The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About09 September 8, 2004 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION bcwq MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, September 8, 2004 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Roy Wilson 1St Vice Chairman: Robin Lowe 2"d Vice Chairman: James A. Venable RECORDS 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 / John Machisic, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa Jack Wamsley / Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Jeff Bennett, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer / Mary Roche, City of Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Kelly Seyarto / Jack van Haaster, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, 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 welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. 11_3l0 CO' • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, September 8, 2004 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 (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 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 - July 14, 2004 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 8, 2004 Page 2 6A. RESOLUTION NO. 04-016, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING THE COMMISSION'S ADMINISTRATIVE CODE" Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 04-016, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending the Commission's Administrative Code". 6B. AMENDMENT TO DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 AND PROPOSED GOAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 Page 4 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Resolution No. 04-015, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending Its Disadvantaged Business Program (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26.29; 2) Adopt 5.02% as its DBE overall annual goal for Federal FY 2004-2005 (from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005); 3) Post the proposed DBE overall annual goal for FY 2004-2005 and receive comments for 45 days; and, 4) Submit the amended DBE Program and the Annual Goal to the FTA, FHWA, and Caltrans District 8. 6C. RESOLUTION NO. 04-014, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION'S APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004- 2005" Page 14 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 04-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2004-2005". • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 8, 2004 Page 3 • • 6D. APPROVE SELECTION OF BOND COUNSEL AND UNDERWRITERS Page 21 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-19-510 with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP to perform the services of bond counsel to the Commission; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve the selection of Banc of America Securities and Lehman Brothers to perform the services of underwriters to the Commission related to the proposed commercial paper financing; and, 4) Approve the selection of Banc of America Securities, Citigroup Global Markets/E.J. De La Rosa & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and Lehman Brothers to perform the services of underwriters to the Commission related to long-term debt financing. 6E. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 24 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. 6F. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ended June 30, 2004. 6G. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview Page 29 Page 37 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the year ended June 30, 2004. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 8, 2004 Page 4 6H. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended June 30, 2004. 61. GOODS MOVEMENT UPDATE Overview Page 40 Page 42 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Goods Movement Update and form a policy working group of elected officials appointed by the Chairman to advise the Goods Movement Action Plan. 6J. UPDATE ON THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TO ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY Page 45 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Update as an information item. 6K. UPDATE ON THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT (CAJALCO- RAMONA CORRIDOR) Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Mid County Parkway (Cajalco-Ramona Corridor) Update as an information item. Page 47 6L. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO CVAG AND WRCOG Page 50 Overview This item is for the Commission to allocate Local Transportation Funds totaling $241,848 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and $443,388 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments to support transportation planning programs and functions. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 8, 2004 Page 5 6M. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-511, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-042, WITH BERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT/INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 60 HOV MEDIAN WIDENING PROJECT IN MORENO VALLEY Page 56 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-511, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-31-042, with Berg & Associates, Inc. to provide additional Construction Management/Inspection Services for the construction of the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley, for a not to exceed agreement amount of $510,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission and approve the expenditure of contingency funds up to the remaining $200,000. 6N. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY OPERATIONAL EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Page 59 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Operational Evaluation Recommendation Summary which was approved by SunLine Transit Agency's Board at its August 4, 2004 meeting. 60. PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO PURCHASE GLOBAL POSITIONING SOFTWARE AND EQUIPMENT Page 65 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve PVVTA's purchase of @Road Global Positioning Software and equipment; and, 2) Reallocate $8,400 in Local Transportation Funds to cover the cost. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 8, 2004 Page 6 6P. COMMUTER EXCHANGE VEHICLE PROCUREMENT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 69 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-40-512 with Matthews Specialty Vehicles, Inc. for the purchase of a replacement Commuter Exchange Mobile Education Vehicle; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to enter into those agreements necessary to secure the exterior and interior graphics and information displays. 6Q. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2009 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF CALIMESA, CATHEDRAL CITY, AND LAKE ELSINORE Page 100 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Calimesa, Cathedral City, and Lake Elsinore. 6R. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 120 1) Approve the City of Palm Desert's request to change the scope of its approved SB 821 sidewalk project; and, 2) Grant the City of Palm Desert a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2006 to complete the Portola Avenue sidewalk project. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 8, 2004 Page 7 • 6S. SURPLUS OLD 1-215 RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY (PHASE 1) APN NOS. 263-080-011, 263-080-010, 263-091-011, 263-100- 010, AND A PORTION OF 263-070-004 Page 122 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Declare the property identified as the "Old 1-215" Rail Right -of -Way (Phase 1), APN Nos. 263-080-011, 263-080-010, 263-091-011, 263-100-010, and a portion of 263-070-004 as surplus; and, 2) Authorize staff to initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period and if no interest is expressed, authorize the Executive Director to offer the parcels for sale. 6T. APPROVAL OF EASEMENT DEED AND AERIAL EASEMENT DEED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOX SPRINGS OVERPASS Page 125 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Easement Deed and Aerial Easement Deed on behalf of the Commission to assist Caltrans in the construction of the Box Springs Overpass. 6U. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 138 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 8, 2004 Page 8 6V. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 157 1) Direct staff to work with the California Performance Review Commission to influence state government reform efforts that provide greater funding for transportation and overall infrastructure investment; and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 7. TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIAL PRIORITY PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Page 165 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Establish a five-year TUMF Regional Arterial Program for the period FY 2005 to FY 2009 pursuant to the Commission's first Call for Projects solicitation and direct staff to administratively update the approved project status, cost and revenue figures pursuant to any future actions taken by WRCOG to amend its TUMF 10 -Year Strategic Plan and Nexus Study; 2) Approve the list of 23 projects as eligible for TUMF Regional funding; 3) Program an estimated $71.3 million in TUMF Regional funds which represents either the amount requested by the local agency or the maximum TUMF Funding identified in the Nexus Study: a) $08.7 M — Project Development (PA&ED) FY '05 thru 09 b) $09.5 M — Design (PS&E) FY '05 thru 09 c) $19.0 M — Right of Way FY '05 thru 06 d) $09.1 M — Construction FY '05 thru 06 e) $25.0 M — Mid County Parkway & SR 79 Realignment Projects 4) Direct staff to develop and seek approval of a model TUMF Regional Funding Agreement between local agencies and RCTC for the selected TUMF projects and phase(s) that assures the Commission work will be completed as detailed in the project proposals and requires local agencies to commit to funding these and future phases of work on the project for which TUMF Regional funds cannot fund or are insufficient to cover all costs of the project/phase. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 8, 2004 Page 9 • • • 8. 2004 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Page 174 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file information regarding the 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program. 9. PRESENTATION - INTERSTATE 15 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to receive a presentation from Caltrans District 8 regarding the 1-15 pavement rehabilitation project. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 11. 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. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 1) Negotiating Parties: RCTC - Executive Director or Designee City of Moreno Valley Portions of APN 263-070-004 and APN 263-080-01 1 2) Negotiating Parties: RCTC - Executive Director or Designee QBH Development LLC, Anthony Johnson APNs 285-210-018, 285-210-019, and 285-210-023 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 8, 2004 Page 10 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 13, 2004, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • • PUBLIC COMMENTS AGENDA ITEM 3 DETA CH A ND SUEIIIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOA RD Speakers shall complete the following: DA TE: SE PT 2-60 I SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: 15( PUBLIC COMMENTS: 7) ?RD1_[NSrt'P fN /F/GdIG,oVE` AGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF (A S LISTED ON THE A GENDA) A GENDA ITEM: NA ME: R, A , A DDRESS: p� r`6fkM&i11 (3fRNE77 TEL. NO.: 'MI — 60.3 1 0-7 P osp i ftvE REPRESENTING: Street City Zip Code Name of Group BUSINESS ADDRESS: TEL. NO .: RCTC/nk 10/03 • AGENDA ITEM 4 • Minutes • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, July 14, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Roy Wilson at 9:12 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 Commissioners Absent Marion Ashley Roger Berg Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy Byrd John Chlebnik Frank Hall Terry Henderson Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Bob Magee Ron Meepos Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Ronald Oden Gregory S. Pettis Ron Roberts John F. Tavaglione Jim Venable Jack Wamsley Art Welch Frank West Roy Wilson • 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Robert Crain Juan DeLara Anne Mayer Kelly Seyarto Matt Weyuker Michael H. Wilson There were no requests from the public to speak. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 14, 2004 Page 2 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Miller/Buydos) to approve of the May 7 and June 9, 2004 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Chlebnik, Meepos, Pettis 5. PRESENTATION - EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS Eric Haley, Executive Director, presented awards to the following Commission employees for their service tenure: Annette Blough Claudia Chase Michele Cisneros Anne Hallberg Shirley Gooding Tanya Love Shirley Medina Hideo Sugita Stephanie Wiggins Chairman Wilson then presented Eric Haley with an award for his service tenure and commended him for his outstanding leadership. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley noted a revision to the agenda placing Agenda Item 11 "Draft Environmental Assessment and Public Outreach P/an" as a Consent Calendar as Agenda Item 7U. He then requested that the Commission add "Allocation of Additional CMAQ Funds for the State Route 60 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Project from Valley Way to Interstate 15" 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 (Miller/Lowe) to place "Draft Environmental Assessment and Public Outreach Plan" as a Consent Calendar as Agenda Item 7U, and add "Allocation of Additional CMAQ Funds for the State Route 60 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Project from Valley Way to Interstate 15 as Item 11". Abstain: Ashley • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 14, 2004 Page 3 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. M/S/C (Henderson/Tavaglione) to approve the remaining Consent Calendar items: Abstain - Agenda Items 7S and 7U: Ashley 7A. 2004 UPDATE TO LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-013, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT" (PUB. RESOURCES CODE §§21000 ET SEQ. ) 1) Receive the 2004 Update to Local Guidelines for Implementing CEQA; and, 2) Adopt Resolution No. 04-013, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending and Adopting Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act" (Pub. Resources Code § §21000 Et Seq.). 7B. COACHELLA VALLEY REGIONAL ARTERIAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Approve an increase in the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial budget to allow payment for invoices incurred as of June 30, 2004. 7C. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended May 31, 2004. 7D. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Contracts Cost and Schedule report for the months of March, April, and May 2004. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 14, 2004 Page 4 7E. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. M24-001 FOR STATE PLANNING AND RESEARCH FUNDS — CETAP RIVERSIDE COUNTY TO ORANGE COUNTY CORRIDOR 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding No. M24-001 between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Orange County Transportation Authority, and the Southern California Association of Governments for the use of State Planning and Research funds in the amount of $300,000 for the Riverside County to Orange County Corridor Major Investment Study; and, 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the memorandum of understanding on behalf of the Commission. 7F. FOLLOW-UP TO CVAG'S APPROVAL OF TUMF/MEASURE "A" FUNDS FOR I-10/PALM DRIVE AND 1-10/RAMON ROAD INTERCHANGES Receive and file the follow-up report on CVAG's approval of TUMF/Measure "A" funds for the 1-10/Palm Drive and 1-10/Ramon Road Interchanges. 7G. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO, HEMET/SAN JACINTO, TEMECULA/MURRIETA AND INDIO/CATHEDRAL CITY/PALM SPRINGS URBANIZED AREAS Approve the FY 2004-05 Federal Transit Administration's Section 5307 Program of Projects for Riverside County. 7H. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5311 RURAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Approve the proposed FY 2004-05 Federal Transit Administration's Section 5311 Program of Projects for Riverside County. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 14, 2004 Page 5 • • 71. RESOLUTION NO. 04-012 "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS" AND FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS 1) Adopt Resolution No. 04-012, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds"; and, 2) Approve the FY 2004-05 State Transit Assistance fund allocations for Riverside County. 7J. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS FOR TRANSIT Approve the FY 2004-05 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) allocations for transit. 7K. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO REPROGRAM FUNDS TO PURCHASE TRANSIT VEHICLES Approve the reprogramming of Federal Transit Administration and Local Transportation Funds for the purchase of three 32' commuter type vehicles. 7L. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY OPERATIONAL EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Receive and file the Operational Evaluation Recommendation Summary approved by SunLine Transit Agency's Board at its June 23, 2004 meeting. 7M. MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT TAXI DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM Receive and file the status report on the Measure "A" Specialized Transit Taxi Demonstration Program. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 14, 2004 Page 6 7N. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 MEASURE "A" COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUEST 1) Set monthly buspool subsidy to $35/seat/month; 2) Authorize payment of $1,645/month/buspool for the period July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 to the existing Riverside, Moreno Valley, Corona, Mira Loma buspools; and, 3) Continue the existing monthly and semi-annual reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. 70. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2009 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Approve the FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads. 7P. AMENDMENT TO MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 Approve the amendments to the FY 2004 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert. 7Q. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATION Approve the FY 2004-05 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program recommended funding. 7R. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 05-51-501 (AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 04-51-030, WITH EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-51-501 (Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-51-030) with Epic Land Solutions, Inc. for Phase II of the property management support services related to all Commission owned parcels for a not to exceed amount of $374,589; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 14, 2004 Page 7 7S. ORANGE EMPIRE RAIL MUSEUM LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUEST Approve Agreement No. 05-51-503 with Orange Empire Rail Museum (OERM) for access to the San Jacinto Branch Line for (2) special excursion trains to the March Air Field Museum. This agreement only covers the period through December 31, 2004, and is subject to having the appropriate liability insurance and agreement(s) in place protecting the Commission. Any future agreements will require OERM to provide specific dates on a quarterly or annual basis in order to reduce administrative processing time. 7T. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update. 7U. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN 1) Receive and file the presentation on the draft Environmental Assessment for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension Project; and, 2) Approve the Public Outreach Plan for the draft Environmental Assessment. 8. RCTC AND TRANSIT OPERATORS RESPONSES TO THE FISCAL YEARS 2000-2001 THROUGH 2002-2003 TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDITS Tanya Love, Program Manager, reviewed the auditor's recommendations and the transit operators and RCTC staff's responses to the Triennial Performance Audits. At Commissioner Jeff Miller's requested, Tanya Love provided an explanation of the difference between a compliance finding and a recommendation in an audit. M/S/C (Lowe/Henderson) to: 1) Approve the RCTC and Transit Operators' responses to the FYs 2000-01 through FY 2002-03 Triennial Performance Audits; 2) Direct staff to implement the RCTC recommendations and provide a status report on progress made in December 2004; and, 3) Monitor Transit Operators' progress made regarding implementation of the recommendations. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 14, 2004 Page 8 9. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY AUDIT ISSUE RESOLUTION Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, reviewed the proposed resolution of the audit issue related to Sunline Transit Agency's advance of funds to Sunline Services Group and need for a one-year review of progress made in the implementation of the 52 recommendations. She also relayed the request from Sunline executive management for a skills and abilities assessment of Sunline employees. M/S/C (Pettis/Oden) to: 1) Approve the transfer of assets valued at $1,142,000 from SunLine Services Group (SSG) to SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) in consideration of SSG's outstanding debt of $970,000 to SunLine; 2) Approve a one-year progress review of SunLine's operations and a skills assessment of SunLine's employees; 3) Approve Agreement No. 05-62-502 with Macias Consulting Group in the amount of $78,881 to conduct a progress report and skills assessment of SunLine; 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 5) Approve the budget amendment for this expenditure. 10. COST RECOVERY FOR ISSUING RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENTS Holly Rockwell, Epic Land Solutions, presented the cost recovery proposal for issuing right of entry agreements. M/S/C (Wamsley/Ashley) to authorize staff to charge a standard rate of $1,000 for each Right of Entry (ROE) issued on or across RCTC property. The purpose of such charge would be to recover staff, engineering, and legal costs related to processing the ROE. The charge would apply to any agency or entity that receives a ROE from RCTC. 11. ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL CMAQ FUNDS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 60 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE PROJECT FROM VALLEY WAY TO INTERSTATE 15 Eric Haley presented the request from Caltrans for the allocation of additional funds for the SR 60 HOV lanes project from Valley Way to 1-15. The request is due to increased construction costs and continued impacts of the State budget crisis. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 14, 2004 Page 9 • • • Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development, reviewed the status of the project, noting that the project cannot be advertised for construction until it is fully funded. Commissioner Bob Buster expressed concern regarding the increasing costs of materials and recommended review and recalibration of project costs. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Lowe) to approve an allocation of up to $ 5 million of additional TEA -21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program funds on the State Route 60 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes from Valley Way to Interstate 15. 12. PRESENTATION — INTERSTATE 15 INTERREGIONAL PARTNERSHIP DRAFT FINAL REPORT Kevin Viera, WRCOG, presented the 1-15 Interregional Partnership Draft Final Report reviewing the following areas: • Project background and goals • Statistics related to Housing Affordability, Job per Household, Ratio of Jobs to Workers, and Commute Destinations • Key Issues • Strategies — Transportation, Housing, Economic Development Commissioner Buster recommended the IRP Committee review opportunities to utilize transportation funds to assist cities in addressing impediments to new industry to create new jobs. Commissioner Ron Roberts stressed the need for implementation and securing right-of-way. He also expressed support of alternative methods of transportation. Commissioner Chris Buydos expressed the need for land preservation for economic development and a major investment in the attraction and development of jobs. She also recommended the IRP Committee review models in other states related to economic development. Commissioner Miller requested WRCOG coordinate a presentation to the Commission by the Riverside County/Orange County Interregional Partnership. At Commissioner Robin Lowe's request, Kevin Viera clarified the policy of the IRP Committee. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 14, 2004 Page 10 Eric Haley reminded the Commission of three tools that can be utilized to address this issue; 1) $40 million in Measure "A" funds for economic development, 2) 1-15 improvements included in Measure "A", and 3) North/South Corridor improvement commitments in addition to Measure "A" funds for this corridor. M/S/C (Miller/Lowe) to receive a presentation on the 1-15 Interregional Partnership Draft Final Report. 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Eric Haley noted: • $448 million project submittals were received in response to the TUMF Call for Projects • The next California Transportation Commission meeting is scheduled for August 4-5. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:49 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, October 13, 2004, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, GLJ a h, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission • • • AGENDA ITEM 6A • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services Steven DeBaun, Legal Counsel THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 04-016, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending the Commission's Administrative Code" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 04-016, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending the Commission's Administrative Code". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 14, 2004, the Executive Committee discussed that there were no provisions in the Administrative Code for a standing committee to operate as a Committee of the Whole when a quorum is not achieved. Also discussed was the schedule of the Committee meetings. With some of the Commissioners traveling a considerable distance and adjournment of the Budget and Implementation Committee meeting in late afternoon, changing the Committee's meeting time from 2:30 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. may ease the Committee members' travel and their schedules. The Committee meetings will remain to be scheduled on the 4th Mondays of the month. Resolution No. 04-016 includes the provisions requested by the Executive Committee. Attachment: Resolution No. 04-016 Agenda Item 6A 1 • • • RESOLUTION NO. 04-016 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING THE COMMISSION'S ADMINISTRATIVE CODE WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") is a public agency of the State of California formed; and WHEREAS, the Commission has the power to adopt such rules and regulations as it may deem necessary for the conduct of the Commission's affairs; and WHEREAS, the Commission has adopted an Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, it is necessary at this time to revise the Commission's Administrative Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Board hereby resolves to amend its Administrative Code as follows: Article III, Section H, Paragraph 1 (a), sentence 3 of the Commission's Administrative Code is amended to state in its entirety: "Meetings shall be held at 10:00 a.m. on the fourth Monday of the month at the offices of the Commission, unless otherwise determined by the Committee or the Commission." The following provisions shall be added to the existing text of Article III, Section H, Paragraphs 1 (a) and 1 (b) (in reference to the Budget and Implementation Committee and Plans and Programs Committee respectively): "At any regular meeting not yet convened because of the lack of a quorum, the committee members who are present may constitute themselves a "Committee of the Whole", for the purposes of discussing agenda matters or any other matter of interest to the members present. The Committee of the Whole may act to make recommendations to the Commission but may take no final actions. Any recommendation presented to the Commission from a Committee of the Whole should indicate that the recommendation is made by a Committee of the Whole and not the whole committee and should state the number of votes for, against and abstaining in reference to the recommendation. The Committee shall automatically cease to exist if a quorum of the Commission is present at the meeting." Agenda Item 6A PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission held this 8th day of September, 2004. Roy Wilson, Chairperson Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver , Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • • • Agenda Item 6A 3 AGENDA ITEM 6B • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Report for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 and Proposed Goal for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Resolution No. 04-015, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending Its Disadvantaged Business Program (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26.29; 2) Adopt 5.02% as its DBE overall annual goal for Federal FY 2004-2005 (from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005); 3) Post the proposed DBE overall annual goal for FY 2004-2005 and receive comments for 45 days; and, 4) Submit the amended DBE Program and the Annual Goal to the FTA, FHWA, and Caltrans District 8. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations of the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 49 CFR Part 26, the Riverside County Transportation Commission must adopt its DBE annual goal as a condition to receive a commitment for federal financial assistance from DOT and FTA. Local agencies' annual goals must be submitted to the federal agencies and Caltrans by October 1, 2004. Over the years, the Commission has committed to ensure equal opportunity in transportation contracting markets and increase participation in federal funded contracts by small, socially and economically disadvantaged businesses. For Federal FY 2004-2005, it is proposed that the annual DBE overall goal be 5.02%. Statistics were based on the U.S. Census Bureau "County Business Patterns" for 2001, using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). As was done in previous years, staff used statistics within the four - county areas - Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino - areas that Agenda hem 6B 4 the Commission draws bids from. The analysis attached to the report details the formula utilized in developing the overall annual goal for the next federal fiscal year. For FY 2003-2004, the Commission set an annual goal of 12.05%. To date, the total percentage of DBE award is 9.07%. The reason for this was only two of the three projects that were included in the calculation were awarded. Although RCTC did not attain the goal that it set for FY 2003-2004, it was able to achieve over the base figure percentage of 1.94%. In its calculation last fiscal year, an adjustment was made wherein the difference between the annual goal and the actual percent of DBE award (10.11%) was added to the 1.94%. 9.07% as the total DBE award for FY 2003-2004 is still considered as a good effort. It is important to note that RCTC had set its goal higher than other public agencies. For information, the federally -funded projects awarded were: 1) SR 74 Segment II Realignment and Widening Project; and, 2) Mid County Parkway PR/ED (previously known as Cajalco Ramona Corridor). The awards and the percentage of DBEs attained per project are listed below: FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 TOTAL DBE CONTRACT AWARD AND DBE DOLLAR AMOUNT Federal -Aid Project No./ Contractor Total Project Bid Amount Dollar Amount DBE % DBE 04-31-031 *, Federal -Aid Construction Project No. ACSTPH- P074(046) (SR 74 Segment II Construction) AC Dike Company Highlight Electric Sudhakar ACE Fence W.C. Goolsby Inc. (Supplier — only 60% of subcontract value allowed to count towards DBE goal, subcontract value $1,017,500.00) $20,207,532 $27,417 $221,600 $283,475 $284,174 $610,500 7.1% 04-31-018 (Mid County Parkway PR/ED previously known as Cajalco-Ramona Corridor) Epic Land Solutions VRPA MIG Geographics $5,030,501 $500,000 $245,583 $57,967 $59,246 17.2% TOTAL $ 25,238,033 $2,289,962 9.07% *"Good Faith Effort" documentation was submitted and determined to be in compliance. • • • Agenda Item 6B 5 • • For FY 2004-2005, staff anticipates three (3) federally -funded projects: 1) San Jacinto Branch Line Project, from the City of Perris to Downtown Riverside — Engineering Design; 2) Perris Multi Modal Facility — Engineering Design; and, 3) State Route 79 Realignment Project between the Cities of San Jacinto and Hemet — Amendment No. 1 — Environmental Re-Scoping. It is estimated that the total cost of the three projects is $3,200,000 ($1,800,000 federal funds). All of the projects are for consultant services. The report on the methodology used to determine the proposed goal, the anticipated projects, and the notice that was posted are attached. In conformance to 49 CFR Part 26.45, the notice to adopt the proposed annual DBE goal was in the local newspaper's Legal Notice section. Local agencies are required to provide 45 days from the date that it was noticed to receive comments on the proposed goal. To abide by the 45 -day requirement, the notice was posted in local newspapers on August 16, 2004. If the Commission approves the proposed annual goal and if there are no substantive comments received with the 45 -day public comment period, the proposed annual goal of 5.02% for FY 2004-2005 will be submitted to Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance Office and to the FTA. The schedule allows RCTC to meet the submission deadline of October 1, 2004. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 04-015 2) DBE Program Proposal Annual Overall Goal 3) Legal Notice Agenda Item 6B • RESOLUTION NO. 04-015 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING ITS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM (TITLE 49 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR) PART 26.29) WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has adopted its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in 1999; WHEREAS, the federal governments has made changes to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program requirements; WHEREAS, in order to comply with Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26.29, local agencies requesting federal funds for FY 2004- 2005 must amend its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program; WHEREAS the amendment to the program requires the local agencies' program to include one of the three methods to ensure prompt and full payment of retainage (withheld funds) to subcontractors in compliance with the Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26.29. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission will amend its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and its contracts and agreements to include the following provision as required: The Riverside County Transportation Commission shall hold retainage from prime contractors and provide for prompt and regular incremental acceptance of portions of the prime contract, pay retainage to prime contractors based on these acceptances, and require contract clause obligating the prime contractor to pay all retainage owed to the subcontractor for satisfactory completion of accepted work within 30 days after the payment to the prime contractor. SECTION 2 The above provision shall replace prior provisions prompt and full payment of any retainage kept by the prime contractor or subcontractor to any subcontractor. ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 2004. Roy Wilson, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • 8 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM PROPOSED ANNUAL OVERALL GOAL I. GOAL METHODOLOGY As required by Federal Regulations 49 CFR Section 26, public agencies receiving Federal Department of Transportation -assisted funds must adopt its annual overall DBE goal by using every effort to meet its goal through race neutral measures. Agencies may establish specific contract goals, including goals for particular projects through subcontracting opportunities, in those instances when race neutral measure are not sufficient to meet the Commission's overall goal. The following methodology was used in establishing a Base Figure for DBE availability for FY 2004-2005: • • NUMERATOR - DBE firms in the four -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange) DENOMINATOR — Total number of construction firms, the work category identified within the four -county area based on the more recent available date from the U.S. Census Bureau — 2001 Under the Construction/Consulting Categories, the following lists the number of DBEs in each of the four county areas: CONSTRUCTION CALTRANS DBE CODE NAICS COUNTY CODE COUNTY NO. OF FIRMS 19 037 Los Angeles 12,078 30 059 Orange 6,081 33 065 Riverside 3,452 36 071 San Bernardino 2,885 TOTAL 24,496 Of the 24,496 firms, there are 989 identified available DBE firms in the Caltrans DBE directory of firms in the construction work codes that operate within the four - county areas. 9 CONSULTING SERVICES CALTRANS DBE CODE NAICS COUNTY CODE COUNTY NO. OF FIRMS 19 037 Los Angeles 26,046 30 059 Orange 11,271 33 065 Riverside 2,201 36 071 San Bernardino 1,819 TOTAL 41,337 Of the 41,337 firms, there are 1,502 identified available DBE firms in the Caltrans DBE directory of firms in the consultant services work codes that operate within the four -county areas. The following lists the total amount of contracts in each of the Work Category and the projected federal funds for FY 2004-2005. Please note that for this fiscal year, there are no construction awards. WORK CATEGORY AMOUNT OF FY 03-04 CONTRACTS ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS % OF FEDERAL FUNDS Consultant Services $3,200,000 $1,800,000 56.25% Construction (Including Materials and Trucking) $0 $0 0% The formula that is provided to determine calculation of DBE goal is as follows. The weighted Base Figure is calculated by first determining the number of ready, willing, and able DBEs in the four counties for the work category shown above, divided by the number of total firms in the category. Using this method determines the availability by the number of firms that have directly participated in, or attempted to participate in, past federally -funded assisted contracting efforts. The application of the formula yields the following baseline information: Number of Ready, Willing and Able DBEs Number of All Ready, Willing and Able Firms The Base Figure resulting from the calculation is as follows: A. Construction 989 = 4.04% 24,496 = Base Figure • 10 B. Consulting Services 1502 = 3.63% 41,337 C. Base Figure Using the percentage of federal funds projected to be available for FY 04- 05 and the percentage of available for each DBEs for each work category, the result is a base figure of 2.04% 0.0 ( 989) + 0.5625 ( 1502) = 0.0204 24,496 41,337 II. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BASE FIGURE: • • Staff reviewed and assessed other known relevant evidence to determine what additional adjustments, if any, were needed to adapt the Base Figure to the four -county area marketplace. Several factors as outlined under Title 49 were considered to see if there was a need to adjust the base goal. In reviewing last year's goal, the Commission set a 12.05% annual goal based on the DBEs available in the four -county area. In awarding its federally - funded projects for this fiscal year, the Commission awarded 9.07% to DBEs. Staff is recommending that an adjustment be made to the base figure using the difference of its FY 2003-2004 annual goal and the attained percentage to date, which is 2.98%. With the adjustment, the base figure and proposed goal for FY 2004-2005 is 5.02%. III. ANTICIPATED PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 The following projects represent the projected federally funded contracts for Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005. A. San Jacinto Branch Line Scope of Work - This is for Engineering Design of the San Jacinto Branch Rail line from the City of Perris to Downtown Riverside for the extension of Metrolink Commuter Rail Service. Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $ 1,000,000 Estimated Federal Funds: $ 800,000 B. Perris Multi Modal Facility Scope of Work - This is for Engineering Design of the RTA - Metrolink Perris Multi Modal Facility Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $700,000 Estimated Federal Funds: $700,000 C. SR 79 Realignment Project - Amendment No. 1 Scope of Work - This is for Re-Scoping of the Environmental Process for the SR79 Realignment Project between Cities of San Jacinto and Hemet. Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $1,500,000 Estimated Federal Funds: $300,000 IV. UTILIZATION OF RACE/GENDER-NEUTRAL METHOD Staff foresees meeting the proposed 5.02% goal utilizing race -neutral methods by: 1) making efforts to ensure that the Request for Proposals (RFPs) and Invitation for Bids (IFBs) process and the contracting requirements facilitate participation by DBEs and other small businesses; 2) encouraging the prime consultant and contractors to subcontract portions of the work to DBEs; 3) distributing the RFPs and IFBs to organizations that represent and assist DBEs; and, 4) listing the RFPs and IFBs on the Commission website www.rctc.org. V. PUBLIC NOTICE IN SETTING OVERALL ANNUAL DBE GOAL As required, the Notice informs the public of the proposed goals and the rationale for setting the goal and they are available for inspection at the Commission for 30 days following the date of the Public Notice. Public comments on the proposed annual goal will be accepted for 45 days from the date of the Public Notice. The Notice was published on August 16, 2004. The adopted goal and goal methodology must be submitted to the Department of Transportation and the FTA prior to October 1, 2004. VI. ESTABLISHMENT OF GOAL Based on the information presented in the report, it is proposed that the Commission's overall annual DBE goal for federal FY 2004-2005 be established at 5.02%. • 12 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTION OF DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Riverside County Transportation Commission will be adopting its overall annual DBE goal, applicable to contracting opportunities scheduled to be awarded during the period of October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005. RCTC's proposed overall annual goal of 5.02% and its rationale were developed in accordance to U.S. Department of Transportation's New Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Final Rule (49 CFR Part 26) and are available for inspection for 30 days following the date of this Notice, from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at its principal place of business located at 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, California 92501. Comments will be accepted on the proposed annual goal for 45 days from the date of this Notice. Comments can be forward to RCTC at the above address or to Caltrans District 8, Local Assistance, 464 W. Fourth Street, San Bernardino, California 92401-1400. Dated at Riverside, California this 16th day of August 2004. By: Naty Kopenhaver Director of Administrative Services AGENDA ITEM 6C • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 04-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2004-2005" BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 04-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2004-2005". • BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • Section 7910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution by requiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriations limit for each fiscal year and to make documentation used to determine the appropriations limit available to the public fifteen days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriations limit. Staff has performed the calculations necessary to determine the limit. The resolution and documents supporting the calculation are attached. The Commission chose to use the percentage change in the California per capita personal income and the population change within Riverside County as the factors in determining the appropriations limit. As required, the adoption of the Commission's Gann Appropriation Limit was posted in the local newspaper. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 04-014 2) California per capita income - California Department of Finance 3) Population, Riverside County - California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit 4) Legal Notice Agenda Item 6C 14 • • • RESOLUTION NO. 04-014 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the California Constitution places an annual limitation upon appropriations from proceeds of taxes by each local government of the State of California; and WHEREAS, in 1988, pursuant to Article XIIIB, section 4 of the California Constitution, the Riverside County Transportation Commission established its appropriations limit at $75 million for fiscal year 1988-1989 under ordinance No. 88-1; and WHEREAS, Section 7910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution by requiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriations limit for each fiscal year and to make the documentation used in determining the appropriations limit available to the public fifteen days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriations limit; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 1 approved by the voters of the State effective June 6, 1990, beginning with fiscal year 1990-1991 and for each fiscal year thereafter, the Commission's Board of Commissioners is required to select either the percentage change in California per capita personal income or the percentage change in the local assessment roll due to the addition of local non-residential construction, and either the population change within the Commission or the population change within Riverside County, as the two factors to be applied in calculating the appropriations limit for each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, this Board wishes to select, as factors in determining the Commission's appropriation limit for fiscal year 2004-2005 the percentage change in California per capita personal income and also the population change within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, this Commission has documented its calculations of the Commission's appropriations limit for fiscal year 2004-2005 and said calculations have been made available to the public at least fifteen days prior to the adoption of this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the • Riverside County Transportation Commission as follows: 1. For fiscal year 2004-2005, the factors selected for calculating the appropriations limit are (a) the percentage change in California per capita personal income, and (b) the population change within the County of Riverside. 2. The appropriations limit applicable to this Agency pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for fiscal year 2004-2005 are hereby established and determined to be $224,291,642. 3. A copy of the documentation used in the determination of the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2004-2005 shall be affixed hereto and shall be available for public inspection. 4. Pursuant to Section 7910 of the California Government Code, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the establishment of the appropriations limit as set forth herein must be commenced within forty-five days of the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 2004. Roy Wilson, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 16 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2004-2005 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT 2003-2004 Appropriations Limit $212,121,630 2004-2005 adjustment: Change in California per capita income Change in Population, Riverside County = 2.30 percent = 3.36 percent 2.30 + 100 = 1.0230 100 3.36 + 100 = 1.0336 100 1.0230 x 1 .0336 = 1.0573728 $212,121,630 x 1.0573728 = $224,291,642 2004-2005 Appropriations Limit $224,291,642 Source: California per capita income - California Department of Finance Population, Riverside County - California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME United Californi•. i Uautomia % Change States % Change %of.Ui i 1950 $1,877 - $1510 - 124;3q 1955 .2,379 - 1,,911 124.5% 1958 2,59"6 - 2,114 - 122.8% 1959 2,740 5.5% 2,215 4.8% 123.7% 1960 2,823 3.0% 2,276 2.8% . 124.0% 1961 2,880 2.0% 2,334 2.5% 123.4% 1962 3,004 4.3% 2,447 4.8% 122.8% 1963 3,102 • 3.3% 2,534 3.6% 122.4% 1964 3,274 . 5.5% 2,679 5.7% ' 122:2% 1965 3,417 4.4%' 2;859 6.7% 119.5% 1966 3,663 7.2% 3,075 7.6% 119.1% 1967 3,878 5.9% 3,264 6.1% 118.8'/0 1968 4,207 8.5% 3,550 8.8% 118.5% 1969 4,529 7.7% 3,836 8.1% 118.1% 1970 4,810 6.2% 4,085 6.5% 117.7% 1971 5,034 4.7% 4,342 6.3%- ` 115.9% 1972 5,454 83% 4,717 8.6% 115.6% 1973 5,944 9.0% 5,231 10.9% 113.6% 1974 6,552 .10.2% 5,707 9.1% 114.8% 1975 7,129 8.8% 6,172 8.1% 115.5% 1976 7,825 9.8% 6,754 9.4% 115.9% 1977 8,570 9.5% 7,405 9.6% 115.7% 1978 9,580 11.8% 8,245 1t3% 116.2% 1979 10,753 12.2% 9,146 10.9% 117.6% 1980 11,951 11.1% 10,114 10.6% 118.2% 1981 13,175 10.2% 11,246 112% 117.2% 1982 13,763 4.5% 11,935 6.1% 1153% 1983 14.556 5.8% 12,618 5.7% 115.4% 1984 15,994 9.9% 13,891 10.9 % 115.1% 1985 16,956 6.0% 14,758 6.2% 114:9% 1986 17,668 4.2% 15,442 4.6% 114.4% 1987 18,549 5.0% 16,240 5.2% 114.2% 1988 19,599 5.7% 17,331 6.7% 113.1% 1989 a/ 20,585 5:0% 18,520 6.9% 111.2% 1990 21,638 5.1% 19,477 5.2% 111.1% 1991 21,750 0.5% 19,892 2.1% 109.3% 1992 22,492 3,4% 20,854 4.8% 107.9% 1993 22,635 0.6% 21,346 2.4% 106.0% 1994 bl 23,203 2,5% 22,172 3.9% 104.7% 1995 24,161 4:1 % 23,076 4.1% 104.7% 1996 25,312 4.8% 24,175 4.8% 104.7% 1997 26;490 4.7% 25,334 4.8% 104:6% 1998 28,374 7.1%. 26,883 6.1% 105.5% 1999 29,828 5.1% 27,939 3.9% 106.8% 2000 32,466 8.8% 29,847 6.8% 108.8% 2001. 32,892 1.3% 30,527 2.3% 107.7% 2002 -32;989 0.3% 30,906 1.2% 106.7% 2003 33,749 23% 31,632 2.3% 106.7% a/ Reflects Loma Prieta earthquake. bl Reflects Northridge earthquake. Note: Omits income forgovernment employees overseas. Source: 11.5. uepartment ot commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, nttp:Uwww.bea.00C.gov/ Revised from 1969 through 2003: Released April 27, 2004 Updated: May 7, 2004 Filename: bbpercap 18 • E-1: City/County Population Estimates with. Annual Percent Change January 1, 2003 and 2004 County Total Population Percent City 1/1/2003 1/1/2004 Change N Dlfk; •••1;719;000` 1776;700:, -.-..:> .4._: :_. BANNING 25,600 27,200 6.3 BEAUMONT 13,900 16,350 17.6 BLYTHE 21,300 21,950 3:1 CALIMESA 7,400 7,350 -0.7 CANYON LAKE 10,600 10,650 0.5 CATHEDRAL CITY 47,700 48,600 1.9 COACHELLA 27,000 27,650 2.4 CORONA 138,200 141,800 2.6 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 17,300 17,700 2.3 HEMET 62,700 63,800 1.8 INDIAN WELLS 4,430 4,430 0.0 INDIA 54,900 59,100 7.7 LAKE ELSINORE 33,300 35,350 6.2 LA QUINTA 30,700 32,500 5.9 MORENO VALLEY 151,200 155,100 2.6 MURRIETA 68,200 77,700 13.9 NORCO 25,400 25,500 0.4 PALM DESERT 44,300 44,800 t1 PALM SPRINGS 44,350 44,250 -0.2 PERRIS 38,500 41,300 7.3 RANCHO MIRAGE 15,100 15,500 2.6 0 RIVERSIDE 276,300 277,000 0.3 SAN JACINTO 26,250 26,700 1.7 TEMECULA 75,700 77,500 2.4 BALANCE OF COUNTY 458,600 477,000 4.0 Page 8 19 California Depattrrient of Finance Demographic Research Unit • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-05 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Riverside County Transportation Commission will be adopting its annual appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2004- 05. In accordance to Section 910 of the California Government Code, Article XIIIB, the Commission shall establish its appropriations limit each fiscal year. Based on calculations, using the California per capita personal income and the population change within Riverside County, the proposed appropriations limit is $224,291,642. Calculations supporting the proposal are available for public viewing for fifteen (15) days following the date of this Notice, from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at its principal place of business located at 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, California 92501. Comments will be accepted on the proposed FY 2004-05 annual appropriations limit goal until August 30, 2004. Questions and inquiries can be forwarded to: RCTC, ATTN: Michele Cisneros, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, California 92501, Tel: (909) 787-7141. Dated at Riverside, California this 10th day of August 2004. By: Naty Kopenhaver Director of Administrative Services AGENDA ITEM 6D • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Selection of Bond Counsel and Underwriters BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-19-510 with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP to perform the services of bond counsel to the Commission; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve the selection of Banc of America Securities and Lehman Brothers to perform the services of underwriters to the Commission related to the proposed commercial paper financing; and, 4) Approve the selection of Banc of America Securities, Citigroup Global Markets/E.J. De La Rosa & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and Lehman Brothers to perform the services of underwriters to the Commission related to long-term debt financing. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On October 9, 2003, staff released a Request for Proposal (RFP) to perform the services of a bond counsel for the Commission. Nine proposals were received at the office of Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates (Fieldman Rolapp), the Commission's financial advisory services firm, on October 22, 2003. The proposals were reviewed after the new Chief Financial Officer joined the Commission in January 2004. The Chief Financial Officer and the financial advisor reviewed the proposals. A recommendation was made to and accepted by the Executive Director to short- list four firms for interviews. Six criteria were used to review the proposals. Agenda Item 6D 21 The criteria were: a) Qualification and experience of the firm; b) Qualification and experience of the individuals; c) Experience in Commercial Paper and Revenue Bonds and dealing with other similar organizations; d) Demonstration of an understanding of the Commission and its needs; e) Fees; and, f) Overall content On April 12, 2004, a panel interviewed the four firms and selected Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Orrick) to perform the services of bond counsel related to future commercial paper and other long-term debt financings of the Commission. The interview panel consisted of the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director, the Chief Financial Officer, and Dan Wiles of Fieldman Rolapp. Orrick is an international professional services firm providing legal services to meet a variety of business needs, including public finance and tax. Orrick is one of the top bond counsel firms in California and the United States and has extensive experience in transportation -related financings. Similar bond counsel services have been provided by Orrick to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Bay Area Toll Authority, Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District, and Contra Costa Transportation Authority. It is also currently providing bond counsel services to the County of Riverside. Bond counsel fees typically are contingent on the sale of debt and are included in the cost of financings. Based on information included in the RFP, Orrick proposed a fee of $60,000 for a commercial paper program and $70,000 for capital appreciation bonds, which was comparable to other proposal responses. An agreement with Orrick will be prepared with legal counsel for these bond counsel services in connection with sales tax financings over the next five years. On July 15, 2004, staff released an RFP to perform underwriting services for the Commission related to the development of financing programs and the marketing and sale of debt issues to fund projects specified in the new Measure "A" sales tax ordinance. Nine proposals were received by the Commission on August 11, 2004. The Chief Financial Officer and the financial advisor reviewed the proposals and made a recommendation to the Executive Director for firms to short-list five firms. • • Agenda Item 6D 22 • • Seven criteria were used to review the proposals. The criteria were: a) Qualification and experience of the firm; b) Qualification and experience of the individuals; c) Marketing, Pricing, and Underwriting; d) Fees; e) Alternative Approaches; f) Other (related to investigations, litigation, complaints, etc.); and, g) Overall content On August 25, 2004, a panel consisting of the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director, the Chief Financial Officer, and Dan Wiles interviewed the five firms and selected an underwriting team of four firms to assist the Commission with its short-term and long-term debt financings over the next few years. The underwriting team selected is Banc of America Securities, Citigroup Global Markets/E.J. De La Rosa & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and Lehman Brothers. It was further determined to select Banc of America Securities and Lehman Brothers to assist the Commission with the proposed commercial paper program. The firms providing underwriting services were selected based on their experience with sales tax, transportation, and California financings; depth and knowledge of assigned personnel; firm reputation and strength; and reasonableness of compensation. Agreements with each firm will be part of the financing documents associated with each financing to occur at a later date. Once the Commission's bond counsel and short-term finance underwriting team are in place, planning will commence related to the issuance of a commercial paper program in December 2004 to provide advance funding opportunities for projects included in the new Measure "A" sales tax that commences in 2009. This short- term financing vehicle was included as one of the Commission's goals and objectives for the FY 2004-05 budget. Agenda Item 6D 23 AGENDA ITEM 6E • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the fiscal year, staff has closely monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements show the revenues received and expenditures incurred during the fiscal year. Accrual adjustments for revenue and expenditures have been made for June 30, 2004 and are reflected in these financial statements. The Commission will continue to make year end accrual adjustments depending upon materiality through August 31, 2004. The financial statements show the Sales Tax Revenue for the fiscal year at 105% of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires Sales Tax Revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure "A" funds and remits them to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two -month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections from July 2003 through May 2004. On a cash basis, the Measure "A" and LTF revenues are 14% higher than the same period last fiscal year. The Commission did not receive the budgeted amount of Federal, State, and Local agencies revenues as these revenues are realized on a reimbursement basis. Once the projects have been completed, staff will invoice the respective agencies. Agenda Item 6E 24 TUMF revenues were not included in the original budget due to continued development of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between WRCOG and RCTC at the time the budget was compiled. Since these revenues are fees from new development and can vary, staff will continue to monitor the revenue and develop trends and analysis for future budgeting. Interest is higher as a result of unbudgeted TUMF revenue. All other revenues were received as expected. Administrative expenditures were under budget by approximately $658,000. Overall, expenditures in Programs/Projects are under budget by approximately $13,037,000. Local Streets and Roads and the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program exceeded budgeted amounts. The Local Streets and Roads budget is based on estimated Measure "A" Sales Tax revenues. Since these revenues are higher than budgeted, the related disbursement to the local jurisdictions exceeded the budget. The Commission will continue to accrue for Measure "A" Sales Tax disbursements to the local jurisdictions through September with the 4th quarter clean-up allocation received from the State Board of Equalization. Listed below are the capital related projects and their status: Highway Engineering/Right of Way • State Route 74 - Agency approvals delayed completion of engineering for Segments I & II. Utility relocation has not been completed. Awaiting final approval of agreement with utility agencies. • State Route 79 - Delays occurred in obtaining approval from various resource agencies. Awaiting approval from resource agencies on project criteria and alternative solutions. • State Route 91 - Awaiting right of way data from the State to complete the Environmental Document for the Mary to 7th street HOV project. Highway Construction • State Route 60 - Additional right of way requirements, traffic control and permitting issues delayed the start of construction. • State Route 74 - Segment 11 utility relocation was delayed due to the damages caused by the fires. Utility workforces were redirected to support the repairs of utilities throughout the fire damaged area. Construction commenced in June 2004. • Agenda Item 6E 25 • • • • State Route 111 - Design changes and permitting processing delayed completion of construction for the Palm Desert projects now forecasted to be completed August 2004. Rail Engineering/Right of Way • North Main Corona Station Parking Structure - City's planning process has taken longer than anticipated. • Perris Multimodal Facility - Design was late in starting due to the completion of the pre -award audit and resolution of insurance related issues. Right of way issues existed regarding parcel acquisitions. • Phase II Downtown Riverside Parking Lot Expansion - Start of design was delayed until the additional right of way acquisition was completed. • Perris Valley Line - Delays with SCAG modeling and obtaining Federal Transit Administration approval affected the start of preliminary engineering. Rail Construction • La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Phase II - Project was held pending issuance and approval of permits. New parking area has been opened and construction punch list items were completed July 2004. TUMF Engineering • Late start related to concurrence from resource agencies on alternatives, approval on proceeding with Project Study Report, traffic modeling by other agency, and completion of pre -award audit. Regional Arterial • The Regional Arterial Program provides reimbursement to the cities for projects they have completed. Program is administered by CVAG, who requests reimbursement from the Commission. The Commission provides reimbursement based on available funds and sufficient budget authority. • Reimbursements to CVAG for the Jefferson and Gene Autry Trail projects exceeded the budget due to advance progress and installation quantities. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements - June 30, 2004 Agenda Item 6E 26 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 4TH QUARTER FOR TWELVE MONTHS ENDED 6/30/04 REMAINING PERCENT DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues Sales tax $ 107,504,400 $ 112,492,274 $ 4,987,874 105% Federal, state & local govemment reimbursements 27,007,900 22,918,971 (4,088,929) 85% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) - 34,526,703 34,526,703 0% Other revenues 6,319,900 6,858,629 538,729 109% Interest 2,689,700 3,441,914 752,214 128% Total revenues 143,521,900 180,238,491 36,716,591 126% Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits 1,213,700 1,167,758 45,942 96% General legal services 119,000 82,555 36,445 69% Professional services 1,042,657 807,135 235,522 77% Office lease & utilities 302,000 297,177 4,823 98% General administrative expenses 922,000 587,218 334,782 64% Total administration 3,599,357 2,941,843 657,514 82% Programs/projects Salaries & benefits 1,705,350 1,486,589 218,761 87% General legal services 1,146,000 928,147 217,853 81% Professional services 1,661,831 1,379,202 282,629 83% General projects 2,134,257 2,044,012 90,245 96% Highway engineering 2,505,900 1,568,050 937,850 63% Highway construction 34,487,300 27,895,054 6,592,246 81% Highway right of way 2,908,000 1,395,852 1,512,148 48% Rail engineering 1,585,500 538,585 1,046,915 34% Rail construction 4,265,603 3,150,118 1,115,485 74% Rail right of way 3,300,000 3,030,524 269,476 92% Local streets & roads 36,999,600 39,963,077 (2,963,477) 108% Regional arterial 8,113,200 8,244,197 (130,997) 102% TUMF engineering 2,940,000 1,145,519 1,794,481 39% TUMF construction - 0% TUMF right of way - 0% Special studies 1,134,616 1,129,054 5,562 100% FSP towing 1,561,270 1,221,992 339,278 78% Commuter assistance 2,614,900 2,121,946 492,954 81% Property management 54,700 45,492 9,208 83% Motorist assistance 667,900 617,299 50,601 92% Rail operations & maintenance 4,443,900 4,437,881 6,019 100% STA distributions 2,666,000 1,794,869 871,131 67% Specialized transit 4,510,500 4,269,107 241,393 95% Planning & programming services 394,514 357,762 36,752 91% Total programs/projects 121,800,841 108,764,326 13,036,515 89% Intergovernmental distribution 750,200 750,183 17 100% Capital outlay 448,000 27,022 420,978 6% Debt service Principal 26,290,261 26,290,000 261 100% Interest 9,192,839 9,187,218 5,622 100% Total debt service 35,483,100 35,477,218 5,883 100% Total expenditures 162,081,498 147,960,591 14,120,907 91% Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in 46,627,000 41,310,672 5,316,328 89% Operating transfer out 46,627,000 41,310,672 5,316,328 89% Bond proceeds - - 0% Payment to escrow agent - 0% Cost of issuance 0% Total financing sources/uses - 0% Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses (18,559,598) 32,277,900 13,718,303 -174% Fund balance July 1, 2003 154,132,843 158,894,518 4,761,675 103% Fund balance June 30, 2004 $ 135,573,245 $ 191,172,418 $ 55,599,173 141% f/users/preprint/m /quarterlies/master quarterly 27 RI VE RSIDE COUNTY T ATION COMMISSI ON • QUARTERLY ACTUAL BY FUND 4TH QUARTER FOR TWELVE MONTHS ENDED 6/30/04 DESCRIPTION Rev enues Sales tax Federal, state & local governme nt reimbursements Tra nsporta tion Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Other revenues Interest Total revenues Expenditu res Administration Sala rie s & benefits General legal services Pro fessional servic es Office lease & utilities G eneral administrative e xpenses Total administration Pro grams/projects Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services General projects Highway enginee ring Highway construction Highway right of way Rail engineering Rail co nstructio n Rail right of way TUM F enginee ring TUMF construction TUMF right of way Local streets & roads Regio nal arte rial Special studies FSP to wing Commuter assistance Prope rty management Motorist assistance Rail operatio ns & maintena nce STA distributions Specialized tran sit Planning & programming services Tota l progra ms/pro jects Intergo vernmental distribution Capital outlay Debt service Principa l Interest Total de bt service To tal ex penditures Other fina nc ing sources/u ses Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Bond proceeds Payment to e scrow agent Cost of issuance Total fina ncing so urces/uses Excess (defic iency) of revenues an d other financing sources over (under) expenditures and othe r financing uses Fund balance July 1, 2003 Fund balance June 30, 2004 N nezgrer.n.r/quenenieahnavera a nent GENERAL FSP/ FUND SAFE WESTERN COUNTY PALO VERDE VALLEY C OACHELLA VALLEY STATE TRANSP ORTATI ON UNIF ORM WESTERN TRANSIT MITIGATION FEE COUNTY ASSISTANCE TU MF C ONSTRUCTION $ 10,306,968 $ - $ 75,467,689 $ 963,489 $ 25,754,128 $ 1,620,897 1,908,350 19,389,724 - - 674,081 2,699 1,891,724 - 1,430,048 2,899,065 78,157 46,418 1,105,276 567 52,124 32,699 12,680,103 1,957,466 97,854,415 964,056 27,236,300 2,931,764 1,114,198 53,560 78,644 3,911 779,923 27,212 282,823 14,354 558,978 28,240 2,814,567 127,276 931,754 186,383 457,873 936,835 96,176 5,191 40,137 1,221,992 45,492 617,299 4,437,881 - 357,762 7,353,980 1,980,795 750,183 - 25,716 1,305 10,944,446 25,977 25,977 2,109,376 248,300 248,300 424,825 724,826 844,762 1,959,363 1,509,065 25,668,748 1,395,762 538,585 3,150,118 3,030,524 29,984,860 192,219 2,121,946 1,246,726 72,792,328 72,792,328 14,298,449 19,375,016 5,076,566 963,489 963,489 963,489 13,837 3,409 2,600 32,950 58,986 2,226,305 90 9,014,727 8,244,197 3,022,381 - $ 34,526,703 190,160 34,716,863 330 1,794,869 22,619,483 1,795,199 22,619,483 7,388,907 7,388,907 1,795,199 1,709,680 (151,909) 19,985,520 567 (2,772,089) 1,136,565 5,757,792 3,225,168 87,281,322 47,362 7,428,955 1,600,346 $ 7,467,472 $ 3,073,259 $ 107,266,842 $ 47,929 $ 4,656,866 $ 2,736,911 28 19,997 8,338 33,500 51,699 1,145,519 1,259,052 1,259,052 33,457,811 33,457,811 554,121 554,121 DEBT SERVICE (38,989) 1,382,391 1,343,402 14,272,472 14,272,472 26,290,000 9,187,218 C OMBINED TOTAL $ 112,492,274 22,918,971 34,526,703 6,858,629 3,441,914 180,238,491 1,167,758 82,555 807,135 297,177 587,218 2,941,843 1,486,589 928,147 1,379,202 2,044,012 1,568,050 27,895,054 1,395,852 538,585 3,150,118 3,030,524 1,145,519 39,963,077 8,244,197 1,129,054 1,221,992 2,121,946 45,492 617,299 4,437,881 1,794,869 4,269,107 357,762 108,764,326 750,183 27,022 26,290,000 9,187,218 35,477,218 35,477,218 35, 477, 218 147, 960, 591 26,763,922 (26,763,922) (13,718,351) (7,369,893) 15,928,766 37,624,806 41,310,672 41,310,672 32,277,900 158,894,518 $ 2,210,415 $ 30,254,913 $ 191,172,418 AGENDA ITEM 6F • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ended June 30, 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. Attachment: Quarterly Investment Report - June 30, 2004 Agenda Item 6F 29 • • • Investment Portfolio Report Period Ending: June 2004 OPERATING FUNDS RATING PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED MOODYS/FITCH/S&P VALUE DATE DATE MARKET PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS) City Nation $ 20,748 A3/BBB + Cash with , 106,231,177-MR1/AAA/V +1 Local Ager 2,970,482 AAA/AAA Agency/Treasury Securities: FNMA 2,000,000 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 03/29/04 03/29/06 2.05 % 2,000,000 2,000,000 - Money Ma 36,595 36,595 0 .45% 36,595 36,595 Federal He 1,987,500 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 11/12/03 11/15/05 2.29 % 1,993,716 1,987,500 (6,216) FNMA Not, 1,926,854 AA A/AAA 1,950,000 03/17/04 03/17/06 2 .08 % 1,951,066 1,926,854 (24,213) Sub-Tota 115,173,356 $5,986,595 $5,981,377 $5,950,948 $ (30,429) FUNDS HELD IN TRUST Cash with County: Local Tran 25,421,846 -MR1/ARAN+ 1 Sub-To ta 25,421,846 INVESTMENT WITH CITIES (1) Maturity Dat % City of Car 300,000 06/01/09 4.75% City of Lak 173,526 11/01/04 6. 00% Sub-Tota 473,526 COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE Milestone 1 2,052,155 AAA/AAA First Amen U.S. Treas 15,768,000 AAA/AAA FirstAmeri 1,996,246 AAA/AAA Sub-Tota 27,830,454 TOTAL $ 168,899,181 SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE Banks $ 20,748 Cash with County 131,653,023 LAIF 2,970,482 M utual Funds: First American Treasury - Trust Milestone Sub - Total Mutual Funds 10,010,299 2,052,155 12,062,454 Federal Agency Notes 5,950,948 U. S. Treasury Notes 15,768,000 Investment Agreements 473,526 TOTAL 168,899,181 8,014,053 AAA /AAA (1) Investment with cities is reported as a loan receivable for financial reporting purposes . 15,768,000 06/01/04 11/30/04 2. 00% 15,924,819 15,792,598 (132,221) 30 June 2004 County Administrative Center Investment Objectives • Safety of Principal • Liquidity • Public Trust • Maximum Rate of 41) Return Portfolio Statistics Treasurer's Commentary "The Fed Giveth and the Fed Taketh Away" As expected, the Fed Funds rate was raised by .25% to 1.25%. This event was widely anticipated and was well re- ceived by the financial markets. We covered the Feds' new policy of measured change in the May report and at this point the Fed looks as if it will continue this policy for the rest of the year. The policy of containing INFLATION seems to have spurred consumers to the highest consumer confidence lev- els in almost two years, but, confidence still has a long way to go to reach its pre 9/11 highs. Confidence should continue to climb as the situation in Iraq improves, oil prices do not in- crease substantially, and, we have no further terrorist attacks at home. We also would like to honor the life and mourn the passing of a truly great and accomplished American, our former Gov- ernor and the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan. Treasurer -Tax Collector Durable Goods Orders -for June24th -1.6% actual vs. 1.5% survey Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -for June 25th 3.9% actual vs. 4.4% survey Consumer Confidence— Index -for June 25th 101.9 actual vs. 95 survey Factory Orders -for March June 6th -1.7% actual vs. -1.4% survey Unemployment Rate- for June 4th 5.6% actual vs. 5.6% survey At month's end, the Fed Funds rate was raised to 1.25%, with a balanced bias. The 2 -year T -Note was yielding 2.65% (up 15 bps.) while the 30 -year T -Bond was yielding 5.32% (down 1 bp.) For June, the Pool had an in- crease of 9 bps. in average monthly yield. At this juncture, we continue to stay the course, taking advantage of opportunities in locking in higher rates as they present themselves. June Ma A•ril March Februa Janua Month -End Book Value Ivbnth-End Market Value* Paper Gain or (Loss) Percent of Paper Gain or Loss Yield Based Upon Book Value Weighted Average Maturity (Yrs) Modified Duration Ot values does not include accrued interest $2,611,034,734 $ 2,599,728,360 $ (11,306,374)' -0.43% 1.54` 0.86 0.77` $ 2,689,592,662 $ 3,037,624,588 ' $ 2,754,663,449 $ 2,440,001,929 $ 2,559,239,668 $ 2,680,314,959 $ 3,032,729,233 $ 2,756,311,367 l $ 2,441,532,293 $ 2,559,890,416 $ (9,277,703 $ (4,895,356); $1 647 919 _} �__. .0 ); $ 1,530,364 $ 650748 -0.34% -0.16% 0.06%t 0.06% 0 03%; 1.45 1.38 , 1 361 1.51 1.45 0.89 0 79 _ 0.73 0.79; 0.84 0.79 0.64 0.70 0.763 0.82 THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: Aaa/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V1+ BY FITCH RATINGS 31 Portfolio Characteristics SECTOR Market Value Federal Agency Cash Equivalent & MMF Commercial Paper Negotiable CD's Medium Term Notes Certificates of Deposit Local Agency Obligation 1,991,619,418 Total Co [Tr cial Pap 12.90% Cash Equivalent & M 927% 241,000,000 335,479,342 0 19,829,600 10,000,000 1,800,000 2,599,728,360 Local Agency Obligation 0.07 % CREDIT QUALITY Federal Agency AAA A-1/ P-lor better N/R Total Market Value 12,800,000 2,599,728,360 A:1: / P-1 or better NUR 22.14% 0.49% Federal Agency 76.61% MATURITY 30 days or Less 30-90 Days 90 Days-1Year 1 -2'Y -ears 2-3Years Over 3 Years Total M arket Value 670,479,519 289,321,098 694,181,483 511,122,600 432,823,661 1,800,000 2,599,728,360 10.00% o.0o% 0.07% 30 days 30 - 90 90 Days 1 - 2 2 - 3 Over 3 or Less Days - 1 Year Years Years Years 24 Month Gross Yield Trends • Market Data U.S. Treasury Yield Curve 6/30/04 5/28/04 Diff. 3 M 1.261 1.060 0.201 6 M 1.635 1.378 0.258 2 Y 2.677 2.532 0.145 5 Y 3.766 3.791 -0.025 10 Y 4.581 4.647 -0.066 30 Y 5.288 5.345 -0.057 -off emu' ICM Eita -o 6 *The Money Fund reportTM /AII Tax- able Average is compiled and re- ported by iMoneyNet, Inc. (formerly IBC Financial Data, Inc.) iMoney- Net, Inc. is a leading provider of independent analyses and informa- tion to the financial services indus- try, with a particular area of focus in money market mutual funds. The All- Taxable Index tracks the yield of over 500 taxable money market funds across several categories i.e. Treasury, Government, and Prime and reports the average yield those funds on a monthly basis. For more information on the iMoneyNet, Inc. Index see www.ibcdata.com/index.html Page 2 32 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 30, 2004 *End Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP PAR DESCRIPTION COUPON MATURITY BOOK VALUE/ PRICE M. VALUE* GAIN/LOSS YLD MAT/ M Dur,4 Avg, Life 2 CPD - COMMERCIAL PAPER - DISCOUNT 641056681 50,000,000 NESTLE CAPITAL CORP A1+/P1 4 :7 7'0 0258112098 50,000,000 AMERICAN EXPRESS A1/P1/F1 5. \ 17307JGD8 50,000,000 CITI GRP GLBL MKTS A1+/P1 L.7#78EH3z,, c'i,'T i ikltf �1 A) 335,716,000 FCDN - FARM CRED DISCOUNT NOTES 31 3 3 1270 7•:1,• ; 3.if00 W 40,000,000 FFCB - FED FARM CREDIT BANK 31-11014f6:-v"ilk. 3133101'84 10,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 3138) f R$? ":.:Allf+ 0WI 31331TEY3 10,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc 3'f331QsB9' ' jr/„ 17E)0 ~j 31331TMP3 10,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2YrNc1Yr 31331TQ53` `;; (;, ; 1!0113 31331TXF3 10,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2YrNc1Yr 3128X2Z6WA:• 5,0iS%fti t1 FAi M Ri 8ANK Y 31331TKP5 5,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK5.5YrNc6Mo ',15.oei3 i, a ,0Idrr#Atit 1Yr 31331THNO 5,000,000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNc6Mo a-,5000,000=: 0 sttREOi „Mt t*iX 2YrNc3Mo 133,800,000 FHLB - FED HOME LOAN BANK 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK13MoNc3Mo 3133X3TW3 3133X5RL4 3X4i<00 70,000 t ,,''xamsteAtiKr..5YrNc 3133X4HR5 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK18MoNc3Mo 3133X7CM4 5, HOME LOAN BANK 1.5YrNc6Mo1 3 3128X2VR3 10 3133X1 '1 3133X6VH6 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK1 25YrNc3Mo 000,000 FED 6 5,000,000 FED 3133X4A27 3133X5J74 313351'3L7( 3133X5ZF5 31%X, 3133X6549 4Y 3128X3KS1 3133X4QP9 3133X5NR5 3131,E 3133X3564 31339YFE7 3f"6*11(1 31339YPK2 31,33 31339YR61 3133X6200 3133XSZ aS"" 31339YRZ7 3133X5E� 31339YXD9 313 3133MYZJ9 3133X5MA3 (;( I( -2t YrNc3E HOME LOAN BANK1.75YrNc6Mo 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Yr 5 000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1xSTEP M' ' ED ROMMAMi3Atit4 000.000 FED HOME LOAN BANKI.75YrNc9Mo1 ;FEO HO14 O-OAN BANK2YrNo3Ma,_. 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc6No1xSt f7(((} f FED HOME'LOAN HANiZ2WS1 (Step 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc3Mo ._ OEO HOME 1.0,11 BANK" .,, . a , 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc1Yr1X L(iOMEicsAra'sANK' ' M 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc3Mo1x ..m S sfLti9fi`/,',"�, ; •F'1;1,t)ME"LOAN R¢iK2YrNC640? j < r ""'s. 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Yr 4011000"faMS10-AttftiK3T 6,480,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.25YrNc3Mo OAMIAN YfN, 25,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.25YrNc3Mo 44U F„ , ;,,,.. . oAN BANK2:25YrNo M • V' 3,800,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc6MoSt 000 -E •HMME,LOAN AN. r 5YZNc3110Vuas: 13,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo i'.f :t0AttBAIISY1 AJMo 10,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3MoStert' 10,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNcMoStep 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.25YrNc3Mo t: 10.HOM)ru" 1.1 ANK, 10,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3MSTEP 12,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo Mitt" ?AF}1j '( ,' ,25.YrNe3ist0 , . 15,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3.25 YrNc3M 10,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc6Mo1X 3133X5SM1 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc9Mo '3133711 %} 01XtilklEVIOOKOAH 0,MKS'Y00,1MStepr€ 3133X5WCB 3133X 3133X1 U70 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc3Mo - Q010-`FEO HOMOAAMAANKMILOWM1 10,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc3MoStep RE$ )AtilfititligotrOmEL, 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc3MoStep 6,750,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.75YrNc3Mo !EOHOAii tOANBANK2,75Y ` %' 4 1.58 1.76 2.20 1.80 2.65 1-5)s>. 3.02 1.47 1.35 1.70 2.58 1.75 1.70 7 2.35 7/8/2005 9/22/2005 12/15/2005 3/17/2006 5/19/2006 11/21/2006 3/1/2005 6/30/2005 9/16/2005 12/9/2005 1/19/2006 2.16 1/27/2006 2/134)481 2/17/2006 1.50 2.00 2.15 2.50 3.00 2.32 2.01 3.00 2.25 -cr�a 2.00 2- 2.00 2.38 2 00 2.50 2.50 2.11 10; 2.15 2,00 2 42 10/27/2006 '215t; f(1} 7,) y; 2.25 11/13/2006 3:11.\. ^; r.4ti1'IP B' 2.25 11/20/2006 "#yl 2.00 12/22/2006 2/27/2006 3/24} 4/13/2006 4124P2090114 4/26/2006 5/19/2006 6/8/2006 df 6/26/2006 6/30/2006 7/13/2006 71440067 7/24/2006 13,000,000__ 98.38 00' . Lt4 11X1 i 8 8 44 7/28/2006 10,000,000 49,986,333 49,985,000 49,973,438 49,975,833 99.95 49,975,833 49,90.7501",, ,33;"sy' 4066,750 49,960,069 99.92 49,960,069 335,479,342 39,508,333 10,000,000 99.31 9,999,400 99.19 - 10,000,000 99.34 10,000,000 98.31 133,799,400 335,479,342 1.16 0.03 +'14.-44451: ". (85,28.1, (85,281) 39,423,052 931,250 (68,750) 9,918,750 (80,650) oat; El0 "` " (162,500}'�irr, 9,934,375 (65,625) s i ;;r . (53;120".: 9,831,250 (168,750) 5,000,000 99.44 4,971,875 (28,125) JOAMM:, • 6E: tit• 70047;j:',10. (6/ 4 75) 5,000,000 99.47 4,973,438 (26,563) 55; 4. . (9.250y` ( 132,598,788 (1,200,613) .46)40 03,000 5,000,000 0,0 0()0" 4,998,438 (000 5,000,000 ;''A 099 5,000,000 ;5$x$38 5,000,000 5,000,00001! MAK 10,000,000 :000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000.000 4.95,1;(83 99.13 4,956,250 9 2 9.92018,+ 99.91 4,995,313 ;60:106M:'"'9.87 •; 98.56 4,928,125 MSC, 99.16 4,957,813 99.56 9,955,500 95.1• :S :17V 4,967,188 99.34 99 99.53 98.47 964 98.66 1.29 1.58 1.76 0.47 1.01 1.02 1.22 1.23 2.20 1.44 1.80 1.69 2.65 1.85 3.02 2.26 1.95 (34,375 ` c'',��., - 4,985,938 (14,063) 1.47 0.67 :9,98f ; a (18,750);;: �2-,00-;' 0.9t, 4,953,125 (45,313) 1 37 1.00 (48443$)''., r),50 (43,750) 170 1.20 (4,688) 2.58 123;4 .,1,83 (71,875) 175 (123,004 (42,188) (49.925) (44,500) 2.34 .(40.625); 0 b (32,813) 2.35 (34,874-+„ `" . 4,976,563 (23,438) 2.32 1.63 9,934.3 „' (60`.6251; 49" 0. 4,923,438 (76,563) 2 00 1.76 ', 9.859,375, -9 `: (140,825iA1,43#4: 4,932,813 (67,188) 2.15 1.79 .9,915,625: '„ 11144;376) ; ? 44j f}, 1,78 " 99.16 4,957,813 (42,188) \ 2.50 1 85 V ,:.A V"14§,266 'NVr" st.P7.$)...:.: a .. 0.40 99.44 4,972,000„ (28,000) 6,478,988 98.63 25,000,000 97.97 991; 7 3,800,000 7/28/2006 10,000,000 7/28/2006 8/7/2006 8/14/2006 9/11/2006 9/29/2006 10/20/2006 5,000,000 99.84 T..R7 .., 9,996,875 1s .. 98.75 ., 12,000,000 98.78 15,000,000 98.63 10,000,000 97.7 5,000,000 97 72 5,000,000 98 25 9,995,313 99.88 4,995,313 99.44 6,750,000 98.84 6,390,900 (88,088) 24,492,188 (507,813 2.01 1.97 2.00 788,750 2.07 1.46 1.88 2.39 1.45 1.44 1 56 1.54 1 58 0.63 1.64 11 1.62 1.88 VANE 1.94 211 250) 3.00 1 90 afaZial 2.33 1.94 1E00350, :14101460:X47 2.69 2 25 98.94 9,893,750 (106,250) 2.37 .ik6t#28CiagaR,V17,0631MX,WArMrf, 2.12 1 98 1.99 2,081 2 08 14,793,750 (206,250) 17 2.17 2.15 2 20 2.25 9,771,075 (228,925) 2 25 4,912,500 (87,500) 4,971,875 (23,438) 3.10 6,671,953 ,(78,047 2.25 2.27 2.33 2 37 218 2.39 2.48 Page 1 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 30, 2004 •-'.' 000 DISCOUNT; -^ h 35,000,000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES WoriacolflimA D/SC 'T r DTE 40,000,000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 313588073 35,000,00 404.90,OOii FN ' $030 .. . ' .. rs01301V "i "' V,1- lia *739, `'�.�i°E�'�' "�: - 313396R62 15 000,000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 1.07 12/1/2004 14,882 300 9928 14,892,000 4132W1/111W'"1400000- .FN t ,•, -., "'41 s �: ` .. MMAI 134,72$-1,+',` 313589AU7 40,000,000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 1.26 1/19/2005 39,615,000 98 73 39,493,600 AvoW6 «'"', v' ,WOE + e£1tfOTAM.-',Q iM'�%'" ,3 '��, '"`';" _idai :L ,'"34511 `.N',,'.'-"? ' 'u`�`�`�`�`�`ISANIAI-r' 12,865,938 (71,875 8,137,984 4,921,875 9,893,750 (104,688) 30;000) 49,959,194 ,,32,789, , ,,, ..... 695,000,000 690,736,250 690,124,381 FRMC - FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 313396 1017AD06t�FEUpRAIi;�.{ORNMOt1Cf7ft�itf%"�`F`��y�x�:h�5��.29 7`'.84T`.t�fl�Y%:1�'; g. 9 ', 313396E25 50,000,000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 1 02 8/31/2004 49,746,417 99.49 49,746,417 . 19390E25 •: •° :.;; : 5�r,001�z;0u,I r : t LOA( C-OPP . ,? ,,°-;; 022 .. <R' .44392004,t0' 313396071 35,000,000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 1.14 11/24/2004 34,749,517 99.35 34,772,500 31,3 '50,900, TrB coAr 't I `. z t 720 /,s.2sx7> 313397AE1 25,000,000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI 1 38 1/5/2005 24,763,292 98 83 24,708,458 220,000,000 218,508,878 218,373,624 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report • CUSIP 31339YKH4 13,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3.5YrNc3MoST s tM N,8ANK ..,...,, 3133X4HY0 8,215,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc3MoStep get ,10 111M(Watiffniantattf(01K3YNNOW 3133X5TLZ 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc3Step ANCt'';F ? WP11Nt 3-1.1 '3trlo' PAR DESCRIPTION COUPON MATURITY BOOK VALUE' PRICE M. VALUE* GAIN/LOSS YLD MATT M Dur.4 Avg, Life 2 3133X62Z8 10,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3MoSt 3133X61-125 10,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Mo :1MTOAN TK yWaMa Alt 3133X6Y42 5,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Mo 570,200,000 FHLC-FHLB- MORTG. CERT. Ofantali•Mitoco FfiL MORTG::', tT,2V f4c1Yr , =My -%4' 3128X2BW4 5,000,000 FHLB - MORTG CERT 2YrNc6Mo1X ISIVIMINIVISMANCEK :;A. TG CE#: ` 6Ma •` 3133X5ZA9 5,000 000 FHLB - MORTG CERT.1.75YrNc9M1 ` riMM.'t .i. '��. 3128X2ZV0 6,275,000 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc3Mo 3128X3AX1 10 000000 FHLB - MORTG CERT.2YrNc6Mo 3128X3F57 5,000,000 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc3Mo 312$) T41 k 5,0130: '#HL0 T - CI 3128X2ZB4 5,000,000 FHLB - MORTG CERT3Y(Nc1Yr1xSt . ,,, 3-0)11044 'X10.00Ll34Vf(#LB� c-004Y4iciYrlx&t 3128X2F42 5,000,000 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.3YrNc6MoSte 3128X2F1 ,,-.,,_'v, „",.100MV;Q ',M0 ,04,1 3128X24D4 5,000 000 FHLB MORTG. CERT.3YrNc1YStep 3128XOAY9 5,000,000'NOMACO M V 106,275,000 FHLD - FED HOME LOAN DISCOUNT 313384YW3 35,000000 H"Eafrfbti8EWA. .SUNT"1 313384C56 35,000,000 FED HOME LOAN DISCOUNT 70,000,000 FNMA - FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 01$10X-24 ,, '{11x F 4Witt1 ,i#a 7YrN. 3136F3T48 20,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC2 YrNc3MoSt 3136F4MG6 10,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2.25YrNc1Y 3136F3V29 10,000 000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 2.5YrNc 2 00 1/30/2007 12 995,938 3/16/2007 8,215,000 200•,W,w,,,,, 4/27/2007 2 25 3.21 98 97 5,000,000 98.44 4/30/2007 9,998,438 98 94 57.11120 ' 3" :='<; -V 5/11/2007 10,000,000 99.28 9,928,125 5/1&2 3.61 ....................... 5/25/2007 5,000,000 10009 5,004,688 4,688 570,150,943 563,822,867 (6,328,076) (77,016) 2 98 ��, •'•'1�`, `1,2.98 78,125 2 82 2 25 11/28/2005 2.30': E 2 02 1/27/2006 5 000,000 98.94 4946 875 (53,125 2 02 1.55 1 58 2.11 3/15/2006 6,273,118 98.85 6,203,089 $ (70,029) 213 168 171 ;s;,.. - 66 . 10.00 49., :�,;'- �� ::�: '�WWW�n Sa N4'Fn : 2-5i? ;"..a"4,9 '.'/::1;e4, 2 22 4/27/2006 10,000,000 98 79 9,879,200 120,800 2 22 1 79 1.82 '5014b1*" ' ';t40O6;00ri ERCA3K ago 0:90,; _ 1 P* 2.93 5/26/2006 5,000,000 99.89 4,994,350 (5,650) 2.93 186 190 R AIV'0: ,W'00cook PROWi '+',. 001 '^ MINEW: 1:S., 1441 2 00 3/2/2007 5,000,000 99.11 4,955,300 (44,700) 2.88 2 58 2 67 3.07 271 203 259 ,1.56;, 2.6$) 1 68 2 71 24* 2.73 2 82 e.111127, 'MOS 1 80 2 83 4.S9ilfga,.2.@I% 3.21 2 75 2 86 361 007 290 2.41 2.04 ,., z ' 3J210#:`:',' ;:. 40 0 -1 41 PAM '' `„y :' 41 2.00 3/8/2007 5,000,000 97.45 4,872,250 (127,750) 3 01 2.60 2 69 �;\�. - ; S . 500 ''i 2.6 :- 27 ��e.`� � ,'.'.; •� .. {224, ) ��.' ,.:.�;. 4/12/2007 5,000,000 97.88 4,893,750 (106,250) /�'i` a l :75pe_`a,�`tia ,,, {532501 106,273,118 105,173,145 (1,099,973) 2.56 2 70 2 78 2.12 2.835: 2.56 2.09 ..._.._..:'..3? t��.�.. '. �.�'ia ,�._::,s,;:5.i.`�`.'-`• '�nr;:'. ,a.�, .•',r ' 0.01', : ' 0,01 8_ 8200,,,_ _ 1.01 8!16/2004 34,839,943 99.54 34,839,943 - 1.01 013 013 69,761,388 69,761,388 - 1.01 0.07 1.30 _ 7/29/2005 2.00 1/27/2006 2/6/2006 9,995,313 3136F45N0 4,775,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc6Mo 2 17 2/17/2006 4,773,508 06.9M1ah : A000:000'PE") iA'f`MONMSO)2YfNE . r ,. 1i:2t 72#561' 3136F5HR5 2,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc3Mo- 3136F0HR5 ' :: 3, ,PO J NA7;IvK,3'MA, 3136E5E107 5,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2YrNc1YrSt 3121 „, 55.000AXMONAWKW., ___...... . ....... . 3136F4LN2 10,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 31'u4NO9 - 100( ;JEDNc 3136F3U53 10,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC3YrNc3MoSte 3136F5JT9 5,000 000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2 5Y(Nc1Yr ?rAM9,,.: 001&"444 F W1410i$° " Y1 3136F5VYZ 5,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2 5YrNc6MS 1.' 1=x5 0aSee 16,000 FEi`i"NAT Mf7�� ,,7,2E.3` AKY 3136F5MD0 10,000,000 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNclYrSt 19,943,750 (56250) 1.71 1.07 1 08 111MitliffINCOMMONIMPt -4 9,887,500 (18,750) 2.43 1.55 (104,688) 2.04 1 57 vim,/'. 1,973,125 (26,875) 2 05 1 72 1.75 At1>31$ �` i `,%3t29f20(!8'� > .. ��i��.��" �rsF-- 1�i,. 1�`ti,3�� `�,��"'..:' <4' 1.40 3/29/2006 - 5000,000 99.09 4,954,688 (45,313) 2.19 0.74 175 ariiitt ? °% < 4141011 A) MS. 10 10,000,000 98 22 9,821,875 (178,125) _ 2.48 1.77 1.81 10,000,000 98.84 9,884,375 (115,625). 2.35 2 01 2.07 . .,Ng' f1MA' Iii 4' t>t✓. 1, 2.021 -2, 9/29/2006 5,000,000 AlitaliMININNIUNOW 11/9/2006 5000,000 99 84 4992 188 2.13 4/12/2007 10,000,000 97.69 %%UM001,0J+IATI�ASSQ�S'F�� s` � 97 63 4,881,250 (118,750) 2.07 2 20 2 25 Agg$S ' 2.21, . 2-gA (7,813) 200 086 2.36 ,ITAA.W.AAMINN - Ali 9,768,750 (231,250) 2.53 2.70 2 78 2,84 4 908 2.24 1.79 174,125,000 '� - ' � "�""-•� � �� "•• • '• -- - - _ 172,342,175 (1,67 , ) FNMD - FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 5)3588Z64>y %,OOt?` ;.DIS bYJ.t1T? OTC ^';i, AINWSIMIIICMISPI2004111ft 313588ZH1 50,000,000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 1.13 7/13/2004 413588Atar =:at~W r14t , ` 1SWJA '`> E 174,017,083 313568F91; 3135881-173 313566H81 313396H89 31`x5 $1153 40tO000' #WotsCt NT Nu 313588M38 40,000 000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 31350151 9;000,0 CDI•�}UNTNOTE: 7 ., . 313396M8 10,000,000 FNMA DISCOUNUN,. T NOTES 1 07 11(1/2004 9,936,100 99.45 9,945,000 ,,,i4 ,M✓: ?5.Ot1j541 l65'PNM,-,-,-,.X. `1NT NQ'i F"5z ) tfkailltv'E'i 1 'r2�.�";"+'"�/'s n'" w''Wr 1'{ t ... 0 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 1 05 11/24/2004 34,751,938 99 07 34,673,478 (78, - -. ` 2 5/2004'x% 1.02 9/1/2004 34,8'32,aU8 yaa2 .w,aa� vua 9/29/2004 34,814,349 99.47 34,814.349 .:`', •#)2004`-ez F� .:.� ,"1= : •',�. 1447,705 1.10 9/30/2004 39,804,444 9966 39,864,000 114 ; �3P20Gt��: &i07f - 23 10/27/2004 39,751267 9929 39,716,532 4 Z" ,:`;< t i ffs 1.13 0.04 004 .�' it)I ��s ;x;111 1.02 0.17 0.17 •; nth 1 06 0.25 0.25 04.4% lenr4 ,4,4719141 59,556 1.13 0.25 025 (34,735) / 1 26 0.33 0 33 8,900 110 0.34 0.34 {60,2011.%r. 1.17; r ' .: 0 40 ..0171.18*" 1 T%Bs? fi _ 9,700 1 07 0.42 0.42 0.42 (121,400) 1.30 0.56 0.56 oplirtgl 0;01 (611,869) 1.14 0.29 103 017 017 1.03; or ,4,' #7 22,983 1 15 040 (103 103T •,'.'.'4-13'AV42 • 1 39 0 52 1.12 (54,834) (135,254) Page 214 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 30, 2004 illEnd Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP emt DESCRIPTION COUPON MATURITY BOOK VALUE' PRICE M. VALUE* GAIN/LOSS YLD MAT M Due.4 Avg. Life2 LAO - LOCAL AGENCY OBLIGATIONS 935 000 rit ': �' 7 :,��i� 865,000 LOCAL AGENCY OBLIGATIONS 1,800,000 MMF - MONEY MARKET FUND 1,000,000 MTNO - MED TERM NOTES 36962GF82 10,000,000 GE CAPITAL GROUP 20,000,000 REPO- REPURCHASE AGREEMENT 40,000,000 MERRILL LYNCH 240,000,000 TCD - TIME DEPOSITS 10,000,000 2,617,916,000 'The market value and yield of shoe -lean money market securities are based on purchased price. Average Life is the number of years until principal is remmed at maturity, weighted by market value. 'Lord Agency Obligations have variable rate coupons, spread to the Pool. • • AMEN 2.00 1.40 6/15/2020 1/30/2006 7/1/2004 865,000 100.00 1,800,000 1,000,000 ,serif 10,000,000 98.69 20,000,000 40,000,000 100.00 240,000,000 600 10,000,000 2,611,034,734 865,000 1,800,000 1,000,000 9,868,600 19,829,600 40,000,000 240,000,000 (131,400) (170,400) AftWanZIArk 10,000,000 - 2.13 2.13 0.89 28: 13.46 15.97 11.85 0.08 2.00 1.55 1.59 2.12 1.36 ?, . 0170:..'" 06i} 1.40 0.00 0.00 1.44 1.60 0.00 0.28 2,599,728,360 (11,306,374) 1.63 0.77 0.86 'Modified Dumtun. The percentage price change of a security fora given change m yield The higher the modified duration of a security, the higher its risk. Page 3p( Summary of Authorized Investments e The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund was in FULL COMPLIANCE with the Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy. The County's Investment Policy is more restrictive than the California Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by the County's Investment Oversight Committee and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. California Government Code Investment Category LOCAL AGENCY BONDS CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY DEBT FEDERAL A BILLS OF EXCHANGE CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS REVERSE REPOS MED t MOTES CaITRUST SHORT TERM FUND SECURED BANK DEPOSITS LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS Maximum Maturity ( Authorized %Limit 5 YEARS 5 YEARS 270 DAYS 270 DAYS 30% 1 YEAR 25% MAX 5 YEARS 92 DAYS EAR N/A 5 YEARS N/A NO LIMIT NO LIMIT Count Investment Polic Quality S&P/ Maximum Matur- I Authorized % I Quality S&P/ Moody's ity Limit Moody's 3 YEARS 3 YEARS 15%/ $15OMM 2.5% A/A2/A INVESTMENT GRADE Actual Riverside Portfolio % 0.00% 0.07% 0.38% 40% (1) 180 DAYS 30% A1/P1/F1 0.00% 20% N/A 0.00% NO LIMIT 60 DAYS 10% MAX N/A 0.00% N/A DAILY LIQUIDITY 3 YEARS 1% Al/P1/F1 NO LIMIT 1 YEAR 2% 0% MAX Board Approved 0.00% 1 No more than 30% of this category may be invested with any one commercial bank 2 Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days 3 Or must have an investment advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of $500,000,000. Proiected Cash Flow The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. Based upon projected cash receipts and matu- rating investments, there are sufficient Funds to meet future cash flow disbursements over the next 12 months. Month Monthly Receipts Monthly Disbmts Difference Required Mat Invest Balance Actual Inv. Maturities Avail. To Invest> 1Yr. 07/2004 142.5 08/2004 612.5 (79.3) 79.3 219.6 10/2004 460.9 692.7 (2318) 2318 134.2 12/2004 r 1,046.5 6616 384.9 384.9 89.1 02/2004 3W 5118 646.6 (134.8) 134.8 34.5 (299.8) 278.0 25.0 06/2004 608.3 908.1 Totals 7,219.2 8,556.2 (1,337.0) 1,194.5 36 45.75% 1,654.4 63.36% 1,416.5 54.25% THIS COMPLET(•ES THE REPORT REQ.)REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 53646 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 6G • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the year ended June 30, 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the year ended June 30, 2004 under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. Some contracts reported in prior quarters are not listed in this final report for the fiscal year as they were misclassified as single signature contracts. The unused capacity at June 30, 2004 is $174,644. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report - June 30, 2004. Agenda Item 6G 37 • SINGLE SIGNA AUTHORITY • AS OF JU t 30, 2004 CONSULTANT DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2003 Inland M ailing Services (Advanced Marketing) Advance Data Transcribing Center, Inc. Ernst & Young Co marco Wireless MHV Enterprises, Inc. Arthur Bauer & Associates, Inc. Economics & Politics, Inc. Ninyo & Moore Zamiski Construction Volt Edge Services Amend #1 re extension of term and cost for C ommuter Assistance RideGuides Amend #1 to extend term (implied cost) for data entry services Compute rebate on 1997 Series A & B Amend #2 to increase original agreement for smart call boxes Original Agmt & Amend #1 for Rideshare suite database enhancement pr oject Triennial perfo rmance a udit of Sunline Transit Agency Consultant to evaluate economic impact of non- residential TUMF fees Co nduct subsurface investigation of former Royal Citrus Co mpany Storage and Distribution facility Weed and rubbish abatement services of pro perties owned and managed by RCTC Electrical and mechanical repairs at the five Commission -owned Metrolink stations 38 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 500,000 .00 25,000 .00 45,000 .00 2,250.00 25,000 .00 38,332.50 8,500.00 25,000 .00 10,000 .00 50,000 .00 50,000 .00 RE MAINING CONTRACT PAID A MOUNT A MOUNT 6,036.67 49,486.59 2,250 .00 0 .00 37,407 .50 8,500 .00 0.00 0 .00 37,116.50 3,731 .45 18,963 .33 (4,486.59) 0 .00 25,000.00 925 .00 0 .00 25,000.00 10,000 .00 12,883 .50 46,268 .55 V:\USERS\AGENDA\2004\09 September\SINSIG04.xls SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF JUNE 30, 2004 CONSULTANT Ernst & Young DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Arbitrage Rebate calculation 2000 Series "A" Re venue B onds ORIGINAL REMAINING CONTRACT CONTRACT A MOUNT PAID A MOUNT A MOUNT 3,250 .00 3,250.00 0.00 George. Fatty`'& Associates Fan tastic Fundraising SCAG 169,778.71 Local Project me` s with UP right- of-way and the Alamed a, g East gra'separation 35,000.00 12,500.00 134000.00 AMOUNT USED Less Return of Remaining Contract Value Due to Expiration: Inland Mailing Advance Data Transcribing Comarco Wireless AMOUNT USED, net of adjustments AMOUNT REMAINING THROUGH June 30, 2004 Donna Polmounter Prepared by • Michele Cisneros Reviewed by 364,832.50 (18,963.33) 4,486 .59 (25,000 .00) 325,355 .76 $ 174,644.24 195,053 .79 V:\USERS\AGENDA\2004\09 September AGENDA ITEM 6H • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended June 30, 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 14, 2004, the Commission approved the Interfund Loan Policy and adopted Resolution No. 04-009 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans". The Commission requested that interfund loan activity be reported on a monthly basis. The attached report details all interfund loan activity through June 30, 2004. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of June 30, 2004 are $575,000. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report Agenda Item 6H 40 • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Interfund Loan Activity Report For peri od ended June 30, 2004 Amount Maturity Date of Loan of Lo an Date April 2, 2003 March 4, 2004 Total $ 300,000 $ 275,000 $ 575,000 Lending Fund July 1, 2006 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Date Commissioned Borrowing Fund Purpose of Loan Appr oved Measure A - WC LSR Advance to make repairs/improvements to (227) Railroad Canyon Road July 1, 2009 Measure A - WC Commuter Measure A - WC Highway Additional local match for the SR71 Assistance (226) (222) Widening/Animal Crossing Project March 12, 2003 December 10, 2003 41 AGENDA ITEM 61 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Goods Movement Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Goods Movement Update and form a policy working group of elected officials appointed by the Chairman to advise the Goods Movement Action Plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Southern California is the gateway to much of the world, as goods move through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, the busiest ports in the nation. While the movement of goods is critical for business and the creation of jobs, it has an increasingly severe impact on the quality of life in Southern California as more and more goods are shipped through our local ports. In addition, Eastern Riverside County also serves as a NAFTA corridor and will also face increasing truck traffic. The Goods Movement Update provides the Committee with information on current activities to provide trade congestion relief. Trade congestion relief includes capacity improvements to the rail and highway corridor as well as mitigation of community impacts such as grade separation projects. Multi County Goods Movement Action Plan RCTC has joined OCTA, SANBAG, and MTA in the submittal of a State Planning and Research (SPR) grant application for a "Southern California Goods Movement Strategy Study." Initiated by OCTA, the intent is to have a Commission led effort to take a look at freight mobility issues (focusing on rail and truck), coordinating goods movement policies, and determining how to deal with some of the community, land use, and air quality impacts of goods movement. The total project is budgeted at $800,000 and the application requests $300,000 of SPR grant funding with the balance to be split evenly among the Commissions. Agenda Item 61 42 As a result of the joint application, the county transportation commissions (RCTC, OCTA, SANBAG, MTA, and VCTC) have joined together with SCAG and Caltrans (Districts representing Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties) to develop a goods movement action plan. The action plan will represent a regional framework for goods movement initiatives, and be developed collaboratively by the county transportation commissions, SCAG, Caltrans, councils of governments, the private sector (ports, railroads, trucking companies, shippers, etc.,) and other agencies involved in the movement of freight. The creation of a goods movement action plan is particularly important in today's financially constrained environment to minimize duplication of effort and ensure that agencies are not inadvertently working at cross purposes. The action plan must also identify ways to minimize the impacts of goods movement on nearby communities and the environment. The action plan has the following objectives: • Document existing freight movement systems and constraints; • Identify projected goods movement growth and trends, and possible private sector responses; • Identify optimal short-term and long-term infrastructure and operational strategies; • Identify private and public -sector roles in implementation, and funding sources; • Identify strategies to lessen community and environmental impacts (e.g. to mitigate congestion, rail crossing delay, land use, noise, air quality impacts); and • Identify potential obstacles to implementation and needed public - private institutional arrangements. The results of this effort will contribute to an update of county transportation plans and the Regional Transportation Plan. If the SPR grant is awarded to the study, staff will bring back to the Commission a formal request to participate in the study with the anticipated use of Western County Local Transportation Funds in the amount of $125,000. LAEDC Goods Movement Joint Venture The Goods Movement "Joint Venture," conducted by the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) under contract to Metrolink, is an effort to develop short-term federal funding and longer -term financing mechanisms for goods movement infrastructure, both public and private. The intent is to increase Agenda Item 61 43 • • • revenue, not reshuffle existing dollars. The county transportation commissions as well as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and the Union Pacific Railroad are partners in this effort. RCTC projects included in this effort are priority grade separations, rail capacity improvements, and an East West Corridor Study which includes the SR 91, SR 60, SR 86, and 1-10. Agenda Item 61 44 AGENDA ITEM 6J • • • ARIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Update on the Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The planning work on the Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) is underway. There are three committees supporting this project: the Policy Committee which is comprised of the members of the SR 91 Policy Committee along with a policy representative from the Transportation Corridors Agency; the Technical Advisory Committee which includes public works staff from all affected cities, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, and representatives from the Resource Agencies; and the Stakeholder Advisory Committee which includes interested parties representing development, environmental interests, the community and local business. All Committees are formed and have met at least once. The consultants are currently in the data gathering stage of the project and have contacted local agencies to secure copies of pertinent reports to review what has been considered for the study area previously and what may be reasonable to consider in this MIS. We are also reaching out to the public to hear their thoughts on what should be done to improve mobility in the study area. A series of public meetings will be held in September to solicit comment. Dates and locations are as follows: RIVERSIDE COUNTY MEETINGS (6:30 p.m. -8:30 p.m.) • Thursday, September 1 6, 2004 - Lake Elsinore Cultural Center • Thursday, September 23, 2004 - Eagle Glen Golf Course Agenda Item 6J 45 ORANGE COUNTY MEETINGS (6:00 p.m. -8:00 p.m.) • Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - Anaheim Hills Community Center • Thursday, September 9, 2004 - Irvine Heritage Park Regional Library • Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - Mission Viejo City Hall A newsletter for the project has been developed to explain the MIS and what will take place over the next 16 months. We will also use a website, rcocconnection.info, and a toll free hotline (1-877-SR91FWY) to make information available to the public. Over the next month the Committees will be working on developing the Purpose and Need Statement for this project. We expect to bring an MIS Policy Committee recommendation forward for Commission approval at the October meeting. This Purpose and Need Statement will guide the overall study and be key to the alternatives development phase of the project since all alternatives that will undergo the detailed evaluation must meet purpose and need. • • • Agenda Item 6J 46 AGENDA ITEM 6K • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Update on Mid County Parkway Project (Cajalco-Ramona Corridor) PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Mid County Parkway (Cajalco-Ramona Corridor) Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The planning work on the Mid County Parkway project (Cajalco-Ramona Corridor) is progressing on schedule. Two key project milestones are approaching in the next few months -- the first round of public meetings on the project and the finalization of alternatives which will be studied in the draft environmental documents. Public Meetings In September, the first round of public meetings will be conducted for the project. The purpose of these meetings is to: 1) inform the public of the project; 2) educate the public on the required NEPA/CEQA process which must be followed; and 3) solicit input on key concerns, what the public likes about the project, and what they want to make sure is considered as the environmental process is initiated. The meetings will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on the following dates and locations: • Tuesday, September 21, 2004 Valley Wide Recreation and Park District (San Jacinto) • Wednesday, September 22, 2004 Val Verde Unified School District's Conference Room (1-215 at Cajalco/Ramona) Agenda Item 6K 47 • Thursday, September 23, 2004 Eagle Glen Golf Course (Corona) (Will also address Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study) Notice of the meetings will be announced with display ads in the Press Enterprise and local papers. Additionally, an informational newsletter has been developed for the project. This will be sent to property owners along the corridor to explain the project and inform them of the upcoming public meetings. A website has also been set up for the project. The address is www.midcountyparkway.org. Initiation of the Environmental Process Staff has been working with the federal and state agencies over the past year to reach agreement on the Purpose and Need for the project, as well as the slate of alternatives to be studied in the draft NEPA/CEQA documents. Back in January 2004, concurrence was received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) on the following Purpose and Need: "The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a transportation facility that will effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east -west movement of people and goods between and through San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. More specifically, the selected alternative will: • Provide increased capacity to support the forecast travel demand for the 2030 design year. • Provide limited access. • Provide roadway geometrics to meet State highway design standards. • Accommodate Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAR) National Network for oversized trucks. • Provide a facility that is compatible with a future multimodal transportation system." Concurrence has not yet been received from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); however the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has allowed us to continue moving forward. Significant discussions are anticipated with the FWS regarding the timing and process to ensure compliance with the MSHCP. Staff is currently in the process of scheduling meetings with FWS supervisory level staff to allow the project to move forward on schedule and in line with the Partnership Agreement. • • Agenda Item 6K 48 • • Later this month, FHWA is scheduled to request agreement from the Federal Resource Agencies on the alternatives to be studied in the environmental document. Once agreement is received, we will be able to start the formal environmental process and release the Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation. Agenda Item 6K 49 AGENDA ITEM 6L • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Annual Local Transportation Fund Planning Allocations to CVAG and WRCOG PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to allocate Local Transportation Funds totaling $241,848 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and $443,388 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments to support transportation planning programs and functions. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On an annual basis the Commission, CVAG, and WRCOG develop transportation planning programs. The Commission's planning program is identified in the annual budget that was approved on June 9, 2004. Staff has reviewed the attached FY 2004-05 transportation planning and administrative work programs submitted by CVAG and WRCOG and finds them consistent with the overall RCTC transportation program and planning objectives. The funding requested is consistent with the approved FY 2004-05 Commission budget. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $241,848 CVAG $443,388 WRCOG Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 106-65-86205 Fiscal Procedures Approved: v141,u-at, � „ff Date: 8/16/04 Attachments: • 1) CVAG FY 2004-2005 Program Objectives 2) WRCOG FY 2004-2005 Program Objectives Agenda Item 6L 50 CVAG • • • TRANSPORTATION FISCAL YEAR 2004/05 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The Work Plan for 2004/05 is separated into eight main program areas: Transportation Department Operations . Transportation Program Administration . Monitor Implementation of Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) . Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Update . Other Transportation Planning . Operations Management and Administration This program area performs primarily administrative functions which consist of general transportation program administrative activities and various transportation planning duties in support of the Transportation Department. (Funded from Measure A and TUMF) Project Management and Contract Administration . Financial Cash Flow . Project Status Tracking . Preparation and Monitoring Agreements Includes staff time to conduct project oversight (design, environmental, construction and close-out), preparation of reimbursement agreements for regional arterial proj ects, review and approval of prof ect billings in accordance with project scope of work and participation in project development, team meetings and associated staff reports. (Funded from Measure A, TUMF and TEA -21) Riverside County Transportation Commission LRCTC) Programs . State Highway Routes in the Coachella Valley . Congestion Management Program/System (CMP/CMS) . RCTC Technical Advisory Committee . State Highway Measure A Discussions Includes staff time to, (i) support the Riverside County Congestion Management Program through building permit analysis of the one non-TUMF jurisdiction and analysis of traffic patterns through the traffic count program, (ii) participation in the Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Management Air Quality (STP/CMAQ) project selection for CVAG and western County areas, (iii) assist RCTC staff in the • selection of SB 821 bicycle and pedestrian projects for the Coachella Valley and western County areas, (iv) provide RCTC staff regional transportation project information for the State Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and (v) support the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee. This also includes the state highway project construction program. This area includes staff time to monitor, assist in problem resolution, (funding/environmental/political) and report on the status of construction projects for State Routes 74, 86S, and 111. (Funded from CMAQ, TUMF and State Highway Measure A) Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program . Regional Transportation Improvement Program/State Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP/STIP) This area includes staff time in support of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), support in implementation and updating of the CVAG Transportation Prioritization Study (TPPS), coordination of updates to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and monitoring and examining impacts of implementing SB 45. TPPS activities support the regional project construction program which includes staff time to develop an annual prioritized list of construction projects and required financial resources. (Funded from TEA -21 PP&M, LTF and Measure A) Miscellaneous Programs . GIS Information Services . Maintain Transportation Model . Regional Arterial Traffic Count Program . I-10 Corridor This area involves support to multiple programs with a focus on key project areas. These areas include staff time and project management to, (i) GIS Information Services, (ii) the regional transportation model (CVATS), (iii) the regional arterial traffic count program, and (iv) transportation legislation review and analysis GIS Information Services includes staff time to provide regional land use information to CVAG jurisdictions, developers, SCAG and Caltrans. The Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study (CVATS) regional transportation model involves support to update the current transportation model to the year 2025 and add the proposed 2025 land use plus socio-economic data for forecasting projected transportation system needs. (Funded from Measure A, TUMF, CMAQ and Special Program Funds) • • 52 • • Support Congestion Management /Air Quality Programs • SB 821 Program . Conformance with SIP requirements Involves Transportation Department staff support to CMAQ program areas. Support will focus on the SB 821 program. Also includes implementation of State Implementation Plan (SIP) conformance to CVAG regional projects. (Funded from TEA -21, Measure A and SB 821) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program . TUMF Program Administration . TUMF/GIS Interface Includes staff time in support of the TUMF program and TUMF/GIS Interface program. TUMF program activities include staff time to (i) monitor the implementation of the TUMF program in member jurisdictions, (ii) perform annual fiscal reviews of building permits and TUMF collections, (iii) research, analyze and prepare reports for TUMF appeals, (iv) enter TUMF collections in the TUMF data base, (v) meet with developers on request to review potential TUMF assessments, and (vi) perform special TUMF analysis on request. The TUMF/GIS Interface program requires support for continuing the development of integrating the TUMF collection process with electronic transmission of new development information for land use coverages. (Funded from TUMF) Governmental and Special Projects . Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Overall Work Program The SCAG OWP program includes staff time to coordinate the CVAG sub -region SCAG Overall Work Program needs, develop annual growth projections, collect annual Highway Performance Monitoring System data, provide input to the Federal Regional Transportation Plan, and assist SCAG with transportation modeling refinements. Additionally, staff performs specific transportation project work for SCAG through their Overall Work Program. (Funded from SCAG OWP funds) . Special Projects Some proposed projects may involve general fund money or special grants. Any project not already a part of the regular work programs, will be brought through the committee process for approval of the proposed work. (Funded from Special Grant funds and General Funds) • • WRCOG Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Local Transportation Funds Program Objectives The Work Plan for FY2004-05 is divided into 3 key program areas: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Programs ($18,000) Participate in the SCAG Technical Advisory Committees and work with our Policy Committee members to assist SCAG with the performance of specific planning and GIS work for SCAG as part of their Overall Work Program. State and Federal Programs ($55,000) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans Department of Energy (DOE) and California Energy Commission Continue the Clean Cities program and expand the Coalition to include the entire WRCOG subregion; participation in the National Clean Cities Conference; continue to apply for and administer grants for alternative fueled vehicles and infrastructure development; attend regional air quality and transportation meetings and conferences to provide subregional input; participate/attend in EPA and Air Resources Board hearings and workshops; Manage, in tandem with SANDAG, a new grant from Caltrans to continue work on the 1-15 Interregional Partnership for Phase 11. Regional Transportation, Planning and Air Quality Programs (370,800) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Riverside Transit Agency Riverside and San Diego County Transportation Commissions Participate in the continued development of the Air Quality Guidance Document and outreach to our jurisdictions regarding SCAQMD rule making; continue as the lead agency for the Air Quality Task Force to develop policies and guide lines to reduce PM 10 emissions in the WRCOG subregion. Continue to implement the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for western Riverside County and prepare the two year program update. Continue to assist RCTC and RTA in Regional TUMF issues G:\WP\DOC\LTF FY 0405.doc 54 Provide assistance in transportation planning and air quality programs; participation in the evaluation of the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian projects and other evaluation committees as expected; assist RCTC in ensuring Riverside County projects are included in the RTP; continued participation in CETAP and other planning related tasks as determined in consultation with the RCTC Executive Director. • • • G:\WP\DOC\L1'F FY 0405.doc 55 AGENDA ITEM 6M • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement No. 05-31-511, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-31-042, with Berg & Associates, Inc. to provide additional Construction Management/Inspection Services for the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-511, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-31-042, with Berg & Associates, Inc. to provide additional Construction Management/Inspection Services for the construction of the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley, for a not to exceed agreement amount of $510,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission and approve the expenditure of contingency funds up to the remaining $200,000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" State Route 60 Moreno Valley High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Median Widening Project extends from the East Junction of the SR 60/1-215 Interchange to SR 60 and Redlands Boulevard in Moreno Valley. The project includes the construction of one (1) HOV lane, in each direction, in the median of SR 60, between Pigeon Pass Road and Redlands Boulevard. This median widening requires the construction of two new median bridges at Pigeon Pass Road and Heacock Street and the reconstruction of the Perris Boulevard Undercrossing. Additionally, noise barriers and landscaping will be constructed at various locations along the right of way. Agenda Item 6M 56 On February 13, 2002, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 02-31-042 to Berg & Associates, Inc., to provide Construction Management/Inspection Services for the construction of the SR 60 Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening Project, for a base work amount of $3,01 1,440 and a contingency amount of $300,000, for a total agreement not to exceed amount of $3,31 1,440. On June 18, 2003, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 03-31-052 to SEMA Construction, Inc., for construction of the SR 60 Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening Project, for the low bid amount of $23,919,049. SEMA was given a Notice to Proceed on August 18, 2003 with the first day of construction starting on August 25, 2003. The Agreement required that SEMA complete construction, excluding plant establishment, within one (1) year after start of construction. This accelerated schedule was to minimize the amount of time and inconvenience to motorists dealing with the concurrent construction activities associated with the construction of this project and the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. To meet the agreement schedule requirements, SEMA has consistently worked overtime and multiple shifts, during the week, and some Saturdays and Sundays. To support the construction effort, the Berg & Associates Construction Management and Inspection Team has also had to work overtime and multiple shifts, during the week, and some Saturdays and Sundays. This additional shift work was not included in Berg & Associates agreement scope of work and respective cost estimate in the subject agreement. Staff has been working with Berg & Associates tracking the progress of construction and also tracking the costs associated with Berg & Associates Construction Management/Inspection Services agreement. It is estimated that an additional $410,000 in Berg & Associates Construction Management/Inspection Services will be required to support construction through the end of the construction portion of the project, which is currently scheduled for the end of November 2004, and the end of plant establishment, which is scheduled for November 2005. During the start of construction, the amount of surveying services required exceeded that anticipated and authorized in the Berg & Associates agreement. The extensive surveying, required to perpetuate the existing monumentation of all the property corners adjacent to where new sound walls were to be constructed, as part of the SR 60 Moreno Valley HOV Project, was greater than that anticipated, estimated and included within the original agreement budget and required additional survey work to be performed by Berg and Associates which totaled approximately $100,000. On August 13, 2003, the Executive Director authorized this additional survey work to be reimbursed from the contingency amount of $300,000, which was authorized by the Commission as part of the initial budget for • • • Agenda Item 6M 57 • • • Agreement No. 02-31-042 to Berg & Associates, Inc., to provide Construction Management/Inspection Services for the construction of the SR 60 Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening Project. The authorization of the approximate $100,000 from the contingency results in a final contingency balance of approximately $200,000. To assure complete compliance with Federal funding requirements, staff is recommending that this additional survey work be included in this Amendment No. 1 request. The approximate $200,000 balance in contingency will remain in addition to the $510,000 ($410,000 for overtime + $100,000 for additional survey work) authorized by Amendment No. 1. Staff is recommending that the Commission approve Agreement No. 05-31-511, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-31-042, with Berg & Associates, Inc. to provide additional Construction Management/Inspection Services for the Construction of the SR 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley, for a not to exceed agreement amount of $510,000. This will bring the new contact value to $3,521,440 ($3,011,440 + $510,000) with $200,000 remaining in contingency. Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the final agreement and approve the expenditure of contingency funds up to the remaining $200,000 as needed on behalf of the Commission. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $510,000.00 Source of Funds: Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) and Measure "A" Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 222-31-81302 P 3000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \lit ,,, Date: 8/23/04 Agenda Item 6M 58 AGENDA ITEM 6N • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: SunLine Transit Agency Operational Evaluation Recommendation Summary STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Operational Evaluation Recommendation Summary which was approved by SunLine Transit Agency's Board at its August 4, 2004 meeting. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Commission's June 11, 2003 meeting, the Commission directed staff to have an independent, internal audit conducted of SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) and SunLine Services Group (SSG). In response, Macias Consulting Group, Inc. (Macias) was hired to perform an operational evaluation of SunLine and SSG. The evaluation report prepared by Macias highlighted five areas and brought forth a total of 52 recommendations for SunLine to implement as the agency corrects previous problems and moves into the future. In response to the recommendations, SunLine prepared the attached matrix which details the 52 recommendations, identifies the corrective action and provides a timeline for resolution. It is anticipated that updates to this report will be presented to the Commission on a monthly basis. Attachment: SunLine Transit Agency Operational Evaluation Recommendation Summary Agenda Item 6N 59 • SUNLINE TROT AGENCY OPERATIONAL EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2004 • RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME DATE ACCOMP. 1 CFO develop finance department policies and procedures manual All policies and procedures are being reviewed, and a number of them have been revised by Board adoption . As Appropriate Began Feb 04 & ongoing Ongoing 2 CFO hold periodic meetings and provide staff training A number of training issues have been identified, and appropriate training costs will be included in the 2005 Budget. Other issues are currently being trained on a case by case basis . As Appropriate (AA) Mar -April 04 In progress 3 CFO provide training on ethical issues Ethics policy was adopted April 2004 by board action; training will commence with hiring of new HR director . AA Completed April 2004 (policy) 4 CFO maintain finance files that are not available to all staff Files have been moved to secure area, properly labeled as restricted. Additionally fireproof file cabinets have been purchased. AA Completed April 2004 5 CFO establish segregation of duties for AP processing New procedures have been implemented. Mar 04 Completed Mar 04 6 CFO provide for recording receipt (immediate), entering and payment of invoices by AP New procedures have been implemented. AA Completed Apr 04 7 CFO process employee reimbursements at specific times and maintain and no. separately New procedures have been implemented. AA Completed Apr 04 8 CFO implement new petty cash procedures, i.e., imprest, petty cash vouchers and reconciliation New policy and procedures in place and being followed. Jan 04 Completed Jan 28, 2004 9 Board to periodically require an independent evaluation of internal controls Macias group will re-evaluate SunLine in one year, per RCTC action 7/14/04 Fall 2005 Summer 2005 10 CFO provide for IT examination to improve payroll process Work with Payroll to examine process & make recommendations. AA July, Aug 04 ongoing 11 CFO implement policy regarding late timecards not be paid until following pay period Directors ensure timecards received by payroll on time; policy is in place and being followed. AA Completed Feb 04 60 RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME DATE ACCOMP . 12 CFO implement shredding of unsold bus pass stock after reconciliation Procedures have been revised and desk policy is in place . AA Completed Feb 04 13 GM to establish MOUs between transit and SSG for other services Agreements between SSG and SunLine have been established June 04 June 04 April 28, 2004 14 HR Director update and distribute employee handbook Pending hiring of new HR director AA June 04 Pending hiring of new HR Director 15 HR Director to develop job descriptions for all positions Pending hiring of new HR director AA June 04 16 HR Director to conduct job position audits Dept. directors and HR to audit job positions with employee annual reviews . AA Jun 04 17 HR Director provide employee compensation plan and annual review of salaries Will review with 05 budget May 04 May 04 18 HR Director identify training needs of staff Directors to identify their department training requirements and work with HR to implement in 05 budget May 04 May 04 19 GM to require monthly financial and update info on projects and provide same to Board Completed Oct 03 20 GM to provide agency initiatives and activities to staff In progress Aug 04 21 GM to require Board approval for hiring consultants AA Completed Sept 03 22 HR Director to administer annual ethics training; policy included in employee handbook To be included in new employee handbook, see #14 above. Some training already taking place AA Apr 04 In progress 23 GM to ensure completion of inventory of contracts and grants Inventory of contracts and grants is completed and will be maintained AA Mar 04 Completed Mar 04 24 CFO establish procedures for maintenance of contracts and grants AA Feb- Mar 04 Completed Apr 04 25 GM to establish procedures in contract and grant proposal de velopment Grant management policy on Board agenda August 4, 2004 AA July 04 Aug 4, 2004 26 Grants Mgr and SSG Exec Dir to conduct reconciliations at project closeout for each grant Process has been established, and as each project closes, reconciliation will be done. Monthly reconciliation and review being done now with CFO. AA Completed Apr 04 • • • • • RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TI ME FRAME DATE ACCOMP. 27 CFO to develop methodology to determine indirect cost allocations Project completed as part of NREL audit, and overhead rates established . AA Completed Mar 04 28 GM to implement project management module in core financial management system Establishment of project mgmt module has begun July 04 Ongoing, begun 7/04 29 HR Director plan for staff involved with contracts and grants to have training on regulations See #18 above AA June 04 Pending hiring of HR Director 30 CFO to plan for Finance staff training in project cost accounting Appropriate training is budgeted in 05 budget AA July 04 31 GM to create a separate Purchasing, Contract and Grant Management Department Procedures in place for separation of duties; determined that separate Department not efficient for organization; under supervision of CFO and Dir. Of Maintenanc e. AA Completed Mar 04 32 GM (or Business Admin Officer) to centralize all purchasing Purchasing centralized under Director of Maintenance supervision AA Completed Mar 04 33 Purchasing management process to require annual physical inventories Use current software to provide greater detail of fixed assets vs . equipment inventory. Annual inventory taken June, 2004. Regular monthly physical inventories now being taken. AA June 04 Completed 6/30/04 34 GM to establish IT policies and procedures with emphasis on security, including HR's involvement regarding departing employees IT audit completed, IT policies adopted by Board 6/04 Jun 04 Jun 04 Completed 6/23/04 35 GM to implement updating employee authorization to the core system IT audit completed, IT policies adopted by Board 6/04 Jun 04 Jun 04 Completed 7/04 36 GM to cancel RFP to purchase computers with Windows 98 operating system O rder proceeds; Windows 98 necessary to operate current software. Software upgrade in 05 budget. Declined 37 GM to ensure changes to the share d key for the VPM tunnel Process completed Completed Dec 03 38 GM to ensure that IT establishes a net work administration account IT audit completed; this has been accomplished AA June 04 Completed 7/04 62 RECO MMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME DATE ACCO MP . 39 GM to ensure that Novell's NLM be enabled Completed AA June 04 July 2004 40 GM to establish control policies and procedures for entering changes into system Policies adopted 6/23/04 and in place AA June 04 July 2004 41 GM to remove GM assistants' access to server room 12/23/03 42 GM to prohibit network administrator from tracking user passwords Instructions for corrections issued by Acting GM 1/16/04 43 GM to require IT function to perform weekly backup of core financial management system Daily backups being done . IT audit will recommend further steps for security Mar 04 Completed Mar 04 44 CFO to utilize the table -logging feature to capture change to tables affecting financial transactions CFO to receive training in use of financial software; Fleet Net issuing new software version; Agency wide training budgeted in FY 05. AA Sept 04 45 CFO to utilize financial system to control funds to prevent commitments that exceed balances Entire software program implementation currently being evaluated by CFO. In the meantime, monthly expense vs . budget reports are carefully reviewed. AA Sept 04 46 CFO to utilize feature to record accrued liabilities upon receipt of invoices All liabilities are entered upon receipt of inventory in order to track accrued liabilities. AA June 04 Completed April 2004 47 GM to ensure Finance managers allowed access to system statistics and reports generated All directors and managers are allowed access to system reports; training issues remain, and will be covered during Agency -wide training. New version of Fleet Net included in FY 05 budget . AA Fall 04 48 CFO to establish a budget process system, to include a budget committee, 3 years of prior comparisons, estimates to actuals, etc. New GM and CFO have established process for FY 2005 June & July 04 Completed JL 2004 49 GM, CFO & Directors to address forecasted budget projections of a $1.5M deficit. See Note No . 1 Feb 04 Not applicable 50 CFO to implement corrective action to address SunLine and SSG fiscal concerns Staff report to Board on April 28, 2004; RCTC approved asset transfer 7/14/04 May 04 May 04 Completed 7/14/04 51 CFO to develop formal debt management policies to establish permissible debt levels Line of credit cancelled at bank; no other new debt allowed Not applicable • • • • • RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRA ME DATE ACCOMP. 52 CFO to create aging payable reports to forecast cash flow and to communicate status to Board Cash flow forecasts, projections, and accounts payable status reviewed at least weekly AA Completed Mar 04 NOTES: No. 1 (Recommendation 49): No 2. (IT recommendations): The $1.5M number was a computer -generated projected number based on auditor's software and prior 3 -year financial history. Changes already adopted for current year have reduced expenditures dramatically. Pending final year end closing, SunLine completed FY 2004 within budget. The Board authorized an IT audit, which was completed in May and June, 2004. New IT policies were adopted 6/23/04, and are in place. New network software and hardware has been ordered, as of July 2004, and major system re -structuring is under way. Fleet -Net, the Agency's operations software, is testing a new version of its software, and from their promotional literature, it promises to have significant improvements. Staff is including the cost of upgrade to the latest version of Fleet Net in the 2005 Budg et. Staff is also evaluating the Agency's other important software resources, including GFI and Trapeze, for possible improved use or needed upgrades . This is an expensive upgrade, and is being evaluated for feasibility in current year or following year . 64 AGENDA ITEM 60 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency's Request to Purchase Global Positioning Software and Equipment PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve PVVTA's purchase of @Road Global Positioning Software and equipment; and, 2) Reallocate $8,400 in Local Transportation Funds to cover the cost. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As reported at the June 9, 2004 Commission meeting, PVVTA staff secured @Road Global Positioning Software (GPS) and 10 units of equipment to track its vehicles throughout its 25 square mile service area. Originally, the equipment was secured under a 75 -day demonstration agreement at a cost of $1,400. If the equipment was returned to the manufacturer by November 10, 2003, no additional financial commitment would occur. Unfortunately, PVVTA staff failed to terminate the agreement within the 75 -day trial period resulting in a contractual obligation through August 2006. As a result, expenses in the amount of $8,400 were incurred during FY 2003-04 without Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) approval. At the June Commission meeting, RCTC staff was directed to meet with PVVTA staff to clarify the intended use of the equipment and to determine if there were any other options available including the possibility of returning the equipment to the manufacturer. Commission staff met with the City of Blythe's Assistant City Manager and PVVTA's Transit Manager on June 11, 2004, to discuss the following options: 1) possibility of returning the equipment to the manufacturer; 2) selling the equipment to the City of Blythe's Police Department; and 3) selling the equipment to another transit operator. Agenda Item 60 65 Based on the various discussions regarding the purchase of the @Road system, PVVTA has decided that the best alternative is to pay for the equipment and the associated monitoring costs through June 30, 2004. PVVTA is requesting that $8,400 of LTF originally allocated for the purchase of a Hurricane Fueler be reallocated to cover the @Road system cost. At this time, PVVTA's Board has decided not to pursue the purchase of the fueling system. For FY 2004-05, monitoring costs for one unit will be paid out of current operating funds. PVVTA staff will review the data received as a result of using the @Road system and will report results to its Board at the end of the contract period which will expire in August 2006. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $8,400 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 601-62-86102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 8/16/04 • • Agenda Item 60 66 AGENDA ITEM 6P • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Exchange Vehicle Procurement PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-40-512 with Matthews Specialty Vehicles, Inc. for the purchase of a replacement Commuter Exchange Mobile Education Vehicle; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to enter into those agreements necessary to secure the exterior and interior graphics and information displays. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On October 8, 2003, staff requested and received from the Commission, permission to enter into a proposal development process which would result in the preparation of a technical specification for, and the purchase of, a new Commuter Exchange Mobile Education Vehicle. Commission action also provided staff with a not to exceed project budget of $345,000 which would allow for completion of the mechanical, exterior/interior appointments and display portions of the vehicle. Based on Commission action, a technical consultant was hired to oversee the development of the vehicle specification. This specification was provided to staff on May 17, 2004 at which time it was reviewed, approved and incorporated into a Commission Request for Proposal package. In approving the vehicle specification, staff made the determination that it contained all elements necessary to ensure delivery of a vehicle with a long service life, and those necessary to address the Commission's commitment to ADA compliance requirements and use of clean fuels. Agenda Item 6P 69 Highlights of the specification include the following: • Heavy duty Class A chassis 37-40' in length • Compressed Natural Gas 8.1L engine manufactured by John Deere • 86" height interior headroom • 2 doors with 1 ADA approved wheelchair lift device • On -board generator • Air conditioning • Computer workstation with satellite wireless communication The Request for Proposals package, including the approved technical specification, was then released to the public on June 14, 2004 with proposals due on or before August 4, 2004. The Request for Proposals package is attached. The Request for Proposal package was mailed to eight firms, advertised in Inland Empire newspapers, and placed on the Commission's website. A pre -bid meeting was held on July 15, 2004 with four people representing three companies participating via teleconference. Two proposals were received by the Commission on the due date from Matthews Specialty Vehicles of Greensboro NC and Clegg Industries of Victoria TX. Staff and its technical consultant have reviewed the proposals and staff is pleased to report that the proposal submitted by Matthews Specialty Vehicles meets the technical specification required for the vehicle by the Commission. The proposal submitted by Clegg was ultimately deemed by staff and the technical consultant to be non -responsive to the technical specification and was eliminated from further consideration. The technical consultant's analysis is attached. Staff is also pleased to report that the proposal submitted by Matthews is well within the budget established for the vehicle with a base price bid of $241 ,000. Given that the exterior graphics and interior displays will be constructed separately using local vendors and suppliers, contracting the vehicle from Matthews will require staff to maintain flexibility in the determination of options and accessories. Accordingly, staff is requesting the Commission to provide the Executive Director with the authority to negotiate and authorize contract change orders and/or agreements with Matthews and other vendors as appropriate and necessary to complete the vehicle. • • Agenda Item 6P 70 • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $345,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A' Commuter Assistance Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 226-41-90202 Fiscal Procedures Approved: �`4 Date: 08/23/04 Attachments: 1) Request for Proposals Package 2) Technical Evaluation of Proposals Agenda Item 6P 71 • • • INVITATION FOR BID To Manufacture a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Mobile Education Specialty Vehicle BIDS DUE: August 4, 2004 by 4:00 p.m. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 Phone: 909-787-7141 FAX: 909-787-7920 www.RCTC.orct • TABLE OF CONTENTS • • SECTION 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Commission Overview 1 3.0 Project Background 1 4.0 Scope of Work 3 5.0 Pre -submittal Activities 5 6.0 Bid Requirements 6 7.0 Bid Submittal Requirements 8 8.0 Vendor Selection Process 10 9.0 Calendar of Events 11 10.0 Special Conditions 11 ATTACHMENTS A. Vehicle Technical Specifications 13 B. Conflict of Interest Disclosure 19 • • • INVITATION FOR BID To Manufacture a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Mobile Education Specialty Vehicle 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Commission", requests bids from qualified specialty vehicle manufacturers to manufacture a Compressed Natural Gas -Fueled Mobile Education Vehicle in accordance with the requirements, terms, and conditions specified herein. This Invitation for Bid uses the words "bidder", "manufacturer", and "vendor" interchangeably. Failure to submit information in accordance with the instructions included in this Invitation for Bid may be cause for disqualification. Please note the Commission reserves the right to make no awards under this solicitation. 2.0 COMMISSION OVERVIEW The Commission, through Assembly Bill 1246, was created in 1976 to: 1) Coordinate State highway planning; 2) Adopt Short Range Transit Plans; 3) Coordinate transit service; 4) Allocate Transportation Development Act funds; and, 5) Coordinate county highway and transit plans with regional and state agencies. Over time, the Commission was charged with several expanded roles including: 1) Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies; 2) Measure "A" 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation; and, 3) Congestion Management Program. In 1998, through Senate Bill 1851, the Commission's membership was expanded to include a representative from every city in Riverside County, all five County Supervisors, and a Governor's appointee (non -voting). 3.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND Since 1991, the Commission has operated the "Commuter Exchange", a 40 -foot Fleetwood recreational vehicle converted to serve as a mobile public information and student education center. Figure 1 — The existing "Commuter Exchange" mobile education & outreach vehicle • The Commuter Exchange vehicle, along with the talented and dedicated individuals who operate it, serves as the Commission's air quality and traffic congestion education ambassador at local schools and public events throughout Riverside County. While the existing vehicle has served the Commission well over the past 13 years, normal wear has taken its toll on both the exterior, interior displays, and most critically, the vehicle drive train. The Commission has made the decision to replace the vehicle as opposed to attempting a reconditioning or restoration. The replacement vehicle sought by the Commission must meet all technical requirements included in the "Attachment A" Technical Specifications. Most significant is the requirement that the replacement vehicle engine operate on dedicated compressed natural gas (CNG). 75 • • • Figure 2, below, shows the interior of the existing commuter exchange vehicle. This is Figure 2 — The existing commuter exchange interior is configured to serve as a mobile air quality and traffic congestion information and education center at local schools and public events throughout Riverside County This information is provided so that bidders understand the intended use of the vehicle; however, design, fabrication, and installation of interior displays, cabinetry, wall, and floor coverings will be performed by the Commission and is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS INVITATION FOR BID. This Invitation for Bid is for the BASE VEHICLE ONLY per the requirements set forth in the "Attachment A" Technical Specifications. 4.0 SCOPE OF WORK The Commission seeks a specialty vehicle manufacturer with experience in the construction of 37'-40' Class A heavy-duty mobile education vehicles equipped with a dedicated CNG drive train in accordance with the "Attachment A" Technical Specifications. The Technical Specifications outline requirements for the following vehicle attributes: • Base Vehicle Chassis & Drive Train Specifications — CNG Fuel; • Body Specifications; • Interior Requirements & Specifications; • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodations; • Electrical & Lighting Requirements & Specifications; • Safety Requirements & Specifications. As stated above, the Commission is seeking a base vehicle equipped with options as specified in Attachment A. The following are NOT requirements of the vehicle and are NOT to be included as an element of the bid: • Vehicle will NOT be equipped with a lavatory; • Vehicle will NOT be equipped with a kitchen or galley; • Vehicle will NOT be equipped with an exterior awning; • Vehicle will NOT be equipped with a slide out compartment. In addition to the satisfying all Technical Requirements, qualifying bids must conform to the following programmatic requirements: 4.1 Minimum Warranty Requirements: • Chassis: Five years/Unlimited Mileage • Body: Five years/Unlimited Mileage • Engine: Two years/100,000 miles • Generator: Two years • Aft Conditioners One year • Other: All other base vehicle components, including specified options, shall have a minimum warranty period of one (1) year. 4.2 Inspections: The Commission shall conduct two (2) inspections of the vehicle during manufacture. The inspections will take place at the vendor's manufacturing facility at vendor's • 77 • • • expense. Expenses shall include mileage, lodging, and meals as applicable. Airfare costs will be borne by the Commission. One inspection trip shall be conducted following purchase order/contract award at the time vehicle construction is initiated; the second inspection will occur prior to vehicle delivery. 4.3 Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Facilities Vendors shall include a list of authorized maintenance and repair facilities within or in close proximity to Riverside County at which vehicle warranty repairs, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, and inspections may be conducted. Bidders shall include a statement in their Bid confirming that the listed maintenance and repair facility(s) have experience with and can accommodate maintenance and repair of compressed natural gas vehicles. 4.4 Vehicle Delivery Schedule The vehicle shall be constructed and delivered within a maximum of 180 days following execution of a contract or purchase order between the vendor and the Commission. Vehicle delivery shall be to a location designated by the Commission. 4.5 Vehicle Onsite Training At the time of vehicle delivery, the vendor shall arrange for a minimum of day training on all aspects of vehicle operation, to be conducted onsite at the Commission or at a location designated by the Commission. This shall include training on safe natural gas refueling operations as well as operation of all vendor -installed components. 5.0 PRE -SUBMITTAL ACTIVITIES 5.1 Pre -Bid Meeting A Pre -Bid Meeting will be held at the offices of the Commission on July 15, 2004 at 10:00 am. While this is not a mandatory meeting for a Bid to be accepted, this will be the only opportunity to discuss and clarify any questions Bidders may have regarding the Invitation for Bid directly with Commission staff. Staff will not be available to discuss the Invitation for Bid with Bidders at any other time before or after the Pre -Bid Meeting. Manufacturers unable to attend in person have the option of participating in the Pre -Bid Meeting via teleconference. Vendors who wish to participate in this manner are required to contact the Commission no later than July 14, 2004 to obtain the teleconference phone number. 5.2 Questions Concerning this Invitation for Bid All questions regarding this Invitation for Bid should be submitted in writing no later than 4:00 pm on July 13, 2004. Faxes are acceptable. Questions should be addressed as follows: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Mobile Education Specialty Vehicle Bid ATTN: Robert J. Yates — Program Manager 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, California 92501 FAX: 909-787-7920 For questions received in writing after the Pre -Bid meeting and prior to the July 15, 2004 submittal date, the Commission may, in its sole discretion, prepare a response. Any Commission response will be distributed to Bidders in attendance at the Pre -Bid Meeting, and Bidders who notify the Commission in writing of their request to receive any question and answer information issued by the Commission. 6.0 BID REQUIREMENTS Written bids are required and shall be concise, well organized and demonstrate the Bidder's qualifications and experience applicable to this solicitation. The maximum length of the Technical Proposal and Cost Proposal shall not exceed fifteen (15) 8-1/2 X 11 sheets of paper total. An Appendix that includes additional vehicle drawing, photographs, company promotional materials, etc., may also be included but should not exceed twenty (20) pages in length. All pages within the Technical and Cost Proposals must be numbered; materials included in the Appendix do not require numbering. • 79 • 6.1. Cover Letter A transmittal cover letter must accompany the bid specifying the Invitation for Bid title, and the Bidder's legal name and address of its main office. The letter shall specify the contact person(s) for technical and contractual matters including telephone/fax numbers and e-mail address, and be signed by the individual(s) authorized to execute legal documents on behalf of the bidder. 6.2 Bid Content — Technical Proposal Bids submitted in response to this Invitation for Bid shall include the following elements: 6.2.1 Vehicle Description, Specifications, & Drawings Provide a detailed description and specifications for the proposed vehicle in accordance with the Scope of Work requirements discussed in Section 4, above. The proposed vehicle description should identify adherence to each requirement set forth in "Attachment A", Technical Specifications. Any deviation from these specifications shall be identified by the bidder as an element of the bid package, and the Bidder shall include additional information explaining the requirement deviation. In addition, the Technical Proposal should discuss bidder's approach to satisfying Scope of Work requirements as they relate to: Base Vehicle, Drive Train, & Specified Optional Equipment Warranties • Vehicle Inspections by the Commission; • List of Authorized Repair & Maintenance Facilities; Vehicle Delivery Schedule; • Onsite Training. In addition, the Technical Proposal shall include dimensioned drawings of the proposed vehicle and representative photographs of a vehicle similar to the proposed vehicle. The location of specified options on the proposed vehicle should be noted on the drawings as appropriate. 6.3 Bidder's Qualifications and Experience The Bidder shall describe their firm's qualifications and experience in manufacturing vehicles as described in this Invitation for Bid, emphasizing experience in the manufacture of vehicles fueled with compressed natural gas. If subcontractors are proposed, a full description of each participating firm should be included. The Bidder shall provide at least three references of organizations or agencies who have procured a similar vehicle, including the organization's name, contact name, telephone/fax numbers, and value of the contract. 6.5 Bid Content - Cost Proposal The Bidder shall submit a separate Cost Proposal for the proposed vehicle. The Bidder must warrant that the cost bid will remain in effect for 90 days and state such in this section. The Cost Proposal shall include: • Base Vehicle Cost, specifying all standard equipment included in base cost; • Cost for the compressed natural gas drive train option; • Cost by Line Item for each option required per "Attachment A", if such options are not included in the Base Vehicle Cost; • Taxes, as applicable; • Delivery costs; • Other costs; • Total cost. Bidder should also include a discussion of their firm's payment schedule requirements. 7.0 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS One executed original Bid, clearly marked on the cover, and five (5) copies must be received no later than 4:00 p.m. local time on August 4, 2004, and be addressed in the following manner: • • 81 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Mobile Education Specialty Vehicle Bid ATTN: Robert J. Yates — Program Manager 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, California 92501 All bids will be time and date stamped upon receipt by the Commission. Bids received after the specified date and time will be disqualified from the evaluation process. No exceptions will be granted regardless of reason or circumstance. Failure to comply with the requirements of this Invitation for Bid may result in disqualification. 7.1 Revision to the Invitation for Bid The Commission reserves the right at its sole discretion to: • Cancel this Invitation for Bid at any time; • Revise the Invitation for Bid prior to the date bids are due. Revisions to the Invitation for Bid shall be mailed to all potential bidders to whom the RFP was originally distributed and those who notified the Commission in writing of their interest in submitting a Bid; • Extend the date by which the Bids are due. The full content of the Invitation for Bid, Attachments, and Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form are available on the Commission's web page located at www.RCTC.org. Firms anticipating submitting a bid are asked to send a letter acknowledging the receipt of the Invitation for Bid to the above address so that the firm can be added to the notification list. Please note that the Commission will not be responsible for mailing any addendums. All addendums will be posted on the RCTC web page. Firms are encouraged to check the web page regularly since each firm will be responsible for downloading all addendums. Prospective manufacturers are encouraged to promptly notify the Riverside County Transportation Commission of any apparent major inconsistencies, problems or ambiguities in the Scope of Work, including the "Attachment A" Technical Specifications. Please note in the Calendar of Events that there will be a Bidders' information meeting (Pre -Bid Meeting) to answer any questions that you may have regarding this Invitation for Bid. 8.0 VENDOR SELECTION PROCESS 8.1 A selection panel (Panel) will be established for this Project and will include representatives from the Commission, and, when deemed in the Commission's best interest, representatives of its member agencies, allied agencies, Commission staff, and technical consultants. 8.2 Based on the bids submitted, the Commission's Panel will screen all bids for adherence to solicitation requirements. Bids that fail to conform to the requirements set forth in this solicitation will be disqualified. 8.3 The Panel will review the Cost Proposal for each qualifying bid. Vendor selection will be based on Lowest Cost. 8.4 The selected Bidder will be notified and a Commission Purchase Order Agreement will be developed. The Agreement will cover scope of work, contract schedule, contract terms and conditions, technical specifications, and price. The Commission, at its sole discretion, will establish the form and content of the Purchase Order Agreement, consistent with this Invitation to Bid and the Cost Proposal and Technical Proposal of the selected Bidder. 8.5 The Commission reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any informality or irregularity in any bid, and to be the sole judge of the merits of each bid. 9.0 CALENDAR OF EVENTS 9.1 The Commission anticipates that the process for nominating and selecting a vendor and awarding the purchase order will be conducted in accordance with the following tentative schedule: • • 83 Table 1 — Calendar of Events • • SOLICITATION EVENT DATE Last Date to Submit Pre -Bid Meeting Written Questions Last Date to Register for Pre -Bid Meeting Teleconference Option Pre -Bid Meeting Bid Due Date Vendor Selection: Commission Action on Staff Recommendation July 13, 2004 @ 4:00 pm July 14, 2004 @ 4:00 pm July 15, 2004 @ 10:00 am August 4, 2004 @ 4:00 pm August 16, 2004 September 8, 2004 Expected date for Notice to Proceed September 15, 2004 9.2 Notice to Proceed (NTP): Following Commission action on September 8, 2004, the successful bidder will be notified and the Commission will prepare and execute a Purchase Order Agreement. Receipt of the fully executed Purchase Order Agreement will serve as vendor's Notice to Proceed (NTP). Any work performed by vendor prior to receipt of a fully executed Purchase Order Agreement is at vendor's sole risk. 10.0 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 10.1 Reservations This Invitation for Bid does not commit the Commission to award a purchase order or contract or defray any costs incurred in the preparation of a Bid pursuant to this Invitation for Bid. 10.2 Public Records All Bids submitted in response to this Invitation for Bid become the property of the Commission and public records, and as such may be subject to public review. The Cost Proposal portions of the submittals will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by applicable law, including the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). 10.3 Right To Cancel The Commission, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to cancel, for any or no reason, in part or in its entirety, this Invitation for Bid, including but not limited to: selection schedule, submittal date, and submittal requirements. Notice of cancellation or addendum will be posted to the RCTC website; bidders are encouraged to check the web page regularly. 10.4 Additional Information The Commission reserves the right to request additional information and/or clarifications from any or all Bidders to this Invitation for Bid. 10.5 Conflict Of Interest The Riverside County Transportation Commission has established a policy concerning potential Conflicts of Interest. This policy applies to all Bidders and their subcontractors. All bidders and subcontractors must complete the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form included as "Attachment B" of this solicitation and include the Disclosure Form as an element of vendor's bid package. 10.6 Public Information Vendor selection announcements, contract awards, and all data provided by the Commission shall be protected from public disclosure by the selected Bidder. Vendors desiring to release information to the public must receive prior written approval from the Commission. The Commission, in its sole discretion, shall determine the release and disclosure of information related to this solicitation. 10.7 Insurance Requirements The Commission requires contractors and vendors doing business with it to obtain insurance as described in the Purchase Order Agreement. The required insurance certificates must comply with all requirements in the Agreement and must be provided (original copy) prior to the commencement of any work by the manufacturer. • 85 • • Attachment A: Technical Specifications The following specifications outline the base Vehicle Requirements and required Vehicle Options for the Riverside County Transportation Commission's "Commuter Exchange" mobile education and public information unit. Only bids that conform to these specifications will be deemed acceptable. Any deviation from these specifications shall be identified by the bidder as an element of the bid package, and the bidder shall include additional information explaining the requirement deviation. BASE VEHICLE CHASSIS & DRIVE TRAIN SPECIFICATIONS — CNG FUEL Vehicle Type: Class A Overall Length: 37' — 40' (444" — 480") Chassis: Thomas Built, Blue Bird, Freightliner, or equivalent Heavy -Duty Commercial with standard suspension. Engine: John Deere 6081H 8.1L Transmission: Heavy-duty electronic automatic with overdrive Fuel: Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Capacity: 10,920 standard cubic feet or 80 diesel equivalent gallon minimum Fuel Tanks: CNG fuel tanks shall be mounted between the frame rails and conform to FMVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity and FMVSS 304 CNG Fuel Container Integrity specifications. CNG engine and fuel system shall comply with 16CFR309.1, 49CFR567, NFPA52, as well as all applicable State of California regulations. CNG Fill Receptacle: CNG fill receptacle shall conform to ANSI NGV1 specifications. Engine Cooling: Vehicle shall be equipped with a heavy-duty, increased capacity cooling system suitable for operation in a desert climate. Brakes: Heavy-duty power brakes; Anti -lock Braking System (ABS) Steering: Power steering with tilt wheel. Alternator: Heavy-duty, 150 amp minimum. Hydraulic Leveling Jacks: Vehicle shall be equipped with hydraulic leveling jacks. Wheels and Tires: Vehicle wheels and tires shall be as recommended by the chassis manufacturer and suitable for vehicle gross vehicle weight rating. Tires shall be all season belted radial. BODY SPECIFICATIONS Interior Headroom: Interior Width: Doors: Windows: Insulation: Side View Mirrors: Body Color: 84" minimum; 87" preferred 90" minimum Vehicle shall be equipped with two (2) doors. Both doors shall be located on the right (passenger) side of the vehicle. One of two side doors will be located near the front of the vehicle; the other side door will be located near the rear of the vehicle. Nominal door dimensions are approximately 30" wide by approximately 72" inches high. The rear door should be configured to accommodate ADA wheelchair access requirements. Doors shall be equipped with FMVSS- approved passage and dead bolt locks. Doors shall be equipped with heavy-duty handrails at both sides of door. In addition to the windshield and driver side and passenger cab windows, vehicle shall be equipped with a minimum of three (3) windows located on the right side (passenger side) of the vehicle. Each window shall have nominal dimensions of 18" wide by 12" high, and shall be installed at approximately eye level (nominal) when standing in the vehicle. Windows shall be capable of being opened and shall be equipped with entry -proof latches on the interior. Window material shall be tinted. Vehicle roof and sidewalls shall be both thermally and acoustically insulated, including reflective insulation with vapor barrier. Vehicle shall be equipped with motorized driver and passenger side view mirrors and shall include convex mirrors. Vehicle exterior shall be painted white. Vehicle exterior shall not include any emblems or graphics that would inhibit use of a polymer exterior "wrap". • 87 • • • INTERIOR REQUIREMENTS & SPECIFICATIONS Air Conditioning: Vehicle shall be equipped with an upgraded air conditioning system to accommodate use in a desert climate, including two (2) 13,500 BTU air conditioning units or equivalent. Vehicle shall be equipped with air conditioning in the driver compartment area. Heater/Defroster: Driver cab area shall be equipped with a heater and windshield defroster. 12 -volt Receptacle: Driver cab will be equipped with a 12 -volt receptacle and/or cigarette lighter. Auxiliary Heater: Vehicle shall be equipped with one (1) electric forced air heater rated @1500 watts minimum. Cruise Control: Vehicle shall be equipped with cruise control. Driver Sun Visors: Vehicle shall be equipped with motorized/electrically actuated front windshield sun visors. Windshield Wipers: Windshield wipers shall be 2 -speed electric with coordinated washers and intermittent capability. Seats: Vehicle shall be equipped with cloth driver and passenger high - back seats including integral armrests. Driver seat shall be adjustable to accommodate a range of driver heights, arm, and leg reach capabilities. Driver and passenger seat shall be capable of turning a minimum of 180 degrees to allow seats to face the interior of the vehicle. Instrumentation: Vehicle shall include standard instrumentation, including at a minimum speedometer, coolant temperature indicator, oil pressure indicator, ammeter or voltmeter, battery state of charge indicator, fuel gauge for CNG storage tanks, fuel gauge for gasoline generator, and well as all FMVSS required indicator lights. Cup Holders: Vehicle shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2) cup holders located within convenient reach of the driver and front seat passenger. Audio System: Vehicle shall be equipped with AM/FM/Compact Disc. Speaker System: Vehicle shall be equipped with a minimum of eight (8) high fidelity audio speakers located in the front, mid, and rear areas of the vehicle. Speakers will be configured in zones and include a speaker selector switch. Public Address: Vehicle shall be equipped with a wireless public address (PA) system. The PA system may use the same speakers as the other audio system components. Video System: Satellite System: Vehicle shall be wired to accommodate a customer -installed DVD video player and television. Anticipated location for television mounting is the vehicle's rear interior panel. Vehicle shall be equipped with one (1) MotoSat Datastorm or equivalent, two-way, broadband, roof -mounted satellite data system. System shall include all control hardware and software required to integrate two (2) computer workstations for Internet connectivity. Navigation System: Vehicle shall be equipped with a global positioning system (GPS) onboard navigation system, including exterior mounted antenna. Navigation system display screen and controls shall be mounted in a location easily accessed by driver during vehicle operation. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ACCOMMODATIONS Wheelchair Access: Vehicle shall include provision for wheel chair access. This may include a wheel chair lift or ramp. ELECTRICAL & LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS & SPECIFICATIONS Electrical Service: Vehicle shall be equipped with a power panel and include breakers for each circuit. All vehicle wiring shall be a minimum of gauge 12 and conform to applicable safety standards and codes. Battery: Vehicle shall be equipped with one (1) main and one (1) auxiliary maintenance free deep cycle 12 -volt batteries each rated at a minimum of 700 cold cranking amps. Vehicle shall include a battery condition meter. Generator: Vehicle shall be equipped with an ONAN MicroQuiet 4000 Generator or equivalent using gasoline fuel. Generator refueling port shall accept standard gasoline hose nozzle. Generator exhaust shall be located in a position such that exhaust does not enter vehicle through open doors or windows when operating. Transfer Switch System: Isolator: 110 -volt Outlets: Computer Work Station: Vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic transfer switch system. Vehicle shall be equipped with a heavy duty, minimum 160 -amp isolator to allow charging of auxiliary battery from vehicle alternator. Vehicle shall be equipped with a minimum of ten (10) 110 -volt ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) outlets. One location will be designated for a computer workstation. Vehicle shall be configured and equipped to support customer - installed computer workstations, including GFCI 110 -volt outlets, CAT -5 cabling, and integration with the broadband satellite system. • 89 Interior Lighting: Vehicle shall be equipped with full interior lighting configured in lighting zones that can be switched on and off independently. The level of interior lighting must be adequate to allow the interior to function as a mobile classroom and presentation center. Shore Power Cord: Vehicle shall be equipped with single 50 foot 125 -volt 30 amp marine grade cord with matching 30 amp marine grade service connector. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS & SPECIFICATIONS Methane Gas Detection System: Vehicle shall be equipped with an interior methane gas detection system with audible alarm installed in accordance with manufacturer requirements and all applicable codes. Carbon Monoxide Detection System: Vehicle shall be equipped with an interior carbon monoxide gas detection system with audible alarm installed in accordance with manufacturer requirements and all applicable codes. Vehicle shall be equipped with a transmission mounted parking brake or equivalent emergency brake system. The windshield and all windows in the driver compartment shall be constructed of tinted safety glass conforming to FMVSS requirements. Vehicle shall be equipped with an audible backup alarm actuated by shifting the vehicle into reverse. Vehicle shall be equipped with a class ABC fire extinguisher. All entry/exit doors shall be equipped with heavy-duty handrails. All vehicle steps shall be heavy-duty with non-skid surfaces. Vehicle shall be equipped with a color backup camera with sound capability, including dashboard mounted color monitor and audio speaker. Vehicle shall be equipped with padded dashboard. Parking Brake: • Safety Glass • Backup Alarm: Fire Extinguisher: Handrails: Steps: Backup Camera: Dashboard: MINIMUM WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS Chassis: Body: Engine: Generator: Air Conditioners: Five years/unlimited mileage Five years/unlimited mileage Two years or 100,000 miles Two Years One Year Other: All other base vehicle components, including specified options, shall have a minimum warranty period of one (1) year. VEHICLE FEATURES NOT REQUIRED The following are NOT REQUIREMENTS of the RCTC Commuter Exchange vehicle: Vehicle SHALL NOT be equipped with a lavatory. Vehicle SHALL NOT be equipped with a kitchen or galley. Vehicle SHALL NOT be equipped with an exterior awning. Vehicle SHALL NOT be equipped with a slide out compartment. • • 91 Attachment B: Conflict of Interest Disclosure RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMMISSIONERS Pursuant to Government Code Section 84308, and 2 California Code of Regulations 18438.1, et seq., no Commissioner of the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall receive or solicit a campaign contribution of more than $250 from Bidder, or Bidder's agent, during the time of: 1) Bid solicitation; 2) Consideration of Bids received; and, 3) Awarding of a contract based of a Bid (collectively referred to as the "Proceeding"), and for three (3) months following the conclusion of the Proceeding. This prohibition does not apply to the awarding of contracts that are competitively bid. In addition, Commissioners cannot participate in any such matters if they have received more than $250 in campaign contributions within the last year from anyone financially interested in the Proceeding, such as Bidder and/or Bidder's agent. • • Pursuant to these requirements, Bidder shall disclose any campaign contribution in an amount of more than $250 made by Bidder, and/or Bidder's agent, to any Commissioner within 12 months from the date of these Bid Documents/Request For Proposals (as applicable). For the purposes of this disclosure obligation, contributions made by Bidder within the preceding 12 months shall be aggregated with those made by Bidder's agent within the preceding 12 months or the period of the agency relationship between Bidder and Bidder's agent, whichever is shorter. In addition, Bidder and/or Bidder's agent shall not make a contribution of more than $250 to a Commissioner during the Proceeding and for three (3) months following the conclusion of the Proceeding. The disclosure by Bidder, as set forth, herein, shall be incorporated into the written record of the Proceeding and shall be made available to the public for inspection and copying. The following is a list of the Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission: Art Welch / Barbara Hanna, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa Jack Wamsley / Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Jeff Bennett, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Kelly Seyarto / Warnie Enochs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Anneal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Bob Buster, County of Riverside - District I John Tavaglione, County of Riverside - District II Jim Venable, County of Riverside - District I I I Roy Wilson, County of Riverside - District IV Marion Ashley, County of Riverside - District V Ann Mayer, Director — CalTrans District 8 I/We hereby disclose the following political contributions of more than $250 made within the preceding 12 months to any Commissioner: Date of Contribution Amount of Contribution Recipient • 93 • (Attach Additional Sheet, If Necessary) Date of Disclosure (Same As Bid Date) BIDDER: Signature of Bidder Name Title III III 94 • Date: August 15, 2004 To: Robert Yates RCTC Program Manager From: Ray Gorski RCTC Technical Consultant Subject: Technical Evaluation of Proposals Received in Response to the Invitation for Bid to Manufacture a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Mobile Education Specialty Vehicle Reference: a) Invitation to Bid, Technical Specifications; b) Proposal from Clegg Industries, Inc., August 4, 2004; c) Proposal from Matthews Specialty Vehicles, August 4, 2004. • • 1. Overview: The following is a technical evaluation of two (2) proposals received in response to the above -referenced Invitation for Bid. This evaluation is conducted to document compliance with the technical requirements delineated in the Technical Specification, as well as provide an independent engineering assessment of the potential ramifications of proposed deviations to the Technical Specifications. 2. Proposal Evaluations: A. Clegg Industries, Inc. Clegg Industries has proposed construction of the RCTC Commuter Exchange using the Freightliner MB -55 chassis and Union City Body Company aluminum body. Two (2) exceptions to the Technical Specification were noted by the proposer: 1) use of the Cummins B5.9G+ compressed natural gas (CNG) engine; and 2) an interior width of approximately 88". The proposed engine deviates from the Technical Specification, which requires the use of the John Deere 8.1L CNG engine. Also, the Technical Specification requires a minimum interior width of 90". Paragraph 6.2.1 of the RCTC Invitation for Bid, entitled "Vehicle Description, Specifications, & Drawings", states that "The proposed vehicle description should identify adherence to each requirement set forth in Attachment A, Technical Specifications. Any deviation from these specifications shall be identified by the bidder as an element of the bid package, and the bidder shall include additional information explaining the requirement deviation." Although Clegg Industries has noted two exceptions to the specified requirements, it should be noted that the proposal is incomplete, as it does not specifically identify adherence to each requirement set forth in Attachment A. Instead, the proposal states "All other features as per your specification are included". The proposal includes an appendix comprised of copies of manufacturer web pages listing the standard features included in the Freightliner MT -55 chassis and the Union City aluminum body, with a statement that the RCTC vehicle will incorporate "additional features", presumably those amenities called out as vehicle requirements in the Technical Specification. However, a comparison of the proposal and technical specification reveals other requirements not satisfied by the Clegg Industries proposal. The issue, therefore, is whether the Technical Specification deviations noted by Clegg Industries, in addition to those noted by the author, are substantive to the extent that they provide an unfair advantage to the bidder or, more importantly, undermine the performance or functionality of the vehicle. Deviations from the RCTC Technical Specification include the following: Fuel Capacity — The RCTC Technical Specification requires a minimum CNG fuel capacity of 10,920 standard cubic feet (SCF). This equates to approximately 80 diesel equivalent gallons. The Clegg Industries proposal offers a maximum of 5,895 SCF of CNG storage, or approximately 43 diesel equivalent gallons. Warranty Requirements — The minimum warranty requirements as specified in the Technical Specification are also either not satisfied or not addressed by the Clegg Industries proposal, as follows: Warranty Provision RCTC Requirement Clegg Industries Proposal Chassis Five Years/Unlimited Miles Three Years/36,000 miles Body Five Years/Unlimited Miles Two Years/100,000 Miles Not Specified Engine Not Specified Generator Air Conditioners Two Years One Year Two Years Not Specified As shown above, the Clegg Industries proposed chassis warranty does not meet the requirements set forth in the RCTC specification. It is unclear as to whether the body and drive train components do or do not meet the minimum warranty requirements, as these requirements were not explicitly addressed in the proposal. Interior Width — A 90" minimum vehicle interior width was specified to afford maximum floor space to support a key vehicle role as a mobile classroom. The body proposed by Clegg Industries supports an approximately 88" maximum interior width. While not meeting the specification per se, a two-inch reduction in vehicle interior width would most likely not impede vehicle functionality, nor would one expect a significant cost differential between an 88" and 90" interior width. Thus, from a technical perspective, the deviation from minimum interior width does not appear to influence the bidder's competitive posture, nor does this deviation compromise the vehicle's ability to perform its intended mission. • 96 • • • Engine Selection — Clegg Industries has proposed the Cummins B5.9 Gas Plus CNG engine in lieu of the John Deere 8.1L CNG engine defined in the Technical Specification. Although not explicitly discussed in the proposal, this deviation most likely results from chassis/engine compatibility requirements. The Freightliner MB - 55 chassis is designed to accommodate the Cummins ISB 5.9 liter family of engines; the John Deere engine is most likely not compatible with this chassis. The John Deere engine was specified for use in the RCTC Commuter Exchange for the following reasons: • Compatibility with multiple heavy-duty 40 -foot Class A vehicle platforms; • Certified by the California Air Resources Board at the Optional Low NO„ level; • Horsepower and torque levels that ensure adequate performance in a >26,000 lb. gross vehicle weight rated vehicle; • Proven track record for reliability, operability, and maintainability. The following Table compares the performance specifications of the Cummins B5.9G+ and the John Deere 6081H CNG engines: CNG Engine Rated Horsepower (bhp) Rated Torque (lb -ft) Cummins B5.9G+ 195-230 420-500 John Deere 6081H-250 250 800 As shown above, the proposed 5.9 -liter Cummins engine has approximately 40% less torque as compared to the 8.1 liter John Deere engine. The RCTC Commuter Exchange vehicle, as specified, is a 37-40 foot heavy-duty class A vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 26,000 pounds. Given the necessity to operate the Commuter Exchange at highway speeds in varied terrain, it is the opinion of the author that the Cummins B5.9 Gas Plus engine is rated below the minimum desired performance levels for the Commuter Exchange. The smaller displacement Cummins engine will offer noticeably lower performance, especially as it relates to vehicle acceleration and ability to maintain freeway speeds on a grade. Summary for Clegg Industries: Of the four deviations discussed above, three are deemed significant, in that they directly influence vehicle performance and bid price. The engine and fuel capacity issues are, from an engineering perspective, the most critical, as these elements translate to a proposed vehicle that would most likely deliver marginal performance, less range, but cost less compared to a vehicle that meets all specified requirements. Thus, the proposed vehicle from Clegg Industries cannot be compared on an "apples to apples" basis to a vehicle that substantially complies with the desired vehicle attributes. 1. Matthews Specialty Vehicles, Inc. Matthews Specialty Vehicles has proposed a Class A Series 5000 vehicle based on the Thomas Built bus chassis. The proposer complied with the Invitation to Bid instructions and addressed each requirement included in the Technical Specification. The bidder identified three (3) deviations: Fuel Tanks — The Technical Specification states that "CNG fuel tanks shall be mounted between the frame rails and conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 301 Fuel System Integrity and FMVSS 304 CNG Fuel Container Integrity Specifications..." Matthews has stated that the Thomas Built bus chassis specifies that the CNG tanks be mounted transverse of the chassis frame rails, with the tanks surrounded by a protective tubular cage assembly. Cruise Control — The Technical Specification required that the vehicle be outfitted with cruise control. The bidder has included a statement in their proposal that the cruise control option is not available from Thomas Built Buses on the John Deere CNG engines. Dashboard — The Technical Specification required that the dashboard be padded. Matthews has included a statement that the Thomas Built Buses are equipped with a molded dash for maximum visibility. The Matthews proposal also included photographs of the molded dash assembly to document their statement. As with the proposal from Clegg Industries, a determination must be made as to whether the deviations in the Matthews proposal are substantive to the degree they provide an unfair advantage to the bidder or undermine the performance or functionality of the vehicle. Fuel tank location — The location of the CNG fuel tanks was specified to ensure maximum safety in the event of a vehicle collision. The Technical Specification required that the tanks be located between the frame rails to form a protective steel barrier. This requirement was prompted by past experience with vehicles that were sold commercially with the CNG tank cylinders mounted outboard of the frame rails, offering little protection in the event of a side impact. The proposed Thomas Built chassis configuration places the CNG cylinders across the frame rails at a 90 -degree angle, protected by a steel tubular cage. This is the same configuration used during the manufacture of Thomas CNG school buses. Given that this CNG school bus chassis configuration has undergone both Federal and California safety scrutiny, it can be concluded that the proposed tank configuration complies with the intent of the Technical Specification, i.e., maximize occupant safety. Cruise Control — The bidder points out that a cruise control option is not available on the Thomas chassis when equipped with the John Deere engine. Given that the Thomas chassis is one of the platforms specifically called out in the Technical Specification, any bidder would be precluded from complying with this requirement. Thus, although cruise control is a highly desirable feature for the Commuter Exchange, a bidder's failure to comply should not be held against them. • • 98 • • • Dashboard — The Technical Specification required that the vehicle be equipped with a padded dash. This was done to ensure maximum occupant safety in the event of a frontal collision. Matthews states that a padded dash option is not available in the Thomas Built bus platform. The Matthews proposal includes photographs of the Thomas Built dashboard assembly. The dash is very low profile, and, according to Matthews, affords the driver maximum forward visibility. As with the case with the fuel tank location, the intent of the Technical Specification requirement is to maximize occupant safety. Given the Thomas Built low -profile dash design, and its relationship to the driver's seat -belted seating position, it does not appear from a visual inspection that safety is compromised by not having the dash padded. Summary for Matthews Specialty Vehicles: The Matthews proposal is very complete, with each vehicle requirement addressed thoroughly. The three exceptions to the Technical Specification noted by Matthews do not appear to impact vehicle performance, operability, or functionality, nor should they substantially influence the cost of the vehicle. Thus, based upon an assessment of the information provided, it is the opinion of the author that the Matthews proposal conforms to the requirements established by RCTC for procurement of the Commuter Exchange vehicle. 3. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 738-8392 or by e-mail at rgorski@pacbell.net. AGENDA ITEM 6Q • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2005-2009 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Calimesa, Cathedral City, and Lake Elsinore BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Calimesa, Cathedral City, and Lake Elsinore. • 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 its 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 6, 2004, 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 CIPs by June 16, 2004 for submission to the Budget and Implementation Committee at its June 28, 2004 meeting and to the Commission on July 14, 2004. At its July 14, 2004 meeting, the Commission approved the CIPs for all but nine (9) cities: Beaumont, Calimesa, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, Lake Elsinore, and Murrieta. Subsequently, we have received Agenda Item 6Q 100 the required CIPs, MOE certification and supporting documentation from the cities of Calimesa, Cathedral City, and Lake Elsinore. The other six cities have been informed that no disbursement of Measure "A" funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents have been received and approved by the Commission. Attachments: 1) City of Calimesa Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan 2) City of Cathedral City Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan 3) City of Lake Elsinore Measure "A" Capital improvement Plan • Agenda Item 6Q 101 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPO RTATIO N COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS P ROGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 Agency: CITY OF CALIMESA Page 2 of 6 Pre pared by: Keith R. Haan Phone #: (909) 795-9801 Date: July 6, 2004 Item No. Project Name / Limits 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 144 .5 144.5 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 12.5 12.5 Total 157.0 157.0 102 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005 - 2006 Agency: Page 3 of 6 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: CITY OF CALIMESA Keith R. Haan (909) 795-9801 July 6, 2004 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 2 Various Streets City Wide Administrative Charge i Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed Overhead Total 150.0 13 .0 163.0 150.0 13.0 163 .0 • �3 Agency: Page 4 of 6 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPO RTATIO N COMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2007 CITY OF CALIMESA Keith R. Haan (909) 795-9801 July 6, 2004 Item No. Project Name / Limits ; 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 156 .5 156.5 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 13 .5 13.5 Total 170.0 170.0 104 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPO RTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY . 2007 - 2008 Agency: Page 5 of 6 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: CITY OF CALIMESA Keith R. Haan (909) 795-9801 July 6, 2004 Item No Project Name / Limits 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 163.0 163.0 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 14.0 14.0 Total 177 .0 177 .0 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY T RANSPORTATIO N COMMISSIO N MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008 - 2009 Agency: CITY OF C ALIMESA Page 6 of 6 Prepared by: Keith R. Haan Phone #: (909) 795-9801 Date: July 6, 2004 Item No. Project Name / Limits' 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 169.0 169 .0 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 15 .0 15.0 Total 184.0 184.0 106 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAN SPO RTATI ON C OMMISSI ON MEAS URE "A' LO CAL STREETS AND ROAD S PROG RAM FY 2004 - 200 5 Agency: City of Cathedral City Page 1 of 4 Prepared by: Colleen Hodson, Administrative Analyst Phon e #: 760-770-0319 Date: June 9, 2004 Item No. Project Name / Limits Pr oject Type Total C ost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1. Public Works Department & Parks Maintenance City wide maintenance 1,847.7 903 .6 Operations including parking, m edian maint enance and str eet light energy 2. Engineering & Planning De partments Transportation and traffic related planning and de velopment activiti es as well as Highway design and related engineering activities 1,573.1 265.0 3. Risk Management Traffic related claims management 4,292.4 77.3 4. Traffic Signal M aintenance Maintenance — traffic signal system 130 .0 130 .0 $7,843 .2 $1,375 .9 107 / rivera/measureA5yrform RIV ERSI DE CO UNTY TRANSPO RTATION C OMMISSION MEASURE 'A "LOCAL STREETS AND R OADS PRO GRAM FY 2004 - 2005 Agency: City of Cathedral City Page 2 of 4 Pre pared by: Colleen Hodson, Administrative Analyst Phone #: 760-770-0319 Date: June 9, 2004 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total C ost ($000's) Measur e A Funds ($000's) Capital Proiects 5. City-w ide Re -stripin g Pa vement striping and markings 110.0 96.4 6. Date Palm Pro ject Pa vement r ehab/alignment studies 437 .0 58.4 7. Perez Road Rehab. Pa vement rehabilitation 1,246 .0 699.1 8. Ramon Widening Widen e/o Date Palm 1,654.0 268.1 9. Victoria Dr. — Safe Routes to School Widen Date Palm/install 430.0 15.8 Pede strian safety improvements 10. PM 10 M itigatio n Improvements Pave dirt roads/shoulders to re duce blowsand 14.4 7 .7 11. BCN-Hotel Infrastructure Infrastructure impro vements @ hotel site 3,388.9 954.7 /rivera/ measureA5yrform • e8 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY T RAN SPO RTATI ON COMMI SSION MEAS URE 'A "LO CAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2004 - 200 5 Agency: City of Cathedral City Page 3 of 4 Prepared by: Co lleen Hods on, Administrati ve Analyst Phone #: 760-770-0319 Date: June 9, 2004 • Item No. Pro ject Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A F unds ($000's) 12. Interim Traffic Signal I-10/Date Palm Reconstruct i nterchange 710.0 7 .5 13. Perez Road Sidewalk Sidewalk Extension & bus st op 20.0 15.0 14. Drainage Basins Acquire/const. Retention basins 95.0 23 .7 15. Judy Lane Assessment District Assessment district studies 140 .0 2.1 & Formation 16. Cove Are a Assessment District Assessment district studies 106.5 49.6 & Formation 17. EPC Bridge Widening Design & constr uct widened bridge 2,180 .0 195.6 18. Date Palm Medians Const/landscape median islands 36 .7 19.4 21. Ramo n Medians Const/landscape median islands 72 .0 16.2 109 / rivera / measu reA5yrform RIV ER SIDE CO UNTY TRANSP ORTATION C OMMISSION MEAS URE 'A' LOCAL ST REETS AND ROADS PR OG RAM FY 2004 - 200 5 Agen cy: City of Cath edral City Page 4 of 4 Prepared by: Colleen Hodson, Administrative Analyst Pho ne #: 760-770-0319 Date: June 9, 2004 Item No. Pro ject Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 22. Misc. Stre et Pro jects Various small projects 110.4 57.3 23. Terrace Rd/Cov e Drains Cove area storm drain pr oject 1879.5 48 .6 24. M isc. Sidewalks Vari ous sidewalk projects 61.0 32 .6 25. ADA Projects Ramp/access projects f or disabled 135 .0 11 .6 26. Eagle Canyon Clean Up Clean up f or proposed flood c ontrol dam 3,375.0 9.8 27. Downtown Pedestrian Bridge Pedestrian bridge 215.0 33.8 28. Ramon Co rridor Corrido r improvements 572.5 146.5 29. Date Palm Bridge Repair Rehab. deck/joints 150.0 14.0 30. M aintenance District Set up landscape maintenance district 10 .8 10.6 $15,355.7 $2,794.1 / rivera / measu reA5yrform • 00 • • /rivers/ measureA5yrform • RIVE RSID E CO UNTY TRANSP ORTATION COMMI SSION M EASURE "A "L OCAL STREET S AND R OAD S PRO GRAM FY 2005 - 2006 Agency: City of Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Prepared by: Colleen Hodson, Administrativ e Analyst Phone #: 760-770-0319 Date: June 9, 2004 • Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type T otal C ost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1. Public Works Department & Parks Maintenance City wide maintena nce 1,914 .4 930.6 Operati ons including parking, median maintenance and street light energy 2. Engineering & Planning Departments Transportati on and traffic related planning and de velopment acti vities as well as Highway design and related engin eering activities 1,646.1 275.0 3. Risk M anagement Traffic related claims management 4,657.3 84.9 4. Traffic Signal M aintenance Maintenance — traffic signal system 130.0 130.0 $8,347.8 $1,420.5 rivera/ measureA5yrform 111 / rive ra / measu reA5yrform RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAN SPORTATI ON COMMISSION MEASURE 'A!' LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2006 - 2007 Agency: City of Cath edral City Page 1 of 1 Prepared by: Colleen Hodson, Administrative Analyst Phon e #: 760-770-0319 Date: June 9, 2004 Item No. Pro ject Name / Limits Pr oject Type Total Cost ($000's) Measur e A Funds ($000's) 1. Public Works Department & Parks Mai ntena nce City wide maintenance 2,010.1 977.1 Operati ons incl uding parking, median mai ntenanc e and street light energy 2. Engineering & Planning Departments Transportation and traffic related planning and development activities as well as Highway design and related engineering activiti es 1,728.4 288.8 3. Risk Managemen t Traffic related claims management 4,890 .2 89.1 4. Traffic Signal Maintenance Maintenance — traffic signal system 130.0 130.0 $8,758.7 $1,485.0 • • • • RIVERSIDE C OUNTY T RANSPO RTATI ON COMMIS SION MEASURE 'A" L OCAL ST RE ETS AND ROADS PROG RAM FY 2007 - 2008 Agency: City of Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Prepared by: Co lleen Hodson, Administrative Analyst Phone #: 760-770-0319 Date: June 9, 2004 • Item No. Project Name / Limits Pr oject Type T otal Cost ($000's) Measur e A Funds ($000's) 1. Public Wo rks Depa rtment & Parks Maintenance City wide maintenance 2,086.8 1,026.0 Operations including parking, median maintenance and str eet light energy 2. Engineering & Planning Departments Transportation and traffic related pla nning and development activities as well as Highway design and related engineering activities 1,814.8 303.2 3. Risk Management Traffic related claims management 5,134.7 93.6 4. Traffic Signal Maintenance M aintenance — traffic sig nal system 130 .0 130.0 $9,166.3 $1,552.8 113 RIV ERSIDE COUNTY TRAN SP ORTATION COMMISSION M EASU RE "A "LOCAL STREETS AND ROAD S P ROGRAM FY 2008 - 2009 Agency: City of Cathedr al City Page 1 of 1 Prepared by: Colleen Hodson, Administrative Analyst Phone #:760-770-0319 Date: June 9, 2004 Item No. Pro ject Name / Limits Project Typ e Total C ost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1. Public Wo rks Department & Parks Maintenance City wide maintenance 2,191.1 1,077.3 Operations including parking, median maintenanc e and str eet light energy 2. Engineering & Planning Departments Transportatio n and traffic related planning and developm ent activiti es as well as Highway design and related engineering activities 1,905.6 318.4 3. Risk Management Traffic related claims management 5,391.4 98 .3 4. Traffic Signal Maintenance Mainten ance — traffic sig nal system 130.0 130 .0 $9,618 .1 $1624.0 /riv era / measureA5yrform • • Agency: Page 1 of 5 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 City of Lake Elsinore Ken Seumalo, Engineeri ng Manager (909) 674-3124 x 244 June 25, 2004 l V� t2 417�'v A I "li ('9. �. _ .' � y .. �, �1 i�!T,f'�� 7�Ik .. _,.._.. f v� C .� r � �w,.s,..0 r� �akf- r xyf', .f...»,, ?:? ;x1S p TP ry +Kl r M !}dF s .. Ss� i,r_ ... 1 yu3tr �y 'W ruw mI H's� 'r� . .' r.�. r T.Y� T.r w .. STR-0002 STR-0007 TRF-0003 STR-0011 Transfer to General Fund Annual curb, gutter & sidewalk repair program Annual traffic striping maintenance program Traffic signal installation at Grand and Ortega Highway Interim improvements to Railroad Canyon at i-15 Transfer of funds Sidewalk, curb, gutter repair Maintenance Signal installation Street Improvement/ Congestion Management $ 480 $ 100 $ 80 $ 149 $ 1,100 $ 80 $ 80 $ 73 $ 19 $ 441 $ 693 115 RIVERSI DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM MISSION MEASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005 - 2006 Agency: Page 2 of 5 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: City of Lake Elsinore Ken Seumalo, Engineering Manager (909) 674-3124 x 244 June 25, 2004 STR-0002 STR-0004 STR-0007 TRF-0004 Transfer to General Fund Annual curb, gutter & sidewalk repair program Pavement rnanaagement program (PMS) Annual Traffic Striping Maintenace Program Traffic signal installation at Grand & Ontario Transfer of funds Maintenance repair Pavement maintenance Striping maintenance Signal construction • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS P ROGRA M FY 2006 - 2007 Agency: Page 3 of 5 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: STR-0002 STR-0004 STR-0007 City of Lake Elsinore Ken Seumalo, Engineering Manager (909) 674-3124 x 244 June 25, 2004 Transfer to General Fund Annual curb, gutter & sidewalk repair program Pavement manaagement program (PM S) Annual Traffic Striping Maintenace Program Transfer of funds Curb, gutter & sidewalk repair _ $ Pavement m aintenance Striping maintenance 480 100 800 $ 80 80 8a $ 800 $ 73 $ t033 117 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A'LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2007 - 2008 Agency: Page 4 of 5 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: City of Lake Elsinore Ken Seumalo, Engineering Manager (909) 6.74-3124 x 244 June 25, 2004 Annual curb, gutter & sidewalk repairprogram Annual Traffic Striping Maintenace Program • • • Agency: Page 5 of 5 Prepared by: Phone #: Date: STR-0002 STR-0004 STR-0007 • RIVE RSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE W LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008 - 2009 City of Lake Elsinore Ken Seumalo, Engir}eering Manager (909) 674-3124 x 244 June 25, 2004 Transfer to General Fund Annual curb, gutter & sidewalk repair program Pavement manaagement program (PMS) Annual Traffic Striping Maintenace Program Transfer of funds Curb, gutter & sidewalk repair Pavement maintenance Striping maintenance $ 480 $ 100 $ 1,000 $ 80 $ 80 80 1,000 73 1,233 • 119 AGENDA ITEM 6R • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Extension for the City of Palm Desert BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the City of Palm Desert's request to change the scope of its approved SB 821 sidewalk project; and, 2) Grant the City of Palm Desert a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2006 to complete the Portola Avenue sidewalk project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Palm Desert was allocated $50,000 in FY 2003-04 SB 821 funds for the construction of the Portola Avenue sidewalk project. The project consisted of a sidewalk alongside the Portola Avenue low-water crossing of the Whitewater Flood Control Channel. After bids for the project were opened, the city decided to construct a bridge at the same location that would include the sidewalk. The new proposed sidewalk would better meet the needs of handicapped individuals since the bridge would eliminate the slope at the low-water crossing. The city is not requesting any additional funds as a result of the change in scope of the project. The city is requesting approval of the change in scope of its approved SB 821 project and a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2006 to complete the project. Attachment: Letter from the City of Palm Desert Agenda Item 6R 120 August 4, 2004 CITY OF PRLffl DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 r FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-dcscrt.org 68771 • • Mr. Jerry Rivera Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 p©EOVEn AUG-0 51004 maliNNOWssm Subject: FY 2003-04 SB 821 Application for Portola Pathway Project Dear Jerry, The City of Palm Desert requests that funds awarded for the above named project be extended an additional year so that a better sidewalk may be constructed at the same location. The city previously requested funds to build a sidewalk alongside the Portola Avenue low-water crossing of the Whitewater Flood Control Channel. When bids were opened for the project, the city decided to instead construct a bridge at the same location that would include a sidewalk. The sidewalk now proposed will be better particularly for the handicapped. The evaluation committee previously questioned the city of how the sidewalk would be handicap accessible with the 15% grade leading to the low-water crossing. A bridge at this location will eliminate this slope and provide the handicap accessibility the committee was concerned with. Thank you for your consideration of our request. If you have any questions pertaining to this request please do not hesitate to contact Phil Joy at (760) 776-6489. Sincerely, Michael J. Errante, P.E. Director of Public Works cc: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager 0 IPIY MI ON Pftr[11010/f0 121 U.26.00 AGENDA ITEM 6S • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Claudia Chase, Property Agent THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Surplus Old 1-215 Rail Right -of -Way (Phase 1) APN Nos. 263-080-01 1, 263-080-010, 263-091-01 1, 263-100-010, and a Portion of 263-070-004 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Declare the property identified as the "Old 1-215" Rail Right -of -Way (Phase 1), APN Nos. 263-080-011, 263-080-010, 263-091-011, 263-100-010, and a portion of 263-070-004 as surplus; and, 2) Authorize staff to initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period and if no interest is expressed, authorize the Executive Director to offer the parcels for sale. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 1993, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (ATSF), currently known as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, sold the 38 -mile San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) to the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Between 1992 and 1994, Caltrans relocated less than a mile of the SJBL rail right- of-way for the construction of 1-215; the rail line moved from the east side of 1-215 to the west side in an area near Alessandro Boulevard. The relocation of the SJBL resulted in remnant parcels along the "Old 1-215" rail right-of-way. The Commission property management consultant, Epic Land Solutions, recommends that the remnant parcels be disposed of in three phases over the next few months. Phase 1, which is the subject of this agenda item, requests the surplus of approximately 14 — 19 acres north of Alessandro Blvd in the unincorporated area of the County. Agenda Item 6S 122 Caltrans and March JPA Property Transfer Needed While Caltrans, ATSF, and the United States Air Force executed the original agreement for the relocation of the SJBL, March JPA became the successor to the US Air Force property. However, the property was never conveyed to the Commission. As a result, a portion of the current SJBL is located largely on property owned by March JPA. RCTC is working with March JPA on a property exchange to trade a portion of the "Old 1-215" (Phase 2) rail right-of-way for the new rail right-of-way. The new right-of-way is to accommodate two tracks and be protected from unhistorical drainage. Staff anticipates bringing a draft agreement to the Commission for review and approval within the next few months. The disposition of the balance of the "Old 1-215" rail right-of-way, or Phase 3, anticipates transferring the parcels to Caltrans for future highway projects (i.e., widening of the Cactus Avenue interchange). Upon the completion of the disposition of Phase 2, Staff will bring a draft agreement to the Commission for review and approval of the disposition of Phase 3. Phase 1 Properties to Surplus After numerous discussions with March JPA and Caltrans over the last 10 months, staff recommends the "Old 1-215" rail right-of-way be disposed of in three phases. The subject Phase 1 parcels are all vacant properties of which both March JPA and Caltrans have expressed no interest in obtaining through an exchange of properties. As identified below, the combined parcels total between 14 - 19 acres: Old 1-215 Rail Right -of -Way (Phase 1) Assessor Parcel Number (APN) Acreage 263-080-011 0.73 263-080-010 4.48 263-091-011 2.95 263-100-010 2.19 263-070-004 (a portion) 4.00 - 9.18 TOTAL 14.35 - 19.53 Staff has identified the above parcels (Phase 1) to be of no future use for RCTC and recommends the property be surplused and offered for sale. Attachment: Map of Proposed Surplus Property • • • Agenda Item 6S 123 -215 Pending Transactions Legend CALTRANS to March JPA March JPA to RCTC RCTC to March JPA RCTC to CALTRANS CALTRANS to RCTC Potential RCTC Surphts Property = Phase 1 Proposed ROW Boundary Epic Land Solutions, Inc. 0 03 0? 0. k 021 0.26. ?9 FA 124 AGENDA ITEM 6T • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Steven DeBaun, RCTC Legal Counsel THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Easement Deed and Aerial Construction of the Box Springs Overpass Easement Deed for BUDGET AND IMPLEMENATTION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Easement Deed and Aerial Easement Deed on behalf of the Commission to assist Caltrans in the construction of the Box Springs Overpass. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission owned San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) currently passes under the 1-215 freeway near Moreno Valley. In 2002, work began on the 60/91/215 Interchange Project, one of the largest and most complex projects in the Inland Empire. The improvements are targeted at the interchange as well as portions of the 1-215 and the junction of the 1-215 and SR 60/Box Springs area. The improvements include widening the 1-215 which requires the reconstruction of the Box Springs Road Interchange and Box Springs Overpass Bridge, which crosses over the SJBL. Caltrans has requested permission from the Commission to use portions of the RCTC rail right-of-way for purposes of this construction. To that end, the Commission and Caltrans entered into an agreement in November 2003 under which RCTC granted Caltrans permission to use portions of the RCTC property as necessary for the project. In return, Caltrans agreed that it would not interfere with the Commission's current or future use of the SJBL for commuter rail purposes. In order to perfect its rights to utilize the property, Caltrans has requested that the Commission execute an Easement Deed and Aerial Deed, both of which are attached. The Commission staff and consultants have reviewed the proposed Agenda Item 6T 125 deeds, and have determined that they do not interfere with the Commission's proposed use of the right-of-way for commuter rail purposes. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to execute the deeds in support of the 60/91/215 Interchange Project. Attachments: 1) Easement Deed 2) Aerial Easement Deed • • • Agenda Item 6T 126 • Betty Bobosik State of California Department of Transportation 464 W. 4th Street, MS M San Bernardino, CA. 92401-1400 Space above this line for Recorder's Use EASEMENT DEED CORPORATION District County Route Post . Number 08 RIV 215 KP 62.10 18021 State of California an EASEMENT for 410 operty in the City of Riverside , County of Riverside State of California, described as follows: • GRANT to the freeway purposes upon, over and across that certain real SEE EXHIBIT "A" 08-RIV-215-KP 62.10-18021 (18021-1) 127 EXHIBIT "A" • That portion of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the southerly line of Parcel No. 3 (State Highway Parcel No. 9554-C) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded March 3, 1965, in Book 3938, page 49 of Official Records of said County, with the easterly line of the 60.960 meters (200 feet) wide Right of Way described as Parcel 10, in the Correction Grant Deed and Grant of Easement to the Riverside County Transportation Commission recorded May 10, 1994 as Document Number 191848 of Official Records of said County, said easterly line being a curve concave westerly having a radius of 321.657 meters (1055.30 feet), a radial line to said intersection bears North 85°28'49" East; thence along said easterly line the following five (5) courses: 1) southerly along said curve 28.312 meters (92.89 feet) through a central angle of 5°02'35"; 2) thence South 0°31'24" West 30.478 meters (99.99 feet) to a curve concave easterly, having a radius of 318.887 meters (1046.22 feet); 3) thence southerly along said curve 27.828 meters (91.30 feet) through a central angle of 5°00'00" to a compound curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 144.372 meters (473.66 feet); ,4) thence southeasterly along said compound curve 94.491 meters (310.01 feet) through a central angle of 37°30'00" to a compound curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 318.887 meters (1046.22 feet); 5) thence southeasterly along said compound curve 11.735 meters (38.50 feet) through a central angle of 2°06'31"; thence South 47°58'26" West 60.989 meters (200.10 feet) to a point on the westerly line of said Parcel 10, being a non -tangent curve concave northeasterly, having a radius of 379.843 meters (1246.20 feet), a radial line to said point bears South 46°14'43" West; thence along said westerly line the following five (5) courses: 1) northwesterly along said non -tangent curve 11.787 meters (38.67 feet) through a central angle of 1°46'41" to a compound curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 205.328 meters (673.65 feet); 2) thence northwesterly along said compound curve 134.387 meters (440.90 feet) through a central angle of 37°30'00" to a compound curve, concave easterly, having a radius of 379.843 meters (1246.20 feet); 3) thence northerly along said curve 33.148 meters (108.75 feet) through a central angle of 5°00'00"; 4) thence North 0°31'24" East 30.478 meters (99.99 feet) to a curve concave westerly, having a radius of 260.701 meters (855.32 feet); 5) thence northerly along said curve 63.727 meters (209.08 • • 08-RIV-215-KP 62.10-18021 (18021-1) 128 EXHIBIT "A" (continued) feet) through a central angle of 14°00'21" to the westerly terrninus of that certain course in said deed southerly line cited in said deed to the State of California as "North 88°13'51" West 89.23 feet"; thence along said southerly line the following four (4) courses: 1) South 87°43'17" East 27.197 meters (89.23 feet); 2) thence South 58°46'52" East 11.418 meters (37A6 feet) to a point on a non -tangent curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 295.394 meters (969.14 feet), a radial line to said point bears North 79°30'35" East; 3) thence southerly along said non -tangent curve 31.373 meters (102.93 feet) through a central angle of 6°05'07"; 4) thence North 84°11'26" East 26.270 meters (86.19 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The bearings and distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Multiply al] distances shown by 1.00006349 to obtain ground level distances. 08-RIV-215-KP 62.10-18021(18021-1) This real property description has been prepared by me, or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Signature Professional Land Surveyor Date: April 7. 2003 129 Number 18021-1 IN WIT▪ NESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused its corporate narne to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto, this day of , 20 • By President By Secretary [CORPORATE SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT SS County of On this the clay of 20 , before me, Name, Title of Officer-E.G., 'Jane Doe, Notary Public" personally appeared Name(s) of Signer(s) personally known to me _ proved 10 me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that try his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Notary Public's signature in and for said County and Stale) (tor notary seal or stamp) THIS IS TO CERTIFY, That the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (pursuant to Government Code Section 27281), hereby accepts for public purposes the real property described in the within deed and consents to the recordation thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of , 20� Director of Transportation By Attorney in Fact • • • 130 • Betty Bobosik State of California Department of Transportation 464 W. 4th Street, MS M San Bernardino, CA. 92401-1400 Space above this line for Recorder's Use AERIAL EASEMENT DEED CORPORATION District County Route Post Number 08 Riv 215 KP 62.10 18021 0 GRANT to the ST ate of California an EASEMENT for freeway purposes, an easement and right of way to construct, replace, inspect, maintain, repair, operate or remove an overhead freeway bridge and highway, including any and all appurtenances thereto (excluding those appurtenances related to columns and footings) over, under, upon and across the real property herein described as Parcel 18021-2 together with all abutter's rights of access to and from owner's remaining property to the freeway viaduct: TOGETHER with easements and right of way to construct, replace, inspect, maintain, repair, operate or remove supporting columns and footings and incidents thereto, upon, over, and across the real property herein described as Parcels 18021-3, 18021-4, 18021-5, and 18021-6 all said easements being within the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: • SEE EXHIBIT "A" 08-Riv-215-KP 62.10-18021 (18021-2, 18021-3, 18021-4, 18021-5, 18021-6) 131 Form RVV 6-1(Y) (Revised 10199) EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 18021-2 That portion of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the southerly line of Parcel No. 3 (State Highway Parcel No. 9554-C) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded March 3, 1965, in Book 3938, page 49 of Official Records of said County, with the easterly line of the 60.960 meters (200 feet) wide Right of Way described as Parcel 10, in the Correction Grant Deed and Grant of Easement to the Riverside County Transportation Commission recorded May 10, 1994 as Document Number 191848 of Official Records of said County, said easterly line being a curve concave westerly having a radius of 321.657 meters (1055.30 feet), a.radial line to said intersection bears North 85°28'49" East; thence southerly, along said easterly line and said curve, 28.312 meters (92.89 feet) through a central angle of 5°02'35"; thence continuing along said easterly line, South 0°31'24" West 4.179 meters (13.71 feet); thence North 55°06'05" West 77.518 meters (254.32 feet) to a point on the westerly line of said Parcel 10, being a non -tangent curve, concave southwesterly having a radius of 260.701 meters (855.32 feet), a radial line to said point bears North 81°47' 20" East; thence northwesterly ,along said non -tangent curve 23.985 meters (78.69 feet) through a central angle of 5°16' 17" to the westerly terminus of that certain course in said southerly line, cited in said deed to the State of California as "North 88°13'51" West 89.23 feet"; thence the following four (4) courses along said southerly line: (1) South 87°43'17" East 27.197 meters (89.23 feet); (2) thence South 58°46'52" East 11.418 meters (37.46 feet) to a point on a non -tangent curve, concave westerly having a radius of 295.394 meters (969.14 feet), a radial line to said point bears North 79°30'35" East; (3) thence southerly along said non -tangent curve 31.373 meters (102.93 feet) through a central angle of 6°05'07"; (4) thence North 84°11'26" East 26.270 meters (86.19 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 18021-3 That portion of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, San. Bernardino Meridian, in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the southerly line of Parcel No. 3 (State Highway Parcel No. 9554-C) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded 08-R iv -215 -KP 62.10-18021 (18021-2, 18021-3, 18021-4, 18021-5, 18021-6) (continued) 132 EXHIBIT "A" (page 2) PARCEL 18021-3 (continued) March 3, 1965, in Book 3938, page 49 of Official Records of said County, with the easterly line of the 60.960 meters (200 feet) wide Right of Way described as Parcel 10, in the Correction Grant Deed and Grant of Easement to the Riverside County Transportation Commission recorded May 10, 1994 as Document Number 191848 of Official Records of said County, said easterly line being a curve concave westerly having a radius of 321.657 meters (1055.30 feet), a radial line to said intersection bears North 85°28'49" East; thence southerly along said easterly line and said curve 2.391 meters (7.84 feet) through a central angle of 0°25'33"; thence South 85°54'22" West 5.225 meters (17.14 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 35°44'47" West 2.217 meters (7.27 feet); thence South 5°52'35" East 18.138 meters (59.51 feet); thence North 54°27'25" West 4.003 meters (13.13 feet); thence North 5°54'21" West 21.099 meters (69.22 feet); thence South 54°29'46" East 5.978 meters (19.61 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 18021-4 Thatportion of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the southerly line of Parcel No. 3 (State Highway Parcel No. 9554-C) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded March 3, 1965, in Book 3938, page 49 of Official Records of said County, with the easterly line of the 60.960 meters (200 feet) wide Right of Way described as Parcel 10, in the Correction Grant Deed and Grant of Easement to the Riverside County Transportation Commission recorded May 10, 1994 as Document Number 191848 of Official Records of said County, said easterly line being a curve concave westerly having a radius of 321.657 meters (1055.30 feet), a radial line to said intersection bears North 85°28'49" East; thence northerly along said easterly line and said curve 13.790 meters (45.24 feet) through a central angle of 2°27'23"; thence South 83°01'26" West 21.876 meters (71.77 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 5°51'17" East 21.814 meters (71.57 feet); thence South 83°57'11" West 2.397 meters (7.86 feet); thence North 5°53'00" West 21.840 meters (71.65 feet); thence North 84°34'16" East 2.408 meters (7.90 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 08-R iv-215-KP 62.10-18021 (18021-2, 18021-3, 18021-4, 18021-5, 18021-6) (continued) 133 EXHIBIT "A" (page 3) PARCEL 18021-5 That portion of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the southerly line of Parcel No. 3 (State Highway Parcel No. 9554-C) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded March 3, 1965, in Book 3938, page 49 of Official Records of said County, with the easterly line of the 60.960 meters (200 feet) wide Right of Way described as Parcel 10, in the Correction Grant Deed and Grant of Easement to the Riverside County Transportation Commission recorded May 10, 1994 as Document Number 191848 of Official Records of said County, said easterly line being a curve concave westerly having a radius of 321.657 meters (1055.30 feet), a radial line to said intersection bears North 85°28'49" East; thence northerly along said easterly line and said curve 28.781 meters (94.43 feet) through a central angle of 5°0T36"; thence South 80°21'13" West 36.285 meters (119.05 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 6°02'48" East 22.189 meters (72.80 feet); thence South 83°54' 15" West 2.404 meters (7.89 feet); thence North 6°043'02" West 22.195 meters ,(72.82 feet); thence North 84°02'54" East 2.412 teeters (7.91 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 18021-6 That portion of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the southerly line of Parcel No. 3 (State Highway Parcel No. 9554-C) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded March 3, 1965, in Book 3938, page 49 of Official Records of said County, with the easterly line of the 60.960 meters (200 feet) wide Right of Way described as Parcel 10, in the Correction Grant Deed and Grant of Easement to the Riverside County Transportation Commission recorded May 10, 1994 as Document Number 191848 of Official Records of said County, said easterly line being a curve concave westerly having a radius of 321.657 meters (1055.30 feet), a radial line to said intersection bears North 85°28'49" East; thence northerly along said easterly line and said curve 42.736 meters (140.21 feet) through a central angle of 08-R iv-215-KP 62.10-18021 (18021-2, 18021-3, 18021-4, 18021-5, 18021-6) (continued) 134 EXHIBIT "A" (page 4) PARCEL 18021-6 (continued) 7°36'45"; thence South 77°52'04" West 49.279 meters (161.67 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 6°23'23" East 22.834 meters (74.92 feet); thence North 55°37'08" West 6.880 meters (22.57 feet); thence North 33°07'15" East 2.201 meters (7.22 feet); thence North 6°22'12" West 19.948 meters (65.45 feet); thence North 55°24'07" East 5.038 meters (16.53 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The bearings and distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Multiply all distances shown by 1.00006349 to obtain ground level distances. This real property description has been prepared by me, or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Signature Professional Land Surveyor Date: April 7, 2003 08-Riv-215-KP 62.10-18021 (18021-2, 18021-3, 18021-4, 18021-5, 18021-6) 135 Number 1 • 18021 ALSO, TOGETHER with non-exclusive right of access to the aerial easement hereinabove described for th purpose of inspection, maintaining, retrofitting and repairing said freeway structures and for inspecting the uses ma of the land under the aerial easement by way of such roads or passageways as may now or hereafter exist on owner's remaining property; provided, however, that State's exercise of such right of access shall not unreasonably interfere with owner's use of such roads or passageways. RESERVING unto owner, its successors and assigns, lessees and licensees all rights in and to the airspace at an elevation higher than a plane parallel with and 9 meters above the roadway surface of said freeway structure as originally constructed, provided, that the use of such space shall not interfere with the enjoyment, safety and compatibility of said aerial easement, provided further, that owner, its lessees and/or licensees shall first secure such encroachment permits as may be required by law, which permits shall not be unreasonably withheld. Encroachment permits issued to owner or its subsidiaries or affiliated companies, shall have designated across the face thereof "For Notice of Record Purposes Only"; provided however, that in case of any subsequent conveyance by owner, its subsidiaries or affiliated companies, such facilities and installations shall be subject to a standard encroachment permit_ ALSO RESERVING unto owner, its successors and assigns, the general right to use and enjoy the area of land under the aerial easement hereinabove described. The general right to use and enjoy said land by owner, its successors and assigns, shall however, be subject to the following limitations and conditions: 1. No use may be made of the area of land under the aerial easement hereinabove described which would impair the full use and safety of said freeway structure, or would otherwise interfere with the free flow of traffic thereon or would unreasonably impair the maintenance thereof. 2. No use may be made of the area of land under said aerial easement hereinabove described for the manufacture or storage of flammable, volatile, explosive or corrosive substances, and such substances shall not be brought onto said land except in such quantities as are normally required f the maintenance operations of occupants of said land and except as may be transported by rail or pipelines. Installation of any pipelines carrying volatile substances shall have the written approval of the State as to the safety and compatibility with freeway purposes and such discretion shall not be exercised in a capricious or arbitrary manner. The use of any such substances shall be in conformance with all applicable code requirements. 3. No hazardous or unreasonably objectionable smoke, fumes, vapors, dust or odors shall be permitted, which would adversely affect the use or maintenance of said freeway or the traveling public thereon. 4. No building of combustible construction shall hereafter be constructed on the area of land under the aerial easement hereinabove described. The State shall be given the opportunity to review and approve plans for any construction within said aerial easement area 60 days prior to said construction. No buildings, no permanent structures, and no advertising displays, may be constructed within 2.5 meters of the undersides nor within 4.5 meters (measured horizontally) of the sides of said freeway structure without the express written approval of the State. The State shall have the discretion to determine whether such proposed construction will be inimical to or incompatible with the full enjoyment of the public rights in the freeway or against the public interest, but such discretion shall not be exercised in a capricious or arbitrary manner. EXCEPTING AND RESERVING THEREFROM all oil, oil rights, minerals, mineral rights, natural gas, natural gas rights, and other hydrocarbons by whatsoever name known that may be within the area of land hereinabove described, together with the perpetual right of drilling, mining, exploring and operating therefor and removing the same from said land or any other land, including the right to whipstock or directionally drill and mine from lands other than the area of land hereinabove described, oil or gas wells, tunnels and shafts into, through or across the subsurface of said land, and to bottom such whipstocked or directionally drilled wells, tunnels and shafts under and beneath or beyond th exterior limits thereof, and to redrill, retunnel, equip, maintain, repair, deepen and operate any such wells, or mines, without, however, the right to drill, mine, explore and operate through the surface or the upper 30.5 meters of the .ubsurface of said land or otherwise in such manner as to endanger the safety of any highway that may be constructed on said land. Form RW 6-1(Y) (Revised 10/99) 136 Number 18021 The grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby waives any claim for any and all damages to grantor's remaining property contiguous to the right of way hereby conveyed by reason of the location, construction or maintenance of said highway. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto, this day of , 20 _ STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0unty of n this the By President By Secretary day of personally appeared } SS [CORPORATE SEAL] 20 , before me, PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT Name, Title of Officer-E.G., "Jane Doe, Notary Public" Name(s) of Signer(s) O personally known to me 0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Notary Public's signature in and for said County and State) (for notary seat or stamp) THIS IS TO CERTIFY, That the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (pursuant to Government Code Section 27281), hereby accepts for public purposes the real property described in the within deed and consents to the recordation thereof. fit ITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand day of , 20 Director of Transportation Form RW 6-1(Y) (Revised 10/99) By 137 Attorney in Fact AGENDA ITEM 6U • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Sheldon Peterson, 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 the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of July averaged 4,606 which is down 23 (0.5%) from the month of June. The line has averaged an overall increase of 13% from a year ago July 2003. July on -time performance averaged 96% inbound (+4% from June) and 95% outbound (+ 4% from June). There were 11 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of July, a 50% decrease from the month of June. The following were the primary causes: Cause Signals/Detectors Dispatching Mechanical Other* TOTAL 2 4 0 5 19% 36% 0% 45% *Track Work, Freight Problems Agenda Item 6U 138 Inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of July averaged 3,427, a change of 192 Tess riders or a decrease of 5% from the month of June. The line has averaged an overall increase of 13% from a year ago July 2003. July on -time performance averaged 90% inbound (-7% from June) and 86% outbound (-8% from June). There were 30 delays greater than five minutes during the month of July, an 18 point increase from the month of June. The primary causes were: Signals/Detectors/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other* TOTAL 8 13 5 4 27% 43% 17% 13% *Vandalism, Passenger Delays 91 Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of July averaged 1802, down 60 riders or a decrease of 3%, from the month of June. The line averaged an increase of 15% from a year ago July 2003. July on -time performance averaged 94% inbound (-3% from June) and 91 outbound (-8% from June). There were 14 delays greater than five minutes during the month of July, up 10 from June. The primary causes were: Cause *Amtrak Train 100%'. The decline in ridership from June to July on the three rail lines is consistent with the summer season and probable vacation plans. • • • Agenda Item 6U 139 • End of Year Metrolink Ridership and Revenue Report Metrolink completed the fiscal year with system -wide ridership of 9.5 million passengers for the twelve months ended June 30, 2004. This is a 6% increase over the prior year of 8.9 million passengers. The Inland Empire Orange County Line experienced the largest growth with an increase of 15%, followed by the 91 Line at 10% growth. System -wide fare revenues for the year were $44.5 million and have increased $2.7 million, or 6.4% over last year. Lease of Rail Equipment Update On August 13, 2004, the SCRRA board approved a budget amendment to allow for the lease of rolling stock from Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. This is one of the final phases to the process, the negotiations were completed and the agreement signed. It is anticipated that the rail cars will be transported via Amtrak from Seattle during August and hopefully available for service in September. 2004 Summer Beach Trains • The 2004 Summer Beach Train season is well under way with trips continuing until October 3rd. There are 20 trips this year to a variety of popular destinations and events, including the San Clemente Ocean Festival, Oceanside Harbor Days, and the always popular San Clemente Chowder Festival. We have sold 8,350 tickets, which brings us to 69% of our break even goal. Sales are down a little this year, with one of the main reasons being the lack of free shuttles in San Clemente for our riders. This year we have an unprecedented number of 22 season pass purchases. A new element added this year is the partnership with OCTA, which offers several additional stops in Orange County for boarding and unloading of passengers. Metrolink Holiday Trains Thanksgiving & New Years Day Service: Metrolink has started planning for the 2nd year of providing Thanksgiving Day train service on selected routes. This year there will be two routes operating from Riverside, one to Los Angeles and the other to Orange County. The New Year's Day service may run from Riverside on the San Bernardino line into Los Angeles with connections to Pasadena via the Gold Line. Agenda Item 6U 140 Rideshare Rideshare 2 Rails (R2R) Program 1,RAILS The Rideshare 2 Rails program has drawn to a close. We will continue to provide preferred parking spaces to participants, but the financial incentives are no longer available. The connecting shuttle that was part of the program from Moreno Valley to Downtown Riverside was replaced with RTA's upgraded CommuterLink Route 208. RCTC Metrolink Station Daily Activities Daily activities are recorded by station security guards and submitted to RCTC on a weekly basis. During the first quarter of 2004 (January - March), there were eleven criminal incidents (+ 38% from October — December 2003), and one crisis situations (-3 from October — December 2003). The increase in criminal incidents is largely due to vagrants/trespassing, which is the lesser offense in this category. Attached is summary data covering the first quarter of 2004. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Performance Summaries (July 2004) 2) RCTC Metrolink Stations Daily Activity Report • • • Agenda Item 6U 141 • • METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES July 2004 110111 METROLINK • • 40,000 38,000 METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS 36,000 34,464 34,000 32,000 30,000 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 Jul -03 34,65 Aug -03 36,264 Sep -03 35,803 Oct -03 36,223 Nov -03 33,727 Dec -03 36,399 Jan -04 37,399 37,806 Feb -04 38,099 38,198 37,751 Mar -04 Apr -04 May -04 Jun -04 Jul -04 ® Holiday 443 UnadjAvg 9 PERCENT PASSENGERS ON -TIME vs TRAINS ON -TIME * 100. 0% 95.0% —•--- 90.0% — 85,0% — 80. 0% Jul03 Aug • Within 5 -Minutes Of Schedule Includes Weekend Se rvice Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 0 Pa ssenger OTP% Train OTP% I Mar Apr May Jun Jul 04 e 4104 • • METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) Sep 03 Oct 03 Nov 03 Dec 03 Jan 04 Feb 04 Mar 04 May 04 Jun 04 Jul 04 CM % Arriving Within 5 -Minutes Of Scheduled Time 1 145 4 !1T X 91. e. .At..... % of Train Delays By Responsibility July 2004 TRK-Contractor 2% SIG -Contractor 4% SCRRA 18% Passenger 4% Includes Weekend Service UPRR 8% Vandalism 5% Other 18% Mechanical 11% OP Agree 4% Law-Enf 0% BNSF 22 % Improv (SCRRA) 4% TRK-Contractor 1% SIG -Contractor 8% SCRRA 11% Passenger 4% Includes Weekend Service UPRR 11% % of Train Delays By Responsibility 12 Month Period Ending July 2004 OP Agree Law-Enf Improv (SCRRA) 2% 1% 7% 11% Vandalism 4% Mechanical 9% BNSF 31% • 5 • • PERFORMANCE CHARTS - BACK-UP 11��_iil METROLINK • METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED Jul 03 3,624 5,536 10,278 555 4,074 5,453 3,375 1,569 34,464 0% Aug 03 3,714 5,772 10,169 531 4,008 5,611 3,245 1,603 34,653 1% Sep 03 Oct 03 3,883 4,295 5,748 5,583 10,624 9,965 540 639 4,431 4,337 5,780 5,557 3,638 3,764 1,620 1,663 36,264 35,803 5% -1% Nov 03 4,568 5,466 10,007 649 4,317 5,641 3,858 1,717 36,223 1% Dec 03 3,516 5,230 9,983 549 4,321 5,031 3,467 1,630 33,727 -7% Jan 04 4,001 5,665 10,690 581 4,639 5,482 3,701 1,640 36,399 8% Feb 04 4,095 5,990 10,630 588 4,655 5,845 3,812 1,784 37,399 3% Mar 04 4,153 5,885 10,978 612 4,745 5,876 3,804 1,753 37,806 1% Apr 04 May 04 Jun 04 4,107 3,970 3,868 6,262 6,180 6,258 11,046 11,213 11,013 599 645 626 4,639 4,745 4,629 5,959 5,966 5,876 3,713 3,696 3,619 1,774 1,783 1,862 38,099 38,198 37,751 1% 0% -1% Jul 04 3,829 6,384 10,674 615 4,606 5,900 3,427 1,802 37,237 -1% % Change Jul 04 vs Jun 04 -1% 2% . -3% -2% 0% 0% -5% -3 % -1 % % Change Jul 04 vs Jul 03 6% 15% 4% 11% 13% - 8% 2% 15% 8% 148 7 AVERAGE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY P ASSHOLDERS ON AMTRAK THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW 40U. .�:::: :: ::. %..:.::::::.::..::a�Eu!tGE:::..: •:::; •>;:>:::<;;<:<::; .:<...::. .....:: ::::: :.;:. .; :�:::i�i:�:?::i:i:iis:. y:•rv4ii::: i:: .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ...... .... ... ... ....... .... .... .... . .. .... ..... ........ .. ...'#�5''1AG. .............. .. ... ....... .. .... ......n >:.::«;.;: .;:.; . .vs ctah.rAa�i€1 ......... .:1�r�t�ak;rfdx�s.: 1��A •1Y •::i �!14:3MFTF�J1!�iiifF::::: : is ':: ;.,:':'::i v::i'i"�::.::�i'.i:i{:{:•^:':v::;{:.isi::i:::v:':v::::; �:::::�iiii:::•ii::::.:: .�'O::vi: :.''.%!. +�,{. :: : PF.... •.: ..�..�,Y.I��+Y7. ...� .. .: y�a'y:i'r: L:i::i:.::.i: .��.. ., ..:� is �f.f �t y��J WA�Mr1iN��Y.4�fiF'ii::'::':SiFA1�R�1• .' .::::::::�4}SM/:�SMj.�:::i�i::ii:�1FN�) YlXf:tii{:::: ^: is i:'.:<.}}:4 'viii::•:::..;'::.:'::.::•i':•i '•ii:•:iii Y1y � +� �{ y�f�} A `1 : vii:::i •iii:•i:•iii:::.i A�(�y �J��l :::: : viii:+?i:<•': •ii:4:•; :: :::.�} .�it�7W� i•viii ,d,p � • 'v:• 1T. VV.St�iF�i : ..5. r::�f"F�:::�':ti.��iliSlRJ�i::.: Jul -03 1,037 181 145 100 31 13 1,137 212 158 7% 18% 7% 111 Aug -03 995 326 194 102 42 47 1,097 368 241 -4 % 74 % 53% 114 Sep -03 993 217 175 111 62 52 1,104 279 227 1% -24 % -6% 100 Oct -03 1,038 265 256 111 60 39 1,149 325 295 4% 16% 30 % 120 Nov -03(4) 1,054 228 157 130 50 60 1,183 278 217 3% -15% -26% 119 Dec -03(5) 947 156 179 104 23 29 1,051 179 209 -11 % -36% -4% 110 Jan -04 (6) 1,060 189 135 110 27 20 1,170 216 155 11 % 21% -26% 107 Feb 04 1,117 360 201 119 55 28 1,236 415 229 6% 92% 48 % 99 Mar 04 1,113 242 228 128 51 44 1,241 293 272 0% -29 % 19 % 94 Apr 04 1,132 186 225 133 48 48 1,265 234 273 2% -20% 0% 116 May 04 (7) 1,123 278 265 120 34 35 1,243 312 300 -2% 33% 10 % 104 Jun 04 1,112 269 220 119 47 26 1,231 316 246 -1% 1% -18% 90 Jul 04 (6) 1,110 247 230 128 37 26 1,238 284 256 1% -10% 4% 118 Change Jul 04 vs Jun 04 0% -8% 5% 8% -21% 0% 1% -10% 4% % Change JuI04 vs JuI03 7% 36% 59% 28% 19% 100% 9% 34% 62% (1) Prior to Rail 2 Rail, Amtrak Step-Up/No Step -Up program was only good on Amtrak weekday trains. (2) Rail 2 Rail progra m started September 1, 2002. (3) Missing data has been adjusted by using the lowest ridership count for the respectiv e train, day of week and month. (4) Average of first 3 weeks of month only as black -out in place for the Thanksgiving week (5) Average excluding 12/25 (6) Average excluding January 1 (7) Average excluding May 31 (8) Average excluding July 5 • • 31 % 6% perf summ-Rail 2 0004 • 40,000 38,000 36,000 METROLINK AVER AGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED INCEPTION TO DATE Fy 04/05 ft 34,000 32,000 30,000 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 X Jul Aug X Sep X Oct X Nov Dec Jan Feb X ;K Mar Apr X X May FY 03/04 FY 02/03 01/02 FY 00/01 Y 99/00 Y 98/99 Y 97/98 FY 96/97 FY 95/96 xFY 94/95 FY 93/94 Jun 9 150 ADR MoNew.xls Avg Daily Riders Antelope Valley ine Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul -04 11 152 METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY Percentage of Trains Arri ving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time LATEST 13 MONTHS Route.. _....'""I ii'''' ''' '''' .<_ V n. ter o C unt _t�1Jt: Antel t.. .. V i � e,na n.o n . but . ;; ur ;an ::7ur►15:<:::>::: ':'.. . C7ut. .::. . . .... ... herstde::,:.:.;drange::�Qunt� . .. ..aft ... . C1ctt :: . :>:.:: in::.. , . ,. .. m f...�� .. .. ...:... ..::.: t.�.... .... .: .'�'�tal.;� #�u�:::ftfVa.( ate .. Jul 03 98% 96% 91% 89 % 91 % 83% 100% 98% 87 % 80% 85 % 88% 93 % 80 % 90% 80% 92% 87% 89% Aug 03 98% 97% 94% 94% 95% 94% 100% 100% 84% 90 % 91% 97% 92 % 94% 85%. 80% 93% 94% 94% Sep 03 98% 97% 98% 96% 87% 81 % 100 % 100 % 91% 94% 90% 87% 90% 86 % 88% 86% 93% 90% 91% Oct 03 95% 97% 96% 97% 95% 94% 100% 97% 93% 96 % 93% 95 % 89% 90% 95% 90 % 95% 95% 95% Nov 03 100% 97% 96% 96% 94% 92% 97% 98 % 92 % 96% 93% 89% 85% 90 % 95 % 84 % 94% 93 % 94% Dec 03 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 99% 100% 98 % 98 % 93% 91% 90% 95% 96% 95% 89 % 97% 96% 96 % Jan 04 99% 96% 97% 95% 96% 96% 100% 99% 98% 91% 90% 97% 91% 98% 90% 91% 96 % 96% 96% Feb 04 99% 98% 97% 90% 96% 96% 98% 100% 93% 95% 91% 95% 93% 86% 93 % 91% 95% 94% 95% Mar 04 100% 98% 97% 95% 97% 97% 99% 99% 95% 89% 95% 96% 88% 86% 97 % 95% 96 % 95% 96% Apr 04 100% 98% 97% 95% 97% 97% 99% 99% 95 % 89% 95% 96% 88% 86% 97% 95% 96% 95% 96% May 04 98% 97% 96% 96% 96% 95% 100% 99% 89% 86 % 96 % 94 % 92% 86% 89 % 90% 95% 94% 95% Jun 04 100% 98% 97% 95% 93% 93% 100% 100% 92% 91 % 95 % 94 % 97% 94% 97% 99% 96 % 95 % 96% JuI04 100% 98% 96% 92% 90% 89% 100% 100% 96% 95% 94% 97% 90% 86 % 94 % 91% 94% 93% 94% Peak Period Trains A rriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time Ju l 04 Peak Period Trains 94% 90% Si�iB. Rdtite ;> 90% 87% ::BUR Tutus ;:: 100% 100% RIU::Route::: 96% 98% 4G Route : .. 93% 99% 92% 87% 95% 86% T' t::tnbd Tot kt tbd 94 % 93% Tot;gysi 94% No adjustments have been made for relievable delays. Terminated trains are considered OT if they were on -time at point of termination. Annulled trains are not included in the on -time calculation. • 4,3 • 12 CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS July 2004 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CAUSE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INUOC 91 -LA TOTAL % of TOT Signals/Detectors 1 2 3 0 2 0 2 1 11 6% Slow Orders/MOW 0 1 8 0 0 0 3 0 12 6% Track/Switch 0 0 3 0 1 3 3 2 12 6% Dispatching 0 2 6 0 4 4 13 7 36 19% Mechanical 0 6 6 0 0 1 5 0 18 10% Freight Train 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4% Amtrak Train 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 7 4% Metrolink Meet/Turn 1 6 21 0 0 0 1 0 29 16% Vandalism 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 9 5% Passenger(s) 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 7 4% SCRRA Hold Policy 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 2% Other 1 1 14 0 4 9 1 2 32 17% TOTAL 6 30 75 0 11 19 30 14 185 100% Saturday SNB 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Saturday AVL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sunday SNB 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 13154 0405CAUS FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION July 2004 MINUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL TOTAL % of TOT NO DELAY 387 398 417 240 210 327 193 164 2336 78.4% 1 MIN - 5 M I N 27 75 225 10 31 51 29 11 459 15.4% 6MIN -10 MIN 3 16 38 0 5 4 13 5 84 2.8% 11 MIN - 20 MIN 3 8 14 0 4 9 14 5 57 1.9% 21 MIN -30 MIN 0 1 10 0 2 2 2 2 19 0.6% GREATER THAN 30 M IN 0 5 13 0 0 4 1 2 25 0.8% ANNULLED 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 6 0.2% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD 420 503 717 250 252 397 252 189 2980 100 % TRAINS DELAYED >0 min 33 105 300 10 42 70 59 25 644 21.6% TRAINS DELAYED > 5 mir 6 30 75 0 11 19 30 14 185 6.2 % • • 0405FREQ • • • Activity Detail Report Gener ated from 1/01/2004 to 3/31/2004 Riverside - Downt own Date Time 3/11/2004 3/31/2004 2/7/2004 9:45 p.m. 3/17/2004 11:40 3/19/2004 11:30 3/30/2004 7:30 a. m. Pedley Date 1/20/2004 2/5/2004 La Sierra Date 2/9/2004 North Main D ate 2/25/2004 3/11/2004 3/31/2004 Activity Log 761 765 753 764 764 766 # Description 28 Property damage- report given to Claudia Chase 92 Police on scene - Grand Theft Auto (P Rpt#04- 009) 47 Male adult urinated in parking lot-thru trash out 94 Security informed Male not to film station 32 Security told male in car -no trains till next day 20 Police called male asked to leave & wouldn't Time Activity Log # 3:55 p. m. 75144 10:00 75424 Descriptio n Male adult putting flyers on vehicles Security made cont act w/couple ingaged in lewd act Time Activity Log # Description 12:00 75698 RPD called &spoke with Intoxicated male RPD let go Corona Time Activity Log # 12:45 am 76326 12:15 pm 76139 6:00 p.m. 76603 Description Security advised male sleeping on bench to leave Security stopped people fr. Putting flyers on cars Frieght tran vs pedestrian fatal accid trans Activity Type 2 - Criminal Incidents 2 - Criminal Incidents 2 - Criminal Incidents 2 - Criminal Incidents 2 - Criminal Incidents 2 - Criminal Incidents Activity Type 2 - Criminal Incidents 2 - Criminal Incidents Activity Type 2 - Criminal Incidents Activity Type 2 - Criminal Incidents 2 - Criminal Incidents 3 - Crisis Situations Activity Subtype 2A - Burglary / Theft / 2A - Burglary / Theft / 2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 2C - Suspicious Behavior 2C - Suspicious B eha vi or 2C - Suspicious Behavior # Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Activity Subtype # Vehicles 2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 0 2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 0 Activity Subtype # Vehicles 2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 0 A ctivity Subtype # Vehicles 2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 0 2B - Vagr ants / Trespassing 0 3C - Passenger Accidents 0 Monday, Au gust 16, 2004 Page 1 of 1 156 AGENDA ITEM 6V • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to work with the California Performance Review Commission to influence state government reform efforts that provide greater funding for transportation and overall infrastructure investment; and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: It took longer than originally expected but the Legislature concluded their negotiations on the 2004 Budget Act. In late July, the Governor approved SB 1 1 13, which is the budget bill and is apparently still working on approval of the trailer bills. 2004 Budget Act — Overview The Governor's approval of SB 1 1 13 enacts a $105 billion state spending plan. The vast majority of this plan calls for $78.7 billion in General Fund expenditures; actual expenditures are nearly $81 million, but are partially offset by use of $2 billion in Prop 57 deficit bonds. The $80.7 billion expenditure level is nearly $3.5 billion over total General Fund revenues, thus continuing the trend of the structural deficit — spending more than is collected. One of the highlighted key features of the 2004 budget described in the Governor's Budget Summary is the use of tribal gaming funds, combined with a small amount of General Fund, characterized as improving the states out -year fiscal forecast through the early repayment of nearly $1.4 billion in transportation loans scheduled for repayment from the General Fund in FY 2005-06. Agenda Item 6V 157 Transportation Budget Key Budget Act features include: ➢ The Budget Act now incorporates the funding mechanism of AB 687, the tribal gaming compact ratification bill. This dedicates $1.2 billion in bond proceeds from tribal gaming compacts with five of the largest gaming tribes in the state. In addition, $140 million resulting from higher sales tax revenues on gasoline is combined with $43 million in General Fund resources to round out the nearly $1.4 billion dedicated to early repayment of General Fund loans. ➢ If the funds available from AB 687 materialize the funding package will provide $453 million to the TCRP, $477 million for STIP/SHOPP, $275 million to the Public Transportation Account for capital construction and $192 million to cities and counties for local roads. ➢ SB 1098, a trailer bill, allocates these funds and provides for loan repayments for the suspension of Prop 42. ➢ Proposition 42 is suspended by SB 1099. A total of $1.2 billion was estimated to be available in FY 2004-05, but this suspension will retain those funds in the General Fund instead. ➢ Based on the action of the Governor in the May Revise and as refined by the Budget Conference Committee, the budget now has capacity for the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to use GARVEE Bonds in an amount up to $800 million in new issuances. The CTC also has authority beyond this level subject to prior notice, but based on the CTC's recently released staff recommendations related to 2004 STIP, it appears that they intend to only exercise approximately $500 million for new allocations through this funding mechanism. ➢ The budget also contains a provision that benefits the General Fund by transferring $108 million from non -restricted State Highway Account sources, such as the sale of surplus property, but only to the extent that future federal funds are not jeopardized. ➢ There were only two transportation related items subject to the Governor's "blue-pencil" - $100,000 was eliminated from the augmentation to the CTC to fund a Legislative Coordinator position. In addition, a funding increase for the High Speed Rail Authority was stricken. • • • Agenda Item 6V 158 • • California Performance Review On Friday, August 13, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger attended the first in a series of meetings throughout the state regarding the recently -released California Performance Review (CPR). The August 13 meeting was held at the University of California, Riverside, focused on the issue of infrastructure and was attended by Commissioners Lowe and Hall. The CPR is a comprehensive review of state government and offers a number of sweeping changes in a wide variety of subject areas including infrastructure. The actual report is the product of a team of state employees who volunteered their time and expertise within their subject areas. The section of the report on infrastructure is more than 270 pages long. The CPR report was issued only a few weeks ago and the California Performance Review Commission is currently seeking public input regarding the recommendations. The current series of public hearings on the report is being conducted by a 21 -member Commission which includes business leaders, educators, local government officials and legislators. Two of the legislators (Jim Brulte and Denise Moreno Ducheny) represent portions of Riverside County. The role of the Commission is to facilitate the public input process as part of the report which will eventually lead to the implementation of specific recommendations. Its first recommendation is rather dramatic and would recast the issue of infrastructure investment in California. Currently, 25 separate state departments, agencies, and commissions are involved in infrastructure decision -making which includes transportation, water resources, energy, and construction of public buildings. The CPR proposal would merge a number of these agencies into the State Department of Infrastructure that would be overseen by an appointed Infrastructure Authority. The Authority would be comprised of nine members appointed by the Governor and would replace a number of other independent state commissions such as the California Transportation Commission. Creating a new department to oversee these responsibilities is a structural change in state government that is similar to a number of other recommendations in the report regarding other functions. However, in addition to the structural changes, the report also recommends a number of policy changes regarding transportation. Agenda Item 6V 159 These changes include the following: • Additional use of design -build and design sequencing to speed delivery and lower construction costs of major highway projects • Adopt performance and warranty specifications to improve the quality of highway construction • Greater use of high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes • Relinquish some state routes to local agencies • Enhance state funding for transportation by upholding Proposition 42 and considering a fee program based on vehicle miles traveled • Seek addition federal funding for transportation • Consolidate infrastructure planning • Improve overall highway maintenance (this includes a variety of suggestions including contracting out maintenance, financing maintenance by privatizing rest areas and consolidating maintenance functions with other state agencies or even neighboring states) • Encourage development of alternative clean fuels including hydrogen • Shift railroad crossing safety away from the PUC and over to Caltrans or its successor agency • Integrate infrastructure and resource planning much like has been done in Riverside County with the RCIP and CETAP At first glance there are a number of welcome recommendations in the report as well as a few that are either troubling or that need additional study. For example, supporting the implementation of Proposition 42 is self-evident. Everyone in California would also applaud additional federal funding for transportation projects. Yet, other recommendations such as relinquishing state highways to local governments only shifts funding burdens to other levels of government. How does this result in an overall savings? The report as a whole is an impressive examination of a variety of state functions and a credit should be given to the many people who worked to produce it. However, the report only represents a first step. The eventual adoption and elimination of the recommendations will require years of work which will include legislative action and amendments to the State Constitution. It will also depend on the input of the public and affected agencies. Commission staff is continuing to analyze the report and its recommendations and will return to the Commission in the next month with a comprehensive response to the CPR Commission. Staff will also work with Commissioners and its legislative representatives in Sacramento to provide input. • Agenda Item 6V 160 • Legislative Update One bill that is receiving renewed attention is ACA 24, which would make it much harder for the Governor and Legislature to divert Proposition 42 funding. On August 15, local Assemblymen John J. Benoit and Robert Dutton authored an opinion column in the Press Enterprise supporting state transportation funding and ACA 24. The Commission has already taken a SUPPORT position on this bill. Attachments: 1) Legislative Matrix 2) Press Enterprise Newspaper Column • • Agenda Item 6V 161 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA RTATION COMMISSION POSITIONS ON S E LEGISL ATION UPDATED AUGUST 2004 • Legislation/ Author escription `�� Sill Status Position AB 496 Correa 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. Passed Assembly 52- 24, referred to Senate Natural Resources Committee OPPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED AB 2372 Correa Protects counties such as Riverside County that have not programmed their state funding shares. Maintains and strengthens current law regarding county shares of state funding. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee SUPPORT AB 2489 Longville Clarifies state regulations to allow the creation of additional Freeway Service Patrol programs, especially in San Bernardino County Passed Assembly Transportation Committee and referred to Assembly Appropriations SUPPORT AB 2628 Pavley Would allow hybrid -electric cars to be operated by solo dri vers in HOV Lanes Passed Assembly Transportation Committee and referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee OPPOSE AB 3007 Plesica Eliminates property acquisition and litigation discussions from closed meetings under the Brown Act. Referred to Assembly Local Government Committee OPPOSE ACA 7 Dutra Reduces voter threshold for transportation sales tax measures to 55 percent Passed Assembly Elections and Appropriations Committees SUPPORT ACA 9 Levine Allows local jurisdictions to approve special taxes for infrastructure projects with only a majority vote. The bill includes a number of restrictions and specifications on how this could be imposed . Passed Assembly Local Gover nment and Appropriations Committees ACA 11 Levine Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local bond measures for specified infrastructure projects. Passed Assembly Local Government and Appropriations Committees 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. Passed Assembly Local Government Appropriations Committee ACA 21 Bogh & Spitzer Raises Legislative threshold for the suspension of Proposition 42 to a 4/5ths vote Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee SUPPORT 162 L 'tion/ Author . �" Descri tion �� P Bill Status P ositio n ACA 24 Dutra Limits loans from the Highway Account to the General Fund to one- year or requires the payment of interest on loans of a longer term. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee SUPPORT ACA 29 Harman (Coauthor: Benoit) Would eliminate the current provision in Proposition 42 that allows the Legislature and the Governor to suspend the funding transfer that is outlined in Proposition 42. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee SUPPORT SB 18 Burton Establishes changes to the CEQA project for traditional tribal cultural sites Failed Passage in the Assembly — Reconsideration Granted OPPOSE SB 87 Hollingsworth Would relinquish part of State Route 79 to the City of Temecula . Passed Senate 40-0 Returned to Assembly f or Further Action SUPPORT SB 380 M cClintock and Murray 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. Passed Senate Transportation Committee and is now Senate Appropriations Suspense File . SB 541 Torlakson Indexes the state gas tax to ensure that it increases with inflation . Failed passage in Senate Transportation. Reconsideration has been granted. SB 1055 Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Restores some truck weight fees and allocates the revenue to the State Highway Account Signed by the Governor SUPPORT SB 1210 Torlakson Would enable additional state construction projects to be built with the Design -Sequencing procedure that is being utilized on the 60/91/215 interchange Passed Senate Transportation Committee and Referred to Senate Appropriations Committee SUPPORT SCA 2 Torlakson 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 AMENDMENTS SCA 7 Murray Would require that all loans made to the General Fund from transportation sources such as the STIP be repaid with interest Senate Appropriations — Hearing date pending SUPPORT • •3 • D2 SUNDAY, August 15, 2004 THE PRESS -ENTER PRISF DAVID CORNWALL PUBLISHER MARIA DEVARENNE EDITOR GALE HAMMONS EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR PUBLISHERS OF THE PRESS SINCE 1878 THE ENTERPRISE SINCE 1885 .THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE SINCE 1292 HARRY HAMMOND PRESIDENT 1937-1948 HOWARD H HAYS SR. PRESIDENT 1948-1969 HOWARD 1! HAYS JR. ARTHUR A. CULVER CO -PUBLISHERS 1965-1983 TRANSPORTATION HOWARD H HAYS JR. PUBLISHER 1983-1988 WILLIAM D. RICH PUBLISHER 1989-1993 MARCIA MCQUERN PUBLISHER 1994-2002 SLIT RAIDING STATE RoAD MONE BY JOHN J. BENOIT AND ROBERT DUTTON asy access to credit can be l`f addicting, and devastating once the bill comes due. That's true for the average person, but it's especially true for the state of Califor- ia. With little notice, the invoice s arrived for California and it will be paid by California's drivers and businesses that are clamoring for better transporta- tion. Transportation financing in California has been bankrupted by the state's deficit spending. That was confirmed when the California Transportation Com- mission was forced to halt all new transportation funding un- til at least December. The im- pact of this on the Inland Em- pire, the fastest -growing region of California, will be calamitous if the Legislature doesn't act.immediately. The economic vitality of Riverside County and the public safety of our citizens are at stake. How did we get to this point? For generations,. Riverside and San Bernardino coun- ties' highway improvements, road maintenance and rehabili- tation were financed by fuel taxes paid by the users of our roads and highways. Since 1988, our voters have twice over- whelmingly supported Measure A, Riverside County's half -cent - per -dollar sales tax surcharge, to augment state and federal transportation revenues. 0 In San Bernardino. County, oters approved Measure I in 989 and are considering an extension this November. The combined local, state and feder- al funding has expanded Met- rolink commuter rail services and provided specialized tran- sit services for or senior citi- ACA 24 will make it much harder for the state to borrow,... and add a level of accountability to the state's budget process. zens. But in recent years, the state has failed to protect transporta- tion revenues and has instead "borrowed" road money to cov- er state deficits and provide a sense of balance to the state budget. While local Measure A funds currently support the ma- jority of new funding for trans- portation projects in. Riverside County and Measure 1 does the same in San Bernardino Coun-. ty, our efforts wilt` come up short if our state and federal partners don't pay their share. In fact, over the: past, five - years, according to the Califor= nia Transportation Commis- sion, the budget crisis has led to the diversion of $5.5 billion in-. transportation revenues. -In Riv- erside County, we . have lost more than $250 roillion-commit-. ted to more than two dozen real, identifiable projects: San Ber- nardino has seen similar cuts. ,. Whatis.particularlyvexingto us as legislators is our state's failure to honor the will of our voters. In March 2002, 76 per- cent of Riverside County's voters and 72 percent of San Bernardino County's voters joined people all over Califor- nia in approving Prop. 42, committing the sales tax lev- ied on gasoline and diesel fuels to fund transportation projects. This is why we, along with a bipartisan group of legislators, are supporting ACA 1,24 and seeking Legislative -approval and the governor's support to protect Prop. 42 and provide state matching funding to the Riverside County Transporta- tion Commission, San Bernardi- no Associated Governments and other local jurisdictions. ACA 24 would make it much harder for the state to borrow from transportation funds, would make timely repayment a priority and would add a level of accountability to the state's budget process by ensuring that balancing . the budget means more than adding more items to the credit card bill. oreover, ACA 24 would protect the will of our state's voters, who have repeatedly invested in better transportation and who ap- proved Prop. 42. Congress also needs to act this year' to reauthorize the federal highway . bill with a funding level that .recognizes California's critical importance in moving goods from our ports to the rest of America. We in the state Legislature must do our part soon to guar- antee that the unconscionable borrowing and hijacking of high- way funds stops and that a $1.1 bil- lion annual investment supported by California voters goes where it was intended — to improve our transportation system and n'acr gridlock Assemblyman John J. Benoit represents the 64th Assembly District whichin- cludes the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, Idyllwild and parts of Temecula, Hemet, and Lake Elsinore. He serves on the Assembly Transportation, Budget and Insurance committees. Assemblyman Robert Dutton represents the 63rd Assembly District which in- cludes the cities of Fontana, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda; Rancho Cuca- monga, Redlands, San Bernardino, Up- land, Highland and Moreno Valley. He serves on the Assembly Heath and Veterans Affairs committees. 164 AGENDA ITEM 7 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Western County Members of the Technical Advisory Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: TUMF Regional Arterial Priority Project Recommendations BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTA TION COMMITTEE, WESTERN COUNTY MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Establish a five-year TUMF Regional Arterial Program for the period FY 2005 to FY 2009 pursuant to the Commission's first Call for Projects solicitation and direct staff to administratively update the approved project status, cost and revenue figures pursuant to any future actions taken by WRCOG to amend its TUMF 10 -Year Strategic Plan and Nexus Study; 2) Approve the list of 23 projects as eligible for TUMF Regional funding; 3) Program an estimated $71.3 million in TUMF Regional funds which represents either the amount requested by the local agency or the maximum TUMF Funding identified in the Nexus Study: a) $08.7 M - Project Development (PA&ED) FY '05 thru 09 b) $09.5 M - Design (PS&E) FY '05 thru 09 c) $19.0 M - Right of Way FY '05 thru 06 d) $09.1 M - Construction FY '05 thru 06 e) $25.0 M - Mid County Parkway & SR 79 Realignment Projects 4) Direct staff to develop and seek approval of a model TUMF Regional Funding Agreement between local agencies and RCTC for the selected TUMF projects and phase(s) that assures the Commission work will be completed as detailed in the project proposals and requires local agencies to commit to funding these and future phases of work on the project for which TUMF Regional funds cannot fund or are insufficient to cover all costs of the project/phase. Agenda Item 7 165 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June, the RCTC issued a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Call for Projects to the cities and county in Western Riverside County. The Call for Projects requested local agencies (14 incorporated cities and four Supervisorial Districts) to submit their top priority projects on the nine High Priority Arterial Corridors which were approved "in concept" by the Commission at its meeting on February 11, 2004. A total of 29 projects from 12 agencies requesting over $230 million in TUMF Regional funds were received on the July 12th submittal due date. Being the first TUMF Call for Projects process, a "learn as you go" cooperative attitude was clearly exhibited by all stakeholders in the process. RCTC wishes to acknowledge and thank the local agencies for their active participation and patience during the evaluation process. A number of lessons were learned in applying the selection criteria adopted in the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) TUMF 10 -Year Strategic Plan. The project evaluation process was initiated by performing a TUMF Nexus Study consistency review of the proposed projects. WRCOG provided the assistance of their TUMF consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. (PB), to perform the consistency review and support RCTC's overall process. The detailed consistency review information prepared and presented by PB's Darren Henderson was valuable to the evaluation process. Clearly, the local agencies and RCTC staff appreciated the high level of technical support provided by WRCOG's consultant team. The western county members of RCTC's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) were convened to review the projects. Each project(s) proponent had an opportunity to present their project and respond to various questions posed by Committee members including challenging the consistency review findings such as the calculation of maximum eligible TUMF funding. The TAC and Staff are recommending that a five-year TUMF Regional Program (2005-2009) be established to provide the greatest flexibility in funding and support the development of projects to move forward to construction. The five- year program will require periodic updating to administratively account for any changes in the Strategic Plan and Nexus Study as approved by WRCOG and local jurisdictions to incorporate cost, revenue and project specific adjustments. Staff also anticipates that additional TUMF Regional Call for Projects efforts will likely be needed within the five year period to adjust programming of new projects or new phases of existing projects being recommended for funding. • • • Agenda Item 7 166 • • • In addition, it is recommend that 23 projects as detailed on Attachment A be awarded $71.3 million in TUMF Regional funds. Of the original 29 projects submitted, six (6) projects are not being recommended for consideration at this time: • Two projects will be brought back to the Commission for funding consideration at a later date: - Tracking #27 - Moreno Valley - Reche Vista/Reche Canyon realignment and widening project - Tracking #09 - County of Riverside - Clinton Keith/I-215 interchange project. • Three projects, while on the TUMF Network, are not on the list of High Priority Regional Arterials approved by the Commission nor on the Backbone System and are not recommended for funding. They will appropriately be referred to the TUMF Zone Program for funding consideration by WRCOG's sub areas: Tracking #15 - Perris - SR 74/1-215 interchange project Tracking #21 - San Jacinto - Esplanade Avenue widening Tracking #23 - Hemet - Sanderson Avenue widening • One project was deemed to be duplicative and was withdrawn: - Tracking #14 - County of Riverside - Foothill Parkway: El Cerrito Road/I-15 interchange project The recommended projects are in various states of development. Some agencies have started or completed the environmental phase (project approvals and environmental document (PA&ED)) and design (plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E)) with local funds. Other agencies are requesting TUMF funds to begin PA&ED and PS&E. The earliest construction is programmed to occur in 2006. Once the project development work is complete, we anticipate a significant level of demand for construction funds beginning in 2007 through 2009. Staff is recommending the Commission approve the allocation of all project development (PA&ED and PS&E) work requested over the five-year period, 2005 thru 2009. Right-of-way and construction funding is recommended for project requests in 2005 and 2006. By not programming funds for right-of-way and construction at this time, it will allow RCTC to consider cash flow impacts as projects become ready for construction. This "first come, first serve" concept will hopefully act as an inducement to lead agencies to move as quickly as possible through the project development and environmental stages. Staff will return to the Commission with Agenda Item 7 167 funding recommendations for right of way and construction requests in year 2007 and beyond after WRCOG completes its planned update of the TUMF Strategic Plan and Nexus Study this coming winter. It is anticipated that the update will affect project segment and maximum TUMF eligibility data. One outstanding issue affects Riverside County as three of its projects are currently included in existing Road and Bridge Benefit Districts (RBBD). The issue is that the proposed project can either be funded in the RBBD or in the TUMF program, but not both. The projects affected by this condition that require a County decision are the State Route 79 - Domenigoni to Thompson, the Clinton Keith/I-15 interchange and the Bundy Canyon/Scott Road improvement. The recommendation in this item is to approve funding for these three projects conditioned upon the County removing the projects from the RBBD's. WRCOG's Strategic Plan estimated Regional TUMF funding for a five-year period at approximately $220 million. This revenue estimate may be increased or decreased based on the outcome of the Taussig study jointly funded by WCROG and RCTC. The revenue projections are expected to be available around August 20th with a final report due in mid -September. Based on the WRCOG forecast, it appears that there are sufficient TUMF Regional funds to support the allocation of $71 .3 million as detailed on Attachment A and in the Recommendation section above. Included in the recommendation is the establishment of an initial allocation of $25.0 million to support development of the future Mid County Parkway and State Route 79 Realignment projects. The purpose of this allocation is to support the projects as they are developed. Staff is certain the initial allocation for the Mid County Parkway and SR 79 projects will likely require additional TUMF funds in the near future. Previous TUMF Regional fund commitments made by the Commission include: $ 1 .00 M - State Route 79 (Domenigoni to Thompson) $ 5.00 M - Mid County Parkway (Cajalco/Ramona Corridor) $13.40 M - State Route 91 /Green River Interchange project loan There were a number of issues wrestled with during the evaluation process by the Western County TAC. Several of those issues are discussed below which the Commission should be aware of prior to taking action. First, the improvements identified in the approved TUMF Network and the Nexus Study are currently estimated to be at least 25% under funded by the existing TUMF Fee. This projected revenue shortfall exists for several reasons including, but not limited to, development agreements approved prior to the TUMF fee being put in place, phasing in of the fee on commercial development, exclusions for government and educational facilities, etc. • • • Agenda Item 7 168 • • • Second, the TUMF Network includes improvements on several segments along Cajalco Road and Van Buren Boulevard, for example, which cannot be fully funded by TUMF. TUMF funds can only be used for improvements addressing traffic impacts generated by future development not existing conditions. These arterial segments will be evaluated on a case by case basis and local jurisdictions may be required to fund the improvements needed to meet existing traffic impacts or the TUMF update may assist in addressing the funding gap. Third, cost estimates for the various phases of roadway and interchange improvements including right-of-way acquisition, earthwork, bridges and other structures used in the Nexus Study were developed using "average" costs for these types of improvements rather than specific cost estimates for each segment or interchange. There will be many arterial segments where the actual cost to environmentally clear, design and construct the improvement will exceed the estimated cost basis incorporated in the Nexus Study. Conversely, there may be segments where the eligible TUMF funds will be higher than the actual cost of delivering the project. Overall it is anticipated that the issue of "average" cost estimates will increase the estimated 25% shortfall in TUMF funding for the arterial and local systems. Fourth, the Commission should take great care to maintain a relationship between the cost estimates used in the Nexus Study and the TUMF funds programmed for various roadway segment and interchange improvements in order to not compromise the integrity of the Nexus Study and Fee relationship and/or increase the estimated 25% gap between estimated costs for the projects and the revenues anticipated from the fees. In response to this gap issue, the WRCOG 10 -Year TUMF Strategic Plan included criteria to encourage local funding participation. It is safe to say that no one project is simple or without unique conditions, particularly in this first TUMF CaII for Projects process. To ensure that the various issues are consistently addressed in each of the selected projects, staff is recommending that a model agreement be developed by which the terms and conditions for receiving TUMF Regional funds will be clearly understood by the Commission and local agencies. Once developed, the TUMF model agreement will be presented to the Commission for its review and approval. The Commission's agreement with local agencies should require that when TUMF Regional Arterial funds are committed to a project, the local agency will complete the improvement. This means that local agencies will have to provide local or other funding where necessary to cover costs exceeding the maximum TUMF funding for Agenda Item 7 169 the segment or interchange, as identified in the Nexus Study, so that funds are not committed to projects that will not be built. This requirement will place additional match responsibility on local agencies. In some cases, the funding gap may be addressed by a TUMF fee increase which goes beyond inflationary adjustments. Discussion held during the August 23rd Budget and Implementation Committee highlighted the need to work closely with local jurisdictions regarding preservation of right-of-way for the recommended 23 TUMF projects given that a number of the projects will require multiple years to reach the right-of-way phase of work. Staff concurs with the policy Committee's conclusions and will work to more closely coordinate with local jurisdictions as staff works to move individual TUMF Regional projects forward. Attachment: TUMF Regional Arterial Priority Project Funding Recommendations • • • Agenda Item 7 170 Riverside County Transportation Commission 2004 TUMF CaII for Projects Funding Recommendations terials Project Funding Recommendations lect Phases: A&ED = Project Approvals & Environmental Document R/W = Right -of -Way acquisition and utility relocation PS&E = Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Cons = Construction Date: 8/23/04 Arterial Project Details Project Schedule and Funding Requirements ( $'s in millions) Note: Gray FY cells are not recommended for funding at this time Track 10 Year Rating Lead Agency Project Title Project Limits Phase 1 A Corona Green River Road Project Dominguez Ranch Road to SR 91 PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons FY 2005 Year Total 2 B Corona Foothill Parkway - Westerly Extension Paseo Grande to Lincoln Avenue 4 A/C Riverside County Transportation Department Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Bundy Canyon Road from I- 15 Murrieta Road, Scott Road from Murrieta Road to 1-215 • A Riverside County Transportation Department State Route 79 Improvement Project Widen State Route 79 to four (4) lanes from Thompson Road (south limit) to Domenigoni Parkway (north limit) 6 A Riverside County Transportation Department Van Buren Bridge Boulevard Widening and Bridge Replacement On Van Buren Blvd from Clay Street (north limit- approx. 1000 feet north of the Santa Ana River) to approx. 1200 feet south of the Santa Ana River. 8 A Riverside County Transportation Department Van Buren Widening - Washington Street to Wood Road - Project Development On Van Buren Blvd between Washington Street and Wood Road in the Woodcrest area 11 A/B Riverside County Transportation Department Eastern Bypass Project Development Eastern Bypass from Auld Road 101-15 13 A Riverside County Transportation Department Potrero Boulevard Project Development Potrero Blvd. from San Timoteo Canyon Road/ Oak Valley Pkwy to SR 79 • A Riverside Van Buren Boulevard Widening - Andrew Street to Garfield Street Van Buren Boulevard from Andrew Street to Garfield Street PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons $ 0.712 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 $ 4.242 $ - $ 4.000 $ - $ - Year $ 0.712 $ Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons $ 1.000 Year $ 1.000 $ - $ 13.000 $ - Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons $ 0.226 $ 4.860 $ - $ 0.564 Year $ 0.226 $ - $ 0.564 $ - Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons $ 1.000 $ 1.000 $ 1.000 $ - $ Year Total PA&ED PS&E Year Total $ 2.000 $ - $ - $ - $ 0.905 $ - $ - Phase Total $ - $ - $ 4.242 $ 2.000 $ 2.000 $ 17.282 $ 21.282 13.000 14.000 4.860 4.860 0.226 0.564 Page 1�1 Arterials Project Funding Recommendations - Continued Date: 08/23/04 Project Phases: PA&ED = Project Approvals & Environmental Document R/W = Right -of -Way acquisition and utility relocation PS&E = Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Cons = Construction Arterial Project Details Project Schedule and Funding Requirements ( $'s in milli Note: Gray FY cells are not recommended for funding at this time Track 10 Year Rating Lead Agency Project Title Project Limits Phase FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 18 A Riverside Van Buren Boulevard Widening - Santa Ana River to Jackson Street Van Buren Boulevard from Santa Ana River to Jackson Street 19 A San Jacinto Ramona Expressway Widening (TUMF Priority) Sanderson Avenue (Hwy 79) to westerly city limits 20 C San Jacinto Extension of Ramona Expressway (Gap Closure) Seventh Street in San Jacinto to Cedar Avenue unincorporated territory - Riverside County PA&ED PS&E 26 A Temecula Western Bypass Corridor Alignment Study Approximately, from 1-15/ SR 79 South Interchange in a northerly direction to the proposed 1-15/ French Valley Interchange 28 B Moreno Valley Perris Boulevard Widening Ramona Expressway to Cactus Avenue R/W Cons Year Total $ PA&ED $ 0.600 PS&E $ 0.160 R/W $ 3.000 Cons $ 0.765 $ - Year $ 0.600 $ 3.160 $ - $ $ Total PA&ED $ 0.200 PS&E $ 0.300 R/W Cons $ 0.900 Year Total $ 0.500 $ 0.900 $ 4.500 $ - $ PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Year Total 29 B Moreno Valley Perris Boulevard Ironwood Avenue to Widening Manzanita Avenue PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons $ 0.700 $ 0.700 $ - $ 0.389 $ 0.871 $ 7,710 $ 0.389 $ 0.871 $ 1.955 $ 7.710 $ 0.134 $ 0.336 Year Total $ 0.134 $ 1.361 $ - $ 1.342 PA&ED PS&E $ 2.738 $ 1.300 $ 2.223 $ 4.160 R/W $ 5.900 1.955 FY 2007 FY 2008 0 26.334 Year $ 4.038 $ 21.385 $ 22.966 $ 1.955 $ 26.334 Total Phase Totaill $ 0.765 ons) 0.765 $ 0.600 $ 0.160 $ 3.000 $ $ 3.760 0.200 0.300 0.900 4.500 $ 5.900 0.700 $ 0.70 $ 0.389 0.871 1.955 7.710 $ 10.925 0.134 0.336 1.025 1.342 $ 2.837 Total $ 5.961 $ 7.231 $ 8.880 $ 54.606 Interchanges Project Funding Recommendations Project Limits Phase FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Phas Track # 10 Year Rating Lead Agency Project Title 3 A Corona El Cerrito Rd/ I-15 Interchange Capacity Improvements Bedford Canyon Road to the I-15 Northbound Ramps PA&ED $ $ $ $ $ PS&E R/W $ 0.120 t =" Cons Year Total $ 0.120 $ - $ - $ 1.505 $ 0.120 Page c Interchanges Project Funding Recommendations - Continued Date: 08/23/04 Project Phases: PA&ED = Project Approvals & Environmental Document 0W = Right -of -Way acquisition and utility relocation Interchange Project Details PS&E = Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Cons = Construction Project Schedule and Funding Requirements ( $'s in millions) Note: Gray FY cells are not recommended for funding at this time Track 10 Year Rating Lead Agency Project Title Project Limits Phase FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Phase Total 7 B Riverside County Transportation Department New Interchange on 1-15 at Schleisman Road New IC along I-15 between the existing Limonite Ave IC and Sixth St IC in the Mira Loma region. The proposed IC at Schleisman Rd will be approx 1.31 miles s/o Limonite Ave. 10 A Riverside County Transportation Department Clinto Keith Rd/ 1-15 IC Improvement Project Clinton Keith/1-15 Interchange 12 B Riverside County Transportation Department New IC at the Eastern Bypass/ 1-15 Eastern Bypass/I-15 16 A Riverside Van Buren Blvd - 91 Freeway Interchange Van Buren Blvd at the 91 Freeway Interchnage 110 22 A Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon Road/ 15 Interchange Improvements Interstate 15 to Canyon Hills Road 24 A Temecula French Valley Pkwy/ 1-15 Overcrossing and IC On 1-15, approx 0.98 km north of Winchester Rd (SR79) IC and 2.43 km s/o the 1-15/ 1-215 junction 25 A Temecula I-15/SR79 South Intersection of 1-15 and SR79 Ultimate South Interchange PA&ED PS&E $ 0.750 R/W Cons Total Year PA&ED $ 2.000 $ 24.250 $ 0.750 $ - $ 2.000 $ 0.750 $ 2.000 $ 4.250 $ 20.000 $ 27.000 PS&E R/W Cons Year Total $ $ 13.500 PA&ED PS&E $ 0.500 R/W Cons $ 0.750 0.750 Year $ 0.500 $ 0.750 $ 0.750 $ - $ Total PA&ED PS&E R/W $ 2.000 Cons Year Total PA&ED $ 2.000 $ - $ 8.000 $ - PS&E R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED $ 0.300 7 $ 6.300 $ 7.200 $ - PS&E R/W Cons Year Total $ 7.000 $ 7.000 $ - $ 20.000 PA&ED PS&E R/W $ 4.000 $ 0.010 Cons 5.900 Year $ 4.000 $ 0.010 $ 5.900 $ - Total $ 13.500 $ 13.500 2.000 $ 2.000 2.000 8.000 $ 10.000 $ $ $ 0.300 6.000 7.200 $ 13.500 7.000 20.000 $ 27.000 $ $ 0.010 4.000 5.900 $ 9.910 Total TU.,,: Phase FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 PA&ED $ 0.500 $ 1.500 $ 0.010 $ 9.000 $ 0.750 $ 0.300 $ 2.000 $ - $ $ - PS&E R/W Cons $ $ 4.120 4 6.70' Year $ 4.620 $ 10.510 $ 12.950 $ 18.705 $ 57.750 Total Total $ 2.750 $ 2.310 $ 23.370 $ 76.105 $ 104.535 • TUMF Arterials and Interchanges Summary Totals PA&ED $ 3.238 PS&E R/W Cons $ 1.300 $ 4.120 $ IC) Cost Flow='. $ 3.723 $ 4.170 $ 14.900 $ 9.102 $ 1.750 $ 2.071 455 $ .705 $ Year $ 8.658 $ 31.895 $ 35.916 $ 20.660 $ 84.084 Total Total $ 8.711 $ 9.541 $ 32.250 $ 130.711 $ 181.213 Page 113 PUBLIC COMMENTS AGENDA ITEM 7 DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD/ c Speakers shall complete the foll owi ng: PUBLIC COMMENTS: 7 AGENDA ITEM NO .: IAS LISTED ON THE AGEND A) NA ME: ADDRESS: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: D ATE: TEL . NO .: ')_7()6 O nRVi/s j PRIs 92.57o, Street City Zip Code REPRESENTING: Name of Gro up BUSINESS ADDRESS: rah-) E TEL. NO.: r7 P3l 9 RCTC/nk 10/03 DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD hall c omp -te 11e f - SU PUBLIC COMMEN UBLIC COMMENTS: DATE: —�— AGENDA ITEM NO SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) —7 AGEND A ITEM: s *-1-1 v� i t .2 TEL. NO.: c;.; --2(1 /3 ?-2_ NAME: A DDRESS: : \ L\ \ r Street REPRESENTING: Pv\). 4-414— ity Name f Group BUSINESS ADDRESS: TEL . NO.: Zip Code ),t/ti ..W ARA Co vL�L RCTC/nk 10/03 DET ACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Speakers shall complete the following: PUBLIC COMMENTS: O AGENDA ITEM NO.: (A S LISTED ON THE AGEND NAME: 6-14e rL SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: BJECT OF GENDA ITEM: DATE: IA7L`' L-- TEL . NO .:'7 1 azy'T ' —37STr ADDRESS: 3 y/ )'�J4/2r2i .J JGC,iz e9.- L.De rywer 923- r -sat, Zip Code REPRESENTING: Street City n 4V / l 'lam ©�` /4 /1 L'' / r. i S i VL4'-s S _— Nam e of Gro up BUSINESS ADDRESS: i7 S TEL . NO.: RCTC/nk 10/03 DETACH AND S UBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Speakers shall c omplete the f ollowi ng: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: 0 UBLIC COMMENTS: D ATE: Y/P//,/- AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT OF (A S LISTED ON THE AGE DA1 AGENDA ITEM: / 0 M /S-CE.E / -% /46rL�7/6C') NAME: 46.44,e5/'%+P / (w , _/_ ____ TEL. NO.: O)T7' —/,9-�v�� ADDRESS: J�v'_6U Street fi REPRESENTING: gZip Code BUSINESS ADDRESS: f(9C.1/ /rzse • RCTC/nk 10/03 DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Speakers shall complete the following: DATE: 9 — SUBJECT OF OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: ia( PUBLIC COMMENTS: 1 AGENDA ITEM NO .: SUBJECT OF (A S LISTED ON THE AGENDA) AGENDA ITEM: NAME:____nO 'r 1 hc:4:(' TEL. NO.: e -- ADDRESS: )! 1 �y ,: Street City Zip ode 5-5"›.7 REPRESENTING: A 1 l cab \44444 l Name of Gro up BUSINESS A DDRESS: RCTC/nk 10/03 TEL. NO .: DET ACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Speakers shall complet e the followi ng: DATE: { -S_ (Q4 SUBJECT OF _ c PUBLIC COMMENTS: L. PUBLIC COMMENTS:7\D K`(\ AGENDA ITEM NO.: ! SUBJECT OF (A S LISTED ON THE AGENDA) AGEND A ITEM: NA ME: A DDRESS: 1 9 \IDA 1-?c,-X--c,..(7-A-- TEL. NO.: 'iiSs1— 1'.36L( . Street City Zip Code REPRESENTING: C,,\N‘M .0�.� N ame of Group BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC/nk 10/03 TEL. NO .: Speakers shall complete the f ollowi ng: PUBLIC COMMENTS: O SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: (, ,.i0 SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) 1 AGENDA ITEM: DET ACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BO ARD DATE: 61" -CY NAME: c 7(\cv1-5Y'- (" ' TEL. NO .: ADDRESS: e93 9c g Street REPRESENTING: ea UV/ _ gas 9, City Zip Code Name of Gr oup BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC/n k 10/03 TEL. NO .: FROM: George & Marie Taylor 34041 Harrow Hill Rd. Wildomar Ca. 92595-9296 The Farm TO: Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon St. Riverside California. SUBJECT: Funding to improve Bundy Canyon Road. 8 September 2004 1. We are offering this input as residents who live in The Farm Mobile Home Development adjacent to Bundy Canyon Road and use it on a daily basis to go to work, buy our groceries, run errands, go to the doctor, attend public functions and meetings. As you will see in the following presentation, this road is in great need of attention, whether the attention comes from TUMF funds or the county, some action needs to take place to insure the protection of the public who travel the highway either because of need or who are forced to use it because of other impacts in the local area. 2. It is our understanding that the TUMF fees are collected from developers in advance of their project installations so the access infrastructure can be expanded to support the need. 3. It is our understanding that Bundy Canyon was not considered for a roadway that would become eligible for these fees. 4. Since development is slow on this road, one might argue that this may have been the reason for the omission, however there is development going on this road and in the surrounding area that warrants the planning department to modify the rules so that these unseen impacts will permit improvements to be made. 5. The purpose of our input today is to support your thinking to make this roadway eligible for this Transportation Infrastructure fund or to suggest that the county consider a modest tax that could be assessed as a part of ones annual tax bill to help support the effort. If the county is going to continue to permit the growth that we see going on around us, the folks who will move into these homes that you allow to be built need to help all of us to safely get around. 6. It is our understanding that Bundy Canyon Road was on the county's books scheduled to become an 84 Foot wide Arterial. The Roadway is that now squeezed into a 30 foot wide space. With the advent of the Diamond Valley Recreational Area becoming more developed, more folks from the Coast, Elsinore, Corona, Murrieta, Temecula and south will be heading that way on week ends. The Commercial Trucking industry has already found it. 7. Please note that the road is winding, has grades and the Speed limit is 55 MPH except at the western end where there are housing tracts in place where it is 45 MPH. Emergency vehicles travel this road emanating from fire station 68 on Murrieta road. When one of these engines respond to The Farm and or other residents that reside along this roadway, and depend on this Highway to save lives, one either has to out race them or pull out of the way as the law dictates. Well there are very few places along this roadway that has a shoulder or pull out to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. 8. It is our hope that this contribution will provide an intimate look at this situation coming from two of those who are at the scene. Something has to be done to help us. Res . ully submitted, aax. eorge Szkose Marie T1y1or Wildomar Residents. PURPosT TO HELP SoT93oRT 3oPtRvi S�R. Boa r3u5rEt?.. POR T1LUIF PE.Eb RoND>' cry PD. T u ( I F Fr_rSt Nc�►�r U DY EYE RD ^--* • 5a• T"u r1 F r 4 -Se 0 RD 2 .r ›- < .4--- o4 M. uNr I C< munit H PINE 0 indmill BA;C °lJ aw4D)• CXN rtbe Ts • W it.lb 1 G. • 014t IcACI, • PtA RR° W • Faits; SHouLDLn ARAM s, • HLcI OsNT 1.11.0141L � �r' /u t o, LaJL AAA agierlia b 8 I INLAND I VALLEY DR 1 I YAM AS Did I I� —(—ELIFARETH W I -4 IA NN LN ,> L__ f r \f! 4,4 MARSII i.h'-p •P F\ - R RIJF. AN N 'lr -42 W�NKI NAv L NN l.N a OSN,..' 4A, R 3S RAISAM ST. +'sy PASQUALE ST 1 I 1 RAYLESS RD -7 1 SANER RP 1 A MAPIJts RrV� ( •AIJ i: DIi_ " ' I 1 ESPERANZ A t I' ALM1� W1. I) L'IIAI2p ,AFINIIn l -I AL MOND ST GARRISON 1.N CAMER ON I.N' WHITE s'r s,•• GUMDEE wV 11 L KILARNEY r LN '1 I� t�y CORNE R.QTDNE l ('MI R( 'N ART) by S('11(NN,I VI A ' C.AR NAG1f1 1 1 SU SAN 1 DR ;I I PORRAS 4 Rl) IODINE SIt2IN GS;' ORr 1y 1 GRD sn tmA S "' ' z i CO14rY PARK 1 f"' *%`, ��%1TA 48 IbOM) L SOL '69g MraD OW R 3 PARK CIR I J� !. 1 DIAMANTP• DR PI"AfPRIN A \ RD CC • t Iy r z z � Nr 0 z 74, C OI I - ,S pz i(M'TA ' I e? PAL 1r Ft IP n\' 1'M� -�-3-1 y 1 2 11 y i N1 T ', nun POINTE CIR 1..J 31 N/0d RA UH) RD np 11rc1AVN 'V> _ Pr v P SI'l fR I.1 Ei 1 '1 `%F wiu.ow I L I ii s�\� •t 1 N'J 1 I�$1. .1 I "11 ��L! sativmaa i T i-- Ny �L. le. 31 45•Ni TN PRe3,Nr L4� AT" 77;1411. N o s rz r LI 4/7y . Ls Limit R X ter tai a► op 7'I sm— FAAr'1 se Vg►w IMO". ♦. A lts.ws C�►v y� V��syi 13u pp .Y —GAP Yo0 mall • \ 0 — \� WinOmilts �Windmin'• J BVMDX e rte. H•945 i3*c.M.. tiA;A, AILTE j40 • TRu4tT wve.0. 3 TaNt •ba CL►aTeN Ktil • t,11 O SEMI TR�crCs CYo1/4i. • CON$IDEIL mne►• P *UP), L. . Iw Fis.i ,uiOy eyrJ _) bbarielJD VA t ( E) Loke_ rRr:Cd APA— .0,�� 1 .5 � • PINE O•! •. M�`UNi v C ,munit Ilwinamill uD qp Pil railirri r mrt: 1 a s Wi in Re Bch • olt '1- 365 0 indmill BAIL 81 9. • Wale( •36 eg 01, aria• ybu• n9i :.. • 2uMD' e>014) RD. 14t4 s • 14 RAY Y Conr%v rL ant^PPlG lifts Thew tiolawiti.••• MfAyy Co r� N y Tv 'Th. ro RING lu rht ARTsRNemat • Moto aR•Ara TRAP ., MS Du R,1" w10Cm,ll \ 0 rin 1 • .l V( mills • ,O ,C tl i ll:f i:: • � Wiodhiinf 3651✓ " .-. •,Ccek i3Vt4DY CYN RD. rat A Flemo. eao N i i = T.= Off 4 . HIGM NvMaas as GMa is LahaeL.wa • - R.Y 1'b k) ra.l.. alr-t � - P(LIvAT'+t. f CeML VIEi4iGLS • P Ass itu 6l/L VIENie.t..t � SC N o•4 Dv sS OILs • A�4 14. 13»o, eye I ar* 44114.191 iniesiumaniamainimmemsmim PINE -4 • I� '1 365 IntimiII BAIL 3b� e iIi1 burial groun BU • A 0 1 1' cg 5 INLAND VALLEY DR YAMAS DPI I m I Iz Iz 1 Io ^I-P1. IF�1R ^TH LN _ JA W L4 > bL I II ER DR HICKORY IA, FI ALMOND S'1' e rr 1 JIB A c I • ORA N(;1? R (i d .JSON LN (II CIIARD Af RIBA CI �dA •yt 'y �n' 6' ' ♦ � if s � YS I CAMERON OE ,1N1LN Y S AFT �1 ? `W�( . A •�.• "�R YS `�i= a-01 -'V p -CHERRY Si- 4 •f7�Aps! f `_ y¢L BKF R1A1*K NI • W'f>t M) .9-I. N `f;'a ,�� M ARSII _ 5) BLUES ANNIN'>.K r`_ a :/a RD ; WA NK"Ay CIF.NN I.N a K( p , 1'AS(9NL wo.sH, /,1, a; 1:4 r �' .• I � C.; S signs 1 BALSAM ST - rte- 1 J _ _ 1 PASQUALE ST 1 SAIJDA - O L .SOL im m, A7 12040. ROAD PAR R c IR HAYLESS RD MAPIJIS RJIi 11 I 1.. I CAL.LE. DP . ESPERANZ .A .by rnvUnc\ IN )RAN G(: E GE7IJ GLEN_ CIR MONi E VIS TA I) CORNER/LONE CHUR CH AND SCHOOL, 'A YALMA. ar ce, N:AfPJa . RO ! . L NVAP 4 fig3NO •)' H o RI'MET A\ MON OR S'f PfINTE CIR ~3u n1i LS 1 4 RIO 31M Od CAN t n9; 'el WO 'PO RAJA 41 S' I _ .r 9l'I� IT r r 1— Js "leAdrL AV (IOOARAMSTI ) f / n 01 1 A 13UtJDY C"Ai RC. PREVEIJTLY - Sol°Agin, 1 • • 400 99C Lor GwWRRsAT Tht Iijpy TNT W DA Lit 7-114peT, T M & CA/4)00N Oak) T1! rler. EL S'INoRt )4,644 3e.l.00t. Th.gR/c, 11' +i Aflac Ois. uN�y 714cK. T'hc K O 1a N Fu nitro. .= H PP9iGTS o cyN /110O. i P lto re6 SIM Ma T rJzr r 42101/t a C. Loris' • ?rAo Po s 1tb Coml., S►NaI' CTS rir gob nub.oy M PRbPoS LD •Vi&w Lira Fat SAL& J'a A p chair To FAA • PRbPospiro RceA,rbiitow MAY LN Iul Stk.! I /:At TNTANI' X:./..5"7-711/ + -Po E TiL ®10 D 5, S)D�� _�yR(lt _�(72F2'A1.\— 1TCIORdAN LIME ST LEMON r. rRANG�rt4, 1(A nRN.KIf (NI'RM R'AC!)N RIM OLA 11 :5 > r Doc b t e srgin Tvor ;titN1)1 CANYO 1 1- UR .IISI\ORE : • lt t ' : ' .5(71001, • .1 9_ •,• Pi o.PoSaED . P/2.6 P© iW CAS6 rt--SHoP *At AMAUO.1. CORAZZA L • F.THOI.IC Ly�.yCIIIRfH OOMMYRIGIZ =a1tYED v 1' II UUNNTIT RD ERR 1' lA 1 •� 1 i > 4---1-- t ti 1 • 10 1 .< ./1 T"NT 71 ye__ I r sT l f T� �cr _ �,. IC TIF'F.I FR CT • K' Se 1 , �L! q {O II ' I` £ z 1VI 1 I "RAti RInT) \ Mot� Mot '.. tjy\ G 1 � < BR,,HTEN 17' 1 MN lW ,TC.Ip EI.E\IATION IFlt r L.N. 1140 r 1 1 Ita� IIc 14 ,1 I L >F.i14) IPA) IR IaAE STOO: TR y`.NF Rock 1R (NDY CANEIrt: a ',�• CHRISTIAN-: HLRICI • %C OQt:• • - •!7-/'i-v I F_ 1.0 Letr4 Aeft. rpCrL z ` � - V \yy�^ \ELEVAT10\�( 1 1 C I -.C-_, z=7 V. 1,''G �( %1tMOYf 'j I 1 TJLB*MA O D Im1- RO t I 0, I 4;:t• 1 1� 1.. < 1 ul� ii;ILLS I l 111 I 1� zl j m I I YI '• r+y I I - vho---- r- -.,t -- I I u4> .•t., is .ti I t J F 1T t2 I r PEGGY 1.N • I II - 1 , "EVEN ST IODWE SPRM(1 ESFfERF.iJ)A TIM CT SENNA Pt.ATA BOYLAN 1 SPRINGS Fin , 1 4 1 11 L1 BUITFROR RN RD 440 g •)MITH BUNNY PRIELIPP RD l3LitJD)' CyAJ It rhe. ly & M E1t6EN C, Jam/ RZ t MIED�tpl R ES PO Ptt. rt" V-16 To TM g. IeA Cto nhv a rr AI.iD SuRoVwQitai6. gRaM1 1=1 RE STpT1mo L1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 7 Dash line designates Planning as Priority Ratings 'A' Construction as Priority Ratings 'B' T#1 lov erdal e' Schliesm a+ cu IQ 0 m a� ucoiPfus 13 cn verI m co ‘� v Cactus m Alessandro o Ra lroad �^ , 4A j 7L�''� ar �� T#8 << 01'r •.... „•- �0. i. V an Bur en co cn T# U 6t CD O,� 4.c O nt. rio o ci Oleander T#2 * oothill T ,� Cajalco \Placentia i___ co rn " m Nuevo LEGEND Project Nomin ation s Submitted Arterial Segments Submitted Interchanges Backbone Network Priority Rating °'S Priority Rating A '. r Priority Rating AB Priority Rating B * Priority Rating C Interchanges O Priority Rating High O Priority Rating Medium © Priority Rating Low Freeways Zone Boundaries 6 City Boundaries WRCOG Boundary Ellis GIS Olvis ion IU UU L—JMiles 0 1 2 4 6 8 Revised for RCTC July 28. 2004 R:lARC1/RCTC/Tumf_HighPno rity_No min G;,. Ironwood 9 (into . Keit t unter Ramona McCaII Ch erry Valley 14th k 6th Wilson v 0 co s � n1- o _ Esplande: Florida Dash line designates Planning as Priority Ratings 'A' Construction as Priority Ratings 'B' I 1 RCTC 04 Call for Projects: Western Riverside County TUMF High Priority Project �-�-- Nominatins AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning Development Shirley Medina, Program Manager and Policy THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file information regarding the 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On August 5, 2004, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) adopted the 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The CTC staff recommendations resulted in slight modifications in project scheduling for a few Commission projects, which are noted in the attachment. While the 2004 STIP has been adopted, issues regarding cash flow prevents any funds from being allocated over the next few months. The Governor's May Revise held some hope that the CTC would begin allocating projects again at their August 5, 2004 meeting. Unfortunately, recent negotiations in the budget process left a $200 million hole in the STIP leaving the CTC with no option but to continue placing allocations on hold until after the November elections. The CTC has been unable to allocate funds for capacity projects for nearly two years, with the exception of a few project allocations made in April and May, 2003; otherwise, only Safety Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects have been obligated but at lower levels than what was programmed in the STIP. Future allocations in FY 2004-05 are largely dependent upon the outcome of two gaming initiatives, Propositions 68 and 70. Proposition 68 would allow slot machines at card clubs and race tracks and Proposition 70 would allow tribes to limitlessly expand their gaming operations while paying a corporate tax of approximately 9%. The defeat of these measures would be ideal for the Agenda Item 8 174 transportation community as the Governor has been negotiating Indian Gaming compacts with five Native American Tribes. This negotiation is positioned to provide a direct funding source for transportation. The passage of Propositions 68 and 70 would nullify the negotiated compacts. Other issues the state is grappling with that affect transportation revenues are the ethanol fix and the reauthorization of the transportation bill or TEA -21. These two actions need to occur in the near future in order to keep transportation funds flowing to the state at levels that will sustain current programming in the 2004 STIP. In a worst case scenario, no funding will be allocated in FY 2004-05 and projects programmed in the STIP will continue to be delayed over the next two to three years. Of immediate concern is the State Route 60 High Occupancy Lane (HOV) project from Valley Way to Interstate 15. This project has been waiting for an allocation of $13 million ($3.2 million of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) and $9.8 million of Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds for over 12 months. The environmental document will expire in June 2005 and the recent rise of construction costs resulted in a $6.5 million increase on the project; of which RCTC committed an additional $5 million of federal funds at its July 2004 meeting. The SR 60 project was scheduled for an allocation at the August 5, 2004, CTC meeting and was placed on hold again. RCTC and Caltrans will be exploring alternative funding options in the event funds cannot be allocated prior to the environment document expiration date. Attachment: 2004 STIP Regional Improvement Program • • Agenda Item 8 175 Oiverside County 2004 State Transportation Impr ovement Program Regional Improvement Program • Agency Project Total RIP $ FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Desert Hot Springs Pierson Blvd $ 627 x-35 $ 627 Cathedral City Ramon Rd Improvements $ 1,385 $ 1,385 Coachella Dillon Rd Grade Sep $ 4,559 $ 4,559 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd $ 3,184 $ 3,184 Riverside County Miles Ave/Clinton St $ 2,040 $ 2,040 RCTC Rideshare $ 1,220 $ 400 $ 300 $ 400 $ 120 RCTC PPM $ 2,228 $ 170 $ 953 $ 105 $ 500 $ 500 Coachella Dillon Road Widening $ 2,117 $ 2,117 Moreno Valley Reche Vista Dr $ 1,967 $ 1,967 Riverside Van Buren Blvd $ 3,465 $ 3,465 Caltrans 1-10/Ramon Rd/B ob Hope IC $ 18,538 $ 18,538 $ 18,538 Murrieta I-15/Calif Oaks IC $ 7,366 $ 2,224 $ 5,142 Caltrans SR 60 HOV Valley -I-15 IC $ 3,261 $ 3,261 Caltrans Green River Rd IC $ 3,889 $ 3,889 $ 3,889 NEW PROJECTS: Blythe Intake Boulevard $ 1,031 $ 50 $ 53 $ 928 Blythe Lovekin Boulevard $ 844 $ 30 $ 54 $ 760 RCTC/Caltrans SR 91 HOV, Mary St to 60/91/215 IC - Design Only $ 13,070 $ 13,070 $-3-9-70 Palm Springs/CT 1-10 Indian IC $ 15,262 $ 150 $ 2,000 $ 13,112 Indio/Caltrans 1-10 Jefferson IC $ 10,710 $ 10,710 Riverside County De Frain Blvd $ 810 $ 810 To tal Pro gram $ 97,573 $ 3,431 $ 24,695 $ 31,042 $ 33,226 $ 5,179 RESERVATION PROJECTS: Caltrans / Coachella SR 86/Ave 66 IC and Ave 50 $8,963 Proposed programming in FY 08/09 through 2006 STIP. ROTC SR 91 HOV, Mary to IC R/W and Construction $166,000 Proposed programming right-of-way in FY 07/08, construction in FY 08/09 through 2006 STIP. Modifications (highlighted in italics) made subsequent to April 2004 Submittal: #1 - Pierson Rd, design funds were moved from FY 04/05 to FY 05/06. #2 - Planning, Programming and Monitoring, additional $1 million allowed by CTC for programming in FY 07/08 and 08/09. #3 - 1-10 Ramon Rd IC, Caltrans revised schedule moved construction from FY 05/06 to FY 06/07. #4 - SR 91 Green River IC, funds were moved from 05/06 to 07/08 to correspond with IIP programmed funds. #5- SR 91 HOV, design funds were moved from FY 06/07 to FY 05/06 since environmental phase is nearing completion . #6 - SR 91 HOV, design funds were reduced from $13.9 m to $13 m to reflect CTC action that the 2004 STIP would not include additional programming capacity. 176 #7 - 1-10 Indian IC, $150 programmed in 05/06 for Caltrans' oversight/plan approval. • AGENDA ITEM 9 • PRESENTATION HANDOUT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 INTERSTATE 15 ** CONSTRUCTION ALERT ** PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT 1-15 FROM SIERRA AVENUE TO 1-15/1-215 JUNCTION 11* N Extended Lane Closures: October 3 to October 31, 2004 To Victorville/Barstow CONSTRUCTION ZONE w ^' all 4 • 44 Highland Ave Ranc10 Cuc onga Ontario t To Los Angeles To Newport Beach Fontana �� = 9 4_ Foothill Blvd Hi hland 44 Rialto San Bernardino Colton Corona Riverside To San Diego Glen /le len Regional Park To Palm Springs LEGEND UNDER CONS ?RUC SUGOESrED ALTERNATE ROUrES AREA "Give us 4 weeks to work and repave, and think of the 8 months of frustration you'll save!" Minimize Significant Delays! t1 1, ti 11 1, r 1, 1, ti 1, 11 1, 1 11 11 11 1, 11 11 t1 11 11 11 It t, I, It 11 0 Use southbound 1-15 to eastbound 1-10 to northbound 1-215 11 y h AVOID PEAK HOURS: Southbound 1-15 Peak Hours O Mon -Fri — 3:00am to 10:00am & 1:oopm to 6:00pm O Sat — 11:00am to 6:00pm O Sun — 11:00am to 9:00pm Northbound 1-15 Peak Hours O Mon -Thu — 3:00am to 10:00am & 3:00pm to 8:00pm O Fri — 3:00am to 11:00pm O Sat - 11:00am to 6:00pm O Sun - 11:00am to 9:00pm USE ALTERNATE ROUTES: Southbound 1-15 to LA Basin & Points South O Use southbound 1-215 to westbound 1-10 Northbound 1-15 from Points South of 1-10 O Use eastbound 1-10 to northbound 1-215 Eastbound 1-10 to Northbound 1-15 O Stay on 1-10 to northbound 1-215 Eastbound SR -210 to Northbound 1-15 E, For Closure Updates & Project Information please visit our website: www. dot.ca.gov/di st8 -Or- CaII Caltrans Public Affairs Office: (909) 383-4631 ❑ Contractor will work 7 -days a week 24 -hours a day. ❑ 3 lanes will remain open (Mon -Fri) in southbound direction (4:OOam — 9:OOam). ❑ Motorists are encouraged to travel during non -peak hours when possible. ❑ Plan your commute using traffic and construction updates. Sign up for the project weekly closure bulletin (Fast Fax) on our website or call Caltrans Public Affairs Office. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL September 8, 2004 Present Absent O County of Riverside, District ..71-', 0 County of Riverside, District II L;/---- 0 County of Riverside, District I I I ,7r- 0 County of Riverside, District IV O 0 County of Riverside, District V 0 City of Banning 0'—, 0 City of Beaumont O ,-71-- City of Blythe .el'-- 0 City of Calimesa JD— 0 City of Canyon Lake )71--- 0 City of Cathedral City f" ,0--- City of Coachella ' City of Corona 71- 0 City of Desert Hot Springs ..Ci' 0 City of Hemet ,0' 0 City of Indian Wells 0 0 City of Indio D'— 0 City of La Quinta O City of Lake Elsinore O City of Moreno Valley ,0' 0 City of Murrieta J V 0 City of Norco 7 0 City of Palm Desert O ZI-�'" City of Palm Springs 0------- 0 City of Perris O cl---- City of Rancho Mirage ..-----., 0 City of Riverside ,T3'r' 0 City of San Jacinto -0': 0 City of Temecula 11 Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET September 8, 2004 N E AGENCY E-MAIL ADDRESS ''' .fir ..a 1 INICOMMIIIMIMIIIMIMMINnill F Warr mint/ j/ i/ J y/.- ee_ 6. F>4 -1 -c iiiikee ,/ N K 16i [� rVasZco fsha 1l moadco ill c A (-IV -c7 /Y + G-1 el, A _ �1G_ _ /- •ir "i._• ti.46,S.0 4, � � / '4c o,, ‹._ C � , / R. 'ets 1 L f .. / t F ( 'r '-1 Oa .--e 7L� , -V 6' /) ,-3-e --F-F- :11 e/L_ ©g` c.; .J A- .)-.�� 7 ?0' --55W -,4 d4 _,/74y4/dS ) eUrt C4141,01 3 01 Bbk ' e.,9--e ee- g, ', , u Ca C_L0 L -Q25 c J _ /. -• CA-46'1'50,J � -4A,...-77.7:, i d/he,udasaa ^ l9 db rte sus rapk1 _ -b 1-1... 13 6r) .f., F3 6,..a v IA'4v S0 F? I(V), .Cr )e F-±- C(4:2, C ((VA o c� 40\ 6.co,_s ql; o r tu.,1, _. ' . ( tit-, /11�L � �t9�'Y 414 ? -1 2,1 77-7_5 L'Afi-mdcog,4-1 CI vein5P 7 .4'14 Dires-7i ev/) P /i5 his ox 6?av/co