HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 April 14, 2021 Commission
MEETING AGENDA
TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, April 14, 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. Please follow the instructions on the following page to
join the meeting remotely.
COMMISSIONERS
Chair – Jan Harnik
Vice Chair – V. Manuel Perez
Second Vice Chair – Bob Magee
Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District 1
Karen Spiegel, County of Riverside, District 2
Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District 3
V. Manuel Perez, County of Riverside, District 4
Jeff Hewitt, County of Riverside, District 5
David Happe / Alberto Sanchez, City of Banning
Lloyd White / David Fenn, City of Beaumont
Joseph DeConinck / Johnny Rodriguez, City of Blythe
Linda Molina / Wendy Hewitt, City of Calimesa
Jeremy Smith / Larry Greene, City of Canyon Lake
Raymond Gregory / Mark Carnevale, City of Cathedral City
Steven Hernandez / Denise Delgado, City of Coachella
Wes Speake / Jim Steiner, City of Corona
Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs
Clint Lorimore / Todd Rigby, City of Eastvale
Linda Krupa / Russ Brown, City of Hemet
Dana Reed / Donna Griffith, City of Indian Wells
Waymond Fermon / Oscar Ortiz, City of Indio
Brian Berkson / Guillermo Silva, City of Jurupa Valley
Kathleen Fitzpatrick / Robert Radi, City of La Quinta
Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore
Bill Zimmerman / Dean Deines, City of Menifee
Yxstain Gutierrez / To Be Appointed, City of Moreno Valley
Scott Vinton / Lisa DeForest, City of Murrieta
Ted Hoffman / Katherine Aleman, City of Norco
Jan Harnik / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert
Lisa Middleton / Dennis Woods, City of Palm Springs
Michael M. Vargas / Rita Rogers, City of Perris
Ted Weill / Charles Townsend, City of Rancho Mirage
Chuck Conder / Erin Edwards, City of Riverside
Alonso Ledezma / Crystal Ruiz, City of San Jacinto
Matt Rahn / Maryann Edwards, City of Temecula
Ben J. Benoit / Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar
Mike Beauchamp, Governor’s Appointee Caltrans District 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
www.rctc.org
MEETING AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
9:30 a.m.
Wednesday, April 14, 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. Please follow the instructions below to join the
meeting remotely.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION
Join Zoom Meeting
https://rctc.zoom.us/j/82062012974
Meeting ID: 820 6201 2974
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,82062012974# US (San Jose)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
For members of the public wishing to submit comment in connection with the Commission Meeting
please email written comments to the Clerk of the Board at lmobley@rctc.org prior to April 13, 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 Commission 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
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
April 14, 2021
Page 2
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss
matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda.
Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on
the subsequent agenda for consideration.
5. 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. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission
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 – MARCH 10, 2021
Page 1
6B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Page 12
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements
for the six months ended December 31, 2020.
6C. POLICY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS AT COMMISSION-OWNED
PROPERTIES
Page 23
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Adopt a policy regarding the selection and installation of solar power systems at
Commission-owned properties; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. 21-003, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission Regarding the Policy for Implementation of Solar Power Systems at
Commission-Owned Properties”.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
April 14, 2021
Page 3
6D. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CYCLE 5 – RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION REGIONAL
PROGRAM
Page 29
Overview
This item is for the Commission 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; and
7) Prioritize Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG)’s Coachella Valley
Arts and Music Line project for any future supplemental ATP Cycle 5 funding.
6E. AMENDMENT TO CITY OF CORONA’S FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT
PLAN
Page 36
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve a $200,000 increase in the FY 2020/21 Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
funding allocation for the city of Corona (City); and
2) Amend the City’s Fiscal Year 2020/21 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to increase
the LTF operating allocation in the amount of $200,000 for operating expenses.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
April 14, 2021
Page 4
6F. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FOR ENHANCED
LANDSCAPING AND AESTHETICS TO ADD GRINDING AND PAVING OF GRAPE STREET
FOR THE INTERSTATE 15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
Page 41
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 19-31-031-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement
No. 19-31-031-00, with the city of Lake Elsinore (City) to add grinding and paving
for Grape Street for the Interstate 15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange
Improvements Project (Project) for an additional City contribution of $339,801, for
a total City contribution not to exceed $1,094,801; and
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
7. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Page 49
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation;
2) Adopt the following bill positions:
a) AB 1499 (Daly) – Support; and
b) SB 623 (Newman) – Support.
8. STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK LANES PROJECT UPDATE
Page 66
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive an oral report on the State Route 60 Truck Lanes
project.
9. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
10. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report
on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
April 14, 2021
Page 5
11. CLOSED SESSION
11A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee
Item Property Description Property Owner Buyer(s)
1 439-070-018 RCTC Arnie Veldkamp
2 439-070-065 RCTC Morgan McComas
3 117-111-005 RCTC Julian Bloch
4 229-082-010 and -006 RCTC Kingsfield Development
11B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1)
Case No(s). RIC1616789
12. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday,
May 12, 2021, via Zoom.
AGENDA ITEM 6A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 10, 2021
1.CALL TO ORDER
The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Jan Harnik at
9:32 a.m., via Zoom Meeting ID 895 2549 8654. Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive
Order N-29-20.
2.ROLL CALL
Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent
Ben J. Benoit Scott Matas Yxstain Gutierrez
Brian Berkson Lisa Middleton David Happe
Chuck Conder Linda Molina V. Manuel Perez
Joseph DeConinck* Diane Morales Michael M. Vargas
Waymond Fermon Matt Rahn
Kathleen Fitzpatrick Dana Reed
Raymond Gregory Wes Speake
Jan Harnik Karen Spiegel
Steven Hernandez Jeremy Smith
Jeff Hewitt Scott Vinton
Ted Hoffman Chuck Washington
Kevin Jeffries Ted Weill
Linda Krupa Lloyd White
Alonso Ledezma Bill Zimmerman
Clint Lorimore
Bob Magee
*Arrived after the meeting was called to order.
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Alonso Ledezma led the Commission in a flag salute.
4.PUBLIC COMMENTS
Arnold San Miguel, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), announced
that applications are now being received for the Sustainable Communities Program Smart
Cities and Mobility Innovations Program. It is a technical assistance program that
provides resources to complete local planning and promote healthy connected and
equitable communities. This call for applications encourages jurisdictions to partner with
1
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
March 10, 2021
Page 2
SCAG to find innovative solutions to challenges associated with parking, freight, last mile
deliveries, and commerce at the curb and applications are due April 23, 2021. One-to-
one coaching for potential applicants is available and the next application webinar is being
held April 5. He also announced the SCAG SoCal Greenprint Project; a Greenprint is a
strategic conservation mapping tool that highlights the benefits of natural lands, waters
and agricultural lands, including access to parks and trails, habitat protection and
connectivity, clean water, clean air, food production and increased resilience to climate
change. It is anticipated that it will be implemented this spring with a launch planned in
fall of 2021.
5.ADDITIONS / REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
6.CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Ted Hoffman requested to pull Agenda Item 6I, “Agreement with Stantec
Consulting Services, Inc., for Preparation of the Final Environmental Document,
Preliminary Engineering, Plans, Specifications and Estimates, and Construction Support
Services Related to the Santa Ana River Trail Project Phases 2, 2A and 3A in the Prado
Basin,” for clarification.
Commissioner Wes Speake requested to pull Agenda Item 6G, “Amendment to Agreement
with Sherry Matthews, Inc. for Express Lanes Marketing Services,” for further discussion.
M/S/C (Fitzpatrick/Molina) to approve the following Consent Calendar items.
6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 10, 2021
6B. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS
Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 3, 2020 (3Q 2020).
6C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended
December 31, 2020.
6D. QUARTERLY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT METRICS REPORT, OCTOBER-DECEMBER
2020
Receive and file the Quarterly Public Engagement Metrics Report for
October-December 2020.
2
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
March 10, 2021
Page 3
6E. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation.
6F. 91 EXPRESS LANES MONTHLY STATUS REPORTS
Receive and file the 91 Express Lanes Monthly Reports for the six months from
July to December 2020.
6H. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP TO
PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL REVALIDATION AND PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, COST
ESTIMATES, AND RELATED SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE STATE ROUTE
71/STATE ROUTE 91 INTERCHANGE PROJECT
1) Approve Agreement No. 11-31-110-16, Amendment No. 16 to Agreement
No. 11-31-110-00, with Parsons Transportation Group (Parsons) to provide
professional services for the preparation of an environmental revalidation
and plans, specifications, and cost estimates (PS&E) and related services
for improvements on the State Route 71/State Route 91 (71/91)
interchange project (Project), from approximately one-quarter mile west
of Green River Road to Serfas Club Drive in the city of Corona, for an
additional amount of $1,293,547, and a total amount not to exceed
$14,167,025; and
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
6J. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES ACCESS FOR ALL PROGRAM
1) Authorize the Commission to become the Access Fund Administrator (AFA)
for the Transportation Network Companies (TNC) Access for All program
for Riverside County; and
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.
7. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 BUDGET
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, presented the proposed Policy Goals and
Objectives for FY 2021/22 Budget, highlighting the following:
• Budget development
• Commission goals and objectives, and short-term objectives
• Guiding fiscal policies and next steps
3
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
March 10, 2021
Page 4
At this time, Commissioner Washington left the meeting and Commissioner Joey
DeConinick joined the meeting.
M/S/C (Ledezma/Middleton) to:
1) Review and approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and
Objectives for the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget; and
2) Review and approve the Fiscal Accountability Policies for the FY 2021/22
Budget.
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
County of Riverside request for the additional CMAQ funds for the Salt Creek Trail. She
introduced Cathy Wampler, Project Manager, Riverside County Transportation
Department, and shared a short video from the Trails Virtual Ribbon Cutting Ceremony.
Chair Harnik expressed this is a great project and what a process in looking at the
evolution as they saw the two maps in the agenda packet. She congratulated everyone
who is going to be out there using it.
Mark Lancaster, Director of Transportation, Riverside County Transportation Department,
thanked the Commissioners, Anne Mayer, Jillian Guizado and all the RCTC staff for helping
the County get this project to completion and stated the trail turned out very well and it’s
money well spent.
Commissioner Jeff Hewitt stated he was on another opening for this trail, in the Coachella
Valley there is something that is going to be phenomenal, the CV Link. It gives everyone
a different type of healthy transportation between neighboring cities and this is
somewhat the same way and it is in one of the fastest growing cities, the city of Menifee.
He expressed it will be a great asset to the community and bring everyone closer together
and he was impressed at how well it went together.
Commissioner Linda Krupa expressed appreciation for the trail as the segment along
Domenigoni Parkway and Hemet is being utilized and she looks forward to the completion
of it so she can ride her bicycle over to the city of Menifee and have lunch with Mayor
Zimmerman.
M/S/C (Krupa/Zimmerman) to 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.
4
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
March 10, 2021
Page 5
9. 15 EXPRESS LANES OPENING
Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager, presented the 15 Express Lanes opening,
highlighting the following:
• 15 Express Lanes Map:
o 15 miles long
o Four toll segments
o Multiple access points
o 91 Express Connector
o Future north connector, 2023
• Dynamically priced:
o Based on traffic volume and density
o On road sensors and algorithm
o Could change as frequently as every 5 minutes
o Minimum toll rates adopted by Commission
o Constant monitoring
• Tolled segments, morning and afternoon peak period tolls, and transponder
required
• HOV3+ discount policy and clean air vehicle discount
• A video played about using the 15 Express Lanes
• Facilities: Walk-in Center - 301 Corporate Terrace Circle; Regional Operations
Center (ROC) - 291 Corporate Terrace Circle; Facilities and Maintenance -
120 N. Joy Street
• Photos of the call center at the ROC and the traffic operation center
• Revenue commencement
Commissioner Speake stated he is aware that the pricing is changing as it was discussed
at the March 5 State Route 91 Advisory Committee meeting about the way the price is
going to look to people coming from Orange County and going from Riverside into Orange
County, and how that works with the 15 Express Lanes Project. Also, the south portion of
the project has been open between SR-91 and Cajalco Road for the past few months and
he has received a lot of feedback and there seems to be an opportunity for RCTC to do
some tweaks and make that function better. Commissioner Speake asked how that will
be analyzed whether there can be change with the toll entrances and exits, the lane drops,
and the toll lane ending. Currently, it is not functioning all that great and they do not have
a full contingent of commuters that are accessing there and asked what RCTC’s schedule
was to make that work better.
Anne Mayer, Executive Director, referred to Commissioner Speake’s second question and
stated the southbound section has been in its final striping configuration for several
weeks. Based on their experience with the 91 Express Lanes they conducted a series of
scenarios prior to final striping to look at what the best configuration could be, because
5
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
March 10, 2021
Page 6
that area is very challenging. The configuration it is in right now, their main goal was
trying to balance the impact because of the lane drops on right hand side, and the
volumes of people getting on the freeway they were trying to balance it so neither the
general-purpose lane traffic nor the express lane traffic bore the brunt of those lane
drops. Anne Mayer explained there were a variety of different scenarios and this one
operated the best and they know from experience they have to see how traffic responds
both at the south and the north ends and do what they did on the 91 and have time trials
done pre-opening and after and this will be an active couple of months of monitoring
from a physical standpoint as well as the toll rates. The toll team will be very actively
monitoring this entire corridor for several months after it opens so adjustments that are
needed can be made and RCTC is meeting with city of Corona staff and continuing close
coordination. Anne Mayer stated RCTC is ready for opening and they plan on very closely
monitoring this using data, time trials, simulations, and observed congestion or observed
driver behavior in the field to make those adjustments.
Commissioner Speake expressed appreciation that city staff reached out to RCTC and
noted that he stood on the bridge for hours at a time to observe how the traffic was
moving and he had some suggestions and there were some other folks that had good
ideas that he has spoken to and it is being pushed in the right direction. Commissioner
Speake expressed the 15 Corridor Operations Project cannot happen fast enough knowing
it is ongoing and if there is anything the Commission can do in the meantime to make it
easier for people to move through there better it will be for everyone. He referred to the
lane drops on I-15 and stated hopefully this is coming back to the Commission to discuss
a game plan trying to find a way that the state can invest. Commissioner Speake stated
the city hired a lobbyist for their state projects and getting the lane drops addressed,
which is one of the very top things on their list of items to request from the state. He
discussed when speaking with lobbyists the County and RCTC invested over $2 billion in
this area compared to what Caltrans invested in the main areas and now is the time for
them to step up and help out. He expressed self-help was one thing but self-help to this
extreme is not and hopefully we can work together and get those improvements funded
and priority for the region.
Anne Mayer referred to Jennifer Crosson to discuss the toll rate changes.
Jennifer Crosson stated as you enter the 91 Express Lanes at SR-55 going eastbound there
are two signs, a price to go to the County Line and a price to go to the end of the 91
Express Lane either McKinley Street or I-15 south. She explained with the addition of the
I-15 and the additional toll that they will no longer have a combined price with Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA’s) segment of the 91 Express Lanes and RCTC’s
segment of the 91 Express Lanes, because RCTC is adding on the 15 Express Lanes to the
RCTC’s 91 Express Lanes segment. It is too far of a distance to price when they start
thinking about the north direct connector so it was at this time where both OCTA and
RCTC start thinking about revamping their toll they decided to have OCTA price their
segment on their side and RCTC will price RCTC’s 91 segment including the 15 Express
6
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
March 10, 2021
Page 7
Lanes on RCTC’s side. Then the toll road that is called zone pricing and that is a standard
for express lanes when there are these long segments because the effectiveness of a price
given over too far of a distance is ineffective by matter. She explained beginning this last
weekend the sign at the County Line going eastbound started posting prices to the end of
the 15 Express Lanes and the same going northbound and McKinley now states to the
County Line, which is a little simpler.
Commissioner Speake stated that answers his question but suggested that people are
going to be initially confused as they are used to coming around that corner on SR-55 and
see that pricing sign to McKinley and they are only going to see pricing to the County Line.
He suggested there may be a lot of angry a people a month saying they thought the price
was cut in half or that they were expecting it to be a little less.
Jennifer Crosson stated staff did send emails with all the updates to the 91 Express Lanes
account holders, noting they received about 65 phone calls, most of them asking to get
their switchable transponder so they can get their discounts for the 15 Express Lanes per
carpool lane. There are some policies for the 91 Express Lanes Customer Service Center
to address toll dismissals if there is confusion in the first 90 days of this transition as the
reps are prepared to educate and handle that.
Commissioner Speake expressed concern as he holds a toll account although it is not with
RCTC, but he never received the email with updates. He did poll that information with
thousands of people a few years ago about what the mix was of folks in Riverside County
that hold accounts with one or the other and he does want to ensure that these people
are receiving updates especially as people are traveling more.
In response to Commissioner Chuck Conder’s question if somebody enters at the
beginning of a segment and the price changes twice during that time that they pay the
price they originally entered at, Jennifer Crosson replied that is correct. She stated they
are tracking the time they saw the sign to the time they get to their first toll point.
Commissioner Brian Berkson stated this is related to the 15/91 direct connect to the
northbound 15 that is not yet built but will be built by 2023. He asked for an update at
the next Commission meeting to get a better understanding of the construction schedule
and where they are with that portion. Commissioner Berkson asked when that project
begins if when or where any lanes will be lost for construction or any other major impacts
on I-15 or SR-91. Lastly if the new signs that have been put up for their pricing if they are
going to need to be changed or what will happen to them when the northbound direct
connect does open.
Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director, stated he will address the first part regarding
the 15/91 Express Lane Connector, and he concurred that project is scheduled to open in
the middle of 2023. Staff can bring at a future Commission meeting a comprehensive
update of the project its schedule and the impacts to lanes that are anticipated to occur,
7
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
March 10, 2021
Page 8
and it is now a design-build contract so final design is well underway and construction will
be starting soon. He stated this is a major connector so there will be impacts to traffic
during construction with lane closures and shifts but staff can provide more information
at that presentation. Michael Blomquist stated about the sign changes what might
change from the 15 Express Lane opening next month versus when the 15/91 Express
Lane Connector opens in 2023 and asked to Jennifer Crosson to explain those changes.
Jennifer Crosson stated the connector was anticipated when the current signs were
installed so if you are at the eastbound County Line there are three price blocks and one
of them has an empty spot, that is for the north direct connecter and it is the same coming
southbound there are the three price blocks put in and they are just unlabeled at this
time.
Commissioner Berkson expressed appreciation for all the updates, and he looks forward
to hearing at a future meeting a full report on the flyover direct connection.
M/S/C to receive and file a presentation on the 15 Express Lanes opening.
10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION
In response to Anne Mayer’s clarification if Commissioner Speake wanted a full
presentation or if he wanted to share his comments first, Commissioner Speake replied
he had a couple of questions. He requested to included in this scope educating people
on how things are changing, and he looked at the list of items in the package and asked if
they are actually producing the transponder kits or are they designing what they look like.
Jennifer Crosson replied they hired the contractor that produced the welcome kit that
they are sending the transponders out in, they oversaw the production of it. She stated
they tried to do it themselves with the 91 Express Lanes with OCTA and it did not come
out nearly as nice as theirs did and it was done with less money with very little oversight
costs, Sherry Matthews has been very efficient, and they have produced a bunch of these
kits and if they need more it would be through that contract.
Commissioner Speake stated he wanted to make sure that the $750,000 for that was
producing something and expressed appreciation that they were very efficient with the
first part of the contract and had only spent $1 million. He referred to a comment he had
made before being elected about selling water to thirsty people and he questioned a little
bit of that as they have been good stewards of the money they have been given so far.
Commissioner Speake explained he would anticipate the fact that they are going to
function differently, and people will see them differently and it will be a big portion of
this cost, but the marketing of the toll lanes he still has an issue because people are going
to gravitate to them just as they did with the 91 Express Lanes. He cautioned that part
that RCTC does not dump too much money in advertising something that people are
already familiar with and know how to use.
8
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
March 10, 2021
Page 9
Anne Mayer wanted to point out as well regarding efficiency of this contract and over half
of the funds expended to date were the hard costs associated with collateral pieces, the
postage, and they handled the conversion to the new 6C Transponders. She expressed
they heard the Commissioners loud and clear and at the very beginning of this contract it
has been very well managed, and our goal is to do this as cost effectively as possible but
to ensure that we are communicating to people based on the information they are
seeking.
Commissioner Speake stated with that he will move the item.
Chair Harnik suggested since Agenda Item 6G appears to be without controversy to hear
what Agenda Item 6I is and perhaps take the vote at the same time.
At this time Commissioners Jeffries, Ledezma, and Magee left the meeting.
6G. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SHERRY MATTHEWS, INC. FOR EXPRESS
LANES MARKETING SERVICES
M/S/C (Speake/Hoffman) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-047-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
No. 18-31-047-00, with Sherry Matthews, Inc. (Sherry Matthews) to
provide an additional four years of express lanes marketing services at
no additional cost for a total amount not to exceed $2.5 million; and
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
Commissioner Hoffman stated he does not need a full report, but in the staff report it
shows one abstention on it from the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects
Committee meeting and he voted no on that item and asked for it to be corrected. He
stated Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director, reached out to him and there was a
lengthy discussion on this agenda item and although he is not happy with it, he
understands it better now. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Feenstra’s explanation and
what the U.S. Army Core of Engineers has done to this project and the Santa Ana River
Trail Projects and he is looking forward to getting the rest of the trail completed.
Chair Harnik asked for a motion for Agenda Items 6G and 6I, concurrently.
Commissioner Speake made the motion and Commissioner Hoffman seconded the
motion.
9
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
March 10, 2021
Page 10
6I. AGREEMENT WITH STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., FOR PREPARATION
OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING,
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES, AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT
SERVICES RELATED TO THE SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL PROJECT PHASES 2, 2A AND
3A IN THE PRADO BASIN
M/S/C (Speake/Hoffman) to:
1) Award Agreement No. 21-67-038-00 to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
(Stantec) to prepare a final California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
document; perform preliminary engineering services; prepare plans,
specifications, and estimates (PS&E); and provide construction design
support services for the construction of Phases 2, 2A and 3A in the Prado
Basin of the Santa Ana River Trail (SART 1) project (Project) in the amount
of $714,039, plus a contingency amount of $107,105 for potential
changes in scope, for a total amount not to exceed $821,144;
2) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency
work as may be required for the Project; and
3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to finalize and execute the agreement on behalf of the
Commission.
11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
11A. Anne Mayer expressed gratitude to Michael Blomquist for 15 years of service with
RCTC as he is retiring and congratulated and acknowledged Mr. Blomquist for his
tremendous work as he built the toll program from the ground up.
Michael Blomquist expressed appreciation to Anne Mayer for the kind words and
sentiment as it has been truly an adventure and real privilege to have worked at
RCTC all these years as he was the first person in the toll program hired. He
expressed appreciation to the Board and this agency for all the support over the
years, the management team, and the toll program staff past and present that
play a huge role as it is truly a team effort. He stated he is planning to enjoy his
retirement in the coming days.
Commissioner Speake expressed appreciation to Michael Blomquist as it is well
deserved and stated he will be missed.
Commissioner Spiegel expressed appreciation to Michael Blomquist as he touched
so many of the Commissioners particularly as with Commissioner Speake and
herself being in Corona and being the first toll project, they were much more
involved, and she was able to watch him on a regular basis and up close. She
stated it has been quite a road and journey that he has been on with Anne Mayer
10
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
March 10, 2021
Page 11
and the entire team. Commissioner Spiegel asked where he was retiring as she
wanted to make sure he would be using the toll roads that he spent many years
on.
Michael Blomquist stated he is a regular visitor to the local mountains and a 91
Express Lane account holder and customer.
Commissioner Spiegel expressed wanting to make sure he stays local and enjoys
the fruits of his labor for all these years and watching it as it transitions. As people
start to go to work with the additional traffic and seeing how it holds up will be
the fun part of Mr. Blomquist’s retirement because it is no longer his problem.
Chair Harnik expressed appreciation to Michael Blomquist for everything he has
done as he has been so efficient and effective and somewhat even stealth going
about his way and getting things done. It has been incredible watching all the
programs evolve and she is aware there is a great team with him, and she
expressed gratitude for leading that team.
12. CLOSED SESSION
12A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee
Item Property Description Property Owner Buyer(s)
1 209-070-016 and 209-070-
028
RCTC AFG, LLC
There were no announcements from the closed session.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, Chair Harnik adjourned the meeting at 10:50 a.m. The next Commission
meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 14, 2021, via Zoom.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Mobley
Clerk of the Board
11
AGENDA ITEM 6B
Agenda Item 6B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 14, 2021
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the six
months ended December 31, 2020.
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.
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
12
Agenda Item 6B
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;
• 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;
13
Agenda Item 6B
• 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.
Attachments:
1) Quarterly Project Status – December 2020
2) Quarterly Financial Statements – December 2020
14
Agenda Item 6B
Approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee on March 22, 2021
In Favor: 10 Abstain: 0 No: 0
15
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
16
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).
17
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.
18
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 $5 million) and related status. Capital project expenditures are generally affected
by lags in invoices submitted by contractors and consultants, as well as issues encountered during certain phases of the projects. The capital projects budgets tend to be
based on aggressive project schedules.
19
Revenues
Sales tax 323,915,700$ 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
20
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
21
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
22
AGENDA ITEM 6C
Agenda Item 6C
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 14, 2021
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Gary Ratliff, Facilities Administrator
Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Policy for Implementation of Solar Power Systems at Commission-Owned
Properties
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Adopt a policy regarding the selection and installation of solar power systems at
Commission-owned properties; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. 21-003, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission Regarding the Policy for Implementation of Solar Power Systems at
Commission-Owned Properties”.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On June 29, 2018, the Commission entered into a settlement agreement with various petitioners
to settle the legal challenges to the environmental documents for the Mid County Parkway and
State Route 60 Truck Lanes projects. One of the commitments in the agreement is to implement
solar panel installations at the South Perris and Moreno Valley/March Field commuter rail
stations in accordance with Commission policy.
Staff therefore recommends a policy be adopted to guide the decision-making process when
implementing solar power systems at Commission-owned properties. A policy to govern the
determination of when and how solar power systems should be implemented at the Commission-
owned commuter rail stations and other properties is needed because:
1) There are numerous solar power systems on the market and methods for funding and
implementing those systems, each with different benefits and costs;
2) The policy will establish guidelines for staff for use in determining when and what type of
solar power system should be installed;
3) It is necessary for compliance with the settlement agreement for the Mid County Parkway
and the State Route 60 Truck Lanes projects; and
23
Agenda Item 6C
4) It will help maximize the use of limited funds for maintenance of Commission-owned
property by providing the best economic benefit to the Commission.
Policy
Staff recommends that installation of solar power systems at the Commission-owned commuter
rail stations and other properties should only occur when the solar power systems provide a
positive economic benefit to the Commission. This would be determined by comparing the
expected savings in electricity costs (plus the value of excess energy generated, if any) with the
estimated cost of the solar power system, including construction, operation, and maintenance.
If the present value of the savings over the life span of the installation exceeds the present value
of the costs over the same period, there is a positive economic benefit.
Implementation
Staff studied various options to install solar power systems at the two stations specified in the
settlement agreement. The options reviewed include:
• Solar panel system Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). A PPA is an arrangement in which
a PPA company installs, owns and operates a solar power system on Commission
property, and the system is sized to generate the same amount of power that is used at
each site. The Commission would pay the PPA company for the energy generated by the
solar panels based on a pre-determined rate per kilowatt-hour, sometimes with annual
escalation. The power generated offsets the power required from the utility company,
and ideally the generated energy cost is lower than the cost from the utility. Usually, a
PPA contract lasts for 25 years. This option incurs no up-front costs by the Commission.
This option is advantageous if future electricity costs rise more than the escalation rates
in the contract, or if funding is not available to purchase the system up-front.
• Solar panel system lease. The lessor owns the solar power system, which is sized to
generate the same amount of power that is used at each site, and the Commission pays
a fixed monthly lease with an annual escalation for the life of the contract, up to 25 years.
This option also incurs no up-front costs by the Commission.
• The Commission purchases and installs the solar power system, sized to generate as much
power as is used at the site.
• The Commission purchases and installs the solar power system, sized to generate excess
energy to sell back to the utility company. In this case, the rate paid to the Commission
by the utility company for the excess generated energy is on average 60 percent less than
the rate paid by the Commission for energy from the utility company.
Using a period of 25-years, which is the expected life span of the solar panels, the benefits and
costs for each option were calculated and expressed in Table A below in terms of present value.
24
Agenda Item 6C
Table A – Benefit / Cost Ratios
Installation Option 25 Year Present
Value Savings*
25 Year Present
Value Cost**
Benefit/Cost
Ratio
Lease Solar Power System $475,592 $2,262,266 0.17
PPA Solar Power System $475,592 $566,072 0.82
RCTC Purchase and install
Solar Power System with
Excess Generation
$475,592 $924,835 0.51
RCTC Purchase and install
Solar Power System
$475,592 $474,839 1.00
* 100% of the estimated energy costs at two stations, including 1.5% annual escalation in the power cost.
** Includes design, site preparation, construction, and maintenance of the solar power system.
The only option that provides a positive economic benefit is the last option, which is to purchase
and install a solar power system. All other options, including power purchase agreement or lease,
do not provide a positive economic benefit, and, under the proposed policy, do not meet the
proposed requirements for implementation.
Plan
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 21-033 related to a policy for implementation of
solar power systems at Commission-owned properties.
In accordance with the policy, staff has estimated the present value of the cost to fulfill
Commission obligations to comply with the Mid County Parkway/State Route 60 Truck Lanes
Projects settlement agreement for the installation of solar power systems at the Moreno
Valley/March Field and Perris-South stations to be about $474,839. This includes a construction
cost of $467,470 plus annual maintenance, which is estimated to be $400 per year, and will be
included in the annual station maintenance budget. Staff intends to use the on-call station
electrical and construction maintenance contracts for design and installation of a solar power
system to offset the electrical usage to a zero cost.
The solar power system installations for the Perris-South and Moreno Valley/March Field stations
are funded by the Proposition 1B Public Transportation Modernization Improvement and Service
Enhancement Account Grant. These funds have been approved for reassignment from the 2013
Coachella Valley Rail Grant.
FISCAL IMPACT:
With the adoption of this policy, the Commission will implement solar power systems that
provide a positive economic benefit. Staff will utilize on-call contracts and available authority
previously approved the Commission. The initial two installations will be included in the
appropriate fiscal year budget and funded with Proposition 1B funding.
25
Agenda Item 6C
Attachments:
1) Resolution No. 21-033
2) Policy for Implementation of Solar Power Systems at Commission-Owned Properties
Approved by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee on
March 22, 2021
In Favor: 11 Abstain: 0 No: 0
26
RESOLUTION No. 21-003
RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE
POLICY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS AT COMMISSION-OWNED PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the “Commission”) owns and operates
nine commuter rail stations, as well as various other properties in Riverside County.
WHEREAS, the Commission desires to adopt a policy to provide guidance on implementation of solar
power systems on Commission-owned property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission hereby resolves as follows:
The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the Policy for Implementation
of Solar Power Systems at Commission-owned Properties, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED April 14, 2021
_____________________________________
Jan Harnik, Chair
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Lisa Mobley
Clerk of the Board
ATTACHMENT 1
27
Page 1 of 1
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Policy
Title: Policy for Implementation of Solar Power Systems at Commission-owned
properties.
Revised:
Administered By: Capital Projects
Approved By: Commission
Approved Date: April 14, 2021
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Policy is to provide guidance for implementation of solar power systems at
Riverside County Transportation Commission (“Commission”) owned properties.
POLICY
The Commission owns and operates nine commuter rail stations in Riverside County and
various other properties throughout the county.
The installation of solar power systems at Commission-owned properties shall only occur when
a solar power system provides a “Positive Economic Benefit” to the Commission. This will be
determined by comparing the estimated cost of the solar power system, including construction,
operation, and maintenance, to the expected savings in electricity costs (plus the value of
excess energy generated, if any).
A solar power system project has a Positive Economic Benefit when the present value of its
energy savings exceeds the present value of the costs over the same period.
ATTACHMENT 2
28
AGENDA ITEM 6D
Agenda Item 6D
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 14, 2021
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Technical Advisory Committee
Jenny Chan, Planning and Programming Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Active Transportation Program Cycle 5 – Riverside County Project
Recommendations for Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Program
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission 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; and
7) Prioritize Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG)’s Coachella Valley Arts and
Music Line project for any future supplemental ATP Cycle 5 funding.
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
29
Agenda Item 6D
enhance or encourage walking and bicycling. ATP Cycle 5 began with the CTC releasing a call for
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:
30
Agenda Item 6D
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
31
Agenda Item 6D
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
32
Agenda Item 6D
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
Approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee on March 22, 2021
In Favor: 10 Abstain: 0 No: 0
33
Agency Project Name
Total Project
Cost ATP Request PA/ED PS&E ROW CON CON‐NI 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25
MPO
Score
STATE
Score
Perris City of Perris Bike & Ped Network Project 1,999 1,931 1,896 35 35 1,896 98
Riverside County Safe Routes for All ‐ San Jacinto 600 600 600 600 95
TOTAL 2,599 2,531
Agency Project Name
Total Project
Cost ATP Request PA/ED PS&E ROW CON CON‐NI 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25
MPO
Score
STATE
Score
MPO
points
Plan
4pts
CON‐ONLY
6 pts
CON in
first 2 &
CEQA
10 pts
Cathedral City Downtown Cathedral City Connectors: Gap Closure &
Complete Streets Improvement 5,566 4,383 4,383 4,383 110 90 20 4 6 10
Desert Hot Springs Palm Drive Improvements 4,905 3,700 3,700 3,700 106.5 86.5 20 4 6 10
Eastvale SE Eastvale SRTS Equitable Access Project 1,420 1,420 150 1,270 1,420 101 87 14 4 0 10
Wildomar Bundy Canyon Active Transportation Corridor 3,990 1,454 1,377 77 1,377 77 99 79 20 4 6 10
Riverside County Safe Routes for All ‐ Hemet 636 348 636 636 NA 91 NA NA NA NA
TOTAL 16,517 11,305
Riverside Share 11,305
CVAG Coachella Valley Arts & Music Line 26,818 16,903 16,903 16,903 108 88 20 4 6 10
Desert Hot Springs Palm Drive Improvements ‐ I‐10 to Camino Aventura 6,995 6,154 6,154 6,154 94 74 20 4 6 10
Wildomar Mission Trail Active Transportation Project 6,548 3,638 168 168 115 3,110 77 451 3,110 77 94 90 4 4 0 0
Riverside County Hemet Area SRTS Sidewalk Project 1,946 1,946 25 225 340 1,181 175 25 565 1,356 93 89 4 4 0 0
Riverside Five Points Neighborhood Pedestrian Safety Improvements 6,953 6,113 1,070 5,043 1,070 5,043 92 88 4 4 0 0
Temecula Temecula Creek Southside Trail Project 3,637 3,218 3,160 58 58 3,160 92 82 10 4 6 0
Desert Hot Springs DHS CV Link Extension Project 32,572 29,035 1,290 27,745 1,290 27,745 91 87 4 4 0 0
Riverside County Theda Street Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Project 1,881 1,881 25 235 340 1,181 100 25 575 1,281 88 84 4 4 0 0
Menifee Harvest Valley Elementary SRTS 2,997 2,397 15 230 40 2,112 245 40 2,112 87.5 83.5 4 4 0 0
Riverside County Mecca‐North Shore Community Connector Bike Lanes 10,055 10,055 200 1,600 8,205 50 200 1,600 8,205 50 86 82 4 4 0 0
Riverside Mitchelle Avenue Sidepath Gap Closure 6,989 6,289 200 2,373 3,716 200 2,373 3,716 85 81 4 4 0 0
Menifee
Romoland Elementary SRTS Sidewalk Gap Closure & Ped
Improvements 6,413 5,453 60 260 50 5,083 370 5,083 83 79 4 4 0 0
Riverside County Grand Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Imp Project 2,820 2,820 25 400 250 2,045 100 25 650 2,145 83 79 4 4 0 0
Jurupa Valley Pacific Avenue SRTS 4,132 2,403 233 2,170 233 2,170 92 78 14 4 0 10
Eastvale Cucamonga Creek 1,999 1,999 150 1,849 1,999 81 67 14 4 0 10
Moreno Valley South City Trail Project 7,781 7,781 80 900 250 6,551 80 1,150 6,551 72 68 4 4 0 0
Moreno Valley Heacock Street Improvements 2,265 2,265 50 200 660 1,355 50 860 1,355 53 49 4 4 0 0
Riverside County Skyview Road Pedestrian Bridge 10,343 7,970 7,870 100 7,970 37 31 6 0 6 0
Coachella Coachella Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Project 2,974 2,974 250 2,724 250 2,724 36 32 4 4 0 0
Murrieta Copper Canyon Park Bridge 664 664 20 60 584 20 644 30 26 4 4 0 0
Riverside County Safe Routes for All ‐ Coachella 657 657 657 657 89 NA NA NA NA
Riverside County Lakeview/Neuvo Active Transportation Plan ‐ Plan Only 270 270 270 270 ineligible NA NA NA NA
San Jacinto San Jacinto Complete Streets Plan 328 328 328 328 81 NA NA NA NA
148,037 123,213
STATEWIDE COMPONENT
MPO COMPONENT
CONTINGENCY LIST
ATTACHMENT 1
34
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
35
AGENDA ITEM 6E
Agenda Item 6E
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 14, 2021
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Eric DeHate, Transit Manager
Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to City of Corona’s Fiscal Year 2020/21 Short Range Transit Plan
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve a $200,000 increase in the FY 2020/21 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funding
allocation for the city of Corona (City); and
2) Amend the City’s Fiscal Year 2020/21 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to increase the LTF
operating allocation in the amount of $200,000 for operating expenses.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During the development of the FY 2020/21 SRTP cycle in spring 2020, the pandemic, also known
as the Coronavirus (COVID-19), caused stay-at-home orders issued throughout the country
including California. Since mid-March 2020 when the Governor issued a stay-at-home order due
to COVID-19, transit ridership plummeted 80 to 90 percent in just a few weeks, causing many
transit operators to reduce their scheduled services. Transit operators continue to monitor
ridership closely and have implemented enhanced safety and sanitization measures for their
vehicles, bus stops, and transit centers.
Congress took action to assist many including transit operators with the passage of the federal
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Riverside County transit operators
received approximately $122 million in CARES Act funding. This funding assisted operators in
FY 2019/20 and FY 2020/21. For FY 2020/21, CARES Act funding through the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) made up the majority share of funding.
The City received $3.9 million of CARES Act funding for its transit services, for which
approximately $2.64 million is programmed in FY 2020/21. The City anticipated utilizing a portion
of its share of CARES Act funding to pay for direct and indirect payroll charges for FY 2020/21;
however, the City was informed through its audit that indirect payroll charges were ineligible for
federal funds including CARES Act funds without an approved cost allocation plan with FTA. The
36
Agenda Item 6E
City still expects to expend the CARES funds in FY 2020/21 for other eligible operating
expenditures.
City staff reached out to Commission staff and submitted an amendment (Attachment 1) to its
FY 2020/21 SRTP and is requesting an increase of $200,000 in LTF to fully fund its operations.
Staff reviewed the request and recommends approval of the $200,000 allocation of LTF be used
to fulfill this request and amendment to the City’s SRTP for this additional allocation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The additional $200,000 LTF allocation does not require an adjustment to the FY 2020/21 budget,
as minor LTF adjustments for transit operators were anticipated and budgeted.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2020/21 Amount: $200,000
Source of Funds: LTF Western Riverside County Bus Budget Adjustment: No
GLA No.: 002210 86101 00000 0000 601 62 86101
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/10/2021
Attachment: City of Corona’s FY 2020/21 Amendment 1 Request
Approved by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee on
March 22, 2021
In Favor: 12 Abstain: 0 No: 0
37
38
Table 4.0 - Summary of Funding Requests - FY 2020/21
City of Corona
Original
Operating
5307 RS 5307 RS CARES 5307 RS OB 5339 RS AB 2766 FARE GF REV LTF OTHR LCL SGR PUC99313 SGR PUC99314 SGR-OB STA PUC99313 STA PUC99314ProjectTotal Amount
of Funds
Comprehensive Operations Analysis $100,000 $52,000 $48,000
Corona Cruiser Operating Assistance $1,365,870 $0 $1,365,870 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Corona Dial-A-Ride Operating Assistance $1,410,428 $1,410,428 $0
Triennial DBE Goal-Program Update $15,000 $15,000
Vehicle Maintenance Oversight Project $50,000 $50,000
Sub-total Operating $2,941,298 $0 $2,843,298 $48,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0
Capital
5307 RS 5307 RS CARES 5307 RS OB 5339 RS AB 2766 FARE GF REV LTF OTHR LCL SGR PUC99313 SGR PUC99314 SGR-OB STA PUC99313 STA PUC99314ProjectTotal Amount
of Funds
Bus Parking Stall Canopy - 21-1 $100,000 $96,052 $3,948
Bus Stop Improvements - 21-2 $50,646 $47,296 $3,350
Intellegent Transportation System - 21-3 $345,000 $64,700 $255,624 $24,676
Sub-total Capital $495,646 $0 $0 $0 $64,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $143,348 $7,298 $0 $255,624 $24,676
Total Operating & Capital $3,436,944 $0 $2,843,298 $48,000 $64,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $143,348 $7,298 $50,000 $255,624 $24,676
FY 2020/21 Projected Funding Details
5307 RS $0
5307 RS CARES $2,843,298
5307 RS OB $48,000
AB 2766 $0
FARE $0
GF REV $0
LTF $0
OTHR LCL $0
SGR-OB $50,000
Total Estimated Operating Funding Request $2,941,298
5339 RS $64,700
SGR PUC99313 $143,348
SGR PUC99314 $7,298
STA PUC99313 $255,624
STA PUC99314 $24,676
Total Estimated Capital Funding Request $495,646
Total Funding Request $3,436,944
TransTrack Manager™Page 1 of 1
3/2/2021 12:35:54 ET 39
Table 4.0 - Summary of Funding Requests - FY 2020/21
City of Corona
Amendment # 1
Operating
5307 RS 5307 RS CARES 5307 RS OB 5339 RS AB 2766 FARE GF REV LTF OTHR LCL SGR PUC99313 SGR PUC99314 SGR-OB STA PUC99313 STA PUC99314ProjectTotal Amount
of Funds
Comprehensive Operations Analysis $100,000 $52,000 $48,000
Corona Cruiser Operating Assistance $1,365,870 $0 $1,253,870 $0 $0 $0 $0 $112,000 $0
Corona Dial-A-Ride Operating Assistance $1,410,428 $1,322,428 $0 $88,000
Triennial DBE Goal-Program Update $15,000 $15,000
Vehicle Maintenance Oversight Project $50,000 $50,000
Sub-total Operating $2,941,298 $0 $2,643,298 $48,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0
Capital
5307 RS 5307 RS CARES 5307 RS OB 5339 RS AB 2766 FARE GF REV LTF OTHR LCL SGR PUC99313 SGR PUC99314 SGR-OB STA PUC99313 STA PUC99314ProjectTotal Amount
of Funds
Bus Parking Stall Canopy - 21-1 $100,000 $96,052 $3,948
Bus Stop Improvements - 21-2 $50,646 $47,296 $3,350
Intellegent Transportation System - 21-3 $345,000 $64,700 $255,624 $24,676
Sub-total Capital $495,646 $0 $0 $0 $64,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $143,348 $7,298 $0 $255,624 $24,676
Total Operating & Capital $3,436,944 $0 $2,643,298 $48,000 $64,700 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $143,348 $7,298 $50,000 $255,624 $24,676
FY 2020/21 Projected Funding Details
5307 RS $0
5307 RS CARES $2,643,298
5307 RS OB $48,000
AB 2766 $0
FARE $0
GF REV $0
LTF $200,000
OTHR LCL $0
SGR-OB $50,000
Total Estimated Operating Funding Request $2,941,298
5339 RS $64,700
SGR PUC99313 $143,348
SGR PUC99314 $7,298
STA PUC99313 $255,624
STA PUC99314 $24,676
Total Estimated Capital Funding Request $495,646
Total Funding Request $3,436,944
TransTrack Manager™Page 1 of 1
3/2/2021 12:36:17 ET 40
AGENDA ITEM 6F
Agenda Item 6F
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 14, 2021
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Bryce Johnston, Capital Projects Manager
Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Amendment to Agreement with City of Lake Elsinore For Enhanced
Landscaping and Aesthetics to Add Grinding and Paving of Grape Street for
the Interstate 15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvements Project
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 19-31-031-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 19-31-031-00,
with the city of Lake Elsinore (City) to add grinding and paving for Grape Street for the
Interstate 15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvements Project (Project) for an
additional City contribution of $339,801, for a total City contribution not to exceed
$1,094,801; and
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Since May 2011, the Commission has managed the Project (see Project map Attachment 1) on
behalf of the City, via a master agreement which reimburses the Commission for all expenses. The
project approval and environmental document phase was completed in August 2017. In
September 2017, the Commission awarded a contract to WKE, Inc. to perform final engineering
services and prepare final plans, specifications, and cost estimate for the construction of the
Project.
At the June 12, 2019 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 19-031-31-00 with the
City for its contribution of $755,000 of City funds for enhanced landscaping and aesthetics.
Subsequently, the Commission awarded a construction contract to Riverside Construction
Company (RCC) in March 2020, and the construction notice to proceed was issued on
41
Agenda Item 6F
May 18, 2020. Currently construction is approximately 45% complete and on schedule to be
finalized in Spring 2022.
DISCUSSION:
In September 2020, the City requested that additional scope be added to the Project, in the form
of grinding, overlaying, and restriping a section of Grape Street from Oak Tree Drive to the
intersection of Railroad Canyon Road, including the adjustment of any associated utilities. It was
agreed with the City that an amendment to the existing agreement for landscaping and aesthetics
would be the most suitable way to reimburse the Commission for this work.
Following the initial discussion with the City, RCC provided an estimate for the work. Staff
negotiated the scope of work with RCC and reached agreement on a fair and reasonable lump
sum cost in the amount of $339,801, with no additional time allowance.
Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 19-31-031-00 between the
Commission and the City stipulating that the City will contribute an additional $339,801 for the
grinding, repaving, and restriping of Grape Street as part of the Project. With the additional
contribution, the total City contribution related to Agreement No. 19-31-031-00 is $1,094,801.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Years: FY 2021/22 Amount: $339,801
Source of Funds: City of Lake Elsinore Budget Adjustment: N/A
GLA No.: 005104 416 41604 0000 210 72 41203
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/11/2021
Attachments:
1) Project map Attachment 1
2) Draft Agreement No. 19-31-031-01
Approved by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee on
March 22, 2021
In Favor: 12 Abstain: 0 No: 0
42
ATTACHMENT 1
43
17336.01112\33583982. 2 1
Agreement No. 19-31-031-01
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AND
THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
FOR INSTALLATION OF CITY REQUESTED ENHANCED LANDSCAPING
AS PART OF THE I-15 RAILROAD CANYON RD INTERCHANGE
PARTIES AND DATE
This Amendment No. 1 to the Cooperative Agreement for Installation of City
Requested Enhanced Landscaping as Part of the I-15 Railroad Canyon Road Interchange is
made and entered into this ___ day of ___________, 2021, by and between the RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (“RCTC”) and the CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
(“City”). RCTC and City are sometimes referred to herein individually as “Party”, and
collectively as “Parties”.
RECITALS
RCTC and City have entered into an agreement dated June 12, 2019 for the
purpose of funding and implementing enhanced Railroad Canyon IC
project aesthetic improvements and landscaping (“Project”) to be
included in the Railroad Canyon Road Interchange work in the City (the
"Master Agreement").
RCTC and City now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to extend
the scope of the Project, providing for grinding, overlaying, and
restriping a section of Grape Street, from Oak Tree Drive to the
intersection of Railroad Canyon Road, including the adjustment of any
associated structures (“Grape Street Repaving”) as well as to provide
additional funding for such work.
TERMS
The scope of the Project as set forth in Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B” of the
Master Agreement shall be amended to include the Grape Street
Repaving, as more fully described in Attachment “1”, attached to this
Amendment No. 1 and incorporated herein by reference.
The City Total Contribution, as that term is defined in Section 4.2 of the
Master Agreement, shall be increased from $755,000 to $1,094,801.36
ATTACHMENT 2
44
17336.01112\33583982.2
17336.01112\33583982.2 2
in accordance with the cost allocation set forth in Attachment “2”,
attached to this Amendment No. 1 and incorporated herein by
reference. Attachment “2” includes a revised version of Exhibit “C” of
the Master Agreement, and shall replace the original version of Exhibit
“C” in its entirety.
The City shall deposit additional funds with RCTC in order to fund Grape
Street Repaving in accordance with the cost allocation set forth in
Attachment “2”, attached to this Amendment No. 1 and incorporated
herein by reference.
Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all provisions of the Master
Agreement, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance
provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the
actions of the Parties under this Amendment No. 1.
This Amendment No. 1 shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California. Venue shall be in Riverside County.
This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall
constitute an original.
A manually signed copy of this Amendment No. 1 which is transmitted by
facsimile, email or other means of electronic transmission shall be
deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original
executed copy of this Amendment No. 1 for all purposes. This
Amendment No. 1 may be signed using an electronic signature.
[Signatures on following page]
45
17336.01112\33583982. 2 3
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
AGREEMENT NO. 19-31-031-01
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the
date first herein above.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: _________________________ By: _______________________
Anne Mayer, Executive Director Jason Simpson, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _________________________ By: _______________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP Barbara Leibold
General Counsel City Attorney
ATTESTED:
By: _______________________
Candice Alvarez, CMC
City Clerk
46
17336.01112\33583982.2
Attachment 1
17336.01112\33583982.2
ATTACHMENT “1”
GRAPE STREET REPAVING
The work shall consist of a 2” (two-inch) grind and overlay of the City surface street, Grape Street,
from Oak Tree Drive to Railroad Canyon Road.
The approximate area of grinding and paving is 158,100 sq. ft. (excludes the raised median, which
is not affected by this scope of work).
Grape St. will be grinded (via cold-planing) 2" and overlaid with HMA Type A. The pavement
delineations, markers, and markings will be installed as shown in the plans attached to Change
Order No. 23, entered into between RCTC and the Contractor, dated for reference purposes as
of January 26, 2021, copy of which is on file with the Parties and incorporated herein by reference.
The work includes, but is not limited to:
- Traffic Control
- Cleaning & Street Sweeping (Job Site Maintenance related to this work only)
- Hauling and Disposal of removed AC
- Manhole adjustments where necessary
47
AGENDA ITEM 7
Agenda Item 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 14, 2021
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
David Knudsen, Interim External Affairs Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation;
2) Adopt the following bill positions:
a) AB 1499 (Daly) – Support; and
b) SB 623 (Newman) – Support.
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.
49
Agenda Item 7
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
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;
50
Agenda Item 7
• 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;
• 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.
Legislation
AB 1499 (Daly) – Staff Recommended Position: Support
Assembly Bill (AB) 1499 authored by Assemblymember Tom Daly (Anaheim), would remove the
sunset date on existing design-build procurement (design-build) authority for highway projects.
In 2013, Assemblymember Daly authored AB 401 (Chapter 586, Statutes of 2013), which
authorized the use of design-build for highways and expressways, under certain conditions. This
authority is set to expire on January 1, 2024. RCTC used design-build authority for the
construction of 91 Corridor Improvement Project, 15/91 Express Lane Connector Project, and
I-15 Express Lanes Project.
For decades, the traditional method for procuring public works projects has been the design-bid-
build process. Depending on the scale and type of project, design-build can provide for a shorter
overall project delivery time because construction can begin before final design is complete. It is
necessary to allow design-build authority for future projects.
51
Agenda Item 7
This bill position recommendation is consistent with the Commission’s adopted 2021 State and
Federal Legislative Platform, including:
• Support the availability of project delivery tools such as design-build, construction
manager/general contractor, and public-private partnerships to the Commission, the
State, federal agencies, and other infrastructure agencies. Oppose efforts to add barriers
to effective implementation of such tools.
SB 623 (Newman) – Staff Recommended Position: Support (support letter based on platform)
Senate Bill 623 authorized by Senator Josh Newman (Fullerton) clarifies existing law to ensure
toll operators statewide can improve service to customers and enforce toll policies while
increasing privacy protections for the use of personally identifiable information (PII).
SB 623 makes needed technical corrections to maintain the intent of existing law and their
associated privacy protections, while also ensuring that toll operators can share necessary
information with each other to comply with state and federal interoperability requirements,
improve customer service and facility efficiency, and maximize the use of revenues for
reinvestment in future transportation improvements. Without these changes, toll facilities across
the state could be subject to potential litigation challenges that could disrupt the viability of
existing and future toll facilities.
The California Toll Operators Committee (CTOC), of which RCTC is a member, has been working
for the last few years to seek clarifying legislation to meet state and federal interoperability
requirements, including with SB 664 (Allen), which was supported by RCTC but did not pass out
of the legislature.
Based on the Senate Transportation Committee’s deadlines, RCTC staff submitted a support
letter, on behalf of the Commission, in order to ensure RCTC’s input was part of the legislative
process. Staff is now seeking the Commission’s formal support position on the bill, which will
support staff’s involvement in the legislative process.
This bill position recommendation is consistent with the Commission’s adopted 2021 State and
Federal Legislative Platform, including:
• Engage in legislation and monitor administrative policies relating to interoperability of
tolled facilities statewide and nationally, in order to ensure technical feasibility, efficient
and effective operations, cost reasonableness, and customer satisfaction.
52
Agenda Item 7
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
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:
53
Agenda Item 7
• 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.
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
54
ATTACHMENT 1
55
56
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:
57
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.
58
�� 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
5 9
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)
60
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.
61
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.
62
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
63
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)
64
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
65
AGENDA ITEM 8
Agenda Item 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 14, 2021
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Cheryl Donahue, Public Affairs Manager
Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive an oral report on the State Route 60 Truck Lanes
project.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Staff will present information regarding the status of the project, which began construction in
June 2019 and now is approximately 60 percent complete. RCTC is continuing to maximize
construction efficiency, save costs, coordinate with emergency responders, and communicate
with the public about effects on travel through the Badlands.
66
STATE ROUTE 60
TRUCK LANES
Cheryl Donahue, Public Affairs Manager
April 14, 2021
1
Project Update
Project highlights
2
•Goals: safety, traffic relief
•$113 million investment
•1,400 jobs created
•Adding truck lane in both directions, widening shoulders & median,
building wildlife crossings, drainage systems
•Replacing deteriorated pavement
•Construction began June 2019 –anticipate opening summer 2022
Construction progress
3
Wildlife Crossings
5
Project Challenges
6
Slope Stability
•Westbound lane full closure for
excavation, paving, Aug. 2019 –
March 2020
•Weekend closure, Oct. 2019 to cut
slope back
•Especially on north side, long-term
maintenance concerns
Traffic Control
7
•Many high-speed drivers
•Enforcement –fines doubled
•Solid white lane stripe
•Strong partnership with CHP:
I truly appreciate RCTC’s willingness to strategize with the CHP on this
traffic safety problem. I had never seen a transportation agency be so
quick to take part in solving a problem. It was SO nice to have a
partner at the table as opposed to the traditional, “What is the CHP
going to do about the speed problem” tactic we are used to.
--Former SG Pass CHP Commander Mike Alvarez
Pothole repair
8
•Pavement damage due to
rains on westbound 60
•Week-long lane closures
last week for longer-term
repairs
•Should reduce need for
ongoing repairs, lane
closures
Contract change orders
9
$1.9M Cost Reductions
Pavement changes, $1.4M
Export reduction, $250K
Drainage, $190K
$5.8M Cost Increases
Slope stability, $1.8M
Roadway maintenance, $1.3M
Traffic control, $837K
Contract Contingency: $10M. Have used $3.9M, $6.1M remaining
Public outreach
10
•Weekly construction updates
•Social media followers
o Facebook: 1,062
o Twitter: 96
o Instagram: 323
•Rapid response to inquiries
•Drone videos
11
QUESTIONS
12
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ROLL CALL
APRIL 14, 2021
Present Absent
County of Riverside, District I X
County of Riverside, District II X
County of Riverside, District III X
County of Riverside, District IV X
County of Riverside, District V X
City of Banning X
City of Beaumont X
City of Blythe X
City of Calimesa X
City of Canyon Lake X
City of Cathedral City X
City of Coachella X
City of Corona X
City of Desert Hot Springs X
City of Eastvale X
City of Hemet X
City of Indian Wells X
City of Indio X
City of Jurupa Valley X
City of La Quinta X
City of Lake Elsinore X
City of Menifee X
City of Moreno Valley X
City of Murrieta X
City of Norco X
City of Palm Desert X
City of Palm Springs X
City of Perris X
City of Rancho Mirage X
City of Riverside X
City of San Jacinto X
City of Temecula X
City of Wildomar X
Governor’s Appointee, Caltrans District 8 X