combination of5311 Grant fund and LTF with Covid funding in addition. There is ai match requirement on 5311 Grant funds, meaning 55.44% is the maximum amount of the overall transit budgets that can be allocated by the 5311 Grant funding. Covid funds are eligible at 100% although, both Covid agreements have a term set for expenditures. The CARES Act term expires June 30, 2025 and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) term expires June 30, 2028. A short discussion ensued pertaining to the utilization oft the 5311 Grant funding and  the Covid funds to best suit the transit needs.  5% Farebox Match  Mr. Davey explained the LTF is a quarter percent (4%) sales tax that is collected for transit services. Whenever) LTF funds are expended in a fiscal years a farebox match of 10% is required which includes operations and administration costs. Due to the audit exception last year because the accounting balance fell under the 10% farebox match it is being proposed that the current 10% match be reduced to 5% in an effort to prevent another audit exception. Golden Rays President Ms. Loving asked the question to please clarify that the reduction is for the Commission only and that the transit providers will still be responsible for paying a 10% farebox within the transit agreements. Mr. Davey answered that is correct and explained that next year the accounting will have at least 5% farebox match to the funds we expend from the LTF, which  includes operations and administration.  Commission Action: Commissioner Dryden moved to adopt Resolution 2024-11 authorizing a 5% Farebox Match collected for the Local transportation Fund; seconded by Commissioner Cueto; motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.  Transit Operation Budget  Mr. Davey explained that the transit budget presented is set up with the consideration of the SB 125 funding and recommended to adopt the budget with an amendment to put in an additional    provision to hold the two transit provider contracts at $150,000 until the SB 125 funding is released, at which time an amendment would be brought to the Commission. A discussion ensued pertaining to the LTF allocation ratios that is based on population between the City of Loyalton and Sierra County and clarifying that the LTF money comes from the state which is 4% oft the sales tax collected in Sierra County and the City ofLoyalton. Chair Roen asked fora a motion to carry the $75,000.00 operating budget for both transit providers who will provide operational budgets reflecting $75,000.00 each. Mr. Davey stated that he would incorporate the transit budgets into the spreadsheet that he prepares to reflect the $150,000.00 allocation and mirror the budget sheet attached to the resolution being approved. Both transit providers have submitted ai revised budget. Chair Roen stated that a special meeting could be called ifthe SB  125 funding comes in before the end ofJune.  Commission Action: Commissioner Dryden moved to adopt Resolution 2024-08 approving Transit Operation Budget for FY2024-25 as amended; seconded by Commissioner Markum; motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.  A five (5) minute recess was called by Chair Roen.  8. - Overall Work Program  Mr. Davey reported on the current Overall Work Program (OWP). The 3rd quarter invoicing is complete. The 3rd quarter report is still being worked on. One ofthe main Work Elements (WE) for this year is the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP will be the main focus for Miss Hall who will work closely with Green Dot Transportation Solutions to get the process ofthe Mr. Davey reported on the FY 2024-25 OWP. The draft OWP has been submitted to Caltrans for comments. Caltrans comments on the submitted OWP were receive and Mr. Davey has prepared ac comment letter of response to Caltrans' comments. Minimal updates to the draft OWP FY 2024-25 were made. The final OWP will be submitted with Mr. Davey's response letter. Mr. Davey mentioned to Caltrans Liaison, Mr. Stroud that WE 9 is still needed from Caltrans, which is the Caltrans activities. Mr. Davey stated the activities from Caltrans are similar every year. Mr. Davey recommended to adopt a caveat to insert WE 9 once received from Caltrans and share the WE 9 with the Commission at the next meeting. In addition to adopting the OWP, the OWPA which is the planning funds of $125,500.00 that is allocated yearly. In addition to the LTF, Grant funding and Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) funding of $28,000.00. Mr. Davey explained that the PPM funding is basically for engineering work that is done on projects. This funding is for project development not project planning which also comes from Caltrans though the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). STIP funding comes from gas tax and is provided for the administration oft transportation projects. Chair Roen asked for a motion toa adopt the OWP FY 2024-25 with the inclusion that the WE 9 will be added once provide by  RTP completed.  Caltrans, to be ratified by the Commission at the next SCTC meeting.  Commission Action: Commissioner Dryden moved to adopt Resolution 2024-12 approving the OWP forl FY 2024-25 as amended and approve agreement SCTC2024-04 for the OWPA as well as Certifications and Assurances; seconded by Commissioner  Markum; motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.    SCTC Administrative Budget Mr. Davey explained that the administrative budget is spelled out ini the OWP. Once adopted by the Commission the budget gets transmitted to the Sierra County Auditor to be included in the County budget as the SCTC is administered through the County. Commission Action: Commissioner Dryden moved to adopt Resolution 2024-09 approving the SCTC Administrative Budget FY 2024-25; seconded by Commissioner McIlravy; motion  carried unanimously by roll call vote. 9. - Regional Transportation Planning Agency  Mr. Davey explained that the Regional Service Transportation Program (RSTP) which goes to the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) is discretionary funding received for projects within Sierra County and the City ofI Loyalton. At this point the Solar Powered Radar Speed Signs are the only items purchased with this funding stating one radar sign is in need of replacement. Mr. Davey asked the Commission to consider allocating aj portion of the RSTP funding towards the Smithneck Road Rehabilitation project for aj portion of the needed matching funds oft the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Mr. Davey reported that the Smithneck Road Rehabilitation project won't be utilizing the funding until the construction phase, which is approximately two (2)years out. A short discussion ensued. Mr. Davey asked that the Commission to authorize the replacement of the malfunctioning radar sign.  Commission Action: Commissioner Markum moved to adopt Resolution 2024-10 approving the agreement 2024-03 for RSTP agreement X24-6150(042); seconded by Commissioner Mcllravy; motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. Chair Roen asked fora a motion to replace the broken speed sign in Downieville.  Commission Action: Commissioner Markum moved to authorize the replacement ofthe malfunctioning Solar Powered Radar Speed Sign in Downieville; seconded by Commissioner  Cueto; motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.  10. CALTRANS Report  Mr. Dawson stated that the Annual Coordination meeting was held virtually last Tuesday, May 14 and there are some action items from that meeting. Traffic Ops and' Traffic Safety will be coming out next Friday, May 31 meeting in Sierra City and the Caltrans Maintenance will be there as well. Caltrans Maintenance are looking into upgrading from normal paint to high visible paint for the crosswalks in the City ofLoyalton. A short discussion ensued. Mr. Davey asked for the location oft the damaged concrete utility boxes in the City ofLoyalton on Hwy 49. Commissioner Mcllravy stated that there were Caltrans crews looking at the boxes. Mr. Davey acknowledged that the efforts from Caltrans are in direct response from the coordination meetings and expressed appreciation for Caltrans' efforts. Commissioner McIlravy asked how far over the highway is the State right away?. A short discussion ensued and Commissioner McIlravy was encouraged to contact Caltrans to discuss further. Commissioner Cueto brought up the condition of the box covert which is not in the Caltrans right of way. A short discussion ensued. Commissioner Dryden asked if anyone knew what the white ties are along the roads  everywhere. Mr. Davey stated that the ties are generally survey work.    11. Project Updates:  Smithneck Road Rehabilitation The environmental stages for the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requirements and the preliminary planning is completed. Moving into the PS&E phase which is Final plans & specifications and the final NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). Commissioner Mcllravy stressed the importance of the bike lane for this project and Mr. Davey commented that it was quite an effort to get this project programmed Nevada Street Bridge Rehabilitation Received one proposal for engincering services to do bridge Packer Lake Road Bridge Replacement over Salmon Creek Contractor to begin cleaning things Plumbago Road over Kanaka Creek Bridge Replacement The CEQA Notice of] Decision was adopted by the Sierra County Board of Supervisor May 16, 2024 to be recorded at the Clerk- Recorder's office today or tomorrow. Next is the 1600 permit and then solicit for bids.  stating Commissioner Dryden really "carried it".  replacement or upgrade.  up and getting restarted in the next week to finish the project.  12. Other Transportation Issues: No other Transportation Issues. 13. Schedule Next Meeting  The next meeting is scheduled for. July 17, 2024 at the Sierraville School.  14. Adjournment  Chair Roen adjourned the meeting at 11:39 a.m.  MclIravy, dus Sierra County Transportation  ly  ATTEST: Smth Suzanne Smith,  Executive Secretary to the Commission