Loading...
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 �� Matching requirements. Several Federal programs eligible for Community Project Funding requests require a State or local match for projects either by statute or according to longstanding policy. The Committee will not waive these matching requirements for Community Project Funding requests, so it is important that Member offices discuss with their State and local officials the ability for localities to meet matching requirements prior to requesting a project. Note: This does not mean that matching funds must be in-hand prior to requesting a project, but that local officials must have a plan to meet such requirements in order for such a project to be viable. �� One-year funding. Each project request must be for fiscal year 2022 funds only and cannot include a request for multiyear funding. �� State or local governmental entities as grantees. Members are encouraged to consider public entities as primary grantees to oversee the completion of the project. o For infrastructure projects, many States have established lists or intended use plans with projects that have already been vetted by governmental officials (e.g. drinking water, wastewater and highways). �� Non-profits as grantees. If a Member requests that funding be directed to a non-profit organization, the Member will need to provide evidence that the recipient is a non-profit organization as described under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Further, many water projects often partner with non-profit entities to complete projects. Therefore, projects may also be directed to non-profits with an inherently governmental function. What additional items should I be aware of related to Community Project Funding requests? �� Lobbyists, donors and other affiliated parties. While Members are required to certify to the Committee that neither they nor their immediate family have a financial interest in a proposed project, Members should also be fully aware of any other financial aspects or relationships associated with the proposed project that might raise ethical concerns. These include but are not limited to lobbyists, donors, or other affiliated parties that have an interest in the project. ��  One-stop webpage for the public. The Appropriations Committee will maintain a website with links to all House Members appropriations project requests to help the public easily view them. �� Transparency / Early Public Disclosure. Per House rules, each bill s Committee report will include a list identifying each community project that has been funded in the bill 59 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 