The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About12 December 11, 2002 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a, m. Wednesday, December 11, 2002 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5A. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-017, "RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE EASEMENT INTERESTS IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALLS AND RELATED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, ALONG STATE ROUTE 60, BETWEEN THE EAST JUNCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 60/215 INTERCHANGE AND REDLANDS BOULEVARD ON STATE ROUTE 60, IN MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA" Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a hearing to consider the approval of the proposed Resolution of Necessity, including providing all interested parties of the affected property, their attorneys, or their representatives an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the Resolution of Necessity; Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 Page 2 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: i. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. ii. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. iii. The property to be acquired is necessary for the project. iv. The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners; and, 3) Adopt Resolution No. 03-017, "Resolution of Necessity of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring That The Acquisition of Easement Interests in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, More Particularly Described as APNS 291-100-047, 291-402-006, 292-170-009, 292-170-017, 292-250- 005, 479-423-021, 481-101-016, 481-111-012, 481-111 Lot B, and 481-111 Lot E (Project Parcel Nos. 19432-1, 19469-1, 19495-1, 19490-1, 19481-1, 19524-1, 19524-2, 19503-1, 19503-2, 19502- 1, 19502-2, 19579-1, 19579-2 & 19579-3), by Eminent Domain is Necessary for the Construction of Sound Walls and Related Public Infrastructure, Along State Route 60, Between the East Junction of the State Route 60/215 Interchange and Redlands Boulevard on State Route 60, in Moreno Valley, California". 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. 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.) 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Page 28 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ending September 30, 2002. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 Page 3 7B. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Page 37 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending October 31, 2002. 7C. STATUS OF THE 2002 STIP AND PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR PROGRAMMING STIP PROJECTS IN EASTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Page 41 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the report on the status of the 2002 STIP; and, 2) Approve CVAG's proposed requirements for programming Eastern Riverside County Formula and Discretionary STIP Projects. 7D. MEASURE "A" PARK AND RIDE LEASE PROGRAM UPDATE Page 47 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Park and Ride Lease Program Update as an information item. 7E. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 7F. 2002 BEACH TRAIN PROGRAM SUMMARY Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the 2002 Beach Train Program Summary as an information item. Page 49 Page 66 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 Page 4 7G. APPROVAL OF SERVICES CONTRACT AGREEMENT NO. 03-33-037 WITH COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REAL PROPERTY SERVICES FOR RIVERSIDE TO PERRIS CORRIDOR STUDY Page 79 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-33-037 for Real Property Services with County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division. The contract will be for labor to obtain property information and right -of - entry for an amount not to exceed $230,000 with a contingency amount of $23,000 for a total not to exceed value of $253,000; 2) Amend the SRTP to include these services and allocate funding from State Transit Assistance Funds in an amount not to exceed $253,000; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7H. STATE ROUTE 60 HOV PROJECT - CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-1209 BETWEEN CALTRANS AND RCTC (RCTC AGREEMENT NUMBER 03-31-036) Page 82 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1209 with Caltrans (RCTC Agreement Number 03-31-036) for the construction work on the State Route 60 HOV Project from the East Junction of I-215/SR 60 to Redlands Boulevard; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 Page 5 71. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Page 96 Overview This item is for the Commission to amend the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the County of Riverside, as submitted. 7J. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE SELECTION Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 129 1) Receive and agree with the San Bernardino Associated Governments' action to select the Copeland/Madison Team to provide advocacy services for SANBAG and RCTC; 2) Direct staff to follow-up as necessary with SANBAG and negotiate with the preferred advocacy firm; and, 3) Direct staff to prepare an amendment to the current cooperative agreement with SANBAG. 8. REGIONAL RIDEMATCHING SYSTEM PARTNERSHIP Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 132 1) Approve the concept of the Commission's Commuter Assistance Program assuming the administrative and technical responsibilities for the implementation and maintenance of a regional ridematching system; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute individual memorandum of understandings with MTA, OCTA, and VCTC detailing the terms and conditions necessary to establish, fund, and oversee the regional ridematching system; and, Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 Page 6 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute an amendment to the Commission's existing RidePro agreement with Trapeze to add the geographic areas of Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties and perform any custom programming that may be required by the three county transportation commissions. 9. FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION PRIORITY PROJECT LIST Page 136 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the RCTC and Inland Empire Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century (TEA 21) Reauthorization Priority Project List. 10. 2003-2004 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Page 145 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the Proposed 2003-2004 State and Federal Legislative Program. 11. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Overview Page 155 This item is for the Commission to elect its Chairman, Vice Chairman and 2nd Vice Chairman. It is also for the respective area(s) to select its representative to the Executive Committee, if their representative was elected as Chair or 2nd Vice Chair. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. • The Chair will inform the Commission of a request from the Riverside National Cemetery for public art on retaining/sound walls of 91/215/60 Interchange. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 Page 7 14. CLOSED SESSION ITEM Overview A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(c) Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) Number of potential cases: 1 B. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) Names of Parties: Riverside County Transportation Commission v. State of California Department of Transportation, California Private Transportation Company 15. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 8, 2003, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 4 Minutes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman John Tavaglione at 9:02 a.m., in the Conference Room at the University of California at Riverside, 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy Byrd John Chlebnik Juan DeLara Frank Hall John Hunt Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Anne Mayer Ameal Moore Tom Mullen John Pena Gregory S. Pettis Ron Roberts Janice Rudman Robert Schiffner John F. Tavaglione Alfred W. Trembly Placido L. Valdivia James A. Venable Frank West Mike Wilson Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain G. Dana Hobart William G. Kleindienst Greg Ruppert Jack van Haaster Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 2 Chairman Tavaglione welcomed representatives from Senator Ray Haynes and Assemblyman Dennis Hollingworth's offices. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Vern Lauritzen, representative from Assemblyman Dennis Hollingworth's office, extended Senator Ray Haynes and Assemblyman Hollingsworth's appreciation for the professionalism shown by the County of Riverside and the Commission regarding concerns raised about Measure "A". Commissioner Tom Mullen also extended his appreciation to those who raised questions concerning Measure "A", TUMF, MSHCP, funding issues, and priorities and the manner in which they handled those issues, particularly Senator Haynes and Assemblyman Hollingsworth. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 9, 2002 Commissioner Frank Hall noted a correction to the minutes regarding action taken by the Commission on Agenda Item No. 8, Staff Recommendation on Locally Preferred Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) Alternatives for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor and the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor, Recommendation No. 2, as follows: Direct staff to return wi+h schedule at least four to six public hearings in impacted areas and return to the Commission with developed schedule. M/S/C (Hall/Rudman) to approve the October 9, 2002 minutes as corrected. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5A. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-015, "RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE FEE AND EASEMENT INTERESTS IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALLS AND RELATED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, ALONG STATE ROUTE 60, BETWEEN THE EAST JUNCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 60 / 215 INTERCHANGE AND REDLANDS BOULEVARD ON STATE ROUTE 60, IN MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA" At this time Chairman Tavaglione called upon Legal Counsel to informed those present on the purpose of the public hearing. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 3 Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, explained the nature and scope of public hearing including the findings that the Commission is being asked to make prior to the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity. He stated that the cost for the properties is not the subject matter for this hearing. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the State Route 60 project and each of the findings. This presentation constitutes appropriate and adequate information for the Commission to affirm the required findings and approve the Resolution of Necessity subject to any comments from the public. Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, noted additional information for this item. She stated that notices were mailed to the affected property owners and proofs of mailing of the notices of the hearing are on file. She also noted that written objections or letters were received from affected property owners Elsie Crager and Therese Finch. At this time, Chairman Tavaglione opened the public hearing. George Hrouda, an affected property owner, expressed his concern for the proposal to lease his property, including an appraisal over one year old that did not take into account recent property value increases, inconveniences caused by construction, and the restoration for the property. There being no further requests to speak on this matter, Chairman Tavaglione declared the public hearing closed for this item. M/S/C (Wilson/Hunt) to: 1) Approve the following findings: a. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. b. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. c. The property to be acquired is necessary for the project. d. The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners; and, Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 4 2) Adopt Resolution No. 03-015, "Resolution of Necessity of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring That The Acquisition of Fee and Easement Interests in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, More Particularly Described as APNS 291-402- 019, 291-431-024, 291-502-005, 292-160-001, 292-160- 014, 292-160-015, 292-170-002, 292-170-008, 292-170- 013, 292-170-018, 292-222-016, 292-230-028, 292-250- 026, 479-423-034, 479-423-039, 479-423-040, 477-412- 001, 477-412-003, 477-412-004, 477-412-005, 477-531- 005, 477-531-006, 477-531-007, 477-531-008, 477-531- 010, 477-531-012, 477-531-013, 477-531-014, 481-312- 001, 481-312-002, 481-312-003, 481-312-004, 481-312- 005, 481-312-006, 481-312-007, 481-312-008, 481-312- 009, 481-312-010, 481-312-011, 481-312-012, 481-312- 013, 481-312-014, 481-312-015, 481-312-016, 481-312- 017, 481-312-018 and 481-312-019 (Project Parcel Nos. 19437-1, 19448-1, 19456-1, 19482-1, 19486-1, 19488- 1, 19489-1, 19491-1, 19494-1, 19497-1, 19498-1, 19500-1, 19501-1, 19504-1, 19504-2, 19505-1, 19505- 2, 19506-1, 19506-2, 19507-1, 19507-2, 19508-1, 19508-2, 19509-1, 19509-2, 19510-1, 19510-2, 19511- 1, 19511-2, 19512-1, 19512-2, 19513-1, 19513-2, 19514-1, 19514-2, 19515-1, 19515-2, 19516-1, 19516- 2, 19517-1, 19517-2, 19518-1, 19518-2, 19519-1, 19519-2, 19520-1, 19520-2, 19521-1, 19521-2, 19522- 1, 19522-2, 19537-1, 19542-1, 19543-1, 19544-1, 19544-2, 19545-1, 19545-2, 19546-1, 19546-2, 19547- 1, 19547-2, 19550-1, 19551-1, 19552-1, 19553-1, 19555-1, 19557-1, 19558-1 & 19559-1), by Eminent Domain is Necessary for the Construction of Sound Walls and Related Public Infrastructure, Along State Route 60, Between the East Junction of the State Route 60/215 Interchange and Redlands Boulevard on State Route 60, in Moreno Valley, California": Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 5 5B. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-014, "RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE FEE AND EASEMENT INTERESTS AND IMPROVEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE REALTY IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE WIDENING, REALIGNMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF STATE ROUTE 74, BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY 1640 FEET EAST OF WASSON CANYON ROAD, IN LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, TO 7TH STREET, IN PERRIS, CALIFORNIA (SEGMENT 21" Chairman Tavaglione requested Legal Counsel to provide the purpose of the public hearing. Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, explained the nature and scope of public hearing including the findings that the Commission is being asked to make prior to the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity. He stated that the cost for the properties is not the subject matter for this hearing. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the State Route 74 project and each of the findings. This presentation constitutes appropriate and adequate information for the Commission to affirm the required findings and approve the Resolution of Necessity subject to any comments from the public. Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, stated that notices were mailed to the affected property owners and proofs of mailing of the notices of the hearing are on file. She also noted the letters received from property owners. There being no requests to speak on this matter, Chairman Tavaglione declared the public hearing closed. M/S/C (Mullen/Lowe) to: 1) Approve the following findings: a. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. b. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. c. The property to be acquired is necessary for the project. d. The portions of the real property to be acquired, as identified below, are "remnants" as defined in Code Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 6 of Civil Procedure section 1240.410, thereby giving the Commission separate statutory authority to acquire those portions by eminent domain. e. The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners; and, 2) Adopt Resolution No. 03-014, "Resolution of Necessity of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring That The Acquisition of Fee and Easement Interests and Improvements Pertaining to the Realty in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, More Particularly Described as APNS 342-051-013, 342-051- 007, 342-052-011, 342-052-016, 342-052-018, 342-052- 019, 342-061-007, 342-061-008, 342-062-001, 342-062- 002, 342-062-007, 342-100-011, 342-100-012, 342-100- 017, 342-100-018, 342-100-022, 342-100-038, 342-100- 048, 342-140-009, 342-140-010, 342-140-011, 342-140- 012, 342-160-001, 342-200-032, 342-210-032, 345-070- 003, 345-080-046, 345-080-055, 345-080-056, 345-090- 003, 345-090-008, 345-200-007, 345-200-010, 345-210- 003, 345-220-005, 345-220-019, 345-220-022, 345-220- 061, 345-220-066, 345-220-072, 349-342-006 and 349- 342-007 (Project Parcel Nos. 13629-1, 13630-1, 13641-1, 13643-1, 13643-2, 13647-1, 13649-1, 13650-1, 13653- 1, 13654-1, 13661-1, 13663-1, 13684-1, 13714-1, 13714-2, 13718-1, 13724-1, 13730-1, 13732-1, 13752- 1, 13752-2, 13752-3, 13780-1, 13798-1, 13798-2, 13802-1, 13803-1, 13803-2, 13804-1, 13805-1, 13806- 1, 13813-1, 13825-1, 13827-1, 13832-1, 13832-2, 13835-1, 13836-1, 13837-1, 13852-1, 13854-1 and 13858-1), by Eminent Domain Is Necessary for the Widening, Realignment and Improvement of State Route 74, Between Approximately 1640 Feet East of Wasson Canyon Road, in Lake Elsinore, California, to 7th Street, in Perris, California (Segment 2)." 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, noted there were no additions or revisions to the remainder of the agenda. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 7 7. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Lowe/Pena) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending September 30, 2002. 7B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending July, August, and September 2002. 7C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ending September 30, 2002. 7D. COST ALLOCATION PLAN (CAP) Receive and file the Cost Allocation Plan Summary. 7E. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-013, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION'S ANNUAL APPROPRIATION LIMIT" Adopt Resolution No. 03-013, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Annual Appropriation Limit": 7F. WORKSHOP SPONSORSHIP: CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION 1) Approve the sponsorship of a workshop at the Spring 2003 Conference of the California Association for Coordinated Transportation; and, 2) Allocate up to $ 1,500 in Measure "A" Specialized Transportation Funds to cover the cost of sponsoring the workshop. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 8 7G. STATUS OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS / SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS INTERSTATE 15 PARTNERSHIP STUDY Receive and file the Western Riverside Council of Governments / San Diego Association of Governments Interstate 15 Partnership Study. 7H. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. M22-002 WITH COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Approve a Memorandum of Understanding No. M22-002 between the Commission and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) setting forth responsibilities for the administration of the 2002 Measure "A" Sales Tax Program in the Coachella Valley. 71. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-012, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS BE IDENTIFIED AS THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT OF FEDERAL URBANIZED AREA FORMULA FUNDS FOR THE TEMECULA - MURRIETA AND INDIO - CATHEDRAL CITY - PALM SPRINGS URBANIZED AREAS" 1) Adopt Resolution No. 03-012 recommending to the Governor of the State of California that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) be identified as the Designated Recipient for Federal Transit Administration funds apportioned to the newly combined urbanized area of Indio — Cathedral City — Palm Springs as well as the newly established Temecula — Murrieta urbanized area; and, 2) Direct staff to seek written concurrence from the two transit agencies serving these areas. 7J. FISCAL YEAR 2003 AMENDMENT TO COMMUTER RAIL'S SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN — ALLOCATION OF STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS 1) Reduce the original $1.8 million allocation in State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds for the La Sierra Station Parking Expansion to $1 million; 2) Allocate $302,100 in STA funds for the completion of the Federal Transit Administration's Alternative Analysis for the San Jacinto Branch Line; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 9 3) Allocate $100,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for rail station operating and legal expenses; and, 4) Amend the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. 7K. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF MURRIETA Grant the City of Murrieta a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2003 to complete the Washington Avenue Sidewalk Project. 7L. APPROVAL OF CITY OF TEMECULA'S MULTI -USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN Approve the City of Temecula's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan dated January 2002. 7M. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2002 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Approve the amendment to the FY 2002 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Paim Springs. 7N. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 03-45-034 BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1) Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program in the amount of $1,080,400 in State funding for FY 2002-03; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 10 70. AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-033 WITH DMJM + HARRIS FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 60 HOV PROJECT FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES 1) Award Agreement No. 03-31-033 (Amendment No. 9 to Agreement No. RO-2042) for DMJM + Harris to provide engineering design services for the State Route 60 HOV Project Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), for an additional base amount of $116,515; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7P. AGREEMENT NO. 03-33-009 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EMERGENCY PLATFORM EXTENSION AT THE PEDLEY METROLINK STATION 1) Award Construction Agreement No. 03-03-009 for construction of an Emergency Platform Extension at the Pedley Metrolink Station; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7Q. AGREEMENT NO. 03-25-032 WITH THE WESTERN AREA SECURITY SERVICES AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE GUARD SERVICES FOR THE NORTH MAIN CORONA STATION Approve an amendment to the agreement (Agreement No. 03-25-032, Amendment No. 1 to RO No. 2161) with Western Area Security Services in an amount not to exceed $115,000 to include the addition of the North Main Corona Metrolink Station among the properties they currently provide security services, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. 7R. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 8. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STIP REPROGRAMMING REQUEST M/S/C (Lowe/Mullen) to approve the County of Riverside's request to reprogram STIP Funds on Newport Road to State Route 79. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 11 9. HIGHWAY AND COMMUTER RAIL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM UPDATE M/S/C (Mullen/Byrd) to receive and file the Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Program Update as an information item. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Eric Haley, Executive Director, provided a report of the draft poll results for Measure "A", announcing it received voter approval of 69.2%. He also noted that it was the only transportation measure in the State of California to pass. B. Chairman Tavaglione extended his appreciation to Commissioners John Pena, John Hunt, Al Trembly, and Jan Rudman for their commitment and efforts as members of the Commission. C. Commissioner Bob Buster requested staff to provide a County -wide quarterly project status report that includes highway, commuter rail, and arterials projects and to post the report on the Commission's website. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) Names of Parties: "No on A - No LA", San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society vs. RCTC, County of Riverside, County Board of Supervisors, Eric Haley Case Number: RCV384012 There were no announcements on the Closed Session items. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 12 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:58 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution No. 03-017, "Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Easement Interests in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, by Eminent Domain, That is Necessary for the Construction of Sound Walls and Related Public Infrastructure, Along State Route 60, Between the East Junction of the State Route 60/215 Interchange and Redlands Boulevard on State Route 60, in Moreno Valley, California" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a hearing to consider the approval of the proposed Resolution of Necessity, including providing all interested parties of the affected property, their attorneys, or their representatives an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the Resolution of Necessity; 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: i. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. ii. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. iii. The property to be acquired is necessary for the project. iv. The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners; and, 3) Adopt Resolution No. 03-017, "Resolution of Necessity of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring That The Acquisition of Easement Interests in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, More Particularly Described as APNS 291-100-047, 291-402- 006, 292-170-009, 292-170-017, 292-250-005, 479-423-021, 481-101-016, 481-111-012, 481-111 Lot B, and 481-111 Lot E (Project Parcel Nos. 19432- 1, 19469-1, 19495-1, 19490-1, 19481-1, 19524-1, 19524-2, 19503-1, 19503- 2, 19502-1, 19502-2, 19579-1, 19579-2 & 19579-3), by Eminent Domain is Necessary for the Construction of Sound Walls and Related Public Infrastructure, Along State Route 60, Between the East Junction of the State Route 60/215 Interchange and Redlands Boulevard on State Route 60, in Moreno Valley, California". Item 5 V000'µ BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The State Route 60 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) median -widening project is a Measure "A" project from the East Junction Route SR -60/I-215 to Redlands Boulevard in Moreno Valley. The project will add an HOV lane in each direction of travel on State Route 60 in Moreno Valley. Additionally, numerous noise barriers will be constructed in various locations along the current right of way in order to mitigate for potential increase in traffic noise associated with the creation of the high occupancy vehicle lanes between Day Street and Redlands Boulevard. The offers have not been accepted to date, however negotiations are ongoing and will continue. The negotiations are not precluded by the holding of the hearing or the Commission's approval of a resolution of necessity. It may be necessary to acquire some or all of the parcels described in Exhibit "A" by eminent domain. The initiation of the eminent domain process is the approval of a resolution of necessity. Prior to approving a resolution of necessity, the Commission must give each person whose property is to be acquired, and whose name and address appears on the last equalized County Tax Assessor's roll, notice and a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard on: 1. whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project; 2. whether the proposed project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. whether the acquisition of the real property is necessary for the project; and, 4. whether the required offers to acquire the real property have been made. Note: The fair market value of the property is not an issue at the hearing. The notice must be mailed by first class mail and state the intent of the Commission to consider the approval of the resolution, the right of each person to appear and be heard on these issues, and that the failure to file a written request to appear will result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard. The Commission must then hold a hearing at which all persons who filed a written request within 15 days of the date the notice was mailed may appear and be heard. The required notice was mailed to the property owners, identified in Exhibit "A", on November 25, 2002. 000002 Item 5 DISCUSSION: The following addresses the four findings that are required for approval of the resolution of necessity: (1) THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE PROPOSED PROJECT State Route 60 is functionally classified as an Urban Principal Arterial used primarily for interregional travel between San Bernardino, Riverside and Los Angeles counties. It is a major truck route with 11 percent trucks during the peak hour, and it is included in the National Network for Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act for oversized trucks. The traffic volume on SR 60 exceeds the capacity of the freeway during peak hours in this area due to population growth in Moreno Valley, as well as to changes in land use. The level of service will continue to deteriorate resulting in increased traffic delays and accidents without any improvements to the freeway. The proposed road improvements include construction of one HOV lane in the existing median in each direction, decking of Frederick Street/Pigeon Pass Road and Heacock Street undercrossing structures, reconstruction of the Perris Boulevard undercrossing structures and the construction of sound walls adjacent to residential properties along the corridor primarily from Day Street to Redlands Boulevard. (2) THE PROJECT IS PLANNED OR LOCATED IN A MANNER THAT WILL BE MOST COMPATIBLE WITH THE GREATEST PUBLIC GOOD AND THE LEAST PRIVATE INJURY The roadway alignment follows the existing alignment since the HOV lanes will be constructed within the inside median. The proposed project conforms to the Transportation System Development Plan and is consistent with the Air Quality Management District requirement that HOV lanes be considered on future widening projects. (3) THE ACQUISITION OF THE PARCELS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT The partial acquisition of parcels and temporary construction easements are required in order to mitigate for the additional noise impacts for the construction of the HOV lanes. All of the affected property owners were given the opportunity to vote in favor or to object to the construction of soundwalls adjacent to their respective properties. Item 5 000003 (4) THE OFFERS OF JUST COMPENSATION HAVE BEEN MADE Appraisals were prepared by Donahue & Company to establish the fair market value of the fee and easement interests that RCTC is seeking to acquire. The Commission reviewed the results of the original appraisals at the August 15, and September 11, 2002 Commission meetings. The Commission directed staff to transmit the approved offers of just compensation to the property owners. Offers of just compensation were made to the property owners to purchase the fee and easement interests as established by the approved appraisals and as required by Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code. Although negotiated settlements may still be possible for the property cited above, it would be appropriate to commence the procedures to acquire the fee and easement interests through eminent domain to ensure that access and the necessary property rights will be available to meet the critical time frames associated with the development of the project. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no new fiscal impact from this action. The Commission approved the current budget for the subject State Route 60 HOV median widening project at the February 2002 Commission meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Based on the 1994 Project Report, the project was determined to be Categorically Exempt under Class 1 of the State CEQA guidelines and Categorically Excluded under NEPA. The Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion (CE/CE) Determination for the project was originally completed on August 12, 1993. An updated CE/CE Determination, a CE Re -Evaluation and supporting technical studies were prepared and processed in conjunction with a Supplemental Project Report for environmental clearance of the proposed project. The updated CE/CE Determination for the project was approved on May 23, 2002. The technical studies prepared to support the updated CE/CE Determination were the following: • Air Quality Assessment • Noise Analysis • Initial Site Assessment Update • Visual Impacts Study • Natural Environmental Study • Preliminary Environmental Study 000004 Item 5 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: The notice of this public hearing was mailed on November 25, 2002 (15 days prior to meeting) to each property owner of record. Attachments: 1) Soundwall Locations Map 2) List of Parcels Table 3) Resolution of Necessity No. 03-017 000005 Item 5 19432 TEMP. CONST. EASEMENT 208.0 . m2 (2239 ft=) ■ CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR USE OF KINROSS LANE I: 500 KINROSS LANE 1 SOUND WALL- 24. ROUTE 60 • 24 DMjMIEHARRLS 999 c,: 6 Cptntry RA- Ormpe Ca. 9229968 00000€ TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ROUTE 60 - SOUNDWALL 2X APN 291-100-047 HIEIT R PAGE 1 K INROSS LANE (9469 TEMP. CONST. EASEMENT 56. 7 m= (610 ft2) 18.913 Lm SOUNO WALL 24 ROUTE 60 ) 1 1 EXHIBIT "A" 1:500 DMjM:: 32 000007 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ROUTE 60 - SOUNDWALL 24 APN 291-402-006 \3426\present\tce\24tce402006. don IOATE PIOTTE0 •> 07/24/2002 LIR1 • 1 7,1 T A 1 AGE60A ._\3426\present\tce\24Otce170017.<Ign'DATE PLOTTED •) 06/02/2002 1 CU 00000 laYI- IRIT A PAPS 4 1 E o �o o. o to N 9495 TEMP. CONST. EASEMENT 94.2 m' (1.014 ft') 47.107 m (154.6'1 SOUND WALL 240 �- T V t ROUTE 60 1: 500 7 246 DMJIVINHARRIS 999g ippyynn Orange Ca mdry ea. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ROUTE 60 — SOUNDWALL 240 APN 292-170-009 0000.0 \3426\present\tce\240tce170009.dgn!DATE PLOTTED -> 08/02/2002 CU 00000 IEA 463601 cvuH1:UUT tc_ PAGE 5 Sheet 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" Being a portion of Lot 7, Block 5 of the Sunnymead Orchard Tract, situated in the City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, State of California, on file in Book 9, Page 17 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwesterly corner of Lot "E" of Tract No. 3321, situated in the City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, State of California, onfile in Book 54, Pages 84 and 85 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, said northwesterly corner being a point on the southerly line of the State Highway VIII-RIV-19-C, as shown on said Tract; thence westerly along said southerly line, South 86°28'26" West, 10.713 meters (35.15 feet); thence southerly along a line perpendicular to said southerly line, South 03°31'34" East, 1.000 meters (3.28 feet) to a point on a line parallel with and distant southerly 1.000 meters (3.28 feet) measured at right angles from said southerly line; thence easterly along said parallel line, North 86°28'26" East, 10.673 meters (35.02 feet) to a point on the westerly line of said Lot "E"; thence northerly along said westerly line, North 01°14'19" West, 1.001 meters (3.28 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing approximately 10.7 square meters (115 square feet). The bearings and distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Multiply distances shown by 1.00006355 to obtain ground level distances. 08-RIV-60-25.05 -19502 (19502-1) See Sheet 2 for a plat depicting the above described Land. This real property h. •een describe me mew, under): direction, in conformance with the Professional . n. Surve Signature Date 000011 0 s 9/30/05 .S. 4430 Al/ OV01340V000% 01011 V.13GAL DWTIOFG 19 - me EXHIBIT i PAGE in *Y SHEET 2 OF 2 SCALE: 1: 500 1.000m (3.28' 1 S86'28'26"W .........10 TI3m_" (35. 1 LOT / BLWW < 5 SUNNYMP AD Oft0HARD: MA., ., 971.1 P05 WVrCOR LQT "E" 1 14'19'W SLY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY .(3.28') NO�... VIII-RIY-19-C PER )d,B.:54/84-8$_-.... LOOIm -- .• ••- . TRAQT JJJJDJ 54/x4-25 2 POSTAL AVENUE 1 THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEJA OF 1983. ZONE 6. µ TIPLY DISTANCES SHOWN BY 1.00006355 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. Associated Engineers, Inc. 331 EAST SHELBY STREET ONTARIO, CA 91164 TEL. (909) 980-8982 . FA)4 (909) 941-0891 AREA OISTRICT COUNTY `ROUTE ULOPOST 08 RIVERSIDE 60 26..05/6.56 PARCEL Ho.t 19502-1 SQUARE FEET) M5 SOUARE METERS& 10.7 0 0 0 01 eARCEL 19502-1 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION PAGE I ROUTE 6 _10 CANOPY Tom- , 4WD y - - -T L_ '1 H - -J ASPh 1 -1 �l POL io; Q r. Os TEMP. CONST. I, EASEMENT 53.5,, .: — • .10 ift=) '01, 19502 ASPH ASPH — SOUND WALL 249 DMJM E Iyy-�z�JC�RLS Me Ca Mry Rd. 000013 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ROUTE 60 - SOUNDWALL 249 EXHIBIUL, PAGE.. APN 481-111-012 ... \3-026\present\tce\249tce00I0I 2. & n (DATE PLOTTED -) in/04/7002 1 /Y I n........ Sheet 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" Being a portion of Lot 5, Block 5 of the Sunnymead Orchard Tract, situated in the City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, State of California, on file in Book 9, Pages 17 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwesterly comer of land described in a Quitclaim Deed to Arlene Denison and Dean L. Rawley, Co -Trustees, recorded June 1, 1993, as Instrument No. 93-0204352 of Official Records in said Office of the County Recorder, said northwesterly corner being a point on the southerly line of the State Highway as described in said Quitclaim Deed to Arlene Denison and Dean L. Rawley, Co -Trustees, said northwesterly corner also being the northeasterly comer of Lot "B", Tract 3728, on file in Book 61, Pages 11 and 12 of Maps in said Office of the County Recorder, said southerly line being the southerly line of State Highway VII-RIV-19-C, as shown on said Tract; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Quitclaim Deed, and said southerly line, South 87° 39' 25" East, 22.000 meters (72.18 feet); thence South 02° 20' 35" West, 1.000 meter (3.28 feet) to a point on a line parallel with and distant southerly 1.000 meter (3.28 feet) measured at right angles from said northerly and southerly line; thence westerly along said parallel line, North 87° 39' 25" West, 18.227 meters (59.80 feet) to a point on the easterly line of said Lot "B", said easterly line being a non -tangent curve concave westerly having a radius of 7.619 meters (25.00 feet), a radial line through said point bears North 32° 01' 49" East; thence northwesterly along said easterly line and said curve through a central angle of 29° 41' 13" an arc length of 3.948 meters (12.95 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing approximately 19.5 square meters (210 square feet). The bearings and distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Multiply distances shown by 1.00006355 to obtain ground level distances. 08-RIV-60-25.44 -19503 (19503-1) See Sheet 2 of 2 for a plat depicting the above described Land. This real property h. - . en de • be!/ me, o der m .�';�'on, in conformance with the Professional L Date O V00-14OUOOO\00-013U£GAL DESCRIPTIONS \ 19501-1.00C EXHIBITA,PAGE.3_, 000014 \ ? -- i am; -' SHEET 2 OF 2 `� \�-' ja--- — J Ei R U S , L1633. S1 — 1639. 98- 1640 --I 640_5 RIV-60 16 0 SCALE: 1:500 ,ASH J 639 __STATE ROUTE 60 1 b18. 4_ \--1637. 6 _1639 1 �YVCOR6 0 INST. NO. 441-11704352. OR 'E (RP,RUfjH LOT a ALLEY R=7 6 9m (25.00') 29. 4113" I L=3.948m (12.95') N32' 01'49"E (R) TR N D J M J 61/ 1 1-- 1 LOT -POSTAL AVE �l 000015 S8T•39'25"E 22.000m ,,(72.18'1 N8T'39'25!' -- 18.22/d (59.807 00 IKE OF---ST-Af -- PER-OUffC MM --- .06-01-93 AS 204352. OR 1 16 J .J . 1 )-, p..1? 1 ' . 1 1 SUNNYMP \p t ,6RCHARD 7R' 1- 1 , ; \ MJLJ 9/1 \\ OLocx 5 \\\ `j \ l LOT 5 \ , . - \\ \.;1 . THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, ZONE 6. MULTIPLY DISTANCES SHOWN BY 1.00006355 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. Associated Engineers, Inc. 3311 EAST SHELBY STREET ONTARIO. CA 91764 TEL. (9091 980-1982 FAX: (9091 941-0891 AREA PARCEL No.t 19503-1 SQUARE FEET( 210 SQUARE METERS! 19.5 PARCEL 19503-1 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY X.F..L1 gait. DISTRICT COUNTY ROUTE KILOPOST 08 RIVERSIDE 60 20.48/32.76 ASPI I H V - 60 — VW 23'13. 9"E 1 2 25 A_ 1 _ 0 GC ASPH R+v-60 E.. gm D KE BRUSH u,t..- 'DST CONC 15.187 m (49 8') I 1 , i \ ` \ TEMPORARY (MST. \ EASEME T BRUSH� 83.3 (897 f 1951 -2 \ ` \ l j.f x ___.:.„--_" ti\ ` \ \; ASPH 0il DIRT \�'• \ '-------.._ / ii I II . � I : Y . \ \ DMJMHARRIS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT) 0 0 016 ROUTE 60 - SOUNDWALL 249 APN 481-101-016 .. \3426\prosenn\toet249Toe-08TJ 1. dQnTOATE PLOTTED -> OA/14/2002 1 CU 00000 TEA 463601 EXHIBIT . PAGE if Sheet 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" Being a portion of Lot 54, of Tract No. 12902-2, situated in the City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, State of California, on file in Book 141, Pages 21 through 23, inclusive of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the easterly line of .the 15' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT shown in said Lot 54 on said Tract and the northerly line of the southerly 12 feet of said Lot 54, said northerly line being the northerly line of the land described in Grant Deeds to the State of California recorded October 10, 1984 as Instrument No. 218858 and October 22, 1984 as Instrument No. 227087 both of Official Records; thence northerly along said easterly line, North 00°27'15" East, 24.962 meters (81.90 feet); thence westerly along a line perpendicular to said easterly line, North 89°32'45" West, 0.458 meters (1.50 feet) to a point on a line parallel with and 0.458 meters (1.50 feet) westerly measured at right angles from said easterly line; thence southerly along said parallel line, South 00°27'15" West, 24.899 meters (81.69 feet) to a point on said northerly line; thence easterly along said northerly line, South 81°41'57" East, 0.462 meters (1.52 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing approximately 11.4 square meters (123 square feet). The bearings and distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Multiply distances shown by 1.00006355 to obtain ground level distances. 08-RIV-60-27.16 -19524 (19524-1) See Sheet 2 for a plat depicting the above described Land. This real property has been described by me or under y • ection, in conformance with the Professional :stf11 Sury r's Signature Date om •' . 1 . 4.3 s 9/30/05 _5e7 \_AN D �. c3�� JOHN /Me�'9G _` tb\ NO.4430 ?�' I * Exp.09130105 )1*l OF :JP\�Q 000017 195?4,1 a•, 1YWIPIT A RAGE a SHEET 2 OF 2 Y SCALE: 1:500 20' EASEMENT TO CALIFORNIA •• -ELECTRIC POWER. REC. SEPT. 12. 1952 BK. 1399, PG. 475 O.R. • TRACT NO 1? -90')-1 M,0, 141/21 -23 ELF AVENUE _....... Y .. .. ....... ... 10.769m 05.33'1 0.462m �f8.4i2m — — (1_52') SM. 41',57,i l 1 S'LY LINE LOT 54 15' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT PER TRACT 12902-2, .. Qo 141/.21-23 ri Zr" 1\1O, 17907-7 144/21-23 J 3 N'LY LINE OF LAND TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PER DEEDS REC. OCT. 10,1984 INST. NO. 218858 O.R. AND OCT. 20, 1984 INST. NO. 227087 O.R. J) EX 1ST. R/W STATE ROUTE 60 272 THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, ZONE 6. MULTIPLY DISTANCES SHOWN BY 1.00006355 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. Associated Engineers, Inc. 3311 EAST SHELBY STREET ONTARIO. CA 91764 TEL. 19091 980-1982 FAX: (909) 941-0891 AREA PARCEL No.: 19524-1 SQUARE FEET: 123 SOIIARE uAFTFRS: 11.4 PARCEL 19524-19 00018 DIS TRIC T COUNTY ROUTE K40POST ft ROtJTE._5O 1 r,. 27 MUM.0 ARRIS vvje Ca CQ.J t Y R4. 000019 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ROUTE 60 - SOUNDWALL 270 APN 479-423-021 . '�3'1 -'f .(-,- nt\t' •?1UtCg4!SUlI.UOn10AU igG1110 oe,1 ;,O`.). CU 00000 ILA 463601 EXHIBIT _A____. PAGE Sheet 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" Being a portion of Lot "E" of Tract 3321, situated in the City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, State of California, on file in Book 54, Pages 84 and 85 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwesterly corner of said Lot, said corner being on the southerly line of State Highway VIII-RIV-19-C (State Route 60) as shown on said Tract; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Lot and said southerly line, North 86°28'26" East, 0.899 meters (2.95 feet); thence continuing along said northerly and southerly line, North 87°24'55" East, 61.775 meters (202.67 feet); thence southerly along a line perpendicular to said northerly and southerly line, South 02°35'05" East, 1.000 meters (3.28 feet) to a point on a line parallel with and distant southerly 1.000 meter (3.28 feet) measured at right angles from said last mentioned northerly and southerly line; thence westerly along said parallel line, South 87°24'55" West, 61.767 meters (202.65 feet) to a point on a line parallel with and distant southerly 1.000 meters (3.28 feet) measured at right angles from said first mentioned northerly and southerly line; thence westerly along said parallel line, South 86°28'26" West, 0.931 meters (3.05 feet) to a point on the westerly line of said Lot "E"; thence northerly along said last mentioned westerly line, North 01°14'19" West, 1.001 meters (3.28 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing approximately 62.7 square meters (675 square feet). The bearings and distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Multiply distances shown by 1.00006355 to obtain ground level distances. 08-RIV-60-25.05 -19579 (19579-1) See Sheet 2 for a plat depicting the above described Land. This real property has been described b, me, or under my ife i6n, in conformance with the Professional La " rveyor ct Signature Date Ir4t•io .S.4430 Expir •:x9/30/05 h'7(1 0.\]Dl3-NO\_'000\00-013\LEGAL DESCRIMIONS\ 19579-1 .doc EXHIBIT k PAGE 15 0000,0 SHEET 2 OF 2 SCALE: 1: 500 POB .NW'Cf COii.... LOT. -';E.......... ..(486.:.28:26:'.E ....... ....... ... .... PERM 0.899m (2.95') 1401'14'19"W 1.001m (3.28') .. 0UOO2 19579-1 STATE ROUTE 60 ...._...........ESUT.- .... ... ... . .... 6.096m (20.00') 0.931m , OJ "r (3.05') 586'28'26"W 251 S'LY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY o co 502'.5'05"E V0 B. 1-RIV-19-C PER M. 54/84 -8 ....o �`: LOOOm o -. / (3.28') N87' 24'55"E 61.775m (202.67') „ S87' 24'55"W 61.767m (202.65') TRACT rl JIIJ0J ALLEY E 0 t0 0 0 0 IN ND. 3321 3 POSTAL AVENUE a+ 0 0 0 M THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983. ZONE 6. MULTIPLY DISTANCES SHOWN BY 1.00006355 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. Associated Engineers, Inc. 3311 EAST SHELBY STREET ONTARIO. CA 91764 TEL. (909) 980-1982 FAX: (909) 941-0891 AREA PARCEL No.: 19579-1 SQUARE FEET: 675 SQUARE METERS: 62.7 PARCEL 19579-1 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION FYHIRIT A- PAC1P lin DISTRICT COUNTY ROUTE K)LOPOST O8 RIVERSIDE - . 60 25.05/15.56 Sheet 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" Being a portion of Lot "E" of Tract 3321, situated in the City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, State of Califomia, on file in Book 54, Pages 84 and 85 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County and a portion of Lot "B" of Tract 3728, situated in the City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, State of California, on file in Book 61, Pages 11 and 12 of Maps, in the Office of said County Recorder, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwesterly corner of said Lot B, said corner being on the southerly line of State Highway VIII-RIV-19-C (State Route 60) as shown on said Tract, said northwesterly corner being the northeasterly corner of said Lot "E"; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Lot "B" and said southerly line, South 89°34'15" East, 21.146 meters (69.37 feet); thence continuing along said northerly and southerly line, South 87°39'25" East, 76.236 meters (250.12 feet) to the beginning point of a tangent curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 7.619 meters (25.00 feet) said beginning point being the northwesterly corner of land described in a Quitclaim Deed to Arlene Denison and Dean L. Rawley, Co -Trustees, recorded June 1, 1993, as Instrument No. 93-0204352 of Official Records in said Office of the County Recorder, said tangent curve being the easterly line of said Lot "B" and the westerly line of said land described in the Quitclaim Deed to Arlene Denison and Dean L. Rawley, Co -Trustees; thence southeasterly along said curve and said easterly and westerly line through a central angle of 29°41'13" an arc length of 3.948 meters (12.95 feet) to a point on a line parallel with and distant southerly 1.000 meters (3.28 feet) measured at right angles from said last mentioned northerly and southerly line; thence westerly along said parallel line, North 87°39'25" West, 79.992 meters (262.44 feet) to a point on a line parallel with and distant southerly 1.000 meters (3.28 feet) measured at right angles from said first mentioned northerly and southerly line; thence westerly along said parallel line, North 89°34'15" West, 42.702 meters (140.10 feet); thence northerly on a line perpendicular to last said parallel line, North 00°25'45" East, 1.000 meters (3.28 feet) to a point on the northerly line of said lot E and said southerly line of State Highway; thence easterly along said northerly and southerly line, South 89°34'15" East, 21.573•meters (70.78 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing approximately 121.5 square meters (1,308 square feet). The bearings and distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Multiply distances shown by 1.00006355 to obtain ground level distances. 08-RIV-60-25.35 -19579 (19579-2) See Sheet 2 for a plat depicting the above described Land. This real property has been describe by me, or und erection, in conformance with the Professional Land S p eyor' t. Signature Date bio i L.S. 4430 es 9/30/05 (`)LANDS, <gyJOHN 1441/0 1<'<k -z- Ca --sir; NO.4430 *kl. Exp.09/30/05 OF J)L O:UOB-NO12000\OD-0LJILEGAL DESCH(PLIONS\ 195 79.2.doc I i rot it ° , ' r% A tiro® I1 000022 SCALE: 1:500 A=29'41'13" R=7.619m (25.00') L=3.948m (12.95') 1.000m (3.28') 10 W M 03 6.096m (^ (20.00') co N N 0 N en — co z ii SEE UPPER RIGHT 4, r_1 • 060) 23 0 1J I -r CC w 1-= (A c in N S'LY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY VUI-Rly-19-C PER M.B. 54/84-85 SEE LEFT j 6.096m (20.00') PERM ESMT 1.000m (3.28') S'LY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY VIII-RIV-19-C PER M.B. 61/11-12 EN 01 LN N 'POBY COR~�—+► LOT "1$" W r M 03 No 1�E ati cv N ow- Q E N87 39'2 L1 0 N O N N SHEET 2 OF 2 co C11 179 0 NO0:' 25`:45"E 1.000m (3.28')- Lit r) THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, ZONE 6. MULTIPLY DISTANCES SHOWN BY 1.00006355 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. Associated Engineers, Inc. 3311 EAST SHELBY STREET ONTARIO. CA 91764 TEL. (9091 980-1982' FAX: (9091 941-0891 AREA PARCEL No.: 19579-2 SQUARE FEET: 1,308 SQUARE METERS: 121.5 PARCEL 19579-2 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DISTRICT COUNTY ROUTE KILOPOST na oivcacmc - cn 7S ZS/IS 7S ----- nsvu— , 5.7 'S"'r _._ _ AVENUE c-� fir, _ _ -- •� •- - e r' _ D1AI 1 —. _ -- - -- --- - _ - - ... . g 97-t___— -- --- 4--— — --- ROUTE -60 -. -}v -- - 0"'—'02589'27'13 9"E _' .. . ---.. -_ U= — -- - - --- -B .•IN - --- - ----' �-' 6-- 0--9 — .�:L __..--4--2 a - - _SOUND WALL 249 - - - � ---- ------. .---_ ..-..--- -- .-- ..._.-- -__- - ASPH L.-6.096 m A>r" " E. f20. s') - -- L. «IC 1 r ) r1 >< f �i 1 1 r +sr�1 c01c .. _:..i . 6. 938 f 19579-3 L L. -ISO STAL AVENUE -'? ` U11 li . :11 1C _. 7 11-'- 11,.�fi - 1 r -- ._SPIT RIV-b0 -- -. 171 DMJMUHARRIS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT APN 481-111- PORTION LOTOE,f EAPN 48 -101-PORT ON49 LOT E, APN 481 -101 -LOT B .. \pre sent\toe \249tce48 11I (3). dOn I DATE PLOTTED •> 10/04,2002 Iru nnnnn 0 8 RESOLUTION NO. 03-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DECLARING THAT THE ACQUISITION OF EASEMENT INTERESTS IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APNS 291-100-047, 291-402-006, 292-170-009, 292-170-017, 292-250- 005, 479-423-021, 481-101-016, 481-111-012, 481-111 Lot B, AND 481-111 Lot E (PROJECT PARCEL NOS. 19432-1, 19469-1, 19495-1, 19490-1, 19481-1, 19524-1, 19524-2, 19503-1, 19503-2, 19502-1, 19502-2, 19579-1, 19579-2 & 19579-3) BY EMINENT DOMAIN IS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALLS AND RELATED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, ALONG STATE ROUTE 60, BETWEEN THE EAST JUNCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 60/215 INTERCHANGE AND REDLANDS BOULEVARD ON STATE ROUTE 60, IN MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") proposes to acquire easement interests in certain real property, located in Riverside County, California, more particularly described as APNS 291-100-047, 291-402-006, 292-170-009, 292-170-017, 292-250-005, 479-423-021, 481-101- 016, 481-111-012, 481-111 Lot B, and 481-111 Lot E (Project Parcel Nos. 19432-1, 19469-1, 19495-1, 19490-1, 19481-1, 19524-1, 19524-2, 19503-1, 19503-2, 19502-1, 19502-2, 19579-1, 19579-2 & 19579-3), by eminent domain is necessary for the construction of sound walls and related public infrastructure, along State Route 60, between the east junction of the State Route 60/215 Interchange and Redlands Boulevard on State Route 60, in Moreno Valley, California, pursuant to the authority granted to it by section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Commission scheduled a public hearing for Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., at the County of Riverside Administrative Center Board Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, and gave to each person whose property is to be acquired and whose name and address appeared on the last equalized county assessment roll, notice and a reasonable opportunity to appear at said hearing and be heard on the matters referred to in section 1240.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; and WHEREAS, said hearing has been held by the Commission and each person whose property is to be acquired by eminent domain was afforded an opportunity to be heard on said matters; and WHEREAS, the Commission may now adopt a Resolution of Necessity pursuant to section 1240.040 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; 000025 NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure. There has been compliance by the Commission with the requirements of section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure regarding notice and hearing. Section 2. Public Use. The public use for which the easement interests are to be acquired is the construction of sound walls and related public infrastructure, along State Route 60, between the east junction of the State Route 60/215 Interchange and Redlands Boulevard on State Route 60, in Moreno Valley, California, pursuant to the authority granted to it by section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code. Section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes the Commission to acquire by eminent domain property necessary for such purposes. Section 3. Description of Property. Attached and marked as Exhibit "A" are the plats of the real property to be acquired by the Commission, which describe the general location and extent of the property with sufficient detail for reasonable identi- fication. Section 4. Findings. The Commission hereby finds and determines each of the following: (a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (b) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; (c) The property described in Exhibit "A" is necessary for the proposed project; and (d) The offers required by section 7267.2 of the California Government Code were made. Section 5. Use Not Unreasonably Interfering with Existing Public Use(s). Some or all of the easement interests in real property to be acquired is subject to easements and rights -of -way appropriated to existing public uses. The legal descriptions of these easements and rights -of -way are on file with the Commission and describe the general location and extent of the easements and rights -of -way with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. In the event the herein described use or uses will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, counsel for the Commission is authorized to acquire the herein described real property subject to such existing public use(s) pursuant to section 1240.510 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 00002'6 Section 6. More Necessary Public Use. Some or all of the easement interests in real property to be acquired is subject to easements and rights -of -way appropriated to existing public uses. To the extent that the herein described use or uses will unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, the Commission finds and determines that the herein described use or uses are more necessary than said existing public use. Counsel for the Commission is authorized to acquire the herein described real property appropriated to such existing public use(s) pursuant to section 1240.610 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Staff is further authorized to make such improvements to the easement interests in real property being acquired that it determines are reasonably necessary to mitigate any adverse impact upon the existing public use. Section 7. Further Activities. Counsel for the Commission is hereby authorized to acquire the hereinabove described easements in real property in the name of and on behalf of the Commission by eminent domain, and counsel is authorized to institute and prosecute such legal proceedings as may be required in connection therewith. Legal counsel is further authorized to take such steps as may be authorized and required by law, and to make such security deposits as may be required by order of court, to permit the Commission to take possession of and use said real property at the earliest possible time. Counsel is further authorized to correct any errors or to make or agree to non -material changes in the legal description of the real property that are deemed necessary for the conduct of the condemnation action or other proceedings or transaction required to acquire the subject real property. Counsel is further authorized to make such change in the legal descriptions to acquire permanent easements in fee title if these easements had been for purposes of the offers of just compensation previously valued as if they were fee acquisitions. adoption. ATTEST: Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 11th day of December, 2002. John F. Tavaglione, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 000027 AGENDA ITEM 7A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ending September 30, 2002. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. The County's Investment Report for the month ending September 30, 2002 is also attached for review. Attachments: 1) Quarterly Investment Report for the Quarter ending September 30,2002 2) County of Riverside Investment Report for the Month ending September 30, 2002 Item 7A 000028 Investment Portf olio Report Period Ending S eptemb er 30, 2002 OPERATING FUNDS City National Bank Cash with County Treasurer Local Agen cy Inv estment Fund U.S. Agencies RATING PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED M OODYS/S&P/FITCH VALUE DATE DATE MARKET PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS) $216 ,947 A3/BBB + $52,690,074 AAA-MR1/AAAf-S1/AAAV1+ $15,058,702 AAA/AAA $3,759,995 AAA/AAA 08/26/05 Agency/Treasury Secu rities: M oney M arket M utual Fu nds - CNI Charter FDS $101,088 AAA/AAA $101,088 09/01/02 09/30/02 1 .19% $101,088 $101,088 $0 Fe d Home Ln Banks Global Notes 3,916,643 AAA/AAA 3,845,000 09/06/01 09/15/03 4 .16 % 3,916,643 3,975,970 59,327 Fe d Home Ln Banks Discount Notes 1,961,200 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 06/14/99 07/15/03 6.29 % 1,961,200 2,065,625 104,425 Sub -To tal $77,704,649 $5,946,088 $5,978,932 $6,142,684 $163,752 FUNDS HELD IN TRUST Cash with Co unty: Local Transportation Fund Sub -To tal INVESTMENT WITH CITIES City of Lake Elsinore Sub -Total $21,195,002 AAA-MR1/AAAf-S1/AAAV1+ $21,195,002 Principal Maturity Date % $856,875 11/01/04 6. 0% COM MISSION BO ND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE $856,875 Milestone Funds $9,654,851 AAA/AAA First American Treasury 42,783,907 AAA/AAA U.S. Treasury No tes 15,926,000 AAA/AAA First American Treasury - Held in Trust 2,085,430 AAA/AAA Sub -Total $70,450,188 TOTA L $170,206,714 SU MMARIZED INVEST MENT TYPE Banks $216 ,947 Cash with County 73,885,076 LAIF 15,058,702 Mutual Funds: First American Treasury - Trust 2,085,430 CNI Charter FDS 101,088 Milest on e 9,654,851 Sub -Total Mutual Funds $11,841,369 Fed eral Agency Notes 5,877,843 U.S. Treasury Notes 58,709,907 Investment Agr eem ents 856,875 U.S. Agency $3,759,995 TOTAL $170,206,714 000029 Nature of 1nvestni exit other 1 Operating Funds 4.594. Trust Funds 1 4 94. Bond Project 1 8 debt Reserve 22 Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ending September 30, 2002 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on April 11, 2001. The Commission has adequate cash flows for six months of operations. Signed by Chief Financial Officer 000030 County of Riverside Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund Compliance Analysis and Investment Report September 30, 2002 Paul McDonnell - Treasurer/Tax Collector Kenneth C. Kirin - Assistant Treasurer Donald R. Kent - Assistant Treasurer Jon Christensen - Chief Deputy Treasurer OCTDEC E0 z 9 200 TRANSPORTATION ON�Ct IOI MIS N Treasurer's Commentary "As the Business Cycle Turns" The finely tuned economy, which produces steady growth in output, expanding employment and low inflation, is still over the horizon. Peeking through the clouds, we can see anemic, but never the less rising economic indicators, even if we could isolate the substantial global influences on our economy and our capital markets. Keeping production and consumption perfectly matched is unrealistic in a world with a diversity of expectations. Consequently, periods of expansion followed by periods of consolidation, if not contraction, appear to be the norm. As we have seen in the past, periods of slow & negative growth force greater efficiency upon the market. It is no coincidence that calls of corporate reform often accompany such downturns. The big question is whether the momentum towards a full recovery can be maintained. Stay tuned for next month's episode of "As The Business Cycle Turns". Below are reported economic indicators of importance: Durable Goods Orders — for Sep 26th -0.6% actual vs. —3.0% survey Reported In September Gross Domestic Product (GDP) —for Sep 27th 2nd Quarter -1.3% actual vs. +1.1% survey Factory Orders — for Sep 5th 4.7% actual vs. .4.7% survey Unemployment Rate — for Sep 26th ... 5.7% actual vs. 6.0% survey Consumer Confidence- Index —for Sep 24th 93.3% actual vs. 92.1% survey FO MC Rate decision — for Sep 24th unchanged at 1.75% Next decision Due 11/6...1.75% actual vs. 1.75% At month's end, the Fed Funds rate was left unchanged at 1.75%; a downward bias seems to be developing if economy remains sluggish. The 2 - year T -Note was yielding 1.69% (down 44 bps.) while the 30 -year T -Bond was yielding 4.67% (down 25 bps.). For August, the Pool yield remained essentially unchanged with an increase of 1 bp. in the average monthly yield. At this juncture, we will continue to stay the course and maintain a short-term outlook until the economic environment improves. G2Q- '%?'C G Paul McDonnell Treasurer -Tax Collector Month -End Book Value Month -End Market Value* Paper Gain or (Loss) Percent of Paper Gain or Loss Yield Based Upon Book Value** Weighted Average Maturity (Years) Effective Duration • Market value does not include accrued interest. " Beginning in April, the reported yield will be based upon the monthly average to more accurately reflect the portfolio's performance relative to the Benchmark. All figures have been re -stated to reflect this change in yield. SEPTEMBER 1,992,987,128 1,998,590,336 5,603,208 0.28% 2.01% 0.36 0.23 PORTFOLIO STATISTICS AUGUST $ 2,080,403,747 $ 2,086,306,033 $ 5,902,286 0.28% 2.01% 0.32 0.23 JULY $ 2,133,341,180 $ 2,138,786,340 $ 5,445,161 0.25% 2.01% 0.27 0.22 JUNE $2,161,802,291 $2,166,074,454 $ 4,272,163 0.20% 2.06% 0.31 0.26 MAY APRIL $2,121,072,745 $2,123,766,072 $ 2,693,327 0.13% 2.00% 0.27 0.24 $ 2,454,853,854 $ 2,456,941,841 $ 2,087,987 0.08% 2.00% 0.25 0.20 THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: AAA/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V1+ BY FITCH IBCA County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 4th Floor - Capital Markets Riverside, CA 92502-2205 www.cou ntytreasurer.org (909) 955 - 3908 00003,1 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund - Portfolio Characteristics September 30, 2002 Maturity Market Value 30 Days or Less 957,999,821.68 30 - 90 Days 264,658,868.14 90 Days - 1 Year 509,882,683.55 1 - 2 Years 263,348,962.30 2 - 3 Years 2,700,000.00 Over 3 Years - Total: $1,998,590,335.67 Quality U.S. Treasury Federal Agency AAA A-1 and/or P-1 N/R Total: Maturity 6000% 50.00% 40.00% DO.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 47.93% 13.24% 25.51% 13.18% 0.14% 0.00% 30 Days or Less 30- 90 Days 90 Days -1 Year 1 - 2 Years 2 - 3 Years Over 3 Years Market Value 99,987,000.00 1,180,470,991.31 1,000,000.00 708,111,405.01 * 9,020;939.35 " 1,998,590,335.67 Sector U.S. Treasury Federal Agency Cash Equiv. & MMF's Commercial Paper Bankers Acceptances Certificates of Deposit Local Agency Obligations Total: • Includes Repos ** Collateralized Time Deposits & Local Agency Obligations Market Value 99,987,000.00 1,180,470,991.31 389,600,000.00 308,538,465.01 10,972,940.00 5,000,000.00 4,020,939.35 1,998,590,335.67 U.S. Treasury Yield Curve - September 2002 Yield Change 0.10% 0.00% -0.10% -0.20% -0.30% -0.40% -0.50% -0.60% 5Y 7Y 3M 6M IY 2Y 3Y 10Y 15Y 20Y 30Y 1 Yield Curve Data 09/03/02 09/30/02 Change 3 Month 1.63% 1.55% -0.08% 6 Month 1.60% 1.50% -0.10% 1 Year 1.54% 1.44% -0.10% 2 Year 1.98% 1.68% -0.30% 3 Year 2.32% 2.06% -0.26% 5 Year 3.00% 2.56% -0.44% 7 Year 3.62% 3.28% -0.34% 10 Year 3.96% 3.59% -0.37% 15Year 4.57% 4.41% -0.16% 20 Year 4.99% 4.81% -0.18% 30 Year 4.81% 4.67% -0.14% 000032 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND TREASURER'S POLICY The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund is governed by both State Law and County Policy. The County Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy is more restrictive than the California Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by the County's Investment Oversight Committee and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. As of this month end, the County Treasurer Pooled Investment Fund was in compliance with this more restrictive policy. Although we have been diligent in the prepartion of this report, we have relied upon numerous pricing and analytical sources including Bloomberg Market Database and Capital Management Sciences, Inc. Bond Loqistix LLC BONO L'0GISTIXLLC INSIGHT. INNOVATION. INTEGRATION. 213.6122200 SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS California Government Code County Investment Policy Cal. Govt. Investment Category Maximum Authorized % Quality Maximum Code Maturity Limit S&P/Moody's Maturity Authorized % Actual Quality Riverside Limit S&P/Moody's/Fitch Portfolio % 53601(a) LOCAL AGY BONDS 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 15% / $150mm A/A2/A 0.000% 53601(b) U. S. TREASURY 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 5 YEARS 100% N/A 5.00% 53601(d) CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY DEBT 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 2.5% Investment Grade 0.20% 53601(e) FEDERAL AGENCIES 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 5 YEARS 100% N/A 59.07% 53601(f) BILLS OF EXCHANGE 270 DAYS 40%t 180 DAYS 30% Al/P1/F1 0.55% 53601(g) COMM. PAPER 270 DAYS 40% A1/P1 270 DAYS 40% A1/P1/Ft 15.44% 53601(h) CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS 5 YEARS 30% 1 YEAR 25% max Al/Pt/F1 0.00% 53601(1) REPOS 1 YEAR NO LIMIT 45 DAYS 35%/25% term max Al/P1/F1 19.44% 53601(i) REVERSE REPOS 92 DAYS 20% 60 DAYS 10% max N/A 0.00% 53601(j) MED. TERM NOTES 5 YEARS 30% A 2 YEARS 20% max AA/Aa2/AA 0.00% 53601(k) MUTUAL FUNDS 90 DAYS2 20% AAA/Aaa3 IMMEDIATE 20% AAA by 2 of 3 Rating Agencies 0.05% 53601(m) SECURED DEPOSITS (BANK DEPOSITS) 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 1 YEAR 2% max 0.25% 53601(n) MORTGAGE PASS- THROUGH SECURITY 5 YEARS 20% AA -SECURITY A. ISSUER N/A N/A 0.00% 16429 (1,2,3) I LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS N/A NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 0% max 0.00% No more than 30 s of this category maybe invested with any one conrnercial bank 2 Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days. ' Or must have an Investment Advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of $500,000,000. 100.00% 000033 Treasurer's ,Pooled Investment Fund September 30, 2002 PROJECTION OF FUTURE CASH FLOW The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. The Treasurer states that based upon projected cash receipts and maturing investments there are sufficient funds to meet future cash flow disbursement requirements over the next 12 months. MONTH MONTHLY MONTHLY REQUIRED ACTUAL INV. AVAIL. TO RECEIPTS DISBMNTS DIFFERENCE MAT. INVEST BALANCE MATURITIES INVEST >1 VR. 10/02 75.3 10/2002 536.8 513.6 23.2 0.0 98.5 11/2002 418.7 442.4 -23.7 0.0 74.8 12/2002 857.8 446.4 411.4 0.0 486.2 01/2003 416.2 699.2 -283.0 0.0 203.2 02/2003 450.0 551.6 -101.6 0.0 101.6 03/2003 513.6 427.9 85.7 0.0 187.3 04/2003 878.4 554.2 324.2 0.0 511.5 05/2003 401.4 714.9 -313.5 0.0 198.0 06/2003 395.7 671.8 -276.1 78.1 0.0 07/2003 426.3 442.1 -15.8 15.8 0.0 08/2003 408.4 511.3 -102.9 102.9 0.0 09/2003 353.8 499.0 -145.2 145.2 0.0 Totals: 6,057.1 6474.4 -417.3 342.00 17.17% 958.8 100.0 163.6 64.4 154.1 24.4 65.7 78.7 1.3 103.0 0.0 13.0 1727.0 1650.0 86.70% 82.83% 24 Month Gross Yield Trends The yield history represents gross yields; administrative costs have not been deducted. Actual eamings on fund balances will be credited by the Auditor -Controller based upon County Treasurer calculations. Portfolio yield generally lags current trends in short-term interest rates. Yields fluctuate with changing markets and past performance is not an indication of future results. Gross Yield Trends 6.75 6.25 5.75 5.25 4.75 4.25 3.75 3.25 2.75 2.25 I I 1.75 Oct- 00 1 I 1 I Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep - 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 -.I-PORTFOLIO YIELD ---ALL TAXABLE AVERAGE 24 Month Yield Spread (Pool Yield vs. All Taxable Average) 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 -0.10 Average Spread = 0.05% -0.20 -0.30 -0.40 -0.50 Oct- 00 Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep - 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 The Money Fund ReportTM/ AB Taxable Average is compiled and reported by iMoneyNet, Inc. (formerly IBC Financial Da ta, Inc.) IMoneyNet, Inc. Is a leading provider of independent analyses and information to the financial services industry, with a particular area of focus in money market mutual funds. The All -Taxable Index tracks the yield of over 500 taxable money market funds across several categories, i.e. Treasury, Govemment, and Prime, and reports the average yield of those funds on a monthly basis. For more information on the iMoneyNet, Inc. Index see www.ibcdata.com4ndex.html 000034 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund - Portfolio Holdings Report September 30, 2002 Acquisition Current Current Market CUSIP Paris) Issuer Coupon Maturity Cost Price Value w/o Accr Int. Gain/Los S Yld Mat 1 Eff. Our. 2 Ave: life -3 Government Agency 31331LUW 10,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 0.000 10/01/02 10,000,000.00 100.000 10.000,000.00 313311/8 10.000,000.0 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.730 10/01/02 10,000,000.00. 100.000 10,000,000.00 2.180 0.00 0.00 313311118 25,000.000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.730 10/01/02 25,000,000.00 100.000 25,000,008.0 - 1.730 0.00 0.00 31331LV8 25.000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.730 10/01/02 25,000,000.00 100-000 25,000,000.00 1.730 0.00 0.00 313311/8 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.730 10/01/02 25,000,000.00 100.000 25,000.000.00 - 1.730 0.00 0.00 730 3135891(7 50,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC N 0.000 10/16/02 49,901,416.87 99.803 49,901,416.67 1- 0.00 0.00 10,000,000:00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 2.000 11/01/02 10,000,000.00 100.000 10,000,000.0 1.690 0.04 0.04. 31331LUY 15,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 2.000 . 11/01/02 15,000,000.00 100.000 15,000,000.00 - 2.000 0.08 0.09 313311/0 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.710 11/01/02 25,000,000.0 100.000 25,000,000.00 2.000 0'00 0.09 31331LVD 25,000,000-00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.710 11/01/02 25,000,000.00 100.000 25008.000.00 1.710 0.08 0.09 313311VD 25,000000.0 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.710 0.08 0.09 31331LVF 1.710 11/01/02 25,000,000.00 100.000 25,000,000.00 5,000.000. L FARM CREDIT BANK 1.700 12/02/02 5600,000.00 100.000 5000,000.00 1.710 0. 0. 0.177 31331LVA 10,000,000.0 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK FEDERA 1.930 12/02/02 10,000,000.00 100.000 10,000,000.00 1'700 0.117 7 31331LVF 10,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.700 12/02/02 10,000,000.00. 100.000 10,00000000 1.930 0.17 0.17 31331LVF 10,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.700 12/02/02 10,000,000.00 100.000 10,000,000.00 _ 1. 1.700 0.17 0.17 31331LVF 10,000,000.0 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.700 12/02/02 10,000,000.00 100.000 10,000,000.00 1.700 0.17 0.17 31331LVF 10000,000.0 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.700 12/02/02 10,000,000.0 100.000 10,000,000.00 1.700 0.17 0.17 31331LVA 15,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.930 12/02/02 15,000,000.00 100.000 15000000 00 1.700. 0.17 0.17' 313397R8 28,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE C 0.000 12/04/02 27,557,880.00 98.421 27,557,880.00 - 1.900 0.17 0.17 313397R9 25,441,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE C 0.000 12/05/02 25,038,014.56 98.418 25,038,014.56 1.995 0.18 0.18 313397R9 27,489,000.0 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE C 0.000 12/05/02 27.055.223.58 98.422 27,055,223.58 - 2.052 0.18 0.18. 31331355 44250,000:00 FEDERAL FARM CR BKS CONS SYS 0.000 12/09/02 14.007.750.00 98.300 14.007,750.00 - 2.353. 0.19 0.19 31331LVC 10,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT -BANK -- - - 2.313 0.19 0.19 31331LVC 10,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK . - 1-.730 01/02/03 10,000,000.00 100.030. ..10.003:000.00.. 3.000_00 1.730. 0.25 0.26 31331LVC 15,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.730 01/02/03 9,996,875.00 100.030 10,003,000.00 6,125.00 1.730 0.25 0.26 313588AK 5,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC N 1.730 01/02/03 15,000,000.00 100.030 15,004,500.00 4,500.00 1.730 0.25 0.26 313588AK 0.000 01/10/03 .4,905,000.00 99.547 4.977,330.00 72,330.00 2.323 0.28 0.28 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN DISC 0.000 01/10/03 24,525,000.00 99.547 24,886,650.00 361,650.00 2.323 028 0.28 31331LVE 10,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 313311V6 15,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 1.730 02/03/03 10,000,000.00 100.010 10,001,000.00 1.000.00 1.730 0.34 0.35 1.730 02/03/03 15.000,000.00 100.010 15,001,500.00 86387281 20,000,000.00 STUDENT LOAN MKT ASSOC 1,500.00 1.730 0.34 0.35 86387281 30,000,000.00. STUDENT LOAN MKT ASSOC 0.000 02/04/03 19,562,600.00 99.439 19,887,800.00 325,200.00 2.496 0.35 0.35. 0.000 02/04/03 29,422200.00 99.139 29.741,700.00 319,500.00' 2.496 0,35 0.35 3135888/ 32.000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISCN 0.000 02/07/03 31286,400.00 99.426 31,816258.00 529,856,00 2.609 0.35 0.36 3135888W 50,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 0.000 02/14/03 6,864,500.00 99.399 49,699,350.00 313588CT 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 834.858.00 2.663 0.37 0.38 0.000 03/07/03 24,444,250.00 99.307 24,826,625.00 382,375.00 2.487 0.43 0.43 313396ET 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 2.900 04/22/03 25,000,000,00 100.750 25,187,500,00 313396ET 19,640,000.00 FEDERAL HM LN MTG CORP 187,500.00 - 1.553 0.55 0.56 313396EV 22,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE C 0.000 0425/03 21,498,620.00 19,184,352.00 99.113 21,804,750.00. _113 19,465,793.20 806,30.00 2.382 0.81,441.20 2.367 57 - -..0;57 313588F8 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 0.000 05/02/03 24,419,750.00 99.079 24,769,650.00 349,900.00 2.412 0.58 0,59 313588F8 30,000,000.00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN 0.000 05/02/03 29,302,500.00 99.079 29,723,580.00 421,080.00 2.412 058 0.59 3133MNGL 10,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 2.600 05/21/03 10,000,000.00 100.656 10,065,600.00 3133MNGL 15,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 2.600 05/21/03 15,000,000.00 100.656 15,098,400.00 98.400.00 1.567 0.63 0.64 3133MPA ( 23,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 98,400.00 1.567 0.63 0.64 2.480 07/07/03 23.000,000.00 100.719 23,165,370.00 165,370.00 1.535 0.76 0.77 3133MPH7 30,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS - 2.480 07/07/03 30,000,000.00 100.719 30215,700.00 215,700.00 1.535 0.76 0.77 3133MPH7 50,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 2.240 07/15/03 50.000.000.00 100.417 50208,500.00 208,500.00 1.705 0.78 0.79. 3133MRGH 13,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 3133MR85 10,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 2.000 09/23/03 13,000,000.00 100.063 13,008,190.00 8,190.00 1.935 0.41 0.98 2.050 10/10/03 10,000,000.00 100.094 10,009,400.00 9,400.00 1.957 0.39 1.03 3133MPU3 30,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME T BKS 2.430 10/30/03 30,000,000,00 100.063 30,018,900.00 313641QM 5,000,000.00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN 18,900.00 2371 0.22 1.08 31364K2M. 6.550 11/21/03 5,000,000.00 100.656 5,032,800.00 32.80000 5.938 - 0.14 1.14 8,750,000.00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN 313384Q7H 8,550,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 6.550 1121/03 6,750,000.00 100.656 6,794280.00 44,280.00 5.938 0.14 1.14 2.540 01/30/04 8,550,000.00 100.250 8,571,375.00 31359MNW 5,000,000.00 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN 2.300 02/12/04 5,001,562.50 100.156 5,007,800.00 2,237.50 2.383 0.66 1.33 31359MNW 10,000,000.0 FEDERAL NAIL MTG ASSN 6,237.50 2.183 0.66 1.37 2.300 02/12/04 10,000,000.00 100.156 10,015,600.00 15,600.00 2.183 0.66 1.37 3133MQGV 13,910,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 2.400 02/20/04 13,910,000.00 100.063 13,918,763.30 8,763.30 2.353 0.51 1.39 3133MQRK 35,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 2.220 0227/04 35,000,000.00 100.031 35,010,850.00 3133140Y3 28,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 10,850.00 2.197 0.61 1.41 3133MRSR 20,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 2.330 03/05/04 28,000,000.00 100.063 28,017,640.00 17,640.00 2.284 0.59 1.43 3133MRS3 8,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS 2.260 03/30/04 20,000,000.0. 100.031 20,006,200.00 6200.00 2.239 0.74 1.50 3133MRS3 17,000,000.00 FEDERAL H 2.375 0625/04 8,000,000.00 100.063 8,005,040.00 5,040.00 2.339 0.79 1.74 31331000 10,800,000.00 FEDERAL FAFt - 2.375 0625/04 17,000,000.00 100.063 17.010710.00 10,710.00 2.339 0.79 1.74 RMSCRBKS BANKS 3133MRL8 25,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME 111 BKS 2.700 08/27/04 10,800,000.00 100.188 10,820,304.00 20,304.00 2.599 0.61 1.91 2.960 09/23/04 25,000,000.00 100.250 25,062,500.00 62.500.00 2.829 0.44 1.98 3133MRSC 30.000.000.00 FEDERAL HOME 11481(5 2.640 09/27/04 30,000.000.00 100.156 30,06.800.00 6.800.00 2.559 ul 1.99 Sub -Total 1,182,830,000.00 1.174.983,89431 1.180,470,991.31 5,487,097.00 2.111 0.37 0.60 Cash Equivalent & Money Market Funds 138,600,000.00 - MERRILL LYNCH & CO INC 1.900 10/01/02 138,600,000.00 100-000 138,600,000,00 250,000,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY DEAN 1.770 10/03/02 250,000,000.00 100.000 250.000,000.00 - 1.900 0.00 0.00 82825288 1.000.00000 AIM GOVT & AGENCY PORTFOUO 1.770 0.01 0.01 0.000 10/31/02 1.000,000.00 100.000 160000. 6 00 1.680 0.00 808 Sub -Total 389,600,000.00 389,600,000.00 389.600000.00 1.816 0.01 0.01 Collateralized Time Deposits 5,000,000.00 CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK 0.000 10/15/02 5,000,000.00 100.000 5,000,000-00 2 810 0.00 O,p{ Sub -Total 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 2.810 0.04 0.04 Bankers Acceptance 11.000.000.00 BANK ONE NA 0.000 1001/02 10.972.940.00 99.754 10,972.940.00 t ae oo=oo o_oo Sub -Total 11,000,000-00 10.972.96.00 10.972.940.00 _ 1.638 - 0.00 000035 Continued on reverse side.__ Page 1 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund- Portfolio Holdings Report September 30, 2002 CUSIP Par Issuer Acquisition Current Current Market' Couoon Maturi Cost Price Value wlo Accr ML Gain/Loss Yid Mat 1 Eft. Dur. 2 Ave. Life 3 Commercial Paper 1667T1K2 10.000,000.00 CHEVRON USA INC 0.000 10/02/02 9.983,180.56 99.832 9,983,180.56 1.728 0.00 0.01 369591(28 50.000,000.00 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL COR 0.000 10/02/02 49,944.097.22 99.888 49,944.097.22 - 1.750 0.00 0.01 71708FK2 50,000.000.00 PFIZER INC 0.000 10102/02 49,903.194.44 99.806 49,903,194.44 1.697 0.00 0.01 8923E3K4 49.000.000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 0.000. 10/04/02 48,910.520.56 99.817 48,910.520.56 - 1.727 0.01 0.01 3022801(9 50.000.000.00 EXXON ASSET MANAGEMENT CO 0.000 10/09/02 49,944,416.67 99.889 49,944,416.67 - 1.740 0.02 0.02 00137FKP 50.000.000.00 AIG FUNDING INC 0.000 10/23/02 49.934.750.00 99.870 49,934.750.00 - 1.740 0.06 0.06 9026DKW4 50,000,000.00 UBS FINANCE DELAWARE 0.000 - 10/30/02 49,918,305.56 99.837 49,918.305.56 - 1.730 . 008 0_08 Sub -Total 309.000.000.00 Average weighted days for commercial paper = 11.4 308.538.465.01 308.538.465.01 1.73 0.03 0.03 Local Agency Obligations VAULT 1,320,939.35 Riverside GAN 2.560 06/30/03 1,320,939.35 100.000 1.320,939.35 - 2.560 2.35 0.75 VAULT 2.700,000.00 Riverside GAN 2.560 06/01/05 2,700.000.00. 100.000 2.700,000.00 - 2.560 2.95 2.67 Sub -Total 4,020.939.35 4,020,939.35 4,020.939.35 2.560 2.35 2.04 Treasuries 912795L0 50,000.000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS BILLS 0.000 10/03/02 49,935.444.44 99.987 49,993,500.00 58,055.56 1.660 0.01 0.01 91279510 50,000,000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS BILLS 0.000 10/03/02 49,935,444.44 99.987 49,993,500.00 58,055.56 1.660 0.01 0.01 Sub -Total 100,000,000.00 99,670.888.88 99,987.000.00 116,111.12 1.660 0.01 0.01 Grand -Totals 2,001,450,939.35 1,992,987,127.55 1,998,590,335.67 5,603.208.12 1.972. 0.23 0_36 r The market value and yield of short -lam money market securities are based on purchase price. r Effective Duration is a sophisticated calculation that measures price sensitivity. while taking into consideration the possibility of securities being called before maturity. Average Life is the number of years until principal is returned at maturity. weighted by market value. Local Agency Obligations have variable rate coupons. spread to the Pool 000038 Page 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending October 31, 2002. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status on contracts reported by projects, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending October 31, 2002. Attachment: Monthly Report — October 2002 Item 7B 000037 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd . (2042) (3000) ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (RO2041 9954,9966, (RO2142) (RO2141) (2140) (3001) (3009) ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ./ROW (3003) Realignment study & Right turn lane s (RO9961) ROUTE 86 PROJECTS Avenue 58 to Avenue 66 (Segment 2) ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (RO3008) Mary Street to 7th Street HOV design & ROW(3005) Sndwall Landscaping (RO9933,9946,2059.3601) ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (RO9219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) 3410,9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629 (3400-3405) COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COM MITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 10/31/02 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE $3,946,377 $69,847,655 $2,894,497 $20,253,000 $33,860,000 $11,902,100 $2,954,000 $1,274,430 $1,603,450 $16,946,856 $3,838,641 $29,514,368 $2,793,935 $19,500,000 $33,760,000 $10,374,324 $2,954,000 $1,062,025 $1,603,450 • $15,530,856 97.3% 42.3% 96.5% 96 .3 % 99.7% 87.2% 100.0% 83.3% 100. 0% 91.6% $622,557 $1,850,878 $75,701 Project Complete Project Complete $2,988 $0 $134,280 $9,655 $956 $3,652,373 $11,510,231 $842,153 $18,060,000 $31,013,510 $9,515,458 $2,109,519 $246,979 $841,502 $14,945,485 95 .1% 39.0% 30.1 % 92 .6% 91.9% 91.7 % 71.4 % 23 .3% 52.5% 96 .2% Page 1 of 3 000038 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTION CO MMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED COMMIT MENTS AGAINSTAUTH . MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 10/31/02 TO DATE COM MITMNTS TO DATE 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Env iron. (R09008, 9018) $6,726,504 $5,878,173 87.4% $312,519 97 .1% INTERCHANGE IM PROV. PROGR AM Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946) PROJECT & CONSTR. M GM T SERV. (A greement (02-31-081)) PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES North/South Corridor study (R09936) PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 2127,2138,2139 Tl COMM UTER RAIL Studies/Engineering/Construction (RO 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028) 2031,2027,2120 R02029,2128, 3800 - 3811,3813, 3814) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2026,2056,4000-4007,4198,4199,4009,3812 $440,000 $2,138,641 $25,000 $2,323,177 $16,818,070 $13,900,329 $400,000 $2,027,483 $25,000 $2,323,177 $16,425,518 $13,900,329 .. ... .. .... ... .. ..... ... . ..... .......... .... .. .. ... .. ... ..... .. .. .. 90.9% 94.8% 100 .0 % 100.0% 97.7% 100. 0% $0 $0 $317,412 $3,108,127 $164,401 9. $523,261 $0 $881,018 $12,368,521 $7,308,026 78 .1% 25 .8% 0 .0 % 37.9% 75.3% 52 .6% Page 2 of 3 000039 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements CITY OF CORO NA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) Storm drainage structure CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements CITY OF TEM ECULA Local streets & road improvements CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road impro vements CITY OF HEM ET Local streets & roads improvements EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A " LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST COM MITMENT 10/31/02 ADVANCES BALANCE CO MMIT MENT APPROVED COM MIT. $1,600,000 $5,212,623 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $1,500,000 $730,000 $1,600,000 $5,212,623 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $1,500,000 $730,000 NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement pro grams. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. $694,498 $2,925,898 $1,193,297 $816,208 $3,139,137 $1,318,176 $825,932 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 43.4% 56 .1 % 61 .6% 61 .6% 61 .6% 61 .6% 55,1% 0.0% Status as of: 10/31/02 Page 3 of 3 000040 AGENDA ITEM 7C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Status of the 2002 STIP and Proposed Requirements Programming STIP Projects in Eastern Riverside County for STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the report on the status of the 2002 STIP; and, 2) Approve CVAG's proposed requirements for programming Eastern Riverside County Formula and Discretionary STIP Projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Status of the 2002 STIP At the October 2002 California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting, the CTC fully programmed the remaining funding capacity for 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program. This left five projects that were approved by the Commission that have not been programmed in the STIP. The 2002 STIP submittal identified the following Riverside County projects as future reservation projects. As required by the STIP Guidelines, RCTC formally notified the CTC that these projects would be amended into the 2002 STIP during fiscal year 2002-03: Agency Project Description STIP $ County Defrain Boulevard $ 810,000 County Jefferson road/bridge lin La Quinta/County) $ 8,963,000 Palm Springs 1-10 and Indian Interchange $15,262,000 Indio 1-10 and Jefferson Interchange $10,710,000 RCTC Planning, Programming and Monitoring $ 1,181,000 Total Unprogrammed $36,926,000 As reported at the April 2002 Commission meeting (Attachment 1), the CTC's Annual Report dated December 13, 2001 identified a shortfall in funding capacity Item 7C 000041 for the 2002 STIP. In addition, the report stated that over two-thirds of the funding capacity was available in the last two years of the STIP (FYs 2005-06 and 2006-07). This resulted in the CTC delaying and programming several projects to the last two years when the CTC adopted the 2002 STIP in April 2002. In May 2002, CTC and Caltrans held a workshop on programming amendments into the STIP. At this workshop, it was stated that only projects that were identified in county STIP submittals could be amended into the STIP. RCTC reminded the lead agencies that the reservation projects should be programmed as soon as possible. In July, we received the required STIP submittal information from the lead agencies and submitted them to Caltrans. STIP amendments are presented to the CTC over two consecutive meetings; the first meeting is for "Notice", and the second meeting is for "Action". In September, we were notified by Caltrans Headquarters that at the October 2002 CTC meeting, the CTC would be programming the remaining funding capacity for projects that had requested amendment into the STIP over the summer, and that the CTC would not consider anymore amendments to the 2002 STIP. Therefore, Caltrans could not forward to the CTC the STIP amendments that RCTC submitted for the five unprogrammed projects. Since the STIP is fully programmed and many counties throughout the state have county shares that are guaranteed to them and projects unprogrammed, this poses an issue as to when counties can program these projects and in which fiscal year. As of now, the CTC has indicated that any future amendments would have to occur when the 2004 STIP is adopted in April 2004. The 2004 STIP will add two years, 2007-08 and 2008-09, in which projects can be programmed assuming there is funding capacity. RCTC will closely monitor and work with the CTC and Caltrans on opportunities to program the five remaining projects. The CTC will report on the expectations for the 2004 STIP Fund Estimate at their December 12th CTC meeting. Several staff members from both Caltrans and the CTC have indicated that the 2004 STIP Fund Estimate will be significantly lower then previously anticipated. We will report on the CTC agenda item at the Commission meeting since the item will not be available until a few days prior to our meeting. Since four of the five projects are eastern county projects, a meeting has been scheduled by the City of Palm Springs with the CVAG agencies, County, and RCTC staff on December 3, 2002, to review funding alternatives to meet estimated project schedules. 000042 Item 7C CVAG Proposed Programming Requirements for Eastern County STIP Projects Staff has also met with Corky Larson and Allyn Waggle to review project monitoring efforts to address deficiencies in programming eastern county projects. In order to improve project monitoring from the time RCTC allocates projects to inclusion of projects in the STIP, CVAG is proposing an established timeline for inclusion of formula and discretionary projects into the STIP (Attachment 2). This involves close coordination among project lead agencies, CVAG, and RCTC. RCTC staff recommends approval of CVAG's proposal as it will improve timely submittals of required STIP information including Project Study Reports (PSR's) or equivalent and nomination forms. Item 7C 000043 ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 10, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Status of the 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file this 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) was submitted to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans on December 14, 2002. The submittal included STIP Intra-county Formula projects from the Palo Verde Valley and Coachella Valley, Discretionary projects approved at the November 2001 Commission meeting, and previously approved discretionary and formula projects. Project sponsors provided the requisite information for their respective project(s) including proposed project schedules. In the CTC's Annual Report — Issues for 2002 adopted on December 13, 2001, it was reported that of the total capacity for adding new projects to the STIP, over two-thirds of the new capacity was available in the last two years, FY 2005/06 and FY 2006/07. By statute, the amount the CTC programs in each fiscal year may not exceed the amount identified in the Fund Estimate. Project nominations for the 2002 STIP had over 60% of new funding proposed in the first two years. The CTC held a workshop on February 7, 2002 explaining the reasons why most of the available capacity was in the out years. Pre - SB 45, funding capacity was typically available only in the out years. Due to a high state cash flow in the first few years of the past two STIPs, capacity was available throughout the entire STIP period. The CTC requested counties to revise their project nominations moving back as many projects to the out years of the STIP in order to balance programming with expected annual revenue. The revised STIPs had to be submitted to the CTC on February 25, 2002. Riverside County project sponsors were contacted by RCTC staff between February 7th and 25th. The majority of the project sponsors decided to delay their respective projects by one year in order to cooperate and assist the programming capacity issue in the first three years of the STIP. The attached spreadsheet 000044 (Attachment A) identifies the recommended programming for the Riverside County 2002 STIP, which was submitted to the CTC on February 25, 2002. The spreadsheet is also a comparison of our original (December 14, 2001) submittal. On March 13, 2002, the CTC released their staff recommendations for Regional Improvement Program (RIP) and Interregional Improvement Program (ITIP) projects (Attachment B). The CTC staff recommendation approved our RTIP as submitted on February 25, 2002 with a few additional changes. Three projects (highlighted on Attachment A by arrows) that we had not recommended to be delayed were moved out one year. A couple of errors were also made on the CTC staff recommendation due to a misunderstanding on CTC staff's behalf. These errors occur in the "RTIP Notes" section one of which states that six of our projects will be programmed in fiscal year 2002/03. This is incorrect as these projects will be "included" in the STIP during the 2002/03 fiscal year but "programmed" in fiscal year 2005/06. The second error identifies four of our projects as not being included in the staff recommendations for approval into the STIP. We immediately notified CTC staff of this error and were told that a correction will be made to include these four projects in the 2002 STIP. The 2002 STIP is scheduled for adoption at the April 3-4 2002 CTC meeting. There are opportunities to advance projects prior to the program year. At each CTC meeting there are several requests to advance projects, extend deadlines, and amend projects. The CTC reviews each request on a case by case basis. Therefore, there is opportunity to submit a request for advance allocation, however, CTC approval is not guaranteed. Another opportunity to advance a project is through AB 3090. AB 3090 allows local agencies to use their local dollars or other non-STIP fund sources to begin or complete a project and be reimbursed the fiscal year in which the funds are programmed in the STIP. This would require an agreement with the CTC (prior to the commencement of a project component) committing 1) the local agency to meet all state and federal requirements for project implementation; and 2) the state to reimburse the local agency. The impact of project delays to the ITIP will be problematic as we begin to move forward with Phase 1 of a new Metrolink station in the city of Corona on North Main Street. The station is scheduled for completion in October 2002. Phase II is the construction of a 1,000 space parking structure. The parking structure is proposed to be delayed by two years (to FY 04/05 — 06/07) as a result of the funding capacity issue. Therefore, staff will be reviewing the AB 3090 process as an option to continue with the original schedule (FY 02/03 — 04/05) since the demand for the parking structure will be realized shortly after the opening of the new station. 000045 ATTACHMENT 2 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Proposed S equ ence f or Complian ce with Requir ements for Timely Us e of STIP Funds CVAG approves projec t, a ssigns Lead Agency a nd notifies RCTC STEP STEP STEP A< ---30 Days --->B<---15 Days -->C< 1 1 1 RCTC confirms nomina tion pape rwo rk (PSR, PSRE)is in orde r. Co mmission approves project CVAG contacts Lead Agency to c onfirm awarene ss of proce ssing timeline a nd that re quired pape rwork ha s been submitted STEP STEP 60 Days (Estimate)---->D<----As N eeded --->E I I RCTC notifies Lea d Agency and CVAG that required submittals ha ve not bee n rec eived. CVAG notifies City Manager of Lea d Agenc y of deficienc ies. CVAG a le rts Transportatio n Committee CVA G Committees r eview for p ossibl e r eassignment of funds to alt ernate proje ct . CVAG approves alternate project, assigns Lead Agency and notifi es RCTC RCTC confirms nomin ation p aperwork for alternate pr oject is in order. C ommissi on approves alternate project and reassigns funds 000046 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Edward Gonzalez, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure "A" Park and Ride Lease Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Park and Ride Lease Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Through the Commuter Assistance Program, RCTC provides funding to support Park and Ride facilities in Western Riverside County. These facilities are used by Riverside County residents for their home to work commute and are available to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Commission funds Park and Ride leases through one provision in Measure "A". The Commission's commitment to the lease approach enables RCTC to assess Park and Ride needs and facilities, and establish locations quickly as an enhancement to existing Caltrans permanent locations. Park and Ride facilities are three -party agreements between a property owner, Caltrans and RCTC with a monthly fee ranging from $5 to $15 a space. At its October 1990 meeting, the Commission authorized the Executive Director to sign all Park and Ride leases and amendments with costs consistent with approved guidelines. During the last two fiscal years, Park and Ride use has increased 42% with the greatest demand in the Corona and Temecula areas. To accommodate this need, this year, the Commuter Assistance Program increased Park and Ride capacity by ninety (90) spaces. Seventy-five (75) spaces are now available at the Canyon Community Church located in the 1-15/Ontario intersection in Corona. Cost for this facility was negotiated at $5 per space per month. In addition, another 15 spaces were added to an existing site at Iglesia La Senda. Item 7D 000047 Fiscal Year FY 2000-2001 FY 2001-2002 FY 2002-2003 # Contracted Spaces 240 343 508 Increase from Previous year N/A 43% 48% On top of the 90 new spaces, staff is working closely with Temecula officials to create a 75 space Park and Ride location along the I-15/SR 79(S) junction. As the table above displays, the number of Commission supported Park and Ride spaces will increase to 508 this fiscal year or 48% more than last year and a 112% increase from FY 2000-01. More important, the new facilities are a strategic meeting place accessible to Riverside County residents who choose to participate in carpools, vanpools, express bus services and other ridesharing practices. 000048 Item 7D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Karen Leland, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of October averaged 4,380 a 4% increase from the month of September. The Line has averaged an overall decrease of 6% from a year ago October 2001. October on -time performance averaged 95% inbound (+ 1% from September) and 96% outbound (-2% from September). Inland Empire -Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of October averaged 3,140, a 3% increase from the month of September. The line has averaged an overall 2% increase from a year ago October 2001. October on -time performance averaged 93% inbound (-1 % from September) and 93% outbound (+9% from September). 91 Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of October averaged 1,584, a 2% increase from the month of September. October on -time performance averaged 92% inbound (+3% from September) and 96% outbound (+4% from September). Item 7E 000049 Special Trains Beach Train: The 2002 Beach Train has ended with record sales exceeding the 2001 season by more than 15%. October 6, the last train date, was one of three nine -care trains, and one that was a sell out at over 1,000 tickets. A detailed, year-end report is included as a separate agenda item. Rideshare 2 Rails (R2R) Program Rideshare RAILS Rideshare Incentives: As of October 31St, enrollment was at 150 (Riverside -Downtown 48 Pedley 13, La Sierra 38, and West Corona 51), freeing up 75 spaces for new riders. RTA Express Bus Shuttle: Ridership for the month of October averaged 22 one- way trips per day, a 1% increase from the month of September. Station Activities North Main Corona Station: The North Main Corona Station opened on Friday, November 22' with over 100 passenger boardings (primarily former West Corona riders). On December 7th, a grand opening celebration is planned at the station from 10:00 am to 2:00 p.m. RCTC Metrolink Station Daily Activities: Daily activities are recorded by station security guards. Attached is summary data covering October 2002. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Performance Summaries (October 2002) 2) RCTC Metrolink Stations Daily Activity Report (October 2002) 000050 Item 7E METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES October 2002 000051 k\s\. METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec 01 Jan 02 Feb 02 M ar 02 Apr 02 May 02 Jun 02 Jul 02 MI % Arriving Within 5 -Minutes Of Scheduled Time I Aug 02 Sep 02 Oct 02 000054 4 r1 T-1 RMnNow % of Train Delays By Responsibility Oct ober 2002 Vandalism TRK-ContractorUPRR 10% 1% 7% SIG -Contractor 12% SCR 5% Passenger 2% Includes Weekend Service Mechanical 12% Other 17% OP �O"�i (SCRRA) 0% ° 2% BNSF 31 % TRK-Contractor 2% SIG -Contr actor 9% Passenger 3% Includes Weekend Service % of Train Delays . By Responsibility 12 Month Period. Ending. Oct ober 2002 Vandalism Mechanical 5% 13 % aw-Enf OP Agree 1% 2% BNSF 29% 000055 5 PERFORMANCE CHARTS - 'BACK-UP 11 � IIMETROLINK 6 000056_. METROLINK AVER AGE WEEKD AY P ASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED Oct 01 3,558 5,170 10,032 452 4,651 5,867 3,081 122 32,933 2% Nov 01 3,500 5,169 10,025 477 4,654 5,939 3,007 137 32,908 0% Dec 01 3,144 4,898 9,391 452 4,223 5,369 2,733 97 30,307 -8% Jan 02 3,566 4,813 10,086 480 4,596 5,865 2,930 107 32,443 7% Feb 02 3,612 5,031 10,235 464 4,635 5,882 3,010 109 32,978 2% M ar 02 3,650 5,135 10,082 518 4,615 5,931 3,033 133 33,097 0% Apr 02 3441 4913 10124 507 4524 5848 2791 109 32257 -3% May 02 3,565 5,597 10,039 525 4,288 5,794 2,916 847 33,571 4% Jun 02 3,781 5,694 10,286 533 4,202 5,651 2,982 1165 34,294 2% Jul 02 3,664 5,840 9,817 510 4,159 5,519 2,958 1292 33,759 -2 Aug 02 3,506 5,694 9,688 524 4,047 5,556 3,092 1378 33,485 Sep 02 3,689 5,495 10,141 531 4,222 5,432 3,053 1546 34,109 2% Oct 02 3,770 5,704 10,328 541 4,380 5,465 3,140 1584 34,912 2% % Change Oct 02 vs Sep. 02 2% 4% 2% 2% 4% 1% 3% 2% 2% % Change Oct 02 vs. Oct 01 6% 10% 3% 20% -6% -7% 2% 1198 % 6% 000057 7 Al]R Mn Tahla 000058 8 ADR_MoNew .xls San. Bernardino Line. Sunday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Avg Daily Riders 3000- 2500- 2000 1500 1000- 500- 0 Oct 01 Nov Note: Sunday. Service Began 06/25/00 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct -02 000059 9 Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Avg Daily Riders 3500 3000- 2500- 2000- 1500- 1000- 500 - Oct 01 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct -02 Note: Sept Includes L.A. County Fair Riders 000060 10 n91nW Ken.It de 1, METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMM ARY Percentage of Trains Arri ving . Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time L ATEST 13 MONTHS Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec 01 Jan 02 100% 100% 99% 100% 99 % 98% 100 % 100% 74% 80% 93% 94 % 92 % 98% 100% 98% 99% 98% 99% Feb 02 M ar 02 98% 100% 100% 99% 97% 97% 98 % 97 % 98% 99% 98% 97% 99% 100% 97 % 96% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 94% 97% Apr 02 M ay 02 Jun 02 Jul 02 Aug 02 99% 100% 99% 97% 99% 98% 99% 99% 100% 97% Sep 02 98% 99% Oct 02 99% 98% 97% 97% 93% 98% 95% 98% 98% 97% 96% 98% 99% 98% 96% 98% 95% 98% 99% 99% 96% 96% 91% 95% 94% 94% 91% 99% 99% Peak Period Trains Arriving Within 5 Minute 96% 95% 97% 100% 98% 99 % 100% 99% 99% 98 % 99 % 100% 100% 99% 100% 98 % 99% 97% 100% 99% 100% 99% 98% 98% 98% 95% 88% 92% 91% 90 % 91 % 86 % 95 % 81% 92% 94% 94 % 98% 96% 92% 95 % 97% 99% 96% 97 % 95% 96% 98% 95% 96% 97 % 88% 91% 93 % 97% 94 % 91 % 97% 98 % 96% 91% 96% 89% 87 % 93% 96 % 91% 95% 89 % 91% 85% 92% 92% 96% 97 % 94 % 98% 93% 93 % 92 % 95 % 90% 98 % 95% 95% 97 % 94 % 87% 92 % 94% 90% 93 % 90% 92 % 90 % 94% 84% 93 % 93 % 83 % 87% 95 % 96 % 96 % 95% 95% 96 % 96 % 95 % 92% 96% 96% 73% 98% 96% 96 % 85% 95% 86 % 98% 95 % 97% 96 % 96 % 95 % 95% 96 % 96 % 87 % 83 % 95% 94% 95 % 90% 97% 96% 92% 92% 97 % 96 % 91 % 90% 96% 94% 89% 92% 94% 93 % 92 % 96 % 96% 96% 96 % 96 % 96% 96 % 97 % 96 % 94 % 96% 96% 95 % 94 % 96 % ' Oct 02 Peak Period Trains 98% 98% 99% 97% 95% 96% saw � '"k3 C 99% 9 93% h' 96% —��'«:, 97% 91% 97% 91% 93% 89% 96% 95% 96% 96% No adjustments have been made for relievable delays. Terminated trains are considered OT if they were on -time at point of termination. Annulled trains are not included in the on -time calculation. 000061 11 ATA lEAnklew C AUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS. OCTOBER 2002 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CA USE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INL/OC R/F/L T OT AL % of TOT Signals/Detectors 1 0 11 2 5 3 7 2 31 25 % Slow Orders/MOW 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 2% Track/Switch 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 4 10 8% Dispatching 1 0 0 0 4 6 1 0 12 10% Mechanical 2 2 1 3 1 4 2 0 15 12 % Freight Train 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1% Amtrak Train 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 7 6% Metrolink Meet/Turn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Vandalism 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 10 8% Passenger(s) 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 4 3% SCRRA Hold Policy 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1% Other 2 5 13 1 2 2 5 0 30 24% TOTAL 7 8 31 9 13 27 18 11 124 100% Saturday SNB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saturday AVL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Sunday SNB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000062 12 0210CAUS FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION OCTOBER 2002 MINUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL TOTAL % of TOT NO DELAY 412 518 553 222 240 357 217 183 2702 85.8% 1 MIN - 5 MIN 41 27 107 21 23 53 40 11 323 10.3% 6MIN -10 MIN 2 2 11 5 5 7 5 4 41 1 .3% 11 MIN - 20 MIN 2 3 13 4 4 13 8 4 51 1.6 % 21 MIN -30 MIN 3 1 3 0 3 2 5 2 19 0.6 % GREATER THAN 30 MIN 0 2 4 0 1 5 0 1 13 0.4 % ANNULLED 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 5 0.2 % TOTAL TRAINS OPTD 460 553 691 252 276 437 275 205 3149 100% TRAINS DELAYED >0 min 48 35 138 30 36 80 58 22 447 14.2% TRAINS DELAYED > 5 min 7 8 31 9 13 27 18 11 124 3.9% 000063 13 0210FREQ ............::..................:............................... 1 - Standard Procedures 1A - RCTC Staff on Site 1B - Customer Assistance 1C - Ambassador on Site 2 - Criminal Incidents 2E - Grafitti Total Total Daily Activity Report Metrolink Stations Generated from 10/01/2002 to 10/31/2002 Riverside Pedley La Sierra W. Corona Total 2 1 1 0 4 33 31 31 32 127 46 1 15 12 74 81 33 47 44 205 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 - Maintenance/Repairs 4A - Lights 2 0 0 2 4 4B - TVM / Validator Machine 8 6 4 8 26 4C - Elevator 0 0 2 0 2 4D - Station Cleaning 10 11 8 8 37 4E - Landscaping 7 10 2 8 27 4F - Dumpster/Porta Patti 7 10 5 10 32 4G - Pepsi Vending 1 0 0 1 2 4H - Other 7 1 4 6 18 Total 42 38 25 43 148 5 - Miscellaneous 5A - Miscellaneous Activity 8 4 21 21 54 Total 8 4 21 21 54 6 - Parked Overnight 6A - Parked Ovemight 7 - Overflow 7A - Veh. In Overflow 9 - Empty Spaces 9A - Empty Spaces 91 - R2R Vehicles 91A - R2R Vehicles 27 4 7 11 12 Total 27 4 7 11 12 Total Total Total 0 0 50 0 50 0 0 50 0 50 28 0 0 0 28 28 0 0 0 28 4 1 4 5 4 4 1 4 5 4 Monday, November 25, 2002 000064 mintimmorms m ai sswaswurnmovw, Activity Detail Report Gener ated from 10/01/2002 to 10/31/2002 Riverside - Downtown Da te Time Activity L og # Descriptio n Activity Type Activity Subtype # Vehicles 10/13/2002 64226 Graffiti noted on blue recycle bin front of statio 2 - Criminal Incidents 2E - Grafitti Monday, November 25, 2002 0 P age 1 of 1 000065 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Karen Leland, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2002 Beach Train Program Summary STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the 2002 Beach Train Program Summary as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2002 Beach Train Program Summary The 2002 Beach Train ended on Sunday, October 6, marking a successful 7th season. Sales exceeded last season by over $18,400, or 13%. The number of tickets sold and promotionals (complimentary tickets) was up by 1,809, or 15%. New this year: three additional train dates for a total of 20 of which three (3) were nine -car trains, the addition of Moreno Valley as a ticket outlet bringing the total to five, more on -board drawings with exciting new prizes, and a Peel -and -Win Beach Train Pepsi promotion. Also new this season was the implementation of additional marketing partnerships helped to increase Beach Train ticket sales. The Business Press, Singh Chevrolet, Belo Marketing Solutions, and the Pepsi Bottling Group added to the distinguished list of sponsors. Returning this year were The Press - Enterprise; PE.com, Arrowhead Credit Union, and the San Clemente and Oceanside Chambers of Commerce. Once again, PE.com made it possible for the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to revitalize and maintain the Beach Train web site (www.TakeTheBeachTrain.com) which was designed to promote the Beach Train as well as provide an avenue for ticket sales with the inclusion of an on-line, printable ticket order form. The web site had 3,210,444 impressions (the number of times a page is downloaded). In addition to the web site, The Press Enterprise NewsLink provided beach train caI)ers the opportunity to access automated Beach Train information over the phone. Over 7,500 calls were received, with 742 direct connects to the RCTC Beach Train information line, and 749 to the Metrolink 800 line. Item 7F 000066 However, once again, most notably were the partnerships held with the Ticket Outlets: Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley and San Bernardino Parks and Recreation Departments, Rialto City Clerk's Office, and Amtrak. The Moreno Valley Parks and Recreation Department became a full-time ticket outlet for the first time this year with sales of 648 Beach Train tickets. Additionally, the City of Moreno Valley filmed a Beach Train commercial that was aired on the local cable channel - MVTV3. All of their efforts are greatly appreciated. Through the invaluable support of ticket outlets, sales increased overall adding greatly to the season's accomplishments marking our highest grossing season to date, 12,990 tickets. Beach Train activities were enhanced this year through the offering of more on- board drawings that included free 5 Day -Passes to Castle Park in Riverside provided by Pepsi, Palm Springs Tramway Dinner packages, Amtrak Southwest Chief Tickets, a one-night stay at the Casa Tropicana Bed and Breakfast in San Clemente, to name a few. Additionally, a drawing of completed surveys was conducted each week for free Metrolink 4 -Trip Tickets. And, of course, special events were scheduled at Beach Train destinations that included the San Clemente Ocean Festival, Arts & Crafts, Harbor Days in Oceanside, etc. For further information and data pertaining to the 2002 Beach Train, see attached Summary of Beach Train activities. Attachments: 1) Tickets Sold by Customer City - Ticket Outlet 2) 2002 Beach Train Summary of Activities 000067 Item 7F ATTACHMENT A 2002 Beach Train Report Number of Tickets by Customer City and Ticket Outlet Sales Outlet City/Zip Not Provided Colton Adelanto Alta Loma Angelus Oak Apple Valley Apple Valley Austin (Texas) Banning Barstow Beaumont Belleville Big Bear City Big Bear Lake Bloomington Blue Jay Bryn Mawr Calimesa Cathedral City Cedarpines Cher Valle Chino Chino Hills Claremont Colton Corona Crestline Crestline Desert Hot Springs Devore Heights E Highland Etiwanda Fontana Forest Fall Glen Ivy Grand Terrace Hacienda Heights Hemet Hesperia Highland Homeland Idyllwild Indio La Quinta La Verne Lake Elsinore Lakeview Loma Linda Los Angeles Lowell Lytle Creek 2 1 8 367 2 3 2 2 21 2 17 5 2 4 11 1 10 18 5 1 1 18 9 1 20 144 4 5 118 2 16 8 4 7 156 22 283 31 1 19 30 50 3 20 4 13 6 11 1 13 25 3 12 52 31 5 11 59 47 13 33 6 5 17 11 64 12 25 15 109 28 2 30 4 62 20 277 53 000068 Page 1 of 2 11/25/2002 ATTACHMENT A 2002 Beach Train Report Number of Tickets by Customer City and Ticket Outlet Mentone Mira Loma Montclair Moreno Valley Mt. Center Murrieta Norco Norman Nuevo Oak Hills Ontario Palm Desert Palm Springs Pasadena Patton Pensacola Perris Phelan Pinon Hills Pomona Rancho Cucamonga Redlands Rialto Riverside Romoland Rubidoux Running Springs San Bernardino San Jacinto Sugarloaf Sun City Temecula Twin Peaks Upland Victorville West Covina Wilmington Woodcrest Wrightwood Yucaipa 8 10 2 119 8 2 11 7 18 4 343 9 89 4 4 17 15 8 46 5 25 2 47 33 6 2 2 16 9 2 11 2 2 6 24 4 1 4 57 3 60 3 2 8 17 78 124 2,669 1 4 32 28 37 90 11 6 636 25 159 83 17 1,578 4 8 9 210 25 71 495 6 8 2 4 5 4 35 3 4 163 11 7 532 293 4 4 13 14 9 7 27 22 10 4 6 11 873 9 5 18 Total 4,4451 1611 657 2 648 23 2,331 32 2,651 82 2,089 000069 Page 2 of 2 11/25/2002 2002 Beach Train Summary of Activities Train Sales Listed below are sales from the 2002 season. Sales from May 1 - October 9, 2002 Does not include Promotional Tickets *RCTC Mail Order Amtrak Corona Moreno Valley Rialto Riverside San Bernardino **Total 3,390 163 657 11,931 Includes 12 Season Passes (or 240 Tickets) $141,356.09 711 107 2,541 10,132 $24,478.25 $6,150.40 $8,673.00 $1,262.00 $31,038.00 $31,219.00 $20,038.00 $122,858.65 Total 2002 season ridership of sold plus promotional (complimentary) tickets equal 12,990. See table below for more information. 1 648 06/29/02 07/06/02 07/07/02 07/13/02 07/20/02 07/21/02 07/27/02 08/03/02 08/04/02 08/10/02 08/11/02 08/17/02 08/24/02 08/31/02 09/01/02 09/07/02 09/21/02 09/22/02 09/29/02 10/06/02 Total 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 240 101 2 35 50 172 199 95 4 104 173 347 195 174 350 151 208 182 150 142 87 103 80 102 112 134 160 3,150 4 14 9 14 12 4 1 16 7 10 12 4 50 163 5 3 103 5 7 65 29 2 82 50 50 200 48 21 175 43 50 207 49 39 196 39 46 72 42 49 139 41 44 59 41 49 196 30 22 68 20 14 46 3 58 29 49 30 120 14 16 33 28 15 55 50 50 250 657 2,331 77 68 156 199 141 127 185 250 103 116 159 70 60 69 87 177 48 112 250 2,653 150 37 54 117 125 105 123 125 65 125 163 124 94 85 72 68 126 59 97 175 2,089 721 336 315 575 997 706 736 970 623 609 704 605 611 374 348 341 616 294 453 997 11,931 143 37 37 93 22 38 52 14 36 69 41 33 35 49 34 40 55 55 115 61 1,059 864 373 352 668 1,019 744 788 984 659 678 745 638 646 423 382 381 671 349 568 1,058 12,990 1 11V0070 The information contained above indicates that the average Beach Train boarding per date totaled 650, which is 77% of capacity (8% above last season). Preliminary estimates show a subsidy per rider of $1.35. Train Dates The top five selling train dates for 2002 were: To • 5 Train Dates by Number of Tickets 10/6/02 1,058 992 61 5 San Clemente Chowder Festival 7/20/02 1,019 990 22 7 San Clemente Ocean Festival 8/3/02 984 970 14 52 2 Drawing -1 Night Stay at the Trop Arrowhead Credit Union Day 7/27/02 788 734 6/29/02 864 721 143 Start of Season Additionally, on dates where there were scheduled events at Beach Train destinations, average sales per day increased by 12% from 555 to 630. Season Pass Season pass sales totaled 12 (10 Adult, 2 Child) for total sales of $1,550. This represents a 32% increase over total prior year sales of eight (8) Passes (5 Adult, 3 Child) totaling $1,050 in sales. PE.com Update (Note: New information was not received from PE.com. Data will be updated upon receipt of stats from provider.) - TakeTheBeachTrain.com Prior Report Period Impressions Clickthrus Year Variance 5/3 — 9/24 1,404,623 1,198 1,271 -6% Beach Train Contest Prior Report Period Impressions Clickthrus Year Variance 7/17 — 9/24 1,805,843 739 850 -13% Beach Train contest entries totaled 158. Request for Metrolink Information Twenty-five (25) Metrolink information packets (and transmittal memo) have been delivered to Diane Perkins -Davis of The Press -Enterprise. Twenty (20) Metrolink information packets have been requested and mailed. 000071 2 11/25/02 Newslink Update (Note: New information was not received from The Press -Enterprise. receipt of stats from provider.) Data will be updated upon The Newslink information line (222-7000) has generated the following activity: Take The Beach Train: 4/10 - 9/24/02 Box # 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 Name Beach Train Main Train Dates Departure Times Destinations Ticket Prices How to Purchase BT Main Subtotal Access Direct Calls In (Minutes) 4304 3067.7 877 1746.7 782 955.1 393 539.3 711 928.4 500 927.1 7,567 8,164 Time Connects 2331 *Metrolink Main 101 76.3 (787-7938) 286 122 85 41 118 90 742 (800 -371 - Link) 7 TOTAL 7,668 8,240.6 749 Beach Train Drawings On -board Beach Train drawings resulted in the following winners/prizes: June 29th July 6th July 13th July 27th August 3 - August 10 - Metrolink 4 -Trip Ticket Aja Griffin of Riverside Five Day -Passes to Castle Park Juan Carlos Barbosa of Riverside Amtrak Southwest Chief Tickets Vicki Whallon of Upland One-night @ Casa Tropicana Bed & Brkfst. Charlene Lahl of Corona Metrolink 4 -Trip Ticket Anna Antuns of San Bernardino Palm Springs Gift Package Elizabeth M. Ramirez of Colton 000072 3 11/25/02 August 17 - Five Day -Passes to Castle Park Maria Galarza of Moreno Valley August 31 - Palm Springs Gift Package Tanna A. Dawson of Redlands Sept. 7 Metrolink 4 -Trip Ticket Ryan Loutzenhiser of Perris Sept. 22 - Five Day -Passes to Castle Park Antonio Yeh of Ontario Sept. 29 - Metrolink 4 -Trip Ticket Phil Albertson of Yucaipa Additionally, drawings for a Metrolink 4 -Trip ticket were held weekly for passengers who filled out and returned Beach Train surveys on the return trip home. The lucky winners were: June 29th Richard Chaves of Rialto July 6th - J. Sierra of Riverside July 7th - Ron Pidot of Perris July 13t" Sue Shwu-Chyn Liou of Loma Linda July 20t" Lisa Greiner of Riverside (Kaiser Permanente) July 21st Michael Hoors of Highland July 27th Marti Smith of San Bernardino August 3 - Martin Howell of Fontana August 4 - Bessie A. Dunn of Lake Elsinore August 10 T. Danna Weiztlow of San Bernardino August 11 Belen Rubio of Highland August 17 Claire Reinschmidt of Fontana August 24 Michael Scaruno of Riverside August 31 Manuel Carrasco of Riverside Sept. 1 Gloria Profit of Victorville Sept. 7 Damaris Haines of Perris Sept. 21 Sarah Bamburg of Barstow Sept. 22 - Sherry Kaufman of Mountain Center Sept. 29 - Mary Lou Miller of Riverside Oct. 6 Mickey Cordero of Riverside 000073 4 11/25/02 Beach Train Surveys Beach Train surveys were distributed on the return trip of every train date. There was overwhelming response from passengers with a 70% return rate. Listed below is a summary of information pertaining to survey responses. June 29 Oceanside Summer Jamm - 0 Cancelled #` � ) � . ., 278 Drawing - 5 Day Passes to Castle Park 5% July 6 July 7 Arts & Crafts Fair — SC July 13 Drawing - 2 Amtrak Southwest Chief Tickets July 20 July 21 San Clemente Ocean Festival U.S. Surfing Championships - 0 San Clemente Ocean Festival July 27 Drawing - 1 Night Stay @ Casa Tropicana August 3 August 4 Drawing - Metrolink 4 -Trip Ticket Arrowhead Credit Union Day Arts & Crafts Fair — SC 126 2% 171 3% 223 4% 448 256 9% 5% 308 6% 347 256 7% 5% August 10 Drawing - Palm Springs Gift Package 250 5% August 11 Fiesta Street Festival - SC 261 5% August 17 Drawing - 5 Day Passes to Castle Park 268 5% August 24 18th Annual Long Board Surfing Contest - 0 206 4% August 31 Drawing - Palm Springs Gift Package 157 3% September 1 Arts & Crafts Fair — SC September 7 Drawing - Metrolink 4 -Trip Ticket September 21 Harbor Days — O September 22 Harbor Days — 0 September 29 Drawing - Metrolink 4 -Trip Ticket October 6 Seafest: Chowder Cook -off & Craft Show - SC Vans Skateboarding Championship - 0 O — Oceanside SC - San Clemente 231 5% 188 4% 266 5% 144 3% 215 4% 478 9% As with sales, surveys completed on train dates with scheduled events were 18% higher or 58% of total surveys. Average surveys completed per day increased by 15% from 231 to 272. Questions posed on the Beach Train survey provided RCTC with vital information from passengers who use this mode of transportation as their source to a Beach -related summer excursion. Contained below is a summary of the results. 000074 5 11/25/02 1. How did you hear about the Beach Train? Out of 5,077 surveys, there were 2,450 (48%) responses to this question. This percentage was further categorized as follows: 2002 Newspaper Web Site EmployerlCo-Worker Family/Friends Metrolink Station Park & ReclCity Clerk Repeat Customer Other Newspapers Internet EmployerlCoworker Friends/Family Metrolink/Stations Outreach/Groups Outlets/Web Sponsor Mailers/Flyers Other 2. How many times have you ridden the Beach Train? 2002 First Time Times 2 Times 3 Times 4 or More 5 49% First Time Times 2 Times 3 Times 4 or more 5 Prior Year Prior Year 51% 000075 6 11/25/02 3. Where did you spend the majority of your time today? 2002 San Juan Capistrano San Clemente Oceanside San Juan Capistrano San Clemente Oceanside Prior Year 7% 68% 4. On a scale of 1-5 with 5 being "best", how do you rate the combination of beach and other tourist activities today? 2002 Don't Know One Two Three Four Five 51% Don't Know One Two Three Four Five Prior Year 5. On your trip today, please indicate your primary activity. 2002 Prior Year Mostly Beach Activities Mostly Touring/Shopping Both 44% Beach Touring/Shopping Both 40% 000076 7 11/25/02 6. In addition to the purchase of Beach Train tickets, please indicate your total expenditures at the beach today. Oceanside $68,445.74 19% San Juan Capistrano $42,220.00 12% 7. Prior to taking the Beach Train, had you used Metrolink services? 2002 Beach Train Rider Profile Prior Year Ethnicity Out of 5,077 surveys, 3,518 (61 %) provided the following responses: African American 8% Other 5% Native American Asian American 2% Hispanic/Latino 22% Caucasian 62% 0000'77 8 11/25/02 Age Range Out of 5,077 surveys, 3,582 (71 %) provided the following responses: 18-30 31-45 Under 18 9% \l 60+ 20% 46-60 32% Household Income Out of 5,077 surveys, 2,857 (56%) provided the following responses: $15,000-$25,000 18% Over $75,000 23% $56,000-$65,000 10% $66,000-$75,000 7% $26,000-$35,000 16% $36,000-$45,000 15% $46,000-$55,000 11% 000078 9 11/25/02 AGENDA ITEM 7G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Services Contract Agreement No. 03-33-037 with County of Riverside Real Property Services for Riverside to Perris Corridor Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-33-037 for Real Property Services with County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division. The contract will be for labor to obtain property information and right -of - entry for an amount not to exceed $230,000 with a contingency amount of $23,000 for a total not to exceed value of $253,000; 2) Amend the SRTP to include these services and allocate funding from State Transit Assistance Funds in an amount not to exceed $253,000; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the January 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved contract No. RO- 2128 with STV to perform preliminary engineering that will study several alternatives to address the traffic congestion between the City of Perris and the City of Riverside. The alternatives that are being studied are the No Build, Express Bus, and use of the San Jacinto Branch Line to extend the Metrolink service from the City of Riverside out to the City of Perris. At this time, the study team has identified several build alternatives that will require the acquisition of property. It will be necessary to study and understand the impacts to all necessary rights of way so that these impacts can be a part of the evaluation process that will result in the selection of a preferred alternative. In order to determine the impacts to the properties that may be impacted by each of the build alternatives it will be necessary to obtain appraisals and rights of entry. Item 7G 000079 In the past, RCTC has contracted with the County of Riverside to provide all right- of-way related services such as appraisals, right of entry, locating and notifying property owners of possible project impacts, tendering offers for acquisition, and processing acquisition documents. Staff is recommending that a new agreement be entered into with the County of Riverside to allow the County to perform similar functions for this important study. These services with be funded from STA funds in the amount not to exceed $253,000. The proposed contract with the County of Riverside will include all necessary labor to obtain litigation guarantees and appraisal services of all parcels necessary to perform the required studies. The attached cost and scope of work for all services to be performed by the County of Riverside is for an amount not to exceed of $230,000 and a contingency amount of $23,000 for a total not -to - exceed value of $253,000. The RCTC standard consultant agreement will be used subject to RCTC legal counsel review. Attachment: County of Riverside Cost Estimate Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2002-03 Amount: $ 253,000 Source of Funds: State Transit Funds (STA) GLA No.: 241-62-81403 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Budget Adjustment: Y Date: 11/25/2002 000080 Item 7G NOV-21-2002 THU 09:12 AM FAX NO. 1 P. 02 GouN November 20, 2002 RSIDE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT MICHAEL J. SYLVESTER DIRECTOR DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION REAL ESTATE MAINTENANCE C(JSTODIAL Mr. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Riverside County Transportation} Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Annex Riverside, California 92501 RE: San Jacinto Branch Line Dear Mr. Sugita: Pursuant to a request from Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel, we submit the following proposal for the acquisition of Fee Takes needed for the San Jacinto Branch Line. 1. County of Riverside, Department of Facilities Management, Real Estate Division services to acquire Rights -of -Way: 5 Parcels @ 250 hours @ $80 per hour Including billable hours for Relocation: $ 75,000.00 Total Real Estate Services $ 75,000.00 2. Litigation Guarantees 10 Parcels @ $500 5,000.00 3. Appraisal Services 150,000.00 4. Contingency (10% +/_) 23;000.00 Estimated Total Cost $230,000,00 This estimate does not include any rights -of -way cost, improvement costs, relocation expenses, condemnation fees, cost of title policies or escrow fees. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 909 955-9275. 0ry truly yours, lj-.—.� anet M. Parks Supervising Real Property Agent JMP:js 000081 3133 MISSION INN AVENUE • RWJ KSIDE, CA 92507 • (9091 955.4820 • PAX (4041 6cc.4aa7 AGENDA ITEM 7H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 60 HOV Project - Construction Agreement No. 8-1209 Between Caltrans (RCTC Agreement Number 03-31-036) Cooperative and RCTC STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1209 with Caltrans (RCTC Agreement Number 03-31-036) for the construction work on the State Route 60 HOV Project from the East Junction of I-215/SR 60 to Redlands Boulevard; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the July 1999 RCTC meeting, the Commission approved moving forward with the delivery of the State Route 60 HOV median -widening project. This Measure "A" HOV widening project is largely funded with CMAQ funds. The project is located between the east junction of Interstate 215 with SR 60 in the City of Riverside and Redlands Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley. Design At the February 9, 2000 RCTC meeting, the Commission awarded a final design contract agreement for the subject project to Holmes & Narver Infrastructure now DMJM + Harris. During the December 12, 2001 Commission meeting, the Commission approved the Design Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1173 for the design work to be performed on the SR 60 HOV Project. The project is currently responding to the comments received from Caltrans on the 95% submittal. We anticipate that the final design package will be to Caltrans for final sign -off by the end of the year. Item 7H 000082 Environmental Clearance The SR 60 HOV Project was determined to be Categorically Exempt under Class 1 of the State CEQA guidelines and Categorically Excluded under NEPA. The Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion (CE/CE) Determination for the project was originally completed on August 12, 1993. An updated CE/CE Determination, a CE Re -Evaluation and supporting technical studies were prepared and processed in conjunction with a Supplemental Project Report for environmental clearance of the proposed project. The updated CE/CE Determination for the project was approved and environmentally cleared on May 23, 2002. Right of Way Acquisition of the right of way for the project is currently underway. The right of way that is necessary for the project is required so that Sound Walls may be constructed to mitigate for the expected increase in noise generated from the traffic using the new HOV lanes. It is currently estimated that 125 temporary construction easements, 5 permanent easements and 23 fee takes will be required to construct the sound walls for the project. Construction Staff now recommends that the Commission approve the standard Construction Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans for this project. The most recent draft of the Construction Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1209 is attached for your information and review. The agreement outlines the duties and responsibilities of both RCTC and Caltrans during the construction phase of the project. For this project, RCTC will be advertising, awarding, and administering the construction contract with Caltrans providing oversight. Funding Funding for the project is $33,405,880 of Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) matched with $6,000,000 of Measure "A". There is no new funding or budget request included with this action. Attachment: Draft Construction Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1209 (RCTC Agreement Number 03-31-036) 000083 Item 7H District Agreement No. 8-1209 08-Riv-60-Kp R19.9/32.7 Add two HOV lanes and Replace the Perris Blvd Interchange 08303 - 463601 District Agreement No. 8-1209 CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, entered into effective on is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE", and RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to herein as "COMMISSION". RECITALS (1) STATE and COMMISSION, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State highways within the City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside. (2) COMMISSION desires State highway improvements consisting of adding one High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane in each direction, replacement of the Perris Boulevard Undercrossing, Soundwalls at various locations, median widening of existing bridge structures at Pigeon Pass Road and Heacock Street and a Fiber Optic system which will connect the existing ramp metering system, referred to herein as "PROJECT", and is willing to fund one hundred percent (100%) of all capital outlay and staffing costs, except that costs of STATE's quality assurance of construction activities will be borne by STATE. (3) COMMISSION desires to prepare the contract documents and advertise, award and administer the construction contract for PROJECT in order to bring about the earliest possible completion of PROJECT. DRAFT, November 12, 2002 1 000084 District Agreement No. 8-1209 (4) STATE is agreeable to COMMISSION 's proposal to prepare the contract documents and advertise, award, and administer the construction contract for PROJECT. (5) The parties hereto intend to define herein the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be constructed, financed and maintained. (6) Project development responsibilities for PROJECT were covered in a prior Cooperative Agreement executed by STATE and COMMISSION on (District Agreement No. 8-1173, Document No. ). SECTION I COMMISSION AGREES: (1) To advertise, award and administer the construction contract for PROJECT in accordance with requirements of the Local Agency Public Construction Act and the California Labor Code, including its prevailing wage provisions. Workers employed in the performance of work contracted for by COMMISSION, and/or performed under encroachment permit, are covered by provisions of the Labor Code in the same manner as are workers employed by STATE's Contractors. COMMISSION shall obtain applicable wage rates from the State Department of Industrial Relations and shall adhere to the applicable provisions of the State Labor Code. Violations shall be reported to the State Department of Industrial Relations. The contract shall also include the Federal DBE requirements as contained in Title 49 CFR, Part 23. (2) To apply for necessary encroachment permits for required work within State highway right of way, in accordance with STATE's standard permit procedures, as more specifically defined in Articles (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of Section III, of this Agreement. (3) In recognition that construction work for PROJECT done on STATE's property will not be directly funded and paid by STATE, for the purpose of protecting stop notice claimants and the interests of STATE relative to the successful completion of PROJECT, COMMISSION agrees to require the construction contractor to furnish both a payment and performance bond naming COMMISSION as obligee with both bonds complying with the requirements set forth in Section 3-1.02 of STATE's current Standard Specifications prior to performing any construction work for PROJECT. COMMISSION shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless STATE and all its officers and employees from all claims by stop notice claimants related to the construction of DRAFT, November 12, 2002 2 000085 PROJECT under payment bond. District Agreement No. 8-1209 (4) To construct PROJECT in accordance with plans and specifications of COMMISSION, to the satisfaction of and subject to the approval of STATE. (5) Contract administration procedures shall conform to the requirements set forth in STATE's Construction Manual, Local Assistance Procedures Manual, and the encroachment permit for construction of PROJECT. (6) Construction within the existing or ultimate State highway right of way shall comply with the requirements in STATE's Standard Specifications and the Special Provisions for PROJECT, and in conformance with methods and practices specified in STATE's Construction Manual. (7) If COMMISSION uses its own staff or hires another entity to perform surveys, such surveys shall conform to the methods, procedures, and requirements of STATE's Survey Manual and STATE's Staking Information Booklet. (8) Material testing and quality control shall conform to the STATE's Construction Manual, and STATE's Material Testing Manual, and be performed, at COMMISSION expense, by a certified material tester acceptable to STATE. Independent assurance testing, specialty testing and off -site source inspection and testing shall be performed by STATE, at no cost to COMMISSION except as noted herein. COMMISSION shall reimburse STATE for any additional travel expenses incurred by STATE for off -site inspection and testing performed by STATE which is more than 300 airline miles from both Sacramento and Los Angeles. Approval of the type of asphalt and concrete plants shall be by STATE, at STATE's expense. To furnish, at COMMISSION 's expense and subject to approval of STATE, a field site representative, who is a licensed Civil Engineer in the State of California, to perform the functions of a Resident Engineer. The Resident Engineer shall be a public employee in accordance with Chapter 16 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual. (10) To pay one hundred percent (100%) of the actual cost of construction required for satisfactory completion of PROJECT, including changes pursuant to contract change orders concurred with by STATE's representative and any "State -furnished material". (11) At COMMISSION 's expense, to furnish qualified support staff, subject to the approval of STATE, to assist the Resident Engineer in, but not limited to, construction surveys, soils and foundation tests, measurement and computation of quantities, testing of (9) DRAFT, November 12, 2002 3 000086 District Agreement No. 8-1209 construction materials, checking shop drawings, preparation of estimates and reports, preparation of "As -Built" drawings, and other inspection and staff services necessary to assure that the construction is being performed in accordance with the plans and specifications. Said qualified support staff shall be independent of the design engineering company and construction contractor, except that the designer of PROJECT may check the shop drawings, do soils foundation tests, test construction materials, and do construction surveys. (12) To make progress payments to the contractor and pay all costs for required staff services as described in Articles (9) and (11) of this Section I. STATE's representative shall review all contract progress pay schedules. STATE does not assume responsibility for accuracy of itemization on progress pay schedules. (13) Within sixty (60) days following the completion and acceptance of the construction contract for PROJECT, to furnish STATE a complete set of acceptable full-sized film positive reproducible "As -Built" plans and all contract records, including survey documents, Records of Surveys, and microfilm copy of all structure plans. (14) Upon completion of work under this Agreement, COMMISSION will assume maintenance and the expense thereof for any part of PROJECT located outside of the current State highway right of way until acceptance of any such part of PROJECT into the State highway system by STATE, approval by the Federal Highway Administration, if required, and conveyance of acceptable title to STATE. (15) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by STATE or other government auditors for a period of three (3) years from the date of FHWA payment of final voucher, or four (4) years from date of final payment under the contract, whichever is longer, all records and accounts relating to construction. (16) If COMMISSION terminates PROJECT prior to completion of the construction contract for PROJECT, STATE may require COMMISSION, at COMMISSION 's expense, to return the right of way to its original condition or to a condition of acceptable permanent operation. If COMMISSION fails to do so, STATE reserves the right to finish PROJECT or place PROJECT in a condition of satisfactory permanent operation. STATE will bill COMMISSION for all actual expenses incurred and COMMISSION agrees to pay said expenses within thirty (30) days or STATE, acting through the State Controller, may withhold an equal amount from future apportionments due COMMISSION from the Highway User Tax Fund. (17) If cultural, archaeological, paleontological or other protected materials are encountered during construction of PROJECT, COMMISSION shall stop work in that area until a qualified professional can evaluate the nature and significance of the find and a plan is DRAFT, November 12, 2002 4 000087 approved for the removal or protection of that material. District Agreement No. 8-1209 (18) STATE's quality assurance activities referred to in Article (2) of Section II of this Agreement does not include performance of any engineering services required for PROJECT. These services are to be performed by COMMISSION. If COMMISSION requests STATE to perform any of these services, COMMISSION shall reimburse STATE for such services. An amendment to this Agreement authorizing STATE's performance of such services will be required prior to performance of any engineering work by STATE. (19) That COMMISSION's contractor shall conform to all Federal and State water pollution control requirements as required in Section 7-1.01G, "Water Pollution" of the Standard Specifications. -Water pollution control work shall also conform to the requirements of the Construction Contractor's Guide and Specifications of the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbook, dated April 1997, and addenda thereto issued to and including the date of advertisement of PROJECT. SECTION II STATE AGREES: (1) Upon proper application by COMMISSION and by COMMISSION contractor, to issue, at no cost to COMMISSION and COMMISSION contractor, the necessary encroachment permits for required work within the State highway right of way, as more specifically defined in Articles (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Section III of this Agreement. (2) At no cost to COMMISSION, to provide quality assurance activities, including a qualified representative of STATE who shall have authority to accept or reject work and materials or to order any actions needed for public safety or the preservation of property and to assure compliance with all provisions of the encroachment permit(s) issued to COMMISSION and to COMMISSION 's contractor. (3) To provide at COMMISSION expense, any "State -furnished material" as shown on the plans for PROJECT and as provided in the Special Provisions for PROJECT. DRAFT, November 12, 2002 5 000088 District Agreement No. 8-1209 SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: (1) All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature. (2) All applicable procedures and policies relating to the use of Federal funds or State gas tax funds shall apply notwithstanding other provisions of this Agreement. (3) Construction by COMMISSION of improvements referred to herein which lie within the State highway right of way or which affect STATE's facilities, shall not be commenced until COMMISSION 's original contract plans involving such work and plan for utility relocations have been reviewed and approved by signature of STATE's District Director of Transportation, or the District Director's delegated agent, and until an encroachment permit to COMMISSION authorizing such work has been issued by STATE. (4) COMMISSION shall obtain aforesaid encroachment permit through the office of STATE's District Permit Engineer and COMMISSION 's application shall be accompanied by six (6) sets of reduced construction plans of aforesaid STATE -accepted contract plans and six (6) sets of specifications for PROJECT. Receipt by COMMISSION of the approved encroachment permit shall constitute COMMISSION's authorization from STATE to proceed with work to be performed by COMMISSION or COMMISSION 's representatives within proposed State right of way or which affects STATE's facilities, pursuant to work covered by this Agreement. COMMISSION 's authorization to proceed with said work shall be contingent upon COMMISSION 's compliance with all provisions set forth in this Agreement and said Encroachment Permit. (5) COMMISSION 's construction contractor shall also be required to obtain an encroachment permit from STATE prior to commencing any work within State highway right of way or which affects STATE's facilities. The application by COMMISSION 's contractor for said encroachment permit shall be made through the office of STATE's District Permit Engineer and shall include proof said contractor has payment and performance surety bonds covering construction of PROJECT. (6) COMMISSION shall provide a right of way certification prior to granting of said encroachment permit by STATE, to certify that legal and physical control of right of DRAFT, November 12, 2002 6 000089 District Agreement No. 8-1209 way were acquired in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. (7) COMMISSION shall not advertise for bids for the contract to construct PROJECT until after an encroachment permit has been issued to COMMISSION by STATE. (8) COMMISSION 's construction contractor shall maintain in force, until completion and acceptance of the construction contract for PROJECT, a policy of Contractual Liability Insurance, including coverage of Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability in accordance with Section 7-1.12 of STATE's Standard Specifications. Such policy shall contain an additional insured endorsement naming the State of California, its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. Coverage shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Insurance in a form satisfactory to STATE which shall be delivered to STATE before the issuance of an encroachment permit to COMMISSION 's contractor. (9) Prior to award of the construction contract for PROJECT, COMMISSION may terminate this Agreement by written notice. (10) During the construction of PROJECT, representatives of COMMISSION and STATE will cooperate and consult with each other, and all work pursuant to PROJECT shall be accomplished according to the approved plans, specifications and STATE's applicable standards and practices. Satisfaction of these requirements shall be verified by STATE's representative. STATE's representative is authorized to enter COMMISSION 's property during construction for the purpose of monitoring and coordinating construction activities. (11) Changes to the plans and specifications for PROJECT shall be implemented by contract change orders reviewed and concurred with by STATE's representative. All changes affecting public safety or public convenience, all design and specification changes, and all major changes as defined in STATE's Construction Manual shall be approved by STATE in advance of performing the work. Unless otherwise directed by STATE's representative, changes authorized as provided herein will not require an encroachment permit rider. All changes shall be shown on the "As -Built" plans referred to in Article (13) Section I of this Agreement. (12) COMMISSION shall provide a construction contract claims process acceptable to STATE, and shall process any and all claims through COMMISSION 's claim process. STATE's representative will be made available to COMMISSION to provide advice and technical input in any claim process. (13) If any existing public and/or private utility facilities conflict with the construction of PROJECT or violate STATE's encroachment policy, COMMISSION shall make all DRAFT, November 12, 2002 7 O0O00Q District Agreement No. 8-1209 necessary arrangements with the owners of such facilities for their protection, relocation or removal in accordance with STATE's policy and procedure for those facilities located within the limits of work providing for the improvement of the State highway and in accordance with COMMISSION 's policy for those facilities located outside of the limits of work for the improvement to the State highway. The cost of protection, relocation or removal shall be apportioned between the owner of the utility facility and COMMISSION in accordance with STATE's policy and procedure. COMMISSION shall require any utility owner performing relocation work in the State highway right of way to obtain an encroachment permit from STATE prior to the performance of said relocation work. The requirements of the most current version of STATE's "Policy on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of Way" shall be fully complied with. Any relocated or new facilities shall be correctly shown and identified on the "As -Built" plans referred to in Article (13) of Section I, of this Agreement. (14) Any hazardous material or contamination of an HM -1 category found within the existing State highway right of way during investigative studies requiring remedy or remedial action, as defined in Division 20, Chapter 6.8 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code, shall be the responsibility of STATE. Any hazardous material or contamination of an HM -1 category found within the local road right of way during investigative studies requiring the same defined remedy or remedial action shall be the responsibility of COMMISSION. For the purpose of this Agreement, hazardous material or contamination of HM -1 category is defined as that level or type of contamination which State or Federal regulatory control agencies having jurisdiction have determined must be remediated by reason of its mere discovery, regardless of whether it is disturbed by PROJECT or not. If COMMISSION decides to not proceed with PROJECT, STATE shall sign the HM -1 manifest and pay all costs for required remedy or remedial action within the existing State highway right of way and COMMISSION shall sign the HM -1 manifest and pay all costs for required remedy or remedial action within the local road right of way. If COMMISSION and STATE decide to proceed with PROJECT, STATE shall sign the HM -1 manifest and pay all costs for required remedy or remedial action within the existing State highway right of way, except that if STATE determines, in its sole judgment that STATE's cost for remedy or remedial action is increased as a result of COMMISSION's decision to proceed with PROJECT, that additional cost identified by STATE shall be deemed a part of the costs of PROJECT. COMMISSION shall sign the HM -1 manifest and pay all costs for required remedy or remedial action within the local road right of way. STATE will exert every effort to fund the remedy or remedial action for which STATE is responsible. In the event STATE is unable to provide funding, COMMISSION will have the option to either delay PROJECT until STATE is able to provide funding or COMMISSION may proceed with the remedy or remedial action at COMMISSION's expense without any subsequent reimbursement by STATE. DRAFT, November 12, 2002 8 000091 District Agreement No. 8-1209 (15) The remedy or remedial action with respect to any hazardous material or contamination of an HM -2 category found within the existing State highway right of way during investigative studies shall be the responsibility of COMMISSION, at COMMISSION 's expense, if COMMISSION decides to proceed with PROJECT. For the purposes of this Agreement, hazardous material or contamination of HM -2 category is defined as that level or type of contamination which said regulatory control agencies would have allowed to remain in place if undisturbed or otherwise protected in place should PROJECT not proceed. COMMISSION shall sign any HM -2 storage manifest if PROJECT proceeds and HM -2 material must be removed in lieu of being treated in place. If COMMISSION decides to not proceed with PROJECT, there will be no obligation to either COMMISSION or STATE other than COMMISSION 's duty to cover and protect HM -2 material left in place. (16) If hazardous material or contamination of either HM -1 or HM -2 category is found during construction on new right of way acquired by or on account of COMMISSION for PROJECT, COMMISSION shall be responsible, at COMMISSION's expense, for all required remedy or remedial action and/or protection in the absence of a generator or prior property owner willing and prepared to perform that corrective work. (17) Locations subject to remedy or remedial action and/or protection include utility relocation work required for PROJECT. Costs for remedy and remedial action and/or protection shall include but not be limited to , the identification, treatment, protection, removal, packaging, transportation, storage, and disposal of such materials. (18) The party responsible for funding any hazardous material cleanup shall be responsible for the development of the necessary remedy and/or remedial action plans and designs. Remedial actions proposed by COMMISSION on the State highway right of way shall be pre -approved by STATE and shall be performed in accordance with STATE's standards and practices and those standards mandated by the Federal and State regulatory agencies. (19) Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 591 of the Vehicle Code, STATE has determined that within such areas as are within the limits of PROJECT and are open to public traffic, COMMISSION shall comply with all of the requirements set forth in Divisions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Vehicle Code. COMMISSION shall take all necessary precautions for safe operation of COMMISSION 's vehicles, the construction contractor's equipment and vehicles and/or vehicles of personnel retained by COMMISSION, and for the protection of the traveling public from injury and damage DRAFT, November 12, 2002 9 000092 District Agreement No. 8-1209 from such vehicles or equipment. (20) Pursuant to Business and Professional Code, Section 8700 to 8805 (Land Surveyor's Act), survey monuments that exist as shown on recorded maps, highway maps or points that provide survey control within the construction area, shall be located and referenced by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Registered Civil Engineer (authorized to practice Land Surveying), and Corner Records shall be filed with the County Surveyor prior to the start of construction. Said Corner Records shall describe the monuments found with tie distances to reference points for resetting of the survey monument. When construction is complete, monuments shall be set and/or reset and Corner Records shall be filed with the County Surveyor showing the new monuments. (21) Upon completion and acceptance of the PROJECT construction contract by COMMISSION to the satisfaction of the STATE representative and subsequent to the execution of a maintenance agreement between STATE and the Local Agency having jurisdiction over the local roads, STATE will accept control of and maintain, at its own cost and expense, those portions of PROJECT lying within the State's highway right of way. (22) Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to materials, equipment and appurtenances installed within STATE's right of way will automatically be vested in STATE, and materials, equipment and appurtenances installed outside of STATE's right of way will automatically be vested in the Local Agency having jurisdiction over the local public roads. No further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership as hereinabove stated. (23) Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the development, design, construction, operation, or maintenance of State highways and public facilities different from the standard of care imposed by law. (24) Neither STATE nor any officer or employee is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COMMISSION under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to COMMISSION under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, COMMISSION shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE and all its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind DRAFT, November 12, 2002 10 000093 District Agreement No. 8-1209 and description brought for or in account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COMMISSION under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to COMMISSION under this Agreement. (25) Neither COMMISSION nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless COMMISSION and all its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. (26) Should any portion of PROJECT be financed with Federal funds or State gas tax funds, all applicable laws, regulations and policies relating to the use of such funds shall apply, notwithstanding other provisions of this Agreement. (27) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. (28) Those portions of this Agreement pertaining to the construction of PROJECT shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of the construction contract for PROJECT by COMMISSION with concurrence of STATE, or on December 31, 2008, whichever is earlier in time. However, the ownership, operation, maintenance, liability, and claims clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement DRAFT, November 12, 2002 11 000094 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation JEFF MORALES Director of Transportation By: District Agreement No. 8-1209 Riverside County Transportation Commission By: Chairman ANNE E. MAYER District 08 Director Attest: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE: Attorney, Department of Transportation CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: District Budget Manager CERTIFIED AS TO FINANCIAL TERMS AND POLICIES: Accounting Administrator DRAFT, November 12, 2002 12 000095. Executive Director RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the County of Riverside STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to amend the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the County of Riverside, as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The Measure "A" Plans for the County of Riverside was approved by the Commission at its July 10, 2002 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted Plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The County of Riverside has submitted a revised Plan for FY 2002-03 to include projects which were incorporated into the County's FY 2002-03 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) by the Board on October 22, 2002. Attachments: County of Riverside Revised FY 2002-03 Measure "A" Plan. Item 71 000098 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist 03rd St Hammond Rd .28 (mi) Resurface Paved Road Dale Kiler Rd 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 4 16th Ave Atlantic Ave E'ly to end .23 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Resurf RMS paved road 3 24th Ave SH 78 2.02 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road De Frain Blvd 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 4 Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 1 05/06 06/07 301 other 40 Total 301 other Total 302 other Total 40 53 53 D E R 2 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 2 0 0 E 0 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 12 0 0 C 0 0 38 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 134 134 46th St Riverview Dr SE'ly 800' .15 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst and Widen AC Paved Road 2 68th Ave Lincoln St .12 . (mi) Resurf RMS paved road E'ly 0.12 mi 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) 4 300 other Total 301 other Total 142 142 12 12 D E R C 2 1 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 35 1 0 1 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 72nd Ave SH 86 .49 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Fillmore St 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 4 301 other Total 73rd Ave 4 Windlass Dr Ely Windlass Dr .16 mi .16 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurface Paved Road 301 other 100 100 26 Total 26 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 0 97 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 2 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 000097 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Total 74th Ave 4 301 SH 86 Polk St 1.02 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road other Total Albatross Way 4 301 Vander Veer Rd 72nd Ave .24 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurface AC paved road other Total Alberta Ave 4 301 Swingle Ave Wly 0.15 mi .15 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurf AC paved road other Total Alviso Ave 2 300 Ave Juan Diaz Ply 0.34 mi .34 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other Total Andra Cir 4 301 Forest Dr N'ly 0.02 mi .02 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road other Total Angela Ave 2 300 58th St N'ly 0.12 mi .12 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other Total Armstrong Rd 2 300 Sierra Ave S.B. County line 1.03 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf AC paved road other This project is to be coordinated with the EDA landscaping/beautification project on this road. Total Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 ( 04/05 ( 05/06 06/07 71 71 24 24 48 48 60 60 D 0 2 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 68 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 2 0. 0 E 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 21 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 10 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 37 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 6 1 0 53 0 0 0 0 9 9 D 0 0 0 1 E 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 8 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 28 28 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 5 0 22 0 0 0 0 423 423 D 40 0 0 E 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 2 380 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000098 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Atlantic Ave Dillon Rd 16th Ave .50 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Resurf RMS paved road 3 Ave San Timoteo Orchard St .87 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Avenida Miravilla 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 Baker St Kennedy St Limonite Ave .42 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Recon AC paved road Adjust profile to improve drainage 2 Balsam Ln Ridgeview Terr .07: (mi) Resurf AC paved road Nly End 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 2 Bataan St 48th Ave .15 (mi) Resurf AC paved road N'ly 0.15 mi 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 4 Bautista Rd NW'ly Bautista 4.95 mi 1.71 (mi) Grind and Resurf Wily Ranch Rd 1 mi 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) 3 Bautista Rd NW'ly Ranch Rd 1 mi 2.87 (mi) Reconst Fairview Ave 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) 3 Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 91 91 163 163 375 375 42 42 22 22 344 344 776 776 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 0 = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 104/05 05/06 ( 06/07 D 0 0 2 0 0 E 0 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 25 0 0 C 0 0 63 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 0 3 0 0 E 0 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 159 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 60 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 314 0 300 Measure A/Western E R C 3 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 20 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 33 1 0 310 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 75 1 0 700 0 0 0 000099 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Big Pine St Jeffery Pine Rd .20 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Silver Fir Dr 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) 3 Fund Source Total 300 other Total Bluff St River Rd Stage Coach Dr .95 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) Resurf AC paved road and coordinate with the City of Norco for project funding. 2 Brookside Ave Nancy Ave Beaumont Ave .80 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Verify limits of proposed annexation. 3 Brownstown Dr Orcabessa Dr Ewarton Rd .16 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 Butternut Ln Ridgeview Terrace .06 (mi) Resurf AC paved road N'ly 0.06 mi 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 2 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 38 38 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 103/04 04/05 105/06 06/07 E R C 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 390 113 503 117 117 64 64 300 other Total Cabazon Ave Dillon Rd .03 (mi) Recon AC paved road Indio C.L. 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) 4 Cajalco Rd La Sierra Ave 3.00 (mi) Recon AC paved road Lake Mathews Dr 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 1 301 other 37 37 23 Total 300 other Total 23 655 1200 1855 D E R C 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 108 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 59 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 2 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 2 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 21 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 10 150 0 0 0 E 10 10 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 3 472 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 000100 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Cajalco Rd Kirkpatrick Rd Lake Mathews Dr 2.70 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Reconst AC paved road, widen shoulders and Construct left turn pockets at Archer Rd, Kirkpatrick Rd and Lake Mathews Dr. Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Total 1 300 130 other 1555 Total 1685 Cajalco Rd La Sierra Ave 2.70 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Temescal Canyon Rd 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 1 300 1900 Calico Ave Chaparral Rd .21 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Cottonwood Rd 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) other Total 1900 3 300 124 other Total 124 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 1 05/06 06/07 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 130 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 180 E 0 0 20 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 1210 0 0 0 490 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 00 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 111 Catle De Las Flores Clearwater Wy .31 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Snow View Dr 17 (ft)/ 17 (ft) 4 301 62 Cedar St Tumbleweed St 52nd St .94 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other Total 62 2 300 159 Chabeta Dr Soboba Rd .07 (mi) Grind and Resurf San Jose Dr 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) other Total 159 3 300 23 Chaparral Rd Tamarack Rd .37 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Verbenia Ave 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) other Total 23 3 300 215 other Total 215 D 5 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 56 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 15 0 143 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 5 E 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 17 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 193 000101 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits ,Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Cherry Cove Calle De Las Flores .14 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Palm Oasis Ave 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 4 Clark St Cajatco Rd 1.00 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Martin St 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 1 Clay St Van Buren Blvd .86 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Limonite Ave 64 (ft)/ 64 (ft) 2 Clearwater Way Calle De Las Flores .16 (mi) Resurf AC paved road S'ly Palm Oasis 0.05mi 17 (ft)/ 17 (ft) 4 Clinton Keith Rd Avenida La Cresta Murrieta City Limits 1.65 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst road Coordinate with the City of Murrieta for the west half of 0.3 miles of road. 1 Clinton St Miles Ave S'ly to C.L. .25 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf west 1/2 of AC paved road 4 Coachella Valley Area various roads 6.00 (mi) Resurf (ft)/ (ft) 4 Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 02/03 103/04 04/05 105/06 06/07 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 56 56 252 252 17 703 720 D E R C 5 1 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 20 1 0 231 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 37 703 703 D E R C 5 1 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 2 0 0 701 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 345 345 301 other Total 400 1410 1810 D E R C 35 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 307 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 100 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 300 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 000102 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Contour Ave Hansen Ave Ely .66 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon.RMS paved road. Construct in summer when school is out. Water crosses over the road. 3 Coral St Calle De Las Flores S'ly Palm Oasis 0.05mi .19 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 4 Corral St Homestead St E'ly Homestead 0.19 mi .19 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 Corregidor Ave Van Buren St Bataan St .24 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 4 Corydon St Grand Ave Mission Tr 1.56 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon AC paved road 1/2 in the City of Lake Elsinore. Pursue coop w/City. Add left turn lane at Union Street. 1 Cottonwood Rd Tamarack Rd Verbenia Ave .45 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 3, Crystal Springs Dr Calle De Las Flores Palm Oasis Ave .15 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 4 Page 7 10/22/2002 Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 ( 04/05 105/06 06/07 300 other Total 301 other 191 191 D E R C 2 1 0 188 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 Total 300 other 74 27 Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other 27 36 36 410 275 685 D E R C 6 1 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 5 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 21 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 2 0 0 34 D E R C 38 1 0 0 0 0 370 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 260 260 59 Total 59 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 234 D E R C 5 1 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 000103 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist De Portota Rd (2 segments) S'ly Monte De Oro .5mi Glen Oaks Rd 4.25 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst AC paved road Segment 2 is from Anza Rd to Pauba Rd 3 Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 300 other Total 1051 1051 Delano Dr Toll Gate Rd .27 (mi) Resurf AC paved road N'ly end 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) 3 Dillon Rd Worstey Diablo Rd 1.00 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road The City of Palm Springs declined to participate in their 10% jurisdiction of the project. 3 Dillon Rd Bennett Rd 1.00 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Ford Ave 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) 4 300 other Total 301 other Total 301 other Total 53 53 85 85 357 357 Double Tree Dr Jeffery Pine Rd .15 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Silver Fir Dr 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) 3 300 other Total Double View Dr Meadow Glen Dr Wily 1.21 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 3 300 other Total Elaine Dr Sycamore Rd .44 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road 16th Ave 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) 3 301 other Total 33 33 219 -219 59 59 D E R C 0 0 0 1051 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 2 1 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 219 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 56 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 000104 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007' Page 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Ella Ave Calhoun St .50 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Jackson St 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 4 Eim Ave 14th St Beaumont C.L. .49 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Coordinate with City of Beaumont for half of road width. 3 301 other Total 300 other Total 42 42 103 103 Estelle St Grant St McKinley St .46 (mi) 61 (ft)/ 61 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC -paved road 1 300 other Total Ethanac Rd Goetz Rd Ply to Perris C.L. 1.75 (mi) 12 (ft)/ 12 (ft) Recon South side of road Coordinate with City for north side of road. City Share is listed as unfunded and is not 3 Eucalyptus St Esperanza Ave .17 (mi) Grind and Resurf Ida Ave 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 300 other Total 300 other Total Ewarton Rd Brownstown Dr Lima Hall Rd .00 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 301 other Total 357 357 604 659 1263 37 37 43 43 Fleetwood Dr Via Cerro Wilson St .70 (mi) 62 (ft)/ 62 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 300 other Total 253 253 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 02/03 ( 03/04 104/05 05/06 106/07 D 0 2 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 39 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 0 0 10 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 92 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 26 E 0 0 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 330 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 0 75 1 0 2 0 0 0 526 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 31 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 40 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 24 0 228 0 0 0 0 000105 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 10 10/22/2002 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 Description x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviornmentat C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 104/05 105/06 106/07 Forest Dr 4 301 84 D 0 0 0 6 0 Pacific Ave W'ly End E 0 0 0 0 '0 .19 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 78 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 84 Four Chimneys Rd 3 300 19 D 0 0 0 0 0 Delano Dr W'ly end E 0 0 0 0 0 .10 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 19 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 19 Fred Waring Dr 4 301 305 D 0 0 0 22 0 Jefferson St Adams St E 0 0 0 1 0 1.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 282 0 Coordinate with City of La Quinta for S'ty half of road. 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 305 Fred Waring Dr & Clinton St 4 301 225 D 10 0 0 0 0 Indio C.L. W'ly Silverwood Dr E 0 0 0 0 0 .58 (mi) 64 (ft)/110-(ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Widen street and Const sidewalk other 48 C 215 0 0 0 0 Sidewalk includes the west side of Clinton St from Fred Waring Dr to Rivertane Dr. 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 273 Fremontia Rd 3 300 215 D 0 0 0 0 21 Tamarack Rd Cottonwood Rd E 0 0 0 0 1 .37 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 193 300 Measure A/Western Total 215 Front Nall Rd 4 301 53 D 0 0 0 4 0 42nd Ave N'ly 0.12 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .12 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 49 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 53 Galena St 2 300 865 D 3 0 0 0 0 Rutite St Felspar St E 0 0 0 0 0 .75 (mi) 71 (ft)/ 71 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other 3 C 862 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 868 000106 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Garbani Rd Murrieta Rd Evans Rd .43 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Recon 24'-53', AC paved road Width varies from 24' to 53'. 3 Gilman Springs Rd SE'ly Jack Rabbit Tr NW'ly Bridge St 1.80 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Reconst and widen AC Paved Road Coordinate w/project A2-0433 in Supv. Dist. 3. 5 Gilman Springs Rd SE'ty Bridge St 1.50 (mi) Reconst AC Paved Rd SH 79 (Sanderson Rd) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 3 Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 367 367 258 1387 1645 2115 2115 Gilman Springs Rd 2 locations NW'ly Jack Rabbit Tr SE'ly Bridge St .00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Recon, realign See A7-0310 in Supv.Dist.5 for companion project 3 300 other Total Gtenoaks Rd Rancho California Rd 2.76 (mi) Recon AC paved road E'ly 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 300 other Total Granite Hill Dr Pyrite St Wily Valley Way 500' 1.72 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Recon AC paved road Coordinate limits with RCTC's SR60 ramp project 2 Greenwald Ave SH 74 Canyon Lake City Gate 2.61 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Pulverize, Resurf 0.33' AC Project is 31) in SD #3, and 3% in SD #1 5 300 other Total 300 other 16 3075 3091 1326 1326 829 829 320 295 Total 615 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 1 06/07 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 367 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 2 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 256 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 2 0 0 0 0 E 3 0 0 0 0 R 50 0 0 0 0 C 2060 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 10 3 3 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 145 9 0 7 0 0 0 1165 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 15 1 0 1 0 0 0 812 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 320 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000107 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Hansen Ave 10th St Montgomery Ave 1.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS w/berms 3 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 203 203 Hattie Ave Elm St .14 (mi) Grind and Resurf E'ly end 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 3 Helen Ave Clinton Ave' .40 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Wly 0.4 mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 300 other Total 301 other Total Helen Ave Elm St .07 (mi) Grind and Resurf E'ly end 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 3 Helm Cir Beacon Dr .03 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road N'ly Beacon Dr 0.03 mi 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 4 300 other Total 301 other Total Hemet Area various roads .00 (mi) Resurf AC paved roads (ft)/ (ft) 3 300 other Total Highgrove Area various streets .00 (mi) Resurf AC paved road (ft)/ (ft) 5 300 other Total 30 30. 101 101 19 19 12 12 1000 350 1350 1600 935 2535 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 200 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 24 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 5 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 D E R C 2 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 200 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 800 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 50 50 40 E 0 0 10 10 5 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 590 490 355 300 Measure A/Western 000108 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Homestead St Limonite Ave Stirrup St .31 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM Hudson St 58th St N'ly 0.12 mi .12 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other Total Jeffery Pine Rd 3 300 Cedar Glen Dr W'ly .20 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf-AC paved road other Total John Muir Rd 3 300 Lodge Rd Seneca Dr .21 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) Resurf AC paved road other Total Johnston Ave 3 300 San Jacinto St Ply Stanford 0.12 mi 1.68 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road other Total Juniper Flats Rd 3 300 Juniper Springs Sly 1.61 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS W/Berms other Total 2 300 other Fund Source Amount x $1000 44 44 Total 2 300 56 56 38 38 39 39 1041 1041 202 202 Jurupa Rd Etiwanda Ave 2.90 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Poinsetta Pl 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 2 300 other Total 722 722 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 104/05 05/06 106/07 D 0 0 0 5 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 38 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 5 1 0 50 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 38 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 39 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 100. 7 0 0 0 0 0 934 D 0 1 0 E 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 200 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 60 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 7 655 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000109 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years"2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 14 10/22/2002 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year , Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 King Ave 1 300 119 D 20 0 0 0 0 Van Buren Blvd Krameria Ave E 1 0 0 0 0 .16 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 98 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 119 La Sierra Ave 1 300 524 D 0 0 0 0 0 El Sobrante Rd Cleveland Ave E 0 0 0 0 0 1.90 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 64 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Widen to 4 lane Mtn. Arterial Hwy other 41 C 524 0 0 0 0 Agreement with Victoria Grove,LLC. 300 Measure A/Western Total 565 La Vida Dr 4 301 70 D 6 0 0 0 0 Calle De Las Flores Palm Oasis Ave E 1 0 0 0 0 .18 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC pavedroad other C 63 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 70 Lake Elsinore Area 1 300 1000 D 0 0 0 0 0 various roads E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf other 2078 C 0 0 0 0 1000 300 Measure A/Western Total 3078 Lake Ln 3 300 17 D 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Gate Rd Marian View Dr E 0 0 0 0 0 .09 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 17 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 17 Lakeview Ave 3 300 47 D 0 0 0 0 0 Ramona Expressway Nuevo Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 3.05 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon 30', 0.25' AC other C 47 0 0 0 0 Add turn lanes at Post Office. 300 Measure A/Western Total 47 Lasso Ct 2 300 14 D 0 0 0 5 0 Corral St S'ly Corral 0.05 mi E 0 0 0 1 0 .05 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf with AHRM other C 0 0 0 8 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 14 000110 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Leyte Ave Van Buren St .16 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Ply 0.16 mi 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) 4 Limonite Ave Etiwanda Ave Bain St 1.00 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 42 (ft) Const continuous left turn lane 2 Limonite Ave/Riverview Dr Morton Ave Mission Blvd 4.10 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf AC paved road 2 Fund Source Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 25 25 232 450 682 492 1585 2077 Lingayan Ave Van Buren St .24 (mi) Recon AC paved road Bataan St 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 4 Los Caballos Pauba Ave SH79 1.34 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon RMS paved road 3 Lovekin Blvd 4 S'ly Seeley Ave 0.5 mi N'ly Seeley Ave 0.25mi .75 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 52 (ft) Const turning lanes Luzon St 48th Ave .24 (mi) Recon AC paved road Manila Ave 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) 4 301 other Total 300 other Total 302 other Total 301 other Total 109 109 252 252 120 631 751 97 97 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 104/05 05/06 106/07 D 0 0 0 0 2 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 23 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 89 0 0 0 0 E 50 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 93 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 98 1 0 393 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 8 0 0 101 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 250 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 7 0 0 90 000111 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Malaga Rd Mission Tr E'ly .26 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore for the north 1/2 of street. Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Total 1 300 87 Manila Ave Van Buren St .16 (mi) Recon AC paved road E'ly 0.16 mi 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) other Total 87 4 301 63 Maple Rd Atlantic Ave .31 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Nancy Dr 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) other Total 63 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 02/03 103/04 104/05 105/06 106/07 D 0 0 0 12 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 74 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 01 Measure A/Coachella Valley 5 0 0 58 3 301 49 Marian View Dr S.H.243 Wily .49 (mi). Resurf AC paved road 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) other Total 49 3 300 84 Mauna Loa Dr Mojave Nly .31 (mi) Recon 32',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) other Total 84 3 301 48 Meadow Glen Dr Double View Dr Idyttbrook Dr .31 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Coordinate with waterline work other Total 48 D 0 2 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 46 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 84 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 2 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 45 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 3 300 61 Mira Loma Area various roads 8.00 (mi) Resurf AC paved road (ft)/ (ft) other Total 61 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 61 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 300 400 other 220 Total 620 D 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 300 000112 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 17 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Mission Blvd 2 300 63 UP RR X-ing 3-51.34-C E'ty of Valley Way .05 (mi) 48 (ft)/ (ft) Upgrade Crossing Gates, resurf road & drainage other Total 63 Mojave Rd 3 301 19 Carol Dr Nancy Dr .10 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road other Total 19 Moneaque Rd 4 301 26 Orcabessa Dr Nly Orcabessa Dr .06mi .06 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC pavedroad other Total 26 Monte Vista Dr 1 300 174 Baxter Rd Bundy Canyon Rd 1.23 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Resurf AC paved road other Total 174 Monterey Ave 4 301 84 Varner Rd Ramon Rd .60 (mi) 50 (ft)/ 50 (ft) Resurf AC paved road other 400 Total 484 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 106/07 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 63 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 2 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 16 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 2 E 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 24 01 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 D 3 0 0 E 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 170 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 84 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 Murrieta Rd 3 300 286 Corson Ave Newport Rd 1.25 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon AC paved road other Total 286 Murrieta Rd 3 300 83 Scott Rd Corson Ave 1.75 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf AC paved road other Total 83 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 286 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 83 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000113 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 18 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Nancy Dr Dillon Rd N'ly to end .33 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Resurf RMS paved road 3 Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 301 other Total Neptune Dr Flamingo Dr .25 (mi) Resurface Paved Road Nly Via CostaBrava.2mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 New Chicago Ave Alto Dr Acacia Ave .13 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon surface and:wi:den road 3 301 other 64 64 44 Total 300 other Total 44 205 205 North Shore Dr Flamingo Dr .27 (mi) Resurface Paved Road Nly Via CostaBrava.1mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 Old Elsinore Rd S'ly Rider 0.85 mi 2.32 (mi) Resurf AC paved road San Jacinto Ave 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 5 Opal St 45th St .25 (mi) Const sidewalk 43rd St (ft)/ (ft) 2 Orcabessa Dr Brownstown Dr Front Hall Rd .24 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other 47 47 744 744 130 39 169 106 Total 106 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 106/07 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 13 48 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 2 1 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 2 0 182 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 2 1 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 lo w K U 81 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 652 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 2 0 0 0 0 C 128 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 8 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0. 0 0 C 0 0 0 98 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 000114 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 19 10/22/2002 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 Description x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 (.06/07 Orchard St 3 300 196 D 0 0 0 19 0 Nancy Ave Beaumont Ave E 0 0 0 1 0 .71 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 176 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 196 Oreana Way 4 301 76 D 6 0 0 0 0 Calle De Las Flores Palm Oasis Ave E 1 0 0 0 0 .20 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 69 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 76 Pacific Ave 4 301 27 D 0 0 0 2 0 Forest Dr Riverlane Dr E 0 0 0 0 0 .07 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road ° other C 0 0 0 25 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 27 Palm Oasis Ave 4 301 138 D 11 0 0 0 0 Snow View Dr Clearwater Wy E 1 0 0 0 0 .36 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 126 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 138 Palo Verde Area 4 302 805 D 0 0 0 0 0 various roads E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 ' 0 Resurf RMS paved road other 1350 C 0 135 250 200 220 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 2155 Palomar Rd 3 300 46 D 0 0 0 0 0 John Muir Rd Dickenson Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 .27 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 46 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 46 Palomas Ave 4 302 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 Commercial St 24th Ave E 1 0 0 0 0 .11 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 8 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 11 000115 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 20 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Par Dr 3 300 Thornhill Dr Olympia Way .26 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Resurf 32',0.21' AC Petromat- other Total Paseo Grande 2 300 Via Del Rio Hummingbird Ln .44 (mi) 37 (ft)/ 37 (ft) Resurf AC paved road other Recon segments from Pine Crest Dr to N'ly of Via Santiago Total Pauba Rd 3 300 SH79 De Portola Rd 2.34 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon RMS paved road other Total Peach St 3 300 Esperanza Ave Ida Ave . .17 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Grind and Resurf other Total Pedley Area 2 300 various roads 7.00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf AC paved roads other Total Petersfield Rd 4 301 Orcabessa Nty Orcabessa Dr .06mi .06 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road other Total Pigeon Pass Rd 5 300 Moreno Valley C.L. 0.7 mile North M.V.C.L .70 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) Recon and realign AC paved road other Total 38 38 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 1 05/06 1 06/07 D 0 0 1 0 E 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 36 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 732 D 43 0 0 E 3 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 686 0 0 732 618 618 34 34 500 500 25 25 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 5 0 E 0 3 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 610 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 5 1 0 28 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 400 D 0 0 0 2 E 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 23 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 443 443 D 70 0 0 E 4 0 0 R 20 0 0 C 2 347 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000116 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 21 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Picot Dr 4 301 Galley Dr N'ly Galley Dr 0.03 mi .03 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 16 16 Pilot Dr 4 301 Windlass Dr Ply 0.20 mi .20 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Resurface Paved Road other Total Plum St 3 300 Esperanza Ave Ida Ave .17 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Grind and Resurf other Total Poplar Ln 2 300 Ridgeview Terr Nly End .05 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurf AC paved road other Tota Ramon Rd 4 301 San Miguelito Dr 1000 Palms Cyn Rd 3.40 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Recon AC paved road other Total Ramon Rd 4 301 Varner Rd I-10 E8 ramps .31 (mi) 42 (ft)/ 42 (ft) Recon portions of pavement with concrete other Total Rancho California 1 300 De Luz Rd Temecula C.L. 3.39 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) Recon AC paved road other and install raised centerline markers. Total 35 35 37 37 37 37 356 1158 1514 140 456 596 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 104/05 05/06 ( 06/07 D E R C 2 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D E R C 2 1 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 5 1 0 31 0 0 0 D E R C 2 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 35 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 103 0 0 0 E 3 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 5 245 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 16 0 E 1 0 R 0 0 C 123 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 1239 1239 D 140 0 0 E 5 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 2 1092 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000117 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 22 10/22/2002 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 Description x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 Reche Canyon Rd 5 300 34 D 0 0 0 0 0 Arroyo Dr !Ply 0.4 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .40 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 40 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Realign road other 16 C 34 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 50 Record Rd 3 300 80 D 0 8 0 0 0 Potter Rd SH 79 E 0 1 0 0 0 .75 (mi) 13 (ft)/ 13 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf other C 0 71 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 80 Ridgeview Ter 2 300 140 D 8 0 0 0 0 Frontage Rd Via Santiago E 0 0 0 0 0 .44 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 132 0 0 0 O. 300 Measure A/Western Total 140 River Rd 2 300 472 D 62 23 0 0 0 Santa Ana River E 38 349 0 0 0 .12 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Bridge Replacement other 22538 C 0 0 0 0 0 RCTD Br.# S8002, State Br#. 56C 017 RCTD is working to secure the local matching 300 Measure A/Western Total 23010 Riverlane Dr 4 301 94 D 0 0 0 7 0 Clinton St Silverwood Dr E 0 0 0 0 0 .22 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 87 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 94 Riverview Dr 2 300 1242 D 113 0 0 0 0 Limonite Ave Ave Juan Diaz E 20 0 0 0 0 1.87 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 28 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Reconstruct surface and widen other C 4 5 1100 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 1242 Roble Dr 3 300 33 D 0 0 0 0 0 Encino Rd S'ly End E 0 0 0 0 0 .18 (mi) 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 33 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 33 000118 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 23 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Rocky Way Double Tree Dr Wily .05 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 3 Round Robin Dr SH 243 .13 (mi) Recon AC paved road SW'ly End 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 Rubidoux Blvd UP RR X-ing 3-54.70-C .05 (mi) 70 (ft)/ (ft) Upgrade Crossing gates and road surface 2 Sage Rd East Benton Rd 5.00 (mi) Recon RMS paved road Wilson Valley Rd 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 Sage Rd SH 79 4.78 (mi) Recon RMS paved road Wilson Valley Rd 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 Sagebrush Ave Wily Cottonwood 0.02m1 .14 (mi) Resurf AC paved—pead Verbenia Ave 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 3 Sail Cir 4 Lighthouse Rd Ely Lighthouse 0.04 mi .04 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurface Paved Road Fund Source Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 11 11 32 32 45 45 1700 1700 102 102 300 other Total 301 other Total 45 45 9 9 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 06/07 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 11 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 32 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 45 0 0 0 0 00 Measure A/Western D E R C 7 7 0 1686 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 39 D E R C 2 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000119 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 24 Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Saint Annes Bay Dr Orcabessa Dr Ewarton Rd .16 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 San Jacinto Rd Fern Valley Rd .38 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Glen Rd 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 3 San Juan Ave Commercial St .1.0 (mi). Resurf RMS paved road 24th Ave 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 4 San Sevaine Channel/Van Buren Blvd 2 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Road improvements associated with construction of the Flood Control Project of San Sevaine Channel Stage 7. San Timoteo Cyn Rd Live Oak Cyn Rd .23 (mi) Recon AC paved road 50% in SD#3 S.B. County Line 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 Fund Source Scott Rd I-215 Winchester Rd (SH 79N) 5.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconstruct AC paved road and investigate widening to 4 lanes. RCTD is seeking funds for construction. 3 Total Fund Source Amount x $ 1000 301 other Total Scott Rd Murrieta Rd 2.00 (mi) Recon AC paved road 1-215 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 3 300 other Total 302 other 62 62 74 74 11 Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 11 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 0 = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 04/05 105/06 ( 06/07 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 57 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 2 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303 303 177 177 575 18600 19175 0 E R C 3 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 13 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 164 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 405 10 20 0 0 E 140 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 4 1236 1240 D E R C 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000120 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 25 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Sea Gull Dr Via Costa Brava .57 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Flamingo Dr 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 4 301 other Total 54 54 Seahorse Way Barnacle Dr .12 (mi) Resurface Paved Road Port Cir 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 4 Seeley Ave 4 Arrowhead Blvd Neighours Blvd (Rte78) 1.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf 26', 0.26'RMS Shoat Dr Beacon Dr .22 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Rocky Point Dr 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) 4 Silver Fir Dr Cedar Glen Dr Wily .17 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) 3 301 other Total 302 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 19 19 12 12 02/03 03/04. 04/05 05/06 106/07 D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 51 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 16 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 12 0 0 0 0 02 Measure A/Palo Verde 33 33 33 33 Silverwood Dr Fred Waring Dr Riverlane Dr .09 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 301 other Total 37 37 E R C 2 1 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 34 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 Simpson Rd Briggs Rd Rte 79 3.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon AC paved road Investigate groundwater problem near ponds. 3 300 other Total 237 1125 1362 D E R C 0 0 0 237 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000121 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 26 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Soboba Rd N'ly Bath Ave 0.1 mi Chabela Dr .56 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Coordinate with City of San Jacinto for south half of road. 3 Soboba St Stetson Ave 1.25 (mi) Recon AC paved road R/W needs research Rte 74 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 South Broadway 15th Ave Blythe CL .40 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft) Resurface 0.1', 38' A/C W/ petromat 4 Spar Cir Galley Dr .07 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road NW'ly 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 4 Stetson Ave Hemet St Fairview Av 1.77 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Realign and widen AC paved road 3 Stetson Ave Dartmouth St Stanford St .25 (mi) 42 (ft)/ 56 (ft) Widen & recon existing pvmnt. Add left turn lane Fronting Hemet High School Modify Stanford/Stetson signal 3 Studio Pl Kennedy St Lakeview Ave .15 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.21' AC 2 Fund Source Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 302 other Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 103/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 92 92 700 700 85 Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 85 18 18 1160 47 1207 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 82 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 0 623 D E R C 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 75 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 2 1 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 1160 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 268 268 47 47 0 E R C 20 0 2 26 0 0 220 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 15 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 . 0 0 C 0 0 0 31 0 300 Measure A/Western 000122 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 27 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Sugar Ln Ridgeview Terrace .04 (mi) Resurf AC paved road N'ly 0.04 mi 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 2 Sun City Blvd McCall Blvd .50 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Chambers Ave 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) 3 Sun City Median Improvements Segment 4 & 5 Sun City Blvd .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Place Stamped.:Concrete on:Sun.City Blvd 3 Sun City Median Improvements Segments 6, 7 & 8 Cherry Hills Blvd .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Place Stamped Concrete on Cherry Hills Blvd 3 Swingle Ave Miles Ave .20 (mi) Resurface Paved Road N'ly Miles Ave 0.2 mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 Sycamore Rd Atlantic Ave .31 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Nancy Dr 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) 3 Sylvester Rd Mission Tr .21 (mi) Recon AC paved road Lakeview Terrace 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 1 Fund Source Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other. Total 301 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 104/05 05/06 06/07 32 32 D 2 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 30 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 232 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 232 125 125 165 165 36 36 49 49 150 150 300 Measure A/Western 22 0 209 0 0 0 0 D 0 14 0 E 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 110 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 17 0 E 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 2 145 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 2 0 E 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 33 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 2 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 46 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 25 0 0 E 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 124 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000123 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 28 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Tamarack Rd W'ly Verbenia 0.57 mi .57 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Verbenia Ave 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) Thousand Palms Canyon Rd Ramon Rd/Washington St Dillon Rd 5.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen and Resurf RMS paved road Tomal Ln 58th St 56th St .24 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM Tracy Cir Forest Dr N'Ly 0.02 mi, .02 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road Transfer to City of Temecula Redhawk Area .00 (mi), (ft)/ (ft) Annexation agreement fund transfer Ref. County Board items 3.4 of 6/4/02 and 3.56 of 6/19/01. Tumbleweed St 58th St South end .08 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM Tyler St 48th Ave N'ly 0.25 mi .25 (mi) 11 (ft)/ 11 (ft) Recon AC paved road Costs reflect only Co. side Fund Source Total 3 300 other Total 4 301 other Total 2 300 other Total 4 301 other Total 1 300 other Total 2 300 other Total 4 301 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 04/05 105/06 06/07 264 264 D 0 0 0 0 25 E 0 0 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 238 300 Measure A/Western 770 770 D E R C 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 764 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure.A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 45 45 9 9 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 5 1 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 E 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 8 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 100 100 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 100 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 5 1 0 15 0 0 0 0 45 45 D 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 3 0 0 42 000124 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 29 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Valley Wy/ Armstrong Rd 2 300 354 SR 60 Sierra Ave .90 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 76 (ft) Reconst and widen to 4 lanes other 6605 RCTD is working to secure the local matching funds needed for R/W and construction. Total 6959 Van Buren Blvd 1 300 109 West of Regency Ranch Wily 0.5 mi .50 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Const concrete V ditch other Total 109 Van Buren Blvd 1 300 34 Mockingbird Canyon Rd .10 (mi) 48 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Const right turn lane.for SE -bound -traffic other Total 34 Van Buren Blvd 1 300 669 Washington St Orange Terrace Pkwy 3.50 (mi) 76 (ft)/ 76 (ft) Const raised median, C & G, and Bus turn -outs other 1916 Future Coop w/City of Riverside Bus turn -outs primarily from Mockingbird Cyn Rd Total 2585 Varner Rd 4 301 201 Ramon Rd Ply Harry Oliver Tr .70 (mi) 44 (ft)/ 44 (ft) Recon AC paved road other 560 Total 761 Verbenia Ave 3 300 295 Railroad Ave Chaparral Rd .51 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Resurf AC paved road other Total 295 Verbenia Ave 3 300 179 Chaparral Rd Wily Chaparral 0.31 mi .31 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Resurf AC paved road other 02/03 03/04 104/05 05/06 06/07 D 140 70 0 0 0 E 136 8 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 15 0 0 E 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 93 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 34 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 110 0 0 E 5 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 198 356 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 25 0 0 0 E 2 0 0 0 R 28 0 0 0 C 146 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 28 1 0 266 Total 179 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 161 000125 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Via Costa Brava Vander Veer Rd .57 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Sea View Wy 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 4 Via Josefa Via Santiago Frontage Rd .05 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Recon AC paved road Coordinate with City of Corona for a portion of the street. Only county costs are shown. 2 Via Los Caballeros Washington St Gardner Ave .25 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC.paved:.road 1 Vineland St Edgar Canyon Channel .01 (mi) Construct box culvert 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 Washington St 1000 Palms Cyn Rd 1.60 (mi) Reconst AC paved road Pushawalla Rd 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 4 Wellman Rd Terwilliger Rd Kirby St 1.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen North side,0.5'DG; Resurf 26',0.21'RMS 3 Wood Rd Krameria Ave Nly 0.1 mi & Sly 0..-.1mi .26 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Recon AC paved road plus Wood Rd from Van Buren Blvd S'ly 0.06 mi 1 Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Total 301 other Total 300 other Total Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 $ 04/05 05/06 06/07 65 65 32 32 D E R C 2 1 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 3 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 104 104 403 403 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 95 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 52 20 0 0 0 0 0 331 250 604 854 103 103 109 109 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 5 0 2 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 133 D 0 0 2 0 0 E 0 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 100 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 7 E 0 0 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 101 300 Measure A/Western 000126 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 31 10/22/2002 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 Description x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 104/05 05/06 06/07 Worsley Rd 3 301 73 D 0 2 0 0 0 20th Ave Dillion Rd E 0 1 0 0 0 .70 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Reconstruct surface with RMS on existing base other C 0 70 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 73 z* Future Projects 1 300 680 D 0 170 170 170 170 District 1 Only E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 other 2636 C 0 0 0 0 0 These funds will be used for pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 300 Measure A/Western Total 3316 z* Future Projects 3 300 290 0 0 0 0 0 0 District 3 Only E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 other 3560 C 0 0 0 120 170 These funds will be used for various pavement rehabilitation -projects in the years shown. 300 Measure A/Western Total 3850 z* Future Projects 4 301 1400 D 0 0 0 0 0 District 4 Only E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 other 4016 C 0 350 350 350 350 These funds will be used for pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 5416 z* Future Projects 5 300 2050 D 0 0 0 0 0 District 5 Only E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 other 2071 C 0 0 900 550 600 These funds will be used for various pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 300 Measure A/Western Total 4121 000127 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 32 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 10/22/2002 Fund Source Source Nme 300 Measure A/Western 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 302 Measure A/Palo Verde * Grand Totals * Fiscal Year (Amt x $1000) Fund Source Total Expenditure 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 (Amt x $1000) 16467 7841 5021 6809 8692 44830 2030 2297 865 1531 1473 8196 288 220 250 200 220 1178 18785 10358 6136 8540 10385 54204 000128 AGENDA ITEM 7J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Legislative Advocate Selection STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and agree with the San Bernardino Associated Governments' action to select the Copeland/Madison Team to provide advocacy services for SANBAG and RCTC; 2) Direct staff to follow-up as necessary with SANBAG and negotiate with the preferred advocacy firm; and, 3) Direct staff to prepare an amendment to the current cooperative agreement with SANBAG. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In July 2002 at the direction of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) governing boards, staff released a request for proposals for RCTC/SANBAG Shared Federal Advocacy Services. The RFP generated responses from seven firms to provide Federal Advocacy Services. As outlined in the staff report to each board, following receipt of the proposals, a staff review committee composed of legislative affairs staff from three transportation agencies around the state reviewed the proposals. The staff review committee and the RCTC and SANBAG Executive Directors and the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs evaluated each proposal and recommended the following firms as those most qualified to provide the services needed by RCTC and SANBAG and therefore, deserving of interviews by the Joint Selection Committee: Item 7J 000129 Federal Advocacy Firms Copeland, Lowery and Jacquez with The Skancke Company David Turch and Associates with Cliff Madison Government Relations, Inc. Patton, Boggs The Carmen Group Further, as outlined in the July board item, the RCTC and SANBAG Boards appointed members to represent their Board(s) in a Joint Selection Committee which conducted interviews and is recommending to each board the firms for State Advocacy Services and Federal Advocacy Services. The membership of the Joint Selection Committee was as follows: RCTC Members Honorable John Tavaglione, RCTC Chairman, Riverside County Supervisor Honorable Ron Roberts, RCTC Vice -Chairman, Temecula City Council Member SANBAG Members Honorable Bill Postmus, SANBAG President, San Bernardino County Supervisor Honorable Bill Alexander, SANBAG Vice -President, Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga The interviews for federal advocacy services were conducted on September 19, 2002; however the Selection Committee did not reach a consensus decision on which firm should be recommended to the respective bodies. The Riverside County members of the Selection Committee were prepared to recommend retaining David Turch and Associates and Cliff Madison Government Relations to provide Federal Advocacy Services. However, recognizing that in the proposal submitted by David Turch and Associates/Cliff Madison Government Relations, David Turch would primarily represent SANBAG interests and Cliff Madison would primarily represent RCTC interests, San Bernardino County Supervisor Bill Postmus requested that since the two representatives to the Selection Committee from SANBAG were split on the above recommendation, that the SANBAG Board be requested to hear a brief presentation from the two finalist firms that would primarily represent SANBAG interests and then direct staff to negotiate with the firm selected by the SANBAG Board and that RCTC delay action until such time that SANBAG had acted. 000130 Item 7J The SANBAG Board received a verbal presentation to the full Board from the two finalist firms, Copeland, Lowery, and Jacquez and David Turch and Associates on November 6, 2002. Following the presentations the SANBAG Board on a vote of 19-7 acted to direct staff to negotiate with the Copeland/Madison Team and advise RCTC of this action. SANBAG maintains the desire to continue the shared advocacy arrangement with RCTC and recognizes that the team selected by SANBAG was not the team initially recommended by the Selection Committee. The Riverside County members to the Selection Committee have been advised of the SANBAG action and have agreed to modify their recommendation to the full Commission to the Copeland/Madison Team in order to continue the shared advocacy arrangement and recognize the continuity between RCTC's federal advocacy program and that of the Riverside County Integrated Plan. Item 7J 000131 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Regional Ridematching System Partnership STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the concept of the Commission's Commuter Assistance Program assuming the administrative and technical responsibilities for the implementation and maintenance of a regional ridematching system; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute individual memorandum of understandings with MTA, OCTA, and VCTC detailing the terms and conditions necessary to establish, fund, and oversee the regional ridematching system; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute an amendment to the Commission's existing RidePro agreement with Trapeze to add the geographic areas of Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties and perform any custom programming that may be required by the three county transportation commissions. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In July 2002 the Commission's Commuter Assistance Program became a full service regional rideshare provider with the successful implementation of ridematching and teleservices functions to its list of services for employers and commuters in the Inland Empire. The new services were added to the Commission's employer focused "Inland Empire Commuter Services" a joint partnership program with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). Previously RCTC and SANBAG contracted with the Southern California Association of Governments for provision of these services in partnership with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA), Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTA) and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). Item 8 000132 While RCTC and SANBAG no longer contract for these primary services with SCAG, a limited contractual relationship in support of regional rideshare marketing and coordination services is being maintained. Other significant changes were implemented this fiscal year affecting the five county area. Both MTA and VCTC brought their employer services staff in-house after years of contracting with SCAG. RCTC and SANBAG instituted that same change in 1995. OCTA has not provided employer services through any mechanism for a number of years although they are now in the process of evaluating establishment of an employer services program for the coming year. Based on various agency reorganizations and regional studies that have occurred over the past 18 months, all of the county transportation commission's (CTC's) have indicated to SCAG that they are working towards a more decentralized model of rideshare service delivery beginning July 2003. It is the stated intent of MTA, OCTA and VCTA to no longer contract with SCAG at that time. That being the case, the five CTC's have pledged to continue to work in a coordinated and cooperative manner with each other, as they have for many years, which allows for individual implementation of employer services at the county level. That pledge includes establishment of an integrated regional rideshare database for ridematching functions. The other CTC's have been closely tracking RCTC's implementation of its ridematching system known as "RidePro", a software product purchased from MultiSystems who was recently acquired by Trapeze. In fact, CTC representatives sat on RCTC's ridematching request for proposal selection committee and each of the CTC's have individually participated in software demonstrations to assess its applications within context of their individual county needs. Further, each of the CTC's have now concluded that RidePro provides a cost effective ridematching solution for the region. Discussions have been initiated by the CTC's with RidePro to assess how a regional ridematching system might be implemented in the five county area. The conclusion is that individual servers at each of the CTC's linked to a primary database server would allow for the separate processing of products and information at the county level. An example is the RideGuide, a personalized commute guide providing alternative mode information including individuals interested in car and vanpooling. Through this type of "wide area network", each of the CTC's could produce their RideGuides on customized paper reflecting their agency's name and program identity. RidePro supports reporting of performance at the staff, employer, county and regional levels and allows for the easy 000133 Item 8 customization of special reports such as mode utilization and targeted marketing lists. While commuter ridematching data would reside in a centralized database to accommodate cross -county matching, each of the counties would be responsible for the input and maintenance of their employer and commuter data. The wide area network solution requires that one of the CTC's assume responsibility for the primary server and maintenance of the regional hardware/software system. Based on the leadership that RCTC took in establishing the RidePro system in the Inland Empire and the expertise its Commuter Assistance Program consultant staff, Inland Transportation Services, has developed in implementing the system, MTA, OCTA and VCTC have requested that RCTC assume the oversight responsibilities of the regional ridematching system. Toward that end, staffs of the five CTC's have been working to identify resources and relationships that would be needed to implementation the RidePro system by the July 2003 deadline, a daunting challenge. This agenda item seeks the Commission's approval to enter into individual Memorandum of Understandings that will establish the roles and responsibilities between RCTC and MTA, OCTA and VCTC as well as funding support for the services (RCTC and SANBAG have an existing agreement). While RCTC will incur some small additional costs necessary to connect to the new regional system, the high majority of costs for purchase of new hardware will be incurred by the three CTC's. All new software costs will be funded by the three CTC's and no change will be required to RCTC's existing three- year agreement with MultiSystems/Trapeze regarding its software license costs. In order to assume the oversight role of the regional rideshare system, a new contract position will be required for software/hardware administration. All CTC's have agreed to share the costs of the position based on a population formula as has been the basis of shared costs by the CTC's for a long period of time. Given the time constraint and the fact that RCTC secured the RidePro system through a competitive request for proposal process, the three CTC's are asking that through the MOU contractual relationship RCTC agree to amend its RidePro software license agreement to include the geographic areas of Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties. The current RCTC license only includes Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The costs for expansion of the license will be paid for by the three CTC's pursuant to agreement of licensing and custom programming costs that are currently being negotiated with RidePro. Recognizing the need to move quickly, staff is also recommending that a budget adjustment to the Commuter Assistance Program be approved as part of this agenda action based on a not to exceed estimate of the combined costs for software, hardware, communications, staff, and programming to establish the Item 8 000134 regional ridematching system. Those costs are currently being refined and negotiated with RidePro by all CTC's. In addition, each of the CTC's is finalizing their county needs in relationship to the regional ridematching system and agreement will soon be reached as to the process by which the agencies will collectively and cooperative work together upon establishment of the system. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2002-03 Amount: $460,000 Source of Funds: MTA, OCTA, VCTC,SANBAG, RCTC — Measure A� Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 222-41-81001-$ 80,000 222-41-90101-$ 80,000 222-41-65520-$300,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: <____,Wca50.-C. Date: 11/25/2002 000135 Item 8 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Transportation Authorization Priority Project List STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the RCTC and Inland Empire Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) Reauthorization Priority Project List. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The current six -year federal transportation authorization act, known as TEA 21, is scheduled for reauthorization during 2003. TEA 21's successor, TEA 3 as coined by the nation's transportation community, takes effect as early as October 1, 2003, if Congress and the President act quickly. It is more likely, however, that TEA 3 will be finalized later in the calendar year and quite possibly as late as sometime in 2004. TEA 21 was signed over eight months into the fiscal year that it took effect. Regardless of any potential delays in developing TEA 3, it is necessary to finalize the list of regionally significant high priority transportation projects for both RCTC and the combined SANBAG/RCTC Inland Empire transportation coalition. RCTC staff has developed the attached lists of projects that both balances request amongst all congressional districts representing Riverside County and also leverages the influence of senior members of our delegation. The total funding request on the RCTC list totals $323 million and the combined Inland Empire list adds $85 million for a total of $408 million. Due in large part to the strength of our Congressional delegation, Riverside County and the Inland Empire have received significant allocations for federally authorized transportation demonstration projects in both TEA 21 and ISTEA. For reference purposes, Riverside County transportation projects received $52 million in "demo project" funding from of TEA 21. That being noted, $408 million in requests, while not unreasonable as compared to our sister transportation agencies in Southern California, is still a very ambitious goal. In fact, a draft list of project funding requests as assembled by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) includes regionally significant transportation projects totaling in excess of $11.2 billion. Item 9 000136 "Big -ticket" projects on SCAG's list include $3 billion for dedicated truck lanes on State Route 60, $1.5 billion for dedicated truck lanes on Interstate 15 through the Cajon Pass, and $2 billion for dedicated truck lanes on Interstate 10 from Interstate 15 through the San Gorgonio Pass. These projects are not included on the recommended RCTC list of projects because the benefits of these projects extend far beyond the Inland Empire to all of Southern California, the entire State, and the western United States. In developing the RCTC list, staff identified major transportation improvements based primarily that have met one of two conditions. • The Alameda Corridor East Trade Corridor Study rated railroad/street grade separation projects throughout the county based on anticipated growth in rail freight traffic in Southern California and is the basis for the selection of the five (5) grade separation projects. Staff identified one or two Alameda Corridor East grade separations in each impacted congressional district with a funding request of $10 million per project. The average estimated cost for grade separation projects in urban areas is $17-$18 million. Should a project receive funding from TEA 3, it will be necessary for the local sponsor (i.e. the city or county) to meet the local match requirement and fund the balance of the project cost. • Projects included on the list fall into a generic category of regional significant transportation projects that have been reviewed previously by RCTC as part of the annual federal appropriations requests or are unique enough that staff can target a project to a particular funding program. The combined Inland Empire project list includes three projects that have been developed cooperatively by SANBAG/RCTC and have received prior policy level discussion. Staff intends to target the congressional districts in which the project is located and also seek support from other members of the Inland Empire congressional delegation. Attachments: 1) TEA 21 Principles for Reauthorization 2) RCTC TEA 3 Priority Demonstration Project Requests 3) Inland Empire Transportation Agencies TEA 3 Priority Demonstration Project Requests 000137 Item 9 TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (TEA 21) PRINCIPLES FOR REAUTHORIZATION California's transportation system is the gateway for the economic engines within the state that drive the national economy and for the largest proportion of the goods and services that link the - United States with its global markets. The efficiency, security, and quality of California's transportation system directly affect the economic wellbeing of every other state in the nation. Reauthorization of TEA 21 provides an opportunity to strengthen transportation's key role in supporting national security and the global economic competitiveness of the United States in the 21st Century. The following are California's principles in furthering that goal: Funding • Increase funding levels by raising annual obligation limits and spending down the unobligated balances in the Highway Trust Fund. • Maintain the guaranteed funding levels and "firewalls" established in TEA 21 that match transportation expenditures to transportation revenues. • Retain the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) mechanism, but distribute the proceeds consistent with the historical split of gas tax proceeds both to the Highway and Mass Transit Accounts. • Develop a mechanism to use available Highway Trust Fund balances to dampen the large swings in funding that could result from negative RABA adjustments. There should not be a major reduction in funding levels when Highway Trust Fund balances are high and can be used to mitigate negative RABA adjustments. • Allow for easier access to and/or flexibility in qualifying projects from approved Regional Transportation Plans for innovative financing. This effort would include the modification of regulations and/or incentives for innovative financing arrangements including increased capitalization of infrastructure banks, debt -financing flexibility, direct treasury financing, access to public -private joint ventures, and the broadening of eligibility rules of the innovative financing program. Program Structure • Continue the basic program structure instituted by ISTEA that provides state, regional, and local officials the flexibility to allocate federal funds to a range of highway, transit, local road, and bicycle/pedestrian improvements based on needs. DRAFT Page 1 of 2 000138 T-3 California Reauthorization Principles 216/2K2 " Remove barriers to funding projects and programs that promote more efficient operation of the existing transportation system, such as deleting the three-year limit on the use of CMAQ funds. Concentrate any increased funding in the existing highway and transit formula and capital investment programs. Refrain from creating any new discretionary programs beyond those currently authorized by law. " Provide for increased program capacity to support the safe and efficient movement of goods in corridors that are crucial to national economic security and vitality, and provide for the mitigation of congestion and environmental effects of such movements. Support this effort by using Highway Trust Fund dollars or other Federal funding sources for programmatic increases in excess of current authorizations. Equity " Ensure that California receives an increased share of highway funding based on its contributions to the Highway Trust Fund and preeminent role in the national economy. " Oppose efforts to impose an arbitrary funding "cap" on the disbursement of formula or discretionary federal transit funds to any state. Expediting Project Delivery " Link permitting agency review and approval to environmental review processes for environmentally responsible and expeditious project delivery. Federal agencies should coordinate policy and share financial and staff resources to integrate and expedite use of authorized funds to meet local, state, and national transportation and environmental priorities. " Provide states with financial incentives such as enhanced and coordinated funding to assure the use of integrated review and planning procedures. " Pursue a California pilot program demonstrating coordination of effort and funding between the state and federal permitting agencies and regulatory structures. 000139 DRAFT Page 2 of 2 T-3 California Reauthorization Principles 2/6/21(2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Transportation Authorization Act (TEA -3) Priority Demonstration Project Requests The Commission's TEA -3 Priority Demonstration Project Request strategy is to identify regionally significant transportation projects that reflect the concept of intermodalism, additional highway capacity and safety. Intermodalism has become the preferred federal transportation policy for addressing the Country's transportation challenges for the last twelve years and was cornerstone transportation policy in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998. With the events of September 11, 2001, safety and national security have been added to the country's transportation policy stream of consciousness and may be key components of the next transportation authorization act. Regionally significant projects included on the Commission's list of priority projects must do one of two things. The first type of project is one that facilitates the movement of goods or people, into, out of, or through Riverside County. The second type of project is one that ensures safe transport and mitigates the impacts of such high volume movements, particularly in the area of goods movement. Currently, the rest of the country benefits from a lower cost of product at the expense of the impacts borne by the residents and businesses of Riverside County such as truck -traffic related congestion and environmental consequences such as deteriorating air quality and increased train and truck noise and now the risk of terrorist attacks on our transportation system that will be transporting nuclear waste from southern California through Riverside county to Yucca Mountain Disposal site in Nevada. Moving People Safely CETAP Riverside/Orange County Corridor $100 Million Currently, the primary route between "housing -rich" Riverside County and "employment -rich" Orange County is State Route 91. This freeway is one of the most congested freeways in the country and due the nature of the geography and sensitive habitat areas, widening the facility beyond the existing "footprint" is not an option. Thus, Riverside and Orange counties must together explore a new transportation corridor. This funding would be used to continue the study and preparation of environmental documentation and acquire land that is necessary for construction of a new corridor. New Start Metrolink Commuter Rail extension - San Jacinto Branchline — Riverside/Moreno Valley/ Perris $50 Million Reauthorize New Start project to partially fund construction of an extension of Metrolink commuter rail service from urban downtown Riverside to the explosively growing suburbs of Moreno Valley and Perris on RCTC owned rail right-of-way known as the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL). The segment extends from downtown Riverside to Romoland, and also includes the construction of 3 new commuter rail stations, and the purchase of locomotives and passenger rail cars. The length of this segment is 19 miles. Bus Rapid Transit Western Riverside County — Moreno Valley/Riverside/Corona $5 Million Western Riverside County Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Project. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a system of fast-moving, high -occupancy buses that utilize the latest in technology for clean, efficient, and safe express bus service. It is best described as a surface subway. This 000140 demonstration project proposes to operate from the Moreno Valley area to Corona traveling through the urban area of Riverside. Riverside Transit Center — Riverside $4 Million The Riverside Transit Agency seeks funding for a Transit Center in the City of Riverside in order to meet the needs of this economically diverse City that is hub to many of the County's largest employers. The downtown area currently serves as the main transfer point for the majority of the RTA's routes. The existing bus terminal, owned by the City of Riverside, is scheduled for alternative use in the near future leaving the RTA without a transfer facility. It is critical to identify, acquire, and develop a replacement facility to ensure the continued safe and efficient operations of the transit infrastructure within Western Riverside County. Ramsey Street Extension — Banning/Riverside County $5 Million This funding requested funds the environmental document preparation, engineering and design, and construction for the extension of Ramsey in the city of Banning through Native American lands to Field Road in Cabazon. Currently, Interstate -10 serves as a local street connecting the Pass cities of Beaumont and Banning to the employment centers of the Factory outlets retail center and the Cabazon Casino. 1-10 would experience tremendous relief from local traffic that would use the extension of Ramsey Street. State Route 79 (Winchester Road) Widening and Lane Additions $40 Million This project is to widen a 9.8 mile stretch of the two lane SR 79 highway between Domenigoni Parkway and Hunter Road to its ultimate width of six lanes. Since 1997 there have been over 300 traffic collisions with 8 fatalities on this stretch of highway. While these figures are staggering, should improvements not be constructed, the accident statistics are likely to get worse as population growth explodes in this region of Riverside County and daily vehicle trips approach 75,000. Moving Goods Quickly Interchanges I-10/Jefferson Street Interchange — Palm Desert $10 Million The project will replace an existing two-lane interchange with a new six -lane interchange sized to handle traffic projected to the year 2020. Additional safety improvements such a signalized traffic control, properly spaced intersections, and elimination of roadway geometry and line -of - sight problems will also be included. Cherry Street/I-15 — Temecula/Murrieta $20 Million A new interchange on the Interstate 15 at Date Street/Cherry Street in the city of Temecula to relieve congestion at existing interchanges. This funding would be used to partially fund environmental document preparation and design and engineering costs to make the project "shelf -ready." I-215Nan Buren — March Ground Access — Moreno Valley/Perris/Riverside/Riverside County $20 Million 000141 Mainline Interstate I-10/Lane Addition Monterey Avenue to Jefferson Street — Eastern Coachella Valley $20 Million The project will add a fourth lane in each direction to Interstate 10 through the most heavily traveled portion of the Coachella Valley. Recently expanded NAFTA traffic entering the eastern valley has significantly increased the incidence of truck -involved accidents and traffic congestion. This request would be used to fund environmental document preparation and engineering and design costs, right- of-way acquisition and construction. Grade Separations Rapid growth in port -related rail freight from Los Angeles through Riverside County to the rest of the nation necessitates construction of grade separations and other mitigations to avoid severe congestion and air quality impacts. The unfunded need is estimated to be nearly $700 million for 47 grade separations and other safety improvements in Riverside County. The rail crossing mitigation program addresses 119 miles of main line track operated by BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad, projected to serve in excess of 250 freight trains per day in the year 2020. Grade separation projects that require immediate funding and construction include: Alameda Corridor East-BNSF/Columbia Street $10 Million *RCTC Tier 2 Project/Included on TEA -3 list at request of City of Riverside as the City's #1 grade separation project priority. Alameda Corridor East-BNSF & UP/3`d Street - Riverside $10 Million Alameda Corridor East-BNSF & UP/Iowa Street - Riverside $10 Million Alameda Corridor East-BNSF/McKinley Street - Corona $10 Million Alameda Corridor East-BNSF/Magnolia Street — Riverside County $10 Million 000142 Inland Empire Transportation Agencies Transportation Authorization Act (TEA -3) Priority Demonstration Project Requests The Inland Empire Transportation Agencies's TEA -3 Priority Demonstration Project Request strategy is to identify regionally significant transportation projects that reflect the concept of intermodalism, additional highway capacity and safety. Intermodalism has become the preferred federal transportation policy for addressing the country's transportation challenges for the last twelve years and was cornerstone transportation policy in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998. With the events of September 11, 2001, safety and national security have been added to the country's transportation policy stream of consciousness and may be key components of the next transportation authorization act. Regionally significant projects included on the Inland Empire list of priority projects must do one of two things. The first type of project is one that facilitates the movement of goods or people, into, out of, or through the region. The second type of project is one that ensures safe transport and mitigates the impacts of such high volume movements, particularly in the area of goods movement. Currently, the rest of the country benefits from a lower cost of product at the expense of the impacts borne by the residents and businesses of the Inland Empire such as truck -traffic related congestion and environmental consequences such as deteriorating air quality and increased train and truck noise and now the risk of terrorist attacks on our transportation system that will be transporting nuclear waste from southern California through the Inland Empire to Yucca Mountain Disposal site in Nevada. Inland Empire Transportation Management Center - $5 million The Inland Empire (IE) Transportation Management Center (TMC) will provide transportation operations functions for both Riverside and San Bernardino counties and is the last of the large urban areas TMCs to be funded and built. The TMC is the backbone of the Traffic Management System (TMS). Activities at the TMC will include the monitoring and regulation of traffic flow throughout the Valley. Moreover, using TMC data, the California Highway Patrol withassistance from Caltrans or other emergency response units can provide real time emergency response to the varying types of highway incidents. Closed Circuit Television Cameras and Vehicle Information Detectors (loop detectors) send real time traffic data to the TMC for analysis. Moreno Valley to San Bernardino CETAP Corridor - $50 million This request funds project development costs including environmental document preparation and property acquisition for a new transportation corridor connecting Moreno Valley in Riverside county to San Bernardino County. The initial study for this project was spearheaded by the County of Riverside as part of its Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). CETAP identified the Moreno Valley/San Bernardino County corridor as one of its top priorities for improvement. Commuters thru and residents of the Reche Canyon and Pigeon Pass areas - common alternate routes to Interstate 215 used by travelers - are familiar with safety and environmental concerns related to traffic through their neighborhoods. Elected representatives from San Bernardino and Riverside counties, and a Technical 000143 Advisory Committee analyzed possible alternatives and adopted a conceptual alternative of building a new highway from the Interstate 215/State Route 60 junction north along Morton Road and under Box Springs Mountain using a tunnel. This would connect across Reche Canyon Road to California Street at Interstate 10 in Redlands. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe/Union Pacific Colton Crossing Grade Separation — $30 million The Colton Crossing is a double track at -grade crossing of two major railroad lines, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and the Union Pacific (UP). With increasing Los Angeles and Long Beach port activity, the number of freight trains crossing at this location is forecasted to increase from 126 in 2000 to 318 in 2020. This crossing is also used by eight Metrolink trains and two Amtrak intercity trains daily. The Project Study Report prepared by RCTC estimated that in 2000 more than 666 hours of train delay annually at this location. The delay not only applies an added expense to the two railroads' operations, but also makes the movement of freight by rail less competitive with long -haul trucking. The solution to this rail freight and passenger bottleneck is to construct a $60 million grade separation. Because most of the freight being transported is of international and national significance, it is appropriate for the federal government to be a substantial contributor to this needed congestion relief project. 000144 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2003-2004 State and Federal Legislative Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Proposed 2003-2004 State and Federal Legislative Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the 2003-2004 Federal and State Legislative Programs for adoption. The programs are unchanged from the prior year's legislative programs. While there are no new initiatives included in the State program this year, there is one carry-over initiative from last year that was not accomplished, due to the complexity of the proposal and its introduction in the second year of the two-year legislative session. That carry-over issue is to sponsor legislation to amend California eminent Domain Law to more fairly set awards in eminent domain lawsuits, as directed by the Commission (State Program 4.C) Staff anticipates that, once again, in what is anticipated to be a "who's ox will be gored next" state budget environment and an expected effort by the Governor to reform SB 45, ie., change the current state transportation revenue split from 75% region/25% State Interregional to something less for the regions, that transportation agencies will likely use a "prevent defense" to protect the valuable gains that have been accomplished in the last five years. Another legislative proposal that is likely to be introduced in the coming legislative year is a Constitutional Amendment to modify the voter threshold requirement for local option transportation sales tax measures. Currently, as a special tax, transportation sales tax measures, such as Measure "A", require 2/3' or 66.7% voter approval to pass. The Governor's Commission for the Building in the 21st Century recommends changing the approval threshold to 55% and some members of the legislature are considering a simple majority, or 50% + 1 threshold. The proposed 2003-04 Legislative Program includes a carry-over policy position from RCTC's 2001-02 Legislative Program to support legislative efforts to restore the ability of counties to enact or reenact local options transportation sales taxes by a 55% majority vote. (State Program 1.K) Item 10 000145 The Federal Program remains the same as the 2001-2002 Federal Legislative Program but will be augmented by the various actions of the Commission that are specific to the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century. The Commission has approved the following principles and strategies related to reauthorization: • April 2002 Commission Approved Statewide TEA 21 Reauthorization Principles (attached) Attachments: 1) April 2002 Commission Approved Statewide TEA 21 Reauthorization Principles 2) 2003-2004 State Legislative Program 000146 Item 10 ATTACHMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: April 10, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Darren M. Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century (TEA -21) Statewide Reauthorization Principles BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek approval to approve the attached TEA -21 statewide reauthorization principles as developed by the CALCOG/CALTRANS TEA -21 Reauthorization Task Force. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; The current federal transportation authorization, or policy, act known as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century, generally governs transportation policy from the time President Clinton signed the Act in June 1998 through the end of the federal 2002-03 fiscal year. While TEA -21 made significant gains over its predecessor legislation, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), including increased federal funding for transportation projects and the creation of the Corridors and Borders Infrastructure program, it neither adequately addressed how goods movement policy is integrated into our federal transportation system policy nor did it fund goods movement programs to a level that can seriously address a national problem. Debate has been underway throughout the State since early 2001 to develop a statewide consensus on TEA -21 reauthorization principles. The California Council of Governments (CALCOG) took the lead on this effort that has included local transportation agencies from across the State, including the executive directors of both SANBAG and RCTC, CALTRANS, and the Governor's Office with a goal of arriving at a set of principles that are agreed upon by transportation interests throughout the state to show a unified California as we proceed through the national reauthorization debate. The consensus principles will provide staff with guidance through the TEA -21 reauthorization process and ensure a cohesive California transportation community, a position that California has not experienced in the past several reauthorizations. 000147 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Riverside County Transportation Commission 2003-04 State Legislative Program The following legislative program was developed as a joint partnership between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the San Bernardino Associated Governments. OVERALL OBJECTIVES 1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs. 2. Support increases in transportation revenues and funding sources that enhance the ability of RCTC and SANBAG to implement their transportation plans. 3. Maximize flexibility in the use of existing transportation revenues. 4. Streamline administrative and regulatory processes. STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 1. Protect current funding levels for transportation programs. A. Support state budget and California Transportation Commission allocation to fully fund projects for San Bernardino and Riverside County included in the State Transportation Improvement Programs and the Strategic Plans of both counties. B. Oppose any proposal that could reduce either San Bernardino or Riverside County's opportunity to receive transportation funds, including diversion of state transportation revenues for other purposes. Fund sources include, but are not limited to, the State Highway Account (SHA), Public Transit Account (PTA), and Transportation Development Act (TDA) and any ballot initiative sources. C. Support full funding regional programming process to provide for regional determination and programming for the use of all current funding sources and to provide total flexibility for all current and future STIP programs. D. Support state policies that assure timely allocation of transportation revenue, including allocations of new funds available to the STIP process as soon as they are available. 000148 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT E. Continue to support AB 2766 vehicle license fee funding in the South Coast Air Basin, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), to the cities and the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Committee (MSRC); support MSRC's independence as a committee. F. Support legislation or the development of administrative policies to allow a program credit for local funds spent on accelerating STIP projects through right-of-way purchases, or environmental and engineering consultant efforts. G. Sponsor legislation that will allow the state to advance and/or loan funding to local agencies for projects that are funded through sales tax programs but delayed due to cash flow problems. H. Support current local program funding and flexibility of the State's Transportation Demand Management program. Support legislation and/or budgetary actions to assure a fair share of State revenues of intercity rail (provided by Amtrak, Metrolink or other operators) funding for Southern California and San Bernardino and Riverside County. J. Support legislation that ensures equity of benefit from the investment of State passenger rail funds to all passenger rail lines including commuter rail systems. K. Support legislative efforts to restore the ability of counties to enact or reenact local option transportation sales taxes by a 55% majority vote. 2. Support increases in transportation revenues and funding sources that enhance the ability of RCTC and SANBAG to implement their transportation programs and plans. A. Support or seek legislation and administrative financing/programming policies and procedures to assure an identified source of funding and an equitable distribution of the funding for bus and rail services in California. B. Seek legislation to assure that dedicated state intercity rail funding is allocated to the regions administering each portion of the system and assure that funding is distributed on an equitable basis. C. Support or seek legislation to assure a dedicated source of funding, 2 000149 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT other than the State Highway Account for local street and road maintenance and repairs. D. Seek legislation to increase revenues to support the call box programs in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. E. Support legislation to provide funding for innovative, intelligent/advanced transportation, goods movement, and air quality programs which relieve congestion, improve air quality and enhance economic development. F. Support legislation creating the Passenger Rail Improvement, Safety and Modernization (PRISM) program so long as funding comes from new sources of revenue. 3. Maximize flexibility in the use of existing transportation revenues. A. Seek a fair share for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties of any state discretionary funding made available for transportation grants or programs. B. Support legislation to ensure that funding for transit operations is commensurate with existing and new demands placed on public transit by air quality and congestion management programs, CaIWORKS (welfare to work reform) the American with Disabilities Act, including the use of social service funding sources. C. Support income tax benefits or incentives that encourage use of alternative fuel vehicles and alternative modes of transportation without reducing existing transportation funding levels. D. Monitor and, where appropriate, support studies of market -based pricing measure to relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality or fund transportation alternatives. E. Support legislation to finance cost effective conversion of public transit and paratransit fleets to alternative fuels. 4. Streamline administrative and regulatory processes A. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms to enhance Caltrans project delivery, such as simultaneous Environmental Impact Report 3 000150 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT (EIR) and engineering studies, and a reasonable level of contracting out of appropriate activities to the private sector. B. Support legislation to make the process for determining unmet transit needs a biennial action. c. Sponsor legislation to amend California Eminent Domain Law to more fairly set awards in eminent domain lawsuits. H:\2003-04 State Program.doc 11/20/02 000151 4 Riverside County Transportation Commission 2003-2004 Federal Legislative Program OVERALL OBJECTIVES 1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs. 2. Protect and enhance flexibility in use of transportation revenue. 3. Reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory requirements. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs. A. Support efforts to bring transportation appropriations to authorized levels. B. Seek a fair share for San Bernardino and Riverside County of any federal funding made available for transportation programs and projects. C. Support legislation to secure adequate budget appropriations for highway, bus, rail, air quality and mobility programs in San Bernardino and Riverside County. D. Support continued Federal commitment of funds to support public transit, to assure that California and the western states receive a fair share of the AMTRAK funding resources as compared to the North East Corridor. E. Seek specialized funding for goods movement projects of international and national significance that are beyond the funding ability or responsibility of local and state transportation programs and budgets. F. Seek funding for airport ground access and other airport development needs in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. 2. Protect and enhance flexibility in use of transportation revenue. 1 000152 A. Support legislation that will modify federal project development requirements for transit projects to make them more consistent with the process employed for highway projects. B. Support legislation to exempt commuter rail services operating within existing railroad right-of-way from federal new start and alternative analysis requirements in order to utilize federal funding. C. Support efforts to pursue funds to facilitate timely conversion of public sector fleets to alternative fuels to meet federal fleet conversion mandates. D. Support tax benefits and/or incentives for transportation demand management programs and alternative fuel programs to promote the use of alternate modes of transportation. E. Support increased federal funding for Alameda Corridor improvements in Los Angeles County and Alameda Corridor East improvements in San Bernardino and Riverside County and increase opportunities for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties to access these funding sources. Seek continued federal funding of Maritime Administration studies focusing on an "Inland Rail Port" in San Bernardino County and Riverside County. F. Support legislation that ensures coordination of transportation and social service agency funding (i.e. Departments of Aging, Rehabilitation, and Welfare). G. Support legislative or administrative policies that promote a "regional" approach to airport development and usage of Southern California Logistics, San Bernardino International, and Ontario International airports and the March Joint Use Airport. 3. Reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory requirements. A. Support administrative or legislative action to ensure consistency among the Federal congestion management and the State's Congestion Management Program requirements. 2 000158 B. Monitor and, where appropriate, support studies of market -based pricing measures to relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality and/or fund transportation alternatives. C. Seek Federal authorization allowing states, where appropriate to pursue options to privatize various aspects of transportation to increase the efficiencies and effectiveness of their available resources through private sector participation. D. Due to the elimination of Federal transit operating subsidies, support legislation to also eliminate Federal requirements and regulations regarding transit operations. E. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms to enhance Caltrans project delivery, such as simultaneous Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and engineering studies, and a reasonable level of contracting out of appropriate activities to the private sector. F. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms that result in cost savings to environmental clearance processes for transportation construction projects. G. Continue to streamline federal reporting/monitoring requirements to ensure efficiency and usefulness of data collected and eliminate unnecessary and/or duplicative requirements. H:\2003-2004 Federal Program.doc 12/11/00 3 000154 AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Election of Officers and/or Selection of Representative(s) to the Executive Committee STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Elect the officers of the Commission — Chair, Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair; and, 2) For the appropriate geographic area to select its representative to the Executive Committee member, if the representative was elected as an officer of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Election of Officers In accordance to the Administrative Code, the Commission must hold an election of officers. The officers of the Commission shall consist of the Chair, a Vice Chair, and a Second Vice Chair. The Chair, the Vice Chair, and the Second Vice Chair shall annually alternate between a regular member of the Commission representing a city and a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. During the time in which the Chair is a regular member of the Commission representing a city, the Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The Second Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission representing a city. During the time in which the Chair is a regular Commission member who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission representing a city. The Second Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chair and the Second Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chair and the Vice Chair. When so acting, the Second Vice Chair shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chair. Item 11 000155 For 2003, the Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission representing a city. The Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission representing the County Board of Supervisors. The Second Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission representing a city. The officers this year are Commissioners John Tavaglione, Ron Roberts, and Roy Wilson as the Chair, Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair, respectively. Election of Representative to the Executive Committee The membership of the Executive Committee shall be as follows: 1) The Chair of the Commission; 2) The Vice Chair of the Commission; 3) The Second Vice Chair of the Commission; 4) A regular member of the Commission representing one of the following cities: Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley; 5) A regular member of the Commission representing one of the following cities: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula; 6) A regular member of the Commission representing the following cities: Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage; and, 7) Three members of the Commission who are members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Such members shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors. With the exception of the Chair, Vice Chair, and the 2"d Vice Chair, the term of the Executive Committee members shall be two years. At the end of their 2 -year term, Executive Committee members shall stand for reappointment as set forth in Section H.3(b) of the Administrative Code. An area designated above shall select their representative to the Executive Committee if their representative was elected as one of the Commission's officers. 000156 Item 11 AGENDA ITEM 13 RIVERSIDE NATIONAL CEMETERY MEMORIALS AND MONUMENTS COMMISSION 22495 VAN BUREN BLVD. Riverside, CA 92518 November 25, 2002 B/GEN, STAN BROWN, USAF (Ret) CHAIRMAN MICHAEL GOLDWARE VICE CHAIRMAN PAUL ADICINS, CHAIRMAN Riverside National Cemetery SUPPORT COMMITTEE ROBERT BUSH MEDAL OF HONOR HENRY COIL Tilden -COIL CONSTRUCTORS, INC. WILLIAM DENSMORE RIVERSIDE COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE OFFICER ZACH EARP CHAIRMAN VETERANS ADVISORY COMM WAL TER EHLERS MEDAL OF HONOR DR JAMES ERICKSON VICE CHANCELLOR (Ret) UNIV.OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COL LEWIS MI.LETT, USA (Ret) MEDAL OF HONOR TOM MULLEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COL. MITCHELL PAIGE, USMC (Ret) MEDAL OF HONOR JOHN TAVAGLIONE RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TED WEGGELAND ENTREPRENEURIAL HOSPITALITY CORP. HONORARY MEMBERS THE HONORABLE JERRY LEWIS MEMBER OF CONGRESS THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT MEMBER OF CONGRESS THE HONORABLE JIM BRULTE CALIFORNIA SENATE John Tavaglione, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-1646 RE: Public Art on Retaining/Sound Walls 91/216/60 Interchange Construction Dear Mr. Chairman: Both you and the Commission are to be congratulated on placing historically significant works of art on the retaining/sound walls along Highway 91. Our community has always professed itself to be a "cultural city". The placement of this artwork depicting the Mission Inn in such a prominent location on the 91 Freeway (between Van Buren and Adams) is proof of that conviction. We would like to suggest something similar on the walls that will be constructed as part of the above project. Specifically, to honor the men and women who have served their country in the United States Armed Forces. Riverside County and the City have an unusually long and historically unique relationship with the military. This heritage should be recognized in a high profile and permanent manor. The portrayal of the. Riverside National Cemetery and its memorials, as public art on the interchange walls strikes us as such an appropriate and permanent recognition of the commitment and sacrifices of the hundreds of thousands of past, present and future veterans from Riverside County. We encourage you to favorably consider the Medal of Honor Memorial (a National Shrine), the Veteran's Memorial, the POW/MIA Memorial (soon to be constructed and hopefully the second National Shrine) and of course the popularly recognized entrance to the Riverside National Cemetery which serves our servicemen and women from the southwestern United States. Warmest Regards, Stan E. Brown B/Gen. USAF/ Ret. Chairman 000157