HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 15, 2021 CommissionMEETING AGENDA
TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, September 15, 2021
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
Pursuant to Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20, (March 18, 2020), the meeting will only be
conducted via video conferencing and by telephone. Please follow the instructions on the following page to
join the meeting remotely.
COMMISSIONERS
Chair —Jan Harnik
Vice Chair — V. Manuel Perez
Second Vice Chair — Bob Magee
Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District 1
Karen Spiegel, County of Riverside, District 2
Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District 3
V. Manuel Perez, County of Riverside, District 4
Jeff Hewitt, County of Riverside, District 5
Kyle Pingree / Alberto Sanchez, City of Banning
Lloyd White / David Fenn, City of Beaumont
Joseph DeConinck / Johnny Rodriguez, City of Blythe
Linda Molina / Wendy Hewitt, City of Calimesa
Jeremy Smith / Larry Greene, City of Canyon Lake
Raymond Gregory / Mark Carnevale, City of Cathedral City
Steven Hernandez / Denise Delgado, City of Coachella
Wes Speake /Jim Steiner, City of Corona
Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs
Clint Lorimore / Todd Rigby, City of Eastvale
Linda Krupa / Russ Brown, City of Hemet
Dana Reed / Donna Griffith, City of Indian Wells
Waymond Fermon / Oscar Ortiz, City of Indio
Brian Berkson / Guillermo Silva, City of Jurupa Valley
Kathleen Fitzpatrick / Robert Radi, City of La Quinta
Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore
Bill Zimmerman / Dean Deines, City of Menifee
Yxstain Gutierrez / To Be Appointed, City of Moreno Valley
Scott Vinton / Lisa DeForest, City of Murrieta
Ted Hoffman / Katherine Aleman, City of Norco
Jan Harnik / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert
Lisa Middleton / Dennis Woods, City of Palm Springs
Michael M. Vargas / Rita Rogers, City of Perris
Ted Weill / Charles Townsend, City of Rancho Mirage
Chuck Conder / Patricia Lock Dawson, City of Riverside
Alonso Ledezma / Crystal Ruiz, City of San Jacinto
Matt Rahn / Maryann Edwards, City of Temecula
Ben J. Benoit / Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar
Mike Beauchamp, Governor's Appointee Caltrans District 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
www.rctc.org
MEETING AGENDA *
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
9:30 a.m.
Wednesday, September 15, 2021
Pursuant to Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20, (March 18, 2020), the meeting will only be
conducted via video conferencing and by telephone. Please follow the instructions below to join the
meeting remotely.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION
Join Zoom Meeting
https://rctc.zoom.us/j/87202953323
Meeting ID: 872 0295 3323
One tap mobile
+16699006833„87202953323# US (San Jose)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
For members of the public wishing to submit comment in connection with the Commission Meeting
please email written comments to the Clerk of the Board at Imobley@rctc.org prior to September 14,
2021 at 5:00 p.m. and your comments will be made part of the official record of the proceedings.
Members of the public may also make public comments through their telephone or Zoom connection
when recognized by the Chair.
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to
the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of
the public prior to the meeting on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, Executive Order N-29-20, and the
Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed
to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge.
Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made
to provide assistance at the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
September 15, 2021
Page 2
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or
discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the
agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be
placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration.
5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS — The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a
finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the
attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item
to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission
members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will
be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR — All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion
unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the
Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JULY 14, 2021
Page 1
6B. FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND MEASURE A AUDIT
RESULTS
Page 13
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Development Act
(TDA) and Measure A audit results report for Fiscal Year 2019/20.
6C. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for
Quarter 1, 2021 (10 2021).
6D. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority report
for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2021.
Page 21
Page 30
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
September 15, 2021
Page 3
6E. QUARTERLY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT METRICS REPORT, APRIL —JUNE 2021
Page 32
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Public Engagement
Metrics Report for April - June 2021.
6F. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on state and federal
legislation.
6G. 91 EXPRESS LANES MONTHLY STATUS REPORTS
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the 91 Express Lanes Monthly Reports
for the three months from April to June 2021.
6H. 15 EXPRESS LANES MONTHLY STATUS REPORTS
Overview
Page 42
Page 50
Page 117
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the 15 Express Lanes Monthly Reports
for the three months from April to June 2021.
61. QUARTERLY REPORTING OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS
Page 144
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Report of Contract
Change Orders for Construction Contracts for the past three months ended
June 30, 2021.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
September 15, 2021
Page 4
6J. FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING
ALLOCATIONS TO WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND COACHELLA
VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Page 146
Overview
This item is for the Commission to approve an allocation of Local Transportation Fund
(LTF) funds for planning in the amount of $866,250 for Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG) and $472,500 for Coachella Valley Association of Governments
(CVAG) for efforts identified in each agency's FY 2021/22 LTF Program Objectives/Work
Plan (Work Plan) that supports transportation planning programs and functions that are
consistent with regional and subregional plans, programs, and requirements.
6K. FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 STATE OF GOOD REPAIR PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
Page 159
1) Approve Resolution No. 21-016, "Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Approving the FY 2021/22 Project List for the
California State of Good Repair Program";
2) Approve an allocation of $4,251,328 related to Fiscal Year 2021/22 State of Good
Repair (SGR) program funds to eligible Riverside County transit operators;
3) Authorize staff to allocate increased State Controller Office (SCO) FY 2021/22
revenue estimates up to $425,132, or 10 percent of the current estimate, to
eligible Riverside County transit operators;
4) Approve an increase of $46,928 in the FY 2021/22 budget for SGR revenues to
reflect updated SCO estimates;
5) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to review, approve and submit
projects to Caltrans which are consistent with SGR program guidelines and to
execute and submit required documents for the SGR program, including the
Authorized Agent Form; and
6) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve administrative
amendments to the FY 2021/22 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for
incorporation of the SGR funds, as necessary.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
September 15, 2021
Page 5
6L. FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 CALTRANS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
GRANT ACCEPTANCE
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
Page 164
1) Approve Resolution No. 21-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Accepting Funds from the California Department of
Transportation Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program"; and
2) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to execute any required documents or amendments to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-
2022 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant.
7. REFINANCING OF 91 EXPRESS LANES TOLL DEBT
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
Page 168
1) Receive and file the presentation regarding the refinancing of the Commission's Toll
Revenue Senior Lien Bonds, 2013 Series A (2013A Bonds) and 2013 Transportation
Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Loan (2013 TIFIA Loan) related to the
State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) with the issuance of taxable
and tax-exempt senior lien and second lien toll revenue refunding bonds (2021
Refunding Toll Bonds) and cash defeasance of a portion of the Commission's Toll
Revenue Senior Lien Bonds, 2013 Series B (2013B Bonds);
2) Approve the revised refinancing plan to issue the 2021 Refunding Toll Bonds to refund
or purchase, including in connection with a tender offer or bond exchange, all or a
portion of the 2013A Bonds, currently outstanding in the amount of approximately
$123.8 million, and prepay all or a portion of the 2013 TIFIA Loan, currently outstanding
in the amount of approximately $508 million;
3) Approve the cash defeasance of a portion of the Commission's 2013B Bonds, currently
outstanding in the amount of approximately $89.7 million, using funds on deposit in the
Residual Fund (currently approximating $27 million) and an amount not to exceed $7.5
million of RCTC 91 Express Lanes (91 Express Lanes) toll revenues designated as surplus
in accordance with the 2013 Toll Revenue Bonds Indenture or other legally available
funds of the Commission;
4) Authorize the Executive Director to exceed the $7.5 million contribution of 91 Express
Lanes toll revenues designated as surplus under the condition that the primary
refinancing objectives are met;
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
September 15, 2021
Page 6
5) Adopt Resolution No. 21-015, "Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not to
Exceed $725,000,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of Riverside County Transportation
Commission Toll Revenue Refunding Bonds in One or More Series, the Refunding,
Defeasance, and Purchase Through Tender Offer of Outstanding Bonds or Exchange
Therefor, the Execution and Delivery of One or More Supplemental Indentures, One or
More Purchase Contracts, One or More Official Statements, One or More Continuing
Disclosure Agreements, One or More Escrow Agreements, One or More Dealer Manager
Agreements, and One or More Invitations to Tender, and the Taking of All Other Actions
Necessary in Connection Therewith";
6) Approve the proposed form of the Preliminary Official Statement for the issuance of not
to exceed $725 million in 2021 Refunding Toll Bonds and authorize the Executive
Director to approve and execute the printing and distribution of the final form of the
Official Statement;
7) Ratify, confirm, and approve the proposed form of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement
related to the 2021 Refunding Toll Bonds, by and between the Riverside County
Transportation Commission and Digital Assurance Certification, L.L.C., as dissemination
agent, and authorize the Executive Director to approve and execute the final form of the
Continuing Disclosure Agreement;
8) Ratify, confirm, and approve the proposed forms of the Third Supplemental Indenture
and Fourth Supplemental Indenture for the 2021 Refunding Toll Bonds, each by and
between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and U.S. Bank National
Association (US Bank), as Trustee, and authorize the Executive Director to approve and
execute the final forms of the Third Supplemental Indenture and Fourth Supplemental
Indenture;
9) Ratify, confirm, and approve the proposed form of the Bond Purchase Agreement(s),
also referred to as Purchase Contract(s), between the Riverside County Transportation
Commission and Bank of America Securities, Inc. (BofA), as Underwriter Representative
acting on behalf of itself and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (Goldman), Wells Fargo Securities
(Wells Fargo), J.P. Morgan (JPM), and Siebert Cisneros Shank & Co., LLC (Siebert),
(collectively the Underwriters), for the 2021 Refunding Toll Bonds and authorize the
Chief Financial Officer to approve and execute the final form of the Bond Purchase
Agreement;
10) Approve the proposed form of the Dealer Manager Agreement related to the tender
offer and/or bond exchange, by and between the Riverside County Transportation
Commission and BofA and Goldman, as Dealer Managers, and authorize the Executive
Director to approve and execute the final form of the Dealer Manager Agreement;
11) Approve the proposed form of the Invitation to Tender or Exchange Bonds made by the
Commission and authorize the Executive Director to approve and execute the final form
of the Invitation to Tender or Exchange Bonds;
12) Ratify, confirm, and approve the proposed form of the Escrow Agreement for the 2013A
Bonds and the proposed form of the Escrow Agreement for the 2013B Bonds, each by
and between the Commission and US Bank, as Escrow Agent, and authorize the
Executive Director to approve and execute the final Escrow Agreement;
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
September 15, 2021
Page 7
13) Approve the estimated costs of issuance, including estimated underwriter's discount, of
$4,420,719 to be paid from the proceeds of the 2021 Refunding Toll Bonds;
14) Approve Agreement No. 05-19-510-18, Amendment No. 18 to Agreement
No. 05-19-510-00, with Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP (Orrick) for bond counsel
services related to the issuance of the 2021 Refunding Toll Bonds for an additional
amount of $45,000 and a total amount not to exceed $3,375,000;
15) Approve Agreement No. 09-19-072-16, Amendment No. 16 to Agreement
No. 09-19-072-00, with Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (Norton Rose) for disclosure
counsel services related to the issuance of the 2021 Refunding Toll Bonds for an
additional amount of $25,000 and a total amount not to exceed $1,047,600; and
16) Approve adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2021/22 budget in the amounts of $10.7 million
to increase bond proceeds, $360,000 to increase costs of issuance, and $37.6 million to
increase debt service expenditures for the cash defeasance of a portion of the
2013B Bonds and prepayment of the 2013 TIFIA Loan.
8. INTERSTATE 15 INTERIM CORRIDOR OPERATIONS PROJECT
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
Page 182
1) Authorize staff to implement all project development activities needed to complete
construction of the 1-15 Interim Corridor Operations Project (15 ICOP), including
immediately commencing the environmental studies and final design work;
2) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to negotiate and execute a contract
amendment to Agreement No. 15-31-001-00 with Parson Transportation Group
(Parsons), as the 1-15 Express Lanes Project (15 ELP) project and construction manager
(PCM), to provide environmental studies, final design, and construction management
services for the 15 ICOP for an amount as necessary to complete the work, currently
estimated at $1 million, as it is in the public interest and best interest of the Commission
to conduct a non-competitive procurement;
3) Approve an adjustment to the Fiscal Year 2021/22 budget in the amount of $4.5 million
for project development and construction expenditures with total project funding of
$5 million in 2009 Measure A sales tax revenue bond proceeds projected to be available;
and
4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
all necessary agency agreements or amendments to existing agency agreements for all
phases of project development for the 15 ICOP including cooperative and funding
agreements with Caltrans, California Highway Patrol, and other agencies, as deemed
necessary.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
September 15, 2021
Page 8
9. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
10. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report
on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities.
11. CLOSED SESSION
11A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1)
Case No. RIC1903612
11B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee
Item
Property Description
Property Owner
Buyer(s)
1
102-092-030, 031,
102-101-002, 033, & 037
RCTC
Blue Sky Management
12. ADJOURNMENT
The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday,
October 13, 2021.
AGENDA ITEM 6A
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, July 14, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Jan Harnik at
9:30 a.m., via Zoom Meeting ID 881 1296 9755. Pursuant to Governor Newsom's Executive
Order N-29-20.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners/Alternates Present
Mike Beauchamp
Ben J. Benoit
Brian Berkson
Russell Betts
Chuck Conder
Joseph DeConinck
Waymond Fermon
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Raymond Gregory
Yxstain Gutierrez
Jan Harnik
Steven Hernandez*
Jeff Hewitt
Ted Hoffman
Linda Krupa
Alonso Ledezma
*Arrived after the meeting was called to order.
Clint Lorimore
Bob Magee
Linda Molina
V. Manuel Perez
Kyle Pingree*
Matt Rahn
Dana Reed
Wes Speake
Karen Spiegel
Jeremy Smith
Michael M. Vargas
Ted Weill
Lloyd White
Dennis Woods
Bill Zimmerman
Commissioners Absent
Kevin Jeffries
Scott Vinton
Chuck Washington
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Anne Mayer, Executive Director, led the Commission in a flag salute.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
1
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2021
Page 2
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Marven Norman, of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ),
referred to Agenda Item 6D, "Agreement for Transit -Oriented Communities Strategic
Plan", and stated under the CCAEJ as their policy specialist they want to make sure as this
plan is put together that environmental justice is part of the plan, to consider the
communities all around the stations, and to work with the cities along the line to make
sure that the proposed projects are going to fit within the cities as they have in their
general plans. He reiterated ensuring to keep the environmental justice aspect of it and
suggested to not place any low income and disadvantaged communities into the polluted
areas and noted within five miles of many of the stations there is a lot of warehousing
communities. He stated that this supports eight stations and asked about the status for
the extension of the Perris Valley Line out to San Jacinto to include those areas and
suggested to move this project along as well.
At this time, Commissioner Steven Hernandez joined the meeting.
Commissioner Wes Speake requested to pull Agenda Item 6H, "State Route 91
Implementation Plan", for further discussion.
M/S/C (Molina/Gregory) to approve the following Consent Calendar items.
Abstain: Hewitt on Agenda Item 6G
Due to technical difficulties, there was no confirmation of Commissioner Russell
Betts' vote.
6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —JUNE 9, 2021
6B. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation.
6C. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FUNDING REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF JURUPA
ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
1) Approve programming $25 million of 2009 Measure A Western County
Regional Arterial (MARA) funds for the city of Jurupa Valley's Jurupa Road
Grade Separation project;
2) Approve Agreement No. 21-72-121-00 between the Commission and the
County of Riverside (County) as the lead agency for the programming of
$25 million of MARA for the construction phase of the Jurupa Road Grade
Separation project; and
2
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2021
Page 3
3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to finalize and execute the agreement.
6D. AGREEMENT FOR TRANSIT -ORIENTED COMMUNITIES STRATEGIC PLAN
1) Approve Agreement No. 21-65-043-00 with Stantec Consulting Services,
Inc. to develop a transit -oriented communities strategic plan for an 18 -
month base period with two additional six-month optional terms in an
amount of $924,674, plus a contingency amount of $25,326, for a total
amount not to exceed $950,000;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to finalize and execute the agreement, including option terms, on behalf
of the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency
work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these services.
6E. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH BNSF RAILWAY FOR
INTERSTATE 15/STATE ROUTE 91 EXPRESS LANES CONNECTOR PROJECT
1) Approve Agreement No. 21-31-098-00 with BNSF Railway (BNSF) for a
construction and maintenance (C&M) agreement, including property
acquisition, for the Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector
Project (15/91 ELC) in the amount of $1,988,607, plus a contingency
amount of $104,470, for a total amount not to exceed $2,093,077;
2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
finalize negotiations with BNSF and execute the agreement on behalf of
the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the
contingency amount as may be required by the 15/91 ELC.
6F. AGREEMENT FOR CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL CONSTRUCTION ZONE
ENHANCEMENT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM SERVICES DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMISSION'S HIGHWAY PROJECTS
1) Approve Agreement No. 21-31-103-00, with the California Highway Patrol
(CHP) for Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP)
services used during the construction of Commission highway projects
(Projects), for a total amount not to exceed $4 million for a five-year term;
and
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to finalize and execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
3
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2021
Page 4
6G. AGREEMENTS FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE
1) Approve Agreement No. 21-45-049-00 to Pepe's Towing Service Inc.
(Pepe's) for Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) tow truck services on State Route
(SR) 91, Beat No. 4, for a five-year term, in an amount of $1,666,787, plus
a contingency amount of $83,340, for a total amount not to exceed
$1,750,127;
2) Approve Agreement No. 21-45-050-00 to Pepe's for FSP tow truck services
on SR -60, Beat No. 7, for a five-year term, in an amount of $1,666,787, plus
a contingency amount of $83,340, for a total amount not to exceed
$1,750,127;
3) Approve Agreement No. 21-45-051-00 to Pepe's for FSP tow truck services
on SR -60, Beat No. 8, for a five-year term, in an amount of $1,666,787, plus
a contingency amount of $83,340, for a total amount not to exceed
$1,750,127;
4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to finalize and execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and
5) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve the use of the
contingency amount as may be required for these services.
7. 2022 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING DISTRIBUTION
AND DRAFT FUND ESTIMATE
Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Director, presented the 2022 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), highlighting the following areas:
• Past STIP cycles - Measure A taxable sales by geographic area; 2022 STIP cycle -
Intracounty formula distribution; and next steps
Commissioner Brian Berkson inquired about the projects that will be brought back to the
Commission in September or October and if various cities will have an opportunity to
submit proposals of projects that can be evaluated.
Jillian Guizado replied in years past when the STIP had been healthier RCTC did include
STIP funds from time to time in Multi -Funding Call for Projects when it would be lumped
in with Federal Formula funds that were due to be received from federal reauthorizations.
She explained they are waiting for the federal government to do a reauthorization
package to be able to schedule another Multi -Funding Call for Projects so they would not
have time due to the type of turn -around to do that. They would also not be able to do
it proactively this cycle because it was very unknown what the state of the STIP would
look like for 2022. The message that had been coming from the state was somewhat dire
considering Covid and the reduction in fuel sales over the last year and a half. Ms. Guizado
stated going back to Commissioner Berkson's question, she would not particularly
anticipate an opportunity for that at this time, but staff is always open to receiving
4
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2021
Page 5
feedback and deferred to Anne Mayer on the best way to do that. She noted this was in
the staff report, but the way the STIP works even though they do this every two years the
capacity for the 2022 STIP, meaning where the money is actually available in the STIP
cycle, is not until FY 2025/26. She then discussed what happens when they program the
projects in the out years but there is the 2024 STIP that can serve as a reconciliation
depending on what happens economically.
Anne Mayer explained they have seen a roller coaster ride of STIP programming for about
16 years and over the years they have tended to use STIP money in western counties. The
Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley establishes their priorities and that is how those
projects are programmed. In western county they have tended to put STIP funds on the
large projects that are already federalized so that they do not end up with a handful of
small local projects that have the funding taken away at the last minute and it becomes a
struggle to reprogram those projects. She stated RCTC in the past has focused STIP dollars
on the Commission's delivery projects and/or local agency projects that are relatively
large. She used the Commission's French Valley Parkway and 1-15 Railroad Canyon
Interchange Projects as examples that have been STIP projects, both projects had STIP
money yanked away, and they had to find replacements for. Ms. Mayer explained staff's
goal is to be strategic with their programming to make sure that the projects they put in
the STIP meet the requirements, but these projects are also large enough projects they
have some flexibility when and if the state funding situation becomes unpredictable.
Anne Mayer stated with all that being said they always encourage all of the member
agency staff and she noted there is a Technical Advisory Committee meeting on July 19
so at that meeting Jillian Guizado can remind the Public Works Directors that the STIP is
coming up and if they have projects that would be good STIP projects to make sure RCTC
is aware of them. She stated when staff is looking at what projects to bring forward to
the Commission, they will have a complete picture because a lot of it depends on when
jurisdictions have projects ready, and interchanges are typically the most likely projects
to be funded that are at the local level.
Commissioner Berkson thanked Anne Mayer and Jillian Guizado for their very clear
responses even though he is aware there is a lot of nuts and bolts to this and uncertainty.
He expressed appreciation that if the Public Works Directors have something they want
to have at least looked at down the road there is an opportunity that can be provided.
M/S/C (Reed/Vargas) to approve the 2022 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) funding distribution among the three geographic areas in
Riverside County per the adopted STIP intracounty Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU).
Due to technical difficulties, there was no confirmation of Commissioner Jeremy
Smith's vote.
5
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2021
Page 6
8. COUNTYWIDE TRANSIT REPORT: FISCAL YEARS 2017/18 THROUGH 2019/20
Lorelle Moe -Luna, Multimodal Services Director, presented the Countywide Transit
Report for FYs 2017/18 through 2019/20, highlighting the following areas:
• Purpose; service overview; how much does it cost to operate transit service in
Riverside County; how are we paying for it; how is farebox recovery
• Major trends -annual passenger boardings and percent change from prior year,
and looking ahead
M/S/C to receive and file the Countywide Transit Report for Fiscal Year 2017/18
through FY 2019/20.
9. FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
Brian Cunanan, Commuter & Motorist Assistance Manager, presented the Commuter
Assistance Program (CAP) recommendations, highlighting the following:
• CAP benefits and objectives, regional commute patterns, centralized ridesharing
database - Phase 1 and Phase 2, regional recommendation agreements
• Promote rideshare countywide, countywide CAP recommendation, strengthen
rideshare incentives to promote participation countywide, and enhance incentive
eligibility to promote vanpool participation
At this time, Commissioner Kyle Pingree joined the meeting.
Chair Harnik noted that this was presented at the Budget and Implementation Committee
as well and it passed unanimously.
Commissioner Wes Speake expressed appreciation for a great presentation as it is
something they really need to bring home to people. He explained having a discussion
with the new head of SB 743 at Caltrans and one of the items that he brought up was that
they need to be honest with commuters, what SB 743 is for, and what their results are
going to be of that. Commuters need to understand their commute it is not going to get
better so this is a great option for people that cannot change jobs that do not have an
option. He stated making that point to Caltrans staff that they need to be honest with
people and granted they are starting to add some information about growth inducing and
there is a video they are producing with more information and getting it out to the public.
Commissioner Speake expressed the Commissioners need to tell people too and keep
telling people that if they want to get in a car by their self and do not want to work next
to where they live or live where they work to be ready for this to get worse. He concurred
with this item going forward, which will give them the option to find ways to at least make
their commute a little more enjoyable.
6
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2021
Page 7
Commissioner Bill Zimmerman inquired about the memorandum of understanding (MOU)
with some of the counties around Riverside County, noting San Diego County was
excluded. He asked for clarification as to why they were excluded as he knows there are
a lot of commuters that go south. Brian Cunanan replied that is something RCTC is looking
forward to expanding in the future. He has reached out to San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) staff, and they want to observe and see how this works out. He
hopes in the future they can reach an agreement and go further south, because there are
a lot of intercounty commutes between Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties.
Vice Chair Manuel Perez expressed appreciation to the Commissioners and RCTC staff for
the expansion into the eastern portion of the county. He stated it is important for all the
regions as Commissioner Speake noted whether it is reducing greenhouse gases (GHG)
emissions or just making commutes a little more enjoyable, including people's quality of
life. He understood there is the need out there and asked Mr. Cunanan if there is data to
demonstrate for example within the eastern Riverside County within the eastern part of
the Fourth District how many folks would be willing to use this rideshare system from
Thermal, Mecca, Oasis, and Coachella that potentially might be working the hospitality
industry all the way in Palm Springs, Indian Wells, or Rancho Mirage. Also, there are folks
in the Coachella Valley that are having to commute to Riverside or going to Blythe and
vice versa. Vice Chair Perez stated if there was data, he would prefer to review it as it
would be helpful.
Brian Cunanan replied there is a list of employers they will be targeting in the eastern
county and what will be important going forward is that they get as many commuter
records in as possible and they can have some really good origin destination information
that can be shared. He will be able to provide the commuter counts, where folks are
coming and going, and how many of those are actively seeking to participate in rideshare.
Vice Chair Perez expresses appreciation for bringing this forward as well as looking at who
those employers are and potentially working with associations in the eastern county to
make sure they increase that.
Chair Harnik stated to Vice Chair Perez that it is important to make sure there is a way to
spread that information so that people will know that the opportunity is out for them.
She stated as Anne Mayer has stated so many times, they cannot build their way out of
these issues. This is a perfect example of a program that will help address these situations
that is occurring with single rider cars and trips.
Commissioner Linda Molina made the motion to approve the item. She expressed
appreciation for this information because it is perfect information for new residents in
their communities.
7
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2021
Page 8
M/S/C (Molina/Pingree) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 21-41-123-00 among the Riverside County
Transportation Commission (Commission), San Bernardino County
Transportation Authority (SBCTA), Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (LACMTA), Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA), and Ventura County Transportation Commission
(VCTC), for a total contract amount of $977,719 for Regional Rideshare
Software over a three-year term, including the Commission's total share
of $186,444 inclusive of $18,000 in contingency;
2) Approve Agreement No. 20-41-090-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement
No. 20-41-090-00, with SBCTA for Rideshare Program Implementation,
removing Rideshare and Vanpool Software expenses from the Scope of
Work and incorporating them into Agreement No. 21-41-123-00;
3) Approve Memorandum of Understanding No. 21-41-122-00 between
LACMTA, OCTA, RCTC, SBCTA, and VCTC to merge and consolidate the
agencies' rideshare databases;
4) Adopt Resolution No. 21-013, "Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Adopting Amended Guidelines for the
Administration of the Measure A Funded Commuter Incentive Projects as
Part of Its Commuter Assistance Program"; and
5) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to finalize and execute the agreements on behalf of the
Commission.
10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION
6H. 2021 STATE ROUTE 91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Commissioner Speake expressed appreciation to Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) and RCTC for putting this together but wanted to have a few things worked on
over the next year. He noted being a member of the State Route 91 Advisory Committee
and he had brought a couple of these things up and he is a little disappointed that they
did not make it into the final document, which are three projects. The first one is the
Irvine to Corona Expressway project, which is still in the plan even though the corridor is
no longer valid as the city of Corona permitted about 1600 homes over the mouth of
where this project is supposed to go. He suggested it is a valid and good long-term project
although technology has not caught up to how this can be done for less than $8-9 billion,
but he hopes this can be reworded and look for additional areas of south county to put
down as a possibility because there is still a need there. Commissioner Speake expressed
concern about the timing of two projects, which were pushed out to 2045 and based on
SB 743 and the Executive Order that general purpose will not occur. The two projects are
the SR -241 sixth lane and SR -71 and the eastbound SR -91 improvements east of 1-15
should be considered operational improvements and not general purpose and growth
8
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2021
Page 9
inducing improvements. The eastbound sixth lane is crucial to the overall functioning of
SR -91, there are major issues and he understood that it was supposed to be considered
after the 241/91 Toll Connector project was completed by Caltrans District 12 and OCTA.
Commissioner Speake reiterated concern for those two projects getting pushed out until
2045 and understands that it is technically complicated but putting that date it makes it
seem like it will not happen. He stated it is crucial to the way the county is basically going
to function, not just for commuters, there is a massive amount of truck traffic that comes
and supplies goods, services, and revenue to the entire county. He expressed the 91 is
the life blood for the County. Commissioner Speake explained the last project is more
personal, which is the Eastbound SR -91 Improvement project that is east of 1-15, it is being
pushed to 2045, and he fought this when they were doing the project list for RCTC. This
is a $31 million project and basically it creates an abnormal bottleneck as the original
premise of the 91 Project was supposed to go to Pierce Street, but they did not have the
funding for it, so it did not occur. This is the last piece after these other projects are done
to complete the 91 Project and the reason why it creates an issue is because it makes this
bottleneck that pushes the 91 and generates a toll rate difference. He explained those
that transverse on SR -91 and go south on 1-15 and get off at Ontario Avenue verses
continuing east and getting out of the toll lanes at McKinley Avenue it is a $10.00
difference to travel a couple of miles. It is pushing thousands of cars down the
southbound 1-15 that already has major issues. Commissioner Speake explained there is
the half -built project with the three successive lane drops that they hope to get fixed and
for Caltrans to address those, there are thousands of cars that are in the left lane and cut
across four lanes of traffic to get off, and culminate underneath the Ontario exit that is
completely overwhelmed. This is an undercrossing that has not been improved since the
1960s and the city is working on trying to get that done. Then those people get back on
SR -91 going north and then connect back up to 1-15 going north and then SR -91 east. He
expressed pushing this out to 2045 would be a travesty it will be something that folks will
have to live with for a long time and with the current issues on both those corridors that
difference is just going to go up based on that and with the added tolls between Ontario
and Cajalco being $10.00-$12.00 it pushes even more people out of the toll lanes, which
can create a ton more problems. Commissioner Speake reiterated that this is not a
Corona problem, this is not for the city of Corona, this is for all commuters traveling on I-
15. He stated most of the commuters do not live in the city of Corona as the other
Commissioners have residents that commute on southbound 1-15, and it is something
they need to consider.
Commissioner Betts asked Commissioner Speake if there is a mechanism to push that
time forward sooner than 2045 as he mentioned two or three times on these projects.
Commissioner Speake replied he would certainly like it to be considered sooner, but he
does not know what the mechanism is for that and asked Anne Mayer to respond.
Commissioner Dana Reed asked Chair Harnik if he could respond. He expressed concern
that all the Commissioners need more money, they all have their pet projects, and they
9
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2021
Page 10
all want them today, they cannot wait until 2045 but the Commission needs more money
it is that simple. There are several people in the county that are currently working trying
to figure out and hopefully succeed in getting a lot more money to spend beginning after
November 2022, as this is the only solution. Commissioner Reed stated if everyone can
help getting the Commission more money than they can spend more money.
Commissioner Speake concurred with Commissioner Reed and stated however if it is
scheduled for 2045, they are not looking for money for it and that is his point.
Anne Mayer explained the State Route 91 Implementation Plan is an annual requirement
of the Legislature when OCTA purchased the express lanes and then the legislation was
enacted to allow RCTC to take on the franchise in Riverside County. This is a legislative
required annual implementation plan and it is a joint product of Caltrans District 8, OCTA,
and RCTC. The overseen body of that is the SR -91 Advisory Committee, which was also
created statutorily to ensure there was bi-county communication at the elected official
level. She stated this is simply an implementation plan that is updated annually to provide
an update of where projects are: as they get completed and as they get programmed.
With respect to the Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) project, which is also known as the
tunnel, and she referred to Commissioner Speake's comments that were made at the SR -
91 Advisory Committee meeting about looking at land use patterns there. That language
is incorporated into the final version that will be submitted to the Legislature. She
explained this is a planning document that is used as a basis for the Regional
Transportation Plan and for modeling, if the project does not currently have funding
programmed and it is not on either Caltrans District 8, OCTA, or RCTC's delivery plans they
are not included with a near term schedule. Anne Mayer stated those two projects
Commissioner Speake mentioned and any others in the plan that are being pushed out in
the 2045 timeframe are there for modeling and planning purposes. This document does
not set priorities for either county, it is merely a planning document that reports on an
annual basis. She explained over the next year, as they always do, if there are any changes
in schedules or priorities this Commission has the ability to modify their priorities for the
funding that RCTC has to change the schedule for these projects. The Board has to
approve those projects in order to trigger a schedule change, so they are no longer
planning projects they are projects in the process.
At this time, Commissioner Jeremy Smith left the meeting.
Chair Harnik reiterated as they have said so many times, they are not building their way
out of this it is going to take a shift in thinking. A perfect example of how difficult it truly
is Commissioner Speake's comments in that they just permitted 1600 houses, which this
is an ongoing issue and so they all have to take a hard look at it, and she is aware everyone
has projects they all want done. Planning for it is the best they can do and as Anne Mayer
noted this body does have the capacity to change the planning and the order of projects.
10
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2021
Page 11
M/S/C (Benoit/Vargas) to approve the 2021 State Route 91 Implementation
Plan.
Due to technical difficulties, there was no confirmation of Commissioner Yxstain
Gutierrez's vote.
11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
11A. Anne Mayer provided an update on the Coachella Valley Rail Public Outreach
activities.
Commissioner Molina asked about the outreach to persons with disabilities
specifically the blind, the deaf, and those seniors that do not use computers and
if there are entities that staff is reaching out to those populations.
Anne Mayer replied that she will get back to her with that information and if not,
they will ensure there is a mechanism to do so.
Chair Harnik stated the Coachella Valley has been anxiously awaiting train service
and this will be welcome when the time comes. She expressed appreciation for
all the efforts to get it as far as it has gotten.
12. CLOSED SESSION
12A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee
Ite
m
Property Description
Property Owner
Buyer(s)
1
118-160-004
RCTC
Regency Realty
2
117-122-001, 002, &
029
RCTC
Inland Investment Group
3
229-082-003, 010
RCTC
Parag Patel
12B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision
(d) of Section 54956.9: 1 potential case
Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section
54956.9: 1 potential case
There were no announcements from the closed session.
11
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2021
Page 12
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, Chair Harnik adjourned the meeting at 11:17 a.m. The next Commission
meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, September 15, 2021.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Mobley
Clerk of the Board
12
AGENDA ITEM 6B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 15, 2021
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Audit Ad Hoc Committee
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Fiscal Year 2019/20 Transportation Development Act and Measure A Audit
Results
AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA)
and Measure A audit results report for Fiscal Year 2019/20.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In July 2016, following a competitive procurement, the Commission awarded contracts for a
five-year contract term to three audit firms to perform financial and compliance audits and
agreed -upon procedures (audits) for TDA claimants and Measure A recipients:
• Macias Gini O'Connell LLP (MGO) for Western County TDA claimants and Measure A local
streets and roads recipients;
• BCA Watson Rice LLP (BCAWR) for Western County Measure A Specialized Transit
recipients; and
• Conrad LLP (Conrad) for Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley, and county of Riverside TDA
claimants and Measure A recipients.
Initially, this scope of work excluded audits for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit
Agency (SunLine), and the city of Beaumont (Beaumont), as these jurisdictions elected to hire
their own auditors. After its auditors completed Beaumont's FY 2015/16 audit, Beaumont
requested, and Commission staff agreed, that the Commission's auditor conduct the required
audits beginning with FY 2016/17.
MGO, BCAWR, and Conrad, along with the other agencies' auditors, completed the FY 2019/20
audits and issued the audit reports. The following is a summary of the 58 audits performed:
Agenda Item 6B
13
Funding Type
TDA Article 3
(bicycle and
pedestrian projects)
TDA Article 4
(transit)
Type of
Procedure
MGO (Western
County)
BCAWR
(Western
County)
Conrad
(Eastern County &
Riverside Co.)
Other
Auditors
Total
-11IM
Financial and
compliance audit
Financial and
compliance audit
0
6
Measure A
specialized transit
Measure A local
streets and road
Agreed -upon 1.
procedures
Agreed -upon
procedures
4 0
•
0 16
2
0 0
7
16
18 0
11 0
29
Based on a review of the reports, the following items are highlights from the FY 2019/20 audit
results.
TDA Article 4 (Transit)
• Four transit operators (Banning, Beaumont, Riverside and Palo Verde Valley Transit
Agency) did not meet the fare ratio requirement; however, Assembly Bill (AB) 90, signed
by the Governor in June 2020, prohibits the imposition of a penalty on operators that do
not maintain the required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost during FY 2019/20 or
FY 2020/21.
• SunLine Transit Agency's auditor identified a compliance finding related to federally
reimbursed costs incurred prior to the pre -award authorized period of performance.
Accordingly, the auditor identified $44,912 in questioned costs.
Measure A Specialized Transit
• Three agencies (Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County, Care Connexxus, and Community
Connect -211 Program) did not meet the adjusted match requirement by $18,501. The
Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County shortfall was $54, or less than 0.2 percent of the
adjusted match requirement, while the Care Connexxus and Community Connect -211
Program shortfalls were approximately 8 percent and 33 percent, respectively, of the
adjusted match requirement.
• Four agencies (Community Connect -Transportation Access Program, Friends of Moreno
Valley, Independent Living Partnership, and U.S. Veterans Initiative) had excess revenues
over expenditures totaling $56,920, of which $13,532 is related to excess Measure A
funds received by the Community Connect -Transportation Access Program and
U.S. Veterans Initiative and will be reduced for unbilled FY 2019/20 expenses and/or
returned to the Commission. The balance of $43,388 relates to excess cash matching
contributions that may be retained by the agencies.
• Four agencies (Blindness Support, Boys & Girls Club of Menifee Valley, Care Connexxus,
and Community Connect -211 Program) had an excess of expenditures over revenues
aggregating $62,170. Generally, the agencies are responsible to cover the excess of
expenditures; however, if there is a balance of Measure A funds allocated to an agency,
the agency may submit a revised claim.
Agenda Item 6B
14
" T h e a u d i t o r c o m p l e t e d t h e F Y 2 0 1 8 / 1 9 a g r e e d - u p o n p r o c e d u r e s f o r U . S . V e t e r a n s
I n i t i a t i v e d u r i n g t h i s c y c l e . N o f i n d i n g s w e r e n o t e d .
M e a s u r e A L o c a l S t r e e t s a n d R o a d s
" T h r e e j u r i s d i c t i o n s ( B e a u m o n t , C a l i m e s a , a n d D e s e r t H o t S p r i n g s ) m e t t h e i r m a i n t e n a n c e
o f e f f o r t ( M O E ) r e q u i r e m e n t s u s i n g t h e p r i o r y e a r c a r r y o v e r , a s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r t h e M O E
G u i d e l i n e s .
" S e v e n j u r i s d i c t i o n s ( C a l i m e s a , C o r o n a , H e m e t , M u r r i e t a , P e r r i s , S a n J a c i n t o , a n d
P a l m D e s e r t ) h a v e f u n d b a l a n c e s i n e x c e s s o f t h r e e y e a r s o f r e v e n u e s . W h i l e t h e
C o m m i s s i o n p o l i c y s u g g e s t s s u c h a m o u n t s s h o u l d n o t e x c e e d t h r e e y e a r s , t h e
j u r i s d i c t i o n s p r o v i d e d r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e a m o u n t s , i n c l u d i n g p r o j e c t d e l a y s
a n d c a p i t a l i m p r o v e m e n t p l a n s t o e x p e n d t h o s e f u n d s o n p r o j e c t s i n t h e n e x t f i v e y e a r s .
" T h e c i t i e s o f B l y t h e , C a n y o n L a k e , a n d I n d i o m a d e t h e i r f i n a l d e b t s e r v i c e p a y m e n t s t o t h e
C o m m i s s i o n r e l a t e d t o l o c a l s t r e e t s a n d r o a d s a d v a n c e s , w h i c h m a t u r e d d u r i n g
F Y 2 0 1 9 / 2 0 .
A t t a c h e d i s t h e s u m m a r y o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d t r a n s i t f u n d o p e r a t i o n s a n d r e l a t e d a u d i t r e s u l t s
f o r t h e v a r i o u s t y p e s o f T D A ( A r t i c l e s 3 a n d 4 ) a n d M e a s u r e A ( s p e c i a l i z e d t r a n s i t a n d l o c a l s t r e e t s
a n d r o a d s ) f u n d i n g . E a c h s c h e d u l e p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r e a c h c l a i m a n t a n d r e c i p i e n t
r e g a r d i n g t h e r e v e n u e s , e x p e n d i t u r e s / e x p e n s e s , a n d c h a n g e i n f u n d b a l a n c e / n e t a s s e t s f o r t h e
y e a r e n d e d J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 0 , a n d o t h e r f i n a n c i a l a n d c o m p l i a n c e i n f o r m a t i o n .
A t t a c h m e n t s :
1 ) F Y 2 0 1 9 / 2 0 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t A c t A r t i c l e 3 S c h e d u l e
2 ) F Y 2 0 1 9 / 2 0 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t A c t A r t i c l e 4 S c h e d u l e
3 ) F Y 2 0 1 9 / 2 0 M e a s u r e A S p e c i a l i z e d T r a n s i t S c h e d u l e
4 ) F Y 2 0 1 9 / 2 0 M e a s u r e A L o c a l S t r e e t s a n d R o a d s S c h e d u l e
A g e n d a I t e m 6 B
1 5
ATTACHMENT 1
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule
Year Ended June 30, 2020
Lake
Coachella Eastvale Elsinore La Quinta Riverside Temecula
Revenues:
Intergovernmental allocations:
Article 3 $ 855,950 $138,500 $ 290,802 $ 50,606 $ - $
Interest income - - - - 242
Total revenues 855,950 138,500 290,802 50,606 242
Total expenditures 2,200,000 65,167 243,161 - 39,375 115,278
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
(under) expenditures (1,344,050) 73,333 47,641 50,606 (39,133) (115,278)
Transfers in (out) 545 -
Excess (deficiency) of revenues and
transfers in over (under) expenditures (1,343,505) 73,333 47,641 50,606 (39,133) (115,278)
Prior period adjustment
Fund balances at beginning of year
Fund balances at end of year
Source: 2020 Financial Statements
- (73,333) (178,977) (50,606) 12,060
$(1,343,505) $ - $(131,336) $ - $ (27,073) $(115,278)
8/11/2021
16
Total operating revenues
Operating expenses:
Depreciation and amortization
Other operating expenses
Total operating expenses
Operating loss
Nonoperating revenues (expenses):
Grants:
Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule
Year Ended June 30, 2020
ATTACHMENT 2
Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside PVVTA RTA1 SunLine'
$ 91,888 $ 174,542 $ 394,411 $ 309,027 $135,874 $ 9,320,568 $ 6,670,827
255,375 559,053 662,822 479,930 313,467 15,793,900 9,277,951
2,094,116 2,701,869 2,309,461 4,119,034 1,172,129 87,610,155 35,920,519
2,349,491 3,260,922 2,972,283 4,598,964 1,485,596 103,404,055 45,198,470
(2,257,603) (3,086,380) (2,577,872) (4,289,937) (1,349,722) (94,083,487) (38,527,643)
Local Transportation Funds 1,597,460 2,547,119 772,826 3,413,393 785,774 44,427,831 14,847,376
State Transit Assistance/State of Good Repair 76,047 74,200 20,761 160,881 207,662 3,877,150 7,453,735
Federal - - 1,128,357 742,354 191,289 28,716,405 13,416,733
Measure A specialized transit - 3,263,300 6,206,363
Proposition 1B/Low Carbon Transit
Operations Program (LCTOP) 79,015 20,386 13,606 33,312 2,801,628 1,616,434
Other - 271,870 - 20,000 2,821,269 3,132,749
Interest income 2,258 29,387 68,502 43 1,084,037 13,851
Interest expense (3,422) - (18,105) -
Gain (loss) on sale of property 3,520 30 - 2,021 32,482
Other - - 2,470 1,428,581
Total nonoperating revenue (expense) 1,752,620 2,915,863 1,951,331 4,383,101 1,238,080 88,422,222 46,719,723
Net increase (decrease) (504,983) (170,517) (626,541) 93,164 (111,642) (5,661,265) 8,192,080
Transfer in from other City funds 551
Transfer out from other City Funds (54,393)
Prior period adjustment - - -
Net assets at beginning of year (970,273) 2,336,768 3,474,827 214,024 2,650,934 111,097,187 74,018,113
Net assets at end of year $ (1,529,098) $ 2,166,251 $ 2,848,286 $ 307,188 $ 2,539,292 $ 105,435,922 $ 82,210,193
Deferred revenue at end of year:
Operating $ - $ 565,576 $ 1,233,066 $ 1,081,008 $ 392,212 $ 7,355,388 $ 7,338,847
Capital 100,921 - - 681,799 - $ 34,203,249 3,373,003
Total deferred revenue at end of year $ 100,921 $ 565,576 $ 1,233,066 $ 1,762,807 $ 392,212 $ 41,558,637 $ 10,711,850
Minimum fare ratio 10.00% 10.00% 15.00% 10.00% 10.00% 16.81% 19.74%
Actual fare ratio 4.28% 7.82% 17.65% 9.23% 9.30% 20.07% 23.74%
Fare ratio compliance status Did not meet; Did not meet; Met Did not meet; Did not meet; Met Met
however AB90 however AB90 however AB90 however AB90
requires no requires no requires no requires no
penalty penalty penalty penalty
Source: 2020 Financial Statements
The audits for RTA and SunLine were completed by other auditors hired by each entity.
8/11/2021
17
ATTACHMENT 3
Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule
Year Ended June 30, 2020
Riverside Riverside
University University
Boys & Girls Health Health
Boys & Girls Club of Community Community System- Friends of Independent System U.S.
Blindness Club of Southwest Care Connect - Connect - Behavioral Moreno Living City of Operation Medical Veterans Voices for
Support Menifee Valley County Care -A -Van Connexxus 211 TAP Health Exceed Forest Folk Valley Partnership Norco SafeHouse Center Initiative Children
Operating revenues:
Measure A $ 74,000 $ 88,564 $ 82,787 $ 289,500 $ 155,822 $ 64,510 $ 70,266 $ 204,592 $ 60,000 $ 45,709 $ 76,391 $ 343,740 $ 112,150 $ 37,700 $320,000 $ 43,000 $ 109,565
In -kind match 9,900 - - 43,700 - 6,700 24,942 - - 30,672 21,620 441,784 37,191 252,271
Cash match 31,714 45,689 42,566 106,241 82,190 15,650 8,365 105,396 163,883 8,379 60,235 308,386 40,000 19,421 253,514 22,152 Total operating revenues 115,614 134,253 125,353 439,441 238,012 86,860 103,573 309,988 223,883 84,760 158,246 1,093,910 189,341 57,121 573,514 65,152 361,836
Operating expenses -in kind 9,900 - - 43,700 - 6,700 24,942 - - 30,672 21,620 441,784 37,191 - - - 252,271
Operating expenses -salaries & benefits 72,737 127,145 55,454 271,584 113,473 79,815 24,102 255,801 140,354 20,190 - 217,984 50,404 30,139 383,023 54,900 53,655
Operating expenses-nonpersonnel 39,990 7,235 69,899 124,157 150,512 22,264 32,558 54,187 74,967 33,898 97,846 415,931 15,746 22,751 92,573 4,496 55,910
Operating expenses -administrative
overhead 7,238 6,528 8,562 17,684 6,000 4,231 6,693 3,586
Capital expenditures - - - - 80,000 - 91,225 -
Total operating expenses/capital
expenditures 122,627 134,380 125,353 439,441 263,985 116,017 88,130 309,988 223,883 84,760 119,466 1,093,383 189,341 57,121 573,514 62,982 361,836
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over(under)expenditures $ (7,013) $ (127) $ - $ - $ (25,973) $ (29,157) $ 15,443 $ - $ - $ - $ 38,780 $ 527 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,170 $
Exess revenues related to Measure A $ $
$ - $ - $ - $ 12,100 $ - $ - $ $ - $
$ - $ 1,432 $
Match requirement (as adjusted) $ 37,606 $ 45,689 $ 42,620 $ 149,410 $ 89,755 $ 33,232 $ 29,964 $ 105,396 $ 76,120 $ 30,672 $ 40,618 $ 177,078 $ 77,175 $ 19,421 $ 194,994 $ 21,414 $ 123,024
Actual match $ 41,614 $ 45,689 $ 42,566 $ 149,941 $ 82,190 $ 22,350 $ 33,307 $ 105,396 $ 163,883 $ 39,051 $ 81,855 $ 750,170 $ 77,191 $ 19,421 $253,514 $ 22,152 $ 252,271
Match requirement compliance status Met Met Did not meet by Met Did not meet Did not meet by Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met
$54 by$7,565 $10,882
Source: 2020 Agreed -Upon Procedures
Measure A Specialized Transit 8/11/2021
18
ATTACHMENT 4
Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule
Year ended June 30, 2020
Revenues:
Intergovernmental allocations:
Measure A
Reimbursements
Other revenues
Interest income
Other financing sources -transfers in
Total revenues
Expenditures and other financing uses:
Engineering, construction, maintenance, and capital outlay
Administrative overhead/indirect costs
Debt service
Total expenditures and other financing uses
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures
and other financing uses
Prior period adjustment/rounding
Fund balances at beginning of year
Fund balances at end of year
Fund balance by year received:
2020
2019
2018
2017 & Prior
Total fund balances by year received
Cash and investments
MOE Base Year requirement
Amount of Excess MOE at end of year
MOE compliance status
Source: 2020 Agreed -Upon Procedures
Western County
Banning Beaumont Calimesa Canyon Lake Corona Eastvale Hemet Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Murrieta
Norco
Perris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula
$ 627,191 $
181,893
1,000,099 $ 187,312 $ 203,882 $ 4,432,463 $ 1,439,851 $ 1,864,026 $ 2,244,525 $ 1,421,629 $ 1,883,734 $ 4,245,773 $ 2,643,747 $ 701,496 $ 2,022,019 $ 7,800,505 $ 940,300 $ 3,374,987
- 14,000 - - - -
555
28,449 11,577 13,566 5,115 817,979
3,240
837,533 1,011,676 214,878 208,997 5,254,237 1,506,266
66,415 127,504 19,360
10,167
1,991,530 2,274,052
1,439,140 1,205,314 75,096 1,943,059 1,580,179 2,164,155 490,524
- - 13,440 15,902 90,600 - 23,664
- - - - - - 1,053,701
1,439,140 1,205,314 88,536 1,958,961 1,670,779 2,164,155 1,567,889
(601,607) (193,638) 126,342 162,524 3,295,276 (164,513) (172,625) 706,163
1 - (1) - - 5,558 (138,654)
46,473
46,473
2,233,868 1,542,018 674,319 425,139 15,018,317 3,309,011 7,614,396 973,352
1,632,262 $ 1,348,380 $ 800,660 $ 587,663 $ 18,313,594 $ 3,144,498 $ 7,447,329 $ 1,540,861 $
70,496 6,559
1,492,125 1,890,293
354 - - -
27,276 148,813 19,168 147,057 692,068
143,073 - - - -
4,416,476 2,792,560 720,664 2,169,076 8,492,573
1,056,301 1,111, 750 1,863,845
254,839
495,121 1,304,088 1,549,322
1,551,422 2,415,838 3,668,006
4,628,967
5,179
109,876
4,744,022
73,849 121,678
1,014,149 3,496,665
522,994 979,074 1,964,431 821,649 773,103
31,121 -
3,003,303
522,994 979,074 4,967,734 852,770 773,103
(59,297) (525,545) 748,470 (1,951,462) 197,670 1,190,002 3,524,839 161,379 2,723,562
(1)
1,879,061
1,819,763
1
1,212,770 3,569,220
$ 687,225 $ 4,317,691
(2)
10,349,235
$ 8,397,771 $
(1) -
586,766 5,025,353
784,435 $ 6,215,355
1
20,039,306 3,229,573 5,018,114
$ 23,564,145 $ 3,390,953 $ 7,741,676
837,533 $ 1,011,676 $ 214,878 $ 208,997 $ 5,254,237 $ 1,506,266 $ 1,991,530 $ 1,540,861 $ 1,492,125 $ 687,225 $ 4,317,691
701,434 336,704 240,724 210,282 5,219,178 1,547,055 2,105,224 - 327,638 - -
93,295 - 170,173 168,384 4,144,094 91,177 1,787,537 - - - -
174,885 - 3,696,085 - 1,563,038 - - - -
1,632,262 $ 1,348,380 $ 800,660 $ 587,663 $ 18,313,594 $ 3,144,498 $ 7,447,329 $ 1,540,861 $ 1,819,763 $ 687,225 $ 4,317,691
$ 2,792,560 $ 720,664 $ 2,169,076
2,818,963 63,771 2,192,472
2,507,512 - 1,632,539
278,736 - 221,268
$ 8,397,771 $ 784,435 $ 6,215,355
$ 8,492,573 $ 1,014,149 $ 3,496,665
8,966,601 1,019,715 3,409,495
6,104,971 913,778 835,516
443,311 -
$ 23,564,145 $ 3,390,953 $ 7,741,676
1,663,541 $ 1,155,808 $ 769,650 $ 548,405 $ 17,558,030 $ 2,966,120 $ 7,609,840 $ 1,177,133 $ 1,542,789 $ 1,435,272 $ 3,516,276 $ 9,181,444 $ 965,761 $ 5,934,536 $ 22,035,561 $ 1,673,251 $ 7,082,291
164,325 $ 515,908 $ 2,401 $
550,388 $ 718,030 $ 11,639 $
Met Met w/ Met w/
carryover carryover
28,873 $ 2,208,200 $ 38,949 $
178,311 $ 18,517,182 $ 412,828 $
Met Met Met
18,924 $ - $ 960,771 $ 214,225 $ 1,459,153 $ 595,702 $
760,501 $ - $ 22,636,869 $ 8,792,475 $ 8,519,111 $ 381,144 $
Met N/A Met Met Met Met
22,536 $ 1,218,470 $ 12,449,203 $
85,412 $ 3,073,211 $ 53,805,055 $
Met Met Met
156,391 $ 1,431,799
3,341,677 $ 12,975,788
Met Met
Measure A Local Streets Roads 4 of 5 8/11/2021
19
Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule
Year ended June 30, 2020
Coachella Valley
I Palo Verde I
` Valley I
I
Cathedral Desert Hot County of
Wildomar City Coachella Springs Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Blythe ; Riverside
Revenues:
Intergovernmental allocations:
MeasureA $ 684,635 $ 1,479,866 $ 683,776 $ 504,781 $ 275,778 $ 2,017,382 $ 1,527,360 $ 2,869,576 $ 2,301,944 $ 946,296 $ 681,145 $ 7,774,788
Reimbursements 305,054 - 542,263 768,667 - 608,024 Other revenues 10,511 - - - - 25,351 - - - - Interest income 39 2,229 27,737 384 1,184 26,313 25,608 470,536 57,902 89,577 15,316 109,863
Other financing sources -transfers in 50,367 - - - - - - - - - Total revenues 684,674 1,542,973 711,513 505,165 276,962 2,348,749 1,578,319 3,882,375 3,128,513 1,035,873 1,304,485 7,884,651
Expenditures and other financing uses:
Engineering, construction, maintenance, and capital outlay 484,397 1,009,212 1,343,789 345,766 270,530 1,409,425 1,489,672 8,543,161 5,160,009 2,142,788 74,187 6,120,901
Administrative overhead/indirect costs 54,800 118,389 - 23,471 - 75,247 - - - 54,492 1,457
Debt service - - - 200,000 - 112,230 - - 1,733,062 - 39,369 -
Totalexpendituresandotherfinancinguses 539,197 1,127,601 1,343,789 569,237 270,530 1,596,902 1,489,672 8,543,161 6,893,071 2,142,788 1,525,355 6,122,358
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures
and other financing uses 145,477 415,372 (632,276) (64,072) 6,432 751,847 88,647 (4,660,786) (3,764,558) (1,106,915) (220,870) 1,762,293
Prior period adjustment/rounding (1) - (46,914) - - (12,750) - -
Fund balances at beginning of year (58,825) (39,035) 868,875 115,267 85,271 640,362 1,438,813 25,124,688 5,627,094 3,003,383 1,811,023 5,007,873
Fund balances at end of year $ 86,651 $ 376,337 $ 189,685 $ 51,195 $ 91,703 $ 1,379,459 $ 1,527,460 $ 20,463,902 $ 1,862,536 $ 1,896,468 $ 1,590,153 $ 6,770,166
Fund balance by year received:
2020 $ 86,651 $ 376,337 $ 189,685 $ 51,195 $ 91,703 $ 1,527,460 $ 3,882,375 $ 1,862,536 $ 1,035,873 $ 1,304,485 $ 6,770,166
2019 - - - - - - 3,979,663 - 860,595 285,668 -
2018 - 3,295,835 - -
2017 & Prior 9,306,029
Total fund balances by year received $ 86,651 $ 376,337 $ 189,685 $ 51,195 $ 91,703 $ - $ 1,527,460 $ 20,463,902 $ 1,862,536 $ 1,896,468 $ 1,590,153 $ 6,770,166
Cash and investments $ - $ 149,795 $ 246,972 $ 40,075 $ 38,490 $ 1,078,224 $ 1,225,205 $ 35,410,988 $ 1,398,977 $ 2,094,102 $ 1,482,877 $ 6,755,306
MOE Base Year requirement $ - $ 391,688 $ 92,205 $ 75,147 $ 963,640 $ 2,048,564 $ 937,007 $ 2,398,146 $ 1,498,732 $ 674,811 $ 170,000 $ -
AmountofExcessMOEatendofyear $ - $ 8,305,936 $ 7,638,915 $ 1,164,860 $ 15,237,245 $ 28,907,547 $ 10,798,313 $ 11,907,506 $ 36,696,064 $ 4,711,100 $ 195,336 $ -
MOE compliance status N/A Met Met Met with use Met Met Met Met Met Met Met N/A
of carryover
Source 2020 Agreed -Upon Procedures
Measure A Local Streets Roads 5 of 5 8/11/2021
20
AGENDA ITEM 6C
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 15, 2021
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance
THROUGH:
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Sales Tax Analysis
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 1, 2021
(10 2021).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its December 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement with MuniServices, LLC
(MuniServices), an Avenu Company, for quarterly sales tax reporting services plus additional fees
contingent on additional sales tax revenues generated from the transactions and use tax (sales
tax) audit services. As part of the recurring contracts process in June 2018, the Commission
approved a five-year extension through June 30, 2023. The services performed under this
agreement pertain to only the Measure A sales tax revenues.
Since the commencement of these services, MuniServices submitted audits, which reported
findings and submitted to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), for
review and determination of errors in sales tax reporting related to 1,366 businesses. Through
4Q 2020, the CDTFA approved $12,932,405 of cumulative sales tax revenues recovered for the
Commission. If CDTFA concurs with the error(s) for the remaining claims, the Commission will
receive additional revenues; however, the magnitude of the value of the remaining findings was
not available. It is important to note that while the recoveries of additional revenues will be
tangible, it will not be sufficient to alter the overall trend of sales tax revenues.
MuniServices provided the Commission with the Quarterly Sales Tax Digest Summary report for
10 2021. Most of the 10 2021 Measure A sales tax revenues were received in the second quarter
of calendar year 2021, during April 2021 through June 2021, due to a lag in the sales tax calendar.
The summary section of the 10 2021 report is attached and includes an overview of California's
economic outlook, local results, historical cash collections analysis by quarter, top 25 sales/use
tax contributors, historical sales tax amounts, annual sales tax by business category, and five-
year economic trend (general retail).
Agenda Item 6C
21
Taxable transactions for the top 25 contributors in Riverside County generated 28.3 percent of
taxable sales for the benchmark year ended 10 2021, slightly higher than the 25.5 percent for
the benchmark year ended 10 2020. The top 100 tax contributors generated 43 percent for the
benchmark year ended 10 2021, slightly higher than the 39.6 percent for the benchmark year
ended 1Q 2020.
In the Economic Category Analysis below, five of the six categories experienced new highs in the
1Q 2021 benchmark year compared to the prior eight benchmark years. The food products
category was down due to a warehouse club chain, included under general retail category,
shifting food sales from grocery retailers. The transportation category reflects a new high from
the 4Q 2020 benchmark quarter and is a result of an increase in new auto sales and fuel sales
due to the lifting of "stay at home" orders and an increase in vaccination rates allowing more
travel within the state.
ECONOMIC
CATEGORY
ANALYSIS
%of Total / %Change
RCTC
State Wide
Orange County
Riverside
County
S.F. Bay Area
Sacramento
Valley
Central Valley
South Coast
North Coast
Central
Coast
General Retail
32.0/19.0
27.6/-14.7
25.5/-21.1
29.4/4.8
26.1/-15.7
26.2/0.7
36.6/18.3
26.4/-17.0
29.5/4.2
25.9/-23.8
Food Products
14.5/-10.8
18.1/-29.9
18.3/-27.0
17.7/-10.6
17.2/-37.1
15.3/-14.5
13.8/-17.4
20.0/-26.8
17.6/-34.9
28.0/-32.5
Transportation
22.7/4.9
23.6/-16.5
25.0/-9.5
25.1/1.3
21.0/-18.3
28.1/-1.8
21.5/-17.8
24.1/-10.9
27.2/-0.4
24.8/-8.1
Construction
11.4/16.1
11.7/-2.6
10.5/5.7
15.0/14.2
11.9/-4.4
14.1/7.9
11.6/0.7
10.7/3.9
15.8/10.8
11.1/12.2
Business to Business
15.8/5.1
17.9/-15.6
19.4/-13.7
12.0/2.2
22.7/-6.2
15.2/-5.1
15.6/-13.0
17.7/-13.4
9.1/-4.9
9.4/-25.3
Miscellaneous
3.6/20.4
1.1/-23.7
1.3 /-15.6
0.8 / -1.2
1.2 /-28.2
1.2 /-11.1
0.8 / -5.4
1.1/-6.4
0.7 /-22.1
0.8 /-35.1
Total
100.0/8.0
100.0/-17.4
100.0/-15.9
100.0 / 1.7
100.0/-18.2
100.0/-2.8
100.0/-4.0
100.0/-15.3
100.0/-7.0
100.0/-20.7
General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, D ug Stores, Recreation Products, Florist/Nursery, and Misc. Retail
Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment
Construction: Building Materials Retail and Building Materials Wholesale
Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, Auto Sales - New, Auto Sales - Used, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales
Business to Business: Office Equip., Electronic Equip., Business Services, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry, Light Industry, Leasing,
Biotechnology, I.T. Infrastructure, and Green Energy
Miscellaneous: Health & Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments
An analysis of sales tax performance through 10 2021 is attached and illustrates fairly consistent
cycles for sales tax performance for most of the economic categories since 10 2016 — with the
exception of COVID-19 impacts in 10 2021 for some categories.
For six of the top 10 segments (miscellaneous — retail, auto sales — new, department stores,
building materials — wholesale, building materials — retail, and heavy industry) during the past
eight benchmark year quarters, sales tax receipts reached a new high point in 10 2021. The
segments represent 49.2 percent of the total sales tax receipts. The service stations segment
representing 5.3 percent was lower than the last seven benchmark year quarters since the high
in 10 2014. The restaurants, food markets, and apparel stores are lower than the 10 2020
benchmark year quarter due to a warehouse chain, included under department stores, shifting
food sales from grocery retailers and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The top 10 segments represent 71.6 percent of total sales tax receipts. For the other 21 segments
representing 28.4 percent of total sales tax receipts, 14 segments representing 19.4 percent of
the total sales tax receipts reached new high points in the benchmark year 10 2021. In the
Economic Segment Analysis below, auto sales — new has been in the top economic segments
beginning in 2014. Restaurants had been in the top economic segments since 2014 but was
Agenda Item 6C
22
replaced by miscellaneous — retail beginning in the 3Q 2020 benchmark year. Miscellaneous —
retail includes online retailers and has been a large contributor to sales/use tax in Riverside
County during the Covid-19 pandemic.
RCTC
State Wide
Orange County
Riverside
County
S.F. Bay Area
Sacramento
Valley
Central Valley
South Coast
North Coast
Central
Coast
Largest Segment
Miscellaneous
Retail
Auto Sales -
New
Auto Sales - New
Auto Sales -
New
Auto Sales - New
Auto Sales -
New
Department
Stores
Auto Sales -
New
Department
Stores
Restaurants
of Total / % Change
12.7/45.4
12.1/ -2.8
14.4/1.9
12.2/13.7
11.9/ -6.5
12.9/11.2
12.0/-4.4
12.9/4.2
12.0/5.7
17.2/-42.1
2nd Largest Segment
Auto Sales - New
Restaurants
Restaurants
Department
Stores
Restaurants
Department
Stores
Furniture/
Appliance
Restaurants
Auto Sales -
New
Auto Sales -
New
of Total / % Change
11.2/17.3
11.3/-38.3
11.8/-35.0
10.7/3.3
10.3/-47.3
10.3/ -3.3
10.1/64.1
12.9/-35.6
11.9/15.7
15.1/11.4
3rd Largest Segment
Department
Stores
Department
Stores
Department
Stores
Restaurants
Miscellaneous
Retail
Restaurants
Miscellaneous
Retail
Department
Stores
Restaurants
Food
Markets
%ofTotal/%Change
9.9/7.0
9.0/-15.5
9.1/-13.7
10.1/-16.9
10.0/7.9
9.3/-22.2
8.7/52.2
8.8/-12.0
11.2/-46.7
8.6/-10.8
Information regarding sales tax comparison by city and change in economic segments (two
highest gains and two highest losses) 10 2021 to 10 2020 is attached.
In early March 2020, the federal government as well as the California Governor issues emergency
declarations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, on March 19, 2020 the Governor issued
an executive stay at home order to protect the health and well-being of all Californians and to
establish consistency across the state to slow the spread of COVID-19. The County of Riverside
also issued a directive to county residents supporting the Governor's executive order. COVID-19
and the related "stay at home" orders have negatively impacted the local, regional, state, and
federal economies; the magnitude and duration of these impacts is uncertain. Additionally, the
Governor issued an executive order to allow businesses with under $1 million in tax liability to
delay their first quarter sales and use tax filings until the end of July 2020. Another state program
allows small businesses to defer up to $50,000 of their sales and use tax liabilities for the first and
second quarters until July 31, 2021, provided that the owed amount is paid in 12 equal
installments over the following year. The sales taxes due to RCTC are not waived but may be
delayed. Staff will monitor sales tax receipts and other available economic data to determine the
need for any adjustments to the revenue projections. Staff will utilize the forecast scenarios with
the complete report and receipt trends in assessing such projections.
Attachments:
1) Sales Tax Digest Summary 10 2021
2) Sales Tax Performance Analysis by Quarter 10 2021
3) Quarterly Sales Tax Comparison by City for 10 2021 to 10 2020
Approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee on August 23, 2021
In Favor: 13 Abstain: 0 No: 0
Agenda Item 6C
23
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Sales Tax Digest Summary
Collections through May 2021
Sales through March 2021 (2021Q1)
ATTACHMENT 1
CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
California sales tax receipts increased by 33.3% over the same quarter from the previous year, with
Northern California reporting a 32.2% increase compared to a 34.1% increase for Southern California.
Receipts for the RCTC increased by 47.3% over the same periods.
Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 6.4% in the first quarter of 2021,
reflecting the increasing pace of economic recovery, reopening of establishments, and continued
government stimulus response related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
(Bureau of Economic Analysis, April 2021)
The U.S. unemployment rate fell from 6.3% in January to 6.2% in February of 2021, remaining 2.7%
higher than a year ago. There were 4.2 million fewer Americans in the labor force in February of 2021
than in February of 2020. California's unemployment rate decreased to 9.0% in January, down from
9.3% in December, but 4.7% higher than February 2020's pre -pandemic rate of 4.3%.
(California Department of Finance Bulletin, March 2021)
LOCAL RESULTS
Net Cash Receipts Analysis
Local Collections
Less: Cost of Administration
Net 1Q2021 Receipts
Net 1Q2020 Receipts
Actual Percentage Change
$59,486,614
$(369,780)
$59,116,834
$40,138,015
47.3%
Business Activity Performance Analysis
Local Collections — Economic Basis 1Q2021
Local Collections — Economic Basis 1Q2020
Quarter over Quarter Change
Quarter over Quarter Percentage Change
$57,480,436
$47,756,618
$9,723,818
20.4%
Avenu Insights & Analytics' On -Going Audit Results
Total Recovered Since Inception
$12,932,405
www.avenuinsights.com
(8M 800-8181 Page 1
RCTC
HISTORICAL CASH COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS BY QUARTER
(in thousands of $)
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-
11
11
402018 102019 202019 302019 402019 102020 202020 3Q2020 4Q2020 102021
Net Receipts }CDTFAAdmin Fees Due
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$-
TOP 25 SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS
The following list identifies RCTC's Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order
and represents sales from April 2020 to March of 2021. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate
28.3% of RCTC's total sales and use tax revenue.
AMAZON.COM - EC
AMAZON.COM SERVICES — EC
APPLE STORES
ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS
BEST BUY STORES
BEST BUY STORES.COM — EC
CARMAX THE AUTO SUPERSTORE
CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS
CIRCLE K FOOD STORES
COSTCO WHOLESALE
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
EBAY — EC
HOME DEPOT
Please note: " EC" added to the end of business name represents those doing business using Electronic Commerce only.
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS
RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY
ROSS STORES
SAM'S CLUB
SHELL SERVICE STATIONS
STATER BROS MARKETS
TARGET STORES
TESLA
VERIZON WIRELESS
WAL MART STORES
www.avenuinsights.com
(8 20) 800-8181
Page 2
RCTC
HISTORICAL SALES TAX AMOUNTS
The following chart shows the sales tax level from annual sales through March of 2021, the highs,
and the lows for the top ten segments over the last two years in thousands of $.
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
so
1
i
i
I
I
1
a` e`' -5 \e c' a�
fie` \e �,�°� s). �r5 a`�o fie'
\a�eo�5 wo PS?'
��e�ti �e��a a`y t \`e5i a�5
�y`e\ PJ e9 <Z> 5e (t\a .
O
ANNUAL SALES TAX BY BUSINESS CATEGORY
1Q2021
4Q2020
3Q2020
2Q2020
1Q2020
4Q2019
3Q2019
2Q2019
1Q2019
4Q2018
(in thousands of $)
0
«o
•
1
1Q2021
• High
• Low
st
\�aJya ae\c'� yes
lea P29
49,499
46,436
23,863
32,766 7,211
61,230
32,00
46,129
22,520
32,475 8,204
45,537
57,956 34,974 47,275 21,528 32,658 7,251
57,229
35,578
47,647
21,084
32,411 6,862
54,868 35,301 47,135 21,166 32,419 6,524
53,930 35,076 47,355 20,971 31,697 6,162
52,958
34,697
47,051
20,724 31,275 5,954
52,853
34,577
47,201
20,669
31,111 5,883
$ 0 $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 $ 100,000 $ 120,000 $ 140,000 $ 160,000 $ 180,000 $ 200,000
■ General Retail in Food Products ■Transportation 2IgConstruction • Business To Business ■ Miscellaneous
woas Jg6isulnuann• mmm
2Q2016
302016
402016
1Q2017
202017
302017
402017
1Q2018
2Q2018
302018
402018
1Q2019
202019
3Q2019
402019
102020
2Q2020
302020
402020
102021
l!
U▪ l N N N N
O In O I▪ n
O 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
($ Jo spuesnoyp. u!)
FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC TREND: General Retail
RCTC: Sales Tax Performance Analysis by Quarter
ATTACHMENT 2
TOTAL
TOTAL
$70,000,000 -
$60,000,000 -
$50,000,000 -
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
e
N. N. ti N, N, ' , N. cb N. ti� ti� by
Q2
Q3 Q4 Q1
Economic
CATEGORY TOTAL
$25,000,000 2021Q1 QoQ %� QoQ $A YoY %0 YoY $A
$57,480,436 20.4% $9,723,818 8.2% $16,542,955
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
GENERAL RETAIL
2021Q1 Q00 %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A
$17,981,904 31.1% $4,270,205 19.0% $11,187,961
% of 2021Q1 Total: 31.3%
FOOD PRODUCTS
2021Q1 Q0Q %A
$8,711,391 0.0%
of Total: 15.2%
TRANSPORTATION
QoQ $A
YoY %A YoY $A
$3,613 -10.8% -$3,833,204
2021Q1 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A
$13,620,741 26.9% $2,887,340 4.9% $2,307,861
% of Total: 23.7%
CONSTRUCTION
2021Q1 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A
$6,152,363 19.3% $993,236 16.1% $3,454,517
% of Total: 10.7%
BUSINESS TO BUSINESS
2021Q1 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A
$8,761,987 11.0% $864,797 5.1% $1,666,207
% of Total: 15.2%
QoQ = 21Q1 /20Q1 YoY = YE 21Q1 / YE 20Q1
28
Avenu Insights & Analytics
AGENDA ITEM 60
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 15, 2021
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Alicia Johnson, Senior Procurement Analyst
Jose Mendoza, Procurement Manager
THROUGH:
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Single Signature Authority Report
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the
fourth quarter ended June 30, 2021.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Certain contracts are executed under single signature authority as permitted in the Riverside
County Transportation Commission and Western Riverside County Regional Conservation
Authority Procurement Policy Manual adopted in March 2021. The Executive Director is
authorized to sign services contracts that are less than $250,000 individually and in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $2 million in any given fiscal year. Additionally, in accordance with Public
Utilities Code Section 130323(c), the Executive Director is authorized to sign contracts for
supplies, equipment, materials, and construction of all facilities and works under $50,000
individually.
The attached report details all contracts that have been executed for the fourth quarter ended
June 30, 2021, under the single signature authority granted to the Executive Director. The unused
capacity of single signature authority for services at June 30, 2021 is $944,195.
Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of June 30, 2021
Approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee on August 23, 2021
In Favor: 13 Abstain: 0 No: 0
Agenda Item 6D
30
CONTRACT #
18-33-123-00
PO 2806
21-31-002-00
21-31-023-00
21-19-041-00
CONSULTANT
AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2020
Los Angeles Engineering
Dispensing Technology Corp.
California Highway Patrol
HGN Corona Partners
Eadie + Payne
SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY
AS OF June 30, 2021
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
La Sierra Station Expansion Project
Bituminous Applicator for Interstate 15 Express Lanes
Construction Zone Enhancement Program (COZEEP) for Interstate 215
Pachappa Project
Parking agreement for SR -91 Corridor Operations Project
Accounting assistance and documenting accounting policies
ORIGINAL CONTRACT
AMOUNT
$2,000,000.00
3,497.49
38, 045.74
49,982.00
13, 500.00
51,000.00
PAID AMOUNT
3,497.49
38, 045.74
4,053.40
9,000.00
12,985.00
REMAINING
CONTRACT AMOUNT
0.00
0.00
45,928.60
4,500.00
38,015.00
21-31-033-00
California Highway Patrol
Construction Zone Enhancement Program (COZEEP) for Interstate 15/State
Route 91 Express Lanes Connector
50,000.00
0.00
50,000.00
21-19-041-01
Eadie + Payne
Accounting assistance and documenting accounting policies
50,000.00
0.00
50,000.00
20-18-053-01
21-24-102-00
Koff and Associates
Super Sweepers
Compensation, Classification and Benefits Studies
Commuter Rail Station Parking Lot and Parking Structure street sweeping
services
100,000.00
200,000.00
18,460.00
0.00
81, 540.00
200,000.00
19-31-013-01
Psomas
ROW Engineering Surveying Services
250,000.00
0.00
250,000.00
21-31-120-00
WSP USA, Inc.
French Valley Parkway Phase II Connector Ramp Metering Plans,
Specifications & Estimates
249, 780.00
0.00
249,780.00
AMOUNT USED
AMOUNT USED
AMOUNT REMAINING through June 30, 2021
1,055,805.23
1,055,805.23
$944,194.77
None
N/A
Agreements that fall under Public Utilities Code 130323 (C)
$-
$-
$-
Alicia Johnson
Prepared by
Theresia Trevino
Reviewed by
Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the fourth quarter.
V:\2021\09 September\B&I\6C.AJ.A1.SingleSignQ4
AGENDA ITEM 6E
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 15, 2021
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Marla Dye, Senior External Affairs Management Analyst
Cheryl Donahue, Public Affairs Manager
THROUGH:
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Public Engagement Metrics Report, April —June 2021
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Public Engagement Metrics
Report for April - June 2021.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Staff continues to measure public engagement activities and prepare Quarterly Public
Engagement Metrics Reports for the Commission, a practice that began in April 2018. This report
covers the second quarter of 2021, from April to June. The quarterly reports are a
data -driven approach to monitor the Commission's progress toward public engagement goals, to
analyze the effectiveness of its efforts, and to provide transparency into how the Commission is
using its resources to engage with the public. This quarter's report includes six sets of data:
1) Metrics for RCTC's overall public engagement activities, including website use and access;
website top pages visited; email notifications; social media likes, engagement, and reach;
and public sentiment
2) Metrics for the Route 60 Truck Lanes Project including email activity, website sessions,
and social media
3) Metrics for the 1-15 Railroad Canyon Interchange Project including email activity, website
sessions, text messages, and social media
4) Metrics for the 1-215 Placentia Avenue Interchange Project including email activity,
website sessions, and social media
5) Metrics for the 91 Corridor Operations Project including email activity, website sessions,
and social media
6) Metrics for RCTC's 15/91 Express Lanes Connector Project public engagement activities,
including email activity, website sessions, and social media. This report is new for this
quarter and replaces the metrics for the 15 Express Lanes, which opened in April.
Report highlights for this quarter follow and are included in a graphical format. The metrics
showed small increases across platforms and mixed sentiment.
Agenda Item 6E
32
RCTC Overall Public Engagement
1) Website
a. For the quarter, there were 40,329 website sessions, a 2.7% increase from last
quarter's 39,243 sessions. There also were 28,653 unique users, a growth of 1.9%
compared to the previous quarter's 28,114 unique users.
b. Most visitors (45.8%) used organic search engines to reach the website, while
28.9% accessed the site using a direct search (keying in rctc.org). Others accessed
via social media (14.5%), and website referrals (7.8%).
c. Website access via desktop versus mobile device changed from the previous
quarter. Visits were 54% mobile and 46% desktop. During the previous quarter,
the ratio was 60/40.
d. The homepage continues to be the most frequently visited page, followed by the
Coachella Valley Rail Project page, 15/91 Express Lanes Connector Project page,
and the Meetings and Agendas page.
2) Social Media
a. Facebook: At the end of the quarter, the Facebook page had 9,903 likes, a
1% increase over last quarter's 9,825 likes. The page had 2,200 forms of
engagement, such as likes, comments and shares, an 84% decline from last
quarter's 13,401 forms of engagement. Facebook also had 2,325,699 impressions.
This was a small decrease — 2% — from last quarter's 2,371,229 impressions.
b. Twitter: RCTC's Twitter page showed a 2% increase in followers, from 1,330 to
1,315. Engagement increased by 163%, from 941 to 1,054. Impressions grew by
28% from 36,758 to 47,107.
c. Instagram: Instagram followers grew 7%, from 915 to 975. Engagement declined
42%, from 1,051 forms of engagement to 610. Impressions grew by 12% to 14,270,
compared to last quarter's 12,694.
d. Overall, public sentiment was positive. Engagement was positive on posts related
to the opening of the 15 Express Lanes and the CV Rail project. Negative sentiment
was expressed about the Pachappa Underpass Project nightly lane closures near
downtown Riverside.
3) RCTC's The Point: RCTC continues to produce content for its online blog, The Point, and
distributes this information and other news via email to subscribers. RCTC's subscribers
stayed the same at 4,014. A quarter of e -newsletter subscribers opened The Point, and
5% clicked on links to learn more.
Route 60 Truck Lanes Construction Public Engagement
1) Emails: Total email sign-ups since the project began grew to 339. This is a
2.1% increase over the 332 sign-ups received through the end of last quarter. There also
have been a total of 230 email inquiries, a 5.2% increase over the 227 inquiries through
the end of last quarter.
Agenda Item 6E
33
2) Website: Total website visits since grew to 21,116, an 8.3% increase from the 19,493 visits
through the end of last quarter.
3) Social Media: The project's Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts all showed
significant increases. The Facebook page grew to 1,016 likes from 966 likes last quarter, a
5.2% increase. Twitter increased from 99 followers to 109 followers, a 10%. Instagram
followers grew 6.6% from 331 to 353.
1-15 Railroad Canyon Interchange Public Engagement
1) Emails and Texts: Total email sign-ups since the project began grew to 275. This is a
7.4% increase over the 256 sign-ups received through the end of last quarter. A total of
547 people registered to receive texts, a 13% jump over the 484 sign-ups through the end
of last quarter. There were 4 email inquiries for a total of 19 since the project started.
2) Website: Total website visits since project inception grew to 11,114, a 14.5% climb from
the 9,700 visits through the end of last quarter.
3) Social Media: The project's social media accounts all showed gains. The Facebook page
grew to 971 likes from 946 likes last quarter, a 2.6% increase. Twitter grew by 9.3% from
32 to 35 followers. Instagram followers increased 22.5% from 320 to 392.
1-215 Placentia Interchange Public Engagement
1) Emails: Total email sign-ups since the project began grew to 677. This is a
35.6% increase over the 499 sign-ups received through the end of last quarter. There
have been 11 email inquiries since the start of construction in August 2020.
2) Website: Total website visits grew to 2,327, a 32.1% increase from the 1,757 visits
through the end of last quarter.
3) Social Media: This project does not have a designated social media account. The RCTC
social media accounts, @theRCTC, are being used for this project. Total social media post
engagements totaled 2,915 for this quarter.
91 Corridor Operations Project Public Engagement
1) Emails: Email sign-ups during the last quarter totaled 2,504. This is a decrease of .9%.
Eleven email inquiries were received by the project team.
2) Website: Visits to the rctc.org/91cop webpage grew to 994 from the 552 visits from the
last quarter, an 80% increase.
3) Social Media: This project does not have a designated social media account. The RCTC
social media accounts, @theRCTC, are being used for this project. Total social media post
engagements totaled 499 for this quarter.
15/91 Express Lanes Connector Project Public Engagement
1) Emails: Due to the proximity of this project to the 15 Express Lanes, the project team
transferred the email addresses from the 15 Express Lanes Project to the 15/91 Express
Agenda Item 6E
34
Lanes Connector Project. The email addresses totaled 2,825 at the end of the second
quarter, and the project team received three email inquiries.
2) Texts: RCTC is using text messaging as another way to send construction updates for this
project. To date, 68 people has registered to receive texts.
3) Website: Visits to the rctc.org/15-9lconnector webpage totaled 5,714 during the quarter.
4) Social Media: The project's Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts were also
transferred from the 15 Express Lanes Project. This quarter's Facebook likes totaled
2,778, Twitter followers totaled 335, and Instagram followers totaled 600 at the end of
this quarter.
Attachments:
1) RCTC Overall Public Engagement Metrics
2) Route 60 Truck Lanes Construction Public Engagement Metrics
3) 1-15 Railroad Canyon Interchange Construction Public Engagement Metrics
4) 1-215 Placentia Interchange Construction Public Engagement Metrics
5) 91 Corridor Operations Project Construction Public Engagement Metrics
6) 15/91 Express Lanes Connector Public Engagement Metrics
Agenda Item 6E
35
ATTACHMENT 1
Public Engagement Metrics: Q2
Overall Social Media Sentiment
5
4
3
0
-1
-2
4/1 4/8 4/15 4/22 4/29 5/6 5/13 5/20 5/27 6/3 6/10 6/17 6/24 6/30
4/14 (+) 15 Express Lanes opening spikes engagement and positive sentiment
6/10 (+) Positive response to CV Rail Project
6/17 (-) Negative community reaction to Pachappa Underpass Project
6/24 (+) Boosted posts about CV Rail public hearings generate positive response
Social Media
Eblasts
Subscribers
4,013
Average
Open
25%
Average
Click
5%
Instagram
Followers
975
Engagement
610
Impressions
14,270
+7%
-42%
36
April - June 2021
40,329
+2.7%
Number of
Sessions
Top Channels
28,653
Number of +1.9%
Unique Users
Direct (28.9%) - 8,459
• Organic (45.8%) - 13,440
Social (14.5%) - 4,239
Referral (7.8%) - 2,285
Display (2.1 %) - 607
Top Pages Visited
Homepage is #1 most visited page
2 Coachella Valley Rail Project
3 15-91 Express Lanes Connector Project
4 Meetings and Agendas
Desktop vs Mobile Users
54%
•
State Route 60 State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project
TRUCK LANES Quarterly "At -a -Glance" Metrics Report
Email & Text Sign -Ups
Number of Sign -Ups
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
61
— ■
263
285 291 299
332 339
315 322 — —
c 91 o O O O O q °
q ,\91
vJo ceQ Oec lac v§o c.)eQ Qe(' lac �s).o
1>A o; Sao PQc ��� o Sao PQc' Sao PQc
Website Sessions
Total Website visits to Date
25000 —
20000
15000
10000
5000
6,715
1,414
0 —�
9,992
1
21,116
19,493
17,232
15,816
14,318 23
12,850
1
I
�q �Q �q rL0 rL0 rL0 rL0 �,�` rL'� �Q \Q
rL0 rL0 rL0 rp' rL0 rL0 rL0 rL0 rL0 rL0 rL0
CeQ Oee mac V.Cs 0 QQ c,e9 oee 4ac �c
o lac ��c
L� J a c' o �,
0 1a PQ �a QQ
Emails to Project Team
ATTACHMENT 2
May 2019 - June 2021
Number of Emails
250 —
200
150
100
50
0
67
144
I
157
170
187
199
213
227 230
q q O O O O '� '�
ti ti ti ti ti Nq Nq
ti0 ti0 ti ti0 ti0 rL0 ti0 ti0 rL0 rL0
�J� 5eQ QeG a� J� 5eQ oec, lac J� lac vJc
4\ 0L� ° P7' �� 0Z` \79 Sao PQ.
Social Media Likes/Follows
Number of Likes/Follows
1200 —
1000
800
600
400
200
314
115 ip
— 3
0L-
454
576
111
799
729 —
874
966 1,016
353
109
�C1 ON ON �Q rL0 rL0 rL0 rL0 rLN tiN ON ON
�q
��� �eQ Oeo lac ,sc �eQ Qec' lac ��� lac �,'
4• �0� 06C Sao PQc . 06C Sao PQc ,ac PQc
37
• Facebook Page Likes • Twitter Followers
• Instagram Followers
Interstate 15
ATTACHMENT 3
5 Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Projeru
RAILROAD CANYON INTERCHANGE Quarterly "At -a -Glance" Metrics Report Apr 2020 - June 2021
Email & Text Sign -Ups
Number of Sign -Ups
600 —
500
400
300
200
100
0
- 208
194
351
234
I
457
246
484
256
547
275
1
�O,LO ,,, ,LO ti0,^ ,L,, ,`O ,`0 ti0^O tiO„ tiO„
vP ,,e9 Qec. 4ac �o '§ �o ceQ Qeo , ���
PQc ��� Oa Sao PQc a� PQc ��' O� )"§‘ PQc
• Email Sign -Ups • Text Sign -Ups
Website Sessions
Total Website visits to Date
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
4,230
6,769
I
8,279
9,700
11,114
�,p c eQ Qec 4.2, �Jc at �Jc �eQ Qe� lac v>
Q., V . Oa a° Qc ao' Qt, '' ' ,
P O � P P VO 1a PQ
1
Emails to Project Team
20 —
15
10
5
0
1
— —
10
1
14
15
19
,LO y0 ////0�0 0�0 0�0 �q �,LO ,LO ,L 7 `� ir10 ,y0��o �e Qec eQ Qe �a AsoPQc ' ' o S Sao PQc
Social Media Likes/Follows
1000 —
• 800
0
0
LL
y 600 —
w
Y
J
0 400 -
w
E • 200 —
Z
803
946 971
850 886 ■
0
O > 0 �0 Ncb \O q q
�Oti �Oti �Oti �Oti �Oti `le ti0 ti0 ti0N ti0N
c,eQ Qec ‘,V§ �o '§ ��0 5e9 Qec, �ac
L. a° ao
O � PQ
38 Facebook Page Likes Twitter Followers
• Instagram Followers
ATTACHMENT 4
Mid County Parkway
PLACENTIA
INTERCHANGE
Email Sian-Uos
1-215 Placentia Interchange Project
Quarterly "At -a -Glance" Metrics Report
Number of Sign -Ups
800 —
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
— 155
— - .
327
499
677
,lob° ,e ti °,N ,d>
c eQ Oea �.§ VP
°� 0Z` fie° PQc.
,y0 ,LO ,t9 t\ce. „ci
,lo
fie/ Oeo
Sao P9c � 0/ •P PQ�
Website Sessions
Total Website visits to Date
2500 —
2000
1500
1000
500
0
488
1,243
1
1,757
2,321
/‚‚"j
ti°�° ti°�N �› ti°moo rp ri9 rp ee „cb ,,R, ,\R, q ti°�Q
'' P)-9 Sao V. V '' 06. , Sao PQ,
Emails to Project Team
Jul 2020 - Jun 2021
Number of Emails
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
3
1
— -1
7
I
11
„c, e
Li¢ `L O�c`L �`4,,�`L ,J `L ,,o ,,§s
�J `t �e `1 co('`t �`a�`L ,J�`L
,J�, 06 ,a° PQ�, Sao P7"9 V ' 0 Sao PQ�
Cni-in! Marlin Pnct Fnnanamantc
Number of Post Engagements
3000 —
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2,016
2,623
2,827 2,915
r
0 0 o 0 0 o a a
,yoti ,yo`� ,yoti 19 ,yo'` '1%) ,yd` ,yo`` ,yo'` ,yo'`
�eQ Oe� sec �Jo lac �o 9 Oee
06 Sa.4•
PQ� ,ac P 06 ,ac PQ�
39
ATTACHMENT 5
State Route 91
CORRIDOR OPERATIONS
PROJECT
Email Sign -Ups
State Route 91 Corridor Operations Project
Quarterly "At -a -Glance" Metrics Report
Number of Sign -Ups
3000
2500
2000 —
1500 —
1000 —
500 —
0 L_
2,527 2,504
191> 191> 1, ,LONcei ,�� 10, 0 19 ,L9\c 19
. c Jam,
P9 � O )'§‘ PQ
Website Sessions
Total Website visits to Date
1000 —
800
600
400
200
0
— 552
I
994
`LO1'> ,LO1'> `LONE ,LONE `LO,•'1) `LO .\`b `LONQ `LONQ
lac �c lac ' ' 49
Oee
Y;cs PQ� Sao 9j' O Sao PQ�'
Emails to Project Team
Nov 2020 - Jun 2021
Number of Emails and Calls
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
11
rc, ri91' eeee Nc\ N'A
Leo PQ� Sao \79 ,�, O6c Sao PQ�
Social Media Post Engagements
Number of Post Engagements
500 —
400
300
200
100
0
445
499
,LO`� ,91' ,LOS LOS OS O`� , ,L ,L ,L,N ,L,N
4 ct
•'§ ��c C�`a� ,§c 49 Oec, sec ��c
PQ O
40
ATTACHMENT 6
15/91
EXPRESS LANES
CONNECTOR
Email & Text Alert Sign -Ups
15/91 Express Lanes Connector Project
Quarterly "At -a -Glance" Metrics Report
Number of Sign -Ups
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
—2,825
0 k_
• Email Sign -Ups Text Sign -Ups
Website Sessions
Total Website visits to Date
6000 —5,714
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0-
1
1
Emails to Project Team
Apr - Jun 2021
Number of Emails and Calls
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3
Social Media Followers
Number of Post Engagements
3000 —2,778
2500
2000
1500
1000
500I -
0U
L.
,\O ,, '
Sao Pei O6 Sao V°
41
• Facebook Followers • Instagram Followers
Twitter Followers
AGENDA ITEM 6F
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 15, 2021
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
David Knudsen, Interim External Affairs Director
THROUGH:
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
State and Federal Legislative Update
This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on state and federal legislation.
DISCUSSION:
State Update
The Legislature returned from their monthlong summer recess on August 16, 2021, with only a
few weeks left in this first year of the two-year legislative session. As the September 10 deadline
to pass legislation fast approaches, legislators will be finalizing budget trailer bills associated with
the enacted 2021-22 state budget and other policy legislation. Governor Newsom has already
signed over 140 bills since July 15, 2021, with hundreds more expected to pass the Legislature
over the next few weeks.
High -Speed Rail Budget Update
One of the issues that still required a resolution once the legislature returned from summer
recess was further consideration of Governor Newsom's request for $4.2 billion to finish building
the first section of high-speed rail track, a 119 -mile stretch in the Central Valley. The Legislature
left the funds out of the June budget, pending further negotiation. Some lawmakers, including
some in Southern California, have indicated that more of the funds should be spent on local
transit projects in more populated areas, the "bookends" of the high-speed rail system, of Los
Angeles and San Francisco areas. While support exists in the legislature for the High -Speed Rail
project, it is unclear if the Governor's $4.2 billion request will be approved by the Legislature.
Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure Update
On July 12, 2021, after months of stakeholder outreach and drafting, the California State
Transportation Agency (CaISTA) released their finalized Climate Action Plan for Transportation
Infrastructure (CAPTI) detailing how the state intends to invest billions of discretionary
transportation dollars annually to combat and adapt to climate change. CAPTI was developed in
response to Governor Newsom's climate action executive orders N-19-19 and N-79-20. State
transportation funds, including revenue collected under Senate Bill (SB) 1, the Road Repair and
Agenda Item 6F
42
Accountability Act of 2017, must be used solely on transportation. As outlined in SB 1, California
will continue the "fix -it -first" approach to maintaining the state's highways, roads, and bridges.
According to CaISTA, however, under the new strategy adopted in July, where feasible and within
existing funding program structures, the state will invest discretionary transportation funds in
sustainable infrastructure projects that align with its climate, public health, and social equity
goals.
As previously reported to the Commission, RCTC staff participated in numerous discussions and
workshops regarding the drafting of CAPTI, which culminated in public comment letter to CaISTA
Secretary David Kim on May 17, 2021, seeking regional variation in its implementation. Exactly
how CAPTI will be incorporated into transportation project funding assessments is unclear.
However, staff will continue to participate the process, as subsequent guidelines are developed,
to advocate for transportation funding in Riverside County.
Federal Update
Senate Bipartisan Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill
A bipartisan group of 10 Senators announced agreement on an infrastructure package backed by
President Biden on July 29, 2021, that authorizes a roughly $1.2 trillion physical infrastructure
package including $550 billion in new spending over five years. Based largely on the bipartisan
surface transportation reauthorization bills passed out of the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, this
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is significantly smaller than the $2.25 trillion
infrastructure proposal President Biden unveiled in March.
On August 10, 2021, the Senate passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which extends
highway, safety, transit, rail, pipeline, and research programs that are typically included in
five-year surface transportation reauthorizations. It also includes provisions to address climate
change, authorize programs to enhance the electric grid, and replace lead pipes.
Transportation -specific funding includes:
• $349 billion in funding for federal highway and major projects programs. It also includes
$40 billion for a new formula Bridge Investment Program;
• $66 billion in funding for passenger and freight rail programs;
• $11 billion to fund highway and pedestrian safety programs; and
• $91 billion to modernize and expand public transit systems.
Among many other priorities, the bill also includes:
• $46 billion to fund waste management, flood mitigation, wildfire, drought and coastal
resiliency;
• $55 billion for water infrastructure;
• $73 billion for power and grid Energy Infrastructure Act;
• $65 billion to rebuild the electric grid;
Agenda Item 6F
43
" $ 2 5 b i l l i o n f o r a i r p o r t i m p r o v e m e n t s ;
" $ 6 5 b i l l i o n t o e x p a n d b r o a d b a n d I n t e r n e t a c c e s s ; a n d
" $ 7 . 5 b i l l i o n f o r e l e c t r i c v e h i c l e s a n d l o w - c a r b o n s c h o o l b u s s e s a n d f e r r i e s .
W h i l e t h e b i p a r t i s a n I n f r a s t r u c t u r e I n v e s t m e n t a n d J o b s A c t i d e n t i f i e d t h e f u n d i n g s o u r c e s , o r
"