Loading...
01 January 9, 2006 Technical advisory committee• • TIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITT, MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. January 9, 2006 Records 75236 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA Conference Room A, 3' Floor *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS RTA Ahmad Ansari, City of Perris Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Bill Brunet, City of Blythe Duane Burk, City of Banning City of Calimesa Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula George Johnson, County of Riverside Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Jim Kinley, City of Murrieta Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Wendy Li, Ca[trans District 8 Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit Amir Modarressi, City of Indio Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, (Perris) and San Jacinto Les Nelson, PVVTA Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Dan Patneaude, City of Desert Hot Springs Juan Perez, County of Riverside Amad Qattan, City of Corona Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Bill Thompson, City of Norco Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells John Wilder, City of Beaumont Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning 11.36.2 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: January 9, 2006 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA Conference Room A, 3`d Floor In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTION 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 21, 2005 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 6. RCTC ORGANIZATION RESTRUCTURE 7. 2006 STIP (Attachment) 8. PROJECT DELIVERY 9. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE (Attachment) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 9, 2006 Page 2 10. RTIP/FTIP UPDATE (Verbal Presentation) 11. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE (Verbal Presentation) - ORGANIZATION CHANGES - DEOBLIGATIONS 12. 2005/06 OBLIGATION PLAN (Attachment) 13. DECEMBER 14, 2005 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS 14. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 15. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be February 6, 2006, 10:00 A.M. in Banning.) TACAVN IN JANUAffif 9, 2006 • INITIAL CITY TAC MEMBER TELEPHONE I FAX E-MAIL ALTERNATE ALTERNATE E-MAIL BANNING 99 E. Ramsey St., Banning 92220-0998 DUANE BURK Director of Public Works 951.922-3130 951-922-3141 dburk@ci.banning.ca.us Kahono Oei citybanning@hotmail.com 7550 ,5b----- BEAUMONT E. 6th St., Beaumont 92223 JOHN WILDER Assistant Director of Public Works 951-769-8520 951-769-8526 (1lcjOhnl@aol.com W� BLYTHE 440 S. Main St., Blythe 92225 BILL BRUNET City Engineer Department of Public Works 760-922-6612 760-922-0278 bbrunet@cityofblythe.ca.gov Chad Aaby caaby@cityofblythe.ca.gov CVAG 73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Suite 200, Palm Desert 92260 ALLYN WAGGLE 760-346-1127 760-340-5949 awaggle@cvag.org Carol Clapper cclapper@cvag.org CALIMESA P. O. Box 1190, Calimesa 92320 ell,/ rgCrilA) CZ - NNE itl 0E2 909-795-9801 909-795-4399 Q5chne�c(ec � ei-w � l rs I Da) i D Lan Q- , CNt dlahe@ e y.V . . CALTRANS 464 W. 4th St., 6th FI., San Bernardino 92401-1400 _ WENDY LI 909-383-4147 909-383-4129 — wendy_w_li@dot.ca.gov Bill Mosby william_a_mosby@doLca.gov v. CANYON LAKE 31516 Railroad Canyon Rd., Canyon Lake 92587 HABIB MOTLAGH Contract City Engineer 951-943-6504 951-943-8416 trilake@adelphia.net v lor CATHEDRAL CITY 68 700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero, Cathedral City 92234 BILL BAYNE 760-770-0360 760-202-1460 bbayne@cathedralcity.gov Leslie Grosjean Irosjean@cathedralcity.gov ' OP r V / COACHELLA 1515 West Sixth Street, Coachella 92236 ELDON LEE Director of Public Works/City Engineer Department of Public Works 760-398-5744 760-398-1630 elee@coachella.org Tony Lucero Senior Civil Engineer Department of Public Works tlucero@coachella.org ji9815 i' CORONA W. 6th St. P. O. Box 940 Corona, 92882-3238 AMAD QATTAN Public Works Director Public Works Department 951-736-2236 951-736-2496 amadq@ci.corona.ca.us Ned Ibrahim Assistant Public Works Director ned.ibrahim@ci.corona.ca.us ,!gir \ DESERT HOT SPRINGS - 65-950 Pierson Blvd., Desert Hot Springs 92240 DAN PATNEAUDE Assistant City Engineer Engineering Department 760-329-6411 x243 egg - GIPS 1 760- 857 dpatneaude@ci.desert-hot-springs.ca.us Ryan Duarte Associate Engineer 1 /4/2006 TAC GN IN JANUA 9, 2006 CITY TAC MEMBER TELEPHONE FAX E-MAIL ALTERNATE ALTERNATE E-MAIL HEMET 3777 Industrial Ave., Hemet 92545 MIKE GOW 951-765-3712 951-765-2493 mgow@cityofhemet.org Linda Nixon Ij t 11 INDIAN WELLS 44-950 Eldorado Dr., Indian Wells 92210-7497 TIM WASSIL Public Works Director/City Engineer Public Works Department 760-776-0237 760-346-0407 twassil@cityofindianwells.org Bondie Baker Assistant Engineer II bbaker@cityofindianwells.org INDIO 100 Civic Center Mall, Indio 92202 AMIR MODARRESSI 760-342-6530 760-342-6556 amir@indio.org Jim Smith jsmith@indio.org LA QUINTA P.O.Box 1504, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253 TIMOTHY JONASSON Public Works Director/City Engineer 760-777-7042 760-777-7155 tjonasson@la-quinta.org Steve Speer Assistant City Engineer sspeer@la-quinta.org l LAKE ELSINORE 130 South Main St., Lake Elsinore 92530 KEN SEUMALO City Engineer Community Development Department 951-674-3124 x244 951-674-2392 kseumalo@lake-elsinore.org Ed Basubas Senior Civil Engineer ebasubas@lake-elsinore.org / , J 6.17Moreno MORENO VALLEY P.O.Box 66005, Valley 92552-0805 CRAIG NEUSTAEDTER Transportation Manager/ City Traffic Engineer 951-413-3140 951-413-3158 craign@moval.org MURRIETA 26442 Beckman Court, Murrieta 92562 JIM KINLEY Director of Public Works/City Engineer 951.461-6077 951-6984509 jkinley@murrieta.org Russ Napier Capital Improvement Program Manager mapier@murrieta.org NORCO 2870 Clark Ave., P.O.Box 428, Norco 92860-0428 BILL THOMPSON Director of Public Works 951-270-5607 951-270-5622 bthompson@ci.norco.ca.us Lori Askew Associate Engineer Laskew@ci.norco.ca.us �J PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Dr., Palm Desert 92260- 2578 MARK GREENWOOD City Engineer 760-776-6450 760-341-7098 mgreenwood@ci.palm-desert.ca.us Ryan Gayler/Phil Joy _96._ PALM SPRINGS 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs 92262 DAVE BARAKIAN Director of Public Works/ City Engineer A 9732_ 760-323-8253 760-322-8325 DaveB@ci.palm-springs.ca.us Marcus Fuller PVVTA 125 West Murphy St., Blythe 92225 LES NELSON 760-922-6161 760-922-4938 Inelson@cityofblythe.ca.gov 1 /4/2006 • TAC�N IN JANUA 9, 2006 CITY TAC MEMBER TELEPHONE FAX E-MAIL ALTERNATE ALTERNATE E-MAIL PERRIS 101 North "D" St., Perris 92570 AHMAD ANSARI Public Works Director 951-943-6100x237 951-943-8591 aansari@cityofperris.org Habib Motlagh Contract City Engineer trilake@adelphia.net %��,(' 1 / "-C/ RTA 1825 Third St., Riverside 92517 1968 r, . Q 951-565�S .tal 951-56 5I`s MMCCo � tnYel's �- sff.con Mike McCoy Senior. Planner SenioPlanningDepartment p p9a1IcueteS afReeap@riversidetransit.com �j `�'' yL / RANCHO MIRAGE 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage 92270 BRUCE HARRY Director of Public Works 760-770-3224 760-770-3261 bruceh@ci.rancho-mirage.ca.us - Randy Viegas .i Project Managers! randyv@ci.rancho-mirage.ca.us 1 j RIVERSIDE 3900 Main St., Riverside 92522 TOM BOYD Deputy Public Works Director/ City Engineer 951-826-5575 951-826-5542 TBoyd@riversideca.gov Siobhan Foster sfoster@riversideca.gov RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4080 Lemon St., Riverside 92501 GEORGEJOHNSON Director of Transportation Transportation and Land Management Agency 951-955-6740 951-955-3198 GJohnson@rctlma.org Juan Perez Deputy Director of Transportation jcperez@co.riverside.ca.us 4.....3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4080 Lemon St., Riverside 92501 JUAN PEREZ Deputy Director of Transportation Transportation and Land Management Agency 951-955-6740 951-955-3198 jcperez@co.riverside.ca.us George Johnson Director of Transportation GJohnson@rctlma.org SAN JACINTO 201 E. Main St., San Jacinto 92583 HABIB MOTLAGH Contract City Engineer 951-943-6504 951-943-8416 trilake@adelphia.net SUN LINE 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms 92276 EUNICE LOVI Director of Planning 760-343-3456 X119 760-343-3845 elovi@sunline.org 1 4 ,� ///"` TEMECULA 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula 92590 BILL HUGHES Director of Public Works/City Engineer Public Works Department 951-694-6411 951-694-6475 bill.hughes@cityoftemecula.org Ron Parks Deputy Public Works Director WRCOG 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside 92501 RUTHANNE TAYLOR-BERGER 951-955-8304 951-787-7991 berger@wrcog.cog.ca.us Catat44 AktAitti (q'oc0 3 3-6 26 2 T lare;(' ha dex tna_5 4" doh cs+_joy a/rQ4tk17' e ! lot4` 13;i1 1-165eti 1 /4/2006 • MINUTES • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 21, 2005 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 A.M., at Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Augustus Ajawara, RTA Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Duane Burk, City of Banning Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula Ned Ibrahim, City of Corona Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Jim Kinley, City of Murrieta Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Wendy Li, Caltrans District 8 Tony Lucero, City of Coachella Amir Modarressi, City of Indio Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, (Perris) and San Jacinto Kahono Oei, City of Banning Juan Perez, County of Riverside Randy Viegas, City of Rancho Mirage Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells John Wilder, City of Beaumont Others Present: Shirley Gooding, RCTC Eric Haley, RCTC Ken Lobeck, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Georgiena Vivian, VRPA Technologies Stephanie Wiggins, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 21, 2005 Page 2 3. Approval of Minutes No objections. 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. RCTC APPROVAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT FUNDS Shirley Medina, RCTC, stated that for the projects that were recommended for funding, applications need to be converted to the state version. These projects will go into the STIP. The applications were due last Friday and the agencies that have not submitted theirs should do so just as soon as possible so that they may be sent to headquarters for their approval. 6. 2005 CMP UPDATE Ms. Medina introduced Georgiena Vivian, VRPA Technologies, who provided a brief overview of the Congestion Management Program. She outlined the purpose of the program, briefly reviewed each of the ten chapters, system monitoring, ongoing efforts, and responded to various questions. M/S/C (Motlagh/Perez) to continue this agenda item to the next TAC meeting. 7. 2006 STIP Shirley Medina stated that a draft STIP proposal will be taken to the December Commission meeting. It will not be recommended for final approval until January. She stated that the state highway account remains unreliable and one of the most reliable fund sources for the 2006 STIP is the public transportation account. She further stated that the reliance on Proposition 42 is included in the fund estimate and the fund estimate also. includes the tribal gaming bonds proceeds, which are not a reality at this point. Under the Target Scenario, there is $167 Million of new capacity and the only way there is a possibility of achieving that is if there are PTA eligible projects. The Commission's priority for new funding under the STIP Intra- county formula for Western County is the 91 HOV. It is hoped that STIP • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 21, 2005 Page 3 funds will be approved by the CTC for this project even though it may not be eligible for PTA funds. Under the Minimum Scenario, there is $45 Million. She provided Draft 2006 STIP Proposed Programming — Target Scenario and Draft 2006 STIP Proposed Programming — Minimum Scenario and indicated that the draft represents those projects that are currently being proposed. Dropping some of the projects from the STIP and replacing them with other federal funds is being reviewed since the projects are on the local arterials and local arterials continue to be ranked low for allocations by the CTC. The DiIlion Road Grade Separation project would be eligible for CMAQ funds and the other projects would be eligible for RSTP funds. Eric Haley, RCTC, explained that in the past an artificial STIP was created for legislative repayment commitments. Initiatives through the associated general contractors will be pushed to tie up all highway funding to guarantee that it cannot be used except for a disaster and it must be repaid in a fixed time. The amounts in the target scenario are possible. 8. SAFETEA LU EARMARKS GUIDANCE Ken Lobeck, RCTC, provided a SAFETEA LU High Priority Project (HPP) Roadway Earmarks 5-Year Split at 85% OA with 04/05 Carried Over into FY 05/06 and indicated that the earmarks relate to roadway projects. Earmarks will require a 20% match and may not be used for environmental mitigation. He indicated that there is not a "use it or lose it" issue but once an obligation has been made, the project is under the new reimbursement rule which requires intervals, at a minimum, to keep project "active." All earmarks took a 15% reduction. Mr. Haley stated that as an approach to another part of the SAFETEA LU projects, there were several categories of demo projects and some of them of national significance had different rules and different matching requirements and were fully funded as opposed to 85% funded. Key among those is the rail projects dealing with goods movement and the multi - jurisdictional projects. He further stated that Ca!trans and the CTC distributed a proposal to pool their revenues. High on the list was the Alameda Corridor East Four County allocation of $125 Million. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 21, 2005 Page 4 Wendy Li, Ca!trans, said that if a demo project is ready next year the project can be programmed using the AC option which means that 'up -front local funds may be used, giving credit to the project over the next two years. There is still discussion on how programming will be handled. SAFETEA LU — DEMONSTRATION FUNDING CALL FOR GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS Stephanie Wiggins, RCTC, said that the purpose of the Call for Projects is to demonstrate project readiness and to reward the grade separation projects that are ready. The proposal for the Call for Projects is that the eligible list of rail crossing grade separation submittal would be in Tier I and Tier II with an exception relating to the issue of switching. The switching data analysis will be factored into the congestion delay and the overall scoring. 50% of the evaluation criteria will be based upon project readiness. 25% will be based upon availability of local funds and 25% will be a benefit cost ratio that will be performed by consultants on the crossings that are submitted. She further stated that separate and apart from the Call for Projects, RCTC is taking the full priority list recently approved and will perform a cost benefit assessment that will be presented to the TAC and the Commission by April. In addition, the jurisdictions will be offered an opportunity to request an additional ten year loan of up to $7.5 Million from the Commission's Commercial Paper Program. For geographic equity, it is proposed that submissions be limited to two per jurisdiction. It is anticipated that the Call for Projects be released on December 19, 2005, assuming that the switching analysis is complete to ensure a clear list of all of the crossings that will be eligible for submission; then to the March 27 Plans and Programs Committee and to the Commission for approval on Apri112. M/S/C (Perez/Boyd) to add this item to the agenda. Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells, suggested the formation of a subcommittee to review the grade separation evaluation criteria and then make a recommendation to the TAC: Mr. Haley suggested that the five jurisdictions meet as quickly as possible so that the issue may go forward to the November 28 Plans and Programs Committee. Indio/Coachella Eldon Lee Corona Ned Ibrahim' Banning Kahono Oei City of Riverside Tom Boyd County of Riverside Juan Perez • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 21, 2005 Page 5 9. DE -OBLIGATIONS OF INACTIVE PROJECTS Wendy. Li provided a document for each agency to review. She said that the de -obligation rules have been defined. She explained that inactive projects are defined as those that have been obligated and has not shown any billing activity in the last 12 months. She said that currently there are more than $700 Million of inactive projects statewide. FHWA will focus on these projects and ask the agencies if they still need the funding. She said that Caltrans will also call each agency to discuss their individual projects. 10. 2006 RTIP AND 2007 RTP UPDATES Ken Lobeck said that regarding the 2004 TIP, Amendment 9 has been approved on November 8 by FHWA. Regarding the 2006 TIP, development is underway and he has begun programming the projects in the database. He will return the data to the agencies for their review and submit them to SCAG by the end of December or early January. With SAFETEA LU being authorized, programming is under review. About the RTP, project lists should be submitted to SCAG in January. 11. CETAP UPDATE Shirley Medina provided a map for the MIS connecting Riverside and Orange Counties which identified the recommended locally preferred strategy that was recently approved by the 91 Advisory Committee. Mr. Haley gave a brief overview of Friday's 91 Advisory Committee meeting highlighting the major milestone of selecting the locally preferred strategy. 12. NOVEMBER 9, 2005 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Medina indicated that the RFP for a Project Management Database is on RCTC's website. Mr. Haley said that the contract extension with Jacobs was approved. He further indicated approval of a rail expansion plan. The Commission also approved continuing study and commitment to create an entirely new route to Temecula/Murrieta from the Perris Valley Line to San Jacinto further south around 1-215. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 21, 2005 Page 6 13. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS Shirley Medina reminded the TAC that she sent an e-mail out regarding the FY 2005/06 obligation plan. They were based' on the July milestone reports and the obligation plan identifies what will be obligated per quarter. She asked the agencies to let her know as quickly as possible if they are in agreement. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 A.M. It was agreed that the TAC will be dark in December 2005 unless otherwise notified. The next meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2006, 10:00 A.M., Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside County Regional Complex, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, Conference Room A, 3rd Floor. Respectfully submitted, /YlcaL,;_A, Shirley Medi Program Manager • AGENDA ITEM 6 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 6. • • • AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2006 State Transportation Improvement Recommendations for Programming Program PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as proposed in Attachment B including the following recommendations: 1) Carryover 2004 STIP state highway projects into the 2006 STIP; 2) Delete $16.882 million of local arterial projects from the 2004 STIP and reprogram with federal funds, and reprogram the $16.882 million of STIP funds on the SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project; 3) Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 HOV lane project by programming $91.3 million of 2006 STIP Western County Formula funds; 4) Support Caltrans in reprogramming $8 million of STIP/IIP funding from the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) land acquisition project and $23.483 million of STIP/IIP funding from the AB 3090 agreements on the SR 60 HOV lane and SR 91 /Green River interchange improvement projects to the 60/215 East Junction Connector project; 5) Program $1.849 million of CMAQ funds on the 60/215 East Junction Connector project to complete funding on this project; 6) Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 HOV lane project by reprogramming $7.349 million of STIP funds from the AB 3090 agreements on the SR 60 HOV lane and SR 91 /Green River interchange improvement projects; 7) Program 2006 STIP Eastern County Formula funds as proposed by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments to cover cost increases on the I-10 Interchanges at Bob Hope/Ramon Road, Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive, and Date Palm Drive; 8► Enter into an agreement with Palo Verde Valley on trading 2006 STIP Palo Verde Valley Formula funds in the amount of $1.315 with Commercial Paper and programming the STIP funds on the 91 HOV lane project; 9) Program $30 million of STIP funds on the Perris Valley Line project in exchange for local funds on the SR 91 HOV project; 10) Reprogram $3.465 million of STIP funds from the City of Riverside's local arterial widening project on Van Buren Boulevard to the SR 91 /Van Buren Boulevard interchange project as proposed by the City of Riverside; and 1 1) Work with Caltrans in programming an additional $4 million of STIP/IIP funds to cover the cost increase on the North Main Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure project currently programmed in the STIP with Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 2006 STIP fund Estimate (FE) was adopted at the September 29, 2005 California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting. The 2006 FE provides five- year estimates (fiscal years 2006/07 through 2010/1 1) for the State Highway Account (SHA), the Public Transportation Account (PTA), the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF), and the Transportation Deferred Investment Fund (TDIF) (repayment of prior year TIF transfers). The SHA is primarily used for the state mandated Safety Highway Operation Protection Program (SHOPP). The suspension of the TIF and TDIF to address the state budget shortfall over the past few years leaves the PTA as the most reliable fund source for the 2006 STIP. As a result, PTA eligible projects are encouraged to be included in county STIP submittals. The 2006 STIP FE includes three funding scenarios (Target, Minimum, and Maximum) that assume Proposition 42 funding and receipt of Tribal Gaming Bond proceeds. Given that there is no certainty that Proposition 42 funding will made available and that receipt of Tribal Gaming Bond proceeds are dependent upon the outcome of ongoing litigation, it is very possible that the programming scenarios may not materialize. However, there is a strong statewide momentum among transportation agencies and the legislature to support the continuance and protection of Proposition 42 funds that could prove to be a positive impact on the 2006 STIP. Further, the SB 1024 "Infrastructure Mega Bond" proposal would also shed light on the STIP if approved by the voters by providing another fund source for projects currently seeking STIP funding. Although the funding picture is unclear at this point, we are required to prepare and submit a STIP by January 30, 2006 in accordance with the adopted FE. The three funding scenarios presented in the Fund Estimate are as follows: • Target Scenario — $167 M new programming capacity. This scenario assumes programming of county shares through 2010/2011 and includes unprogrammed reserves. • i • • • Minimum Scenario — $45.5 M new programming capacity. This scenario assumes programming of county shares through 2007/08. Maximum Scenario $197.3 M new programming capacity. This scenario assumes county shares through 201 1-2012. CTC staff has recommended that the regional agencies focus on the Target Scenario for their respective STIP submittals. Attachment A reflects the Commission's adopted STIP Intra-county Formula for the Target Scenario, and the Minimum Scenario is provided for comparative purposes. Attachment B represents the project programming recommendations that will be submitted to the CTC. The Target Scenario programming includes carryover projects from the 2004 STIP, deletion of projects from the 2004 STIP, and five new projects. It should be noted that the STIP Guidelines state that new projects added to the STIP will be programmed in the last two years (fiscal years 2009/10 and 2010/2011). However, the CTC may give consideration for programming new projects to counties that have unprogrammed share balances, which includes Riverside County. The CTC has the authority to reject our STIP submittal or reprogram our projects according to the availability of funding statewide. Therefore, there is no guarantee that any of our projects will be programmed as submitted. I Target Scenario CTC staff has encouraged STIP submittals to include projects that qualify for PTA funds, which are transit and rail type projects. On the other hand, CTC staff encourages regions to submit their highest priority projects for inclusion in the STIP. This places us in a peculiar situation in that our priority project for STIP funding (Western County Formula funds) is the SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project, which is not eligible for PTA funds. However, since Riverside County has such a large unprogrammed county share balance ($98.7 million) it is possible that the CTC would consider approving a STIP submittal that funds more state highway projects then transit/rail projects. Target Scenario Recommendations (refer to Attachment B): #1 Carryover 2004 STIP state highway projects into the 2006 STIP Maintain the current state highway projects in the proposed fiscal years. #2 Delete local arterial projects from the 2004 STIP and reprogram with federal funds. Given that local arterial projects are a low priority when the state has limited funding, staff is recommending trading STIP funds with other federal funds (CMAQ or RSTP) to keep projects on schedule. Local agencies will be required to provide a local match (11.47%). #3 Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle lane project by programming $91.3 million of STIP Western County Formula funds for the right-of-way and construction phases on the 91 HOV project. In 1998, the Commission committed Western :County STIP Formula funds from 2000 through 2008 STIP cycles to fully fund the SR 91 HOV project. #4 Support Caltrans in reprogramming $8 million of IIP funding from the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) land acquisition project and $23.483 million from the AB 3090 agreements on SR 60 HOV and SR 91 /Green River interchange projects to the 60/215 East Junction Connector project. Measure "A' funds will be used instead of the IIP funds to acquire the required acreage for the MSHCP, which will allow the land purchase to occur earlier than when Caltrans proposed in the STIP. The 60/215 East Junction project is eligible for IIP funds and Caltrans will be reprogramming the STIP/IIP funds from the AB 3090 agreements to the 60/215 East Junction Connector project that will be fully funded (refer to recommendation #5). #5 Approve the programming of $1.849 million of CMAQ funds on the 60/215 East Junction Connector project to complete funding on this project. The total project cost for the 60/215 East Junction is $33.332 million. The CMAQ funds in addition to the IIP funds (refer to item #4 and Attachment C) will complete the funding needs for this project. #6 Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 HOV lane project by programming $7..349 million of STIP funds from the AB 3090 agreements on SR 60 and the SR 91 /Green River Interchange projects to the SR 91 HOV project. In March and May 2005, the Commission approved the reprogramming of $7.349 million of STIP funds available" from the AB 3090 agreements on the SR 60 HOV and SR 91/Green River interchange projects to the 60/215 East Junction connectors project. Subsequently, Caltrans and RCTC agreed to reprogram '$8million of IIP funds from the MSHCP to the 60/215 East Junction since the 60/215 East Junction is eligible for llP funding : (refer to recommendation #4). • • • • • #7 Program 2006 STIP Eastern County Formula funds to cover cost increases on the 1-10 Interchanges at Bob Hope/Ramon Road, Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive, and Date Palm Drive. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has proposed the programming of Eastern County STIP formula funds on the above projects. #8 Enter into an agreement with Palo Verde Valley on trading 2006 STIP Palo Verde Valley Formula funds with Commercial Paper. Trading Palo Verde Valley 2006 STIP Formula funds for Commercial Paper will allow Palo Verde Valley the ability to continue delivering projects on the local arterial system, which is their highest priority and need. #9 Program $30 million of STIP funds on the Perris Valley Line project in exchange for local funds on the 91 HOV lane project. The Perris Valley Line qualifies for PTA funds and programming STIP funds will provide State participation on the project, which would be looked upon favorably by federal agencies. Moving local funds from the Perris Valley Line to the 91 HOV project will maintain the Commission's funding commitment. #10 Reprogram $3.465 million of STIP funds from the City of Riverside's local arterial project on Van Buren Boulevard to the SR/91 Van Buren Boulevard Interchange project as proposed by the City of Riverside. The City of Riverside proposed the reprogramming of the Van Buren Boulevard Widening project (from Jackson to the Santa Ana River) to the SR 91/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project. The city will fund the widening project with local funds. #1 1 Work with Ca!trans in programming an additional $4 million of IIP funds to cover the cost increase on the North Main Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure project currently programmed in the STIP with Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds. The North Main Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure has experienced a significant cost increase above $15 million. The initial cost estimate of $11 million is programmed in the STIP with IIP funds. The remainder of the cost increase is proposed to be funded with Section 5307 funds. In addition to meeting previous commitments to complete funding on the 91 HOV lane (from Adams to the 60/91 /215 interchange) and the 60/215 East Junction Connector projects (refer to Attachment C), the Target Scenario proposes the deletions of local arterial projects currently programmed in the 2004 STIP. Over the past three years, when STIP allocations are limited due to lack of sufficient funds, allocation plans are developed. These allocation plans rank categories of projects in priority order. Local arterial projects tend to be ranked very close to the bottom, and therefore, these projects stand a good chance of being delayed if they stay in the STIP and the State continues to have funding problems. Staff is proposing to replace the STIP funds with other federal funds (e.g. Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)) as noted in Attachment B. Should the Commission approve this action staff will follow up with changing the fund sources in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). Lastly, the STIP funds freed up from the deleted local arterial projects ($16.882 million) would be reprogrammed on the 91 HOV lane project. Palo Verde Valley Formula funds historically have been programmed on local arterials. It is proposed to delete one of the current STIP projects on Lovekin Boulevard and reprogram the RIP funds on the other current STIP project on US 95/Intake Boulevard. Staff is recommending trading Palo Verde Valley Formula funds in the amount of $1 .315 million with commercial paper since the needs of Palo Verde Valley are on the local arterials. A formal agreement will be developed and presented to the Commission in the near future. Given that PTA funds seem to be the most reliable fund source in the 2006 STIP, staff reviewed existing transit/rail needs for consideration of STIP funds. Therefore, it is recommended that we trade local funds on the Perris Valley Line project with STIP funding so that the local funds can be used on the SR 91 HOV project. This would also help meet the STIP programming needs of including PTA eligible projects. Lastly, having STIP funding on the Perris Valley Line will provide State participation, which should help secure future federal funds. The Target Scenario also includes working with Caltrans in programming an additional $4 million of IIP funds for the North Main Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure. Caltrans programmed $11 million in the 2004 STIP as this amount was the initial cost estimate. The parking structure is part of a bi-county list of improvement projects proposed by Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 to alleviate congestion on SR 91. The parking structure will address the current overflow at a nearby park-n-ride lot by allowing an additional 500 designated parking spaces (total planned parking structure spaces is 2,500). It is proposed to cap the Caltrans IIP funding contribution at a total of $15 million with the remaining balance proposed for Section 5307 funds. Construction of the parking structure is scheduled in fiscal year 2009/10. • • • Minimum Scenario The Minimum Scenario identifies $45.5 million of new programming capacity. If the Minimum Scenario is selected by the CTC, staff will bring back to the Commission a revised 2006 STIP proposal for review and approval AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements The AB 3090 Cash Reimbursement approved for the 60/91 /215 Interchange and corridor improvement projects in the amount of $31,324,000 ($26,625,000 are RIP funds, and $4,699,000 are IIP funds) will be paid back in fiscal year 2006/07. 1 These funds will be programmed on the SR 91 HOV project. The AB 3090 Cash i Reimbursement for fiscal year 2003/04 Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds in the amount of $166,000 will be received in fiscal year 2007/08 and will be reprogrammed to support future PPM activities. The deadline for 2006 STIP submittals from the regional agencies and Caltrans is January 30, 2006. Staff will report to the Commission on any state or federal issues that may impact our proposed 2006 STIP submittal. Attachments: I Attachment A: 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity Attachment B: 2006 STIP Proposed Programming — Target Scenario Attachment C: Funding of SR 91 HOV lane and 60/215 East Junction Connector projects • 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity Target Scenario (County Share period ending 2010-2011) New capacity available for 2006 STIP programming 2004 STIP Unprogrammed County Share Balance 2% Planning, Programming & Monitoring Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ Coachella Valley 24.76% $ Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ Total PPM Available $ STIP Funds Available for New Program Capacity Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ Coachella Valley 24.76% $ Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ Total New Programming Capacity $ 2,488,030 827,449 26,401 3,341,880 121,913,453 40,545,025 1,293,642 163,752,120 `2004 STIP Adjustment $ (612,743) $ 591,875 $ 20,868 $ 68,375,000 $ 98,719,000 $ 167,094,000 $ 3,341,880 $ 163,752,120 $ 121,300,710 $ 41,136,900 $ 1,314,510 $ 163,752,120 ATTAC `Programming for Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley funds was not determined at the time of the 2004 STIP submittal. Therefore, the $612,743 of Formula funding was programmed in the Western County (SR 91 HOV) to protect funds from being reprogrammed outside of Riverside County. • 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity Minimum Scenario (County Share period ending 2007/08) New capacity available for 2006 STIP programming $ 45,542,000 2% Planning, Programming, & Monitoring $ 910,840 Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ 678,120 Coachella Valley 24.76% $ 225,524 Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ 7,196 Total PPM Available $ 910,840 Unprogrammed Share for Project Programming: Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ Coachella Valley 24.76% $ Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ Total New Programming Capacity $ $ 44,631,160 *2004 STIP Adjustment 33,227,899 $ (612,743) $ 32,615,156 11,050,675 $ 591,875 $ 11,642,550 352,586 $ 20,868 $ 373,454 44,631,160 $ 44,631,160 ATTACF110\1T A *Programming for Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley funds was not determined at the time of the 2004 STIP submittal. Therefore, the $612,743 of Formula funding was programmed in the Western County (SR 91 HOV) to protect funds from being reprogrammed outside of Riverside County. • 2006 STIP Proposed Programming - Target Scenario Current Proiects $ (000's Att ent B Agency Rte Project Total RIP FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Phase RCTC PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 1,105 $ 105 $ 500 $ 500 Con Caltrans 10 Ramon Rd/Bob Hope Interchange $ 19,022 $ 19,022 Con Caltrans 10 Jefferson Street Interchange $ 10,560 $ 10,560 Con Caltrans 10 Indian Ave Interchange $ 15,112 $ 2,000 $ 13,112 R/W, Con Caltrans 15 Calif Oaks/Kalmia Interchange $ 7,366 $ 2,324 $ 5,042 R/W, Con Caltrans 91 HOV lanes (2004 STIP deletions, see below) $ 16,882 $ 16,882 Con Caltrans 91 Van Buren IC (former widen. @ SA river) $ 3,465 $ 3,465 Con Caltrans 95 Intake Blvd Widen/Signal $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Con RCTC 91 AB 3090 Replacement Project, 91 HOV Ins $ 7,349 $ 7,349 Con Sub -total Current Projects $ 82,736 $ 4,429 $ 53,576 500 New Proiect Proarammin $ 24,231 RCTC 91 91 HOV lanes (Adams to 60/91/215 IC) $ 91,300 $ 91,300 Con RCTC Perris Valley Rail Line $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Con CVAG 10 Bob Hope/Ramon IC (cost increase) $ 24,508 $ 24,508 Con CVAG 10 Date Palm Drive $ 8,542 $ 8,542 Con CVAG 10 Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive $ 8,087 $ 8,087 Con Palo Verde Valley Fund Trade on RCTC Project (91 HOV) $ 1,315 $ 1,315 Con RCTC PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 3,342 $ 1,842 $ 1,000 $ 500 Con Sub -total New Projects $ 167,094 $ 1,842 $ 25,508 $ 47,129 $ 92,615 $ - Total Current and New Projects $ 249,830 AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements $ 6,271 $ 79,084 $ 47,629 $ 116,846 $ - Caltrans 91 HOV lanes, Adams to 60/91/215 IC $ 26,625 R/W, Con RCTC PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 166 Con Projects Proposed to Be Deleted from STIP Total RIP New Funds Program Year Blythe Lovekin Blvd Rehabilitation $ - Local FY 07/08 Cathedral City Ramon Road Improvements $ 1,385 RSTP FY 06/07 Coachella Dillon Road Grade Separation $ 4,559 CMAQ FY 05/06 Coachella Dillon Road Widening $ 2,117 RSTP FY 05/06 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd Improvements $ 3,184 RSTP FY 06/07 Moreno Valley Reche Vista Dr Realignment, signal $ 1,967 RSTP FY 06/07 Riverside County Miles Ave/Clinton St Widening $ 2,040 RSTP FY 06/07 Riverside County De Frain Blvd Reconstruction $ 810 RSTP FY 07/08 RCTC Rideshare Activities $ 820 RSTP FY 05/06-08/ Total Deletions from STIP $ 16,882 • • Proposed Funding for 91 HOV lane project (Adams to 60/91/215 Interchange) and 60/215 East Junction Connector project SR 91 HOV lanes Fund Source $ (000's Comment STIP/RIP $ 26,625 from 60/91/215 IC AB 3090 agreement STIP/RIP $ 16,882 2004 STIP local arterial deletions STIP/RIP $ 91,300 2006 STIP Western Co Formula STIP/RIP $ 7,349 from 60 HOV and 91/Green River AB 3090 agreements STIP/RIP $ 1,315 trade w Palo Verde Valley Measure A/local funds $ 30,000 trade w Perris Valley Line CMAQ $ 7,000 deobligation from 60 HOV (Moreno Valley) project CMAQ $ 24,529 SAFETEA LU Total Cosh $ 60/215 East Junction Connector Fund Source 205,000 $ (000's Comment STIP/IIP $ 8,000 MSHCP reprogramming STIP/IIP $ 23,483 AB 3090 reprogramming CMAQ $ 1,849 SAFETEA LU Total Cost $ 33,332 AttadRfnent C • AGENDA ITEM 8 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 8. • • • AGENDA ITEM 9 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2006 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: 2006 Congestion Management Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to: 1) Review the updated traffic count information provided in the attachment; and 2) Approve the 2006 Congestion Management Program Update and forward to the Commission at their February 8, 2006 meeting for formal adoption. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the November TAC meeting, the TAC recommended to continue the CMP update item to allow more time to review the traffic count data in specific areas. The attached map reflects updated count data and Georgiena Vivian of VRPA Technologies will attend the January TAC meeting to answer any questions. We ask that TAC members refer to the CMP update document that was mailed to the TAC members in November. Attachments: Level of Service Maps XXA X. • 15,810 10,319 11,919 Van Buren Limonite A Rubidnox Blvd Temeseal Canyon Rd Cresnnore Ava Orange S1 �Jvr Pigeon Pass Rd 12,616 a 12,510 E Oleander Ave 10,544 a 7,391 2,033 Lake Shore Drive l� Gunnerson S Grand Ave 1057 Baxter Rd Allesandro Blvd Van Buren Blvd Ramona Expressway Nuevo Rd California Ave 1,920 6,687 1�1,025 O'-10'= 10,701 Ramona Expressway 9 963 San Gorgonio Ave 660 San Jacinto Ave. D St 1,575 /Main St. _ Sanderson 7,048 1,671 Ave� 1,50 � onto Ave. MounMinAve 5,615 74:; 0 V Simpson Ave O Mnrrietta Hot SP ' 1gs Rd 215 233 x 1 a >79 KeKeithith R Rd 7,503 12,405 — de en Murriena Hut Springs Rd 4,840 Rancho California Rd 1,648 2 764 Pala Rd Ave Hemet S 1,565 Wilson Valley Rd Sage Rd 479 49 Marion Ridge Dr 58 To SR Ill Anza. Contreras Rd© 572 689 2005 - Level of Service on CMP System in Western Riverside Legend ® LOS A, B, O, D, E. or F designation for segments based on 2005 CMP Data XXX Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) based on 2005 CMP Data Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) plus LOS based on 8/30/05 Southland Car Counts Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) plus LOS based on 11/29/05 Southland Car Counts Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) plus LOS based on Caltrans 2004 Counts • 8,344® 6,687 1,735 62 Pimon Blvd Palm Canyon Vista Chino 2,618 6,879 rr..a Ra •n Read Oene Autry Trail --I1 4 1,11 3,725 ©• ,- , 3,696 549 Counrty Club Dr "-..... ‘ s.. O 1,461 7 696 257 1,997 Homestead Rd 303 1,009 7 6,934 a c Punola Avenu 2 6,690 Cook St 3,647 2,700 mnmea Aye. cquct Club Dr 2,244 111 a'2,44p 2003 - Level of Service on CMP System in Coachella Valley Legend ® LOS A, B, C, D, E, or F designation for segments based on 2005 CMP Data XXX Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) based on 2005 CMP Data XXX Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) based on 8/30/05 Southland Car Counts Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) based on 11/29/05 Southland Car Counts s*< Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) based on Caltrans 2004 Counts with 6% Increase Per Year 8,553 7,902 `°, I1rU562� fail 0 W 1,683 r 1,808 4-9 N I M 1,907 Limonite 1,755 ----___-t �1-- ---- Ave Arlington Pi 1,905 \--••• Riverside t City Limit t 3,176 Gramercy 4,106 me3 027 Myers ileum Si 2, 09 9� P i O I 3,799 sr ©CalifoMarna St oVja. rniaa00br O ^^Ave � 1143 85(1yj'' Banbury Dr V I Ri a, 269 oo A 2.069 los Dr l O 6 3,412 592? Ave I 1,558 3,003 3,730 O 91 215` 2,419, i T 045 �\ 7r`. • • 2,758 Vittoria Ave i� (J !J� Maude st 3.249 3,589 Dalvn a 2,711Ve 3.224 °`,3I) M"ckinghird Canyon Rd 2,435 O lal Clikag"Ave 7 Van 1 Washi gist Sl sa © ��o 3,685 g Canyon St La Blvd 3,998 y4,1 /0 F Bur 13 2 665 s NOT TO SCALE 2.1, 5 Blvd Wood Rd Trauma in Rd 3,878 ,671 2003 - Level of Service on CMP System in North Western Riverside Legend ® LOS A, B, C, D, E, or F designation for segments based on 2005 CMP Data XXX Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) based on 2005 CMP Data XX)P Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) based on 8/30/05 Southland Car Counts Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) based on 11/29/05 Southland Car Counts Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) based on Caltrans 2004 Counts with 6% Increase Per Year • AGENDA ITEM 10 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 10. • AGENDA ITEM 11 A presentation will be made but • there is no attachment to the agenda for item 11. • • AGENDA ITEM ZZ i RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2006 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: FY 05/06 Obligation Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to: 1) Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached FY 05/06 Obligation Plan has been submitted to Caltrans Local Assistance. It reflects those projects that plan on obligating funds during the 05/06 fiscal year. Obligation Plans were submitted by each county so that Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission can anticipate the amount of funding (Obligational Authority (OA)) needed and the volume of obligations per quarter. Please review the Obligation Plan and notify RCTC if any changes need to be made. We also need to verify that those projects that were anticipated to be obligated in the first quarter (ending December 31, 2005) did, in fact, get obligated. Projects identified for obligation in the second quarter should be submitting their obligation package within the next 60 days. Attachment: 2005/06 Obligation Plan I 00096110. OaS% uL*00SJ9011H. C'I= a 1I1 e L lS2V%101• V 103911E DZS Y s400weAwaml 90.999141 19E39 W%B 900290111) 1930H 010a aosa3Ma so LLL r %u0w0A0a110 pens Palma 600L9Ala N100'Aew90 010a 3019a3M8 80 ZCL Y alpe>eruel Pub 9131190 90033038 89003110 010a 3013a3Ma 90 8CZ $ r 041099183 IS A009u16i LOSICOAla 6801u08 010a 301Sa3Ma 80 DSO S L yew vPI6wl 83190909914930 9Eu10064 as CZLCDAIa 14199N11 010a 301Sa3le1) 80 S28'1 S I uppal%09033000e8 900Y0A1OLOSBAIa tW4051061 11e080 0101,1 3015a3Na 80 SI4—S1 Z 0308101039a 9A10 PIMd PRISM) Wpm) 313a 30131)3n1b 80 092 $ L 901001111133.1018 1999S qqS ELLLLDA111 %upOf 09S 013a 3015a3Ma 90 098 S r 80110319W11 PS OKI 0aP0w3A ELL ICONtl 60.0901060Ma 010a 3019a3M0) 80 009 S I 0 80P93989J61:1 99s0980091.IS SZZIWAIa 601059819I9A1a 010a 301Saanla 80 69S Z $ L u008111199Jea 9P09I 9P-Piw 9n0yen SZLICDNa 309900P1910321 010a 3014a3N31 80 OL6'1 s' 2 900011900308 Pa 0,19100 EZZLLOAIa 60003 e1,1010331 0101r1 3015a3Na 90 SSO2 SI 2 80401111093a Pa 0010100 SU ICDMa )10690913030Ala 010a 301Sa3Na 90 LB? 2 Pap9110Galea Pa ELZICDAIa awed 010a 301Sa3nla 80 69E S $ • u0P911S4039a ,013)A 30%MA[ZZLEDAIa 969.6 9183 010a 301S013Na BO f C C upn%IA09Y9a aD N1n90 EZZLCONa V9ee0wlad 01011301Sa3Na 80 69E Y C OoPn100909a IM0 pna u%u00 EZLLEOMa 9Mw1n 010a301SaSMa 80 6ZZ S Z o%190f40Wa OS BAY EZLLCOM qu1n001 aa 010 3014a3Na 80 11S 149 S L Iap3i809Y9a uryeu0AV!MI aw00 010a 3014a3Na 80 991 S 4 u011e11rG9Yoa MI)CZ2LCDNa 9✓�veW4P9H EZLLEDMa awY69141u9¢e0 010a 301563N1) 80 984 S C 8e081IO0W0tl ISae01EZZlCeNa 1493100 010a 301Sa3Na 80 IOr Z uop%IIp9Vaa Pam+Od SZZLEBAIa N15NP89100 010a 3014a3Na 80 $ IS S r 8o091IIM030a Pa u/p Pea89a CZZLEDMa 84.1.0).001..8 010a 301Sa3Ma 80 Y Z f2LLEOMa Mgwoa 010a 301Sa3Na 90 zap Z0r Z .009890N9a 00P911O09Yea 219). A pa 10025AIa cion00 010a 30ISa3Na 80 S Z oonnlO0039a peoau0w0a .oca I00Z5Ala 010a 3019a3Na 80 SOO'L S L Ileln0 Mu619 Alm* A9no0 ag01.0a 010a 3OIsa3Na 80 OOS f 009 L s1YawNWtlwl Wll09a KIMA9W921 198l90Slru9S Ilea %ul09fu95 510a 01011 301Sa3Ma 80 8E2 Y L 931911999W21 b@SMa Bga9Na 010) 301513M1 80 ES { f 0�YE11.61S 06.0 leaa1119^b0uB0 E4L010Na 0&IYO999d 0101130I9a3Na 80 StL SL f Z Z IMMo!MuSIS 809,A IOOZSMa owoN 010a 3013a3Ma BO 9GE Y S r ooPmll00susa 0.00PPV9d NBPad Pu0Mo0990H E100ZSAoa AspeA eu0aY1 010a 301Sa3Ala 90 413'1. 4LL'L S 2 00pP11008yaa wb 00 A61FA003991 010a 30ISa3Mb 80 881 E IS f L 51990 5M800 LOOLSAIa L00ZSMa 3I10 9,90 010a 3015a3Na 90 LIE S r5 f L plq,.0 ewauwoltlwl a0pWo0 P98a 9o,Y9a LOOZSMa lBL0Y1d15da N!01e1peWe0 010a 3013313N13 80 ES6'9 S OE S 8L2 $ 8/L S L awP190,1 pug P9oP P4A9OJn Ou!n0d SS PAY LOSOSONa Mno09Na0Ala 010a 301Sa3Ma BO 8 S L9 S Z9 S L a 0V 11v100lpepp090 pim 6une0 9ome0000AV SOSOSOMa OwP)S 910d 010a 3015a3Na 90 91 E KL S KI Y 2 3 Bs!yed omo!IP10 00A9M0 Nywd tl%WreIIrl E0SOSONa pPo1 010a 3019a3Na 80 CZ S SLZ S SLL S Z 01 0.0IM1e069nnI1,8,91.BAe01a So.90 101038P10999010 EOSOSOLda WM 010a 301Sa3Ala 03 LZ t BLl S BLI S Z 09080d PPM 401001 d P09610001 061Wd OLLLCDNa OVA, 0101d 3014a3M! 90 SI t SLL $ 911 S z 9ea083 p0LN maul 1aweN11119d 0100909090N14 380 PP/WO 010a 3019213Na BD 01 S 6L f M S 2 900094P01M131931 Nwad 9lsoususti 90SOSONa N1019)990190 0101) 3014213Na 90 rl t 69S S 69S S L m904900 100-110u00 N9010 00.0810ZL4CONa 401919e01e0 010a smeaNa 80 UP t 009 Y 1831. Y LBl'Z S r s0wsl.00 A014 010090019N16a9 0900Ma 00191 la 0101,1 301S1)3A114 BO SOS Y OLAI t an', Y r 1089.0311940638)-40919P010a 01taMA9neNOsas IOGOSBNa ssisMNalo NumO 01014 301Sa3Ala BO LBL $ SLZZ S PIP S L 0019914a3000990 n061 PP 391L08 SSSOSONa 010a 010a 301Sa3Ala BO 91E10116690 " (66/3S40)OPP s9uvll?Ns ' .. 165).5 CS) P966e46e9 'egolsPanl :t$) 91505,1 �01 J9• 110)119 ` )9Pu14 Amps; J911to (s)411,1& (5)H ($) "Y89H' (s) a:L.8 (s) '0yW9 (s) d1S21 (seffitpun/Oily) suOP98IIQ0lO9(6)0 1e691 P966916 - l4/52/09Lenb 68119a1190• uolldposap adoPspaafoJd, - imol"ay W9faJd - •oa-'a1Qg11sey11 d11d ; .06 9f01d' t0 Anu91fyles01. O'dltl: 10dW Munoo- Nl.ssla ' Illtl 1N3NH0tlllb 1191d 5a99090 91091601 ssy Is00'19D•500Z Add