Loading...
05 May 9, 2001 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00096 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rotc.org AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, May 9, 2001 CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM University of California ti) Riverside 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Hold a public hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget; 2) Discuss, review and provide input to the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2001- 2002; and, 3) Return and continue the public hearing to the June 13'h Commission meeting and to adopt the proposed budget for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 at the June Commission meeting. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote.) 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 18 1) Support ACA 9 (Dutra) and SB 829 IKarnette); and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 7B. STATE LEGISLATIVE POSITION Overview This item is for the Commission to support AB 1587 (Pacheco). 7C. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Overview Page 30 Page 32 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending March 31, 2001. 7D. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 Page 36 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve to amend expenditure budgets for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. 7E. PROPOSED RCTC EMPLOYEE GIFT LIMITATION POLICY Page 38 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve:. 1) The proposed employee gift limitation policy; and, 2) Amend the Personnel Rules and Regulations to include the policy. 7F. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 01-005, -RESOLUTION APPROVING ADOPTION OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN" Page 41 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve Resolution No. 01-005,"Resolution Approving Adoption of California Public Employees' Deferred Compensation Plan" to provide RCTC employees another plan provider for deferred compensation plan. 7G. APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 01-001, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE" Page 54 Overview This item is for the Commission to amend the provision in the Commission's Administrative Code as relates to the Property Committee and attendance of alternates to meetings. 7H. UCLA ARROWHEAD SYMPOSIUM SPONSORSHIP Page 57 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve to co-sponsor the annual UCLA Symposium, scheduled for October 14-16, 2001, at the UCLA Conference Center in Lake Arrowhead, in the amount of $5,000. 71. ALAMEDA CORRIDOR -EAST (ACE) TRADE CORRIDOR DRAFT FINAL REPORT Page 59 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the ACE Trade Corridor Draft Final Report. 7J. CONTRACT WITH THE SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS FOR FUNDING OF THE CETAP RIVERSIDE COUNTY/SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CORRIDOR STUDY Page 67 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Contract No. 01-095 with the San Bernardino Associated Governments to receive their contribution toward the CETAP Riverside County/San Bernardino County Corridor Study in the amount of $250,000; and, 2) Authorize the Commission Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7K. SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS FY 01102 COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRACT Page 73 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve to: 1 ) Enter into a contract with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as part of the Commission's continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG in the delivery of commuter and employer rideshare services for FY 01102; and, 2) Authorize the Commission Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7L. AMENDMENT TO CITY OF RIVERSIDE'S MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT - PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 Page 83 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to FY 2001 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Riverside, as submitted. 7M. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR FY 2000-01 Page 86 Overview This item is for the Commission to grant the County of Riverside: 11 A twelve-month extension to June 30, 2002, to complete the Opal Street Sidewalk project; and, 2) A three-month extension to September 30, 2001, to award the construction contract for the Highgrove Disability Access Ramp project. 7N. CONTRACT AWARD FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE Page 88 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve: 1) Award of a three- year contract, with two one-year options, to Hamner Towing for two truck service for the Freeway Service Patrol Program for Beat #1 on State Route 91, from the Orange County line to Lincoln Avenue at a cost of $38.25 per hour per truck; 21 Award of a three- year contract, with two one-year options, to Tri-City Towing for two truck service for the Freeway Service Patrol Program for Beat #2 on State Route 91, from Lincoln Avenue to Magnolia Avenue at a cost of $44.00 per hour per truck; and, 3) To authorize the Commission Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 70. AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR INSTALLATION OF 'SMART' CALL BOXES AND ENHANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTER SITES Page 97 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve two contract awards for the purpose of monitoring and reporting along the Congestion Management Program (CMP) System to: 1) Comarco Wireless Technologies in the amount of $745,030 for the installation of 'Smart' Call Boxes in the rural areas of Riverside County; and,, 2) Peek Traffic - Signal Maintenance, Inc., in the amount of $308,405 for the installation of Enhanced Traffic Management Center (TMC) sites in the urban areas of Riverside County. 3) Authorize the Chairman to execute the contracts, pending Legal Counsel review. 7P. MEASURE A PARK N' RIDE PROGRAM UPDATE Page 93 Overview This item is to renew and reaffirm the Executive Director's authority to sign all Park N' Ride leases, which include a monthly cost per space of up to $20. 70. FY 01/02 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS Page 95 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,175/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002, to the existing Riverside/El Segundo, and Moreno Valley/EI Segundo buspools; and, 2) Continue the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. 7R. LA SIERRA PARKING MITIGATION: APPROVAL OF LEASE WITH AMF BOWLING WORLDWIDE FOR $24,840 AND APPROVAL OF 50% COST SHARING WITH RTA FOR PARKING SHUTTLE TO SERVE THE RIVERSIDE -LA SIERRA STATION Page 100 This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file of the single signature authority lease with AMF Bowling Worldwide for 92 overflow parking spaces near the Riverside -La Sierra Station in an amount not to exceed $24,840, and authorize the Executive Director to sign the lease, subject to legal review; and, 2) Approve 50% funding of dedicated RTA Parking Shuttle to serve the overflow parking lot in an amount not to exceed $65,988. 7S. AMEND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FY 00/01 AND ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Page 112 Overview This item is to approve: 1) Amendment of the SunLine Transit Agency's Short Range Transit Plan and Regional Transportation improvement Plan for FY 00/01; and, 2) Allocation of $846,000 of Local Transportation Funds to cover operating costs. 7T. AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE'S FY 00/01 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AND THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND ALLOCATION OF LTF FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF FIVE ALTERNATIVELY FUELED VEHICLES Page 174 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve to: 1) Amend the City of Riverside's FY 00/01 Short Range Transit Plan and the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan to purchase five alternatively fueled vehicles; and, 2) Allocate $100,000 in Local Transportation Funds to cover the added cost of these vehicles. 7U. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 175 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Rail Program Update as an information item. 8. DRAFT STATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIC PLAN (2001-2011) Page 135 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the development of an Ad Hoc Committee to address policy issues identified in the draft Station Management Strategic Plan and bring back to the Plans and Programs Committee any proposed actions as may be appropriate for consideration by the Commission. 9. REDEPLOYMENT OF CALL BOXES TO STATE ROUTE (SR) 86 Overview Page 208 This item is for the Commission to approve to redeploy twenty-six (26) call boxes from SR- 91 to the newly constructed segment of SR-86 in the Coachella Valley. 10. JOINT RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY(RTAWRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO SEEK CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER TO RCTC OF FEDERAL GRANT NUMBER CA-03-0549 - SECTION 5309 BUS ALLOCATIONS Page 210 11. Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1. Authorize staff to with Riverside Transit Agency to seek Congressional approval to transfer Grant No. CA-03-0549 from the Riverside Transit Agency to Riverside County Transportation Commission; 2. Authorize staff to work with the Federal Transit Administration to complete the transfer once Congressional approval is obtained; and, 3. Reimburse Riverside Transit Agency for costs incurred. FISCAL YEARS 1998-2000 TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDITS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 212 1. Approve the FY 97/98, 98/99 and 99/00 Triennial Performance Audits; and, 2. Discuss the consultants' recommendations. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 14. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS 1. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54946.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC - Executive Director or Designee Property Owners: See following list of property owners item �APN e - :Grantor' 1 377-040-013 William G. & Roselyn J. Hall 2 377-030-014 Gateway Commercial 87, Gen. Part. 3 377-020-017 Nielsen Trust cio Rod Nielsen 4 377-020-016 Nielsen Trust do Rod Nielsen 5 377-020-008 _ William G. & Roselyn J. Hall item �, APN a =;M grantor ` . 6 377-020-005 William G. & Roselyn J. Hail 7 377-404-001 Randy J. Dugan, et. uz. 8 37 7-372-013 E.V.M.W.D. 9 377-372-029 Opal M. Forsyth ' 10 377-372-030 Peter & Vaso Lembesis 11 377-373-008 White Rock Acquisition 12 347-120-016 White Rock Acquisition 13 347-120-017 White Rock Acquisition 14 347-120-021 White Rock Acquisition 15 347-120-020 White Rock Acquisition _... , 16 347-130-016 - - Ronald & Kathleen Walker, et. al. 17 347-130-018 Bill E. & Rae Jean Long 18 347-130-009 Vlasios S. Andrews, et. al. 19 347-100-009 North Peak Partners, L.P. 20 347-100-010 North Peak Partners, L.P. 21 347-100-016 North Peak Partners, L.P. 22 347-110-003 North Peak Partners, L.P. 23 347-110-004 North Peak Partners, L.P. 24 347-110-068 North Peak Partners, L.P. 25 347-110-008 Estate of Richard Donovan Brechtel 26 349-400-001 Frank Anzaidi, et. al. 27 349-060-019 J. Kirk Harns 28 349-060-018 J. Kirk Harns 29 349-060-010 Mark A. Ditmer A 30 349-060-012 George V. & Ekaterini A. Andrews, et. al. 31 , 349-060-013 George V. & Ekaterini A. Andrews, et. al. 32 349-060-014 Pat Gilboy 33 349-060-020 J. Kirk Harns 34 349-060-024 Patricia K. Johnson 35 349-060-022 Patricia K. Johnson 36 349-060-008 E.V.M.W.D. 37 349-060-009 James A. Gonzales 38 349-050-025 James A. & Esteia L. Gonzales 39 349-050-028 Richard A. Thatcher, Jr. Item" APN Grantor 40 349-050-027 Guillermo Viramontes 41 349-090-009 Joseph Saline, JR 42 349-090-011 Kevin Valles, TR. 43 347-100-003 Theodore L. Gamst, et. ux. 44 349-090-007 Ironclad, LLC 45 349-090-013 Ironclad, LLC 46 349-090-004 Armin Altemus 47 349-100-032 Thomas Fay 48, 349-100-005 Fred Kramer, TR. 49 349-100-001 M.V.Duffy James 50 349-100-004 Jeffstra INC. 51 347-130-022 Henry M. Rowell, et. al. 15. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 13, 2001, Chancellor's Conference Room, University of California @ Riverside, 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside. 66309 ii.36.00 e • • 4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Stack/Roberts) approve the minutes dated March 14 2001, as submitted Abstain Byrd 5 PUBLIC HEARING 5A APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO 01-004, ' RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE FEE AND EASEMENT INTERESTS IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, EMINENT DOMAIN, IS NECESSARY FOR THE REALIGNMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF STATE ROUTE 74 " Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, explained the purpose of the public hearing and the findings that the Commission is being asked to make prior to the adoption of the resolution of necessity He closed by stating that the cost for the properties is not the subject matter for this hearing today At this time, Chairman Kleindienst opened the public hearing Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, stated that notices were mailed on March 26`h to affected property owners and proofs of mailing of the notices of hearing are on file No written objections, letters or requests to be heard were received from the affected property owners Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, discussed the handouts that were distributed at the meeting and further clarified that these are the last of the properties that were identified to complete Segment 1 of the improvements and realignment of State Route 74 The Route 74 project is included in the Measure "A" program The County of Riverside is acting as the legal agent of the Commission to obtain the right-of-way needed for the project He then discussed each of the findings and reviewed the description of the project In closing, he asked that any supplemental information provided by staff and this presentation be made part of the record This presentation constitutes appropriate and adequate information for the Commission to affirm the required four findings and approve the resolution of necessity subject to any comments from the public There being no request to speak was received on this matter, Chairman Kleindienst declared the public hearing closed • M/S/C (Wilson/Hunt) to 1 Make the following findings a The public interest and necessity require the proposed project b The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury c The fee and easement interests to be acquired are necessary for the project d The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners 2 Approve Resolution No 01-004, A Resolution of Necessity of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring that the Acquisition of Fee and Easement Interest in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, Cabforma, More Particularly Described as APNS 6 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions made to the agenda at this time 7 CONSENT CALENDAR Requests were received to pull Agenda Items No 7F, "State and Federal Legislative Update" and No 7H, "FY 00/01 Section 5310 - Valley Restart Shelter" M/S/C (Schook/Roberts) to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Agenda Item Nos 7F and 7H 7A BANKING SERVICES Select City National Bank to provide banking services for the Commission 7B CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending February 28, 2001 7C SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the month ending January and February 2001 7D FY 1999/2000 AUDIT/MANAGEMENT LETTER COMMENTS AND COMMISSION RESPONSE Approve staff's response to Ernst and Young's management letter comments from the FY 1999/2000 Audit • • 7E FISCAL PROCEDURES MANUAL Approve the proposed Fiscal Procedures Manual, as included in the agenda packet 7G FY 01 /02 SECTION 5310 PROGRAM AND RESOLUTION NO 01-003, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON CERTIFYING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN" 1 Adopt the FY 01 /02 FTA Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the Local Review Committee, 2 Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, and, 3 Certify by Resolution No 01-003 that the projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan 71 AMENDMENT TO FY 00/01 CITY OF BEAUMONT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AND REALLOCATION OF STA FUNDS Amend the City of Beaumont's FY 01 Short Range Transit Plan and reallocate $25,000 of State Transit Assistance Funds from FY 99/00 in order to purchase radio equipment, bus stop signs and benches 7J AMENDMENT TO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE'S FY 2001 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Approve the amendment to FY 2001 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the County of Riverside, as submitted 7K STREETS AND ROADS FUND BALANCES REPORT Receive and file the Streets and Roads Fund Balances report 7L REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO PROVIDE DESIGN SUPPORT SERVICES TO CALTRANS TO ACCELERATE DELIVERY OF THE 1-215 MEASURE "A" PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE USE OF THE RCTC BECHTEL CONTRACT TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING SUPPORT FOR THE 1-215 PROJECTS 1 Approve Caltran's request that RCTC provide a consultant selection process that will select one or more consultants that will provide design support to Caltrans to accelerate the delivery of the subject Measure "A" projects, 2 Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC staff and Caltrans staff to review, evaluate, and rank all Requests for Proposals received, interview short listed firms, and, 3 After the Evaluation Process a Negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultant(s) with Caltrans approval and return to the Commission with contract recommendation(s), b Negotiate a reimbursement strategy with Caltrans through a cooperative agreement for pay RCTC for the services, • • c Enter into negotiations with Caltrans to provide construction sequencing support to Caltrans through the Bechtel contract with RCTC, initially using available extra work amounts, and ultimately through an amendment to the Bechtel contract that will be brought back to the Commission for final approval 7M SCOPE OF WORK FOR MEASURE "A" HOV WIDENING PROJECT IN THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY 1 Approve Amendment No 1 to Contract No RO-2042, to Holmes & Narver, to provide additional engineering design services for, Bridge Replacement for the Perris Boulevard under crossing in the amount of $180,440, Bridge Replacement for Indian Avenue Overcrossing in the amount of $331,870, and Seismic Assessment/Retrofit of Heacock Street under crossing in the amount of $49,150 This addition cost will bring Holmes & Narver's total authorized contract value from $2,229,400 to $2,790,860, and, 2 Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission using a standard amendment 7N AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO RO-9844 WITH F R HARRIS, TO DEVELOP A FINAL PS&E FOR AN ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM AT THE LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA METROLINK STATIONS 1 Approve Amendment No 2 to Contract No RO-9844 with F R Harris to provide for additional design services to develop a final PS&E for an Electronic Surveillance System at the La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations for an amount not to exceed $36,632 and additional engineering construction support services contingency of $13,368, for a total not to exceed amendment amount of $50,000, and, 2 Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission using a standard agreement 70 APPROVAL OF CALTRANS PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 009-M AND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO 2 TO CONTRACT NO RO-2128 WITH STV INCORPORATED TO SUPPORT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 1 Approve Caltrans' Program Supplemental Agreement No 009-M to Administering Agency -State Agreement No 08-6054, covering Preliminary Engineering for the San Jacinto Branch Line, 2 Approve Amendment No 2 to Contract RO-2128 to provide alternatives analysis for using the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Riverside Branch Line to provide a direct connection to the Riverside Downtown Station from the San Jacinto Branchline for a base amount of $104,170, with addition extra work of $10,500 This additional cost will bring STV's total authorized contract to $310,993 and total extra work value to $32,1 13 for a total not to exceed value of $343,106, and, 3 Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract Amendment No 2 on behalf of the Commission • 7P SANTA FE DEPOT 1 Declare the Santa Fe Depot as surplus property, 2 Initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period and if no interest is expressed, authorize staff to offer the depot on the open market, and, 3 Withdraw application of Santa Fe Depot from National Registry consideration 7Q AWARD OF SECURITY GUARD CONTRACT Approve the three-year contract with Western Area Security Services to provide security guard services at the Riverside County Metrolink Stations, at a cost not to exceed $598,512 96, and, authorize RCTC Chairman to sign the agreement, subject to Legal Counsel Review 7R RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Rail Program Update 7S FY 2001-2002 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM Release a Call for Projects for the FY 2001-02 SB 821 program and notify cities, the County, and local school districts of the estimated funding available for the fiscal year 7T CMAQ CLEAN FUELS OPPORTUNITY FUND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 1 Enter into the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County of Riverside Waste Management Department for construction of the Agua Mansa Liquified Natural Gas station funded partially with Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality monies in the amount of $385,000, 2 Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission, 3 Adopt the MOU as the model agreement format for the remaining seven CMAQ Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund projects which have been approved by the Commission, and, 4 Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute all subsequent MOU's which do not contain any substantive language changes 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT UPDATE Rick Bishop, Executive Director Western Riverside Council of Governments, presented a verbal report regarding the Riverside County Integrated Project and issues of interest to the Western County cities He began by discussing future growth projections for this region and the importance of bringing a regional perspective to local planning The whole RCIP process is being looked at nationally as being very significant However, at the local level, it is more difficult to convey the benefits and opportunities that exist in taking a regional approach to accommodate future growth in this region He has had the unique opportunity having become a part of this process when it was already underway to make several • • • observations The first is that the relative silence from local jurisdictions should not be considered a stamp of approval and it has been his goal in working with county staff to provide more opportunities for elected officials and staff to provide input One of the things that he has been trying to do, with these global issues in mind, is to try and move the RCIP process outside the normal channels to engage those who have not been involved in this effort to give their prospective He then reviewed the mechanism they are using to get the word out about this process and the progress that has been made to date It is also going to be very important, as this process moves forward, to convey to local jurisdictions the level of commitment that will be required from them along with what the project scheduling is and when the key decision points are Another element will be to engage in the development of constructive solutions to the various issues that are identified A meeting has been scheduled for April 30, 2001, for elected officials and their staff to provide a forum by which they can provide their input regarding the Integrated Plan The WRCOG Executive has also demonstrated their commitment to this process by recommending that local jurisdictions contribute funding toward the CETAP Planning Process on a per capita basis 9 ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 7F STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Commissioner Kevin Pape stated that he asked that AB 37 be pulled for discussion to call attention and highlight the language in the proposed legislation that deals with the elimination of double taxation on gasoline He asked the members to at least support this portion of the legislation and, thus, eliminate the current practice of double taxation Eric Haley, Executive Director, stated that since it discusses TDA funding there would need to be some guarantee placed in the legislation that would keep transit funding whole or it could have a catastrophic effect on the level of transit services that could be provided Much of the funding under discussion has already been committed to projects throughout Riverside County M/S/C (Wilson/Pettis) 1 Adopt the following bill positions a) Support AB 1396 (Longville), b) Support with Amendments AB 860 (McLeod), c) Oppose AB 37 (Strickland) SB 116 (Kuehl), SB 618 (Margett), and, d) Watch AB 1039 (Oropeza), and, 2 Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item Nay - AB 37 Pape • • • 7H FY 00/01 SECTION 5310 VALLEY RESTART SHELTER Commissioner Jim Venable discussed efforts that are occurring to assist this organization in purchasing a new facility He supports finding funding options to provide adequate shelters for the homeless so they can get back into the workforce to become self-sufficient Because of the agency's situation, he questioned where the agency will secure matching funds for the Section 5310 grant funds Rather than just providing more financial assistance to purchase vehicles, this agency is in dire need of technical support to provide badly needed services in this area Tanya Love, Program Manager, discussed the process used to evaluate and to rate the submitted projects for Section 5310 funds She stated that Caltrans oversees the Section 5310 grant funds It was determined to table this item to provide an opportunity for staff to schedule a meeting with the County of Riverside, the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto, and Caltrans to discuss the situation with Valley Restart Shelter and to bring this item back to the Commission for a report and a consideration At this time, Commissioner Lowe requested to add SB 910 as an urgency item She was just made aware of the impact to cities if this legislation was passed M/S/C (Lowe/Schook) to add SB 910 as an urgency item This item arose after the posting and madout of the agenda Commissioner Lowe informed the Commission that the proposed SB 910 will penalize communities if they do not meet the housing element, thus, taking away local transportation funding from cities and the county if they are not in compliance She asked that the Commission take an opposition position Commissioner Bob Buster stated that they are looking for alternative sanctions for those cities that are not holding up their end by providing adequate affordable housing He added that he hoped that each jurisdiction actively provides input regarding more appropriate sanctions It was noted that the problem goes beyond this bill It actually goes to the deeper problem of how housing goals are established in the first place In particular the smaller cities are impacted because they do not have the variety of uses within their boundaries that are being demanded Housing should be looked at on a regional basis, rather than looking at local jurisdictions M/S/C (Lowe/Schook) to take an oppose position on SB 910 • 10 COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1 Enc Haley discussed staff activities during the past month regarding the dissemination of information regarding the proposed reauthorization of Measure "A" and the promotion of grade separation projects that have been proposed by Riverside County for inclusion in the Alameda Corridor East • • 2 Chairman Kleindienst announced that at the Executive Committee meeting held before the Commission meeting, a decision was made to make the Property Committee a standing committee of the Commission The membership of the committee will remain the same as it adequately represents a broad cross section of the county 11 CLOSED SESSION ITEMS 1 Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54946 8 Negotiating Parties Property Owners RCTC - Executive Director or Designee See following list of property owners SR 74 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITIONS ITEM ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO OWNER 1 377-020-016 Nielsen Trust c/o Rod Nielsen 2 377-020-017 Nielsen Trust c/o Rod Nielsen 3 377-372-025 James & Ofelia McCall 4 347-130-016 Ronald & Kathleen Walker 5 347-100-016 North Peak Partner L P 6 347-110 052 Nam Yang Electronics Co , Ltd 7 347-110-053 Johnnie Williams, et ux 8 347-110-046 Moises Pabon, Sr et ux 9 347-110-008 Estate of Richard Donovan Brechtel 10 349-400-001 Frank Anzaldi, et al 11 349-060-008 E V M W D 12 349-050-025 James A & Estela L Gonzalez 13 349-090-014 Ronald R Heartz • • • 2 Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54956 8 Negotiating Parties RCTC - Executive Director or Designee Property Owners Corona City Manager or Designee Assessor's Parcel Number 119320058 3 Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54956 8 Negotiating Parties RCTC - Executive Director or Designee Property Owners Fleetwood Properties or Designee, Forrest Theobald Assessor's Parcel Number 234270021 There were no announcements on the Closed Session Items 12 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11 09 a m The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9 00 a m , Wednesday, May 9, 2001, Chancellor's Conference Room, University of California @ Riverside, 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside Respectfully submitted, Naty p hav Clerk of the Board OwI-A-__ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • COMMISSION MEETING DATE A Pe.{ 1_ 1 , Don SIGN - IN SHEET NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE / FAX NUMBER T c..1(-,,I)o ke- C-rk\--\--r(Ay s t--8 9d9-303 -4 I 4'7 623146 ?AN atAn✓�� Go/20ac9� , 734,-09,0 734 -/3 /a 4/ilea' `21cAtv.� 61)/T7 n 7etiletCJe.2 gz6-5"-iq 1 IFi-� I r- 'J ?4 C e i -r y v F AA ,./ ctA o rn ..eA6 Z `{ 3- i� a t e fl X _bet d( , /34 I 67.&tzir.66 Q .�l c� 474f.,) i51L- Ds/ $DF q_ f=/O/Dy90�-..CS-io/90AZ‘Civi. kIL'i-e...e5 90 9-735- 1.0/ 6 444g) 62/770 F O 03 ioa� /3 �3 7‘ a SSA-1i/k) �P� /Aiep:- 5pvek.t6 ,77--.5/zy 0te./-P4,z- G✓cc 90,-j l,.i _) .-,) 3 e/� 6, rot) 3 ac) V �; /&--/k/ a-b2Z--- 1 `i e e-3 . s' ?'#, ?s s --7. �-,e / �/g-D _ .tip/ 4) 2-1/z-2es 76 o .3/6 02 yr s � � Ow�- - 1 - 760 "i ? 703,6 9If-7�s.73103 �,/ie y eupfet T PP,er r 1)„7-sfy,, s -710 2 . / 4/ � 6 266 a, S O_A--ri4 C-0 R A\ q 3S- 9 31 S I . --1 (oo- 3 2l -08 A L. 1/l.c: 0 w %,ee-k,6 Ly 7`lcao (DA.u,/owl ,/Aver 6 o 1) 2-w .29SS' / didY% ti Vet-(6.A.014 , y_I %we'Sc` (ccA)/4-4 b 1 PLAc 1 'D n 1.-V A i_h ) vl 4 ___a_ c�c,�,_%,_,v ��ir ). ,4 S-4 30 3 R LJ) i � / Ricktavoi Kt.' iti 6 i oi- P I 111 [2eseY (7_032/6- c6 i RCOUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 4IVERSIDE COMMISSION MEETING DATE ft Piat,L, I I , ADD SIGN - IN SHEET IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION NAME , AGENCY CIIT� Y OF RESISI%D�ENCE1 TEE�/ FAX NUMBER A drn � /�//1 NC /^LEPHONE / / c �./ c- 1 /V V i C`- k l v ` f it)mktj 14� ,v, ev locy- 7SY - yy6?-4r A\Lt, W ( Cv N 1erredccT� a N 0 . 0 p-2 62- 1 orkrA b k) 0o0•6 1rf R 1 1)&0_, 4VVe_ -6a LALK, - - i i4 io 909 - 7 g7� 6/355' )/9r-t y/ �U )jr�, T-2_ l n ‘g-e/ 42S"C> �Pf-f i31,4,4) '( +. Ph yms Fa.„0 eII 80y/e ,-- nr<iee.el, •s7 yv9 93c.? (5.2.25 -Z,'� L L GpAN, /a A-)/7,0 0 N 60 / LCC)/" �'C (o 7 7 - y 3 � `/ /7"r''u' l GGC�I 124 derd-y2 CL___ ( 9'D? Ge0I76Y N/ELS F`-?‘/ 0,4421tioxiz 6 0 9) - e-Y-9- Z z a G � �t/g<D6r- 7�--7-79Fr-J- OY kr..- (sr, liA-° r M `i'a.A- 0,„/b4001,_ P�-L,J `{ ®Q - 6 J 4- 4 .ID o 1- 1-ArtrZ y pt4IN atm rt--7- ScA Q fri h (9 0 eo 39 c.- 2 89 0 635 / 1 -A a (c5,,,,i /"/I r ,,, 564 7,1 7s -( - 3s' e c 11, Rirminin nv /_c nir r Dcni avcn .RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • COMMISSION MEETING DATE /7/=<, / // J400 % SIGN - IN SHEET NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE / FAX NUMBER ,g../� h, .� 92-z-3/ eC/9zz -S/Z�. �� � 4 h � a D3R-7-7 _ c —t#1 GYM-C y y.o / G ri OY11 �J C3L7kTTV ets�(�o i ass-a3 ‘ �- ���.k\l�Llo�� W'Jw►AAA► b . ( RAU". spi.44.?jS 'UP: 323 s?ca, (32.S guta • , AM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Hold a public hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget; 2) Discuss, review and provide input to the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2001-2002; and, 3) Return and continue the public hearing to the June 13t" Commission meeting and to adopt the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 at the June Commission meeting. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff has gone through the budget process and produced a Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. This budget is designed using the goals and objectives approved at the Palm Springs Commission workshop. The goals and objectives considered during the preparation of the budget are mobility, goods movement, congestion relief and safety improvements, air quality, economic development, intermodalism and accessibility, technological innovation, and public and agency communications. Staff is seeking review and input at the Committee meeting and will then forward the item to the Commission, at which time a public hearing regarding the budget is scheduled. Based on input received, staff will update the document and present the final budget for the Commission's review and adoption in June immediately following the close of a public hearing period. Attached is the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. This document has been divided into the following sections: • Executive Summary • Commission Policy, Goals, Objectives, and Financial Policies 000001 • Budget Process - Summary discussion of the steps involved in completing the annual budget. • Personnel - Review of personnel changes and structure. • Revenues - Comprehensive review of revenues by function and program. • Debt Financing - Reviews the Commission's outstanding debt issues, analyzes debt capacity, and calculates the Commission's legal debt margin. • Department/Program Budgets - Discussion of department responsibilities, mission statement, and goals and objectives. Also, included is explanation of department expenditure assumptions, major initiatives, and tables detailing total expenditure. • Fund Budgets - Examines the budgeted revenue and expenditures from a fund perspective. A summary of the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 is as follows: Revenues $137,652,812 Personnel salary and fringe benefits $ 2,531,500 Professional $ 2,887,000 Support $ 2,293,835 Projects and Operations $108,778,733 Capital Outlay $ 117,000 Debt Service $ 35,545,200 Total Expenditures $152,153,268 Beginning Fund Balance $143,398,054 Ending Fund Balance $128,897,598 Attachment 000002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 is presented to the Commissioners and the citizens of Riverside County. The Proposed Budget outlines the projects the Commission wants to accomplish during the year and appropriates expenditures to accomplish these tasks. It also shows the revenues that will be used to complete these tasks. This budget document will serve as the Commission's monetary guideline. Staff has included descriptive information regarding each department and major projects. The discussion in each department/program area has been revised to now include a review of major initiatives and key assumptions. Though the budget is a very comprehensive document, staff believes its value and usefulness to readers has been enhanced by these changes. Staff has used the goals and objectives approved at the Commissioner Workshop in Palm Springs on January 29, 2001, to prepare the Proposed Budget. In addition to the Commission's long tern goals and strategic plan, the short term factors listed below were used to guide the development of the Proposed Budget: Operational • Continue planning on the extension of Measure A. • Encourage greater department and staff involvement in budget development and accountability for budget performance. • Continue the Commission mandate of a lean, non -layered staff structure. • Improve on the skills and training of all levels of staff. • Improve communication with Commissioners and educate policy makers on all issues of importance to the Commission. • Continue Commission involvement in the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). Financial • Maintain administrative costs below the policy threshold of 4%. Current general management budget is 3.1 % of Measure A revenues. • Continue to maintain prudent reserves to provide some level of insulation for unplanned expenditures. • Look for opportunities, funding sources, and innovative approaches to address transportation needs that extend beyond Measure A. • Move forward on Measure A projects for highways and regional arterials using both sales tax revenues and State and Federal funding. • Leverage and protect past Measure A investments in rail to obtain State and Federal funding for additional rail improvements. Budget Overview Revenues Revenues: Major Categories OtharRavanue 1% SAFE Faas 1% Reimbursements 23% Other Saks Tax 6% Investment r Income Ijj 5 % Measure A Saks Tax 64 % 000003 Total revenues are budgeted at $137,652,812, which is an increase of 25.3% over projected revenues and 12.6% over last year's budget. Total projected remaining fund balance at June 30, 2001 available for expenditures (exclusive of debt service reserves of $31,592,336, loans receivables for $13,296,953, and prepaid lease fr $1,004,020) is $97,504,745. Total funding sources amount to $281,050,866. COMMISSION REVENUE TREND 1999-2002 $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $- 41111111111111.1111111111 AJI=111--' 2 771 A y t FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01 /02 FISCAL YEARS ❑ Investment income Other Revenue ■ Reimbursements ® Sales Tax Revenues Most of the revenue categories are budgeted at higher amounts than the prior year. The increase in Measure 6 sales tax revenue is indicative of the strength exhibited in the Riverside County economy. This year staff ha: projected a 3.4% increase over current year Sales tax revenue projections. Reimbursements are up, principally from federal sources, to fund rail capital (Measure A revenues are not available for rail operations or capital projects). These revenues are received on a reimbursement basis. Investment Income will be higher. This increase is related to the Interest Income on the Rt. 74 Bonds interest income. As these funds are utiiized on the project, the interest income will decrease. The rate of return is expected to be less than the interest rates received by the Commission in prior years. Table 1 — Operating Revenue FY 99/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Changes Changes OPERATING REVENUES Sales Tax Revenues 675,845,008 $87.527.966 $87.023,491 694,110,381 $97,395,645 $10,372,154 11.9% Reimbursements 8,873.920 10,021.221 28.386.958 7,156.782 32,890,219 4,503,261 15.9% Other Revenue 2,403,259 3.064,255 2,772,756 377,224 892,448 (1,880,308) -67.8% Investment Income 5033,437 5 193,832 44 033,000 8,174.100 6 474,500 2,441,500 60.5% Total Operating Revenues 92 155 0 $105 807,274 $122,216,205 109 618 487 137 652 812 $15436 607 12. k 000004 , Budget Overview Expenditures Management Services 2% Transit 3% Plans 8 Programs 3% Motorist Assi i 2°A° stance Regional Arterial Special Trartspartaticn Streets and Roads 3% 2°6 22% Corrrnuter Assistance 1% MoiRr Categories 24% Capital*PAW 6 Rail 35% Rail Operations 3% Total expenditures are budgeted at $152,153,268, an increase of 6.2% over the prior year budget amount of $143,269,510. The Debt Service amount for this year is $35,545,200. Administrative costs are budgeted at $3,705,350 and program expenditures total $112,902,718. Project costs have increased 7.9% from $104,545,443 to $112,902,718. The increase is a result of increased highway expenditures, particularly for Rt. 74, rail station construction projects, and Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) studies. The expenditures for Rt. 74 are offset by the Bond proceeds. Table 2 — Program Expenditure Comparative 1 1 1999-21102 Capital Highway & Rail Rail Operations Regional Arterial Streets and Roads Commuter Assistance Special Transportation Motorist Assistance Plans & Programs Transit Regional Issues Property Management Management Services Debt Total FY 98/99 Actual $11,787,735 5,021,867 3,385,620 27,327,230 1,351,399 2,825,274 1,677,638 982,070 1,854,191 0 I34,601 2,684,307 30_525.757 $84,557,911 FY 99/00 Actual $9,837,310 4,401,427 6,467,674 3I,275,142 1,116,402 2,869,592 1,757,219 3,347,476 1,602,703 206,893 168,535 2,695,597 30.527.304 $96,293.274 FY 00/01 Budget FY 00/01 Projected S45,643,443 $ 16,940,677 3,414,700 5,620,021 8,356,000 7,297,023 30,865,000 33,167,504 2,235,175 2,009,218 3,834,450 3,026,256 1,875,375 2,073,201 2,469,500 2,637,070 3,475,800 3,466,250 173,100 148,142 202,900 117,480 3,346,283 2,972,383 33 377,782 35009 000 $143,269,510 S 114,484,225 FY 01/02 Dollar Proposed Change Change $51,353,390 $5,709,947 12.5% 4,966,687 (448,013) -8.3% 4,940,000 (3,416,000) -40.9% 34,108,000 3,243,000 10.5% 2,261,600 26,425 1.2% 3,451,100 (383,350) -10.0% 2,530,400 655,025 34.9% 4,584,372 2,114,872 85.6% 4,294,519 818,719 23.6% 177,400 4,300 2.5% 235,250 32,350 15.9% 3,705,350 359,065 10.7% 35.545,200 167,418 0.5% S152,153,268 $8,883,758 6.2% Note: Management Services include Executive Management, Administration and Finance. 00005 Commission Personnel The Commission's salary and fringe benefits total $2,531,500. This represents an increase of 8.2% or $191,8' over FY 2000-2001 budget estimate of $2,339,670. This increase is attributed to the following reasons: Annual Performance increases $ 34,330 Contingencies 157.500 Total $191,830 Table 3 - Staff Summary By De artment for FY 1999 - 2002 FY98/99 FY99/00 FY00/01 FY01 /02 Prot Executive Management Administration Finance Capital Development & Delivery Plans & Programs Transit Property Management Regional Issues Speciaf Transportation Rail Program Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance Total FTE FTE FTE FTE 2.16 2.11 2.00 1.90 2.75 3.60 4.80 5.90 2.57 5.10 5.15 5.30 1.14 0.96 0.75 0.90 2.80 3.00 3.80 3.60 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.70 NIA 0.79 0.90' 0.90 NIA 1.03 1.10 1.00 0.49 0.41 0.60 0.50 2.01 2.17 2.55 2.30 1.02 0.97 1.20 1.10 1.24 1.38 1.66 1.00 16.72 21.92 25.30 25.00 Department Initiatives Executive Management • Expend considerable effort educating the public on the accomplishments of the Commission. • Speaking in public forums on Commission accomplishments in preparation for possible expansion/extension of Measure A. • Conduct regular one-on-one meetings with the Commissioners. • Place a high priority on project development and delivery . • Maintain and improve on the administrative efficiency and fiscally sound practices. • Commit considerable -resources to the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). • Foster the Commission's full involvement in a broad range of local, regional, state and federal government settings. Table 4 - Executive Management Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Total FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $146,914 $210,483 $237.816 $ 280,889 $302.000 $64,184 27.0% 271,978 299,058 387,493 322,494 305.000 (82,493) -21.3% 6,149 54,135 71.600 57,268 58,600 (13,000) -18.2% $425,041 553 0 $6�909 $660,651 $665.600 31 309 -4�.5 F 000006 Administration • Work with County of Riverside staff in the planning and design of the Commission's offices. • Schedule and provide training to Commission employees on policies and procedures and have all staff attend at least one training course in support of development. • Conduct an extensive educational program, in the form of one -tome settings and informational materials for the Commissioners. • Expand the Commission's public information efforts. Table 5 — Administration Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Capital Outlay Total FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $383.796 $285,632 $435,500 $391,734 $462.500 $27,000 6.2% 81,059 121230 200.500 147.348 449,000 248,500 123.9% 894,464 721,091 843.600 772,320 904,300 60,700 72% 42.904 550 319 46.500 40,168 117,000 70.500 151.6% 1,402,223 $ii178.272 515 $1,351,570 $1,932,800 $406 26 Finance • Maintain Audit fees consistent with prior years. • Continue providing accounting services to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCCIG). • Actively manage the Commission investments to protect them and receive a good return. Table 6 — Finance Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Total FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $195.079 $176,588 $373.000 $ 428.712 $403,000 $30,000 8.0% 604,981 733,612 675.000 485,000 632,000 (43.000) -6.4% 57,183 43,449 75,276 46,450 71,950 (3,326) -4.4% $857,243 $953,650 $1,123,276 $960,162 ,$1.106,950 $(16,326) -1.5% Planning and Programming • Lead the CETAP effort within the county contracting for all elements of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP). • Keep local agencies apprised of the status of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) funding. • Conduct an unmet needs hearing, assist in coordinating the development, review and approval of the annual countywide Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). • Continue the cooperative effort on the North/South Corridor Study. • in conjunction with SCAG and regional agencies, support the development of a Year 2000 Post -Census Regional Travel Survey. 000007: Table 7 - Plans and Programs Program Costs FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 Actual Actual Budget Projected FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Proposed Change Change Personnel $301,488 5381,465 $359,000 $340,500 $342,000 $(17,000) 4.7% Professional 165,896 100,353 140.500 116,384 124,000 (16.000) -11.7% Support 101,414 11,473 27,000 8.953 21,000 (6.000) -22.2% Projects/Operations 413,272 2,854,186 1943,000 2,171.233 4197172 2 1154 372 110.9% Total $982,070 $3,347,476 $2,469,500 $2,637,070 584 372 $2,114.872 85.6% Transit • Encourage transit operators to purchase clean fuel buses. • Ensure that all operators remain consistent with the Commission's adopted productivity improvement programs. • Monitor transit operator's Quarterly Capital Grants Reports. Table 8 - Transit Program Costs FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $67,201 $69,417 $82,000 $74,532 $87,000 $5,000 6.1% Professional 2,479 2,705 70,000 70,111 2,000 (68,000) -97.1% Support 0 2.920 8,300 6,107 11,500 3.200 38.6% Projects/Operations 1�784,511 1,527,661 3,315.500 3,315.500 4.194,019 878,519 26.5% Total $1,854,191 $1,602,703 $3,475,800 3 466 250 $4,294,519 $818,718 2 Rail Program • Continue providing analysis and alternatives on the consideration of the San Jacinto Branch Line. • Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving the county. • Continue efforts to reduce community impacts of rail infrastructure and operation. Table 9 - Rail Program Program Costs FY 98/99 FY 98/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $190,027 $254,466 $257.000 $318,738 $213,000 $(44000) -17.1% Professional 112,497 174,049 155,000 149,543 161,500 6.500 4.2% Support 345,218 11,999 115,710 105,450 103,200 (12,510) -10.8% Projects/Operations 4,374,125 339960_,913 44 886 9�90 5046290 44 4888 987 (398.003) -8.1 % Total 5 021 867 401 427 $5,414,700 $5 66200 0�21 4 968 687 $(448,013) -8.3% 000008 I Regional Issues • Emphasis will be given to the Four Comers Study effort as the Task Force continues to monitor the progress of various agencies in the development and implementation of the Study's short and long term priorities. • Plan a leadership role in the discussion of LAX expansion and consideration regional airport needs. • Manage the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Clean Fuels Opportunity fund. Table 10— Regional Issues Program Costs Personnel Professional Support _ Projects/Operations Total FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $0 $112.321 $108,000 $94,392 $114.000 $6,000 5.6°% 0 60,433 42,500 47,500 52,000 9,500 22.4% 0 26,639 17,600 6.250 11,400 (6.200) -35.2% 0 7,500 5 000 0 0 (5.000)-100.0% ,E0 $206,893 $173,100 ,$148,142 $177,400 Vial 2.5% Capital Projects Development and Delivery • Complete design of Route 60 HOV lanes from the 60/1-215 to Redlands Blvd. • Construction of Route 74 street widening from 1-15 in City of Lake Elsinore to rh Street in the City of Perris. • Advance operational improvements along Route 111 in the Coachella Valley. • Design and construct Phase 11 soundwalls and auxiliary lanes along Route 91 from Magnolia to Mary St. • Construct Tier 11 rail stations — Corona Main and Van Buren. • Install a security system at the Pedley rail station and construction of station emergency platform. • Design HOV lanes on Route 91 between Mary Street and the State Route 60/91/1-215 Interchange. Table 11 - Capital Projects Development and Delivery Program FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY00/01 FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Costs Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $154,724 $187,803 $168,115 $160.536 $186.000 $17.885 10.6% Professional 174.930 246,366 465.000 340,500 638,000 173.000 37.2% Support 3,223 27.933 28,900 16.964 26,900 (2,000) -6.9°% Projects/Operations 42,167,728 47,138,024 84,269.428 56,1387.204 89.550.490 5.281,062 6.3°% Operating Transfer 34,688,098 30,527,415 35.313,025 35,313,025 35.964,000 650.975 1.8% Total $777188703 $78,127,541 $120,244,468 $92,718,229 $126,365.390 $6,120.922 5 1% Special Transportation • Support innovative programs which provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs. • Release an additional call for projects in 2003 and 2004 for Specialized Transit Programs with funding being provided to local agencies throughout western Riverside County to support ongoing specialized transit programs. • Provide matching funds to receive Section 5310 federal grants to assure availability of funds. 000009 Table 12 - Special Transportation Program Costs FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel $69,552 $39,718 $61.000 S 46,264 562,000 $1,000 1.6% Professional 58,334 231 0 2,440 6,000 6.000 100.0% Support 3.069 3,611 26,250 1.755 14,100 (12,150) -46.3% Projects/Operations 2 694,319 2 826 031 3.747.200 2 975,797 3,369,000 (378,200) -10.1% Total $2,825,274 2 SSE. 2 $3,834 454 �$3 026 256 .S3,451 100 $(383,350) -1 Commuter Assistance • Continue operating its core rideshare programs; namely Club Ride, the Commuter Exchange, and bus -pool subsidies. • Inland Empire Commuter Services will continue to be managed by the Commission to support voluntary employer programs aimed at encouraging employees to rideshare. • Continue to monitor Rule 2202 requirements. • Co fund Southern California Rideshare, a regional rideshare core services program providing common services to five southern California counties. • Develop and implement a survey tool to provide continuing feedback on the effectiveness of the program in establishing and sustaining rideshare behavior. Table 13 - Commuter Assistance Program Costs Personnel FY 98/99 Actual FY 99/00 Actual FY 00/01 Budget FY 00/01 Projected FY 01 /02 Proposed Dollar Percent Change Change $125,181 $127,423 $107,000 $166,390 $143.000 $36,000 33.6% Professional 22,643 20,753 0 5,799 374,500 374,500 100.0% Support 0 5,187 394,275 287,029 448,385 54,110 13.7% Projects/Operations 1 22033 575 963.038 1,733,900 1.550,000 1,295.715 L438,185) -25.3% Total S1,351,399 $1,116,402 $2,235,175 $2 009.218 12,261,600 $26,425 1.2% Motorist Assistance • Award new contract for Call Box answering and dispatching services by July 1, 2001 establishing a faster and more responsive service for motorists at a lower cost to the Commission. • In partnership with Caltrans and CHP, evaluate congestion on existing Freeway Service Patrol beats to determine if additional hours or changes in service hours are needed. 000010 Table 14 - Motorist Assistance Program Costs Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Capital Outlay Total FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Actual Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change $103,680 $100,186 $81,240 591,704 $126,000 $44,760 55.1% 61,135 44,786 76,500 62.700 80,000 3.500 4.6% 106,443 8,206 36,715 31.850 31.900 0.815) -13.1% 1.336.039 1.604.041 1,680,920 1.886.947 2.292,500 611.580 36.4% 70,343 0 0 0 0 0 00% 1 677 639 $1,757,219 $1,875,375 2 073 201 $2,530,400 655 025 34.9% Property Management • Maintain the order, safety and security of the Commission owned properties. • Determine the highest and best use of Commission owned property. • Generate a revenue stream, to support the costs of maintaining Commission owned real property. • Support the concept of transit oriented development at the Metrolink Stations. Table 15 - Property Management Program Costs FY 98/99 Actual FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change Change Personnel 71,104 $71,046 $70,000 $45,888 $91,000 $21,000 30.0% Professional 23,266 30,349 50.000 19,209 63,000 13,000 26.0% Support 0 6,373 7,650 436 9,050 1,400 18.3% Projects/Operations 40,231 60,767 75,250 51,947 72.200 (3,050) -4.1% Total 134101 $1� $202,900 11/ 480 ,$235,250 32 350 15.9% 000011 TABLE 16 FUND BALANCES — BY PROGRAM AND GEOGRAPHIC AREA June 30, 2002 Westem County Eastem County Non Measure A Other Total Reserved: Highway/Rail $42.891,897 $4,690,341 SO $0 $47.582.238 Special Transportation 3.047.641 923,445 0 0 3,971,086 Commuter Assistance 7,150,374 0 0 0 7.150,374 Regional Arterial 0 3,660,314 0 0 - 3,660,314 Streets & Roads 0 38,505 .0 0 38,505 Transit 0 0 4,115,790 4,750,097 8,865,887 Debt Service 14,630,532 7,722.955 0 9,187,649 31,541.136 Loans Receivable 13,296,953 0 0 0 13,296.953 Prepaid Rent 1.004,020 0 0 0 1,004,020 Designated: Motorist Assistance 0 0 1,993,408 0 1.993,408 Contingency 3,814,241 1,826,514 0 0 5,640,755 Unreserved 2,247.000 852.500 141.321 912,101 4�152.922 $88 082 658 19 714 574 6 250 519 $14,849,847 $128,897.598 r 000012 TABLE 17 URGES OF REVENUE: Operating Revenues Sates Tax Revenues Sales Tax TDA Planning/Admin. Sales Tax TDA Transit Allocation STA Transit Allocation SAFE Fees Reimbursement Other Revenue Investment Income Total Operating Revenues Debt Proceeds Total Sources of Funds EXPENDITURES: Personnel Salary & Benefits Prof. & Support Expenditures Professional: General legal Bond Counsel Financial Services Audit Services Professional Services - Other Total Professional Casts Support Costs Total Prof. And Support Costs Projects and Operations: Projects -General Station Operations SAFE Operations Towing Services Ammuter Assistance •hway Engineering ,I Engineering Highway Construction Rail Construction Highway Right of Way Rail Right of Way Special Studies SCRRA Contribution Regional Transportation LTF Disbursements STA Disbursements Regional Artenal Total Project and Oper. Costs Debt Service Principal Payments Interest Payments Total Debt Service Capital Outlay Expenditures before Distributions and Operating Transfers Operating Transfers (Net) Total Expenditures Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Dyer Expenditures =und Balance, July 1 Ending Fund Balance $ 103, ALt_129 BUDGET COMPARATIVE BY SUMMARIZED LINE FY 2001 /02 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 Actual Actual Budget Projected $ 70.396,829 1,294,500 4,153,679 2,423,019 1.118.965 5,331,936 2,403,259 5,033,437 92,155,623 0 92,155,623 $ 81.543.732 1,555.263 4,428,971 2,423.397 1,183,364 6,414,461 3,064.255 5.193,832 105.807,274 0 105,807,274 1,808,746 2,046,310 328,223 416,974 3,108 0 184,096 219,604 378,870 473,915 684,902 723 434 1.579,199 1,833.927 1, 517 161 923,016 3.096,360 2,756,943 1,644,243 1,798,645 441,520 551,451 662,168 697,408 673.871 866.059 1,203,575 963,038 1,123,727 2.511.044 231,953 295,036 4.785,692 1,437,415 3.223.541 2,452.755 467,798 482,373 22.353 650,083 5,714 2.442,541 3,938.650 3.149,719 30,021,569 34,101,173 397,295 518.322 1.784,511 1.527,661 3 385,620 6,467,674 54.013,800 60,912,399 17,629.704 18.529,107 12,896,05,2 11998,197 30.525,757 30.527.304 11w 3 247 50 319 89,557,911 96.293,274 0 0 89,557,911 96.293.274 2,597,713 9,514.000 $100,450,726 $103,048,439 $ 112,562,792 $ 80,500,000 1,631 A91 4.892.000 2,455.000 1,100,000 24,831,958 2,772,756 4,033.000 122.216,205 34,500,000 156,716,205 2.339,670 569,500 10,000 150,000 457,500 1 075.493 2,262,493 1 652 876 3,915,369 2,360,651 646,500 395,710 941.000 1,733,900 4.504.972 2,165,000 9,552,000 11,541,000 14,358,556 1.023,000 1,548,000 3.916.200 34,612,200 620,000 3.315.500 8,356.000 101.590,189 22.633.844 12,743.938 35.377,782 46.500 143,269.510 0 143,269,510 13,446,695 $ 86.482.750 1,631,491 5,996,140 2,455,000 1,150,000 3.551.782 377.224 8,174�1_00 109,818,487 35,501.000 145,319,487 2,440,279 401,546 0 47,500 460,000 859 982 1.769,028 1,340,832 3,109,1360 2.887,987 623,197 378,700 877,900 1,550,000 2,859.840 1,454,229 5,816,675 1,653,429 2,387,404 102,500 1,771,233 4,066.000 36,143,301 700,000 3,315,500 7 297 023 73.884,918 22,479,000 12 5� 300000 35,009,000 40,168 114,484,225 0 114,484,225 30,835,262 $112,562,792 $112 562,792 $143.398,054 $30,835,262 $ 126,009,487, $ 143,398,054 $ 128,897,598 $2`888,111 ITEM FY 01/02 Dollar Percent Proposed Change Change $ 89,250.000 $ 8,750.000 10.9% 1,719.245 87,754 5.4% 6,426.400 1.534,400 31.4% 4.644.019 2.189,019 89.2% 1.000.000 (100.000) -9.1% 27.246,200 2,414,242 9,7% 892,448 (1.880.308) -67.8% 6 4� 7� 2,441,500 60.5% 137,652,812 15,436.607 12.6% 0 j34 500,000)-100.0% 137,652,812 (19.063.393) -12.2% 2.531.500 191,1330 8.2% 696,600 127,100 22.3% 9,400 (600) -6.0% 100,000 (50,000) -33.3% 427,000 (30.500) -6.7% 1.654.000 578�507 53.8% 2,887.000 624,507 27.6% 2 293i835 640,959 38.8% 5,180,835 1,265,466 32.3% 2.701900 343.249 14.5% 600.000 (46,500) -7.2% 332,600 (63.110) -15.9% 1,033,050 92,050 9.8% 1,295,715 (438,185) -25.3% 3.684.121 (820.851) -18.2% 1,511.000 (664,000) -30.2% 18.742,317 9,190,317 96.2% 11.010,000 (531.000) -4.6% 12,654.652 (1,703,904) -11.9% 921.500 (101,500) -9.9% 3,544,500 1,996,500 129.0% 3,531,487 (384.713) -9.8% 37,477,000 2,864,800 8.3% 602.872 (17.128) -2.8% 4,194,019 878.519 26.5% 4.94,0,000 (3,416,000) -40.9% 108,778,733 7,188,544 7.1% 24,069,000 1,435,156 6.3% 11,47, 6 200 (1,267,738) -9.9% 35,545.200 167,418 0.5% 117,000 70.500 151.6% 152.153,268 8.883,758 6.2% 0 0 0.0% 152,153,268 8,883,758 6.2% (14,500,456) (27,947,151)-207.8% 27.4% 2.3% 000013 TABLE 18 BUDGET EXPENDITURES SUMMARIZED BY FUND TYPE FY 2001 /02 General Fund Total Special Revenue Total Capita! Projects Total Debt Service Total Total sonnet Salary and Benefits $1,944,450 $587,050 SO SO 2,531500 fessionat and Support Expenditures 3eneral Legal Services 144.380 552,220 0 0 696,B00 !pedal Legal Services 9,400 0 0 0 9.400 :inancial Services 94,000 6,000 0 0 100,000 ludit Services 338,400 88,600 0 0 427,000 'rofessianal Services - Other 11 119,160 534.840 0 p 1 654 000 d Professional Services 1,705,340 1,181,660 0 0 2.887,000 iupport Costs 1 398,609 1495.226 0 0 2,893,835 11 Professional and Support Services 3,103,949 2,678,886 0 0 5,780,835 act and Operations Expenditures 'rogram Management 0 1,750,000 0 0 1,750,000 'rojects — General 750,000 203.900 0 0 953.900 •AFE Operations 0 332,600 0 0 332,600 owing 0 1,033,050 0 0 1,033,050 ',ommuter Assistance 0 1,295,715 0 0 1,295,715 6ghway and Rail Engineering 0 5,195,121 0 0 5,195,121 Irghway and Rail Construction 0 29,752,317 0 0 29,752,317 ighway and Rail ROW 0 13,576,152 0 0 13,576,152 CRRA Contnbutions 3.531,487 0 0 0 3,531,487 pecial Studies 3,529,500 15,000 pecial Transportation 0 3 369 000 0 0 3,00 0 0 3,36969.000 TA Disbursements 0 4,194,019 0 0 4,194,019 egional Arterial 0 449940 000 0 0 4 940 000 Protect and Operational Expenditures 7,810,987 65,656,874 0 0 73,467,861 Expenditures reets and Roads 0 34,108,000 0 0 34,108.000 'F Disbursements 602,872 0 0 0 602.872 apital Outlay 109.980 7 020 0 0 117,000 Other Expenditures 712,852 34,115,020 0 0 34,827,872 Financing (Sources) Uses aerating Transfers out 0 36,174,400 23,000,000 0 59,174,400 ibt Service 0 0 0 • 35,545.200 35,545,200 Expenditures 13,572.238 139,210.230 23,000.000 35,545,200 2_11.327,668 tiles Over (Under) Expenditures 1,879,840 2,190,104 (19,993,000) 1,422,800 (14.500,456) fling Fund Balance 33 8893�206 55.162.215 76,577,783 7,764,849 1433 398 054 g Fund Balance $5$5 777$571352319 $56,584,783 $9,187,649 128,897 598 ,� 000014 Table 19 STATE HIGHWAY AND RAIL PROGRAMS 2001-2002 PROPOSED BUDGET Project Description 61000 Project General Program Management and Contract Administration (Bechtel Corp.) $1,750,000 Park N Ride Leases 53,900 Program Support costs 60.000 TOTAL PROJECT GENERAL $1.863,900 31100 Highway Engineering Rt. 60 HOV 60/1-215 to Redlands Blvd $1,460,500 Rt. 74 1-15 to 7th Street highway widening 400.000 Rt. 79 Lamb Canyon Environmental 12,000 Rt. 79 Realignment PSR & Project report 630,000 Rt. 91 HOV Mary St. to 60/91/215 Interchange 1,000,000 Rt. 91 Material testing services 20,000 Rt. 91 Surveying support services 20,000 Rt. 111 San Luis Rey design 48,000 Rt. 111 El Paseo/Cabrillo design 32,000 Rt. 111 Town Central/E1 Paseo design 48,000 Rt. 111 Portola Ave design 13.621 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY $3,684,121 1100 Rail Engineering San Jacinto Branch Line Engineering support $25,000 San Jacinto Branch Line Prelim. Engineering/environmental clrs. 271,000 Pedley Station Surveillance System Design 80,000 Materiaf Testing/ Surveying services 175,000 Tier II station design (Van Buren & Corona Main) 960,000 SUBTOTAL RAIL $1,511,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL ENGINEERING f5,195,121 300 Highway Construction Rt. 60 HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd Rt. 74 1-15 to 7th Street widening Project Rt. 79 Right turn lanes Rt. 91 Phase Il Soundwall/Landscaping and Plant establishment Rt. 111 Monterey Ave project Landscape Management - several projects SUBTOTAL HIGHWAYS $6,500,000 10,800,000 100,000 720,000 607,317 15.000 $18,742,317 000015 ' 11300 Rail Construction San Jacinto Branch Line track improvements Pedley Station security system installation Pedley Station emergency platform Tier II Station (Van Buren/Corona Main) Other Construction support services SUBTOTAL RAIL $500,000 500,000 300,000 9,700,000 10,000 $11,010,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL CONSTRUCTION $29,752,317 1400 Highway Right of Way Rt. 74 1-15 to 7th Street advance right of way acquisitions $11,844,652 Rt. 74 Right of Way support services 700,000 Rt. 91 Temporary construction easements -Phase 11 50,000 Rt. 111 County of Riverside support services 10,000 Rt. 111 ROW Acquisition Monroe to Rubidoux project 50.000 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY $12,654,652 1400 Rail Fright of Way Rail Station -Right of Way support services $21,500 Rail Station -Right of Way purchases 900,000 SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY $921,500 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL RIGHT OF WAY $13,576,152 1500 Highway & Rail Special Studies North/South Corridor Study TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL SPECIAL STUDIES GRAND TOTAL HIGHWAY AND RAIL PROGRAMS 011000 $25,000 $25,000 $50A02,488 s "e Q LL a �a a 4< o� 4 LL p R.z g"a-`AsMges `-" g` e a 3 S I. Fr: b d 5m Eo� I.- 3 i*EI a ail au: as g. » - A e e o o e 0 a§ S§. i 8 n - o 0 o a b a n Q c e a_ " na R a o o e o a e M §� R - R 0 0 o e C. 0 0 0 8 n saso_ ""=1 �� a 5 n71i R ism RI a F E a IU ii55 Q x� F o eV n : R'i r. o M d n R aww' eKF 5137.071,376 5160.234,0H 5190,627.212 3 O. S0 3 N 3 C ilt g§9§§§§""Zgrageal$ nsEgsagttg�nigal$$En. ▪ _ Wig- ma 2- n R7 RSosMUMFAHR.EIIII 5--_ • Rg o p p D o o p a o e o p p g e e a o¢ e X n 51 o o e o a o 0 o a 0 o 0 0 0 o g a o QQQ a 25 $gooeoa000000000000r w R A00000000e00000e0000g tl „4000e000gp0000pooaooyt 3 Siae000OOmor00000000g 2:o,^.g3.e3.56 =mom'=kR' " E r _.ten rv.,r» .6115g1EUE:Io oi+onmon ;33:R5IEUI '3n,HS, n R M h_ M O g . legooneeoiloenooQee ig$ g na S$33 �Qpe�ooeeaoQryeeao4r�en § I R S 2233 a 888 Zwne.0000eRgaaoeeI$eg ▪ g" ^ry 1^q 0,4 0 o O ti g5 N NNNN M _ _ ti v a a S, a P sil III I M WO- 00001 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Darren M. Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Support ACA 9 (Dutra) and SB 829 (Karnette); and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update The State Legislature devoted much of the month of March and early April continuing to address the State's ongoing electricity crisis. There is certainly a sense from members and staff that they are growing weary of the issue and would prefer to move forward on to other public policy discussions. Assembly and Senate standing committees started with a light calendar in mid -March and have begun hearing bills in earnest in the month of April. One bill of interest, AB 227 (Longville), on which RCTC and SANBAG took a support position, was voted 18-0 out of the Assembly Transportation Committee on March 28, 2001. Staff has analyzed and recommends the following bill positions for approval: ACA 9 (Dutra) - This measure is an Assembly Constitutional Amendment that must be approved by 213 of the membership of each house and approved by the voters to permanently dedicate the sales tax on motor vehicle fuels to the Transportation Improvement Fund to be used for transportation purposes. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. SB 829 (Karnette) - This gill extends indefinitely the transfer of motor vehicle fuel sales tax revenues from the State General Fund to the Transportation Improvement Fund. Currently, motor vehicle fuel sales taxes are split by formula to 40%for the STIP, 40% for local streets and roads, and 20% for transit. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. 09'01313 Federal Update The President released his proposed 2001 /02 fiscal year budget on Monday, April 9, 2001. To date, there has been no indication that the final proposed budget deviates far from the Administration's Budget "blueprint" released earlier this year which indicated conformity to the mandatory spending guarantees of the TEA-21 and AIR-21. While it does not impact RCTC and SANBAG, the Administration has also publicly promised to continue current funding for Amtrak. As of this writing, staff continues to review the Administration's budget proposals and will provide an update on the day of the Commission meeting. On the Federal Appropriations request front, staff has maintained regular contact with Congressional offices as we continue our effort to advocate for the projects submitted by the -two agencies. Final appropriations requests from members to the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Transportation were due Friday, April 6, 2001. 000019 Date of Analysis: April 11, 2001 Bill Number/Author: ACA 9 (John Dutra, D-Fremont) Introduced March 13, 2001 Subject: This measure is an Assembly Constitutional Amendment that must be approved by 2/3 of the membership of each house and approved by the voters to permanently dedicate the sales tax on motor vehicle fuels to the Transportation Improvement Fund to be used for transportation purposes. Status: Introduced March 13, 2001 Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee Summary: Assembly Constitutional Amendment 9, authored by Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman John Dutra, is a resolution to propose to the people of California an amendment to the State Constitution to permanently dedicate motor vehicle fuel sales tax revenues to the Transportation Improvement Fund to be used for transportation purposes. The measure does not address funding formulas as the author believes that formulas and/or percentages are better addressed in statute in order to address the State's changing needs. As a Constitutional Amendment, the measure must be approved by 2/3 of the membership of each house and approved by the voters of California. Staff Comments: Both RCTC and SANBAG took a SUPPORT position on AB 227 (Longville) earlier this year. Members will recall that AB 227 eliminates the 5-year sunset on the use of revenues generated from the sales tax on motor vehicle fuel for transportation purposes. ACA 9 addresses this issue from a Constitutional Amendment perspective in order to better secure those revenues for transportation purposes beyond the 2006 sunset in AB 2928. Last year, the linkage between sales tax on fuel and transportation was reinforced with the passage of AB 2928. AB 2928 created the Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF) and required deposit of the next five fiscal years of all the sales tax on gasoline into the fund. Deposits into the fund are currently estimated at $1.1 billion annually but early indicators show that this revenue estimate may be conservative. ACA 9, if approved by a 2/3 majority of both houses of the legislature and the California voters, will continue the TIF and dedicate motor vehicle fuel sales tax revenues to the TIF for the purpose of funding transportation activities throughout the state. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT F:luserslprprintlj slaca4-01-dmk.doc 000020 Date of Analysis: April 24, 2001 BiII Number/Author: Subject: Status: Summary: SB 829 (Betty Karnette, D- Long Beach) Introduced February 23, 2001 Amended April 17, 2001 This bill extends indefinitely the transfer of motor vehicle fuel sales tax revenues from the State General Fund to the Transportation Improvement Fund. Introduced February 23, 2001. Amended in Senate Transportation Committee on April 17, 2001. SB 829 deletes the 5-year sunset provision included in last session's AB 2928 dedicating the sales tax on gasoline to the Transportation Investment Fund. Existing law requires the Controller to transfer specified amounts, on a quarterly basis, from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund (hereafter the TIF) in the State Treasury. The Controller, for each quarter during the period commencing on July 1, 2001, and ending on June 30, 2006, is required to transfer specified amounts from the TIF to the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF) in the State Treasury. Once the TCRF is fully funded the balance of the revenues realized from motor vehicle fuel sales tax is distributed as follows: 20% to the Public Transportation Account (PTA), a trust fund in the State Transportation Fund that funds public transit, 40% to the Department of Transportation to fund the State Transportation Improvement Program, and 40% to the counties (20%), including a city and county, and to the cities (20%), including a city and county, for specified transportation purposes. Staff Comments: This bill is similar to Assembly member Longville's AB 227 in that both bills delete the 5-year sunset provision included in AB 2928 dedicating motor vehicle fuel sales tax revenues to the Transportation Investment Fund. Where the bill differs is the distribution of those revenues. Under AB 2928, over $1 billion is generated annually each year over the next five years to fund transportation improvements with $678 million dedicated each year to the Governor's Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP). The balance after funding the TCRP, which is estimated in the 2001-02 fiscal year to be in excess of $600 million is distributed 40% STIP, 40% Local Streets and Roads, and 20% PTA. Longville's AB 227 continues this distribution formula which staff believes is appropriate in light of the State and Local Road maintenance and improvement needs as reported to the California Transportation Commission by the SR 8 (Burton) report in 1999. In it's introduced form, SB 829 included a distribution percentages as follows: 33% STIP, 33% Local Streets and Roads, and 33% to the PTA. In Committee, the author accepted amendments to have the bill be silent on the issue of distribution percentages in the interest of accomplishing the more pressing policy concern of the dedication of motor vehicles sales tax revenues to transportation purposes. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT 000021 Fauserslprepnotljslbillanalysis\sb829o1(2).doc rayC Smith & Kempton Consulting and Governmental Relations MEMORANDUM To: RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors From: D. J. Smith and Delaney Hunter Date: April 9, 2001 Subject: Legislative Report and Update AB 257 (Longville) - CHP/Call Box Spot Bill Assembly Bill 257 was introduced by Assemblyman Longville as a placeholder should we not resolve to our satisfaction issues related to the California Highway Patrol and our call box service. We are currently working with staff to develop amendments to AB 257 having not received word back from the CHP as was promised - AB 1463 (Longville) - Limiting Eminent Domain Litigation Expenses Assemblyman Longville on behalf of SANBAG introduced Assembly Bill 1463. AB 1463 in its current version would not allow a defendant in an eminent domain proceeding from recouping any litigation expenses it they are found not to have an interest in the property being sought by the public agency. The amendments to AB 1463 have been submitted to the Assembly Judiciary Committee and we will begin working with Committee staff on the bill. General Legislative Items ACA 9 (Dutra) ACA 9 would constitutionally dedicate the revenues generated by the sales tax on gasoline for transportation related purposes beyond the statutory deadline of June 30, 2006. ACA 9 does NOT include a specific formula for allocating those dollars but rather points to a statutorily created formula (see AB 227 and SB 829 below). ACA 9 will be heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee on April 16, 2001. AB 227 (Longville) AB 227 would statutorily dedicate the revenues generated by the sales tax on gasoline for transportation related purposes beyond the current deadline of June 30, 2006. AB 227 would continue the current allocation formula of 40% to the STIP, 40% to local streets and roads and 20% to the PTA. AB 227 passed out the Assembly Transportation Committee 17-0 late last month and will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April I7, 2001. 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1560 . Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-5508 . pax: (916) 446-1499 000022 Page 2 t SB 829 (Karnette) SB 829 contains the same dedication of funds beyond the current date as AB 227 but changes the current formula. SB 829 would change the 40-40-20 split to 1/3-1 /3-1/3. SB 829 will be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee on April 17, 2001. 0,00023 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMIS: ':/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS POSITIONS Oh s, TATE LEGISLATION Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board . Adoption ,. ; AB 33 (Romero) In the event of a labor dispute, this bill would establish the LACMTA Labor Relations Trust Funds as a continuously appropriated fund in the State Treasury and would require the money in the fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor. Referred to Assembly Transportation and Labor and Employment Committees 3/5/01. No position taken. AB 37 (Strickland) This bill would exempt motor vehicle fuel and diesel fuel from sales tax. Re -referred to Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee 3/28/01. OPPOSE RCTC: 4/1 1 /01 AB 132 (Horton) This bill would amend the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act to provide that a public agency shop agreement may apply to management, confidential, or supervisory employees. Referred to Committee on Public Employees, Retirement & Social Security 2/13/01. No position taken. AB 133 (Alquist) This bill would authorize RTPA's to include other factors of local significance as an element of the RTP. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee 3/1/01. No position taken. AB 227 (Longville) This bill would extend indefinitely the period during which the Controller would be required to make the quarterly transfers from the General Fund to the TIF, and thereby would make an appropriation. Passed out of Assembly Transportation Committee 17-0 late last month. Will be heard in Assembly Appropriations Committee on 4/17/01. SUPPORT SANBAG: 3/7/01 RCTC: 3/14/01 AB 257 (Longville) Existing law authorizes a county, and cities within the county, to create a service authority for freeway emergencies for the purpose of establishing and implementing an emergency motorist aid system on portions of the California Freeway and Expressway System located within the county in which the authority is established. Existing law allows the authority to contract with the Department of the California Highway Patrol or a private entity to respond to those calls. This bill would make technical changes in that law. Pending committee assignment. Draft amendments to author. No position taken. d t\Z F,lcerslpreprintlj sVegmat. doc ►vutnor O CD O jv F:luserslpreprintljsVegmat.doc CJ1 Statu AB 321 (Vargas) This bill would require the State Board of Equalization to inform the Controller of the amount and would require the Controller to transfer the amount to the Congestion Relief Transportation Trust Fund, which the bill would establish in the State Treasury. Re -referred to Assembly Transportation Committee. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re -refer to Assembly Transportation Committee. Read second time and amended 4/16/01. No position taken. -, • AB 381 (Papan) This bill would require that an unspecified percentage of the money in the account be available to the department for the purpose of providing incentives to local governments, local transit providers, private developers and financial lenders for the citing and construction of transit -oriented and pedestrian -oriented development within one -quarter mile of an existing or planned transit station. Re -referred to Assembly Transportation Committee 4/5/01. No position taken. AB 403 (Bates) This bill would authorize the funds transferred as specified to cities, counties, and cities and counties to be expended to fund transportation services for the elderly, as defined, if call of certain conditions are met. The bill thereby would make an appropriation by expanding the purposes for which continuously appropriated funds may be expended. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re -refer to Assembly Transportation Committee. Read second time and amended 4/16/01. No position taken. AB 419 (Dutra) This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2010, certain transportation authorities to use a design -build process for bidding on transportation projects, including a requirement that certain information be verified under oath. Because a verification under oath is made under penalty of perjury, the bill would impose a state -mandated local program by changing the definition of a crime. Referred to Assembly on Transportation Committee and Business and Professions 3/21 /01. No position taken. AB 631 (Oropeza) This bill would require the CTC, in conjunction with the department and states regional transportation planning agencies, to prepare and submit to the Governor a comprehensive statewide transportation needs assessment containing specified information regarding unfunded transportation needs every 5 years beginning on 12/1 /03. This bill would require the needs assessment to include, to the extent possible, a list compiled by the department and the regional agencies participating in the needs assessment prioritizing their top 10 unfunded projects. Re -referred to Assembly Transportation Committee.4/4/01. f No position taken. , __ At Status Adoption'* AB 710 (Chavez) Existing law requires the DOT to develop contract specifications to conduct a statewide study of technically feasible and available cost- effective means to reduce 4- and 5-axle truck traffic from congested urban freeways during commute hours. This bill would delete the provisions of the existing law. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re -refer to Assembly Transportation Committee. Read second time and amended 4/5/01. No position taken. AB 860 (Negrete- McLeod) "Spot Bill" that includes Legislative intent language to fund transportation projects that will mitigate the impacts of local traffic impacts caused by the construction of the Alameda Corridor. Pending committee assignment. SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS SANBAG: 4/4/01 RCTC: 4/1 1 /01 AB 1039 (Oropeza) This bill would eliminate the $1 million cap on funding received by the Southern California Association of Governments from RCTC, SANBAG, OCTA, and LACMTA to be used for transportation planning. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee 3/12/01. WATCH SANBAG: 4/4/01 RCTC: 4/1 1 /01 AB 1091 (Pacheco) This bill would provide that any provision in a contract for the design, construction, maintenance, or operation of a transportation facility, entered into between a state entity and private party, is void if the provision purports to limit the authority of the state to exercise its jurisdiction over the state highway system, or any other transportation system that is subject to state jurisdiction, in order to minimize competition with the transportation facility. Re -referred to Assembly Transportation Committee 4/4/01. No position taken. AB 1303 (Hollingsworth) This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature that alternative routes that may be used to travel from Riverside County to Orange County be evaluated and considered. Pending committee assignment. No position taken. AB 1396 (Longville) This bill would create the Passenger Rail Improvement, Safety, and Modernization Program Subaccount to the Public Transportation Account and appropriates $100,000,000 from the State General Fund to the subaccount to be used for commuter and light rail improvement, modernization and safety projects. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee 3/15/01. SUPPORT SANBAG: 4/4/01 RCTC: 4/11 /01 AB 1463 (Longville) Existing law requires a court in an eminent domain action to award the defendant his or her litigation expenses whenever the proceeding is wholly or partly dismissed or when the final judgment is that the plaintiff cannot acquire the property sought. This bill would specify that the court is required to award the defendant his or her litigation expenses whenever the proceeding is wholly or partly dismissed, provided that the defendant owned or had an interest in the property that is the subject of the litigation. Referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee 3/19/01. No position taken. F:lusetslpreprintlj sllegmat.doc 1 Author I Status Adoption'4 '7144 AB 1587 (Pacheco) Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to improve and maintain the state highways. This bill, contingent upon an appropriation in the annual Budget Act for the purposes of the bill, would require the County of Riverside, in consultation with a steering committee comprised of representatives from Orange County, the Orange County Transportation Authority, the Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County, the City of Riverside, Riverside County Transportation Commission, the City of Corona, and Districts $ and 12 of the department, to complete and submit to the Legislature, not later than July 1, 2003, a study and route alignment to develop and gain legislative approval for an alternative to the State Highway Route 91 transportation corridor from Riverside County to Orange County. The bill would require the study to address the issues of the jobs and housing balance in the area, the movement of goods and services, and environmental protections. Passed out of Assembly Transportation Committee 11-1 on 4/23/01. Staff recommends: SUPPORT SB 10 (Soto) Existing law requires the DOT, in consultation with the California Highway Patrol, to establish and administer a "Safe Routes to School" construction program pursuant to authority granted under specified federal law and to use federal transportation funds for construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects. This bill would delete an obsolete study and reporting provision and the January 1, 2002 repeal date, thereby extending the program indefinitely. From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re - refer to Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 1 1- Noes 3) 4/16/01. No position taken. SB 18 (Alarcon) Existing law provides for the membership of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. This bill would require that 6 of the members of the authority be elected and would otherwise substantially revise the membership of the authority. Set first hearing. Hearing cancelled at the request of author 4/1 1 /01. No position taken. SB 106 (Sher) Existing law authorizes the establishment of a service authority and the importance of a $1 service fee in a county if the county board of supervisors, by a 2/3 vote, and a rajority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population within the county, adopt a resolution establishing the authority and the imposition of a service fee on vehicles, as specified. This bill would limit the authority to suspend the service fee to abatement programs that have been in existence for at least 2 full fiscal years and would require every service authority that imposes a service fee to issue a fiscal year end report, as specified, to the Controller on or before October 31 of each year. The bill would require each service authority that fails to submit the report by November 30 of each year to have its fee suspended for one year. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re - referred to committee 4f 16101. No position taken. F auserslpreprintlj sllegmat. doc ,L_ AA Status Adoption SB 116 (Kuehl) This bill would prohibit a state or local agency from constructing, or approving the construction of any public road, or from making any improvement to an existing road that substantially increases vehicular traffic capacity in or through any property under jurisdiction of the State Department of Parks and Recreation. Passed out of Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife, 6-3. Referred to Senate Appropriations 3/19/01. Set for hearing 4/2/01. OPPOSE SANBAG: 4/4/01 RCTC: 4/11/01 SB 127 (Johnson) ^SB Under existing law, certain local entities are authorized to use design- build procurement for specified types of projects. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst to conduct a study and report to the Legislature on the appropriateness of expanding the number of local Referred to Senate Rules Committee on 2/8/01. No position taken. 171 (McClintock) This bill would authorize a transportation gridlock emergency to be declared for the purpose of relieving traffic congestion on any highway or segment of highway for the DOT has determined that the average daily vehicle hours of delay, excluding weekends, exceeds 3,000 vehicle hours. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re - referred to Assembly Transportation Committee 3/27/01. No position taken. SB 618 (Margett) This bill would require expenditures for retrofitting soundwalls included on Caltrans priority list to be funded prior to making state transportation funds available for interregional and regional capital improvement Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee on OPPOSE SANBAG: 4/4/01 RCTC: 4/1 1 /01 SB 759 (Murray) Existing law requires that a regional or local receiving an allocation from the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund certify that it will sustain its level of expenditures of transportation purposes at a level that is consistent with the average of its annual expenditures during the 97/98, 98/99, and 99/00 fiscal years. This bill would make technical, non -substantive _3/12/01. Set for hearing 4/17/01. • No position taken. SB 790 (Karnette) This bill would specify that it is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that removes restrictions on county share advances from the State Transportation Improvement Program process to promote efficient use of transportation funding. Set for hearing 4/17/01. No position taken. SB 829 (Karnette) This bill extends indefinitely the transfer of motor vehicle fuel sales tax revenues from the State General Fund to the Transportation Improvement Fund, From committee: Do pass as amended (15- 0), and re -refer to Senate Committee on Appropriations 4/23/01. Staff recommends: SUPPORT FAuserslpreprintlj sllegmat. doc Author Status Adoption: ;} Sib 910 (Dunn) This bill would provide that, in any action filed on or after January 1, 2002, challenging the validity of a housing element, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of nonvalidity of the element or amendment if the department has found that the element or amendment does not substantially comply. From committee: Do pass, but first be re - referred to Senate Appropriations Committee (6-1 ) Withdrawn from Committee and re - referred to Senate Rules Committee 4/5/01. OPPOSE RCTC: 4/1 1(01 SS 956 (Ackerman) Existing law provides for the funding of state, local, and regional highway projects. This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to appropriate $500,000,000 annually from the General Fund for the purpose of funding the annual maintenance cost of, and to begin to address a backlog in deferred maintenance for, local streets and roads. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re- referred to committee 4/16(01. No position taken. ACA 2 (Vargas) This measure would impose certain conditions upon a loan to the General Fund of funds in the Congestion Relief Transportation Trust Fund in the State Treasury, which fund would be created separately by statute, or the Transportation Investment Fund in the State Treasury, or any successor to either of those funds. Contains other related provisions. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re -refer to Assembly Transportation Committee. Read second time and amended 4/16/01. No position taken. ACA 9 (Dutra) This measure would impose conditions, on and after July 1, 2006, upon a loan to the General Fund of funds in the Transportation Investment Fund in the State Treasury, or any successor to that fund. This measure would authorize the money in the Transportation Investment Fund, on and after July 1, 2006, to be allocated only for the purposes set forth in specified provisions relating to that fund. Will be heard in Assembly Transportation Committee on 4/16/01. Staff recommends: SUPPORT F Auserslpreprint'Vklegmat. doc RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Darren M. Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Legislative Position STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission support AB 1587 (Pacheco). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Assembly Bill 1587 was introduced by Assemblymember Rod Pacheco as a spot bill earlier in the current legislative session. Recently, the author amended the bill to address alternative east -west transportation corridors between Riverside and Orange Counties. Specifically, AB 1587 directs the County of Riverside, contingent upon an appropriation from the annual Budget Act, to complete and submit a study that identifies an alternate highway alignment to the State Route 91 Corridor. The study must be submitted to the Legislature by July 1, 2003. Specifically, this bill: 1) Directs Riverside County, in developing the study, to consult with a steering committee comprised of representatives from: a) Orange County, b) The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), c) The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) of Orange County, d) The Riverside County Transportation Commission e) The City of Riverside, f) Riverside County, g) The City of Corona, and h) Districts 8 and 12 of the Department of Transportation (Ca'trans). 2) Specifies that the study shall address, at a minimum, the issues of the jobs housing balance in the area, the movement of goods and services, and environmental protections. The bill's requirements are consistent and complimentary to the Commission's efforts with the Community, Environmental, Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and for that reason staff recommends a support position. 000030 The bill was heard and voted out of Assembly Transportation Committee on Monday April 23, 2001 on an 1 1-1 vote in spite of an Oppose Unless Amended position by the Orange County Transportation Authority. The author accepted one amendment to bill presented by OCTA which was to add two Orange County cities to the Steering Committee. Another amendment suggested by OCTA was to include the California Private Transportation Company (CPTC) to the Steering Committee. The author did not accept this amendment so OCTA maintained their Oppose position. The staff recommendation has not been reviewed through the normal committee process due to the timing of the bill's amendments and when it was heard before the Assembly Transportation Committee. 000031 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMISSION & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to receive and File the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending March 31, 2001. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by projects, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending March 31, 2001 Attachments 000032 %9'09 %6' %Z.9/ %9179 :•:::•: :• MN! %Z.Z9 %9.Z6 '%*!*- VolY9 Z eavegolis 094'699'6$ 2.m.ecLs 801: L6 L. 4 Z69.0LC9$ 000'0GL'LZ$ 000`090.94$ eVrgitS 9E0'94 4$ 0,11E1-1$! . L 817 9 E E $ 9EL 9 g 0 $ :::•:•••:': .•:•: EgO'gt$ 99a08$ 000' 000.096$ apidui00 Pefold *fgr0.$WiHi:Jj 99Z.914 Lev'LL V 0 E F1$ !; EOE'att$ % 0 00 1 % 06 % 0 00 1 %9' Z6 %L.66 %£.96 %.99 %4'96 %9 '96 E 10 L eted 60.6":006yrOLtKi!H 6 06 E 6 g $ 46r/36LS 000.00£•Z$ ZL8'6$ ' 000' 09/'££$ 000'009'64$ ascrpap*..: 000'0E9$ flgir$P9`4,$! • !.. 003'S09'L$ agroevzs 099'06/.Z$ !600.011q$ 606'££6.9 4$ 096.£98$ 000 00E Z $ 008.Z£9.0 4$ 000•098`££$ 000'£SZ'OZ$ 00010kt 000`043 ::o01R`:0011. 0 0 0 0 0 9 $ OinittitS oLL'oca'zt !MAPA*.000118r1A111400. L596' 4 gas-6ns'£17/6'9£96 (9ES6'L£96'0CS6'9N6`CZG6'4EZ6'LZZ6 '6 4 Z60/1) S133rOlid 11." nnoti 4 2#001**90:0 (690t9466.91766.E£6608i Buideospuel ilemPLIS (SES6011) dwe/1 N00H 'pAis using 11eA (171712) {9$0Z) (EVOL'6966'ZE96.9496' 4996./496.1.££6' LO 46011) uopru)suco pue u6isep Hempun0S 6.1.33road 46 31nos !**40-000 1sPe(ald pepunA summe3). • (E WaW6aS) Z9 enuenv 01 gg enusAV • IZ wew6as) gg anuanv 0195 anUOAV s133rokid 99 amos 64 wpoomnorgina (1966021) seuei wni 108 g Aprils 4uewu6lieeu MOW'UOJIAU3/6Up88" S133rOtld 6L amok! . . . (op i.z) (tviiiiaHztizou) '9966'4966 E40Z0/1) MOWuomu3/6uuesupu sioaroad FL 3111021 (ZVOZ) 'PAIS spu0100U 01 4Z/09 AOH u6Isea ieulA S133e0E1d 09 3111021 31V0 01 S1NP11.1r9ri00 31v0 01 to/ NOI1V0011V 34.V0 0/ NOIIVDOlTi ISNiVOY 11V0-01 S3W-1110NdX3 030N3 NINON 'Hint/ 1SNIVOV SIN3111111V100 S32l11110N3dX3 % HOd 32:1(1/10N3dX3 03.111111103 % TAM/OW:I/NOD NOISSIININ00 NOLLIINOSaCI 103r0Hd ainoa A9121od32f lacuna S13311)11d lIvr" WM1-101E1 ..v. 3ansv3vv 31321 %0'68 3/0E'48 V'se %E'SS % t '9S Tot,'69 %I' %VOL V0416 q.0 z99*LotzS 999'SS6'4$ Loe'ut 114'061,'IS LEC064.3 orezi 4947'ZI.ES .zeirsepets L68.170L'S$ PLO'S 1.4$ 8gS'08$ Et717.6Z4$ 989' LLZ$ Vol'L6 %9•96 %ci•• • • %0'00 *47.00G04H %TOM. !woe: %01116 0/06'06 °A4r40.:: %17'18 £ abed zot'we'ng OL0379L`Z$ 1. 46.E6ZZ$ 000.orts 000'9Z1.$ 4,04.94LII p0.0`.0914-!. 000'0017$ EL4'9L9'SS iltz'4911 tiV4 3017.064'ELS OLO'LOWZ$ 41.6t6Z.Z$ ..4*0.0000,1*:0446* (ZL.66.ZE66'406'ES66'S1786'6Z66'9SOZVZOZ.0000) SISOO lupollspoo dabov aniunms LE66.6Z0VOZ4Z'LZOZ'VEOZ021 (9ZOZ`9966'4S86'171786'EE86.ZE416`4£L6'0Z46 Ob) buyeewfiumesepnis vVa minviwoo 11110-LenS (L466) (9474Z) (£496) (L44Z-404Z) (6g86 011) WV210011d aN33N1/31:1111-Nlidvid :v.op`p.04 4.$;1?.-.010•0 000`SZ 4$ OD0'09L'4$ :000101,41.! 000.04t$ wg'szess 1..0.0.04#449:00 (9E66MI) APrila JaP11103141n0S/41-10N S331A2i3S V ?arid INVHDOEld 'iati46aa*Idiatia coo oa) 'AtI3S DHOW IIISN03 V io3road a vi-mami Ivxmons (91766'9Z66021) 6u!deospuei OI ewn), NIVUOCAld 3ONVI-10k131N1 *6$ ir.04044.0S (9406 '80060U) licuvw3j6i6u3 fuetijwitaid 6133r0/id SLZ-1 SIVO oi SlNINIPINWOO 31V0 01 1.011.£/£0 NC/I1/0011V 31V0 01 N0I1V0011V 1SNIV0V 31V0-01 S3W1110N3dX3 030N3 H1NOIN •Hinv 1SNIVOY S1N311111,11N00 032180H111V Sal1111aN3c1X3 % 110d ainlION3dX3 0311IWY100 % 1V8r110V81N00 NOISSI111100 NOI1d180S30 103r011d 31nou AE1 .1.210d321139ans sio3road AVMHOIH .V.. 3?iftSV3101 01321 E Jo E 06ed toiteg : Jo se men .sie6pnq mait ieosu o) paielei iou pue loeiwoonoaroad iem Joi eie sanien lly •sweboid )uatuencudw! abuellaielui Isup6e ueoi ( I.) :310N 5/08•C9 OS 969'119$ 000'0E3 000'0EL$ swewonwduij spew g Slaallis Je301 13V13H 40 A.1.13 %9*Z6 O$ 55ZVE.1$ 000'009'1$ 000'005'1$ stuowanwthui pew g swap pool 3NON1S13 331r1 JO A113 %01FL 0$ LO5'E99'1$ 19046£1'Z$ L90'6EVZS sluudwi pew pue SlaMS wool g oil ewnA 03110N AO A113 %OW 0$ . £00' 1.1L'ES LZ01,80'9$ LZ03,60'9$ swewenoidwl pew g SleEMS le001 v-moaran AO M.13 Vo017L o$ 0o5'088$ 009.teZC'1$ 009.17ZE`1$ puewenoidwl pew g SleallS leocri 0.1N13Vr NVS JO A113 %if t7 L 0$ 1.6VEE6'1$ 6117'9E8'3 6147•9E6'1$ swewanoglwl pew g soaxis pool Mind AO A113 fr.1449:: ilitH:H::H' ::ii 4.4-C . :.: —:.i*:.::. t. t94:441%.: ••,:•:•::•:•,.::.:::_:::i-]. sH:HHHHHH o •:.:•:.::::::::::*:,:.H.::.,.:.:.:::7.:.::•:::::::::.: t.z.9.1tt.t. .14.$U]:. di:i6 ki,:i4i6lii_iitiiitriS ainpruls aBeupp min %L-99 0$ 6PLI7LV'ES EZ9' Z1 Z.9$ CZ9' Z1 Z' 9$ (0 1. se6uetioiesw upoun g °Pm 'gips VN02103 40 A113 4$i4H;." . ' • L tgera4s.. 7 00Ced09 4S: ::::: ':L POO 0:09 1.$:':•.:. ii..v. 0. 1 0.,..0... N. cu..10..dIv. 1.01..ons %WU- 0$ Z96.9Z1'4$ 000'009'1$ 000'009' LS swawanwdwi pti uaueo peomem 3H1f1 NOANV3 AO A113 '1114114100 03A011ddV 1N31111111V409 30NVIVEI S30NVA0V 1.0/1.£/£0 IN3AL1IINV100 NOI1dt80S30 1SNIV9V 31v0-oi ONioNvIsino NV01 N. 3ansy3441 030N3 HINOW 1:13A0):IddV 103r0Hd 30NYIVI3 NV01 % SNICINVIS1110 1V101 804 3dfIlION3dX3 133rOkld AS .11:10d31:113sona S1331s021d saw»! v 91.33N1S -'4301/AVMHOIN ..V. 3):1(1SV3IN 313H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Budget Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to s?ek Commission approval to amend expenditure budgets for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff has been monitoring the revenues and expenses of the Commission. As a result of new projects and distribution of salaries between programs, staff needs to make four budget adjustments Adjustment 1 The Executive Committee has directed staff to upgrade the Information Services needs of the Commission. Staff was directed to upgrade the web site, install a Windows NT server and comply with the suggestions for improvement provided by Ernst and Young that recommended an installation of a firewall and securing the area where the computer hardware is maintained. A Request for Proposals is being prepared for web site design. Staff has obtained an estimate from its computer hardware vendor. Approximately $35,000 is needed to accomplish these tasks. A budget adjustment needs to be made to the Office Administration budget. Staff is recommending the transfer of budgeting authority from the Finance budget to accomplish these tasks. Finance realized these savings by terminating certain contracts and not utilizing other consultants. Adjustment 2 At the beginning of the year, staff made estimates as to where their time would be charged to for Salaries and Benefits. Finance staff is monitoring the budget and noticed that the Salaries and Benefits budget for Rail Capital was nearing its appropriation limit. Greater staff time is being charged to this program due to the ongoing issues related to the construction of the stations at Van Buren and in Corona. 000036 by Staff would like to adjust this department's budget and increase salaries and benefits by $10,000 to allow sufficient appropriations to complete the remainder of the year. Staff expects that Highway will utilize less appropriations than planned as efforts have been redirected into this project. Sufficient reserves exist to cover the increase in appropriations. Adjustment 3 On August 13, 1997, the Commission approved a request for matching funds for the Corona Depot. These matching funds were to be used for exterior rehabilitation which was to include roof repair, stucco repair, exterior painting, security lighting and fencing as well as landscaping and automatic irrigation. Staff received the invoice on April 12, 2001 and did not have this expenditure in current year budget. Staff is requesting an amendment to include this expenditure in current year budget. Sufficient funds exist to cover these costs. Adjustment 4 At the start of the year, Staff had budgeted legal services based on projections of projects. During the year, priorities have changed and considerable legal effort is being placed in the Rail portion of the budget with a matching decrease in the Highway portion of the budget. Staff would like to transfer expenditure authority from the Highway budget to the Rail budget. Funds utilized for these expenditures will be from Rail funds and not Highway funds. Legal Services incurred for the year will be the same as projected at the beginning of the year, however, the funds will be expended in a different program. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y & N Year: FY 2000/01 Amount: $20,000 Source of Funds: Appropriation Transfers and Rail Reserves Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No. Adjustment 1 S/19/65503 $25,000 - Decrease S/19/65406 $10,000 - Decrease S/12/90101 $35,000 - Increase Adjustment 2 222/33/ 60000 & 61000 $10,000 - Increase Adjustment 3 102/51 /81302 $10,000 - Increase Adjustment 4 222/31 /65101 $40,000 - Decrease 222/33/65101 $40,000 - Increase Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 4-17-01 00003'i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 . TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Executive Committee Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Employee Gift Limitation Policy EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1 f Approve the Employee Gift Limitation Policy; and, 2) Amend the Personnel Rules and Regulations to include the policy. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Working with Legal Counsel, the following is the employee gift limitation policy being proposed: 1. All RCTC employees shall demonstrate and be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all relationships involving their employment. Employees shall conduct themselves in an ethical manner at all times in order to merit the respect, trust, and confidence of others. 2. No employee or any member of his or her immediate family, shall accept, solicit or direct any gift, whether in the form of service, loan, thing of value, or promise, with a total value of more than .$100 in a calendar year from any person, firm, corporation or business entity which to his/her knowledge is interested in seeking a contract with RCTC. 3. No employee or any member of his or her immediate family shall accept, solicit or direct a gift, whether in the form of service, loan, thing of value, or promise, with a total value of more than $100 in a calendar year from any person, firm, corporation or business entity that has contracted with RCTC in the preceding 12 months. 4. Gifts extended to all employees, such as a basket of fruit, nuts, or candy are not covered under this policy. In addition, promotional items such as calendars or pens are not covered. Hospitality received by an employee as part of a 000033 seminar, convention or RCTC sponsored event is not covered, provided that such hospitality is open to all those attending the event. 5. The rules set forth herein are supplemental to those set forth in the Political Reform Act of the State of California (Governmental Code Section 81000 et sm.). 6. For purposes of this Section, "gift" shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 82028, as amended, of the Government Code, copy attached. "Gifts"do not include funds, items or services donated directly to RCTC for which the employee receives no personal monetary benefit or ownership interest. 7. For purposes of this Section, "employee" shall mean anyone who receives compensation from RCTC for full-time or part-time employment. 8. Violation of this Section by an RCTC employee may constitute a cause for suspension, removal from employment or other disciplinary action. For information, in addition to the Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer, the following positions are designated employees in RCTC's Conflict of Interest Code and must file an annual Statement of Economic Interest: • Director of Administrative Services/Clerk of the Board • Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs • Director of Planning and Programming • Director of Regional Issues and Communication • Program Managers • Public Information Officer • Property Agent 0 0 n 9 Attachment §82028. Gift (a) "Gift" means, except as provided in subdivision (b), any payment that confers a 'Personal benefit on the recipient, to the extent that consideration of equal or greater value is not received and includes a rebate or discount in the price of anything of value unless the rebate or discount is made in the- regular course of business to members of the public without regard to official status. Any person, other than a defendant in a criminal action, who claims that a payment is not a gift by reason of receipt of consideration has the burden of proving that the consideration received is of equal or greater value. (b) The term "gift" does not include: (1) informational material such as books, reports, pamphlets, calendars, or periodicals. No payment for travel or reimbursement for any expenses shall be deemed "informational material." (2) Gifts which are not used and which, within 30 days after receipt, are either returned to the donor or delivered to a * * * nonprofit entity_ exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code without being claimed as a charitable contribution for tax purposes. (3) Gifts from an individual's spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, parent -in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, or first cousin or the spouse of any such person; provided that a gift from any such person shall be considered a gift if the donor is acting as an agent or intermediary for any person not covered by this paragraph. this title. (4) Campaign contributions required to be reported under Chapter 4 of (5) Any devise or inheritance. (6) Personalized plaques and trophies with an individual value of less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250). 000040 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution No. 01-005, "Resolution Approving Adoption EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve Resolution No. 01-005, "Resolution Approving Adoption of California Public Employees' Deferred Compensation Plan". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Transportation Commission provides the ability for its employees to participate in a deferred compensation program. Currently, RCTC's deferred compensation program is with the ICMA Retirement Corporation. Note that participation is not mandatory to the employees and that there is no employer cost as this is employee contribution only. The maximum contribution is governed by IRS ruling and, currently, employees can contribute up to $8500 per year to their deferred compensation account. The Commission's approval of the resolution will provide another option for program provider in addition to the ICMA Program for employees to which they can contribute for deferred compensation. RCTC employees are covered by CALPERS. In addition to the resolution, the plan document is attached. The item was approved by the Executive Committee at their meeting on February 14, 2001 . Attachment 000041 RESOLUTION NO. 01-005 RESOLUTION APPROVING ADOPTION OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation' Commission (the "Commission") desires to an additional deferred compensation plan for the benefit of its employees; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Administration (the "Board") of the California Public Employees` Retirement System ("CaIPERS") has established the California Public Employees Deferred Compensation Plan (the "CaIPERS Plan") which may be adopted by a governmental employer the employees of which are public employees; and WHEREAS, the Commission believes that the CaIPERS Plan and the investment options available thereunder will provide valuable benefits to its employees; and, WHEREAS, the Board has appointed State Street Bank and Trust Company ("State Street") to perform administrative services under the PERS Plan and to act as the Board's agent in all matters relating to the administration of the CaIPERS Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission adopts the CaIPERS Plan for the benefit of its employees and authorizes and directs the Executive Director or his designee to execute the attached adoption agreement on behalf of the Commission, and to provide State Street with such information and cooperation as may be needed on an ongoing basis in the administration of the CaIPERS plan. A copy of this resolution, the agreement, and any attachments thereto shall be on file in the office of the Commission's Clerk of the Board. Passed and adopted as a resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, at a meeting held on May 9, 2001. Riverside County Transportation Commission William G. Kleindienst, Chairman Attest: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission 000042 CALPERS 457 PROGRAM CALPERS 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN DOCUMENT (AS AMEND. 1/1/98) The purpose of this Plan is to provide deferred compensation for California public employees that elect to participate in the Plan. This Plan is established pursuant to sections 21670 through 21685 of the Government Code of the State of California and is intended to constitute an "eligible deferred compensa- tion plan" within the meaning of Section 457 of the Federal Internal Revenue Coda. ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS The following terms when used herein shall have the following meaning: 1.1 Account: The bookkeeping account maintained with respect to each Participant which reflects the value of the deferred compensation credited to the Participant, including the Participant's Deferrals, the earnings or loss of the Fund (net of Fund expenses) allocable to the Participant, any Transfers for the Participant's benefit, and any distributions made to the Participant or the Participant's Beneficiary. 1.2 Adoption Agreement The agreement under which an Employer becomes a participating Employer under this Plan. 1.3 Beneficiary: The person or persons designated by the Participant to receive distributions from the Participant's Account after the Participant's death. 1A Board: The Board of Administration of Ca1PERS. 1.5 Code: The Federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time. 1.6 Deferral: An amount credited to a Participant's Account by reason of the Participant's agreement to defer a portion aids or her salary or wages. 1.7 Deferral Agreement: The agreement between an Employer and an Employee, including any amendments thereto, which specifies the amount of Deferrals to be made by the Employee. Each Deferral Agreement or amendment thereto shall be made or confirmed in writing under procedures established by the Board. 1.8 EEigibk Deferred Compensation Plan: A plan maintained by any employer that constitutes an "eligible deferred compensation plan" within the meaning of Section 457 of the Code and that has at all relevant times included the deferral limitations set forth in Section 45704. 1.9 Employees Any individual who is a common law employee of an Employer and is a member of CaIPERS or for whom the Board is otherwise authorized to administer this Plan under the Government Code. 1.10 Employer. Any political subdivision of the State of California for which the Board is authorized to administer this Plan under the Government Code and that has become a participating employer under this Plan pursuant to Artide II. Where required by the context, references to the Employer shall mean the current or former Employer of the Employee or Participant. CalPRRS 021A - 7/98 (: of 11) O'00043 1.11 Fund: The Public Employees' Deferred Compensation Fund that has been established as part of the Plan pursuant to section 21676 of the Government Code. For purposes of Section 8.1 of this Plan, the Fund shall not indude the asser management and services account maintained pursuant to section 21678 of the Government Code. 1.12 Government Coda Those statures of the Sate of California that have been codified as the Government Code. 1.13 Ineludible Compensation; A Participant's calendar year compensation from the Employer that is includible in gross income for Federal income tax purposes. Such term does nor include any Deferral excludable from gross income under this Plan or any other amount excludable from gross income under Section 457(a), 403(b), 401(k), or 125 of the Code. Indudible Compensation shall be determined without regard to any community properly laws. 1.14 Investment Option: One of the available alternatives for crediting investment earnings to a Participants Account, which shall be based upon the performance of one or a combination of the investment portfolios maintained under the Fund. 1.15 Normal Retirement Aga The age used to determine the three-year period in which a Participant may utilize the catch-up limitation under Section 4.2. A Participant may designate as his or her Normal Retirement Age the age that will be attained in any Year that is not earlier than the earliest Year in which the Participant will be eligible to retire without actuarial or similar reduction under Ca1PERS or another retirement system and that is not later than the Year of the Participant's Required Beginning Date. Once a Participant has utilized the catch-up limitation under Section 4.2 or under a comparable provision of another Eligible Deferred Compensation Plan, that Participant's Normal Retirement Age may not thereafter be changed. 1.16 Participant Any Employee or former Employee for whom a Deferral has been credited under the Plan and for whom an Account is maintained. 1.17 Ca1PERS: The Public Employees' Retirement System of the State of California. 1.18 Plan: The California Public Employees' Deferred Compensation Plan established pursuant to sections 21670 through 21685 of the Government Code, the terms of which are set forrh in this Plan document. To the extent required under Section 457 of the Code, each Employer's participation in this Plan shall be treated as a separate plan, and each Employer's separate plan shall be deemed to include any other Eligible Deferred Compensation Plan maintained by that Employes 1.19 Required Beginning Data April 1st ache Year following the Year of a Participant's attainment of age 70-112 or Separation from Service, whichever is later. 1.20 Separation from Services The cessation of an Employee's active employment with an Employer: The standards applicable under section 402(d)(4)(A)(iu) of the Code shall apply in determining whether a Participant has had a Separation from Service with the Employer. An Employee's rights upon Separation from Service with an Employer shall be unaffected by whether the Employee thereafter becomes an Employee of another Employer that has adopted this Plan. 1.21 'Transfer: An amount credited to a Participant's Account by reason of a transfer from another Eligible Deferred Compensation Plan. CaIPERS 021E - 7/9$ i2 of II) 000044 1.22 Unforeseeable Emergency: A circumstance of severe financial hardship to the Participant (or Beneficiary after the death of the Participant) resulting from a sudden and unexpected illness or accident of the Participant (or Beneficiary, as applicable) or of a dependent (as defined in Section 152(a) of the Code), loss of property due to casualty, or other similar extraordinary or unforeseeable circumstances arising from events beyond the control of the Participant (or Beneficiary, as applicable). A need to send a child to college or to purchase a new home shall not constitute an Unforeseeable Emergency. 1.23 Year. A calendar year. ARTICLE 2 - EMPLOYER PARTICIPATION 2.1 Initial Participation: This Plan shall be available to the Employees of an Employer only if the Employer has executed an Adoption Agreement and provided the Board with such information as the Board deems ne,-rcsary to administer the Plan on behalf of the Employer. 2.2 Terms of Participation: By executing an Adoption Agreement, an Employer agrees to adhere to all terms and conditions of the Plan, to invest all Deferrals and Transfers in the Fund, and to follow all administrative procedures established by the Board. Except as otherwise provided herein, the terms of this Plan shall apply on a uniform basis to all Employers participating hereunder. 2.3 Duration of Employer Participation: In the event that an Employer withdraws from paaicipation in the Plan, all amounts credited to the Accounts of the Employer's participating Employees will continue to be held in the Fund and will be distributed in accordance with the terms of the Plan, except to the extent of any elective transfers from the Plan pursuant to Section 7.2. ARTICLE 3 - EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION 3.1 Eligibility: Except as provided in section 21670 of the Government Code, all Employees of an Employer shall be eligible to participate in die Plan. 3.2 Initial Enrollment: In order to become a Participant, an Employee must enter into a Deferral Agreement, which shall become effective no earlier than the calendar month following the month in which the agreement is made. A Deferral Agreement will be given effect only if the Deferral amount elected therein satisfies whatever minimum the Board may establish, and the Employee provides all information called for on the agreement form. 3.3 Effect of Deferral Agreement Corrunencing with the effective date of an Employee's Deferral Agreement, his or her gross salary or wages shall be reduced by the Deferral amount specified in the Deferral Agreement. Deferrals shall continue to be made in such anoint unless and until the Deferral Agreement is amended or the Employee has a Separation from Service with the Employee Subject to the limitations of Article IV, Deferrals shall not be subject to Federal or California income tax withholding and shall not be reported as gross income on the Employee's annual wage statement (Form W 2). However, Deferrals shall be subject to FICA taxation when earned 3.4 Amendment of Deferral Agreement A Participant may amend or revoke his or her Deferral Agreement at any time, provided, however, that no change in the amount of a Participant's Deferrals will become effective until the calendar month following the month in which the Deferral Agreement is amended. 3.5 Investment Options: Upon enrollment, the Participant shall designate the investment Option or Investment Options to which his or her Deferrals are to be allocated. A Participant may thereafter re -allocate his or her Account balance among the available Investment Options. The minimum amounts or percentages that may be allocated among Investment Options, and the timing and frequency of re -allocations, shall be subject to such limitations and procedures as the Board may from time to time establish. UPERS os tC - 7M Odin 00004.E 3.6 Beneficiary Designation: Upon enrollment, the Participant shall designate a Beneficiary to receive distributions from the Participant's Account in the event of the Participant's death. A Participant may change his or her designated Beneficiary at any time, provided that an amended Beneficiary designation tion shall be given effect only if it is signed by the Participant and delivered to a Plan representative (or post -malted for delivery) prior to the Participant's death. A Participant may designate any person or persons as Beneficiaries. Unless otherwise provided in the Beneficiary designation form, each designated Sem-E -:ary shall be entitled to equal shares of the benefits payable after the Participant's death. If the Participant fails to designate a Beneficiary, or if no designated Beneficiary survives the Participant for a period of fifteen (15) days, then the estate of the Participant shall be the Beneficiary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Participant's Beneficiary designation shall not be given effect and shall be overridden to the extent that such a designation would impair the rights of any surviving spouse under applicable law. 3.7 Additional Deferrals: An Employer may make additional Fund investments with respect to any Employee, resulting in additional credits to the Account of such Employee. Any such additional credits shall be treated as Deferrals for all purposes of the Plan. The Employer shall notify the Board of any such additional Deferrals, and each Employee for whom such Deferrals are to be made must complete a Deferral Agreement, regardless of whether elective Deferrals arc to be made by such Employee. ARTICLE 4 - DEFERRAL LIMITATIONS 41 General Limitation: Except as provided in Section 4.2, a Participant's Deferrals for a Year shall not exceed the lesser ol: (a) $8,000 (or such greater dollar limit as may be in effect under Section 457(e) of the Code), or (b) 33-1/3% of the Participant's Ineludible Compensation for the Year. 4.2 Catch-up Limitation: If a Participant has designated a proper Normal Retirement Age in the manner established by the Board, then for one or more of the three (3) Years ending before the Year in which a Participant attains that Normal Retirement Age, the Participant's Deferrals shall not exceed the lesser of (a) $15,000 (or such grater dollar amount as may be in effect under Section 457 of the Code), or (b) the limitation under Section 4.1, plus the portion of the limitation under Section 4.1 that was not used by the Participant in a prior Year commencing after 1978. A prior Year shall be taken into account under this paragraph only if the Participant was eligible in that Year to participate in this Plan or in any other Eligible Deferred Compensation Plan. 4.3 Coordination with Other Plans: The limitations under Section 4.1 and 4.2 shall be reduced by any amount excluded from the Participant's gross income for the same Year (or any prior Year taken into account under Section 4.2) under Sections 402(e)(3), 402(h)(1)(3), 403(b), 457(a), or 501(e)(18) of the Code under a plan maintained by the Employer or any other employer, except that the limitation under Section 4.1(b) shall not be reduced by any amount excluded from gross income under a plan maintained by another Employe ARTICLE 5 - PARTICIPANT ACCOUNTS 5.1 Crediting of Accounts: All Deferrals and Transfers with respect to a Participant shall be credited to the Participant's Account as of the date such amounts are invested in the Fund in accordance with the procedures established by the Board. The Employer shall cause all Deferrals and Transfers to be invested in the Fund as soon as praaicable after such amounts are withheld from the Pardcipant's salary or wages or are available from the transferor plan, as applicable. CAPERS 021D - 7/98 (s of i n nonn4r, 5.2 Account Balances: The value, or balance, of each Participant's Account shall equal the aggregate value of the Fund investments held with respect to the Participant, based on the Investment Options selected by the Participant, and the method of valuation established by the Board. Each Participant shall periodically receive a statement which shows his or her Account balance and summaries any credits or other transactions since the preceding statement. In the event that an individual has participated in this Plan by reason of employment with two or more Employers, separate Accounts shall be maintained for such individual with respect to each employment relationship. ARTICLE 6 - DISTRIBUTIONS 6.1 Commencement of Distributions upon Separation from Serviea Upon a Participant's Separation from Service with an Employer, the Participant nny elect to receive distributions under one of the optional distribution forms described in Section 6.2, commencing no earlier than the sixty-first (61st) day following the date of the Participant's Separation from Service, or the Participant may elect a deferred commencement date under Section 6.3. If neither such election is made within sixty (60) days of the Participants Separation from Service, distributions shall commence under the Default Distribution Option as soon as practicable thereafter. Except as provided in Sections 6.5 and 6.6, no amount will be distributed from a Participant's Account before the sixry-first (61 st) day following the date of the Participant's Separation from Service with the Employer. 6.2 Optional Distribution Forms: Prior to the commencement due under Section 6.1 or Section 6.3, as applicable, the Patricipant may elect to have his or her Account distributed in one of the following forms: (a) a single lump sum payment•, (b) substantially nonincreasing installment payments for a period of years (payable on an annual, semi-annual, quarterly, or monthly basis) which extends no longer than the life expectancy of the Participant or such longer period as permitted under Section 6.8; (c) partial lump sum payment of a designated amount, with the balance payable in substantially nonincreasing installment payments for a period of years, as described in paragraph (b); or (d) annuity payments (payable on an annual, quarterly, or monthly basis) for the Participant's lifetime, or for the lifetimes of the Participant and the Participant's Beneficiary if permitted under Section 6.8; (e) such other form of installment payments as may be approved by the Board consistent with the limitations of Section 6.8. No election of a distribution form under this Section 6.2 may be made or changed after the commencement due for such distribution form. 6.3 Deferred Commencement Data Not later than sixty (60) days following the date of the Participant's Separation from Service, the Participant may elect a deferred commencement date for pan or all of the Participant's Account balance. Such date may not be later than the Participant's Required Beginning Date. Unless an optional distribution form is elected before that deferred commencement date, the Participant's Accotmt shall then be distributed under the Default Distribution Option. A Participant's election of a deferred commencement due under this Section 6.3 shall be irrevocable, provided, however, that if a Participant's deferred commencement date is later than December 31, 1996, the Participant may, at least 30 days prior to such date, elect a later deferred commencement date as permitted under section 457(0)(9)(B) of the Code; any Participant who has made such a second election of a deferred commencement date may not thereafter revoke or modify that election. 6.4 Default Distribution Option: For purposes of this Amide 6, the "Default Distribution Option shall be substantially nonincreasing annual installments over ten OW years or, if less, the number of years obtained by dividing the Participant's Account balance at the benefit commencement date by $5.000 and by rounding the quotient to the nearest whole number. GAPERS 02I E - 7ro9 i5 4111 000047 6.5 Cash -outs and Combined Payments: The Board reserves the right to adopt guidelines, which shall be uniformly applied to all Plan Participants and Beneficiaries, under which Account balances below a specified level may be distributed in a lump sum upon Separation from Service or at a deferred commencement date and installment payments below a specified amount may be combined and paid at less frequent intervals (but not less frequently than annually). In addition, the Board reserves the right, subject to the limitations of Section 457(e)(9)(A) of the Code, to establish uniform guidelines under which a Participant's Account balances may be distributed in a lump stun either before or after the Participant's Separation from Service, and either with or without the Participant's consent, provided that (i) the Participant's Account balance does not exceed $5,000, (ii) no Deferral has been credited to the Participant's Account in the preceding twenty-four (24) months, and (iu) no prior payment has been made to the Participant under Section 6.1 or this Section 6.5. 6.6 Unforeseeable Emergenciese In the event of an Unforeseeable Emergency prior to or after the commencement of distributions, a Participant (or Beneficiary after the death of the Participant) may apply to receive that part of the value of the Participant's Account that is reasonably needed to satisfy the emergency need, including any income tax resulting from the distribution. Payment will not be made to the extent that the financial hardship may be satisfied through cessation of Deferrals, insurance or other reimbursement, or a liquidation of other assets to the extent such liquidation would not itself cause severe financial hardship. 6.7 Death Benefits: Upon the Participant's death, the Participant's remaining Account balance shall be payable to the Beneficiary commencing on the sixty-first (61st) day after the date of the Participant's death, unless, within sixty (60) days of the Participant's death, the Beneficiary irrevocably elects a deferred commencement date that is consistent with the limitations set forth below. Prior to the Beneficiary's commencement dare, the Beneficiary may irrevocably elect to receive the Participant's remaining Account balance under any optional distribution form described in Section 6.2, provided that the elected distribution form satisfies the limitations set forth below. If a Beneficiary fails to make a timely election of an optional distribution form, death benefits shall be paid under the Default Distribution Option or over such shorter period as may be required under the limitations set forth below. (a) If the Participant dies prior to the Participant's Required Beginning Date and the Beneficiary is the Participant's surviving spouse, the commencement date shall be no later than the last day of the Year in which the participant would have attained age 70-1/2 (or, if later, the Year immediately following the Year of the Participant's death) and shall be paid over a period that does not exceed the life or life expectancy of the surviving spouse. (b) If the Participant dies prior to the Participants Required Beginning Date and the Beneficiary is not the Participant's surviving spouse, the entire Account balance shall be distributed no later than (i) on the last day of the Year which includes the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Participant's death, or (ii) if distributions to the Beneficiary commence by the last day of the Year immediately following the Year of the Participant's death, the last day of the Year which includes the fifteenth (15th) anniversary of the Participant's death. (c) If the Participant dies after the Participant's Required Beginning Date or after the commencement of distributions in the form of an annuity, the Beneficiary may not elect to defer the commencement of death benefits, and the Participant's remaining Account shall be distributed at least as rapidly as under the method selected by the Participant. (d) In the event that a Beneficiary dies before ail payments m the Beneficiary have been completed, the remaining value of the Participant's Account shall be paid to the estate of the Beneficiary in a lump sum. (e) If there are two or more Beneficiaries, the provisions of this Section 6.7 and Section 6.8 shall be applied separately to each Beneficiary with respect to that Beneficiary's share in the Participants Account. (f) No Beneficiary shall have any right of recovery against the Employer or the Plan for any distributions that are made in the nacre of the Participant before a Plan representative has been duly notified of the Participant's death. 6.8 Limitations on Distribution Options: No distribution option may be selected by a Participant or Beneficiary under this Article 6 unless it satisfies the requirements of Sections 401(a)(9) and 457(d)(2) of the Code, including that installment payments be made in substantially noninereasing amounts and that payments commencing before the death of the Participant satisfy the incidental death benefits requirement of Section 457(d)(2)(B)(i)(I). The terms of this Article shall be construed in accordance with those Code sections and the regulations thereunder. Unless otherwise elected by the Participant or a Beneficiary, all distribution periods based on life expectancies shall be determined in the manner required under section 401(a)(9) of the Code without recalculation of life expectancies. CalPERS 021 f - 7/9s {6 a(11) 000048 6.9 Distributions from Fund: Except as otherwise provided herein, all distributions shall be made directly from the Fund to the Participant or Benrfiriary. To the extent required by law, income and other taxes shall be withheld from each benefit payment, and payments shall be reported to the appropriate governmental agency or agencies. 6.I0 Annuities: In the event that a Participant or Beneficiary elects to receive distributions in the farm of a life annuity or another annuity form that cannot be distributed from the Fund, the portion of the Participant's Account balance allocable to that form of distribution shall be distributed from the Fund and used to purchase a commercial annuity contract under which that form of annuity is pmvided. The amount of the annuity payments to the Participant or Beneficiary shall equal the amounts payable under such annuity contract. An annuity contract acquired in connection with an annuity form of distribution shall be held by the Employer for the exclusive benefit of the Participant or Beneficiary. The Employer shall have no beneficial ownership interest in such annuity contract. However, the Employer shall be solely responsible to assure that all benefit payments are made in accordance with the terms of the Plan, and that all tax withholding and reporting requirements are satisfied. ARTICLE 7 - TRANSFERS 7.1 Acceptance of Transfers: A Transfer will be accepted and credited to a Participant's Account under the Plan if such Transfer is made from another Eligible Deferred Compensation Plan maintained by the Employer or another employer and is made in cash or other property that the Board accepts for investment in the Fund. Any Transfer so credited to a Participant's Account shall be invested in the Fund, and the portion of the Participant's Account balance attributable to such Transfer shall be disnibured in accordance with the terms of the Plan. 7.2 Transfers to other Mann At the election of a Participant, all or a ponionof the Participant's Account balance may be transferred to another Eligible Deferred Compensation Plan maintained by the Employer or another employer of the Participant, provided that such other plan accepts transfers. 7.3 Transfer Conditions: The Board reserves the right ro limit the tams and conditions under which Transfers will be accepted from or made to other Eligible Deferred Compensation Plans, including such terms and conditions as are necessary to comply with regulations or other pronouncements under Section 457 of the Code and to assure that any transferor or transferee plan constitutes an Eligible Deferred Compensation Plan. ARTICLE 8 - PARTICIPANT RIGHTS 8.1 Participants' Interest in the Fund: The Fund shall constitute a trust held for the exclusive benefit of Participants and Beneficiaries under the Plan. No part of the corpus or income of the Fund shall be used for, or diverted to, purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of Participants and their Beneficiaries, and no Employer or creditor of an Employer shall have any interest in or claim against any part of the assets of the Fund. 8.2 Benefits Based on Account Balances: The benefiu payable to each Participant (and his or her Beneficiary) shall be measured by and limited to the amounts properly credited to the Participant's Account. A Participant shall have no claim under the Plan for any loss or diminution of his or her Account' balance that is attributable to any loss in the value of the investment portfolios of the Fund that correspond with the Investment Options selected by the Participant. 8.3 Nonassigaability: Except as provided in Section 8.4, the rights of a Participant or Beneficiary under this Plan may not be sold, assigned, pledged, committed, transferred, or otherwise conveyed, and any attempt to assign or transfer rights or benefits under this Plan shall not be recognized. Except as otherwise required by law, the rights of a Participant or Beneficiary corder this Plan shall not be subject to attachment, garnishment, or execution, or to transfer by operation of law in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency' of the Participant or Beneficiary or otherwise. GAPERS 021G -7199 {7 all» 000049 8.4 Transfers ender Domestic Relations Orders: To the extent required under a final judgment, deem, or order (including approval of a property settlement agreement) made pursuant to a state domestic relations law, any portion of a Participant's Account may be paid or set aside for payment to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the Participant. Where me ssary ro carry out the terms of such an order, a separate account shall be established with respect to the spouse, former spouse, or child who shall be entitled to choose Investment Options in the same manner u the Participant. Any amount so set aside for a spouse, former spouse, or child shall be paid out in a lump sum at the earliest date that benefits may be paid to the Participant, unless the judgment, deem, or order directs a different form of payment. Nothing in this Section 8.4 shall be construed to authorize any amount to be distributed under the Plan at a time or in a form that is not permitted under Section 457 of the Coda 8.5 Release from Liability to Participant: A Participant's right to receive benefits under the Plan shall be reduced to the extent that any portion of a Participant's Account has been paid or set side for payment to a spouse, former spouse, or child pursuant to Section 8.4 or to the omen/ that the Employer or the Plan is otherwise subject to a binding judgment, decree, or order for the attachment, garnishment, or execution of any portion of the Participant's Account or of any distributions therefrom. The Participant shall be deemed to have released the Employer and the Plan from any claim with respect to such amounts in any case in which (i) the Employer, the Plan, or any Plan representative has been served with legal process or otherwise joined in a proceeding relating to such amounts, (ii) the Participant has been notified of the pendency of such proceeding in the manner prescribed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending for service of process or by mail from the Employer or a Plan representative to the Participants last known mailing address, and (iii) the Participant fails to obtain an order of the court in the proceeding relieving the Employer and the Plan from the obligation to comply with the judgment, decree, or order. 8.6 Participation in Legal Proceedings: Neither the Employer nor any Plan representative shall be obligated to incur any cost to defend against or set aside any judgment, decree, or order relating to the division, attachment, garnishment, or execution of the Participant's Account or of any distribution therefrom. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Employer, the Plan, or a Plan representative is joined in any such proceeding, a Plan representative shall take such steps as it deems necessary and appropriate to protect the terms of the Plan. ARTICLE 9-TERNIS OF FUND INVESTMENTS 9.1 Use of Fund: Except as otherwise provided herein, the Fund shall serve as the exclusive investment vehicle for amounts held under this Plan. By executing an Adoption Agreement, each participating Employer shall agree ro accept the terms and conditions of Fund investments set forth herein and to invest all Deferrals and Transfers with respect to its Employees in the Fund. Except as otherwise authorized by the Board, Fund investments shall be restricted to participating Employers that have adopted this Plan. 9.2 Administration of Fund: As provided in section 21677 of the Government Code, the Board has the exclusive control of the administration and investment of the Fund. As provided in section 21676 of the Government Code, the Board may retain a bank or taut company to serve as a custodian for safekeeping, recordkeeping, delivery, securities valuation, investment performance reporting, or other services in connection with the investment attic Fund. In addition, the Board may retain one or more investment managers or investment advisors to manage or participate in the managanent of the investment portfolios of the Fund. All expenses and fees incurred in the administration of the Fund shall be treated as Plan expenses under Section I0,4. 9.3 Investment Options: The Board shall establish such Investment Options as it deems necessary to provide Participants with a diversified range of alternatives, including but not limited to Investment Options of the type described in section 21673 of the Government Code. Each Investment Option shall be based upon the investment performance of one or a combination of separate investment portfolios maintained under the Fund The Board shall specify the investment objectives and characteristics of each Investment Option and the corresponding investment portfolio or portfolios and shall provide Employers and eligible Employees with a written description of each available Investment Option. The Board, in its sole discretion, may add, eliminate, or consolidate Investment Options and corresponding investment portfolios from time to time. In the event that an Investment Option is eliminated, the Board shall provide prior notice of such elimination, and if the Participants whose Accounts were wholly or partially allocated to that Investment Option do not make a re -allocation, the Board shall re -allocate such amounts to the available Investment Option or Investment Options that dne Board in its sole discretion deems most comparable to the eliminated Investment Option. CAPERS 011 H - 7/98 (8 ail) 000050 9.4 Fund Investments: Subject to the limitations of applicable law and such further limitations as the Board may establish, each investment portfolio of the Fund may hold any form of investment that is consistent with its investment objectives. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the investment portfolios may hold equity or debt securities (other than securities issued by any Employer), fixed or variable annuity contracts (including deposit administration contract) issued by life insurance companies, certificates of deposit or fixed rate investment contacts issued by a bank or similar institution, and such short-term instruments or deposits as the Board deems necessary to satisfy the liquidity needs of the Fund. In addition, each investment portfolio may hold shares, units, or participating interests in regulated investment companies, common or collective trust funds maintained by banks or similar institutions, investment partnerships, or other pooled investment funds or trusts that may issue participating interests to Eligible Deferred Compensation Plans. 9.5 Valuation and Accounting: Each investment portfolio of the Fund shall be valued at least monthly, and the value of each Participant's Account shall be determined by reference to the portion of the Participant's Account allocable to each investment portfolio. The valuation of each investment portfolio shall reflect income received and accrued, realized and unrealized gains and losses. and allocable Fund expenses. The value of each Participant's interest in an investment portfolio may be measured in units, shares, or dollars. In addition, the Board shall maintain records showing the value of the Fund investments allocable to all Participants (and deceased Participanu) whose entitlement to benefits under the Plan is attributable to employment with each participating Employer. 9.6 Redemption Restrictions: No Employer shall have any right to redeem, revoke, sell, or otherwise liquidate any contribution to or investment in the Fund, except as may be necessary to: (a) effectuate a Participant's election to transfer all or a portion of his or her Account balance to another Eligible Deferred Compensation Plan; (b) effectuate the purchase of an annuity contract, as provided in Section 6.10; or (c) correct an investment in the Fund nude by reason of a mistake of fact. Nothing in paragraphs (a) through (c), above, shall give any Employer the right to redeem, revoke, sell, or otherwise liquidate any Fund investment, unless the Board or its designee has been provided with adequate evidence of the Employer's right to do so. ARTICLE 10 - ADMINISTRATION OF PLAN 10.1 Duties of Board: Except as provided in Section 10.3, the administration of the Plan shall be under the exclusive control of the Boatel The decisions of the Board shall be foul, binding, and conclusive on all interested persons for all purposes. No member of the Board shall be entided to act on or decide any matters relating solely to himself or herself or any of his or her rights or benefits under the Plan. To the maximum extent permitted by law, each member of the Board shall be held harmless for all acts performed in good faith in connection with the Plan. 10.2 Delegation of Authority: The Board may delegate to any individual member of the Board, any employee or employees of CaIPERS, or any independent contractor the authority to act as the Board's agent with respect to any matter within the control of the Board, provided that any such delegation of authority shall be subject to revocation by the Board. Any act that the Board is required or authorized to perform under the terms of this Plan, including any commuRicarion to be made or received by the Board and the adoption of any supplementary guidelines or procedures, may be performed by an agent of the Board, provided such person is acting within the scope of that person's delegation of authority from the Board. To the maximum extent permitted by law, each employee of CaIPERS shall be held harmless for any act performed in good faith in connection with the Plan. Any independent contractor who is retained to perform services under the Plan shall perform such services solely as the agent of the Board and shall not be liable to any Employer, Participant, or Beneficiary for any act performed (or nor performed) hereunder. CAPERS 0211 - 7192 M of l» 00005-t 10.3 Duties of Employer. In accordance with procedures established by the Board, the Employer shall be responsible: (a) to assure that participation in the Plan is limited to Employers of the Employer and to make the Plan available to all eligible Employees; — (b) to assure that Deferrals are properly deducted from the salaries and wages of participating Employees and remitted on a timely basis to the Fund and to report the amount of such Deferrals on Employees wage statements in the manner required under applicable law; (c) to assure that Deferrals, taking account of amounts deferred under any other Eligible Deferred Compensation Plan maintained by the Employer, do not exceed the limitations described in Article 4; (d) to approve distribution elections and applications, including applications for withdrawals on account of Unforeseeable Emergencies, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6; (e) to provide the Board with such information and in such form as the Board deems necessary for the proper administration of the Plan; and (f) to carry out such other responsibilities as the Employer and the Board may agree. 10.4 Plan Expenses: The expenses of administering the Plan and Fund, including (i) expenses incurred by the Board in the administration of the Plan and Fund (ii) fees and expenses approved by the Board for investment advisory, custodial, recordkeeping, and other plan administration and communication services, and (its) any other expenses or charges allocable to the Plan or the Fund that have been approved by the Board shall be charged to the Fund or, as appropriate, to a particular Investment Option or Investment Options under the Fund and shall be reflected in Participants' Account balances as provided in Section 5.2. Brokerage fees, transfer taxes, and any other costs incident to the purchase or sale by the Fund of securities or other investments shall be deemed to be part of the cost of such securities or investments or deducted in computing the sales proceeds therefrom and shall be accounted for accordingly. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board reserves the tight, as provided in section 21675 of the Government Code, to enter into arrangements with Employers under which specified administration costs are borne by such Employers or charged against additional Deferrals under Section 3.7 at the time invested in the Fund. 10.5 Communications from Participants: All enrollments, elections, designations, applications and other communications by or from an Employee, Participant, Beneficiary, or legal representative of any such person regarding that person's rights under the Plan shall be made in the form and manner established by the Board and shall be deemed to have been made and delivered only upon actual receipt by the person designated by the Board to receive such communication. Neither the Board nor the Employer shall be required to give effect to any such communication that is not made on the prescribed form and in the prescribed manna and that does not contain all information called for on the prescribed form. The Employer shall promptly furnish the Board or its designee a copy of any such communication that is delivered or transmitted to the Employer. 10.6 Communications to Employers: All notices, statements, reports, and other communications from the Board to any Employer shall be deemed to have been duly given when delivered to, or when mailed by first class mail, ro the official of the Employer who has been designated by the Employer in connection with its Adoption Agreement (or as a modification of the information provided in connection with its Adoption Agreement) to receive such communications. 10.7 Communications to Participants: All notices, statements, reports, and other communications from the Board or an Employer to any Employee, Participant, Benefiriary, or legal representative of any such person shall be deemed to have been duly given when delivered to, or when mailed by first class mail, to such person at his or her last mailing address appearing on the Plan records. 10.8 Ttme Periods: As necessary or desirable to facilinte the proper administration of the Plan and consistent with the requirements of Section 457 of the Code, the Board may further restrict the time periods during which a Participant or Beneficiary is required ra make any election under the Plan, including the making or amending of a Deferral Agreement, the making or amending of Invesunent Option selections, the election of distribution commencement dates or distribution forms. GAPERS 021 j - 7/98 t:octtt) 00005 ARTICLE 11 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 11.1 Amendment: Subject to the requirements of the Government Code, the Board reserves the night at any time to amend or modify the Plan without the consent of any Employer, Participant, or Beneficiary. The Board shall give notice of any such amendment or modification to participating Employers. Except as may be required to maintain the status of the Plan as an Eligible Deferred Compensation Plan under Section 457 of the Code or to comply with other applicable law, no amendment or modification shall impair any individual's right to benefits under the Plan or expand any Employer's obligation to provide benefits with respect to amounts previously credited to Participants' Accounts. 11.2 Effect on Employment: Nothing contained herein shall give any Employer the right to be retained in the employment of an Employer or affect the right of an Employer to terminate any Employee's employment. 11.3 Binding Contract: The teens of this Plan, as duly amended from time to time, shall constitute a contract between each Participant and the Employer and shall be binding, as applicable, upon their heirs, administrators, trustees, successors, assigns, and Beneficiaries 11.4 Supplementary Information and Procedures: Any explanatory brochures, pamphlets, or notices distributed by the Board to Employees, Participants, Beneficiaries, or Employers shall be distributed for information purposes and shall not override any provision of this Plant or give any person any claim or right not provided for under this Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent that the terms of this Plan document authorize the Board to adopt supplementary guidelines or procedures, any publication announcing such guidelines or procedures may be relied upon by the persons to whom it is distributed, unless and until modified by a subsequent publication. Any procedural requirement described in any such publication shall be binding upon the Employee, Participant, Benefr»ry, or Employer, as applicable, to the same extent as if such requirement were set forth in this Plan document. 11.5 Incompetence of Payee If an Employer or the Board shall find that any person to whom any amount is payable under the Plan is ridable to care for his or her affairs, is a minor, or has died, any payment due him or her, or his or her estate, may be paid to his or her spouse, a child, a relative, or any other person having maintaining or having custody of such person, unless a prior claim therefor has been made by a duly appointed legal representative. Any such payment shall be a complete discharge of all liability under the Plan thereof. 11.6 Applicable Law: This Plan shall be construed under die laws of the State of California and in conformity with the requirements of Section 457 of the Code and all regulations thereunder applicable to Eligible Deferred Compensation Plans. GIPFRS 021K -7198 (11 pf r 1) 000053 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Executive Committee Chairman Will Kleindienst SUBJECT: Amendment to the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Administrative Code and Adoption of Ordinance 01-001, "An Ordinance Amending the Riverside County Transportation Commission Administrative Code" EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND CHAIR RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt Ordinance 01-001, "An- Ordinance Amending the Riverside County Transportation Commission Administrative Code". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Commission's February 14th meeting, a need to form a Property Committee arose and the Chairman of the Budget and Implementation Committee made appointments to the Committee. The Property Committee would review and make recommendations to the Budget and Implementation Committee on issues and matters related to RCTC-owned properties. The Property Committee, working with RCTC and Ca!trans staff, was also directed to develop a policy on sound walls. A question was raised on whether the Property Committee should be considered as an ad hoc committee or a standing committee of the Commission. At the April 11, 2001 meeting, Legal Counsel provided information on the requirements for ad hoc and a standing committee. After review of the requirements and the function of the Committee, the Executive Committee agreed and proposes that the Property Committee be designated as a standing committee. For this year, the membership of the Property Committee will remain the same. However, for next year, the Commission's Chairman will appoint the members. Also, the Committee will report directly to the Commission and all of their meetings will be in accordance with the Brown Act. In addition to the proposal to designate the Property Committee as a standing committee of the Commission, the Executive Committee also proposes a revision to the Code as it relates to compensation for alternate members. Alternate members may receive compensation and expenses only for attendance at a meeting where a regular member is absent for all or part of the meeting. 000051 ORDINANCE NO. 01-001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE WHEREAS, by Ordinance 93-003 the Riverside County Transportation Commission has enacted an Administrative Code; WHEREAS, by Ordinance Nos. 94-001, 94-002, 95-001, 95-002, 98-002, 99-001, 99-002, 00-01 and 00-02, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has amended its Administrative Code; WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that it is now necessary to again amend its Administrative Code to reflect changes in its committee structure, committee functions, and alternate member compensation; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby ordains as follows: Section 1: Article II, Section h of the Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "h. COMPENSATION. Unless prohibited by law from accepting compensation, each regular and alternate member of the Commission shall be compensated at the rate of One Hundred Dollars ($100) for any day attending to the business of the Commission, but not to exceed Four Hundred Dollars ($400) in any month, along with necessary traveling and personal expenses incurred in the performance of his oT her duties as authorized by the Commission. An alternate member may receive compensation only for attendance at a meeting where a regular member is absent for all or part of the meeting. 1. Attendance at meeting of the Commission. 2. Attendance at committee meetings of the Commission if attending as a member of such committee. 3. Attendance at activities and events for the purpose of representing the Commission when such attendance is formally requested by the Commission or the Chair of the Commission. 000055 4. Attendance at project -related events, e.g., groundbreakings, ribbon cuttings, etc. for Commission -financed or sponsored projects." Section 2: Article III, Section H(1)(c) of the Administrative Code is hereby added to read as follows: "H. COMMITTEES OF THE COMMISSION. 1. The following Committees of the Commission are hereby created: lc) Property Committee. This Committee shall be composed of up to nine (9) members of the Commission selected by the Chair. Subject to supervision by the Commission, the jurisdiction of the Committee shall be to oversee acquisition, management and disposition of the Commission's property matters and any other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. Meetings shall be held at the time and place determined by the Committee . " Section 3: Article III, Section H(4) of the Administrative Code is hereby added to read as follows: "H. COMMITTEES OF THE COMMISSION. 4. The Commission's Committees are authorized to establish rules of procedure relating to the activities and functions of the respective Committee, including the creation of subcommittees of committee members." Section 4: This Ordinance shall be effective on May 9, 2001. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of May, 2001. William G. Kleindienst, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 000056 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee John Standiford, Public Information Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: UCLA Arrowhead Symposium Sponsorship BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to co-sponsor the annual UCLA Symposium, scheduled for October 14-16, 2001 at the UCLA Conference Center in Lake Arrowhead, in the amount of $5,000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The UCLA Symposium brings together policymakers, practitioners and researchers to discuss major transportation policy and planning issues in a multi -disciplinary environment. RCTC has participated as a long-time sponsor of this symposium and Commissioners and other local representatives have participated in various presentations and activities during the Symposium. The requested sponsorship amount is $5,000, which is the same level of funding the Commission provided last year. Similar sponsorships are being sought from a wide variety of transportation, environmental and business organizations. Given the Commission's previous funding commitments to the symposium, the request was included in the approved FY 2000/2001 budget. Based on sponsorship approval, ROTC will be allocated three registrations to the Symposium which may be used by Commissioners or staff. Registrations are limited and is usually fully subscribed. Commissioners who are interested in attending should contact Naty Kopenhaver to reserve a place. Last year, participation in the symposium proved to be especially appropriate and timely. Commissioner and County Supervisor Tom Mullen served as featured speaker and made an informative and well -received presentation on the Riverside County Integrated Plan. Last year's program focused on growth impacts in California. This year, the main topic will be the challenges and goals of public transportation. In doing so, the symposium will focus on the interrelationships among transportation, funding, air quality and social issues as they relate to public transit issues. Past symposiums have inspired legislative and policy initiatives, new implementation measures, special projects and 00005r new research. The symposium also gives participants a unique opportunity to interact and share ideas with experts, academics and other practitioners. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year:_FY 2000-01 Amount: *5,000 Source of Funds: Regional Issues Budget Budget Adjustment: N GLA 222 67 73150 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 4-17-01 000058 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Alameda Corridor -East (ACE) Trade Corridor Draft Final Report PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to receive and file the ACE Trade Corridor Draft Final Report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Alameda Railroad Corridor, currently under construction, is a major public works project serving the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. It will consolidate all freight train movements to and from the ports over a 17 mile, fully grade -separated alignment through several Los Angeles communities. Upon completion in April 2002, the Corridor will accommodate 100 trains a day, many approaching two miles in length. Though this project mitigates rail freight impacts closest to the ports, communities farther east will see increased rail traffic and grade crossing delays. Southern California counties and SCAG have identified the eastern continuation of the major railroad corridors as the "Alameda Corridor -East" (ACE). A provision of AB 2928 requires the San Gabriel Valley COG, SANBAG, OCTA, and RCTC to develop a corridor plan addressing the regional mobility needs, the regional, state, and national impacts of the corridor, and a strategy for financing proposed corridor improvements. At its September 2000 meeting, the Commission approved RCTC participation in a four -party ACE Trade Corridor Steering Committee and the allocation of $25,000 to develop the Corridor Plan. RCTC's, and the other counties', funding of the Corridor Plan increased to $35,000 as a result of an increase in the amount of consultant activities. This regional collaborative effort has resulted in a Corridor Plan that highlights the growing conflict between trains, trucks, and cars in Southern California. The report is scheduled for approval by the California Transportation Commission at its June 2001 meeting. The Corridor Plan will be used to support a federal earmark in the re- authorization of TEA-21. 000059 Impact to Riverside County As a result of RCTC's involvement in the development of the Corridor Plan, a prioritized list of grade crossing improvements along the three main lines (UP Los Angeles subdivision, UP Yuma Main subdivision, and BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision) was developed with the involvement of the affected jurisdictions: Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Coachella, Corona, Indio, and Riverside, and the County of Riverside. This is part of an ongoing cooperative effort with WRCOG, building upon the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Goods Movement Element. Consistent with the Commission action in March 2001, the Plan includes all 59 grade crossings in Riverside County. The following summarizes the major project benefits for a $725 million investment in 59 grade crossing improvements along the ACE Trade Corridor in Riverside County: • Eliminates rail, vehicle, and truck conflicts by grade separating 47 crossings; • Provides safety upgrades at 11 crossings and closes one crossing; • 416,140 Ibs/year of air pollutants (generated by vehicles) will be reduced in the worst (PM 2.5) air basin in the nation; • Projected 69% increase of gate down dwell times of 9 - 28 minutes will not occur; • Projected 367% increase in auto/truck traffic delay will not occur as a result of 91 % increase in rail traffic and 69% increase in vehicular traffic due to project implementation; • Benefits movements of both freight (BNSF and UPRR) and passenger (Metrolink and Amtrak) trains that operate on this corridor; and • Substantial reduction of community disruption as a result of the decrease in noise pollution from train whistles in residential areas. Attachments include the draft Executive Summary as well as excerpts related to Riverside County. A complete copy of the report is available upon request. 000060 ALaMEDA CORRIDOR - EAST TRADE CORRIDOR PLAN I Riverside County Transportation Coninrission ALAMEDA CORRIDOR - EAST CONSTRUCTION A UTHORI T Y SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION rel ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OCTA 411,11=111CITY OF PLACENTIA April 5, 2001 DRAFT REPORT FOR COMMENT 000061 ALAMEDA CORRIDOR -EAST TRADE CORRIDOR PLAN I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report examines the status, significance, project needs and priorities of goods movement through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (San Pedro Bay ports) and along the Alameda Corridor -East (ACE) Trade Corridor, extending from the downtown Los Angeles rail yards through the Cajon Pass in San Bernardino County and into central and eastern Riverside County. The estimated cost of the total program is $3.070 billion, with $561 million in funds committed, including AB 2928 revenues; this leaves an unfunded need of$2.509 billion. The enactment of AB 2928, along with SCR 96 calling for the creation of a "Global Gateways Development Program," represents a recognition by the Legislature and Governor that the State has a major responsibility for making strategic infrastructure investments in the ACE Trade Corridor. Section 14556.52 of AB 2928 state legislation (amended by SB 1662) requires that "before grants from the fund may be allocated to any of the three Alameda Corridor East Projects identified in Section 14556.40, a report shall be completed and submitted to the commission within one year of the operative date of the section. The report shall be prepared by a team consisting of the lead applicants for those projects. The report shall address regional mobility needs as well as regional, state, and national economic impacts of the corridor. The team shall also evaluate and assess the technical merits, determine the phasing and delivery schedule, and identify a financing strategy for the proposed corridor improvements." In response to the legislation, the lead applicants —San Gabriel Council of Governments, San Bernardino Associated Governments, Orange County Transportation Authority, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission --developed a plan addressing the impacts of current and future goods movement on the major rail and truck routes emanating from the ports eastward through the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, and Riverside. The lead agencies drew on current and available data to address the requirements of the AB 2928. _ Demonstrating a regional approach to project planning, the report addresses the requirements associated with the growing conflict between trains, trucks, and cars along the ACE Trade Corridor. This report provides a policy and technical framework for state decision -makers responsible for developing a comprehensive state goods movement strategy and plan, and a TEA-21 congressional reauthorization program. Projected growth in the global economy during the twenty-first century offers critical opportunities for the $1.3 trillion California economy, the world's sixth largest. International trade is a leading growth sector of the state, Southern California and national economies, and is the sector best positioned to take advantage of global growth opportunities. The vitality of the state's trade sector, and the future competitiveness of the state, region and nation in a just -in -time economy, increasingly depends upon its global gateways — its international seaports and airports — and the major trade corridors which serve as strategic Draft 4/19/01 00006. intermodal linkages and provide needed goods movement mobility throughout the state, region and nation. Improving the major trade corridors such as the ACE Trade Corridor, which serve the San Pedro Bay ports, is essential to preserving California's and the nation's global competitiveness. A map of the ACE Trade Corridor and rail lines are attached (See Figures 1-A and 1-B). Regional, State and National Impacts: The ACE Trade Corridor's economic benefits to the region, state and nation, both now and projected to 2020, are substantial. They accrue from the corridor's ability to facilitate trade flow to and from the San Pedro Bay ports, which account for 81 % of California's and 30% of the nation's maritime trade activity. Benefits include the value of goods shipped, employment and wages, and the tax revenues accruing to different levels of government. International trade flowing through the San Pedro Bay ports and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), and Ontario International Airport (ONT) in the future is of growing importance to the five --county Southern California economy. International trade through the Los Angeles Customs District is likely to nearly triple, 2000 to 2020, from $230 billion to $661 billion if unconstrained by transportation bottlenecks. For the region, trade -based employment (both direct and indirect) is forecast to increase by 128%, to 2.5 million jobs, in the next 20 years. Based upon a trade -related regional earnings increase (2000 to 2020), state tax revenues from the burgeoning Southern California trade sector are likely to grow by over $10 billion, local government revenues by over $8 billion, and U.S. govenunent tax receipts by over $25 billion. These are conservative estimates, but depend upon Southern California agencies completing planned trade infrastructure projects such as the ACE Trade Corridor. Economic Growth Projections: 2000-2020 Five -County Southern California Area* 2000 2020 % Increase Population (millions) 16.7 21.5 28.6% Employment (millions) 6.7 9.7 44.1 Two -Way Trade (billions of $)** $230 $661.0 187.5% *Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura **Los Angeles Custom District includes Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and other ports in Ventura County, International Airports in the Five -County Southern California Area, and McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas. The trade activity specifically within the San Pedro Bay ports creates additional state and federal benefits both within and outside of Southern California. For example, in 1992 the ports generated an additional 500,000 trade -related jobs in California, resulting in $3 billion annually in state and local tax revenues. Nationwide, between 1992 and 2020, the ports are forecast to create at least 3.2 million new jobs, and nearly $20 billion in increased annual federal tax revenue. These too are conservative estimates. Should Draft 4/19/01 000063 projects like the ACE Trade Corridor not be built in a timely fashion, these regional, state and national benefits will be reduced. Regional Mobility Needs: Maintaining adequate regional mobility has become Southern California's premier transportation challenge. Regional population growth that will add five million new people by 2020 — the equivalent of another Los Angeles and San Diego -- wiIl coincide with rising trade volumes at the ports and airports. Already strained to capacity and beyond, the region's transportation infrastructure — its highways, airports, ports, and rail lines — will face dramatic increases in demand. Rising trade volumes will contribute to a projected 70% increase in daily truck trips along nine major routes in the region, 1995 to 2020, from 600,000 trips per day to more than 1,000,000. Population growth will generate an additional 2.7 million cars competing with trucks on the region's notoriously congested freeway system. At the San Pedro Bay ports, container traffic, 2000 to 2020, is projected to grow by 175%, from nearly 7 million loaded Twenty -foot equivalent units (TEUs) to over 19 million TEUs. A mere five years ago — when container traffic was less than half its current level - the ports generated an average of 16,500 truck trips per day. Today, there are more than 25,000 daily trips and the major truck route serving the ports — the 710 Freeway — is rapidly nearing gridlock with no relief in sight. On the other hand, rail cargo will soon speed from the ports to downtown via the Alameda Corridor, scheduled for completion in 2002. Beyond the Alameda Corridor, however, the ACE Trade Corridor's three rail corridors — the Union Pacific lines and the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe line through Los Angeles, Northern Orange, converging in San Bernardino County, and Riverside County — face growing bottlenecks affecting both the movement of goods and people. Just as port activity leads to more freight trains, population growth and crowded freeways create demand for more commuter trains that share these tracks. Along the BNSF, the average number of daily freight and passenger trains, 2000 to 2020, is forecast to grow from 59 to 150. During this period, traffic on the UPRR promises to grow at a similar rate, from 67 trains per day to 168. The primary mobility issue for the ACE Trade Corridor's rail lines is growing at -grade conflicts between trains, trucks and cars. The sheer number of corridor trains by 2020 — more than one every ten minutes along the more heavily used portion of the rail network — wilI inevitably cause greater vehicle delays, vehicle emissions, grade crossing accidents and noise impacts if not mitigated by the ACE Trade Corridor's grade -separation projects. Study Methodology: Projections of traffic growth through the San Pedro ports were developed on the basis of assumptions about imports and exports, including population and employment growth in the local economy, prospects for major trading partners in Asia and Latin America, and investments in cargo -handling capacity at the ports. Loaded TEUs are forecast to increase by 175% between 2000 and 2020 — a major determinant of freight train and truck traffic. The current 50/50 split between rail and truck was assumed to be unchanged over the 20-year period. Ninety percent of the Ports' rail traffic is expected to head east via the BNSF and UPRR. A split of rail traffic between the two Draft 4/19/01 000064 lines was estimated. The resulting updated, uniform rail traffic projections for the entire corridor were then used to adjust earlier 2020 grade crossing impact data (vehicle hours of delay) from previous county studies. Proposed Improvement Plan: The ACE Trade Corridor improvement plan proposes grade separations and improvements at 130 crossings along the 282 mile Trade Corridor, plus 22 crossing improvements. The estimated cost of the total program is $3.070 billion. With $561 million in funds committed, including AB 2928 revenues, this leaves an unfunded need of $2.509 billion. This is broken down by county as follows: (a) Los Angeles County: $1.309 billion (43 grade separations); (b) Orange County: $476 million (11 grade separations); (c) San Bernardino County: $560 million (29 grade separations, plus 11 safety/capacity improvements); and (d) Riverside County: $725 million (59 grade separations, plus 11 crossing improvements). Project Financing: The ACE Trade Corridor Improvement Plan is anticipated to cost $3.070 billion dollars. The four lead agencies already have identified $561 million in funding, including $273 million from AB 2928. This report recommends that the remaining $2.509 billion be secured from local, state, and federal government sources, as well as private sector beneficiaries of the improved corridors. The source of local contributions will be determined at the discretion of the lead agencies, but could include city and county transportation agency funds along with railroad contributions. Specific sources of future state support would have to be decided during the normal legislative process, but might include transportation programs such as the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITT). The most likely source of federal funds will be the successors to the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-2I). Summary — ACE Trade Corridor Program Agency # Grade Separations # Unfunded Unfunded # Miscellaneous Crossing Improvements Cost** Unfunded Costs J SGVGOC including Gateway Cities 43/31 * $1.309 Bil $924 M OCTA/ONTRAC 11/10 - $476 M $439 M RCTC 47/46 11 $725 My $719 Mf, SANBAG 29/23 11 $560 M $427 M Total 130/110 22 $3.070 Bil $2.509 Bil *44 Crossings are under construction for safety improvements that are not included in program. **All costs except SGVCOG in current dollars (2001). Draft 4/19/01 000065 Project Benefits: The ACE Trade Corridor extends the public infrastructure necessary to connect the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the Alameda Corridor to the transcontinental rail network through the nation's second largest metropolitan area: ■ Trade through the Los Angeles Customs District, which includes the Ports, is valued at $230 billion annually; expected to grow to $661 billion annually by 2020. ■ international trade accounts directly for 475,000 jobs in Southern California today and is expected to increase to over 1 milIion by 2020; its share of total employment has doubled since 1980 and is expected to go up another 70% by 2020. ■ Statewide, more than 500,000 jobs are attributable to trade through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach alone. ■ Nationally, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are responsible for more than 2.5 million trade related jobs (1992), a number expected to exceed 5.7 million within 10 years. ■ Major importers and exporters in every state in the Union send or receive goods through the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports. ■ $13.8 billion in state tax revenues and $11.3 billion in local tax revenues are estimated to be paid as a result of the increased trade. In addition, $34.7 billion of additional income tax revenues are estimated to be paid to the federal government as a result of the increased trade through the Los Angeles Customs District. Additionally, the ACE Trade Corridor Plan will enhance public safety in Southern California by virtually eliminating pedestrian and vehicle conflicts at 130 crossings. The number of vehicle hours of delay will be reduced in an environment of huge increases in train and vehicular traffic, thus improving the delivery of goods and services to local businesses. The Plan will also help to reduce pollutant emissions, thereby having a positive impact on the quality of life in the region and contributing to Federal air quality conformity benefits. Benefits stemming from the San Pedro Ports, facilitated by the rail and highway infrastructure in Southern California, affect all 48 contiguous states. By 2010, trade - related jobs will reach 5.7 million in the nation, more than double the mid-1990s level. Revenues to the federal government will also more than double, to $36.8 billion. Need for a Broader Strategy: The ACE Trade Corridor Plan does address the regional, state and federal mobility impacts of the ACE Trade Corridor. The Plan does not assess the broader goods movement mobility needs of the region, nor does it attempt to prioritize these needs to existing state and federal funds, or alternative financing strategies. The Plan addresses grade separation needs only — not the full range of goods movement mitigation needed in these four counties. The region's mobility needs, as identified through SCAG's draft 2001 Regional Transportation Plan for the 10 year planning horizon, include: over $3 biIlion in public financing for truck lanes on SR 60, arterial/freeway interchanges, ground access improvements to airports and intermodal facilities, and highway improvement projects proposed in regional Measure Programs which are dependent on future STIP allocations to complete. Draft 4/19/01 000066 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contract with the San Bernardino Associated Governments for funding of the CETAP Riverside County/San Bernardino County STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve: 1) Contract No. 01-095 with the San Bernardino Associated Governments to receive their contribution toward the CETAP Riverside County/San Bernardino County Corridor Study in the amount of $250,000; and, 2) Authorize the Commission Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As you know, we have actively been seeking funding for our Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) work effort. The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) has agreed to be our partner on the CETAP Riverside County to San Bernardino County Corridor Study, which is one of our four priority corridors. They have agreed to share in the cost of work on this corridor by contributing $250,000. Attached is Contract No. 01-095 which outlines the General Provisions for receipt of these funds. SANBAG has already been participating on policy and technical committees for this corridor study. They were active participants in our recent public workshop and assisted in review of all public information and documents related to this corridor. SANBAG has also been in contact with the cities in San Bernardino County which are affected by this corridor study and has garnered support from the cities of Grand Terrace, Colton, San Bernardino, Loma Linda, and Redlands; these cities have agreed to provide funding towards this corridor study up to an additional $250,000. 000067 CONTRACT NO. 01-095 BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS/ SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE CETAP RIVERSIDE COUNTY/SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (TWO COUNTY) CORRIDOR STUDY This Contract (the "Contract") is entered into this day of , 2001, by and between Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and San Bernardino Associated Governments/San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SANBAG). RECITALS WHEREAS, RCTC has agreed to retain a consultant for the preparation of the CETAP Riverside County/San Bernardino County (Two County) Corridor Study (Study). WHEREAS, SANBAG has agreed to the scope of the Study and has agreed to share the cost of preparing such Study. NOW THEREFORE, SANBAG and RCTC agree to the following: 1. RCTC will coordinate with the consultant to perform the Study. 2. SANBAG will contribute no more than $250,000 towards the cost of the Study. RCTC will provide SANBAG with backup detailing the actual cost. 3. RCTC shall invoice SANBAG for costs provided to RCTC for above mentioned work. All payments shall be made within 60 days of invoice submittal following execution of this Contract by ail parties. 4. RCTC shall make available to SANBAG all pertinent consultant products in draft form for SANBAG review, comment, and revision as appropriate. RCTC small also make available to SANBAG a copy of each final product of the Study. 5. SANBAG staff and elected officials shall serve along with Riverside County Transportation Commission officials on technical and policy advisory committees to guide the study and its conclusions. 000068 6. Neither SANBAG nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Contract. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, RCTC shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless SANBAG, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Contract. 7. Neither RCTC nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Contract. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, SANBAG shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless RCTC, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work, authority of jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Contract. 8. General Provisions 8.1 Notices, Demands and Communications between the Parties. Written notices, demands and communications between RCTC and SANBAG shall be sufficiently given if delivered by hand or dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the principal offices of RCTC and SANBAG. Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section 8.1. Any written notice, demand or communication shall be deemed received immediately if delivered by hand and shall be deemed received on the tenth day from the date it is postmarked if delivered by registered or certified mail. 8.2 Default. The following shall constitute a "Default" under this Contract: A party's failure to perform its obligations under this Contract. However, if a specific time is provided for the remedy of such failure, a party's failure to perform will not constitute a Default until the specified time period expires. 8.3 Remedies. In the event that RCTC is in Default of this Contract as specified in Section 8.2, SANBAG may suspend payment of amounts 000060 otherwise payable pursuant to Sections 2 and 3 of this Contract until such default has been cured. 8.4 Legal Actions (a) Institution of Legal Actions. In addition to any other rights or remedies either party may institute legal action to seek specific performance of the terms of this Contract, or to cure, correct or remedy any Default, to recover damages for any Default, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purpose of this Contract. (b) Applicable Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Contract. (c) Acceptance of Service of Process. In the event that any legal action is commenced by SANBAG against RCTC, service of process on RCTC shall be made by personal service upon the Executive Director of RCTC or in such other manner as may be provided by law. In the event that any legal action is commenced by RCTC against SANBAG, service of process on SANBAG shall be made by personal service upon the Executive Director of SANBAG, or in such other manner as may be provided by law. Service shall be valid whether made within or without the State of California. (d) Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Contract, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative, and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. (e) Inaction not a Waiver of Default. Any failures or delays by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies, or deprive either such party of its rights to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. (f) Jury Trial Waiver. RCTC and SANBAG hereby waive their respective right to trial by jury and agree to accept trial by judge alone of any cause of action, claim, counterclaim or cross- 000070 complaint in any action, proceeding and/or hearing brought by either RCTC against SANBAG or SANBAG against RCTC on any matter whatsoever arising out of, or in any way connected with, this Agreement, the relationship of RCTC and SANBAG, or any claim of injury or damage, or the enforcement of any remedy under any law, statute, or regulation, emergency or otherwise, now or hereafter in effect, regardless of whether such action or proceeding concerns any contract or tort or other claim. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO EACH OF THEM TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT WITHOUT THIS JURY TRIAL WAIVER. THE PARTIES FURTHER AGREE THAT EACH OF THEM HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL OF ITS OWN CHOOSING IN CONNECTION -WITH THIS JURY TRIAL WAIVER AND UNDERSTANDS THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THIS WAIVER. (g) Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any party's rights hereunder, each party, including the prevailing party, must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. 8.5 Non -Liability of Officials and Employees of RCTC and SANBAG. No member, official or employee of RCTC shall be personally liable to SANBAG, or any successor in interest, in the event of any Default or breach by RCTC or for any amount which may become due to SANBAG or its successors, or on any obligations under the terms of this Contract. No member, official or employee of SANBAG shall be personally liable to RCTC, or any successor in interest, in the event of any Default or breach by SANBAG or for any amount which may become due to RCTC or its successors, or on any obligations under the terms of this Contract. 8.6 Successors and Assigns. The terms of this Contract shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. 8.7 Entire Contract: This Contract integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties or their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject hereof. 8.8 Waivers and Amendments. All waivers of the provisions of this Contract must be in writing by the appropriate authorities of RCTC and SANBAG, 000071 and all amendments hereto must be in writing by the appropriate authorities of RCTC and SANBAG. 8.9 Standard of Approvals. In any circumstance where under this Contract either party is required to approve or disapprove any matter, except as provided otherwise, approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 8.10 Time of Essence. Time is expressly made of the essence with respect to . the performance of the parties hereunder. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS By: By: William G. Kleindienst, Chairman Dennis Hansberger, President SANBAG Board of Directors Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Steven DeBaun Rex A. Hinesley RCTC Legal Counsel SANBAG Legal Counsel Date: Date: 000072 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee John Standiford, Public Information Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: San Bernardino Associated Governments FY 01 /02 Commuter PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1 } Enter into a contract with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as part of the Commission's continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG in the delivery of commuter and employer rideshare services for FY 01 /02; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since 1993, San Bernardino Associated Governments has contracted with the Commission to develop, implement and manage a Commuter Assistance Program for San Bernardino County commuters. The program consists of three projects. Option Rideshare, was developed as a "sister" incentive project to the Commission's Measure A commuter incentive project, Advantage Rideshare which focuses on encouraging solo drivers to try alternative commute modes. In addition to Advantage Rideshare, SANBAG offers Team Ride as part of its Commuter Assistance Program. Team Ride, modeled after the Commission's Club Ride Program, provides a 20% discount at local restaurants and 50% off at local entertainment venues for long-term ridesharers. In addition to these two programs, SANBAG and the Commission jointly established Inland Empire Commuter Services in FY 95/96 when it was determined by the two agencies that the Inland Empire would assume direct responsibility for the provision of local employer rideshare services as opposed to contracting with Southern California Rideshare, a division of Southern California Association of Governments. Based on SANBAG staff's review of the three projects' performance this current fiscal year, the Commission has developed a FY 01 /02 work plan and budget for continuation of SANBAG's Commuter Assistance Program. Also included in the budget is a Special 000073 Projects category which allows for flexibility in addressing changing conditions or needs in providing transportation demand management services to employers and commuters within a fiscal year. A summary budget which includes descriptions of the programs is attached as Exhibit A, and was prepared by RCTC and SANBAG staff. Attached as Exhibit B are the goals for the SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program. Also attached is Exhibit C which is the proposed contract agreement language between RCTC and SANBAG. The proposed contract between SANBAG and the Commission which defines the terms and conditions regarding project goals, budgets, reporting, invoicing and payment for services rendered will be presented to SANBAG's Board at its June, 2001 meeting. Once approved, the contract will be reviewed by RCTC's legal counsel. Staff seeks Commission approval to enter into the contract with SANBAG for FY 00/01 in an amount not to exceed $793,763. SANBAG's approval includes the allocation of Measure I and CMAQ funds for their Commuter Assistance Program. Attachments Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2001-02 Source of Funds: LTF - Commission GLA 222 41 81001 Fiscal Procedures Approved: - Amount: $793,763 Budget Adjustment: N Date: 4/17/01 00007 AGREEMENT NO. 01-003 BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF EMPLOYER AND COMMUTER RIDESHARE SERVICES AND PROGRAMS THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of this day of June 2001, in the State of California by and between SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS, referred to herein as "SANBAG," and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, referred to herein as "RCTC." WHEREAS, SANBAG approved allocation of Transportation Equity Act of the 21 d Century (TEA-21) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, and Measure I - Valley Traffic Management and Environmental Enhancement (TMEE) funds, to provide trip reduction services as well as incentives for the commuter programs; and, WHEREAS, SANBAG requires professional and consulting services with respect to the provision of commuter services and programs within San Bernardino County; and, WHEREAS, RCTC has managed the bi-county Inland Empire Commuter Services program since November 3, 1993, and has the expertise and resources necessary to manage such services for SANBAG. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: A. Contract Services. 1. RCTC will administer, market, and implement a commuter services program in coordination with RCTC's commuter services program and in coordination with the regional ridesharing core services program in compliance with and as specified in Attachment "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. RCTC shall provide program administration and oversight and assure that its consultants and/or staff performs its services within the budgets set forth in Attachment "A." 3. RCTC shall provide SANBAG with no more frequently than a bi-monthly and no less than a quarterly report of progress relative to tasks identified in Attachment "A" to this Agreement and in such detail as may be approved by SANBAG. B. Compensation. 1. It is understood that SANBAG funding for the program under this Agreement will not exceed seven ninety three thousand seven hundred and sixty-three dollars and no cents ($793,356.00) and is being provided from the following sources: 0:IA01003.doc Page 1 of 9 000075 (a) Ninety thousand six hundred and eighty-two dollars and fifty-one cents ($90,682.51) from San Bernardino County local '/2 cent sales tax, Measure I - Valley Traffic Management and Environmental Enhancement (TMEE) funds, (b) Six hundred thousand nine hundred and twenty-three dollars and forty-nine cents ($699,923.49) from Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. 1t is agreed that SANBAG Measure 1 - TMEE will reimburse RCTC for the cost of purchasing promotional and food items not reimbursable by Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ). CMAQ funds shall not be used for food items, and invoices submitted to SANBAG shall clearly delineate this program expenditure. It is agreed that in the event sufficient funds from the sources set forth in (a), (b), and/or (c) above do not become available to SANBAG for this Agreement, SANBAG may immediately terminate this Agreement with written notice, but shall pay to RCTC from other sources any amounts required to cover RCTC's costs to the date of Agreement termination. 2. SANBAG shall pay RCTC on a cost -reimbursement basis, based upon invoices which delineate charges based on tasks identified in Attachment "A." All invoices shall be provided to SANBAG no more frequently than on a monthly basis and no less than a quarterly basis. 3. SANBAG shall be fully responsible for obtaining cost reimbursements of TEA-21 CMAQ funds. 4. SANBAG shall review all billings submitted by RCTC for accuracy and process payment based thereon to RCTC in a timely manner. 5. RCTC shall maintain during the terms of this Agreement and for three years thereafter accounting records which cover the receipt and disbursement of all funds provided for the programs administered and implemented under this Agreement. Such records shall be made available for inspection during normal business hours by duly authorized representatives of SANBAG, Caltrans, and the United States Department of Transportation. C. Term. 1. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2001 and terminate on June 30, 2002, unless it is extended by a written amendment approved by the parties. 2. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other for no or any reason, including, but not limited to, changes in legislation, rules and regulations impacting trip reduction programs. SANBAG shall pay for any service provided up to the effective date of the termination. 3. The Executive Directors of both RCTC and SANBAG shall have the authority in their sole discretion to give notice of termination on behalf of their respective agencies. 0:IA01003. doc °f 000076 Page 2 9 D. Y2K Compliant. RCTC hereby represents that all products, equipment, hardware, software, electronic components, and systems (individually and collectively referred to herein as Equipment) being used by RCTC hereunder, or relied upon by RCTC in its provision of Services to SANBAG hereunder, are in fact "Year 2000 Compliant". As used herein, the term "Year 2000 Compliant" shall mean that the Equipment will continue to perform the same functions and provide the same level of accurate information and calculations during the years 2000, and thereafter as it did prior thereto. In regard, RCTC represents that the functionality of the Equipment and, if applicable, the provision of Services to SANBAG, will not be adversely affected by the fact that such information and/or calculations may be provided. RCTC may be affected by the fact that such information and/or calculations may be provided. RCTC may be required to describe or demonstrate the procedures used to verify compliance. In addition, RCTC represents that should the Equipment fail because of a lack of Year 2000 Compliance, RCTC has in place a manual backup system with which to perform the Services. RCTC and SANBAG agree that, should the Equipment fail because of unanticipated circumstances, the parties will meet and confer about how to share costs to make the Equipment function properly to support the Services and seek redress against the supplier of the Equipment. E. Indemnification and Insurance. 1. (a) It is understood and agreed that neither RCTC nor any officer, employee, consultants or agent thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, SANBAG shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless RCTC, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement. (b) It is understood and agreed that neither SANBAG nor any officer, employee, consultants or agent thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, RCTC shall fully defend,- indemnify and save harmless SANBAG, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC or its consultants under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. 2. Commercial General Liability Insurance. RCTC and itsconsultants shall maintain occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or be no less than two times 0:IA01003.doc of o o o PP? Page 3 the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: (a) Name SANBAG, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of Services. Such insured status shall contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection to the above -listed insured. (b) Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering SANBAG, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants. (c) Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3. Business Automobile Liability Insurance. RCTC and its consultants shall maintain business automobile liability insurance orequivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 4. Workers' Compensation Insurance. RCTC and its consultants shall maintain workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident. 5. Certificates/Insurer Rating/Cancellation Notice. (1) RCTC and its consultants, prior to commencement of the Services, shall furnish and require its subcontractors to furnish to SANBAG properly executed certificates of insurance, and certified copies of endorsements, and policies if requested by SANBAG, which shall clearly evidence all insurance required in this Section. RCTC and its consultants shall not allow such insurance to be canceled, allowed to expire or be materially reduced in coverage except on 30 days prior to written notice to SANBAG. (2) RCTC shall maintain and shall require its consultants to maintain such insurance from the time the Services commence until the Services are completed, except as may be otherwise required by this Section. (3) RCTC may legally self insure, but shall require its consultants to place insurance with insurers having an A.M. Best Company rating of no less than A: VIII and licensed to do business in California. (4) RCTC and its consultants shall replace certificates, policies and endorsements for any insurance expiring prior to completion of the Services. F. Rights of SANBAG. The Executive Directors of both SANBAG and RCTC shall have full authority to exercise their respective entity's rights under this contract. G. Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality/Use of Data. (1) Ownership. All materials and data, including data on magnetic media, prepared by RCTC under this Agreement shall become the common property of the RCTC and 0:IA01003.doc (� (� w� of 0000 Page 4 9 SANBAG. RCTC and SANBAG shall not be limited in any way in its use of such data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at the respective parry's sole risk and provided that the other party shall be indemnified against any damages resulting from such use, including the release of this material to third parties for a use not intended by this Agreement. Neither party to this Agreement shall sell the data or other materials prepared under this Agreement without the written permission of SANBAG. (2) Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other materials described in subsection (1) either created by or provided to RCTC in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by RCTC. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of SANBAG, be used by RCTC for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services. Nothing furnished to RCTC which is otherwise known to RCTC or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. RCTC shall not use SANBAG's name or insignia, photographs of the project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of SANBAG. (3) Use of Data. All data shall be provided to SANBAG in hard copy and electronic media. Data in electronic media shall be Year 2000 Compliant and shall be provided in a form which will allow SANBAG to use, access, and manipulate the data to prepare reports and perform other ride matching activities contemplated by this Agreement. H. Independent Contractor. SANBAG retains RCTC on an independent contractor basis and RCTC and its consultants shall not be employees of SANBAG. The consultants and other personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of RCTC shall at all times be under RCTC's exclusive direction and control. RCTC shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due its employees in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law: RCTC shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such employees, including, but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. I. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any party's rights hereunder, each party, including the prevailing party, must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. This paragraph shall not apply to those costs and attorneys' fees directly arising from any third party legal action against a party hereto and payable under Paragraph 3E, Indemnification and Insurance. J. Consent. Whenever consent or approval of any party is required under this Agreement, that party shall not unreasonably withhold nor delay such consent or approval. 0:1A01003.doc Page 5 of 9 000079 IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE AUTHORIZED PARTIES HAVE BELOW SIGNED AND EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE: SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Dennis Hansberger, President Will Kleindienst, Chairman REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Norman R. King, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR SANBAG Rex A. Hinesley, SANBAG Counsel REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Eric A. Haley, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR RCTC Best, Best & Krieger, RCTC Counsel REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT 0:IA01003.doc of 000080 Page 6 9 San Bernardino Commuter Assistance Programs Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Inland Empire Commuter Services $219,099 Provides a variety of services to employers who participate in trip reductions activities, including network meetings, technical assistance, promotions, coordination of average vehicle ridership surveys and RideGuide dissemination. This program also distributes rideshare information via the Rideshare Connection broadcast fax. Other areas of work include assistance from IECS staff toward other regional rideshare projects including the 1 800-COMMUTE Information Line. Option Rideshare $432,862 Offers San Bernardino County residents gift certificate incentives of $2 per day for each day they rideshare, use transit, telecommute or bike or walk to work. The incentive offer is only given to those trying rideshare for the first time and is limited to a three-month period. This year, the program will include a marketing emphasis to those commuting from San Bernardino County to jobs in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. This will require direct marketing to users via billboards and newspaper advertisements. Team Ride $108, 102 Modeled after Riverside County's Club Program, this offers long -times rideshares discounts at participating retailers and entertainment venues. Discounts range from 20 percent off at restaurants and up to 50 percent off and buy one - get one free offers at entertainment venues including minor league baseball games at the Epicenter in Rancho Cucamonga. The affinity program is designed to encourage ongoing ridesharers to continue their efforts. Special Projects $33,700 During the last decade, rideshare programs in Southem California have faced constant change. Regulations regarding employer rideshare programs have been revised. Also, rideshare-matching technology continues to progress at a rapid rate. At the same time, RCTC and SANBAG as well as other Southern California transportation agencies are continually evaluating the best method of offering regional rideshare information to the public. Currently, data regarding employers and potential rideshare customers is administered by the Southern California Association of Governments. This budget line item will pay for research efforts on these topics, which could require consultant assistance. 000081 SANBAG FY 2001/2002 Rideshare Program Goals • Implementation of commuter assistance programs to approximately 285 regulated and non -regulated employer worksites in San Bernardino County, to assist in the development and implementation of trip reduction programs. • Provide assistance to 72 employers located in San Bernardino County representing a total of 215 worksites. • Provide assistance to three multisite/multijurisdictional headquarters located in San Bernardino County representing 8 worksites in San Bernardino, Riverside, as well as Los Angeles and Orange Counties. • Update and revise survey tools, instruments, and RideGuide material. Process 43,893 surveys to 72 San Bernardino County employers, resulting in the dissemination of 21,918 RideGuides to San Bernardino County commuters. • Develop and implement two promotional marketing campaigns at San Bernardino County employer worksites, four regional Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) network meetings, 16-18 fax broadcast, and other events. • implementation of rideshare incentive programs (Option Rideshare for residents who work in San Bernardino or Riverside counties) which will reduce 69,963 one-way vehicle trips throughout the year, reduce 545,883 million vehicle miles traveled. • Develop and implement a demonstration program to reduce trips from San Bernardino County residents who work in either Los Angeles or Orange County. The program should focus on marketing to the user rather than to employers and should result in a demonstrable increase in ridesharing along the 1-10 and Route 60 corridiors. • Outreach to 150 employers within Southern California to solicit participation in the Option Rideshare Program, and 150 employers for the Team Ride Incentive Program. • Implementation of Team Ride to long term ridesharing employees. Total registration will consist of 1,341 members by June 30, 2002. This number will grow to 1930 by the end of October 2002 when the Team Ride program year ends. 000082 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee. Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to City of Riverside's Measure "A" Capital Improvement BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to approve the amendment to FY 2001 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Riverside, as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The City of Riverside's Measure "A" Plan was approved by the Commission at its July 12, 2000 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted Plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City has submitted a revised Plan for FY 2000-01 and is seeking Commission approval. The revised Plan increases the funding for the La Sierra Avenue widening project by $1.8 million and adds $50,000 for a traffic signal project at Van Buren Boulevard and Dauchy Avenue. 000083 Agency: City. of Riverside Prepared by: Rick McGrath Phone No.: (909) 826-5560 Date: April 12, 2001 O 0 d C7 00 gicommonimeasacip2000revised RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVISED MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000- 2001 Page 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST 0000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1 Central Ave. widening, Van Buren Blvd. to Adams St. Street Widening 1,500 450 2 Union Pacific at Palmyrita Ave. Street Widening, Crossing Improve. 130 130 3 Union Pacific at Columbia Ave. Street Widening, Crossing Improve. 200 200 4 Van Buren Blvd. - City Limits to Dufferin Ave. Street Widening 1,100 1,100 5 Jurupa Ave. Underpass Street Underpass 14,000 4,000 6 La Sierra/91 Fwy. Reconstruction Interchange Improvements 16,800 200 7 University Ave. - Ottawa Ave. to Eucalyptus St. Medians 2,100 1,900 *200 8 Mitchell Ave. - Wells Ave. to Arlington Ave. Street Widening 800 *800 9 Major Street Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 2,000 *351 10 Van Buren Blvd. Widening - Magnolia to 91 Fwy. Street Widening 5,000 *3,000 11 Jurupa Ave. - Van Buren Blvd. to Crest Ave. Street Extension 2,200 *2,200 12 Tyler St. - Wells to Eureka Street Widening 4,750 *4,500 * Indicates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVISED MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000- 2001 Agency: City of Riverside Prepared by: Rick McGrath Phone No.: (909) 826-5560 Date: Apri112, 2001 Page 2 . ITEM NO. 4- PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MOOS) MEASURE FUNDS MOOS) 13 Arlington Avenue - Murray to Neil Street Widening 275 *275 14 Indiana Avenue - Monroe to Doyle Street Widening 300 "300 15 91 FreewayNan Buren Boulevard Interchange 14,600 *2 600 16 Tyler @ Campbell Traffic Signal Installation 100 *100 17 Tyler @ Gramercy Traffic Signal Installation 100 *100 18 Spruce @ Atlanta Traffic Signal installation 120 *120 19 La Sierra Ave. - Gramercy to Arlington Street Widening 3,800 1,800 "1,600 20 Computers/Office Furniture Engineering Workstations 10 10 21 CADME Street Plan Data Updates 1,600 55 22 General Plan Update Update General Plan 100 100 23 Van Buren Blvd. @ Dauchy Ave. Traffic Signal 200 50 Subtotal Project Costs 67,035 Subtotal FY2001 Meas. A Funding 9,995 Subtotal Prior Meas. A Funding 16,146 ndmates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: SB 821 Program Extension for the County of Riverside for FY 2000-01 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to grant: 1) The County of Riverside a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2002, to complete the Opal Street Sidewalk project; and, 2) The County of Riverside a three-month extension to September 30, 2001, to award the construction contract for the Highgrove Disability Access Ramp project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The County of Riverside was allocated $44,000 in FY 2000-01 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program funds for the construction of a sidewalk along Opal Street in the Rubidoux area and $19,500 for the construction of Disability Access Ramps in the Highgrove area. Preliminary engineering is in progress for the Opal Street sidewalk project and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2001. However, the County is requesting a twelve-month extension to .June 30, 2002, to allow sufficient time to coordinate the relocation of several fence encroachments into the Opal Street Right -Of -Way, prior to construction of the asphalt walkway. Preliminary engineering for the Highgrove Disability Access Ramp project has been completed, and the bidding documents are being processed for advertising. However, there is a possibility the project will not be awarded by the current June 30, 2001 deadline; therefore, the County is requesting a three-month extension to September 30, 2001, to award the construction contract. 000086 J .. — - . a .� ..� a�►a * TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCb5' Transportation Department April 3, 2001 Mr. Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3650 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Time Extension Requests for FY 2000/01 SB 821 Projects Dear Mr. Rivera: David r Barnhart Director of Transportation The County of Riverside Transportation Department wishes to request the following time extensions, for the FY 2000/01 SB 821 projects that were approved for funding by your Commission in July 2000: (1) Opal Street Sidewalk (Asphalt Walkway), Rubidoux Area, 844,000 Preliminary Engineering is in progress, and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2001. We request a one year time extension, until June 30, 2002, to allow sufficient time to coordinate the relocation of several fence encroachments into the County's Opal Street R-O-W, prior to construction of the asphalt walkway. (2) Hiohorove Disability Access Ramp Project Hiohvrove Area, $19,500 Preliminary Engineering has been completed, and the bidding documents are being processed for advertising. However, as there is a possibility of the project not being awarded by the current June 30, 2001 deadline, we request a three-month time extension, until September 30, 2001. If you have any questions with regard to these requests, please contact C. Scott Staley, Road Division Engineer, at (909) 955-2092, or Sena B. Wijesinha, Senior Transportation Planner, at (909) 955-6828. Siely, f� avid E. Barnhart Director of Transportation /sbw cc: George Johnson/Roy Null Scott Staley/Stan Dery Ed Studor/Slavia Caric 408U Lemon Street. 8th Flom • Riverside. California 92501 • 19091 955-6740 P.U. Box 1090 • Riverside. California 92502-1090 • FAX (9091 955-6721 000087 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee. Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Contract Award for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Service BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, EVALUATION COMMITTEE& STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Award a 3 year contract, with two one-year options, to Hamner Towing for tow truck service for the Freeway Service Patrol program for Beat #1 on SR-91, from the Orange County line to Lincoln Avenue at a cost of $38.25 per hour per truck; 2) Award a 3 year contract, with two one-year options, to Tri-City Towing for tow truck service for the Freeway Service Patrol program for Beat #2 on SR-91, from Lincoln Avenue to Magnolia Avenue at a cost of $44.00 per hour per truck; and, 31 Authorize the Commission Chairman, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, acting in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) reviewed and approved a Request for Proposal (RFP) at its March meeting. The RFP to contract for tow truck service for the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on two segments or beats on SR-91 in Riverside County included specific proposal requirements and evaluation criteria. Beat #1 runs from the Orange County line to Lincoln Avenue, and Beat #2 runs from Lincoln Avenue to Magnolia Avenue. Bids were due April 13, 2001, and four (4) proposals were received. One proposal was submitted on April 16 and disqualified as a late submittal. An Evaluation Committee consisting of representatives from Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol and Commission staff reviewed the proposals for completeness and responsiveness. Site visits were conducted on all four qualified firms on April 18. At the February Budget and Implementation Committee meeting, Chairman Hunt appointed Commissioner Ron Roberts to serve on the Evaluation Committee. 000083 Unfortunately, Commissioner Roberts was unable to participate on the Committee due to schedule conflicts. Staff contacted Chairman Hunt, as well as several other Commissioners, to see if anyone could sit in for Commissioner Roberts; however, no one was available. Rather than postpone the site visits and defer the item for a month (which would require a one -month contract extension for both beats) staff, along with Ca!trans and the CHP, proceeded with the site visits. The Evaluation Committee spoke with each of the company representatives about their proposal and their understanding of the program's requirements, asked a set of predetermined questions, and reviewed their financial statements- and/or tax returns. After all four visits were completed, the Committee discussed the proposals and site visits and evaluated the proposals based on the following criteria included in the RFP: Qualification of the Firm 25 points Staffing and Project Organization 25 points Work Plan 15 points Cost and Price 25 points Completeness of Response 10 points Total 100 points The Evaluation Committee's scoring is as follows: Firm Beat Score Tri-City Towing * #2 82.0 Hamner Towing #1 80.3 Hamner Towing #2 80.3 Pepe's Towing #1 79.3 Pepe's Towing #2 79.3 Steve's Towing * #2 75.0 * Although submitted proposals for both beats, could only take one beat due to staffing and/or vehicle limitations. The Committee recommends that Tri-City Towing be awarded a three-year contract, with two one-year options, to provide tow truck service for the Freeway Service Patrol program on beat #2 at $44.00 per hour per truck, and that Hamner Towing be awarded a three-year contract, with two one-year options, to provide tow truck service on beat #1 at $38.25 per hour per truck. Both beats require two (2) trucks plus a back-up truck and operate from 5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The current contract for beat #1 and beat #2 are at $42.50 per hour per truck. Both beats have been operated by Hamner Towing since 1993, and they have been doing a reasonably good job. However, in order to afford other tow companies the opportunity to provide the service for the Commission, the RFP was issued to allow others to compete for the service. Since the current contracts are several years old and gasoline prices are on the rise, staff was anticipating bids at around $45.00 to $46.00 per hour. In fact, the proposed budget for FY 01-02 includes an estimated 000089 cost for these beats at $46.00 per hour. It was interesting to learn during the site visits that all four proposers had estimated their fuel cost at $2.00 per gallon, so they are well aware that fuel cost is on the rise. Although they all stated that they would make up any further fuel cost increases out of their profit/overhead, they also stated that they would be interested in discussing any extraordinarily large increases to see if some adjustment in their contract would be allowed. All obligations incurred by the Commission under the terms of this award are funded 80% from the State funds and 20% from local SAFE fees, and are subject to continued funding from the State for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol. 0000 £i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Contracts for Installation of 'Smart' Call Boxes and Enhanced Traffic Management Center Sites PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve two contract awards for the purpose of monitoring and reporting along the Congestion Management Program (CMP) System to: 1) Comarco Wireless Technologies in the amount of $745,030 for the installation of 'Smart' Call Boxes in the rural areas of Riverside County; 2) Peek Traffic -Signal Maintenance, Inc., in the amount of $308,405 for the installation of Enhanced Traffic Management Center (TMC) sites in the urban areas of Riverside County; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman to execute the contracts, pending Legal Counsel review. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the December 13, 2000 meeting, the Commission approved to re -bid the installation of 'Smart' Call Boxes and Enhanced Traffic Management Center (TMC) sites for the purpose of including updated federal requirements in the bid package. The project was originally approved by the Commission in March 1998 for inclusion in the 1998 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for $1.1 million of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. The project will allow RCTC to collect traffic data on the CMP System that consists of state highways in the urban and rural areas of Riverside County. RCTC, as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA), is responsible for monitoring and reporting traffic volumes and level of service on the CMP System to Caltrans under the State Congestion Management Program (CMP) and to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under the federal Congestion Management System (CMS) program and Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) program. 000091 Both the 'Smart' Call Box and TMC projects have been developed through the cooperation of RCTC and Ca!trans District 8 Operations Division. The projects will provide for the collection of "real time traffic information, including traffic counts and vehicle classifications, that can be used for programming and planning purposes in addition to reporting and monitoring requirements. It is also anticipated that the traffic information can be available on RCTC's website. The projects consist of upgrading and enhancing existing site locations with traffic counter equipment that is then able to download the traffic information to a computer program. The information is then transferred in ASCII format at weekly intervals. Traffic count locations have been specified. However, field reviews of existing site locations with the contractor will be necessary to determine the adequacy of the existing equipment and other unknown conditions at each site. This effort will dictate the number of sites that ultimately get implemented. The Request for Bids were due to RCTC on April 17, 2001. We received one bid proposal for each bid package (Smart Call Box installation from Comarco Wireless Technologies, and TMC enhancements installation from Peek Traffic - Signal Maintanance). A review of both bid proposals by RCTC staff and consultant staff have concluded that they satisfy the Request for Bids in the following areas: 1. Qualification of the Firm 2. Staffing and Project Organization 3. Work Plan 4. Cost and Price 5. Completeness of Response RCTC's solicitation included Disadvantage Business Enterprises (DBE) participation as required by federal regulations. In addition, RCTC has an approved DBE annual goal of 17.8%. The total DBE participation for this project ('Smart' Call Box and TMC installations) is 20%. The contracts must be awarded by the Commission at the May 9, 2001, meeting in order to meet SB 45 timing requirements for awarding the contracts within 12 months after project allocation. 000092 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Edward C. Gonzalez, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure "A" Park and Ride Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to renew and reaffirm the Executive Director's authority to sign all Park and Ride leases, which include a monthly cost per space up to $20. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to Park and Ride leases used by Riverside County residents for their home to work commutes. Park and Rides are strategically located private parking lots that are free of charge to anyone who parks a vehicle and commutes by transit or in a carpool. One provision of Measure "A" directs the Commission to fund and implement a leased park and ride program. The Commission's commitment to this program enables RCTC to assess Park and Ride needs and facilities and establish locations quickly as an enhancement to existing Caltrans locations. As part of the program, the Commission adopted the subsidy in 1991 in support of Park and Ride operations. At its October 1990 meeting, the Commission authorized the Executive Director to sign all Park and Ride leases and amendments, which had costs per space consistent with Budget and Finance Committee guidelines. All Park and Ride leases are three party agreements between the Commission, property owners and Caltrans. Since the initial implementation of Park and Ride lots in 1991, staff has been successful at maintaining cost with each leased property. All lease agreements and any amendments to date have remained at a cost of $10, $12 or $15 per space. Data on space utilization is collected and reviewed by staff during quarterly audits of each facility. A review of the Park and Ride data reveals an overall increase in space utilization during FY 00/01 by 18% from FY 99100 and 27% from FY 98/99. This increase is a result of attracting more Park and Ride participants at La Senda Church (previously Corona Community Church), La Sierra University and at the Lake Elsinore Outlet Mall. 000093 Based on this performance, for fiscal year 01 /02, RCTC will increase the number of Park and Ride spaces from 220 to 240 or by 9% through leasing an additional 20 spaces at the Lake Elsinore Outlet Mall. Aside from these leases, staff is also working with the City of Temecula to secure a 75 space Park and Ride lease at the Temecula Promenade Mall. For FY 01 /02, 75 spaces will be contracted each with La Senda (previously Corona Community Church) and La Sierra University, 20 spaces with Lake Elsinore Naval and Military School, 50 spaces with Riverside Plaza and 20 spaces with the Lake Elsinore Outlet Mall. The FY 01 /02 budget contains sufficient funds to provide Park and Ride subsidies for all the above mentioned leases. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: NIA Year: FY2001/02 Amount: $53,900 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment• No GLA 222/31/81002 Fiscal procedures Approved: Date: 4/17/01 000094 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1 DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Edward C. Gonzalez, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 01 /02 Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,1751month per buspool for the period July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002, to the existing Riverside/El Segundo, and Moreno Valley/El Segundo buspools; and, 2) Continue the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their home to work commutes along the Route 91 corridor. The Commission adopted the Measure A buspool subsidy in October 1990 and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1,175 ($25/seatlmonth) in support of commuter buspool operations. The subsidy rate has not changed since inception of the policy. To provide additional guidance, the Commission established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff to report to the Commission when a buspool's ridership falls to 25 or below and seek direction regarding the continuation of the buspool's subsidy. To renew their annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to request continuation funding for the new fiscal year from the Commission in writing. Included as Attachment 1 are the FY 01102 request letters from the two existing buspools: 000095 RIVERSIDE/EL SEGUNDO BUSPOOL: Begun in June 1995, the Riverside to El Segundo - Raytheon buspool route includes stops at the Galleria at Tyler Mall and Corona park and ride lots. The average monthly ridership for the current fiscal year is 44 passengers with the lowest single monthly ridership being 43 and the highest 46. The bus maximum capacity is 47 passengers. As Raytheon pays its employees a $21 transit subsidy, the monthly pass cost for Raytheon employees is $109. Any non -Raytheon employee passengers pay $130. The contract provider, Mark IV, has accessible coaches available for use on the route if a person with disabilities purchases a monthly buspool pass. MORENO VALLEY - EL SEGUNDO BUSPOOL: Begun in February 1996, the Moreno Valley to El Segundo - Raytheon buspool route includes stops at the Moreno Valley Mall and Corona park and ride lots. The average monthly ridership for the current fiscal year is 42 passengers with the lowest single monthly ridership being 40 and the highest 45. The bus maximum capacity is 47 passengers. As Raytheon pays its employees a $21 transit subsidy, the monthly pass cost for Raytheon employees is $1 19. Any non -Raytheon employee passengers pay $144. The contract provider, Mark IV, has accessible coaches available for use on the route if a person with disabilities purchases a monthly buspool pass. Like all of the commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage commuters to use alternative modes of transportation, the Measure "A" $25/seat/month subsidy is administered as a "user side subsidy." Unlike all of the other incentives, which have a 3 month term, the buspool subsidy is on -going. This annual subsidy remains cost- effective in comparison to the typical public transit subsidy rate of 80%. While the monthly cost of each existing buspool varies according to the number of route miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission's monthly subsidy represents an average rate of 21 %. When taking other factors into consideration such as the reduction of vehicles on Route 91 during morning peak periods, the number of vehicle miles saved and the elimination of mobile source emissions, the annual buspool subsidy is an effective use of Measure "A" commuter assistance funds. The two existing buspools have completed all requirements for funding asset forth by the Commission including submittal of: 1 j monthly ridership reports; 2} semi-annual operations status reports; and 3) annual funding continuation requests. These reports allow staff to monitor the activities of the buspools to track ridership levels, monitor marketing efforts, and ensure availability to persons with disabilities. 000096 The Riverside/Fullerton buspool agreement will not be renewed for FY 01 /02 and was terminated effective May 1, 2001, as its ridership fell below the minimum buspool ridership of 25. The ridership for this pool during the present fiscal year averaged 18 riders, a drop of 6 riders from FY the 99/00 average. Riverside/Fullerton riders were notified well in advance of the buspool termination and RCTC staff has worked with Raytheon and Inland Transportation Services to ensure that these riders are able to continue utilizing alternative modes of transportation to their place of employment. The proposed FY 01 /02 budget contains aline item in the amount of $42,300 to provide buspool subsidies. Based on the established monthly $1,175 buspool subsidy policy, the funds are sufficient to support the two existing buspools and one new buspool should a written request for funding assistance be received. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N 1 A Year: FY01 Amount: $42,300 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.222/41 /81030 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 4/17/01 000097 ■syeisom libeamic Symms 2 001saas.prigio koieviid 054714 eire ICI2 sa u90245-0902 310.647: 00D Mr. Edward Gonzalez RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Commute Assistance Program 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Dear Mr. Gonzalez RIVERSIDE/CORONA - EL SEGUNDO BUSPOOL In compliance with the requirements of Riverside County Transportation Commission Raytheon Electronic Systems is requesting an extension of funding for the period of 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 for the Riverside/Corone to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. The net monthly coat to Raytheon employees is $119 ($165 - S21 HAC subsidy lL S25 RCTC subsidy). Ridership on the Riverside/Corona buspool has averaged 44 passengers per month over the last 12-month period. R1VERSIDEICORONA BUS SCHEDULE AM DEPARTURE AM DEPARTURE AM ARRIVAL PM DEPARTURE PM ARRIVAL PM ARRIVAL RIVERSIDE GALLERIA MALL CORONA PARK 8 RIDE LOT RAYTHEON, EL SEGUNDO RAYTHEON, EL SEGUNDO CORONA PARK 8 RIDE LOT RIVERSIDE GALLERIA MALL 420 AM 4:30 AM 5:30 AM 3:20 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM Mark IV Charter Buses, the service provider, has coaches available to accommodate physically disabled individuals if required. The Raytheon Commuter Transportation Center regularly markets rideshare information, including vanpools and buspools, to our employees, in addition, vanpoollbuspoot lists are provided to Employee Transportation Coordinators at other local companies through our association with industry groups such as ACT and the Westchester/LAX Transportation Management Association. . Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program, Sincerely, RAYTHEON ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS Rose Farooq, Administrator Commuter Transportation Center c: D. Cross, Riverside/Corona Bus Coordinator 000098 r ti ilayilseon 12 April 2001 Mr. Edward Gonzzalez Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 82501 Dear Mr. Gonzalez: .� APR ] 3 ?AOf "' 9 ; r' ••. •-• " • Rayikasss Eisetromie Systems 2000 East Q Segundo Boulevard PO Box 902 EI Sepndo, CA 90245-0902 310.647.1000 054713 In accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Raytheon Electronic Systems is requesting an extension of hinding for the period of 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 for the Moreno Valley/Corona to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. The monthly fare for this mute is $170 per employee. In addition to the $25 subsidy offered by ROTC, Raytheon employees receive a company subsidy of $21 per month for using mass transit. Ridership on the Moreno Valley/Corona buspool has averaged 42 passengers per month over the last 12 month period. Schedule AM Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival PM Arrival Moreno Valley Mall Corona Park 8 Ride tot Raytheon, El Segundo Raytheon, El Segundo Corona Park 8 Ride Lot Moreno Valley Mall 4:00 a.m. 4:30 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. 5:00 p.m. Mark IV Charter Buses, the service provider, has coaches available to accommodate the physically chalienged if required. The Raytheon Commuter Transportation Center regularly markets rideshare information to our employees, including buspools and vanpools. Employees receive this information though direct mailings, newsletter articles, and electronic messaging. In addition, we share resources with other local employee transportation coordinators through our association with industry groups such as ACT and Westchester/LAX TMA Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. rely, RAYTHEOTONIC SYSTEMS — Rose Farooq, Administrator Commuter Transportation Center C: G. Potepan, Moreno Valley — El Segundo Bus Coordinator 000099 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION s DATE: - May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager Claudia Chase, Property Agent Karen Leland, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: La Sierra Parking Mitigation: Approval of Lease with AMF Bowling Worldwide for $24,840 and approval of 50% cost sharing with RTA for Parking Shuttle to serve the Riverside -La Sierra Station. PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval of: 1 } Receive and file of the single signature authority lease with AMF Bowling Worldwide for 92 overflow parking spaces near the Riverside-LaSierra Station in an amount not to exceed $24,840, and authorize the Executive Director to sign the lease, subject to legal review; and, 2) Approve 50% funding of dedicated RTA Parking Shuttle to serve the overflow parking lot in an amount not to exceed $65,988. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The tremendous growth of the Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line during the past 18 months has resulted in an overflow of a high of 60 parked cars at the La Sierra Station. RCTC leases the current station property from the Riverside Community College (RCC) which yields 350 parking spaces. The morning boardings at La Sierra averaged 405 last month. The RCC also owns the adjacent vacant property however they are not interested in RCTC expanding the parking pending development plans. IEOC Average Daily Passenger Trips 50% Increase (Nov 99 - Mar 01) 4,000 T 3,000 2,433 2,616 1,910 2,113 2,000 — 1,000 — 0 ! I 2,844 2,866 I Nov-99 Mar-00 Jun-00 Sep-00 Nov-00 Mar-01 1 lot due to their own 000100 The long-term strategy to address the parking problem is the construction of the Van Buren Station. Given the location of this new station and recent survey data, at least 30% of the current riders at the La Sierra Station would use the Van Buren Station. The Station is currently under design and its estimated completion date is February 2002. Therefore, a number of short-term strategies have been implemented to address the parking constraints over the next 18-24 months: • November 15, 2000: Staff added an additional security guard to patrol the parking lot to enforce that the lot is used for Metrolink train riders and not as a park and ride lot. The security guard identified 23 vehicles that were using the lot as a Park and Ride facility. Park and Ride users are directed to use nearby designated Park and Ride facilities; • December 24, 2000: RTA re -directed its fixed route bus No. 15 to serve the La Sierra Station. Based upon a survey of riders conducted in November 2000, RTA staff expects this route to serve at least 25 riders. RTA and RCTC are actively promoting the new route to the riders. However, ridership to date has been below expectations. RTA and RCTC are working together to re-evaluate the route so that it serves all La Sierra trains; • April 2, 2001: RCTC launched the Preferred Parking Program at the La Sierra station. This program rewards train riders who carpool to the La Sierra station. Benefits to train riders include a guaranteed parking in a designated area and eligibility for drawings for a free Metrolink monthly pass. The program requires a commitment to carpool to the station 90% of the time during an assigned quarter, and is not open to "park and riders". To date, six permits have been issued for this program. Overflow Parking Lot Lease Although the strategies listed above have resulted in the reduction of overflow vehicles, it has not eliminated the overflow problem. In addition, the long awaited Tustin Station is scheduled to open early this summer and is anticipated to spur even more growth on the IEOC, therefore resulting in more parking demand. As a result, RCTC Staff has been negotiating with the AMF Bowling Worldwide Company over the last few months to lease parking spaces during the day that can be used as overflow parking for the La Sierra station. The bowling alley is located approximately 1 /4 mile from the La Sierra station. RCTC will provide security patrol for the overflow spaces. The lease terms provide for 92 spaces at a monthly rent of $1, 380 for 18 months ($24,840), with a 30 day cancellation clause. RCTC & RTA Partnership Last December the RTA Board initially approved the use and funding of a bus to assist in alleviating the parking problem at the La Sierra station. Since that time, RCTC Staff and RTA Staff have worked together to limit the requested service to a- dedicated parking shuttle. For up to 18 months, the parking shuttle would operate between the bowling alley and the La Sierra station only. The parking shuttle would be free to 000101 riders. In recognition of the cooperative partnership that has been established to address the station parking problem, staff is recommending that the costs be equally shared among the agencies. RTA staff projects the costs to be $131,976 (see attached); RCTC's share would be 50% or $65,988. This partnership has been approved by the RTA Budget and Finance Committee and is scheduled to be heard by the RTA Board on April 26. Executive Director Authorized Signator. In anticipation of the RTA Board approval in April, the parking . shuttle would be available to operate on May 1st. The authorization for the Executive Director to sign the lease will expedite the long-awaited resolution of this issue. Funds used for the La Sierra parking mitigation program are Western Riverside County Rail Local Transportation Funds. The FY00101 impact of the parking lease and the parking shuttle totals $9,830. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY2000-01 Amount: $9,830 Source of Funds: LTF - Commission Budget Adjustment: N GLA No. 102/25/81004 - La Sierra Station Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 4/17/01 000102 '..11•11111► ?referred Puking Carpool Program Sler J Metrellni Ewa Cady losporilm Conk& (ICTC) To assist Metrolink customers in alleviating parking lot stress at the La Sierra station, RCTC would like to introduce an alternative: Carpool to the Station and be eligible to participate in the Preferred Parking Program! Benefits to car-poolers are: • Guaranteed Parking in a Designated Area • Quarterly Issuance of Parking Permit ▪ Parking Lot Monitoring of Designated Spaces 414 Eligibility for Drawings for Free Metroiink Monthly Passes If you can commit to carpool to the La Sierra station 90% of the time during an assigned quarter, and you are not a "Park and Ride" commuter, this is the solution for you. Give Karen Leland, Staff Analyst, a call at (909) 787-7141 to obtain a registration form. A Parking Permit can then be issued to get you started on the right "track." 11101 SHARE 1•111smoliok RUH-SMARE R1111 SEIARE olimf .110 0" R111E SURF .111111=111Pg RlOE SHAM 011111PL 000103 DRAFT PARKING SPACE LEASE BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND AMF BOWLING WORLDWIDE 1. PARTIES AND DATES. This Parking Lot lease ("Lease") is made this day of April, 2001 ("Effective Date") by and among AME BOWLING WORLDWIDE, a California corporation ("Lessor") and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public agency ( "Lessee"). 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Lessor is the owner of certain real property ("Property") located at 10781 Indiana Avenue, Riverside, California, and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and 2.2 Lessee desires to lease a portion of the Property ("Premises") from Lessor for the purpose of providing parking spaces for passengers and other users of that certain Metrolink commuter rail station located at the corner of La Sierra Avenue and Indiana Avenue, Riverside, California ("Station"). The Premises is more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and 2.3 Lessor and Lessee desire to reduce the full terms of their Lease to writing; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, and the terms and conditions contained herein, Lessor and Lessee agree as to follows: 3. TERMS. 3.1 Lease of Site. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee, and Lessee hereby leases from Lessor, the Premises on the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in this Lease. For purposes of this lease, the Premises shall also include any described appurtenances, including any improvements now or hereafter located on the Premises. 3.2 Use. Lessee shall have the use of the Premises for providing parking spaces to rail passengers of the Station. Lessee shall be entitled to use of the specific 92 (Ninety-two) automobile parking spaces ("Spaces") within the Premises as shown on Exhibit "B". Lessee shall have the exclusive use of the Spaces and the Spaces may 000104 be used by Lessee and its passengers and users without limitations between 5:00 AM and conclude no later than 7:30 PM. Use of the Premises may include, in Lessee's discretion, the transporting of passengers from the Premises to the Station by way of a shuttle van, bus or other vehicle ("Shuttle"). Lessee shall have the right to park and drive said Shuttle on or about the premises in accordance with the rights of Lessee under this Lease. 3.3 Security. Lessee shall provide security for the Premises from 5:00 AM until 8:00 AM and again from 5:00 PM until 8:00 PM each week day. From 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM security from the Station will make periodic drives through Premises. 3.4 Signaoe and Striping. 3.4.1 Lessee may, in its sold discretion and at its own expense, place, repair, and maintain signs: (I) within the Premises to designate the parameters of the Premises and the Spaces therein; and (ii) outside the Premises, on freeways and streets and other public rights -of -ways, to disclose the existence of the Premises and to provide directions to the Premises. Lessee shall retain the right to amend signage. Upon termination or expiration of this lease, Lessee shall remove such signs at its own expense and repair related damage. 3.4.2 Lessee may, in its sole discretion and at its own expense, number each of the Spaces. Upon termination of this Lease, Lessee shall be obligated to remove the numbering or to otherwise return the Spaces or the Premises to the condition they were in prior to commencement of this Lease. 3.5 Term. The term of this Lease shall commence on May 1, 2001 and end on October 31, 2002 ("Term"). Lessor or Lessee may terminate this Lease at any time prior to its expiration upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other party. 3.6 Rent. Lessee shall pay to Lessor, as rent for leasing the Premises, the total amount of One Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Dollars ($1,380.00) per month ("Rent"). Said Rent is based on the rental amount of Fifteen Dollars 015.00) per Space per month and the leasing of 92 Spaces within the Premises. Rent shall be due and payable 30 days in advance of each months use and a security deposit equal to but not less than one (1) months rent will be paid prior to the commencement of the agreement. Rent shall be delivered to the address set forth in Section 3.17. if lessee fails to make any rental payment when due, this Lease and Lessee's right to possession shall terminate, provided lessor has made written demand to lessee for rental payment and lessee has failed to pay rent within fifteen (15) days after such demand has been made. 0091105, 3.7 Maintenance. 3.7.1 Except for Lessee's maintenance obligations specifically set forth in this Lease, Lessor shall maintain the Premises and Spaces and shall promptly and diligently repair, restore or replace improvements, as required, on the Premises. Such activities shall include, but are not limited to, lighting, paving, striping, fencing, and all other activities required for proper- installation, operation; repair, and maintenance of a parking lot and parking spaces on the Property and Premises. 3.7.2 Lessor represents that it has all applicable governmental approvals, and payment of applicable fees and charges, which are necessary for the proper installation, operation, repair, and maintenance of a parking lot and parking spaces on the Property and Premises. Lessor shall keep the Property and Premises in good condition and repair, in a clean and sanitary manner, and with proper lighting for a parking lot and parking spaces. Lessor agrees to notify Lessee promptly of any defects or damages in the Premises which could 'give rise to third party injury or damage, even though Lessee retains the right to make periodic inspections of its own of the Premises. 3.7.3 Lessor shall provide Lessee with written notice at least 48 hours prior notice of any repair or maintenance of the Premises which would interfere with the use of Premises as set forth in this Lease, except in cases of emergency. 3.8 Right of Entry. Lessor hereby grants to Lessee a license and right -of - entry, for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress to and from the Premises. Lessor further grants to lessee a license and right -of -entry, and any other property interests, useful or convenient for Lessee's use of the Premises in accordance with Lease. The term of the license and right -of -entry set forth herein shall be the same as the Term of this Lease. 3.9 Taxes and Assessments. Lessor shall pay or cause to be paid all real or personal property taxes, general or special assessments, excises, impositions, levies, and other charges of every description now or hereafter levied on, assessed against or otherwise imposed with respect to the Property and Premises, Lessor's improvements located on the Property and Premises, or Lessor's personal property located on or in the Property and Premises. Lessee shall be responsible for any taxes and levies associated with improvements placed upon the Premises by Lessee. 3.10 Utilities. Lessor shall pay for all utilities serving the Property and Premises. 3.11 Assignments and Subletting. Lessor shall not transfer, assign or sublet voluntarily, involuntarily, directly or indirectly, Lessor's interest under this lease 000106 without the prior written consent of Lessee, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Lessor will, at all times during the Term of this Lease, take out and keep in force at its own expense; (I) public liability -insurance in the aggregate amount of not less than $1,000,000 to protect Lessor and Lessee, their officers, agents, and employees against any liability to the public incident to the use of, or resulting from the installation, maintenance or use of the Property; and (ii) property damage liability insurance in the amount of not less than $1,000,000 to protect Lessor and lessee, their officers, agents and employees against any liability for damage to property, including property of Lessor, caused by or resulting from the installation, maintenance, or use of the Property. Lessee shall be added as additional insured on such policy. 3.13 Indemnity. 3.13.1 Lessee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Lessor and its officers, employees, consultants and agents harmless from any claims, judgement, damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilities (including sums paid in settlement of claims), or loss including attorneys' fees, consultant fees and expert witness fees which arise as a result of any negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of Lessee in connection with the use of the Premises. 3.13.2 Lessor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Lessee and its elected official, officers, employees, consultants and agents harmless from any claims, judgements, damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilities (including sums paid in settlement of claims), or foss including attorney's fees, consultant fees and expert witness fees which arise as a result of any negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of Lessor in connection with the use of the Property and Premises. 3.14 Surrendersr Site. At the expiration of the Term of this Lease, or upon any sooner termination of this Lease, Lessee shall quit and surrender possession of the Premises and its appurtenances thereto in as good an order and condition as the Premises was delivered to Lessee and Lessee will remove any signage and repair any related damage to the Premises. The obligation to return the Premises to its previous state shall be subject to the exception for reasonable wear and tear, damage by the elements, and the striping installed by Lessee. 3.15 Default. Neither Lessor nor Lessee shall be in default of this Lease unless notice specifying the default is given by the party claiming the default and the party receiving such notice fails to promptly and diligently commence the cure of the OOQ107 default within thirty (30) days after notice is given and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. 3.16 Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other breach or default, whether of the same or of any other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege or service voluntarily given or performed by any party shall give any other party any- contractual right by custom; estoppel or otherwise. 3.17 Notices. All notices required under the Lease shall be given in writing to the following addresses or such other addresses as the parties may designate by written notice: To Lessee: Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 To Lessor: AMF Bowling Worldwide Notice shall be deemed received as follows, depending upon the method of transmittal; by facsimile, as of the date and time sent; by messenger, as of the date delivered; and by United States Mail, certifies, return receipt requested, as of seventy- two (72) hours after deposit in the United States Mail. 3.18 Authority to Enter Lease. Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Lease have the legal power, right, and authority to enter into this Lease so as to bind each respective party to perform the conditions contemplated herein, and there are no consents or approvals required to be obtained from any individual or entity prior to either party's making or entering into this Lease or fulfilling the conditions contained herein. 3.19 Severabilitv. If any portion of this Lease is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Lease shall continue in full force and effect. 3.20 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Lease, and both parties agree to execute all documents and to proceed with due diligence to complete all covenants and conditions set forth herein. 000108 3.21 Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action or other proceeding is brought for the enforcement or defense of this Lease, or because of any alleged dispute, breach, default, or misrepresentation in connection with any provision of this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in that action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled. 3.22 Governing Law and Venue. This Lease shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Any lawsuit brought to enforce this Lease shall be brought in an appropriate court in Riverside County, State of California. 3.23 Entire Agreement. This written document contains the entire agreement of Lessor and Lessee and supersedes any prior oral or written statements or agreements between the parties. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Lease shall be binding unless executed in writing by all parties. 3.24 Counterparts. This Lease may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and which collectively shall constitute one instrument. 3.25 Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals constitute a material part of this Lease and are incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Lease has been executed by the parties as of the date first written above. AMF BOWLING WORLDWIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Name Title: Eric Haley Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel 004109 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507 ilorll 4, 2001 TO: BOARD BUDGET AND FINANCMMITTEE THRU: Larry Rubio, General Manager FROM: SUBJECT: Service to La Siena All liflk Station Authorization tokr end Contractyvith Trans Idle Solutions SlimrDa y: In November of 2000 the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) requested RTA's assistance in addressing parking overload problems that sae occurring at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The Commission anticipates that this parking overload problem will persist until the completion of the new van Buren: Metrolink Station in early FY 2003, a period of approximately 14 — 18 months. in response to RCTC's request the Board authorized staff to proceed with development of a La Sierra Metrolink shuttle project at a cost not to exceed 384,000 for the remainder of FY 2001. Grant BradshaAirector of Contracted & ADA Operations Subsequent to the Board's action, RCTC revised its projeccbons for required shuttle seating capacity downward and requested that the RTA provide a smaller vehicle in lieu of a full-sized 40' coach. As a result staff proposes that the shuttle service be operated through Trans Mobile Solutions. Inc., (TMS), . RTA's contracted service provider in the Riverside/CoronalNorco area. Contracting for the shuttle service using a smaller vehicle will significantly reduce total project cost. Based on RCTC'a requested service spans, staff estimates that it would require one vehicle approximately 12 hours per day for a total of 3,120 hours per year (12 hrs/day k 280 weekdays). Using an estimated vehicle service hour cast of S26.00 per hour, staff projects annual expense for the shuttle service at $81,120 per year. Based on a service start date of April 30, 200'i, coat for the remainder of FY2001 will be approximately $14,040. The RCTC has agreed to pay 50% of the total project cast, Funding for operation of the Shuttle service beyond June 30, 2001 will be included in the FY 2002 Budget and Short Range Transit Plan update. Staff proposes execution of a month-tarnonth contract amendment to agreement PT.99-00302 with Trans Mobile Solutions effective April 30, 2001 to continue the Shuttle service until the opening of the Van Buren Metrolink Station in FY 2003. Film] Imoact: Because the proposed La Sierra Metrolink shuttle service was not included in the FY 2001 Budget, the Board authorized funding the project from the Service Demonstration budget line item that is in the current Budget and Short Range Transit Plan. The Service Demonstration line item includes 6,000 vehicle service hours and a total of $400,000. Approximately 36% ($141,000) of this line item has been allocated to the expansion of ADA intercity service, extended service • hours on • Route 30 and the Route 41 demonstration project that was approved by the Board of Directors effective October 16, 2000. The current Demonstration Project line item balance is approximately $259.000. Coat to provide the Metrolink Shuttle project for the balance of the fiscal year is approximately $ 14,040. Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to amend the existing contract (Agreement PT 99-00302) with Trans Mobile Solutions to include the provision of the La Sierra Metrolink Shuttle for the following periods: April 30, 2001 through June 30, 2001, the total additional costs shall not exceed $14,040 based on 540 hours (45 days) X $28.00 per hour. July 1, 2001 on a month -to -month basis through December 31, 2002, the costs shall not exceed $117,936 based on 4,538 hours (378 days) X $26.00 per hour. 000111 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amend SunLine Transit Agency's Short Range Transit Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan for FY 00/01 and Allocate Additional Local Transportation Funds PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Amend SunLine Transit Agency's Short Range Transit Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan for FY 00/01; and, 2) Allocate $846,000 of Local Transportation Funds to cover operating costs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) is requesting an amendment to their FY 00/01 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). Due to the increase in fuel costs, rising energy costs and increasing costs of vehicle maintenance resulting from SunLine's aging fleet, SunLine will be over budget for FY01 unless additional funds are allocated to them. To ensure that SunLine stays within their budget, they are requesting an additional $846,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to be used as follows: Fuel costs: Fixed route bus parts: Paratransit vehicle parts: Support vehicle parts: Electricity costs: Vacation/sick leave sell -backs: Total: $350,000 $ 250,000 $ 81,000 $ 40,000 $ 25,000 $100,000 $846,000 SunLine's Board of Directors approved SunLine's request at their March 28, 2001 meeting. 000112 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: NIA Year: FY 2000-01 _ Amount: $846,000 Source of Funds: local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No Fiscal Procedures Approved: 000113 Date: 4/17/01 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the City of Riverside's FY 00/01 Short Range Transit Plan as well as the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan and Allocation of LTF Funds for Purchase of Five Alternatively Fueled PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1 f Amend the City of Riverside's FY 00/01 Short Range Transit Plan and the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan to purchase five alternatively fueled vehicles; and, 2} Allocate $100,000 in Local Transportation Funds to cover the added cost of these vehicles. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Riverside's (City) FY 00/01 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) included the cost of purchasing five replacement vans at an estimated cost of $250,000 (approximately $50,000 per vehicle). However, recent quotes for these vehicles are estimated at $70,000 each for a total cost of $350,000. As a result, the City is requesting an additional $100,000 in Local Transportation Funds to cover the added costs. If approved, it is anticipated that delivery of these vehicles will occur in June and July of 2001. The vehicles will be fueled at the City's new CNG fueling station located at the City's Corporate yard. The City of Riverside's Special Transportation Services currently operates 19 vehicles within the City limits providing 142,000 one-way passenger trips per year. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: NIA Year: FY 2000-01 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $100,000 Budget Adjustment: N Date: 4/17/01 - 000114, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Rail Program Update PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to receive and file the Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of March averaged 4,597, a decrease of 2% from the month of February. Saturday Patronage: On February 10th, the operating times substantially changed and the long-awaited downtown Pomona station opened on the Riverside Line. As a result, ridership has increased 80% since January and on -time performance has also improved dramatically. Ridership continued to increase during the month of March with 290 average passenger trips, a 33% increase from the prior month. The average passenger trips of 290 is the highest monthly average since opening day on June 24, 2000. A six month targeted marketing effort for boosting awareness and ridership on the Line began this month (see attached). Inland Empire - Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Ridership on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of March averaged 2,866, a 2% increase from the month of February. This Line continues to grow averaging a 36% increase between March '00 and March '01 . Increased ridership on this Line is due to the addition of the mid -day train, marketing efforts, and increasing congestion on the 91 Freeway, Special Trains 1E0C Midday Train: The March 2001 average weekday trips of 2,866 on the IEOC Line continue to surpass the ridership performance target of 2,264. The month of March marks the end of the demonstration period which began November 1999 and was 100% subsidized by RCTC. As a result the Midday service is included as regular service in the Metrolink proposed budget for FY2001 /02. 000115 1 avel by train to sort most excite n Metrolink takes you to all the hot spot:, like per, museums, movies,µshOPP ► the zz;ot and of other exciting destinations. Riding Nktr iic,- a great way to visit family and friends. Yoh ride In comfort and avoid the hassles of traffic while you enjoy these advantages: • Adults receive a 25% discount and kids get a 50% discount on weekend and weekday non -rush flour service (8:308-3:30p and after 6:55p). • A child, age 5 years and under, rides free vvithi, r a paying adult. • There's even FREE connecting transit to your destination with your valid Metroiink `:$t,iDs*s Linton tatiorlAiS Y°IN tr 'Meolink ticket to -At.? , r-free to: • Red line wler :riQ fit.: ;""t"' . . 00011i'_ VENTURA COUNTY a `a v ; CN 1 eP . r2 � it G�'b¢ rya �5 s .e� �•a c° ,y ▪ se- • p a.�zs • o O O, Q •,..--: 0 e Lama I. E G EN D €ffectieFebruan 2UGI Thie map a not to xale Q Future Station 1-entura Cuunn Line ei Antelope Valley Line ‘m San Bernardino Line e� RecrrSEdr Line i [range Cuunn Line �.. Inland Empire•Crange County- Lent. uunu Via Fullerton Uperrred nl \II i Metro Iced Line ISubwacl Metro Blue Line [Light Rail; -� Metro Green Line {Light Raili �erw.ec �..... C•011.1.10 ■•a.r..1.11 Mmc flea Une Metre ew Urn w 4° •Ff ems^ LOS ANGELES COUNTY cam• m ec.," �Jl°a ?` a i e0" e \ C°s� �004 :11 ORANGE COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY c� .)." RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY RIVERSIDE —DOWNTOWN PEDLEY EAST ONTARIO DOWNTOWN— POMONA - INDUSTRY MOI4TEBELLO/COMMERCE L.A. UNION STATION ' TO RIVERSIDE 8:05a 8;16a 8:26a 18:40a LB:49a L9:06a 9:33a 2:51p 1.3:05p '3:14p 1-3:31p 3:58p 5:15p 4:15p 14:32p 4:50p L4:59p SB Trains travel along the San Bernardino Line. They do NOT make stops along the Riverside Line. See System Map on opposite page for stops along the San Bernardino Line. • •-• -41 eat - - '-`7;4 j's-, • ,••• - 'Bain may leave tip to five minutes ahead of schedule. When you purchase a Round -Trip Ticket anew Riverside Line, you may make your return trip on Oen Bernardino lJne. Trawl rriustbe.compieted on the same day. For complete rules and regulations cal11300 3714JNK. • V34,ftrik4;;I: ‘;1&4 "'-z, 00 0 1_1. .11 :1;1":71114 _ . FAe.t.f6}TrIT(E,Trz_. reit{ -S-TRAtK-tions1 " - 'ne WaY Gel WY — - Souvirm Callforros. ,sin '"-441.0ROUNK 0 0 0 I_ 1 NNI701I13W 11 � 11 600Z 43JeW smmywiiiins 33NVW210Aa3d NNI102113W z 4. a1 M w N Ye 11 M A of A d r O N O 1 V f f el e n 1 f O N 0 1 V f f N V n f f O N O/ V f f Ir V A e f O N O 1 V f r f1 V 11 e f O N O! Y f f e1 V el i f O N 0 1 V f f 111 1 11 1 f 0 1f 0 1 V f f f1 V N e f 0 N 011V 1'f H V 71 J r O N 0 V r e4 ef130/31 31V0 01 NOIld30N1- SdI!l12130N3S5Vd AVdH33M 30V113AV >11\1110aLDIN n H 9 Y 1 ..fo111 O70 ewe eeriNS 000'E 0001 000'6 4- 000'Zt weo N•+o — 000'91 — 000'01 — 000'1Z — 000'4Z 1 000'LZ — 000.0E 000'EE L 0-4od L 0-uer 1 404'ZE 00-36a 00-A0N 466' IC lanyOeun—*-- fvvAemoy® co -PO 691' LE 00-daS 0o-bny 001ne \.1 4 064 OE %.%V& 96E'lE 4L4'L£ 00-unf LOW Sd1111 N3JN3SSdd AVON33M 39VN3/1d )1N1-101113 W QO-XBYY 9£S' LE 00-4v N. 696' LE OQ•�gMY 99E'LE 000 9L — 000'9L — 000'0Z — 000'ZZ — 000' 4Z — 000'9Z — 000`ez — 000'0E — 000'ZE 000' 4E ow aav %Z %0 L %8- %£ %£ %tr %0 %L L- %Z %£ %L 60Z %S % 0 %L- °AO 0 %9E %0 ll %E %L LZ % ti %0 0 %8 °A 1 8L %1 %L 817 %b %8- sdul Aipluow Jo % sdui loathe Apea 6ny :1.0 Jew - sdpi lootlag %Z £11'Z£ 9ZZ'Z£ 091716Z 1766' L£ 691` l£ 066'0£ 96C' l£ PLY I £ 68fi'L£ 1 %L 16 L6 1.6 68 aol 96 179 66 00l 00l Z6 1701 b01 %Z 998`Z LLB'Z Z98`Z L69`Z bb8'� 1.O6'Z 9 L 9`Z O19'Z 1 Z9'Z ££b`Z LOE'Z OZZ'Z ELL'Z %9 8L6'S 999'9 896'9 Z9£`9 b68'9 999'S £99'9 990'9 8141.9 L99`S LL9'9 bI.L'S 6LL`9 %Z- /69'b 699'b Z/9`b LbE'b 8/9'b L6Z`b OOI.'b ££ l'b 9/9`b bl9'b b99' b £69'b %Z- /Zb LEb 91717 Z9b LZ9 LL9 PPS LLB 1.817 09b Z9b £5b Z9b %L 968'6 Z9L'6 069'6 b69'8 669'6 £OL% /99'8 LO9'6 989'6 9E9'6 L b9'6 9l9'6 L8Z`6 %l SI.Z'9 OL L'9 6£0'9 09b'b 199'b 699`b 90917 bZ8'b 116'b 900'9 Z66' b ZZO'S am snrav AVOI1OH - MOQNIM H1NOW N331111H1 SdI1:i1213JN3SSdd AVCD133M 30VM3A V NNI1ONI AI YoZ L69'£ 9£L`£ S9£'£ L69'E 998'£ OZ6'£ L 89`£ ZZL'£ 6Z8'E 696'£ OSL'b 866' £ 00 Jew sn 40 Jew a6uetla % 1.0 qaj SA LO JeW a6uetta % La JeW 1.0 gal LO Uer 00 aaQ 00 ^oN 00 PO 00 des 00 find 00 In( 00 unr 0aAew- 00 Jdy 00 Jew- Cr. (NI O O 03SIA32I S qa� 1,0-Uef aa0 AON PO deS 6ny Inf uric AeN idy rePY %0'09 %0'09 %0.004 mull_ 1)431n1304n jo se;nulw-g Bovq.0 ► sumu. uol;oaga- dead;o % our! Apino9 afiueapya,jdw3 puelui saapw )(pa 5AV pa;sorpd AeplloH - sdpi aaBuassed Al!ea aBeJaAV aurptiunoo a6ueapyaajdw3 puejui 9 Zig augi PeInpayas;0 salnum1-9 uNl!M 6uvq.uy suiekl 40 % a3pues Aepannes eun ouipieuias ues Is�ap� ,qunoosapnpui idas:mom 0001 co 0094 000Z x Q cu 409Z u> sdpi aa6uassed AHep a6eJany 03VUaS Aepanies aun oul" gewas ueS 8 00111/90 ue6eg aouueS ReWnles eUn eppanith, 9eA aver des 6ny Inr unr Auw quail PainPIPS to salnuiw-g ultym ButNA( sups jo % °Dimas AepimeS Gun apisienw MEIN 9a3 4O-uer deg Inr unr hew Oo-1eva 06z ,Tt- $tz NMI Willi Ag 005 -0004 -0054 -000z oasz 000E 1...7.005C slaPN Al!e0 6ny sdpi Ja6uassed 4E0 96 `V 00/SZ/90 uebes eoimeS AoPooS 10-JeW 1.a-oof 08a aoN PO des 6ny Inf 00-onf Aew icttl 00-1eNI 00-Q9J %0'0 awa pompanos Jo swum-9 uiyliM 6uinpiy sup' aowes AepunS Gun ouipiewee ueS %0'0Z %0'04 %0'09 %0'08 %0'00 L io-aew ciaA r.o-uer 080 sdpi Ja6uassed Apa awe/A( _ r 00-Jew 00S 0001 009E 000Z DMZ 000E J 009E siapR:1 Al!e0 8AV co c r{ O O d10-N9ad OI 10 Jell GO qed 10 ue f Aelaq elnuM-5 41lM Bu!APN %p AMER) aInu1161-0 ttl!M BLAAILI f %0 00 DeU 00 noN 0010O 00 dos 00 Bn'd 00 mr (anuoW E6 lsaiei) sups uoi eAcIlead `pored -)lead 30N3213Hnd 37f103HOS NN1102113IN 00 unf 00 �f eyy 00 ,d's/ 00 Jen 0W£l-10 Ti 10 Jeri l0 gad La uer Iawa painpayas JO sa;num-s ulimm 6uinwy oo oaa 00 hoN 00100 00 des 00 bny 001nr 00 unr 00Aen (sTuoiN E lsalei) suieal AemeaM 11d 33N3213HGV 37na3Hos NN1-102113W ooxlv 00 Jeri 0 o� 0 0rL£L-10 6 %66 %S6 %0 %D %£6 %46 %98 %88 �s 6 6 1%96 %S6 %96 %66 6 6 6 6 9 6 6 6 6 %66 %E6 %96 %L6 %96 %S6 %£6 %66 '%£6 %96 e %Z6 %Zb %L9 %46 %46 %E6 4'466 %66 %S6 %S6 %56 506 'C 1� Y 3Srr.�;�o- _ � x r 411 %96 %Z9 %S6 %SL %68 %LL ZI 'uol;einaiea auLp-uo sL0 u! papnpul;au aye sulea; pelinuuV •u0l;eulwJe;;a;mod le eum-uo aJaML f to peleplsuoa ale suleal pewuluuel 'satelap elgenapai J01 epee) ueeq (net; s;uew;snfpe oN %69 %96 %16 %001 1%96 %66 %86 %96 %001 %16 *mica awed Iced LO Jeri eugi peinpe4as swum/ S 41141lM Bulnl»V sulsal polied Bleed %S6 %004 %S6 %001 %99 %ZB %B8 %06 %£6 %ZS %OS %S9 %96 %99 %S6 %S6 %S6 %01 %£6 %96 1426 %Z6 %69 %se %96 5656 %69 %S8 5616 %L6 %69 %06 %Lfi %96 '%£6 %96 %96 %E6 %Z6 %06 %Z6 %99 %48 %69 %96 9°126 %69 %S6 %E6 %L6 '5'061 %09 %£6 %69 %81 %Z8 %S6 %96 1/460 %69 i %68 %S6 %86 %001 %£6 %16 %86 %001 %66 %L6 %9L %Z8 %66 %004 %S6 408 %Z6 1 %66 %96 %96 %£9 %LL %96 %001. %66 %£9 %Z6 %DOL %001 %61 %88 %66 %66 %LL %99 '%66 %66 %L6 %66 %96 %8S %6L %L6 %86 %66 %£L %LL %OOL %66 %66 TO: J 0i `rY it %Lb %96 %S6 %E6 %£S %16 '%96 1/466 %96 %L6 %SO %88 41.0. %£8 %OB %66 %66 %96 %LL %E8 %L6 %96 %86 % 5tie�p,. %89 %E9 %66 %004 %L6 % 096 %66 %96 %66 %L6 10 Jew YL6 %L6 %96 %96 %66 40 qeA •E6 %96 %004 %96 %96 10 uep .96 %L6 %86 %66 %OM 00 aap .96 %66 %L6 %96 %66 00 naN .96 %86 %96 %L6 %96 00 PO 26 91,66 %96 %L6 %66 00 des S6 %Lfi %86 %96 %L6 00 6nV L6 %89 %96 %S6 %66 001nr S6 %99 %S6 %S6 %86 00 unr Z6 %£6 %S6 %66 %96 00 AelAl L6 %66 %96 %96 %86 00 idV 86 %96 %96 %L6 %66 00 mil . F i:��..A�K�44#0.:. . ry :; M1 _ ti ,}fir : . , M riif}i�� : -' — 9r» . •, ...:.. SHINOW £4 1S31V1 ewll pampa ps }o sa;pulpy g umm Buln ny suleil Aep pee }o aBewealed Aavww 1S 30N32l3HONd 31i103H3S NNl102113W snea£OTO ,ales 9 0 0 0 0 1 i 0 Z 0 0 0 I TAV Fepanles ' 5 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0 i Z 0 0 0 ENS Aepinles EI %00T TZI S IZ 817 ZZ E OI 9 9 111101 `1'oII ET I V 9 0 0 0 I T Ja4i0 %I I 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 A3mod Novi VMOS %I I 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 (s)aauassed %9 L 0 0 T I 1 1 Z I uas!lepueA %.1 T 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 uanl/laaysi llu!loalaW %3 Z 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 u!ea1 NetluaV %ZT 5I 0 9 L € 0 0 0 0 u!ealltl8!aJA %L. 6 0 Z E Z 0 Z 0 0 lea!uapeol %IZ 9Z Z V 91 E 0 1 0 0 9uvpledsl3 %I I 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 4DllmSPIDea1 %8T ZZ 1 9 8 9 0 T 0 0 MOW/saapa0 MoIS %61 EZ 1 0 5 L I Z E V saolaelacoletAs 10110 % 1V101 1/3/H 30/1N1 00 AlE1 am ENS lAV N3A :3Sf11/ S31F1NIN1 S NVH1831VaiD SWIM NMI d0 Asnvo A8VENElid LOOZ HOadW SAd33a NN110a13IN S3snvo beA¢Ol6 PT •a3vuag Aepung Ng depffikeg saprtpxa fueuituns s�yl %b't TZT S TZ 9ti ZZ E OI 9 9 u!w S < 03AV130 SNM:11 %6•ZT LSE L Lb 6II It £T LL ZE I u!w 0< 03Nd130 SNIVW. `lb00T 99LZ 99 ' £9Z Sit 69Z 179Z 519 t817 56E Old° SNIF/al 1'd101 %E•O %8'0 %E'0 %9'I %L'I %a's %I'L8 1 L ZZ L SP Lb 9EZ 60VZ 0 Z 0 Z I Z 6S T ti Z S OT 9Z 9TZ Tr L Z CZ 91 IL 96Z 0 9 E L 9 61 EZZ 0 0 0 Z T OT ISZ I T 0 Z L L9 8E5 0 I 0 Z E 9Z Z5t T T 0 Z E SI VLE 0311nNNV NM OE NV1-11 a31N3H0 NM OE • NIW TZ NM OZ • NUN II NUN OT • NM 9 NIN S - NIW T AtI130 ON 10i 1a % 1tl10i 1f131A1a 00/11 00 ARI ana 8NS 1A11 N3A =31111 S3111NIW TOM y3aew Nowitina A9 SAvna WALL AO A3N3n6383 MVP) Relap ulw g-e NL'1) Aelap ulur 01.-9 (W4) Aelap u!w on." L NO' 13 mel ulw OZ < I%9•96 = swum g u!LIPM supviv swil lO % i%I.'L9} Aelap ulw 0 IMOZ HOW1/11 (SNIb►IIl AV0DI33M 11V) N011'rdma A8 SAV130 dO 1N30213d RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Draft Station Management Strategic Plan (2001-201 1) PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval of the development of an Ad Hoc Committee of the Plans & Programs Committee to address policy issues identified in the draft Station Management Strategic Plan and bring back to the Plans and Programs Committee any proposed actions as may be appropriate for consideration by the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since its inception, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), known as "Metrolink", has been responsible for operating the commuter trains as well as maintaining the track right-of-way and related facilities while local agencies and cities are responsible for Building and maintaining Metrolink stations. With the advent of direct commuter rail service to Riverside County via the Riverside Line in 1993, RCTC constructed two Metrolink stations, Riverside -Downtown and Pedley. Implementation of commuter rail service on the Inland Empire -Orange County Line (IEOC) in 1995 brought the construction of two more stations to this region, Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona. Today, RCTC owns and operates these four Metrolink stations located in Western Riverside County. Purpose of the Station Management Plan Growing traffic congestion along the SR 60 and 91 is likely to stimulate a growing demand for Metrolink services in the future. As station owners, RCTC must be ready to meet all of these needs and provide a level of service that encourages ongoing Metrolink ridership. The purpose of the Station Management Plan is to provide a 10- year framework of the key tools RCTC should utilize to keep up with projected demand. The Challenges of Success Over the next 10 years, Metrolink ridership is projected to grow 40% systemwide, with 1 10% growth on the two Lines that directly serve Riverside County today, the Riverside and IEOC. In fact, in just the last 12 months, ridership on the two Lines has 0001_35 grown 36%. As a result, the parking space utilization rate at the Riverside County Metrolink stations is near 90%, which creates station capacity issues. The current parking situation at the Riverside -La Sierra station is one example of what lies ahead as a result of the success of Metrolink in this region. Station Access Train operations are also expected to more than double by 2011 (from 25 daily trains to 54 daily trains). Access to Metrolink is an important issue for our customers. With too few parking spaces and not enough connecting transit service, getting to the train can be the toughest part of the trip. RCTC is addressing access issues by constructing the Van Buren and North Main Corona stations, and planning for the implementation of peak -period service on the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles Line. However, given the current and projected growth in ridership, more needs to be done. The Station Management Plan highlights the following issues: • Parking Constraints: By 2010, 5 out of our 6 Metrolink stations are forecasted to have parking deficits; • Future Sources of New Demand: in addition to ridership projections related to existing service and the subsequent parking demands, two additional opportunities will provide additional sources of demand within the next 10 years, the expansion of commuter rail service to Perris on the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) and the development of transit oriented developments (TOD); and • Operating Program Deficit: Based on the projected revenues and expenses for the next 10 years, the current and future RCTC Metrolink stations cannot be maintained unless there are decreases in expenses and increases in revenues. The following options are ways in which the Commission may consider to control costs and to generate additional revenue: * Develop policy guidelines delineating the funding and planning actions and criteria necessary for SJBL communities to pursue Metrolink stations in their area; and * Direct staff to fully implement the video surveillance system as a means to realize cost savings from the reduction in required labor costs. Purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee After reviewing the program constraints, upcoming needs, restricted revenue sources and the resulting program deficit, RCTC staff recommends the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee to address the development of the following policy issues for subsequent consideration for adoption by the Commission: • Recommend a policy for future station development; • The development of guidelines to support TOD's or "Transit Villages" at the stations to help offset the financial costs associated with expanded parking lots; • Perform cost benefit analysis of Pierce Street vs. additional investments in Riverside -La Sierra; 000130 • Pursue changing the temporary parking lot and crew facility at Riverside - Downtown to a permanent facility; • Pursue a parking expansion plan with recommendations for funding and phasing; • Explore ways to increase bus transit connections at all of the Metrolink stations for weekday and weekend service and the corresponding funding source; and • Explore ways to identify a dedicated revenue source to sustain rail operations. At the Plans & Programs Committee meeting held April 23, the following Commissioners were appointed to the Ad Hoc: Greg Schook, Bill Trembly, Janice Rudman, Daryl Busch, and Bob Buster. 000137 RCTC's Station Management 10-Year Strategic Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents i Appendices, Tables, and Maps Glossary of Acronyms. Executive Summary .iv Section Pare I. Introduction 1 II. Mission & Objectives 3 III. Description of the Current Stations 4 A. Riverside -Downtown Station 4 B. Pedley Station 7 C. Riverside -La Sierra Station 9 D. West Corona Station 11 E. Operations & Maintenance 13 IV. Needs Assessment of RCTC Metrolink Stations ..15 A. Ridership Travel Demand B. Tier II Stations (Van Buren & North Main Corona) C. Implementing Electronic Surveillance (CCTV) V. Parking Capacity Improvements 22 A. Parking Needs Analysis (Schiermeyer Consulting Services) B. Parking Implementation Plan (Schiermeyer Consulting Services) C. Feeder Services VI. Future Sources of New Demand 48 A. Transit Oriented Development B. San Jacinto Branch Line Stations (Riverside to Perris) VII. Commuter Rail Station Financial Plan 50 A. Financial Plan Methodology B. Revenues C. Expenditures D. Financial Issues/Implications VIII. Policy Recommendations 53 1" Draft, RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan 4/18/01 i 000138 . APPENDICES Appendix A: Description of the Current Stations FY00/01 Operating Budget per Station Appendix D: Station Financial Plan '93 — '00 Operating Expenditures per Station Total Capital Investment in All 6 Stations Appendix E: Additional Information Evolution of Commuter Rail in Riverside County TABLES Riverside -Downtown Growth in Level of Metrolink Train Service Riverside -Downtown Station Capital Investment (Inception to Date) Pedley Growth in Level of Metrolink Train Service Pedley Station Capital Investment (Inception to Date) Riverside -La Sierra Growth in Level of Metrolink Train Service Riverside -La Sierra Station Capital Investment (Inception to Date) West Corona Growth in Level of Metrolink Train Service West Corona Station Capital Investment (Inception to Date) A.M. Peak -Period Boardings (March 2001) Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3 Figure 1.4 Figure 1.5 Figure 1.6 Figure 2.1 MAPS/GRAPHS Metrolink System Map Riverside -Downtown Location Map Pedley Location Map Riverside -La Sierra Location Map West Corona Location Map FY00/01 Station Operating Budget: $875,000 Car Availability by Metrolink Line (Weekdays) 1 s` Draft, RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan 4/18/01 ix 000130 GLOSSARY of ACRONYMS ADA Americans with Disabilities Act BNSF Burlington Northern -Santa Fe Railroad CCTV Closed Circuit Television CETAP Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds FRA Federal Railroad Administration IEOC Inland Empire -Orange County LAUS Los Angeles Union Station LTF Local Transportation Funds RCCD Riverside Community College District RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission ROW Right -of -Way RTA Riverside Transit Agency SLAG Southern California Association of Governments SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority SJBL San Jacinto Branch Line SOV Single Occupancy Vehicles SR State Route SRTP Short Range Transit Plan STP Surface Transportation Funds UP Union Pacific Railroad WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments Draft, RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan 4/18/01 000140' I. INTRODUCTION Commuter rail provides a viable transportation option for increased mobility within Riverside County and the region. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)1, known as "Metrolink", is responsible for operating the commuter trains as well as maintaining the track right-of-way and related facilities while local agencies are responsible for building and maintaining Metrolink stations. With the advent of direct commuter rail service to Riverside County via the Riverside Line in 1993, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) constructed two Metrolink stations, Riverside -Downtown and Pedley. Implementation of commuter rail service on the Inland Empire -Orange County (1E0C) Line in 1995 brought the construction of two more stations to this region, Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona. Today, RCTC owns and operates these four Metrolink stations located in Westem Riverside County. Ridership Growth & Station Access With over 30,000 daily riders, Metrolink is 40% above the original ridership projections and the numbers will continue to climb. By the year 2010, Riverside County will experience a 36% population increased2 (Population is projected to grow 24% in Southern California with more than a 38% growth in jobs. But there will only be a 6% increase in freeway lane-miles.)3 Over the next 10 years, Metrolink ridership is projected to grow 40% systemwide, with 110% growth on the two Lines that directly serve Riverside County today, the Riverside Line and the IEOC Line.4 In fact, in just the last 12 months ridership on the two Lines has grown 36%5. As a result, the parking space utilization rate at the Riverside County Metrolink stations is near 90%, which creates station capacity issues. 1 SCRRA is a five -county Joint Powers Authority comprised of the transportation commissions of Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura. ` Source: WRCOG Approved Long -Range Growth Forecast, May 2000 3 Source: Draft SCAG 2000 RTP, December 2000 4 Source: Draft Metrolink 30-Year Strategic Plan, October 1999 Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 1 000141 i Train operations for the Riverside, IEOC, and Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles Lines are also expected to double within the next 10 years, from 25 to 54 daily trains. As a result, the ability to access Metrolink will continue to be an important issue for our customers. With too few parking spaces and not enough connecting transit service, getting to the train can be the toughest part of the trip. RCTC is addressing access issues by constructing the Van Buren and North Main Corona stations, and planning for the implementation of peak -period service on the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles Line. However, given the current and projected growth in ridership, more needs to be done. Purpose of the Plan Growing traffic congestion is likely to stimulate a growing demand for Metrolink services in the future. As station owners, RCTC must be ready to meet all of these needs and provide a level of service that encourages ongoing Metrolink ridership. The purpose of this Strategic Plan is to provide a 10-year framework of the key tools RCTC should utilize to keep up with projected demand. Although RCTC is a member agency to SCRRA, this Plan focuses only on issues related to the management of the stations. Issues related to funding future operations of Metrolink train service are addressed annually in the Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). s Source: Metrolink Performance Summary, March 2001 Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 2 00014 II. MISSION & OBJECTIVES As owners of four Metrolink stations in Riverside County, RCTC plays an important role in the journey of the Metrolink rider. Our mission is to meet our customers needs for safe, accessible, efficient transit services. As our riders' needs evolve and demand increases, we must be prepared to keep up with the projected demand. Though the main objective to attract and retain riders remains the same, the methods by which.we achieve success must be enhanced. GOAL: RCTC will encourage and facilitate improved access to and from our stations by all modes to provide a seamless experience for our riders. Achieve a 20% shift in access mode splits, reducing the percentage of parked Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) relative to access by all other modes by the year 2010. ➢ Improve access via shuttles, buses, walking, and bicycles; Y Improve coordination of transit schedules and fares; ➢ Develop carpool strategies involving preferential parking privileges; ➢ Work with local communities to promote transit -oriented development, enhanced destinations, and reverse commute and off-peak riders. GOAL: RCTC will provide safe, clean facilities to encourage ongoing Metrolink ridership. ➢ Implement closed-circuit television to enhance security at the RCTC stations; ➢ Where appropriate, provide additional amenities; ➢ Provide transit information for connecting services; ➢ Develop and implement a support structure to ensure that all new development at RCTC Metrolink stations be transit -oriented. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 3 000143 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT STATIONS Background From the onset of commuter rail service to Southern California in 1992, M_etrolink has been responsible for operating the trains as well as maintaining the track right-of-way and related facilities, while local agencies have been responsible for building and maintaining rail stations. Metrolink began operating commuter rail service from Riverside County to Los Angeles County on the Riverside Line in 1993. Two years later, commuter rail service began operating from Riverside County to Orange County on the IEOC Line. Today, there are 47 stations in the Metrolink system (see Figure 1.1). Unlike the other SCRRA member agencies, RCTC owns and operates the four commuter rail stations serving Riverside County: Riverside -Downtown, Pedley, Riverside -La Sierra, and West Corona. A. RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN STATION The Riverside -Downtown station is located at 4066 Vine Street in Riverside and sits on 12.4 acres with a parking Iot that provides 400 permanent and 350 temporary spaces for a total of 750 parking spaces (see Figure 1.2). It currently serves two Metrolink rail lines, the Riverside Line and the IEOC line. Average daily morning peak -period boardings on Metrolink for March 2001 total 790 passengers. Riverside Downtown: Growth in Level of Metrolink Train Service Metrolink Trains Station Opened June 14, 1993 March 2000 No. of Weekday Trains No. of Weekend Trains 8 0 27 19 Vo Increase TOTALS $ 46 575% At a capital investment of almost $35 million, it is the premier station in Riverside County. The station manages a triple track railroad that includes two passenger boarding tracks on the south and two passenger boarding tracks on the north. The station also serves as a Metrolink equipment layover facility. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 4 000144 ' 0031Q NYS a , C9 ,� 4 Amnco 3QI5'13ARI gun Xiuno3 alueaQ !cu!du3 puqui au!-i aprsaia Foe, / eon oup meg ues kusznco 3ENVII0 412 4$at � AINnaD ONNINV Nam SINS On ;On) aun ixwo own — (Pe 1148n) auf7 ante ekoraFY (Atm+inS)aut'1 PPS waall ---- Ai Fuliwo uoNalinA riA aurl Atniszo allutioquOurd pump! i Jun Alma) Amu° aur1 .maim 4 u aun ouvrwas was •••• adolayuy curt moJ Elntuah ua!1r1s 0 air* of 1nu st dm slit.!. 6661 Jun( alk9s9111 81111 A1.11ilt* EA114118A 0 sr A1.NflO) 4011 �- A.NnaD "iv � t�in,1.1V3�1 ` a � atar� '[a�e� adoioWi1 er4 fl a dbw No►1 V307 GuNnoo 3C1ISd3Ald) NMOI NMOG-301S1:13AW IV NOIl V1S MIV170d13W The Riverside -Downtown station is a major transportation hub serving Metrolink trains with connections to RTA, SunLink, and Amtrak bus services. As a result, the second largest volume station pair in the system is Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS)- Riverside-Downtowns. The station is also one of the top six stations of origin and destination boardings in the system. Riverside -Downtown Station Capital Investment* PROJECTS COMPLETED FUNDING SOURCE (in millions) TOTALS LOCAL STATE OTHER MEASURE A Prop 108. TCI UP ROW $ I0.9 $ 10.9 Construction $ 2.3 $ 10.3 $ 12.6 Ped Overcrossing, South - side Platform, & CCTV _ $ 9.5 ' $ 1.5 $ 11.0 TOTAL COMPLETED $ 13.2 $ 9.5 $ 10.3 $ 1.5 $ 34.5 Currently Programmed CRAM) TOTAL, $ 0.2 S 13.4 $ - S 9.5 $ - S 10.3 $ - S 1.5 $ 0,2 S 34.7 *Inception to Date Temporary Modular Office Originally approved in September 1994, RCTC placed a 510 square -foot temporary modular office unit at the Riverside -Downtown station to serve as a required Metrolink crew welfare facility. In 1997, RCTC purchased the vacant Santa Fe Depot from the City of Riverside for $85,000 with the intent to locate a permanent crew welfare facility in the depot. This month, the Commission took action to surplus the Depot, and therefore it is no longer a site for a permanent facility. RCTC recentlyrenewed the temporary modular unit's conditional use permit (CU-008-945) through 2002. Temporary Parking Lot In 1996, RCTC constructed a temporary parking lot at the Riverside -Downtown station. The temporary parking lot provides 350 additional parking spaces. Due to the recent growth in ridership, the temporary parking lot utilization rate is near 90% full during the week. The City of Riverside issued RCTC a conditional use permit in the hopes that the 5 Source: Year 2000 Metrolink Customer Onboard Survey, Rea & Parker Research, December 2000 Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 5 000147 site would eventually be used for joint development. The conditional use permit also expires in 2002. Pedestrian-Overcrossing & South -Side Platform The $11 Million addition of the south -side platform and pedestrian-overcrossing in November 1998 reduced rail congestion at the Riverside station, where Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks run parallel. The pedestrian-overcrossing includes the installation of elevators for physically disabled riders, and a security guard tower with closed-circuit television (CCTV) monitoring equipment. The panels on the bridge include illustrations of the history of city of Riverside. Additional cost factors include the re-routing of 2,000 feet of the Riverside Irrigation Canal through a new culvert. At the same time, a wall of the Royal Citrus Packing House was moved. The construction of the 1,100-foot south -side platform is suitable for an Amtrak stop, for which the City of Riverside has long advocated (see Needs Assessment for details).6 Currently Programmed Current capital commitments related to the Riverside -Downtown Station are comprised of "in lieu" property tax fees required by the City of Riverside in conjunction with the $8.3 million acquisition of the Birtcher Riverside Marketplace property. The agreement with the City requires the payment of $627,816 over 10 years; three payments remain totaling $201,561. : -- • . + r. ce•+. I4' i 6 Amtrak is currently reviewing the viability of stopping at the Riverside -Downtown Station as a result of a recent request made by RCTC. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 09/18/01 6 000148 B. PEDLEY STATION The Pedley station is located at the intersection of Limonite Avenue and Van Buren Blvd in the unincorporated area of Riverside County, east of UP right-of-way and sits on 4.5 acres within a county redevelopment zone (see Figure 1.3). It currently serves the Riverside Line. Average daily morning peak -period hoardings on Metrolink for March 2001 total 232 passengers. Pedley: Growth in Level of Metrolink Train Service Growth in Metrolink Trains Station Opened June 14,1993 March 2001 No. of Weekday Trains 8 12 No. of Weekend Trains 0 4 Increase TOTALS 8 16 2.00% At an investment of $9.0 million, the station has 283 parking spaces as well as on -site bus access. The RTA is the local fixed -route provider and operates shuttle services to and from the station. Pedley Station Capital Investment* PROJECTS COMPLETED FUNDING SOURCE (in millions) TOTALS LOCAL STATE FEDERAL MEASURE A Prop 108 CMAQ STP ROW $ 0.9 $ 0.9 Construction $ 4.9 $ 2.1 $ 7.0 TOTAL COMPLETED $ 5.8 $ 2.1 $ - $ - $ 7.9 CURRENTLY PROGRAMMED CCTV $ - $ - $ 0.8 $ - $ 0.8 Platform Extension $ - $ - $ - $ 0.3 $ 0.3 TOTAL PROGRAMMED CRAN 1)'1'OTAL $ - $ 5.8 $ - S 2.1 $ 0.8 S 0.8 $ 0.3 S 0.3 $ 1.1 S 9.0 *Inception to Date Currently Programmed Current capital commitments related to the Pedley Station are comprised of the installation of CCTV surveillance equipment and a platform extension totaling $1.1 million. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 7 000149 dVW N011V307 CuNnoo 301S21311121) A3703d lb' NOIl VIS MN/702113W seal C z t 0 L ClA 78 NOISSIW Hlaonr \ ® AV 311N011117 m y lu n 12. 1© an 0 0 The CCTV system will enhance security at the Pedley station and will be completed at a cost of $776,250 by FY2001/02. The platform extension will accommodate a six -car train thereby reducing delays attributed to the current requirement to "double -stop" the train due to the current two -car platform. The proposed cost for this project is $300,000 and is to be completed by next fiscal year. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of .Success 04/18/01 8 000151 C. RIVERSIDE — LA SIERRA STATION The Riverside -La Sierra station is located at 10901 Indiana Avenue in Riverside and sits on 3.5 acres of leased property with a parking lot that provides 348 parking spaces (see Figure 1.4). It currently serves the IEOC line. However, the station will also serve the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles Line when it becomes fully operational by Spring 2002. Average daily morning peak -period boardings on Metrolink for March 2001 total 405 passengers. Riverside -La Sierra: Growth in Level of Metrolink Train Service Growth in Metrolink Trains Station Opened Oct 2, 1995 March 2001 No. of Weekday Trains No. of Weekend Trains 4 0 12 0 Increase TOTALS 4 12 300% Unlike the Riverside -Downtown, Pedley, and West Corona stations, the Riverside -La Sierra station was not originally envisioned for the Metrolink system. The Pierce property, 13.98 acres located at the southwest corner of Pierce Street and Magnolia Ave, was purchased at a price of $6.0 million. Shortly, thereafter, local community opposition prevented RCTC from constructing a station on the property. Fortunately, the Riverside Community College (RCC) offered to lease 3.5 acres of their property to the Commission. The term of the capitalized lease is 50 years with a 49-year option. Current lease payments are $23,000 per year. The total capital investment in this station is $6.8 million. Riverside -La Sierra Station Capital Investment* PROJECTS COMPLETED FUNDING SOURCE (in millions) LOCAL FEDERAL MEASURE A LTF CMAQ TOTALS ROW - 50 Year Capital Lease $ - $ - $ 1.1 $ 1.1 Construction $ - $ - $ 3.6 $ 3.6 TOTAL COMPLETED $ - $ - $ 4.7 $ 4.7 CURRENTLY PROGRAMMED Pedestrian-Overcrossing & CCTV $ - $ 0.2 $ 1.9 $ 2.1 TOTAL PROGRAMMED GRAN I) TOTAL $ - $ - $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 1.9 S 6.6 $ 2.1 S 6.8 amp ion to ua Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 9 000152 dVW Na_ . b'007 aiNnO0 301S213/12l) b2R13/S 117 3OlS?!3/Utl IV NO/l t/1S )IN/702/13141 Currently Programmed Current capital commitments related to the Riverside -La Sierra Station are comprised of the installation of a pedestrian-overcrossing with elevators and CCTV surveillance equipment totaling $1.9 million. The pedestrian-overcrossing is a BNSF required structure that will enhance safety and rail operations. The CCTV system will enhance security at the Riverside -La Sierra station and will be networked with the Riverside -Downtown station. The pedestrian- overcrossing and CCTV will be completed by June 2002. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 10 00015 4' D. WEST CORONA STATION The West Corona station is located within the city of Corona in the southeast quadrant of Auto Center Drive and the BNSF alignment (see Figure 1.5). The site is situated just one-half mile north of the 91 Freeway. Like the Riverside -La Sierra station, the West Corona station serves the IEOC line and will serve the future Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles Line. Average daily morning peak -period hoardings on Metrolink for March 2001 total 441 passengers. West Corona: Growth in Level of Metrolink Train Service Growth in Metrolink Trains Station Opened Oct 2, 1995 March 2001 % Increase 300`%► No. of Weekday Trains 4 12 No. of Weekend Trains TOTALS 0 0 At an investment of $9.1 million, the West Corona station will include a pedestrian- overcrossing with elevators. The station has parking spaces for 545 vehicles. Corona Dial -A -Ride provides frequent shuttle service to the Station. West Corona Station Capital Investment* PROJECTS COMPLETED FUNDING SOURCE (in millions) LOCAL FEDERAL MEASURE A LTF CMAQ TOTALS ROW $ 2.0 $ - $ - $ 2.0 Construction $ - $ 5.0 $ 5.0 TOTAL COMPLETED $ 2.0 $ - $ 5.0 $ 7.0 CURRENTLY PROGRAMMED Pedestrian-Overcrossing & CCTV $ - $ 0.2 $ 1.9 $ 2.1 TOTAL PROGRAMMED GRAND TOTAL $ - S 2.0 $ 0.2 S 0.2 $ 1.9 $ 2.1 S 6.9 S 9.1 *inception to Date Currently Programmed Like the Riverside -La Sierra station, current capital commitments related to the West Corona station are comprised of the installation of a pedestrian-overcrossing with elevators and CCTV surveillance equipment totaling $1.9 million. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 11 00015 dVW N011b'307 aiNnoo 3OIS213/11l1) b'N02100 1S3M 1VN011b'1S)INl70a113W 4b n O 2 c SrJW bal NO /dd0 21C1831N33 oinv 1 The pedestrian-overcrossing is a BNSF required structure that will enhance safety and rail operations. The CCTV system will enhance security at the West Corona station and will be networked with the Riverside -Downtown station. The pedestrian-overcrossing and CCTV will be completed by June 2002. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 12 000157 E. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE RCTC owns and operates all four stations located in Riverside County. Each station includes at least two passenger loading platforms, waiting areas with shelters, ticket vending machines, pay phones, and an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant parking lot. In addition, all four stations are designed with bus loops, a shuttle bus waiting area, and bike lockers to encourage alternate modes of transport other than SOV to access the stations. Station operation and maintenance costs are included in the RCTC annual Rail Program budget with the services coordinated by RCTC's property agent. The station operating budget is primarily funded by Western Riverside County Local Transportation Funds (LTF) with a $75,000 reimbursement from Metrolink for the requirement of an armed guard to protect the layover equipment at the Riverside -Downtown station. The current year rail station operating budget of $875,000 (less insurance and administrative costs), represents 16% of the current fiscal year Rail Program budget of $5,600,000. FY00/01 Rail Station (4) Operating Budget $875,000 Landscape 8% Repairs 5% Cleaning 10% Legal 3% Utilities 10% Security 64% At a current annual cost of $572,000, the largest operating expenditure involves the protection of the station property. As a result of vandalism and crimes that occurred when the stations first opened, RCTC currently employs 24-hour security guards at each Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 13 000153 of the stations to actively address the potential problems on the property. The guards provide on -site security patrolling of the stations and the enhanced visibility of the guards has been effective in deterring criminal activity. Current Issues After a substantial capital investment of over $59 million for the four RCTC rail stations, the dividends are paying off with ridership that is 40% above original projections. As Metrolink has proven to be a viable transportation alternative to the SOV for commuters, ridership continues to grow, and as a result, patronage grows at the four RCTC rail stations. The challenges for the next 10 years involve. capitalizing on our investments to yield even more ridership. Maximizing our investments will require strengthening partnerships with the local community and transit operators in order to reduce the reliance on current fund sources, both capital and operating, that compete with other growing priorities (i.e. operating subsidy, San Jacinto Branch Line improvements). Today, the success of Metrolink has created parking capacity issues at one of our stations (Riverside -La Sierra) and will create additional capacity issues in the near future. The "Needs Assessment" and "Parking Capacity" sections that follow detail ridership demand and the subsequent increased parking capacity that will be needed at the rail stations. AM PEAK PERIOD BOARDINGS (March 2001) Avg Daily Parking Station Boardings Spaces Riverside -Downtown 790 750 Pedley 232 283 Riverside -La Sierra 405 348 West Corona 441 545 TOTALS 1,868 1,926 Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 14 000159 r IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT Recent survey data reaffirms that Metrolink riders are not transit dependent; that is, as a commuter, they choose to ride Metrolink rather than driving their car. As station owners, the key challenge facing RCTC over the next 10 years centers on continuing to provide access to Metrolink. The existing stations provide a total of 1,926 parking spaces, however utilization rate is near 90%. Two stations will be constructed in Western Riverside County bringing the total number of RCTC owned stations to six by 2002. Nevertheless, the current and projected growth in ridership dictates that more parking spaces are needed over the next 10 years despite the construction of the two new stations. Also, additional feeder services that meet every train are needed to encourage alternate modes of transport other than SOV. Technological upgrades to enhance monitoring of the stations will help to improve efficiency and should be installed and implemented at all six stations by 2004. Staff will also continue to evaluate upgrades/physical improvements at the existing stations and some of those upgrades may be completed during the course of this plan. Upgrades may be called for in order to comply with federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and freight railroad requirements. A. RIDERSHIP TRAVEL DEMAND Systemwide With over 30,000 daily riders, Metrolink is 40% above the original ridership projections and the numbers continue to climb (projected 21,830 — actual 30,161). 8.5% of freeway traffic is removed from Metrolink's parallel freeways during peak ridership hours. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 4/18/01 15 000160 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Metrolink Systemwide: Avg Daily Ridership 30,161 24447 25,700 ■ t7� 2i,70� _ 21,830 12,856 5,39 f Original projection '92/93 '93/94 '94/95 '95/96 '96/97 '97/98 '98/99 '99100 '00/01 "Metrolink riders demonstrate a remarkably high level of automobile availability (83.5% overall and 86.7% for weekday riders). This indicates that Metrolink riders use the system largely by choice and are not transit dependent. Metrolink, therefore, is clearly an attractive alternative to the automobile, particularly for commuters." — Year 2000 Metrolink Onboard Survey, Rea & Parker Research, December 2000 Car Availability by Metrolink Line (Weekdays) 90% , , , 90% onoi .Ire . i�i •.aaaa�,._.r;. Source: Metrolink "Partners in Progress", January 2001 Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 4/18/01 16 000161 Train Routes to San Juan Capistrano Other Train Routes • Stations Served on Route to San Juan Capistrano aC y Western Riverside County Demand The Metrolink rail lines that serve Riverside County follow the alignment of two heavily congested freeways, State Routes (SR) 60 and 91. The SR 91 Freeway continues to be a major problem for inter -county travel between Riverside and Orange Counties. The Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) is examining alternative transportation improvements between Riverside and Orange Counties, including capacity improvements to SR91, potential new routes south of SR91, and improvements to Metrolink commuter rail service. INLAND EMPIRE - ORANGE COUNTY LINE ` eay °` t`c C,o� sd ° RG: amc`. ?c`� b e4 � foo 44 * rb J g Pc jpa�J C 0 �`4. if 4 �`4 p1 cs S e sCa dk yea „,.f�4 sAi C • Proposed stations �c The IEOC Line operates between San Bemardino/Riverside and Orange County. The Line serves mainly central and Southern Orange County, with stops at Anaheim Canyon, Orange, Santa Ana, Irvine, and San Juan Capistrano. The 1E0C currently carries 2,800 riders per day, up 50 percent from 1999. In addition to increasing IEOC service in future years, Metallic is planning to offer a direct route between Riverside County and Los Angeles via Fullerton/Buena Park. This long-awaited route will also provide a viable alternative to SOV freeway travel. Metrolink projects that this Line will carry 800 riders per day in FY2002/2003. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 4/18/01 17 000162 COMMUTER RAIL IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY �9 Train Routes to ins Angeias Union Sullen Other Train Fortes • Stations Served on Route to Los Angeles Union Stilton Proposed Stations The Riverside Line operates between Riverside and Los Angeles County. The route roughly follows SR60 through the cities and communities of Pedley, Mira Lorna, Ontario, Pomona, West Covina, Walnut, Industry, La Puente, Montebello, and Commerce. Ridership demand for this line is constrained due to poor on -time performance and the current agreement with UP that does not provide for additional levels of train service without substantial capital improvements. This Line currently carries 4,600 riders per day. It is assumed that a small percentage of riders will move from the Riverside Line to the new Riverside via Fullerton Line once it begins to operate in 2002. Direct Amtrak Service at the Riverside -Downtown Station Years prior to the advent of Metrolink service, the City of Riverside lobbied intensively for long-distance Amtrak service. The City failed in its efforts because of the inadequacy of the track plant in our downtown area. When RCTC reached agreement with the Santa Fe Railroad in 1992, one of the items very high on our list was the effort to facilitate Amtrak long distance service to the residents of this area. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 4/18/01 18 000163. RCTC has invested almost $35 million in the Riverside -Downtown station in the hopes that it would serve as a major transportation hub serving both Metrolink and Amtrak trains. Last September, RCTC formally requested Amtrak to begin stopping the Southwest Chief at the Riverside -Downtown Station at its next schedule change. A decision from Amtrak is pending. The addition of an Amtrak stop at the Station will attract additional riders and create additional demands for parking. B. TIER II STATIONS (Van Buren & North Main Corona) The existing commuter rail station development program began in 1988 when RCTC began identifying potential station sites to serve its future commuter rail service into Orange County. As the commuter rail program developed and expanded, however, it was determined that stations would need to be constructed in tiers due to financial constraints. Tier I sites included those stations which are currently open in Riverside County (Riverside -Downtown, Pedley, Riverside -La Sierra, and West Corona). Tier II sites included those remaining sites that had been identified but were unable to be constructed. In April 1999, the Commission adopted the "Tier II Station Study" by Schiermeyer Consulting Services and authorized the development of two new stations. The report concluded that new commuter rail stations be developed at Van Buren Blvd in the City of Riverside and Main Street in the City of Corona. J Tier 11 Stations Project Budget ($000): ROW: Prelim Eng & Des Final Design Construction TOTAL: $ 3,130* 500 950 12 0�00 $16,580 *Corona RDA -$1.5M Upon completion in 2002, these stations will serve up to 20 daily trains on the IEOC and the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles commuter rail lines The proposed site for the new Van Buren station is located west of Van Buren Blvd between Rudicill Street on the south and Indiana Avenue on the north. The North Main Corona site is located generally between Main Street on the west and Joy Street on the east, Grand Ave on the South, and Blaine Street on the north. Draft RCTG Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 4/18/01 19 000164 C. IMPLEMENTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE As a result of vandalism and crimes that occurred when the stations first opened, RCTC currently employs 24-hour security guards at each of the stations to actively address the potential problems on the property. The guards provide on -site security patrolling of the stations and the enhanced visibility of the guards has been effective in deterring criminal activity. However, even with the presence of guards, crimes have continued at the stations. The types of crimes are generally vandalism related and automobile break-ins. Since crimes are still occurring while guards are present, this may indicate that a station is too large and/or has too much activity for one guard to provide an effective deterrent force without the help from either another guard or an electronic surveillance system. In November 1996, the Commission approved the "RCTC Study of Electronic Surveillance Options for Riverside Rail Stations" by Bechtel Infrastructure and authorized the capital investment of CCTV electronic surveillance systems at all four stations. The report concludes that although an alert guard force with good communication is one of the best ways to stop crime, the use of a guard force to deter crime is labor intensive and costly. The report recommends the installation of electronic surveillance equipment to provide adequate security to the four stations and reduce the annual cost while documenting the occurrence of crimes to identify the criminals and successfully prosecute them in a court of law.8 RCTC is currently spending $1,571 per day for 24-hour guard service for the four stations. This figure includes the Metrolink contribution for the guard that is required at the Riverside -Downtown station to monitor the layover equipment at night. Guards employed 24-hours at all four stations cost the Commission about $572,000 a year. g Source: "RCTC Study of Electronic Surveillance Options for Riverside Rail Stations", Bechtel Infrastructure, November 1996 Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 4/18/01 20 00016 Although electronic surveillance equipment has been installed at the Riverside - Downtown station since 1999, it is not in full use. RCTC should design an implementation plan to begin operating the equipment and complete the installation at the other stations in order to realize cost savings and provide enhanced monitoring of the station property. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 4/18/01 21 00016E V. PARKING CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS Access to Metrolink is an important issue for our customers. With too few parking spaces and not enough connecting transit service, getting to the train can be the toughest part of the trip. The fact that an overwhelming majority of weekday Metrolink riders have a car available for their trip, affirms that riders are choosing to take Metrolink because it is a viable alternative to driving. Any encountered difficulty associated with accessing Metrolink has the ability to negatively impact ridership. A. PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS by Schiermeyer Consulting Services Introduction RCTC owns and operates four commuter rail stations. One of the stations —Riverside - Downtown —serves both of the current two commuter rail routes, the IEOC route and the Riverside -Los Angeles route. The Pedley station is on the Riverside -Los Angeles route while the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona stations are on the IEOC route. These four commuter rail stations have experienced growing usage. Partly in response to the need for more parking as well as in response to a pending major expansion in commuter rail service, RCTC has recently approved the development of two additional commuter rail stations on the IEOC route. These two stations are Van Buren, located between Riverside -Downtown and Riverside -La Sierra, and North Main Corona, located between Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona. These two new stations are in the design and engineering phase. At this writing it appears the stations could be completed and opened within 24 months. There will also shortly be a major expansion of commuter rail service. First, by mid- 2001 the City of Tustin will complete its long-awaited commuter rail station on the IEOC route. When patronage forecasts were originally prepared for this route, the Tustin station accounted for 30% of the ridership. Since the original ridership forecast on the rest of the route has long since been achieved and exceeded there is no reason to think that Tustin would not likewise show strong ridership potential. Of course there is the possibility —even Iikelihood—that some of the forecast ridership has been re -distributed Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 22 000167 to Irvine and Santa Ana. Nevertheless were Tustin to still hold the same relationship to other destination stations as it did in the original forecast, it would account for as many as 557 new hoardings each morning and 1,114 trips each weekday, based upon current IEOC ridership of 2,600 daily trips each day. The second major commuter rail development is the planned initiation of a new route between Riverside and Los Angeles via Fullerton and Commerce. This new route will commence service in May of 2002. The new route is estimated conservatively to achieve approximately 400 morning hoardings within Riverside County within six months of service initiation. The ridership estimate from which this forecast has been extracted has not been updated since its preparation in early 1995. With the continued deterioration of highway travel times into Orange County and the parallel strong growth on the IEOC route, there is every likelihood that the new route will rapidly eclipse the estimate of 400 morning hoardings. In summary, within the next 12-18 months changes to the commuter rail network will likely result in a minimum of 800 new morning hoardings. Furthermore there will likely be continued natural growth of the current ridership base. This new ridership will clearly strain and perhaps exceed the ability of current and proposed stations to provide sufficient parking spaces. Lacking sufficient parking it will not be possible to attain either the ridership projected for the new services or the ridership growth projected for the current services. This report seeks to analyze the impact of total ridership growth on each of the current and proposed commuter rail stations. Methodological Approach The goal of this study is to assign commuter rail parking demand to each station and determine the parking adequacy at each station. Both the four existing and the two Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 23 000168 proposed stations are included in this analysis. The methodological approach used is as follows: • Determine the current number of parking spaces at each station; • Confirm the ratio of parked cars to boarding commuters; • Inflate current ridership through 2003; • Re -assign current commuters to new stations based upon survey results; • Assign commuters destined for Tustin based upon survey results; • Assign commuters on new Riverside -Fullerton -LA line based upon survey results; • Determine total parking demand at each station for year 2003; • Determine surplus or (deficit) in parking supply for each station; • Add inflation factor to current ridership for period 2004-2010; and • Determine surplus or (deficit) in parking supply for each station. Determine the Current Number of Parking Spaces at Each Station The existing and proposed number of parking spaces by station is listed below. "IEOC" refers to the Inland Empire -Orange County rail route. "Riv-LA" refers to the current Riverside -Los Angeles route. "Riv-Full-LA" refers to the new commuter rail route through Fullerton and Commerce scheduled to commence service in May of 2002. The number of parking spaces is those, already in service and the current number of spaces planned at each of the two new stations. Station Riverside -Downtown Pedley Van Buren Riverside -La Sierra North Main Corona West Corona Route IEOC, Riv-LA, Riv-Full-LA Riv-LA IEOC, Riv-Full-LA IEOC, Riv-Full-LA IEOC, Riv-Full-LA IEOC, Riv-Full-LA Parking Spaces 750 283 326 348 486 545 Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 24 000169 Confirm the Ratio of Parked Cars to Boarding Commuters Most of Metrolink's commuters arrive at their boarding station each morning in their own car. However, a significant number arrive without having to park a car at the station. In the most recent study of its commuters (1997), Metrolink asked "How do you usually get from your home to the train station?" The answers verify that most commuters drive themselves to the station but that, typically, at least 20% of commuters access their station without having to park a personal car, thus relieving some of the parking demand. MODE OF ACCESS TO STATION Commuter Station Riverside -Downtown Pedley La Sierra West Corona Access Mode Drive Alone 71% 78% 70% 76% Dropped Off 17% 9% 15% 9% Carpool 1% 6% 4% 7% Bus 7% 5% 7% 2% Walk 1% 0% 1% 1% Bicycle 1% 2% 2% 1% Of the modes identified in the survey, only the "Drive Alone" and "Carpool" modes require parking. Assuming an average of two persons per carpool, the number of parking spaces required per commuter at each of the Riverside County stations is as follows: - Riverside -Downtown (0.72), Pedley (0.81), Riverside -La Sierra (0.72) and West Corona (0.80). For this study it would be prudent to use the higher ratio observed at West Corona (0.80) for all the stations between Van Buren and West Corona. Bus service is infrequent near these stations and it would inject too liberal an assumption were one to use the experience at Riverside -La Sierra as the norm for the new stations. The parking ratio for Riverside - Downtown (0.72) and Pedley (0.81) will be used for those stations. Another way to confirm the appropriate ratio of parking spaces to boarding commuters is to inventory the actual number of occupied parking spaces compared to the verified Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 25 000170 number of boarding commuters. This approach would work particularly well in those situations where no extraneous activities would generate increased demand for the parking at a commuter station. Unfortunately, because of the very heavy traffic congestion on SR 91 and the lack of dedicated carpooling parking facilities, some carpoolers use RCTC commuter rail stations as marshaling locations. Nevertheless two stations were inspected on Wednesday, September 20th. Were there fewer parked cars than a ratio of .8 parked cars -to -commuters it could be an indication that the parking factor was too high. On the other hand, were there more parked cars than a ratio of .8 then it might indicate either that the parking ratio has been set too low or that carpoolers are using the station parking lot. The Riverside -La Sierra station had 346 parked cars, of which some could have been associated with the construction currently underway at the station. The average number of boardings is 396. At a parking -to -commuter ratio of .8, one would expect approximately 317 parked cars. There was an observed difference of 29 parked cars. The West Corona station had 394 parked cars, of which some could have been associated with the construction currently underway at the station. The average number of boardings is 434. At a parking -to -commuter ratio of .8, one would expect approximately 347 parked cars. There was an observed difference of 47 parked cars. If all the parked cars represent commuters, the actual parking ratios would be .87 and .90, respectively. Since the Metrolink survey is the only really solid information available and since carpoolers are known to use both stations, it would appear that the prudent course is to use the survey data in estimating commuter rail parking requirements. To use the actual, observed parking ratio might result in an overestimation of parking needs. On the other hand, the use of the .8 ratio could also result in a slight underestimation of parking needs. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 26 000171 Inflate Current Ridership Through 2003 In order to make a near tern (through 2003) judgment about the likely adequacy of parking at RCTC commuter stations it's necessary not only to factor in the new ridership resulting from added services but also to make a reasonable judgment about growth in current ridership. The Riverside -Los Angeles route has been plagued by reliability problems in recent years. Previous ridership forecasts on this line had suggested much higher ridership than has actually been attained. These estimates suggest, had there been greater reliability, that ridership exceeding 5,200 trips per day would have been possible by now. Instead the ridership level in August of 2000 had shrunk to 4,100 from its high of 4,676 in June of 2000. It is possible to foresee a scenario in which reliability is restored and ridership increases to the 5,500 range by 2003. This is not likely based upon current performance. While it does not appear appropriate to forecast aggressive growth based on current performance, so also it might be a mistake to be unduly conservative. Thus, for purposes of this report, the beginning ridership level will be set at 4,600 trips. Last year's growth rate of 4% is assumed for each of the next three years. Over three years this would result in Riverside Line ridership of approximately 5,000 trips per day. The Riverside -Downtown station accounts for 21% of the boardings on the Riverside Line, while Pedley accounts for 12% of the boardings. Based upon 5,000 trips per day in 2003 (2,500 in the morning peak), Riverside -Downtown will have 525 commuters boarding on Riverside Line trains each morning, while Pedley will have 300. Ridership growth on the IEOC is equally difficult to forecast but for very different reasons. For the past year the IEOC has had a growth rate of 48%. Yet in the preceding year its growth rate was only 3%. The reasons for this strong spurt in growth are complex and no doubt relate to the addition of a new midday train, increasing highway congestion, extensive media coverage of transportation alternatives and some marketing efforts. These same factors will continue into the future. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 27 000:172 On the other hand, it is not credible to forecast continued growth at this rate on the base service. As a compromise between a very low growth rate and the astronomical rate experienced during the past year, a rate of 10% per year will be used. On a base of 2,600 average daily trips, this yields a ridership level of approximately 3,400 trips in 2003. The Riverside -Downtown station accounts for 28% of the hoardings On the.IEOC line; with Riverside -La Sierra having 31 % and West Corona 33%. Based upon 3,400 trips per day in 2003 (1,700 in the morning peak), Riverside -Downtown will have 476 commuters boarding on IEOC trains each morning. Riverside -La Sierra will have 527, while West Corona will have 561. These hoardings do not reflect any diversion to new stations on the IEOC. Total morning hoardings on all current commuter services within Riverside County in 2003 will be approximately 2,400, as noted below: Growth In Current Ridership by 2003 IEOC & Riverside -LA Routes Station Ridership Riverside -Downtown 1,000 Pedley 300 Riverside -La Sierra 530 West Corona 560 TOTAL 2,400 Re -assign Current Commuters to New IEOC Stations Based upon Survey Results The IEOC route will have two additional stations in service by 2003 within Riverside County. These two stations are at Van Buren Boulevard in the City of Riverside and Main Street in the City of Corona. Both sites were selected for development after an intensive review by RCTC. One of the more important factors used in the review were the wishes of the current commuters. In February of 1999 IEOC commuters were surveyed to seek their opinions of their commuter rail station. When presented with the possibility of another station from which Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 28 000173 to board the 1EOC service, a significant number of riders supported the proposed stations at Van Buren and Main Street. For the purposes of assessing parking adequacy this study is assuming that the two new stations are in service by 2003. Furthermore this study is assuming that current riders have changed boarding stations according to the findings of the 1999 survey. The 1999 survey indicated the following: 1. For the Riverside -Downtown station, 5% of the riders would switch to a Van Buren station while 6% of the riders would switch to a North Main Corona station; 2. For the Riverside -La Sierra station, 26% of riders would switch to a Van Buren station and 90/o would switch to a station farther east at Madison, for a total of 35% who would likely switch to a Van Buren station. 18% would switch to a North Main Corona station; 3. For the West Corona station, no one would switch to the new Van Buren station but 58% would switch to a North Main Corona station. The forecast for Riverside County 1E0C boardings in 2003 of current riders is 1,564. Based upon the 1999 rider survey these current riders {before the opening of a Tustin station in Orange County or the initiation of a new route from Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton} will redistribute themselves among the five stations as shown on Table 1. The North Main Corona station will become the dominant boarding location on the 1:EOC route with 29% of all hoardings. Riverside -Downtown will have 27% of all boardings. The remaining three stations are clustered relatively closely together with Riverside -La Sierra at 16%, West Corona at 15% and Van Buren at 13%. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge afSuccess 04/18/01 29 000174 Table 1, Revised 2003 Station Assignments (Current IEOC Commuters) 1 2003 Riverside- Riverside- North Main West STATION Base . Downtown Van Buren La Sierra Corona Corona Riverside -Downtown 476 424 24 0 28 0 Riverside -La Sierra 527 0 184 248 95 0 West Corona 561 0 0 0 329 232 NEW ASSIGNMENT 1,564 424 208 248 452 232 % 100% 27°/a 13% 16% 29% 15% Assign Commuters Destined for Tustin to IEOC Stations Based upon 1999 Survey Results In a 1995 research study prepared by Schiermeyer Consulting Services, IEOC ridership was estimated at 2,238 average daily trips assuming a basic level of service. Of this trip total, Tustin was forecast to account for 668 average daily trips. Half of these, or 334 trips, would be boarding trips in the morning. Without Tustin as a destination station the forecast was reduced to approximately 1,570 average daily trips. The estimate of 1,570 was for the start-up period of service. Ridership was expected, of course, to grow beyond the initial forecast level. When service to Tustin begins later in 2001, it will occur in an environment of rapid overall growth on the IEOC. What should be the forecast for new ridership associated with a Tustin station? Should it be the initial 334 daily morning boardings estimated in 1995? Should it be something less than that assuming that some of the 334 riders may be using either Santa Ana or Irvine? On the other hand, should we assume that a Tustin station should still account for 30% of the ridership? In that case the estimated 2003 IEOC ridership of 3,400 should be increased to 4,857, reflecting 1,450 average daily trips associated with Tustin. Thus there is a theoretical range of morning hoardings from 334 to 725 depending upon the judgment made about Tustin. The higher end of the range is possible. Tustin is approximately 5 miles from Santa Ana and 5 miles from Irvine. Neither station is really a very good surrogate candidate for someone who really prefers a Tustin station. In addition, the destination employment centers used to estimate ridership for Tustin are located in a ring of industries approximately 2 miles to the south and west of the station. The potential destinations Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 30 000175 extend as far south as the high rise office buildings on either side of the San Diego Freeway. On the other hand, just as it has taken several years for the iEOC route to develop its ridership base, so also without very extensive and pervasive marketing it will likewise take Tustin a period of time to mature into a strortg destination station. For the period up to 2003 a mildly bullish estimate of 400 morning boardings will be used. This is considerably less than the 725 resulting from the application of a straight- line 30% of current ridership. It is also more than the 1995 start-up estimate of 334 boardings. Given the growing awareness of the IEOC route among employers an estimate of 400 seems prudent. It also protects RCTC from the risk of dramatically understating its parking requirements. These 400 riders will be assigned to each of the five stations based upon the 1999 survey results. The Tustin riders will be boarding the following stations: Assignment of 400 New Tustin Riders to Riverside County IEOC Stations Station Morning Boardines Riverside -Downtown 108 Van Buren 52 Riverside -La Sierra 64 North Main Corona 116 West Corona 60 TOTAL 400 Assign Commuters to stations on new Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles Route based upon 1999 Survey Results The 1995 ridership estimate for this line projected 163 boardings at Riverside -Downtown, 42 at Riverside -La Sierra and 188 at West Corona. Table 2, "Projected Boardings by Station for the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles Route", adjusts these boardings to reflect the results of the 1999 passenger survey. These boardings indicate the majority of boardings will take place at Riverside -Downtown (145), North Main Corona (127) and West Corona (79). Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 31 0001.76 Table 2, Projected Boardings by Station (Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles) STATION Riverside- Downtown Van Buren Riverside- La Sierra North Main Corona West Corona Riverside -Downtown 163 145 8 0 10 0 Riverside -La Sierra 42 0 15 19 8 0 West Corona 188 0 0 0 109 79 TOTAL 393 145 23 19 1 127 79 Determine Total Parking Demand at Each Station for Year 2003 Total parking demand at each station is a function of total hoardings as modified by the percentage of commuters who require a parking spot. Table 3, "Station Parking Analysis", presents the results of this analysis. Including new commuters associated both with the pending Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles line and the Tustin station, parking demand at two stations will exceed current capacity while the remaining four stations will have a surplus of parking over projected demand. The Riverside -Downtown station will have a deficit of 123 parking spaces. The deficit at this station is very sensitive to the actual performance of the Union Pacific Railroad in its handling of the Riverside -LA service. This parking assessment assumes standard handling and thus good ridership. Were the on -time performance of that line to continue at its current poor level, the demand for parking would likely not materialize. Under that unacceptable condition, Riverside -Downtown would not require additional parking for the year 2003. The other station requiring parking under this analysis for the year 2003 is the new North Main Corona station. This station will have a deficit of approximately 70 parking spaces. For all the reasons itemized earlier in this analysis, this deficit could actually be greater than 70 if the high growth rate on the IEOC continues and if the new line to LA shows similar attractiveness. The remaining four stations all show a surplus of parking for 2003: Van Buren (+100), Riverside -La Sierra (+113), West Corona (+248), and Pedley (+40). This parking Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 32 000177 analysis has not investigated whether the new Van Buren station might attract new riders to the network merely because of its strategic location. It is possible that actual use of the Van Buren station could be greater than forecast since the forecast only re -allocated commuters from other stations to this station. The Riverside -La Sierra station will lose some of its current ridership base to both Van Buren and to North Main Corona. Currently this station is at capacity. Upon the completion of the two new stations it will have a project surplus of approximately 113 spaces. Finally, the West Corona station will benefit the most from the new North Main Corona station. It will change from a near -capacity situation to one in which there is a surplus of 248 spaces. A majority of the existing users of West Corona will elect to use the more convenient station in downtown Corona. Determine Total Parking Demand at Each Station in Year 2010 For the year 2010 parking demand, two different inflation factors were used in order to generate a range of potential demand. The two inflation factors are 4% and 8%. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3 and summarized below. 2010 PARKING DEFICIT Station Parking Status Riverside -Downtown -399 to —746 Van Buren +17 to —66 Riverside -La Sierra -1 to -106 North Main Corona -246 to —467 West Corona +154 to +36 Pedley -37 to -133 Analysis This station parking analysis indicates the strong growth of commuter rail within the County. Not only have the existing services generated substantial patronage for Metrolink, the pending service expansion to Tustin and the new route to Los Angeles promise to accelerate use of commuter rail in Riverside County. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 33 000178 The Year 2003 represents the year when all the new services and new stations have been brought on line. Without RCTC action anticipating the impact of these new services on available station parking, the Riverside -Downtown station and the new _North Main Corona station may have substantial parking deficits. By the year 2010, all stations except West Corona will have parking demand that far exceeds supply. The total range of this parking deficit in 2010 will be from 512 to 1,482 spaces. Phase II of this Parking Plan will examine the options to remedy this projected parking deficit and the proposed financing plan. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01=10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 34 0001'79 Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 35 000180 Table 3, Station Parking Analysis 6 STATION Parking Spaces Parking Ratio 2003 Boardings on Existing Service 2003 Re- assigned Station Boarding 2003 Tustin Ridership 2003 Riv-Full-LA Hoardings Total 2003 Boardings I0:11 2003 I'm kin;; Demand 2003 Parking Status 2610 t'a11,in.; Demand "4 "' 1 Grow ill 21110 Parking Demand `1 8` °/` 1 (ir1 nth 2010 Range of Parking Deficit Riverside- Downtown 750* 0.72 1,000 960 108 145 1,213 , - : -123 I.149 1.496 -399 to -746 Van Buren 326 Q.80 under design 208 52 23 283 226 +100 'Al') 92 +17 to -64 Riverside -La Sierra 348 0.80 530 248 64 19 331 ?r,-;: +113 140 4s4 -1 to -106I North Main Corona 486 0.80 under design-246 452 116 127 695 :',Ai, -70 - :) 95 to -441 West Corona 545 0.80 560 232 60 79 371 297 +248 _;91 509 +154 to +36 , Pedley 283 0.81 300 300 NA NA 300 4 z +40 1-10 4 l [, -37 to -133 Includes temporary parking lot with 350 spaces 36 B. PARKING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN by Schiermeyer Consulting Services Summary of Phase 1 Results In 2003, with the expansion of destinations on the IEOC line and the inauguration of a new commuter line to Los Angeles via Fullerton, the number of rail commuters will have increased substantially over current levels. The. increase in rail use will strain parking availability at county stations. This increase will appear to impact the following stations the most dramatically. Riverside -Downtown will have an estimated parking deficit of 123 spaces. North Main Corona will have a deficit of 70 spaces. Assuming continued growth in commuter rail ridership between 4% and 8% annually, the total parking deficit among the county stations will range from 512 to 1,482 by 2010. The deficits, compared to available parking capacity in 2000, will range from a high of 746 spaces at Riverside -Downtown to 467 at North Main Corona. While these two stations are estimated to be the most impacted by continuing growth in commuter rail other stations will also have need for more parking. Pedley will require as many as 133 more spaces, while Riverside -La Sierra will need 106 and Van Buren 66. Only the West Corona station is projected to have a surplus of parking (+36) in 2010. These estimates of future unmet parking needs already assume that at least 20% of the commuters will not require parking at the station. These commuters will arrive at the station either by local transit, walking, carpooling or will be dropped off by another. This estimate is based upon surveys of existing commuters. Nevertheless, a change in how the typical commuter arrives at the station could significantly alter these forecasts. Were more than 80% of commuters to choose to drive a personal car to the station, the need for additional parking would rise commensurately. Alternatively, were more than 20% of the commuters able to access the station without using a personal automobile the need for parking would decrease. In the short term (defined as 2003), two stations are projected to have parking deficits: Riverside -Downtown (123) and North Main Corona (70). These two stations are also projected to have the greatest deficit as well in 2010. In 2010 three additional stations Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 37 000182 will require parking, albeit at levels not apparently requiring action until the latter part of the period 2001-2010. This report provides a recommended implementation strategy for meeting the projected parking deficit at the Riverside County Metrolink stations. The strategy is oriented to immediate short-term actions as well as actions designed to resolve parking needs in the Iong term. Short -Term Implementation Parking Strategies The Phase I parking analysis indicated that two stations will require additional parking by 2003. These two stations are Riverside -Downtown and North Main Corona. Each of these stations is examined below. Riverside -Downtown The Riverside -Downtown station has 750 parking spaces. By 2003 its projected boardings will be 1,000, resulting in the need for 123 more parking spaces. With moderate growth to 2010, its total parking requirement will increase to 1,495 spaces. This amount of growth will require an absolute doubling of the station's parking: from 750 to 1,500 spaces. The erratic performance of the Riverside Line has depressed ridership levels. This has clearly reduced the demand for parking at the Riverside -Downtown station. On the other hand, the 1E0C route has performed far better and has achieved startling ridership growth of over 48% during the past year. There will also shortly be another route out of this station, offering a somewhat longer but perhaps more reliable service to Los Angeles. Consequently the prudent way of developing a strategy for parking growth at the Riverside -Downtown station is to assume that all forecast growth will occur. In the short term the Commission can develop a small parcel of land that it owns between Vine Street and the 91 Freeway. This could provide perhaps 75 parking spaces.. In addition the Commission could enter into joint parking arrangements with nearby restaurants and the multiplex cinema for the combined use of perhaps as many as 300 Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10.• The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 38 000183 r spaces. This would appear to still leave an unmet need for 375 additional spaces by 2010. These 375 spaces could be secured by acquiring at least 4 acres on the south side of the BNSF right of way. If land were available, such parking would be convenient for those passengers using either the IEOC trains or the new trains to Fullerton and Los Angeles because the parking lot would be adjacent to the boarding platform for those trains. On the other hand, were the decision made to maintain all parking on the north side of the station, it would seem evident that the principal remaining option would be the construction of a parking structure on a portion of the existing lot. This decision to stay on the north side would also have a clear impact on the timing of the construction of this parking structure. While a parking structure might not technically be required until 2006 or so, its actual construction on an existing parking lot will trigger the need to re - accommodate those commuters as well as the new commuters. There would be no convenient location for these "evicted" commuters, particularly if the planned lease of parking spaces were now filled with new commuters. Thus it would appear that the best time to build a parking structure would be right away while the possibility of using the estimated 375 leased spaces to accommodate current riders was still possible. Assuming the optimum size parking structure (lowest cost per space), a parking structure for 600-1,000 cars could cost approximately $7.8 to $13.0 million. Alternatively, excluding land acquisition costs, surface parking would cost approximately $1.6 million for 400 cars ($4,000 per stall) and $4.0 million for 1,000 cars. From an overall planning and transportation point of view, expanding parking to the south side of the station appears preferable. A parking lot in this location would disperse departing commuters more quickly into the adjacent roadway network. Further, for many commuters such a parking lot would represent a significant improvement over the current arrangement that requires commuters to use the pedestrian bridge two times each day. An added advantage for a parking lot in this area is that it would be far easier to provide Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 ego 0 18 4 Amtrak with station facilities should it decide to make Riverside a station stop for its long distance train service. RECOMMENDATION: Initiate an investigation to determine if sufficient land might be available for purchase on the south side of the station. If available, purchase a minimum of 4 acres. If unavailable, initiate planning and design of a parking structure at the west end of the existing parking lot. North Main Corona The North Main Corona station will have 486 spaces when it opens in 2002. By 2003 its projected hoardings will be 695 resulting in a need for 70 more parking spaces. With moderate growth to 2010 its total parking requirement will increase to 953 spaces, resulting in a deficit of 467 spaces. The opportunity to expand parking around this station is very limited. There is some land south of the station and railroad tracks that could be acquired. The parcel is not large and without further study it is not clear whether a parking structure could be built that would accommodate 400 cars. This site could accommodate no more than 80-90 cars in a surface lot. On the north side, adjacent to the station site, the City of Corona has indicated a willingness to sell a 1.5-acre parcel to the Commission. This site would be close to the station and compatible with the surrounding land use. The City is apparently supportive of a joint use approach to parking at this location. Aside from this city parcel there are no substantial additional available parcels. The forecast for ridership at this station is quite high. Notwithstanding this already high forecast, it is likely that new riders will choose to use the train because of this station's location convenient to the I-15 freeway. Thus actual station use could be significantly higher than forecast. For this reason it might be prudent to begin planning immediately for the design and construction of an appropriately sized parking structure. The planning should take into account the incremental parking needs of the City of Corona. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 40 000185 A four-story parking structure containing 600 spaces would cost approximately $7.$ million. While surface parking could be constructed on the city parcel pending the growth in station use, when those users are ultimately displaced by the construction of the parking structure there will be few parking options available for them. For this reason I would argue against the interim use of this lot for surface parking and instead proceed directly to the construction of a parking structure once occupancy of the primary lot reaches 90%. RECOMMENDATION: Acquire the 1.5-acre lot owned by the City and initiate planning and design activities for a minimum 600-space parking structure. Initiate construction when station parking lot occupancy reaches 90%. Long -Term Implementation Strategies Of the six commuter rail stations, significant actions are proposed immediately for two, as discussed in the previous section of this report. The actions proposed for Riverside - Downtown and North Main Corona are designed to address both short and long term parking needs. Of the remaining four stations, one is forecast to still have a surplus of parking in 2010. That station is West Corona. The majority of the existing clientele at West Corona is projected to relocate to North Main Corona because of that station's greater accessibility. The three remaining stations, Van Buren, Riverside -La Sierra, and Pedley, will have a parking surplus in 2003. By 2010 both stations will require more parking: 66 spaces for Van Buren, 106 for Riverside -La Sierra, and 133 for Pedley. Van Buren Station There are many options to meet future parking requirements at this station. Initially all the station parking is being built on the south side of the railroad. Under current designs there will be 326 parking spaces. The Commission also owns several acres on the north Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 41 00018E side of the railroad. While that parcel presents some street access challenges it is nevertheless a viable possibility for additional surface parking. In addition the Commission has been in discussion with nearby developers about joint use of commercial parking. This too is an option. Were it possible to obtain option rights to potential future commercial parking at adjacent businesses, this might be a prudent investment. If this is not possible there may be no immediate urgency about investing in other immediate parking improvements. For the long term the appropriate action is to monitor the demand for parking at this station and assess at a later date whether more parking should be provided on the north side or elsewhere. RECOMMENDATION: Seek to secure an option to jointly use commercial parking spaces at nearby developments. Assess future parking requirements after the station has been in service for a time. Riverside -La Sierra Station With the construction of the Van Buren and North Main Corona stations the parking pressure at this station will be significantly reduced. In the short term there will be a parking surplus of 113 spaces. Long Term there will be a deficit of 106 spaces. The situation at Riverside -La Sierra is unsatisfactory. While the Commission has a long term lease on the land, it does not own it. Furthermore, the property owner of the surrounding land has refused to sell additional land to the Commission for station parking. The options facing the Commission are limited. One option is to seek off -site rental parking. The Commission is currently pursuing that option to resolve the existing parking deficit at this station. Should that option prove cost-effective it could be continued indefinitely to meet future parking needs. Another option is to construct a parking structure on the site. This would appear to be a costly option just to resolve the need for 106 more spaces. Further, the process of Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 42 000187 constructing the structure would remove far more than 106 current spaces from service with the same difficulty in finding replacement parking that led to the need for a structure. Another option is to consider re -building the station on Commission -owned land at Pierce Street. The acreage in this location is substantial, 13.98 acres. However it was community opposition to this site originally that led the Commission to choose Riverside - La Sierra. If community opposition were resolved, the cost trade-off between building a new station at Pierce and a parking structure at Riverside -La Sierra would make the two alternatives roughly equal. Under this option the station at Riverside -La Sierra would be abandoned in favor of the new station at Pierce. The prior investment at Riverside -La Sierra would be largely lost. The prudent course of action at Riverside -La Sierra is to spend the least amount of money necessary to resolve the relatively small shortfall in parking. Thus the preferred option is to pursue the off -site leasing option for both the short term and the long term. Additionally it would be useful to make periodic contact with the surrounding property owner to determine if attitudes have changed. In five or six years when the parking will once again be limited perhaps the management of the other agency will have a different attitude towards its commuter rail customer. RECOMMENDATION: Seek a lease of off -site parking spaces for this station. Periodically contact the property owner to determine if an acre of additional land is available for surface parking. Pedley Station The Pedley Station has 283 parking spaces. By 2003 its projected hoardings will be 300 resulting in a surplus of 40 parking spaces. With moderate growth to 2010 its total parking requirement will increase to 416 spaces, resulting in a deficit of 133 spaces. Patronage growth on the Riverside Line has been erratic. Ridership has increased when the Union Pacific Railroad has provided high on -time performance. When the railroad Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 43 000188 has been unable to maintain high on -time performance, ridership has declined. The experience at this station has reflected the trend on the line overall. In December of 1999 average weekday boardings were 188. This increased to 249 in April of 2000. Yet as recently as September of 2000 the average weekday boardings had decreased to 219. It is evident that external factors could have a major impact on the need for more parking at this station. Continued poor quality service might depress ridership and forestall the need for more parking. On the other hand, steady improvement in on -time performance will result in ridership growth. The prudent approach under these circumstances is to plan for growth without over -committing major resources. In accord with this, it would be useful to acquire' additional land for the eventual construction of more surface parking. Given the potentially large number of parking spaces required by 2010 (133) consideration should be given to acquiring approximately 3 acres of land adjacent to the station. While development pressures in this area appear low at the present time, failure to acquire land now could foreclose the cheap option of building surface parking in the future. If that were the case the Commission might be compelled to construct a much higher cost parking structure. RECOMMENDATION: Initiate an investigation to identify and purchase three acres of land for surface parking at The Pedley Station. Summary of Recommendations and Phasing Listed below are the recommendations for each of the six stations in Riverside County. A. Pedley Station: Initiate an investigation to identify and purchase three acres of land for surface parking. B. Riverside -Downtown: Initiate an investigation to determine if sufficient land might be available for purchase on the south side of the station. If available, purchase a minimum of 4 acres. If unavailable, initiate planning and design of a parking structure at the west end of the existing station. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 44 000189 C. Van Buren: Seek to secure an option to jointly use commercial parking spaces at nearby developments. Assess future parking requirements after the station has been in service for a time. D. Riverside -La Sierra: Seek a lease of off -site parking spaces for this station. Periodically contact the property owner to determine if an acre of additional land is available for surface parking. E. North Main Corona: Acquire the 1.5-acre lot owned by the City and initiate planning and design activities for a minimum 600-space parking structure. Initiate construction when station parking lot occupancy reaches 90%. F. West Corona: No additional parking required through 2010. Phasing This parking plan recommends that the Commission acquire a minimum of 9.5 acres of land, as follows: Pedley, 3 acres; Riverside Downtown, 4 acres; Riverside -La Sierra, 1 acre; North Main Corona, 1.5 acres. Assuming $250,000 per acre, total land acquisition costs are estimated at $2.4 million. The parking structure at North Main Corona is estimated at $7.8 million. This parking plan also recommends 800 additional surface parking spaces, as follows: Pedley, 300 spaces; Riverside -Downtown 400 spaces; and Riverside -La Sierra, 100 spaces. At $4,000 per space, these 800 spaces are estimated to cost approximately $3.2 million. PARKING COSTS CATEGORY COST (000) Land Acquisition Parking Structure Surface Parking 30% Contingency $2.4 $7.8 $3.2 $4.0 TOTAL $17.4 The critical path item is the land acquisition. Lack of land either for surface parking at Pedley or Riverside -Downtown or structure parking at North Main Corona will severely Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 45 000190 constrain future options for the Commission. And while it is probable that both Riverside -Downtown and North Main Corona will require additional parking early in the 2001-2010 period, to a limited extent this parking can be provided as funds become available. At Riverside Downtown parking spaces can be leased from adjacent businesses while the Commission assembles a funding package for the permanent parking solution. At North Main Corona, some delay in construction could be tolerated provided the site for the structure was under Commission ownership. Notwithstanding the possible need to defer action because of funding, the land acquisition ideally should occur in the period 2001-2002. The parking structure should be constructed during 2003. 500 of the additional surface parking should be constructed between 2002-2004. The 300 spaces for Pedley may be required around 2005. Thus this parking plan recommends an ultimate financing plan that allocates up to $17.4 million of Commission revenues during the period 2001-2005, with a majority allocated in the first three years. We need to work with our community partners to address the projected parking deficit. C. Feeder Services Metrolink would not be successful without our transit partnerships. Transportation systems that provide connecting transit to our customers are vital. RTA, Corona Dial -A - Ride, SunLink, and Amtrak Bus Services serve the RCTC stations. At the destination end of the IEOC Line, Orange County Transportation Authority has a policy to provide feeder services to all of its stations. At the destination end of the Riverside Line, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Foothill Transit, and Los Angeles Dash provide bus transit/subway feeder services. It should be reiterated that the above parking deficits assume that at least 20% of Metrolink riders will access the station through a mode of transport other than their vehicle, i.e. carpool, shuttle, bicycle, bus. In order for the Metrolink system to attract and retain ridership, the system must appear seamless to the rider. Currently, not all local Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 46 000191 bus/shuttle services meet every Metrolink train at the RCTC stations. Thereby,. increasing the difficulty for Metrolink riders to rely on public transit. However, the new Corona Cruiser shuttle does serve all Metrolink trains at the West Corona station. A recent Metrolink survey indicated that less than 6% of riders (systemwide) use public transit to access the station of origin. A November 2000 survey of Riverside -La Sierra riders indicated that less than 3% of riders used an alternate form of transport than driving alone to access the station. With the expansion _ of Metrolink off-peak and weekend services, there is a growing need for additional feeder services to meet these trains. In particular, the weekend service trains because the weekend riders are substantially more transit dependent than the weekday riders. The Year 2000 Metrolink Onboard Survey revealed: "The two primary transportation modes used to gain access to and from Metrolink stations at both the origin and destination ends of the trip are driving alone and public transit. Approximately 70% (69.7%) drive alone from home to their origin station and 20.5% drive with others. At the home -based origin station, 6% of Metrolink riders use public transit to access the station." In order to maximize the parking spaces available, RCTC should strengthen the relationship with our transit operators and explore dedicated shuttle services to all six stations. Dedicated shuttles or "one -to -many" shuttles will add greatly to the desire to provide seamless transportation. In addition, strengthening our partnerships may prove to also be more economical. At a recommended parking improvement program of $17.4 Million over the next five years, only $4.1 Million is currently programmed for station parking during the same period. Any additional capital funding allocated to station parking would compete with other existing priorities such as capital improvements for the existing rail services and future sources of demand such as the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL). Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 47 000192 J VI. FUTURE SOURCES OF NEW DEMAND In addition to ridership projections related to existing service and the subsequent parking demands, two additional opportunities will provide additional sources of demand within the next 10 years, transit -oriented developments (TOD) and the expansion of commuter rail service on the SJBL. A. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) TOD involves developing and strengthening partnerships with communities around RCTC Metrolink stations, and with transportation providers serving these communities. These partnerships aim to improve the quality of life and vitality in the communities and in the region, to reflect local priorities in planning for future development, and to enhance the role of transit as a resource for a greater number of residents, businesses, and commuters. Within the last six months, RCTC staff has been approached by the City of Riverside with developers who are interested in joint development/TOD opportunities at the Riverside -Downtown and future Van Buren station. The Riverside -Downtown station is part of a larger mixed-use/commercial redevelopment project which includes the construction of a variety of retail shops, restaurants, and office space, as well as movie theaters. Although RCTC staff does not advocate the Commission as a developer, TOD's provide opportunities to address our parking deficits through shared costs related to expanded parking. Today communities want TOD that enables local residents to make lifestyle choices that aren't dependent on auto use. RCTC also wants to create an environment that safely and effectively links Metrolink with other public transit services in the surrounding community. For RCTC, this shift requires a new focus on the individual needs of the communities it serves. Successful integration of MetroIink service into a community's social and economic life will boost Metrolink ridership, and is also likely to encourage greater use and support for the system as a whole. 1 n Draft, RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan 4/18/01 48 000 9 In partnership with the communities it serves, RCTC's station properties could be used in ways that first maximize transit ridership and then balance TOD goals with community desires. RCTC Staff recommends the Commission develop and implement a support structure to ensure that all new developments at RCTC stations be transit -oriented. B. SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE (SJBL) STATIONS (RIVERSIDE TO PERRIS) At its June 14, 2000 meeting the RCTC committed $20 million of future Measure A rail program funds for commuter rail passenger service between Riverside -Downtown and Perris (Figure 1.6). The track improvements will also be compatible with the existing and future freight operations that are projected to be on the facility. By connecting to Perris and the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink station, the Riverside to Perris extension will create many new transit options for accessing businesses and March Air Reuse. The extension promises to boost the local economy, making additional freight access available to local industries, and add to the regional quality of life. Current estimates indicate that a Perris extension could generate as many as 2,600 new boardings per day by 2005. The total project cost is $63 Million, of which $20 Million has been programmed. $15 million is programmed for capital improvements and $5 million is programmed for the train operating subsidy for the first five years. What is not programmed is the additional operating funds needed to maintain the additional stations that will be online as a result of the service expansion. Though the stations have yet to be approved by the Commission, it is safe to assume that a range of two to five stations will be built along the 19-mile corridor. At the current rate, inflated at 4% per year, by 2005 — operating costs per station would accrue to $246,000 per year for an annual cost of $1,476,000 for the six existing stations. The addition of SJBL stations would result in an additional cost of $492,000 - $1,230,000. This would require a minimum operating subsidy of $1,968,000 if the stations were open by 2006. Current forecasts indicate that an operating deficit would occur by 2007. 1 sr Draft, RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan 4/18/01 49 000194 Via.. pe.o+ou.ny 1allra) lrornlgmpa lurror.4ag s, aea o q sarlra.rlaa13 sd11l1gd y uu..a o;( ITHV 113.IcI11 �u!Inv •leis it—ti511.1 1. 1111.1)w IC; ) ♦—ne1111.1D-) SIIJ.ti�) egdl�. 1i:111u t r,tt).ta�y: I ),LJlI 1 11.ANV 1 l -0INE.Ta _.7J ZHOIH NO IIVJACI RHS i..—.---..._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._,. Z17P,:),) OClZp(D1(.1),7 I r% I / 1710% aenst ma O VII. RCTC METROLINK STATION FINANCIAL PLAN A. Financial Plan Methodology The plan's financial history has been gathered from RCTC's Finance Department, outlining by line item, revenues and expenditures for the prior five-year period from FY94/95 through FY99/00. Other records maintained by SCRRA and RCTC/Bechtel were also gathered which provided additional information on capital costs. The historical information and current fiscal year budget were evaluated to identify trends in revenues and expenditures. Research was conducted on external factors that might effect financial projections, such as: 1. Economic and population growth projections for Riverside County, and 2. Service expansion plans during the plan period, as shown by RCTC's input into SCRRA's draft 30-year Expenditure Plan. Based on the information developed, financial models were prepared that projected revenues and expenditures for FY00/01 through FY09/10. • The first model is Appendix D-1, a Constrained Financial Plan. This plan identifies only existing revenue sources to fund the program and includes capital and operating station expenditures necessary to maintain the existing network of four rail stations and the expansion of two additional stations in FY2002. • The second model in Appendix D-2, an Expenditure Financial Plan, presents a more expanded view of rail station operations by including the addition of five SJBL stations. However, this plan identifies only the existing revenue sources, and demonstrates that the program would begin to realize a deficit in FY07/08. Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 50 000196 B. Revenues Capital The capital expenditures required over the next 10 years relate to parking improvements. The recommended parking improvements in Section 5B total $17.4 Million. Currently, the amount programmed for Station Parking is $8.156 Million In Federal Section 5307 funds, approved in FY00-07 SRTP. This creates a capital program deficit of $9.24 Million. Any additional Federal funds to be allocated for parking improvements will compete with other existing priorities such as capital improvements to existing rail Iines and the upgrade of the SJBL. Operating The primary operating revenue source for the RCTC Metrolink Stations is Western Riverside County LTF. It is important to note that the LTF funds are not a dedicated revenue source for rail station operations. In FY1994/95, the Commission approved Western Riverside County LTF funds as a dedicated revenue source for the Rail Program (20% of Western Riverside County LTF is dedicated to the Rail Program, while the remaining 80% is dedicated to Bus Transit). The primary operating expenditure for LTF in the Rail Program has been and will continue to be train operating subsidy payments to Metrolink. Over the past five years, rail station operations have ranged from 13% to 16% of the total Rail Program Budget. This fiscal year, the split is 84% train subsidy & 16% Station Management. However, LTF funds for rail station operations are supplemented by reimbursements from SCRRA for their share of the security charges for an armed guard at the Riverside - Downtown Station. Minor revenues come from pay phone usage. C. Expenditures Expenditures generated from operating and maintaining the RCTC Metrolink Stations can be divided into three general categories: Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 51 000197 1. Administrative These expenses are generated primarily by RCTC staff for the administration and oversight of station vendors and the system. These expenses include labor, benefits, overhead, and printing. 2. Operations These expenses are for contracts for day-to-day operations of the stations and include the contract for security guard services, landscaping, cleaning, and utilities; 3. Capital These projects are outside the day-to-day operations of the stations and include the design and construction of new stations, parking improvements, and upgrades to the existing stations. D. Financial Issues and Implications Refer to Appendix D for detailed past revenues and expenses, and different models of projected revenues and expenditures. A brief summary of past revenues and expenditures are described in the table below. Cash Flows from Operating Activities Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget FY 96197 FY 97/98 FY 98199 FY 99100 FY 00101 CASH RECEIPTS FROM: - Farebox Revenue 1,170.8 1,675.9 1,914.8 2,081.9 2,186.7 Miscellaneous Operating Revenues 317.7 127.0 25.4 34.2 20.0 Total Cash Receipts 1,488.5 1,802.8 1,940.2 2,116.1 2,206.7 CASH PAYMENTS FOR: Train Operations 3,714.9 4,124.5 4,407.7 4,554.6 5,199.6 Maintenance of Way 142.0 233.9 395.3 131.1 156.0 Station Maintenance J4 stations), 539.5 567.7 676.3 716.9 852.8 Rail Administration 314.5 668.5 221.0 285.8 645.7 Total Cash Payments 4,710.9 5,594.6 5,700.3 5,688.4 6,854.1 Net Cash Flows from Operating (3,222.4) (3,791.7) (3,760.1) (3,572.3) (4,647.4) Subsidy Allocations LTF Allocation for Rail Operations 4,071.4 4,274.8 4,830.2 5,743.2 6,125.9 Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash 849.1 483.1 1,070.1 2,170.8 1,478.5 Draft RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan FY01-10: The Challenge of Success 04/18/01 52 000198 Appendix D-1, Constrained Financial Plan - w/o San Jac (in $000s) O. h+; CO CC Cash Flows from Operating Activities Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget FY 00101 FY 01102 FY 02103 FY 03104 FY 04105 FY 05106 FY 06107 FY 07108 FY 08109 FY 09I10 Beginning Cash Balance $1,590.0 3,068.5 5,364.5 5,357.6 5,533.7 5,125.2 4,914.8 4,910.4 5,120.2 5,552.8 CASH RECEIPTS FROM: Farebox Revenue 2,186.7 2,670.5 2,979.1 2,979.10 3,896.50 3,896.50 3,896.50 3,896.50 3,896.50 4,023.60 Miscellaneous Operating Revenues 20.0 27.8 28.9 30.1 31.3 32.5 33.8 35.2 36.6 38.0 Total Cash Receipts 2,206.7 _ 2,698.3 3,008.0 3,009.2 3,927.8 3,929.0 3,930.3 3,931.7 3,933.1 4,061.6 CASH PAYMENTS FOR: Train Operations 5,199.6 5,213.8 7,564.2 --------- 7,564.20-- - -- - 9,256.70 -- ----- 9,256.70 9,256.70 - 9,256.70 9,256.70 12,113.60 Maintenance of Way 156.0 179.7 210.2 218.6 227.4 236.5 245.9 186.9 194.4 202.1 Station Maintenance (4 stations) 852.8 874.5 1,364.2 - 1,418.79 1,475.54 _ 1,534.56 1,595.94 1,659.78 1,726.17 1,795.22 Rail Administration 645.7 560.7 583.13 606.45 630.71 655.94 682.18 709.46 737.84 767.36 Total Cash Payments _ 6,854.1 - 6,828.7 9,698.4 9,783.8 11,565.1 11,657.4 11,753.5 11,853.3 11,957.2 14,922.1 Net Cash Flows from Operating (4,647.4) (4,130.4) (6,690.4) (6,774.6) (7,637.3) (7,728.4) (7,823.1) (7,921.6) (8,024.1) (10,860.5) Subsidy Allocations LTF Allocation for Rail Operations 6,125.9 6,426.4 6,683.5 6,950.8 7,228.8 7,518.0 7,818.7 8,131.4 8,456.7 8,795.0 Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash - 3,068.5 5,364.5 5,357.6 5,533.7 5,125.2 4,914.8 4,910.4 5,120.2 5,552.8 3,487.3 Appendix D-2, Constrainer, _ Ian w/San Jacinto Branch Line $000's Cash Flows from Operating Activities Beginning Balance: Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget FY 00101 FY 01/02 FY 02103 FY 03104 FY 04105 FY 05106 FY 06107 FY 07I08 FY 08109 FY 09110 1590 3,068.5 5,364.5 5,357.6 5,533.7 5,125.2 3,047.3 1,106.8 (690.5) (2,338.7) CASH RECEIPTS FROM: , Farebox Revenue 2,186.7 2,670.5 2,_979.1 2,979.10 3,896.50 ' 3,896.50 3,896.50 3_,89.6.50 3,896.50 4,023.60 Miscellaneous Operating Revenues 20.0 27.8 28.9 30.1 31.3 32.5 33.8 35.2 36.6 38.0 San Jacinto_ Branch Line : Measure A € y ' ` ;V � .' • 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 San Jacinto Farebox Revenue ., ,3,� ` ; 'wu.;-, ''' ., t 2,219.5 2,286.09 2,354.67 2,425.31 - 2,498.07 Total Cash Receipts 2,206.7 2,698.3 3,008.0 3,009.2 3,927.8 6,149.5 6,217.4 6,287.3 6,359.4 6,560.7 CASH PAYMENTS FOR: Train Operations 5,199.6 --5,213.8 7,564.2 7,564.20 9,256.70 9,256.70 9,256.70 9,256.70 9,256.70 12,113.60 Maintenance of Way 156.0 179.7 186.9 194.4 202.1 210.2 218.6 227.4 236.5 245.9 San Jacinto Operations & MOW ? �; �' 2,841.0 2,926.23 3,014.02 3,104.44 3,197.57 San Jacinto Stations 5 . k, '", x `1,247.0 1,296.88 1,348.76 1,402.71 --1,458.81 Stations (6 stations after/02) 852.8 874.5 1,364.2 1,418.79 1,475.54 1,534.56 1,595.94 1,659.78 1,726.17 1,795.22 Rail Administration 645.7 560.7 583.13 606.45 630.71 655.94 682.18 709.46 737.84 767.36 Total Cash Payments 6,854.1 6,82.8.7_ 9,698.4 9,783.8_ 11,565.1 15,745_.4 15,976.6 16,216.1 16,464.3 19,578.5 (4647.4 ,} _ (4,130.4) (6,690.4) (6,774.fi) _ [7,637.3) (9,595.9} (9,759.2) -- (9,928.8) _.-. _--__- (10,104.9)- --- _ (13,017.8) _ Net Cash Flows from Operating g Subsidy Allocations LTF Allocation for Rail Operations _ 6,125.9 6,426.4 6,683.5 6,950.8 7,228.8 7,518,0 7,818.7 8,131.4 8,456.7 8,795.0 Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash 3,068.5 5,364.5 5,357.6 5,533.7 5,125.2 3,047.3 1,106.8 (690.5t (2,338.7) (6,561.5) Prepared for San Jac Analysis VIIL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the projected revenues and expenses for the next 10 years, the RCTC Metrolink Stations cannot be maintained unless there are decreases in expenses and increases in revenue. The following options are ways in which the Commission may consider to control costs and to generate additional revenue. • Develop policy guidelines delineating the funding and planning actions and criteria necessary for SJBL communities to pursue Metrolink stations in their area; • Direct staff to explore an expedited implementation plan for the CCTV surveillance system as a means to realize cost savings from the reduction in required labor costs. After reviewing the program constraints, upcoming needs, restricted revenue sources and the resulting program deficit, RCTC staff recommends the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee to address following policy issues: • Recommend a policy for future station development; • The development of guidelines to support Transit -Oriented Developments or "Transit Villages" at the stations to help offset the financial costs associated with expanded parking lots; • Perform cost benefit analysis of Pierce Street vs. additional investments in Riverside - La Sierra; • Direct staff to pursue changing the temporary parking lot and crew facility at Riverside -Downtown to a permanent facility; • Pursue parking implementation plan as recommended in Section 6; • Direct staff to explore ways to identify a dedicated revenue source to sustain rail station operations; and • Direct staff to explore ways to increase bus transit connections at all of the Metrolink stations for weekdays and weekend service and the corresponding funding source. 1 ' Draft, RCTC Station Management Strategic Plan 04/18/01 53 000201 AP DIX A: FY95/96-99/00 Operating L.„,enditures: Riverside -Downtown Riverside -Downtown J Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals TOTALS EXPENDITURE FY95/96 FY96/97 FY97/98 FY98/99* FY99/00 FY95/96-99/00 Maintenance Elevators ; , 'm.#ka.� _ 1 yr warranty 1,775.06 1,775.06 0% Landscape 9,420.00 13,182.50 13,445.00' 13,190.60 14,794.00 64,032.10 10% Surface 17,968.20 16,664.65 15,911.00 27,001.75 7,946.85 85,492.45 13% Refuse/Sanitation 1,751.64 1,636.72 2,781.72 3,350.82 2,482.05 12,002.95 2% Repairs 2,671.62 2,158.00 2,209.00 13,061.11 6,454.39 26,55412 4% Graffiti - 25.00 - 100.00 - 125.00 0% Subtotal Maintenance 31, 811.46 33, 666.87 34, 346.72 56, 704.28 33, 452.35 189, 981.68 30% Utilities City Services 1,162.59 1,069.13 1,093.99 1,353.34 1,402.58 6,081.63 1% Electricity 18,972.77 15,531.16 13,388.75 13,993.58 13,599.76 75,486.02 12% Pay Phones . z . -P., 120.00 109.33 1,111.13 1,340.46 0% Water 804.66 1,266.42 740.08 878.67 2,053.00 5,742.83 1% Subtotal Utilities 20, 940.02 17, 866.71 15, 342.82 16, 334.92 18,166.47 88,650.94 14% Security 35,618.54 48,462.11 52,510.76 94,984.92 124,614.80 356,191.13 56% Miscellaneous 719.83 993.26 - - - 1,713.09 0% TOTALS $ 89,089.85 $100,988.95 $ 102,200.30 $ 168,024.12 $ 176,233.62 $ 636,536.84 100% • Pedestrian Overcrossing & South Side Platform open %S9 %001 Ste66e£OL $ %0 PO' 199 Z£'91717`8S17 %0I L91115`89 %0 %9 I I'OLS`9Z 9STL£`Zib %SZ Zfr'L freSL I %0 OOTSP %8 LS'9LS`£S %i Lr6LL`8 %S 8L'ZIZ`££ %I I 09'8Ze6L 00/66-96/S6M b0•I9Z`LSI $ i0'£ZO`ZZI 9E TOZ T I 09'0ZL`t 9L'b86`8 176'ISL`Sibl $ Z6'£6S S t' i 8S`£6 917'6ZSZI Z6' i 817`b KLb0`8 £f''LS£`ZS[ $ 90'8L9`S6 6£'9ItfrI 00' I L9`9 6£'StS`L LO'8SI`9£I $ 89'I£ Z9'9Z0`tb6 16'£6L '6I Z1.881`9 6Z'SS5`8 L6'OL6`III $ l7b'5£ 8b'L£i'CS SOVSL `£I L17'80517 85' I Vt6 i snoauellaastw Xiinaas sawn-) wiring xale� mom /Cud Xipppaig saapuas sar)pl; f1 L9'ZES`IZ 00'SLZ OVOZI`I L£'ZL8` I Or0b8` I 00'5Z17`91 IVLI70`6£ 00'5L I 00'S I S`Z l8'1IL`i 00'L9S`9 09'8L0`8Z 96 -Z96 Z6 001786`61 86'L£9` I 00'9Z I `9 00' 51 L`17I r �7 9£'9SF L Z Z9'009`Z 9£'917C I 8£-SS8`L 00175 I `S I 00'8170 `S6 S8'95£`LZ S6'018`l OZ17Z8`0I 00'9S0`S aauDualumpv jnvoigns s2!udaN uop i!tres/asnjoN aalajin s aClEaspuul sao1eAalg aaueualupw 00/66AA siumad 66/86Ad sleniad 86/L6Ag slenpd L 6/96AA gimpy 96/S6k4 slenlav �2I[7,I.IQI�I�dXg dawdd Sa1Pad : saJni madx.y'Yu/mad° 00/66-9646A4 FY95/96-99/00 Operating ,L tpenditures: Riverside -La Sierra EXPENDITURE Actuals Actuals FY95/96 FY96/97 Riverside -La Sierra Actuals FY97/98 Actuals FY98/99 Actuals FY99/00 Maintenance Elevators Landscape Surface Waste Removal Repairs Graffiti Subtotal Maintenance 4,321.11 10,364.20 1,570.25 2,396.11 18, 651.67 10,465.00 8,905.00 1,733.98 7,812.81 28, 916.79 10,412.50 8,886.00 1,946.39 1,329.83 22, 574.72 11,640.60 9,610.50 1,986.36 4,061.70 27,299.16 r 11,770.00 2,700.30 2,050.50 3,076.10 40.25 19, 637.15 Utilities City Services Electricity Pay Phones Water Subtotal Utilities Security Miscellaneous TOTALS 392.47 5,925.81 823.33 7,141.61 52,078.19 229.54 $ 78,101.01 624.08 9,765.82 2,040.72 12, 430.62 97,069.57 $138,416.98 685.83 9,775.87 1,683.23 12,144.93 98,620.80 $ 133,340.45 942.28 10,021.89 1,854.17 12, 818.34 104,105.40 963.25 $ 145,186.15 871.24 8,005.54 1,909.81 10, 786.59 122,023.01 $ 152,446.75 TOTALS FY95/96-99/00 % 48,609.21 8% 40,466.00 6% 9,287.48 18,676.55 3% 40.25 0% 1% 117, 079.49 18% 3,515.90 1% 43,494.93 8,311.26 55, 322.09 473,896.97 1,192.79 $ 647,491.34 7% 0% 1% 9% 73 % 0% 100% FY95/96-99/00 Operating Expenditures: West Corona 0 0 O iV 0 West Corona Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals TOTALS EXPENDITURE FY95/96 FY96/97 FY97/98 FY98/99 FY99/00 FY95/96-99/00 Maintenance Elevators fi ' ", , . _ ,'' y - � = _ �.„ - Landscape 8,365.00 18,916.00 18,730.00 19,909.60 19,271.00 85,191.60 11 % Surface 16,954.18 19,645.00 19,626.00 21,342.75 5,980.65 83,548.58 11% Refuse/Sanitation 1,621.64 1,302.25 1,661.41 1,668.31 1,934.26 8,187.87 1% Repairs 1,976.35 1,378.00 4,157.51 5,066.00 3,470.25 16,048.11 2% Graffiti - - - - - - 0% Subtotal Maintenance 28, 917.17 41, 241.25 44,174. 92 47, 986. 66 30, 656.16 192, 976.16 26% Utilities CityServices .. _ Electricity 15.,095.03 16,083.57 14,048.68 13,974.30 12,053.53 71,255.11 10% Pay Phones - - - - - - 0% Water 2,178.33 4,181.40 5,154.94 3,266.23 6,158.34 20,939.24 3% Subtotal Utilities 17,273.36 20,264.97 19,203.62 17,240.53 18,211.87 92,194.35 12% Security 53,04394 97,041.89 98,412.28 87,753.38 122,023.41 458,274.90 62% Miscellaneous 77.17 198.27 - 593.92 - 869.36 0% TOTALS $ 99,311.64 $ 158,746.38 $ 161,790.82 $ 153,574.49 $ 170,891.44 $ 744,314.77 100% APPENDIX E: Evolution of Commuter Rail in Riverside County In the 1980's, RCTC commissioned several engineering and feasibility studies which were necessary to develop service options and negotiate with the railroads: • Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Service: Feasibility Assessment (Nov 1988) • Perris Rail Extension Study (Feb 1989) • RCTC/ATSF Commuter Rail Study (Morrison Knudsen, Dec 1990) Each of these studies concluded that rail service was technically and financially feasible. The Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan, approved by Riverside County voters in November 1988, identified and committed $100 million for development and implementation of the program. The subsequent passage of similar local sales tax measures in adjacent counties and statewide rail infrastructure bonds paved the way for construction of a coordinated system. In June 1990, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1402, Chapter 4 of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code. This bill required the transportation commissions of the counties of Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino to jointly develop a plan for regional transit services within the multi -county region. In accordance with the provisions of SB 1402 (Presley), the counties adopted a regional plan in June 1991 entitled "The Southern California Commuter Rail 1991 Regional System Plan." The report defined a system of eight commuter rail lines connecting the five counties. In August 1991, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a regional Joint Powers Agency (JPA), was formed. The plan was amended in Spring 1992 to include an additional route utilizing the Union Pacific right-of-way between Riverside and Los Angeles via Ontario. Four of the planned nine lines would serve Riverside County residents. The purpose of the newly formed SCRRA was to plan, design, construct, and administer the operation of regional passenger rail lines serving the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The SCRRA named the regional commuter system "Metrolink." The first three lines — San Bernardino, Santa Clarita (now Antelope Valley), and Ventura County — began operation in October 1992. After adoption of the regional plan, SCRRA and its member agencies reached right-of-way purchase and operating agreements with the Union Pacific Railway (UP) and the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (ATSF) Railroad (now Burlington Northern Santa Fe — BNSF). Through these agreements, today's commuter rail system evolved utilizing freight railroad corridors within Riverside County. ??In 1995 RCTC commissioned the San Jacinto Branchline Refinement Study which identified possible scenarios for future passenger services between Riverside and Moreno Valley, Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto. Lack of necessary capital and operating funds have delayed service on that corridor indefinitely. 000206 LINE ME,TROLINK REGIONAL SYSTEM PLAN ROUTE Ventura County Line Opened Moorpark to Los Angeles in 1992 Extended to Oxnard after Northridge earthquake in 1994 Added of Newhall Station in April 2000 Santa Clarita Line Opened Santa Clarita to Los Angeles in 1992 Extended to Lancaster after Northridge earthquake in 1994 Added Saturday Service in 1997 San Bernardino Line Opened Pomona to Los Angeles in 1992 Extended to San Bernardino in 1993 Added Saturday Service in 1995 • Extension to Redlands planned after 2001 Riverside Line Opened Riverside to Los Angeles via Ontario in 1993 Opened an additional Station in Pomona in December 2000 Additional Stations in Riverside and Corona March 2002 Orange County Line Opened Oceanside to Los Angeles in 1994 Inland Empire — Orange County Line Opened Riverside to Irvine in 1995 Extended to San Bernardino in 1996 Extended some trips to San Juan Capistrano 1996-1998 Riverside - Fullerton — LA Line Opening 2001, peak period, peak direction 000207 2 ROTC Commuter Rail SRTP FY2002-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Redeployment of Call Boxes To State Route 86 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to redeploy twenty-six (26) call boxes from SR- 91 to the newly constructed segment of SR 86S in the Coachella Valley. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Call Box program began installing boxes in June 1990 and completed the original installation in September 1991 totaling 606 boxes on nine major freeways in the County (1-10, 1-15, 1-215, SR-60, SR-62, SR-71, SR-74, SR-79, and SR- 91). The Commission authorized an expansion and in -fill of the system in February, 1992, adding another 500 + call boxes on seven freeways, Park and Ride lots, and interchanges. This in -fill of the system reduced the distance between call boxes from '/z mile to 1 /4 mile in urban areas, from 1 mile to %s mile on most grades, and from 2 miles to 1 mile in remote desert areas. In May, construction will be completed on the widening of SR-86S. This is a Measure "A" project that will enhance safety along the Route and has been a high priority for the Commission. In light of the importance of the project, staff is proposing to redeploy 26 call boxes to provide call box coverage on the newly widened portion of SR-86S and connect to the existing call boxes along the balance of the Route. Given the remote location of SR-86S, call boxes are especially important to provide motorists with a needed communication link in case of mechanical problems or emergency situations. The need for call boxes in remote areas contrasts with the recent experience that has been noticed in more urbanized areas given that cell phone coverage is non-existent in some desert areas and sporadic at times even when available. Quarterly, staff reports to the Commission the call volume data for the system. The total number of calls has been decreasing for the past several years due to several factors including increased usage of cell phones in urban areas. This is not unique to Riverside County because calls have been decreasing throughout the State, and most SAFEs have experienced between 12% to 16% decline in usage. Some SAFEs, like Riverside County, are looking at other uses for the call boxes (e.g. "Smart" call boxes to collect traffic 000208 counts or provide weather information) as well as seeking alternatives to reduce operating costs as revenues remain flat. Staff has been able to reduce the system's cellular costs from $8.50 to $7.50 per month per box, and along with SANBAG, is currently reviewing proposals to privatize the Call Box call answering services currently performed by the CHP. It is expected that privatization will reduce costs and increase response time while providing more detailed data reports to assist in management of the system. Staff is proposing to redeploy 26 of the least -used call boxes on SR-91 to the newly constructed segment of SR 86S in the Coachella Valley. Staff does not believe the removal of call boxes will have an impact on the number of calls on SR-91, given that the resulting IA mile spacing would place a motorist no further than approximately 114 mile (400 yards) from the nearest call box. More importantly, it would further enhance the value, benefit and safety of the Measure "A" improvement on SR-86S at the lowest possible. cost. The expected cost of removing and installing the 26 call boxes is $26,155. The cost of buying 26 new call boxes is nearly $90,000. The CHPICaltrans Call Box and Motorist Aid Guidelines provide guidance in setting the spacing between call boxes to help ensure motorist safety by providing the closest feasible spacing to reduce both pedestrian and vehicle exposure time. The Guidelines were developed by the California Highway Patrol, Ca!trans and the SAFEs for use in the California Call Box program. The Guidelines recommend a 114 mile to 1/2 mile spacing on freeways with more than an average daily traffic (ADT) of 100,000 vehicles. When the Commission authorized the system in -fill in 1992, SR-91 was the only freeway selected for 114 mile spacing. The proposed variation in spacing that will occur as a result of removing the 26 call boxes would alter the Commission's previous action. However, it should also be noted that the Commission has implemented a Freeway Service Patrol program all along SR-91 since June, 1993, and provides an additional motorist aid not in place when the 114 mile spacing was established. By merely redeploying 26 call boxes from the SR 91 (at locations with the lowest call volumes) to SR 86S, the Commission will be able to provide call box service to more motorists in a cost-efficient manner. There are sufficient funds in the Call Box program fund balance to provide the redeployment of the call boxes on SR 86S. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2000/01 Amount: $26,155 Source of Funds: SAFE Fees Budget Adjustment: Y GLA: 202-45-73301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 4-18-01 000209 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Joint RTA/RCTC Legislative Initiative to Seek Congressional Approval for the Transfer to RCTC of Federal Grant Number CA-03- STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Commission: 1) Authorize staff to work with Riverside Transit Agency to seek Congressional approval to transfer Grant No. CA-03-0549 from the Riverside Transit Agency to Riverside County Transportation Commission; 2) Authorize staff to work with the Federal Transit Administration to complete the transfer once Congressional approval is obtained; and, 3) Reimburse Riverside Transit Agency for costs incurred. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In 1995, the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) initiated a search for a satellite facility for expansion purposes. Staff pursued funding opportunities for the acquisition of real property for the construction of a facility to be located within the City of Perris. In December 1999, RTA purchased an existing facility from Waste Management in the City of Hemet. That facility became fully operational in the Spring of 2000. As a result of this Hemet facility, there is no longer a need for this third facility. To cover the cost of the Perris facility, RTA was successful in securing a federal grant in the amount of $3,083,743 ($2,466,994 federal share) for a bus maintenance facility that - because of the language of the grant - must be located in the City of Perris. To date, RTA has spent approximately $187,326 to cover the cost of the environmental studies, property appraisal, legal description and architectural and engineering services for the Perris satellite facility project. Because RTA no longer believes that there is a need for this additional satellite facility, they want to transfer the grant to RCTC, less costs expended. O'b Y.2 �' If approved by the Commission, staff will seek congressional approval for these funds to build a capital project directly benefitting the City of Perris' portion of RCTC's Riverside -San Jacinto Metrolink Commuter Branch Line. The goal for the San Jacinto Branch Line is to initiate passenger service as early as 2005. The grant funds will supplement the Commission's $23 million commitment and give addecLimpetus to our efforts to gain additional State, Federal and BNSF support to fully fund the $63 million project. Through negotiations with Federal Transit Administration (FTA), staff will determine the most cost effective way to reimburse RTA for costs incurred in the preliminary design work. If costs are determined to be non -reimbursable through FTA, staff will seek alternative funding solutions, including but not limited to Measure "A", Local Transportation Funds, and/or State Transit Assistance funds. 00021.1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 1998 - 2000 Triennial Performance Audits PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Accept the FY 97/98, 98/99 and 99/00 Triennial Performance Audits; and, 2) Discuss the consultants' recommendations. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In accordance with Public Utilities Code 99246, the Commission is required to designate an entity other than itself to conduct a performance audit of its activities and the activities of each operator to whom we allocate Transportation Development Act funds. The audits are required to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the Commission and the public transit operators. The audits were conducted in accordance with the guidelines set by the State Comptroller General's Office. These audits are required every three years and this triennial audit must be completed by June 30, 2001. At the December 13, 2000, Commission meeting, approval was given to hire O'Melia Consulting, in association with Applied Management & Planning Group, to conduct the triennial performance audits. The audits covered FY 97/98, 98/99 and 99/00 and included the Commission and the seven public operators consisting of: City of Banning, City of Beaumont, City of Corona, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, City of Riverside Special Services, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency. Draft copies were provided to each of the public operators for their review. Comments provided by the operators were incorporated prior to issuance of the final audit reports. A copy of the reports are included with your agenda packet. After acceptance of the Triennial Performance Audits by the Plans and Programs Committee, reports were distributed to the transit operators requesting that they provide written responses to each of the audit recommendations. Staff anticipates that the written responses will be presented at the June 25, 2001, Plans and Programs Committee and then forwarded to the full Commission for final action. Mary Sue O'Melia, the principal consultant for the audits, will be present at the meeting to discuss the results and findings of the triennial performance audits. Attached is a copy of Ms. O'Melia's power point presentation. 00021Z I.00z I!adv dnoao fiuiuueld asi ivau eBeuew middy gijm uoge»osse u! JNIITISNO3 vn3Wg0 . kr/ paluesaad &mimed() Ipue.u. pue aLoH aye jo 4!pnv 03LIEW•10ped muuepi 'do T-••! Bupinsuop ellaW,O ( 100Z IPthi • sa!Pnv apuewmpad leluuepi N a C7 Q 000Z `0£ aunt of /661• `6 �Inf' -- 000Z AA 03 866L Ads sppne lonpuo3 o� Aped e peiwoo )snw 313N• 010H se yens smua 6upueid uoRepodsueal ieuo!bal — spunj vai 6upipow saoleaado puali — :ao� wewaijnbei ems le!uuepi• sweu.laijnbeN ppnv 03LIBILLIOpOd 6umnsuop egaWA 6003 Pchl • s;lpny SOUR uJo}Jad leluuaul swewenoasidw! puet•uwoom• ibua6e }o Apuemile +g sseuempalle Nenien3* suogepumwooei Kone Jopd luawaidw! o; ssaiBoid aupue4ea• sweweimbeJ ond y;inn eoue!idwoo ssessv• sAsei lipnv eoueunoped o 0 r-11 6uninsuop elm() £ 400Z PidV . si pny aouetwoped lepuaui N J a6ueuaaalui 91-Z-II1.6109 pue 'bL `98 `09 ` 1.6 salno?J elelS — !ia! aalnwwoo 6uRuaw6nyi6u!pualx3 — luaweei6d 6ulpunIlnd — sparoad Jo weiBoad v aansaaw • ssa3oad Bu!wweiBoad maN • ised paaedwoa uoReonpe pieos pua suogeo!unwwoo `uoReu!paooa aallaq pue 9.10W saw -lbw patios papuedx3 — amsniou! WOW yanw si 010H a sd — saiewelle uijnn saagwew 6uiion 6Z of L wo4 wenn limos - safuau3 lsuopezivaBap pua paeog aun j.o uoisuadx3 • slum qsudwoo3v 3ioN 6unlnsuoo enano 100Z lady . spny eauew.opad lepuapi suoi}epuauauaooaa ppne aoiid moil weweldw! o� apeua uaaq anew spo}}a aneuosem♦ paluaweldw! 6upq si uaea6oad luewanaidwi Appnpoid oioH — aoueuduaoo linj ui uoReaisiuivape spunk vai queweAnbai ond yo!nn a3uenduaoo apgeuosem♦ sBuipuu aouelldwoo 313N o3 Bul;lnsuoD ellaNI.0 5 LOU IPdV • sppny aouewiopad leluuaul peAp30.J1 Alge.I0Ael uaaq aney sangemui nnaN♦ spunk pue suaea6oad BuliNslu!wpe ui wepuie pug annioalla si am• panoidw! aney sapuafie iewepce yoinn uogeuipa000 pue suogeoiunuauaoo♦ suaais/Cs poddns pue uogeuaome aog}o Nepdn spaau 313N• nnainab weiBoid 010N 6uilinsuo0 ellenO 9 moz lady . silpny aoueumopad ieluuepi neainq sgmeads Bupuedxe aapisuoo♦ uogeuaome aowo apea6dn pug anoiduai♦ sagffigedeo pue uogeuaao;ui lepueug jo Apimenene aye anoaduai♦ weifioad wetuaniaidwi Ailmionpoid ayuo uogewauaaiduai amduaoo♦ suogepuewwoom 313N ci 0 Bumnsuo0 e11911,0 L 100z • svpny aouewiovad lepuepi AoueBv psuei j. aununS • A3ueBv psueii apisaanw • Aoue6v AelleA apaan oled • saoinuaS ieloads apisaanw Alm* euoaoo Jo 43, wowneee Alm* Bu!uuee Jo 43* sppnv ao;eaadp Hsueil �4 6umnsuoo e11ayy,O $ I-00Z IPdd • svpny eoueunoped Ieiuualal ppne a3uewaopad Joiad uaoa� suogepuauauawaa weweidw! o} apeua uaaq set.] ssaafioad lueogRiBm. sluauaaainbai ond ywtn aouenduaoo ui saoleaado AworeiAi* penoidw! spy Bugiodei pue uog3alioo e}ea♦ s6upuu aouendwoo Bumnsuo0 enema 6 [Ng Ipdv• sl!Pnv aoueunoped le!uuepi suoisuedxa eoinaas y inn aoed 6uidaa)i iou dRlsaapp jo insaa a pue anmsod ssai si si1-11-- %L Aq paseaaoui `aanamoy `aa6uassed aad iso0 eP!m luno0 — �insaa anwsod a si s!y1— Id0 %5'5 paaedwoo %t Jo illmai6 anoH aad isoo ap!mATunoo ut 6uninsaa aovuas ueln ssai paseaaou! sisoo — uonnw rop$ 04 %5£ peseenui s}so3 • aawas asuodsaa puewep papuedxa wowneae idaoxa sapua6e IId — au fluns Aq gg alnoj pue >fununS jo uouquawaidwi — eopuas Aepuns 6uipnioui `vm Aq yoo jo uonewawaidwi — iuowneae of eopues alnoa pax! j maN - lenuue 1,9 V999 0q %lg paseenul sanoH • aeaA 6u!woodn aye ui luawanoadw! aoI sai6aleais doianap pue spuaal 8s8y1 auiwexa 01 wea6oad luawanoadwi iCimonpoad pue dms y�nnoa6 d!ysaapp paioadxa ui paiinsaa leA Tou anal saseaaour aowas — uo111iu� T 1, . o; 0/091. peseenul diysiem • 00Ad L6Ad spue•ii aponAluno3 6umnsuop elm() 66 00Ad ■ L6A3 9'6Z aunung Z'ZZ Vla p I.Z 6Lijuue8 - OOOZ Ad • CN} 100Z IPdV • sllPnV apuewiopad leluuopi C. - 4(%C° -•hf 7 01. 5I oz S Z 0£ anoH gad &Jam sne 6uninsuoo piano Z 6 LOOZ HAN/ . Rpny eauewmped lepuapi AS6 00AA ■ L6AA � a d 0 z 9 S 0I zl anoH Jed &lam asuodseN puewea o 6ullInsuo0 eilaW,O E COOZ IIRIV • sppny aouewmped lepuopi aa6euew lesieadde lauuosaad AjipoW — 6ugavew palonap saanosaa aseanui — uogernouooaa pue Alianoas uopalloo anoadwi - }uouaneae jo Apo• Alueaaenn paianoo saiedaa foeal — aoinaas nnau sai6a}eats 6uRavew — aouewaopad aug-Aq-auij aoijuow — apia-e-leip pue snq aoj aoieaado lieo-uo aaiH - 6uiuue8 jo Apo • suonepumwoom eugInsuoO e!1911.O iij• 1.00Z VP* • s;!Pnd aoueuiJOpOd !e!uuaul uoi}iugap ale}g 6uipa000e s31d poda— aalla}uoo aTelS all 01 Tipne }iwgng - apisaanm lo i(mo • sa6ueyo lo aouenpe ui sieiaaleua 6up)aew alepdfl — �l�b o� ijwgns pue Apa}Jeno aaedald - euoaoo lo 43. suonepuewwoom o o; 6umnsuoo e!len() I.00Z HAV • s3!Pnv aauewaa}aad leluua!al spode.] aoueiaen leijdeo Apapenb aaedaad — suoRenpena aouewaopad lanai a}noa— �6a��a�s leuoReziue6ao auiwaalaa — elep papodaa jo Aoemooe luaisisuoo anoadwi — A3uafibr apisaanw • yal aad elep anoy aoinaas apyan pa1100 — swappoe pue slleapeoa `speldwoo 6upioeal ui6a8 — elep leuogeaado apnpui Ouponui Amuow AppoW — ibuafid AelleA apaan oled • suogepumwooem 6wolnsuoo eilaW,O 91. moo Ndd . s;lpny 93ueuuOjJad leluuall1 waa6oad 6uplaew maxi doianap pue sasAleue diysaapia ionpuo0 — su.1a0uo0 aauaoisna jo sasAieue pua.ij aaedaid - A3ua6d ilsue.u. aununs♦ suogepuewwoom