HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 22, 2021 Budget & Implementation
MEETING AGENDA
Budget and Implementation Committee
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Date: March 22, 2021
Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20, (March 18, 2020), the meeting will
only be conducted via video conferencing and by telephone.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Lloyd White, Chair / David Fenn, City of Beaumont
Raymond Gregory, Vice Chair / Mark Carnevale, City of
Cathedral City
David Happe / Alberto Sanchez, City of Banning
Linda Molina / Wendy Hewitt, City of Calimesa
Jeremy Smith / Larry Greene, City of Canyon Lake
Steven Hernandez / Denise Delgado, City of Coachella
Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs
Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore
Jan Harnik / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert
Lisa Middleton / Dennis Woods, City of Palm Springs
Chuck Conder / Erin Edwards, City of Riverside
Alonso Ledezma / Crystal Ruiz, City of San Jacinto
Ben J. Benoit / Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar
Karen Spiegel, County of Riverside, District II
Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District III
STAFF
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer
AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Annual Budget Development and Oversight
Competitive Federal and State Grant Programs
Countywide Communications and Outreach Programs
Countywide Strategic Plan
Legislation
Public Communications and Outreach Programs
Short Range Transit Plans
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
9:30 a.m.
Monday, March 22, 2021
Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20, (March 18, 2020), the Budget and
Implementation Committee meeting will only be conducted via video conferencing and by
telephone. Please follow the instructions below to join the meeting remotely.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION
Join Zoom Meeting
https://rctc.zoom.us/j/84468856317
Meeting ID: 844 6885 6317
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,84468856317# US (San Jose)
For members of the public wishing to submit comment in connection with the Budget and
Implementation Committee Meeting please email written comments to the Clerk of the Board at
lmobley@rctc.org prior to March 21, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. and your comments will be made part of
the official record of the proceedings. Members of the public may also make public comments
through their telephone or Zoom connection when recognized by the Chair.
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed
72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be
available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting on the Commission’s website,
www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, Executive Order
N-29-20, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at
(951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Committee meeting, including accessibility
and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the
meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the
meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Budget and Implementation Committee
March 22, 2021
Page 2
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss
matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the
agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be
placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Each individual speaker is limited to
speak three (3) continuous minutes or less.
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee 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 Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding
an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the
Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote.
Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.)
6. 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.
6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 22, 2021
Page 1
6B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Page 6
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the six months ended
December 31, 2020; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Page 17
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee
March 22, 2021
Page 3
8. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CYCLE 5 – RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION REGIONAL
PROGRAM
Page 33
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the Riverside County Active Transportation Program (ATP) projects for
inclusion in the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) ATP Regional Program
Cycle 5 consisting of the highest scoring projects in the total amount of $11,305,000;
2) Authorize staff to adjust the ATP award request to include Riverside County – Public
Health’s Safe Routes for All – Hemet Project to maximize available funds in Riverside
County;
3) Submit the list of recommended and contingency projects to the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the MPO ATP Regional Program
and subsequent submittal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for final
approval in June 2021;
4) Authorize staff to request state-only ATP funds for all projects, which all have cleared
and completed state environmental clearance;
5) Submit the MPO ATP regional projects to SCAG for programming in the Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP);
6) Direct staff to coordinate with the MPO ATP Regional Program project sponsors
regarding timely funding allocations, obligations, and project delivery;
7) Prioritize Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG)’s Coachella Valley Arts
and Music Line project for any future supplemental ATP Cycle 5 funding; and
8) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
10. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended
and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities.
11. ADJOURNMENT
The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at
9:30 a.m., April 26, 2021, via Zoom.
AGENDA ITEM 6A
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
Monday, February 22, 2021
MINUTES
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by
Vice Chair Raymond Gregory at 9:35 a.m. via Zoom Meeting ID: 822 2984 0830, pursuant to
Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20.
2.ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Chuck Conder Ben J. Benoit
Denise Delgado David Happe
Raymond Gregory Jan Harnik
Bob Magee Alonso Ledezma
Scott Matas Chuck Washington
Linda Molina
Jeremy Smith
Karen Spiegel
Lloyd White*
Dennis Woods
*Arrived after the meeting was called to order.
At this time, Chair Lloyd White joined the meeting.
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair White led the Budget and Implementation Committee in a flag salute.
4.PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
5.ADDITIONS / REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
1
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 22, 2021
Page 2
6. 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.
M/S/C (Molina/Gregory) to approve the following Consent Calendar item(s):
6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JANUARY 25, 2021
6B. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS
1) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 3, 2020 (3Q 2020); and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended
December 31, 2020; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6D. QUARTERLY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT METRICS REPORT, OCTOBER-DECEMBER
2020
1) Receive and file the Quarterly Public Engagement Metrics Report for
October-December 2020; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 BUDGET
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, presented the Commission Policy Goals and
Objectives for the FY 2021/22 Budget, highlighting the following:
• Budget development
• Commission goals
• Short-term objectives
• Guiding fiscal policies
• Next steps
In response to Commissioner Dennis Woods’ question regarding housing growth in the
cities of Banning and Beaumont and if equity is part of our policy goal how that process
occurs in the budget, Anne Mayer replied the challenge RCTC has with the growth in
Riverside County is that our priorities are determined by the Sales Tax Measure. She
explained for western county the priority projects that are funded are in either the
Measure A Expenditure Plan and/or the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
2
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 22, 2021
Page 3
Program and other then a truck climb lane on Interstate 10 in the Calimesa area there are
no improvements planned on I-10 in the Sales Tax Measure, although there are
interchanges that will be funded. Ms. Mayer stated the challenge they will have in keeping
up with the explosive home growth is throughout Riverside County there are limited
resources and the measure dictates what the priorities are. She explained RCTC staff
recommended including equity into the Quality of Life Principles for a couple key reasons,
the results of the pandemic and the impact on mobility for essential workers or people
who have no other options will be heavily dependent for RCTC to find ways to make sure
transportation continues. The other challenge is that as more people move further inland
because that is where they can afford housing at the same time the state of California is
cutting off financial resources for transportation projects for areas such as ours. She
stated staff’s recommendation for the equity objective is that RCTC is going to have to
push very hard to ensure the Inland Empire is not left behind in transportation funding.
Most of the funding principles that come from a state level and the funding will be
concentrated on no new capacity and on the urban areas. She stated from a budgeting
standpoint they can only budget with the revenues that RCTC has.
M/S/C (Molina/Spiegel) to:
1) Review and approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and
Objectives for the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget;
2) Review and approve the Fiscal Accountability Policies for the FY 2021/22
Budget; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE SALT CREEK TRAIL
Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Director, provided a detailed overview for the
Salt Creek Trail project and the additional funds request from the County of Riverside.
She also introduced Cathy Wampler, Project Manager, with the Riverside County
Transportation Department for the Salt Creek Trail project.
M/S/C (Gregory/Matas) to:
1) Approve federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in
the additional amount of $160,000 for a total amount of $5,844,203 to
fully fund construction of the Salt Creek Trail project; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES ACCESS FOR ALL PROGRAM
Eric DeHate, Transit Manager, presented the Transportation Network Companies (TNC)
Access for All program for Riverside County, highlighting the following areas:
3
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 22, 2021
Page 4
• Background information - SB 1376 signed into law in 2018; what is a TNC; how is
the program funded; who would administer the program for Riverside County
• Next steps
Mark Lancaster, Director of Transportation with the Riverside County Transportation
Department apologized as he wanted to comment on Agenda Item 8. He expressed
appreciation to the Committee Members and RCTC staff for all their help in getting the
additional funding needed for the project as it is a great project. He noted there is a short
video of the project that he will send to Lisa Mobley, Administrative Services
Manager/Clerk of the Board to be shown at the March 10 Commission meeting.
In response to Commissioner Wood’s inquiry if the cost to administer the program
exceeds $230,000 what happens, Eric DeHate clarified that is the amount that RCTC would
be available to get every year to host a call for projects, that is not how much it would
cost to run the program.
Vice Chair Gregory explained although there are still many unknowns a lot of the goals of
this initiative mirror other transportation goals, so it does seem to make sense and he is
certainly in support of moving forward. He noted it was in the staff report and asked if
for some reason this does turn into a huge unfunded mandate or has a lot of requirements
that it does not make fiscal sense to continue, is there a way to get out.
Eric DeHate replied there is a way to get out, RCTC would need to inform the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that they would no longer like to be the Access Fund
Administrator (AFA) for Riverside County. The CPUC would either turn to the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) or the state to administer the program.
Commissioner Karen Spiegel noted how there are so many acronyms in the
recommendation, and she moved staff’s recommendation.
M/S/C (Spiegel/Gregory) to:
1) Authorize the Commission to become the Access Fund Administrator
(AFA) for the Transportation Network Companies (TNC) Access for All
program for Riverside County;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute agreements and/or documents related to the TNC
Access for All program, on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Due to technical difficulties, there was no confirmation of Commissioner Smith’s
vote.
4
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 22, 2021
Page 5
10. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
David Knudsen, Legislative Affairs Manager, presented an update for the state and federal
legislative activities.
M/S/C to:
1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
There were no items pulled from the consent calendar.
12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
There were no Commissioners or Executive Director reports.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation
Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:08 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Mobley
Clerk of the Board
5
AGENDA ITEM 6B
Agenda Item 6B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 22, 2021
TO: Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM: Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance
THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the six months ended
December 31, 2020; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During the first six months of the fiscal year, staff monitored the revenues and expenditures of
the Commission. The attached financial statements present the revenues and expenditures for
the first six months of the fiscal year. Period closing accrual adjustments are not included for
revenues earned but not billed and expenditures incurred for goods and services received but
not yet invoiced, as such adjustments are normally made during the year-end closing process.
The operating statement shows the Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax
revenues for the second quarter at 36 percent of the budget. This is a result of Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33, Accounting and Financial Reporting for
nonexchange Transactions. GASB Statement No. 33 requires sales tax revenues to be accrued
for the period in which they are collected at the point of destination or sale, as applicable. The
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) collects the sales tax funds and
remits these funds to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates
a two-month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial
statements reflect the revenues related to collections through October 2020.
On a cash basis, the Measure A and LTF sales tax receipts are 12.60 and 9.42 percent higher,
respectively, than the same period last fiscal year. State Transit Assistance revenues, including
State of Good Repair for the second quarter of 2021, are expected to be received in the third
quarter of 2021. Staff will continue to monitor the trends in the sales taxes and report to the
Commission any necessary adjustments in revenue projections.
6
Agenda Item 6B
Federal, state, and local reimbursements are generally on a reimbursement basis. The
Commission will receive these revenues as eligible project costs are incurred and invoiced to the
respective agencies. The negative revenue amounts reflect the reversal of FY 2019/20 accrued
revenues at the beginning of FY 2020/21 in excess of amounts billed through the second quarter.
Reimbursement invoices for the expenditures for the second quarter will be prepared and
submitted in the third quarter.
During the FY 2020/21 budget process, the Commission conservatively estimated Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues of $15.5 million passed through from Western Riverside
Council of Governments (WRCOG). The Commission expects to receive the July 2020 through
December 2020 revenues by the end of the third quarter.
During the FY 2020/21 budget process, the Commission conservatively budgeted RCTC 91 Express
Lanes and 15 Express Lanes toll revenues and toll violations and fee revenues at $37.3 million
and $4.9 million, respectively. In January 2021, the Commission approved a $10.7 million
mid-year budget adjustment to reduce toll revenues and toll violations and fee revenues due to
the delayed opening of the 15 Express Lanes. The operating statement shows the toll revenues
at 64 percent of the revised budget and toll violations and fee revenues at 83 percent. All toll
and fee revenues are related to the RCTC 91 Express Lanes, as the 15 Express Lanes are expected
to open in early Spring 2021. Staff will continue to monitor the toll transactions.
The operating statement shows other revenues at 70 percent of the $549,100 budget and reflects
property management lease revenues.
During the FY 2020/21 budget process, the Commission conservatively estimated investment
income at $3.5 million due to decreasing interest rates and the COVID-19 impacts. The operating
statement shows investment income, which includes unrealized investment gains (losses), at
65 percent of the $3.5 million budget.
Gain on sale of land is recorded as part of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Enterprise Fund accounting
records and reflects the gain on sale of excess land purchased for the 91 Project. Gain on sale of
land is not a budget-related item and, therefore, is not included in the FY 2020/21 budget.
The expenditures/expenses and other financing sources/uses categories are in line overall with
the expectations of the budget with the following exceptions:
• Salaries and benefits are under budget primarily due to unfilled budgeted positions,
including the regional conservation positions related to the Implementation and
Management Services Agreement between the Commission and the Western Riverside
County Regional Conservation Authority effective January 1, 2021;
• Professional services are under budget primarily due to unused budget authority for rail
operations and development activities, highway general legal and professional services,
toll operations general legal and professional services, administrative professional
services, and finance auditing and professional services;
7
Agenda Item 6B
• Support costs are under budget due to unused budget authority for administrative
activities, rail operations and development activities, regional program and commuter
assistance advertising, and toll operations;
• Program operations are under budget due to unused budget authority for the toll
operations, motorist and commuter assistance program operations, highway and rail
program management, and station security;
• The status of significant Commission capital projects (engineering, construction,
design-build, and right of way/land) with budget amounts exceeding $5 million is
discussed in the attachment;
• Operating and capital disbursements are made as claims are submitted to the
Commission by transit operators;
• Special studies unused budget authority is related to feasibility studies;
• Local streets and roads expenditures are related to Measure A sales tax revenues. These
financial statements reflect the turnback payments through October 2020;
• Regional arterial expenditures primarily represent expenditures for highways and
regional arterial program administered by Coachella Valley Association of Governments
(CVAG). CVAG requests reimbursements from the Commission based on available funds
and sufficient budget authority;
• Debt service principal payments are made annually on June 1, while debt service interest
payments are made semiannually on December 1 and June 1. On a quarterly basis in the
RCTC 91 Express Lanes Enterprise Fund accounting records, the Commission records
accrued interest including compounded interest on the 91 Project Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan and accreted interest on the
2013 Toll Revenue Bonds, Series B (capital appreciation). However, $11.2 million of the
$14.8 million interest cost through the second quarter will not be paid in the current year
and therefore is not included in the FY 2020/21 budget;
• Capital outlay expenditures is under budget due to unused budget authority for office and
property improvements for station rehabilitation, toll operations transponders, and
Commission office, network, hardware, and software improvements;
• Depreciation is recorded as part of the accrual adjustments in the RCTC 91 Express Lanes
Enterprise Fund accounting records; however, such depreciation is not paid and therefore
is not included in the FY 2020/21 budget; and
• The Commission entered into a loan agreement with the U.S. Department of
Transportation for a $152.5 million TIFIA loan to pay eligible I-15 Express Lanes project
costs. Proceeds of the TIFIA loan may be drawn upon after certain conditions have been
met. Through the second quarter, the Commission drew down $15.7 million in TIFIA loan
proceeds, for a cumulative inception to date total in TIFIA loan proceeds of $141.9 million.
During construction of the I-15 Express Lanes project and for a period of up to five years
following substantial completion, interest is compounded and added to the TIFIA loan.
TIFIA debt service payments are expected to commence in December 2025, which is
approximately five years after substantial completion of the I-15 Express Lanes project,
through 2055.
8
Agenda Item 6B
Attachments:
1) Quarterly Project Status – December 2020
2) Quarterly Financial Statements – December 2020
9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
QUARTERLY PROJECT STATUS
2nd QUARTER
FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/2020
Project Description
FY 2020/21
2nd Quarter
Budget
Expenditures
Through 2nd
Quarter Project Status
91 Project (P003028)
The project connects with Orange County Transportation Authority’s
tolled express lanes at the Orange County/Riverside County line and
continues approximately eight miles to the Interstate (I)-15/State
Route (SR)-91 interchange. The project involves widening
pavement on the outside of the existing highway to reposition
general purpose lanes and repurposing the existing high occupancy
vehicle lanes to accommodate two-tolled express lanes in the
median in each direction. The 91 Project also involves constructing
one new general-purpose lane in each direction from SR-71 to I-15,
ultimately providing two-tolled express lanes and five general
purpose lanes in each direction. 91 Project development activities
began in September 2007, construction work related to roadway and
structures began in July 2014, and the toll lanes opened in March
2017. The total cost of the 91 Project is estimated at $1.4 billion,
including capitalized interest, debt service reserves, contingency,
and cost of issuance. The FY 2020/21 budget amount is
$15,493,100.
$ 2,121,500 ($ 1,019,557) The under run of the FY 2020/21 budget at the second
quarter is due to a FY 2019/20 accrual reversal for the Army
Corps of Engineers Reach 9 project ($1.7 million), a FY
2019/20 accrual reversal for Caltrans not yet offset by actual
invoices ($0.6 million), a FY 2019/20 accrual reversal for the
design-builder costs not yet offset by actual invoices ($0.4
million), and an under run in the project and construction
management (PCM) contract ($0.5 million).
SR-91 Corridor Operations Project (623046)
The project will add one additional general-purpose lane to
westbound SR- 91 between Green River Road and the on-ramp to
southbound SR-241. Included in the project is 9 to 10 feet of outside
widening at some locations and restriping in others. The FY 2020/21
budget amount is $37,390,100.
5,000,000 947,440 The under run of the FY 2020/21 budget at the second
quarter is due to a slower than anticipated start for the
construction contract ($3.6 million) and an under run in
construction management ($0.2 million).
I-15 Express Lanes Project (P003027)
The project will generally add two tolled express lanes in each
direction from SR-60 to Cajalco Road in Corona. Project
development activities began in April 2008, and lanes are expected
to open to traffic in Spring 2021. The total project cost is estimated
at $472 million, which includes $42 million of contingency. The FY
2020/21 budget amount is $69,731,400.
23,850,000 10,418,199 The under run of the FY 2020/21 budget at the second
quarter is due to design-builder contingency not used ($10.8
million), an under run in the PCM contract ($1.4 million), and
an agreement that Caltrans extended oversight was not
needed after October 2020 ($1.4 million). Staff anticipates
roughly $6 million in dispute resolution claims that will be
drawn down from unused contingency.
ATTACHMENT 1
10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
QUARTERLY PROJECT STATUS
2nd QUARTER
FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/2020
Project Description
FY 2020/21
2nd Quarter
Budget
Expenditures
Through 2nd
Quarter
Project Status
15/91 Express Lanes Connector (P003039)
The 15/91 Express Lane Connector (ELC) project constructs an
express lanes median direct connector from southbound I-15 to
westbound SR-91 and from eastbound SR-91 to northbound I-15 in
the city of Corona. The project also adds tolled express lanes in each
direction of I-15 from the 15/91 ELC to Hidden Valley Parkway; adds
a tolled express lane in each direction of SR-91 from east of Lincoln
Avenue to the 15/91 ELC; extends the tolled express lane along
eastbound SR-91 from I-15 to west of Promenade Avenue; and
extends an eastbound auxiliary lane along SR-91 from west of I-15
to west of Promenade Avenue. The project also includes the addition
of a toll collection system infrastructure along I-15 and SR-91. The
estimated project cost is $270 million and the project is partially
funded by state funds allocated under Senate Bill (SB) 132
legislation. The connector is expected to open to traffic in 2022. The
FY 2020/21 budget amount is $51,620,000.
21,328,000 21,972,723 The net over run of the FY 2020/21 budget at the second
quarter is due to a year-to-date over run in design-builder
costs ($2.6 million) offset by under runs in the PCM contract
($1.1 million) and a BNSF temporary construction license
($0.5 million).
I-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension (P003044)
The project will add express lanes between SR-74 and Cajalco
Road. The estimated project cost is $544 million with the Project
Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase of work
funded by federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
funds and Measure A. The FY 2020/21 budget amount is
$6,862,000.
2,131,000 1,019,137 The under run of the FY 2020/21 budget at the second
quarter is due to lagging invoices from the PA/ED firm ($0.9
million).
11
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
QUARTERLY PROJECT STATUS
2nd QUARTER
FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/2020
Project Description
FY 2020/21
2nd Quarter
Budget
Expenditures
Through 2nd
Quarter
Project Status
Mid County Parkway (MCP) (P002302, P612302, P002320, &
P002317)
The environmental document for a new corridor from I-215 to SR-79
was approved in April 2015. The first design package is anticipated
to be completed in FY 2018/2019. Construction of this new facility
will be completed over many years as funding becomes available;
the total project cost is estimated at $1.3 to $2.1 billion. The FY
2020/21 budget amount is $43,222,800.
16,064,900 7,988,648 The under run of the FY 2020/21 budget at the second
quarter is primarily due to the following for each project:
• MCP: An under run in right of way (ROW) acquisition for
moving expenses ($0.4 million).
• MCP Placentia: Under runs in construction, construction
management, and construction support due to the
contract bid being substantially lower than the engineer’s
estimate ($8.4 million).
• MCP Mitigation: The first year of plant establishment will
be complete at the beginning of the third quarter in FY
2020/21 and expenditures are on track for this quarter’s
budget.
Pachappa Underpass project (P003038)
The project will remove the Pachappa shoofly structure and
associated retaining walls and construct a retaining wall, drainage,
and track bed for the permanent Pachappa underpass. Track
relocation will be performed by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). The
project construction cost is estimated at $16 million. The FY
2020/21 budget amount is $14,296,100.
4,250,300 3,259,099 The under run of the FY 2020/21 budget at the second
quarter is due to additional time required for UPRR, pushing
expenditures into the next quarter for construction ($0.6
million), and under runs in construction management ($0.2
million), construction support services, and ROW services
($0.2 million).
SR-60 Truck Lanes (P003029)
The project will construct eastbound climbing and westbound
descending truck lanes from Gilman Springs Road to west of Jack
Rabbit trail and upgrade existing shoulders to standard widths. The
estimated project cost is $138 million and the project is funded by
CMAQ, State Transportation Improvement Program/Regional
Improvement Program (STIP/RIP), State Highway Operation and
Protection Program, and 2009 Measure A highway funds. The FY
2020/21 budget amount is $43,565,700.
17,926,900 11,385,114 The under run of the FY 2020/21 budget at the second
quarter is due to lower-than-expected construction invoice
billings ($5.1 million), one month lag in construction
management billing ($0.8 million), and FY 2019/20 accrual
reversals for construction support services not yet offset by
actual invoices ($0.4 million) that were more than actual
invoice billings.
12
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
QUARTERLY PROJECT STATUS
2nd QUARTER
FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/2020
Project Description
FY 2020/21
2nd Quarter
Budget
Expenditures
Through 2nd
Quarter
Project Status
71/91 Connector Project (P003021)
The project includes ROW acquisition, utility relocation, and
environmental revalidation work for improvements to the 71/91
connector. The estimated project cost is $151 million. The FY
2020/21 budget amount is $5,055,700.
1,012,900 665,030 The minimal under run of the FY 2020/21 budget at the
second quarter is due to delayed billings on final design by
the consultant ($0.4 million).
I-15/Railroad Canyon Interchange (P005104)
The project is to relieve congestion by improving traffic operations
through improvements of the Railroad Canyon Road interchange
and correction of the merging/diverging freeway and ramp
movements. The estimated project cost is $51 million and the project
is funded by TUMF Regional Arterial, SB-1 Local Partnership
Program-Competitive, STIP/RIP, and city of Lake Elsinore
contribution. The FY 2020/21 budget amount is $26,952,500.
12,846,300 12,801,180 The minimal under run of the FY 2020/21 budget at the
second quarter is due to under runs in construction
management ($0.8 million), ROW services ($0.4 million),
construction support services ($0.1 million), and final design
($0.2 million), offset by an over run in construction
expenditures ($1.5 million).
Riverside Layover Facility (P653822)
The project includes increased capacity and maintenance service
improvements to Metrolink’s West Layover Facility, north of the
Riverside Downtown station. The improvements include expansion
of the facility to accommodate three storage tracks with an overall
storage capacity of three 6-train sets. The project is funded by
Federal Transit Administration Section 5307. The FY 2020/21
budget amount is $9,683,600.
1,760,800 1,560,630 The under run of the FY 2020/21 budget at the second
quarter is due to contaminated soil issues and underground
utility conflicts with a new sewer connection and postponing
construction and construction support services into the
second half of FY 2020/21 ($0.2 million).
This list discusses the significant capital projects (i.e., total budgeted costs in excess of $5 million) and related status. Capital project expenditures are generally affected
by lags in invoices submitted by contractors and consultants, as well as issues encountered during certain phases of the projects. The capital projects budgets tend to be
based on aggressive project schedules.
13
Revenues
Sales tax 323,915,700$ 115,431,172$ (208,484,528)$ 36%
Federal reimbursements 103,535,700 381,183 (103,154,517)0%
State reimbursements 149,063,600 14,438,889 (134,624,711)10%
Local reimbursements 20,466,100 4,782,541 (15,683,559)23%
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 15,500,000 - (15,500,000)N/A
Toll revenues 28,268,400 17,999,007 (10,269,393)64%
Toll violations and fee revenues 3,450,200 2,879,026 (571,174)83%
Other revenues 549,100 385,968 (163,132)70%
Investment income 3,545,500 2,300,308 (1,245,192)65%
Gain on sale of land -1,772,393 1,772,393 N/A
Total revenues 648,294,300 160,370,487 (487,923,813)25%
Expenditures/Expenses
Salaries and benefits 13,246,000 5,021,182 8,224,818 38%
Professional and support
Professional services 20,786,400 3,388,548 17,397,852 16%
Support costs 15,885,400 3,768,772 12,116,628 24%
Total Professional and support costs 36,671,800 7,157,320 29,514,480 20%
Projects and operations
Program operations 40,119,300 9,938,420 30,180,880 25%
Engineering 30,450,200 3,258,794 27,191,406 11%
Construction 206,567,700 42,969,094 163,598,606 21%
Design Build 100,395,600 25,099,415 75,296,185 25%
Right of way/land 57,482,700 7,542,235 49,940,465 13%
Operating and capital disbursements 136,775,700 35,900,647 100,875,053 26%
Special studies 1,445,000 - 1,445,000 N/A
Local streets and roads 59,152,100 21,883,224 37,268,876 37%
Regional arterials 33,753,000 5,330,825 28,422,175 16%
Total projects and operations 666,141,300 151,922,654 514,218,646 23%
Debt service
Principal 28,495,000 - 28,495,000 N/A
Interest 48,143,900 35,387,156 12,756,744 74%
Total debt service 76,638,900 35,387,156 41,251,744 46%
Capital outlay 6,072,600 1,144,383 4,928,217 19%
Depreciation - 2,694,542 (2,694,542) N/A
Total Expenditures/Expenses 798,770,600 203,327,237 595,443,363 25%
Excess revenues over (under) expenditures/expenses (150,476,300) (42,956,750) 622,634,769 29%
Other financing sources/(uses)
Transfer in 179,922,600 55,139,717 (124,782,883) 31%
Transfer out (179,922,600) (55,139,717) 124,782,883 31%
TIFIA loan proceeds 47,371,900 15,660,996 (31,710,904) 33%
Total financing sources/(uses)47,371,900 15,660,996 31,710,904 33%
Net change in fund balances (103,104,400) (27,295,754) 654,345,673 26%
Fund balance July 1, 2020 821,472,700 534,094,125 (287,378,575) 65%
Fund balance December 31, 2020 718,368,300$ 506,798,371$ 366,967,098$ 71%
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
QUARTERLY BUDGET TO ACTUAL
FY 2020/21
BUDGET
2ND QUARTER
ACTUAL
PERCENT
UTILIZATION
REMAINING
BALANCE
FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/2020
2ND QUARTER
ATTACHMENT 2
14
STATE OF GOOD
REPAIR
OTHER AGENCY
PROJECTS SB132
Revenues
Sales tax -$ -$ 56,363,337$ 15,449,253$ 315,814$ 36,735,596$ 5,222,105$ 1,345,067$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Federal reimbursements (3,006,558) - 2,628,710 - - - - - - - - -
State reimbursements (49,034) 1,515,259 2,591,882 - - - - - - - - 10,380,782
Local reimbursements (375,000) 19,107 5,067,958 - - - - - - - 70,476 -
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee - - - - - - - - - - - -
Toll revenues - - - - - - - - - - - -
Toll violations and fee revenues - - - - - - - - - - - -
Other revenues 111 - 324,447 - - - - - 9,000 - - -
Investment income 31,347 13,104 451,482 109,711 - 110,924 206,965 12,578 203,849 3,935 373 3,780
Gain on sale of land - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total revenues (3,399,134) 1,547,470 67,427,816 15,558,964 315,814 36,846,520 5,429,070 1,357,645 212,849 3,935 70,849 10,384,562
Expenditures/Expenses
Salaries and benefits 2,811,312 62,228 1,567,492 - - - - - 128,729 9,662 19,315 41,997
Professional and support
Professional services 1,311,987 127,303 1,323,737 3,710 - - 7,419 - 20,791 202,390 949 9,786
Support costs 1,140,121 37,401 1,602,425 - - - - - 2,233 - - 6
Total Professional and support costs 2,452,108 164,704 2,926,162 3,710 - - 7,419 - 23,024 202,390 949 9,792
Projects and operations
Program operations - 1,565,972 4,267,110 - - - - - 293,714 - 71,191 147,597
Engineering - - 1,998,320 - - - - - 304,975 3,666 67,334 884,499
Construction (375,000) - 27,760,693 - - - - - 12,519,854 - - 2,985,605
Design Build - - 5,071,680 - - - - - - - - 20,027,735
Right of way/land - - (1,202,681) - - - - - 3,459,741 - - 5,285,175
Operating and capital disbursements 372,778 - 646,181 2,977,941 - 26,615,315 4,768,919 519,513 - - - -
Special studies - - - - - - - - - - - -
Local streets and roads - - 16,217,659 5,353,341 312,224 - - - - - - -
Regional arterials - - - 5,330,825 - - - - - - - -
Total projects and operations (2,222) 1,565,972 54,758,962 13,662,107 312,224 26,615,315 4,768,919 519,513 16,578,284 3,666 138,525 29,330,611
Debt service
Principal - - - - - - - - - - - -
Interest - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total debt service - - - - - - - - - - - -
Capital outlay 67,306 - 1,077,077 - - - - - - - - -
Depreciation - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures/Expenses 5,328,504 1,792,904 60,329,693 13,665,817 312,224 26,615,315 4,776,338 519,513 16,730,037 215,718 158,789 29,382,400
Excess revenues over (under)
expenditures/expenses
(8,727,638) (245,434) 7,098,123 1,893,147 3,590 10,231,205 652,732 838,132 (16,517,188) (211,783) (87,940) (18,997,838)
Other financing sources/(uses)
Transfer in 10,268,545 - 9,439,653 - - - - - - 672,000 - -
Transfer out (272,900) (99,800) (36,756,019) (242,500) (12,500) (6,543,045) (751,600) (845,203) (501,200) (11,300) - -
TIFIA loan proceeds - - 15,660,996 - - - - - - - - -
Total financing sources/(uses)9,995,645 (99,800) (11,655,370) (242,500) (12,500) (6,543,045) (751,600) (845,203) (501,200) 660,700 - -
Net change in fund balances 1,268,007 (345,234) (4,557,247) 1,650,647 (8,910) 3,688,160 (98,868) (7,071) (17,018,388) 448,917 (87,940) (18,997,838)
Fund balance July 1, 2020 25,862,291 10,908,798 263,779,809 63,573,136 411 97,108,303 119,712,384 9,087,946 117,537,108 2,902,126 20,861 28,746
Fund balance December 31, 2020 27,130,298$ 10,563,564$ 259,222,562$ 65,223,783$ (8,499)$ 100,796,463$ 119,613,516$ 9,080,875$ 100,518,720$ 3,351,043$ (67,079)$ (18,969,092)$
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT
STATE TRANSIT
ASSISTANCE
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
FUNDWESTERN COUNTY COACHELLA
VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION
UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
(TUMF)
COACHELLA
VALLEY RAIL
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
QUARTERLY BUDGET TO ACTUAL BY FUND
2ND QUARTER
FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/2020
FSP/
SAFE
MEASURE A SALES TAX
PALO VERDE
VALLEYGENERAL FUND
15
Revenues
Sales tax
Federal reimbursements
State reimbursements
Local reimbursements
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Toll revenues
Toll violations and fee revenues
Other revenues
Investment income
Gain on sale of land
Total revenues
Expenditures/Expenses
Salaries and benefits
Professional and support
Professional services
Support costs
Total Professional and support costs
Projects and operations
Program operations
Engineering
Construction
Design Build
Right of way/land
Operating and capital disbursements
Special studies
Local streets and roads
Regional arterials
Total projects and operations
Debt service
Principal
Interest
Total debt service
Capital outlay
Depreciation
Total Expenditures/Expenses
Excess revenues over (under)
expenditures/expenses
Other financing sources/(uses)
Transfer in
Transfer out
TIFIA loan proceeds
Total financing sources/(uses)
Net change in fund balances
Fund balance July 1, 2020
Fund balance December 31, 2020
ENTERPRISE FUND
TOLL OPERATIONS
-$ -$ -$ -$ 115,431,172$
- - - 759,031 381,183
- - - - 14,438,889
- - - - 4,782,541
- - - - -
17,999,007 - - - 17,999,007
2,879,026 - - - 2,879,026
52,410 - - - 385,968
423,236 547,488 173,954 7,582 2,300,308
1,772,393 - - - 1,772,393
23,126,072 547,488 173,954 766,613 160,370,487
380,447 - - - 5,021,182
380,476 - - - 3,388,548
986,586 - - - 3,768,772
1,367,062 - - - 7,157,320
3,592,836 - - - 9,938,420
- - - - 3,258,794
77,942 - - - 42,969,094
- - - - 25,099,415
- - - - 7,542,235
- - - - 35,900,647
- - - - -
- - - - 21,883,224
- - - - 5,330,825
3,670,778 - - - 151,922,654
- - - - -
14,782,117 - 93,020 20,512,019 35,387,156
14,782,117 - 93,020 20,512,019 35,387,156
- - - - 1,144,383
2,694,542 - - - 2,694,542
22,894,946 - 93,020 20,512,019 203,327,237
231,126 547,488 80,934 (19,745,406) (42,956,750)
- - - 34,759,519 55,139,717
(489,200) - (8,614,450) - (55,139,717)
- - - - 15,660,996
(489,200) - (8,614,450) 34,759,519 15,660,996
(258,074) 547,488 (8,533,516) 15,014,113 (27,295,754)
(276,232,056) 18,123,165 70,028,781 11,652,316 534,094,125
(276,490,130)$ 18,670,653$ 61,495,265$ 26,666,429$ 506,798,371$
DEBT SERVICECOMMERCIAL PAPER SALES TAX
BONDS
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
QUARTERLY BUDGET TO ACTUAL BY FUND
2ND QUARTER
FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/2020
COMBINED TOTAL
16
AGENDA ITEM 7
Agenda Item 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 22, 2021
TO: Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM: David Knudsen, Legislative Affairs Manager
THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
DISCUSSION:
State Update
On March 10, 2021, Governor Newsom delivered his third state of the state address. In years
past, the Governor typically delivers this annual address before a joint session of the Legislature
in Sacramento. This year, the speech was held at an empty Dodger Stadium to comply with
COVID-19 protocols and symbolize the number of Californians killed by COVID-19.
Governor Newsom did not announce any new policy initiatives as is customary at this event.
Instead, he focused on the state's actions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and looking
forward to economic recovery.
Governor Newsom’s Golden State Stimulus
Governor Newsom signed a $7.6 billion coronavirus relief package on February 23, 2021, that will
give at least $600 one-time payments to 5.7 million people while setting aside more than
$2 billion in grants for small businesses. This COVID-19 relief package is based on the Governor's
initiatives outlined in his January state budget proposal to the Legislature, including relief to
lower-income Californians and increased aid to small businesses. The Legislature is expected to
continue passing COVID-19 relief legislation throughout the spring, particularly aimed at assisting
struggling businesses.
State Distribution of COVID-19 Federal Emergency Transportation Funding
For the last several weeks, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has held stakeholder
workshops to determine the methodology to distribute approximately $912 million in federal
17
Agenda Item 7
transportation funding California is expected to receive as part of the $900 billion Coronavirus
Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) Congress passed in
December 2020.
Materials distributed by staff from the CTC and Caltrans include three distribution scenarios for
CRRSAA funds:
1. Distribute 40 percent of the funds to regions via Surface Transportation Block Grant
(STBG) formula;
2. Distribute more of the 40 percent to regions with populations greater than 200,000 by
STBG; or
3. Distribute all funds through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
In all three scenarios, RCTC’s share ranges between $20 to $23 million. A fourth option has
recently emerged, which is a hybrid approach between STBG and STIP. On March 9, 2021, a
collection of 10 regional transportation agencies sent a letter to California Transportation
Commission (CTC) Executive Director Mitch Weiss, supporting the hybrid approach. As of the
writing of this staff report, a final methodology has not yet been determined, but RCTC staff
continue to participate in the process to ensure Riverside County receives its fair share.
Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure Draft Release
The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) released the draft Climate Action Plan for
Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI or Plan) on March 10, 2021. CAPTI outlines key investment
strategies for investing $5 billion of discretionary transportation dollars annually to combat and
adapt to climate change while supporting public health, safety, and equity. The plan builds on
executive orders signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2019 and 2020 intended to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in transportation.
According to CalSTA, the draft Plan will not change the “fix-it-first” approach to maintaining the
state’s highways, roads, and bridges via SB 1. However, where feasible and within existing
funding program structures, the state will invest discretionary transportation funds in sustainable
infrastructure projects that align with its climate, health, and social equity goals. The Plan calls
for increased investments to support zero-emission transit, freight and rail, as well as projects
that expand access to walking, biking, and transit to reduce dependence on driving.
The draft plan has 10 guiding principles:
• Building toward an integrated, statewide rail and transit network;
• Investing in networks of safe and accessible bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure;
• Including investments in light-, medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle
infrastructure;
• Strengthening the commitment to social and racial equity by reducing public health and
economic harms and maximizing community benefits;
18
Agenda Item 7
• Making safety improvements to reduce fatalities and severe injuries of all users toward
zero;
• Assessing physical climate risk for transportation infrastructure projects;
• Promoting projects that do not substantially increase passenger vehicle travel;
• Promoting compact infill development while protecting residents and businesses from
displacement;
• Developing a zero-emission freight transportation system; and
• Protecting natural and working lands.
For the last year, RCTC staff have provided feedback to CalSTA regarding the implementation of
CAPTI by submitting comments and participating in meetings to reinforce the local perspective
that a “one size fits all” climate action approach will not work. This is especially true for regions
like Riverside County already identified as one of the fastest growing counties in the state and
with a significant population required to commute outside the County to job-centers.
CalSTA will present the Plan to the CTC on March 24, 2021 and to the joint meeting between CTC,
California Air Resources Board, and California Department of Housing and Community
Development on April 8, 2021. Opportunity for public comment will end on May 4, 2021, with
the final Plan release by June 2021. RCTC staff will review and prepare comments on the draft
Plan.
Federal Update
Surface Transportation Reauthorization
With COVID-19 relief legislation signed by President Biden in early March, House and Senate
Committees are preparing to draft surface transportation reauthorization legislation to be passed
before September 30, 2021. The current law, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST)
Act, expired on September 30, 2020. When Congress did not pass replacement legislation, a
one-year extension of the FAST Act programs was enacted. The Senate's Environment and Public
Works (EPW) Committee, with jurisdiction over highway programs, requested transportation
stakeholders submit policy priorities, which will be considered during the drafting phase of the
surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Both Senators Feinstein and Padilla requested
all policy proposals be submitted by March 9, 2021.
RCTC staff recommended two specific policy priorities:
• Ensure RCTC is eligible for all new discretionary grant programs; and
• Recognize the environmental impacts to communities from the idling of vehicles at
railroad crossings.
These priorities are based on the amendments RCTC staff were able to get included during the
debate last year on H.R. 2, the House’s 2020 version of surface transportation reauthorization
19
Agenda Item 7
legislation. In addition, RCTC staff are working behind the scenes to ensure policies are not added
that would create obstacles to the utilization of tolling as a tool to finance infrastructure projects
and to support policies intended to streamline the environmental process to reduce project
delivery timelines.
In order to help build bipartisan support for reauthorization legislation, House Democrats are
allowing for earmarks to be utilized as a way to allow Representatives’ input in the legislation.
Reintroduction of Congressional Earmarks – House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee
In advance of surface transportation authorization legislation this spring, Chairman Peter DeFazio
(D-Oregon) of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (Committee)
announced ways for Congressmembers to submit requests for highway and transit project
designations (earmarks). Chairman DeFazio stated the new project submission process would
allow Members of Congress to have more direct engagement on infrastructure projects.
The Committee will require that each project submitted to the Committee for consideration
include the following information:
• Documentation of whether the project is on the State, Tribal, or Territorial Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP); and on the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), if applicable;
• Sources of funding for the full share of the cost of the project beyond the amount
requested;
• Letter(s) of support from the State Department of Transportation, or local government,
transit agency, or other non-federal sponsor;
• A description of the process that has been or will be followed to provide an opportunity
for public comment on the project;
• Project phase (e.g. Planning, Final Design, Construction);
• NEPA category of action (e.g. Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment,
Environmental Impact Statement);
• Status of environmental review;
• Whether the project has received federal funding previously, and if so the source and
amount; and
• Certification that the Member of Congress, their spouse, and other immediate family
members do not have a financial interest in the project.
Reintroduction of Congressional Earmarks – House Appropriations Committee
The House Appropriations Committee is also allowing earmarks. The Appropriations Committee
process is separate and apart from the House Transportation and Infrastructure project process
discussed above.
20
Agenda Item 7
On March 4, 2021, Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) sent a letter to House Members seeking
submissions for “Community Project Funding,” a rebranding of earmarks associated with the
Appropriations Committee. The process will include more transparency than in past years,
including a requirement that neither a Member of Congress nor their family members benefit
from a project’s funding, as well as a requirement that projects be randomly audited to ensure
money was spent as planned. Also, new rules will cap the overall amount of money spent on
earmarks to one percent of federal discretionary spending and will limit lawmakers to submit no
more than 10 project requests each. All requests will be posted online, and funds cannot flow to
for-profit recipients.
While earmarks have been requested by House Democrats, House Republicans and the Senate
have not agreed to support earmarks as of the writing of this staff report. RCTC staff are currently
evaluating what projects should be submitted for earmark consideration based on the current
House criteria.
Attachments:
1) Letter - Representative Rosa DeLauro Earmark Announcement
2) Letter - CRSSA Hybrid Distribution
21
ATTACHMENT 122
23
Committee on Appropriations
Guidelines for the FY2022 Community Project Funding Member Request Process
What is required for requesting Community Project Funding?
Limit of 10 Community Project Funding requests. Given the limited scope for which
the Committee will consider Community Project Funding requests, Members will be
limited to no more than 10 requests (excluding programmatic and language requests)
across all Subcommittees, though only a handful may actually be funded. Members will
be required to prioritize their community project requests when they are submitted to the
Member database.
Community Support. Community engagement and support is crucial in determining
which projects are worthy of Federal funding. Only projects with demonstrated
community support will be considered. This recommendation builds on past Committee
reforms, and Members will be required to present to the Committee evidence of
community support that were compelling factors in their decision to submit the request.
Examples of these include, but are not limited to:
o Letters of support from elected community leaders (e.g. mayors or other
officials);
o Press articles highlighting the need for the requested Community Project Funding;
o Support from newspaper editorial boards;
o Projects listed on State intended use plans, community development plans, or
other publicly available planning documents; or
o Resolutions passed by city councils or boards.
These are intended to be examples of the type of information that you may consider
presenting to the Committee in conjunction with your project. It is not an exhaustive list.
Please direct questions to the relevant Subcommittee.
Financial Disclosure Statement. Pursuant to House rule XXIII, clause 17, for each
Community Project Funding request, Members are required to send the Chair and
Ranking Member a letter stating that the Member does not have a financial interest in the
proposed project. The Committee is expanding the requirement for the first time to certify
that no one in their immediate family has a financial interest either. The Committee will
not consider a requested project without this certification, and the template is included on
the Committee’s website. This is a separate letter from any programmatic or language-
based requests. A summary of the elements required in the disclosure statement is below:
24
o Any Member requesting funding for a community project is required to provide a
written statement to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee on
Appropriations that includes the requesting Member’s name, the name and
address of the intended recipient of the “Congressional earmark” (or, if there is
no intended recipient, the intended location of the activity), the purpose, and a
certification that the requesting Member does not have a financial interest in the
project. An additional Committee requirement is to certify that no immediate
family member has a financial interest.
This letter must accompany the submission in the Committee’s electronic database system,
and the Committee will post it online if the request is funded in a FY 2022 Appropriations
Bill. Programmatic and language-based requests do not require a disclosure letter. All
Community Project Funding requests and any language requests that name a specific
recipient of Federal funds will require a disclosure letter. For clarification on whether a
disclosure letter is required, please contact the Subcommittee of jurisdiction.
Member Requirement to Post All Requests Online. For transparency, Members are
required to post Community Project Funding requests on their house.gov websites at the
time the request is made to the Committee. The information posted must include:
o the proposed recipient,
o the address of the recipient,
o the amount of the request,
o and an explanation of the request, including purpose, and a justification for why it
is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.
Members will be asked to provide a link to the webpage containing this information when
they enter the request into the Members’ Request database system. The Committee will
use that link in its “one-stop” online database.
What criteria will be used to evaluate Community Project Funding requests?
Specific instructions will be provided in Dear Colleagues from each of the Subcommittee Chairs,
including which accounts are eligible for such requests and the information Members must
include for Subcommittees to properly evaluate such requests. This information must be
provided in full in the database. More generally, Subcommittees will consider requests with the
following in mind:
Ban on For-Profit recipients. The Committee is imposing a ban on directing
Community Project Funding to for-profit entities.
25
�� M a t c h i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . S e v e r a l F e d e r a l p r o g r a m s e l i g i b l e f o r C o m m u n i t y P r o j e c t
F u n d i n g r e q u e s t s r e q u i r e a S t a t e o r l o c a l m a t c h f o r p r o j e c t s e i t h e r b y s t a t u t e o r a c c o r d i n g
t o l o n g s t a n d i n g p o l i c y . T h e C o m m i t t e e w i l l n o t w a i v e t h e s e m a t c h i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r
C o m m u n i t y P r o j e c t F u n d i n g r e q u e s t s , s o i t i s i m p o r t a n t t h a t M e m b e r o f f i c e s d i s c u s s w i t h
t h e i r S t a t e a n d l o c a l o f f i c i a l s t h e a b i l i t y f o r l o c a l i t i e s t o m e e t m a t c h i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s p r i o r
t o r e q u e s t i n g a p r o j e c t . N o t e : T h i s d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t m a t c h i n g f u n d s m u s t b e i n - h a n d
p r i o r t o r e q u e s t i n g a p r o j e c t , b u t t h a t l o c a l o f f i c i a l s m u s t h a v e a p l a n t o m e e t s u c h
r e q u i r e m e n t s i n o r d e r f o r s u c h a p r o j e c t t o b e v i a b l e .
�� O n e - y e a r f u n d i n g . E a c h p r o j e c t r e q u e s t m u s t b e f o r f i s c a l y e a r 2 0 2 2 f u n d s o n l y a n d
c a n n o t i n c l u d e a r e q u e s t f o r m u l t i y e a r f u n d i n g .
�� S t a t e o r l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t i e s a s g r a n t e e s . M e m b e r s a r e e n c o u r a g e d t o c o n s i d e r
p u b l i c e n t i t i e s a s p r i m a r y g r a n t e e s t o o v e r s e e t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t .
o F o r i n f r a s t r u c t u r e p r o j e c t s , m a n y S t a t e s h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d l i s t s o r i n t e n d e d u s e
p l a n s w i t h p r o j e c t s t h a t h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n v e t t e d b y g o v e r n m e n t a l o f f i c i a l s ( e . g .
d r i n k i n g w a t e r , w a s t e w a t e r a n d h i g h w a y s ) .
�� N o n - p r o f i t s a s g r a n t e e s . I f a M e m b e r r e q u e s t s t h a t f u n d i n g b e d i r e c t e d t o a n o n - p r o f i t
o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e M e m b e r w i l l n e e d t o p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e c i p i e n t i s a n o n - p r o f i t
o r g a n i z a t i o n a s d e s c r i b e d u n d e r s e c t i o n 5 0 1 ( c ) ( 3 ) o f t h e I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e C o d e o f 1 9 8 6 .
F u r t h e r , m a n y w a t e r p r o j e c t s o f t e n p a r t n e r w i t h n o n - p r o f i t e n t i t i e s t o c o m p l e t e p r o j e c t s .
T h e r e f o r e , p r o j e c t s m a y a l s o b e d i r e c t e d t o n o n - p r o f i t s w i t h a n i n h e r e n t l y g o v e r n m e n t a l
f u n c t i o n .
W h a t a d d i t i o n a l i t e m s s h o u l d I b e a w a r e o f r e l a t e d t o C o m m u n i t y P r o j e c t F u n d i n g r e q u e s t s ?
�� L o b b y i s t s , d o n o r s a n d o t h e r a f f i l i a t e d p a r t i e s . W h i l e M e m b e r s a r e r e q u i r e d t o c e r t i f y
t o t h e C o m m i t t e e t h a t n e i t h e r t h e y n o r t h e i r i m m e d i a t e f a m i l y h a v e a f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t i n
a p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t , M e m b e r s s h o u l d a l s o b e f u l l y a w a r e o f a n y o t h e r f i n a n c i a l a s p e c t s o r
r e l a t i o n s h i p s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t t h a t m i g h t r a i s e e t h i c a l c o n c e r n s .
T h e s e i n c l u d e b u t a r e n o t l i m i t e d t o l o b b y i s t s , d o n o r s , o r o t h e r a f f i l i a t e d p a r t i e s t h a t
h a v e a n i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o j e c t .
�� O n e - s t o p w e b p a g e f o r t h e p u b l i c . T h e A p p r o p r i a t i o n s C o m m i t t e e w i l l m a i n t a i n a
w e b s i t e w i t h l i n k s t o a l l H o u s e M e m b e r s a p p r o p r i a t i o n s p r o j e c t r e q u e s t s t o h e l p t h e
p u b l i c e a s i l y v i e w t h e m .
�� T r a n s p a r e n c y / E a r l y P u b l i c D i s c l o s u r e . P e r H o u s e r u l e s , e a c h b i l l s C o m m i t t e e r e p o r t
w i l l i n c l u d e a l i s t i d e n t i f y i n g e a c h c o m m u n i t y p r o j e c t t h a t h a s b e e n f u n d e d i n t h e b i l l
2 6
along with the name of the Member requesting it. Each Subcommittee will make such
lists public at the time of their Subcommittee markup.
What is the definition of “Earmark?
The Appropriations Committee uses the definition of “earmark” found in House rule
XXI.
A “Congressional earmark” is defined as “a provision or report language included
primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator
providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget
authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan
guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a
specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative formula driven or competitive award process.” (Clause 9 of House rule
XXI)
27
DIRECTIONS FOR MEMBER CERTIFICATIONS:
Pursuant to House rule XXIII, clause 17, Members are required to send the Chair and Ranking
Member a letter stating that the Member does not have a financial interest in certain proposed
projects. In order to be in compliance with the House rule and additional requirements
established by the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, below please find suggested text for a
certification to accompany a Community Project Funding request.
Dear Chair DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger:
“I am requesting funding for [project] in fiscal year 2022.
The entity to receive funding for this project is , located at
(address including street name, city, state and zip code)
The funding would be used for .
I certify that neither I nor my immediate family has any financial interest in this
project.”
Sincerely,
Member of Congress
The certifications must be on letterhead and must be signed by the Member. In accordance with
House rules, certifications for projects included in any measures will be available for the public
to see.
Please prepare the certification on letterhead and scan a copy for attachment the PDF document
with each request to be uploaded to the database.
28
For questions about individual requests please contact the appropriate subcommittee staff. For
questions regarding the certification process please contact Jason Gray with the Full Committee.
Requirements For Community Project Certifications (“Certs”)
Must be signed by Member and on Member letterhead
Must include:
o Member name – the name of the Member of Congress requesting the Project.
o Name and address of the intended recipient (if none, the location of the activity
should be listed).
o Purpose of the requested project – include a brief description of the intended use of
funds.
o Statement that the Member and immediate family has no financial interest in the
requested project.
o For the purposes of this certification the term ‘‘immediate family’’ means an
individual who is related to the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, as
father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, father-in-law, or mother-
in-law.
29
March 9, 2021
Mr. Mitch Weiss
Executive Director
California Transportation Commission
1120 N. Street, MS 52
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021
Highway Infrastructure Programs Funding Distribution
Dear Executive Director Weiss:
On behalf of the undersigned regional transportation agencies, we would like to thank the
California Transportation Commission (CTC) for their leadership and collaborative approach in
developing a distribution and administration methodology for the $911 million in Highway
Infrastructure Program funding provided to the State under the Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (CRRSAA). The purpose of the CRRSAA Highway
Infrastructure Program is to address the impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on
highway infrastructure programs including costs related to preventive maintenance, routine
maintenance, operations, personnel, including salaries of employees or contractors, debt service
payments, availability payments, and coverage for other revenue losses.
Following the strong precedent of state and regional partnership in the distribution of federal
highway formula funding over multiple federal transportation authorization bills, the regional
transportation agencies support the proposed 60% State and 40% regional distribution proposal for
distributing the total $911 million of CRRSAA Highway Infrastructure Programs funding
available to California. Of the resulting $365 million of regional funds, we support the following
distribution:
•$183 million, as identified in CRRSAA for Large Urbanized Areas (UZA) over 200,000,
distributed to all of the State’s regional agencies that historically receive Surface
Transportation Block Grant (STBG) apportionment regardless of size through the
established STBG formula, administered by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Local Assistance in the same manner as STBG funds; and
•$182 million, or the remaining amount of the 40 percent regional share, distributed by the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) formula for the Regional Improvement
Program (RIP), administered by the CTC.
We believe that this approach is the most equitable and efficient way to address the impacts of
COVID-19 on both large and small transportation agencies in the State and will ensure that these
vital funds can be directed to where they are most needed as quickly as possible. The proposal
recognizes the needs of both large and small counties by using a combination of the standard STBG
ATTACHMENT 2
30
Executive Director Weiss
March 9, 2021
Page 2 of 3
population formula, which generally benefits larger counties, and the STIP formula, which
generally benefits smaller and more rural counties. The above proposal also recognizes the
limitations in state law regarding expenditure of STIP funds, including limits on operations,
maintenance, and salary backfill. By distributing part of the regional funds through the Caltrans
Local Assistance process in the same manner of STBG funds, regions can ensure the CRRSAA
funds are spent expeditiously and with the flexibility Congress provided.
Finally, the above proposal meets the CRRSAA law’s intent for at least $183 million to be
suballocated to large UZAs over 200,000 in population, even though a portion of the large UZA
amount will be satisfied via the STIP. While the undersigned regions are comfortable with this
approach in the interest of reaching consensus on this particular funding distribution proposal, this
approach should not set precedent as it is our collective expectation to continue discussing
distribution options for any future federal funding.
We sincerely appreciate the ongoing partnership of the CTC to support the relief of regional and
local agencies along with the communities they serve that have been critically impacted by
COVID-19 over the last year, as well as CTC’s flexibility and creative thinking in getting these
funds out to agencies as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Therese McMillan, Executive Director
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC)
James Corless, Executive Director
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
(SACOG)
Philip Washington, Chief Executive Officer
LA Metro
Beth Burks, Executive Director
Humboldt County Association of
Governments (HCAOG)
Mark Baza, Executive Director
Imperial County Transportation Commission
(ICTC)
Darrell Johnson, Chief Executive Officer
Orange County Transportation Agency
(OCTA)
Ann Mayer, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC)
Diane Nguyen, Executive Director
San Joaquin Council of Governments
(SJCOG)
31
Executive Director Weiss
March 9, 2021
Page 3 of 3
Guy Preston, Executive Director
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation
Commission (SCCRTC)
Darren Kettle, Executive Director
Ventura County Transportation Commission
(VCTC)
cc: Ms. Tanisha Taylor, Chief Deputy Director, CTC
Ms. Teresa Favila, Deputy Director of Traditional Programming, CTC
32
AGENDA ITEM 8
Agenda Item 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 22, 2021
TO: Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM: Technical Advisory Committee
Jenny Chan, Planning and Programming Manager
THROUGH: Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Director
SUBJECT: Active Transportation Program Cycle 5 – Riverside County Project
Recommendations for Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Program
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the Riverside County Active Transportation Program (ATP) projects for inclusion
in the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) ATP Regional Program Cycle 5
consisting of the highest scoring projects in the total amount of $11,305,000;
2) Authorize staff to adjust the ATP award request to include Riverside County – Public
Health’s Safe Routes for All – Hemet Project to maximize available funds in Riverside
County;
3) Submit the list of recommended and contingency projects to the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the MPO ATP Regional Program and
subsequent submittal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for final
approval in June 2021;
4) Authorize staff to request state-only ATP funds for all projects, which all have cleared and
completed state environmental clearance;
5) Submit the MPO ATP regional projects to SCAG for programming in the Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP);
6) Direct staff to coordinate with the MPO ATP Regional Program project sponsors regarding
timely funding allocations, obligations, and project delivery;
7) Prioritize Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG)’s Coachella Valley Arts and
Music Line project for any future supplemental ATP Cycle 5 funding; and
8) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Senate Bill 99 created the ATP focusing state and federal funds toward projects that improve
public health and reduce greenhouse gases. The CTC is responsible for administering the program
including the development of guidelines, which involves local agency and public input. Project
categories for these funds mainly include pedestrian and bicycle facilities or programs that
enhance or encourage walking and bicycling. ATP Cycle 5 began with the CTC releasing a call for
33
Agenda Item 8
projects on March 25, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, CTC staff held a virtual public
workshop on April 8, 2020, to discuss schedule revisions. The CTC approved a three-month delay
to all aspects of the ATP, including application submittal, evaluation, and program adoption. The
call for projects included three categories of funding:
Funding Category Amount
Statewide Competitive (50%) $220,780,000
Small Urban and Rural Competitive (10%) 44,156,000
Large MPO Competitive (40%) 176,624,000
Total Available ATP Funds – Cycle 5 $441,560,000
Applications were due to the CTC and Caltrans by September 15, 2020. The CTC received a total
of 454 project applications requesting over $2.3 billion in ATP funds over four Fiscal Years (FY)
2021/22 through 2024/25. Scoring of applications was managed by the CTC and involved the
participation of various agencies including, but not limited to, regional transportation planning
agencies, MPOs, Caltrans, councils of governments, county public health departments, and
advocacy and interest groups such as Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS), California Bicycle Coalition,
and Rails to Trails. In total, Riverside County agencies submitted 30 projects requesting
approximately $137 million of ATP funding in Cycle 5.
The ATP process allows applicants two opportunities to receive funding – the statewide and large
MPO levels. As part of the sequential project selection, projects are first evaluated statewide and
those that are not ranked high enough to receive statewide funding are automatically provided
a second opportunity for funding through the large MPO share.
Applications were scored based on the following criteria established by the CTC:
• Benefits to Disadvantaged
Communities (DAC)
• Need
• Safety
• Public Participation & Planning
• Scope and Plan Consistency
• Implementation & Plan
Development
• Context Sensitive & Innovation
• Transformative Projects
• Cost Effective
• Leveraging Funds
• Conservation Corps Coordination
• Past Performance
DISCUSSION:
CTC Statewide Competitive Funding Recommendations
On March 24, 2021, the CTC is anticipated to approve the project recommendations for the
statewide competitive component, which include the following two projects from Riverside
County:
34
Agenda Item 8
CTC ATP PROJECT FUNDING FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY – STATEWIDE COMPETITION
Agency Project ATP Request *DAC CTC
Score
Perris City of Perris Bike & Pedestrian
Network Project $1,931,000 X 98
Riverside County Safe Routes to School – San Jacinto 600,000 X 95
Riverside County Statewide Total $2,531,000
MPO Regional Program Recommendations
The SCAG MPO ATP share is $93.4 million for the six-county region and includes approximately
$88 million for implementation projects and $4.6 million for planning and non-infrastructure
activities. The $88 million for implementation projects is distributed by county based on
population. The remaining $4.6 million is allocated to SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Program
(SCP).
County Infrastructure
Funding Amount
Imperial $882,000
Los Angeles 47,506,000
Orange 14,930,000
Riverside 11,305,000
San Bernardino 10,157,000
Ventura 3,969,000
Total $88,749,000
ATP guidelines require that large MPOs, such as SCAG, work with the county transportation
commissions to develop their regional program recommendations. In ATP Cycle 5, SCAG allowed
each county transportation commission to develop its own point distribution methodology to
award 20 points to the CTC score. In November 2020, the Commission approved the 20-point
methodology as presented in Table 1.
Table 1: RCTC-Adopted 20-Point Distribution
Criteria Points
1. Requesting construction-only funding 6
2. Construction funding in the first two years of programming & PA/ED
completed
10
3. Projects identified in WRCOG Sub-regional Active Transportation Plan or
CVAG Non-Motorized Plan; or an adopted local active transportation plan,
bike or pedestrian master plan, or Safe Routes to School Plan
4
35
Agenda Item 8
Adding 20 points to Riverside County project scores for the projects not recommended for the
statewide competitive program results in the next highest scored projects that can be funded
from Riverside County’s share of MPO funding (Attachment 1).
After fully funding the highest scoring project, Cathedral City’s Downtown Cathedral City
Connector project, the balance available to fund the next set of projects is $6,922,000. The
second highest scoring project is CVAG’s Coachella Valley Arts & Music Line, with an ATP request
of $16,903,000. Staff inquired with CVAG if the agency could accept partial MPO funding and if
CVAG had sufficient funding to cover the $9,981,000 balance. CVAG indicated it did not have
funds to cover the remaining balance, therefore, staff moved down the project list to fully fund
the next three highest scoring projects. After fully funding four infrastructure projects, a balance
of $348,000 remained that would be returned to the SCAG MPO share. To utilize the remaining
funds in Riverside County, staff recommends funding Riverside County Public Health’s
non-infrastructure project, Safe Routes for All – Hemet, as it is the highest scored
non-infrastructure project. Riverside County Public Health has committed to funding the
remaining balance of $288,000 with agency funds.
Staff recommends the following five projects for the MPO ATP Regional Program. Upon approval,
stall will submit the list of recommended projects and the contingency list to SCAG for inclusion
in the MPO ATP Regional Program and subsequent submittal to CTC for final approval in
June 2021. Staff will work with SCAG and CTC staff to request state-only ATP funds for the five
MPO projects, which have completed state environmental clearance. Staff will also work with
project sponsors to program the projects into the SCAG FTIP and coordinate with project
sponsors on timely allocation of ATP funds to ensure successful delivery of these critical active
transportation projects. Staff will continue to work with CVAG to review ways to improve the
competitiveness for transformative projects like the Coachella Valley Arts & Music Line in future
cycles. Until then, CVAG is requesting the Commission to prioritize the project in the event
supplemental funds are available to the ATP Cycle 5 Call for Projects (Attachment 2). Staff
recommends prioritizing CVAG’s Coachella Valley Arts & Music Line project should ATP Cycle 5
supplemental funding become available.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY MPO PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
Agency Project ATP Request Cumulative
Total
CTC Score/
RCTC Score
Cathedral City Downtown Cathedral City
Connectors $4,383,000 90/110
Desert Hot
Springs Palm Drive Improvements 3,700,000 $8,083,000 86.5/106.5
Eastvale Southeast Eastvale SRTS
Equitable Access Project 1,420,000 9,503,000 87/101
Wildomar Bundy Canyon Active
Transportation Corridor 1,454,000 10,957,000 79/99
36
Agenda Item 8
Riverside County
– Public Health
Safe Routes for All – Hemet
(non-infrastructure) 348,000 11,305,000 91/NA
SCAG Sustainable Communities Program
As part of the MPO ATP share, SCAG sets aside 5 percent for planning and non-infrastructure
activities. These funds are distributed through the SCP. SCAG staff is currently preparing its draft
SCP recommendations.
Next Steps
Upon Commission approval of staff’s recommendations, staff will submit the projects to SCAG
for inclusion in the MPO ATP Regional Program Cycle 5. Subsequently, SCAG will submit the MPO
Regional Program projects to the CTC for final approval at the June 2021 CTC meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
ATP funds are administered through the CTC, Caltrans, and the Federal Highway Administration.
The Commission is not a recipient of these MPO ATP funds; therefore, there is no fiscal impact to
the Commission’s budget.
Attachments:
1) ATP Scores for All Riverside County Applications
2) CVAG Letter for Coachella Valley Arts & Music Line
37
AgencyProject Name Total Project Cost ATP Request PA/ED PS&E ROW CON CON‐NI 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25MPO ScoreSTATE ScorePerrisCity of Perris Bike & Ped Network Project1,999 1,931 1,896 35 35 1,896 98Riverside County Safe Routes for All ‐ San Jacinto600 600 600 600 95TOTAL 2,599 2,531 AgencyProject Name Total Project Cost ATP Request PA/ED PS&E ROW CON CON‐NI 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25MPO ScoreSTATE ScoreMPO pointsPlan 4ptsCON‐ONLY6 ptsCON in first 2 & CEQA 10 ptsCathedral CityDowntown Cathedral City Connectors: Gap Closure & Complete Streets Improvement 5,566 4,383 4,383 4,383 110 90 20 4 6 10Desert Hot Springs Palm Drive Improvements4,905 3,700 3,700 3,700 106.5 86.5 20 4 6 10EastvaleSE Eastvale SRTS Equitable Access Project1,420 1,420 150 1,270 1,420 101 87 14 4 0 10WildomarBundy Canyon Active Transportation Corridor3,990 1,454 1,377 77 1,377 77 99 79 20 4 6 10Riverside County Safe Routes for All ‐ Hemet636 348 636 636 NA91 NA NA NA NATOTAL 16,517 11,305 Riverside Share11,305 CVAGCoachella Valley Arts & Music Line26,818 16,903 16,903 16,903 108 88 20 4 6 10Desert Hot Springs Palm Drive Improvements ‐ I‐10 to Camino Aventura6,995 6,154 6,154 6,154 94 74 20 4 6 10WildomarMission Trail Active Transportation Project6,548 3,638 168 168 115 3,110 77 451 3,110 77 94 90 4 4 0 0Riverside County Hemet Area SRTS Sidewalk Project1,946 1,946 25 225 340 1,181 175 25 565 1,356 93 89 4 4 0 0RiversideFive Points Neighborhood Pedestrian Safety Improvements6,953 6,113 1,070 5,043 1,070 5,043 92 88 4 4 0 0TemeculaTemecula Creek Southside Trail Project3,637 3,218 3,160 58 58 3,160 92 82 10 4 6 0Desert Hot Springs DHS CV Link Extension Project32,572 29,035 1,290 27,745 1,290 27,745 91 87 4 4 0 0Riverside County Theda Street Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Project1,881 1,881 25 235 340 1,181 100 25 575 1,281 88 84 4 4 0 0MenifeeHarvest Valley Elementary SRTS2,997 2,397 15 230 40 2,112 245 40 2,112 87.5 83.5 4 4 0 0Riverside County Mecca‐North Shore Community Connector Bike Lanes10,055 10,055 200 1,600 8,205 50 200 1,600 8,205 50 86 82 4 4 0 0RiversideMitchelle Avenue Sidepath Gap Closure6,989 6,289 200 2,373 3,716 200 2,373 3,716 85 81 4 4 0 0MenifeeRomoland Elementary SRTS Sidewalk Gap Closure & Ped Improvements 6,413 5,453 60 260 50 5,083 370 5,083 83 79 4 4 0 0Riverside County Grand Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Imp Project2,820 2,820 25 400 250 2,045 100 25 650 2,145 83 79 4 4 0 0Jurupa Valley Pacific Avenue SRTS4,132 2,403 233 2,170 233 2,170 92 78 14 4 0 10EastvaleCucamonga Creek1,999 1,999 150 1,849 1,999 816714 4 0 10Moreno Valley South City Trail Project7,781 7,781 80 900 250 6,551 80 1,150 6,551 72 68 4 4 0 0Moreno Valley Heacock Street Improvements2,265 2,265 50 200 660 1,355 50 860 1,355 53 49 4 4 0 0Riverside County Skyview Road Pedestrian Bridge10,343 7,970 7,870 100 7,970 37 31 6 0 6 0CoachellaCoachella Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Project2,974 2,974 250 2,724 250 2,724 36 32 4 4 0 0MurrietaCopper Canyon Park Bridge664 664 20 60 584 20 644 30 26 4 4 0 0Riverside County Safe Routes for All ‐ Coachella657 657 657 657 89 NA NA NA NARiverside County Lakeview/Neuvo Active Transportation Plan ‐ Plan Only270 270 270 270 ineligibleNA NA NA NASan JacintoSan Jacinto Complete Streets Plan328 328 328 328 81 NA NA NA NA148,037 123,213 STATEWIDE COMPONENTMPO COMPONENTCONTINGENCY LIST ATTACHMENT 138
Anne Mayer
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
M�
Thank you for the recent update on the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 5 awards. I suppose
we should all take some pride in the fact that we have so many competitive ATP projects coming out of
the Coachella Valley. Unfortunately, after speaking to our partners on the Avenue 48/ Arts and Music
Line, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) will have to pass on a partial ATP grant
award of $6.9 million because it would require too large of a financial commitment locally.
By passing on the funding, we recognize that the City of Desert Hot Springs' project along Palm Drive
will become fully funded. Two other projects in western Riverside County are also expected to benefit.
That's important for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians, who far too often are getting hit and killed on
our roadways. However, this is the second year in a row where CVAG was in a competitive position, and
just points away from full funding. RCTC has been a longstanding partner in our efforts to improve ATP
access in the Coachella Valley, and we are hoping to talk with you about what RCTC resources (be it
staff time, technical expertise and perhaps regional funding) may be available to help these projects be
fully funded. Additionally, if ATP Cycle 5 funding is augmented, we look forward to working with you to
ensure the Arts and Music Line is considered for full or partial funding.
I'd add that, in the recent cycles of the ATP funding, we have heard from the State that there is a push to
have larger, more transformative projects. I think the applications out of the Coachella Valley reflect that
vision. They also reflect the needs of our valley. We intend to continue to think big when it comes to how
we improve active transportation routes in the Coachella Valley.
Please include this correspondence when the staff makes its recommendations to RCTC so it is provided
to all the Commissioners. I am happy to address any questions or provide additional information. And
thank you for your partnership.
Sincerely,
Tom Kirk
Executive Director
CITY OF BLvn1E · CITY or= CATHrnRAL CiTv · CITY OF CoArnELLA • CITY OF DEsrnT HOT SPRINGS. Clrv oF INDIAN WELLS
Orv OF INDIO· CITY OF LA Qu1NTA · Clrv OF PALM DEsrnr • CITY OF PALM SPRINGS. CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE. CouNTY OF R,vrnslDE
AGUA CALieNTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS . CABAZON BAND or MISSION INDIANS
ATTACHMENT 2
39
2021 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM -CYCLE 5
Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Program Recommendations
Jenny Chan, Planning and Programming Manager
1
ATP Program Overview
2
•Administered by the California Transportation
Commission (CTC)
•Funds bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs to
enhance or encourage walking and biking
•25% of ATP funds must fund projects in disadvantaged
communities
Distribution of Funds –Cycle 5
3
$445.56 M
(FY 21/22–24/25)
$4 M set aside CA
Conservation
Corps
$220.78 M (50%)
State Program
$44.16 M (10%)
Small/Rural
$176.62 M (40%)
MPO
$93.42 M
SCAG
$88.75 M (95%)
Implementation/
Construction
$11.305 M (12%)
Riverside County
$4.67 M (5%)
Planning/Non-
infrastructure +
SCAG 2020 SCP
454 Total Applications, requesting $2.3 B
30 from Riverside County, requesting $137 M
ATP Cycle 5 Statewide = $220.78 M
4
•CTC released the Statewide/Rural Program in February 2021
•Projects scoring 92 and above
•CTC will award 2 Riverside County Projects. Adoption March 2021
Agency Project ATP ($1,000s)CTC Score
Perris City of Perris Bike & Ped Network
Project
1,931 98
Riverside County Public
Health
Safe Routes for All –San Jacinto 600 95
TOTAL 2,531
ATP Cycle 5 MPO = $92.572 M
5
•Riverside County Share = $11.305 M
•SCAG MPO Guidelines allows additional 20 points
•Commission approved 20-point distribution methodology
20-Point Distribution Methodology Points
1.Requesting construction-only funding 6
2.Construction funding in the first two years of programming &PA/ED
completed
10
3.Projects identified in WRCOG Sub-regional Active Transportation Plan or
CVAG Non-Motorized Plan;or an adopted local active transportation plan,
bike or pedestrian master plan,or Safe Routes to School Plan
4
Riverside County MPO Share
Project Recommendation for Cycle 5
6
Agency Project ATP $(1000’s)MPO Score
Cathedral City Downtown Cathedral City Connectors: Gap Closure
& Complete Streets Improvement
4,383 110
Desert Hot Springs Palm Drive Improvements 3,700 106.5
Eastvale SE Eastvale SRTS Equitable Access Project 1,420 101
Wildomar Bundy Canyon Active Transportation Corridor 1,454 99
Riverside County
Public Health
Safe Routes for All –Hemet (non-infrastructure)348 NA
TOTAL $11,305
ATP Funded Projects
(Cycles 1-5)
7
Palo Verde Valley
Statewide Award
MPO Award
Cycle 5
Staff Recommendation
8
1)Approve the Riverside County Active Transportation Program (ATP)projects for inclusion in the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)ATP Regional Program Cycle 5 consisting of the highest
scoring projects in the total amount of $11,305,000;
2)Authorize staff to adjust the ATP award request to include Riverside County –Public Health’s Safe
Routes for All –Hemet Project to maximize available funds in Riverside County;
3)Submit the list of recommended and contingency projects to the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG)for inclusion in the MPO ATP Regional Program and subsequent submittal
to the California Transportation Commission (CTC)for final approval in June 2021;
4)Authorize staff to request state-only ATP funds for all projects,which all have cleared and
completed state environmental clearance;
5)Submit the MPO ATP regional projects to SCAG for programming in the Federal Transportation
Improvement Program (FTIP);
6)Direct staff to coordinate with the MPO ATP Regional Program project sponsors regarding timely
funding allocations,obligations,and project delivery;
7)Prioritize Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG)’s Coachella Valley Arts and Music
Line project for any future supplemental ATP Cycle 5 funding;and
8)Forward to the Commission for final action.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
MARCH 22, 2021
Present Absent
County of Riverside, District II X
County of Riverside, District III X
City of Banning X
City of Beaumont X
City of Calimesa X
City of Canyon Lake X
City of Cathedral City X
City of Coachella X
City of Desert Hot Springs X
City of Lake Elsinore X
City of Palm Desert X
City of Palm Springs X
City of San Jacinto X
City of Riverside X
City of Wildomar X