Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07 July 09, 2003 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • TIME: • • MEETING AGENDA 9:00 a.m. RECORDS DATE: Wednesday, July 9, 2003 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Ron Roberts 1st Vice Chairman: Roy Wilson 2nd Vice Chairman: Robin Lowe Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside James A. Venable, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Art Welch / Sue Palmer / Bill Jenkins, City of Banning Placido L. Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Gregory Schook / John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Jack Wamsley / Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macnicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Jeff Bennett, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Greg Ruppert, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Mike Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Robert L. Schiffner / Thomas Buckley, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Jack F. van Haaster / Warnie Enochs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert William G. Kleindienst / Chris Mills, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Alan Seman / Ron Meepos, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Anne Mayer, Director, Caltrans District #8 Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Comments are we/comed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, ../..., c .. lc t., n...-/ ..liI....:t .. T ..+:......... Card to +h.. /'/...L ..f +1... Ca,7....:s • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, July 9, 2003 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside • • In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (909) 787-7141. Notification of at (east 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda) 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 11 and June 18, 2003 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 Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2003 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 6A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending May 31, 2003. 6B. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-025, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISS/ON AMENDING GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MEASURE "A" FUNDED COMMUTER INCENTIVE PROJECTS AS PART OF ITS COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM" Page 5 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 03-025, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending Guidelines for the Administration of the Measure "A" Funded Commuter Incentive Project as Part of Its Commuter Assistance Program". 6C. SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRACT Page 13 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve entering into Agreement No. 04-41-003 with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as part of the Commission's continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG to deliver commuter and employer rideshare services for Fiscal Year 2003-2004; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2003 Page 3 • 6D. APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. M23-001 WITH RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FOR THE PASS THROUGH OF FTA FUNDING FOR THE PERRIS MULTIMODAL FACILITY AND APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 04-33-007 WITH POUNTNEY CONSULTING GROUP, INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE FACILITY Page 26 Overview This item is for the Commission to: • • 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding No. M23-001 with Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for the pass through of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding for the Perris Multimodal Facility; 2) Approve the selection process to have Pountney Consulting Services, Inc. master plan, environmentally clear, and prepare the final design of the Perris Multimodal Facility; 3) Award Agreement No. 04-33-007 to Pountney Consulting Group, Inc. to perform Phase I of the engineering services for the Perris Multimodal Facility for an amount of $513,000 with an extra work amount of $52,625 for a total not to exceed value of $565,625; 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the memorandum of understanding and agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 5) Direct staff to bring back suggested scope and cost changes to the above agreement with Pountney Consulting Group, Inc. for Phase II final design for the plans, specifications, and cost estimate to construct the project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2003 Page 4 • 6E. AGREEMENT NO. 04-31-006 WITH DMJM + HARRIS FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 60 HOV PROJECT FINAL PS&E Page 43 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 04-31-006 (Amendment No. 10 to Agreement No. RO-2042) for DMJM + Harris to provide construction management and additional engineering design services for the State Route 60 HOV Project Final Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E), for an additional base amount of $204,800; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6F. STATE ROUTES 86 AND 111 PROJECTS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 63 • 1) Approve the revised listing of Tier II Projects for State Route 111, 2) Approve the reimbursement schedule of Measure "A" Funds by fiscal year through 2008-2009; and, 3) Authorize staff to work closely with CVAG to address future cash flow concerns should they arise. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2003 Page 5 6G. AGREEMENT NO. 04-33-004 WITH CALTRANS (COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-1055, AMENDMENT NO. 2) TO EXPAND USE OF THE STATE ROUTE 91 CALTRANS FIBER OPTICS BACKBONE FOR THE CCTV SECURITY SYSTEM AT RCTC METROLINK STATIONS Page 69 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-33-004, (Amendment No. 2 to Caltrans Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1055), between RCTC and Caltrans, for the State to allow RCTC use of up to four (4), two (2) additional dark fibers, along State Route 91 for future expansion of the West Corona, North Main Corona, and La Sierra Metrolink Stations CCTV Security Systems; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6H. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES RELATED TO THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT Page 74 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP), for consultant services to provide right-of-way services related to the San Jacinto Branch Line Commuter Rail Project; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC and Bechtel staffs, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFP's received; and, 3) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultant and provide a recommendation to the Commission for contract award. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2003 Page 6 61. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-002, " RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS" AND FISCAL YEAR 2004 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS Page 76 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 04-002, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds"; and, 2) Approve the Fiscal Year 2004 State Transit Assistance Fund Allocations for Riverside County. 6J. FISCAL YEAR 2004 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS FOR TRANSIT AND MEASURE "A" ALLOCATION FOR SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Page 81 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Fiscal Year 2004 Local Transportation Fund Allocations (LTF) for Transit; and, 2) Approve LTF and Measure "A" Allocations for SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). 6K. REQUEST TO REPROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT'S TRANSIT SERVICES Page 84 Overview This item is for the Commission to reprogram funds for the purchase of two Clean Natural Gas Buses. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2003 Page 7 • • 6L. REQUEST TO REALLOCATE FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE'S SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Page 86 Overview This item is for the Commission to reallocate $46,843 in funding from capital to operating for the City of Riverside's Special Transportation Services. 6M. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Page 87 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the Fiscal Year 2004- 2008 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads. 6N. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2003 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF MORENO VALLEY AND PALM DESERT Page 237 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the Fiscal Year 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Moreno Valley and Palm Desert. 60. FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Page 247 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the Fiscal Year 2003- 2004 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funding Recommendations. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2003 Page 8 6P. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITIES OF BANNING, BLYTHE, RIVERSIDE, AND SAN JACINTO Page 254 Overview 1) Grant the County of Riverside a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2004 to complete the Clark Street, Mission Boulevard, and Rubidoux Boulevard Sidewalk Projects; 2) Grant the City of Banning a six-month extension to December 31, 2003 to complete the approved FY 2002-03 SB 821 Sidewalk Projects; 3) Grant the City of Blythe a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2004 to complete the Rice and 6`h Street Sidewalk Improvement Projects; 4) Grant the City of Riverside a two -month extension to August 31, 2003 to complete the Wheelchair Ramps Project, La Sierra Avenue Sidewalk Project, Norwood Avenue Sidewalk Project, Nicolett Street Sidewalk Project, and Garfield Avenue Sidewalk Project, and a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2004 to complete the Garfield Avenue Sidewalk (Via San Jose to Adams Street) Project; and , 5) Grant the City of San Jacinto a six-month extension to December 31, 2003 to complete the approved FY 2002-03 Sidewalk and Ramp Projects. 6Q. METROLINK 2002 ONBOARD SURVEY RESULTS Page 262 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the presentation on the Metrolink 2002 Onboard Survey as an information item. 6R. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview Page 274 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2003 Page 9 • • • 6S. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT Page 292 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Status Report as an information item. 7. CONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. M23-002 BETWEEN RCTC AND WRCOG REGARDING THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE TUMF PROGRAM Page 299 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the implementation of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. M23-002 between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) clarifying the relationship between Measure "A" and the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF); and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the MOU with WRCOG for the Western Riverside County TUMF Program. 8. STRATEGIC RECOVERY PLAN FOR SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE SERVICES GROUP Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 307 1) Approve the release of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to have an independent internal audit conducted of SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) and SunLine Services Group (SSG); and, 2) Appoint members of the Commission's Audit Ad Hoc Committee to review the proposals. 9. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2003 Page 10 10. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 11. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 1:00 p.m., Monday, July 28, 2003, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • • AGENDA ITEM 4 • Minutes • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Ron Roberts at 9:05 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy L. Byrd Frank Hall Terry Henderson Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Robin Lowe Richard Macnicki Paul Marchand Anne Mayer Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Ron Roberts Robert L. Schiffner Gregory V. Schook Alan Seman Placido Valdivia Jim Venable Jack Wamsley Art Welch Frank West Matt Weyuker Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain John F. Tavaglione* Jack van Haaster Michael H. Wilson Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 2 *Commissioner John Tavaglione assigned his proxy vote to Commissioner Roy Wilson. The letter has been filed with the Clerk of the Commission. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Carl Olson, member of the Automobile Club of Southern California, stated his belief that the Automobile Club has not taken an active role in local and county traffic and highway policies. He encouraged the Commission's activism with the Automobile Club to achieve gains for the motoring public. Eric Haley noted that the Automobile Club took a proactive role in supporting the reauthorization of Measure "A", the "Quiet Crisis" interviewed a number of Riverside County people in developing the critique, and the Club has identified the constitutional limitations of the two-thirds vote on local option sales taxes as a critical issue. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (RWilson/Kleindienst) to approve of the May 14, 2003 minutes as amended, page 7, paragraph 5 "increasing traffic congestion in the Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore areas along and the arterial highway between SR 79 and 1-15". Abstain — Macnicki, Seman, Valdivia 5. REPORT — STATUS OF SR 60/91/1-215 INTERCHANGE FUNDING REQUEST Eric Haley, Executive Director, presented an oral report on the status of the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange funding request. He noted that the Commission may be asked for an additional local funding component of the $35 million request. Staff is currently reviewing reserve accounts and will return to the Commission with a recommendation for the maximum funding commitment to the California Transportation Commission. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Ivan Chand, Chief Financial Officer, briefly reviewed the proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. Chairman Roberts opened the public hearing at this time. No comments were received from the public and the Chair closed the public hearing. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 3 M/S/C (Schook/Lowe) to adopt the proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. Abstain: Marchand 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Tanya Love, Program Manager, requested that the Commission to add "SunLine Transit Agency's Fiscal Year 2004 Short Range Transit Plan" to the agenda as an urgency item. This item arose after the agenda was posted and mailed, and there is a need that this item be addressed by the Commission at this time. M/S/C (R. Wilson/Lowe) recognizing that staff became aware of this item after posting and mailout of the agenda and that it will need action by the Commission at this time, to add the urgency item as Agenda Item No. 12, "SunLine Transit Agency's Fiscal Year 2004 Short Range Transit Plan ". 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner William Kleindienst requested Agenda Item No. 81, "Fiscal Year 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plans", be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. M/S/C (Schook/Ashley) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 8A. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Approve the Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. 8B. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending April 30, 2003. 8C. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Approve appropriation budget adjustments. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 4 8D. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-027, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATION OF DISTRICT TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAXES" Adopt Resolution No. 03-027, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Amendment to Agreement for State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes". 8E. AGREEMENT NO. 03-12-071 — CONTRACT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT PURCHASE, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR SERVICE 1) Award Agreement No. 03-12-071, for the purchase, maintenance, and repair service of computer network system to Jaguar Computer Systems, Inc.; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel Review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8F. UPDATE ON THE MORENO VALLEY -SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CETAP CORRIDOR Receive and file an update on the Moreno Valley -San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor. 8G. STATUS REPORT ON THE WINCHESTER TO TEMECULA CETAP CORRIDOR Receive and file a status report on the Winchester to Temecula CETAP Corridor. 8H. PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY — UNMET NEEDS HEARING TESTIMONY AND RESPONSES 1) Make a finding that based upon a review of the requests for services received through the "Unmet Transit Needs Hearing" process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, there are no unmet transit needs remaining which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley Area; 2) Reaffirm the Commission's definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet" Standards; and, • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 5 • • 3) Adopt Resolution No. 03-026, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Finding that There are No Unmet Transit Needs that are Reasonable to Meet in the Palo Verde Valley Area". 8J. FISCAL YEAR 2003 TRANSIT OPERATORS' SECOND QUARTER REPORT Receive and file the Fiscal Year 2003 Mid -Year Transit Operators' Report. 8K. FISCAL YEAR 2004 MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 1) Approve the Fiscal Year 2004 Minimum Fare Revenue to Operating Expense Ratio of 17.4% for the Riverside Transit Agency and 16.11% for SunLine Transit Agency; 2) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required ratio; and, 3) Request Caltrans' concurrence with the methodology and ratios for Fiscal Year 2004. 8L. CITY OF BEAUMONT'S REQUEST TO REALLOCATE CAPITAL TO OPERATING FUNDS Reallocate $25,168 in Local Transportation Funds from capital to operating for the City of Beaumont's Transit Program. 8M. FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 MEASURE "A" COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS 1) Authorize payment of $1,175/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 to the existing Riverside, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore, and Mira Loma buspools; and, 2) Continue the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 6 8N. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2003 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Amend the Fiscal Year 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs. 80. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 1) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy position: Support - SB 87 (Hollingsworth, R -Temecula) as amended 3/20/03; Oppose Unless Amended - AB 496 (Correa, D -Santa Ana) as amended 3/28/03; and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 8P. STATE ROUTE 91 PROJECT PLAN PER AB 1010 Receive and file the Draft State Route 91 Project Plan. 8Q. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 9. RECONSIDERATION OF THE HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CORRIDOR Commissioner Marion Ashley submitted a written statement noting possible conflict of interest on this item and left the Board Room. Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development, provided an update on the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) CETAP Corridor, including the reconsideration of the Ramona/Cajalco alignment, south of Lake Mathews. Staff is recommending an acceleration of the CETAP process into a project level NEPA document. She indicated that Congressman Ken Calvert has expressed support for sponsoring legislation that would identify the Ramona/Cajalco alignment, south of Lake Mathews, as the CETAP east -west internal corridor and, therefore, all other alternatives would no longer be considered under CETAP. She indicated that concerns have been expressed for improvements in the southern part of the County, • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 7 • • • noting that as part of the County's proposed General Plan, significant improvements are planned in this area. Also, irrespective of the size of the facility or funding used, a federal NEPA document is required since the proposed facility would intersect two interstates. As part of the environmental work, there must be an assessment of the project as to what size and type of facility would be necessary to meet a 20 -year planning horizon. At this time, Chairman Roberts opened public comments for this item. He noted that a letter has been received and distributed to each Commissioner from the Endangered Habitat League regarding this item. • Mary Bradley, Gavilan Hills resident, expressed her belief that the County should be focusing on attracting higher paying jobs. She also indicated that she supports a four lane parkway for the Cajalco corridor no more than 110 feet wide. • Merceda Jimenez, Victoria Grove resident, concurred with the previous speaker's comments and recommended an alternate route for a freeway level facility. • Kathleen Jones, Lake Mathews resident, expressed her opposition to a freeway level facility, supporting a parkway as she believes a parkway would be more efficient and have less of an environmental impact on the area. She also expressed her belief for the need for jobs in Riverside County. • Eugene Jones, Lake Mathews resident, expressed his dissatisfaction with the cities' support of the Ramona Cajalco alignment and strong opposition to a freeway level facility, recommending an alternate route. He also concurred with the previous speakers comments regarding higher paying jobs. • Art Cassel, 18350 Harley John Road, Riverside, concurred with the previous speakers comments and recommended conducting a concurrent study for a parkway with four to six lanes along various segments of the corridor and stressed the urgency of this project. • Jane Block, Endangered Habitat League, reiterated the letter submitted to the Commission by the Endangered Habitat League. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 8 Commission Bob Buster stated that due to funding constraints and the immediate need for improvements that this corridor should be improved in phased process to upgrade the corridor to four and six lanes with the possibility of a freeway at a later time which would require a separate study and public process. Phased improvements to these types of internal corridors will allow option to remain open and strengthen the internal economy of Riverside County. He also noted that obtaining the right-of-way now saves greater disruption and cost in the future should a freeway level facility be necessary. He also noted the County's efforts trying to attract more employers/businesses and higher paying jobs and the importance of having viable and improved transportation corridors in place to attract them. Cathy Bechtel said that the improvements are expected to be done in a phased manner. The federal process requires transportation modeling to determine the size and type of the facility. She also stated that transportation improvements are necessary to bring businesses to the County. Commissioner Robin Lowe recommended that staff incorporate additional public hearings for this corridor into the budget to allow the Commission to exceed the required number of public hearings. She also noted that the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and Cities have been working with the Economic Development Agency to attract more jobs to the County. Commissioner Ameal Moore concurred with the staff recommendation and noted the City of Riverside's efforts to bring jobs into Riverside County including a hi -tech business park that is being developed and warehouses being built in the Sycamore Canyon area. He believes that the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) involvement is needed to connect the Cajalco corridor to SR 241 to provide needed relief to SR 91. Commissioner Jeff Miller expressed that the Commission has been visionary in its planning for the future of the County including its cooperative efforts with OCTA to allow for the purchase of the SR 91 Toll Lanes and the MIS study to develop another corridor between the Counties. He stated that the ability of the County to bring in high -paying jobs depends on transportation facilities that allow goods movement. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 9 • • • Commissioner Robert Schiffner submitted a letter for the record from the City of Lake Elsinore expressing support for CETAP and the belief that the southern east -west alignment originally supported by RCTC staff more closely adheres to the benefits and purpose of CETAP, therefore requesting the southern route remain in consideration. M/S (Busch/Moore) to: 1) Approve acceleration of the CETAP internal east -west corridor work to a project level environmental document; 2) Direct staff to seek federal legislation identifying the CETAP internal east -west corridor as Ramona/Cajalco, south of Lake Mathews; and, 3) Direct staff to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan including details on budget, schedule, and implementation. In response to Commissioner Gregory Schook's question regarding environmental issues, Cathy Bechtel responded that staff believes the environmental issues are resolvable due to preliminary discussion with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Staff will continue to work closely with the Federal Resources Agencies. Commissioner Buster recommended a substitute motion to include as part of action no. 3 to provide details as to how the corridor could be improved to an intermediate status and outline a separate study and public process to consider an upgrade to freeway level in the future requiring Commission approval in order to provide the constituents assurance that the Commission is not authorizing a freeway at this time. M/S (Buster/Wamsley) to: 1) Approve acceleration of the CETAP internal east -west corridor work to a project level environmental document; 2) Direct staff to seek federal legislation identifying the CETAP internal east -west corridor as Ramona/Cajalco, south of Lake Mathews; and, 3) Direct staff to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan including details on budget, schedule, and implementation with information on a phased approach to improving the corridor that requires a separate study, public process, and Commission approval. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Robin Lowe expressed opposition to Commissioner Buster's motion as she stated that the intent for the corridor is CETAP and believes stating anything further would be misleading the constituents. She also expressed her concern regarding the source of funds based upon Commissioner Buster's recommendation. Commissioners Moore and Miller also expressed their opposition to Commissioner Buster's motion. Commissioner Robert Schiffner expressed support for the substitute motion. After further discussion, Commissioner Roy Wilson urged Commissioner Buster to withdraw his substitute motion. At Commissioner Kleindienst's request, Cathy Bechtel outlined the funding sources for the CETAP corridors. Hideo Sugita clarified that staff is requesting to enter into a project level environmental document which will result in a recommendation as to the size and type of facility and any discussion of such is premature at this time. Commissioner Buster agreed to withdraw his substitute motion as long as the action plan provides more than one alternative to improvements along the Ramona/Cajalco corridor. Cathy Bechtel confirmed Commissioner Buster's request. M/S/C (Busch/Moore) to: 1) Approve acceleration of the CETAP internal east -west corridor work to a project level environmental document; 2) Direct staff to seek federal legislation identifying the CETAP internal east -west corridor as Ramona/Cajalco, south of Lake Mathews; and, 3) Direct staff to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan including details on budget, schedule, and implementation. O • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 11 • • • 10. PRESENTATION - LOCALLY PREFERRED TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE FOR THE INTERSTATE 215/SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE (RIVERSIDE TO ROMOLAND) CORRIDOR Richard Amodei, STV Inc., presented the San Jacinto Branch Line/ 1-215 Corridor Alternatives Analysis Study and Ad Hoc Committee recommendation. Steve Brooks, STV Inc., presented the environment assessment noting that there are very few impacts for this project due to the use of active railroad lines. At this time, Chairman Roberts opened public comments for this item. • R.A. "Barney" Barnett, Highgrove resident, expressed support for a station in Highgrove, which is also supported by resolutions from the Cities of Grand Terrace and Loma Linda. He also recommended acquiring right-of-way for a future station in Highgrove due to current land availability. • Steve Berry, City of Grand Terrace, expressed his support for a station in Highgrove and also recommended securing right-of-way for a future station. Commissioner Buster expressed support to explore the acquisition of right-of- way for a future Highgrove Station, the acquisition of the Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead, as well as exploring the possibilities of a station at the intersection of SR 74 and 1-215 as a regional location. He also requested a public meeting in the UCR area. Commissioner Lowe concurred with Commissioner Buster's comments and requested public meetings to focus on the San Jacinto Valley and south to the Winchester area. Commissioner Ashley concurred with Commissioner Buster's comments and stated support of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Kleindienst requested an illustration of the connection between the Riverside and San Bernardino Metrolink stations and asked how to get the potential future crossings on the Alameda Corridor East (ACE). Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager, explained that the IEOC Line operates between the stations on Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Rail Lines and Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 12 the Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SanBAG) are currently in a dispute with BNSF over the number of rail movements on this line. With regards to potential future crossings on the ACE, she said that the staff recommendation avoids some of the issues ACE has identified. Commissioner Daryl Busch requested a correction to the subject of the agenda item to replace Romoland with Perris as the line terminates in Perris at 1-215 and does not enter Romoland. M/S/C (Busch/Buster) to: 1) Adopt "Alternative E: Commuter Rail with New Connection to Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead at Rustin Avenue" as the Locally Preferred Transit Alternative for the San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor; and, 2) Direct staff to explore acquisition of additional right-of-way for a future Highgrove Station to serve the Inalnd Empire -Orange County Line. Chairman Roberts noted that there will be a rail tour on Monday, June 30th that will include a demonstration of the Colorado DMU. If any Commissioners are interested, please contact Stephanie Wiggins or Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Commission. Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, noted that the Commission will pay for the cost of the rail tour for the Commissioners. 11. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 81. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Tanya Love, Program Manager, stated that staff recommends the approval of the Fiscal Year 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plans with the exception of SunLine Transit Agency due to issues that arose after the agenda was posted and mailed, and will be addressed in Agenda Item 12. M/S/C (Byrd/Hemet) to approve, in concept, the Fiscal Year 2004-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency, and RCTC's Regional Rail Program. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 13 • • • Commissioner Buster asked for an update regarding the City of Loma Linda Council Meeting which expressed concerns about the Moreno Valley -San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor. Cathy Bechtel responded that the original alignment was retained. 12. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2004 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Tanya Love reviewed the audit issues identified by Ernst and Young in the Fiscal Year 2002 draft financial audit of SunLine and SunLine Services Group (SSG). Commissioner Buster asked if any Commission funds were at risk due to the audit issues and Tanya Love responded that $751,000 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds is at risk. She also noted that copies of the audit are available for the Commission's review. Commissioner Kleindienst acknowledged the seriousness of the issue and extended his appreciation for RCTC's support in this matter. He also expressed his continued support of SunLine and SSG. M/S/C (Schook/Marchand) to: 1) Place SunLine Transit Agency's (SunLine) Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for Fiscal Year 2004 on hold until issues regarding the Fiscal Year 2002 financial audits for SunLine and SunLine Services Group (SSG) are fully explored; and, 2) Allocate Fiscal Year 2004 Funds to SunLine, on a monthly basis, pending resolution of issues involving the relationship between SunLine and SSG. 13. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT • Stephanie Wiggins presented the Commissioners with Commemorative Sets of Station Pins in honor of the 10th Anniversary of Metrolink. • Hideo Sugita announced the retirement of Dick Doyle, Caltrans District 8, extending the Commission's gratitude for his years of service. At this time, Steve DeBaun announced the Closed Session Item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 14 14. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) Names of Parties: Raceway Ford, Inc., Caltrans, RCTC et al Case Number: CIV. S-02-710 WBS GGH There were no announcements on the Closed Session item. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:34 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 11:00 a.m., on Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, c�N.) a),_— Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Ron Roberts at 11:05 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy L. Byrd Frank Hall Terry Henderson Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Robin Lowe Anne Mayer Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Ron Roberts Gregory V. Schook John F. Tavaglione Placido Valdivia Jack F. van Haaster Jim Venable Jack Wamsley Art Welch Frank West Matt Weyuker Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain Juan DeLara Gregory S. Pettis Michael H. Wilson Robert L. Schiffner Alan Seman Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 18, 2003 Page 2 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Robert welcomed Mary Craton, Commission Alternate for the City of Canyon Lake. There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 5. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-052 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 60 HOV MEDIAN WIDENING PROJECT IN MORENO VALLEY BETWEEN EAST JUNCTION OF STATE ROUTE 60/INTERSTATE 215 AND REDLANDS BOULEVARD Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, presented the staff recommendation to award Agreement No. 03-31-052 to SEMA Construction, Inc. for the construction of SR 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley, noting that the bid amount is considerably below the engineers estimate. Commissioner Marion Ashley asked if the excess CMAQ funds not utilized for this project could be applied to another project. Eric Haley, Executive Director, responded that there is approximately $7 million in unutilized funds. The Commission may direct staff to work with the appropriate agencies to amend the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to make the funds available for the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. M/S/C (West/Ashley) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 03-31-052 for the Construction of the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley to the lowest responsive bidder; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 3) Direct staff to work with the appropriate agencies to amend the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to make the funds available for the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 18, 2003 Page 3 • • • 6. INTERAGENCY LOAN FOR STATE ROUTE 60/STATE ROUTE 91/ INTERSTATE 215 INTERCHANGE PROJECT Eric Haley presented the interagency loan for SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. Commissioner John Tavaglione commended Eric Haley and staff for their work efforts on funding this project. In response to Commissioner Percy Byrd's inquiry regarding repayment, Eric Haley indicated the repayment of the loans will take place by June 2009 and will be detailed in future staff reports to the Commission and in future Commission budgets. Commissioner Bob Buster asked how the local contribution effort compares to the other major competitors efforts for State funds. Eric Haley responded that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has indicated that there are only three high priority projects and believes that the CTC will fund all three or none. He also expressed his belief that the CTC will view the local contribution as setting a standard for the other competitors. Commissioner Jeff Miller asked if the GARVEE bonds are sole contingent upon CTC approval. Eric Haley responded that the bonds are predicated on the construction schedule. Anne Mayer noted that GARVEE bonding is funneled through the State system. Therefore, the entire package needs to be either approved or disapproved by the CTC. Commissioner Miller then asked what the funding alternatives are should the CTC reject the funding request and Eric Haley responded that any alternatives would be very difficult as it would create substantial cuts on existing project commitments. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Schook) to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to institute an internal loan not to exceed $7.5 million from reserve dollars from the Measure "A" Western Riverside County Commuter Assistance and Specialized Transit Programs to ensure the timely commencement of construction on the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project; and, Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 18, 2003 Page 4 2) Authorize the Executive Director to negotiate with the California Transportation Commission and the California Department of Transportation to finalize details for necessary STIP funding on the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. 7. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Chairman Roberts announced the retirement of L.A. City Councilmember Hal Bernson. B. Commissioner Robin Lowe announced that Chairman R. K. Lindsey of the CTC will be a featured speaker at the League of California Cities Executive Forum in Monterey in July. C. Eric Haley announced: • OCTA is hosted a Celebratory Luncheon at the Green River County Club in Corona on Wednesday,June 25 at 11:30 a.m. for the construction of auxiliary lane improvements and restriping on SR 91. • The Rail Tour on Monday, June 30 that will begin at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station at 8:00 a.m. and including a trip on the Colorado DMU. • Due to an upcoming vote on the Riverside County General Plan, a special meeting of the Commission prior to August 6 will be necessary. Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Commission, will poll the Commissioner for availability. • Metrolink will be celebrating its 10th Anniversary on Thursday, June 26 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. • The Cajalco Bus Tour will directly follow the luncheon after the meeting. D. Commissioner Buster requested an oral report on the 91 Advisory Committee Meetings be added to the monthly Commission Agenda. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 18, 2003 Page 5 • • • 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:42 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, tt, 0) -_ Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission • AGENDA ITEM 6A • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule report for the month of May 31, 2003. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status on contracts reported by projects, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending May 31, 2003. Attachment: Monthly Report — May 2003 1 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/RAWOJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % CO MMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED CO MMIT MENTS AGAINSTAUTH . MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 05/31/03 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design/ROW Acq/ Construction of HOV $7,700,000 $7,700,000 100.0 % $97,967 $7,513,376 97.6% 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. '(2042) (3000) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 $7,700,000 $7,700,000 100 .0% $97,967 $7,513,376 97.6% ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966, $69,847,655 $30,514,368 43 .7 % $3,850,582 $28,910,440 94 .7% (R02142) (R02141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 $69,847,655 $30,514,368 43.7% $3,850,582 $28,910,440' 94.7 % ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ./ROW (3003) $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96 .5 % $15,809 $1,002,554 35.9% Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96,5% $',15,809 $1,002,554 35 .9°l° ROUTE 86 PROJECTS Avenue 58 to Avenue 66 (Segment 2) $20,253,000 $19,500,000 96 .3% Project Complete $18,060,000 92.6% $33,860,000 $33,760,000 99.7 % Project Complete $31,013,510 91.9% SUBTOTAL ROUTE 86 $54,113,000 $53,260,000 $0 $49,073,510 92.1%' ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction $11,902,100 $10,374,324 87.2% $939 $9,538,364 91.9 % (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R03008) $2,954,000 $2,954,000 100.0% $0 $2,109,519 71.4 % Mary Street to 7th Street HOV design & ROW(3005) $1,274,430 $1,062,025 83.3% $20,582 $507,232 47.8 % Sndwall Landscaping (R09933,9946,2059.3601) $1,603,450 $1,603,450 100.0% $0 $869,264 54 .2 % SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 $17,733,980 $15,993,799 90.2% $21,521 $13,024,379 81.4°!°' ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) $16,946,856 $16,946,856 100.0% $0 $15,619,534 92.2 % 3410,9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629 (3400-3405) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111 $16,946,856 $16,946,856 100 0% $0 $15,619,534 , 92 .2°!0' Page 1 of 3 2 • RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COM MITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED CO MMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 05/31/03 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) $6,726,504 $5,878,173 87.4% $5,704,897 97.1 % SUBTOTAL 1-215 $6,726,504 $5,878,173 87:4% $0 $5,704,897 97.1% INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946) $440,000 $400,000 90 .9% $0 $312,519 78.1% SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE $440,000 $400,000 90.9% $0 $312,519 78,1%' PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV. (Agreement(02-31-081)) $2,138,641 $2,027,483 94.8 % $150,597 $1,393,347 68 .7% SUBTOTAL BECHTEL $2,138,641 $2,027,483 94.8% $150,597 $1,393,347 68 .7% PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES North/South Corridor study (R09936) $25,000 $25,000 100.0 % $0 $0 0 .0% SUBTOTAL PROGRAM PLAN & SVCS: $25,000 $25,000 100 .0% $0 $0 0.0°I° PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 $2,323,177 $2,323,177 100.0% $260,329 $2,198,985 94.7 % 2127,2138,2139, 2178 SUBTOTAL PARK -N - RIDE $2,323,177 $2,323,177 100.0 % $260,329 $2,198,985 94,7% COMM UTER RAIL Studies/Engineering/Construction $26,685,414 $24,943,070 93.5% $933,695 $22,627,253 90.7% (RO 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028) 2031,2027,2120 R02029,2128, 3800 - 3811,3813, 3814) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2026,2056,4000-4007,4198,4199,4009,3812 $13,900,329 $13,900,329 100. 0% $114,931 $9,888,830 71.1% SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL $40,585,743 $38,843,399 95.7% $1,048,626 $32,516,083 83.7 % TOTALS $221,475,053 $176,706,190 79.8% $5,445,431 $157,269,624 89 .0%' Page 2 of 3 3 • • W RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCALWETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" LO AN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION COMMIT MENT 05/31/03 ADVANCES BALANCE COMMIT MENT APPROVED COM MIT. CITY OF CANYON L AKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $609,976 $0 38 .1 % SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN ' $1,600,000' $0 $1,600,000 $609,976 $0 38.1 % CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $2,717,538 $0 52 .1% Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA $5,212,623' $0 $5,212;623 $2,717,538 $0 52 .1 % CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements $1,936,419 $1,936,419 $1,101,617 $0 56.9 % CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements $1,324,500 $1,324,500 $753,500 $0 56.9 % CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road improvements $5,094,027 $5,094,027 $2,897,961 $0 56.9 % CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts $2,139,067 $2,139,067 $1,216,902 $0 56.9% CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improvements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $604,954 $0 40 .3% TOTALS $98,$06,636 $0 $18,806,636 $9,297,494 $Q, 49 .4°l0'' NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Status as of: 5/31/03 age 3 of 3 • 4 • AGENDA ITEM 6B • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs Edward C. Gonzalez, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution No. 03-025, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending Guidelines for the Administration of the Measure "A" Funded Commuter Incentive Projects as Part of Its Commuter Assistance Program" PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 03-025, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending Guidelines for the Administration of the Measure "A" Funded Commuter Incentive Project as Part of Its Commuter Assistance Program". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The first resolution establishing guidelines for the administration of the commuter incentive projects under the Commission's Measure "A" Funded Commuter Assistance Program was approved in April, 1993 for FY 1992-93. Based on Legal Counsel's recommendation, the resolution was prepared to minimize liability and formalize project requirements which had evolved since the inception of the various commuter incentive projects. Each fiscal year, staff reviews the current adopted resolution to determine its consistency with any proposed programmatic amendments to the commuter incentive projects: Advantage Rideshare and Club Ride. Resolution No. 03-025 was prepared jointly by staff and Legal Counsel. Currently, the Commission offers Advantage Rideshare, a program which provides a daily rideshare incentive for three months to new commuters who make the decision to no longer drive alone. The Commission also offers Club Ride for ongoing ridesharers. Club Ride provides merchant discounts at participating businesses in the Inland Empire for members. 5 Advantage Rideshare provides a $2 daily incentive (paid in gift certificates from participating businesses) for three months to commuters who take alternative forms of transportation instead of driving alone. The incentive can be earned by carpooling, vanpooling, taking transit, telecommuting, or by walking or bicycling to work. This benefit is only available as an incentive for people who try alternative transportation modes for the first time. For longer -term commuters, the Club Ride program offers discounts at local merchants, restaurants, and entertainment venues. The Commission also provides similar programs to San Bernardino County commuters under a contract with the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG). This year, there are no substantive program changes, however the proposed resolution does contain minor formatting and grammatical changes to streamline project administration and implementation practices. In the coming year, the focus of the Advantage Rideshare will continue to emphasize marketing efforts through various media outlets to promote the Inland Empire's 1-866-RIDESHARE Commuter Line established last year. The Advantage Rideshare incentives will remain the same with a focus on both local and long distance commuters. The $2/day incentive is generally marketed to commuters traveling within the Inland Empire through local employers. To better serve out -of -county commuters, joint marketing activities with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Orange County Transportation Authority will be explored. Out -of -county commuters will also be able to take advantage of an enhanced incentive to form vanpools. A $2,400 incentive is paid on a sliding scale over 12 months for the entire vanpool. The availability of the incentive helps private sector vanpool companies to encourage the placement and formation of new vans. Vanpool participants joining existing vanpools will continue to be eligible for the usual Advantage Rideshare $2 per day incentive. Given the continued growth of the area's population and business sector, it is becoming increasingly important to provide programs that address traffic congestion. Assisting employers with employee rideshare programs has proven to be an effective means of reducing automobile trips in a cost-effective manner while developing a positive partnership between the Commission and local employers. Advantage Rideshare and Club Ride are two effective ways the Commission addresses congestion while providing a positive benefit to Riverside County commuters and employers. Attachment: Resolution 03-025 6 • • • • RESOLUTION NO. 03-025 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MEASURE "A" FUNDED COMMUTER INCENTIVE PROJECTS AS PART OF ITS COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WHEREAS, in 1988 Riverside County residents approved Measure "A" imposing a 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation purposes within the County of Riverside; and WHEREAS, 2.5% of the revenues generated under Measure "A" are designated for commuter assistance efforts designed to encourage single occupant vehicle drivers to carpool, vanpool, buspool, walk, bicycle, telecommute or use public transit (bus/train) to and from work to reduce congestion during peak rush hour periods; and WHEREAS, the Commission has established a Commuter Assistance Program including two commuter incentive projects, Advantage Rideshare and Club Ride, for the purpose of carrying out the mandates of the Measure "A"; and WHEREAS, the Commission wishes now to revise the guidelines established in Resolution No. 02-019 and adopt amended guidelines for the two commuter incentive projects to help induce ridesharing in the County and to provide a means for fairly allocating limited Measure "A" revenues to all eligible participants; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: The following guidelines are hereby established for Advantage Rideshare: A. A Participating Commuter must be engaged in a Rideshare Arrangement for the purpose of commuting to a place of employment or a telecommuting work center. A Rideshare Arrangement specifically excludes taking children to school and/or day care situations. B. Subject to the limitations set forth elsewhere in this Resolution, the following Incentives are hereby established for Advantage Rideshare: 7 (1) $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter carpools in a new carpool. (2) $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter carpools in an existing carpool. (3) (a) $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter rides in an existing vanpool, OR (b) $2,400 paid over the course of a 12 -month period for a Startup Vanpool. This Incentive shall be paid monthly to the vanpool leasing company (first four months at $300/month, second four months at $200/month and last four months at $100/month) based on verification of Participating Commuters monthly ridership. If the ridership of the Startup Vanpool is comprised of less than 100% western Riverside and/or San Bernardino County residents, the Incentive shall be prorated to match the vanpool composition percentage. (4) $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter rides a public bus. (5) $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter walks or bicycles. (6) $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter telecommutes. (7) $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter rides commuter rail. C. All Participating Commuters, with the exception of Participating Commuters in a Startup Vanpool, must live in Western Riverside County. D. All Participating Commuters, with the exception of Participating Commuters in a Startup Vanpool, must be employed by a Participating Employer during participation in Advantage Rideshare. E. A Participating Commuter may not have received, within the six months prior to enrollment in Advantage Rideshare, any Incentive from Advantage Rideshare or from any Sister Agency Program. If an applicant received an Incentive from Advantage Rideshare or from any Sister Agency Program more than six months before submitting an application, the applicant may receive an Incentive under Advantage Rideshare only if he or she requests an Incentive for a different Commute Mode from that for which he or she has already received an Incentive. 8 • • • • • • F. The Participating Commuter, with the exception of Participating Commuters in a Startup Vanpool, may not have been in a Rideshare Arrangement during the 90 days prior to enrollment in Advantage Rideshare. G. A participating Commuter must commute to work on one or more weekdays (i.e.: Monday through Friday) to qualify. An Incentive will also be paid for qualifying weekend work trips as long as the commuter works on weekend days as part of a regular shift that includes at least one weekday. H. A Participating Commuter must carpool, vanpool, use public bus or commuter rail, walk, bicycle or telecommute to work a minimum of five workdays a month to qualify. I. Participating Commuters, with the exception of Participating Commuters in a Startup Vanpool, may receive an Incentive under Advantage Rideshare for no more than three (3) consecutive months. Any calendar month during which a Participating Commuter is enrolled in Advantage Rideshare shall be considered a full month of participation in Advantage Rideshare. For example, if a Participating Commuter enrolls in Advantage Rideshare on the 15th of a month and carpools for five days in that month, that month will be considered a full month for purpose of determining the Participating Commuter's participation in Advantage Rideshare. J. Incentives shall be paid in the various forms as detailed below. In no event shall cash be provided directly to a Participating Commuter. (1) Startup Vanpool: The Incentive for a Startup Vanpool shall be paid directly to the vanpool leasing company. (2) All other Incentives shall be paid in the form of gift certificates purchased from private businesses by the Commission. 9 Section 2: The following guidelines are hereby established for Club Ride: A. Any western Riverside County resident currently participating in a Rideshare Arrangement may participate in Club Ride, provided that he or she has participated in a Rideshare Arrangement for a minimum of one day per week for a period of at least three months for the purpose of commuting to and from a place of employment or telecommuting work center. B. The Executive Director is authorized to provide promotional materials to all Club Ride participants. Section 3: Definitions. As used in this resolution, the following phrases shall have the following meanings: A. "Carpool" shall mean two or more persons commuting on a regular basis to and from work by means of a vehicle with a seating arrangement designed to seat less than seven adults, including the driver. B. "Club Ride" refers to the Incentive described in Section 2 of this resolution. C. "Commuter Incentive Program" refers collectively to Advantage Rideshare and Club Ride. D. "Incentive" means gift certificates or a cash payment to a Participating Employer or a vanpool leasing company provided under this resolution for the purpose of inducing eligible commuters to join Rideshare Arrangements or otherwise participate in the Commuter Incentive Program or other comparable project. E. "Participating Commuter" means a commuter currently participating in the Commuter Incentive Program. F. "Participating Employer" shall mean any employer, which has executed an agreement with the Commission for participation in the Commuter Incentive Program. 10 • • • • • • G. "Rideshare Arrangement" shall mean the transportation of two or more working adults in a motor vehicle or by rail where that transportation is incidental to another purpose of the driver. The term includes ridesharing arrangements known as carpools, vanpools and buspools as well as utilizing public bus and commuter rail services. In addition, persons walking, bicycling or telecommuting shall also be deemed to be participants in a Rideshare Arrangement. "Buspool" means sixteen or more persons commuting on a regular basis to and from work by means of a vehicle with a seating arrangement designed to carry more than fifteen adult passengers. H. "Existing Vanpool" is defined as five or more persons commuting on a regular basis to and from work by means of a vehicle with seating arrangements designed to carry seven to fifteen adults, including the driver. "Startup Vanpool" is defined as five or more persons commuting on a regular basis to and from work by means of a vehicle with seating arrangements designed to carry seven to fifteen adults, including the driver. To qualify as a Startup Vanpool, the vanpool must be: 1) established for the very first time, 2) comprised of participants who have not commuted to work in a vanpool in the previous 180 days (with the exception of the vanpool driver), and 3) made up of at least 65% ridership living in western Riverside and/or San Bernardino Counties. A Startup Vanpool will retain its status for 12 months. At the completion of the 12 -month period, the Startup Vanpool will transition to an Existing Vanpool. J. "Western Riverside County" shall have the same meaning as in the Measure "A" Expenditure Plan approved by the voters in November 1988. Section 4: Resolution No. 02-019 is hereby superseded and repealed. Resolution No. 03-025 shall remain in effect until action is taken by the Commission to supersede and replace this adopted resolution at some time in the future. Section 5: The Executive Director of the Commission is hereby authorized to take those steps necessary and proper to implement the Commuter Incentive Program. The Executive Director, may, in his discretion, establish additional rules and regulations for the Commuter 11 Incentive Program as well as prescribe in writing qualification requirements and incentives for the Commuter Incentive Program which differs from those established here. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 2003. Ron Roberts, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 12 • • AGENDA ITEM 6C • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs Edward Gonzalez, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: San Bernardino Associated Governments Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Commuter Assistance Program Contract PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve entering into Agreement No. 04-41-003 with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as part of the Commission's continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG to deliver commuter and employer rideshare services for FY 2003-04; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since 1993, San Bernardino Associated Governments has contracted with the Commission to develop, implement and manage a Commuter Assistance Program for San Bernardino County commuters. The program consists of five projects. Option Rideshare, developed as a "sister" incentive project to the Commission's Measure "A" commuter incentive project Advantage Rideshare, focuses on encouraging solo drivers to try alternative commute modes. Team Ride, modeled after the Commission's Club Ride Program, provides a 20% discount at local restaurants and 50% off at local entertainment venues for long-term ridesharers. Inland Empire Commuter Services (IECS) was jointly established by SANBAG and the Commission in FY 1995-96 when it was determined by the two agencies that the Inland Empire would assume direct responsibility for the provision of local employer rideshare services. The two agencies continued to contract with 13 Southern California Rideshare, a division of Southern California Association of Governments, for regional rideshare services including matchlist production, teleservices database management, and marketing. The contractual arrangement with SCAG has been reduced over the past two years based on previous action of the two agencies and will be terminated at the end of this fiscal year. In FY 2002-03, RCTC and SANBAG began providing Ridematching and Teleservices through their local IECS programs as opposed to SCAG. To implement local delivery of the two services, staff purchased state-of-the-art software that allowed RCTC to maintain an Inland Empire ridematching database, produce commuter surveys and deliver rideguide information customized for commuters. Computer hardware including two servers, two workstations and two heavy duty printers were purchased by RCTC. As with its other commuter assistance projects, SANBAG also contracts with RCTC to implement its Ridematching and Teleservices program. Because of these efforts, delivery of Ridematching and Teleservices has reached a new caliber. Inland Empire commuters, for example, can now call 1-866- RIDESHARE or 1 -800 -COMMUTE and within minutes, can be matched with a rideshare partner. Development of Ridematching and Teleservices will continue with both services becoming available on the internet in FY 2003-04. Being accessible on the internet will provide opportunity for employers to better manage their employee rideshare data and for the public to make their ridematching request anytime. Regional Rideshare Services will be effective in the new fiscal year as Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority and Ventura County Transportation Commission will follow the Inland Empire's lead and will contract with RCTC, and not SCAG, to implement a five county ridematching system that maintains the regional database but supports delivery of services at the local level. Also included in the budget is a Special Projects category which allows for flexibility in addressing changing conditions or needs in providing transportation demand management services to employers and commuters within a fiscal year. Based on SANBAG staff's review of the five projects' performance this current fiscal year, the Commission has developed a FY 2003-04 work plan and budget for continuation of SANBAG's Commuter Assistance Program. SANBAG's program budget and its Commuter Assistance Program goals are attached. 14 • • • • • • The proposed contract between SANBAG and the Commission which defines the terms and conditions regarding project goals, budgets, reporting, invoicing and payment for services rendered was approved by SANBAG's Board at its June, 2003 meeting. Staff seeks Commission approval to enter into the contract with SANBAG for FY 2003-04 in an amount not to exceed $1,105,327. SANBAG's approval includes the allocation of Measure "I" and CMAQ Funds for their Commuter Assistance Program. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 03/04 Amount: 81,105,327 Source of Funds: SANBAG Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 226-41-81001 Fiscal Procedures Approved: } c am-. Date: 06/23/03 Attachments: 1) Fiscal Year 2003-04 SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program Budget 2) Fiscal Year 2003-04 SANBAG Rideshare Program Goals 3) Fiscal Year 2003-04 SANBAG Agreement 15 OSAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS FY 2003/04 COM MUTER ASSISTANCE PROGR AM BUDGET Option Special Info Team Regional Description Out Option In IECS-SB Projects Ridematch Services Ride Rideshare TOTAL 60001 Salaries & Wages - - 6,000 6,000 61000 Fringe B enefits 4,600 4,600 65101 General Legal Services - - 65503 Consultant Services & Expenses - - 65520 Professional Services - Other - 33,800 31,200 23,000 88,000 65526 Graphic Design 2,500 6,000 8,500 - 1,500 2,000 5,000 25,500 73101 Special Mail Services - - - 500 167 667 73107 Event Support 1,000 2,500 5,500 - - 800 9,800 73108 General Supplies & Materials 500 1,200 3,000 800 900 600 7,000 73110 Computer Software & Support 50 100 - 1,000 - 100 1,357 2,607 73113 Membe rship Dues - - - 73115 Meeting Support Services 73116 Postage 700 3,000 3,000 - 500 100 8,000 3 15,303 73117 Other Household Expenses - - - - - 73119 Storage - - - - - - 73120 Printing Services 3,000 10,500 32,000 16,800 3,000 22,000 131 87,431 73130 Office Equipment - - - - 73201 Communications - Phones 500 2,400 2,200 2,500 2,500 1,800 2,861 14,761 73301 Equipment Maint - General - - - - 73302 Equipment Maint - Computers 100 - 626 726 73303 Vehicle Maintenance/Repairs - - 73304 Maintenance - Other 73315 Repairs - 793 793 73601 Seminars/Conferences - 73611 Travel - Mileage Reimbursement - 36 36 73612 Trav el - Ground Transportation 13 13 73613 Travel - Airfare - 52 52 73614 Gasoline 73620 Lodging - - 37 37 73630 Meals 700 3,300 700 16 4,716 73640 Other Incidentals - - _ - - 73704 Media Ads 5,000 5,000 29,000 30,000 5,000 - 74,000 73705 Marketing Incentives 1,000 2,500 6,200 1,000 - 10,700 81001 Program M anagement 43,600 133,500 164,500 30,000 67,500 70,600 64,000 18,885 592,585 81002 Park & Ride Lease Payments - - - - 81030 CertificateNoucher/Subsidies 30,000 125,000 5,000 160,000 81501 Special Studies - - - - 90101 Computer Equipment - - 90202 Vehicles - 90705 Vehicle Improvements - 97001 Operating Tranfer Out - Total Expenditures 87,850 292,400 257,300 79,400 121,800 109,100 132,500 24,977 1,105,327 • 1 6 E:\Documents and Settings\egonzalez\Local Settings\Temp\SANBAG Budget_draft 6/17/2003 • • • SANBAG FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Rideshare Program Goals • Implementation of commuter assistance programs to approximately 210 regulated and non -regulated employer worksites in San Bernardino County, to assist in the development and implementation of trip reduction programs. • Provide assistance to 78 employers located in San Bernardino County representing a total of 210 worksites. • Provide assistance to four multisite/multijurisdictional headquarters located in San Bernardino County representing 15 worksites in San Bernardino, Riverside, as well as Los Angeles and Orange Counties. • Update and revise survey tools, instruments, and RideGuide material. Process 42,500 surveys to 78 San Bernardino County employers, resulting in the dissemination of 19,125 RideGuides and to San Bernardino County commuters. • Develop and implement two promotional marketing campaigns at San Bernardino County employer worksites, 4 regional Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) network meetings, 16 fax broadcast, and other events. • Outreach to 150 employers within Southern California to solicit participation in the Option Rideshare Program and the Team Ride Reward Program. • Implementation of Team Ride to long term ridesharing employees. Total registration will consist of 1,800 members by June 30, 2004. This number will grow to 2,100 by the end of October 2003 when the Team Ride program year ends. • Maintain a database with 42,500 San Bernardino County commuter registrants. • Respond to 525 inquiries/calls from San Bernardino commuters via 1 866-RIDESHARE, 1 800 -COMMUTE, direct referrals and the internet. • Maintain a teleservices function, which will generate 1,185 RideGuides via phone requests with 250 RideGuides requested from the internet. 17 RCTC Agreement No. 04-41-003 AGREEMENT NO. 04-003 BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004 EMPLOYER AND COMMUTER TRIP REDUCTION/RIDESHARE PROGRAMS THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of this day of July 2003, in the State of California by and between SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS, referred to herein as "SANBAG," and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, referred to herein as "RCTC." • • WHEREAS, SANBAG approved allocation of Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA -21) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, and Measure I - Valley Traffic Management and Environmental Enhancement (TMEE) funds, to provide trip reduction services as well as incentives for the commuter programs; and, WHEREAS, SANBAG requires professional and consulting services with respect to the provision of commuter services and programs within San Bernardino County; and, WHEREAS, RCTC has managed the bi-county Inland Empire Commuter Services program since November 3, 1993, and has the expertise and resources necessary to manage such services for SANBAG. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: A. Contract Services. 1. RCTC will administer, market, and implement a commuter services program in coordination with RCTC's commuter services program and in coordination with the regional ridesharing core services program in compliance with and as specified in Attachment "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. RCTC shall provide program administration and oversight and assure that its consultants and/or staff performs its services within the budgets set forth in Attachment "A." 3. RCTC shall provide SANBAG with no more frequently than a bi-monthly and no less than a quarterly report of progress relative to tasks identified in Attachment "A" to this Agreement and in such detail as may be approved by SANBAG. 18 a04003.doc Page 1 of 9 B. Compensation. 1. It is understood that SANBAG funding for the program under this Agreement will not exceed one million one hundred and five thousand, three hundred and fifty dollars and no cents ($1,105,350.00) and is being provided from the following sources: (a) Nine hundred and seventy six thousand, seven hundred and ninety six dollars and no cents ($976,796.00) from Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. (b) One Hundred and twenty-eight thousand five hundred and fifty-four dollars and no cents ($128,554.00) from San Bernardino County local '/2 cent sales tax, Measure I -Valley Traffic Management and Environmental Enhancement (TMEE) funds, It is agreed that SANBAG Measure I - TMEE will reimburse RCTC for the cost of purchasing promotional and food items not reimbursable by Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ). CMAQ funds shall not be used for food items, and invoices submitted to SANBAG shall clearly delineate this program expenditure. It is agreed that in the event sufficient funds from the sources set forth in (a), and (b), above do not become available to SANBAG for this Agreement, SANBAG may immediately terminate this Agreement with written notice, but shall pay to RCTC from other sources any amounts required to cover RCTC's costs to the date of Agreement termination. 2. SANBAG shall pay RCTC on a cost -reimbursement basis, based upon invoices which delineate charges based on tasks identified in Attachment "A." All invoices shall be provided to SANBAG no more frequently than on a bi-monthly basis and no less than a quarterly basis. 3. SANBAG shall be fully responsible for obtaining cost reimbursements of TEA -21 CMAQ funds. 4. SANBAG shall review all billings submitted by RCTC for accuracy and process payment based thereon to RCTC in a timely manner. 5. RCTC shall maintain during the terms of this Agreement and for three years thereafter accounting records which cover the receipt and disbursement of all funds provided for the programs administered and implemented under this Agreement. Such records shall be made available for inspection during normal business hours by duly authorized representatives of SANBAG, Caltrans, and the United States Department of Transportation. C. Term. 1. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2003 and terminate on June 30, 2004, unless it is extended by a written amendment approved by the parties. 2. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other for no or any reason, including, but not limited to, changes in legislation, rules and regulations impacting trip reduction programs. SANBAG shall pay for any service provided up to the effective date of the termination. 3. The Executive Directors of both RCTC and SANBAG shall have the authority in their sole discretion to give notice of termination on behalf of their respective • • • 19 a04003.doc Page 2 of 9 ill agencies. D. Y2K Compliant. RCTC hereby represents that all products, equipment, hardware, software, electronic components, and systems (individually and collectively referred to herein as Equipment) being used by RCTC hereunder, or relied upon by RCTC in its provision of Services to SANBAG hereunder, are in fact "Year 2000 Compliant". As used herein, the term "Year 2000 Compliant" shall mean that the Equipment will continue to perform the same functions and provide the same level of accurate information and calculations during the years 2000, and thereafter as it did prior thereto. In regard, RCTC represents that the functionality of the Equipment and, if applicable, the provision of Services to SANBAG, will not be adversely affected by the fact that such information and/or calculations may be provided. RCTC may be affected by the fact that such information and/or calculations may be provided. RCTC may be required to describe or demonstrate the procedures used to verify compliance. In addition, RCTC represents that should the Equipment fail because of a lack of Year 2000 Compliance, RCTC has in place a manual backup system with which to perform the Services. RCTC and SANBAG agree that, should the Equipment fail because of unanticipated circumstances, the parties will meet and confer about how to share costs to make the Equipment function properly to support the Services and seek redress against the supplier of the Equipment. E. Indemnification and Insurance. 1. (a) It is understood and agreed that neither RCTC nor any officer, official, employee, director, consultant, agent, or volunteer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, SANBAG shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless RCTC, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement. (b) It is understood and agreed that neither SANBAG nor any officer, official, employee, director, consultant, agent, or volunteer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, RCTC shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless SANBAG, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC or its consultants under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. 2. Commercial General Liability Insurance. RCTC and its consultants shall maintain occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a 20 a04003.doc Page 3 of 9 general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: (a) Name SANBAG, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of Services. Such insured status shall contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection to the above -listed insured. (b) Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering SANBAG, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants. (c) Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3. Business Automobile Liability Insurance. RCTC and its consultants shall maintain business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 4. Workers' Compensation Insurance. RCTC and its consultants shall maintain workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident. 5. Certificates/Insurer Rating/Cancellation Notice. (1) RCTC and its consultants, prior to commencement of the Services, shall furnish and require its subcontractors to furnish to SANBAG properly executed certificates of insurance, and certified copies of endorsements, and policies if requested by SANBAG, which shall clearly evidence all insurance required in this Section. RCTC and its consultants shall not allow such insurance to be canceled, allowed to expire or be materially reduced in coverage except on 30 days prior to written notice to SANBAG. (2) RCTC shall maintain and shall require its consultants to maintain such insurance from the time the Services commence until the Services are completed, except as may be otherwise required by this Section. (3) RCTC may legally self insure, but shall require its consultants to place insurance with insurers having an A.M. Best Company rating of no less than A: VIII and licensed to do business in California. (4) RCTC and its consultants shall replace certificates, policies and endorsements for any insurance expiring prior to completion of the Services. F. Rights of SANBAG. The Executive Directors of both SANBAG and RCTC shall have full authority to exercise their respective entity's rights under this contract. G. Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality/Use of Data. (1) Ownership. All materials and data, including data on magnetic media, prepared by RCTC under this Agreement shall become the common property of the RCTC and SANBAG. RCTC and SANBAG shall not be limited in any way in its use of such data at any • a04003.doc 21 Page 4 of 9 • • time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at the respective party's sole risk and provided that the other party shall be indemnified against any damages resulting from such use, including the release of this material to third parties for a use not intended by this Agreement. Neither party to this Agreement shall sell the data or other materials prepared under this Agreement without the written permission of both parties. (2) Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other materials described in subsection (1) either created by or provided to RCTC in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by RCTC. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of SANBAG, be used by RCTC for any purposes other than the performance of -the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services. Nothing furnished to RCTC that is otherwise known to RCTC or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. RCTC shall not use SANBAG's name or insignia, photographs of the project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of SANBAG. (3) Use of Data. All data shall be provided to SANBAG in hard copy and electronic media. Data in electronic media shall be Year 2000 Compliant and shall be provided in a form that will allow SANBAG to use, access, and manipulate the data to prepare reports and perform other ride matching activities contemplated by this Agreement. H. Independent Contractor. SANBAG retains RCTC on an independent contractor basis and RCTC and its consultants shall not be employees of SANBAG. The consultants and other personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of RCTC shall at all times be under RCTC's exclusive direction and control. RCTC shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due its employees in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. RCTC shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such employees, including, but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. I. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any party's rights hereunder, each party, including the prevailing party, must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. This paragraph shall not apply to those costs and attorneys' fees directly arising from any third party legal action against a party hereto and payable under Paragraph 3E, Indemnification and Insurance. J. Consent. Whenever consent or approval of any party is required under this Agreement, that party shall not unreasonably withhold nor delay such consent or approval. 22 a04003.doc Page 5 of 9 IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE AUTHORIZED PARTIES HAVE BELOW SIGNED AND EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE: SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Bill Postmus, President Ron Roberts, Chairman REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL FOR APPROVAL Norman R. King, Executive Director Eric A. Haley, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR SANBAG APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR RCTC da-bs Ron Reitz, SANBAG Counsel Best, Best & Krieger, RCTC Counsel 23 • a04003.doc Page 6 of 9 • • Attachment "A" San Bernardino Employer and Commuter Assistance Programs Fiscal Year 2003-04 Inland Empire Rideshare Services Provide a variety of services to employers who participate in trip reduction activities, including, technical assistance, promotions, production, coordination/dissemination of surveys and resulting instruments, Rideshare Connection broadcast facsimiles, networking meetings and coordination with other rideshare agencies and service providers. Assist multi -site and multi jurisdictional headquarters within the County as well as related worksites outside of the County. Respond to inquiries generated from 1 -800 -COMMUTE, 1-866-RIDESHARE, as well as direct referrals through phone or the internet. Oversee and maintain a regional database of commuters, working with the five county transportation commissions (CTCs) throughout the region. Conduct special projects as assigned. Related Expenses: Includes labor, miscellaneous office expenses, marketing, office equipment, and telephone. Goals: 1. Implementation of commuter assistance programs to approximately 230 regulated and non - regulated employer worksites in San Bernardino County, to assist in the development and implementation of trip reduction programs and for technical assistance. 2. Work with 66 employers on AVR surveys and calculations. 3. Complete special projects, including: update/revise survey tools and instruments to measure all program's effectiveness, evaluate ways to incorporate the regional guaranteed ride home program upon its conclusion, and complete the integration of the five counties into the regional rideshare database and operations. 4. Maintain an accurate database of 42,500 San Bernardino County commuter registrants. 5. Process 42,500 surveys to 78 San Bernardino County employers, resulting in the dissemination of 19,125 RideGuides to San Bernardino County commuters at 210 worksites. The balance of those surveys (23,375) will receive a generic piece on the benefits of ridesharing and contact information. 6. Provide assistance to three multisite/multijurisdictional headquarters located in San Bernardino County representing 15 worksites in San Bernardino, Riverside, as well as Los Angeles and Orange counties. 7. Develop and implement four employer transportation network meetings, two promotional marketing campaigns at San Bernardino employer worksites, and other events. 8. Produce and disseminate other regional marketing materials, as stand alone campaigns within the Inland Empire or regional campaigns in coordination with the five CTCs. 9. Broadcast 16 Rideshare Connection facsimiles to San Bernardino County employers. 10. For the two county area, respond to 1,510 inquires/calls from commuters who work or reside in San Bernardino or Riverside counties, via 1-866-RIDESHARE, 1 -800 -COMMUTE, direct referrals and the internet. Of these 1,510 inquiries, 1,185 RideGuides will be generated via phone requests and 250 RideGuides generated from the internet, totaling 1,435 RideGuides generated from Teleservices. 24 a04003.doc Page 7 of 9 Rideshare Incentive Programs Offers San Bernardino County residents who commute to employment sites within the Inland Empire, up to $2 a day (in local merchant gift certificates) for each day they participate in a rideshare mode, during a three-month period. Continue the Out -Of -County incentive program which assists long distance commuters who work outside of the Inland Empire. In addition, the San Bernardino rewards program will continue (Team Ride) which offers ongoing ridesharers a club card providing discounts to numerous restaurants, as well as entertainment venues throughout the Inland Empire. Provide special assistance to the Cities of Rialto and San Bernardino, as they implement their "Rideshare 2 Rails" program, which encourages carpooling to their Metrolink Stations. Related Expenses: Includes labor, miscellaneous office expenses, marketing, office equipment, telephone, and direct commuter incentives in certificates/vouchers/ subsidies. Goals: 1. The Option Rideshare program will enlist 1,100 County residents, who commute to work to 60 employers in San Bernardino or Riverside counties. These participants on average have a one-way commute distance of 20.06 miles and the goal is to reduce 1,015 vehicles from the roadways. 2. Implement the Option Rideshare Out of County program, which will reduce trips from San Bernardino County residents who commute to work to 11 employers in Los Angeles or Orange County. Enlist 170 County residents, who on average have a one-way commute distance of 32.61 miles and will ultimately reduce 150 vehicles from the roadways. 3. Team Ride registrants will consist of 2,100 members by the end of October 2003, when the program is at its highest membership. Members will work at employment sites from 260 employers throughout Southern California. New members brought into the program will total 650. FY 2003/2004 Summary of Revenues and Expenses Revenue and Expense Summary by Category Measure I- Valley TMEE $128,554 Labor $697,300 CMAQ $976,796 Incentives, Marketing, Outreach $280,000 Operational and Office Expenses $128,050 Total Program Funding $1,105,350 Total Expense $1,105,350 25 • • 0 a04003.doc Page 8 of 9 • AGENDA ITEM 6D • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement No. M23-001 with Riverside Transit Agency for the Pass Through of FTA Funding for the Perris Multimodal Facility and Approve Agreement No. 04-33-007 with Pountney Consulting Group, Inc. to Provide Engineering Services Related to the Facility BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Memorandum of Understanding No. M23-001 with Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for the pass through of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding for the Perris Multimodal Facility; 2) Approve the selection process to have Pountney Consulting Services, Inc. master plan, environmentally clear, and prepare the final design of the Perris Multimodal Facility; 3) Award Agreement No. 04-33-007 to Pountney Consulting Group, Inc. to perform Phase I of the engineering services for the Perris Multimodal Facility for an amount of $513,000 with an extra work amount of $52,625 for a total not to exceed value of $565,625; 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and, 5) Direct staff to bring back suggested scope and cost changes to the above agreement with Pountney Consulting Group, Inc. for Phase II final design for the plans, specifications, and cost estimate to construct the project. 26 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its May 2001 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to work with RTA to seek congressional approval to transfer a federal grant from RTA to RCTC in support of the project to extend Metrolink service from downtown Riverside to Moreno Valley and Perris via the San Jacinto Branch Line. Though we were unsuccessful in transferring the grant, our joint legislative effort has resulted in the congressional delegation reprogramming the federal grant to emphasize a multimodal facility to be located in the City of Perris. The reprogramming of the RTA Federal Grant is important because it allows us to proceed with our original intent — to build a capital project directly benefiting the City of Perris' portion of the San Jacinto Branch Line Metrolink Extension (Riverside to Romoland) Project. In partnering with RTA for the Perris Multimodal Facility, RTA staff will be a member of the project development team for all phases of the project. RCTC will be the lead agency for the development and construction of the multimodal facility. Pursuant to FTA requirements, the Commission must enter into a MOU with RTA outlining the pass through of the federal funds and related responsibilities to the Commission. At its April 4, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the development of a bus and rail multimodal facility in the City of Perris. The calendar of events was as follows: Calendar of Events Distribution of RFP April 10, 2003 Proposals Delivered to RCTC prior to 2 PM May 8, 2003 Shortlist Top Three (3) Qualified Firms May 22, 2003 Interview Top Three (3) Qualified Firms June 12, 2003 Committee Review of Staff Recommendation June 23, 2003 Commission Approval of Committee Recommendation July 11, 2003 A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from RCTC staff, City of Perris, RTA and Bechtel. Staff received proposals from five (5) firms. The selection panel reviewed the five (5) proposals and short listed three (3) of the five (5) firms. 27 • • • The three (3) firms each demonstrated that they would be capable of completing the proposed scope of work. After careful evaluation of the personnel of the proposed project teams, their knowledge of the project and proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the three (3) interviewed firms as follows: Top Ranked Pountney Consulting Group, Inc. Second Korve Engineering Third URS Based on the results of the selection committee, staff reviewed the cost proposal of Pountney Consulting Group, Inc and negotiated necessary scope and cost revisions to be consistent with the desired engineering services for phase I of the engineering work to be performed. Phase I will include the necessary master plan for the Perris facilities that will include both bus and Metrolink service to the City of Perris. Phase II engineering services will be negotiated at a later date after a locally preferred alternative has been selected and environmentally cleared. Attached is a copy of the proposed scope and cost to accomplish the phase I master plan and environmental clearance for the proposed Perris multimodal facility. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY03/04 FY04/05 Amount: $500,000 $ 65,625 Source of Funds: Riverside Transit Through (Federal Agency Pass Reimbursement) Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 221 - 33 - 81 101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: &-__. `5 Date: 6/16/03 Attachment: Pountney Consulting Group, Inc. Scope of Services for the Master Planning and Environmental Clearance for the Perris Multimodal Facility. 28 Required Tasks — Outline Scope of Work • Key Tasks and Sequence of Activities Project Approach The master planning of a new transit transfer and Metrolink commuter rail station should be a creative activity with input from a broad range of planning and design professionals and project stakeholders. The key to a successful project is to first identify exactly what the public entities (RCTC, RTA, SCRRA, and Perris, and the BNSF Railway Company) have projected in the way of anticipated objectives and to then seek input from the public and users to establish how best to achieve those objectives. The composite criteria are then melded with the operational requirements of Metrolink, the Riverside Transit Agency, the BNSF Railway Company, and the City of Perris to develop a plan that will be functional and operational from all perspectives. A successful project will be well received by the commuting public and will attain projected usage, provide an appealing, safe and attractive environment within which to wait for and board a train or bus, and provide a facility which is economical for the RCTC and the RTA to operate and maintain. To attain these objectives we have brought together a very experienced and talented team of planning and design professionals qualified to address each of the key project elements. That team will be managed by Peter Pountney and Augie Chang in such a manner as to optimize all collective input into what we expect will be an award winning, attractive, efficient, economical, and well received project. Scope of Work - an Overview The first step is the clear establishment of the project goals and objectives: what is the project to accomplish? We recognize the need for an onsite six to eight bus bay transit facility, a new Metrolink platform with possible secondary (emergency) platform, adequate parking, safety fencing, and all related handicap access, ticket machines, signage, parking, landscaping, related sun shelters and other amenities. There will also be coordination with the San Jacinto Branch Line consultant for relocation and reconstruction of the two existing tracks; and improvements at San Jacinto, 4th, and 6th; and related signalized controllers. We will schedule scoping and coordination meetings with all stakeholders to establish minimum objectives and design criteria for each of these and all related site improvements. Coordination meetings should be scheduled with all stakeholders, including RCTC, RTA, City of Perris, SCRRA, Caltrans (Highway 74) and the BNSF Railway Company. We will also include community planning groups, the City police and fire departments, and adjacent property owners in that process. The number of bus bays, accessibility from one side of the tracks to the other, coordination with Caltrans, Highway 74, and freeway accessibility, City of Perris general plan and zoning requirements, and coordination with the railway museum will all play into the development of site design options. A successful master plan requires the development of accurate and detailed site information: a boundary survey; knowledge of existing easements and encumbrances; topographic mapping; hazardous materials assessment; utility research and assessment of utility accessibility; accessibility from the public ways (C, San Jacinto, 4th, 6th, even D Street) and certain street vacations (15t, 2nd, 3rd, 5th); site ingress and egress constraints; and a preliminary geotechnical and geologic investigation. With these constraints established, detailed planning and design can be developed. We then encourage a systematic planning and design process that will provide for the development of a series of schematic site plans from which the optimum site plan can be established concurrent with consideration of access, accident avoidance (cars vs. buses vs. pedestrians; trains vs. pedestrians), architectural treatments, signage, lighting, and landscape alternatives. The number of parking spaces, the number of bus bays, bus vs. auto and auto vs. pedestrian separations can be 29 Required Tasks — Outline Scope of Work identified as well as handicap accessibility routes, and such elements as the number of bike lockers and racks, etc. This process culminates in public hearings and the adoption of an environmentally sensitive, functional, well received optimal design. The list of tasks will include: • Scope definition; • Subconsultant agreements; • Kick off meetings; • Coordination meetings with stakeholders; • Community input; • Regularly scheduled team and team/client meetings; • Boundary, utility and topographic surveys; • Traffic studies; • Geotechnical studies; • Planning studies of alternatives; • Schematic design of selected alternative (15%). Scope definition We are strong believers in the development of a clear, well developed, written scope of services. Exactly what will RCTC and the RTA expect from our team, what will the schedule and budget be, not only for planning but, to the extent feasible, for design and construction as well? Who are the stakeholders and what are their expectations? Resolution of an appropriate fee and design schedule dictates an understanding of your objectives, as to quality and size of facility, amenities, overall planning and construction schedule and overall project budget. We spend that extra effort at the outset of your project to assure a clear understanding between you, us, and the other public entities as to what is to be accomplished. We will also establish the 'chain of command' as to RCTC and RTA approvals, the City of Perris permitting requirements, SCRRA input, Caltrans input, and any BNSF Railway Company criteria. A project directory, overall schedule, submittal milestones, and plan check and approval process will all be established. Subconsultant agreements PCG's efforts will be constrained if we do not have the full support of each of our subconsultants; they play an important role in overall project planning, development and, ultimately, the project's construction. We negotiate written and signed contracts with each subconsultant to clearly establish his or her respective scope, insurance obligations, schedule, budget and production responsibilities. Kick off meetings One important element of our project management approach is coordination and progress meetings, initiated with an overall kick-off meeting. We will sit with you and the other stakeholders to identify initial expectations, minimum design criteria, and other project factors, which are known at the outset (recognizing that they may change with time). The kick-off meeting may actually evolve into a series of meetings with the various participants in order that we may assure that their respective concerns, schedules, design and processing criteria, etc., are incorporated into the overall project. Coordination meetings with stakeholders During the course of the planning and schematic design process, we would encourage and expect periodic meeting with all key project participants. These meetings might be scheduled concurrent with our various submittals or subsequent thereto, to afford the opportunity for reaction and input prior to moving to the next step. Potential or real conflicting objectives between stakeholders can be identified, discussed and, hopefully, resolved at these meetings. • • • 30 Required Tasks — Outline Scope of Work • Community input (to be determined in association with RCTC, RTA and Perris) We will be prepared to schedule, participate in and, if desired, lead, a series of community input work -shops, and/or make presentations at public hearings to both seek input and provide information on the basis for project design, our design process, our progress, etc. It is our belief that the more the gener-al public knows about the project the more readily it will be both accepted and, ultimately, successful. Regularly scheduled team & team/client meetings including peer and QA/QC reviews We will establish a calendar for regularly scheduled team meetings where our design team meet to coordinate our progress, exchange check prints, refine the design and resolve any potential conflicts. These meetings are scheduled every two weeks initially and stretch out to monthly as the project progresses. Concurrent with these meetings, we will undertake a series of peer reviews, and quality assurance/quality control checks to establish that each team member's work product is properly coordinated into the whole, and that the basis for the plan is sound. Base map and initial studies A successful project starts with an accurate base map. Our project team will undertake the collection and review of legal descriptions and title reports to establish the project boundaries, and will undertake a boundary survey (and, if appropriate, a record of survey). Concurrently, we will set control points and arrange to have the project site flown for 1"=20' scale aerial topographic mapping. Collection of utility and public right of way record drawings will facilitate the plotting and locating of all existing utilities, and will be followed by field verification to confirm that we have established the location and elevation of all existing streets, public improvements and franchise utilities. Concurrent coordination with BNSF, Caltrans and the City of Perris will be required to assure that we have established accurate records of all existing facilities and will also be undertaken to establish all appropriate design criteria for new improvements. The initial studies will include the development of a preliminary geotechnical and geology report which will provide input on not less than the following data: condition of existing soils; percolation potential (for drainage of landscape areas), corrosivity (for design of metal improvements), soluble sulfates (for concrete design), soil quality (for landscape design), foundation design parameters (for platforms, structures, and possible sound attenuation walls). An Initial Phase I Site Assessment hazardous waste survey may also be undertaken to establish the presence of any hazardous material residues. Traffic studies We will prepare a traffic circulation and parking analysis. The study will also determine any off -site public improvements required to provide for project generated traffic. The traffic study will quantita- tively assess weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic impacts on potentially impacted intersections. Planning studies of alternatives Considering the long, linear nature of the site, the adjacent residential areas to the west and the commercial corridor to the east, the existing local and future express bus routes that serve the site, and the three at -grade railroad crossings, we recommend that the preliminary site planning entail the evaluation of up to three alternate site plans. We would further anticipate a phasing concept where North of 4th might be developed prior to south of 4th. Prior to and concurrent with the development of these site plans, we will undertake the following: 31 Required Tasks — Outline Scope of Work • Coordination with RCTC, RTA, Caltrans, Perris and SCRRA regarding points of access, minimum Ill platform criteria, minimum parking objectives, project signage, equipment and site furnishings and theme (benches, ticketing and validating machines, money changing machines, lighting, bicycle lockers and racks, vendor cart utility access, drinking fountains and other site amenities). • Coordination with Caltrans with respect to improvements on 4th Street (Highway 74). • Coordination with RTA to verify existing and proposed bus routes, the projected need for transfers (bus to bus, bus to express bus, bus to train), the optimal number of bus bays for simultaneous bus operations (currently estimated at 6 to 8), and the desirability of a linear onsite bus bay configuration vs. tear drop or round configuration). • Coordination with BNSF Railway Company to fully understand the amount of future freight traffic on the line. Verification of contractor insurance requirements, construction responsibilities for BNSF versus our contractor, flagmen requirements, live track work zone requirements, etc., could each have an impact on site design. We understand the freight traffic on the line at present is limited and travels at very low speeds (function of geometry, at grade crossings, track condition). ■ Coordination with RCTC and contract trash haulers regarding minimum dimensions and optimal locations for trash dumpster enclosures. ■ Coordination with RCTC and RTA regarding the desire for public restrooms, maintenance facilities, guard shacks, and other site amenities. • Coordination with the City of Perris as to specific needed improvements to the public rights of way fronting the project site (C, San Jacinto, 4th, and 6th), street vacations (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th), minimum setbacks from the intersections for driveways, etc. Verification of zoning and general plan designations, minimum landscaping, handicap accessible routes, lighting, signage permitting requirements, etc. (and, of course, coordination with the established visual theme established by IMA for the D Street promenade). • Coordination with City of Perris Building Department regarding architectural review for sun shade platform structures, possible entry feature, and other structures, if any, etc. ■ Coordination with City of Perris police and fire departments regarding minimum standards to optimize 'drive -by' security and establish onsite fire hydrants and fire lane circulation. • The undertaking of a traffic study to ascertain existing and projected traffic movements at 4th and C, San Jacinto and C, along Highway 74, etc., to establish any signal modifications, optimal signal patterns, turn pocket dimensions, etc. ■ Coordination with Caltrans and Perris regarding any public way street, turning movement, and signal improvements for access to the station. • Establishment of BNSF objectives with consideration, as deemed appropriate. Environmental Documentation will be prepared based upon the results of a preliminary site assessment. Following the development of an initial environmental assessment a determination will be made as to the need for additional studies and whether or not a categorical exemption or negative declaration may be granted (anticipated predicated on prior use as a train station). With design parameters and objectives in mind, we will be well positioned to develop up to three, workable functional site alternatives that will meet those criteria. Budgetary construction cost estimates can be developed for each with concepts reviewed by our environmental consultant for 32 Required Tasks — Outline Scope of Work • • • evaluation of environmental constraints. Schematic signage locations, sun shelters and other site amenities will be schematically identified for preliminary budgeting purposes (contingency budget at this level of design should be 20%-25%). A six -week window of time has been set aside for discretionary review and critique of the three alternatives. Obviously, this time frame can be adjusted at the discretion of RCTC, RTA and Perris. Schematic design of selected alternative (15%) Once the alternative site concepts have been developed and a site concept selected, a more detailed schematic design of the optimal site plan can be developed. This plan will be taken to a schematic (approximately 15%) level of design with approximate utility, landscape areas, parking lot configuration, handicap accessible routes, sun shelter sizes and locations, and other major site amenities developed horizontally. Our project landscape architect will outline site amenities, signature trees, and overall theme; our architect will be asked to develop a number of typical sections and elevations to illustrate all proposed structures, canopies, entry features, etc. These and the conceptual landscape plan can be rendered for public hearing presentations, if desired. The signage consultant will develop an outline of the overall signage program and the lighting consultant will identify the approximate location, height and candle power of all site lighting. The schematic design will be sufficiently well developed to clearly illustrate the proposed plan. A refined preliminary construction cost estimate will be developed at this level of project development with a 20% contingency factor applied. Subsequent to appropriate reviews, hearings, etc. the resultant plan and supporting environmental documentation can be adopted. RCIP -- Coordination with the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) We have reviewed the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) to understand the level of coordination anticipated to be provided by this study team. We understand the RCIP will provide a framework approach for facilitating the environmental review process including the addressing of NEPA and Endangered Species Act issues. Perris falls within two of the four new transportation corridors under CETAP. We would anticipate researching the updated General Plan Circulation Element to assure that this proposed project is appropriately incorporated. Further, we would coordinate with wildlife agencies (Cal Fish and Game, Federal Fish and Wildlife Service) to identify any pre -established mitigation that may have been identified for this project. We would envision that the proposed Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility, will be an integral part of the San Jacinto Branch Line rail system and will integrate with the freeway corridor improvements and the City of Perris downtown redevelopment. The system will take the citizens of Perris and Western Riverside County and convey them to major employment centers throughout the Southland and, as Perris develops, should prove to become a destination station in its own right. CETAP -- Coordination with the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) Under CETAP the community of Perris is identified as within the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor and is also within the Banning/Beaumont to Temecula Corridor. Within the CETAP, a concept referred to as 'The Transit Oasis' would create an effective transfer station in Perris to 33 Required Tasks — Outline Scope of Work interconnect Metrolink with high speed express routes, local circulator transit, and downtown Perris • redevelopment. City of Perris One of the fastest growing cities in Western Riverside County, the City of Perris is projected to grow to a population of over 90,000 by year 2020 with projected employment approaching 30,000. Expanded Metrolink service will provide better access to and from Orange, LA, and San Bernardino Counties. It will also provide increased opportunity for improved land use in the downtown redevelopment area. The proposed station will be operating at neighborhood, community and regional levels and will provide a high capacity link and alternate mode of transportation between Perris and both regional and countywide job markets while expanding access to a growing local community employment center. We would envision that the site development standards for the station will emulate those of the City of Perris D Avenue redevelopment project improvements, with complimentary theme lighting, benches, landscaping, and related site furnishings. As proposed, the station is within easy walking distance of the redeveloping downtown, City Hall, the post office, the public library, a senior center, the forestry department, and Foss Field Park. Riverside Transit Agency The Riverside Transit Agency is eager to incorporate six to eight bus bays within the Perris Multimodal Transportation Center. Existing local routes will be redirected into the station, and supplemental routes will be added to effect efficient transfers between bus routes, and from bus to train. We would anticipate that with an onsite six to eight bus bay transit transfer facility that is physically • within the Metrolink site, the overall Transportation Oasis could serve a spine network of express buses, a local connector network, and provide the pulse transfer capability that is necessary to efficiently move people throughout the County. BNSF Railway Company currently operates a limited number of freight trains along this corridor. This freight activity will undoubtedly increase once the corridor tracks are reconstructed and the industrial employment base within Western Riverside County increases. It will be important to consider and provide for the Metrolink service and BNSF freight service co -existing within the growing corridor. Preliminary Engineering Studies Within the concept of preliminary engineering studies, we anticipate reviewing the San Jacinto Branch Line Corridor Study, meeting with RCTC staff, RTA staff, and the City of Perris to help identify an initial level of service to the Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility. To assist from a rail perspective, we have asked JLP (rail consultants) to review the San Jacinto Branch Line Corridor Study for technical conformance with Metrolink and industry standards and to assist PCG in the establishment of appropriate levels of rail service to serve the City of Perris from Riverside. Depending on project schedules, we would anticipate that our team would develop the conceptual design for onsite track relocation/reconstruction. The Final Master Plan The Pountney Consulting Group, Inc., master planning team will commit to all of the steps contained • within this statement of qualifications with the objective of creating a planning document suitable for the future design and construction of a workable, attractive, efficient, and economical people 34 June 16, 2003 PROJECT SCHEDLOW CHARTIP RIVERSIDE couN NS PORTATION COMMISSION PRELIMINARY EERING MULTI -MODAL BUS/RAIL FACILITY CITY OF PERRIS, CA ID 0 Task N ame D uration Start Finish June July August eptembe October ovembe December Ja nuary F ebruary March April May June July Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J an Feb M ar Apr May Jun Jul 1 r2 NOTICE OF SELECTION 0 days Fri 6/13/03 Fri 6/13/03 I 6/13 i 2 3 NEGOTIATIONS 2 days Fri 6/13/03 Mon 6/16/03 4 5 AWARD OF CONTRACT 34 d ays Tue 6/17/03 Fn 8/1/03 - 1 j }8/1• 1 i i ' ,•• • • 6• 7 NOTICE TO PR OCEED 0 days Fri 8/1/03 Fri 8/1/03 8 9 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 10 days Mon 8/4/03 Fri 8/15/03 10 11 a PROJECT INITIATION 10 days Mon 8/18/03 Fri 8/29/03 12 13 Q BASE MAP/FIELD SURVEYS 30 days Mon 9/1/03 Fri 10/10/03 14 15 a ENVIRONM ENTAL ASSESSM ENT 240 days Mon 8/18/03 F# 7/16/04 1 1 1 j 16 17 ® GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS 30 days Mon 8/18/03 Fn 9/26/03 i '., • £r >' • • 18 19 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 40 days Mon 8/18/03 Fn 10/10/03 20 21 [2 A LTERNATIVES STUDIES 70 days Mon 10/13/03 Fri 1/16/04 i 22 23 ® FINAL M ASTER PLANNING (15% DESIGN) 40 days Mon 1/19/04 Fri 3/12/04 i Protect: SCHED8-25-99CONDENSED Date: Mon 6/16/03 Task �� .� "'= Summary Rolled Up Progre ss Split Deadline Progress Rolled Up Task / :z ? Extemal Tasks .t- i Rolled Up Split Milestone • Rolled Up Milestone O Project Summary `� : �" External Milestone • Page 1 35 • • • POUNTNEY CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FEE PROPOSAL June 13, 2003 PERRIS MULTI -MODAL FACILITY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION HOURS/QUANT. RATE TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT (12 Months) Scope Definition Principal Engineer 4 $72.00 $288.00 Project Manager 8 $52.00 $416.00 Senior Engineer 4 $44.00 $176.00 Meetings - Meetings w/ RCTC & RTA (12 meetings) Principal Engineer 24 $72.00 $1,728.00 Project Manager 48 $52.00 $2,496.00 Word Processor/Clerical 16 $17.50 $280.00 Monthly Progress Reports (12 total) Project Manager 48 $52.00 $2,496.00 Word Processor/Clerical 24 $17.50 $420.00 Design Team Meetings (8 total) Project Manager 40 $52.00 $2,080.00 Senior Engineer 20 $44.00 $880.00 Word Processor/Clerical 12 $17.50 $210.00 Subconsultants- Architect (Oncina) (4 meetings) 1.05 $2,000.00 $2,100.00 Landscape Architects (IMA) (4 meetings) 1.05 $2,000.00 $2,100.00 Electrical Engineer (BSE) (2 meetings) 1.05 $500.00 $525.00 Survey (Psomas) (1 meeting) 1.05 $500.00 $525.00 Structural Engineer (Psomas) (1 meeting) 1.05 $500.00 $525.00 Geotechnical (Ninyo) (1 meeting) 1.05 $500.00 $525.00 Environmental (LSA) (4 meetings) 1.05 $2,000.00 $2,100.00 Track Engineer (JLP) (2 meetings) 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Traffic Engineer (KOA) (2 meetings) 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Signage Consultant (SKA) (1 meetings) 1.05 $500.00 $525.00 Public Meetings- RCTC Commission (up to 1 meeting) Principal Engineer 4 $72.00 $288.00 Project Manager 8 $52.00 $416.00 CADD Drafter 8 $26.50 $212.00 Word Processor/Clerical 2 $17.50 $35.00 36 RCTC-Perris Page 1 POUNTNEY CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FEE PROPOSAL June 13, 2003 PERRIS MULTI -MODAL FACILITY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Subconsultants- Architect (Oncina) (1 meetings) 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Landscape Architects (IMA) (1 meeting) 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Electrical Engineer (BSE) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Survey (Psomas) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Structural Engineer (Psomas) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Environmental (LSA) (1 meetings) 1.05 $500.00 $525.00 Geotechnical (Ninyo) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Track Engineer (JLP) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Traffic Engineer (KOA) (1 meeting) 1.05 $500.00 $525.00 Signage Consultant (SKA) (0 meeting) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Riverside Transportation Agency (up to 1 meetings) Principal Engineer 4 $72.00 $288.00 Project Manager 8 $52.00 $416.00 CADD Drafter 8 $26.50 $212.00 Word Processor/Clerical 2 $17.50 $35.00 Subconsultants- Architect (Oncina) (1 meetings) 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Landscape Architects (IMA) (1 meeting) 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Electrical Engineer (BSE) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Survey (Psomas) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Structural Engineer (Psomas) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Environmental (LSA) (1 meetings) 1.05 $500.00 $525.00 Geotechnical (Ninyo) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Track Engineer (JLP) (0 meeting) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Traffic Engineer (KOA, (1 meeting) 1.05 $500.00 $525.00 Signage Consultant (SKA) (0 meeting) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 City of Perris (up to 2 meetings) Principal Engineer 8 $72.00 $576.00 Project Manager 16 $52.00 $832.00 CADD Drafter 16 $26.50 $424.00 Word Processor/Clerical 4 $17.50 $70.00 Subconsultants- Architect (Oncina) (2 meetings) 1.05 $2,000.00 $2,100.00 Landscape Architects (IMA) (2 meeting) 1.05 $2,000.00 $2,100.00 Electrical Engineer (BSE) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Survey (Psomas) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Structural Engineer (Psomas) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Environmental (LSA) (2 meetings) 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Geotechnical (Ninyo) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Track Engineer (JLP) (0 meeting) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Traffic Engineer (KOA) (2 meeting) 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Signage Consultant (SKA) (0 meeting) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 37 RCTC-Perris Page 2 • • • POUNTNEY CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FEE PROPOSAL June 13, 2003 PERRIS MULTI -MODAL FACILITY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Public Workshops (up to 2 workshops) Principal Engineer 16 $72.00 $1,152.00 Project Manager 40 $52.00 $2,080.00 CADD Drafter 40 $26.50 $1,060.00 Word Processor/Clerical 4 $17.50 $70.00 Subconsultants- Architect (Oncina) (2 workshops) 1.05 $2,000.00 $2,100.00 Landscape Architects (IMA) (2 workshops) 1.05 $4,000.00 $4,200.00 Electrical Engineer (BSE) (0 workshops) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Survey (Psomas) (0 workshops) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Structural Engineer (Psomas) (0 workshops) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Environmental (LSA) (2 workshops) 1.05 $2,000.00 $2,100.00 Geotechnical (Ninyo) (0 workshops) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Track Engineer (JLP) (0 workshops) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Traffic Engineer (KOA) (2 workshops) 1.05 $1,000.00 $1,050.00 Signage Consultant (SKA) (0 workshops) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 Subconsultant Coordination (12 months) Project Manager 80 $52.00 $4,160.00 Senior Engineer 40 $44.00 $1,760.00 Word Processor/Clerical 16 $17.50 $280.00 Quality Control Principal Engineer 8 $72.00 $576.00 Project Manager 8 $52.00 $416.00 Project Engineer 8 $35.00 $280.00 SUBTOTAL - Project Management $60,183.00 PROJECT INITIATION Research Project Engineer 16 $35.00 $560.00 Staff Engineer 24 $28.00 $672.00 Word Processor/Clerical 8 $17.50 $140.00 Site Reconnaissance Principal Engineer 8 $72.00 $576.00 Project Manager 8 $52.00 $416.00 Project Engineer 8 $35.00 $280.00 Reimbursables/Other Direct Costs (ODC's) Site Photographs 1LS $100.00 $100.00 Postage & Mileage 1LS $400.00 $400.00 SUBTOTAL - Project Initiation $3,144.00 38 RCTC-Perris Page 3 POUNTNEY CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FEE PROPOSAL June 13, 2003 PERRIS MULTI -MODAL FACILITY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING BASE MAPPING/SURVEYS Records Research Utility Letters CADD Drafter 4 $26.50 $106.00 Word Processor/Clerical 2 $17.50 $35.00 Research Staff Engineer 4 $28.00 $112.00 Designer 8 $27.00 $216.00 Plot Existing Utilities/Field Edit Project Manager 2 $52.00 $104.00 Designer 8 $27.00 $216.00 CADD Drafter 32 $26.50 $848.00 Title Report Review Project Surveyor 6 $36.00 $216.00 Staff Engineer 4 $28.00 $112.00 Subconsultants- Surveys (Psomas) 1.05 $29,925.00 $31,421.25 Reimbursables/Other Direct Costs (ODC's) CADD Plotting 10 $10.00 $100.00 Reproduction 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 Postage & Mileage 1LS $500.00 $500.00 SUBTOTAL - Base Maps $34,486.25 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Subconsultants- Environmental (LSA) 1.05 $90,300.00 $94,815.00 Geotechnical-Environmental (Ninyo) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL - Environmental Assessment $94,815.00 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS Subconsultants- Geotechnical Consultant (Ninyo) 1.05 $8,921.62 $9,367.70 SUBTOTAL - Geotechnical Investigations $9,367.70 39 RCTC-Perris Page 4 • • • POUNTNEY CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FEE PROPOSAL June 13, 2003 PERRIS MULTI -MODAL FACILITY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Subconsultants- Traffic Engineer (KOA) 1.05 $9,818.00 $10,308.90 SUBTOTAL - Traffic Analysis $10,308.90 ALTERNATIVES STUDIES Alternative Track Layout Alternative Site Layout (estimate 3 alternatives) Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulic Studies Preliminary Construction Estimates Principal Engineer 8 $72.00 $576.00 Project Manager 32 $52.00 $1,664.00 Senior Project Engineer 24 $44.00 $1,056.00 Project Engineer 80 $35.00 $2,800.00 Staff Engineer 40 $28.00 $1,120.00 Designer 24 $27.00 $648.00 CADD Drafter 80 $26.50 $2,120.00 Word Processor/Clerical 8 $17.50 $140.00 Preliminary Design Report Project Manager 32 $52.00 $1,664.00 Senior Project Engineer 16 $44.00 $704.00 Project Engineer 40 $35.00 $1,400.00 CADD Drafter 12 $26.50 $318.00 Word Processor/Clerical 8 $17.50 $140.00 Subconsultants- Architect (Oncina) 1.05 $20,000.00 $21,000.00 Landscape Architects (IMA) 1.05 $20,000.00 $21,000.00 Electrical Engineer (BSE) 1.05 $3,000.00 $3,150.00 Structural Engineer (Psomas) 1.05 $30,000.00 $31,500.00 Track Engineer (JLP) 1.05 $15,000.00 $15,750.00 Traffic Engineer (KOA) 1.05 $5,000.00 $5,250.00 Signage Consultant (SKA) 1.05 $7,000.00 $7,350.00 Reimbursables- CADD Plotting 24 $10.00 $240.00 Reproduction 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 Postage & Mileage 1LS $500.00 $500.00 SUBTOTAL - Preliminary Design $120,590.00 40 RCTC-Perris Page 5 POUNTNEY CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FEE PROPOSAL June 13, 2003 PERRIS MULTI -MODAL FACILITY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SCHEMATIC DESIGN/SELECTED ALTERNATIVE (15% DESIGN) Principal Engineer 8 $72.00 $576.00 Project Manager 40 $52.00 $2,080.00 Senior Project Engineer 16 $44.00 $704.00 Project Engineer 40 $35.00 $1,400.00 Staff Engineer 20 $28.00 $560.00 Designer 40 $27.00 $1,080.00 CADD Drafter 60 $26.50 $1,590.00 Word Processor/Clerical 4 $17.50 $70.00 Subconsultants- Architect (Oncina) 1.05 $10,000.00 $10,500.00 Landscape Architects (IMA) 1.05 $10,000.00 $10,500.00 Electrical Engineer (BSE) 1.05 $1,460.00 $1,533.00 Structural Engineer (Psomas) 1.05 $14,340.00 $15,057.00 Track Engineer (JLP) 1.05 $4,266.48 $4,479.80 Traffic Engineer (KOA) 1.05 $3,000.00 $3,150.00 Signage Consultant (SKA) 1.05 $3,260.00 $3,423.00 Reimbursables- CADD Plotting 24 $10.00 $240.00 Reproduction 1LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Postage & Mileage 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 SUBTOTAL - Schematic Design/Selected Alternative $58,442.80 OUTSIDE AGENCY COORDINATION SCRRA Caltrans BNSF Riverside Flood Control District Project Manager 40 $52.00 $2,080.00 Project Engineer 40 $35.00 $1,400.00 CADD Drafter 8 $26.50 $212.00 Word Processor/Clerical 8 $17.50 $140.00 SUBTOTAL - Outside Agency Coordination $3,832.00 41 RCTC-Perris Page 6 • • • POUNTNEY CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FEE PROPOSAL June 13, 2003 PERRIS MULTI -MODAL FACILITY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING TOTAL HOURS/DIRECT LABOR - Pountney 1466 $57,959.00 OVERHEAD MULTIPLIER (1.75) $101,428.25 REIMBURSABLES $4,580.00 TOTAL- POUNTNEY $163,967.25 FIXED FEE (10%) $16,396.73 SUBCONSULTANTS (with 5% mark-up) $332,630.66 GRAND TOTAL $512,994.63 42 RCTC-Perris Page 7 • AGENDA ITEM 6E • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 04-31-006 with DMJM + Harris for Additional Engineering Design Services for the State Route 60 HOV Project Final PS&E BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 04-31-006 (Amendment No. 10 to Agreement No. RO-2042) for DMJM + Harris to provide construction management and additional engineering design services for the State Route 60 HOV Project Final Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E), for an additional base amount of $204,800; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 1999 meeting, the Commission approved the State Route 60 HOV Median -Widening Project. This Measure "A" and CMAQ funded widening project is located between Day Street and Redlands Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley. At its February 9, 2000 meeting, the Commission awarded a final design contract value for $2,299,400 for the subject project to Holmes & Narver Infrastructure. Over the past three years, the Commission has approved a total of 9 amendments to DMJM + Harris in order to keep the project on schedule and moving forward for delivery by the summer/fall of 2003. Below is a summary table showing the authorized amounts and descriptions for each amendment approved by the Commission: 43 Date Authorized Description Authorized Amount 2/09/00 Original Agreement - Preliminary Engineering $2,299,400 4/13/01 Amend. #1 - Perris PS&E,Seismic for other project bridges $561,460 6/10/01 Amend. #2 - Bridge Overcrossings PSR $44,290 9/10/01 Amend. #3 - Lead Testing $64,712 1/31/02 Amend. #4 - Extended Term of Agreement N/A 3/13/02 Amend. #5 - Add. design, landscape & SWPPP $270,000 6/12/02 Amend. #6 - Add. design, Perris Stage Const., ROW Mapping $248,000 7/30/02 Amend. #7 - Additional Perris Env. Studies $128,894 7/10/02 Amend. #8 - West end design, SWPPP, and extend PM $282,000 11/13/02 Amend. #9 - Final SWPPP design and SW 269 $116,515 Deleted Indian PSR and misc from scope of work -$176,630 new Amend. #10 - Bid Support/Construction Support & Design $204,800 TOTAL currently authorized $4,043,441 Staff now recommends that the Commission approve Amendment No. 10 for bid support, construction support, and for additional engineering design services for the completion of the PS&E for an additional base amount of $204,800. The proposed amendment will bring the total authorized contract value to $4,043,441 with $107,736 remaining in contingency for a total not to exceed contract value of $4,151,177. Staff will use the standard agreement format, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 03-04 FY 04-05 Amount: $100,000 $104,800 Source of Funds: Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) and Measure "A" Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 222 - 31 - 81 102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: `C Date: 6/16/03 Attachment: DMJM + Harris Description of Scope of Work and Work Breakdown for Amendment No. 10 44 • • • DMJM::I3t1RRIS June 13, 2003 Mr. Bill Hughes, Project Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street: 3rd floor Riverside, CA 92502 RE: SR 60 HOV LANES — RIV-60-KP19.6/32.8 - EA 463601 999 Town & Country Road Orange, California 92868 Tel: (714) 567-2501 FAX: (714) 5672777 • Replace the open graded asphalt overlay with a longitudinal joint details • Survey the Edison lines along Sunnymead Blvd and Elder Street. • Storm Water Data Report. • Additional Scope at Sunnymead. • Project management • Other Direct Cost fee. • Value Engineering • Bid Support / Construction Support. • RE File. Dear Mr. Hughes: DMJM+HARRIS (D+H) is submitting for your consideration this scope of work and cost proposal for the following items: (1) Replace the open graded asphalt overlay with a longitudinal joint details as a cost saving measure to the project; (2) Perform surveying needed at the sag points of an Edison power line running along Sunny mead Blvd. adjacent to wall # 269 and perpendicular to the freeway adjacent to Elder Street; (3) Comply with new criteria by Caltrans (adopted January 2003) to submit a Storm Water Data Report as part of the final package for the project; (4) additional scope required for the PS&E at Sunnymead Boulevard;(5) Scope increase in multiple areas such as the project management;(6) Other Direct Cost; (7) Value Engineering; (8) Bid Support and Construction Support;(9) RE File. I. Replace the Open Graded Asphalt Overlay with Longitudinal Joint Details BACKGROUND During the design phase of this project Caltrans requested that an overlay be added to the entire freeway section which is to be widened as part of this work. The overlay was to mitigate the longitudinal joint created by sawcutting the inside shoulder of the freeway and replace it with the new pavement section required for the widening. 45 DMJMHARRTS 999 Town & Country Road Orange, Califomia 92868 Tel: (714) 567-2501 FAX: (714) 5672777 The overlay design was included in the 65% and the 95% submittals. The inclusion of this overlay in construction plans had significant financial cost impact. To mitigate the cost impact a compromise was reached to cold plane a 12" wide and 2" deep section of the adjacent existing pavement along the new longitudinal joint and place the overlay layer of the new pavement section so it would spill into the cold planned area. We feel that by doing so we could minimize the impact of the new added joint to the traffic. Caltrans accepted our proposal. SCOPE OF WORK Revise roadway section to replace the original overlay of the entire roadbed with a cold planed 0.305m wide outside the sawcut line at a depth of 45mm. The cold planed section will be filled with Asphalt Concrete Pavement during construction of the new lanes to cover the joint between the existing and new pavement sections. Work will include revising typical sections, Stage Construction, construction details and Traffic Handling sheets as required to show revised details. Typical section notes shown on the stage construction sheets will refer to layout plans and typical sections for cold plane detail. Work will also include revising the summary of quantities, the cost estimate and the specifications accordingly. FEE PROPOSAL The proposed fee for this work is estimated at $22,100. A detailed breakdown of the proposed fee is included in Exhibit A. II. Survey the Edison lines along Sunnymead Blvd and Elder Street. Revise right of way documents. BACKGROUND Due to the close proximity of the Edison overhead power lines to wall # 269 layout line east of Kitching along Sunnymead Boulevard Caltrans has requested that we supply them with a conflict plan indicating that the Soundwall design is complying with the Edison requirement in having a minimum distance of 8 feet between the top of the new sound wall and the closest Edison line, we have requested that a survey be conducted to profile the Edison line in question. The Survey on Elder Street is also based on the same ground as the one at Sunnymead with wall # 270 running within a close proximity of the Edison line it was imperative that a survey be done to profile the line in question. 46 2 DMJM HARRTS • SCOPE OF WORK 999 Town & Country Road Orange, California 92868 Tel: (714) 567-2501 FAX: (714) 5672777 Locate power lines along Sunnymead south of the freeway with the closest distance to wall # 269 layout line, field locate Sag/Summit/transformers and Capacitors. Survey and profile the Edison line to the west of the property located at 25501 Elder St. Pothole to locate a 1200mm RCP line within the channel area. Revise the right-of-way documents to comply with the new wall alignment at wall # 270, revise the TCE, the ROW Map and update a hard copy with the revised wall alignment. FEE PROPOSAL The proposed fee for the additional right of way work is $9,500. A detailed breakdown of this fee is included in Exhibit B. III. Storm Water Data Report. • BACKGROUND • Caltrans has implemented a new policy that went into affect January 2003 requiring a Storm Water Data Report for all projects with a 100% PS&E submittal later than December 2002. SCOPE OF WORK Produce the PS & E portion of the report as requested by Caltrans and Fill in forms E-6 through E-10. FEE PROPOSAL The proposed fee for the additional right of way work is $13, 500. A detailed breakdown of this fee is included in Exhibit C. IV. ADDITIONAL PS&E — SUNNYMEAD BOULEVARD PROFILES BACKGROUND The original scope of work does not include improvements to Sunnymead Boulevard. On May 14, 2002 a Technical Coordination Meeting was held at the City of Moreno to discuss aesthetic. Following the meeting, the City requested that curb and gutter and local depressions are provided at the ultimate curbline location along the north side of Sunnymead Boulevard adjacent to wall # 269 wherever curb inlet catch basins are proposed. To set the ultimate flow line elevation at each proposed catch basin and to ensure adequate drainage along Sunnymead Boulevard, profiles are required for the centerline and north side of the street for the entire 800 linear meters adjacent to Soundwall No. 269. 47 3 DMJMIIHARRIS 999 Town & Country Road Orange, California 92868 Tel: (714) 567-2501 FAX: (714) 5672777 D+H's initial assumption to detail the catch basins along Sunnymead Boulevard was to provide drainage details and construction details as necessary at each location. However, it was determined that an asphalt concrete apron was required along the north side of Sunnymead Boulevard to set the flow line at the ultimate location. As a result, profiles are required to ensure that the AC apron is properly detailed for construction. SCOPE OF WORK PS&E This SOW includes three (3) new profile sheets to include the existing edge of pavement (EP), proposed EP and right-of-way line along the north side of Sunnymead Boulevard adjacent to Soundwall No. 269. FEE PROPOSAL The proposed fee for the additional scope is $ 25,000.00. A detailed breakdown of this fee is included in Exhibit D. V. Project Management BACKGROUND The original SOW for project management was based on a completion date in May 2002. Amendment # 8 projected that completion into December 2002. With the extension of the scope it is estimated at this time that the project duration will continue into May 2003. This will require 4 additional months of project management duties such as attending PDT Meetings as well as other Technical Meetings by the project Manager and one other key project participant, meetings preparations, agendas and coordinating with subconsultant. FEE PROPOSAL — ADDITIONAL Project Management The proposed fee for the additional months of project Management duties is $ 14,300. A detailed breakdown of this fee is included in Exhibit E. VI. OTHER DIRECT COSTS Responding to RCTC's need in getting Caltrans approval to this project before the end of the 2002 year, additional submittal for multiple copies of the 100% PS&E under development were needed to be routed to various departments within Caltrans and to other Agencies such as EMWD etc. We are still looking at more submittals late in January and in February in order to which are above and beyond the multiple submittals which had to be put together for Caltrans and other agencies. The requested increase in ODC costs is $8,500.00. A detailed breakdown of this fee is included in Exhibit F. 48 4 DMJM::Ht1RRI.S • • VII. VALUE ENGINEERING 999 Town & Country Road Orange, California 92868 Tel: (714) 567-2501 FAX: (714) 5672777 DMJM+Harris were asked to attend a VA study for the project and supply needed documents for the VA team to conduct their work. This task will also include attending the VA exit meeting and response to suggestions proposed by the VA team. The requested increase in cost due to the VA study is $ 14,400.00. A detailed breakdown of this fee is included in Exhibit G. VIII. BID SUPPORT /CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT It has been agreed with RCTC to place an initial sum toward the efforts involved with bid support and construction support for the project. DMJM+Harris will track all efforts spent on each of the requests and report to RCTC on a monthly base regarding remaining budget as well as request prior approval for all requests requiring over 20hrs of effort. The work for this task will be determined based on as needed and will include the followings: 1. Attending meetings as needed with the CM consultant and respond to CM comments. 2. Supporting RCTC and Berg & Associates during the bidding period by responding to bidders' questions and comments. 3. Attend the prebid meeting. 4. Supporting the CM Consultants during construction by approving Concrete Mix Design, determine Prestress elongation and assist in responding to Request for information. 5. Incorporate all field changes to the plans at time of close out of the contract. As of this time it is agreed to add the sum of $ 75,000.00 to the contract. It is understood that this sum will need to be supplemented with additional sum to cover future work related to construction support and project close out. A detailed breakdown of this fee is included in Exhibit II. IX. RE FILE. The original scope of work does not include needed effort to put together an RE file of the civil portion of the work. This change is to have available to the Construction Management team a set of cross sections and grid grades covering areas where median work is to take place between Fredrick St. and Redland Blvd. as well as area where retaining walls are to be placed. These cross sections and Grid grades are to be done at sections where survey shots were taken at • 40 m increments. Total new sheets for the cross sections are estimated at 17 drawings. 49 5 DMJM HARRIS 999 Town & Country Road Orange, Califomia 92868 Tel: (714) 567-2501 FAX: (714) 5672777 Also, this change is to have available to the construction management team correspondences and documents pertaining to decisions made during the design phase that need to be shared with the Construction Management team. The requested increase in costs is $22,500.00. A detailed breakdown of this fee is included in Exhibit I. Please call me if I could be of any assistance. Respectfully Submitted, DMJM+HARRIS Victor J. Martinez, P.E. Project Manager Cc: Gustavo Quintero 50 6 • • ITEM CONSULTANT CH2M ASSOC D+H SR 60 -Pavement Overlay $3,600.00 $18,500.00 Survey Edison Lines at Sunnymead and Elder $9,500.00 Storm Water Data Report $13,500.00 Sunny mead Blvd. $25,000.00 Project Management $14,300.00 ODC $8,500.00 VE $6,200.00 $8,200.00 Bid Support $75,000.00 RE FILE $22,500.00 $9,800.00 $9,500.00 $185,500.00 GRAND TOTAL $204,800.00 • COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT A 1/2 RIVERSIDE NAME OF CONSULTANT TITLE OF PROJECT DMJM+HARRIS --v + vv =t 114v1V„ SR 60 -Pavement Overlay Detail Description Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/Hour Total Estimated Cost ($) 1. DIRECT LABOR (Specify) SEE CONTINUATION SHEET PROJECT MANAGER 4 $67.30 269.20 PROJECT ENGINEER 48 $57.00 2,736.00 SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER 56 $37.00 2,072.00 DESIGN ENGINEER 0 $32.00 0.00 DESIGN ENGINEER/SENIOR CADD TECHNICIAN 80 $27.00 2,160.00 CLERICAL 0 $20.00 0.00 TOTAL 188 ..... ..... . . . ............... $7,237.20 2. INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead,G&A-specify) Burden Rate X Base = Burden ($) $9,451.78 130.60% $7,237.20 $9,451.78 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) $16,688.98 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only) Percent X Base = Fee ($) I0.00% $16,688.98 $1,668.90 $1,668.90 TOTAL ............ . ..... .... .... . ... . . . .. .... .... ............. .. ..... . . .. $1,668.90 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING TRAVEL OVERNGHT MAIL/DELIVERY MISC (CADD CHARGES, COMPUTER USAGE, ETC.) SUBCONSULTANTS 6. TOTAL CONTRACT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $18,358.00 SAY $18,500.00 52 COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT A 2/2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION NAME OF CONSULTANT CH2MHILL TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV LANES Detail Description Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/Hour Total Estimated Cost ($) 1. DIRECT LABOR PROJECT MANAGER 2 $57.49 114.98 DESIGN ENGINEER 14 $37.16 520.24 CADD TECHNICIAN 16 $33.67 538.72 TOTAL 32 ................................. '>: <= > > > ><»: $1,173.94 2. INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead, G&A-specify) Burden Rate X Base = Burden ($) .................................. ................................... _.,,, _,,.., 171.10% $1,173.94 $2,008.61 $2,008.61 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) $3,182.55 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only) Percent X Base = Fee ($) 10.00% $3,182.55 $318.26 $318.26 318 2 6 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING $50.00 TRAVEL $50.00 OVERNIGHT MAIL/DELIVERY 6. TOTAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $3,600.81 SAY $3,600.00 • 53 • • • COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT B RIVERSIDE COUN NAME OF CONSULTANT ~~yv ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS Estimated (Average) Total Estimated Detail Description Hours Rate/Hour Cost ($) 1. DIRECT LABOR (Specify) SEE CONTINUATION SHEET LAND SURVEYORS (LS) 18 $36.58 658.44 SURVEY TECHNICIANS (LSIT) 5 $28.10 140.50 CADD TECHNICIAN 7 $26.25 183.75 FIELD CREW 3 MEN (1 PC + 2 CM) 16 $116.22 1859.52 CHIEF MAPPER 2 $52.88 105.76 UTILITY COORDINATOR 3 $18.00 54.00 TOTAL 51 .... $3,001.97 2. INDIRECT COSTS eci Overhead ( G&A-s p fy) Burden Rate X Base — Burden ($) . .......... ...... 142.05% $3,001.97 $4,264.30 $4,264.30 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) $7,266.27 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 onl) Percent X Base = Fee ($) 10.00% $7,266.27 $726.63 $726.63 TO TOTAL > > << > >..... ::[ $7,992.90 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING TRAVEL Potholing (HP Communications) $1,600.00 6. TOTAL CONTRACT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $9,592.90 SAY $9,500.00 54 COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STORM WATER DATA REPORT NAME OF CONSULTANT DMJM+HARRIS TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV LANES Detail Description Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/Hour Total Estimated Cost ($) 1. DIRECT LABOR PROJECT MANAGER 4 $67.30 269.20 PROJECT ENGINEER 46 $57.00 2,622.00 SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER 64 $37.00 2,368.00 DESIGN ENGINEER 0 $32.00 0.00 DESIGN ENGINEER/SENIOR CADD TECHNICIAN 0 $27.00 0.00 CLERICAL 0 $20.00 0.00 TOTAL 114 . ......... . . .. .. . .. . $5,259.20 2. INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead, G&A-specify) Burden Rate X Base = Burden ($) : 130.60% $5,259.20 $6,868.52 $6,868.52 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) $12,127.72 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only) Percent X Base = Fee ($) 10.00% $12,127.72 $1,212.77 $1,212.77 $1,212.77 2.77 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING TRAVEL OVERNIGHT MAIL/DELIVERY 6. TOTAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $13,340.49 SAY $13,500.00 55 • • • • COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS Sunny Mead Blvd. EXHIBIT D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION NAME OF CONSULTANT DMJM+HARRIS TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV LANES Detail Description Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/Hour Total Estimated Cost ($) 1. DIRECT LABOR PROJECT MANAGER 8 $67.30 538.40 PROJECT ENGINEER 48 $58.00 2,784.00 SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER 56 $37.00 2,072.00 DESIGN ENGINEER 72 $32.00 2,304.00 DESIGN ENGINEER/SENIOR CADD TECHNICIAN 72 $27.00 1,944.00 CLERICAL 8 $20.00 160.00 TOTAL 264 $9,802.40 2. INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead, G&A-specify) Burden Rate X Base = Burden ($ 130.60% $9,802.40 $12,801.93 $12,801.93 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) $22,604.33 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only) Percent X Base = Fee ($) 10.00% $22,604.33 $2,260.43 $2,260.43 TOTAL ..........._.. _..... $2,260.43 _ 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING TRAVEL OVERNIGHT MAIL/DELIVERY 6. TOTAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $24,864.76 SAY $25,000.00 56 COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROJECT MANAGEMENT NAME OF CONSULTANT DMJM+HARRIS TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV LANES Detail Description Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/Hour Total Estimated Cost ($) 1. DIRECT LABOR PROJECT MANAGER 24 $72.13 1,731.12 PROJECT ENGINEER 48 $59.00 2,832.00 SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER 24 $37.00 888.00 DESIGN ENGINEER $32.00 0.00 DESIGN ENGINEER/SENIOR CADD TECHNICIAN $27.00 0.00 CLERICAL $20.00 0.00 TOTAL 96 &MR .,, > < > ..... . . .... . .. ... .......... ..... $5,451.12 2. INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead, G&A-specify) Burden Rate X Base = Burden ($) 130.60% $5,451.12 $7,119.16 $7,119.16 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) $12,570.28 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only) Percent X Base = Fee ($) 10.00% $12,570.28 $1,257.03 $1,257.03 TOTAL ., iiiiiiiiigiiiiiiiiiiii iiii::,, i. $1,257.03 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING TRAVEL $500.00 OVERNIGHT MAIL/DELIVERY 6. TOTAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $14,327.31 SAY $14,300.00 57 • • • COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ODC NAME OF CONSULTANT DMJM+HARRIS TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV LANES Detail Description Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/Hour Total Estimated Cost ($) 1. DIRECT LABOR PROJECT MANAGER $67.30 0.00 PROJECT ENGINEER $56.00 0.00 SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER $37.00 0.00 DESIGN ENGINEER $32.00 0.00 DESIGN ENGINEER/SENIOR CADD TECHNICIAN $27.00 0.00 CLERICAL $20.00 0.00 TOTAL 0 ............... . . . .. . . .......... $0.00 2. INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead, G&A-specify) Burden Rate X Base = Burden ($) $0.00 $0.00 ............: ::::::::::: $0.00 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) $0.00 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only) Percent X Base = Fee ($) 10.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL ;< - `=><=<= > > :><=>'=s:>:` ::> : ...................__..._..............._........ $0.00 .. . 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING $4,500.00 TRAVEL $500.00 OVERNGHT MAIL/DELIVERY $500.00 MISC (CADD CHARGES, COMPUTER USAGE, ETC.) $3,000.00 SUBCONSULTANTS 6. TOTAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $8,500.00 58 COST AND PRICE ANALYSTS PROJECT MANAGEMENT Value En2ineerin� EXHIBIT G 1/2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION NAME OF CONSULTANT DMJM+HARRIS TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV LANES Detail Description Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/I-lour Total Estimated Cost ($) 1. DIRECT LABOR PROJECT MANAGER 4 $72.13 288.52 PROJECT ENGINEER 48 $57.34 2,752.32 SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER $52.00 0.00 DESIGN ENGINEER $32.00 0.00 DESIGN ENGINEER/SENIOR CADD TECHNICIAN $27.00 0.00 CLERICAL $20.00 0.00 TOTAL 52 . . ......... . ............. ... . . . . .. ...... . . . ............ ..... .. . . : > _%>> <=>= > :'>[ ................................. $3,040.84 2. INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead, G&A-specify) Burden Rate X Base = Burden ($) ................................... .............. ... ......... ... 130.60% $3,040.84 $3,971.34 $3,971.34 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) $7,012.18 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only) Percent X Base = Fee ($) 10.00% $7,012.18 $701.22 $701.22 . ......... . .... . $701.22 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING $300.00 TRAVEL $200.00 OVERNIGHT MAIL/DELIVERY 6. TOTAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $8,213.40 SAY $8,200.00 59 • • • • COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT G 2/2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAN NAME OF CONSULTANT CH2MHILL TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV LANES Detail Description Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/Hour Total Estimated Cost ($) I. DIRECT LABOR PROJECT MANAGER 4 $57.49 229.96 DESIGN ENGINEER 36 $41.34 1,488.24 CADD TECHNICIAN 10 $33.67 336.70 TOTAL 32 > ><= < > > > ::> : $2,054.90 2. INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead, G&A-specify) Burden Rate X Base = Burden ($) $3,515.93 171.10% $2,054.90 $3,515.93 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) $5,570.83 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only) Percent X Base = Fee ($) 10.00% $5,570.83 $557.08 $557.08 TOTAL .... ...... .......................... .... $557.08 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING $50.00 TRAVEL $50.00 OVERNIGHT MAIL/DELIVERY 6. TOTAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $6,227.91 60 SAY $6,200.00 COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Bid Support / Construction Support NAME OF CONSULTANT DMJM+HARRIS TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV LANES Detail Description Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/Hour Total Estimated Cost ($) 1. DIRECT LABOR PROJECT MANAGER 4 $72.13 288.52 PROJECT ENGINEER 200 $59.00 11,800.00 SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER 160 $37.00 5,920.00 DESIGN ENGINEER 120 $32.00 3,840.00 DESIGN ENGINEER/SENIOR CADD TECHNICIAN $27.00 0.00 CLERICAL 20 $20.00 400.00 TOTAL 504 $22,248.52 2. INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead, G&A-specify) Burden Rate X Base = Burden ($) 130.60% $22,248.52 $29,056.57 $29,056.57 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) $51,305.09 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only) Percent X Base = Fee ($) 10.00% $51,305.09 $5,130.51 $5,130.51 $5,130.51 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING $2,000.00 TRAVEL $1,000.00 OVERNGHT MAIL/DELIVERY $500.00 MISC (CADD CHARGES, COMPUTER USAGE, ETC.) SUBCONSULTANTS $15,000.00 6. TOTAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $74,935.60 SAY 575,000.00 61 • • • • • COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS RE FILE NAME OF CONSULTANT DMJM+HARRIS EXHIBIT I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Cross Sections / Grid Grades/Correspondences TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV LANES Detail Description Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/Hour 1. DIRECT LABOR Total Estimated Cost ($) PROJECT MANAGER aoi..w 134.6U PROJECT ENGINEER 48 $59.00 2,832.00 SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER 72 $37.00 2,664.00 DESIGN ENGINEER 96 $32.00 3,072.00 DESIGN ENGINEER/SENIOR CADD TECHNICIAN $27.00 0.00 CLERICAL 6 $20.00 120.00 TOTAL 224 =:: $8,822.60 2. INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead, G&A-specify) Burden Rate X Base = Burden ($) 130.60% $8,822.60 $11,522.32 . . ............... .. . .. .. $11,522.32 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) $20,344.92 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, applies to line 3 only) Percent X Base = Fee ($) 10.00% $20,344.92 $2,034.49 $2,034.49 TOTAL $2,034.49 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING $200.00 TRAVEL OVERNGHT MAIUDELIVERY MISC (CADD CHARGES, COMPUTER USAGE, ETC.) SUBCONSULTANTS 6. TOTAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $22,579.41 SAY $22,500.00 62 • AGENDA ITEM 6F • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: State Routes 86 and 1 1 1 Projects BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the revised listing of Tier II Projects for State Route 1 1 1; 2) Approve the reimbursement schedule of Measure "A" Funds by fiscal year through 2008-2009; and, 3) Authorize staff to work closely with CVAG to address future cash flow concerns should they arise. • BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • The 1988 Measure "A" Program includes a state highway element that provides 15% of the Coachella Valley Area's Measure "A" Funds to project improvements on State Routes 86 and 1 1 1 . This action is to revise cash flow and funding commitments to the remainder of the Tier II Highway 1 1 1 Projects and two minor projects on SR 86. The Measure "A" cash flow was updated when the 2002 Measure "A" extension program revenue forecast was produced by Ernst & Young. The project list and cash flow table for the Coachella Valley Measure "A" Highway Program has been updated to be consistent with the Ernst & Young revenue forecast for the period FY 2002 to June 2009. The attached cash flow table shows that $12.0 million of project funding capacity is projected to be available for new commitments after meeting existing commitments and retiring debt. This is a reduction of $4.7 million in forecasted revenues over what was presented at the July 1 1, 2001 Commission meeting. The July 2001 action by the Commission approved funding recommendations for State Routes 86 & 1 1 1 projects totaling $15.42 million. Subsequently, through meetings with RCTC, CVAG and the CVAG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, project scope and cost estimates were refined reducing the projected costs for Tier II projects to $13.8 million. Given the FY 2004-09 revenue projection of $12.0 million, a shortfall of $1 .8 million dollars, is forecast. CVAG has committed to cover this shortfall in FY 2008-09 if necessary. 63 It is important to note that the cash flow table is based on a revenue forecast. Since economic conditions can impact Measure "A" receipts in either a positive or negative manner RCTC staff will work closely with CVAG staff to monitor any cash flow issue that may arise. Staff recommends approval of the attached list of Tier II Highway 111 Project Improvements totaling $12 Million of Measure "A" Funds. Attachments: 1) Coachella Valley Area Highway Revenues 2) Revised Cash Flow Funding of Tier II State Route 86 and 1 1 1 Projects 3) Letter from CVAG re: State Highway Measure "A" Funds 64 • 99 • e • • OA CH ELLA V ALLtY TION OVERNMENTS rorm ittre COMM EIS AESPDET A M MEE HawsE ktr to 1462TIS P -D xis . i 1 T T& } p}tt+it fi " RR "A'FIAITIfi SCHEDULE P ECM PAY EACE Erf P f ftlt L StwoMstito SW*, 400TG Raw PM' * Pao- ou D A mto fis t Apt~44 Pte fiat 000 Poi' I 04 Rtopoth efilmopo dS F Accumulated tifiate 3- L . x 1 .4- A34ifftt at }tmecovri Fags to 410 rwa iy in ters4d4441 kftotgwortoolto PA4LeiRJ2440. 411 knolovo Pomo Total NoOttootr atto 1- VotolC? 3- 4- .r+ TIN3ate I frililt Gly CtLr+ti traw}as FOE to Ostrofir fooMoMm omIMMEM 4, TA OS= Viirml 15434 MIL h stoCr eili Ira n 1`• 244 1 O DIR 1VAUckg 2$1.£11 141tt • 3 ri to ita in 60 doss, '1q J 'fntildnYil fin itOntnnftia It KID ie fitillite 03 Hs iron!} 1 1'I 66 Piro, Pry' TUWVOMftototHete itstotot, MEErP3 h Mame, Auk '2001 9f ',mad am to aftMeted}i PrOcct;:. • CVAG 64243 IC/CB/DK/HS OACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS e • Cathedra( City • Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian Wells • Indio • La Quinta • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage County of Riverside • Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilta Indians • Cabazon Band of Mission Indians • Torres Martinez Desert Cahuifla Indians May 15, 2003 Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Subject: Coachella Valley portion of State Highway Measure A Funds Dear Eric: This letter is to follow up on our meeting with your staff this morning to discuss the disposition of the Coachella Valley portion of State Highway Measure A funds. At their March meeting the CVAG Executive Committee approved a list of state highway projects, the amount of Coachella Valley State Highway Measure A funds authorized for each project, and the fiscal year in which the funds are eligible to be paid. The projects, amounts and schedule of payment of Measure A funds are summarized on the attached spreadsheet, which was also an attachment to the CVAG Executive Committee meeting. Typically, RCTC would enter into an agreement with the CVAG jurisdiction authorized to receive Coachella Valley State Highway Measure A funds. The spreadsheet anticipates that arrangement, but authorizes a maximum amount of funds and the year they are to be paid. One of our jurisdictions, the city of Rancho Mirage, has completed an approved Highway 111 project and is requesting reimbursement for that work as quickly as possible: If Rancho Mirage were to receive all available Coachella Valley State Highway Measure A funds from RCTC, that arrangement would exhaust all the funds available for any other approved projects for nearly four years. Therefore, CVAG has agreed to repay Rancho Mirage an amount equivalent to the State Highway Measure A funds the city could have received from RCTC had they entered into a reimbursement agreement. In Fiscal Year 2003/2004 RCTC anticipates $1.6 Million will be available for authorized state highway projects. In order to allow other approved projects to proceed, CVAG agrees to pay to Rancho Mirage $1.6 Million, equivalent to the funds RCTC projects as being available. However, as the spreadsheet also indicates, RCTC will remit State Highway Measure A funds to CVAG in the amount of $1.0 Million. This arrangement allows the other identified jurisdictions to enter into agreements with RCTC to proceed with approved projects utilizing the remaining $600,000 of state highway funds remaining with RCTC. As shown, similar arrangements occur each Fiscal Year thereafter. In effect, CVAG is advancing funds to allow all the approved state highway projects to proceed and will be made whole by RCTC by the end of the current Measure A cycle. 67 X.29.24 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 • Palm Desert, CA 92260 • (760) 346-1127 • FAX (760) 340-5949 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS The spreadsheet also shows a projected shortfall of $1.8 Million in Coachella Valley State Highway Measure A funds for the projects listed ($13,828,534 total projects costs; $12,000,000 Measure A funds available). CVAG acknowledges this projected shortfall and has authorized funds to backfill this amount in Fiscal Year 2008/2009, if that becomes necessary. CVAG now requests that RCTC formally approve this funding arrangement. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact me or Allyn Waggle of my staff. Very truly yours, John M. Wohlmuth Executive Director xc: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, RCTC Ivan Chand, Chief Financial Officer, RCTC Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager, Bechtel Allyn Waggle, CVAG Gary Leong, CVAG 68 • • AGENDA ITEM 6G • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Committee FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 04-33-004 with Caltrans (Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1055, Amendment No. 2) to Expand Use of the State Route 91 Caltrans Fiber Optics Backbone for the CCTV Security System at RCTC Metrolink Stations BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-33-004, (Amendment No. 2 to Caltrans Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1055), between RCTC and Caltrans, for the State to allow RCTC use of up to four (4), two (2) additional dark fibers, along State Route 91 for future expansion of the West Corona, North Main Corona, and La Sierra Metrolink Stations CCTV Security Systems; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In September 1998, the Commission approved Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1055 with Caltrans which authorized RCTC to use up to two (2) of the presently installed Caltrans fibers along State Route 91. The fibers made available to RCTC are classified as "dark fiber" because RCTC is responsible for providing and maintaining the equipment that will transmit the video and audio signals over the fiber. RCTC has established maintenance access facilities at the edge of the Caltrans right-of- way to support the use of the State fiber optic lines. Caltrans has allowed RCTC the use of their fiber system at no cost to RCTC. (Note: RCTC used the same agreement number as Caltrans for this agreement.) 69 The previous agreement authorized the use of two designated fibers along State Route 91, to connect the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona Stations to the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. The Riverside -Downtown Station has a monitoring facility above the stairway on the north side of the pedestrian overcrossing that is the designated area to receive data sent from the other Riverside stations. The monitoring facility also provides both electronic and visual surveillance of the extensive facilities at the Riverside -Downtown Station. In September 2002, the Commission approved Agreement No. 03-33-015, (Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1055), with Caltrans, which authorized the connection of the new North Main Corona Metrolink Station CCTV Security System to the Riverside -Downtown Station's Security Monitoring Facility using the previously approved two dark fibers in the original agreement. To allow for greater flexibility and possible expansion of the CCTV Security Systems for those stations located adjacent to SR 91, RCTC staff has requested of Caltrans to use up to four (4) (two (2) additional) of the existing Caltrans fibers along SR 91. Caltrans has agreed to staff's request. The following changes will be included in agreement 04-33-004 (Amendment No. 2 to Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1055): 1. The existing Caltrans Cooperative Agreement will be amended to allow RCTC the use of four (4) Caltrans fibers along SR 91. 2. All other terms and conditions of the existing Caltrans Cooperative Agreement 8-1055 and Amendment No. 1 will remain the same. 3. The amendment remains at no cost to RCTC. Attached is a copy of Agreement 04-33-004 (Amendment No. 2 to Caltrans Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1055). Caltrans is currently working to finalize the amendment. There is no financial cost associated with this agreement. Attachment: Agreement 04-33-004 70 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA —BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 W. FOURTH STREET, 6th Floor BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400 • May 29, 2003 ri(1) 1CC[E,HWI JUN 0 2 2003 08-Riv-9l-Various RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Fiber Optic along/within Right of Way 08303 - EA459400 District Agreement No. 8-1055 A/2 Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission Post Office Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Haley Flex your power! Be energy efficient! Enclosed for execution by the Riverside County Transportation Commission are three (3) original Amendment No. 2 to Agreements, District Agreement No. 8-1055 A/2, for the above -referenced Project. Please have the appropriate parties for the Riverside Count Transportation Commission sign and return all original Agreements. Also, please attach a certified, notarized Resolution or Minute Decree approving the Agreement and authorizing the execution of this Agreement by the local agency official(s). After the Amendment is fully executed, we will return an original for your records. If you need more information, please contact me in the Agreements Section at (909) 383-4068. Sincerely, ROBERT E. STOKES,Chief Agreements/Minor Projects Attachments 71 "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Agreement No 04-33-004 • • • 08-Riv-91-Various Fiber Optic along/within Right of Way 08303 - EA459400 District Agreement No. 8-1055 A/2 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT This AMENDMENT NO. 2 to AGREEMENT, entered into effective on is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE", and , 2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to herein as "COMMISSION". RECITALS 1. The parties hereto entered into an Agreement (Document No.014331), on September 9, 1998, said Agreement defining the terms and conditions of a project to install Fiber Optic Cable and connect to existing splice vaults along and within State Right of Way at La Sierra Drive, Serfas Club Drive and 14`" Street on Route 91, referred to herein as "PROJECT". 2. The parties hereto also entered into an Amendment No 1 to Agreement (Document No.014331), on September 11, 2002, to include a new connection to Main Street and to extend the termination date. 3. Said Agreement states that COMMISSION will have the use of two (2) STATE owned strands of fiber (fiber optic cable) at this time, one of which must be returned to STATE upon STATE's written 90 day notice. It has been determined that COMMISSION will need to have the use of four (4) STATE owned strands of fiber. IT IS THEREFORE MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. That Section III, Article (6) be revised to say, "COMMISSION will have the use of four (4) STATE owned strands of fiber at this time, any or all of which must be returned to STATE upon STATE's written 90 day notice." 2. The other terms and conditions of said Agreement and Amendment No. 1 to Agreement (Document No. 014331) shall remain in full force and effect. 3. This Amendment No. 2 to Agreement is hereby deemed to be a part of Document No. 014331. 72 Agreement No. 04-33-004 District Agreement No. 8-1055 A/2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION JEFF MORALES Director of Transportation By: Ron Roberts Chairman By: ANNE E. MAYER District Director REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE: ERIC HALEY Executive Director Attorney, Department of Transportation CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: District Budget Manager By: Steven C. DeBaum Best, Best and Krieger CERTIFIED AS TO FINANCIAL TERMS AND POLICIES: Accounting Administrator 73 2 • AGENDA ITEM 6H • REVISION TO AGENDA ITEM 6H CHANGES ARE SHOWN AS BOLD ITALICS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Proposal to Provide Right -of -Way Services Related to the San Jacinto Branch Line Commuter Rail Project and Other RCTC Property Management Issues STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP), for consultant services to provide right-of-way services related to the San Jacinto Branch Line Commuter Rail Project and other RCTC property management issues; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC and Bechtel staffs, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFP's received; and, 3) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultant and provide a recommendation to the Commission for contract award. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its June 11, 2003 meeting, the Commission adopted a locally preferred transit alternative for the San Jacinto Branch Line/1-215 Corridor ("Alternative E": Commuter Rail with New Connection to Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead at Rustin Avenue"). The San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor is approximately 20 miles long. The corridor begins in the City of Perris where it generally follows the 1-215 and the San Jacinto Branch Line north through Moreno Valley to the City of Highgrove and then southwest toward downtown Riverside. The 1-215 is one of the most congested roadways in the region and travels through the heart of the corridor providing the only existing freeway option for travelers between the City of Perris and downtown Riverside. A San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor Alternatives Analysis Study identified improved and cost-effective transit options that minimize adverse environmental impacts and improve travel times within the study corridor. The eight month long process evaluated transit alternatives to address the existing and forecasted transportation deficiencies in the corridor. These transportation alternatives include the no -build, improved/express bus, and commuter rail. The alternatives are: Alternative A: No Build Alternative B: Transportation System Management/Express Bus Alternative C: Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative D: Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative E: Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue Alternatives B, C, D, and E all have potential right of way issues related to station design and station access. Rail Alternatives D and E each have right-of-way issues related to providing a connection to the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. In addition to providing right-of-way support for the San Jacinto Branchline project, the Commission staff from time to time will require support in their management activities related to other properties owned by the Commission in support of their various highway and rail projects. RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES The right-of-way services would support the acquisition of real estate for track improvements and rail stations along the San Jacinto Branch Line between Riverside and Perris. It would also include the study and resolution of right of way issues to support rail service along Massachusetts Avenue should Alternative E advance from the locally preferred alternative to the build alternative. The right-of-way services are envisioned to include, but not be limited to, providing: • preparation of mailing labels of potentially impacted property owners for planned project improvements • legal descriptions • appraisals • escrow and title services • resolution of encroachment issues • property acquisition services • relocation assistance services • providing support to RCTC staff with regards to the management of other RCTC owned properties on an as needed basis SCHEDULE The schedule for the selection process is as follows: Calendar of Events Advertise Request for Proposals Request for Proposals Submittal Deadline Shortlist top three (3) qualified firms Interview top three (3) qualified firms Committee Recommendation to Commission July 13, 2003 August 14, 2003 August 28, 2003 September 11, 2003 October 8, 2003 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Proposal to Provide Right -of -Way Services Related to the San Jacinto Branch Line Commuter Rail Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP), for consultant services to provide right-of-way services related to the San Jacinto Branch Line Commuter Rail Project; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC and Bechtel staffs, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFP's received; and, 3) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultant and provide a recommendation to the Commission for contract award. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its June 11, 2003 meeting, the Commission adopted a locally preferred transit alternative for the San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor ("Alternative E": Commuter Rail with New Connection to Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead at Rustin Avenue"). The San Jacinto Branch Line/1-215 Corridor is approximately 20 miles long. The corridor begins in the City of Perris where it generally follows the 1-215 and the San Jacinto Branch Line north through Moreno Valley to the City of Highgrove and then southwest toward downtown Riverside. The 1-215 is one of the most congested roadways in the region and travels through the heart of the corridor providing the only existing freeway option for travelers between the City of Perris and downtown Riverside. A San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor Alternatives Analysis Study identified improved and cost-effective transit options that minimize adverse environmental impacts and improve travel times within the study corridor. The eight month long process evaluated transit alternatives to address the existing and forecasted transportation deficiencies in the corridor. These transportation alternatives include 74 the no -build, improved/express bus, and commuter rail. The alternatives are: Alternative A: No Build Alternative B: Transportation System Management/Express Bus Alternative C: Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative D: Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative E: Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue Alternatives B, C, D, and E all have potential right of way issues related to station design and station access. Rail Alternatives D and E each have right-of-way issues related to providing a connection to the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES The right-of-way services would support the acquisition of real estate for track improvements and rail stations along the San Jacinto Branch Line between Riverside and Perris. It would also include the study and resolution of right of way issues to support rail service along Massachusetts Avenue should Alternative E advance from the locally preferred alternative to the build alternative. The right-of-way services are envisioned to include, but not be limited to, providing: • preparation of mailing labels of potentially impacted property owners • legal descriptions • appraisals • escrow and title services • resolution of encroachment issues • property acquisition services • relocation assistance services SCHEDULE The schedule for the selection process is as follows: Calendar of Events Advertise Request for Proposals Request for Proposals Submittal Deadline Shortlist top three (3) qualified firms Interview top three (3) qualified firms Committee Recommendation to Commission July 13, 2003 August 14, 2003 August 28, 2003 September 11, 2003 October 8, 2003 75 • • • • AGENDA ITEM 61 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution No. 04-002, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds" and Fiscal Year 2004 State Transit Assistance Allocations PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 04-002, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds"; and, 2) Approve the Fiscal Year 2004 State Transit Assistance Fund Allocations for Riverside County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In order for the public transit operators to claim State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the approved FY 2004-06 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) identified for funding with State Transit Assistance Funds. With the exception of SunLine's SRTP, the Riverside County SRTPs were approved at the June 11, 2003, Commission meeting. According to the State Controller's Office, the amount of STA Funds that is expected to be received in Riverside County for FY 2004 is $2,666,036 ($2,297,867 discretionary pot and $368,169 for specific operators). 76 The attached table outlines the specific operators' allocations which need to be approved by the Commission. The State allocated non -discretionary funds will be used first with the balance derived from the discretionary allocation. The FY 2004 STA Allocations are consistent with the approved SRTPs and the funds allocated are explicitly for the projects as stated in the approved plans. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 04-002 2) STA Fiscal Year 2004 Allocations 77 • • • • • • RESOLUTION NO. 04-002 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has examined the Short Range Transit Plan and Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for claimants to meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268.9, as applicable; and WHEREAS, the claimant is making full use of federal funds available under the Federal Transit Act; and WHEREAS, the sum of the claimant's allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority regional, countywide, or area -wide public transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 99244; and WHEREAS, the claimant is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979, from employing part-time drivers or contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license. WHEREAS, operators are in full compliance with Section 18081.1 of the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code Section 99251. 78 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allocate State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 03 as detailed in the attached spreadsheet. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Approved and adopted this 9th day of July, 2003. Ron Roberts, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 79 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FY 04 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS ALLOCATIONS FOR TRANSIT Current Year Allocation Requests per SRTPs Western County Palo Verde Valley Bus Rail City of Banning $27,400 -- -- City of Beaumont $0 -- -- City of Corona $48,000 -- -- Riverside Special Services $28,190 -- -- 1 Riverside Transit Agency $872,000 -- -- RCTC's Commuter Rail -- $0 Total Western County: $975,590 $0 Palo Verde Valley -- -- $223,200 Total PVVTA: -- -- $223,200 TOTAL FY 04 ALLOCATIONS $1,198,790 1) Riverside Special Services needs $34,000 in STA Funds for capital. They have on hand 410 at the City $5,810 so only $28,190 needs to be allocated. 80 6/17/20032:56 PM FY 04 STA Allocations • AGENDA ITEM 6J • • REVISION TO AGENDA ITEM 6J CHANGES ARE SHOWN AS BOLD ITALICS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2004 Local Transportation Fund Allocations for Transit and Measure "A" Allocation for SunLine Transit Agency PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Fiscal Year 2004 Local Transportation Fund Allocations (LTF) for transit as shown on the attached table, pending receipt of FY 2002 fiscal audits on each operator; and, 2) Approve LTF and Measure "A" Allocations for SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In order for the public transit operators to claim LTF for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the approved FY 2004-06 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP). With the exception of SunLine, the SRTPs for Riverside County were approved at the June 11, 2003 Commission meeting. Attachment 1 outlines the specific operators' allocations which need to be approved by the Commission. Any modifications in fare box revenues, federal grants, Measure "A" funding, or carry over funds may require operator(s) to revise their services to operate within the LTF funding limitations. Per TDA requirements, allocations of LTF for FY 2004 are subject to the receipt of FY 2002 fiscal audits on each operator. As of the preparation of this agenda item, SunLine's final fiscal audit was still outstanding. We have been told that receipt of the audit is imminent. Allocations for SunLine will be held until the final audit is received. The SRTP for SunLine was placed on hold pending exploration of FY 2002 audit issues. So that transit services in the Coachella Valley are not interrupted, staff is recommending that the following monthly allocations, based on FY 2003 funding levels, be approved: $735,075 - LTF $249,000 - Measure "A" $948,075 TOTAL Previously, to assist the transit operators with cash flow, the Commission adopted a policy to disburse two months of LTF operating income to cover the months of July and August. As a result, SunLine's first LTF payment, upon receipt of the FY 2002 audit, will be $1,470,150. If approved, subsequent monthly payments will be in the amount of $735,075. Future allocations to SunLine will be subject to recommendations that may come forth through the internal audit. Attachment: Fiscal Year 2004 LTF Allocations RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FY 04 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS FOR TRANSIT ESTI MATED ESTIMATED LTF OPER ATING ESTIMATED ESTIMATED CARRYOVER ESTI MATED NON COSTS CAPITAL COSTS TOTAL COSTS FUNDS Ref. LTF REVENUES City of Banning $910,233 $27,400 $937,633 $71,922 1 $145,048 City of Beaumont $850,000 $200,000 $1,050,000 $0 $115,000 City of Corona $1,298,000 $415,000 $1,713,000 $123,901 $536,000 Riverside Special Services Riverside $1,819,361 $290,000 $2,109,361 $26,672 $446,359 Transit Agency $35,258,251 $9,008,616 $44,266,867 $0 $18,116,241 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TOTAL (Bus) $40,135,845 $9,941,016 $50,076,861 $222,495 $19,358,648 RCTC's Commuter Rail (Metrolink) RCTC's COMMUTER RAIL TOTAL (Rail) $8,492,800 $8,492,800 $8,514,000 $8,514,000 $17,006,800 $17,006,800 $0 $0 $11,756,800 $11,756,800 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY TOTAL $531,055 $531,055 $478,200 $478,200 $1,009,255 $1,009,255 $0 $0 $291,295 $291,295 (COUNTY TOTAL $49,159,7001 $18,933,216 $68,092,9161 $222,4951 1 $31,406,743 Reference 1) Banning needs $792,585 to operate during FY 04 but only $720,663 needs to be allocated . ($71,922 + $720,663 = $792,585 as $71,922 is on hand at RCTC from FY 03 allocation). RECOMMENDED LTF TRANSIT ALLOCATIONS $720,663 $935,000 $1,053,099 $1,636,330 $26,150,626 $30,495,718 1 $5,250,000 $717,960 1 $36,463,678 7/8/2003 2:17 PM FY 04 LTF Allocations • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2004 Local Transportation Fund Allocations for Transit and Measure "A" Allocation for SunLine Transit Agency PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Fiscal Year 2004 Local Transportation Fund Allocations (LTF) for transit; and, 2) Approve LTF and Measure "A" Allocations for SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). II/ BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • In order for the public transit operators to claim LTF for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the approved FY 2004-06 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP). With the exception of SunLine, the SRTPs for Riverside County were approved at the June 11, 2003 Commission meeting. Attachment 1 outlines the specific operators' allocations which need to be approved by the Commission. Any modifications in fare box revenues, federal grants, Measure "A" funding, or carry over funds may require operator(s) to revise their services to operate within the LTF funding limitations. The SRTP for SunLine was placed on hold pending exploration of FY 2002 audit issues. So that transit services in the Coachella Valley are not interrupted, staff is recommending that the following monthly allocations, based on FY 2003 funding levels, be approved: $735,075 — LTF $249,000 — Measure "A" $948,075 Total 81 To assist the transit operators with cash flow, the Commission adopted a policy to disburse two months of LTF operating income to cover the months of July and August. As a result, SunLine's first LTF payment will be $1,470,150. If approved, subsequent monthly payments will be in the amount of $735,075. Attachment: Fiscal Year 2004 LTF Allocations 82 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSI ON FY 04 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS FOR TRANSIT ESTI MATED OPERATING COSTS ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS ESTIMATED TOTAL COSTS ESTIMATED LTF CARRYOVER FUNDS Ref . ESTIMATED NON LTF REVENUES City of Banning $910,233 $27,400 $937,633 $71,922 1 $145,048 City of Beaumont $850,000 $200,000 $1,050,000 $0 $115,000 City of Corona $1,298,000 $415,000 $1,713,000 $123,901 $536,000 Riverside Special Services $1,819,361 $290,000 $2,109,361 $26,672 $446,359 Riverside Transit Agency $35,258,251 $9,008,616 $44,266,867 $0 $18,116,241 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TOTAL (Bus) $40,135,845 $9,941,016 $50,076,861 $222,495 $19,358,648 RCTC's Commuter Rail (Metrolink) $8,492,800 $8,514,000 $17,006,800 $0 $11,756,800 RCTC's COMM UTER RAIL TOTAL (Rail) $8,492,800 $8,514,000 $17,006,800 $0 $11,756,800 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency $531,055 $478,200 $1,009,255 $0 $291,295 PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY TOTAL $531,055 $478,200 $1,009,255 $0 $291,295 COUNTY TOTAL $49,159,700 $18,933,216 $68,092,916 $222,495 $31,406,743 Reference 1) Banning needs $792,585 to operate during FY 04 - but only $720,663 needs to be allocated. ($71,922 + $720,663 = $792,585 as $71,922 is on hand at RCTC from FY 03 allocation). 83 • RECOMMENDED LTF TRANSIT ALLOCATIONS $720,663 $935,000 $1,053,099 $1,636,330 $26,150,626 $30,495,718 $5,250,000 $717,960 $36,463,678 6/17/2003 3:46 PM FY 04 LTF Allocations • AGENDA ITEM 6K • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request to Reprogram Funds for the City of Beaumont's Transit Services PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to reprogram funds for the purchase of two Clean Natural Gas Buses. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In FY 2001, the City of Beaumont (Beaumont) was approved to receive funding in the amount of $400,000 to purchase three 25 -passenger Clean Natural Gas (CNG) buses. Due to fueling capacity issues in the Pass Area, Beaumont has not purchased the vehicles and is requesting that the funds be reprogrammed to purchase two 35 -passenger CNG vehicles for a total cost of $600,000. To cover the additional costs, $160,000 in funding is being requested through the Commission's FY 2004 Short Range Transit Plan process. The remaining $40,000 balance has been secured through the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Reprogramming Justification There is currently limited CNG fueling capacity in the Pass Area. The 35 -passenger buses that Beaumont is requesting to purchase have a longer wheelbase which allows for the installation of two CNG fueling tanks. Additional tanks will extend the mileage range between fueling cycles. In comparison, the smaller buses (with one tank) would require refueling every 150 miles; the larger buses would need to be refueled at approximately 350 miles. The following table illustrates the differences between the small and large buses: 84 Characteristics Smaller Bus: Blue Bird CSFE 27 Foot Larger Bus: Blue Bird Xcel 102 35 Foot Passengers 25 - 2 wheelchair positions 35 — 2 wheelchair positions Length 27 feet overall length 35 feet overall length Wheelbase 146 inches 217 inches Gross Vehicle Weight 26,500 lbs. 36,200 lbs. Useful Vehicle Life 10 years 12 years Fuel 40 gallons CNG equivalent 90 gallons CNG equivalent Fill Rate Needed every 150 miles Needed every 350 miles 85 • AGENDA ITEM 6L • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request to Reallocate Funds for the City of Riverside's Special Transportation Services PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to reallocate $46,843 in funding from capital to operating for the City of Riverside's Special Transportation Services. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Due to increase in fuel costs and worker's compensation insurance, operating costs for the City of Riverside's (Riverside) Special Transportation Program have exceeded its fiscal year budget. To make up the deficit, Riverside is requesting that excess capital funds allocated in prior fiscal years be reallocated to operating. If approved, a total of $46,843 ($3,480 in Measure "A" Funds and $43,363 in Local Transportation Funds) will be reallocated from capital to operating to cover the FY 2003 operating deficit. 86 AGENDA ITEM 6M RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2004-2008 Measure "A" Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads Five Year Capital BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Fiscal Year 2004-2008 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County), must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On April 24, 2003, RCTC staff provided the local agencies with Measure "A" revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the required Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The agencies were asked to submit their Plans by June 11, 2003 for submission to the Budget and Implementation Committee at its June 23, 2003 meeting and to the Commission on July 9, 2003. To date, we have received the required Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation from the following local agencies in the county: Western County Coachella Valley Banning Norco Cathedral City Calimesa Perris Coachella Corona Riverside Palm Desert Hemet Riverside Co. Palm Springs Lake Elsinore San Jacinto Rancho Mirage Murrieta Temecula Palo Verde Valley Blythe 87 The five (5) cities that have not submitted all of the required documents include: Beaumont, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, and Moreno Valley. Commission staff has informed city staff that no disbursement of Measure "A" funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents are received and approved by the Commission. Canyon Lake is not required to submit a Five Year Plan because of a prior loan agreement with the Commission. The City of La Quinta does not receive Measure "A" Funds because they do not participate in CVAG's TUMF Program. Attachments: Measure "A Five Year Capital Improvement Plans 88 • • • • • WESTERN COUNTY • 89 • • Agency: Prepared By: Phone No. Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 City of Banning Ann Marie Loconte (909) 922-3130 May 19, 2003 Citywide.Street.1 '/z" Asphaltic Concrete (A.C.) Overlay Program ITEM NO. YEAR 2004 STREET LOCATION - FROM / TO TOTAL COST ($1,000) MEASURE "A" FUND (81,000) 1. Sun Lakes Blvd. — Highland Springs Ave. to Highland Home Road 317 317 2. Wesley St. — San Gorgonio Ave. to Hargrave St. 70 70 3. Durward St. — Indian School Ln. to Santa Rita Pl. 27 27 4. Alessandro Rd. - George St. to Hoffer St. 39 39 5. Pendleton Rd. — San Gorgonio Ave. to Ripley Way 13 13 6. Ripley Way — Pendleton Rd. to Lancaster Rd. 7 . . - 7 7. Lancaster Rd.— Ripley Way to San Gorgonio Ave. I 1 11 8. Florida St. — Wilson St. to Hoffer St. 32 32 TOTAL 516 516 90 City-wide Street 1 '/" Asphaltic Concrete (A.C.) Overlay Program Year 2005-2008 John St. — East of Hargrave St. to Dead End 8 ' St. — Barbour St. to Lincoln St. Williams St. — Allen St. to Hathaway St. i. 4 St. — 4 ' Pl. to Indian School Ln. 12. ' George St. — Blanchard St. to Hathaway St. 13. ' Cherry St. —Nicolet St. to George St. 21st St. — Roberge Ave. to Ramsey St. Geneva St. — 21' St. to Nicolet St. 4" St. — Williams St. to George St. 5"' St. — Williams St. to George St. i9. ; Jefferson St. — East of 22" St. to Dead End 20. ; Monroe St. — 22" St. to Jefferson St. 21. San Andreas Rd. — Durward St. to Florida St. Brinton St. —,Gilman St. to Hoffer St. Wilson St. — Highland Spgs. Ave. to Dysart Dr. Hoffer St. — l' St. to Phillips Ave. Nicolet St. — McGovern Ave. to Sims St., 12th St. to 8" St. Westward Ave. — Sunset Ave. to Highland Home Rd. Murray St. — Wilson St. to Hoffer St. Murray St. — Gilman St. to Theodore St. 12" St. - Williams St. to George St. 14" St. — Williams St. to George St. George St. — Woodland Ave. to Morongo Ave. Hargrave St. — Charles St. to Porter St. (Riv. Co.) 4" St. — Williams St. to George St. 5" St. — Williams St. to George St. Dorothy Anna Dr. — Wilson St. to North Dead End Gilman St. — Highland Home Rd. to Dysart Dr. 91 • 1qo2 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 PAGE 1 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No .: 909-795-9801 Date: May 22, 2003 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000'8) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed $126 $126 2 Administrative Charge Overhead $11 $11 DJelroy/pw/budget/measure a/03-04/measure a 5 yea r Total Measure "A" Funds 92 $137,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 PAGE2OF5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No.: 909-795.9801 Date: May 22, 2003 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed $124 $124 2 Administrative Charge Overhead $11 $11 Total Measure "A" Funds 93 $135,000 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005 - 2006 PAGE 3 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No. : 909-795-9801 Date: May 22, 2003 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide R emov e, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed $129 $129 2 Administrative Charge Overhead $11 $11 Total Measure "A" Funds $140,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A " LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2007 PAGE4OF5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: May22, 2003 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Stre ets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed $134 $134 2 Administrative Charge Overhead $12 $12 Total Measure "A" Funds 95 $146,000 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2007 - 2008 PAGE 5 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: May 22, 2003 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed $139 $139 2 Administrative Charge Overhead $12 $12 Total Measure "A" Funds 96 $151,000 ITEM NO. YEAR 2005-2008 STREET LOCATIONS - FROM/TO Dysart Dr. - Wilson St. to North Dead End Elsie Lee Cr. - West of Dorothy Anna Dr. Hoffer St. - Highland Home Rd. to East Dead End Sunset Ave. - RR crossing to Lincoln St. Morongo Ave. --Ramsey St. to George St. 12" St. - Barbour St. to Lincoln St. 23rd St. - North of Lincoln St. Wesley St. - Hargrave St. to East of Hathaway St. Adams St. -North of Lincoln St. Hermosa St. - Wesley St. to Victory St. Florida St. - Wesley St. to Victory St. Victory St. - East of Hermosa St. to West of Florida St. Florida St. - San Andreas Rd. to North of Lombardy Lane Sunset Ave. - RR crossing to Wilson St. Hargrave St. - Ramsey St. to RR crossing Oregon Trail - Wilson St. to Red Bluff Ln. Red Bluff Ln. - Oregon Trail to Aspen Ln. Aspen Ln. - Red Bluff Ln. to White Oak Drive White Oak Dr. - Oregon Trail to Aspen Ln. Holly Court - White Oak Dr. to Dead End Sugar Pine - Oregon Trail to -Aspen Ln. ' - Juniper Pl. - Sugar Pine to Dead End "G" Court - Red Bluff Ln. to Dead End , Stargaze Wy. - Wilson St. to Moonbeam Dr. Starlight Court - Moonbeam Dr. to North Dead End Harvest Moon Ln. -:Moonbeam Dr. to Silver Star Dr. Moonbeam Dr. - Stargaze Wy. to Harvest Moon Ln. Sunrise Ave. - Wilson St. to Lunar Ln. Highland Horne Rd. - Ramsey St. to Wilson St. Gilman St. - Linda Vista Dr. to Hibiscus Ct. 8t St. - Barbour St. to Westward Ave. TOTAL COST ($1,000) MEASURE "A" FUND ($1,000) 40. 41. 42. ' 43. 44. 45. 23 6 21 30 40 5 46. 47. 48: 49. 50 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60: 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 8 23 6 21 30 40 5 60 10 8 10 16 60 5 32 15 21 15 8 12 10 4 3 8 18 12 9 40 33 DD X-ING to Charles St 15 63. 8 60 2 10 8 10 16 60 5 32 15 21 15 8 12 10 4 3 8 18 12 9 40 33 15 63 / L. faLgiavc L. - . . 72. San Gorgonio.Ave. - RR X-ING to Lincoln St. . • 15 .. - . • . 15 73. Highland Horne Rd. - Wilson St. to N/O Gilman St. 30 30 74. Gilman St. - Dysart Dr. to Dead End 12 12 75. Terry Lee Cir - Elisa Dawn Dr. to Dead End 5 5 76. Westward Ave. - 4h St. to San Gorgonio 30 30 77. Theodore St. - San Gorgonio Ave. to Hargrave St 39 39 78. Hoffer St. - 8" St. to 4d' St. 22 22 79. 4`t' St. - Wilson St. to Hoffer St. . 10 10 SUBTOTAL 2,156 2,156 97 t 1 2004-200S GRAND TOTAL 2,672 i 2,672 NOTE: Priority of Street locations to be paved will be determined by the City Council at the award of the construction contract. 98 e I Agency: City of Coro na Prepared By: Reza Zolg/:adr Phon e N o.: (909) 739-2441 Date: June 2, 2003 • • RIVERSI DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003/04 - 2007/08 Page 1 of 5 Fiscal Year 2003-2004 ITEM NO. PROJECT N AME/LIMITS PROJE CT (Category) TYPE FY 2003-2004 NEW APPROPRIATIONS T OTAL COST MEASURE A ENTITLEMENTS Est FY2003-2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I O 11 12 Pav ement Rehabilitation for Local Streets Resurfacing and Pavement M aintenance Yuma Avenue Interchange • Major Pavement Rehabilitation - inc AB 438 Arterial Widen ing Magnolia/1-15 Interchange Improvements Freeway Bridges/Smith Avenue Storm Drain Striping Rehabilitation Local Street Widening, Curb/Gutter Improvements Advanced Traffic Management System Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Installation/Replacement City's Cost Allocation Plan (Overhead) Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges a nd Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Lighting and Signals Roads, Bridges and Freeways Operational Budget $ 600,000 150,000 130,000 637,352 150,000 500,000 532,648 100,000 100,000 1,989,000 150,000 151,348 $ 600,000 150,000 130,000 637,352 150,000 500,000 532,648 100,000 100,000 - 150,000 151,000 Advan ce Traffic Management System is STIP money. Total Estimated Measure A Entitlements Disbursements: 99 $ 5,190,348 $ 3,201,000 $ 3,428,000 Agency: City of Corona Prepared By: Reza Zolghadr Phone N o.: (909) 739-2441 Date: June 2, 2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATIO N COMMISSION MEAS URE "A "LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003/04 - 2007/08 Page 2 of 5 Fiscal Year 2004-2005 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME /LIMITS PR OJECT (Category) TYPE FY 2004-2005 NEW APPROPRIATIONS TOTAL COST MEASURE A ENTITLEMENTS Esr. FY 2004-2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Third Street Improvement and ROW Acquisitions Pavement Rehabilitation for Local Streets Major Pavement Rehabilitation Arterial Widening Freeway Bridges/Smith Avenue Storm Drain Magnolia/I-15 Interchange Improvements Advance Traffic Management System Citywide GIS Application Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Installation/Replacement Railroad Street Corridor Rimpau Avenue Corridor Sixth Street Improv ements Bedford Canyon Realignment/Signal at 1-15 Fwy Local Streets Widening, Curb/Gutter Improvements Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Installation/Replacement City's Cost Allocation Plan (Overhead) Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Signals and Lighting Building, Systems, a nd Facilities Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Operational Budget $ - 800,000 1,000,000 100,000 532,648 600,000 - - 100,000 - - - 600,000 100,000 100,000 160,000 $ - 800,000 1,000,000 100,000 532,648 600,000 - - 100,000 - - - - 100,000 100,000 160,000 Bedford Canyon Realignmen t is estimated county money. • Total Estimated Measure A Entitlements Disbursements: Prior Year's Estimated Fund Balance: 100 • 4,092,648 $ 3,492;648 $ 3,376,000 227,000 $ 3,603,000 • • Agency: Prepared By: Phone No.: Date: City of Corona Reza Zolghadr (909) 739-2441 June 2, 2003 • i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIO N MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003/04 - 2007/08 Page 3 of 5 Fisc al Year 2005-2006 • FY 2005-2006 MEASUREA ITE M NEW APPROPRI ATIONS ENTITLEMENTS NO. PR OJECT NAME /LIMITS PROJ ECT (C ategory) TYP E TOTAL COST Est. FY.2005-2006 1 Pavement Rehabilitation for Local Streets Roads, Bridges and Freeways $ 800,000 $ 800,000 2 Major Pavement Rehabilitation Roads, Bridges and Freeways 1,000,000 1,000,000 3 Arterial Widening Roads, Bridges and Freeways 100,000 100,000 4 Freeway Bridges/Smith Avenue Storm Drain Roads, Bridges and Freeways 532,648 532,648 5 Magno lia/I-15 Interchange Improvements Roads, Bridges and Freeways 600,000 600,000 6 Citywide GIS Application Building, Systems, and Facilities - - 7 Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter lnstallation/Replacement Roads, Bridges and Freeways 100,000 100,000 8 Sixth Street Improvements Roads, Bridges and Freeways - - 9 Local Streets Widening, Curb/Gutter Improvements Roads, Bridges and Freeways 100,000 100,000 10 Sidewalk, Cui• b and Gutter In stallation/Replacement Roads, Bridges and Freeways 100,000 100,000 9 City's Cost Allocation Plan (Overhead) Operational Budget 175,000 175,000 Total Estimated Measure A Entitlements Disbursements: 101 $ 3,507,648 $ 3,507,648 $ 3,514,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003/04 - 2007/08 Agen cy: City of Corona Prepa red By: Reza Zolgltadr Phone No.: (909) 739-2441 Date: Jun e 2, 2003 Page 4 of 5 Fiscal Year 2006-2007 ITEM NO. • PROJECT NAME /LIMITS P ROJ ECT (Category) TY PE FY 2006-2007 NEW APPROPRIATIONS TOTAL COST MEAS URE A ENTITLEMENTS Est . FY 2006-2007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 Pavement Rehabilitation for Local Streets Major Pavement Rehabilitation Arterial Widening Freeway Bridges/Smith Avenue Storm Drain Magnolia/I-15 Interchange Impro vements Citywide GIS Application Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Installation/Replacement Local Streets Widening, Curb/Gutter Improvements Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Installation/Replacement City's Cost A llocation Plan (Overhead) Roads, Bridges a nd Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Building, Systems, and Facilities Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Operational Budget $ 800,000 1,000,000 100,000 532,648 600,000 - 100,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 $ 800,000 1,000,000 100,000 532,648 600,000 - 100,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 • Total Estimated Measure A Entitlements Disbursements: 102 3,532,648 $ 3,532,648 $ 3,650,000 • • Agency: Prepared By: Phone No.: Date: City of Corona Reza Zolghadr (909) 739-2441 Ju ne 2, 2003 • RIVERSIDE COU NTY TRANSPORTATIO N COMMISSION MEASUR E 'A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAMS FY 2003/04 - 2007/08 • Page 5 of 5 Fiscal Year 2007-2008 FY2007-2008 MEASURE A ITE M N EW APPROPRIATIONS ENTITLEMENTS NO . PROJECT NAME /LIMITS PR OJECT (Category) T YPE TOTAL COST Est FY 2007-2008 1 Pavement Rehabilitation for Local Streets Roads, Bridges and Freeways $ 800,000 $ 800,000 2 Major Pavement Rehabilitation Roads, Bridges and Freeways 1,000,000 1,000,000 3 Arterial Widening Roads, Bridges and Freeways - - 4 Freeway Bridges/Smith Avenue Storm Drain Roads, Bridges and Freeways 532,648 532,648 5 Magnolia/I-15 Interchange Improvements Roads, Bridges and Freeways 600,000 600,000 6 Citywide GIS Application Building, Systems, and Facilities - - 7 Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Installation/Replacement Roads, Bridges and Freeways 100,000 100,000 8 Local Streets Widening, Curb/Gutter Improvements Roads, Bridges and Freeways 100,000 100,000 9 Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Installation/Replacement Roads, Bridges and Freeways 100,000 100,000 8 City's Cost Allocation Plan (Overhead) Operational Budget 200,000 200,000 Total Estimated Measure A Entitlements Disbursements: 103 3,432,648 $ 3,432,648 $ 3,787,000 • Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATI ON C OMMISSION MEASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM PRIOR YEAR FUNDS TO BE USED IN 2003-204 City of Hemet Mike Gow (909) 765-3870 May 15, 2003 • Page 1 of 6 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST --- MEASURE A FUNDS r YEAR FU ND I ` 11 10CARR Y OVER 1 00/01 Citywide Pavemen t Rehabilitation / Street Impro vemen t Progra m Pavement Mainte nance / improveme nt s 26,200.00 Pro f No. 5392 2 Stree t Name Sign Re plac ement/ Sign R eplacement 12,640.00 Overhead signs at traffic sign als P roject No. 5410 3 01102 Measure A Allocation for. Pavement Maintenance/ 2003 City-wide Pavement Rehabilitatio n/ Improvements 1,308,945.00 Street Improvement Program Project No. 5411 4 02103 Measure A Allocation for Pavement Maintenance/ 1,461,000.00 2003 City-wide Pavemen t Rehabilitation/ Improv ements Street Impro ve ment Program Project No. 5411 TOTAL to FY 2004 2,808,785.00 104 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PR OGR AM FY 2003-2004 Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: City of Hemet Mike Gow (909) 765-3870 May 15, 2003 Page 2of 6 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LI MITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE A FUNDS PRIOR YEAR PJNDS T ? BE 100,0140#0 IN 2003-04 1 2003 City-wide Paveme nt Rehabilitation / Pavement Maintenance / 2,400,000 .00 2,400,000.00 Street Improve ment Progra m Improvements 2 03.474 City-wide Pavement Reha bihiation / Pavement Maintenance / 408, 785.00 408, 785.00 Street Improvement Program Improvements 1 03/04 City-wide Pavement Rehabilitation / Pavement Maintenance / 1,397,000.00 1,379,000.00 Street Improvement Program Improvements 2 Pavement Management System Update Software/Data Update 40,000.00 40,000.00 TOTAL 4,227,785.00 4,227,785.00 • 105 • • • Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ME ASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004-2005 City of Hemet Mike Gow (909) 765-3870 May 15, 2003 • Page 3of6 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE A FUNDS 1. City-wide Pavement Rehabilitation / Street Improvement Program Pavement Maintenance / Improvements TOTA L 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 106 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION COMMISSION ME ASURE ' A' L OCAL FUNDS PRO GR AM FY 2005-2006 Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: City of Hem et Mike Gow (909) 765-3870 May 15, 2003 Page 4 of 6 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LI MITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE A FUNDS , 1. City-wide Pavement Rehabilitation / Street Improvement Program Pavement Maintenance / improvements TOTAL 1,455 1,455 1,455 1,455 • 107 • • • Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ME ASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2006-2007 City of Hemet Mike Gow (909) 765-3870 M ay 15, 2003 Page 5 of 6 • ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE A FUNDS 1. City-wide Pavement Rehabilitation / Street Improvement Program Pavement Maintenance / Improvements TOTAL 1,511 1,511 1,511 1,511 108 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGR AM FY 2007-2008 Agency: Prepared by: Pho ne #: Date: City of Hemet Mike Gow (909) 765-3870 May 15, 2003 Page 6 of 6 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE T OTAL COST MEASURE A FUNDS 1. City-wide Pavement Rehabilitation / Street Improvement Program Pavement Maintenance / Improvements TOTAL 1,568 1,568 1,568 1,568 s 109 • • ITEA NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 • A gen cy : City of Lake Elsi nor e Prepa red by : Ray O'D onnell Phone No.: (909) 674-3124 x 242 Note: All figures /n thousands ($0005) RI VERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGR AM FY 2004-2008 111 Page 1 of 2 -7 PRO JECT NAME/LIMITS TRANSFER PROJECT TYPE 03/04 TOTAL MEAS. A COST FUNDS 04/05 TOTAL ME AS, A COST FUNDS TOTAL COST 05/08 MEAS. A FUNDS 06/07 TOTAL MEAS.A COST FUNDS 07/08 TOTAL MF AS. A COST FUNDS TO GENERAL FUND TRANSFER 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 MISCELLANEOUS STREET RESTORATION: VARIOUS LOCATIONS STREET REST ORATION SLURRY SEAL 120 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 CURB,GUTTER AND SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT VARIOUS LOCATIONS CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT 100 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 PA VEMENT STRIPING V ARIOUS LOCATIONS STREET STRIPING 80 72 60 10 60 10 BO 10 80 100 MAIN ST/SULPHUR ST DECONTAMINATION REMOVE CONTAMINATION 150 2 10 1-15 / RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT STUDY REPORT,D ESIGN, CONSTRIUCT 1-15 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS 300 2 1,000 5 3,000 10 12,000 30 OUTFLOW CHANNEL - PHASE I FROM LAKE TO G RAHAM A VE, PEDISTRIAN WA LKWAY 155 2 ... . _.. - • ... - an1iv .•11 Q 1. IV M ISSION TRAIL STREET REHABILITATION 275 2 DIAMOND DR. ® CASINO DR. REPLACE DETECTOR LOOPS LOOP D ETECTORS 7 2 MACHADO ST. - STREET REHABILITATION LINCOLN ST. TO ALVARADO ST. STREET REHABILITATION 100 2 FR ANKLIN ST.- STREET REHABILITATIO N AVE. 8 TO MAIN ST. STREET REHABILT AIO N 130 2 IAKESHORE DR. - STREET REHABILITATION RIVERSIDE DR, TO MACHADO ST. STREET REHABILITATION 150 2 CASINO DR. BRIDGE AT SAN JACINTO RIVER SEISMIC RETROFIT J SEISM IC RETROFIT 550 100 LAKESHORE DR. - STREET REHABILITATION MACHADO ST. TO LAKE ST. STREET REHABILIT ATION 375 25 1-4 1 0 m 0 r 0 C0 0 BTivi-TLi7 110 ITEM NO. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Note: All figures in thousa nds ($000'x) Page 2 of 2 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE 03/04 TOTAL MEAS. A COST FUNDS 04/05 TOTAL MEAS, A COST FUNDS 05/06 TOTAL MEAS. A COST FUNDS 06/07 TOTAL MEAS.A COST FUNDS 07/08 TOTAL MEAS. A COST FUNDS GUNNERSON ST. - LAKESHORE DR. TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE STREET REHABILITATION 250 5 LAKESHORE DR. TERRA COTTA TO DRYDEN ST. STREET WIDENING PAVEMENT WIDENING 325 10 450 30 GRAND AVE.: HWY 74 TO MACHADO ST . PA VEMENT REHABILITATION STREET REHABILITATION 100 5 LAKESHORE DR: JERNIGAN ST TO 200' E AST OFMA CHADOST- STREET WIDENING S I REET WIDENING 480 30 SUMNER AVE. MAIN ST TO CHANEY ST PAVEMENT REHABILITATION/O VERLAY STREET REHABILITATION 75 15 600 50 HEALD ST: CHANEY ST TO LANGSTAFF ST STREET REHABLILTATION STREET REHABILITATION 350 30 DEXTER AVE. - 2ND AVE. TO HWY 74 STREET REHABILTATIN STREET REHABILITATION 375 20 TOTALS: 2,197 448 2,465 355 4,270 360 12,940 370 1,065 340 MEASURE A PRIOR YEAR CARRY-OVER • aDu 100 111 • 355 355 370 370 • auouis13 a'el BIi7I-TLtr • • RIVERSIDE CO UNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEAS URE'A"LOCAL STREETS AND ROA DS PRO GRAM FY 200 3 - 200 .B Agency: Page t of Prepared by: Kew( S'EZc,-.v Lo Phone #: 4o9/6(--‘0,3 Date: 06/d /D 3 Item No. Project Name / Limits Pr oject Type Total Cost Measure A Funds . ! . 2. 3, FR. Ew c H v.4 ap. - ,A4Ku it y/ z-is- SociTH 8octNO oP-kArr►P 47- c NE 2Ry /"y o...VoY Lr,tICo Lm ' A SI,TA Au6AlAAEivT (RE Act�c�v M Liv A ve Q Los 4 .A+ �sos Rofri c.C.oSE K,*SoTA) F Y t:)3/e y PAV(4Exv t RE5-weFAc fivG - ,45 -MA (.7- DVERLAY 764a,1 Oricr S yr-s. FQEew,¢y e*FiC,4-MP warAioa4- �Qo,40tt/AY ,Q6A[ (G� v�.a6ur- R, pA-DWAY AEHACAL!TATfkv $ 2,665, 75-3 1 "735- 317 #g, U1s,OS 4. 2, 6GS; 75-3 $',35, 3 z? E`sS-O'T, Q33 112 • Agency: City of Norco Prepared by: J. Schenk Phone #: (909) 270-5627 Date: June 4, 2003 • RI VE RSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORT ATION C OMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2002 - 2003 Page: 1 of 7 • ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME / LI MITS PROJECT TYPE Total Cost Measure "A" Funds Completed Projects 1. ISTEA Project (Match) Parkridge Avenue - Cota to Second Streets First Street - Valley View to Temescal Avenues Second Street - River Road to Hamner Avenue Third Street - Corona to Hillside Av enues Overlay $ 388,500 $ 44,500 2. Miscellaneous Seal Coating Seal Coating $ 115,500 $ 115,500 Projects Out for Bids/Bids Received 1. Broken Arrow Street - Corydon Avenue to Bluff Street Reconstruction/Overlay $ 55,000 $ 55,000 2. Chestnut Drive - Bluff Street to Corydon A venue Overlay $ 44,000 $ 44,000 3. Alhambra Street - Norco to River Ridge Drives Overlay/Reconstruction $ 70,000 $ 70,000 4. Sixth Street - Crestview to Animal Control Overlay $ 21,500 $ 21,500 5. Sunny Hills Drive - Vine to Corydon Avenues Overlay $ 30,100 $ 30,100 6. Sage Tree Lane Overlay $ 11,800 $ 11,800 7. Lasso Lane Overlay $ 9,900 $ 9,900 8. Driftwood Place, Half Moon Court Overlay $ 30,000 $ 30,000 9. Santa Anita Road - Kips Korner Road to Corydon Overlay $ 60,000 $ 60,000 10. Corona Avenue - Sixth to Seventh Streets Overlay $ 60,000 $ 60,000 /jss-46300 113 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORT ATION COMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 Agency: City of N orco Prepared by: J. Schenk Phone #: (909) 270-5627 Date: June 4, 2003 Page: of ITEM T otal Cost Measure "A" NO. PROJECT NAME / LIMITS PROJECT TYPE Funds Carryover Projects 1. River Drive - Center to Hillside Avenues Reconstruction/Overlay $ 15,000 $ 15,000 2. Buckskin Lane - California to Crestview Avenues Overlay $ 40,000 $ 40,000 3. River Drive - Corona to Valley View Avenues Widening $ 25,000 $ 25,000 4. ISTEA projects (match) Hamner Avenue - Third Street to Santa A na River Fifth Street - Norco Drive to California Avenue Seventh Street - Valley View to California Avenues Overlay $ 987,000 $ 197,500 5. Bluff Street - River Road to Stagecoach Drive Reconstruction/Overlay $ 150,000 $ 150,000 6. Roundup Road - Corral to Trail Streets Overlay $ 78,000 $ 78,000 7. Cedar A venue - Norco Drive to North of Pali Drive Overlay $ 62,000 $ 62,000 8. Sixth Street - Cedar Avenue to River Ridge Drive Overlay/Reconstruction $ 12,000 $ 12,000 9. Riding Ring Road - Western to Pacific Avenues Caballeros Road, Indian Horse Drive, Roan Court Overlay/Reconstruction $ 77,000 $ 77,000 A A A /jss-46300 110 e • • Agency: City of Norco Prepared by: J. Schenk Phone #: (909) 270-5627 Date: June 4, 2003 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 Page: -3_ of • ITEM NO, PROJECT NAME / LIMITS PROJECT TYPE Total Cost Measure "A" Funds 10. Valley View Avenue - Sixth to Detroit Streets Overlay $ 27,000 $ 27,000 11. Reservoir Drive - Corona to Temescal Avenues Overlay/Reconstruction $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Added Projects 1. Pikes Peak Drive - Sixth Street to Mount Shasta Drive Reconstruction $ 17,500 $ 17,500 2. Mount Shasta Drive - Crestview to Mount Rushmore Overlay $ 38,250 $ 38,250 3. Mt.Verde Drive, Mt. Blanc Ct., Mt. Baldy Ct. Overlay $ 28,500 $ 28,500 4. Mount Rushmore Drive - Crestview to Mount Shasta Overlay $ 43,700 $ 43,700 5. Crestview Drive - Seventh to Eighth Streets Overlay $ 29,000 $ 29,000 6. La Quinta Way - Garden Grove Avenue to Huerta Way Overlay $ 22,300 $ 22,300 7. Garden Grove Avenue - Reservoir Drive to Hillside Overlay $ 23,900 $ 23,900 8. Street Striping Striping $ 20,000 $ 20,000 9. M isc. Pavement Re pair Pavement Repair $ 30,000 $ 30,000 /jss-46300 115 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2003 - 2004 Agency: City of Norco Prepared by: J. Schenk Phone #: (909) 270-5627 Date: June 4, 2003 Page: 4 of 7 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME / LIMITS PROJECT TYPE Total Cost Measure "A " Funds Fourth & Fifth Street Intersection Improvements Stagecoach Drive - Bluff Street to End Roundup Road - Corral Street to Stagecoach Drive Three Bar Lane - Parkridge to north end Street Seal Coat/Crack Seal - Unspecified streets Street/Signal Improvements Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Overlay Seal Coat/Crack Seal $ 80,000 $ 22,000 $ 38,500 $ 15,000 $ 50,000 $ 80,000 $ 22,000 $ 38,500 $ 15,000 $ 50,000 Tjss-46300 • 4,6 • • Agency: City of Norco Pre pared by: J. Schenk Pho ne #: (909) 270-5627 Date: June 4, 2003 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 Page: _5_ of _L • ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME / LIMITS PROJECT TYPE Total Cost Measure "A" Funds 1. Raquel Road - Temescal Avenue to End Rehabilitation $ 25,242 $ 25,242 2. Bluff Street - Vine Avenue to River Road Rehabilitation $ 64,000 $ 64,000 3. Golden Gate Circle - Santa Anita Road to Cul-de-sac Rehabilitation $ 9,450 $ 9,450 4. Parkridge Avenue - Second Street to Kips Korner Road Rehabilitation $ 35,900 $ 35,900 5, Industrial Avenue - Hamner Avenue to Cul-de-sac Rehabilitation $ 29,000 $ 29,000 6. Corona Avenue - Fourth to Fifth Streets Rehabilitation $ 52,300 $ 52,300 7. Curtis Drive, Stayner Way, Lori Co urt, and Ridgecrest Rehabilitation $ 66,500 $ 66,500 8. Third Street - Hillside Avenue to Cul-de-sac Rehabilitation $ 61,200 $ 61,200 9. Norconian Drive - Fifth Street to Corydon Avenue Rehabilitation $ 63,500 $ 63,500 10. Sierra Avenue - Third to Fifth Streets Rehabilitation $ 92,700 $ 92,700 11. Corona Avenue - First to Second Streets Rehabilitation $ 60,000 $ 60,000 12, Hillside Avenue - Second to Third Streets Rehabilitation $ 46,500 $ 46,500 ljss-46300 117 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C OMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005 - 2008 Agency: City of Norco Prepared by: J. Schenk Date: June 4, 2003 Page: �. of _L ITEM Total Cost Measure "A" NO. PRO JECT NAME 1 LIMITS PROJECT TYPE Funds 1 Street Reconstruction $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 2 Miscellaneous Pavement Overlays $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 3 Street Striping $ 60,000 $ 60,000 4 Miscellaneous Seal Coats $ 150,000 $ 150,000 5 Misc. Pavement Repair $ 90,000 $ 90,000 6 Traffic Signal improvements $ 400,000 $ 400,000 /jss-46300 • • May 22, 2003 • CITY OF PERRIS DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING 170 WILKERSON AVE., SUITE A, PERRIS, CA 92570-2200 TEL: (909) 943-6504 FAX: (909) 943-8416 HABIB MOTLAGH, CITY ENGINEER Mr. Jerry Rivera, Program Manager RCTC P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 RE: City of Perris 5 -Year Plan The following projects are to be included in City of Perris's 5 year plan utilizing Measure "A", Gas Tax, Federal and other local funds: Project Fiscal Year Type Total Cost ($1,000's) Measure "A" ($1,000's) "G" Street 03-04 Pavement Rehab. 300 300 Diana & San Jacinto Imp. 03-04 Pavement Rehab. 650 100 "D" Street 03-04 Pavement Rehab. 300 300 Misc. Pavement Projects, Intersection Imp. & Signals 04-05 New Pavement 300 50 Misc. Pavement Projects, Intersection Imp. & Signals 02-07 Signals & Widening 400 300 Oleander Avenue Extension 03-04 New Pavement 400 50 Case Road Bridge 04-05 New Bridge 1300 100 Enchanted Heights 03-05 Pavement Rehab. 400 400 Copper Creek Subdivision 03-04 Pavement Rehab. 150 150 Perris Blvd. Rehab. 03-08 Pavement Rehab. 1200 600 Ethanac Road Improvements 04-05 Pavement Rehab. 2000 200 Ramona Expressway (Phase IV) 05-08 Pavement Rehab 1,000 700 Evans Road 04-05 Pavement Rehab. 600 300 Rider Street 04-05 Pavement Rehab 1500 0 Enclosed is the M.O.E. certification and the supporting documents. The priority and timing of the above projects may be subject to change. Please call if you have any questions or need any further information. Sincerely, of rag ity Engineer 119 • • RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ME ASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS P ROGR AM FY 2003- 2004 Agen cy: City of Riverside Prepared by: Tom Boyd Pho ne No.: (909) 826-5575 D ate: June 11, 2003 Page I of 8 ITE M NO. PROJECT N AM E/LIMITS P ROJ ECT TYPE TOTAL C OST ($000'S) MEAS UR E A FUN DS ($000'S) 1 Major Street Rehabilitation 02/03 Street Resurfacing 2,000 *1,000 2 Central Ave. Widening, Van Buren Blvd. to Adams St. Street Widening 1,500 *1,450 3 Union Pacific at Palmyrita Ave. Street Widening, Crossing Impro ve. 280 *280 4 Union Pacific at Columbia Ave. Street Widening, Crossing Improve. 300 *300 5 Jurupa Ave. Underpass Street Underpass 14,000 *7,800 6 La Sierra/91 Fwy. Reconstruction Interchange improvements 16,800 *200 7 Mitchell Ave. - Wells Ave. to Arlington Ave. Street Widening 1,600 *1,600 8 Van Buren Blvd. Widening - Magnolia to 91 Fwy. Street Widening 5,000 *3,000 9 Jurupa Av e. - Van Buren Blvd. to Tyler Street Extension 3,200 1,000 *2,200 10 Tyler St. - Wells to Eureka Street Widening 4,750 *4,500 11 91 Fre ewayNan Buren Boulevard Interchange 14,600 *2,600 12 Tyler @ Campbell Traffic Signal Installation 100 *100• Indicates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years. g:\common\measure of effort\measacip2003 120 RIVE RSIDE CO UNTY TRANSPO RTATION COMMISSION M EASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003- 2004 Agency: City of Riverside Prepared by: Torn Boyd Phone No.: (909) 826-5575 Date: June 11, 2003 Page 2 of 8 ITE M N O. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL C OST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 13 Tyler @ Gramercy Traffic Signal Installation 100 *100 14 Major Street Rehabilitation 03/04 Street Resurfacing 1,500 1,500 16 CA DME Street Plan Data Updates 1,600 40 18 Curb & Gutter Repair Rep of C&G damaged by str trees 200 *200 19 Chase Road Realignment Realignment of Road 250 *250 20 Campbell St Imp Street Impry 800 *800 21 Market St Widening Fairmount/1st Street Widen/ Medians 2,900 600 *1,200 22 2nd St Recon Main/M ulberry Street Reconstruction 300 *300 23 VB Widening SA River to Jackson Street Widening 1,800 250 *150 24 Victoria Medians La Sierra/Bou Construction of Medians 1,550 *1,100 25 University - Ottawa to Eucalyptus Medians 2,300 *1,700 26 University - M ulberry to Eucalyptus Medians 400 *400 ndicates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years. g:lcommon\measure of effort\measacip2003 • 121 • • Agen cy: City of Riv erside Prepared by: Tom Boyd Phon e No.: (909) 826-5575 Date: June 11, 2003 • • RIVERSI DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" L OCAL FUNDS PRO GR AM FY 2003 - 2004 Page 3 of 8 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAM E/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'5) MEASUR EA FUN DS ($000'S) 28 La Sierra Widening - Indiana to Cleveland Street Widening 600 200 29 Market Street SR60 Ramp Improvements Ramp Impr ovem ents 400 400 30 Minor Street Rehabilitation Street Overlay 3,000 500 31 Miscellaneous Street Construction Various Street Repairs 500 500 32 Brockton - Bandini Signal Modification 70 70 33 Central Avenue Interconnection Signal Interconnection 150 150 34 Chicago - Super One Foods Signal Modification 70 70 35 Ea stridge - Box Springs Signal Installation 120 120 36 La Sierra - Arizona Signal Installation 120 120 37 La Sierra - M ontlake Signal Modification 70 70 38 Magnolia - Bandini Signal Modification 70 70 39 Main - Spruce Signal Modification 100 100 * I.. .I:.. .. L.. .. AAA__..-- A r..__1 .._ _ _ �. . g:\common\measure of effort\measacip2003 122 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003- 2004 Agency: City of Riverside Prepared by: Tom Boyd P hone No.: (909) 826-5575 D ate: Ju ne 11, 2003 Page4of8 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAM E/LIMITS PROJ ECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASUR E A F UNDS ($000'S) 40 Main - Strong Signal Modification 70 70 41 Market - Tenth Signal Modification 70 70 42 M artin Luther King - Victoria to Canyon Crest Signal Interconnection 300 300 43 Trautwein - Siegal Signal Installation 100 100 44 Van Buren - Magnolia to Victoria Signal Interc onnection 60 60 45 Transportation Planning Engineering Planning 140 140 46 Pavement Management Program Ongoing Annual Expenditure 75 75 47 Transportation Planning/Investigation Traffic Engine ng 150 150 Subto tal Project Costs 84,065 Subto tal FY2004 Meas. A Funding 6,725 Subtotal Prio r Meas. A Funding 28,530 ndicates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years. g:lcommon\measure of effort\measacip2003 • 123 • • • Agency: City of Riverside Prepared by: Tom B oyd Phon e No.: (90 9) 826-5575 D ate: June 11, 2003 • • RIV ERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS P ROGR AM FY 2004- 2005 Page 5 of 8 ITE M NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PRO JECT TY PE TOT AL COST ($000'S) MEASU RE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1 Major Street Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 2,100 2,100 3 CADME Street Plan Data Updates 1,600 55 4 Grammercy Place / La Sierra to Bushnell Street Widening 1,100 250 5 Overlook Pkwy Arroyo Crossing Street Extension 1,300 1,300 6 Va n Bure n Blvd Widening - SA Rive r to Jackson Street Wid ening 1,800 1,400 *400 7 Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signals 300 300 8 Curb & Gutter Rep of C&G damaged by St. trees 200 200 Su btotal Proje ct Costs 8,400 Subtotal FY2005 Meas. A Funding 5,605 Subto tal Prior Meas. A Funding 400 al years. g:\commonlmeasure of e ffort\measacip2003 124 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PRO GRAM FY 2005 - 2006 Agency: City of Riverside Prepared by: Tom Boyd Phone No .: (909) 826-5575 Date: June 11, 2003 Page 6 of 8 ITE M NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS P ROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) ME AS URE A FUN DS ($000'S) 1 Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signals 300 300 2 Grame rcy PI. - La Sierra Ave. to Bushnell Ave. Street Widening 1,100 850 *250 3 Major Street Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 2,100 2,100 4 CADME Street Plan Data Updates 1,600 55 6 Minor Streets Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 3,600 3,600 7 Eastridge Ave./Box Springs Rd to Sycamore Cyn Medians 500 500 8 La Sierra/91 Fwy. Reconstruction Interchange Impr ov ements 25,000 1,000 Subtotal Project Costs 34,200 Subtotal FY2006 Meas. A Funding 8,405 Subto tal Prior Meas. A Funding 250 ndicates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years. g:\common\measure of effort\measacip2003 125 • • • Agency: City of Ri verside Prepared by: Tom Boyd Phone No.: (909) 826-5575 Date: June 11, 2003 • • RIVE RSID E CO UNTY T RANS PORTATI ON C OMMISSION MEAS URE "A" LOCAL F UNDS PROGRAM FY 2006- 2007 Page 7 of 8 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A F UNDS ($000'S) Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signals 300 300 Major Street Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 2,100 2,100 CADME Street Plan Data Updates 1,600 55 Minor Streets Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 3,600 3,600 Curb & Gutter Rep of C&G damaged by str trees 200 200 Subtotal Project C osts 7,800 Subtotal FY2007 Meas. A Funding 6,255 Subto tal Prior M eas. A Funding Indicates Measure A funding in pnor fiscal years. g:\common\measure of effort\measacip2003 126 RIVERSI DE COUNTY T RANSPORTATION C OMMISSION MEAS UR E "A" LOCAL FUN DS PROGRAM FY 2007- 2008 Agen cy: City of Riverside Prepared by: Tom Boyd Phone No.: (909) 826-5575 Date: June 11, 2003 Page 8 of 8 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYP E TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEAS URE A FUNDS ($000'S) Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signals 300 300 M ajor Street Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 2,100 2,100 CADME Street Plan Data Updates 1,600 55 M inor Streets Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 3,600 3,600 Curb & Gutter Rep of C&G damaged by ST trees 200 200 Subtotal Project C osts 7,800 Subtotal FY2008 Meas. A Funding 6,255 Subtotal Pri or Meas . A Fundi ng Total FY2004-2008 Meas. A Funding 33,245 ndicates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years. g:\common\measure of effort\measacip2003 • 127 • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure "A" — Local Streets and Road Program FY 2004-2008 Agency:- City of Sa .n Jacinto Page 1 of 2 Prepared by: Habib Motlagh, City Engineer Phone #: (909) 487-7342 Date: May 12, 2003 Item No. Project Name/Limits 01 Sanderson Avenue Ph 11 02 East Main Street 03 Ramo na Boulev ard 04 West Main Street 05 Kirby Ave nue 06 Misc, Traffic Con trol Devices & Traffic Studies 07 Santa Fe Avenue 08 Warren Road N/Cottonwood 09 Esplanade Avenue (EiSan Jacinto to Congress Way) 10 Misc. Pavement Rehabs 11 Misc. Downtown Sidewalks 12 De Anxa Dr. bet. Young & Potter Ave. 13 First & Seventh St. Sidewalks 14 Main St. Improvements from Jordan to Ramona Exp. 15 So bob a Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project Type Pavement Rehab Street Imp . Pav ement Rehab Str eet Imp. Pavement Rehab Traffic Safety Improvements Pavement Rehab Pavement R ehab Pavement Rehab Pavement Rehab Sidewalk Imp. Pavement Rehab Sidewalk install. Pavement Rehab Pavement Rehab 128 Total Cost Measure 'A" ($000's) (000's) 1,300 600 750 261 300 300 345 250 500 150 15 15 100 100 120 60 90 50 90 90 100 100 180 50 190 '115 1,000 161 400 118 2,420 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM MISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Director of Public Works/City Engineer Phone No.: (909) 694-6411 Date: 06/11/03 Page 1 of 5 • ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/ LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COSTS MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1 Jefferson Ave. Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase 11 Rehabilitation of Asphalt Concrete Pavement 1,831,000 1,409,000 2 Rancho California Road Widening (Old Town Front Street to 1-15 southbound on -ramp) D esign & Constru ction of Road Widening to add a dedicated right turn l ane 892,300 892,300 3 Diaz Road Extension to Cherry Street Design & Construction of Street Improvements 1,865,800 5,000 4 Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide Street Reconstruction & Rehabilitation 1,500,000 1,178,821 129 r:\dauerj\Pubwks\MeasureA04-08,jcd RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION COM MISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hugh es - Director of Public Works/City Engineer Phone No. : (909) 694-6411 Date: 06/11/03 Page 2of5 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME! LIM ITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COSTS MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1 Pave ment Rehabilitation Program - Citywide Street Reconstruction & Rehabilitation 2,000,040 2,000,040 • 130 r:\dauerj\P ubwks\Measu reA04-08.jcd 1111 • • • RI VERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION CO MMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2005 - 2006 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Director of Public Works/City Engineer Phone No. : (909) 694-6411 Date: 06/11/03 Page 3 of 5 • ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/ LIMITS PROJECT TYPE T OTAL COSTS MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1 Pavement Rehabilita tion Pro gram - Citywide Street Reconstruction & Rehabilitation 2,000,040 1,854,150 2 Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II Design & Construction of Road Widening 1,857,209 253,430 131 r:ld auerj\PubwksWl easureA04-08,jcd RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION CO MMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGR AM FY 2006 - 2007 Agency: City of Teme cula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Director of Public Works/City Engineer Phone No. : (909) 694-6411 Date: 06/11/03 Page 4 of 5 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/ LIM ITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COSTS ME ASURE "A" FUNDS 1 Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide Street Reconstruction & Rehabilitation 2,000,040 1,586,529 • 132 r: \d au erj\Pubwks\Meal ureA04-08.jcd • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION ME ASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGR AM FY 2007 - 2008 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Director of Public Works/City Engineer Phone No.: (909) 694-6411 Date: 06/11/03 Page 5 of 5 • ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/ LIM ITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COSTS MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1 Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide Street Reconstruction & Rehabilitation 2,000,040 2,000,040 133 r:\dauerj\Pubwks\ MeasureA04-08.jcd • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 1 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 107/08 02nd Ave 4 Hunter Blvd SH 95 .50 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 302 other 89 D E R C 0 0 0 0 302 Measure 2 1 0 86 A/Palo 0 0 0 0 Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 89 12th St 5 North Dr Wren Dr .25 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 89 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 2 1 0 86 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 89 16th Ave 5 Atlantic Ave Ply to end .23 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 53 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 2 1 12 38 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 53 20th Ave 4 Intake Blvd Ply 1.00 mi 1.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 302 other 190 D E R C 302 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Palo 2 1 0 187 Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 190 20th St 2 Avalon St W'ly 0.39 mi .39 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 132 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 2 1 0 129 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 132 20th St 2 Rubidoux Blvd Avalon St .13 (mi) 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 62 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 2 1 0 59 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 62 22nd Ave 4 SH 78 E'ly 1.02 mi 1.02 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 302 other 73 D E R C 302 0 0 0 0 Measure 2 1 0 70 A/Palo 0 0 0 0 Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 Total 73 134 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 2 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x 81000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 ( 05/06 06/07 07/08 24th Ave 4 302 68 D 1 0 0 0 0 SH 78 De Frain Blvd E 0 0 0 0 0 2.02 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 67 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 68 36th St 2 300 66 D 0 2 0 0 0 Valley Wy Skylane Dr E 0 1 0 0 0 .16 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon RMS paved road other C 0 63 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 66 45th St 2 300 172 D 0 0 0 0 13 Opal St W'Ly 0.34 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .34 (mi) 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 159 300 Measure A/Western Total 172 46th St 2 300 142 D 0 35 0 0 0 Riverview Dr SE'ly 800' E 0 1 0 0 0 .15 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Reconst and Widen AC Paved Road other C 0 1 105 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 142 51st Ave 4 301 174 D 0 2 0 0 0 Jackson St Van Buren St E 0 1 0 0 0 .99 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 171 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 174 66th Ave 4 301 245 D 2 0 0 0 0 Johnson St E'ly Grant St 0.32 mi E 1 0 0 0 0 1.33 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 242 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 245 68th Ave 4 301 12 D 2 0 0 0 0 Lincoln St E'ly 0.12 mi E 1 0 0 0 0 .12 (mi) 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 9 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 12 135 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 Page 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 68th Ave Hammond Rd .88 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Grant St 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 4 301 other Total 72nd Ave SH 86 .49 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Fillmore St 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 4 74th Ave SH 86 1.02 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Polk St 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) 4 Albatross Way Vander Veer Rd .24 (mi) Resurface AC paved road 72nd Ave 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 4 301 other 181 181 112 Total 112 301 other Total 301 other 71 71 03/04 04/05 ( 05/06 06/07 07/08 D E R C 2 0 178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 2 0 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 2 1 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 24 Total 24 Atviso Ave Ave Juan Diaz Ply 0.34 mi .34 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 Amado Ln Orange St .17 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Cameron Ln 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) 1 Andra Cir Forest Dr N'ly 0.02 mi .02 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 300 other 60 Total 60 300 other 30 Total 301 other Total 30 9 9 D E R c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 21 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 6 1 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 2 1 0 27 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 136 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 Page 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Angela Ave 58th St N'ly 0.12 mi .12 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Grind and Resurf with ALARM ApeLa Dr Idyllmont Rd .60 (rni) Resurf RMS paved road W'ly Idyllmont 0.60 mi 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Asa Wy Ave Juan Bautista .17 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Ely 8 Wly 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) Atlantic Ave Dillon Rd 16th Ave .50 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Resurf RMS paved road Ave C Cable Ln .06 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road W'ly 0.06 mi 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 2 300 other Total 3 300 other Total 2 300 other Total 5 301 other Total 1 300 Ave D Ravenwood Dr .06 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road W'ly 0.06 mi 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 28 28 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 22 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 96 53 53 91 91 0 0 2 E 0 1 R 0 0 C 0 93 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 49 D 0 2 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 R 0 25 0 0 C 0 63 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 other Total 1 300 other Ave De Palma Pinto St .33 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Golden West Ave 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 15 Total 15 D 2 0 0 E 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 12 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 D E R C 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 300 other Total 125 125 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 116 137 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Ave Juan Bautista Ave De Palma .31 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 45th St 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 2 Ave San Timoteo Orchard St .87 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Avenida Miravilla 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 5 Avenida Bravura De Portola Rd .95 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road E'ly 0.95 mi 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) 3 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total Avenida Ortega Chaparral Dr .48 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Avenida Valencia Ave Juan Bautista .12 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 3 W'ly 0.48 mi 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 300 other Fund Source Amount x $1000 Page 5 DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 134 134 163 163 218 218 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 124 D E R C 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 159 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 215 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 Total 93 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 2 1 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bahrman Rd SH 371 1.00 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road 2 W'ly End 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 300 other Total 53 53 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 49 Mitchell Rd 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 300 other Total Baker St Kennedy St .42 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Limonite Ave 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) 2 300 other Total 127 127 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 124 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 79 138 D E R C 2 1 0 76 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Balsam Ln Ridgeview Terr .07 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Nly End 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Bataan St 48th Ave .15 (mi) Resurf AC paved road N'ty 0.15 mi 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Bautista Rd NW'ly Bautista 4.95 mi 1.71 (mi) Grind and Resurf NW'ly Ranch Rd 1 mi 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) Bautista Rd NW'ly Ranch Rd 1 mi 2.87 (mi) Reconst Fairview Ave 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) Beazley Ln Lawson Rd .14 (mi) Resurf AC paved road W'ly 0.14 mi 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Page 6 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 2 300 other Total 4 301 other Total 3 300 other Total 3 300 other Total 1 300 Bedford Canyon Rd El Cerrito Rd S'ly .10 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 40 (ft) Realign road and install traffic signal Part of Corona's Foothill Pkwy/El Cerrito Rd project. 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 34 34 D 0 E 0 R 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 22 22 344 344 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 20 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 33 1 0 310 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 776 776 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 75 1 0 700 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 other Total 2 300 other Total Bicknell Ln Marian View Dr .07 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road South Circle Dr 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 3 300 other Total 24 24 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 22 305 1253 1558 11 11 139 D 32 E 11 R 170 C 92 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 2 E 0 1 R 0 0 C 0 8 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 7 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) Supv.Dist EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 105/06 06/07 07/08 Bluff St River Rd Stage Coach Dr .95 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) Resurf AC paved road and coordinate with the City of Norco for project funding. 2 300 other 363 113 D E R C 3 0 40 320 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 476 Box Canyon Rd 4 301 484 D 0 0 0 2 0 SW SheepHole Oasis 2mi Garfield Rd E 0 0 0 1 0 4.03 (mi) 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 0 481 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 484 Brookside Ave 5 300 117 D 0 0 8 0 0 Nancy Ave Beaumont Ave E 0 0 1 0 0 .80 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road Verify limits of proposed annexation. other C 0 0 108 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 117 Brownstown Dr 4 301 64 D 0 0 5 0 0 Orcabessa Dr Ewarton Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 .16 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 59 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 64 Butternut Ln 2 300 31 D 0 0 0 0 0 Ridgeview Terrace Wily 0.06 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .06 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 31 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 31 Cabazon Ave Dillon 4 301 23 D 0 0 0 2 0 Rd Indio C.L. E 0 0 0 0 0 .03 (mi) 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other C 0 0 0 21 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 23 Cable Ln Ravenwood 1 300 134 D 2 0 0 0 0 Dr Markham St E 1 0 0 0 0 .78 (mi) Resurf 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 RMS paved road other C 131 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 134 140 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 8 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Cajalco Rd 1 300 635 D 150 0 0 0 0 La Sierra Ave Lake Mathews Dr E 10 0 0 0 0 3.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other 1200 C 3 472 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 1835 Cajalco Rd 1 300 128 D 0 0 0 0 0 Kirkpatrick Rd Lake Mathews Dr E 0 0 0 0 0 2.70 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 32 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Reconst AC paved road, widen shoulders and Construct left turn pockets at Archer Rd, other 1606 C 8 120 0 0 0 Kirkpatrick Rd and Lake Mathews Dr. 300 Measure A/Western Total 1734 Cajalco Rd 1 300 1900 0 0 180 0 0 0 La Sierra Ave Temescal Canyon Rd E 0 20 0 0 0 2.70 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 1210 490 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 1900 Calico Ave 5 300 124 D 0 0 0 12 0 Chaparral Rd Cottonwood Rd E 0 0 0 1 0 .21 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 111 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 124 Cameron Ln 1 300 13 D 2 0 0 0 0 Amado Ln S'ly 0.05 mi E 1 0 0 0 0 .05 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 10 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 13 Camino Larado Dr 3 300 52 D 0 0 2 0 0 Avenida Ortega S'ly 0.25 mi E 0 0 1 0 0 .25 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 49 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 52 Cashew St 1 300 86 D 2 0 0 0 0 Como St Wesley St E 1 0 0 0 0 .51 (mi) 39 (ft)/ 39 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 83 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 86 141 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 9 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x 31000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x 31000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 ! 05/06 1 06/07 07/08 Cecil St 4 Ella Ave ?Ply 0.12 mi .12 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 36 D E R C 0 0 0 0 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 2 1 0 33 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 36 Cedar St 2 Tumbleweed St 52nd St .94 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 300 other 159 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 15 1 0 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 159 Celeste Wy 1 Grand Ave Union St .25 (mi) 37 (ft)/ 37 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 37 D E R C 2 1 0 34 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 Total 37 Chabela Dr 3 Soboba Rd San Jose Dr .07 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf 300 other 23 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 5 1 0 17 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 23 Chaparral Rd 5 Tamarack Rd Verbenia Ave .37 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 215 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 193 0 0 0 0 Total 215 Chuckwalla Valley Rd 4 Ply BR5632C 1.41 mi Wty Graham Pass 1.82mi 5.96 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 302 other 220 280 D E R C 302 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Palo 0 0 0 0 Verde 2 1 0 217 0 0 0 0 Total 500 Citrus St 2 W'ly Cleveland 0.23 mi W'ly Cleveland 0.74 mi .51 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Recon RMS paved road 300 other 158 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 2 1 0 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 158 142 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 10 06/11/2003 Name Supv.D1st Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 105/06 06/07 07/08 Clark St Cajalco Rd Martin St 1.00 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 1 300 other 236 D E R C 300 0 0 5 231 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 236 Clay St Van Buren Blvd Limonite Ave .86 (mi) 64 (ft)/ 64 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 2 300 other 11 49 D E R c 300 0 0 0 11 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 60 Clinton Keith Rd Avenida La Cresta Murrieta City Limits 1.65 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst road Coordinate with the City of Murrieta for the west half of 0.3 miles of road. 1 300 other 563 0 E R C 300 0 0 0 563 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 563 Clinton Keith Rd 1-15 E'Ly 300' .05 (mi) 55 (ft)/ 78 (ft) Const westbound lane and modify ramp signal 1 300 other 54 202 D E R C 0 0 0 54 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 256 Clinton St Miles Ave S'ly to C.L. .25 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf west 1/2 of AC paved road 4 301 other 345 D E R C 35 2 0 1 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 307 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 345 Coachella Valley Area various roads 6.00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf 4 301 other 600 1890 D E R C 0 0 0 0 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 100 0 0 500 Total 2490 Cordova Dr Chaparral Dr Via De Oro .35 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 3 300 other 72 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 2 1 0 69 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 72 143 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 11 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x 31000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x 31000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 1 07/08 Corral St 2 Homestead St Ply Homestead 0.19 mi .19 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 300 other 27 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 5 1 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 27 Corregidor Ave 4 Van Buren St Bataan St .24 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 301 other 36 D E R C 0 0 0 0 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 34 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 36 Corydon St 1 300 443 D 5 0 0 0 0 Grand Ave Mission Tr E 0 0 0 0 0 1.56 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 1 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other 271 C 437 0 0 0 0 1/2 in the City of Lake Elsinore. Pursue coop w/City. Add left turn lane at Union Street. 300 Measure A/Western Total 714 Cottonwood Rd 5 300 260 D 0 0 0 25 0 Tamarack Rd Verbenia Ave E 0 0 0 1 0 .45 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 234 0 300 Measure A/W stern Total 260 Crestview Dr 3 300 113 D 0 2 0 0 0 Marian View Dr SW'ly 0.78 mi E 0 1 0 0 0 .78 (mi) 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 110 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 113 De Frain Blvd 4 302 44 D 0 0 0 0 39 1-10 06th Ave E 0 0 0 0 2 3.75 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC road in select areas 8 Const turn lanes at Hobson Way. Partly in the City of other 54 C 0 0 0 0 3 Blythe. Additional funds are needed. 302 Measure A/Palo Verde • Total 98 Delgado Wy 3 300 43 D 0 0 2 0 0 Parado Del Sot Dr W'ly 0.20 mi E 0 0 1 0 0 .20 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 40 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 43 144 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 12 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x 81000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x 81000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 05/06 ( 06/07 07/08 Dillon Rd 4 301 397 D 2 0 0 0 0 Bennett Rd Ford Ave E 1 0 0 0 0 1.00 (mi) 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 394 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 397 Downey St 2 300 34 D 0 2 0 0 0 Limonite Ave 61st St E 0 1 0 0 0 .11 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 31 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 34 Edgehill Dr 2 300 42 D 0 2 0 0 0 36th St S'ly 0.08 mi E 0 1 0 0 0 .08 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon RMS paved road other C 0 39 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 42 Ella Ave 4 301 42 D 0 0 2 0 0 Calhoun St Jackson St E 0 0 1 0 0 .50 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 39 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 42 Estelle St 2 300 357 D 0 0 0 26 0 Grant St McKinley St E 0 0 0 1 0 • .46 (mi) 61 (ft)/ 61 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 330 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 357 Estrada Dr 2 300 65 D 0 0 0 0 5 S'Ly Via Curva 0.02 mi N'Ly End E 0 0 0 0 0 .16 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 60 300 Measure A/Western Total 65 Estrada Dr 2 300 58 D 0 0 0 0 4 45th St S'ly Via Curva 0.02 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .14 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 54 300 Measure A/Western Total 58 145 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 Page 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Ethanac Rd Goetz Rd Ply to Perris C.L. 1.75 (mi) 12 (ft)/ 12 (ft) Recon South side of road Coordinate with City for north side of road. City Share is listed as unfunded and is not 3 300 other Total Eucalyptus St Esperanza Ave .17 (mi) Grind and Resurf Ida Ave 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 5 Ewarton Rd Brownstown Dr Lima Hall Rd .00 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 Fleetwood Dr Via Cerro Wilson St .70 (mi) 62 (ft)/ 62 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 Florine Ave 2 SE'ly 34th St 0.02 mi SE'ly 34th St 0.18 mi .16 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other Total 301 other 604 659 1263 37 37 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 1 07/08 D E R C 75 0 2 0 0 0 526 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 5 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 Total 43 300 other 253 Total 300 other Total Forest Dr Pacific Ave .19 (mi) Resurf AC paved road W'ly End 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 Forest Hilt Dr Crestview Dr .12 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road S'ly 0.12 mi 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 3 301 other Total 300 other Total 253 35 35 84 84 18 18 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 40 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 1 0 228 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 32 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 78 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 2 0 15 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 14 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fred Waring Dr Jefferson St Adams St 1.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road Coordinate with City of La Quinta for S'ly half of road. Fremontia Rd Tamarack Rd .37 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Cottonwood Rd 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Front Hall Rd 42nd Ave N'ly 0.12 mi .12 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road Galena St Rutile St .75 (mi) Recon AC paved road Felspar St 71 (ft)/ 71 (ft) Fund Source Total 4 301 other Total 5 300 other Total 4 301 other Total 2 300 Gilman Springs Rd SE'ly Jack Rabbit Tr NW'ly Bridge St 1.80 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Reconst and widen AC Paved Road Built with project A2-0433 in Supv. Dist 3. Fund Source Amount x $1000 305 305 215 215 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley p 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 193 0 0 0 0 53 other Total 5 300 other Gilman Springs Rd SE'ly Bridge St 1.50 (mi) Reconst AC Paved Rd SH 79 (Sanderson Rd) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 53 D 0 0 4 0 E 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 49 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 62 62 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 62 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5 300 other Total Gilman Springs Rd Sh 79 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Const right turn lanes Design done by RCTC. Combine with County project A70348 for construction. 5 300 other Total 75 177 252 2518 2518 195 100 295 147 D 0 E 0 R 45 C 30 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 13 C 2505 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 195 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 15 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 05/06 106/07 107/08 Gtenoaks Rd 3 Rancho California Rd E'ty 2.76 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon AC paved road 300 other 1177 D E R C 11 0 0 7 300 Measure 0 0 0 1159 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1177 Golden West Ave 2 Ave Juan Bau. Huntsman St 1.23 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Recon AC paved road 300 other 712 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 1 0 659 Total 712 Grand Ave 1 Corydon St Nixon St 1.03 (mi) 13 (ft)/ 13 (ft) Reurf RMS paved road 300 other 60 D E R C 2 1 0 57 300 Measure 0 D 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 60 Grand Ave 1 Gruwell St Victory Cir .57 (mi) 13 (ft)/ 13 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 70 D E R C 300 2 1 0 67 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 70 Grand Ave 1 Central St Pasadena St .24 (mi) 12 (ft)/ 12 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 30 D E R C 300 2 1 0 27 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 30 Granite Hill Dr 2 Pyrite St W'ty Valley Way 500' 1.72 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Recon AC paved road Coordinate Limits with RCTC's SR60 ramp project 300 other 829 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 15 1 0 1 A/Western 0 0 0 812 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 829 Grant Ave 3 SH 74 Palm Ave .17 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 15 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 2 1 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 15 148 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 16 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Fund Limits Source Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Total Grant St 4 SH 111 S'ly 70th Ave 0.32 mi .77 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 147 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 2 1 0 144 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 147 Total 28 D E R C 2 1 0 25 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 other Grove St 1 Orange St Cherry St .25 (mi) 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 28 Total Gruwell St 1 Grand Ave SW'ly Palomar 0.19 mi .33 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 27 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 2 1 0 24 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Total Gum Tree Dr 1 Lawson Rd W'ly 0.28 mi .28 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 49 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/W 0 0 0 0 stern 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 45 49 Total Hansen Ave 5 10th St Montgomery Ave 1.02 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon RMS paved road 300 other 329 D E R C 2 1 0 326 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 329 Total 29 D E R C 300 2 1 0 26 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 other Heartwood Dr 1 Cable Ln S'ly 0.16 mi .16 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road Total 29 301 other 101 D E R C 0 0 0 0 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 90 Valley 0 0 0 0 Helen Ave 4 Clinton Ave Wly 0.4 mi .40 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 101 Total 149 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 17 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 105/06 06/07 f 07/08 Hemet Area 3 various roads .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf AC paved roads 300 other 900 1050 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 700 Total 1950 Highgrove Area 5 various streets .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 500 1085 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 5 0 455 Total 1585 Homestead St 2 Limonite Ave Stirrup St .31 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 300 other 44 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 5 1 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 44 Hudson St 2 58th St N'ty 0.12 mi .12 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 300 other 56 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 5 1 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 56 Hunt Rd 1 Knabe Rd Lawson Rd _32 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 45 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 42 Total 45 Jackson St 4 58th Ave 60th Ave 1.00 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 222 D E R C 301 2 1 0 219 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 222 Jameson Dr 3 SH 243 Pine Crest Ave .51 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 112 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 2 1 0 109 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 112 150 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 18 Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Johnson Rd Marantha Dr .03 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road N'ly 0.03 mi 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 Johnson St 82nd Ave .52 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road 81st Ave 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 4 Johnston Ave San Jacinto St E'ly Stanford 0.12 mi 1.68 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 3 Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Juniper Flats Rd Juniper Springs 1.60 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road S'ly 1.60 mi 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 5 Total Jurupa Rd Etiwanda Ave Poinsetta Pl 2.90 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst pavement at intersections See 840073 for related work. 2 300 other Total King Ave Van Buren Blvd .16 (mi) Recon AC paved road Krameria Ave 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 1 301 other Total 300 other 13 13 Total 300 other Total 101 101 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 10 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 98 301 Measure A/Coachetta Valley 0 0 0 0 1041 1041 207 207 300 other Total 300 other Total Knabe Rd Forest Boundary Rd .79 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Weirick Rd 59 (ft)/ 59 (ft) 2 300 other 469 469 122 122 373 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 7 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 934 0 0 0 0 D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 204 0 0 0 0 Total 373 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 469 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 2 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 0 345 151 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) Page 19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist La Sierra Ave El Sobrante Rd Cleveland Ave 1.90 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 64 (ft) Widen to 4 lane Mtn. Arterial Hwy Agreement with Victoria Grove,LLC. 1 Ladera Vista Dr Chaparral Dr .16 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road E'Ly 0.16 mi 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) 3 Fund Source Total 300 other Total 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 524 3198 3722 36 36 Lake Elsinore Area various roads .00 (mi) Resurf (ft)/ (ft) 1 Lakeview Ave Kelsey PI .12 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Studio Pl 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 2 Lasso Ct Corral St S'ly Corral 0.05 mi .05 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 Lawson Rd Temescal Cyn Rd .74 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Hunt Rd 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 1 Lemon Grove Ave Estrada Dr Golden West Ave .08 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 2 300 other Total 300 other Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = EnviornmentaL C = Construction 03/04 04/05 105/06 1 06/07 07/08 D E R C 30 4 0 365 0 0 0 125 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 2 1 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1100 2478 3578 24 Total 300 other Total 300 other Total .24 14 14 98 98 300 other 32 Total 32 152 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1100 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 21 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 5 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 91 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 20 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Leyte Ave 4 Van Buren St Ply 0.16 mi .16 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 301 other 25 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 23 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 25 Limonite Ave 2 Etiwanda Ave Bain St 1.00 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 42 (ft) Const continuous left turn lane 300 other 264 448 D E R C 300 0 0 0 264 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 712 Limonite Ave/Riverview Dr 2 300 615 D 0 0 0 0 0 Morton Ave Mission Blvd E 0 0 0 0 0 4.10 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other 1587 C 615 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 2202 Lingayan Ave 4 301 109 D 0 0 0 8 0 Van Buren St Bataan St E 0 0 0 0 0 .24 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other C 0 0 0 101 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 109 Live Oak Canyon Rd 5 300 872 D 2 0 0 0 0 San Timoteo Cyn S00 County Line E 0 0 0 0 0 2.15 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other C 1 869 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 872 Lois In 1 300 58 D 1 0 0 0 0 Krameria Ave N'ly 0.13 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .13 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 57 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 58 Los Caballos 3 300 252 D 0 1 0 0 0 Pauba Ave SH79 E 0 1 0 0 0 1.34 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon RMS paved road other C 0 250 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 252 153 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 21 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 05/06 106/07 107/08 Los Ranchos Cir 3 Via De Oro Chaparral Dr 1.01 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 207 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 2 1 0 204 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 207 Lucero Dr 3 Los Ranchos Cir !Ply 0.16 mi .16 (mi) 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 14 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 2 1 0 11 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 14 Luna Dr 3 Cordova Dr W'ly 0.13 mi .13 (rni) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 28 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 2 1 0 25 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 28 Luzon St 4 48th Ave Manila Ave .24 (mi) 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) Recon AC paved road 301 other 97 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 90 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 97 Malaga Rd 1 Mission Tr E'ly .26 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore for the north 1/2 of street. 300 other 87 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 12 1 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 87 Manila Ave 4 Van Buren St E'ly 0.16 mi .16 (mi) 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) Recon AC paved road 301 other 63 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 58 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 63 Manor Dr 2 34th St 36th St .30 (mi) 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 77 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 2 1 0 74 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 77 154 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 22 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 05/06 1 06/07 07/08 Maple Rd 5 301 49 D 2 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Ave Nancy Dr E 1 0 0 0 0 .31 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 46 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 49 Marantha Dr 3 300 21 D 0 2 0 0 0 Pine Crest Ave Wily 0.13 mi E 0 1 0 0 0 .13 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 18 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 21 Marion Ridge Dr 3 300 203 D 0 2 0 0 0 Rocky Point Rd S'ly 1.02 mi E 0 1 0 0 0 1.02 (mi) 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 200 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 203 Mauna Loa Dr 5 301 48 D 2 0 0 0 0 Mojave Nly E 1 0 0 0 0 .31 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon 32',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS other C 45 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 48 Menifee Rd 5 300 665 D 2 0 0 0 0 San Jacinto Ave Nuevo Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road and add Left Turn Lane at Central/Porter other C 0 0 0 663 0 intersection. 300 Measure A/Western Total 665 Middleton St 4 301 199 D 2 0 0 0 0 66th Ave Sty 0.88 mi E 1 0 0 0 0 .88 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 196 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 199 Mission Blvd 2 300 60 D 0 0 0 0 0 UP RR X-ing 3-51.34-C E'ly of Valley Way E 0 0 0 0 0 .05 (mi) 48 (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Upgrade Crossing Gates, resurf road 8 drainage other C 60 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 60 155 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 23 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmentat C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Mitchell Rd 3 Regal Blue Tr E'ly Hill St 0.17 mi .82 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 51 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 2 1 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 51 Mojave Rd 5 Carol Dr Nancy Dr .10 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 19 D E R C 2 1 0 16 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 19 Moneaque Rd 4 Orcabessa Dr Nly Orcabessa Dr .06mi .06 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 301 other 26 D E R C 0 0 0 0 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 2 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 26 Monterey Ave 4 Varner Rd Ramon Rd .60 (mi) 50 (ft)/ 50 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 301 other 89 400 D E R C 301 1 0 0 88 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 489 Murrieta Rd 3 Corson Ave Newport Rd 1.25 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon AC paved road 300 other 38 0 E R C 300 0 0 0 38 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 38 Nancy Dr 5 Dillon Rd N'ly to end .33 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 64 E E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 12 1 13 48 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 64 New Chicago Ave 3 Alto Dr Acacia Ave .13 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon surface and widen road 300 other 205 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 21 2 0 182 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 205 156 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 24 Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Nuevo Rd Dunlap Dr 2.60 (mi) Con AC paved road Lakeview Ave 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 5 Fund Source Total 300 other Total Old Elsinore Rd S'ly Rider 0.85 mi 2.32 (mi) Resurf AC paved road SD1 portion at 109. San Jacinto Ave 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 5 Opal St 45th St .25 (mi) Const sidewalk 43rd St (ft)/ (ft) 2 Orcabessa Dr Brownstown Dr Front Nall Rd .24 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 Orchard St Nancy Ave .71 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Beaumont Ave 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 5 Orchard St Walnut St .18 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road N'ly 0.18 mi 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 1 300 other Total Pacific Ave Forest Dr Riverlane Dr .07 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 300 other Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 694 691. D E R C 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 691 0 0 0 0 664 664 39 Total 301 other Total 39 106 106 D E R C 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 654 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 8 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 98 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 300 other Total 196 196 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 176 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 other Total 301 other Total 35 35 27 27 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 32 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 157 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 25 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 105/06 06/07 07/08 Palm Ave 3 Lincoln Ave Fairview Ave .50 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 33 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 2 1 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 33 Palo Verde Area 4 various roads .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 302 other 250 1620 D E R C 0 0 0 0 302 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Palo 0 0 0 0 Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 Total 1870 Palomas Ave 4 Commercial St 24th Ave .11 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 302 other 5 D E R C 1 0 0 4 302 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Palo 0 0 0 0 Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5 Par Dr 3 Thornhill Dr Olympia Way .26 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Resurf 32',0.21' AC Petromat 300 other 38 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 1 1 0 36 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 38 Parado Del Sol Dr 3 Delgado Wy Villa Balboa Dr 1.71 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) Recon RMS paved road 300 other 471 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 2 1 0 468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 471 Parado Det Sol Dr 3 Villa Balboa Dr Chaparral Dr .87 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) Recon RMS paved road 300 other 238 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 2 1 0 235 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 238 Paseo Grande 2 Via Del Rio Hummingbird Ln .44 (mi) 37 (ft)/ 37 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Recon segments from Pine Crest Dr to N'ly of Via Santiago 300 other 464 100 0 E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 464 0 0 0 0 Total 564 158 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 26 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Fund Limits Source Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Totat 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Pauba Rd 3 SH79 De Portola Rd 2.34 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon RMS paved road 300 other 634 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 5 3 0 626 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 634 Total Peach St 5 Esperanza Ave Ida Ave .17 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Grind and Resurf 300 other 34 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 5 1 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 Total Petersfield Rd 4 Orcabessa Nly Orcabessa Dr .06mi .06 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 301 other 25 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 2 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 25 Total Pigeon Pass Rd 5 Moreno Valley C.L. 0.7 mile North M.V.C.L .70 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) Recon and realign AC paved road 300 other 479 D E R C 3 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 476 0 0 0 0 479 Total Pigeon Pass Rd 5 Hidden Springs Dr N'ty 0.49 mi .49 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 96 D E R C 300 2 1 0 93 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 Total 76 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 2 1 0 73 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pine Crest Ave 3 SH 243 Riverside Cnty Playgrn .30 (mi) 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 76 Total D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 32 35 Pinto St 2 45th St Ave Michaelinda .08 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 300 other 35 Total 159 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) Page 27 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Pinto St Ave Valencia .07 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Sly 0.07 mi 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Fund Source Amount x $1000 2 300 25 other Total 25 Plum St Esperanza Ave .17 (mi) Grind and Resurf Ida Ave 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 5 300 37 other Total 37 Poplar Ln Ridgeview Terr .05 (mi) Resurf AC paved road NI), End 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 2 300 31 Ramon Rd San Miguelito Dr 3.40 (mi) Recon AC paved road 1000 Palms Cyn Rd 24 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Ramon Rd Varner Rd 1-10 EB ramps .31 (mi) 42 (ft)/ 42 (ft) Recon portions of pavement with concrete other Total 31 4 301 546 other 1000 Total 1546 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 03/04 04/05 05/06 1 06/07 1 07/08 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 23 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/W stern 5 1 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E -R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 D 29 E 4 R 0 C 513 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 301 677 other 536 Total 1213 Rancho California Rd De Luz Rd Temecula C.L. 3.39 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) Recon AC paved road and install raised centerline markers. Scope in 03/04. Rannells Blvd 28th Ave .60 (mi) Recon RMS paved road 1 300 89 other Total 89 D E R C 2 0 0 675 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 85 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26th Ave 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 4 302 174 other Total 174 160 D 2 E 1 R 0 C 171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Ravenwood Dr Cable Ln .35 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Cable Ln 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) 1 Record Rd Potter Rd .75 (mi) Grind and Resurf SH 79 13 (ft)/ 13 (ft) 3 Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Total Page 28 06/11/2003 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 300 other Total 300 other Total Rica Dr Los Ranchos Cir .20 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road /Ply 0.20 mi 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 Ridge Crest Village View Dr .04 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road S'ly 0.04 mi 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 3 Ridgeview Ter Frontage Rd .44 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Via Santiago (ft)/ (ft) 2 River Rd Santa Ana River .12 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Bridge Replacement RCTD Br.# S8002, State Br#. 56C 017 RCTD is working to secure the local matching 2 300 other Riverlane Dr Clinton St .22 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Silverwood Dr 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 4 Total 300 other 62 Total 62 D E R C 2 1 0 59 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 80 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 71 0 0 0 0 17 17 11 11 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 14 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 2 0 01 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 8 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 300 other Total 116 116 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 0 0 0 0 300 other Total 301 other Total 782 22471 23253 94 161 94 D 6 E 401 R 0 C 0 121 254 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 87 D 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 29 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x 51000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 j 04/05 05/06 06/07 J 07/08 Riverview Dr 2 Limonite Ave Ave Juan Diaz 1.87 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 28 (ft) Reconstruct surface and widen 300 other 1228 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 100 20 0 3 0 0 0 1105 0 0 0 0 Total 1228 Rosa Ave 4 Calhoun St Rue Marande .44 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 45 D E R C 0 0 0 0 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 2 1 0 42 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 45 Rubidoux Blvd 2 UP RR X-ing 3-54.70-C .05 (mi) 70 (ft)/ (ft) Upgrade Crossing gates and road surface 3D0 other 45 D E R C 300 0 0 0 45 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 45 Rue Chateau 4 Rue Marne Rue Montigny .12 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 15 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 2 1 0 12 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 15 Rue Marande 4 Rue Paray N'ty 0.14 mi .14 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 18 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 2 1 0 15 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 18 Rue Marlene 4 Rue Chateau N'ly 0.03 mi .03 (mi) 37 (ft)/ 37 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 9 D E R C 0 0 0 0 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 2 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 9 Rue Marne 4 Rue Paray Ella Ave .10 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 37 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 2 1 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 37 162 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 30 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Fund Limits Source Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Convents) Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Rue Montigny 4 Rue Chateau Ella Ave .07 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 11 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 2 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 11 Rue Paray 4 Jackson St Rue Marande .22 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 70 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 2 1 0 67 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 70 Sagebrush Ave 5 W'ly Cottonwood 0.02mi Verbenia Ave .14 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 45 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 39 0 0 0 0 Total 45 Saint Annes Bay Dr 4 301 62 D 0 0 5 0 0 0 Orcabessa Dr Ewarton Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 .16 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 57 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 62 Salty Ln 1 300 156 D 3 0 0 0 0 0 Van Buren Blvd Pick Pt E 0 0 0 0 .34 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 153 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 156 San Jacinto Ave 5 300 236 D 2 0 0 0 0 0 Perris C.L. W'ly Pico Ave 0.50 mi E 1 0 0 0 1.01 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 233 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 236 San Juan Ave 4 302 5 D 1 0 0 0 0 Commercial St 24th Ave E 0 0 0 0 0 .10 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 4 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 5 163 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 31 06/11/2003 EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist San Sevaine Channel/Van Buren Blvd 2 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Road improvements associated with construction of the Flood Control Project of San Sevaine Channel Stage 7. San Timoteo Cyn Rd Live Oak Cyn Rd .23 (mi) Recon AC paved road S.B. County Line 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 5 Fund Source Total 300 other Fund Source Amount x $1000 3 Total 300 other 3 171 Total 171 Saunders Meadow Rd 3 SH 243 (South) Club House Dr (North) 1.78 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 28 .(ft) Resurf RMS paved road Scott Rd 1-215 Winchester Rd (SH 79N) 5.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconstruct AC paved road and investigate widening to 4 lanes. 3 300 other Total 300 other 172 172 279 18617 Total Scott Rd Murrieta Rd 2.00 (mi) Recon AC paved road 1-215 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 3 300 other Total Silverwood Dr Fred Waring Dr Rivertane Dr .09 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 Simpson Rd Briggs Rd 3.00 (mi) Recon AC paved road Rte 79 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 301 other 18896 1 786 787 37 Total 300 other Total 37 214 1103 1317 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 03/04 J 04/05 05/06 06/07 ( 07/08 D E R C 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 171 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 169 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 210 E 65 R 0 C 4 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 1 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 34 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 214 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 32 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 104/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Skylane Dr 2 300 56 D 0 2 0 0 0 34th St 36th St E 0 1 0 0 0 .27 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 53 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 56 Skylinks Dr 2 300 28 D 0 0 0 0 2 Estrada Dr Estrada Dr E 0 0 0 0 0 .07 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 26 300 Measure A/Western Total 28 Soboba Rd 3 300 92 D 0 0 9 0 0 N'ly Bath Ave 0.1 mi Chabela Dr E 0 0 1 0 0 .56 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 82 0 0 Coordinate with City of San Jacinto for south half of road. 300 Measure A/Western Total 92 Soboba St 3 300 700 D 0 0 0 75 0 Stetson Ave Rte 74 E 0 0 0 2 0 1.25 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other C 0 0 0 623 0 R/W needs research 300 Measure A/Western Total 700 South Broadway 4 302 85 D 0 0 0 8 0 15th Ave Blythe CL E 0 0 0 2 0 _40 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurface 0.1', 38' A/C W/ petromat other C 0 0 0 75 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 85 South Broadway 4 302 113 D 2 0 0 0 0 Seeley Ave 15th Ave E 1 0 0 0 0 _50 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 110 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 113 Springwood Ln 1 300 21 D 2 0 0 0 0 Cable Ln S'ly 0.10 mi E 1 0 0 0 0 .10 (mi) 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 18 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 21 165 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 33 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 05/06 , 06/07 1 07/08 Stetson Ave 3 Hemet St Fairview Av 1.77 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Realign and widen AC paved road 300 other 648 D E R C 0 0 0 648 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 648 Stetson Ave • 3 Dartmouth St Stanford St .25 (mi) 42 (ft)/ 56 (ft) Widen & recon existing pvmnt. Add left turn lane Fronting Hemet High School Modify Stanford/Stetson signal 300 other 499 D E R C 2 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 497 0 0 0 0 Total 499 Stoneman St 1 Grand Ave Lake Elsinore C.L. .50 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 300 other 92 D E R C 2 1 0 89 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 92 Studio PI 2 Kennedy St Lakeview Ave .15 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.21' AC 300 other 47 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 15 1 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 47 Sugar Ln 2 Ridgeview Terrace N'ly 0.04 mi .04 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 29 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 Total 29 Sun City Blvd 3 McCall Blvd Chambers Ave .50 (mi) 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 232 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 22 1 0 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 232 Sun City Median Improvements 3 Segment 4& 5 Sun City Blvd .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Place Stamped Concrete on Sun City Blvd 300 other 125 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 110 0 0 0 0 Total 125 166 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Page 34 MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 06/11/2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Sun City Median Improvements Segments 6, 7 & 8 Cherry Hills Blvd .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Place Stamped Concrete on Cherry Hills Blvd Sun Swept St Alvarado Ave .02 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road S'ly 0.02 mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Swingle Ave Miles Ave .20 (mi) Resurface Paved Road N'ly Miles Ave 0.2 mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Tamarack Rd W'ly Verbenia 0.57 mi .57 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Verbenia Ave 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) Fund Source Total 3 300 other Total 4 301 other Total 4 301 other Total 5 300 Thousand Palms Canyon Rd Ramon Rd/Washington St Dillon Rd 5.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen and Resurf RMS paved road Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 165 165 12 12 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 17 0 1 0 0 0 2 145 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 36 36 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 33 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 other Total 4 301 other Tomal Ln 58th St 56th St .24 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 264 264 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 D 0 0 0 300 Measure A/W stern 0 0 0 0 25 0 238 0 0 0 0 770 Total 770 D 0 4 E 0 2 R 0 0 C 0 764 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 2 300 Tracy Cir Forest Dr N'ly 0.02 mi .02 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road other Total 4 301 other Total 45 45 9 9 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 39 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 1 0 E 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 8 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 167 • e • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 Page 35 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) Trisha Way Krameria Ave .13 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Supv.Dist EW (ft)/PW (ft) ',Ply 0.13 mi 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Total 1 300 55 Tumbleweed St 58th St South end .08 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmentat C = Construction 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 107/08 Total 55 D E R C 1 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 2 300 21 Turbine St Hall Ave .10 (mi) Recon RMS paved road 28th St 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) other Total 21 2 300 28 other Total 28 Tyler St 48th Ave N'ly 0.25 mi .25 (mi) 11 (ft)/ 11 (ft) Recon AC paved road Costs reflect only Co. side Valley Wy/ Armstrong Rd SR 60 Sierra Ave .90 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 76 (ft) Reconst and widen to 4 lanes RCTD is working to secure the local matching funds needed for R/W and construction. 4 301 45 other Total 45 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 15 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 O 2 O 1 O 0 O 25 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 42 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 2 300 209 Van Buren Blvd West of Regency Ranch .50 (mi) Const concrete V ditch W'ly 0.5 mi (ft)/ (ft) Van Buren Blvd Washington St Orange Terrace Pkwy 3.50 (mi) 76 (ft)/ 76 (ft) Const raised median, signals 8 Bus turn -outs from Mockingbird Cyn Rd to Wood St. Signals at Smith Bros and at Woodcrest Plaza. Coop with other 4730 Total 4939 1 300 103 other Total 103 D E R C 24 110 70 5 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 9 E 1 R 0 C 93 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 300 368 other 1371 Total 1739 168 D 3 E 4 R 4 C 357 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 36 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description Supv.Dist Fund Source EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 03/04 ( 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Van Buren St 4 301 327 D 2 0 0 0 0 0 62nd Ave S'Ly 58th Ave 0.19 mi E 1 0 0 0 0 1.81 (mi) 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 324 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 327 Van Dell Rd 2 300 56 D 0 2 0 0 0 0 20th St 25th St E 0 1 0 0 0 .22 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 53 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 56 Varner Rd 4 301 125 D 4 0 0 0 0 0 Ramon Rd E'ly Harry Oliver Tr E 0 0 0 0 0 .70 (mi) 44 (ft)/ 44 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other 551 C 121 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 676 Verano Dr 3 300 79 D 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Parado Del Sol Dr N'ly 0.29 mi E 0 1 0 0 .29 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 76 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 79 Verbenia Ave 5 300 295 D 0 0 0 28 0 0 Railroad Ave Chaparral Rd E 0 0 0 1 .51 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 266 300 Measure A/Western Total 295 Verbenia Ave 5 300 179 D 0 0 0 17 0 Chaparral Rd Wily Chaparral 0.31 mi E 0 0 0 1 0 .31 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 161 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 179 Via Calorin 2 300 14 D 0 0 0 0 1 Via Curva Wly 0.04 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .04 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 13 300 Measure A/Western Total 14 169 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 Page 37 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Via Curva Estrada Dr .22 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Asa Wy 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 2 Via De Los Arboles Chaparral Dr .33 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road E'ty 0.33 mi 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 Fund Source Total 300 other Total 300 other Total Via De Oro De Portola Rd .53 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Chaparral Dr 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 300 other Total Via Eldorado Chaparral Dr .09 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road E'ly 0.09 mi 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 3 300 other Fund Source Amount x $1000 96 96 88 88 103 103 25 Total 25 Via Florencia Golden West Ave .19 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Wly 0.19 mi 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Via Josefa Via Santiago Frontage Rd .05 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Recon AC paved road Coordinate with City of Corona for a portion of the street. Only county costs are shown. 2 300 other Total 81 81 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 D E R C 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 7 O A 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 89 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 O 0 85 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 100 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 O 0 22 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 75 2 Via Los Caballeros Washington St Gardner Ave .25 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 1 300 other Total 300 other Total 26 26 104 104 170 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 95 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 38 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x 31000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x 31000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Villa Balboa Dr 3 300 35 0 0 0 2 0 0 Parado Del Sol Dr Wily 0.16 mi E 0 0 1 0 0 .16 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 32 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 35 Villa Vista Ave 2 300 43 D 0 0 0 0 3 Estrada Dr Golden West Ave E 0 0 0 0 0 .11 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 40 300 Measure A/Western Total 43 Village View Dr 3 300 26 D 0 2 0 0 0 Forest Hill Dr E'ly 8 W'ly 0.19 mi E 0 1 0 0 0 .19 (mi) 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 23 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 26 Villela Ct 2 300 15 D 0 0 0 0 1 Ave De Palma S'ly End E 0 0 0 0 0 .04 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 14 300 Measure A/Western Total 15 Vineland St 5 300 403 D 0 0 52 0 0 Edgar Canyon Channel E 0 0 20 0 0 .01 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Construct box culvert other C 0 0 0 331 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 403 Wade St 4 301 31 D 0 0 2 0 0 Rue Paray S'ly 0.08 mi E 0 0 1 0 0 .08 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 28 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 31 Wallace St 2 300 218 D 0 0 2 0 0 34th St Hall Ave E 0 0 1 0 0 .91 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 215 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 218 171 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) Page 39 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Washington St 1000 Palms Cyn Rd 1.60 (mi) Reconst AC paved road Pushawalla Rd 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 4 Watkins Dr 1-215 .17 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Riverside C.L. 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) 5 Wellman Rd Terwilliger Rd Kirby Rd 1.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen North side,Recon RMS paved road 3 Wesley St Grand Ave .50 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Palomar St 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 1 Willowbrook Rd W'ly SH 74 .21 (mi) Recon RMS paved road Ply SH 74 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) 3 Wood Rd Krameria Ave .26 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Recon AC paved road plus Wood Rd from Van Buren Blvd S'ly 0.06 mi Nly 0.1 mi & Sty 0.1mi 1 301 other Total 300 other Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 03/04 ( 04/05 05/06 1 06/07 1 07/08 250 604 854 57 Total 300 other Total 300 other 57 284 284 D E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 54 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 281 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 Total 300 other 106 31 Total 300 other 31 109 Total Worsley Rd 20th Ave Dillion Rd .70 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Reconstruct surface with RMS on existing base 5 301 other Total 109 73 73 D E R C 2 1 0 103 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 2 1 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 7 0 101 0 0 0 0 D 2 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 70 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 172 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 40 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Fund Fund Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Limits Source Source Amount x $1000 Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 03/04 04/05 05/06 106/07 07/08 Wren Dr 5 300 33 D 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Delta Dr 12th St E 0 1 0 0 0 (mi) 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 .14 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 30 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 33 z* Future Projects 1 300 780 D 0 170 270 0 170 0 170 0 District 1 Only E 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) other 1695 R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 These funds will be used for pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 300 Measure A/Western Total 2475 z* Future Projects 3 300 1750 D 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 District 3 Only E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) other 3390 R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1450 These funds will be used for various pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 300 Measure A/Western Total 5140 2* Future Projects 4 301 500 D 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 District 4 Only E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) other 3736 R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 These funds will be used for pavement Valley rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 301 Measure A/Coachella Total 4236 z* Future Projects 5 300 850 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 District 5 Only E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) other 1446 R C 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 550 These funds will be used for various pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 300 Measure A/Western Total 2296 173 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2004-2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 41 06/11/2003 Fund Source Source Nme Fiscal Year (Amt x $1000) Fund Source Total Expenditure 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 (Amt x $1000) 300 Measure A/Western 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 302 Measure A/Pato Verde * Grand Totals * 11531 8237 7314 10005 7295 44382 3430 1299 1694 1299 1250 8972 365 162 190 305 294 1316 15326 9698 9198 11609 8839 54670 174 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 1 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Fund Fund Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year $1000 Limits Source Source Amount x Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Amount Description x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviornmentat C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 03rd St 4 301 40 D 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hammond Rd Dale Kiler Rd E 1 0 0 0 0 .28 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurface Paved Road other C 37 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 40 16th Ave 3 301 53 D 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Ave Ply to end E 0 0 12 0 0 .23 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 Widen, Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 38 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 53 302 134 D 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 24th Ave 4 SH 78 De Frain Blvd E 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.02 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C „s, /co 0 30 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 134 46th St 2 300 142 D 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 Riverview Dr SE'ly 800' E 0 0 1 0 0 .15 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 1 105 0 Reconst and Widen AC Paved Road other C 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 142 68th Ave 4 301 12 D 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Lincoln St E'ly 0.12 mi E 0 1 0 0 0 .12 (mi) 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 9 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Totat 12 72nd Ave 4 301 100 D 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 SH 86 Fitlmore St E 0 1 0 0 0 .49 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 97 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 100 74th Ave 4 301 71 D 0 2 0 0 0 0 SH 86 Polk St E 0 1 0 0 0 1.02 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 68 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 71 , 175 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Albatross Way Vander Veer Rd .24 (mi) Resurface AC paved road 72nd Ave 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 4 Fund Source Total 301 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 04/05 105/06 106/07 24 24 Alberta Ave Swingle Ave .15 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Wly 0.15 mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 301 other Total Alviso Ave Ave Juan Diaz E'ty 0.34 mi .34 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 Andra Cir Forest Dr N'ly 0.02 mi .02 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 Angela Ave 58th St N'ly 0.12 mi .12 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 300 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 48 48 60 60 9 9 28 28 D 0 2 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 21 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley E R C 0 1 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 6 1 0 53 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 Armstrong Rd Sierra Ave S.B. County line 1.03 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf AC paved road This project is to be coordinated with the EDA landscaping/beautification project on this road. 2 Atlantic Ave Dillon Rd 16th Ave .50 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Resurf RMS paved road 3 300 other 423 Total 301 other Total 423 D 40 E 1 R 0 C 2 0 0 0 380 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 91 91 176 D 0 0 2 0 E 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 25 0 C 0 0 63 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 3 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 Ave San Timoteo 3 300 163 0 0 0 3 0 0 Orchard St Avenida Miravilla E 0 0 1 0 0 .87 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 159 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 163 Baker St 2 300 . 375 D 0 0 0 60 0 Kennedy St Limonite Ave E 0 0 0 1 0 .42 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other C 0 0 0 314 0 Adjust profile to improve drainage 300 Measure A/Western Total 375 Balsam In 2 300 42 D 3 0 0 0 0 Ridgeview Terr Nly End E 0 0 0 0 0 .07 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) R a 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 39 1 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 42 Bataan St 4 301 22 D 0 0 0 0 2 48th Ave N'ly 0.15 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 _15 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 20 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 22 Bautista Rd 3 300 344 D 0 0 0 33 0 NW'ly Bautista 4.95 mi NW'ly Ranch Rd 1 mi E 0 '0 0 • 1 0 1.71 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf other C 0 0. 0 310 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 344 Bautista Rd 3 300 776 0 0 0 0 75 0 NW'ty Ranch Rd 1 mi Fairview Ave E 0 0 0 1 0 2.87 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Reconst other C 0 0 0 700 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 776 Beacon Dr 4 301 68 D 2 0 0 0 0 72nd Ave Club View Dr E 1 0 0 0 0 .44 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 65 301 Measure 0 A/Coachella 0 0 Valley 0 /� / 14dded 'Ar'o IeG7� Total 68 177 • • Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist EW (ft)/PW (ft) Big Pine St Jeffery Pine Rd .20 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Silver Fir Dr 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) 3 Bluff St River Rd Stage Coach Dr .95 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) Resurf AC paved road and coordinate with the City of Norco for project funding. Brookside Ave Nancy Ave .80 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Verify limits of proposed annexation. 2 Fund Source Total 300 other Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmenta C = Construction 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 38 Total 300 other 38 410 113 Total 523 Beaumont Ave 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 3 Brownstown Dr Orcabessa Dr Ewarton Rd .16 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 300 other Total 117 117 301 other. Total 64 64 Butternut Ln Ridgeview Terrace .06 (mi) Resurf AC paved road /Ply 0.06 mi 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 2 300 other Total Cabazon Ave Dillon Rd .03 (mi) Recon AC paved road Cajalco Rd La Sierra Ave 3.00 (mi) Recon AC paved road 4 Indio C.L. 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) 301 other 37 37 D E R C 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 8 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 108 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 5 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 59 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 2 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 35 0. %— 0 .0 0 300 Measure A/Western 23 Total 23 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 21 Lake Mathews Dr 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 1 300 other Total 178 655 _1200 1855 D E R C 10 10 0 0 150 10 0 3 0 0 0 472 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Page 5 MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 06/11/2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Cajalco Rd Kirkpatrick Rd Lake Mathews Dr 2.70 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Reconst AC paved road, widen shoulders and Construct left turn pockets at Archer Rd, Kirkpatrick Rd and Lake Mathews Dr. Cajalco Rd La Sierra Ave 2.70 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Temescal Canyon Rd 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Calico Ave Chaparral Rd .21 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Cottonwood Rd 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Calle De Las Flores Clearwater Wy .31 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Snow View Dr 17 (ft)/ 17 (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 1 300 other Total 1 300 other Total 3 300 other Total 4 301 Cedar St Tumbleweed St 52nd St .94 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 02/03 03/04 04/05 ( 05/06 06/07 130 1555 1685 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 1900 1900 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 180 20 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 1210 0 0 0 490 other Total 2 300 other Chabela Dr Soboba Rd .07 (mi) Grind and Resurf San Jose Dr 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 124 124 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 111 62 62 D 5 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 56 %. 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 159 Total 159 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 143 0 0 0 0 3 300 other 23 Total 23 Chaparral Rd Tamarack Rd .37 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Verbenia Ave 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) 3 300 other 215 Total. 179 215 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 5 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 193 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 6 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmentat C = Construction Total 02/03 1 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 06/07 Cherry Cove 4 Calle De Las Flores Palm Oasis Ave .14 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 301 other 56 D E R C 5 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure 0 A/Coachella 0 0 Valley 0 Total 56 Clark St 1 Cajalco Rd Martin St 1.00 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 252 D E R C 300 20 1 '. 231 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 252 Clay St 2 Van Buren Blvd Limonite Ave .86 (mi) 64 (ft)/ 64 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 17 703 D E R C 300 0 0 0 17 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 720 Clearwater Way 4 Calle De Las Flores S'ly Palm Oasis 0.05mi .16 (mi) 17 (ft)/ 17 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 301 other 37 D E R 5 1 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 301 31 Measure fr A/Coachella A 0 0 Valley 0 Total 37 Clinton Keith Rd 1 Avenida La Cresta Murrieta City Limits 1.65 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst road Coordinate with the City of Murrieta for the west half of 0.3 miles of road. 300 other 703 D E R C 300 2 0 0 ,i1 Measure 0 0 0 56030 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 703 Clinton St 4 Miles Ave S'Ly to C.L. .25 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf west 1/2 of AC paved road 301 other 345 D E R C 301 35 .2 0 1 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 307 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 345 Coachella Valley Area 4 various roads 6.00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf 301 other 400 1410 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 100 0 0 300 Total 1810 180 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT - Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Contour Ave Hansen Ave Ely .66 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon RMS paved road Construct in summer when school is out. Water crosses over the road. Fund Source Total 3 300 other Total Coral St Calle De Las Flores .19 (mi) Resurf AC paved road S'ly Palm Oasis 0.05mi 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 4 301 other Total Corral St 2 300 Homestead St E'ly Homestead 0.19 mi • .19 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other Total Corregidor Ave 4 301 Van Buren St Bataan St .24 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurf AC paved road other Total Corydon St 1 300 Grand Ave Mission Tr 1.56 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon AC paved road other 1/2 in the City of Lake Elsinore. Pursue coop w/City. Add left turn lane at Union Street. Total 3 300 Cottonwood Rd Tamarack Rd .45 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Verbenia Ave 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Crystal Springs Dr Calle De Las Flores .15 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Palm Oasis Ave 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Fund Source Amount x S1000 191 191 Page 7 06/11/2003 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x 51000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = EnviornmentaL C = Construction 02/03 j 03/04 04/05 j 05/06 06/07 D E R C 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 74 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 27 27 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 21 0 0 0 0 36 36 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 other Total 4 301 other 410 275 685 Total 260 260 59 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 38 0 0 E 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 1 370 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 25 0 234 D E R 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 181 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 8 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 De Portola Rd (2 segments) 3 S'ly Monte De Oro .5mi Glen Oaks Rd 4.25 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst AC paved road Segment 2 is from Anza Rd to Pauba Rd 300 other 1051 D E R C 0 0 0 1051 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1051 Delano Dr 3 Toll Gate Rd Wily end .27 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 53 D E R C 0 0 0 53 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 53 Dillon Rd 3 Worsley Diablo Rd 1.00 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road The City of Palm Springs declined to participate in their 10% jurisdiction of the project. 301 other 85 D E R C 2 1 0 82 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 85 Dillon Rd 4 Bennett Rd Ford Ave 1.00 (mi) 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 357 0 E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 2 1 0 354 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 357 Double Tree Dr 3 Jeffery Pine Rd Silver Fir Dr .15 (mi) ' 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 33 D E R C 300 0 0 0 33 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 ' 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 33 Double View Dr 3 Meadow Glen Dr W'ly 1.21 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 219 D E R C 300 0 0 0 219 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 Total 219 Elaine Dr 3 Sycamore Rd 16th Ave .44 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 301 other 59 D E R C 301 2 1 0 56 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 59 182 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 9 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 02/03 1 03/04 04/05 05/06 106/07 Ella Ave 4 301 42 D 0 2 0 0 0 Calhoun St Jackson St E 0 1 0 0 0 .50 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R 0 0 0 0" 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 39 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 42 Elm Ave 3 300 103 D 0 0 0 10 0 14th St Beaumont C.L. E 0 0 0 1 0 .49 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 92 0 Coordinate with City of Beaumont for half of - road width. 300 Measure A/Western Total 103 - Estelle St 1 300 357 D 0 0 0 0 26 Grant St McKinley St E 0 0 0 0 1 .46 (mi) 61 (ft)/ 61 (ft) . R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C • 0 0 0 0 330 300 Measure A/Western Total 357 Ethanac Rd 3 300 604 D 0 75 0 0 0 Goetz Rd E'ly to Perris C.L. E 0 1 0 0 0 1.75 (mi) 12 (ft)/ 12 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon South side of road other 659 C 0 2 526 0 0 Coordinate with City for north side of road. City Share is listed as unfunded and is not 300 Measure A/Western Total 1263 Eucalyptus St 3 300 37 D 0 0 0 5 0 Esperanza Ave Ida Ave E 0 0 0 1 0 .17 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 -_ 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf other C 0 0 0 31 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 37 Ewarton Rd 4 301 43 D 0 0 0 3 0 Brownstown Dr Lima Hall Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 40 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 43 Fleetwood Dr 2 300- 253 D 0 0 0 24 0 Via Cerro Wilson St E 0 0 0 1 0 .70 (mi) 62 (ft)/ 62 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf with AHRM other C 0 0 0 228 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 253 183 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 10 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) ELI (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmentat C = Construction Total 02/03 1 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 Forest Dr 4 Pacific Ave Wily End .19 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 301 other 84 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 78 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 84 Four Chimneys Rd 3 Delano Dr Wily end .10 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) • Resurf AC paved road 300 other 19 D E R C 300 0 0 0 19 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 19 Fred Waring Dr 4 Jefferson St Adams St 1.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road Coordinate with City of La Ouinta for S'ly half of road. 301 other 305 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 22 1 0 282 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 305 Fred Waring Dr & Clinton St 4 Indio C.L. Wily Sitverwood Dr .58 (mi) 64 (ft)/110 (ft) Widen street and Const sidewalk Sidewalk includes the west side of Clinton St from Fred Waring Dr to Rivertane Dr. 301 other 225 48 D E R C 301 10 0 0 (215 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 273 Fremontia Rd • Tamarack Rd Cottonwood Rd 3 .37 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 215 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 193 Total 215 Front Halt Rd 4 42nd Ave /Ply 0.12 mi .12 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 301 other 53 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachetta 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 49 Valley 0 0 0 0 Galena Total 53 St 2 Rutile St Felspar St .75 (rni) 71 (ft)/ 71 (ft) Recon AC paved road other 300 865 3 0 3 E 0 R 0 C 862 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 868 184 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 11 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Fund Fund Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Limits Source Source Amount x $1000 Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Amount Acquisition Description x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way (Comments) E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 04/05 105/06 1 06/07 Garbani Rd 3 300 367 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Murrieta Rd Evans Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 .43 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon 24'-53', AC paved road other C 367 0 Width varies from 24' to 53'. 300 Measure A/Western Total 367 Gilman Springs Rd 5 •300 258 D 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE'ly Jack Rabbit Tr NW'ly Bridge St 1.80 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Reconst and widen AC Paved Road other 1387 C 256 0 Coordinate w/project A2-0433 in Supv. Dist. 3. 300 Measure A/Western Total 1645 300 2119 D 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gilman Springs Rd 3 SE'ly Bridge St SH 79 (Sanderson Rd) 1.50 (mi)- 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) E R 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 Reconst AC Paved Rd other C 2060 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 2119 16 D 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gilman Springs Rd 2 locations 3 300 NW'ly Jack Rabbit Tr SE'ly Bridge St .00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) E R• 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recon, realign other 3084 C 0 0 See A7-0310 in Supv.Dist.5 for companion project 300 Measure A/Western Total 3100 Glenoaks Rd 3 300 1326 D 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rancho California Rd E'Ly E 9 0 0 0 0 2.76 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other C 7 1165 300 Measure A/Western Total 1326 Granite Hill Dr 2 300 829 D 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 Pyrite St W'ly Valley Way 500' E 0 0 0 0 1.72 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) R 0 0 0 812 0 Recon AC paved road other C 0 0 1 Coordinate limits with RCTC's SR60 ramp project 300 Measure A/Western Total 829 Greenwald Ave 5 300 320 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SH 74 Canyon Lake City Gate E 0 0 0 0 2.61 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Pulverize, Resurf 0.33' AC other 295 C 320 0 0 Project is 31% in SD #3, and 3% in SD #1 300 Measure A/Western Total 615 185 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 12 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EU (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Hansen Ave 10th St Montgomery Ave 1.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS w/berms Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Total 3 300 203 Hattie Ave Elm St .14 (mi) Grind and Resurf E'ly end 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) other Total 203 3 300 30 other Total 30 Helen Ave Clinton Ave .40 (mi) Resurf AC paved road my 0.4 mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 301 101 Helen Ave Elm St .07 (mi) Grind and Resurf E'ly end 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) other Total 101 3 300 19 other Total 19 Hemet Area various roads .00 (mi) Resurf AC paved roads Highgrove Area various streets .00 (mi) Resurf AC paved road (ft)/ (ft) 3 300 1000 other 350 Total 1350 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Nay Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 104/05 05/06 106/07 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 2 1 0 200 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 -0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 24 0 0 0 0 D 0 10 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 90 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 5 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 800 (ft)/ (ft) 5 300 1600 other 935 Total 2535 Homestead St Limonite Ave Stirrup St .31 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 300 44 other Total 44 186 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 50 10 0 590 300 Measure A/Western 50 10 0 490 40 5 0 355 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 38 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 13 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Hudson St 58th St N'ty 0.12 mi .12 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 Jeffery Pine Rd Cedar Glen Dr W'ly .20 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 John Muir Rd Lodge Rd .21 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Seneca Dr 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) 3 Johnston Ave San Jacinto St E'ly Stanford 0.12 mi 1.68 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 3 Juniper Flats Rd Juniper Springs Sly 1.61 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS W/Berms 3 Jurupa Rd Etiwanda Ave 2.90 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Poinsetta PL 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 2 Fund Source Total 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 106/07 56 56 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 50 0 0 0 0 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total King Ave Van Buren Blvd .16 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Krameria Ave 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 1 300 other 38 38 39 39 D E R C 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1041 Total 1041 202 202 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 100 7 0 0 0 0 0 934 IG w 1' U 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 722 187 722 D E R C 60 0 0 7 0 0 0 655 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 119 E R C 20 1 98 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) Page 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist La Sierra Ave El Sobrante Rd Cleveland Ave 1.90 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 64 (ft) Widen to 4 lane Mtn. Arterial Hwy Agreement with Victoria Grove,LLC. Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by FiscaL Year Amount x 51000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmentat C = Construction 02/03 + 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 06/07 1 La Vida Dr Cal -le De Las Flores .18 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Palm Oasis Ave 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 4 Lake Elsinore Area various roads .00 (mi) Resurf (ft)/ (ft) 1 Lake In Toll Gate Rd .09 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Marian View Dr 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) 3 Lakeview Ave Ramona Expressway 3.05 (mi) Recon 30', 0.25' AC Add turn lanes at Post Office. Nuevo Rd 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 3 Lasso Ct Corral St S'ly Corral 0.05 mi .05 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM Leyte Ave Van Buren St .16 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 2 300 other Total 301 other Total 300 524 41 565 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 70 70 D E R C 6 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 other Total 1000 2078 3078 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other 17 17 47 47 14 Total 14 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 17 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 E'ly 0.16 mi 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) 4 301 other 25 Total 25 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 2 0 0 23 188 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 15 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Fund Fund Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Limits Source Source Amount x $1000 Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Amount Description x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 Limonite Ave 2 300 232 D 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 Etiwanda Ave Bain St E 50 0 0 0 0 1.00 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 42 (ft) R r 0 0 0 0 Const continuous left turn lane other 450 C 93 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 682 Limonite Ave/Riverview Dr 2 300 492 D 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 Morton Ave Mission Blvd E 1 0 0 0 0 4.10 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R ' 0 r 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other 1585 C 393 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 2077 Lingayan Ave 4 301 109 D 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 Van Buren St Bataan St E 0 0 0 0 0 .24 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 101 Recon AC paved road other C 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 109 Los Caballos 3 300 252 D 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pauba Ave SN79 E 0 0 1 0 0 1.34 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon RMS paved road other C 0 0 250 300 Measure A/Western . Total 252 Lovekin Blvd 4 302 120 D 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ply Seeley Ave 0.5 mi Wily Seeley Ave 0.25mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .75 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 52 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Const turning lanes other 631 C 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 751 Luzon St 4 301 97 D 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 48th Ave Manila Ave E 0 0 0 0 .24 (mi) 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 90 Recon AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 97 Malaga Rd 1 300 87 D 0 0 0 12 0 0 Mission Tr Ply E 0 0 0 1 0 .26 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 74 Coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore for the north 1/2 of street. 300 Measure A/Western Total 87 189 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION Page 16 DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Manila Ave Van Buren St .16 (mi) Recon AC paved road E'ty 0.16 mi 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) 4 Maple Rd Atlantic Ave .31 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Nancy Dr 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) 3 Marian View Dr S.H.243 Wily .49 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) 3 Mauna Loa Dr Mojave Nty .31 (mi) Recon 32',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 3 Meadow Glen Dr Double View Dr Idyllbrook Dr .31 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Coordinate with waterline work Mira Loma Area various roads 8.00 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 3 Fund Source Total 301 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 63 63 49 49 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 104/05 05/06 06/07 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 5 0 0 58 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 46 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 84 D E R C 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 61 61 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 45 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 61 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (ft)/ (ft) 2 Mission Blvd UP RR X-ing 3-51.34-C Ply of Valley Way .05 (mi) 48 (ft)/ (ft) Upgrade Crossing Gates, resurf road 8 drainage 2 300 other Total 300 other Total 190 400 220 620 D E R C 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 300 Measure A/Western 63 63 D E R C 0 100 0 0 300 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 17 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Description Supv.Dist Fund EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 f 06/07 Mojave Rd 3 301 19 D 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Carol Dr Nancy Dr E 0 1 0 0 0 .10 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 16 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 19 Moneaque Rd 4 301 26 D 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Orcabessa Dr Nly Orcabessa Dr .06mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .06 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 24 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 26 Monte Vista Dr 1 300 174 D 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baxter Rd Bundy Canyon Rd E 1 0 0 0 0 1.23 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) R 0/ 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C �aC_T 0 d rbp A -ex/ 300 Measure A/Western Total 174 Monterey Ave 4 301 84 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Varner Rd Ramon Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 .60 (mi) 50 (ft)/ 50 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other 400 C 4110 0 D 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 484 Murrieta Rd 3 300 286 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corson Ave Newport Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other C 286 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 286 Murrieta Rd 3 300 83 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scott Rd Corson Ave E 0 0 0 0 1.75 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 83 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 83 Nancy Dr 3 301 64 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Dillon Rd Wily to end E 0 0 1 0 0 .33 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 13 0 0 Widen, Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 48 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 64 191 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) Page 18 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Neptune Dr 4 Flamingo Dr Nly Via CostaBrava.2mi .25 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurface Paved Road New Chicago Ave Alto Dr Acacia Ave .13 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon surface and widen road 3 301 other Total 300 other Total North Shore Dr 4 Flamingo Dr Nly Via CostaBrava.lmi .27 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurface Paved Road Old Elsinore Rd S'ly Rider 0.85 mi 2.32 (mi) Resurf AC paved road San Jacinto Ave 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 5 301 other Total 300 other 44 44 205 205 47 47 744 Total Opal St 45th St .25 (mi) Const sidewalk 43rd St (ft)/ (ft) 2 300 other 744 130 39 Total 169 Orcabessa Dr Brownstown Dr Front Halt Rd .24 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 4 301 other Total Orchard St Nancy Ave .71 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Beaumont Ave 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 3 300 other Total 106 106 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Nay Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 f 03/04 04/05 05/06 4 06/07 0 E R C 2 1 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 2 0 182 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 2 E 1 R 0 C 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 E 2 R 0 C 9 0 0 0 652 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 2 C 128 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 98 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 196 196 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 176 0 0 0 0 192 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 19 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Fund Fund Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year $1000 Limits Source Source Amount x Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition Construction (Comments) E = Enviornmental C = Total 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 Oreana Way 4 301 76 D 6 0 0 0 0 0 Calle De Las Flores Palm Oasis Ave E 1 0 0 0 0 .20 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R * 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 69 — 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 76 301 27 D 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Pacific Ave 4 Forest Dr Riverlane Dr E 0 0 0 0 0 .07 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road other R C 0 0 0 0 0 25 - 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 27. Palm Oasis Ave 4 Snow View Dr Clearwater Wy 301 138 D E 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .36 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 126 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 138 805 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palo Verde Area 4 various roads 302 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 200 220 .00 Resurf RMS paved road other 1350 C 0 135 250 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 2155 Palomar Rd 3 300 46 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 John Muir Rd Dickenson Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 .27 Resurf AC paved road other C 46 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 46 Palomar Ave 4 302 11 D 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial St 24th Ave E 1 0 0 0 0 .11 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 8 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 11 Par Dr 3 300 38 D 0 0 1 0 0 0. 0 Thornhill Dr Olympia Way E 0 0 1 0 0 .26 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf 32',0.21' AC Petromat other C 0 0 36 300 Measure A/Western Total 38 193 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 20 06/11/2003 Name Limits Length (mi) Supv.Dist ELI (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 Description x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 06/07 Paseo Grande 2 300 732 D 43 0 0 0 0 Via Del Rio Hummingbird Ln E 3 0 0 0 0 .44 (mi) 37 (ft)/ 37 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 686 0 _ 0 0 Recon segments from Pine Crest Dr to N'ly of Via Santiago 300 Measure A/Western Total 732 Pauba Rd 3 300 618 D 0 5 0 0 0 SH79 De Portota Rd E 0 3 0 0 0 2.34 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon RMS paved road other C 0 610 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 618 Peach St 3 300 34 D 0 0 0 5 0 Esperanza Ave Ida Ave E 0 0 0 1 0 .17 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf other C 0 0 0 28 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 34 Pedley Area 2 300 500 .D 0 0 0 0 100 various roads E 0 0 0 0 0 7.00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved roads other C 0 0 0 0 400 300 Measure A/Western Total 500 Petersfield Rd 4 301 25 D 0 0 0 2 0 Orcabessa Nly Orcabessa Dr .06mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .06 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 23 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 25 Pigeon Pass Rd 5 300 443 D 70 0 0 0 0 Moreno Valley C.L. 0.7 mite North M.V.C.L E 4 0 0 0 0 .70 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) R 20 0 0 0 0 Recon and realign AC paved road other C 2 347 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 443 Pilot Dr 4 301 35 D 2 0 0 0 0 Windlass Dr E'ly 0.20 mi E 1 0 0 0 0 .20 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurface Paved Road other C 32 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 35 . 194 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 21 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist limits Length (mi) EW (ft)IPW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x 51000 Measure A Funds by Fiscat Year Amount x 51000 0 = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmentat C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 1 06/07 Plum St 3 300 37 D 0 0 0 5 0 Esperanza Ave Ida Ave E 0 0 0 1 0 .17 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf other C 0 0 0 31 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 37 Poplar Ln 2 300 37 D 2 0 0 0 0 Ridgeview Terr Nly End E 0 0 0 0 0 .05 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 35 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 37 Ramon Rd 4 301 356 D 103 0 0 0 0 San Miguelito Dr 1000 Palms Cyn Rd E 3 0 0 0 0 3.40 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 32 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other 1158 C 5 245 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 1514 Ramon Rd 4 301 140 D 16 0 0 0 0 Varner Rd 1-10 EB ramps E 1 0 0 0 0 .31 (mi) 42 (ft)/ 42 (ft) R + 0 0 0 0 Recon portions of pavement with concrete other 456 C 123 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 596 Rancho California 1 300 1239 D 140 0 0 0 0 De Luz Rd Temecula C.L. E 5 0 0 0 0 3.39 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road and install raised centerline markers. other C 2 1092 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 1239 Reche Canyon Rd 5 300 95 D 0 0 0 0 0 Arroyo Dr N'ty 0.4 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .40 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 40 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Realign road other 69 C 95 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 164 Record Rd 3 300 80 0 0 8 0 0 0 Potter Rd SH 79 E 0 1 0 0 0 .75 (mi) 13 (ft)/ 13 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf other C 0 71 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 80 195 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 22 06/11/2003 Ridgeview Ter Frontage Rd .44 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Supv.Dist EW (ft)/PW (ft) Via Santiago (ft)/ (ft) River Rd Santa Ana River .12 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Bridge Replacement RCTD Br.# S8002, State Br#. 56C 017 RCTD is working to secure the local matching Riverlane Dr Clinton St .22 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 2 2 Silverwood Dr 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Riverview Dr Limonite Ave Ave Juan Diaz 1.87 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 28 (ft) Reconstruct surface and widen Roble Dr Encino Rd _18 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Rocky Way Double Tree Dr W'ly _05 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 4 2 3 S'ly End 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 3 Round Robin Dr SH 243 .13 (mi) Recon AC paved road SW'ly End 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 Fund Source Totat 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 Fund Source Amount x $1000 140 140 472 22538 23010 94 94 1242 1242 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmenta C = Construction 02/03 C 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 1 06/07 0 8 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 132 0 0 , 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 62 23 0 0 0 E 38 349 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 87 • 301 Measure A/Coachetta Valley 0 0 0 0 D 113 0 0 0 0 E 20 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 4 5 1100 0 0 300 Measure A/Western other Total 300 other Iota! 300 other 33 33 11 11 32 Total 32 196 D E R C 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R D E R C 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Rubidoux Blvd UP RR X-ing 3-54.70-C .05 (mi) 70 (ft)/ (ft) Upgrade Crossing gates and road surface Sage Rd East Benton Rd 5.00 (mi) Recon RMS paved road Wilson Valley Rd 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Sage Rd SH 79 4.78 (mi) Recon RMS paved road Wilson Valley Rd 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Sagebrush Ave Wily Cottonwood 0.02mi .14 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Verbenia Ave 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Fund Source Total 2 300 other Total 3 300 other Total 3 300 other Total 3 300 Saint Annes Bay 0r Orcabessa Dr Ewarton Rd .16 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road Fund Source Amount x $1000 45 45 Page 23 06/11/2003 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 1 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 D 0 E 0 -R 1 C 45 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1700 1700 D 7 E 7 R 0 C 1686 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 102 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 102 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 other Total 4 301 other San Jacinto Rd Fern Valley Rd .38 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Glen Rd 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 45 •45 • D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 39 62 Total 3 300 other 62 74 Total San Juan Ave Commercial St• .10 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road 24th Ave 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 4 302 other Total 74 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 57 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 74 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 D 2 E 1 R 0 C 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) Page 24 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist San Sevaine Channel/Van Buren Blvd .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Road improvements associated with construction of the Flood Control Project of San Sevaine Channel Stage 7_ Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmentat C = Construction 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 2 300 other 303 Total 303 D E R C 3 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western San Timoteo Cyn Rd Live Oak Cyn Rd .23 (mi) Recon AC paved road 50% in SD#3 S.B. County Line 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 300 other Total Scott Rd 1-215 Winchester Rd (SH 79N) 5.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconstruct AC paved road and investigate widening to 4 lanes. RCTD is seeking funds for construction. 3 Scott Rd Murrieta Rd 2.00 (mi) Recon AC paved road I-215 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 3 300 other Total 300 other Total Sea Gull Dr Via Costa Brava .57 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Flamingo Dr 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 4 Seeley Ave 4 Arrowhead Blvd Neighours Blvd (Rte78) 1.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf 26', 0.26'RMS Shoal Dr Beacon Dr .22 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Rocky Point Dr 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) 4 301 other Total 302 other Total 301 177 177 575 18600 19175 4 1236 1240 54 54 12 12 other Total 33 33 198 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 405 140 0 0 10 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 1 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 3 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 51 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 12 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 30 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 25 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Fund Fund Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year limits Source Source Amount x 31000 Length (mi) - EW (ft)/PW (ft) Amount Description" x 31000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition = (Comments) E = Enviornmental C Construction Total 02/03 03/04 104/05 05/06 06/07 Silver Fir Dr 3 300 33 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cedar Glen Dr Wily - E 0 0 0 0 0 .17 (mi) 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 33 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 33 Silverwood Dr 4 301 37 D 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Fred Waring Dr Riverlane Dr . 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) .09 (mi) • E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 37 Simpson Rd 3 300 237 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Briggs Rd Rte 79 E 0 0 0 0 0 3.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other 1125 C ..-237"--• 0 0 Investigate groundwater problem near ponds. 23 300 Measure A/Western Total 1362 Soboba Rd 3 300 92 D 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 N'ly Bath Ave 0.1 mi Chabela Dr E 0 0 0 0 0 .56 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) R 0 0 0 82 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 Coordinate with City of San Jacinto for south half of road. 300 Measure A/Western Total 92 Soboba St 3 300 700 D 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 Stetson Ave Rte 74 E 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 (mi) .24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 623 Recon AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 R/W needs research 300 Measure A/Western Total 700 South Broadway 4 302 85 D 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 15th Ave Blythe CL E 0 2 0 0 0 .40 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 Resurface 0.1', 38' A/C W/ petromat other C 0 75 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 85 Stetson Ave 3 300 1160 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hemet St Fairview Av E 0 0 0 0 0 1.77 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 32 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Realign and widen AC paved road other 47 C 1160 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 1207 199 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) Page 26 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Stetson Ave Dartmouth St Stanford.St .25 (mi) 42 (ft)/ 56 (ft) Widen & recon existing pvmnt. Add left turn lane Fronting Hemet High School Modify Stanford/Stetson signal Studio PI Kennedy St Lakeview Ave .15 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.21' AC Sugar Ln Ridgeview Terrace .04 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Ambunt x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction . 02/03 ( 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 3 2 300 other Total 300 other Total 268 268 47 47 N'ly 0.04 mi 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 2 Sun City Blvd McCall Blvd .50 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Chambers Ave 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) 3 300 other Total 300 other Total Sun City Median Improvements Segment 4 & 5 Sun City Blvd .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Place Stamped Concrete on Sun City Blvd Sun City Median Improvements Segments 6, 7 & 8 Cherry Hills Blvd .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Place Stamped Concrete on Cherry Hills Blvd Swingle Ave Miles Ave .20 (mi) Resurface Paved Road 3 300 other Total 32 32 232 232 125 125 D 20 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 2 0 0 C 06 220 D 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 15 1 0 31 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 C 30 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 E 0 0 R 0 0 C 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 22 0 209 0 0 0 0 D E 0 . 1 R 0 0 C 0 110 0 14 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 300 other Total N'ly Mites Ave 0.2 mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 301 other 165 165 D 0 17 0 E 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 2 145 300 Measure A/Western . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 Total 36 0 0 2 0 E 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 33 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 27 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Fund Limits Source Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 , 04/05 105/06 06/07 301 other ' 49 D E R C 301 2 1 0 46 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Sycamore Rd 3 Atlantic Ave Nancy Dr. .31 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 49 Total Sylvester Rd 1 Mission Tr Lakeview Terrace .21 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon AC paved road 300 other 150 D E R C 25 1 0„ ..12'4 dr. 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 P(P` A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 Total Tamarack Rd 3 Wily Verbenia 0.57 mi Verbenia Ave .57 (mi) 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other 264 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 1 0 238 264 Total 770 D E R C 0 0 0 0 301 Measure 4 2 0 764 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 301 other Thousand Palms Canyon Rd 4 Ramon Rd/Washington St Dillon Rd 5.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen and Resurf RMS paved road 770 Total 45 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 39 0 0 0 0 300 other Tomal Ln 2 58th St 56th St .24 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 45 Total 9 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 Valley 0 0 0 0 Tracy Cir 4 Forest Dr /Ply 0.02 mi .02 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf AC paved road 301 other Total 9 100 D E R C 0 0 0 100 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 other Transfer to City of Temecula 1 Redhawk Area .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Annexation agreement fund transfer Ref. County Board items 3.4 of 6/4/02 and 3.56 of 6/19/01. 100 Total 201 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) Page 28 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Tumbleweed St 58th St South end .08 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM Fund Source Amount x $1000 2 300 21 other Total 21 Tyler St 48th Ave .25 (mi) Recon AC paved road Costs reflect only Co. side N'ty 0.25 mi 11 (ft)/ 11 (ft) 4 301 45 Valley Wy/ Armstrong Rd SR 60 Sierra Ave .90 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 76 (ft) Reconst and widen to 4 lanes RCTD is working to secure the local matching funds needed for R/W and construction. other Total 45 2 300 354 Van Buren Blvd West of Regency Ranch .50 (mi) Const concrete V ditch W'ty 0.5 mi (ft.)/ (ft) Van Buren Blvd Mockingbird Canyon Rd _10 (mi) 48 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Const right turn lane for SE -bound traffic other 6605 Total 6959 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 103/04 104/05 05/06 06/07 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 -0 0 0 15 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 42 D 140 E 136 R 0 C 0 70 8 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 300 109 other Total 109 D 15 0 0 E 1 0 0 R 0 0 C 93 7" 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 300 34 other Total 34 Van Buren Blvd 1 300 674 Washington St Orange Terrace Pkwy 3.50 (mi). 76 (ft)/ 76 (ft) Const raised median, C 8 G, and Bus turn -outs other 1916 Future Coop w/City of Riverside Bus turn -outs primarily from Mockingbird Cyn Rd Varner Rd 1.9 mi S. Chase School 1.55 (mi) Resurface AC paved road Berkey Dr 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Total 2590 4 301 1 "del late etrri vi e..46sfs I other 1 Total 2 202 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 34 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R 110 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 198 356 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 1 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 29 06/11/2003 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition . (Comments) E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 106/07 Varner Rd 4 301 201 D 25 0 0 0 0 0 Ramon Rd E'ly Harry Oliver Tr E 2 0 0 0 0 .70 (mi) 44 (ft)/ 44 (ft) R 28 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other 560 C 146 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachetta Valley Total 761 Verbenia Ave 3 300 295 D 0 0 0 0 28 1 Railroad Ave Chaparral Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 .51 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 266 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 295 Verbenia Ave 3 300 179 D 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 Chaparral Rd W'ly Chaparral 0.31 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .31 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) R 0 0 0 161 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 179 Via Costa Brava 4 301 65 D 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vander Veer Rd Sea View Wy E 1 0 0 0 .57 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 62 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 65 Via Josefa 2 300 32 D 3 0 0 0 0 0 Via Santiago Frontage Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 .05 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other C 29 Coordinate with City of Corona for a portion of the street. Only county costs are shown. 300 Measure A/Western Total 32 Via Los Caballeros 1 300 104 D 0 0 0 0 8 1 Washington St Gardner Ave .E 0 0 0 0 0 .25 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 95 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 104 Vineland St 3 300 403 0 0 0 0 52 0 • Edgar Canyon Channel E 0 0 0 20 0 .01 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Construct box culvert other C 0 0 0 0 331 300 Measure A/Western Total 403 203 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 30 06/11/2003 Name . Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 06/07 Washington St 4 1000 Palms Cyn Rd Pushawalla Rd 1.60 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst AC paved road 301 other 250 604 D E R C 0 0 0 0 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 110 5 0 2 Valley 0 0 0 133 Total 854 Wellman Rd 3 Terwilliger Rd Kirby St 1.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen North side,0.5'DG; Resurf 26',0.21'RMS 300 other 103 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 2 1 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 103 Wood Rd 1 Krameria Ave Nly 0.1 mi & Sly 0.1mi .26 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Recon AC paved road plus Wood Rd from Van Buren Blvd S'ly 0.06 mi 300 other 109 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 101 Total 109 Worsley Rd 3 20th Ave Dillion Rd .70 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Reconstruct surface with RMS on existing base 301 other 73 D E R C 301 0 0 0 0 Measure 2 1 0 70 A/Coachella 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Total 73 z* Future Projects 1 District 1 Only .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) These funds will be used for pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 300 other 680 2636 D E R C 0 0 . 0 0 300 Measure 170 0 0 0 A/Western 170 0 0 0 170 0 0 0 170 0 0 0 Total 3316 z* Future Projects 3 District 3 Only .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) These funds will be used for various pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 300 other 290 3560 D E R C 300 0 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 170 Total 3850 z* Future Projects 4 District 4 Only .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) These funds will be used for pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. Total 301 other 1400 4016 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 301 Measure 0 0 0 350 A/Coachella 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 350 Valley 0 0 0 350 5416 204 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Total Page 31 06/11/2003 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 z* Future Projects District 5 Only .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) These funds will be used for various pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 5 300 other 2050 2071 Total 4121 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 900 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 550 0 0 0 600 205 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2003-2007 Page 32 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/11/2003 Fund Source Source Nme 300 Measure A/Western 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 302 Measure A/Pato Verde * Grand Totals * Fiscal Year (Amt x $1000) Fund Source Total Expenditure 02/03. 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 (Amt x $1000) 16557 7841 5021 6809 8692 44920 1999 2297 865 1531 1473 8165 288 220 250 200 220 1178 18844 10358 6136 8540 10385 54263 206 COACHELLA VALLEY • /rhrer a(mea sti reASyrform • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSI ON MEAS URE "A "LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY200 3 - 2004 Agen cy: City of Cathedral City Page 1 of 4 Prepared by: Colleen Hods on, Administrative Analyst Phone #: 760-770-0319 Date: June 10, 2003 • Item No. T ot al Cost Measure A Project Name / Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's) 1. Public Works Department City wide maintena nc e oper ations 1,475 .5 794.3 2, Parks Maintenance Division Parking and medi an mainten ance and str eet light energy 543.6 91.3 3. ' Engineering Departmen t Highway desig n and related engineering activitie s 71.7.5 205.9 4, Plann ing Departmen t Transportation and traffic related planning a nd development a ctiviti es 504 .9 22 .7 5. Risk Management Traffic related claims man agement 3,385 .0 16.8 6. Traffic Signal Maintenan ce Main te nance— traffic signal system 130 .0 13 �, 0 trio $6,758.6 $1,261,0 era/ mea su re A5yrfo rm 208 RIVER SIDE C OUNTY TRANSPO RTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A'°' LOCAL STREETS AN D ROADS PR OGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 Agen cy; City of Cathedral City Page 2 of 4 Pre pared by: Colleen Hodso n, Administrative Analyst Phone #: 760-770-0319 Date: 3une 10, 2003 Total C ost Me asure A Item Type ($000's) Funds ($000's) No . Project Name / limits - Pr oject Capital Projects Carried Forward 7, ; City-wide Restriping Pavement striping a nd marking s 38.1 37.1 S, ,Date Palm Pro ject Pavement r ehab/alignment st udi es 432.0' 57.9 9, Perez Road Re hab. Paveme nt rehabilitation 226.8 199.7 1. 0. Ra mon Widening Widen e/o Date Palm 1,654 .0 269.0 11. Co ve Area Overlay Pave local streets 151.6 5.0 12. PM 10 Mitigation Improvements Pav e dirt roads/shoulders to reduce blowsand 12.4 8.9 13. I3CN-Hotel Infrastructure Infrastructure impro vements @ hotel site 3,183.0 273.7 14. Interim Traffic Signa l I-10/Date Palm Reconstruct interchange 10.0 8.3 15. Other Co rridor Signal Study Study traffic signals 9.0 9.0 tri veraf m easu reA5yrforrn 209 • • • • • RIVERSID E C OUNTY T RANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LO CAL STR EETS AND R OADS PR OGRAM FY2003 - 2004 A gen cy: City of Cathedral City Page 3 of 4 Prepare d by: Colleen Hod son, Administrative A nalyst Pho ne #: 760-770-0319 Date: June 10, 2003 • Item No, Project Name- / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Meas ure A Funds ($000's) 16. Palm Canyon Corrido r Signal Study Study traffi c sig nals 9.0 9.0 17. Date Palm Corrido r Signal Study Study traffic signals 9.0 9.0 18. Drainage Basins Acquirefco nst. Retention basins 75.1 24.4 19. Assessment District 2001-01 Century Area Assessment 27,0 1.8 District 20. Judy Lane Assessmen t D istrict Assessment district st udies 140.0 117.1 21. Via De An za Reconstruction Design & construct curbs, gutters & paving 261,5 136.7 22. Date Pa lm M edians Constf landscape median islands 20.9 20.0 23. Dinah Shore Widening Highway widen ing with 345.0 224.5 CVAG 24. Misc. Street Proje cts Va rious small projects 17 .4 16.1 /riverairneas ure A5yrform 210 EOOZ/EZ/90 RIV ERSID E COUNTY T RANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A" LO CAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 Agency: City of Cathedral City Page4of4 Prepared by: Colleen Hodson, Administrative Analyst Phon e #: 760-770-0319 Date: 3u ne 10, 2003 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type T otal C ost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 25. Terrace Rd/Cove Drains Cov e area storm drain project 1025.2. 53.2 26. Misc. Sidewa lks Various sidewalk projects 54.7 32.6 27. ADA Projects Ramp f a ccess projects for disabl ed 54.2 12.4 2. 8. , Downtown Pedestrian Bridge Pedestri an bridge 189.8 34.5 29. ( EPC Pavement R ehab to Bankside Repl ace/repair p avement 178.6 30.1 30. EPC Pav ement Rehab to West City limits Replace/r epair pavement 353.4 8.6 31. Ra mon Co rridor Corridor improvements 502.1 148.7 Rehab. deck/joints 148.3 14.7 32. Date Palm Bridge Repair Install sidewatks,ramps & 82.6 28.3 33. Dre am Home s Revitalization watts along various streets Set up landsca pe t .0.8 10.6 34. Maintenance District maintenanc e district $9,221.5 $1,800.9 Irivera f me a su reA5yrfarm 211 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSI ON MEASU RE 'A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY2004 - 2005 Agency: City of Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Prepared by: Co lleen Hodson, Administrative Analyst Phone #: 760-770-0319 Date : June 10, 2003 • Item No. Total Cost Meas ure A Project Name / Limits Project Typ e ($000's) Funds ($000 's) 1. Pu blic Wo rks Department City wide maintenance op erations 1,660.0 811.0 2. Parks Maintenance Div ision Parking and median maintena nce and str eet light energy 875.0 120, 0 3. Engineering Department Highway design and r elated engineering activities 900.0 120.0 4. Plan ning Department Transport ati on and traffic related planning and development activities 700.0 81.0 5. Risk M anagement Traffic related claims man agement 3,385.0 50.0 6. Traffic Signal Maintenance Maintenance —traffic signal system 130 .0 30.0 $7,650.0 $1,242 ..0 212 RIVERSI DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASU RE "A' 7 L,OCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY2005 - 2006 Age ncy: City of Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Prepared by: Colleen Hodson, Administrative Analyst Phone #: 760-770-0319 Date: June 10, 2003 Item No. 1, 2. 3. 4, 3. 6, Project Name / Limits Public Works Department Parks Maintenance Division Engineering Department Planning Department Risk Management Traffic Signal Maintenance Project Type City wide maintena nce oper ations P arking and median maintenan ce and street light en ergy Highway de sign a nd related engineering activities Transportation and traffic related planning .and developm ent activities Traffic related claims man agement M ainte nan ce— traffic signal system Total Cost ($000's) 1,665.0 875.0 900.0 705.0 3,385.0 130.0 $7,660.0 Measur e A Funds ($000's) 830.0 150.0 122.0 31.0 30.0 130.0 $1,293,0 Jrhrera f me asureA5yrfo rm • 213 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY T RANS PORTATI ON COMMI SSION MEASURE A' LO CAL ST REET S AND ROADS PR OGRAM FY2006 - 2007 Agency: csty of Cathedr al City Page 1of1 Prepared by: Colleen H odso n, Administrative Analyst Phone #: 760-770-0319 Date : June 10, 2003 • Ite m No. Total Cost Measure A Project Name 1 Limits Proj ect Type ($000's) Funds ($000's) 1. Pu blic Works Department City wid e maintenance operations 1,665,0 835.0 2. Pa rks M ainten ance Division Parking and medi an maintenance and street light energy 875.0 105.0 3. Engineerin g Department Highway design and related engi neering a ctivities 900.0 120,0 4. Plan ning Department Transportation and traffic related planning and development a ctivities 700.0 30.0 5. Risk Management Tra ffic related claims management 3,385,0 30.0 6. M iscellaneou s Street Pro jects Minor street projects 150.0 93.0 7. Traffic Signal Main tenance Maintenanc e — traffic signal system 130.0 130.0 $7,805.0 $1,343.0 / ri ve ral me al ureA5vrform 214 E00Z/EZ/90 RIVERSIDE COU NTY TRANSPORT ATI ON COMMISSION MEASURE'AAL OCAL STREETS AND ROADS PR OGRAM FY2007 - 2008 Agenc y: City of Cathedral City Page 1of1 Prepared by: Colleen Hodson, Administrative Analyst Phone # :760-770-0319 Date; June 10,2003 Item No. 1. 2. 3. A. 5. 6. 7. Project Name / Limits Public Works Department Parks Maintenance Division Engineering Depa rtment Planning Department Risk Management Miscellane ous Stre et Pro jec ts Traffic Signal Maintenance J riven/ measure A5yrform • Project Type City wid e maintenance oper atio ns Parki ng and m edian maintenance and street light energy Highway desig n and related engi neering activities Transportation and traf fic related planning and developm ent activities Traffic related claims manage ment Mino r street projects Maintenance — traffic signal system 215 • Total Cost ($000's) 1,665.0 875.0 910.0 700.0 3,385.0 150.0 130.0 $7,815.0 M eas ure A Fund s ($000's) 833.0 155.0 125 .0 39.0 30.0 90.0 130.0 $1,393 .0 • El E00Z/EZ/90 N 07 N N 07 0 0 0 0 0 • Agency: Prepared by: Phone No.: Date: ITEM NO. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMIISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 City of Coachella Eldon K. Lee 760.398 .5744 28 -May -03 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT NAME / LIMITS PROJECT TYPE 1 Avenue 50 from Harrison to De Oro Street 2 Baddad Street from Harrison Street to Tripoli Way Reconstruct Reconstruct 216 TOTAL COST ($000's) $212 $96 MEASURE A ($000'S) $212 $96 $ 308 $ 308 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004 - 2008 Agency: Prepared by: Pho ne No.: Date: ITEM NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • PROJECT NAME / LIMITS Vine Street form First Street to Ninth Street Damascus Street form Douma Street to Libnan Street Tripoli Way from Avenue 52 to Bagdad Street Tyler Street from Avenue 50 to Vista del Sur Shady Lane from Avenue 52 to Ninth Street Tyler Street from Avenue 52 to Calle Mendoza City of Coachella Eldon K. Lee 760 .398.5744 28 -May -03 217 PROJECT TYPE Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct TOTAL COST ($000's) $264 $25 $118 $421 $126 $500 Page 1 of 1 MEASURE A ($000'S) $264 $25 $118 $421 $126 $333 TOTAL $1,454 $1,287 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOC AL FUNDS PR OGR AM FY 2003 — 2004 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P .E. Pho ne N o.: (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Date: June 5, 2003 Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. Monterey Avenue / Freeway Loop - design PSR and EIR 2,525 610 2. NB Portola Avenue — Alessandro to El Cortez Roadway widening 2,035 95 * 3. Highway 111 Improvements Roadway widening 3,300 991 * 4. Magnesia Falls Drive Bridge/Street Improvements from Monterey Avenue to Deep Canyon Road Bridge construction, street widening, and traffic signal modifications (additional funding due to expanding of scope of project — see prior year summary for funding carryover) 4,100 2,309 * 5. Portola Interchange at 1-10 PSR and EIR 18,000 15 6. Portola Avenue/Dinah Shore Extension Roadway widening 1,700 15 7. Mo nterey Avenue between Hovley Lane West and Country Club Drive M edian island construction 115 5 8. Westbound Dinah Shore from Miriam Way to Street improveme nts 315 15 Key Largo Avenue 9. Palm Desert High School Access on Cook Roadway & signal 505 5 Street * - rounded to the nearest thousand 218 6/4/03 - G:\PubWorks\Ryan Ga yler\Wo rd Files\RCTC 03.04\RCTC Funds Program Form - FY 03.04 yr 1.doc - sd RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE " A" LOC AL FUNDS PROGR AM FY 2004 — 2005 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P .E . Phone No.: (760) 346-0611 ext . 447 Date: June 5, 2003 Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LI MITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) ME ASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. Monterey Avenue / Freeway Loop - construction On-ramp/Off-ramp construction 2,525 1,260 2. Monterey Ave & Avenue 35 Street Project 505 505 3. Monterey Ave — Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore Design/PSE 1,015 205 4. Hwy 111 — Desert Crossing/Toys R Us Intersection Intersection Improvements 415 305 5. San Pablo NB @ Fred Waring — Right Turn Pocket Right Turn Pocket 505 505 6. San Pablo Avenue at Highway 111 Intersection Improvements 71 43 * 7. Monterey Avenue at Parkview Drive/COD Intersection Improvements 71 71 * - rounded to the nearest thousand • 219 e 614/03 • G'.\Pu bWorks\Ryan Gayler\Word Files\RCTC 03-041RCT C F unds Program Form. FY 03-04 yr 2S • Agency: Prepared by: Phone No.: Date: ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE " A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGR AM FY 2005 — 2006 City of Palm Desert Michael Errante, P.E . (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 June 5, 2003 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS Page 1 of 1 Monterey Avenue / Freeway Loop - construction Gerald Ford Drive — Portola Ave to Cook Street Monterey Ave — Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore — Const . Gerald Ford Drive — Cook Street to Frank Sinatra Portola Ave @ Whitewater Channel — Design/ROW * - rounded to the nearest thousand PROJECT TYPE On-ramp/Off-ramp construction Street Widening Street Widening Street Widening Bridge Design 220 TOTAL COST ($000'S) 2,525 690 1,015 480 4,815 MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 655 456 * 605 480 555 6/4/03 - G:\PubWorks\Ryan Gayler\W ord Files\RCTC 03-04 RUC Funds Program Form - FY 03-04 yr 3.doc - sd RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006 — 2007 Agency: Prepared by: Phone No.: Date: City of Palm Desert Michael Errante, P.E. (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 June 5, 2003 Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS 1. San Pablo Ave — Magnesia Falls to COD Driveway 2. M onterey Ave — Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore — Const. 3. Portola Interchange @ 1-10 - Construction • PROJECT TYPE Roadway widening Street Widening On-ramp/Off-ramp 221 TOTAL COST ($000'S) 405 1,015 18,000 MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 405 205 3,220 6/4/03 - G:\PubWorks\Ryan GaylenWord Files 1RCTC 03-041RCTC Funds Pr ogram Form - FY 03.04 yrr sd • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ME ASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2007 — 2008 Agen cy: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P.E. Phone No .: (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Date: June 5, 2003 Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) 4,815 4,000 MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 4,260 255 1. 2. Portola Ave @ Whitewater Channel — Const. El Dorado West - PSE Bridge Construction Road Construction 222 • 6/4/03 - G:1PubWorks\Ryan Gayle r1Word Files'RCTC 03-041RCTC Funds Program Form • FY 03-04 yr 5.doc - sd • • • Agen cy: Prepared by: Date: • RIVERSIDE COU NTY T RA NSPORTATI ON COMMISSIO N ME ASURE " A" L OCAL FUNDS PRO GRAM • City of Palm Springs Page 1 of 2 David J. Barakian, P ublic Works Director/City Engineer (by RL. Mohler, Grants Man ager) June 6, 2003 FY 2004-08 5-Yr. Measure A Local Streets & Roads Program (FY 02-03 cont. to 03-04) ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1* Mesquite Ave. (Desert Way - Dem uth P ark) Street Wide ni ng - 1/2 south 525,000 525,000 2* N. Indian Canyon Widen s/o I-10 to RR Bridge RCTC STP 99/00 Grant Match) (Local 200,000 33,000 3* Belardo Rd. Bridge/Ro adways (Ramon- S. End) Federal PL H-D Gra nt (Local Match) 4,083,000 325,000 4* Indian Canyon/I-10 Interchange (Design Only) Design new 6 -lane Intercha nge Indi an/I-10 at 1,500,000 200,000 5* G ene A utry Ramon Median Island Landscape 2000/01 TEA Federal Grant Match) (Local 604,000 108,000 6* Gene Autry/Palm & I-10 Interchange Construction City sh are of joi nt County/CVAG/City Project 12,228,000 500,000 7* Indian Canyon RR Bride (a; WW River (Design Phase) 80% HBRR Federal Gra nt (desig n o nly) 1,600,000 40,000 8* Tachevah Drive g Desert Hospital Lighted Crosswalk 5,000 0 *Continued fro m Prior Year (2002/03) *02/03 Project Continued to 03/04 20,745,000 1,731,000 NOTE: These are cu rren t RCTC approved FY 02/03 Projects that need to be "con tinued" to FY to 03/04 (Page 1 of 2) 223 RIVE RSIDE COUNTY T RANSPO RTATION COMMISSION MEAS URE "A" L OCAL FUN DS PROGRAM Agen cy: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Spri ngs Page 2 of 2 Da vid J. Barakian, P ublic Works Director/City Engineer (by R.L. Mohler, Grants Manager) June 6, 2003 FY 2004-08 5-Yr. Measure A Local Streets & Roads Program (FY 02-03 cont. to 03-04) ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE FUNDS 9* 10* 11* 12* 13* 14* 15* 16* 17* 18* Traffic Signal Flow Impro vements E. Palm Can yo n & S. Palm Canyon E. Palm Canyon & Araby Driv e Racqu et Club Dr. & Aven ida Caballeros Sunrise Way & Sun ny Dunes Farrell Drive & Baristo Rd. Tachevah Drive Flashin g Crosswalks Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Program (Local Match) Sunrise Way Traffic Signal Interconnect Gene Autry/Ra mon Median Lan dscape (Added $) Cont.* (Carried forward from prey. pages 1-8) V arious Locati ons Traffic Signal Modifications Traffic Signal Modifications New Traffic Sign al New Traffic Signal Left- Turn Phasing Lighted Walk f or Pedestrian Safety Racquet Club Rd. Sidew alks- s.side State STIP (Grant $120K) $40K local 00/01 TEA Grant (see #5 prey . page) SUBTOTAL (this page) 150,000 125,000 75,000 150,000 106,000 125,000 25,000 98,000 160,000 604,000 1,618,000 50,000 125,000 75,000 10,000 106,000 125,000 25,000 40,000 40,000 416,000 1,012,000 *Con tinued from FY 02/03 to FY 03/04 *FY 02/03 projects con tinu ed to FY 03/04 (Page 2 of 2) • SUBTOTALS (previous page) FY 02/03 Projects continued to FY 03/04 224 • 20,745,000 522,363,000 1,731,000 52,743,000 • • Agency: Prepared by: Date: • RIVERSI DE C OUNTY TR ANSP ORT ATIO N C OMMISSION MEASU RE "A" L OC AL FUNDS PROGR AM City of Palm Springs Page 1 of 1 David J. Barakian, Public Works Director/City Engineer (by R.L. Mohler, Grants Man ager) June 6, 2003 FY 2004-08 5-Yr. Measure A Local Streets & Roads Program (FY 2003/2004) • ITEM MEAS URE NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL "A" COST FUNDS 1. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Various Locations (Contract Crews) 200,000 200,000 2. ARHM Street Overlays Various Locations (Contract Crews) 200,000 200,000 3. Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Program) Various Bridges (Co ntract Crews) 37,000 37,000 4. Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Project Install Sidewalks on 1. Ramon Rd. 2. Tramview 105,000 42,000 5. Racquet Club Rd. & Avenida Caballeros New Traffic Sig nal 140,000 140,000 6. Amado Road & Calle Alvarado (near Conv. Center) Street Widening 175,000 175,000 7. E. Palm Canyon Dr. & A raby Dr. Modify Exist. Traffic Signals 75,000 75,000 8. Gene Autry Trail RR Bridge @ WW Wash Design Phase (NEPA En viro nmental) 2,481,000 61,000 9. Indian Canyon Drive RR Bridge @ WW Wash Design Phase 2,000,000 141,000 10. Traffic Safety Projects V arious Locations 40,000 40,000 11. North Indian Can yon Drive (Side Street Closures) Street Reconstruction 75,000 75,000 FY 2003/04 TOTALS 5,528,000 1,186,000 225 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ME ASURE " A" LOC AL FUNDS PR OGRAM A gency: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Springs David J. Barakian, Public Works Director/City E ngineer June 6, 2003 FY 2004-08 5-Yr . Meas ure A Local Streets & Roads Program (Fiscal Year 2004-05) Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOT AL COST MEASURE "A" FUNDS 600,000 600,000 1. A nn ual Stree t Slu rry Seals (Contract) Vari ous Locations (Co ntract Crews) 2. Ann ual Stree t Crack Fillin g (Contract) Various Locations (Contract Crews) 75,000 75,000 3. ARHM Rubber Asphalt Street Overlays (Contract) Vari ous L ocations (C ontract Crews) 200,000 200,000 4. Calle En cilia Stree t Widening (Ramon Rd. to Ar enas Rd)- 1/3 mil e 485,000 485,000 5. Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annu al Program) Various Bridges 25,000 25,000 6. Ramon Bridge Widen - WW. Wash (H BRR)-Add 2 Lanes Joint w/ Cathedral City/ CVAG (DESI GN) 800,000 40,000 7. Ann ual SB-821 Sidewalk Safety Project Install Concrete Sidewalks behind curbs 60,000 40,000 8. Gene Autry Wide ning across Whitewater Wash Widen fr om 2 to 4 lanes 3,000,000 750,000 9. Gene Autry Trail at In terstate 10 Widen from 2 to 6 Lanes 12,000,000 2,000,000 10. Gen e Autry Trail RR Bridge a WW Wash (STIP Gran t) Construct 6 -Lane Railroad Overcrossi ng 2,420,000 578,000 11. Indian & I-10 Interchange Constructio n (STIP Grant) New 6 -Lane Interchange 16,215,000 1,150,000 12. Indian Canyo n Widening (across Whitewater Wash) Widen Road from 2 to 4 -Lanes 3,300,000 1,180,000 13. Farrell Drive & Vista Chin o Intersection Install Right -Turn Lane 100,000 100,000 14. G ene Au try Trail & V ia Escuela Intersection New Traffic Signals 150,000 150,000 FY 2004/05 TOTALS $30,230,000 $7,373,000 • 226 • • • Agency: Prepared by: Date: • RIVE RSIDE COUNTY T RANSPORTATION COMMISSION ME AS URE "A" LO CAL F UNDS P ROG RAM City of Palm Spri ngs Da vid J. Barakian, Public Works Director/City Engi neer June 6, 2003 FY 2004-08 5-Yr. Measure A Local Streets & Roads Program (FY 2005-06) • Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ME ASURE " A" FUNDS 1. Annual Street Slu rry Se als (Contract) Vari ous Locatio ns (Contract Crews) 600,000 600,000 2. A nnua l Street Crack Filling (Contract) Vario us Locati ons (Contract Crews) 75,000 75,000 3. Cape Seal Street Overlays (Contract) Various Locatio ns (Contract Crews) • 125,000 125,000 4. Bridge Misc. Repairs (A nnua l Progra m) Various Bridges 25,000 25,000 5. Ramon Bridge Widen- WW. Wash (H BRR)-Add 2 Lanes Joint w/ Cathedral City/ CVAG (CONSTRUCT) 7,000,000 350,000 6. A lejo Ro ad & Caballeros Traffic Steal New Sig nal 150,000 150,000 7. A nn ual SB-821 Sidewalk Safety Pro ject Install C oncrete Sidewalks behind c urbs 60,000 40,000 8. Calle En cilia (Ramo n to Aren as) Widen road to 4 -l anes 485,000 485,000 9. Misce llaneo us Stree t I jrov emen ts V ario us Locatio ns • 200,000 200,000 10. Gene Autry Trail & Mesquite Av e. (N .E. corner) A dd Free -Right Turn La ne 450,000 450,000 2005/06 TOTALS $9,170,000 $2,260,000 227 RIVERSIDE CO UNTY TRANSP ORTATION C OMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" L OCAL FUNDS PR OG RAM A gency: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Spri ngs Page 1 of 1 David J. Barakian, Public Works Director/City Engi neer June 6, 2003 FY 2003-07 5-Yr. Meas ure A Local Streets & Roads Program (Fiscal Year 2006-07) ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL C OST MEASURE "A" FU NDS Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Vari ous Locations (Contract Crews) 600,000 600,000 1. 2. Annu al Street Crack Filling (Contract) Various Locatio ns (C ontract Crews) 75,000 75,000 Various Locations (C ontract Crews) 125,000 125,000 3. Cape Seal Street Overlays (Contract) Various Bridges 25,000 25,000 4. Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Pro gram) Secondary Th or oughfare 600,000 500,000 5. ARHM Pave men t O verlay Major or 6. Traffic Sign al Upgrade New Signal 150,000 150,000 7. An nual SB-821 Side walk Safety Pro ject Install Concret e Sidewalks behind curbs 60,000 40,000 2006/07 TOT ALS $1,635,000 $1,515,000 • 228 • • • Agen cy: Prepared by: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNT Y T RANSPORTATI ON COMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" L OCAL FU NDS PROGR AM City of P alm Springs David J. Barakian, Public Works Director/City Engineer June 6, 2003 FY 2004-08 5-Yr. Measure A Local Streets & Roads Program (Fiscal Year 2007-08) • Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOT AL COST ME ASURE "A " FUNDS 1. Ann ual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Various Locati ons (Contract Crews) 600,000 600,000 2. A nnua l Stree t Crack Filling (Contract) V ari ous Locati ons (C ontr act Crews) 75,000 75,000 3. Cape Seal Street Overlays (Contract) Various Locatio ns (Contract Crews) 125,000 125,000 4. Bridge Misc. Repairs (A nnu al Progra m) Vari ous Bridges 25,000 25,000 5. ARHM Pav emen t Ov erlay Maj or or Sec ond ary Thoroughfare 600,000 500,000 6. Traffic Signal Upgrade New Signal 150,000 150,000 7. Annual SB-821 Side wa lk Safety Project Install Concr ete Sidewalks b ehi nd curbs 60,000 40,000 2007/08 TOT ALS $1,635,000 $1,515,000 229 • RI VE RSIDE COU NTY TR ANSPORT ATI ON COMMISSI ON ME ASURE " A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS P ROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 Agency: City of Rancho Mirage Page 1 of 5 Prepared by: Bruce B. Harry, Jr ., Director of Public Works Phone #: (760) 770-3224 Date: June 5, 2003 ITEM NO . PRO JECT NAME/LIMITS • PROJECT T YPE 1. 2. G erald Ford Drive asphalt rubber hot mix overlay (Plumley Road to Inverness Drive). Fran k Sinatra Drive asphalt rubber hot mix ov erlay (Highway 111 to Morn ingside Drive). Preventative Mainte na nce Preventati ve Mai ntenance TOTALS T OTA L COST ($000'S) 624 698 1,322 MEASU RE A FU NDS ($000'S) 419 400 819 230 m 0 l9 ZE O LL O9 L= RIVERSIDE C OUNT Y TRANSPORTATI ON C OMMISSI ON ME ASURE " A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 Agency: City of Rancho Mirage Page 2 of 5 Prepared by: Bruce B. Harry, Jr., Director of P ublic Works Phone #: (760) 770-3224 Date: Jun e 5, 2003 ITEM NO. PRO JECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL C OST ($000'S) MEASU RE A FUNDS ($000' S) 1. 2. 3. 4. City-wide Ru bber Crack and Slurry Sealing on Various Public Streets. Mon terey Avenu e Street Improvements and Pavement Rehabilita tion (Fran k Sin atra Drive to Coun try Club Drive). H ighway 111 Pav ement Rehabilitation (Mirage Co ve to west city limits). Bob Hope Drive Pavement Rehabilitation (Frank Sin atra D riv e to Eisenho wer Medical Center Blood Bank). Preventative Maintenance Wide ning/Pavement Mai ntenance Preventati ve Maintenance Preventative Mainte nance TOTALS 300 1,065 606 326 2,297 215 100 100 100 515 • 231 • • 9Z£ O LL 09L`- • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPORTATIO N COMMISSION MEASURE " A" LOCAL ST REETS AND R OADS PROG RAM FY 2005 - 2006 Agency: City of Rancho Mirage Page 3 of 5 Prepared by: Bruce B. Harry, Jr., Director of Public Works Phone #: (760) 770-3224 D ate: Jun e 5, 2003 ITEM N O. PRO JECT NAME/LIMITS PR OJECT TYPE TOT AL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. City -Wide Crack Sealin g Road Slurry, minor asphalt hot mix overlays an d traffic striping on various local public streets. Pa veme nt Maintenance 400 300 2. Frank Sinatra Drive Pav emen t Rehabilitation an d asphalt hot mix overlay from H ighway 111 to Morningside Drivel Pavement Mainte nance 625 241 Thompson Road. 3. Plumley Road Pav emen t Rehabilitation fro m Gerald Ford Paveme nt Maintenance 375 100 Drive to Dinah Shore Driv e. TOTALS 1,400 641 0 0 rf 0 m 0 0 0 0 0) 232 RIVERSIDE COU NTY TRANSPORTATI ON COMMISSION MEASURE "A" L OCAL STREETS A ND R OA DS PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2007 Agency: City of Rancho Mirage Page 4 of 5 Prepared by: Bru ce B. Harry, Jr., Director of Public Works Phone #: (760) 770-3224 Date: Ju ne 5, 2003 N 0 N 0 0 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJ ECT TYPE T OTAL COST ($000'S) MEASU RE A FUN DS ($000'S) 1. Street Improvemen ts and Pavement Rehabilitation of public local streets in Section 30: Via Vail, Ginger Rogers Road, Via Floren cio, Via Marta, K ey Largo, Landy Lane, Via Josefina and Victory Drive. Street Improvements a nd Pavement Reconstruction 3,696 650 TOTALS 3,696 650 • 233 • • m W 0 0 m 0) • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION COMMISSION ME ASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS A ND RO ADS P ROGRAM FY 2007 - 2008 Agency: City of Rancho Mirage Page 5 of 5 Prepared by: Br uce B. Harry, Jr ., Director of Public Works Phone #: (760) 770-3224 Date: June 5, 2003 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST (5000'S) MEASU RE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. City -Wide Crack Sealin g, Slurry Sealing, min or hot mix overlays an d street striping on various local public streets. Pavement Maintenance 660 660 TOT AL 660 660 234 L9Z£ OLL O9L= • • PALO VERDE VALLEY • • RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL F UNDS P ROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2004 - 2008 Agenc y: City of Blyth e Pre pared By: H elen C olbert Phon e No.: (760) 922-6161 Date: June 10, 2003 Page 1 of 1 • ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJE CT T YPE TOTAL COS T ($000'S) MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($000'S) 1 ** 1997/05 Hobsonwa y R econstructio n Proj ect $7,000 . $5,000. 2 2003/04 A dministrative Overhead 72. 72. 3 2003/04 Sidewalk Improv ements 265. 80. 4 2001/05 S. Lo vekin Design/Widen/Resurfac e(Desig n 03/04) 75. 75. 5 1998/05 Whee lchair Ramps (AD A) (50,000/yr for 5 years) 250 . 250. 6 2001/03 Sidewalk & Street Impro vements (Saf e Rout es) 245. 175. 7 2000/03 Alleyway Improv emen ts 200 . 200. 8 2000/03 Fog & Chip Se al 100. 100. 9 2000/03 Asphalt Material (Stockpile/Annual) 175. 175. 10 2003/04 Bicycle Paths 45 . 15 . ** NOTE: City is acc umulatin g Measure "A" pro ceeds to fund Item 1.; E ngineeri ng is 100% compl ete . Constructio n s ta rted fisca l year 2002/03. 236 • AGENDA ITEM 6N • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Fiscal Year 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Moreno Valley and Palm Desert BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the Fiscal Year 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Moreno Valley and Palm Desert. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The Measure "A" Plans for the Cities of Moreno Valley and Palm Desert were approved by the Commission at its July 10, 2002 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted Plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City of Moreno Valley is requesting to amend their FY 2002-03 Measure "A" Plan in order to match the City of Moreno Valley's FY 2002-03 Budget for Measure "A" Funds and to add four (4) projects (items 34 thru 37 on attached schedule). The City of Palm Desert is requesting to amend their FY 2002-03 Measure "A" Plan to increase funding by $500,000 for the Fred Waring Drive Widening Project and reduce funding for six other projects to allow adequate funds to complete the work. Attachments: 1) Letter from the City of Moreno Valley with Revised Schedule 2) Letter from the City of Palm Desert with Revised Schedule 237 May 12, 2003 Public Works Department Capital Projects City Hall 14177 Frederick Street P.O. Box 88005 Moreno Valley, CA 92552-0805 Telephone: (909) 413-3130 FAX: (909) 413-3170 Mr. Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 Subject: Amendment to Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Measure "A" Streets and Roads Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2003-2007 Dear Mr. Rivera: Enclosed is the City of Moreno Valley's Amended Fiscal Year 2002-03 to the Measure "A" Streets and Roads Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Projections for Fiscal Year 2003-07. The figures in the total cost column, marked with an asterisk, were changed to match the City of Moreno Valley's FY 2002-03 budget for Measure "A" funds. Four new projects were added to the FY 2002/03 Measure "A" budget and are noted as "added project" in the project funding year(s) column. The added projects are Dracaea Avenue/Heacock Street to Perris Boulevard; Atwood Avenue/Indian Street to Perris Boulevard; Alessandro Entryway Improvements; and Perris Boulevard/Northern Dancer Drive intersection. If you have any questions, please contact John Hogard, Senior Engineer, at (909) 413-3137. Sincerely, Trent D. Pulliam, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer ohn T. Hogard, P.E. Senior Engineer JTH/ah Enclosure: Amended Fiscal Year 2002-03 Measure "A" Streets and Roads Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Projections for Fiscal Year 2003-07 • c: File Steve Chapman Prem Kumar 238 U:\CAPPROJ\Measure A\5YEAR12002-071Letter\051203 Amnd 02-03 5yr Projections Letter.docRevised 3/13/03 City of Moreno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised M ay 28, 2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP(ATION COMMISSION (RCTC) AMENDED MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2003-2007 • Page 1 of 6 Item.. ..:;.: ., ... Project Funding ,'Year(s) 'P.ro e' t Name/Li a .. n �, J � � mats �.. h1 d4 ;: ,✓ .. .n, ,, .. e ;.: Pro e ct...T- � i« �. .. ! .. .y, >. .. :_.: ,. �- �y �t n: .is , ''.0 , r -. 'LV t •- -:: S 1. .S .AX . 4 ay. .r . h. .. ::: .. %,,. .' y„. . �.�.�rl'7tV �. ,i! i�P�i!1J "£���^:vn;i � .,,, e«..T✓� � i' „` a:.t 'ii' }i�„l„i�}T { .,y 'P 't .d..'Y 'Ji '.'� ��0������ 1 2002/03 Annual Pavement Resurfacing Rehabilitation/ Overlay Z On -going annual program . 7�Y k.Pd���.a,y.� * $3,159 3 $3,159 2 2002/03 Ironwood Ave. Rehabilitation/Day St. -Pigeon Pass Rd. Reconstruction Reconstruction of the street. * $1,1981 $467 3 2002/03 Frederick/Alessandro Intersection Improvements & Storm Drain Cross Gutter Elimination Storm Drain Release 10 % retention . * $64 $64 4 2002/03 Intersection Cross Gutter Modifications — Ironwood/Pigeon Pass Cross Gutter Elimination Storm Drain Release 10% retention. $33 $33 5 2002/03 Iris Ave. /Indian St. —Traffic Signals/Street Improvements Traffic Signal Release 10% retention for street improvements . Finish design of traffic signals . Traffic signal construction in FY 2003/04.2 * $225 $225 6 2002/03 Perris Blvd. /Sunnymead Ranch Pkwy Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Design and construction of traffic signal. $173 $173 1 TEA 21 STP funding - $981,000 2 CM AQ funding - $146,000 * Changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 02/03 budget ** Includes carryover 239 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) AMENDED MEASURE " A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YE AR 2003-2007 City of Moreno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Rev ised May 28, 2003_ v5ure"Ai" . .. ..., .. _ , :. ,Item »,.. , . ,. No., ,. .. . ....e._ .;_,.... .,, ,n. , 'Wed, .. �a.,K . ., , ,., ., y, din Fun g ,.x. (k ) Years . ... . .. . .. re ,.,, s- . _ .. ,.. . � ,...: r61:47 .. .:. � ., . ,. ,. L .i . .. . ..a x c Name/Lim,.s,.�m£ r>. P�.. .. � �.... � �,, � �. . . ..,d .,. , ,.. .... , :': ....,, -:.. �tr:n : ,. . s.;vt ,�s.S✓N 2 .... . ... .. _ -. _. .. . .:::; ^ a, :' . ... �, ... ?i�` c � � �.. z � , _ �� t . S , .mo t sl `' 1b. r: ,. .. n> N ..+�"� . , .,. .. .. ». .: .. �Z.,_. 1 .rx x,. ,, .. .. .: .... , - ,. .: az � d u ;:: , , . ,;:> s.: , .: ! � � ... . a �� s : .:, .. , .. . .. i Y.. 1f9x ,,r: i ._ . .. ...,. , yiA: . ., .:a b _•. . _.....Zs txk., ..< ...z..:� , :tat �. .$ » ,» � � .... ..,,.. ' � 4 ,.� � ...,. .' . ,.n »..., St. .:r s.. '.; r b. a s .. .,a ', .. .. ysd 'r ., '" `: •.s �. •: ': .. ,r �, „fii . ,,. , .;; K� .:,. - .-.: f' *� .5 x?;F � r d W . � , .: ,_ � � �� � �� � >, f ,,. R, s,e o-" p .0 al -. .7 .. . .. ¢IC't . Y, r. •- S,1 w}�f. ; "M e - t��k, ,� .'wrwz.�, ,.. r• , , i',< t �: �% x '1,04 O' .. .. 3;,n• . .y� „�,T,'� , :a: .,.. �-,F nCl:�n g� 1'`000's , . s , i .. f�, 3 , ..s,t . . .. ,. . .. .r. n s t .�.. , �;� a * * $333 $333 $447 7 2002/03 Krameria Ave./Kitching St. Traffic Signal nal Traffic Signal and construction of traffic signal. Design and 8 2002/03 Pigeon Pass/Ironwood-Old Lake Reconstruction Release 10% retention. $447 of * * $31 *$31 $128 9 2002/03 Pavement Management Street Pavement Condition Update Ongoing annual program to update condition street pavement. 10 2002/03 GIS — Graphic Information System Creating Street Data Layers Addapublicinfrafor tracking, information mappingsystem and efficient maintenance. * $128 $240 11 2002/03 Preliminary Street Engineering Project Study Report Preparing RFP's to hire consultants . * $240 $633 12 2002/03 San Michele Road/Indian St. - Perris Blvd. Street Construction Construction of street improvements . * $633 $1,100 13 2002/03 Newhope Street Street Improvements Construction completion date is June 2003. $1,100 Page 2 of 6 * Changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 02/03 budget ** Includeloryover 240 • • City of M oreno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised M ay 28. 2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPO \TION COMMISSION (RCTC) AMENDED MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YE AR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2003-2007 • Page 3 of 6 item • Project ::.,, ., Funding.3 ears . �, .,, ,.,.,. � v. _.. ,. '� U .,; Pr o ectT, e ., .-;+ .._, ., 3�.r � „. Status, k. ' ', 'r a. �..`n s�� . ,�lxx :�a . - .�� �� �'9 F K � i, f Wit' �^{�•}r't- ��,�1 }�`� ,� r, �Tota10 -ia acs '. ,� �+� A� A undid • � 14 2002/03 Reche Vista/Reche Canyon Route Concept Report/PSR Project Study Report Retain consultant to prepare PSR, $68 * $68 15 2002/03 Route 60 Interchange Study/PSR Project Study Rep ort Retain consultant to prepare PSR . * $65 $65 16 2002/03 Street Improvement Inventory for GASB 34 Requirements Evaluate Public Infrastructure Review and evaluate public infrastructure . * $50 $50 17 2002/03 Iris Avenue/Indian-Perris Rehabilitation Release 10 % retention. * $83 $83 18 2002/03 Eucalyptus Ave./Wichita to 660 Feet East Pe destrian Walk Design and Construction of pedestrian walk for school children . * $503 $10 19 2002/03 Frederick/Brabham Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Construction. * $175 $175 3 Safe Route to School - $39,500 * Changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 02/03 budget 241 ** Includes carryover RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) AMENDED MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2003-2007 City of Moreno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 May 28, 2003 Revised r Y vtc ma..: i i .. ., . .. - .: u. x .:, .. j. . .. .. � F ', '� �. + ,i "#.. t,.Nartte/.L�mis ., :.. �'t'o ec . � ..� ��. �� 4:610 � .., ,,: �.�� �� o ' ; ';. r's:., ' Pro ect T, . e.� }�: f,! 3• ^� .., d 1 Yp � ..�. �� � .. ,. . t _ : �W� a.Hm-1 x`�3', .`.x" r� . Ik . � Sta�o m ,_, ?a ,t -_ b 'a� .7'i a � X L �"� : aC� �,,. ,., ,..,. 1'o�tal�'C�i's , irt $2,619 ... .!. ,.. .w , .J; ..w , ,. ,,. < . a :y ,: a: ., . iiii :.ra eot�� Year(s),. Resurface On -going annual program . $2,619 20 2002/03 Slurry Seal Program Rehabilitation On -going annual program. * $51 $51 21 2002/03 Surface Recycling Caltrans & * $300 $300 22 2002/03 Route 60/Nason Street Interchange Interchange Imp. Lanes East and West Bound Requires revised project report, design, FHWA approval, utility relocation and RNV. Env . study in process. Estimated construction completion date is December 2005. $584 $10 23 2002/03 Nason/Alessandro-Fir Traffic Signal Releas e 10% retention. $510 $510 24 2002/03 Perris Valley Storm Drain Lateral Bridge Design and construction by RCFC & WCD . City $320 $320 25 2002/03 Perris Blvd./Ramona Expressway to Perris Valley Storm Drain Lateral "A" Rehabilitation Widening Planning stage, project report joint project with of Perris. Page 4 of 6 CMAQ funding $48,000 * Changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 02/03 budget 242 ** Includese yover • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPTION CO MMISSION (RCTC) AMENDED MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YE AR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2003-2007 City of Moreno Valley John Ho gard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised May 28, 2003 .;: _. Item .,.. , .. ., <:. <F .. ,.. x NO. . . s ,,,, Pr. ..o ect,. .. ,,, J,. � ,:.. . .. .. �.. .,:. . .: :..: ' r, ndm , Fu. ..... .:..Years ,. . .- n� :..,."c . +f . Pro ect NamelLimts� . �,� J ,: , .�� ! .. ir .:v,: ..... .. :` .aa. S� ,.. ..; a, 'S. 9�+.. i r..r ,. .. ) . .. a:n: ;, f .. "•. .,.. . .33. . ,' �'. . -k. : y� . p. .... ,'. .. . .. Tr .,. G. ..: :... f ,.. �1 �. :...n n is _3, -., � y, � ,r� .�Y r r � ., . .� ect T, , e :. aYp .„c-. . •' t' ,.<. ., .. .. „m. ,^� .,... , :. ,r. 1! y .., y ^ .:'-:.� , r . '. .:. .. vZ� 1. ._ .. , ..: ,_ ^_ ... a rf 3L i:. s.pp( �,y�, , .i. ,:. l ti- 5'�e€:' .� _. '� k4 . u ., ,; ry Status' .-r., -. 3 Y +,f lr°S� ,yir�•m,e, ia ,..�� ,� � t � . ..:.:, rx . ...,. .a.,. .,;. :.y: : _: ox: o. �:,.. v: -d ., :. .. ,.. .. _. ^v... v � r . .,. ._ , ,., tit( .x 'f -. F '. , pnat' _ .i -.. 6 F«.,- , M1 I3 R ,.<S"F��. . i7 a 4a '. k �5 1 .� :::.; ..+i. i' _,.Vi. :. .. .. .: . t. sa, i7., .. 4_ TT -'mod . ;o�.. , .... : -'. '« ;�, ,n .+- . . .. � x' 7} -Y;. .. ,�Y :Y, .: ..� . � x y � , ,a �� ,.. .: _. •h9 : .offal Ca .,u ,.i $ f+e fl Ii a ..ease; A_ ,1..111 � .. -4 �.L� � ' `'`, f~. •'Y ^: � �,1 000 s o �5 h.4 000 s F 3i D" ' . 26 2002/03 Reche Vista Realignment/Perris- Heacock to North City Limits Street Construction Environmental, PSR, and design. $300 $300 27 2002/03 Heacock St./Parkland Ave. Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Design and construction. $207 $207 28 2002/03 Moreno Beach Dr./Cottonwoo d Ave. Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Design and construction . $202 $202 29 2002/03 Cactus Ave. /Joshua Tree Ave. Yellow Solar Flashing Beacons Traffic Signal Design and construction. $34 $34 30 2002/03 Moreno Beach/Alessandro Blvd. Street and Drainage Improvements Street and Drainage Construction Design and construction . $80 $80 31 2002/03 Perris Blvd./Northern Dancer Dr. Access Ramps Construction. * $25 $25 32 2002/03 Installation of Battery Back-up System for 10 Signalized Intersections Traffic Signals Construction. $70 $70 • Page 5 of 6 * Changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 02/03 budget ** includes carryover 243 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORT ATI ON COMMISSION (RCTC) AMENDED MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2003-2007 City of Moreno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised May 28, 2003 33 2002/03 $125 $125 Retrofit Signalized Intersections with LED's Traffic Signals Construction. Page6 of6 34 2002/03 Added Project Dracaea Ave/Heaco ck St to Perris Blv d Street Improvements Construction of street improvements $20 $20 35 2002/03 Added Project Atwood A ve/Indian St to Perris Blvd Street Improvements Constructi on of street impr ovements $335 $335 36 2002/03 Added Project Alessandro Entry Improvements Median And Landscaping Construction of median impr ovements along with landscaping $59 $59 37 2002/03 Perris Blvd/No rthern Dancer Added Dr Project Intersection Reconstruct portion of intersection Reco nstructio n .%/ 4///P/.D/ //N,-„„,,.Y/O/A///O/1/..7/ T,,..„,r 0/R//„I/// / ,,. ./. p'!P/,.. /O/../../ //.,,,„,//. .„„,O/// O/ .®//// O/. 6' /d/. Y/I J' ie/ !l/q/r,Irs/s//r 7,,,//. .,-,,.. .// P/ .,-... ,,,/... 7..P /4/T/.-,O/"/ .I/ .I.", /A--.-A I/M/.//.I/.P/AP r/ /T/.I rwY- /F, r 2002-2003 SUBTOTAL f a e e e o 0 07/ / ®i07 AVAVr®i./41/ X7 074, iois/lOmi or�rlYs/o/ Or. I/Ii�r 1.5141 fir /drlVeV. rL.Y I7. N//%oil/wi01,4tiA' isr%r 1r�rYULE/ OrY%Or//i Oi4/ 1•/s//urr/e/Bo fO7iAr� r�r�iir//�iri%i� i�ro r/ibis/ vix�i.�isis/.c�%ii/ii .�i oirisi avnii�i .+�i U:\CAPPROJ\Measure A\5YEAR\2002-07\051203Projections - Short 2. doc * Changed o match City of Moreno Valley's FY 02/03 budget ** Include over 244 • $25 $25 *r 13;592,0 . $12,526. o iiibiiioi.�Jsiiiiiii%e/oi i iiirio i ri®iiiri41,;e4si ii • CITY Of rA[ DESERT. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-0611 FAX: 760 340-0574 info@palm-dcscrt.org 64325 May 22, 2003 Mr. Jerry Rivera Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3580 University Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 MIECEAVEn MAY 27'2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Subject: Revision 2 - City of Palm Desert's Capital Improvement Program (Measure "A") Fiscal Year 2003 Dear Mr. Rivera, This correspondence is to bring to your attention, for your review and consideration, a revision of Measure "A" documents previously submitted. During the 02/03 Fiscal Year, the City has entered into agreements that will help to fund several Capital Projects currently budgeted to use Measure "A" funds. Therefore, we request a decrease in the Measure "A" funds budgeted for those projects. In addition, some continuing projects have been moved to future Fiscal Years. These also will have a decrease in their Measure "A" budgets. The Fred Waring widening project requires additional funding. The City would like to request an increase in funding of $500,000 for this Fiscal Year. The total Measure "A" funding for the Fred Waring widening will increase to $650,000 for this year. Attached is a copy of the most recent version of the 02/03 Measure "A" Local Funds Program that the Commission has already approved. Also attached is the proposed revision to the 02/03 program. Note the decreases in items 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and the increase in item 3. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused, and as always, we appreciate the cooperation and coordination that RCTC has shown the City of Palm Desert. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Michael Errante, ' . E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Attachments (2 as noted) cc: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer J. Luis Espinoza, Finance Operations Manager Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager la ru.ne on,non ro"i 245 X.29.14 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAISARTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2002 — 2003 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P.E. Phone No.: (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Date: May 22, 2003 Page 1 of 1 Pr oposed Revision ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. Palm Desert High School Access on Cook Roadway & signal 500 500 Street 2. Portola Avenue/Dinah Shore Extension Roadway widening 1,314 1,314 3. Fred Waring Widening Roadway widening 650 650 4. Portola Interchange at 1-10 Feasibility Study and ROW 776 776 5. Magnesia Falls Drive Bridge Street Improvements from M onterey Avenue to Deep Canyon Road Bridge construction, street widening, and traffic signal modifications (additional funding due to expanding of scope of project — see prior year summary for funding carryover) 1,000 1,000 6. Westbound Dinah Shore from Miriam Way to Key Largo Avenue Street improvements and median island construction 300 300 7. Monterey Avenue between Hovley Lane West and Country Club Drive Median island construction 65 65 8. Monterey Avenue at Parkview Drive/COD Intersection improvements 0 0 • (postponed to future year) 9. San Pablo Avenue at Highway 111 Intersection improvements 28 28 • 246 5/22!03 • GAPubWorkskfiyen GayiartWord FitesIRCTC 02.03VRCTC Funds Program Form • FY 02.03 yr 1 revised 2.doc - sd • AGENDA ITEM 60 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003-2004 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funding Recommendations BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Fiscal Year 2003-2004 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funding Recommendations. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April 2003, Commission staff notified the cities, the county, and local school districts that an estimated $949,700 would be available for programming in FY 2003-04 through the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. This program is funded by an allocation of 2% of the total Local Transportation Funds (LTF) apportioned to Riverside County by the State and funds carried -over from prior years. Carryover funds available this year totaled $92,316 from higher estimated revenues and from previously approved projects which either did not expend their full allocation due to lower than estimated actual costs, or were subsequently abandoned by the applicants for various reasons. Total available funds for FY 2003-04 are $1,042,016. The SB 821 proposals were due May 30, 2003. The Commission received 44 proposals (3 bicycle projects, 36 sidewalk projects, 5 ADA related retrofit projects) from 16 agencies requesting a total of $2,277,542 (Attachment I). An evaluation committee comprised of three members from the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee and three members from the Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the proposals on June 10, 2003. All of the applicants were invited to the meeting and requested to present their proposals to the committee and answer questions from the members. The proposals were evaluated and "ranked based upon the Commission adopted scoring criteria (Attachment II). Nineteen projects are recommended for funding as indicated on Attachment III. Attachments: 1) SB 821 Program Submittals FY 2003-04 2) SB 821 Evaluation Criteria 3) SB 821 FY 2003-04 Recommended Funding 247 Attachment I • • • RCTC SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 2003-04 Agency / Project Total SB 821 Funds Local Cost Requested Match Banning (7) Nicolet St. Sidewalk $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 George St. Sidewalk $25,000 $12,500 $12,500 Nicolet Middle School - George St. & Alessandro $75,000 $37,500 $37,500 Lions Park Sidewalk $60,000 $30,000 $30,000 20th St. Sidewalk $48,000 $24,000 $24,000 Wilson St. Sidewalk $85,000 $42,500 $42,500 Hermos Ave. Sidewalk $24,000 $12,000 $12,000 Total $417,000 $208,500 $208,500 Blythe (3) Barnard St./Chanslorway/Solano Ave. Sidewalk $69,313 $51,985 $17,328 Carlton Ave. / Solano Ave. Sidewalk $41,913 $31,435 $10,478 Chanslorway Sidewalk $77,688 $58,266 $19,422 Total $188,914 $141,686 $47,228 Cathedral City Pedestrian Bicycle Walkway Project $80,000 $60,000 $20,000 Corona (2) Cota St. Sidewalk & Bike Lane Improvements $67,000 $56,950 $10,050 Vicentia Ave. Sidewalk Improvements $105,000 $89,250 $15,750 Total $172,000 $146,200 $25,800 Hemet Mayberry Ave. Sidewalk & Access Ramp Project $131,177 $60,000 $71,177 Indio (2) Area 1 Sidewalk Improve. - Arabia St. $62,000 $52,700 $9,300 Area 2 Sidewalk Improve. - Indio Blvd. $55,000 $46,750 $8,250 Total $117,000 $99,450 $17,550 La Quinta (2) Avenida Bermudas Sidewalk $74,850 $59,880 $14,970 Eisenhower Dr. Sidewalk $31,578 $25,262 $6,316 Total $106,428 $85,142 $21,286 248 Attachment I RCTC SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 2003-04 Total SB 821 Funds Local Agency / Project Cost Requested Match Moreno Valley (3) Perris Blvd. Sidewalk $78,240 $39,120 $39,120 Elsworth St. Sidewalk $36,800 $18,400 $18,400 Golden Place Sidewalk $60,640 $30,320 $30,320 Total $175,680 $87,840 $87,840 Murrieta Winchester Road Sidewalks $56,440 $42,331 $14,109 Las Brisas Road Sidewalk $13,950 $10,462 $3,488 Lincoln Ave. Sidewalk $7,610 $5,707 $1,903 Total $78,000 $58,500 $19,500 Palm Desert Portola Pathway Project $221,512 $50,000 $171,512 Palm Springs (2) Ramon Road Sidewalk $50,899 $30,539 $20,360 Tramview Road Sidewalk $53,592 $32,155 $21,437 Total $104,491 $62,694 $41,797 Perris Sidewalks & Handicap Ramps $170,000 $85,000 $85,000 Riverside (6) Wheelchair Ramp Construction $126,000 $63,000 $63,000 Mitchell Ave. Sidewalk $208,860 $104,430 $104,430 Mobley Avenue Sidewalk $97,730 $48,865 $48,865 Central Avenue Sidewalk $84,000 $42,000 $42,000 Jefferson Avenue Sidewalk $77,280 $38,640 $38,640 Bus Stop Access Project $39,540 $19,770 $19,770 Total $633,410 $316,705 $316,705 Riverside County (7) Center St. Sidewalk $111,500 $75,500 $36,000 Clinton St. Sidewalk $60,000 $42,000 $18,000 McCall Blvd. Sidewalk $72,000 $49,000 $23,000 Conning St. Sidewalk $158,000 $107,000 $51,000 42nd St. Sidewalk $221,000 $150,000 $71,000 Grant St. Sidewalk 249 $119,500 $81,500 $38,000 Rider St. Sidewalk $136,000 $92,000 $44,000 Total $878,000 $597,000 $281,000 Attachment I • • • RCTC SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 2003-04 Agency / Project Total SB 821 Funds Local Cost Requested Match San Jacinto Sidewalk & Ramps Improvement Project $104,000 $52,000 $52,000 Temecula (2) Santa Gertrudis Bicycle/Trail Undercrossing $636,000 $100,000 $536,000 Rancho Vista Road Sidewalk $89,100 $66,825 $22,275 Total $725,100 $166,825 $558,275 Grand Totals - 16 Agencies 44 Projects $4,302,712 $2,277,542 $2,025,170 Total SB 821 Funds Available $1,042,016 JR: 6/2/03 Rev. 6/10/03 250 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA FACTOR 1. USE The extent of potential use of a bicycle or pedestrian facility is the most important factor. Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to the project. 2. SAFETY Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to correct current safety problems. 3. IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile. 4. MISSING LINK, EXTENSION, OR CONNECTIVITY Points are awarded to projects that link existing facilities or are extensions of or potentially connect to existing facilities. 5. MATCHING FUNDS This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding participation in the project - not just a application for "free" money. One point would be awarded for each 5% of total project cost that is financed by the local agency. 6. POPULATION EQUITY The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10 points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credit". (Calculated by RCTC) 7. PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENT The purpose of this factor is to enhance the physical accessibility of existing pedestrian projects. Applicant agencies may receive up to 10 "bonus" points for their project proposals which improve the physical access to existing facilities. MAXIMUM POINTS 25 20 20 15 10 10 10 BONUS RCTC: 04/12/1995 251 • • • R ank Agency 1 Hemet 2 Temecula 3 Bannin g 3 Moreno Valley 5 Riverside 6 Moren o Valley 7 Bann in g 8 Riverside 9 Palm Springs 9 San Jacin to 11 Riv erside 12 Riv erside Coun ty 13 Cathedral City 14 Palm D esert 14 Perris 14 Riverside 17 Bann ing 18 Riverside Coun ty 19 La Qu in ta 19 La Quin ta 21 Ban nin g 22 Riverside Coun ty 23 Riverside County 24 Blythe 25 Riv erside RI VE RSI DE C OUNTY TR ANSPORTATI ON COMMISSI ON SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES P ROGR AM FY 2003-04 REC OMMENDED FUNDING Project Description Total SB 821 Fu nds Recomme nded C umm ulative Costs Requested Allocatio n Funds Allocated Attachme nt III Average Score Mayberry A ve . Sidewalk & Access Ramps $131,177 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 82 .2 Sa nta Gertrudis Bicycle/Trail Undercrossi ng $636,000 $100,000 $100,000 $160,000 81.8 Nicolet St . Sidewalk $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $210,000 81.0 Elsworth St. Sidewalk $36,800 $18,400 $18,400 $228,400 81.0 Cen tral Ave. Sidewalk $84,000 $42,000 $42,000 $270,400 80.5 Perris Blvd. Sidewalk $78,240 $39,120 $39,120 $309,520 80 .3 Wilson St. Sidewalk $85,000 $42,500 $42,500 $352,020 79 .8 Wheelchair Ramps Project $126,000 $63,000 $63,000 $415,020 78.7 Ramon Road Sidewalk $50,899 $30,539 $30,539 $445,559 78.5 Sidewalk & Ramps Improve. Project $104,000 $52,000 $52,000 $497,559 78 .5 Mitchell A ve. Sidewalk $208,860 $104,430 $104,430 $601,989 77.8 McCall Blv d. Sidewalk $72,000 $49,000 $49,000 $650,989 77.4 Pedestrian Bicycle Walkway Project $80,000 $60,000 $60,000 $710,989 76.5 Portola Pathway Project $221,512 $50,000 $50,000 $760,989 75 .2 Sidewalks & Handicap Ramsp $170,000 $85,000 $85,000 $845,989 75.2 Jefferson Ave. Sidewalk $77,280 $38,640 $38,640 $884,629 75.2 George St. Sidewalk $25,000 $12,500 $12,500 $897,129 74 .5 Rider St. Sidewalk $136,000 $92,000 $92,000 $989,129 73 .5 Avenida Bermu das Sidewalk $74,850 $59,880 $52,887 $1,042,016 73 .4 Eisenhower D r. Sidewalk $31,578 $25,262 $0 $1,042,016 73.4 Nicolet Middle School-George/A lessan dro $75,000 $37,500 $0 $1,042,016 73 .3 Grant St. Sidewalk $119,500 $81,500 $0 $1,042,016 73.1 Center St. Sidewalk $111,500 $75,500 $0 $1,042,016 72 .7 Chanslorway Sidewalk $77,688 $58,266 $0 $1,042,016 72.3 Mobley Av e. Sidewalk $97,730 $48,865 $0 $1,042,016 71 .7 252 Rank Agency 26 Riv erside County 26 Riv erside County 28 Corona 29 Corona 30 Riv erside Cou nty 31 In dio 32 Murrieta 33 Blythe 34 Blythe 35 Riv erside 36 Bann ing 37 Palm Sprin gs 38 Bann ing 39 Moren o V alley 40 Murrieta 40 Murrieta 42 Bann ing 43 Temecula 44 Indio Totals JR: 6/11/03 RI VERSIDE C OUNTY T RA NSP ORTATI ON COMMISSI ON SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PRO GRAM FY 2003-04 RECOMMENDED FUNDING Project Descriptio n Clinton St. Sidewalk 42 nd St. Sidewalk Cota St . Sidewalk & Bike Lane Improve. Vicentia Ave. Sidewalk Co nning St. Sidewalk Area 1 Sidewalk Impro ve . - Arabia St. Lin coln Ave. Sidewalk Calrton Ave./Solano Ave . Sidewalk Barn ard St. /Chan slorway/Solano Sidewalk Bus Stop Access Project 20th Street Sidewalk Tramview Road Sidewalk Lion s Park Sidewalk Golden Place Sidewalk Win chester Road Sidewalk Las Brisas R oad Sidewalk Hermosa A ve. Sidewalk Ran cho Vista Road Sidewalk Area 2 Sidewalk Improve. - Indio Blvd. Total SB 821 Fu nds Costs Req uested $60,000 $42,000 $221,000 $150,000 $67,000 $56,950 $105,000 $89,250 $158,000 $107,000 $62,000 $52,700 $7,610 $5,707 $41,913 $31,435 $69,313 $51,985 $39,540 $19,770 $48,000 $24,000 $53,592 $32,155 $60,000 $30,000 $60,640 $30,320 $56,440 $42,331 $13,950 $10,462 $24,000 $12,000 $89,100 $66,825 $55,000 $46,750 Recomme nded C umm ulati ve Allocation F unds Allocated $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,302,712 $2,277,542 $1,042,016 253 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 $1,042,016 Attachment III Average Score 71 .1 71 .1 69.7 69.3 68 .5 67 .8 67 .8 67 .8 67.5 67.2 65 .7 65.3 65.0 64 .7 64 .3 64.3 61.5 61 .0 60.4 • • • • AGENDA ITEM 6P • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Extension for the County of Riverside and the Cities of Banning, Blythe, Riverside, and San Jacinto BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Grant the County of Riverside a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2004 to complete the Clark Street, Mission Boulevard, and Rubidoux Boulevard Sidewalk Projects; 2) Grant the City of Banning a six-month extension to December 31, 2003 to complete the approved FY 2002-03 SB 821 Sidewalk Projects; 3) Grant the City of Blythe a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2004 to complete the Rice and 6th Street Sidewalk Improvement Projects; 4) Grant the City of Riverside a two -month extension to August 31, 2003 to complete the Wheelchair Ramps Project, La Sierra Avenue Sidewalk Project, Norwood Avenue Sidewalk Project, Nicolett Street Sidewalk Project, and Garfield Avenue Sidewalk Project, and a twelve- month extension to June 30, 2004 to complete the Garfield Avenue Sidewalk (Via San Jose to Adams Street) Project; and , 5) Grant the City of San Jacinto a six-month extension to December 31, 2003 to complete the approved FY 2002-03 Sidewalk and Ramp Projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: County of Riverside The County of Riverside was allocated $48,000, $102,000 and $64,000, respectively, in FY 2002-03 SB 821 funds for the construction of the Clark Street, Mission Boulevard, and Rubidoux Boulevard Sidewalk projects. The environmental clearance for the three projects is in progress. The plans, specifications, and 254 estimates are complete for the Clark Street and Rubidoux Boulevard Projects; however, the Mission Boulevard Projects requires more detailed work, and the County will not be able to complete all necessary work to award a construction contract by June 30. In order to obtain more competitive bids, the County prefers to package all of their projects into one large bid. Therefore, the County is requesting a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2004 to complete the projects. Banning The City of Banning was allocated $132,000 in FY 2002-03 SB 821 funds for the construction of five sidewalk projects. The projects have been delayed because the City intends to advertise the sidewalk projects along with the City's Measure "A" Projects. The City is requesting a six-month extension to December 31, 2003 to complete the projects. Blythe The City of Blythe was allocated $16,380 in FY 2002-03 SB 821 funds for the construction of the 6th Street Sidewalk Project and $13,520 for the construction of the Rice Street Sidewalk Project. The City is in the process of completing the engineering design and has included the matching funds in the FY 2003-04 budget. The City is requesting a one-year extension to June 30, 2004 to allow the City to integrate the sidewalk projects into its next annual construction cycle. Riverside The City of Riverside was allocated $213,260 in FY 2002-03 SB 821 funds for the construction of wheelchair ramps and five sidewalk projects. All of the projects with the exception of one, Garfield Avenue Sidewalk from Via San Jose to Adams Street, have been advertised and the City anticipates awarding contracts by June 24, 2003. The City is requesting a two -month extension to August 31, 2003 on these projects to allow for re -advertisement in the event the City experiences bid protests or lack of responsive bids. The Garfield Avenue Sidewalk Project is partially funded by a federal grant under the Safe Routes to Schools Program. As such, there are stringent requirements for the appraisal and acquisition of easements for the projects which may not be fulfilled for another eight to twelve months. Therefore, the City is requesting a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2004 to complete the project. 255 • • • • San Jacinto The City of San Jacinto was also allocated $75,000 in FY 2002-03 SB 821 Funds for the construction of sidewalks and ramps. The improvement plans for the project have been completed. However, the updated construction cost for the project exceeds the budgeted allocation, and the City is requesting a budget amendment during their budget hearings for FY 2003-04. Therefore, the City is requesting a six-month extension to December 31, 2003 to complete the project. Attachments: 1) Letter from the County of Riverside 2) Letter from the City of Banning 3) Letter from the City of Blythe 4) Letter from the City of Riverside 5) Letter from the City of San Jacinto 256 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department May 14, 2003 Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attention: Mr. Jerry Rivera, Program Manager (off an 4 -OECENVE MAY 2 9 2003 George A. Johnson, P.E. Dire of ns a ' n TRANSPORTATIONCOUNTY COMMISSION RE: Extension of Time Request for FY 2002-03 SB 821 Projects — Clark Street, Mission Boulevard, and Rubidoux Boulevard Sidewalks Dear Mr. Haley: The County of Riverside Transportation Department was approved to receive FY 2002-03 SB 821 funds for the following projects: Clark Street Sidewalk, Mead Valley Area $ 48,000 Mission Boulevard Sidewalk, Rubidoux Area $102,000 Rubidoux Boulevard Sidewalk, Rubidoux Area $ 64,000 The environmental clearance work for the three projects is in progress. Currently, the plans, specifications, and estimates are complete for the Clark Street and Rubidoux Boulevard Sidewalk projects and are being internally reviewed. We have also completed the right of entry with temporary construction easement paperwork and; obtained signatures of adjacent property owners. The Mission Boulevard Sidewalk project requires more detailed workdue to the need to extend an existing crib wall, and to complete the geotechnical studies that are needed relative to its construction. We will not be able to complete all necessary work to award a construction contract by the current deadline of June 30, 2003. Therefore, we respectfully request a one- year Extension of Time until June 30, 2004, to award the constructioncontracts for thethree sidewalk projects as described above. If you have any questions with regard to this request, please contact C. Scott Staley, Road Division Engineer, at (909) 955-2092, or Sena B. Wijesinha, Senior Transportation Planner, at (909) 955-6828. Sincerely, A. Johnso Director of Transportation /sbw cc: Scott Staley Tayfun Saglam Neil Nilchian Roy Null 257 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 955-6740 P.O. Box 1090 - Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-6721 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHED 1913 64398 CITY of BANNING 99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (909) 922-3130 • Fax (909) 922-3141 May 29, 2003 Mr: Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3° 1 Floor P.O. Box_ 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 Attention: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager PECE[ME1 MAY 3 0 2003 -9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Subject: Request for Extension of Time - FY 2002-2003 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Dear Mr. Rivera: The City of Banning respectfully requests a time extension until December 30, 2003, for the approved 2002-2003, SB 821 sidewalk projects. Staff expects to advertise the SB 821 project and the City's Annual Measure "A" project together in one project. It is staff's intention to advertise the project in June and award the project in August of 2003. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Kahono Oei, Assistant Director of Public Works at (909) 922-3130. Sincerely, or, Assistant City Manager/ Public Works Director Copy: Ray Griest, Interim City Manager Kahono Oei, Assistant Director of Public Works 258 0.26.3 CITY OF BLYTHE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 440 SOUTH MAIN STREET BLYTHE, CALIFORNIA 92225-2717 PHONE (760) 922-6611 FAX (760) 922-0278 May 28, 2001 Jerry Rivera Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92501-2208 Re: Time Extension of SB 821 Funds Mr. Rivera: 64379 p©MVED HAY 292003 RIVERSIDE COMMISSION TRANSPORT The :City. of••. Blythe_is -requesting- a : tune. . .extension of one year for the funds allocated4rom'SB 821.. -for Rice .and:.6''Street-sidewalk improvements for the Fiscal_Y_ear:02/03.:• :The:City is::in th'e:process of completing the engineering design and has included their matching funds in the budget for Fiscal Year 03/04. The City plans advertise the project for construction in the 4.°' quarter of 2003 or the 1• .quarter of 2004 with completion before June 2004. By allowing a one-year extension, the Riverside County Transportation Commission would allow the City to integrate the Rice and 6th Street sidewalk improvements into its next annual construction cycle. If you have any questions conceming this matter please contact me at 760-922-6612. Respectfully, William S. Brunet, P.E. City Engineer Cc:-Les:,Nelson,•City Manageit, City.of Blythe :.. . • - -,.; . ... _ Jim .Rodkey, Director -of public -Works, City-of•BlytheHelen Colbert, Director of Finance; .City. of Blythe C:\Engineering\SB 821\Time Extension for SB 821.doc 259 U.26.03 CITY OF RIVERSIDE June 3, 2003 People Serving People" Mr. Jerry Rivera , Program Manager RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ECEOV JUN Q 6 ZUU3 RIVERSIDE INTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Subject: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program, FY 2002-03 — Time Extension Dear Jerry: Riverside 111111 1998 On July 10, 2002, the Riverside County Transportation Commission approved funding under the Fiscal Year 2002/03 SB821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program for the construction of the following projects in the City of Riverside: 1. Wheelchair Ramps at Various Downtown Locations 2. La Sierra Ave. Sidewalk, from Hole Ave. to Bristol Ave. 3. Norwood Ave. Sidewalk, between Hallmark St. and La Sierra Ave. 4. School Access Project -- 4a. Nicolett St. Sidewalk, from Central Ave. to 700' Southerly thereof (near Sierra Middle School) 4b. Garfield Ave Sidewalk, from Harrison St. to Acacia St. (near Liberty Elementary School) 4c. Garfield Ave Sidewalk, from Via San Jose to Adams St. (near Ramona High School) These projects (with the exception of 4c) have been advertised for bids and I anticipate the City Council will be awarding contracts for their construction by June 24, 2003. However, I would like to request the Commission for a two -month time extension on these projects to allow for re- advertisement, in the event the City experiences bid protests or lack of responsive bids. In regards to the Project 4c, in addition to the SB821 Program, the project is funded by a federal grant under the Safe Routes to School Program. The federal grant has stringent requirements for the appraisal and acquisition of easements for the project, which may not be fulfilled for another eight to twelve months. Accordingly, I am requesting for a time extension of twelve months for this project. Thomas J. Boyd, PE Deputy Public Works DirecvCity Engineer U.26.3 260 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3900 MAIN STREET • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92522 • (909) 826-5341 FAX: (909) 826-5542 • www.riverside-ca.org H E City Engineer's Office - May 23, 2003 64329 CITY O F S A N J A C 1" N T O Mr. Jerry Rivera ' Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, Ca 92502-2208 E©1 EMC MAY- 2.7.2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - :Re: " FY 2002-03 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Dear Jerry: ' . • Thank you for your letter dated May 20, 2003, advising the City of the deadline for utilization of City of San Jacinto's SB-821 grantforFY 2002-03. The improvement plans for the project have been completed for some time now. The updated construction cost for this project exceeds our budgeted. allocation, and for this reason, we are requesting.a budget amendment during our budget hearings for FY 03-04, which is anticipated to take place in June and July of this year. Upon approval of the budget request, we will be advertising and awarding the contract. We respectfully'request that you grant the City a six-month extension of time to complete the process. For your use, please find enclosed a reduced set of the improvement plans; Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, City Engineer U.26.4 201 E. Main Street . - San Jacinto, CA 92583 Tel: 909/487-7342 • Fax: 909/654-3728 • www.ci.san-jacinto.ca.us 261 • AGENDA ITEM 6Q • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Metrolink 2002 Onboard Survey Results PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the presentation on the Metrolink 2002 Onboard Survey as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Metrolink 2002 Onboard Survey was conducted in June -July 2002. The last in-depth survey was accomplished in June 2000; since then Metrolink service has expanded and ridership has grown by 7.8%. The 2002 Survey was designed to provide valid data at the system, line, and time segment level. Key findings of the 2002 survey level include: • Metrolink is continuing to expand its ridership base and is attracting an increasingly diverse rider market; • Metrolink patrons are riding Metrolink more often; and, • "More Comfortable than Driving" was selected as the primary reason weekday patrons ride Metrolink. Of particular note are findings related to the lines that directly serve Riverside County: • Proportional ridership by county of residence has increased in Los Angeles and Riverside Counties since the last onboard survey; • During this same period, ridership on the three lines that directly serve Riverside County increased 15.8%; • The Riverside and IEOC Lines have the highest percentage of weekday riders (89%) who have an automobile available for their trip; and, • The Riverside and IEOC Lines exceed the system average with the highest percentage of full-time employed weekday riders with 95% and 96% respectively. Attachment: Executive Summary, Southern California Regional Rail Authority 2002 On -Board Rail Survey 262 • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY 2002 ON -BOARD RAIL SURVEY • • CONDUCTED BY STRATEGIC CONSULTING & RESEARCH 263 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An onboard survey of Metrolink riders was conducted in June- July 2002 to obtain a current assessment of rider demographics, service satisfaction, trip characteristics, and travel patterns. This assessment expands and updates survey data from years 1997 and 2000. The 2002 survey was designed to provide valid data at the system, line and time segment level. Survey response levels exceeded expectations. Approximately 9,350 weekday surveys and 1,060 weekend surveys were generated for the project, resulting -in a +0.9% accuracy level system- wide and +2.3% accuracy at the line -level. Key findings of the 2002 survey include • Metrolink is continuing to expand its ridership base and is attracting an increasingly diverse rider market. • Metrolink patrons are riding Metrolink more often ■ Satisfaction levels with Metrolink continue to be very strong overall. Opportunities to improve satisfaction are available in the areas of safety and comfort, which is essential to maintaining high satisfaction among patrons. • Diversification of the Metrolink Rider Market Continuing diversification of the Metrolink market is apparent in the areas of: ■ Travel Patterns, • Trip purpose, • Employment status, and • Ethnicity. • ix 264 • • • TRAVEL PATTERNS A continuing expansion of travel patterns appears evident over the 1997-2002 time frame. Reduced dependence on Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) as a work trip destination has occurred. Since 1997 the proportion of work trips destined for LAUS has declined from 70.1% to 62% in 2002. % of Work Trips 72 68 - 64 60 56 1E11997 Work Trip Destinations to Los Angeles Union Station 70.1% 67.5% 62% ❑ 2000 02002 Proportional ridership by county of residence has increased in Los Angeles and Riverside Counties over the same period. Recent increases in service to Riverside County on new line 91 are reflected in the Riverside County increase. The size of Los Angeles County, which serves as the hub of operations, is a beneficiary of most service level improvements since 1997. Change in Ridership Proportion by County of Residence 1997 — 2002 COUNTY:: Los Angeles San Bernardino 34.1 39.6 40.4 25.1 23.9 23.3 %Change; 1997/2002, +6.3 - 1.8 Orange Riverside 16.7 12.5 13.4 15.2 15.8 15.6 -0.9 +3.1 Ventura 7.1 6 3.3 - 3.8 San Diego 2.9 2 1.7 - 1.2 TRIP PURPOSE AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS By a wide margin Metrolink's primary market continues to be the employed patron commuting for the work trip. Work trips account for 87% of all weekday trips and 92% of Metrolink patrons are employed. Trip Purpose: Weekdays Leisure 4% School 2% Personal �- 2% Business Appointment 1% In contrast recreation trips dominate the weekend market. Leisure and sightseeing alone account for 41% of weekend trips. Work trips account for 17% of weekend travel. Non -home based trips could not be categorized, as they begin and end at a non -home destination, such as travel from school to entertainment, or from work to a social event. Trip Purpose: Weekends Shopping 4% School 3% Personal Appointment 11% Business Appointment 2% xi • 266 • • • Year 2002 trip purpose findings are comparable with those from the 1997 and 2000 study years. The work trip remains indisputably as the dominant weekday trip purpose while a gradual increase in the proportion of non -work trips occurs. Weekday Trip Purpose 1997 - 2002 Work Business Related 01997 *Includes School, Shopping and Leisure trips Non -work* ❑ 2000 1E12002 8 This increase in non -work trips is compatible with a gradual diversification in rider employment status seen since 1997. In summary, Metrolink's key market overwhelmingly continues to be the full-time employed rider. Nonetheless larger proportions of students, retirees and part-time workers are utilizing the Metrolink system. Student riders have increased faster than other groups since 1997 and now contribute 4.1% of weekday ridership. Diversification of Weekday Rider Employment Status: 1997 - 2002 Employment Status Year Change 1997-2002 1997 2000 2002 % Full-time 94.3 90.3 87.9 -6.4 %Part-time 2.9 3.5 4.1 +1.2 %Student 1.6 3.1 4.1 +2.5 %Retired 0.6 1.4 1.8 +1.2 % Not Employed 0.4 1.6 2 +1.6 xii 267 • FREQUENCY OF METROLINK USE Changes in ridership characteristics since 2000 are most pronounced in patrons' frequency of riding. Overall, Metrolink patrons are frequent riders. The 2002 study recorded a mean weekday use level of 4.4 days per week system -wide, with 82% of patrons indicating that they ride 4 or more days per week. Compared to findings from the 2000 -study, frequency of riding for weekday patrons has increased from an average of 4.1 days per week to 4.4 days per week. Weekday Frequency of Riding (Days per Week) 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.9 2002 2000 Frequency of use by weekend riders has remained unchanged since 2000, at 1.8 days per week. This level of use has remained stable despite a large increase in 1St -time riders, which currently comprise 24% of all weekend riders, compared to 16% in 2002. Weekend service was not available in 1997. ETHNICITY Like the diverse communities it serves Metrolink ridership is multi -ethnic. Primary ethnic groups represented on Metrolink services include Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander and African American. Since 1997 the ethnic diversity of Metrolink ridership has increased significantly. The non - Caucasian proportion of riders has grown from 43% in 1997 to 53% in 2002. As illustrated, this shift in ethnic composition has resulted in a ridership base that more closely resembles regional characteristics of the employed population, which Metrolink is designed to serve. 268 • • • L cu 70% - 60%T 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% System and Regional Ethnic Composition 1997 - 2002 African - American Asian - Pacific Caucasian Hispanic Other 071997 0 2000 0 2002 EN Region (Employed Population*) *2000 Census Proportional gains in ridership have been greatest for patrons of Hispanic and Asian heritage. Collectively these groups contribute 37.9% of total daily ridership according to 2002 survey findings. The Caucasian rider continues to be the single largest market group, contributing 47.8% of weekday rider levels. Overall, the shift in ridership proportions during the 1997 — 2002 period corresponds to ethnic composition along corridors where service has increased most since 1997 (San Bernardino, Riverside and northern Orange County.) Thirty of 50 current Metrolink stations serve areas with a majority ethnicity other than Caucasian. xiv 269 While ethnic diversification has resulted in proportional shifts, absolute ridership has increased for all groups since 1997. The greatest absolute increase in ridership has occurred in the Caucasian rider market, which has increased by 42% over the five-year time frame. More recently ridership gains have been strongest for patrons of Hispanic and Asian heritage. Collectively, ridership for these ethnic groups has increased by 60% since 2000, while ridership in the Caucasian market, has stabilized. System Ridership Levels by Ethnicity June 1997 — June 2002 Average Weekday Ridership: (000's) 2.6 2.1' 2.4 4.5' 4.8 1997 2000 2002 ['African American CI Asian/ Pac.lsl. El Hispanic ® Caucasion PATRON SATISFACTION, MOTIVATION AND RETENTION Several areas of the 2002 survey were dedicated to assessing the interrelated areas of passenger satisfaction, motivation (to ride Metrolink) and retention (the length of time a patron remains a regular Metrolink rider.) These areas are of primary importance as they ultimately determine Metrolinks ability to grow ridership. Satisfaction Patrons awarded a high level of "overall" satisfaction with Metrolink service according to 2002 survey results. Eighty-eight percent of all patrons awarded a "very satisfied" or "satisfied" rating when asked to rate their satisfaction with Metrolink "overall." This level of overall satisfaction is identical to ratings from the 1997 and 2000 studies. • 270 • • • Satisfaction ratings with specific service features, such as "on -time performance" and "safety of Trains" were also gathered in the 2002 survey. 2002 satisfaction ratings for specific service features were then reviewed against importance ratings developed during the 2000 on -board survey. The importance ratings were developed from patron input to questions regarding the relative importance of specific service features. The quadrant analysis (following page) indicates relative importance for these service features, and satisfaction levels according to year 2002 survey results. Improved levels of satisfaction (from year 2000 results) are indicated by green font. Declines in satisfaction, from year 2000 levels, are indicated by red font. Black font indicates no change in level of satisfaction from year 2000 levels. Overall, service features regarding safe operations and personal security are regarded as the most important service features to patrons. Service features regarding comfort (availability of seating and train cleanliness) and communications are generally ranked second as are service features regarding on -time performance. Features related to travel ease and convenience, such as rail travel time versus the car, ease of getting information (800 -371 -LINK), station parking, and connecting transit rated less important relative to security, comfort and on -time performance features. The following comments highlight relevant findings for service features rated above average in importance. • Patrons report the highest levels of satisfaction for safety related features and these service aspects are the most important to patrons. However, satisfaction levels with all features regarding safety, (safe operations of trains, personal security on the train and at the station, train free of defects, and personal security at the station) fell slightly from year 2000 levels. • Satisfaction with service features related to comfort rose or remained unchanged. Satisfaction with available seating rose while satisfaction with cleanliness of train interior was unchanged. Although satisfaction has improved with available seating, below average levels of satisfaction are still reported for this important service feature. ■ Service features related to on -time performance (on -time arrivals, communication of schedule changes and delays) were mixed. Improved levels of satisfaction were reported for on -time arrivals and communication of delays. Satisfaction levels declined for communication of schedule changes. For areas rated above average in importance, satisfaction with communication of delays received the lowest satisfaction rating (aside from fare cost.) xvi 271 IMPORTANCE 1 SATISFACTION QUADRANT ANALYSIS IVIETROLINK ,SYSTEM Quadrant I_ High Importance Low Satisfaction 12 9 1411 16 Quadrant IV. Low Importance Low Satisfaction 3- 4 10 8 .13 Qu=adrant I1_ High importance I H h Satisfaction 7 Quadrant i L Low Importance Heigh Satisfaction S TISFACT N Nola: Grrieen r rmb s Indicaie anprowd salttaci ora aailrrgs, rad niamloar±-Ow a dacraaas in satialack n since 2Atlg. (Rta& rime: change ill ad stalisllcaly sigrNrrtsat). Source: Onboard Survey 2IJO►G, MN. METRCIANK SERVICE ATTRIBUTES (ONBOARD SURVEY VEY 20021 1 TRAvs1,11ME ON INTROLINK vend s cifa 2 ON -TIME .ARRIVALS 3 C--0/44ECTING TIVOSIT E5USES A "STATION 4 AVimmiLrne P _KIN AT $TAT OH 5 AVAILABILITY CF SEATING ON THE TRAIN 6, CLEANLINESS OF TRAM INTERIOR 7 SAFE OPERATIONS OF TRAINS 6 PERSONAL SERCURITYON TFIE TRAIN PERSONAL $ECURIT'f AT THE $TATI 10 TRAINS FREE OF DEFEc'Ts ti 1 EASE Of Pt #Ci-IE:AING TI E1 S !2 OOST Cc METROUNK TICKETS 13 COURTESY OF METROLlNt4 CONDUCTORS 14 CONIMMICATION OF SC1-IEDLLE CHANGES 15 COMMCOMMUNICATION OF DELAYS 16 EASE OF GETTING 1 ORM TIO. N BY CALLS 60 71 -LINK xvii • • • 272 • • Motivation To gain further insight into passenger satisfaction, an assessment of factors influencing passenger use was introduced in the 2002 survey. Passengers were asked to prioritize the top three reasons they ride Metrolink. Weighted scores were developed for each response category based on the percentage of passengers selecting it as the most important reason, the second, or third most important reason for riding Metrolink. Results of the analysis were surprising clear. Weighted Score ■ "More Comfortable than Driving" was selected as the primary reason weekday patrons ride Metrolink, by a margin of almost 2 to 1 over the second most important reason. ■ "Safer than Driving" was named as the second most important reason by a lesser margin "Faster than Driving" was selected as the third most important reason for Metrolink use. Prioritized Reasons for Riding Metrolink: Weekdays 250 200 150 100 50 More Relaxing than Driving Safer than Driving 218 120 Faster than Driving Less Expensive Environ- mentally Friendly No Car Available 95 80 38 28 Other 17 "Less Expensive than Driving" claimed the fourth highest score as a motivating factor for Metrolink use, 17% below the third factor. The remaining factors (Environmentally Friendly, No Car Available) did not receive meaningful scores as motivating factors. Weekend riders responded similarly with one notable exception. "More Relaxing than Driving" and "Safer than Driving" were also selected by weekend rides as the first and second most important reasons for riding Metrolink. However "No Car Available" and "Less Expensive than Driving" were selected as the third and fourth motivating factors. These findings are compatible with income and auto availability demographics for weekend riders. The selection of "More Relaxing", "Safer" and "Faster than Driving" as key motivating factors supports results of the quadrant analysis. These findings underscore the importance of service features related to safety and comfort as essential to maintaining and attracting ridership. xviii 273 • AGENDA ITEM 6R • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Karen Leland, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of May averaged 4,112, basically unchanged from the month of April. The Line has averaged an overall decrease of 4% from a year ago May 2002. May on -time performance averaged 98% inbound (+6% from April) and 98% outbound (unchanged from April). Inland Empire -Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of May averaged 3,323, a 5% decrease from the month of April. The line has averaged an overall increase of 14% from a year ago May 2002. May on -time performance averaged 95% inbound (+ 14% from April) and 91% outbound (+5% from April). 274 91 Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of May averaged 1,607, a 4% decrease from the month of April. The Line has averaged an overall increase of 90% from a year ago May 2002. May on -time performance averaged 94% inbound (+ 12% from April) and 90% outbound (+ 8% from April). Rideshare 2 Rails (R2R) Program RideshareItS ��„`_"' Rideshare Incentives: As of May 31', enrollment totaled 253 (Riverside -Downtown 83, Pedley 19, La Sierra 59, West Corona 42, North Main Corona 50), potentially freeing up127 spaces for new riders. RTA Express Bus Shuttle (Route 99): Ridership for the month of May averaged 21 one-way trips per day, basically unchanged from April 2003. Effective May 25, a stop at UCR was added to the morning and evening routes. The new stops were added to target students and faculty at UCR. Station Expansion La Sierra Metro/ink Station: In May, an additional 120 spaces, covered with photovaltiac solar panels, were opened to Metrolink passengers increasing total expanded parking spaces to 250 and total available parking at La Sierra to 500. Construction of 450 additional spaces will begin this summer. North Main Corona Station: Construction of the pedestrian overcrossing continues, and is slated to be completed July 2003. Special Charter Trains Beach Trains: Saturday, June 28th marks the 8th season of the RCTC Beach Trains. This season, 18 trains will travel from the Inland Empire to the beaches of San Clemente and Oceanside during the summer. Beach Train tickets went on sale May 5th. As of June 12th, 3,778 tickets have been sold, an increase of 37% over this time last year. Ticket order forms are downloadable at www.takethebeachtrain.com. Tour of Metrolink/Colorado Rail Car: On Monday, June 30th, Commissioners are invited to tour the Metrolink Riverside Line and ride on a demonstration of the Colorado Rail Diesel Multiple Unit Car. The tour will begin at 8:00am at the Riverside -Downtown Station and conclude by 2:00pm. • 275 • • • Angels Train: The Imagination Speedway, sponsored by the Anaheim Transportation Network, has scheduled three special express trains for Inland Empire Night at the Angels! Train dates are July 12th, August 16th, and September 28th. These trains will stop at the Riverside -Downtown and West Corona Stations. Ticket order forms are downloadable at www.atnetwork.org for each game approximately one month prior to the game date. RCTC Metrolink Station Daily Activities: Daily activities are recorded by station security guards. Attached is summary data covering May 2003. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Performance Summaries (May 2003) 2) RCTC Metrolink Stations Daily Activity Report (May 2003) 276 • • K l� METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES May 2003 picE u\\ JUN 10 2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 110111 METROLINK 277 3,000 METROOJK AVER AGE WEEKDAY P ASSENGER TRIPS 3,000 — 1,000 ?,000 ),000 3,000 3,000 1,000 ',000 ),000 33,571 May - 02 33,759 33,485 Jun -02 Jul -02 Aug -02 34,109 \\\\\ :1%.\\ \\\\•. Sep -02 35,170 34,912 1: Oct -02 Nov -02 32,032 Dec -02 \O Jan -03 35,472 34,988"*' Feb -03 Mar -03 278 ® Holiday Adl• UnadjAvg 2 eno • • 279 • 3 • • • METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) Jun 02 Jul 02 Aug 02 Sep 02 Oct 02 Nov 02 Dec 02 Jan 03 Feb 03 Mar 03 Apr 03 May 03 Arriving Within 5 -Minutes Of Scheduled Time I 280 4 flr % of Train Delays By Resp onsibility May 2003 SIG -Contractor 10% SCRRA 15% Passenger 3% Includes Weekend Service TRK-Contractor 2% UPRR 2% Vandalism 5% Other 21% Mechanical 5% OP Agree 1% BNSF 23% Improv (SCRRA) Law=Enf 3% 10% % of Train Delays By Responsibility 12 Month Period Ending May 2003 TRK-Contractor UPRR 1% 7% SIG -Contractor 9% SCRRA 9% Passenger 2% Includes Weekend Service 13% OP Agree 1% Law-Enf 3% Vandalism 4% Improv (SCRRA) 5% Mechanical 9% BNSF 37% 281 5 • • • PERFORM ANCE CH ARTS -B ACK-UP 1e.IIMETRO LINK May 02 • METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED • /entu;ra< 1County< 3,565 5,597 Burbank Turns 10,039 525 4,288 range minty ounty 5,794 2,916 f iv/Fu;I / 847 TOTAL SYSTEM Jun 02 3,781 5,694 10,286 533 4,202 5,651 2,982 1,165 33,571 % Change Vs Prior Mo . 4% 34,294 2% Jul 02 3,664 5,840 9,817 510 4,159 5,519 2,958 1,292 33,759 -2% Aug 02 3,506 5,694 9,688 524 4,047 5,556 3,092 1,378 33,485 Sep 02 3,689 5,495 10,141 531 4,222 5,432 3,053 1,546 34,109 2% Oct 02 3,770 5,704 10,328 541 4,380 5,465 3,140 1,584 34,912 2% Nov 02 3,759 6,011 10,411 532 4,444 5,372 3,139 1,492 35,160 1% Dec 02 3,402 5,437 9,516 497 4,031 4,802 2,730 1,617 32,032 -9 % Jan 03 3,673 5,253 10,112 536 4,393 5,148 2,997 1,596 33,708 5% Feb 03 3,727 5,370 10,248 551 4,559 5,540 3,360 1,633 34,988 4% Mar 03 3,919 5,384 10,546 553 4,377 5,655 3,414 1,624 35,472 1% Apr 03 May 03 3,880 3,694 5,584 5,402 10,652 10,206 598 572 4,095 4,112 5,599 5,478 3,499 3,323 1,678 1,607 35,585 34,394 % Change May 03 vs Apr 03 -5% -3% -4% -4% 0% -2% -5% -4% -3% % Change May 03 vs May 02 4% -3% 2% 9% -4% -5% 14% 90 % 2% 0% -3 % 283 7 ADR Mo Table AVERAGE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY PASSHOLDERS ON AMTRAK THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW (1) (1) May -02 Jun -02 Jul -02 Aug -02 Sep -02 Oct -02 Nov -02 Dec -02 Jan -03 Feb -03 Mar -03 Apr -03 May -03 86 95 86 74 422 556 <�f#Er#11'V AWOURN. .. 1 fl M100.4.0 ri 726 (1) (1) (1) 99 102 692 797 (1) (1) (1) 33 73 10 10 9 8 48 64 (1) (1) (1) (1) 23 26 (1) (1) (1) (1) 8 15 96 105 95 82 470 620 (1) (1) (1) (1) 122 128 (1) (1) (1) (1) 41 88 -10% 9% -10% -14 % 473% 32% (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 5% (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 115% 62 59 159 128 81 71 101 806 230 229 30% 80% 160% 66 119 848 865 951. 82 73 23 22 765 142 104 -5% -38 % -55% 71 128 98 88 15 18 885 143 116 16 % 1% 12% 61 284 892 137 89 22 7 936 306 144 6% 114% 24% 82 199 253 194 85 47 24 951 246 218 2% -20% 51 % 90 150 122 121 108 106 18 34 10 35 1059 998 271 184 132 156 % Change May 03 vs Apr 03 -6% -41% 0% -2% 86% 241% -6 % -32% 19% % Change May 03vsMay 02 937% (1) (1) 957% (1) (1) 939% (1) (1) (1) Prior to Rail 2 Rail, Amtrak Step-Up/No Step -Up program was only good on Amtrak weekday trains. (2) Rail 2 Rail program started September 1, 2002. (3) Missing data has been adjusted by using the lowest ridership count for the respective train, day of week and month. • 284 7 11 % -6 % 10% -32% -40 % 19% 113 89 pert summ-Rail 2 R�003 • • • 285 A A vg Daily Riders Jun Jul Aug May -02 Note: Sept Includes L.A. County Fair Riders San Bernardino Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May -03 Avg Daily Riders 3000- 2500- 2000- 1500- 1000 500- Note: Sunday Service Began 06/25/00` San Bernardino Line Sunday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips r Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May -03 286 • 10 • 0305WKendNew Avg Daily Ride rs • 3500 3000- 2500- 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Antelope Valle gne Saturday Service p Y Average Daily Passenger Trips May -02 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May -03 • 287 11 0305WKendNew METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY Percentage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time LATEST 13 MONTHS Lit�?i'= � ;.. O: fount :.:: Vent ...::::.,:::*:,.. -70,-;�`<. ] rtCe{o. e::?�alie ., � :-,. Vin, ;:Sari : ri�ardina: ;<;{n n rtt : .. ;<; rba :: .:;>a .; . : .,: .. iv rsi .de . . .::e . ..:. irr Cut fi n L. n : , ... `:, #, .:": .:..„ . t: .a1 d tripf.C3 ° ;>:.. . Sta Na ;:: . f v/ ui/LA ::'; In.:-. . ::::D.4 ..„.::; ` .0 System 1n. C�:ut. T otai::> ...;;, ay 02 99% 97% .; ...:C7ut . 98% 98% 97% 96% 100% 98% 96% 92 % 89 % 87% 87% 92% 87% 83% 95% 94% 94% n 02 99% 98% 98% 99% 98% 96 % 99 % 97% 95 % 97% 93% 96% 94% 90 % 95 % 90% 97% 96% 96 % 102 99% 99% 98% 95% 98 % 99% 100 % 99% 99 % 96 % 91% 95% 93 % 90 % 92 % 92% 97 % 96% 96 % Ig 02 100% 97% 99% 96% 96% . 91% 100% 99% 97 % 95% 89% 91 % 92 % 90 % 91% 90 % 96% 94% 95% :p 02 98% 99% 95% 94% 94% 91% 98 % 98% 96 % 98% 85 % 92 % 94% 84 % 89 % 92% 94 % 93% 94 % t02 99% 98% 99% 99% 96% 95% 98 % 95% 95 % 96% 92 % 96% 93% 93% 92% 96% 96 % 96% 96% w 02 98% 97% 98% 97% 94% 84% 100% 99% 97% 98% 88 % 89% 92 % 95 % 86% 94% 94 % 93% 94 % lb 02 98% 97% 98% 97% 97% 91% 99% 100 % 97% 97 % 96% 97% 90% 93 % 93 % 96% 96 % 95% 96% n 03 99% 98% 89% 89% 95% 85% 97% 97% 93% 97 % 94% 97 % 90% 89 % 92% 98% 94% 93% 93 % b 03 97% 96% 95% 92% 95% 95% 100% 96% 95 % 91% 96 % 93% 93% 93 % 91% 92% 95% 94 % 95 % ir03 97% 99% 88% 92% 94% 94% 99% 97% 97 % 81% 87% 93% 87 % 90% 85 % 90% 92% 93 % 92% r03 98% 97% 96% 97% 97% 94% 99% 99% 92% 98% 76% 85% 81% 86% 82% 82% 91% 93 % 92% iy 03 99% 99% 92% 90% 92% 89% 99% 99% 98% 98% 95% 94% 95% 91 % 94% 90% 95 % 93 % 94 % 3k Period Trains A rrivin g Within 5 M inutes of Scheduled Time J 03 k Period Trains 99% 100% AV. L Rtitita 94% 82% ;: SN.B Ratio 97% 83% !UR Tot!o 100% 98% RtV:RoUte:, 99% 98% 41C Route ?; 95% 91 % �n (F:tnpIQG .#26ute : 94 % 94 % F21v�:ulLi;A 100% 81% 3"at ln% d Tot:Outbd. 97% 91% 'Eot Syst ;' . 94% adjustments have been made for relievable delays. minated trains are considered OT if they were on -time at point of termination. Annulled trains are not included in the on -time calculation. arside route OTP represents on -time performance against schedules temporarily modified for the UPRR tle replacement program. OTP against regular schedule is 94 % Inbound, and 95% outbound . Schedules restored 5/16/03 • 288 • • 19 • CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS MAY 2003 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES .'AUSE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INL/OC R/F/L TOTAL % of TOT Signals/Detectors 0 3 12 0 1 1 1 1 19 11% Slow Orders/MOW 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 7 4% flrack/Switch 0 0 4 0 1 1 1 0 7 4% )ispatching 1 0 4 0 2 13 10 12 42 24 % vlechanical 0 2 3 0 0 1 2 0 8 5% :refight Train 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1% \mtrak Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 1etrolink Meet/Turn 0 9 8 0 1 1 1 0 20 11 % /andalism 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 3% 'assenger(s) 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 5 3% 3CRRA Hold Policy 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1% )ther 4 24 22 2 0 2 0 3 57 33% TOTAL 5 47 60 2 5 22 17 16 174 100% 289 13 Saturday SNB 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 • Saturday AVL 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Sunday SNB 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0305CAUS FREQUENCY OF TR AIN DELAYS BY DURATION MAY 2003 MINUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL TOTAL % of TOT NO DELAY 389 347 425 221 227 328 205 161 2303 80.0% 1 MIN - 5 MIN 26 110 146 8 20 49 30 12 401 13.9% 6MIN -10 MIN 2 28 20 1 3 12 10 10 86 3 .0 % 11 MIN - 20 MIN 2 17 20 1 1 8 7 4 60 2.1 % 21 MIN - 30 MIN 1 1 7 0 1 2 0 1 13 0.5% GREATER THAN 30 MIN 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 1 15 0.5 % ANNULLED 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 .0% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD 420 504 631 231 252 399 252 189 2878 100% TRAINS DELAYED >0 min 31 157 206 10 25 71 47 28 575 20.0% TRAINS DELAYED > 5 min 5 47 60 2 5 22 17 16 174 6.0% 290 • 10 0305FREQ 11<(h+t(thiSin1!311- O>i/Yi)ki:2Kltt 1 - Standard Procedures 1A - RCTC Staff on Site 18 - Customer Assistance 1C - Ambassador on Site Daily Activity Report Metrolink Stations Generated from 5/01/2003 to 5/31/2003 Riverside Pedley La Sierra W. Corona N Corona Total 0 0 1 1 1 3 14 14 14 14 15 71 6 6 2 4 9 27 Total 20 20 17 19 25 101 4 - Maintenance/Repairs 4B - TVM / Validator Machine 5 1 0 2 2 10 4C - Elevator 0 0 0 1 0 1 4D - Station Cleaning 6 4 5 4 1 20 4E - Landscaping 1 2 4 3 5 15 4F - Dumpster/Porta Potti 0 4 2 2 0 8 4H - Other 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 - Miscellaneous 5A - Miscellaneous Activity Total 12 11 11 13 8 55 4 0 14 5 6 29 Total 4 0 14 5 6 29 6 - Parked Overnight * 6A - Parked Ovemight 24 2 11 4 7 48 7 - Overflow * 7A - Veh. In Overflow Total 24 2 11 4 7 48 37 0 0 0 0 37 Total 37 0 0 0 0 37 9 - Empty Spaces * 9A - Empty Spaces 83 0 0 281 0 364 Total 83 0 0 281 0 364 91 - R2R Vehicles * 91A - R2R Vehicles 8 1 6 2 8 25 92 - Vehicles Parked * 92A - Vehicles Parked Total 8 1 6 2 8 25 38 0 86 0 442 566 Total 38 0 86 0 442 566 291 * Value is averaged over the data entry days Friday, Tune 13, 2003 • AGENDA ITEM 6S • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Status Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Status Report as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update With a state budget deficit that exceeds $30 billion, can there be anything more important than the budget? Unfortunately, there is little to report. The state deadline for the Legislature to approve a budget is June 15, and that date passed with no agreement. The next deadline is July 1 which is when the budget is supposed to be approved with the Governor's signature. As is usually the case, there are all kinds of rumors that swirl regarding the possibility of a breakthrough. Adding to the intrigue but potentially slowing the process is the increasing likelihood of a gubernatorial recall election. At this writing no breakthrough seems to be imminent, but staff will provide an oral presentation at the Committee meeting regarding the latest news. Federal Update It is beginning to appear less likely that a multi -year reauthorization of the federal transportation act will take place this year. While the House and Senate Transportation Committee have held hearings on the Administration's Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA) neither the House nor the Senate Committee leadership have introduced their own proposals for consideration. In the meantime, criticism of the Administration's proposal continues because it fails to provide any new or additional revenue for transportation needs. 292 Another concern which is of interest to RCTC, is the proposed changes in SAFETEA regarding transit funding. The Administration's proposal would require a 50 percent local match for federally funded New Starts Transit Projects which is up from the current level of 20 percent. This could have a direct impact on the Commission's ongoing effort to extend Metrolink service to Perris via the San Jacinto Branch Line. Another issue of interest to the Commission and SunLine Transit is the use of hydrogen as a clean fuel. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, the Bush Administration has established a goal of having affordable hydrogen powered vehicles and a workable fueling infrastructure in place by 2020. In order to achieve this, the Administration is seeking a significant increase in funding for nuclear power which would be used to produce hydrogen fuel. Currently, the Administration has put forward a $39 million research budget for next fiscal year that would be used on hydrogen fuel production. Nearly half of the research budget on hydrogen production focuses on renewable technologies, primarily splitting hydrogen from water with electrical energy. Research on extracting hydrogen from natural gas gets $12 million because that is the most common method now. Coal and nuclear options together get $9 million. However the Administration is also seeking $388 million for nuclear power research which has raised the ire of some environmental advocates. In any case, there is significant increase in attention and interest being placed on hydrogen fuel research on the federal level and it will lead to increased debate in future months. Legislative Update An updated copy of the Commission's state and federal legislative matrix has been attached. One item of interest is that a number of bills that would alter the 2/3rds voter requirement for infrastructure needs including ACA 7, ACA 9 and ACA 11 were all approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee by a party line vote of 17-7. The vote took place on the 25th anniversary of the passage of Proposition 13 which is what led to the supermajority requirement in the first place. All three bills require a 2/3rds vote in the Legislature to be placed on a statewide ballot. So far the prospects appear slim since none of the bills has been able to garner a single Republican vote in committee. The Santa Ana River Conservancy Bill (AB 496), which the Commission voted last month to OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED, was amended and passed the Assembly on a 52-24 vote. Unfortunately the amendments did not address the potential impact of the proposed conservancy on planned transportation improvements. What the amendment did do was to prevent the use of the state's general fund to support • 293 • • • the conservancy which helped garner the necessary votes to gain approval in the Assembly. Staff will continue to communicate the Commission's concern regarding AB 496 with its author and other legislators and will work with neighboring transportation agencies that share similar concerns to either obtain helpful amendments or to oppose the bill. Attachments: 1) Federal Legislative Matrix 2) State Legislative Matrix 294 RIVERSID.UNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS•FEDERAL LEGISLATION — UPDATED June 16, 2003 • H.R. 697 Millender- M cDonald (Los Angeles) H.R. 1150 Miller (Brea) Designates 1-710 as a new high -priority transportation corridor in ISTEA Directs the Secretary of Transportation to award grants to OCTA for the purchase of 46 buses for intercounty express bus service . Two of the identified routes serve Riverside County. Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastucture Coauthored by Rep. Calvert - Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastucture H.R. 1617 Lipinski (Illinois) Establishes a National Rail Infrastructure Program to provide grants for railroad infrastructure that could include grade separations. Grants would be financed by excise taxes on railroad equipment and rail passenger tickets. Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Ways and Means Committee S 725 Bingaman (New Mexico) S 821 Harkin (Iowa) Tribal Transportation Program Improvement Act of 2003 — provides additional funding for Tribal transportation needs . Referred to Committee on Indian Affairs Establishes the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Act of 2003. Would authorize federal grants to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cells Referred to Committee on Natural Resources 295 F:\u sers\preprint\js\legmat.doc RIVERSICUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS,ST ATE LEGISL ATION — UPDATED Ju ne 16, 2003 • Legislation/ Author AB 114 Nakano Permits hybrid -electric vehicles to use HOV Lanes regardless of the number of passengers in the car. Referred to Assembly Transportation AB 420 Longville Includes county welfare -to -work programs among alternati ve transportation methods in a county congestion management program . AB 427 Longville Changes enabling legislation that permits some counties (including San Bernardino and Orange but not Riverside) to impose half -cent transportation sales tax programs by eliminating the 20 -year time limit. Passed Assembly 47- 28 Inla nd Empire Legislative Program Sponsored AB 467 Dutra Requires transit operators who have automated ticket machines with video instructions to also include an audio feature Creates the Santa Ana River Conservancy to direct the management of public lands along the river. This could impact potential transportation projects on Routes 71 and 91. Would allow additional franchises for privately owned toll roads and would prohibit the state from granting non -competition clauses in order to support the to ll facility. Reduces v oter threshold for transportation sales tax measures to 55 percent Passed Assembly 73- 2 AB 496 Correa Passed Assembly 52- 24 OPPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED 6/10/03 AB 1289 Benoit ACA 7 Dutra Referred to Senate Transportation Committee Appro ved by Assembly Appropriations Committee 17-7 SUPPORT ACA 9 Levine Allows local jurisdictions to approve special tax es for infrastructure projects with only a majority v ote. The bill includes a number of restrictions and specifications on how this could be imposed. Approved by Assembly Appropriations Committee 17-7 ACA 11 Levine Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local bond measures for specified infrastructure projects. Approved by Assembly Appropriations Committee 17-7 ACA 14 Steinberg Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local special taxes for either general infrastructure needs or specified housing, open space and neighborhood enhancement projects. Approved by Assembly Appropriations Committee 17-7 296 F:Au sers\preprint\js\legmat.doc Would relinquish part of State Route 79 to the City of Temecula. SB 87 Hollingsworth Passed Senate 40-0 and Passed Assembly Transportation Committee 17-0 SUPPORT Date of Board Adoption 6/10/03 SB 234 Oiler Allows persons with disabilities driving a vehicle with a disabled placard or license plate to use an HOV lane regardless of the occupancy of the vehicle. Failed Assembly Transportation SB 380 McClintock and Murray SB 427 Dunn Requires Caltrans to evaluate and establish standards for all existing HOV lanes in accordance with specified criteria. Furthermore Caltrans would be required to conduct a traffic model study comparing the alternatives of establishing an HOV lane, establishing a HOT Lane, adding a mixed flow lane or not doing anything at all when considering new HOV Lanes. Spot bill regarding Caltrans procedure when acquiring homes for highway projects. The final text and intent of this bill has yet to be determined . Passed Senate 28-8 No action taken SB 541 Torlakson SB 585 Soto SB 701 Florez SB 708 Florez Indexes the state gas tax to ensure that it increases with inflation. States need for statewide general obligation bond for impacts of freight movement. No dollar figure or details on eligible expenditures have been included. (Spot bill) Authorizes the sale of State General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $4.55 billion for air pollution reduction and control efforts which would include reducing emissio ns from farming, purchasing clean fuel vehicles, advancing propane technology, and biomass to energy programs. If approved, it would go to state voters in March 2004. Makes changes to the California Smog Check program which would expand the repair assistance program and increase the fine for unlawful motor vehicle exhaust. Failed passage in Senate Transportation. Reconsideration has been granted. No action taken Referred to Senate Environmental Quality Committee Passed Senate 26-13 SB 795 Karnette Allows Service Authorities for Freeway Emergencies (SAFES) to use excess call box revenues to operate the Freeway Service Patrol F:\users\prellips\legmat.doc 297 • Passed Senate 21-12 • SB 957 McClintock SB 981 Soto and Romero SCA 2 Torlakson Authorizes the Governor to declare a "traffic congesti on emergency" and requires Caltrans to prepare a report on transportation delay Imposes a 40 cent per barrel fee on oil refined in California to pay for air quality programs Failed Senate Transportation, reconsideration granted . Passed Senate En vironmental Quality Committee and referred to Senate Revenue and Taxation WATCH 5/14/03 SCA 7 Murray Would lower the threshold on half -cent sales tax measures to a simple majority but would require that at least 25 percent of the revenues be spent on "smart growth planning." Passed Senate Transportation and Constitutional Amendments Committees. SEEK AMEND MENTS Would require that all loans made to the General Fund from transportation sources such as the STIP be repaid with interest 298 F:\u sers\preprint\js\legmatdoc Senate Appropriations — Hearing date pending SUPPORT 5/14/03 • AGENDA ITEM 7 0 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding No. M23-002 Between RCTC and WRCOG Regarding the Western Riverside TUMF Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the implementation of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. M23-002 between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) clarifying the relationship between Measure "A" and the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF); and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the MOU with WRCOG for the Western Riverside County TUMF Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On March 21, 2003, the Commission conducted a retreat in the City of Temecula to consider and discuss broad policy items of significance for future consideration. One of the items of interest to the Commission was the implementation of the TUMF Program in Western Riverside County. The issue is of extreme importance to the Commission because there are legal links and responsibilities that have been established between the voter -approved Measure "A" Program and the TUMF. As is the case with the Coachella Valley's successful program, revenue from the Western County TUMF Program is intended to primarily fund regional arterials. This is a logical policy direction because arterials are necessary to support new development that crosses local boundaries and jurisdictions and that have regional impacts on thoroughfares that might cross into multiple cities. The Measure "A" Expenditure Plan cites a number of examples that mandate certain TUMF actions and responsibilities. An obvious example is that each municipality in Western Riverside County is required to participate in the TUMF in order to receive Measure Local Streets and Roads funding. The Expenditure Plan also specifies that the first $400 million of TUMF revenues will be made available to the Commission to fund equally the: 1) Regional Arterial System and 2) Development of new CETAP corridors. Development of MOU During the last few months staff representatives from the Commission and WRCOG have been working cooperatively to develop an MOU in order to formalize and implement the working relationship between the two agencies and to address the disbursement and use of the $400 million specified in the Measure "A" Ordinance. Transferring the first $400 million directly to the Commission was one option; however after numerous meetings throughout the county with various jurisdictions, it was made clear that the integrity and effectiveness of the Western Riverside County TUMF Program required a detailed plan for the use of the $400 million. This is also necessary to remain in compliance with WRCOG's Nexus Study which is required by law for the implementation of the TUMF. What further complicates matters is that the voter -approved Measure "A" extension does not take affect until 2009. As a result, staff has developed a proposal that addresses a number of transportation needs in Western Riverside County. Financial Allocations The proposed MOU addresses the expenditure of TUMF funds until April 1, 2009, as follows: a) 48.1 percent to RCTC for regional arterials and CETAP development b) 48.1 percent shall be allocated to the five TUMF Improvement Zones which are outlined in the WRCOG TUMF Administrative Plan c) 3.8 percent for regional transit Funds received by RCTC would be eligible for the development of regional arterials or for CETAP development needs including mitigation, although funding would be precluded from being spent on CETAP corridors that are not designated on the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. The TUMF Improvement Zones have been established by WRCOG as part of the agency's ongoing efforts to develop a TUMF Administrative Plan and will help direct funding to ensure that a significant portion of TUMF dollars raised are spent in the general area in which they are raised. The allocation for regional public transit use is an outgrowth of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study which provides funding for public transit needs. • 300 • The MOU covers the period between now and April 1, 2009, however once the $400 million responsibility is satisfied, the requirements of the MOU will cease. Conversely, if the $400 million responsibility is not satisfied by April 1, 2009, all TUMF revenues would revert to RCTC until the $400 million is satisfied. In -Kind Improvements In addition to the allocation questions another pressing concern is the issue of in - kind improvements that could be constructed by developers as a condition of the entitlement process. In limited cases, in -kind improvements could be used in lieu of actual cash payments to satisfy TUMF requirements. The proposed MOU would limit in -kind credits only when the improvements are made on any of six to eight designated high priority regional arterials. These arterials will be considered and adopted by the Commission within eight months of the approval of the MOU. This ensures that in -kind improvements complement and assist the Commission's overall strategic direction. The amount of in -kind improvements would also be capped at $200 million. Coordinating Committee Finally, the MOU formalizes the establishment of a Coordinating Committee that first met on March 21 and will be comprised of officers from WRCOG and RCTC to oversee TUMF implementation. The committee members will be comprised of the Chairperson, First Vice Chairperson, and Second Vice Chairperson of RCTC and the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Past Chair of WRCOG. Attachments: 1) Western Riverside County TUMF Program Balances 2) Memorandum of Understanding No. M23-002 301 • TUMF Areas ;Co unty Northern iverside Norco Co unty Southwest Temecula County Central Moreno Valley Perris Calimesa Banning Beaumont Co unty Herne San Jacinto He met San T eel to Facilities 148 001 3003 • We st ern fi ver of Govern ants Traffic Unif orm Mitigation Fee Program • Begi nning Ending Balance Balance Zone 611 /2003 Rev enue Expend ures 6/30/2003 Total 2,366 .20 20, 333.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 100 58,842 . 3101 6,138 .08 72,8; 26 ,068.45 0.00 88,666.4 * 2O. O0 20,220.91'. 613,808 0.00 0.00 159,91 '1.22 88,666 .48 0 .00 0.00 0.00 4.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 248,577.70 93.56 0.00 404,985.08 404,965.08 $ .$ 850,428.00 850,428.00 302 • • • M23-002 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CLARIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEASURE "A" AND TUMF THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, is made and effective this day of , 2003, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and the WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ("WRCOG"). RCTC and WRCOG are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "PARTIES". RECITALS A. On May 8, 2002, RCTC enacted Ordinance No. 02-001 for the purpose, among others, of imposing a 0.5% retail transactions and use tax (Measure "A" (2002)) the proceeds of which would be spent in accordance with the Transportation Improvement Plan attached to the Ordinance as Exhibit "B" ("TIP"). The collection of Measure "A" (2002) sales taxes shall commence upon the expiration of the existing Measure "A" sales tax on or about April 2009. B. On November 5, 2002, a supermajority of Riverside County voters approved Measure "A" (20'02), including the TIP. By its terms, the TIP conditioned the expenditure of Measure "A" (2002) revenues in city and county jurisdictions with the requirement, among other things, that matching revenues be generated within such jurisdictions in the form of a "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee", or "TUMF". C. WRCOG is a joint powers public agency consisting of the County of Riverside and the fourteen cities situated in the western end of Riverside County. WRCOG developed a form of ordinance to be considered for adoption by its member agencies that would serve to implement the TUMF. In summary, the TUMF is expected to result in transportation improvements in Western Riverside County valued at about $2.5 billion, and the form of ordinance serves to appoint WRCOG as the program administrator. D. The TIP includes a requirement that $400 million of TUMF revenues (the "$400 Million TUMF Requirement") be transferred to RCTC to fund, equally, the Measure "A" (2002) Regional Arterial System and the CETAP Corridors System. The $400 Million TUMF Requirement shall not be reduced to account for any WRCOG program administration costs. E. Because the TUMF program was not fully developed and finalized by the time Measure "A" (2002) was approved by Riverside county voters, the details necessary to fully coordinate the two revenue programs could not be worked out. Therefore, it is the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding to amplify and clarify certain aspects of the relationship of the administration of Measure "A" (2002) by RCTC and the administration of TUMF revenues by WRCOG. MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing facts and mutual understandings, the PARTIES wish to memorialize, by this Memorandum, the following mutual understandings: 1. Allocation of TUMF Revenues Prior to April 1, 2009. Until April 1, 2009, after a set aside of funds for Program Administration, TUMF revenues shall be allocated as follows: a) 3.8% shall be allocated for regional transit; b) 48.1 % shall be provided to RCTC consistent with Measure "A" (2002) and the TIP; and c) 48.1% shall be allocated to the five TUMF Improvement Zones, as more specifically provided for in the WRCOG TUMF Administrative Plan. 2. Allocation of TUMF Revenues, on or After April 1, 2009. After a set aside of funds for Program Administration and credits allowed under Section 4 below, on or after April 1, 2009, 100% of TUMF revenues shall be transferred to RCTC for use consistent with Measure "A" (2002), the TIP and State law. 3. Satisfaction of the $400 Million TUMF Requirement. The requirements of this MOU shall cease at such time as the $400 Million TUMF Requirement is satisfied. 4. Credit for In -Kind Improvements. WRCOG shall receive a credit towards the $400 Million TUMF Requirement for TUMF facilities that are constructed by developers as a condition of residential, commercial or industrial development, provided that each of the following is true: a) The TUMF facility constructed by the developer is part of the Regional Arterial System included in the TIP and approved by the Commission. b) The TUMF facility is a High Priority Regional Arterial, as defined below. • 3?)4 • • • c) The credit is in an amount not more than the cost of the improvement as set forth in the most recent Nexus Study adopted in support of the TUMF. A "High Priority Regional Arterial" is defined as the highest priority regional arterial roadways as designated by the RCTC Board. RCTC shall, within eight months of the execution of this Agreement, designate six to eight roadways on the Regional Arterial System as High Priority Regional Arterials. In no event shall WRCOG receive a total credit towards the $400 Million TUMF Requirement under this section in excess of $200 million. The parties agree that at least once every three (3) years until the satisfaction of the $400 Million TUMF Requirement the parties shall discuss, in good faith, lowering the maximum credit to an amount less then (but no greater than) $200 Million based on the actual percentage of in -lieu TUMF facilities constructed by developers on the entire TUMF system. 5. CETAP Corridors as TUMF Improvements. TUMF revenues shall not be used to develop new CETAP corridors that are not also designated on the Regional System of Highways and Arterials as established in the TUMF Nexus Study. 6. RCTC's Expenditure of TUMF Revenues. RCTC is solely responsible for programming the expenditure of TUMF Program revenues transferred to RCTC pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 above. In programming such expenditures, RCTC shall consider project priorities established in the TUMF 10 -Year Strategic Plan adopted by WRCOG's Executive Committee. Accounting and expenditure of TUMF revenues shall be in conformance with applicable state laws, including Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. 7. Allocation of Unclaimed Measure "A" (2002) Local Streets and Roads Funds. Section 5.D. of the "General Provisions of the Transportation Improvement Plan" of the TIP establishes the method for allocating Local Streets and Roads Funds of agencies not participating in the TUMF. RCTC agrees that in allocating such funds, that it will consider, among other things: a. The zones created by WRCOG for the TUMF. b. The allocation to Regional Arterial improvements so as to allow the timely use of such funds. 8. Establishment of a Coordinating Committee. There is hereby established a seven -member "Measure "A"/TUMF Policy Coordinating Committee", consisting of the Chairperson, Vice -Chairperson and the Second Vice Chairperson of RCTC, and the Chairperson, Vice -Chairperson and Past Chairperson of the 365 WRCOG Executive Committee, and one member of Caltrans. The Policy Coordinating Committee shall meet as necessary for the purpose of coordinating the allocation and expenditure of TUMF and Measure "A" revenues. If any of the above listed positions at WRCOG or RCTC are vacant, the Chair of the respective agency may appoint a temporary member. 9. Amendment. This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended in writing by mutual agreement of the PARTIES. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have caused this Memorandum of Understanding to be effective as of the day first above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Date: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS By: Date: • 3`56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 ORDINANCE NO. 824 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM AND ADDING CHAPTER 4.58 TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY CODE The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside ordains as follows: Section 1: Title This Ordinance shall be known as the "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance" and shall be added as Chapter 4.58 of the Riverside County Code. Section 2: Findings A. The Board of Supervisors has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that future development within Western Riverside County and the cities therein will result in traffic volumes exceeding the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials (the "Regional System") as it presently exists. A map depicting the boundaries of Western Riverside County and the system is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. B. The Board of Supervisors has been further informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable levels of service throughout Western Riverside County by 2025. C. The Board of Supervisors has been further informed and advised, and hereby finds, that funds will be inadequate to construct the Regional System needed to avoid the unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and related adverse impacts. Absent a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), existing and known future funding sources will be inadequate to provide the necessary improvements to the Regional System, resulting in an unacceptably high level of traffic congestion within and around Western Riverside County. D. The County is a Member Agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), a joint powers agency consisting of the County of Riverside, and the fourteen other cities situated in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, the Member Agencies of WRCOG developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to expand the capacity of the Regional System could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee on future residential and non-residential development. As a Member Agency of WRCOG, the County participated in the preparation of that certain "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study", dated October 18, 2002, prepared pursuant to California Government Code, Section 66000 et seq., the Mitigation Fee Act (the "Nexus Study"). E. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Nexus Study, and hereby finds that future development within the County and Cities will substantially adversely affect the Regional System, and that unless such development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the System will operate at unacceptable levels of service. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 F. The Board of Supervisors hereby finds and determines that the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System within Western Riverside County will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond. The failure to mitigate impacts on the Regional System will adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. G. The Board of Supervisors further finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development projects on which the TUMF will be levied. H. The Board of Supervisors further finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional System. Such development will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such development will be mitigated in part by the payment of the TUMF. I. The Board of Supervisors further finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development. J. The fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used to help pay for the construction and acquisition of the Regional System improvements identified in the Nexus Study. The need for the improvements is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic thus creating the demand for the improvements. K. By notice duly given and published, the Board of Supervisors set the time and place for a public hearing on the Nexus Study and the fee proposed thereunder, and at least ten days prior to the hearing, the County made the Nexus Study available to the public. L. At the time and place set for the hearing, the Board of Supervisors duly considered that data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the services for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing. M. The Board of Supervisors finds that the Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements to the Regional System. N. The Board of Supervisors hereby adopts the Nexus Study, which Study is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and incorporates it herein as though set forth in full. Section 3: Definitions For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. "Development Project" or "Project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development including the issuance of a permit for construction. B. "Gross Acre" means the total property area as shown on a land division map of record, or described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area shall be bounded by road rights of way and property lines. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. "Industrial Project" means any development project, that proposes any industrial or manufacturing use allowed in the following Ordinance No. 348 zoning classifications: I -P, M -S -C, M -M, M -H, M -R, M -R -A, A-1, A -P, A-2, A -D, W -E, or SP with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone. D. "Low Income Residential Housing" means residential units in publicly subsidized projects constructed as housing for low-income households as such households are defined pursuant to section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. "Publicly subsidized projects," as the term is used herein, shall not include any project or project applicant receiving a tax credit provided by the State of California Franchise Tax Board. E. "Multi Family Residential Unit" means a development project that has a density of greater than eight (8) residential dwelling units per gross acre. F. "Non -Residential Project" means a retail commercial, service commercial and industrial development which is designed primarily for non -dwelling use, but shall include hotels and motels. G. "Residential Dwelling Unit" means a building or portion thereof used by one (1) family and containing but one (1) kitchen, which is designed primarily for residential occupancy including single-family and multi -family dwellings. "Residential Dwelling Unit" shall not include hotels or motels. H. "Retail Commercial Project" means any development project, that proposes any commercial use not defined as a service commercial project, allowed in the following Ordinance No. 348 zoning classifications: R-1, R -R, R -R -O, R -1-A, R -A, R-2, R -2-A, R-3, R -3-A, R -T, R -T -R, R-4, R-5, R-6, C -1/C -P, C -T, C -P -S, C -R, C -O, R -V -C, C -V, W-2, R -D, N -A, W -2-M, W-1, I -P, M -S -C, M -M, M -H, M -R, M -R -A, A-1, A -P, A-2, A -D, W -E, or SP with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone. "Service Commercial Project" means any development project that is predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal and medical offices. J. "Single Family Residential Unit" means each residential dwelling unit in a development that has a density of 8 units to the gross acre or less. Section 4: Establishment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee A. Adoption. There is hereby adopted the following schedule of fees: $6650 per Single Family Residential Unit $4607 per Multi Family Residential Unit $1.45 per square foot of an Industrial Project $7.81 per square foot of a Retail Commercial Project $4.84 per square foot of a Service Commercial Project B. Fee Calculation. i. For non-residential projects, the fee rate utilized shall be based upon the predominate use of the building or structure identified in the building permit as further specified in the TUMF Administration Plan. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii. For non-residential projects, the fee shall be calculated on the total square footage of the building or structure identified in the building permit and as further specified in the TUMF Administration Plan. C. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to this Ordinance, the fees may be increased or decreased to reflect changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System including, but not limited to, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Ordinance, as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to construct the Regional System. WRCOG shall review the TUMF program within two (2) years of the effective date of this Ordinance and no less than every five (5) years thereafter. D. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional System depicted on Exhibit "A" and identified in the Nexus Study, Exhibit "B". E. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the County, as identified by Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof, unless otherwise exempt hereunder. F. Exemptions. The following new development shall be exempt from the TUMF: i. Low income residential housing. ii. Government/public buildings, public schools and public facilities. iii. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal, residential structure and/or the replacement of a previously existing dwelling unit. iv. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any non-residential structure where there is no net increase in square footage. Any increase in square footage shall pay the current applicable rate. v. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code, Section 65864 et seq. prior to the effective date of this ordinance, wherein the imposition of new fees are expressly prohibited, provided, however that, if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended after the effective date of this Ordinance, the TUMF shall be imposed. vi. Guest Dwellings, as defined in Section 21.31 of Ordinance No. 348. vii. Additional single family residential units located on the same parcel pursuant to the provisions of any agricultural zoning classifications set forth in Ordinance No. 348. viii. Kennels and Catteries established in connection with an existing single family residential unit and as defined in Sections 21.20 and 21.40a of Ordinance No. 348. iv. Detached Second Units pursuant to Section 18.28a of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 and Attached Second Units pursuant to Section 18.28b of Ordinance No. 348. x. The sanctuary building of a church or other house of worship, eligible for a 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 property tax exemption. xi. Residential projects that have been issued a building permit prior to the effective date of this ordinance. xii. Non -Residential projects that have been issued a building permit prior to June 30, 2004. G. Credits. Regional System improvements may be credited toward the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administration Plan and the following: Regional Tier i. Arterial Credits: If a developer constructs arterial improvements identified on the Regional System, the developer shall receive credit for the all costs associated with the arterial component based on approved unit cost assumptions for the Regional System. ii. Other Credits: In special circumstances, when a developer constructs off -site improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade separation, credits shall be determined by WRCOG and the local jurisdiction in consultation with the developer. iii. The amount of the development fee credit shall not exceed the maximum amount determined by the most current unit cost assumptions for the Regional System or actual costs, whichever is less. Local Tier i. The local jurisdictions shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the Regional System and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program except where there is a recognized benefit district established. ii. If there is a recognized benefit district established, the local agency may credit that portion of the facility identified in both programs against the TUMF. Section 5: Reimbursements Should the developer construct network improvements in excess of the TUMF fee obligation the developer may be reimbursed based on actual costs or the approved unit cost assumptions, whichever is less at the time of the agreement. Reimbursements shall be enacted through a three party agreement including the developer, WRCOG and the local jurisdiction, contingent on funds being available. In all cases, however, reimbursements under such special agreements must coincide with construction of the transportation improvements as scheduled in the five-year Capital Improvement Program adopted annually by WRCOG. Section 6: Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Fees A. Authority of the Building Department. The Director of Building & Safety, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized to levy and collect the TUMF and make all determinations required by this Ordinance. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Payment of the fees shall be as follows: The fees shall be paid at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Development Project or upon final inspection, whichever come first. However this section should not be construed to prevent payment of the Fees prior to issuance of an occupancy permit or final inspection. Fees may be paid at the time application is made for a building permit. ii. For non-residential projects the fees shall be phased in as follows: From July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005, the fee schedule shall be: $0.48 per square foot of an Industrial Project $2.60 per square foot of a Retail Commercial Project $1.61 per square foot of a Service Commercial Project From July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006, the fee schedule shall be: $0.96 per square foot of an Industrial Project $5.20 per square foot of a Retail Commercial Project $3.23 per square foot of a Service Commercial Project iii. The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment. iv. If all or part of any development project is sold prior to payment of the fee, the property shall continue to be subject to the requirement for payment of the fee, accordingly, the fees shall run with the land. v. Fees shall not be waived. C. Disposition of Fees. All fees collected hereunder, that are required to be transferred, shall be transmitted to the Executive Director of WRCOG within thirty days for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act. D. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed with WRCOG in accordance with the provisions of the TUMF Administration Plan. Appealable issues shall be application of the fee, application of credits, application of reimbursement, application of the legal action stay and application of exemptions. E. Reports to WRCOG. The Director of Building & Safety, or his/her designee, shall prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, periodic reports as will be established under Section 8 of this ordinance. Section 7: Effect of Legal Actions on Non -Residential Projects. If a legal action, or referendum is filed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance or during the phase in period of the fee program, and the legal action seeks to set aside, void or annul the County's approval of a non-residential project, the phasing schedule set forth in Section 6 shall be stayed. The stay shall only remain in effect for a period of 18 months from the time the legal action was filed, or until a final, non -appealable order is issued by the court or a settlement agreement is executed, whichever occurs first. Once the stay is no longer in effect, the period remaining in the phasing 6 schedule shall again commence to run. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 8: Appointment of TUMF Fund Administrator WRCOG is hereby appointed as the Administrator of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program. WRCOG is hereby authorized to receive all fees generated from the TUMF within the County, and to invest, account for and expend such fees in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act. Detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this ordinance shall be set forth in a resolution adopted by WRCOG. WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the TUMF for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent (1 %) of the annual net amount of revenue raised by the TUMF. Section 9: Severability If any one or more of the terms, provisions or sections of this Ordinance shall to any extent be judged invalid, unenforceable and/or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, then each and all of the remaining terms, provisions and sections of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable. Section 10: Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect on the 61st day following its enactment. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ATTEST: NANCY ROMERO Clerk to the Board By: Deputy G:\Property\DBONELLI\ORDINANC\824 Ordinance (TUMF).doc By: Chairman, Board of Supervisors 7 • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Strategic Recovery Plan for SunLine Transit Agency and SunLine Services Group STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the release of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to have an independent internal audit conducted of SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) and SunLine Services Group (SSG); and, 2) Appoint members of the Commission's Audit Ad Hoc Committee to review the proposals. 41) BACKGROUND INFORMAT/ON: • As reported at the June 11, 2003 Commission meeting, the FY 2002 draft financial audit conducted by Ernst & Young LLP (E&Y) of SunLine and SSG identified the following two issues: 1) SunLine advanced $751,000 in funds to its affiliate SSG to cover administrative expenses for salaries and benefits; and 2) SSG borrowed $865,787 from a bank to purchase fifty taxicabs which were leased to private cab operators. SunLine, not SSG, guaranteed the loan. An Executive Management meeting was held with staff from the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), SunLine, and RCTC to formulate a strategic recovery plan to address issues raised in the fiscal audits. As a result, the following six strategies were developed: 1) Agreement to suspend adoption of SunLine's FY 2004 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) until agreements are adopted and implemented. (Note: SRTP was placed on hold at the June 11"' Commission meeting); 307 2) Agreement to conduct an independent internal audit of SunLine and SSG; 3) Review issues and timeline for the Triennial Performance Audits of RCTC and SunLine; 4) Development of a strategic recovery plan to strengthen fiscal controls between SunLine and SSG; 5) Reimbursement of funds used to cover SSG administrative charges and the potential transfer of assets to cover bad debt; and 6) Potential of complete segregation between SSG and SunLine. Audit Information If approved to have the audit conducted, the results will be used to develop the strategic recovery plan to strengthen the fiscal controls between SunLine and SSG. In addition, the results should assist in the discussions of segregating the two agencies and will provide a cost analysis as to the impact. Review of Proposals - Audit Ad Hoc Committee Staff is recommending that members of the Commission's Audit Ad Hoc Committee be appointed to review the audit proposals. Members of this committee were appointed from the Budget and Implementation Committee and consist of Art Welch from the City of Banning, Terry Henderson from the City of La Quinta and Chris Buydos from the City of San Jacinto. In addition, it is recommended that Eric Haley and John Wohlmuth, Executive Director of CVAG, be part of the evaluation committee. Time Line Once proposals are received and evaluated, a timeline will be developed and reported to the Commission. • 308 ±.b 4`/o SunLine Transit Agency SunLine Services Group Report to RCTC Draft 2002 Audit Findings July 2003 Updated 7-9-03 SLIDE 1 2c i G °Iv2A1\ )--7/.6-v3 Hello everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to review with yero our current situation. As you know, a recent draft audit raised several questions regarding the use and allocation of our transportation funding. These issues involve both the transit agency and SSG. At the board's direction, we have been working to resolve these questions and, in cooperation with the appropriate contract agencies, to bring forward operational changes to restore full confidence in the Agency and its practices. This public trust is vital to our mission. Today, I want to report on what we've done, how we're approaching resolution and the required next steps. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 1 RESPOND REPAIR REBUILD RESTORE SLIDE 2 Our efforts fall into 4 categories and that is how we have organized our report today. First, I will share with you what we have done to respond to internal and external stakeholders. Second, what efforts are underway to repair our practices to conform to today's requirements. Third, the path we are on to rebuild and ensure our practices and relationships are solid. And finally, our commitment to restore public confidence. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 2 RESPOND • Draft findings presented May 28 • Board direction to take immediate action to correct • Began gathering information and documentation for response • Internal meetings with employees and union • Meetings with CVAG & RCTC to develop cooperative plan of action to resolve outstanding issues • Briefed elected officials • Briefed federal, state and regional agency contacts • Briefed technology partners SLIDE 3 With direction from our board, we began gathering the necessary information and documentation to respond immediately to the findings presented in the May 28 draft audit. At the same time, we held internal meetings with employees and the union. Our employees are our most precious resource and must stay informed and involved in our progress to respond. We also began meeting with CVAG & RCTC to develop a cooperative plan of action to resolve all outstanding issues. We briefed our federal, state and regional elected officials and agency contacts as well as our technology partners, and we're now in the process of giving this presentation to all valley cities. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 3 • Responded to media inquiries Public Records Requests: The Desert Sun 5/29 200 pages 6/4 950 pages 6/17 All SSG contracts and financial agreements with public or private energy or alternate fuel agencies since 1997 All SSG contracts with government agencies since 1997 (in process) 6/17 2nd Request - All month -end financial reports for SunLine Transit Agency and SSG from Jan. 1, 1997 to present (completed - 1458 pages of documents delivered) 6/24 3rd Request - All company credit cards used by Richard Cromwell and itemization of expenditures from Jan 1, 1998 to present (completed) 6/27 4th Request - All itemization travel expenditures for Richard Cromwell from Jan 1, 1999 to present (in process) CV Taxi Owners Association 6/17 All contracts between SunLine and Pickens Fuel Corp. "that ever existed" - from 1998 to present day RESPOND SLIDE 4 As you know, this issue gathered a lot of media attention. We • have -responded to all media inquiries openly and honestly. To date we have received five Public Records Acts requests for documents and have provided 4,870 pages of information to The Desert Sun and another 601 to the Coachella Valley Taxi Owners Association thus far! We continue to work to meet those requests. Rev 7-8-03 Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 4 • Responded to media inquiries... Interviews/Background Information Requests To Date Various local and regional print & electronic media: 40 Phone contacts 6 In -person interviews 7 E-mail requests/responses 2 Fax requests/responses (72 pages) RESPOND SLIDE 5 We have received 52 contacts from the media to date including 46 from the Desert Sun, two from the Press Enterprise and two from the LA Times. We also heard from CBS -2 early on and most recently from KMIR-6. And that doesn't even count media coverage of our meetings. Rev 7-3-03 Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 5 REPAIR Context: • What didn't the audit say? Changes take time - it's a process SLIDE 6 Before I address the specifics of our efforts to repair the audit fipdings, I want to set the context a bit by talking about what the audttdidn't say. The audit didn't say that there was anything criminal going on. The audit didn't say that anyone personally benefited from what they found. The audit didn't say that our past practices of loaning money to SSG were improper or wrong — the issue here is that during the past year, SSG had a number of projects that were delayed due to hold-ups by funders, but couldn't back -charge its employees' salaries or overhead to the contracts. This resulted in the loan amount from the Agency building to a point that the auditors didn't see how it could be repaid in the short term and thus they felt it should be accounted for as a potential bad debt. We'll get to that in a minute. NOTES CONTINUE... Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 6 As you know, an audit is not a punitive measure. We are routinely audited, as are all transit properties and most businesses — and with good reason. We receive the bulk of our funding from government sources to whom we are responsible and accountable. We do not take this obligation lightly. Our plan to repair things is comprehensive and involves multiple parties and will take time to implement correctly and completely. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 7 SunLine Transit Agency - Impairment of Due from Affiliate $751,000 loan from SunLine Transit Agency to SunLine Services Group (SSG) Draft Finding: • Inability of SSG to payback loan to SunLine Transit Agency in current period • Make a provision for potential bad debt REPAIR SLIDE 7 All right, let's get to the specifics of the draft findings and how to reparr them. There are four findings. Some received more attention than others, so I'II present them in order of interest. The first finding is — impairment due from affiliate. What does that mean? As stated previously, it brought forward the opinion that SSG didn't have the ability to pay back SunLine a $751,000 loan, and suggested we make provision for potential bad debt. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 8 Status/Recommendation: • Proposed transfer of SSG transit related assets to SunLine Transit Agency Discussed with RCTC RCTC recommends SunLine Transit Agency Board approve asset transfer Next step — submit to RCTC for approval SRTP submittal to RCTC to follow SLIDE 8 And the repair: We propose a transfer of SSG transit related assets to SunLine Transit Agency. We're referring to assets transit is already using such as — hydrogen and electrical infrastructure - that produce the fuel for buses. Had SSG not acquired these assets, the transit agency would have had to purchase them in order to operate the hydrogen and Hythane vehicles we use in transit service. We have discussed this transfer with RCTC. They recommend that the SunLine Transit board first approve the asset transfer and then submit that action to RCTC for consideration and approval. Once RCTC approves our remedies outlined here, our Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) can be resubmitted to RCTC for action. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 9 Status / Recommendation ... • Proposed utilization of TDA provisions to designate funding for R&D Discussing process to accomplish with RCTC SunLine Transit Agency staff will recommend the amount to designate R&D at August Board meeting Submit to RCTC for approval • Accept auditor recommendation regarding advances to SSG Draft policy for Board consideration within 60 days • Future SSG contracts must at least cover all costs Internal review committee established Monthly review of all existing contracts Monthly report to Board Finance Subcommittee REPAIR SLIDE 9 In order to provide SSG funding for the work it does in Research and Development, we propose designating Transit Development Act (IDA) funds for R&D. RCTC tells us the process for this is to designate the amount for R&D with a board action, and submit it to them for approval. Staff will bring forward the recommended amount in August once we complete our SunLine Transit and SSG budgets. We accept the auditor's recommendation regarding SunLine Transit advances to SSG being paid back in a timely fashion. We will bring a draft policy to the Board for consideration within 60 days. And finally, we've put in place internal procedures to ensure that future SSG contracts at least cover all costs prior to their acceptance. NOTES CONTINUE... Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 10 An internal review committee has been established and is already operating. There will be a formal monthly review of all existing contracts to track their performance. And a monthly report will be made to the Board Finance subcommittee regarding contract performance. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 11 SunLine Services Group — Backdating Documents Draft Finding: • Backdated receiving documentation • Applied for reimbursement before expense was incurred REPAIR SLIDE 10 The next finding alleged SSG backdated documents. The draft finding said that receiving documentation had been backdated and that SSG had applied for reimbursement of capital equipment before the expense was incurred. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 12 Status/Recommendation: • No falsification of documents occurred Presented documentation to auditor Demonstrated no backdating occurred Under review by auditor Expect resolution in final audit • CVAG amending street sweeping contract with SSG All capital acquisitions will be made by CVAG Contract is in process REPAIR SLIDE 11 The fact is — no falsification of documents occurred and the auditors acknowledge they have no documents showing that it did. We have presented materials to the auditors to demonstrate that there was no backdating. The auditors are reviewing what we submitted and we expect resolution of this finding in the final audit. At our suggestion, CVAG is amending the street sweeping contract with SSG so all future capital acquisitions under this contract will be made by CVAG. Bottom line is the equipment belongs to the program. So SunLine has no vested interest in the acquisition process. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 13 SunLine Transit Agency Non -Compliance with Davis -Bacon Act REPAIR SLIDE 12 This finding related to non-compliance with the Davis -Bacon Act Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 14 Draft Finding: • Construction contracts over $2,000 must include prevailing -wage clauses SunLine Transit Agency construction contract did not include required clauses Status/Recommendation: • Reviewed contract in question - confirmed with contractor prevailing wage was paid • All construction contracts over $2,000 will contain the required Davis -Bacon Act clauses REPAIR SLIDE 13 Construction contracts over $2000 must include prevailing wage clauses. Our staff mistakenly interpreted this provision to apply to contracts with labor content of over $2,000 since the Davis -Bacon Act deals with labor costs. One of the Agency construction contracts, containing labor of less than $2,000 but more than $2,000 of total costs, did not include the proper contract language. We reviewed the contract in question and confirmed with the contractor that prevailing wage was paid. Therefore, there was no questioned cost finding by the auditor. So it was an issue of missing language in the contract. In the future all contracts over $2000 will include required Davis -Bacon Act clauses. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 15 SunLine Transit Agency - Providing Charter Services REPAIR SLIDE 14 And finally, the question regarding the provision of Charter Ser i es. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 16 Draft Finding: • FTA regulations do not allow public transit operators to perform private charter services Status/Recommendation: • Accept auditor recommendation • Continue to monitor services to comply with FTA regulations REPAIR SLIDE 15 The draft finding related to FTA regulations that do not allow p'ubi'c transit operators to perform private charter services. Our board is very familiar with this issue and its history. We accept the auditor recommendation to monitor services to comply with FTA regulations. By the way, we're not the only community concerned about this issue. It's currently being debated at the national level. We'll certainly keep you apprised of its outcome. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 17 OTHER ISSUES • SSG Operating Funds Going Forward Exploring alternatives Details will take time to analyze Status and recommendations to Board in August REPAIR SLIDE 16 Those are the specific findings and our status and recdfnmendations going forward. Now I want to address some other obvious related issues. First, how are we going to fund SSG operations going forward? We've talked about some of the things we are doing to resolve the draft audit issues related to SSG funding. In addition, we believe there are other opportunities to explore, which we'll do in the next few weeks. The details will take time to analyze and we want to involve our stakeholders in this process. We expect to have a status report on this issue along with recommendations to the Board at the August board meeting. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 18 OTHER ISSUES... • Suspension of SunLine Transit Agency SRTP RCTC will allocate funds to SunLine Transit Agency month -to -month based on current FY03 budget Submit audit remedies/actions to RCTC for review and acceptance Submit revised SRTP for consideration and final action REPAIR SLIDE 17 I also want to update you on the status of the suspension of the Agelrcy Short Range Transit Plan. As you know, until some of the previous actions we discussed are implemented, our plan is on hold. RCTC will allocate funds to the Agency on a month -to - month basis based on the current FY03 budget until we submit our final audit along with remedies and actions to them for review. We believe we have laid out a plan that will get us there in the next 60 days. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 19 REBUILD PROVIDING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS JOB ONE! SLIDE 18 We are setting forth a process to repair the findings in the draft • audW. We recognize that some rebuilding is necessary. I want to assure you that we understand how important our core service is and that our commitment first, last and always is to provide dependable public transit service. Buses continue to run and service remains our focus. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 20 Collaboration Toward Solutions — SunLine Transit Agency CVAG RCTC REBUILD SLIDE 19 Recognizing that, we also understand how important our rela€tonships are. We believe that the process of rebuilding requires intense collaboration. To that end we have been working with CVAG and RCTC on ways we can work together to strengthen our systems and rebuild confidence. Executive staff of the three agencies have met and have agreed on a consensus plan to move forward. Here are our recommendations based on our Board's input from last Wednesdays SunLine board meeting: Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 21 • Conduct Independent Internal Audit Develop consensus scope of work with CVAG and RCTC for independent audit Submit to respective boards for approval within 60 days • Strengthen fiscal controls between SunLine Transit Agency and SSG Develop a strategic recovery plan with CVAG and RCTC Submit to respective boards for approval within 60 days • Analyze potential of segregating SunLine Transit Agency and SSG Develop analysis with CVAG, RCTC Submit recommendations to respective boards within 60 days REBUILD SLIDE 20 First, to bring final resolution to issues raised by the draft and fipal,audits, add a level of assurance to the public, and restore public confidence, we are discussing having a third party audit conducted to review practices and procedures. We will be working with RCTC & CVAG to develop a consensus scope of work. Each agency representative will then submit the draft to their respective boards within 60 days. Secondly, we want to strengthen the fiscal controls between SunLine Transit and SSG. Again, we plan to work with RCTC & CVAG to develop a strategic plan of fiscal controls and present it to each agency within 60 days. Working collaboratively with RCTC & CVAG will add an extra level of review to what we are doing internally. NOTES CONTINUE... Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 22 And finally, we'll work together with RCTC & CVAG to analyze the suggested further segregating of SunLine Transit Agency and SSG and submit our findings and recommendations back to the respective boards in the next 60 days. I believe these steps, taken in collaboration with RCTC & CVAG will be a necessary positive step toward rebuilding and strengthening our relationships as we move forward. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 23 Communications is Key • Regular progress updates to the SunLine Board • Ongoing meetings with employees and union • Ongoing briefings with legislative leaders • Close contact with technology partners and funding agencies • Interaction with CVAG and RCTC • Open and accessible for stakeholders / media REBUILD SLIDE 21 Overlaying the entire process is the need for communications. We VviII provide regular progress updates to SunLine's Board . We will continue to brief employees and the union and our legislative leaders. We will retain close contact with our technology partners and our funding agencies. We will continue our interaction with CVAG & RCTC throughout the process. And, of course, we will remain open and accessible for our stakeholders and the media. That's our plan. We've talked about our immediate efforts to... Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 24 RESPOND REPAIR REBUILD RESTORE SLIDE 22 ....respond, our specific actions to repair the draft findings and the ceecessary steps to rebuild. We are mindful of our ongoing obligations to our transit customers, employees, funding agencies, technology partners, community stakeholders, our Board, JPA members, and to the public at large. I believe that the plan presented today outlines a process that ultimately addresses the outstanding questions and concerns and restores confidence in our practices. Thank you, I'd be happy to respond to questions. Audit - RCTC 7-9-03 25 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET July 9, 2003 NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE # %'? 7 '--Pi ,Ifs • 4k) ILA --.2 C S .7z. 6 .J Y,C .Z ki �� fi,_e6-3,75- yff- -5-,-/,•,..,,-, / A4YA s7- rne/ eifra ////ces6V 1 f3 Sea‘ /","box Ab4LL 1(/R v (leg) S Z(9D A4/ gi� 0196 ASS/old . /1-- z ..Q -V (.5 -77 -,,�,tfc, 2;/e4 -.e 760 -.3a (42/ �} eat l.�r G, a.r elver. i i �z� S'7 7 L i c, k ),--d. �G 41 6/ /� pzsev j'? o3 f(-0 // Aliji q4 �� � � S !Iii:5 -383- yoss .2." N GG ��ur-� C - ��6-I�'a �0 9 6 7q- 6 `NO Cr .J <r31 i 1 `--Z' / WW1 1-C 0 L� g o 3 C.) 1 Lsarq sz,,cCx› `} --/Go .i 3^s' Ce�4i4J 265-- --414 L 0p 1 Q55S `AQo2O ai1/� ..„9/,A -c h p9. 717.2 --b. 6 -k Pa k•Ar. ry 1,bo . x.22.624.0 I)kI'M /n I-, £,/cue }J k/4/v4,/;.VG- Elf Li,�l'l ,v (9o9)769 -.?y36 ; %G lc -mss D i --e.: t�v (.J.ty_si, 1 VI Al / V 4 -- IZ 0A t H..e �ACj - �C c� ft9g-y ; a „ i a1 N/a •J 44-i t -C CqCl _1_/V-- 7 -r WiA k. of i•.4444, e.®ar-AL //a_ �� ,0)31e'e-3502- /\.l pnkuN P-sHLE`f /2\v`/\Jzn c— —VA- ((aT) ---10V M.rr —A yw f4t-r SkiA/4s 76o -.31-96 q, I 766 -1/45-64-.2 2.2,1- 4-k2,L. `e. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL July 9, 2003 Present .❑ eer Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ County of Riverside, District 1 County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District 111 County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella ❑ City of Corona .o 77r- ❑ City of Desert Hot Springs ❑ City of Hemet ❑ City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley ❑ City of Murrieta ❑ City of Norco ❑ 0 ❑ City of Palm Desert ❑ City of Palm Springs ❑ City of Perris ❑ City of Rancho Mirage ❑ City of Riverside -0� ❑ City of San Jacinto ,. ❑ City of Temecula .0�� ❑ Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 Detach and submit to Cl erk of th e Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECTIS): NAME: ( J Z4t7 G(\ft. D ATE: A DDRESS: 2.70 Cr a RAI 1 p� TEL. NO: REPRESENTING: 1`� Va j> D CONo O k- (010? 41 L )74, t 7 4 - BUSINESS A DDRESS: RCTC 7/99 -14 N-7 TEL. NO: G. 5' 7 ' 93 1