Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
10 October 13, 2004 Commission
RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Roy Wilson 1st Vice Chairman: Robin Lowe 2nd Vice Chairman: James A. Venable 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 f',1"1/,r / .Ieff Bennett, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Het 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. -3 (0.00 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9.-00 a.m. Wednesday, October 13, 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 special assistance is needed 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 (Public Comments is for items not listed on the agenda. Comments relating to an item listed on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed.) 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 8, 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.) Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 13, 2004 Page 2 6. PUBLIC HEARING - FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5307 • PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR THE RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO UZA 6A. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Hold a public hearing at the October Commission meeting; 2) Approve the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5307 Program of Projects for the Riverside/San Bernardino UZA; 3) Direct staff to add additional funding for the Perris Valley Line Extension to the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; and 4) Amend the Commuter Rail Program's FY 2004-2005 Short Range Transit Plan and allocate $250,000 in State Transit Assistance Funds and reprogram $167,000 in Local Transportation Funds to cover costs. 6B. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PARATRANSIT VEHICLES AND REPROGRAMMING OF FUNDS TO CONDUCT BENEFITS STUDIES Page 5 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Hold a public hearing at the October Commission meeting; 2) Authorize the reprogramming of Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 funding together with reprogramming Transportation Development Act funds to cover the cost of purchasing five paratransit vehicles; 3) Reprogram $66,000 in Local Transportation Funds from capital to operating to cover the cost to conduct two benefit studies; and, 4) Approve the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5307 Program of Projects for the Riverside/San Bernardino UZA. • • ' Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 13, 2004 Page 3 • • • 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Page 9 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Contracts Cost and Schedule report for the months of June, July, and August 2004. 7B. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Page 13 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the months ending July 31 and August 31, 2004. 7C. FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 BUDGET AMENDMENT Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the budget amendment of $9,206,667 for Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Expenditures. Page 16 7D. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. 24-005 WITH SCAG FOR FUNDING PARTICIPATION REQUEST FOR HEAVY DUTY TRUCK MODEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 18 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve $50,000 of Local Transportation Planning Funds for the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Model Improvement Project; and, 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the memorandum of understanding on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 13, 2004 Page 4 7E. RIVERSIDE COUNTY -ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY (MIS) MOBILITY PROBLEM AND PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT Page 20 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the Riverside County - Orange County MIS Mobility Problem and Purpose and Need Statement. 7F. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-514 (AMENDMENT NO.1 TO AGREEMENT NO. RO-2041) TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR REAL PROPERTY SERVICES FOR THE SR 74 PROJECT AND SR 60/SR 91/1-215 PROJECT Page 36 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-31-514, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. RO-2041, to the County of Riverside Facilities Management/ Real Estate Division for real property services for the SR 74 project for an amount of $173,000 and for the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 project for an amount of $26,388 for a total not to exceed $199,388; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7G. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-513 (AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-917) WITH COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR REAL PROPERTY SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT Page 43 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-31-513, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-31-917, with the County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division for the SR 79 realignment project for an amount not to exceed $163,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 13, 2004 Page 5 7H. FISCAL YEARS 1997 THROUGH 2003 CAPITAL PROJECTS STATUS REPORT Overview This item is for the Commission to: 71. Page 47 1) Direct staff to work with the transit agencies to include milestone reporting as part of the capital project quarterly tracking process. Additionally, any changes in project completion dates, extending the project's time line, that may negatively impact the grant funding, will be submitted to the Transit Policy Committee for consideration; and, 2) Reaffirm the allocation of local transportation funds. FARE BOX RECOVERY POLICY Overview Page 50 This item is for the Commission to approve the Fare Box Recovery Policy. 7J. MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT TAXI DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM Page 57 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve interim funding up to $ 100,000 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds for continuation of the program; 2) Approve Agreement No. 05-26-506, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 04-26-025, with Diversified Paratransit, Inc. for oversight and administration of the program; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 13, 2004 Page 6 7K. 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 September 22, 2004 meeting. 7L. PARTNERSHIP TO PRESERVE INDEPENDENT LIVING - MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAM'S FY 2004-2005 AND FY 2005-2006 CALL FOR PROJECTS Page 66 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $304,973 for FY 2004-05 and $290,698 for FY 2005-06 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds available in western Riverside County to the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 05-26-517 on behalf of the Commission. 7M. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2009 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF BEAUMONT, DESERT HOT SPRINGS, INDIAN WELLS, AND MURRIETA Page 68 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 Beaumont, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, and Murrieta. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 13, 2004 Page 7 • • 7N. AMENDMENT TO MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF MORENO VALLEY AND PALM DESERT Page 86 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the amendments to: 1) FY 2004 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Moreno Valley as submitted; and, 2) FY 2005-2009 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert as submitted. 70. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-45-518 FOR DIGITAL CELLULAR SERVICE FOR CALL BOX PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 101 1) Award Agreement No. 05-45-518, to AT&T Wireless Service, Inc. for digital cellular service for the Riverside County Call Box Program for a five-year term at an annual amount not to exceed $89,078; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7P. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 103 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 October 13, 2004 Page 8 7Q. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 05-14-515 TO AMEND THE RCTC/SANBAG CONTRACT FOR SHARED FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES Page 135 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve agreement No. 05-14-515, an extension of the shared Federal Legislative Advocacy Services (SANBAG Contract No. 00-051) between RCTC and SANBAG, for a two-year period in a total amount not to exceed $144,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7R. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Page 137 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 7S. $15 MILLION SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) CALL FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 142 1) Approve the criteria for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) Call for Rehabilitation Projects; and, 2) Authorize staff to release the call for rehabilitation projects in November 2004. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 13, 2004 Page 9 • • • 8. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SOUND WALL ISSUE ON THE STATE ROUTE 60 EAST JUNCTION 1-215 TO REDLANDS BOULEVARD Page 146 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Consider a request for a sound wall by property owners that live adjacent to Route 60 in Moreno Valley; and, 2) Respectfully deny the request based on previous Commission precedents and regarding sound walls. 9. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 10. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 11. 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 County of Riverside APN Nos. 317-110-929-2; 317-110-030-2; 317-110-031-3; 317-110-032-4; 317-110-039-1; and 317-110-040-1 12. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 10, 2004, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • AGENDA ITEM 4 • Minutes • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, September 8, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Roy Wilson at 9:00 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 Roger Berg Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy Byrd Juan DeLara Frank Hall Terry Henderson Hank Hohenstein Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Bob Magee Anne Mayer Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Shenna Moqeet Gregory S. Pettis Ron Roberts Brenda Salas Kelly Seyarto John F. Tavaglione Jim Venable Jack Wamsley Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Marion Ashley Robert Crain Ron Meepos Ronald Oden Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 8, 2004 Page 2 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Barney Barnett, resident of Highgrove, presented a proposal for a Metrolink station in Highgrove. The proposal was previously submitted to the Commission as part of the Perris Valley Line project public comments. Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted that the Commission is currently holding public hearings for the project and a decision for a station location has not been determined. He added that early assessments for a Metrolink station in Highgrove showed that the majority of riders would come from San Bernardino County. Commissioner Bob Buster suggested that the concept of a Highgrove station be placed on the agenda at a future Riverside County/San Bernardino County Corridors Committee meeting. B. William Zeidlik, Land Use and Community Development Chairman for the Menifee Valley Economic Development Council, expressed transportation concerns in the Menifee Valley area, citing a number of roads, arterials, and interchanges requiring improvement in order to address the planned growth in the area. He requested that as part of the Menifee Valley efforts to become a city, that Commission and County staff and work with the Menifee Valley Economic Development Council. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) to approve of the July 14, 2004 minutes as submitted. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley noted additional information for Agenda Item 7, "TUMF Regional Arterial Priority Project Recommendations". 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Agenda Items 6C, Resolution No. 04-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2004-2005", and 6L, "Annual Local Transportation Fund Planning Allocations to CVAG and WRCOG" were requested to be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 8, 2004 Page 3 • • • M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) to approve the following remaining Consent Calendar items: 6A. RESOLUTION NO. 04-016, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING THE COMMISSION'S ADMINISTRATIVE CODE" 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 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. 6D. APPROVE SELECTION OF BOND COUNSEL AND UNDERWRITERS 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 8, 2004 Page 4 6E. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. 6F. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ended June 30, 2004. 6G. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the year ended June 30, 2004. 6H. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended June 30, 2004. 61. GOODS MOVEMENT UPDATE 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 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) Receive and file the Mid County Parkway (Cajalco-Ramona Corridor) Update as an information item. • • • ' Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes 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 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 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 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. 6P. COMMUTER EXCHANGE VEHICLE PROCUREMENT 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 8, 2004 Page 6 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 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 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. 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 1) Declare the property identified as the "Old 1-215" Rail Right -of -Way (Phase 1), APN Nos. 263-080-01 1, 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 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 Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. • • • ' Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 8, 2004 Page 7 • • • 6V. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 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 Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the TUMF regional arterial priority project recommendations. Commissioner Buster requested the funding status of the Clinton Keith Road/I-15 and the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road improvement projects. George Johnson, County of Riverside Director of Transportation, responded that county transportation staff will be recommending that the Clinton Keith Road/I-15 improvement project be removed from the Road and Bridge Benefit District and funded through TUMF. Hideo Sugita continued and reviewed the category ranking of the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road improvement project and noted that keeping the project at a CEQA level document gives the project the best opportunity to move forward. Eric Haley added that the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road project's inclusion on the TUMF priority list gives it standing and noted that as a result of the Tausig Study, new TUMF funding projections will be presented to the Commission within the next two months that will be significantly greater than the current conservative projections. In response to Commissioner Ron Roberts's question regarding the SR 79 improvement project, George Johnson responded that county transportation staff will be recommending this project be removed from the Road and Bridge Benefit District and funded through TUMF and outlined the funding already committed to the project. In response to Commissioner John Tavaglione's concerns regarding the Schleisman Road and El Cerrito Road interchange projects, George Johnson and Hideo Sugita addressed the funding status of each. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 8, 2004 Page 8 Commissioner Moqeet expressed concern for the lack of projects along 1-10 considering the rapid growth occurring in the Pass Area. Commissioner Jack Wamsley expressed his concern on the ranking of the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road improvement project and his belief that the most dangerous part of the road has been given a low priority rating and should be re -categorized to a high priority rating. Commissioner Kelly Seyarto requested clarification of the funding for the Clinton Keith Road, Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road, and Newport Road projects. George Johnson indicated that similar to the Newport Road project, the city and County staffs are working with local land owners to form a Community Facilities District to fund the projects in an effort to advance the project. With regard to the Clinton Keith/I-215 interchange project, George Johnson noted that TUMF currently does not fund the project due to the City of Murrieta designation to fund with local monies. Therefore, the project needs to be removed from local or road and bridge district funding and resubmitted for TUMF funding. In response to Commissioner Jim Venable's concern regarding potential impacts of development on the Clinton Keith/I-215 interchange project, George Johnson responded that comments have been submitted to the city to preserve right-of-way but the environmental review process has not been completed. At Commissioner Robin Lowe's request, George Johnson explained how the Road and Bridge Benefit District funds would be used when a project is removed from the district. She then noted that the expectation when TUMF was developed that there would be a partnership with the local jurisdictions to assist in funding TUMF projects. Hideo Sugita confirmed. Commissioner Brenda Salas concurred with Commissioner Moqeet's comments regarding the need for projects in the Pass Area. Commissioner Roger Berg expressed his support of the recommendation and stated that the program of projects has regional balance. At this time, the Chairman opened the public comments period for this agenda item. Garry Grant, Meadowbrook area resident, expressed concern that the TUMF process is encouraging new development before the transportation infrastructure is built to accommodate it, creating greater traffic congestion. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 8, 2004 Page 9 • • • George W. Taylor, Wildomar resident, made comments on the lack of improvements on Bundy Canyon Road, citing the number of accidents over the past four years and recommended an upgrade of its priority rating. He submitted a document regarding improvements to Bundy Canyon Road for inclusion into the record. Sharon Heil, Wildomar resident, expressed her concern for the immediate need for improvements on Bundy Canyon Road, citing road deficiencies and difficulties caused by them. Sheryl Ade, Wildomar resident, added her concern for improvements on Bundy Canyon Road as commercial traffic is not allowed on Clinton Keith Road between the 1-215 and 1-15 and, therefore Bundy Canyon Road is being used. William Zeidlik, Land Use and Community Development Chairman for the Menifee Valley Economic Development Council, expressed his concern regarding the allocation of funds for the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road improvement project and his belief that the Bundy Canyon portion of the project currently rated as a low priority should be changed to a high priority due to the critical transportation impacts of the road. Todd Phillips, Wildomar resident, supported the recommendation to upgrade the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road improvement project. Due to the concerns expressed by Commissioner Wamsley regarding the categorization of projects, Hideo Sugita suggested that staff bring back the categorization issue to the Commission for discussion. In response to Commissioners Robin Lowe and Jim Venable's concern regarding changes in project, scope, and categorization, Hideo Sugita indicated that an update is moving forward on the TUMF program by WRCOG which would allow consideration of changes to these projects. He also noted that this can be viewed as the start of a competitive process to encourage local project sponsors to move projects forward. Commissioner Jeff Miller encouraged looking at committing zone funds to upgrade project priorities. Eric Haley extended the opportunity to WRCOG and the zone areas to commit funds to these projects and form partnerships to move projects forward. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 8, 2004 Page 10 M/S/C (Wamsley/Buster) to: 1) Establish a five-year TUMF Regional Arterial Program for the period FY 2005 to FY 2009 pursuant to the Commission's first CaII 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. No: Moqeet 8. 2004 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Shirley Medina, Program Manager, updated the Commission on the status of the 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), noting the impact of Propositions 68 and 70 as well as the delay of the TEA 21 reauthorization and the ethanol fix on transportation. She also highlighted the immediate funding concern for the State Route 60 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project from Valley Way to Interstate 15. • • • ' Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 8, 2004 Page 11 • • Eric Haley added that there is an orchestrated effort to communicate the importance of the State budget and the full funding of Proposition 42 at every level of state government. M/S/C (Miller/Hall) to receive and file information regarding the 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program. 9. PRESENTATION - INTERSTATE 15 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT Commissioner Anne Mayer presented the Interstate 15 pavement rehabilitation project reviewing the following: • Project Area • Construction Zone • Benefits of the Project — reduced construction duration, reduced inconvenience to motorists, longer pavement life span, reduced exposure of workers to traffic, construction cost reduced by $6 million. • Construction Staging • Project Enhancements — work continuously through weekends, complete work in 4 weeks instead of 6 weeks, three southbound lanes in the morning, free commuter bus service. • Public Awareness Campaign M/S/C (Lowe/Buydos) to receive and file the presentation from Caltrans District 8 regarding the 1-15 pavement rehabilitation project. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 6C. RESOLUTION NO. 04-014, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION'S APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004- 2005" Commissioner Moqeet noted population loss experienced by Calimesa and Palm Springs and asked what the change in population is attributed to. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 8, 2004 Page 12 Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager, responded that the Commission has always used population information obtained from the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. She will request from the Department how the information was derived and will provide it to Commissioner Moqeet. M/S/C (Lowe/Henderson) to adopt Resolution No. 04-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2004-2005". 6L. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO CVAG AND WRCOG At William Zeidlik's request, Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development, explained the source of Local Transportation Funds. M/S/C (Lowe/Henderson) 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. 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Eric Haley noted the Auto Club will be holding a major transportation forum on October 7th at Raincross Square. B. At Commissioner Terry Henderson's request, Eric Haley stated that Commissioners will be polled regarding attendance of the OCTA Legislative Event. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 8, 2004 Page 13 • 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. 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 There were no announcements from Closed Session. 13. ADJOURNMENT • • There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 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, e,q(3.e.—,-9/,_Q0ess__> Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission AGENDA ITEM 6A • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment for Commuter Rail Program PLANS AND PROGRAM COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Hold a public hearing at the October Commission meeting; 2) Approve the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5307 Program of Projects for the Riverside/San Bernardino UZA; 3) Direct staff to add additional funding for the Perris Valley Line Extension to the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; and 4) Amend the Commuter Rail Program's FY 2004-2005 Short Range Transit Plan and allocate $250,000 in State Transit Assistance Funds and reprogram $167,000 in Local Transportation Funds to cover costs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission's Commuter Rail program is requesting approval to amend its FY 2004-05 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) as follows: 1. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Funding: Tier II Stations (North Main Corona, La Sierra Station and Van Buren Stations) and Perris Valley Branch Line A total of $5M was allocated in FTA Section 5307 funds for Tier II Station improvements. Approximately $1.3M has been spent. The balance of $3,657,453 remains as a result of the Commission's FY 2002/03 action to defer consideration of the final design and construction of the Van Buren Station until after FY 2009/10. Agenda Item 6A Commuter rail staff recommends that the balance of the federal funds be reprogrammed to the FTA New Start Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension project. The attached Program of Projects reflects the requested funding for the Perris Valley Line. 2. State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds: Perris Valley Line A funding allocation of $250,000 in STA funds is requested for the completion of the environmental document, associated public outreach and Extra Work Tasks (i.e. BNSF Storage Tracks, Poarch Road) for the Perris Valley Line project. 3. Local Transportation Funds (LTF): Pedley, La Sierra, West Corona and Riverside -Downtown Stations Commuter rail staff is requesting that $167,000 available from prior year LTF funds be reprogrammed from operating to capital to cover the following projects: $ 3,000 Pedley Closed Circuit Television System (CCTV) Funds will be used to complete the construction/installation of the system. $ 90,000 La Sierra and West Corona Pedestrian Over - Crossing and CCTV Funds will be used to complete the public safety improvement construction project. $ 74,000 Riverside -Downtown Station Parking Expansion on Vine Street Funds will be used to complete the project adding 120 new surface parking spaces. $167,000 Total • • • Agenda Item 6A 2 • • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $250,000 - STA Source of Funds: STA 2003-04; $86,628 - $163,372 budget accrued in FY adjustment required Budget Adjustment: Yes $86,628 GLA No.: 241-62-86102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: v//Ptr4ut,,v 2 +wo Date: 09/21/04 Attachment: FY 2004-2005 Program of Projects Agenda Item 6A 3 OBANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2004/05 RECIPIENTS: CITY OF CORONA, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND RCTC's COMMUTER RAIL Total Apportionment (Projected) Apportionment Carryover Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available Less Current Requests Balance Deobligate $3,657,453 from Tier II Stations Deobligate $52,800 from RTA Comp. Studies Balance Sub Area Allocation Corona, City of Riverside, City of Riverside Transit Agency RCTC's Commuter Rail NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS Corona, City of 1) Two Fixed Route Replacement Buses 2) Preventive Maintenance 410 5) Riverside, City of Six DAR Replacement Vehicles (CNG) Preventive Maintenance Scheduling, Dispatching Software Computers and Office Equipment Riverside Transit Agency 6) Preventive Maintenance 7) COP Debt Service Payment 8) 31 12-passsenger Gasoline Powered DAR Vehicles (Replacement) 9) Bus Stop Amenities 10) Comprehensive Operational Analysis 11) Office Furniture (New & Replacement) 12) Scheduling and Run Cutting System and Software 13) Automatic Passenger Counters for Contract Operating Vehicles (10) 14) Maintenance Spare Parts 15) Stop and Zone Equipment 16) Digital Cameras for Operators 17) Mobile Digital Video Recording Drives 18) Capitalized Tire Lease 19) Bus Rapid Transit Enhancements 20) Information System Software and Hardware Upgrades 21) Geographic Information Systems 22) Paratransit Vehicles (5 -expansion) - prior year grants RCTC's Commuter Rail 23) SCRRA's Rehab/Renovation (RCTC's Share) SCRRA's Grade Crossing Safety Program Perris Valley Line (RIV 520109) Bus $6,178,364 $3,044,298 $0 $9,222,662 $7,930,141 $1,292,521 $52,800 $1,345,321 $401,000 $573,000 $6,956,141 $4,836,958 TOTAL AMOUNT $325,000 $166,000 Rail $4,767,890 $6,551,774 $0 $11,319,664 $4,836,958 $6,482,706 $3,657,453 $10,140,159 FEDERAL SHARE PROJECT DESIGNATED TYPE RECIPIENT $269,000 Capital $132,000 Capital SCAG SCAG $450,000 $373,000 Capital SCAG $100,000 $80,000 Capital SCAG $150,000 $120,000 Capital SCAG $30,383,317 $2,683,690 Capital SCAG $2,070,075 $1,656,060 Capital SCAG $1,674,060 $1,389,480 Capital SCAG $110,000 $88,000 Capital SCAG $200,000 $160,000 Capital SCAG $6,120 $4,896 Capital SCAG $300,000 $240,000 Capital SCAG $50,000 $40,000 Capital SCAG $156,450 $125,160 Capital SCAG $12,800 $10,240 Capital SCAG $5,600 $4,480 Capital SCAG $21,600 $17,280 Capital SCAG $149,262 $119,410 Capital SCAG $262,000 $209,600 Capital SCAG $254,907 $203,926 Capital SCAG $4,899 $3,919 Capital SCAG $255,604 $200,240 Capital SCAG $1,170,834 $8,671 $15,000,000 $1,170,834 Capital SCAG $8,671 Capital SCAG 3,657,453 Capital SCAG 4 Riverside/San Bemardino AGENDA ITEM 6B • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency's Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment for the Purchase of Paratransit Vehicles and Reprogramming of Funds to Conduct Benefits Studies PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Hold a public hearing at the October Commission meeting; 2) Authorize the reprogramming of Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 funding together with reprogramming Transportation Development Act funds to cover the cost of purchasing five paratransit vehicles; 3) Reprogram $66,000 in Local Transportation Funds from capital to operating to cover the cost to conduct two benefit studies; 4) Approve the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5307 Program of Projects for the Riverside/San Bernardino UZA; and, BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In a continuing effort to close out old grants and utilize remaining Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 federal fund balances as much as possible, the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) is requesting approval to reprogram federal and local funds for the following two projects: 1) Vehicle Purchase: five 12 -passenger expansion paratransit vehicles at an approximate cost of $51,121 per vehicle. Total cost for all vehicles is projected to be $255,604; funding is comprised of $200,240 of FTA Section 5307 funds and $55,364 in Transportation Development Act funds (State and LTF). RTA staff has received budget revision approval from FTA to reprogram funds from existing federal grants identified on the attached spreadsheet. It is estimated that, approximately $1 17,000 in federal funding will remain after the purchase of the vehicles. Unfortunately, the balance of the remaining Agenda Item 6B 5 funds can not be deobligated due to the age of the federal grants. The issue of lapsing federal funds was discussed at the September 20, 2004 Transit Policy Committee. It was agreed that, whenever possible, federal funds should remain within the county; Commission staff will work with RTA and FTA staff to ensure the best possible use of lapsing fund balances. RTA is requesting Commission approval to reprogram existing TDA funds to serve as the local match; and 2) Compensation and Benefits Study and Medical/Dental/Vision Benefits Study: In FY 2003-04, $52,800 in FTA Section 5307 funds was approved to cover the cost to conduct the two benefit studies. However, when RTA staff submitted the FTA grant application, they were advised that the projects were ineligible for federal funding as the studies did not lead to a capital project. RTA is requesting that LTF funds in the amount of $52,800 be substituted for the federal funding. ($13,200 in local match was previously approved for this project.) RTA can absorb the $52,800 within its existing budget for FY 2004-05 but is requesting approval to reprogram the total cost of the project, which is estimated to be $66,000, from capital to operating. The RTA Board reviewed and approved this request at its September 30, 2004 meeting. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2004/05 Amount: N/A Source of Funds: N/A Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: ite,vz Date: 9/21/04 Attachments: 1) RTA's Grant Funding Sources 2) FY 2004-2005 Program of Projects • e • Agenda Item 6B 6 •Riverside Transit Agency 5 Paratransit Vans - expansion FY 2005 Funding Sources Grant Number Orig Budget G/L Federal State LTF Total CA -90-X968, 00S-RT03, 00L-RT03 19 Replacement Vans -Closeout 205,000 102315 102309 200,240.00 2,062.74 2,121.94 204,424.68 CA -90-X968, 00S-RT08 5 Support vehicles -Closeout 20,000 102315 2,103.76 2,103.76 CA -90-Y066, 01 L-RT04, 01 LRT05 20 DAR Vans -Closeout 240,000 102309 9,480.17 9,480.17 CA -03-0579, 02L-RT09 Itf overmatch 2 Replacement 40 -ft CNG Buses -Closeout 139,000 241230 15,211.00 15,211.00 02L-RT03 100% LTF Energy Efficient Lighting -partial 50,000 241230 19,778.85 19,778.85 CA -90-Y183, 03S-RT03 10 Support vehicles -expansion -Closeout 44,000 241220 3,823.42 3,823.42 CA -90-Y183, 03S-RT04 5 Support vehicles -replacement -Closeout 20,000 241220 781.97 781.97 Total Reprogram $ 200,240.00 $ 8,771.89 $ 46,591.96 $ 255,603.85 9/29/2004 4:13 PM 9B.A1.TL.RTA's SRTP Amendment.xls 7 411,BANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2004/05 RECIPIENTS: CITY OF CORONA, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND RCTC's COMMUTER RAIL Total Apportionment (Projected) Apportionment Carryover Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available Less Current Requests Balance Deobligate $3,657,453 from Tier II Stations Deobligate $52,800 from RTA Comp. Studies Balance Sub Area Allocation Corona, City of Riverside, City of Riverside Transit Agency RCTC's Commuter Rail NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS Corona, City of 1) Two Fixed Route Replacement Buses 2) Preventive Maintenance 5) Riverside, City of Six DAR Replacement Vehicles (CNG) Preventive Maintenance Scheduling, Dispatching Software Computers and Office Equipment Riverside Transit Agency 6) Preventive Maintenance 7) COP Debt Service Payment 8) 31 12-passsenger Gasoline Powered DAR Vehicles (Replacement) 9) Bus Stop Amenities 10) Comprehensive Operational Analysis 11) Office Furniture (New & Replacement) 12) Scheduling and Run Cutting System and Software 13) Automatic Passenger Counters for Contract Operating Vehicles (10) 14) Maintenance Spare Parts 15) Stop and Zone Equipment 16) Digital Cameras for Operators 17) Mobile Digital Video Recording Drives 18) Capitalized Tire Lease 19) Bus Rapid Transit Enhancements 20) Information System Software and Hardware Upgrades 21) Geographic Information Systems 22) Paratransit Vehicles (5 -expansion) prior year grants RCTC's Commuter Rail 23) SCRRA's Rehab/Renovation (RCTC's Share) 4) SCRRA's Grade Crossing Safety Program Perris Valley Line (RIV 520109) Bus $6,178,364 $3,044,298 $0 $9,222,662 $7,930,141 $1,292,521 $52,800 $1,345,321 $401,000 $573,000 $6,956,141 $4,836,958 Rail $4,767,890 $6,551,774 $0 $11,319,664 $4,836,958 $6,482,706 $3,657,453 $10,140,159 TOTAL FEDERAL AMOUNT SHARE PROJECT DESIGNATED TYPE RECIPIENT $325,000 $269,000 Capital $166,000 $132,000 Capital $450,000 $373,000 Capital $100,000 $80,000 Capital $150,000 $120,000 Capital SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG $30,383,317 $2,683,690 Capital SCAG $2,070,075 $1,656,060 Capital SCAG $1,674,060 $1,389,480 Capital SCAG $110,000 $88,000 Capital SCAG $200,000 $160,000 Capital SCAG $6,120 $4,896 Capital SCAG $300,000 $240,000 Capital SCAG $50,000 $40,000 Capital SCAG $156,450 $125,160 Capital SCAG $12,800 $10,240 Capital SCAG $5,600 $4,480 Capital SCAG $21,600 $17,280 Capital SCAG $149,262 $119,410 Capital SCAG $262,000 $209,600 Capital SCAG $254,907 $203,926 Capital SCAG $4,899 $3,919 Capital SCAG $255,604 $200,240 Capital SCAG $1,170,834 $8,671 $15,000,000 $1,170,834 Capital SCAG $8,671 Capital SCAG 3,657,453 Capital SCAG 8 Riverside/San Bernardino AGENDA ITEM 7A • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Contracts Cost and Schedule report for the months of June, July, and August 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current Highway and Rail construction summary status and cost status on contracts reported by projects, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the Quarter June, July, and August 2004. Attachment: Quarterly Report — August 2004 Agenda Item 7A W RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/RWROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COM MIT MENTS AGAINSTAUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 08/31/04 TO DATE COM MIT MNTS TO DATE ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design/ROW HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. $37,222,727 $35,019,954 94 .1% $3,977,413 $21,622,141 61.7% (2042) (3000) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 $37,222,727 $35,019,954 94.1 % $3,977,413 $21,622,141 51.7 %' ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966, $69,847,655 $69,847,655 100,0% $1,934,325 $42,754,621 61.2% (R02142) (R0 2141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 $69,847,655 $69,847,655 100.0% $1,934,325 $42,754,621' 61.2%' ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Enginee ring/Environ./ROW (3003 & 3004) $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96.5% $113,640 $1,267,516 45.4 % Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961) Cajalco/Ramona Corridor (2302) $5,030,065 $2,220,011 44 .1% $832,114 $850,730 SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 $7,924,562 $5,013,946 63.3 % $945,754 $2,118,246 ° 42.2 /a ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction $10,902,100 $10,374,324 95.2% $0 $9,580,664 92.3% (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Hook Ramp & I/C (R03008) $2,954,000 $2,954,000 100.0 % $0 $2,109,519 71.4 % Mary Street to 7th Street HOV design & ROW(3005) $1,274,430 $1,062,025 83.3 % $51,976 $939,443 88.5 % Sndwall Landscaping and Plant Establishment $1,603,450 $1,603,450 100 .0% $0 $899,155 56.1% (RO 9933,9946,2059,3601) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 $16,733,980 $15,993,799 95.6% $51,976 $13,528,781' 84.6%' ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) $32,375,356 $20,179,755 62.3% $0 $18,579,535 92 .1% 3410,9743,9849-9851(3411-3413) (3400-3405) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111 $32,375,356 '' $20,179,755 62. 3% $0 $18,579,535 92 .1% age 1 of 3 • RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTUR AL % COM MITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINSTAUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 08/31/04 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) $6,726,504 $6,428,173 95.6% $0 $6,324,731 98.4% 1-215 PSR RCTC/SANBAG (3012) $2,000,000 $2,000,000 100.0% $124,728 $433,282 21.7% SUBTOTAL 1-215 $6,726,504 $6,428,173 95.6°J° $0 $6,324,731 98A % PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV. (Agreement (04-31-502) $1,892,126 $1,892,126 100 .0% $41,969 $1,468,915 77.6% SUBTOTAL BECHTEL $1,892,126 $1,892,126 100 .0% $41,969 $1,468,915 77 .6% PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 $7,231,714 $7,231,714 100.0% $547,163 $4,594,177 63.5% 2127,2138,2139, 2178,2199,2181 SUBTOTAL PARK -N RIDE $7,231,714 $7,231,714 100.0% $547,163 $4,594,177 63.5 % COMM UTER RAIL Studies/Engineering/Construction $31,610,414 $27,643,070 87 .4% $610,770 $26,487,389 95 .8% (RO 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028) 2031,2027,2120 R02029,2128, 3800 - 3811,3813, 3814) Perris Multimodal Facility (3816) $2,000,000 $503,000 25.2 % $125,026 $384,227 76.4 % Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2026,2056,4000-4007,4198,4199,4009,3812 $18,771,429 $18,771,429 100.0% $365,823 $12,149,502 64.7 % SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL TOTALS $52,381,843, $232,336,467 $46,917,499 $208,524,621 89,6% 89. 8% $1,101,619 $8,600,219 $39,021,118 $150,012,265 83.2 % 71 .9% Page 2 of 3 • •11 • W RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCALWETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -D ATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION COMMITMENT 08/31/04 ADVANCES BALANCE COM MITMENT APPROVED COMMIT. CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $423,534 $0 26.5% SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN $1,600,000'' $0 $1,600,000 $423,534 $0 26.5%' CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $2,274,229 $0 43 .6 % Storm drainage structure SUBTOTA L CITY OF CORONA $5,212,623' $0 $5,212,623 $2,274,229 $0' 43.6°1°' CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements $1,936,419 $1,936,419 $909,364 $0 47 .0% CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements $1,324,500 $1,324,500 $622,000 $0 47.0% CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road improvements $5,094,027 $5,094,027 $2,392,212 $0 47.0 % CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts $2,139,067 $2,139,067 $1,004,530 $0 47.0% CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improvements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $139,166 $0 9.3% TOTALS $18,806,636 $0 $18,806,636 $7,625,869 $0 40 5% NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Status as of : 8/31/04 Page 3 of 3 • 12 AGENDA ITEM 7B • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee 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 months ending July 31, 2004 and August 31, 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 August 31, 2004. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of August 31, 2004 are $575,000. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report Agenda Item 7B 13 • Riverside County Interfund portatio n Commissi on ctivity Report For period ended August 31, 2004 Amount Maturity Date of Loan of Loan Date Lending Fund Borrowing Fund Date Commissioned Purpose of Loan Approved April 2, 2003 $ 300,000 July 1, 2006 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Measure A - WC LSR (227) Advance to make repairs/improvements to Railroad Canyon R oad March 12, 2003 March 4, 2004 $ 275,000 July 1, 2009 Measure A - WC Commuter Assistance (226) Measure A - WC Highway (222) Additional local match for the SR71 Widening/Animal Crossing Project December 10, 2003 Total $ 575,000 14 V:\USERS , GENDA\2004\10 October\6B.A1. MC .Interfund Loan Activity Rpt.xis • •15 V:\USERS\ AGENDA\2004\10 October \6B .A1. MC.Interfund •ity Rpt .xls AGENDA ITEM 7C • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget Amendment BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the budget amendment of $9,206,667 for Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Expenditures. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During Fiscal Year 2003-04, the Riverside County Transportation Commission observed that monthly Measure "A" sales tax receipts were significantly higher than the previous year. Recently, the Commission received the September Measure "A" sales tax allocation, which included the final allocation adjustment through June 2004. On an accrual basis, the Fiscal Year 2003-04 Measure "A" sales tax revenue was approximately $121,070,000 or 14% higher than the Fiscal Year 2002-03 amount of approximately $105,783,000. The increased sales tax revenue directly affected the amount of Local Streets and Roads expenditures that are required to be disbursed under Measure "A" to the local jurisdictions. The Fiscal Year 2003-04 budgeted expenditures for Local Streets and Roads was $36,999,600 compared to actual expenditures of $46,206,267, resulting in excess expenditures over budget of $9,206,667, or 24%, as follows: Measure "A" Local FY 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Excess Streets and Roads Budget Actual Expenditures Western County $ 26,827,600 $ 34,669,306 $ 7,841,706 Coachella Valley 9,1 14,000 10,422,949 1,308,949 Palo Verde Valley 1,058,000 1,1 14,012 56,012 Total $ 36,999,600 $ 46,206,267 $ 9,206,667 Agenda item 7C 16 Staff is seeking Commission approval to amend the FY 2003-04 budget for the Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads expenditures based on the final Measure "A" sales tax revenue for FY 2003-04. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2003-04 Amount: $9,206,667 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Budget Ad ustment: g Y GLA No.: Western County 227-71-86104 - $7,841,706 Coachella Valley 254-71-86104 - $1,308,949 Palo Verde Valley 233-71-86104 - $ 56,012 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \)/X A Date: 09/27/04 • • • Agenda item 7C 17 AGENDA ITEM 7D • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding No. 24-005 with SCAG for Funding Participation Request for Heavy Duty Truck Model Improvement Project PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve $50,000 of Local Transportation Planning Funds for the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Model Improvement Project; and, 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the memorandum of understanding on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is required to develop and maintain transportation computer models for the purpose of determining conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Every few years, the transportation models undergo upgrades and modifications to incorporate the latest information and technology. In the next few months, SCAG will begin their effort to improve the Heavy Duty Truck Model. The current Heavy Duty Truck Model was developed in 1999 and is used to forecast traffic for heavy duty trucks for regional goods movement planning. The purpose of this project is to improve the existing model by incorporating the most recent truck data information and updating the truck and commodity flow database necessary for the 2003 Model Validation project and the future year (2030) heavy duty truck forecast. With past model improvement projects, SCAG has asked County Transportation Commissions to participate in funding. SCAG has established an amount of Agenda Item 7D 18 $350,000 for the Heavy Duty Truck Model effort and has budgeted $150,000 of their own funds. The remaining $200,000 is proposed to be funded as follows: • Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) - contribution of $50,000 • Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) - contribution of $50,000 (if approved) • San Bernardino Association of Governments (SanBAG) - contribution of $50,000 • Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) - contributing $50,000 of their OWP funds Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) will be contributing with in -kind funding through a proposed Origin & Destination Survey at six freight Inter -modal facilities. Riverside County is heavily impacted by trucks and the improvement in forecasting truck trips (including through trip movements by trucks) will help in planning the appropriate facilities to accommodate both auto and truck movements. Staff recommends contributing $50,000 of Local Transportation Planning Funds (LTF) for the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Model Improvement project. The $50,000 of LTF planning dollars has been identified in RCTC's 2004-05 budget for this purpose. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $50,000 Source of Funds: LTF — Planning Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: ,4,,,d,:evii,urr Date: 09/20/04 Agenda Item 7D 19 AGENDA ITEM 7E • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study Mobility Problem and Purpose and Need Statement RIVERSIDE COUNTY -ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study Mobility Problem and Purpose and Need Statement. 0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • A Purpose and Need Statement sets the stage for developing specific project alternatives and for future environmental documents. It sets the parameters for transportation improvement alternatives within the Major Investment Study (MIS) Corridor and helps to define how the alternatives are to be evaluated by setting goals and objectives. The goals and objectives will help define evaluation criteria that measure and screen potential alternatives through the MIS planning process culminating into a slate of proposed improvements called the Locally Preferred Strategy (LPS). The Purpose and Need Statement identifies the transportation mobility problem or problems within the MIS Corridor and the project's objectives for achieving a feasible set of engineering and financial implementation solutions to the identified problem. Attached is the Final Draft Mobility Problem and Purpose and Need Statement. In drafting this document comments and guidance were received from the MIS Policy Committee, the MIS Technical Advisory Committee (comprised of public works staff from the affected local jurisdictions, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, and federal resource agencies), and our Stakeholders Advisory Committee. This document provides the framework for the study and will be refined through the study process. At the end of the study process, the Purpose and Need Statement document will actually become Chapter 1 of the Major Investment Study. Agenda Item 7E 20 The draft document was considered and unanimously approved by the MIS Policy Committee at their October 1, 2004 meeting with one key revision. The Committee recommended that SR74 be identified as part of the MIS Corridor. This modification has been made in the attached document. The MIS corridor is the area within which the MIS technical process will develop specific detailed build alternatives to meet the identified mobility needs. It is the part of the influence area through which approximately 80 percent of the travel demand is focused. Potential new facilities and improvements to existing facilities will be considered in the MIS Corridor. Attachment: Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study Mobility Problem and Purpose and Need Statement • Agenda Item 7E 21 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY - ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY FINAL DRAFT MOBILITY PROBLEM AND PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT (Executive Summary) Prepared for: • • Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission In cooperation with: Transportation Corridor Agencies Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 OCTOBER 4, 2004 • TABLE OF CONTENTS MOBILITY PROBLEM AND PURPOSE AND NEED 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 AREA BEING STUDIED 1 3.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 2 4.0 PROJECT PURPOSE 5 5.0 PROJECT NEED 5 FIGURES Figure 1: Riverside County - Orange County MIS 3 Figure 2: Cutline Demand Analysis 4 Figure 3: 2000 Average Daily Traffic Volumes 8 Figure 4: 2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes 9 TABLES Table 1: 2003 Peak -Hour LOS Summary 7 Table 2: SR -91 Truck Traffic Volumes -2003 11 10/04/04 «\\irv05\projects\JCV431\Purpose & Need\PN Final Draft Exec Sum.doc» 23 • MOBILITY PROBLEM AND PURPOSE AND NEED 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), in cooperation with the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), are conducting a Major Investment Study (MIS) under Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) requirements. An MIS is a separate, identifiable planning study process that includes feasibility planning, conceptual engineering, environmental evaluation, and public involvement requirements as part of the process. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Districts 8 and 12 and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are also cooperating agencies to the MIS process. • • The purpose of the Riverside County —Orange County MIS is to identify a range of feasible multimodal alternatives that will improve mobility between Riverside County and Orange County. The MIS will examine a comprehensive range of capital and operational improvement alternatives to the State Route 91 (SR -91) facility and will identify other intercounty transportation corridor opportunities. This planning study will analyze the potential benefits, costs, and consequences (economic, social, and environmental) of alternative transportation investment strategies in the Riverside County —Orange County MIS Corridor (MIS Corridor). The entire planning process is a cooperative and collaborative process whereby public agencies and the community assist in the development of a definition and general scope of potential solutions and the development of evaluation criteria culminating in a recommendation for a preferred transportation strategy. The information analyzed during the planning process will be documented in a final report for approval by the OCTA Board of Directors and the RCTC Board of Commissioners. It is anticipated that this final report will recommend the selection of a Locally Preferred Strategy (LPS). This Purpose and Need Statement provides the basis for selecting reasonable alternatives for consideration. It sets the study parameters for the consideration of multimodal and transportation improvement alternatives within the MIS Corridor and helps to define how the alternatives are to be evaluated by setting goals and objectives that define evaluation criteria that measure and screen potential alternatives through the MIS planning process culminating into the LPS. The LPS is then carried forward into subsequent engineering and environmental studies. In addition, this document identifies the transportation mobility problem or problems within the MIS Corridor and the project's objectives for achieving a feasible set of engineering and financial implementation solutions to the identified problem. 2.0 AREA BEING STUDIED The Riverside County —Orange County MIS occurs in a broad regional context of high -capacity east/west transportation facilities and high demand for east -west travel from San Bernardino and Riverside Counties to Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Major freeway facilities providing the transportation capacity for this travel demand include Interstate 10; State Routes 55, 60, 71, 74 (Ortega Highway), 91, and 142. Major changes to transportation capacity on any of these facilities are likely to change the distribution of traffic on the freeway system and other transportation facilities. Consequently, the MIS technical process will recognize these potential traffic changes as specific alternatives are developed for the MIS Corridor. Accordingly, three areas are defined here for the MIS process and are shown on Figure 1. These three areas are referred to as the Analysis Area, the Influence Area, and the Riverside County —Orange County MIS Corridor (MIS Corridor). The Influence Area and the MIS Corridor designate the areas where the travel demand between Riverside and Orange Counties is primarily focused. To define the Influence Area and the MIS Corridor, traffic volumes for 2030 were projected 10/04/04 «\\irv05\projects\JCV431\Purpose & Need\PN Final Draft Exec Sum.doc» 1 24 • based on the start and end points of the vehicle trips. These start and end points are referred to as "origin -destination" data. A density curve for 2030 traffic volumes was derived by counting all origin - destination trips across a dividing line and then allowing the graphic depiction of the resulting densities. The primary purpose of a demand density curve is to show geographically where the travel demand is concentrated, as shown in Figure 2. This leads to the identification of the MIS Corridor area, within which approximately 80 percent of the travel demand between Riverside County and Orange County occurs. 2.1 Analysis Area The Analysis Area provides the regional context for the MIS. It includes all parts of the regional transportation system that affect the mobility needs being addressed, or are affected by changes in capacity within the area being studied. Transportation issues and policy choices in the Analysis Area, as defined through the technical evaluation, will be established through the MIS process. 2.2 Influence Area The Riverside County —Orange County Influence Area is a geographical band that follows the general directional flow of trips to Orange County from much of Riverside County and parts of western San Bernardino County. It extends from approximately Carbon Canyon Road on the north to SR -74 to the south, 1-15 on the east and SR -55/I-5 on the west, and recognizes that all future transportation facilities in the band contribute in some manner to serving the travel demand being addressed in this MIS. Furthermore, potential alternatives within the Influence Area will be evaluated as part of the MIS process. 2.3 Riverside County —Orange County MIS Corridor This is the corridor within which the MIS technical process will develop specific detailed alternatives to meet the identified mobility needs. It is the part of the influence area through which approximately 80 percent of the travel demand is focused. An emphasis will be placed on the SR -91 freeway, since it is the only significant transportation facility directly linking Riverside County and Orange County. However, potential new facilities will be considered for build alternatives in the MIS Corridor. 3.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND The development of lower cost housing in Riverside County (late 1980s and early 1990s) and the corresponding employment growth in Orange County during the same period resulted in increasing congestion on SR -91. At the same time, federal and State transportation funding was not keeping pace with transportation demand. As a result, in 1990, Assembly Bill 680 authorized Caltrans to enter into franchise agreements with private companies to construct and operate four demonstration toll road projects in California. This resulted in the development of the 91 Express Lanes facility in Orange County. The four -lane, 10 -mile toll road runs along the median of SR -91 in northeast Orange County between the Orange/Riverside County line and State Route 55 (SR -55). Under the agreement with the private franchisee California Private Transportation Company (CPTC), congestion relief in the target corridor was to be accomplished solely through development of the toll facility. Since the 91 Express Lanes carried their first vehicle in December 1995, the facility has logged more than 46 million vehicle trips and saved users millions of hours of commuting time. 10/04/04 «\\irv05\projects\JCV431\Purpose & Need\PN Final Draft Exec Sum.doc» 2 • 25 LOS ANGELES LONG BEACH FULLERTON HUNTING BEACH Legend Analysis A rea Influence Area MIS Corridor County Lin e NO SCALE SO URCE: Austin -Foust Associates, In c. CHINO CHINO HILLS NORCO YORBA�:. t 1NDA;::, .';: RIVERSIDE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MORENO VALLEY PERRIS SANANA { CANYON HEME T LAKE NEWPO BEAC IRVINE LAGUNA NIGUEL LAKE FOREST MURRIETA MI�SION V EJO :a"MF VIEJO SAN CLEMENTE TEMECULA SAN DIEGO COUNTY FIG URE 1 Riverside County - Orange County MIS Riverside County - O range County MIS I:UCV43I\G\RC_OC MIS.cdr (10/4/04) 26 2030 Nrolame 2000Vol' eimareta WE =aatE l 2030 Vr,1w 2000 Volume -- M ®' SR -74 SOU RCE: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. FI GURE 2 Riverside County - Orange County MIS 2030 A DT Desire Lines County Lin e Cutline Demand I:VCV 431 \G0_Desirelines. cdr (9/17/04) •27 • • While the 91 Express Lanes facility has improved travel time along the SR -91 corridor, provisions in the franchise agreement between Caltrans and CPTC prohibited Caltrans and county transportation agencies from adding transportation capacity or operational improvements to the SR -91 corridor from Interstate 15 (1-15) in Riverside County to the Orange/Los Angeles Counties border through the year 2030. Consequently, the public agencies were barred from adding new lanes, improving interchanges, and adding other improvements to decrease congestion on SR -91. This "non -compete" provision proved especially problematic given the increasing travel demand on SR -91, fueled by rapid residential development in Riverside County and growing employment in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Recognizing the need to eliminate the non -compete provision of the franchise agreement, Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill 1010 into law in September 2002, paving the way for much -needed congestion relief for thousands of drivers who use SR -91 to travel between Riverside County and Orange County each day. The bill allowed OCTA to purchase the 91 Express Lanes franchise and eliminate the former clause that prohibited any capacity -enhancing improvements from being made to SR -91 until the year 2030. The deal to purchase the 91 Express Lanes was completed in January 2003, placing the road in public hands at a cost of $207.5 million. With the elimination of the non -compete provision through AB 1010 and the subsequent 91 Express Lanes purchase by OCTA, Orange and Riverside County public officials and Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 began working together on improvement plans for SR -91. Per AB 1010, OCTA, in consultation with Caltrans and RCTC, were required to issue a plan and a proposed completion schedule to the State Legislature for SR -91 improvements from 1-15 to SR -55 prior to July 1, 2003. The 2003 State Route 91 Implementation Plan was prepared in May 2003 and updated in June 2004. It includes short-, near-, and long-term projects for improving mobility on SR -91. It acknowledges that long-term projects discussed in the report would be evaluated in detail through this MIS. 4.0 PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of this MIS is to determine the appropriate improvements to the transportation infrastructure system that would help alleviate existing and future traffic congestion and delay within the MIS Corridor, and accommodate the need for mobility, improved travel time, safety, goods movement, and modal options between Riverside County and Orange County. Specifically, the purpose of this MIS is to meet the following goals to the extent feasible and practical: • Provide improvements to the transportation system that will improve mobility between Riverside County and Orange County • Improve travel time and safety on the existing SR -91 facility Improve goods movement within the Riverside County —Orange County MIS Corridor Reduce and manage the diversion of interregional traffic from the SR -91 to local streets • Expand modal options within the Riverside County —Orange County MIS Corridor 5.0 PROJECT NEED Current traffic volumes on SR -91 are around 260,000 vehicles per day, and projections for the year 2030 show a demand in excess of 400,000 vehicles per day. This is more than a 50 percent increase over existing volumes and implies a need for an additional five to seven travel lanes through the MIS Corridor to serve future intercounty and regional travel demands. These figures indicate that the existing transportation problems within the corridor will continue to deteriorate and will negatively 10/04/04 «\\irv05\projects\JCV431\Purpose & Need\PN Final Draft Exec Sum.doc» 5 28 • impact intercounty access to employment centers within Orange County and housing within Riverside County. Residential growth in areas that are served by SR -91, including western and southern Riverside County, has been more rapid than predicted during the 1990 recession, when AB 680 took effect. Continued rapid growth is projected for the foreseeable future and to 2030. The population in western Riverside County is projected to increase by 1.16 million people between 2000 and 2030, an increase of almost 100 percent. Growth in employment is projected to increase by an even greater amount, with 547,000 jobs being added, an increase of almost 150 percent. Riverside County has become a major source of affordable housing in Southern California. Orange County has become a primary location of employment centers, in addition to existing employment centers in Los Angeles County. This travel demand has led to a heavy directional commute pattern between Riverside and Orange/Los Angeles Counties. Transportation infrastructure improvements are necessary to address existing and projected deficiencies regarding mobility, access, goods movement, and freeway capacity along SR -91 within the MIS Corridor. Existing deficiencies, traffic congestion, and travel delay along SR -91 are anticipated to grow as a result of projected transportation demand, which will be generated by forecasted increases in population, housing, employment, and intercounty travel affecting both Riverside County and Orange County, as estimated by SCAG. The following sections describe the transportation mobility problems, the related goals, and the correlating study objectives of the Riverside County — Orange County MIS process. 5.1 Travel Demand and Mobility Identified Problem: The SR -91 is generally an 8- to 10 -lane facility, including a 4 -lane toll road along a 10 -mile portion, and is congested both eastbound and westbound for much of the day. Existing carrying capacity is inadequate to accommodate peak demand volumes. The peak period congestion patterns persist for three to four hours on a daily basis during the workweek. In addition, the freeway experiences recurring congestion during off-peak periods and on weekends. Table 1 depicts the 2003 Peak -Hour Level of Service (LOS) conditions on SR -91. Only short-term (1-5 years) and near -term (6-10 years) projects addressing mobility improvements through capacity enhancements are currently being planned. These projects address only existing deficiencies and will not adequately serve the anticipated increases in travel demand impacting SR - 91. 10/04/04 «\\irv05\projects\JCV431\Purpose & Need\PN Final Draft Exec Sum.doc» 6 29 t • Table 1: 2003 Peak -Hour LOS Summa Location Direction - Lanes Peak- Hour Capacity AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume V/C LOS (a) Volume V/C LOS (a) Gypsum Canyon Rd. to Coal Canyon Rd. Westbound 4 + 2H 11,200 12,520 1.12 F (F3) 5,130 .46 B (Fo) Eastbound 4 + 2H 11,200 5,210 .47 B (Fo) 12,310 1.10 F (F3) Coal Canyon Rd. to Green River Dr. Westbound 4 + 2H 11,200 12,570 1.12 F (F3) 5,150 .46 B (Fo) Eastbound 4 + 2H 11,200 5,230 .47 B (Fo) 12,360 1.10 F (F3) Abbreviations: H —high -occupancy vehicle lane; LOS —level of service; V/C—volume/capacity ratio. (a) Parenthesized LOS values are from speed and travel time surveys carried out by Caltrans. The measured speeds in each segment reflect queue buildup from a downstream deficient segment and/or other prevailing conditions at the time the surveys were conducted. Speed and travel time measurements taken by Caltrans for the freeway/tollway system give a measure of when and where such conditions occur and their severity. Specific LOS values are assigned based on the measured speeds, the LOS being derived by comparing the measured speed with a minimum desirable peak period operating speed (typically 35 mph). The travel time studies also reveal segments that are not in themselves a capacity problem but that are adversely affected by queue buildup from a deficient segment downstream. Hence, LOS values as determined from speed measurements may not equate to the V/C for a given segment because a queue can extend back from a deficient segment to a segment with a relatively low V/C. The LOS values for actual freeway operations reflects these congested conditions. The LOS analysis for existing conditions shows unacceptable level of congestion on the SR -91 mainline during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This is the case for both the eastbound and westbound directions of the freeway. The existing and future volumes on key components of the Analysis Area highway system are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. The first diagram illustrates existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes across the Orange/Riverside County line and the second shows the corresponding future demands on the existing highway system. The comparative bandwidths in the two figures show the 50 percent growth in forecasted travel demand. 10/04/04 «\\irv05\projects\JCV431\Purpose & Need\PN Final Draft Exec Sum.doc» 7 30 FIGURE 3 NO SCA LE SOURCE: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Riverside County - Orange County MIS 2000 Ave rage Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes (00 0s) (Existing Demand) I:\JCV 43I\G\A 0 — Existing. cdr (9/17/04) • 31 • FIGURE 4 NO SCALE SOURCE: Au stin -Foust Associates, Inc. Riverside County - Orange County MIS 2030 Average Daily Traffi c ( ADT) V olumes ( 000s) (Future Demand on Existing Network) I:\JC V43 I \G \ADT2030_Future.cdr (9/17/04) 32 • Although planned transportation improvements will address some of the projected future demand, additional transportation improvements are needed to provide for the efficient movement of goods and people in the future. Project Goal: Provide improvements to the transportation system that will improve mobility between Riverside County and Orange County. Study Objective: Develop a locally preferred strategy that provides sufficient capacity to accommodate projected 2030 traffic forecasts by improving traffic congestion on the SR -91 and identifies other transportation options within the Riverside County —Orange County MIS Corridor. 5.2 Travel Time and Safety Identified Problem: Average travel time for both mixed -flow and HOV lanes on the SR -91 can be nearly four times higher during the peak period than during free -flow travel time and is expected to significantly increase. Estimated travel times for the eastbound direction show that trips from SR -55 to SR -71 during PM peak time take 55 to 60 minutes on a 13.5 -mile segment, a distance that can be traveled in free -flow conditions in 13 minutes. The situation is somewhat better westbound, but travel times during the peak PM period would be double the travel times during free -flow conditions. Various physical constraints contribute to the congestion on SR -91. Several choke points have been identified along SR -91. These choke points occur where traffic streams merge and diverge at freeway -to -freeway interchanges (1-15, SR -71, SR -90, SR -241, and SR -55), producing heavy traffic volumes and weaving. Locations where mixed flow or auxiliary lanes drop from the mainline also produce traffic hot spots. Several on -ramps east of SR -71 are not designed to handle the high demand, also affecting SR -91. In addition, heavy truck traffic (approximately 6 percent of total traffic) that slowly merges onto the freeway along uphill grades from the truck scales impacts general- purpose lanes. Traffic accidents on portions of SR -91 exceed the statewide accident average. Accident rates along SR -91 from SR -55 to 1-15 were obtained for a five-year period from January 1,1996, through December 31, 2000, using the Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS). This data revealed that the segment between SR -71 and 1-15 in the westbound direction had an accident rate that was greater than the statewide average rate. The accident data also indicates that rear -end and sideswipe collisions account for approximately 60 percent and 20 percent, respectively, of the accidents reported in this data.' The occurrences of traffic accidents on SR -91 cause periods of significant traffic congestion that cannot be predicted or avoided. Serious incidents can shut down the freeway for extended periods of time, causing associated spillover of traffic onto adjacent local street systems. Project Goal: Improve travel time and safety on the existing SR -91 facility. Study Objective: Develop a locally preferred strategy that eliminates choke points and improves traffic movements along the SR -91 and reduces the frequency, severity, and consequences of traffic accidents along the SR -91. Caltrans. State Route 91 Congestion Relief Alternative Analysis. January 2003. 10/04/04 «\\irv05\projects\JCV431\Purpose & Need\PN Final Draft Exec Sum.doc» 10 33 • 5.3 Goods Movement Identified Problem: For SR -91, truck trips comprise approximately 6 percent of the total daily traffic volumes. Table 2 shows truck traffic volumes. This volume is lower than major interstate facilities such as Interstate 5 but are comparable or higher to other freeway facilities in the Analysis Area. Table 2: SR -91 Truck Traffic Volumes -2003 Location Trucks / Day Other Vehicles / Day Total / Day West of SR-90/Imperial Highway 15,000 267,000 282,000 West of SR -71 17,000 244,000 261,000 ource: Caltrans, SR -91 Congestion Relief Alternatives Analysis 2003 Land planning and economic projections indicate that the Perris/Moreno Valley/March Air Reserve Base area will serve as a major distribution hub for goods in the Inland Empire.2 This employment center will result in increased travel demand by trucks carrying goods in and out of the Analysis Area. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway serves the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach via the Alameda Corridor, eventually traveling through northern Orange County, the City of Corona, San Bernardino County, and, ultimately, the Gulf States and eastern United States. This route travels through the MIS Corridor study area. The volume of port cargo has increased significantly over the past five years and is expected to continue its rapid growth. In terms of the number of trains involved with goods movement, forecasts suggest an increase from the current volume of approximately 60 trains per day to 155 trains per day by the year 2025 (the period of the latest rail activity forecast). Project Goal: Study Objective: Improve goods movement within the Riverside County —Orange County MIS Corridor. Develop a locally preferred strategy that provides for the efficient movement of goods and services by trucks and rail between Riverside and Orange Counties. 5.4 Diversion of Traffic Identified Problem: Cities adjacent to the SR -91 Freeway on both sides of the County line experience high volumes of "freeway avoidance" traffic. Facilities such as Sixth Street in Corona, La Palma Avenue in Anaheim and Yorba Linda, and Santa Ana Canyon Road in Anaheim are particularly impacted. The amount of traffic diversion varies from day to day (depending on current conditions on SR -91), and freeway incidents can substantially exacerbate the problem. During periods of heavy traffic congestion, traffic spills over onto local streets. The occurrence of heavy traffic congestion along SR -91 during normal commuter peak periods or from unexpected traffic accidents result in traffic being diverted from SR -91 onto adjacent arterial and surface streets, resulting in severe localized traffic congestion. In some areas, localized traffic congestion and spillover traffic from SR -91 has affected quality of life for adjacent communities. Project Goal: Reduce and manage the diversion of freeway traffic from the SR -91 to local streets. 2 For example, the March Air Reserve Base Land Use Plan in the Riverside County General Plan (adopted 2003) provides for 9.7 million square feet of industrial build out capacity and 5.1 million square feet of commercial build out capacity. 3 Orange North -American Trade Rail Access Corridor Authority. Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for Orange County Gateway. April 2004. 10/04/04 «\\irv05\projects\JCV431\Purpose & Need\PN Final Draft Exec Sum.doc» 11 34 • Study Objective: Develop a locally preferred strategy that reduces traffic being diverted from the SR -91 facility onto adjacent arterial and surface streets and develop traffic management plans for specific local arterials. 5.5 Travel Mode Options Identified Problem: Public transit options along SR -91 include bus and commuter rail modes. Metrolink commuter rail services between Riverside County and Orange County operate on railroad tracks owned by the BNSF railroad. The amount of freight traffic increased by 60 percent between 1993 and 2000 and is projected to increase by 165 percent by 2020 and beyond. As freight train traffic is projected to increase at a faster rate than passenger/commuter trains, negative impacts such as poor on -time performance may occur without increases in public transit capacity within the area. In addition, Metrolink Commuter Rail service is at capacity and the MIS Corridor lacks convenient express bus service. Project Goal: Study Objective: Expand modal options within the Riverside County —Orange County MIS Corridor. Develop a locally preferred strategy that includes a multimodal component that increases bus and rail services between the two counties. 5.6 Environmental Impacts Identified Problem: Within the corridor, there are sensitive populations of flora and fauna, as well as natural resources including, but not limited to, the Santa Ana River, Chino Hills State Park, Featherly Regional Park, and Cleveland National Forest. With regards to potential transportation options south of SR -91, potential impacts to natural resources, groundwater, the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), and the Western Riverside County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Section 4(f) resources (parklands, public trails, National Forest lands, and other cultural resources) and scenic resources will be critical constraints to the evaluation of alternative corridors connecting the two counties. Project Goal: Study Objective: Minimize environmental impacts related to transportation system improvements within the Riverside County - Orange County MIS Corridor. Develop a locally preferred strategy that minimizes to the extent feasible and practical impacts to natural and human environmental issues, parkland, and existing communities and neighborhoods within the MIS Corridor. 5.7 Public Acceptability Identified Problem: Improvements to the existing SR -91 facility or consideration of alternative transportation corridor(s) will need to address sensitive issues affecting a broad range of stakeholders and requires the involvement and participation of various interest groups, community organizations, and elected official representatives from Riverside County and Orange County. Project Goal: Study Objective: Incorporate an effective outreach and public participation program in Riverside and Orange Counties. Develop a locally preferred strategy that provides for the active participation of stakeholders, interest groups, and elected officials from Riverside and Orange Counties. 10/04/04 «\\irv05\projects\JCV431\Purpose & Need\PN Final Draft Exec Sum.doc» 12 35 AGENDA ITEM 7F • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 05-31-514 (Amendment No.1 to Agreement No. RO-2041) to the County of Riverside for Real Property Services for the SR 74 Project and SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Project BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-31-514, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. RO-2041, to the County of Riverside Facilities Management/ Real Estate Division for real property services for the SR 74 project for an amount of $173,000 and for the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 project for an amount of $26,388 for a total not to exceed $199,388; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Route 74 Project At its December 8, 1999 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. RO-2041 with the County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division. Agreement No. RO-2041 was to cover acquisition of nearly 400 parcels estimated to cost $2,494,000. Agreement No. RO-2041 covers all of the County of Riverside acquisition activities necessary for the RCTC Measure "A" project on SR 74 between 1-15 and 7t1 Street in the City of Perris, and also includes the Greenwald realignment project. At this time, staff needs to acquire mitigation land, continue acquisition activities to close out the remaining parcels for the project, and provide legal support for those cases that will be subject to litigation. The proposed agreement amendment with the County of Riverside for the State Route 74 project will include all necessary labor to obtain right-of-way costs, litigation guarantee costs, relocation Agenda Item 7F 36 expenses, and escrow fees. The attached cost and scope of work for all right-of- way services to be performed by the County of Riverside for the SR 74 Project is for an amount not to exceed $173,000. SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Project In addition, and in accordance with State Statute provisions (AB 283 signed by the Governor on September 28, 1999) which allow a local County Board of Supervisors to be the hearing board for resolutions of necessity in place of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for Caltrans project land acquisitions, approximately two years ago, Caltrans requested that the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (RCBOS) be the hearing board for resolutions of necessity for the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 interchange design sequencing project. There were two basic reasons for Caltrans making this request of the RCBOS: • The CTC meets approximately 10 times a year to conduct business and their meeting locations, while primarily in Sacramento, are conducted in other locations throughout the State. Having the RCBOS act as the hearing board would be convenient for the majority of the property owners impacted by the project. • The SR 60/SR 91/1-215 design sequencing project had very tight time frames to accomplish to get the project ready to advertise for bid. In retrospect, the coordination by Caltrans with the RCBOS and the County's Real Property Division not only provided the convenience of a local forum for the Resolutions of Necessity to be heard and acted upon, but the generally weekly RCBOS meeting schedule assisted in maintaining the project delivery schedule. Additionally, we could not have predicted the extent of the financial catastrophe which would eventually engulf the State and lap over to impact all aspects of State and local government programs including transportation. This coordination effort between Riverside County and Caltrans District 08 contributed to the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 project being ready for consideration when the CTC made its last major project votes before closing the cupboard. The SR 60/SR 91/1-215 project is a 1988 Measure "A" project and the County services provided in support of the project is $26,388. Staff recommends that the Commission approve payment from Measure "A" Western County Highway funds. The total cost for the County services for the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 project is $26,388. • Agenda Item 7F 37 • • • These additional funds of $199,388 ($173,000 + $26,388) will bring the total County of Riverside not to exceed amount for the specified services to $2,693,388 ($2,494,000 + $199,388). The agreement will be subject to RCTC legal counsel review using an RCTC standard contract agreement. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $199,388 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Budget Ad ustment: Y GLA No.: 222-31-81304 P3001 (SR 74) P3006 (SR 60/SR 91/1-215) $173,000 $ 26,388 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \U Date: 9/27/04 Attachment: County of Riverside Cost Estimate Agenda Item 7F 38 • Gouly September 8, 2004 Mr. Gustavo Quintero Riverside County Transportation Commission 3580 University Avenue, Suite No. 100 Riverside, California 92501 Re: Highway 74 Project Dear Mr. Quintero: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT MICHAEL J. SYLVESTER DIRECTOR DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION REAL ESTATE MAINTENANCE CUSTODIAL Pursuant to our telephone conversation I have reviewed the existing contract between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the County of Riverside, Department of Facilities Management, Real Estate Division for real estate related services for the Highway 74 Project. Since we were unsure of the amount of parcels necessary for this project at the time of figuring the contract amount, we are near the end of the contract dollar amount and still have work that must be completed over the next couple of years. My proposal to complete the work necessary for the project is as follows: County of Riverside, Department of Facilities Management Real Estate Division services to acquire mitigation land, and to acquire and close out the remainder parcels within Highway 74: 2295 Hours at $60 hour Appraisal Work Total Less Remainder Original Contract Estimated New Contract Total Cost $137,700 $ 65,497 $203,197 ($ 30,000) $173.197 This estimate does not include any rights -of -way costs, litigation guarantee costs, relocation expenses, costs of title policies or escrow fees. Should you have anyguestions, please feel free to contact me at (951) 955-9275. ery truly yours, Janet M. Parks Supervising Real Property Agent 39 3133 MISSION INN AVENUE • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 • (909) 955.4820 • FAX (909) 955-4837 HIGHWAY 74 REMAINING REAL ESTATE WORK 32 UNSETTLED PROPERTY OWNERS X 35 HOURS X $60/HOUR $ 67,200 5 Escrows x 5 Hours x $60/Hour $ 1,500 10 Mitigation Parcels x 85 Hours x $60/Hour $ 51,000 300 Hours Miscellaneous x $60/Hour $ 18,000 Appraisals $ 65,497 SUBTOTAL $ 203,197 Less Remainder Original Contract ($30,000)* TOTAL $ 173,197 *Denotes Approximate Amount JMP:db 09/08/04 • 40 • G ouN July 12, 2004 Mr. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Department County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 Re: Interstate 215/60/91 Inter -Charge — Cal Trans Dear Hideo: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT MICHAEL J. SYLVESTER DIRECTOR DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION REAL ESTATE MAINTENANCE CUSTODIAL As requested, I have included copies of all bills owed by Cal Trans to the County for work that we completed on the Interstate 215/60/91 project. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (909) 955-9275. truly yours, net M. Parks Supervising Real Property Agent JMP:db Enclosures Cc: File Copy 41 3133 MISSION INN AVENUE • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 • (909) 955-4820 • FAX (909) 955-4837 STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Caltrans) INTERSTATE 215/60/91 INTERCHANGE OUTSTANDING INVOICES Invoice Number Amount 6045 $ 2,310.00 6390 $ 10,578.00 6428 6450 6471 6494 6535 Total $ 2,760.00 $ 2,550.00 $ 1,830.00 $ 4,830.00 $ 1,530.00 $ 26,388.00 42 AGENDA ITEM 7G • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 05-31-513 (Amendment No. Agreement No. 02-31-917) with County of Riverside for Property Services for the State Route 79 Realignment Project 1 to Real BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-31-513, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-31-917, with the County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division for the SR 79 realignment project for an amount not to exceed $163,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its October 14, 1998 meeting, the Commission approved an amount of $425,000 from the SB 45 2% planning funds to provide partial match for the $4.5 million of TEA 21 Demonstration Project funding. This funding was designated to provide engineering and environmental clearance to realign State Route 79 near the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto between Ramona Expressway and Domenigoni Parkway. The Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto and the County of Riverside all desire to proceed with the project at the earliest possible time. RCTC is the lead agency for this project. The realignment, over a distance of approximately 15 miles, is necessary to increase capacity, enhance operation, restrict access, and improve safety. The project will require right-of-way acquisition for the new alignment. At its January 28, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved the award of a preliminary engineering contract to CH2M Hill for the preparation of a Project Report and Environmental Document. At this time, the project team needs to Agenda Item 7G 43 proceed with the necessary environmental studies that are required to be performed in order to determine the final alignment that will be carried forward through the Project Approval/Environmental Document phase of the project. However, the upcoming environmental studies will require the right to enter parcels along and adjacent to the different realignments currently being studied. Currently CH2M Hill has identified 1,448 parcels that they will be required to access starting in December of this year in order to perform the necessary studies to environmentally clear the Project. At its December 12, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 02-31-917 with the County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division to obtain the right -of -entry necessary to complete the required field studies for the first phases of this project. Staff is recommending that the current contract agreement with the County be amended to allow the County to perform the additional necessary acquisition support services so that right -of -entry can be obtained in time to allow for the environmental investigations to move forward on schedule. Agreement No. 02-31-917 was originally awarded for a total amount of $21,800. The additional funds requested in order to continue with the rights -of -entry for the current phase of field studies will be for the amount of $163,000. Included in the FY 2004-05 budget is $30,000 for right of way support services. A budget amendment for $133,000 is requested related to the contract amendment. This amendment will bring the total County of Riverside not to exceed amount to $184,800 to complete the attached services. The agreement will be subject to RCTC legal counsel review. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y N Year: FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 Amount: $ 30,000 $133,000 Source of Funds: TEA 21 Demonstration Project Funds Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 222-31-81403 P 3003 Fiscal Procedures Approved: �U A Date: 9/27/04 Attachment: County of Riverside Cost Estimate • Agenda Item 7G 44 • Gouiv • • September 3, 2004 Mr. Gustavo Quintero Riverside County Transportation Commission 3580 University Avenue, Suite No. 100 Riverside, California 92501 Re: Highway 79 Project Dear Mr. Quintero: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT MICHAEL J. SYLVESTER DIRECTOR DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION REAL ESTATE MAINTENANCE CUSTODIAL Pursuant to our telephone conservation, we submit the following proposal for acquiring rights of entry which are needed for the Highway 79 Project Environmental Study. 1. County of Riverside, Department of Facilities Management, Real Estate Division services to acquire Rights of Entry for Biological Assessment Purposes. 1,400 Total Parcels (Right of Entry only) as defined in attachment at 2,800 hours at $60 per hour 2. Less Remaining Original Contract = Estimated Total Cost $168,000 ($5, 000) $163,000 This estimate does not include any right of way services for the acquisition of permanent or temporary rights, rights -of -way costs, litigation guarantee costs, appraisal costs, relocation expenses, condemnation fees, costs of title policies or escrow fees. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (951) 955-9275. truly yours, anet M. Parks Supervising Real Property Agent JMP:db cc: Bill Hughes 3133 MISSION INN AVENUE • RIVERSIDE, CA 9 45 507 • (909) 955-4820 • FAX (909) 955-4837 HIGHWAY 79 REAL ESTATE PRELIMINARY SERVICES 1,400 Parcels x 2 hours x $60/hour $ 168,000 Less Original Contract 5,000* Total $ 163,000 *Approximate amount • • 46 AGENDA ITEM 7H • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Transit Policy Committee and Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003 Capital Projects Status Report TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to work with the transit agencies to include milestone reporting as part of the capital project quarterly tracking process. Additionally, any changes in project completion dates, extending the project's time line, that may negatively impact the grant funding, will be submitted to the Transit Policy Committee for consideration; and, 2) Reaffirm the allocation of local transportation funds. • BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • Staff from the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside together with staff from Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and RCTC's Commuter Rail program provided an oral presentation of open capital projects covering FY 1996-97 through FY 2002-03. The following chart provides an overview, by agency, of open capital projects: FY 1996-1997 through FY 2002-2003 Apportionment Area/Agency No. of Open Projects Funds Allocated for Identified Capital Projects Balance of Unspent Funds Western Riverside Banning 3 $617,000 $60,031 Beaumont 9 $642,000 $143,216 Corona 3 $1,069,700 $775,445 Riverside 2 $700,000 $ 22,699 RTA 32 $19,713,029 $5,598,470 RCTC's Commuter Rail 11 $76,309,012 $18,237,215 Subtotal: WRC 60 $99,050,741 $24,837,076 Coachella Valley SunLine Transit Agency 21 $6,804,310 $4,021,795 Subtotal: CV 21 $6,804,310 $4,021,795 Agenda Item7H 47 Palo Verde Valley PVVTA 0 $0 $0 Subtotal: PVV 0 $0 $0 TOTAL: 81 $105,855,051 $28,858,871 Anticipated Completion Dates/Quarterly Milestone Reporting Transit agency staff and management report that all of the 81 projects will be completed no later than December 2006. Given the age of the capital projects, Commission staff recommends that transit agencies be required to include milestone information as part of the required quarterly capital project tracking process. Staff further recommends that any changes in project completion dates, extending the project's time line, that may negatively impact the grant funding, will be submitted to the Transit Policy Committee for consideration. Potential Loss /Lapse of Federal Funds As the transportation planning agency, RCTC is charged with transportation planning and programming of funds. Concerned that transit operators were "deobligating" federal funds without reobligating them to a new line item, Commission staff recently contacted the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requesting access to the TEAM System. (TEAM is the electronic grant process that transit operators utilize to submit grant applications once federal funds are allocated by the Commission). Access to TEAM will enable staff to assist transit operators in monitoring federal grants ensuring that the oldest funds are spent first and that funds do not lapse. Access will also be helpful to ensure that unspent federal funds remain within Riverside County and not returned to the FTA. Potential Loss /Lapse of Local Funds Public Utilities Code Section 6648 of the Transportation Development Act states that: "Any moneys allocated and reserved in the local transportation fund and not authorized for payment within three years after the date of allocation shall cease to be allocated or reserved and shall become and be treated as an unallocated apportionment retained in the fund....At least 30 days before the end of any three year reserve period, the transportation planning agency shall give written notification to the claimant specifying the date on which the moneys cease to be allocated or reserved Any such moneys that cease to be allocated shall then become and be treated as an unallocated apportionment retained in the fund in accordance with Section 6655. 1. o Agenda Item7H 48 • • • The transportation planning agency shall not authorize any payment to a claimant from an allocation reserved in the fund if the claimant is holding in its own accounts sufficient moneys originally allocated in a previous fiscal year from the local transportation fund and reserved for the specific capital project or reserved for unspecified capital outlay." The majority of the local funds identified for the capital projects are older than three years; as a result, staff requests that the Committee reaffirm the allocation of the local funds for the specific projects previously approved by the Commission. Agenda Item7H 49 AGENDA ITEM 71 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Transit Policy Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fare Box Recovery Policy TRANS/T POLICY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Fare Box Recovery Policy. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: One of the recommendations made in the Commission's Triennial Performance Audit was to "clarify the definition of revenues to calculate the farebox ratio." As reported previously, several of our transit operators are not meeting the State - mandated fare box recovery ratio. Historically, the Transportation Development ACT (TDA) has provided for exclusions of certain operating costs in the fare box calculation. While most exclusions had expiration dates, the transit operators and financial auditors were not always aware of the sunset dates. As a result, it was determined in the FY 2002-03 financial audits and confirmed in the Triennial Performance Audits that incorrect financial assumptions were made when calculating the FY 2001-02 fare box. The attached policy is intended to clarify the rules and regulations regarding fare box ratios, define allowable revenues to calculate fare box recovery ratios and summarizes when certain exclusions expire. By specifically defining the allowable revenues in the calculation of the fare box, transit operators will have clear direction on the financial options available to them for achieving the required fare box. The policy has been reviewed and approved by RCTC's legal counsel. Attachment: Fare Box Recovery Policy Agenda Item 71 50 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Fare Box Recovery Effective Date: Page 1 of 6 Pages INTRODUCTION Approved by Commission Action: TBD To be eligible for Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, transit operators (public bus and commuter rail) must maintain a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs of at least 10% for non -urbanized areas and 20% for urbanized areas (PUC Section 99268.2). Intermediate Fare Ratio Minimum fare revenues to operating costs for operators serving both urbanized and non -urbanized areas can fall between the 10% and 20% requirement. The Commission, under PUC Section 99268.3 and 99268.4, is responsible for calculating the intermediate ratio. The methodology used to calculate the minimum ratio required consists of the following: R = .1Cn+.2Cu Cn + Cu R = Required ratio Cn = Costs of services in non -urbanized areas Cu = Costs of services in urbanized areas The intermediate (b/ended) farebox calculation is developed and submitted to Caltrans by April 1 preceding the fiscal year for which the calculation takes effect. Once approved by Caltrans, the required ratio cannot be changed. Caltrans must approve or reject the proposed methodology within 60 days after receiving it. (PUC 6645). Attachment 1 details the Rules and Regulations for determining the intermediate farebox calculation. • 51 • • • New or Expanded Services The required ratios of fare revenues to operating costs does not apply to an extension of public transportation services until two years after the end of the fiscal year in which the extension of services was placed into operation. Extension of public transportation services includes additions of geographical areas or route miles, or improvements in service frequency or hours of service greater than 25% of the route total, or the addition of new days of service (PUC 99268.8). Revenues to Calculate Farebox Ratios Fare revenues consist of all revenues which can be classified as passenger fare revenues for transit services, special transit fares, and school bus service revenues. Such fare revenues may include revenues earned under contractual arrangements with public or private entities as well as cash donations made in lieu of a prescribed fare (PUC 6611 .2). Operators may supplement fare revenues with local funds and support (PUC 6633.2(g) and 6634(a)(2)). Local funds are revenues derived from taxes imposed by the operator or by the County Transportation Commission (PUC 99268.19). Local support includes all revenues which can be classified as auxiliary transportation revenues, taxes levied directly by the transit system, local cash grants and reimbursements for general operating assistance, local special fare assistance, and subsidies from other sectors of operations (PUC 6611.3). Essentially, local support funds include all other revenues received to support the operations of a transit system and may include, but are not limited to, interest earnings, gains on the sale of capital assets, lease revenues generated by transit -owned property, alternative fueling services, advertising revenues, donations other than cash donations made in lieu of a prescribed fare, and Measure "A" specialized transit operating grants. Operating Cost Exclusions (AB813-Salinas — PUC 99268.17) Operating cost exclusions and the related expiration dates are as follows: • Operating costs greater than the previous year's cost, as adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), to provide complementary ADA service. This revised ADA cost exclusion does not expire as the law provides for an extension of this specific provision without any further sunset date. • Cost for liability insurance premiums that are greater than the previous year's cost, as adjusted by the CPI. This revised insurance cost exclusion expires on January 1, 2007. For purposes of determining the CPI and to ensure consistency among the Riverside County transit operators, the CPI shall be the Los Angeles - Riverside -Orange County, CA selected local area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U) obtained from the United States Department of Labor —Bureau of Labor Statistics. As a point of reference, the referenced CPI for June 2004 was 193.7, reflecting a 4.0% change from June 2003. Illustration: Fare Box Recovery Calculation Attachment 2 provides an illustrative example of the fare box recovery calculation for XYZ Transit, a transit operator serving Riverside County, based on the aforementioned policies. For illustration purposes, the following assumptions are included in the fare box recovery calculation: 1. Purchased transportation costs were exclusively related to the provision of ADA services; and 2. In fiscal 2002, XYZ Transit implemented an extension of public transportation services. The cost of such services was $200,000 in fiscal 2004. The passenger fare revenues related to this extension of services was $15,000 in fiscal 2004. • 53 • • • Attachment 1 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR DETERMINING REQUIRED FARE REVENUE TO OPERATING COST RATIOS FOR TRANSIT OPERATORS SERVING BOTH URBANIZED AND NON -URBANIZED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY I. Based on the latest annually adopted Short Range Transit Plans for Riverside County, the Riverside County Transportation Commission with the cooperation of the transit operator will determine separately the operating cost of those transit services provided in non -urbanized areas and the operating cost of those services in urbanized areas. A) For the purpose of this calculation, the operating cost in the urbanized areas shall include the cost of fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within an urbanized area. The operating cost in the non -urbanized area shall include the cost of fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within a non -urbanized area. B) For fixed route lines operating partly within an urbanized area and partly within a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to the urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the route miles in the non -urbanized area and the route miles in the urbanized area. C) For general public demand response systems serving both an urbanized area and a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the population of the urbanized area served and the population of the non -urbanized area served. D) The costs of extension of public transit service pursuant to Section 99268.8 of the PUC shall not be included in any of these calculations. II. The required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost in compliance with PUC Sections 99268.3 and 99268.4 shall be calculated as follows: R = .1Cn+.2Cu Cn + Cu R = Required ratio Cn = Costs of services in non -urbanized areas Cu = Costs of services in urbanized areas III . Annually, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall calculate the required revenue to operating cost ratio for each transit operator serving both urbanized and non -urbanized areas and submit this calculation to Caltrans. Caltrans shall approve the required ratio prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and the ratio shall not be subject to change. • 55 • • • XYZ Transit Example Statement of Operations For the Years Ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 Attachment 2 Year Ended June 30 2004 2003 Operating revenues: Passenger fares $ 100,000 $ 95,000 Advertising revenues 5,000 5,000 Total operating revenues 105,000 100,000 Operating expenses: Salaries, wages and benefits Purchased transportation Services Materials and supplies Casualty and liability Depreciation and amortization Total operating expenses Operating profit (loss) 900,000 500,000 150,000 400,000 200,000 350,000 810,000 425,000 145,000 275,000 135,000 340,000 2,500,000 2,130,000 (2,395,000) (2,030,000) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Operating grants: Local Transportation Funds 1,774,000 1,434,000 Measure A specialized transit 25,000 25,000 Capital grants: Local Transportation Funds 250,000 225,000 State Transit Assistance 50,000 25,000 Federal 100,000 80,000 Lease revenues 75,000 72,000 Auxiliary revenues 125,000 115,000 Interest revenue 40,000 41,000 Interest expense (110,000) (110,000) Gain on sale of capital assets 6,000 3,000 Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) 2,335,000 1,910,000 Change in net assets $ (60,000) $ (120,000) Fare box recovery calculation: Revenues: Passenger fares $ 100,000 Local funds/support: Advertising revenues 5,000 Measure A specialized transit 25,000 Lease revenues 75,000 Auxiliary revenues 125,000 Interest revenue 40,000 Gain on sale of capital assets 6,000 Less revenues related to extension of service (15,000) Total fare revenue and local funds/support $ 361,000 Expenses: Operating expenses Less depreciation and amortization Less costs related to extension of service Less increase in liability insurance costs Less increase in costs for provision of ADA services Total expenses $ 2,500,000 (350,000) (200,000) (59,600) Calc: 1-200,000+1135,000* 1.04)1 (58,000) Calc: [-500,000+(425,000*1.04)] 1,832,400 Fare box recovery ratio 19.7% 6 AGENDA ITEM 7J • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Transit Policy Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure "A" Specialized Transit Taxi Demonstration Program TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve interim funding up to $100,000 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds for continuation of the program; 2) Approve Agreement No. 05-26-506, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 04-26-025, with Diversified Paratransit, Inc. for oversight and administration of the program; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October 2003, the Commission, working in partnership with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), implemented a taxi demonstration program utilizing Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds. The taxi program is available to provide transportation to all areas in western Riverside County currently served by the public operators. Since its inception, no senior passengers have been denied transportation and the need to move equipment (from one city to another) to handle changing passenger demands has been minimal. Statistics for the first seven months of the program revealed that the average cost of a taxi trip was $19.67; in comparison, the average cost of the trip if RTA provided the service was estimated at $33.50. Overall, the program is receiving high marks from both passengers and operators and based on the data available, the program appears to be successful in terms of cost effectiveness and increased availability of transportation services for seniors. Agenda Item 7J 57 To date, the City of Corona, Riverside Special Services, and RTA have utilized the taxi program. As stated in previous staff reports, given escalating operating costs, the lack of fare box compliance and continued increased demand for paratransit services, staff was surprised that the use of taxi services utilizing Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding was not identified in the FY 2004-05 through FY 2006-07 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP). RCTC staff identified this as a concern at the June Commission meeting and was directed to have the use of taxi services agendized for the Transit Policy Committee's (TPC) consideration. Western Riverside County transit operators are interested in continuing the program; however, they felt it presumptuous to identify the use of Measure "A" funding in their SRTPs as historically those funds have been dedicated to non-profit operators providing a level of service over and above that of the public agencies. While they are in support of the program, it should be noted that transit operators also did not identify the use of TDA funding in support of the program's continuance. Commission staff is hesitant to fund the continuation of the taxi program utilizing only Measure "A" funding for the following reasons: 1) The use of taxis appears to be a cost savings compared to services provided by the public operators. Transit operators should strive to provide the most cost effective service regardless of funding type; 2) Measure "A" revenues are inadequate to cover the potential growth in taxi trips; and 3) Policy issues need to be further explored concerning the 2009 — 2039 Measure "A" funding. The current taxi demonstration program expires on October 5, 2004. Staff recommends that up to $100,000 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit funding be allocated to continue the program pending funding direction from the TPC and further discussion with the western Riverside County transit operators. If approved, these funds will be used for both program administration and taxi trips. Staff further recommends approval of Agreement No. 05-26-506 with Diversified Paratransit, Inc. on a month -to -month basis in an amount not to exceed $7,264 per month. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: 2004-05 Amount: $100,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Specialized Transit Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 225-26-86101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \JZ/ a«r,��a,, Date: 07/21/2004 • Agenda Item 7J 58 AGENDA ITEM 7K • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 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 September 22, 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 up dates to this report will be presented to the Commission on a monthly basis. Agenda Item 7K 59 • SUNLINE TA/SIT AGENCY OPERATIONAL EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2004 COMPLETED ITEMS The following items ha ve been completed and closed: • RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRA ME DATE ACCOMP . 3 CFO provide training on ethical issues Ethics policy was adopted April 2004 by board action; training will continue 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 Compl eted 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 10 CFO provide for IT examination to improve payroll process Work with Payroll to examine process & make recommendations. AA July, Aug 04 Completed August 2004 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 2004 12 CFO implement shredding of unsold bus pass stock after reconciliation Procedures have been revised and desk policy is in place. AA Completed Feb 2004 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 19 GM to require monthly financial and update info on projects and provide same to Board Completed Oct 2003 21 GM to require Board approval for hiring consultants AA Completed Sept 2003 60 RECOM MENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TI ME FRAME DATE ACCOMP. 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 2004 24 CFO establish procedures for maintenance of contracts and grants AA Feb- Mar 04 Completed Apr 2004 25 GM to establish procedures in contract and grant proposal development 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 2004 27 CFO to develop methodology to determine indirect cost allocations Project completed as part of NREL audit, and overhead rates established. AA Completed Mar 2004 30 CFO to plan for Finance staff training in project cost accounting Appropriate training is budgeted in 05 budget AA July 04 Completed early Sept 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 M aintenance . AA Completed Mar 2004 32 GM (or Business Admin Officer) to ce ntralize all purchasing Purchasing centralized under Director of M aintenance supervision AA Completed Mar 2004 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 • Page 2 •61 • • • RECO MMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME DATE ACCOMP. 36 GM to cancel RFP to purchase computers with Windows 98 operating system Order proceeds; Windows 98 necessary to operate current software . Management declined recomendation December 03 37 GM to ensure changes to the shared 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 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 44 CFO to utilize the table -logging feature to capture change to tables affecting financial transactions IT system changes now control levels of access for table changes, and revisions are tracked by software. AA Sept 04 Completed July & Aug 2004 45 CFO to utilize financial system to control funds to prevent commitments that exceed balances Fleet -Net system now contains '05 budget numbers, which monitors spending levels by account. AA Sept 04 Completed Auc 2004 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 as appropriate, based upon IT audit and new policies AA Fall 04 Completed August 04 48 CFO to establish a budget proce ss 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 Jul 2004 49 GM, CFO & Directors to address forecasted budget projections of a $1. 5M deficit. See Note No. 1 Feb 04 Not applicable Page 3 62 RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME DATE ACCOMP. 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 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, 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 will evaluate the new software in FY 2005. In the meantime, additional Fleet -Net training is budgeted in FY 2005. 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. Page 4 • a3 • • SUNLINE TR/1IT AGENCY OPERATIONAL EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2004 ONG OING ITEMS RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION D ATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRA ME DATE ACCO MP . 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 Training is ongoing 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 Planned return 1/05 20 GM to provide agency initiatives and activities to staff In progress Aug 04 Ongoing 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 28 GM to implement project management module in core financial management system Establishment of project mgmt module has begun July 04 Ongoing, begun July/04 64 SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY OPERATIONAL EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY REPORT F OR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2004 OPEN ITEMS RECO MMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME DATE ACCOMP. 14 HR Director update and distribute employee handbook Pending hiring of new HR director AA Summer 2005 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 Pending hiring of new HR director 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 29 HR Director plan for staff involved with contracts and grants to have training on regulations See #18 above AA June 04 • 115 AGENDA ITEM 7L • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Partnership to Preserve Independent Living - Measure "A" Specialized Transit Program's Fiscal Year 2004-2005 and Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Call for Projects PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE, EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $304,973 for FY 2004-05 and $290,698 for FY 2005/06 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds available in western Riverside County to the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 05-26-517 on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 2004, the Commission directed staff to release a two-year CaII for Projects for Measure "A" Specialized Transit covering western Riverside County for FY 2004-05 and FY 2005-06. A total of 12 applications were received. An eight member Evaluation Committee consisting of Commissioners Busch and Moqeet, three members from the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee, two representatives from Caltrans and one RCTC staff member reviewed the applications. As a result, eight of the proposals were approved for funding at the June 2004 Commission meeting; additional information was requested from the remaining four applicants. The Partnership to Preserve Independent Living (Partnership) has provided the requested additional information which was reviewed and approved by the Evaluation Committee. As a result, the Evaluation Committee recommends that Measure "A" Specialized Transit funding in the amount of $304,973 for FY 2004- 05 and $290,698 for FY 2005-06 be approved. Agenda Item 7L 66 Overview of Project The program provided by the Partnership is a Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP). It provides information to seniors and persons with disabilities on the availability of transportation, including brochures and schedules for all Specialized Transit services. TRIP provides mileage reimbursements to volunteer drivers of people unable to use other transportation services and has been in operation in Riverside County since 1993. The TRIP program complements public and private transportation services in Riverside County by reimbursing volunteers to transport individuals where no transit service exists or when the individual is too frail or elderly to use other transportation. During FY 2003/04, approximately 750 individuals provided 16,200 hours of volunteer time resulting in approximately 23,000 one-way trips and 475,000 miles of travel to 260 TRIP participants. Statistics indicate that as health issues multiply, seniors curtail their social involvement in the community and typically end up isolated and alone. The overall goal of the TRIP program is to work to improve and maintain the independence and dignity of the elderly and persons with disabilities, and their families, through programs that educate and empower. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: 2004/05 Amount: $304,973 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Specialized Transit Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 225-26-86101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \)Ut4_,,i_,,v3ti,,_,,0 Date: 9/21/04 • Agenda Item 7L 67 AGENDA ITEM 7M • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee 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 Beaumont, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, and Murrieta 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 Beaumont, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, and Murrieta. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of Local 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 Plans 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 Plans for all but nine (9) cities, and on September 8, 2004 the Commission approved the Plans for three additional cities. Subsequently, we have received the required Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation from the cities of Beaumont, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells and Murrieta. The remaining two cities, Coachella and Indio, Agenda Item 7M 68 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 Beaumont Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan 2) City of Desert Hot Springs Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan 3) City of Indian Wells Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan 4) City of Murrieta Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan • Agenda Item 7M 69 • • RIVE RSIDE CO UNTY TRANSPO RTATION COMMISSI ON MEASU RE "A" LOCAL FU NDS PR OGR AM FY 2004-2009 Agen cy: City of Beaumont Prepared by: Public Works Departme nt Date: March 2, 2004 • Page 1 of 1 Fiscal Y ear PRO JECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOT AL COST STATUS ME ASURE "A" 2004 Elm Street, 7th Street to 12th Street Rehabilitation $454,875 Design Phase $454,875 2005 Palm Avenue, 5th Street to Oak V alley Parkway Rehabilitation $600,000 Design Phase $475,000 2006 Pen nsylvania Aven ue, 6th Street to Oak V alley Parkway Rehabilitatio n $500,000 Pending Design $500,000 2007 Oak V alley Parkway, Beaumont A venue to Palm Av enue Widening and R ehabilitation $600,000 Pending Design $525,000 2008 Oak Valley Parkway, Palm Av enue to Cherry Avenue Widen ing and Rehabilitation $600,000 Pending Design $550,000 2009 Beaumont Av enue, 6`h Street to Brookside A venue Road Rehabilitation $600,000 Pending Design $575,000 2 70 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPO RTATION CO MMISSION MEASURE "A " LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2004 - 2005 Agency: City of Desert Hot Springs Prepared By: D an P at neaude Pho ne #: 760-329-6411, extension 243 Date: August 31, 2004 • Item No. Project NamelLimit s Project Type Total Cost Meas ure "A" Funds 45-1 Pierson Blvd. Reconstruct - Palm to L. Morongo Street Improvement $1,100,000 .00 $365,000.00 45-2 West Drive Street Improvements - 8th to Pierson Street Improvement $775,000,00 $150,000 .00 45-3 Rancho Del Oro - Slurry and seal streets Street Improvement $35,000 .00 $12,000 .00 45-4 Two Bunch Palms - Verbena to West Street Improvement $300,000.00 $50,000.00 45-5 Slurry and Surface Projects City wide by PMS and as funding allows $200,000.00 $75,000.00 45-6 Traffic Signal - Pierson and West Signal Improvement $250,000.00 $75,000 .00 45-7 Palm Drive - Sidewalk Improvements Sidewalk Improvements - ADA Ramps $100,000.00 $25,000.00 45-8 MSWD Sub area sewers - Street Construction Street Construction with new sewer install $500,000,00 $150,000.00 45-9 Arroyo West and Arroyo East Street Impro vements Street Improvement $225,000.00 $50,000.00 45-10 Hacienda Avenue - Corsini School to Deodar Street Widening Improvement $200,000.00 $50,000.00 $3,685,000.00 $1,002,000.00 Totals 71 RIVE RSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROG RAM FISCAL YEAR 2005 - 2006 Agen cy: Prepared By: Pho ne #: Date: City of Desert Hot Spring s Dan Pat nea ude 760-329-6411, extension 243 August 31, 2004 Item No. Protect Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure "A " Funds 56-1 Hacienda Avenue - Cholla to Palm Street/Storm Drain Improvements $750,000 .00 $300,000.00 56-2 West Drive Street Improvements - 8th to M. Lakes Street Improvement $800,000.00 $355,000.00 56-3 Offsite Improvments - City Wide Curb Gutter and Sidewalks $500,000.00 $100,000.00 56-4 Traffic Signal - West Drive and Two Bunch Signal improvements $225,000.00 $75,000 .00 56-5 Slurry and Surface Projects City wide by PMS and as funding allows $100,000.00 $25,000 .00 ' 56-6 Streets Palm to Cholla and Two Bunch to Hac. Street Reconstruction with curb and gutter $1,500,000.00 $300,000.00 To tals $3,875,000 .00 $1,155,000.00 • • Agency: Prepared By: Phon e #: Date: • RIVERSI DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIO N MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEA R 2006 2007 City of Desert Not Springs Dan Patneaude 760-329-6411, extension 243 August 31, 2004 Ite m No. Project Nam e/Limits Project Type Tot al C ost M easure "A" Funds 67-1 Hacienda Avenue - Verbena to Mtn . View Street/Storm Drain Improvements $1,000,000.00 $350,000 .00 67-2 Traffic Signal - Palm Drive and Camino Aventura Signal Improvements $185,000.00 $75,000.00 67-3 Offsite Improvments - City Wide Curb Gutter and Sidewalks $350,000.00 $75,000.00 67-4 Multiple Streets - Loma Vista, Monterey, etc Street Improvements - Reconstruction $750,000 .00 $250,000 .00 67-5 Palm Drive Slurry - City Limit to Pierson Street Preservation $350,000.00 $75,000.00 67-6 Streets with MSWD _Street and Sewer Improvements $500,000 .00 $150,000.00 67-7 Traffic Signal - Little Morongo and Pierson Signal Improvements $275,000 .00 $80,000 .00 $3,410,000.00 $1,055,000 .08 Totals 73 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPORTATION CO MMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS P ROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2007 - 2008 Agency: Prepared By: Phone #: Date: City of Desert Hot Springs Dan Patneaud e 760-329-6411, exten sion 243 August 31, 2004 Item No. Project Name/Llmlts Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" Fu nds 78.1 Hacienda Avenue - Mtn. View to McCarger Street/Storm Drain Improvements $1,500,000.00 $400,000.00 78-2 Traffic Signal - Hacienda Avenue and Mtn. View Signal Improvements $250,000.00 $90,000.00 78-3 Offsite Improvments - City Wide Curb Gutter and Sidewalks $750,000 .00 $200,000.00 78-4 Multiple Streets - Club Circle, Catalpa, Acacia, etc Street Improvements - Reconstruction $1,100,000.00 $400,000.00 78-5 Two Bunch Palms - Slurry - West to Verbena Street Preservation $350,000.00 $75,000.00 78-6 Streets with MSWD Street and Sewer Improvements $500,000.00 $150,000 .00 78-7 Palm Drive Reconstruct - Pierson to 8th Street Improvements - Reconstruction $850,000 .00 $250,000.00 78-8 Palm Drive - Pierson to Hacienda Storm Drain Imprvements $1,250,000.00 $450,000.00 To tals $6,550,000.00 $2,015,000.00 • 074 • Agen cy: Prepared By: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSID E COU NTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS P ROGRA M FISCAL YEAR 2008 - 2009 City of Desert Hot Springs Dan Pat neaude 760.329.6411, e xtension 243 August 31, 2004 • Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total C ost Measure "A" Funds 89-1 Little M orongo Road Widening - Pierson to M. Lake Street Improvements $1,500,000.00 $400,000 .00 89-2 Traffic Signal - Hacienda and West Drive Signal Improvements $250,000.00 $90,000 .00 89-3 Offsite Improvments - City Wide Curb Gutter and Sidewalks $750,000.00 $200,000.00 89-4 Multiple Streets - A coma , Buena Vista, Cahuilla Street Improvements $1,250,000.00 $400,000 .00 89-5 Hacienda - Slurry - Cholla to Palm Str eet Preservation $250,000.00 $50,000.00 89-6 Streets with M SWD Street and Sewer improvements _ $500,000 .00 $150,000.00 89-7 Palm Drive Reconstruct - 8th to M. Lakes Street Improvements - Rec onstruction $850,000.00 $250,000.00 89-8 8th Street - Reconstruct Street Improvements $1,250,000.00 $450,000.00 89-9 Palm Drive - Hacienda to Two Bunch Palms Storm Drain Improvements $1,500,000.00 $450,000 .00 Totals $8,100,000.00 $2,440,000.00 75 UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004-2005 Agency: The City of Indian Wells Prepared by: Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director Date: May 1, 2004 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 450 1 Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, Tree trimming, and watering within right of way. Replace top soil, shrubs, trees, irrigation facilities, etc. $500/year TOTAL $450 O:1TIm\Misc RCTC MEASURES A 04.doc 76 UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005-2006 Agency: The City of Indian Wells Prepared by: Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director Date: May 1, 2004 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 450 1 Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, Tree trimming, and watering within right of way. Replace top soil, shrubs, trees, irrigation facilities, etc. $500/year TOTAL $450 Q\Tim\MisdRCTC MEASURES A 04.doc • • • 77 • • UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006-2007 Agency: The City of Indian Wells Prepared by: Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director May 1, 2004 Date: Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 190 1 Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, Tree trimming, and watering within right of way. Replace top soil, shrubs, trees, irrigation facilities, etc. $500/year TOTAL $190 o:1TimWiisc\RCTC MEASURES A 04.doc UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2007-2008 Agency: The City of Indian Wells Prepared by: Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director Date: May 1, 2004 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, Tree trimming, and watering within right of way. Replace top soil, shrubs, trees, irrigation facilities, etc. $500/year 190 TOTAL $190 O:1Tim\Misc\RCTC MEASURES A 04.doc 79 UPDATED P_I.AN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008-2009 Agency: The City of Indian Wells Prepared by: Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director Date: May 1, 2004 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 190 1 Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, Tree trimming, and watering within right of way. Replace top soil, shrubs, trees, irrigation facilities, etc. $500/year TOTAL $190 • O:1Ttm\Misc\RCTC MEASURES A 04.doc 80 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 • Agency: City of Murrieta Prepared by: Jim Kinky Phone No.: (951) 461-6077 Date: August 30, 2004 Page 1 of S ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST (5000'S) MEASUREA FUNDS ($000`S) 1 French Valley Parkway Design and Construct Road Improvements 70,000 978 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 2.052 1,759 3 Fig Street Design and Construct Road improvements 645 645 4 Lincoln & Kasota Alignment Design and Construct Road Improvements 747 475 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005 - 2006 Page 2 of S PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) French Valley Parkway interchange 1-15 Q Cherry Street (Temecula lead agency) Design and Construct Road Improvements 826 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 1,050 520 Flg Street Llncon & Kasota Alignment RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2007 Page 3 of 5 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) French Valley Parkway Interchange I-15 @ Cherry Street (Temecula lead agency) Design and Construct Road Improvements 932 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 1,075 1,075 • 83 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2007 - 2008 Page 4 of 5 PROJECT NAME / LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) French Valley Parkway interchange 1-15 © Cherry Street (Temecula lead agency) Design and Construct Road Improvements Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 1,100 1,100 • 84 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008 - 2009 Page S of S PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS f$000'S) French Valley Parkway Interchange 1-15 8t:i Cherry Street (Temecula lead agency) Design and Construct Road Improvements Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 1,125 1,125 AGENDA ITEM 7N • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Moreno Valley and Palm Desert BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the amendments to: 1) FY 2004 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Moreno Valley as submitted; and, 2) FY 2005-2009 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert as submitted. 111 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of Local Streets and Roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five-year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The FY 2004 Measure "A" plan for the City of Moreno Valley was approved by the Commission at its July 9, 2003 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City of Moreno Valley is requesting to amend its FY 2004 Measure "A" Plan to add four new projects and to match the city's FY 2003-04 budget for Measure "A" funds. Agenda Item 7N 86 The FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Plan for the City of Palm Desert was approved by the Commission at its July 14, 2004 meeting. When the proposed plan was presented to the city council, they requested some minor changes. The city council wanted to bring forward the Portola Avenue bridge project where it crosses the Whitewater Channel, shift other projects to later years and eliminate others. Attachments: 1) Revised FY 2004 Measure "A" Plan from the City of Moreno Valley 2) Revised FY 2005 Measure "A" Plan for the City of Palm Desert • Agenda Item 7N 87 1 City of Mo reno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised July 13, 2004 1110 i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION COM MISSION (RCTC) ME ASURE " A" LOCAL STREETS AND RO ADS FIVE YE AR PROJECTIONS FISC AL YE AR 2004-2008 Revis ed Fisc al Y ear 2003/2004 apro je ct r Funding` refg, x E 6 I Year(s),t 2003/04 2 3 4 5 6 Annual Pavement Resurfacing Rehabilitation/ Overlay Ongoing annual program. 2003/04 Bicycle Lane Account (BTA) Bicycle Lane Ongoing annual program . 2003/04 Ironwood Ave. Rehabilitation/Day St. -Pigeon Pass Rd. Reconstruction Release 10 % retention . 2003/04 2003/04 2003/04 Perris Valley Storm Drain Lateral Perris Blvd./Ramona Expressway to Perris Valley Storm Drain Lateral " A" Iris Ave./Indian St. — Traffic Signals Bridge * $3,253 Page 1 of 7 $3,253 * $1901 $66 * $1552 $16 Construction by RCFC & V. CD. Moreno Valley's portions of the bridge cost. * $455 $455 Rehabilitation Widening Planning stage and project report - joint project with City of Perris. * $325 $325 Traffic Signal Construction. * $1983 $54 1 BTA funding - $123,750 2 TEA 21 STP funding - $123,000 3 CMAQ funding - $146,000 * Total cost changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget 88 City of Mo reno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised July 13, 2004 F' :,:ui I: E'tl wlisr .. _ .. .: -.;;.. � , Y.,.., e .. . a. r 1. em-. It . :. _. ..m. r .. �, +�. n .w .. pk?..a o ... �,.. rrhI:' .. ... t. . .r. . x :a: . � � No �.. . ... r. . . -:. , :.. .5 9� r.�,.� ._. i.:` k. ��,ty�'4� �e;ar .. r. . -.. . , .,r _: .rr - ;+: .� t -�..a Pro ect,.. n ,, .r. �-1, :. �, .r. erg- .t. .. . �,.Fr . .. A. s. r :a.,.,. : .I�.3 4. .. _, r 'G :x E. r. �. ,. < .. . r :.:. :. .. rFundm >mre ,: I .. . . ... ..... .. k :: [-. .. g...:: fkll.. � .... .. . .. . :r_.. .. _�.. .r � /c) I� ,�. � .. ...., . .: , -. a '::,. ti u ., :. er{ t 4 � Af#:� , I .t... ..., A: . n a ,.y , 5rIL. ,An_M. -a: t,R x , . ,� . iffill :. :. x -':..: :: . : .,Y,v ..� :.. .. . r€ . ,,r• ... t:.Na a/Limits. ....� ...:...: ...,y Pro :ec m ,r ..A, r: _.. . .. :r., __. ,. .. .. r. 7_ _t .. .... �. 1_.., r y .. F K .. r .. .i .f a .. .. 5.i ..../.x.. .. , : u ky F -[ .. 1 �:F . :. .r... �' ... n .. r �: ,r ,4 :¢�., , .fl . N.. . . Rte. . - 4 r - .. . . w -. � k r.:. ..., . } !�' �i,i.... er '.r r a. _. ....- .:, .. �.t, _.. r .: €�.Y .. .r .: a I- .. :r . .. ...} �'.. . .4., SR:� ,. .. P �...rt 1' .t .. .. .., .- .... . . . .,. ., -r- .re_�rA . : :.t� �.. .�r. ,. ._rw x . ., .. ..... _ . '�' `. .S . •. .. A i, . ...E .., S'6 .:N` , _, .� .drI � r � .� . r ,N .. � ... _. pr � .. . .:...�{� .4:.I.. .4.x . r � ,... A< E� .. xc _ �._ .. tl r 4 � .: .. r �r A. fl, .: ,, a,: :..� .. _.: . ..f . s...: ... . �` . , .. ; _ v. ,w �{ .. w �._arxP€..€ r�r.r. ,� r w_ _ .. F {..: ... ... ,.!t,F. ... Y .. $',1'.! °;: .. .. . ...... L. �.. .r .: .. A.f .:M L r� � ex� yyI� rk?� ���'�' �E✓'` i�i. �k1!l x.i�.. i'H.''i €�?�k .u€_lr ,.: .. . .. l .v _. ::rF SIF x } .:t . . � .. I •,:. . :.,:, . n. . r, Pro . e_ct3T. e .. . r C . ., 1 yP ,. : e< F.. :.. , ., . i .I= ' _. ..E.t .!. _. . �F ,{ . .4 _F ... . �!r ., .rf,e1,. r { - , r .x ::�.. .. .. e Fri; { '' -_ I M f ,. ...Fo..a- , M .. F x,r :.., . .: _. € .'A ... . .. .'hlx. x. ur .. . ._ _ , .. . .. ,. _ .. .. ,. , {. .. :. �r F"+F,� .t , :{ : �C: ..L . �. _ � �r . r ,,, l! E r .. . . .. _ ... .. .3 ... : J. ... ._ , . ., ,:a�r.. � .. I �. I kiiJt P € F i.:_Iro r...� �- ..Y :'6 'r,rvlr'� :x--., h Ji . ::r FP .�. ,. x. T T .r .krlr r� , . r ..o r. Y:}, r F. - [.P: 4 r. .,_ r, .1.� ��„ rl r : � . { r � ,1+� . G', ., . 4r - � I x � a . //,i € W# I ,i [: .::: R x: H : Rx i. '� + A I .. .., . . .:f i hIF. ..d... r -I .K�`.. ...St at is � .w �, : .€„ 1 :�, , x�, t_ .. � yrn � �p . .fir .:._... . .. , _ ��... .., .::� ...: _, �� . .._. s r' ift � F, . _:. pq , ._.. ..•rk.1 � _. : .,:,:. � r.. .Y .aa rr r. ✓. a ..F : ..t �f Mi._. .... , .. . d� .. ... . .i ., Ir t .:v :..vri . .. .. 47 _ _f. A . :: +_ tl . _, r ,a ��.. .A_ r, i .0 : .. r�.. n......� . , .i , ,� . �s r s. , �I ! .w;" 4 .Na:.f.: :. k _: p�. r �r . ., . .: A . ... ..r . .. k...N{F. 7a f�5� l . .... 7 ...:..� '• r.0 . .. C<- .: . ..F�. ,rM . ax: s . .. .5a: r ,. ,�� .. .. , . . .,:: ., , , _. � :r::�Fi� • � r... .€ C.F:.- ..y _ rr :� - .,{ .. . _�: ., � � �: x .. � : r .r � tl ��� � i_ a r....€� : }:: x� � ._ ..E � 1 f ::- .,:a,. ._.. � .f . .. F. ... �. ,.... . N :€.:: ' �' r €.. . .�,. R ...l . .. ._r .F .:I !n, pp 1rl , ..I: .. ,e .....n .. . .. . .:, I� .., : .n k .: . ,1yn:. . . Y .. . .. ..L .. , .a.: ..F • r. .M 5 4 {: . k _,X :: . . � r P• P �i F r x i l a , _ ` t• �r, < ... F . , ::: r r... , rt �.rr ..'S r E - y �r��. r Q n �Y.. E ... ..4; .A k�.i:Ei�M..: �I �E�: .'1't!I .I �Fk�i .L:{: 1 r..,Fe-:A:r {A. 1' Fr :�r1 , .,P.. .. f �€L .. . .{t':!''u Ah } - .:, �r �rTl ' tal C.ost�. v ... N" . ..: n i€ f f F€�: �i S �. ..k P �# : 'r �::,€ � ir k ,4 a F 1 4,.. c e # .: Ii � .:;: ,t# ,. . r. P.{ € ,: � II ��' �,ILh,k ..I +r• . .a.. . .fir. ., r . . . �: ,{! I t � iw E ~;1 0 �x _ ..._....�: ..I~, .I>. r4 'I , ce.1 }A. . Measu 1 „ r�. p .:_.:r' E T4,. . � r � � k .!;q! €. 5_ '!r :. Tuna,.. � I .':ii! e k �.i 't` .., 1._. . I r. ,€ l a rrr. , r .r .f. � E ' �,t _:1. '1. .:�, .. 1N.�4:: ,0 , x., � .r-r:� . :€ . .. .. 7 2003/04 Reche Vista Realignment/Perris- Street Environmental, PSR, and d€ rsign. * $287 $287 Heacock to North City Limits Construction 8 2003/04 Perris Blvd. /Sunnymead Ranch Traffic Signal Construction. * $242 $242 Pkwy. Traffic Signal 9 2003/04 Heacock St./Parkland Ave. Traffic Signal Construction. * $240 $240 Traffic Signal 10 2003/04 Krameria Ave./Kitching St. Traffic Signal Construction . * $73 $73 Traffic Signal 11 2003/04 Moreno Beach Dr. /Cottonwood Road Widening/ Design and construction . * $275 $275 Ave. Traffic Signal Traffic Signal 12 2003/04 Cactus Ave. /Joshua Tree Ave. Traffic Signal Design and construction. * $17 $17 Yellow Solar Flashing Beacons 13 2003/04 Pavement Management Street Pavement Ongoing annual pro gram to update condition of street pavement. * $21 $21 Conditio n Update RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMtIIISSION (RCTC) MEASURE " A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 Revised Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Page 2 of 7 * Total cost changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget 09 • • City of Moreno Valley John Ho gard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Rev ised July 13, 2004 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) ME ASURE " A" LOC AL STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 Revised Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Page 3 of 7 s. . P ,:Ite m, €, eM .k-... . r. -. ,.,.4:-. ,,,,,,,,,,. ,,,,..Y. .r �.. : �:. ._ - . f�. ,_ �. N•o. Funds 1. ......... � ..,, ... a . p. • s 1. ,,. .. d. -. l k . :� ,1 :1 - .: . �„ ,. ! ;. . : t .Pro e ct. _ ��,� .. J _,:I�' e.�. : r. a .. �: .::M :. .. .. ,.. .. :.. .. .. [ �i.1. :. :. � s r. :.n, tin n .. : K: .i. .:. ,9.. .h.... r, s ic, :.. .. ii.lsr. , ,:. r .: ;.. � k: ::F �., � fi ,: Year. s .k a,. ...s:.. .2... .._(..:),-, ,1 ,,,, 12 , e ..._. F E,,,,_ s l: ,: .:I _ .,,e � t Pr .. >? ,.- . ;: : o ect , ame'/Limits ,;� , ma,���, :d..n.. .:E... .,. .:., ..w„�.k�B,. ..k, ..: ,,, , .. rt t � .� !<F� ! , .:: . .,. , :. . .. :! . . , ! '._. !._. S. .. ... .... .: $ a:a. . .,.. ...1 .. . �. ,. ., 'ur :. .. :)).51 , : . .. ..: _, �a. I . ,t '. -..v... .,..0 .e: . :r ,l... i. I .. .. i•, � .,.. -.,, .. �- .. I' :r ,w ..,. ,, :� .. .E 1„�} - . ..r. l'. da .. ..,w t � . :: a a. : < .._: w : dr k. , , : � �: ... � w� ,,, F �k'::: w } r.. � _ f, _.. ,.. x .._.._-;t...I : v.., ... d ,k L .k . '- , . ..... 6. f- _. 1 ,... � ,� F, .. F� ..,..,� , ..: r� ��., .� ,..a t r .. �_. . .. • .... , Nom. ,.bx F .,.:.:t, .. ,�w. w.=. hE _,. � ,_ .... . , ... : k,r. ,h d . t...::,� ! ,h :F. xr. a �t �.l,,,�z � . s: w , :� ... . . ..... . ,.. . 3,. r ��,E.�:_r'.., F�.. �:a........ GMnr ..�:a .. . �.��RME 'rh�=_cwr ,. k r yr. rzU fl,; c.: F :nv, ,- +F w. . ...:: Pro ec �. : 5. ..._. ...1 „ , .,�.rJ>-,E.._ Yp � ' _ _ .. .. . .� _ .N e . ._ .. .. ., .. i. � ... __,.. - .:.C. b .. wr .., ... rr ,. :..M..._..h- � ., . ,. :. .. .. .. ( .4t: I_ .. . .... 1 t . ;. _ ;�+., _ ... ,� ��'I ,, F. . -JI ...,., � , ., � yF.. ...Y .E w..,. .. ... _ .: . .... r .. .:.. ,kr�� .� w_. ,._..., r. t r r ..., �. �. �. ,� , _ . t. .:rt.t.: ..: a ...: , . r.. � t • Y. r,4 .. , .,, t �. r.. . ., vi ii-':" ti �. .I --� „ , _.•:- . :r . ..�r•-� :u .. .. ,. .e l;. k °yY^N' * ., .9. ! 1 ,rs ,. .� � �. ,, .t r .R. . d �� i E .. �.�. - �:. .. ,w. �,rF'Et , , ; �, _ _ k � ae :-, �.,,t,.,_:�.n: y._y..�a1 ..StatuS�,1 0. l�: I� ,a � �1:, f.• _ �� .1 1 :�r I ,. a .a. €I'. .: .C�k. ...4. _ ,,. : t f u. . ..:-: ' .. t.. -....F. . ... _', f t• µ .r ... ...� .i 1 ..., .. c... - :tx: .a . �, - .E .::. .... . .. 1. x •- ^'t�" ,. ., ,: -. ..,. 1. -., . t. , .: . ..3 -,f :,,, - . � ,. t kd. .. ..: ..-.a L :. r' �.... .: kk ... „ 1 a ,. _. ,,:: , fi. ,F ... .�, . .: r t �. a q F .:.t �I�. �. � tF .,... ...�. Ir .: .t1I .1�� F � , k .0 „_.. �( Y •,: ..: :,. .a. . t T_a,h , .......:,_ _ .F :F .�.. yly �. , ,,, .. ., I , ,. ,- r :' , c v... .., .. .._. t.. �" . :.�..� ..!_ � i„� .t. t, a,l,,,� 4 ..,., ,_h. : .: l,t:l.G € :.., _. .f.gk.6 . _ .. .. . i I. .., ,.. . ( _ .r ... ., ..h _ . , _, , � >. i h : r. l". ...,s:. . •- G ,. .:�..J. �,:. ,... .,.a. .� ..,.,, 6 ,. 1 ,,. „ F : I . k .� .. � .. . , r � _ a .. ..,. r. . � ..n. :. , { s -..e� tiwr .. . . :. . .. .. . ..._ iy j I I �6 � P�ttl. .,F �, ......:.T' .„ne .�c,:c�r1'nFH.l .i s .n Y:if,£ �Jl.l kv ._CK,: : .� ,: �� I TotalrC ost ..it. �F. , _ ! � R I�. .Id: .,::,,: AF+ ..,t�t A 4,.(:Ik f em .k. 7'E, . € , _f:k. .9r.... :, w: t � tr�. F �. 4'�,.'�F k. Y . .: I� '�:I1 cet .I�r �'i!�.i7�oo. �.�. �,; , ; s�; ; r.. :w ! �,. .easur el,A �� F r. R' v,S: ..,, � . .. ndrn . 4 F b.. -.p.,., - .:�f,r . . --,r 4 r, .f,.: " k. Y �r , 4. � :::i11A,0oo�(�rf� 14 2003/04 Moreno Beach Dr./Alessandro Blvd. Street and Drainage Improvements Street and Drainage Construction Design and construction. * $213 $213 15 2003/04 GIS — Graphic Information System Creating Street Data Layers Add public infrastructure information onto City-wide mapping system for tracking, query, and efficient maintenance . * $79 $79 16 2003/04 Preliminary Street Engineering Project Study Report Preparing RFP's to hire consultants. * $169 $169 17 2003/04 Installation of Battery Back-up System for 10 Signalized Intersections Traffic Signals Construction . * $1554 $96 18 2003/04 Newhope St. Street Improvements Advertise for bids and construction. * $1,379 $1,379 19 2003/04 Retrofit Signalized Intersections with LED's Traffic Signals Construction. * $180 $180 4 CA Energy Fund $58,800 * Total cost changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget 90 City of Moreno Valley John Ho gard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised July 13, 2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE " A" L OCAL STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YE AR PROJECTI ONS FISC AL YE AR 2004-2008 Revised Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Page 4 of 7 �... , ,.y kh-. E 1 O. F :., Item .:a m,Pt- O. _�_ , : . .. _.. 1.: 5... :. .. . i'C .. �... .. -..r:r �.. ,. :� .:. N .. E. � o�,r.,.. , DA Pr . r 1....... ._.. 4. .. . :x....._,.r s-. _.. a.. < , I , ... :... x - .. .. . . . .r;t�::t.Pr, ' e �. N:tl .. e r, _:.I.. .,: 4: r. 03461 '4 r.. .. . K ... 1 .. Y. . x ... ..F .,F :J. ., .i� nom. IW u. .. . „ ...:,. :. r, : lrt .. !.. F i . G r and n e. _ r. , . ,. g .rs.. r -_:. . , .,. _ �d. :+:-n- :t.m:Ft::.r,:I .. .. n. ....,. . ,... r. ,e... . . . .. ,. .. .. . .. _ .. r: W� . r _vk .. I�tFYear,(s)ifi'�.k�]felt%crio��a3,�i,;, i:� :,,e.r..r�rf: .er ,` ~i� _.,. �, :. ,-. w, w �. ..:. . .a .. m r ' ...r- :,,.. .. : ' i. mr , 1 ..x,.ii ._. 1(� i, :R .F ..�,n _. [, ....:_ , : :. e, T .: . r. f.r... . B S ..I ..�.r . ,:., ,.r ., r :' :, q, , i:.-. ...: ke, i .1::: r. e m ILim�ts .. P. ro, .ctNa a .?.:�mk > , , .. _ �_ _ ... , r. � . � +. N ,. 5- -0�r i m :.,.. rt.. . .. w.: t. ."#,7 n � A ..m. ... , . .f . ,:., . r. Y.v -�_. F. a. l r r .. �,E . .r. . .. ,P .. _. s.. ., , ..Fax R ., .: ,.. _r ,.. .r., . r.. � .r-k ..:: .�.I. .f.._..:# yr .._. . _. ..... .... , . rt x ., � t : ,. .. r � . �,€�.� �r �.t, k� r: _ � . ..:. . ., k . 1 . _ , .r _r 4� �-�t ,, r. � , ,,. � : � .. rf �F , .. E...rx: r L r,. fir,_ � � � , . ...,. .. ,. ,.,.. . : _,. �. . .. . � :. . ,. ,, q .--E,f. r._.. i. ,.. �e -r . .. . �:.: x,- �,.. .F v�P . . . _ .e .. ..P :�i, .t-'- ' Y.Em E. n, I .: i ., �%.r ` - , . P .:, ,rr,, ..� ,,',r , r : 1. . .: . .# . F,. Y. :. , ., . .8 .1 �., , .fir �;�, k. ,1,E r!. ., �. .. ... , . ..,..,_ ... P,' -.-,.. I' �. • � € 'k� [p:_.k _` .err# r,r.... "' 3p K x6 I:.v:. ,. ._. , .. ' x_ .:. .s,. ,, .. , � . .� .:. .._:. h F. _. Pro ect;T, a.°,I43 , r _ . yp 4J:. . .,r.e .. r.. r .. M1fi r'i ..._ .Y .. .. . :..-: E .,u ::1 �. . ..0 � , , {.h. .. .:u:L #., .t .,. .. t. .. t e ,: . ..,. r. , � .r . tr , d�:F, :�, r 5 5 . .. ur .. _E, .F ..r # , ., t- , r __: r � :r t r ,, �I ,, ,.. .r,�f..:d� .: . ,i .�., b_.... _ _. ..., .v r, .,e .. .,r , .... ,. ...<It .e . ,. ,, �.: f' r �, - t u ,. �.. ,. .,.rt.. � .,, M1 kY .. .IJ . .. -. .. � } :! r, .,,,,. ..- -. 5 t s el ..I .Et..R.a�%.;,1"Y rF:�+.1:.:: .& .� .:,�: , i Tr'f k,. .r, .irt .€ ,.. € f F r ..r ...... +. .:... � : .. t ..# t. : 4.� „�.,; - .. f � .r. f E LRfi{I t.:: �MY , n &r..;r , , ;~,. .r , ., ,� . � � > r i Lt,i � - .P . ,., n, r-; a °i,,r N..- ��. 1. 1�: ,r PE ►Status € ,�Q 1,���r .._L � €u � .�_ . ..� . r l a 1 P�, :� ,Ia . ��.��rr��, a r. � �. .,+.. � ._r. ,_s,.Rr.. ii kk ,/.r. +:... .P . ... . ._ �. : .. r ., .... .I'ra .. 1-x�r'.c .V d Y- - _.t ..�.,€ y, . � ......r, .:,_ ...r ., . i k P P 5 - -k:. . ,� il i -T � , P :A:�-'3 :w.6 - "I.r . ., 1;: . �1� r, l:�u.r h . J „�€ �w , :: .m,.:w �..-.. .r,J.r.,:�I,...E.t.r L .k. ,, . c €.c . t. r ., , ,r- . 3 P : � ':€ � ,# ,,: 4�..�,�r . � P � ., ,, �fr� c �� F�, �, a. �..' � 1 . ... ., E r : ,. � , V :.c:, , a., . , r M. �.. ...., , s, _, � ;� , � ,_ r� w � ,,. ., �„�... .r < t __: tK-� ! _t>I _� E.. J � � f ' ,, ,., . _.. � € ..� �� ... d, a :.:. r' ...ra b n�+q s k. t, -_..: ,...YI. .r,� a w 1 .. -P � ..7 .. i, l�c_p_ .. :: . :. �. .. . .. ,? it k.. rl � #, ,.-1 u C ..--r� .'1 , .�$'� ..-.f t�S .e �. . ..:-. .r .. , � K . .,. - ._ . ..... .. # 4. . .. .Y..a. r- -m mrki..rc9 . .n. 1r .. .:.,.. J '' :..:,.. ... . . : .I r 's . � t ... - .. r �.1 �:. �:r. , �: .E s :. � i::� i . �. ,. "� rl�� �.� 1 .� . �i F € M. €�. e 451 . r.. '..M1. .. if .r. 1 : v7„ '� e, .fi �r , C iC €. .. w .rUF_62r6:s.....:�:F?` ., tW .�:�'..:,�r,��::r,n Gie..w.:.v, . . ..,F t... ti:.7.Fr.�.er_..:e.� b u4m 44 . .; : . � , T: � t Iot a �IotCJr € ,-�R .::F�� � �> r '_ ... „f . 1 ' ..k 1 CE �' ! . �, F .r: €, .,. � � r s .ti . � €, ; „ , I t : rrt .� w .,r.. ,r.: '+ �,.�:, 4F r.sf�.: f 'S!'r. . u�;P: fr i:: -- � O.00s da.,I,..r1_4 .,a, .,.,..:,: r � -, $2755 ) 2 11.. 11 "'E t:,: s L1rF`!� -•-,[ .._,: ky„ M easure. . � A:. 'EI., „� . �'. E.f� . �'��i �.. r5 1 q,. . ., t .d �. 1 : .: [�__ .:1 .# : k: r ►Fundrn r -9 € � ,uP• E � :�``. � �1< - 1 -:f ==' . ?a . .m �._h �� e# �. !: h, .l .. Fr:?F . :: ' , r. �4:1p 0 Eb � t A � T" 1Y :f, � .:: ,.,}:C. .�'. /. ,.. ... � 1 $69 20 2003/04 Reche Vista/Reche Canyon Route Concept Report/PSR Project Study Report Retain consultant to prepare PSR. 21 2003/04 Route 60 Interchange Study/PSR Project Study Report Retain consultant to prepare PSR. * $65 $65 22 2003/04 Street Improvement Inventory for GASB 34 Requirements Evaluate Public Infrastructure Review and evaluate public infrastructure . * $38 $38 23 2003/04 Eucalyptus Ave./Wichita to 660 Feet East Pedestrian Walk Construction of pedestrian walk for school children . * $356 $12 24 2003/04 Atwood Ave./Indian St. to Perris Blvd. Street Improvements Construction of street improvements. * $156 $156 25 2003/04 Slurry Seal Program Resurface Ongoing annual program. * $2,204 $2,204 5 Contribution of $68,750 each by City of Co lton, County of Riverside, and County of San Bernardino 6 Safe Route to School (maximum) funding - $23,000 * Total cost changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget • • City of Moreno Valley John Hogard & Prem K umar (909) 413-3130 Revised July 13, 2004 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY rR ANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) ME ASURE f," LOCAL STREETS AND RO ADS FIv E YE AR PROJECTIONS Fl ;CAL YE AR 2004-2008 Ri vised Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Page 5 of 7 '''u:y 4 ^ ...,,:, / "'C �1� ::i= - J yAi[ C N `F:F .r: I +,., Ite F s. , m , � r .. ,t.r:N . ....... ..._. : ... .,: ��r: ., �.:k �,, . �5�.: No .. . , :..>, .. ;� :i... v ... ._,., 9. . ... . aF r ., .. -,F __.. ., .._ ..... €. _-," s.. _t#. €�.k.__ N y:l n id hF u l, . °Piro p ct::.. , _t _ , _'44'.Pro. ._, .: . ... _x A:E... ++ ... ... . .:. � R _, �r :L €f �. . ..... s. :. N. .. ,_. i u.. . �, _: F�ndm F� __ ! .... v ... -. ,. L. ,,a. 9' ee..a s.. E,F ..,. . r -. ... _. _I. r . s r:( v .. . .. , .. .: , :... �- Y .. ear $ . r(.....,... � ) . : Y� 1 f,!I' ''� '� ,x: '- '�";iW. R . ... M - :: . rP' �.r .x.� ect�Name/Lirn� ,., ,::�, ... ..._ e... t$t _.. -. .- ..4 1 ,.. . �. � r �. , _ . .f t, .:.. 4.,,:m , I w...e...n ... .. . � �: fir. .... , F ���. . �'�� `k .x .. r , . ..:: .. �r .. . .. , .. ,, . a , ,. ,, _ 's K ., w, rl ,; �.. , �a; .€ � �,.. P. f�.. . x .:ak 1.�� a._..t! __ i �k ... .,'S. _: T.J. ,1. .. ,. ..m 77 . �_ . w .. Y... '4 .._,�tf t�. rf j -r .._.e�... .... .. '€ _.N.< . ... U . k .. ,.4a ,. � - ., . .. . } C .. - , .k , �, €` !� ..�'x L. ,. "4...... ppx�✓~.i ..,:r . a...., .,..2: 11... .. . „_ . 17 ..... .. . .. . ... . . :F - 4 .. G. mu .:. l.w. k . .. ..� _ ... .v ` E �.. }�.� -,. , gin �,.. h rk . . ... .k � ..r [ . _r ...: ,, .. .- . :....J. .. .. .w tl ..rE. , a : F ......... .. ... w Y N r..._ . € - .. . .... .. . . ... „ i ... .r .. . .. . ter -. a .. . � ,: r� w a: ,e: s .�_ ��l-. r .>,._l!. ;. �. P- ....v. .e ., .i .� F� iC rk r.p .,.. .'�s,.�e,n�o3k::.: r.. ,� � kr�- �� E q . -u' :r .� d.61 e b t , ,.F,. .. . .. . r. . .:: . ...,. Pro ec1 T . ii _E. ... .... _ e �i ..i.. . _ .� _. J w �_ IYP �. G f F :. Nk ..._. � ... .. ..e_.,., � x_I ::.J �. @4 .hM...., .. W3`hi F C, ��:: .. s,- a. @:r'. l 1, ,,,.� 1.. .. . .. ._u . . .. i...,_ .._ -._ ... ... i.,. .. u a:. . r 9 ... , bt :F i y, i, s .� . ...y .§ vr. ... ... ,. } �... . . .k bk _G . ., ,..f., .., w ... _ .. ._ r' .1'E:.; -^. .:c -'as @ .,�: T �.: � .?.Ed...l ., ff w :YI .. ,.,; i. , r. �� G f. -:- �I r ,t l.i .,, . ,R Y� ear' 1 b nr ^t,. .,.:� � I�. r N. .. . . .[d .. E:v 't .:::.. ., , :� .- .: LvrJ''P :4' -'. u,14� . :. 1 . .... , .. y , � . �: w r,. ., , ,: r r,,, . .. ... n . ��: . .�h c+ ow I .� Gk'- ��::Q�t! .kE: a � �.. -: . �: r. r :. .. - q v7 lQ u ;..IN V :Y! ..S.: r•E . ,�, F�.b ,r � . , _ W. �` ,, .N , � � t S C � .G f. a f .. r. F , F r € - ., -k >,Me as ure:° , . ^gin .r .... 1. �:� , x3. yet . p� ,+...� .. 4.._fv_. ... �_ ,u: ..u�. �. :1:'p,. ..Cck �:R.�� . wa . : .,. .b . _ ' Gr .. _ F , �. . �: , .; - _ M ak xl.: s�, t: �� .. .�. R` -v �- �r .,{� :Iy. � ,:d [ F Y�' ..c F.. n � . . . f .... �.,. '.� ... � �,. .� F .I. r d i ��:.k� . ..F�. v..: ,T.. :_, .?., . r ... .: .r .. ,. .. .. tom _ .. u,., . ..... _.� t:. :..�; .v ... .�. . ..z. . .. .., '_ :. � .� : Y...., , .e. 4.r _. . ., e .:.� .., ..�:. � w s, rC F �€, rk: roc, rF F. .. ..., ...- . ,. .. .. w - CS.r .. ;� .... ., .. - }'' . . .ta_ . ...,.:.,. f �.,� ., 1 .: �. € _.x,.. .z. F. {� L �pk{€,� a G ,._h x11.1 .. h .t.�_. _ .. . .. . .. ,r- -s �., ,- , � :. H . . .:If[ea .� . ..+' ... .,. .: .. �. ,�... . P. . .. x :. �, r. e � _:i__ 4; - , e. r. y .. _. l r s. �€NG ,: Vf €. 1 h.. F l �,1:.:::..: y , n„ �„.��...�,,�:� .. .. �, k� kx .�.:sr I'f €u � t. &&. iC� ..t �.. :.::k'f .. �:?'e.::�: ��:t k.t1 o. r.:?;: aka:"'tN9Mmk1, 1,'fE�fk€t::f.F-i-.[.l.rt: '.,�-F.ie'vJ Flv.:l:. . .; .e E ;�:ru;.r , -vi e� ...k ._ �klk t .Total .0 ost.G , 4.._ . E rr #�M. ,! , :.� -1 n. �y �=[ .f� pundm. € ' F'4 P � .. .F .. F LS;:€ l � Ik+ F!i € itit [ 1.,�11j;000.lt�]�f•5y,k. `,sl . :u r' . ; ..�, A .. q. w� „rt N:I. � € . f:-. ¢ � k A,:h rk' .yP,: � ' �.. F F. .�,:.F_ r, . �- i�. I� 4 a�w: _ E r ��: ,�. «-(,r . .,:. . ac�LE_!k 26 2003/04 Surface Recycling Rehabil ation Ongoing annual program . * $127 $127 27 2003/04 Route 60/Nason Street Interchange Interch Inge Imp. Ea t and W est E )und Ran- )s Requires revised project report, design, Caltrans & FHWA environmental approval, utility relocation and R/W . Estimated construction completion date is December 2006. * $1,105' $405 28 2003/04 Street Impro vement Program Stre ;t Improve nents Ongoing annual program. * $264 $264 29 2003/04 Reche Vista Dr./Reche Canyon Rd. Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Coordination of traffic signal design with the County of Riverside. * $115 $115 30 2003/04 Perris Blvd./Red Maple Ln. Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Design and construction of traffic signal. * $185 $185 31 2003/04 Ironwood Ave./M oreno Beach Dr. Improvements Street Improvements/ Traffic Signal Design of street and traffic signal improvements. * $80 $80 7 CMAQ funding - $700,000 * Total cost changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget 92 City of Moreno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised July 13, 2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION COMMISSI ON (RCTC) MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND RO ADS FIVE YE AR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 Revised Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Page 6 of 7 .. . » :.. _.T.. . �, �.,»:�II kF ltemf . » r, - 1 . ..• a.6. s. 1 t..-, �I .. . . , , ::. :1 . � o. .+P P � » .. .. ' : 4 r- i ... .., _ :»'' , .: K:. ,. ,. } i �:. 5; :1 • tk� F:Kr;k�1 . .. .. ..:: . ti' i::.l k�-. .._+. . �� . ,.: _d ,_. ,:f 1 , . €F PPro ect.;.., 1 - r. .� ,..,:: :. .,: ..:F ..1. :Z,: .L_ . i',5 tl ....L. ai. .. €K., ,. . !e,. a ` !�:�....._.,. .. .,, f,., .. _.. _... . _:: Fundm 1 : .... g . �'�. .� .. F.E . .- ..> . .,- '. c»... � . �. ...:. - . -:. f .._�F .. _K._.... s. .. .._:. r: _ :... .. ..... ,:... ,: ,. V. : 4�Year(s)w�. _...._... _. ....._ . .. .. .. :,. .... . .v .e. s r. . ;. u " r kG .( G. ,;1:.:r r. "»J... :. F:s .Rk MK;i .;, . 1,. . _. -,. - �.: .. wr . .,,*.:,n t : k ::,k .. ,, :. � � ,:_Fri ,..�' . .: -, r r .G �. Pr:,o ect„Name/L�m�ts.:. x. R�1,1 a, _ ,�_, ._ . _ � � „ �. ..:.,.-,d:,:.,,.. a_ _,, ,. ,� .r Gy.» ..,.. G �" x ,i 1. ..S.. .p. .. ..... .. .... . c1' ,- .. . .l _ ._ '4-: . 5. ,... . .F ,.. . . . ., ,. n.. .. ..:. .. .. f s:.. ,. _ , 9 :.., ..... .w r - _: _,_ , k� � C , G , .:, .. I+.. "t... ..a.. ..4 r : ..: .. � . �'.. .a.,x� ._ .� . . � �x, , ., _�.. AK's., ._ .... � k-:� �.: •r,, , �.. �K - �:. ,;. a1 xt, , »a .. •... � ..: k�.. C i ,. :M � i'.,a 1 � €. . ,.. , . �. r � , �r ci E .ik », x , p , , ...:..: .C . _ ... , s F.:oG:.. '' _ . . .. - it, ...n .......c .», ..� . .: ..._.:. GAF..., » G ,......... . ax .. ... .x. #[- _ ._. . :... xy .. �.k. .� :. _x , ,.5-- .5 �e ..I ...id 7.1".Kif 1F.4�':,.,_�G r� ��� ...�l�r .,._G:.�,.�aG:KF G.._��.. . _ .::::� .:..,...,.., . �.. .:. .. A C" ,[ _, _) ::... � CY_ .. t ., J ..t �..:. ,t: 1. ..:,1F t P ect T,:. e,.. .F �,ro � � . , � .1.., .. .YP r »K.R , .,..,. . .._E..., .... _w ., _.. . ._._ .. ... _.. .. `3 _.. ..I , ... ... .p . a _.. ...FK .,: .- .� . �.. ..� � . . F �. � .,... .. -» :.4.. a:`- -- , .,.,....j c. .... .. - } ''1 R r . r ,.. �t . , ,» G. r4F .. ,, . .. ,...r . _.. ,: �. . ,. . . , K: � .:, ..z ...G ..t.:P.t . . ,»F .:.[�� mJ Y ... i .. .. , .. . .. n ..... .. fi : a .. .- .: . . , r . ... _.t. , -. .. »tek_K. K � .. r;r K u c •1' ,. r �wr _F.1...� ,t ., .Kr u» .1:...>,. .: .. :::,: -.:: ,. � .. ,:M �-,:G S^F , .1€,Ilil ' E .':':ti d /a „ - . rx .4 .. r. r:l F. ._ ..Y'€i..F . ,. yy i _u�0.F !, F... 4 is .f. : .. �.., a. � , f.. , . -'FG_ � .k ! K,� �: . ti �, L: Id ,::R _ . F t ,: K „ ...: . ,,:.::,a , .uL .1 fh.:� c.:. �,tr .� "G . 6 P ,.3:.»�. x ink wF .,€ .,F-. � ,,. -us ,r , ,�:. ,�xr,.., � S;tat _ �, :;, {, _ � :. � ,, I rt ;f r :..., r_� ,�. ,E<F r xa s�. za .�: � _ � ,F•w:. _ : ,� ....,. . .,�"b.k�: :,..�a .. .r t. tG.r �. Fr_. rK� .:! r,�l: +. 3 .. .: [ ' ,. r .., '�,. .. T. ,,:'._ , .4 ss `rl :.'x v.. . ,�_�u -h .: , r u. 1 � ,,:.. . .. �_,C .. L � �r r 1' J•,o.: - rc -.G -G 1 la . � i l ... : ....._e �71= .. r . :. fl r . � .. € 1 .. ,» . .i .„ :r; .. k .., _.t 4.i �. G �' 'F Y . . �k .. ,. I �. �. r. �, 7Gr r ..1 '� t,� 1 - a G � ., F � � t.,. ,t s, �� ,�. " .h_:#; ,. .: �.:: ,_ i� .. . I o .: r'k. � � �° . ,.... c . �,.� � t 1? ��..i .3_� x. .:_. t .. ,� :. IG x t G .. ..... t ,e .: E .�I ,...�_�, .. .. » �6..: -� . . 4. � . ., ..!�.:, F. -: F... f 1 'I. .,. .,4 .,, .. .:.€ �- ... k K .. _. .. , k u.,. . #,,. � . . k:. e w, I? . ,r � ., ,� r .� .._. #: � .. .G. K � 4 ,E x, , .. ..... d� .L � -it : . ._i. �r F _ � _ � .: 1'. . _�. „ ,.,, ,. .::�, ¢. . ��s FI n F1 .Ft t€ .f+�.•.., , .. .._ -_ .. t_ �. .�� . .. �.. .._ � __raj.�N_.• , . _�. .�t,. ,[l1.G.w ..r,., t ..., �. ,. 'x''u ,R:+CS: r'di ,., ,.F '! 7 otal.:�Cost: ,, 1 ;, � t u<G r�4 G� 6 - .,'k „r k .. �1 1 •d i' F . ,;-i:.c�' r , _I I a. '; G �' �.k �,I :,� E �4: , .. :��.. C:,a i i -. ",...a.. ;�, :� '¢',d � ,!1 O :i�1_ [ C r ..00 ,,.1 .. a_ wF55,.i..,Ir:�l. , .. . Y �� Cr�:l%y ,I.7- . »4(Ii 1 x:11{: 1 ,: ,4 :Measu',, ,,t,e .A�l t;Fx :,,� , r r4.::u:. : •� .+.k.. -;u nd l: ' _, .. [[ �r� .. P F F 'a .�:.. f L� a a: .1,AOOu. $'! ...EF .[ a 6. 1, r . . .r E.. r. ,� 32 2003/04 Perris Blvd./Manzanita Ave. Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Design and construction of traffic signal . * $200 $200 33 2003/04 Ironwood Ave. /Nason St. Traffic Signal Street Improvements/ Traffic Signal Design of street improvements and traffic signal. * $80 $80 34 2003/04 John F. Kennedy Dr. /Lasselle St. Flashing Bea con Flashing Beacon Construction of Flashing Beacon. * $27 $27 35 2003/04 Indian St. /Cactus Av e. Improvements Street/Storm Drain Improvements Design of street and storm drain improvements . * $100 $100 36 2003/04 added proje ct Frederick St. Median/Calle San Juan De Los Lagos to Alessandro Blvd. Median Improvements Funding for design and construction of raised median project was dropped . * $227 $227 37 2003/04 added project Dracaea Ave ./Heacock St. to Perris Blvd. Street Improvements Project completed. * $20 $20 38 2003/04 added project Alessandro Blvd. Entryway Improvements M edian Improvements Project Completed. * $22 $22 * Total cost changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget • .3 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION (RCTC) ME ASURE " A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YE AR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 City of Moreno Valley Revised Fiscal Y ear 2003/2004 Jo hn Ho gard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised July 13, 2004 Lasselle St./Gentian Ave. Traffic Signal /0/0/ 4,0/ 4 /b/O/ O/ ..0%M..P/O/ .O/ 0F4G7 /. 1W/0/ O/O/O/0/O/0/ 0/O/O/O/O/O/v/O/O /OH474T,ZSW//Org .41 /O/O/4/O/O!O/O/O/o/ 4frQp/p /g/p /O /O///O/p /p/O /O/O /.O/O /O /O/O /O/O/a7/d /pj0/O/ ..CW /O /O/00/ / ' a:.i a,._ :', .. is.. r- /4 / 04 /ORO O40 91 r 20.0:320.04 oT. OTA L a lo/oio%aY oafr �j iS.o7c`/dJ /, _, ,, '. ., ....�t . 0/Ot�A0/ e/sibimd/oiO�ibm/O. v/0i0i orOivi di 0/0/ 0io%o /C/OIb/O/iiv%OlO�oioio/o/oi �vi oi f+ioivioi vo.Wmio /vio /vibYo oic�i000lo40 M iviv iOiG�oio/i//oJoiOi o "� a .,:'4J%�•tl. . . ; �O/O /Oi0/O/!f/0/OO/O%O/O/O�/b�/O/O%O/O/O/O/O/O /.a7 / W:\CapProj\CapProj\Measure A\5YEAR\2004-08\071304 Amend 03-04 5 yr Projections .doc * Total cost changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAMPORTATION C OMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004 — 2005 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P.E . Phon e No.: (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Da te: June 24, 2004 Page 1 of 1 Revised Version • ITEM NO, PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. 2. 3.. 4. 5. Portola Bridge — Design (at Whitewater Channel) Monterey Avenue / Freeway Loop - construction Palm Desert High School — Aztec Road Hwy 111 — Desert Crossing/Toys R Us Intersection Monterey Ave & Avenue 35 Bridge Construction On-ramp/Off-ramp construction Street and Signal Construction Intersection Improvements Street Project 6,000 2,525 800 800 505 300 655 100 300 505 7/1/04. G:\PubWorks\Ryan Gayler\Word Files\RCTC 04-05\RCTC Funds Program Form - FY 04-05 yr 1 revised 1.doc. sd 95 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005 — 2006 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P.E . Phone No.: (760) 346-0611 e xt . 447 Date: June 24, 2004 Page 1 of 1 Revi sed Version ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) ME ASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. Monterey Avenue / Freeway Loop - construction On-ramp/Off-ramp construction 2,525 1,260 2. Monterey Ave — Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore — Const . Street Widening 690 205 3. Gerald Ford Drive — Portola Ave to Cook Street Stre et Widening 1,015 450 711104 - G 1PubWorkslRyen Gayler1Word Files1RCTC 04-05\RCTC Funds Program Form - FY 04-05 yr 2 r evised 1 .doc - sd 096 • Agency. Prepared by Phone No.: Da te : ITEM NO. 1. 2. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006 — 2007 City of Palm De sert Michael Errante, P .E . (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 June 24, 2004 PROJECT NA ME/LIMITS Page 1 of 1 Revis ed V ersion San Pablo Ave — Magnesia Falls to COD Driveway San Pablo NB @ Fred Waring — Right Turn Pocket PROJECT TYPE Roadway widening Right Tum Pocket TOTAL COST ($000'S) 405 505 MEASURE A ' FUNDS ($000'S) 405 100 7t1104 • G\PubWorks\Ryan Geyier\Word F11es\RCTC 04-05\RCTC Funds Progra m Form - FY 04-05 yr 3 revised 1,doc - sd 97 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2007 - 2008 Agency; City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P.E . Phone No.: (760) 346-0611 e xt . 447 Date: June 24, 2004 Page 1 of 1 Revised Version ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 480 1. Gerald Ford Drive — Cook St. to Frank Sinatra Street Widening 1,015 2. San Pablo NB @ Fred Waring — Right Turn Pocket Right Turn Pocket 505 405 711164 - G:\PubWorks\Ryan Geyfer\Word Files\RCTC 04-05\RCTC Funds Program Form • FY 04-05 yr 4 revised t.doc - sd •98 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANit RTATION COM MISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008 — 2009 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P.E. Phone No.: (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Date: June 24, 2004 Page 1 of 1 Revised Version ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. El Dorado West - Construction Road Construction 8,300 5,000 2. Portola Interchange @ 1-10 - Construction Street, Bridge, and Signal Construction 20,000 3,220 • 7(1104 - G:\PubWorks\Ryan Geyler\Word Files\RCTC 04.05\RCTC Funds Program Form - FY 04.05 yr 5 revised 1.doc - sd 99 • RIVERSIDE . COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008 — 2009 Agency: City of Palm .Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P .E. Pho ne No .: (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Date: , June 11, 2004 Page 1 of 1 Proposed Version ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LI MITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. El Dorado West - Construction Road Construction 8,300 5,000 2. . Portola interchange @1-10 - Construction Street, Bridge, and Signal Construction 20,000 3,220 000 7/1104 - G:\PubWorks\Ryen GayterWord FIIes1RCTC 04-051RCTC Funds Program Form - FY 04-05 yr 5.doe - sd • AGENDA ITEM 70 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 05-45-518 for Digital Cellular Service for Call Box Program BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-45-518, to AT&T Wireless Service, Inc. for digital cellular service for the Riverside County Call Box Program for a five-year term at an annual amount not to exceed $89,078; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), reviewed and approved the release of a tri-county Request for Proposals (RFP) for Digital Cellular Service for Call Box programs in Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties at its May 6, 2004 meeting. San Diego SAFE staff took the lead for the three agencies and released the RFP, conducted the pre -proposal meeting, answered questions from the proposers, and received the proposals. The RFP was released on May 14, 2004, and proposals were due on June 28, 2004. Five (5) proposals were received, and the three SAFE agencies interviewed all five vendors at the San Diego offices on July 7, 2004. At the conclusion of the interview process, each of the SAFEs was to proceed on its own and select the vendor of its choice. The vendors and bid amounts received were as follows: Agenda Item 70 101 Monthly Cost Estimated Cellular Vendor Per Call Box Annual Cost* AT&T Wireless Services $6.35 $ 89,078 Verizon Wireless $7.13 $100,020 Cingular $7.93 $111,242 Sprint $12.45 $174,649 Nextel $15.56 $218,276 * Based on number of active call boxes Only three vendors were able to provide 100% coverage of the Riverside County service area: AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. In addition, the top two vendors proposed different cellular technologies. AT&T proposed using Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) and Verizon proposed using Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) technology. GSM (from AT&T) uses a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card that contains subscriber details, security information and memory for the dialing directory. The SIM card also stores data that identifies the call box to the network service provider. Most importantly, the SIM card facilitates the replacement and repair of malfunctioning call boxes during field servicing by simply pulling the card from the malfunctioning or damaged call box and inserting it into a replacement box without having to go back to the shop. CDMA (Verizon) uses an embedded chip within the call box with the specific activation information. Each call box has discrete programming that cannot be imported from call box to call box. Major repairs would have to be done at the shop and the box returned on a "second trip" to the call box leaving the site inoperable. Needless to say, this would be costly in a county the size of Riverside. CDMA also requires a GPS antenna to be mounted on the call box at an additional cost of $125 per site or approximately $146,125 for the entire system. Based on the above information, staff is recommending the Commission award the digital cellular service contract to AT&T Wireless Service, Inc., at the rate of $6.35 per month per box. RCTC's existing analog cellular service is with AT&T at a rate of $7.50 per month per call box. The current RCTC/AT&T five-year contract is due to expire on June 30, 2005. The new proposed rate is 15.3% Tess and would be effective on July 1, 2005. • • • Agenda Item 70 102 • AGENDA ITEM 7P • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 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 August averaged 4,676 which is up 70 (2%) from the month of July. The line has averaged an overall increase of 17% from a year ago August 2003. August on -time performance averaged 93% inbound (-3% from July) and 92% outbound (-3% from July). There were 19 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of August, an 8 point increase from the month of July. The following were the primary causes: 4 Signals/Detectors Dispatching Freight Other* 14 1 0 21% 74% 5% 0% TOTAL 0° *None *None Agenda Item 7P 103 Inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of August averaged 3,468, a change of 41 more riders or an increase of 1% from the month of July. The line has averaged an overall increase of 7% from a year ago August 2003. August on -time performance averaged 95% inbound (+5% from July) and 89% outbound (+3% from July). There were 21 delays greater than five minutes during the month of August, a 9 point decrease from the month of July. The primary causes were: 6 Signals/Detectors/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other* 10 0 5 28% 48% 0% 24% TOTAL 1 1 *Metrolink Trains Meet, Passenger Hold Policy 91 Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of August averaged 1,781, down 21 riders or a decrease of 1 %, from the month of July. The line has averaged an increase of 11% from a year ago August 2003. August on -time performance averaged 92% inbound (-2% from July) and 94% outbound (+3% from July). There were 13 delays greater than five minutes during the month of August, down 1 from July. The primary causes were: Signals/Detectors Dispatching Mechanical Other 1 8 2 2 8% 62% 15% 15% TOTAL 1 • Agenda Item 7P 104 • • • Rail Car Procurement The current Metrolink Rail Car procurement has been cancelled in response to a procedural protest from one of the vendors. The process will be reviewed and the RFP will go out again in a few months. Lease of Rail Equipment Update The leased cars from Sound Transit were delivered and put into full service on October 4. The Sound Transit cars were kept together as a set and only run on the San Bernardino line. The additional Metrolink cars were added to other Metrolink train routes based on overcrowding train data. An additional car was added to the following trains from Riverside County, 3 on the Riverside Line 403, 404, 406, 5 on the IEOC line 800, 804, 807, 809, 810, and 2 for the 91 Line 700 and 707. October 4th Schedule Change With the new Sound Transit cars, the San Bernardino Line schedule will be adjusted on October 4'". The service will be expanded and will include a train every hour in the off peak and every 20 minutes during peak periods. Also as a demonstration, there will be a reverse commute train that will run from Montclair to San Bernardino in the morning and return in the afternoon. There are no schedule changes planned for the other lines at this time. 2004 Summer Beach Trains The 2004 Summer Beach Train program will finish up on October 3rd. We have sold 9,824 tickets, resulting in 72% farebox recovery ratio. Sales are down a little this year, primarily due to the lack of free shuttles in San Clemente for our riders. Metrolink Holiday Train Passenger Service Metrolink is preparing for the 2"d year of providing Thanksgiving Day train service on selected routes. This year there will be two routes operating from Riverside, one to Los Angeles via San Bernardino and the other to Orange County. The New Years Day service will run from Riverside on the San Bernardino Line into Los Angeles with connections to Pasadena via the Gold Line. Metrolink Holiday Toy Express The Metrolink Holiday Toy Express Train will once again be making rounds through Riverside County. On Sunday, November 21' the train will be at Riverside - Downtown from 5:15 p.m., La Sierra at 6:05 p.m., and Agenda Item 7P 105 North Main Corona at 6:55 p.m. The train will visit the Pedley Station at 5:20 p.m. on Saturday, November 27`h. There is a 30 minute presentation and show with Santa and his elves during the event. There will also be the annual Spark of Love toy drive in conjunction with the train stops. All toy donations will be distributed by the local fire departments to the nearby community. This year we are looking to encourage additional attendance by having larger events with music, entertainment, or other activities. We will also have a school toy drive contest during the event with local elementary schools. The school with the most toys will win a school trip on Metrolink's weekday service. RCTC Metrolink Station Daily Activities Daily activities are recorded by station security guards and submitted to RCTC on a weekly basis. During the second quarter of 2004 (April - June), there were 10 criminal incidents (down 1 from January - March), and no crisis situations (also down 1 from January - March). This quarter there were a number of burglary acts with two incidents of people trying to steal gas, one stolen car radio, and an attempted theft from a motorcycle's saddle bag. In addition, there were several vagrants and intoxicated trespassers removed from the stations. Attached is summary data covering the second quarter of 2004. Metrolink Connecting Transfer Update Metrolink has an aggressive connecting transfer program that encourages riders to make easy connections with public transit to get to their final destinations. Through interagency transfer agreements and coordination with the Los Angeles County EZ Pass program, Metrolink tickets are generally good for free transfers on local connecting buses and trains. This provides seamless transfers for the passenger and increases ridership on Metrolink. According to Metrolink's 2002 On Board Survey of riders, over 70% of riders who go into Los Angeles Union Station transfer to public transit. Of those riders who do not detrain in Los Angeles, 36% use public transportation to get to their final destination. On the Riverside Line, 61 % of the passengers who detrained at Los Angeles Union Station rode connecting transit, of those who detrain before Los Angeles 27% use transit. On Inland Empire Orange County Line 41 % of the riders utilize transit at their connections. For the 91 Line, 65% of those detraining in Los Angeles use transit and 24% use transit if they get off the train before Union Station. As part of Metrolink's fare policy, $.50 of each ticket is to be used to pay for the connecting transit. The transit operators track the number of Metrolink riders and then invoice Metrolink at an agreed upon rate for the transfers. Throughout Southern California, there are 34 different transit operators who participate in the Metrolink transfer program. Further details on the program are attached. • Agenda Item 7P 106 • • • Metrolink and RTA's CommuterLink In September of 2003, RTA started the CommuterLink service to provide express connections from residential areas to business centers and Metrolink stations. Since inception the service has grown and in July 2004 carried 7,849 passengers, of those 2,598 or 33% are Metrolink transfers. Two of the four routes seem to attract a majority of the Metrolink transfers. The first route, 206 travels from Temecula to the North Main Corona station and carried 1,968 riders in July of those 81% were Metrolink transfers. Route 208 travels from Temecula to Moreno Valley and then to the Downtown Riverside Metrolink station, this route carried 1,999 riders in July of those 43% were Metrolink transfers. All of these transfers are free to the Metrolink rider and RTA is reimbursed from Metrolink and RCTC for the $ 1 fare. Jim Kneepkens, RTA's Director of Marketing, made a presentation at the Plans and Programs Committee meeting on the RTA CommuterLink service. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Performance Summaries (August 2004) 2) RCTC Metrolink Stations Daily Activity Report 3) Metrolink Transit Update 4) RTA CommuterLink Presentation Agenda Item 7P 107 40 000 38,000 36,000 34,000 — 32,000 — 30,000 — 28,000 — 26,000 — 24,000 — 22,000 — 20,000 • • METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS 37,806 36,264 34,653 35,803 37,399 36,223 36,399 33,727 :N\\§\\\\\ :\\N1 \\\ ,\ \\.\\ Aug -03 Sep -03 Oct -03 Nov -03 Dec -03 Jan - 04 Feb -04 Mar -04 38,099 Apr -04 38,198 May -04 37,751 Jun -04 37,237 \4 N\<\ , Jul -04 Aug -04 ILISSTSHoliday Add rot— UnadjAvg PERCENT PASSENGERS ON -TIME vs TRAINS ON -TI ME 100.0% 95,0% — 90.0% — 85.0% — 80.0% Sep Oct Nov Dec Aug 03 • Within 5 -Minutes Of Schedule Includes Weekend Service Jan Mar Feb 0 Passenge r OTP% ID Train OTP% Apr Jun Aug 04 May • 010 • • 111 • of Train Delays By Responsibility August 2004 TRK-Contractor UPRR 0% 9% SIG -Contractor 7% SCRRA 13% Includes Weekend Service Passenger 6% 14% Vandalism 4% Mechanical 17% Improv (SCRRA) Law-EnfOP Agree 8% 0% 1 /o BNSF 21% % of Train Delays By Responsibility 12 Month Period Ending August 2004 TRK-Contractor UPRR 1% 11% SIG -Contractor 7% SCRRA 11% Pa ssenger 4% Includes Weekend Service Vandalism 4% Mechanical 10% 12% OP Agree Law-Enf Improv (SCRRA) 2% 1% 7% BNSF 30% 12 • • • PERFOR MANCE CHARTS - BACK-UP 11e!lMETRO LINK 6 113 • Aug 03 3,714 • METROLINK AVER AGE WEEKDAY P ASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED 5,772 • no B 10,169 531 4,008 5,611 3,245 1,603 % Change 's:Prlor o''' Sep 03 3,883 5,748 10,624 540 4,431 5,780 3,638 1,620 34,653 36,264 1% 5% Oct 03 4,295 5,583 9,965 639 4,337 5,557 3,764 1,663 35,803 -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% A pr 04 May 04 Jun 04 4,107 3,970 3,868 6,262 6,180 6,258 11,046 11,213 11,013 599 645 645 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 37,770 1% 0% -1% Jul 04 3,829 6,384 10,674 615 4,606 5,900 3,427 1,802 37,237 -1% Aug 04 3,822 6,327 10,456 613 4,676 5,943 3,468 1,781 37,086 0% % Change Aug 04 vs Jul 04 0% -1% -2% 0% 2% 1% 1% -1% 0% % Change Aug 04 vs Aug 03 3% 10% 3% 15% 17% 6% 7% 11% 7% 114 AVERAGE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY PASSHOLDERS ON AMTRAK THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW Aug -03 995 326 194 Sep -03 993 217 175 . ... .. .. :. . 102 111 42 62 47 52 1,097 1,104 368 241 279 227 -4% 74% 1% -24% 53% -6% eY. 114 100 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 (8) 1,110 247 230 128 37 26 1,238 284 256 1% -10 % 4% 118 Aug 04 1,110 244 275 128 86 34 1,238 330 309 0% 16 % 21% 99 /o change Aug 04 VS Jul 04 0% -1% 20% 0% 132% 31% 0% 16 % 21% % Change Aug04 vs Aug03 12% -25% 42% 25% 105% -28% 13% -10% 28% (1) Prio r to Rail 2 Rail, Amtrak Step-Up/No Step -Up program was only good on Amtrak weekday tra ins. (2) Rail 2 Rat program started September 1, 2002. (3) Missing data has been adjusted by using the lowest ridership count for the respective train, day of week and month. (4) Average of first 3 weeks of month only as black -out In place for the Thanksgiving weak (5) Average excluding 12125 (6) Average excluding January 1 (7) Average excluding M ay 31 (8) Average excluding July 6 • •15 -16% -13% perf summ-Rail 08/2004 - • AOR MoNewxls San Bernardino Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips 3500 3000 2500 a) 2000 a p 1500 t7) Q 1000 500 0 Aug -03 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Aug -04 Note: Sept Includes L.A County Fair Riders Avg Daily Riders 3500 ` 3000- 2500 2000- 1500 1000 - San Bernardino Line Sunday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Aug -03 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Aug -04 Note: Sunday Service Began 06/25/00 017 4n Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY Percentage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time LATEST 13 MONTHS .: .. ..V . . .: . Route-� n .:.:>:.. .:: ;:,,Its: :: :fit.. ; #(� w c; <: f3uC. : ::. <n ::.;::;8 :.Sar�;B::ar . .. ... ..u?a... ... .uces :::> .;::.:. . ,., :*, :.. :: :.. .u�.: :::.. ..1� .., 11'i.: ..... ..C7. .:: ....: . r : n .T .. _ ... .. ... .......... .... .L.............Gr...ge :.. .:. .. >;:: «: :; ..::::. .:. :: ..: atat.::.: .. .... .....R>uer s d ........... ; ..>.: < .;: ..Total 1rt .. � ft; >:: . .an a .... ..... ......_.. ... .....P.... ... .. . .. .. .................. .... .... ..... ...:. ....:. :... tM .,.. ..: :: ; :taut:<>:::::>::::.SO �..�m.f.Q .�: .: .. :..... .. ...... .. •.. ... �Q ' ::`:::ItY� ` . 1t T. .: .:..*0.::.?:>:.... .....:. ..`<: Ci > Out . .. . ... .... . . T ... < 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 98% 97% 96% 96% 96% 95% 100% 99% 89 % 86% 96% 94% 92% 86 % 89% 90 % 95 % 94 % 95% May 04 99% 97% 98% 98% 99% 98% 100% 100% 98% 95 % 96% 97 % 95% 93 % 96% 98 % 98% 97 % 97% Jun 04 100% 98% 97% 95% 93% 93% 100% 100% 92% 91% 95 % 94% 97% 94% 97% 99 % 96% 95% 96% Jul04 100% 98% 96% 92% 90% 89% 100% 100% 96% 95% 94% 97% 90% 86% 94 % 91% 94% 93% 94% Aug 04 99% 99% 98% 93% 91% 90% 97% 99% 93% 92% 91% 91% 95% 89% 92% 94 % 94% 93 % 94% Peak Period Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time Aug 04 ..:.: VEN.. Rou.;..:.; ::.. Ik1fi. Route .;;�; ,,;....SNB Rte BURTurns.; , . ... , .. R1.V. Route.. ; . •i. '.. ..:: , aG F�buCe 1ri! Emp/:�C lioita� ;'_;;:. ::>>:S�F i:A� :;. Tot It*t' .Tvt , 3.tbd , of Syst Pea k Period Trains 99% 99% 100% 87% 93% 87% 97% 100% 96% 92% 94% 90% 93% 92 % 96 % 91 % 95% 92% 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. • •19 17 • CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS August 2004 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CAUSE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INL/OC 91 -LA TOTAL % of TOT Signals/Detectors 0 1 13 0 4 4 4 1 27 14% Slow Orders/MOW 0 0 9 1 0 7 2 0 19 10% Track/Switch 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2% Dispatching 1 1 3 0 14 15 10 8 52 27 % Mechanical 1 8 14 4 0 5 0 2 34 17% Freight Train 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1% Amtrak Train 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 2% Metrolink Meet/Turn 0 4 18 0 0 0 1 0 23 12 % Vandalism 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 3% Passenger(s) 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 3% SCRRA Hold Policy 1 1 4 0 0 1 1 0 8 4% Other 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 2 14 7% TOTAL 5 22 74 5 19 36 21 13 195 100 % Saturday SNB 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 5 2 0 16 • Saturday AVL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sunday SNB 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 7 13120 0405CAUS FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION August 2004 MINUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL TOTAL % of TOT NO DELAY 407 445 469 247 215 335 211 177 2506 80.3% 1 M IN - 5 MIN 27 61 205 12 29 47 32 7 420 13.5% 6MIN -10 MIN 1 13 36 3 7 16 13 6 95 3.0% 11 MIN - 20 MIN 2 7 29 2 9 13 6 3 71 2.3% 21 MIN - 30 MIN 1 2 9 0 2 3 0 3 20 0.6% GREATER THAN 30 MIN 1 0 0 0 1 4 2 1 9 0 .3% ANNULLED 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 .1% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD 439 528 748 264 263 418 264 197 3121 100% TRAINS DELAYED >0 min 32 83 279 17 48 83 53 20 615 19 .7% TRAINS DELAYED > 5 mir 5 22 74 5 19 36 21 13 195 6.2% • • A I A " :: •i. .n. .. .... .v \:44\:, v: Avi:i.:i::.i::<.i :isi.:isviii�:i::i:n+:..� .::: ::. t•: :::: ::: v.. ... .. ....: •..,. . ... ....... .... ... .. ...� ,lJ,v+rf f* (; nunty ri.zr,r5portogion: (.:(inini!vOr 7J Riverside - Downtown .._.:...•.:�:<:{:Liy::(y:}:L�:::• ,i:•;: i::::::::: .v�::v:•i: 'i�iiii:i::i:L.:l}:}:::v. ... \........ ... :. ...:: � :: •.; :: ii i• , � �i:t::i .Y::.Si:ii: .::i{.:.;::::., v:. ..: .. ., .; ii:..; : v: •i:•:'S>iy::::L .: Activity Detail Report Generated fr om 4/01/2004 to 6/30/2004 Date .Time Activity Log # Desc ripti on 6/17/2004 3:00pm 6/21/2004 5:40pm 5/19/2004 10:30 a.m. La Sierra Activity Type 78381 Homeless man trespassing and breaking into vehicle 2 - Criminal Incidents 78452 Vehicle was broken into and radio taken. Police w 2 - Criminal Incidents 78040 RPD called & had 2 males clean up bottle mess 2 - Criminal Incidents Activity Subtype 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandalis 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandalis 2B - Vagrants / Trespassing # Vehicles 0 0 0 Date Time Activity Log # Description Activity Type 6/2/2004 8:pm 6/13/2004 9:05pm West Coro na 78174 Male Adult tried to steal gas from car 78331 Vandals paintballed the porta-potty Activity Subtype 2 - Criminal Incidents 2 - Criminal Incidents # Vehicles 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandalis 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandalis 0 0 D ate Time Activity Log # D escription 5/18/2004 9:00 p.m. 5/19/2004 9:00 p. m. No rth Main Corona Activity Type 78084 Corona PD on site for public Intoxication off RTA 2 - Criminal Incidents 78058 Corona PD onsite 4 man that was public intoxicated 2 - Criminal Incident s Activity S ubtype 28 - Vagrants / Trespassing 2B - Vagrants / Trespassing # Vehicles 0 Date Time Activity Log # D escription 6/18/2004 4/16/2004 10:00 a.m. 6/11/2004 9:20pm 78420 Boy stealing gas from truck parked in parking lot. 77295 Metrink Shrifs onsite to take person into custody 78362 16 juveniles fighting in parking area. Corona PD c Activity Type Activity Subty pe # Vehicles 2 - Criminal Incidents 2 - Criminal Incidents 2 - Criminal Incidents 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandalis 2C - Suspicious Behavior 2D - Criminal Behavior 0 0 0 Wednesday, September 15, 2004 Page 1 of 1 122 MIMS TIECONNICHON Connecting Transit Transfer Policy Update and Overview In an effort to provide seamless transit connections, Metrolink has entered into Interagency Transfer Agreements with local transit operators. These agreements allow a Metrolink rider with a valid ticket or pass to transfer free of charge to a connecting local bus or train. Metrolink reimburses the transit operator at an agreed upon rate for each transferring Metrolink customer. The number of riders is determined by driver counts or surveys. Transfers are generally only accepted on trains or busses that leave a Metrolink station and only during Metrolink operating hours for that station/route. There is no discount on Metrolink trains for holders of transit tickets or passes. Current list of Participating Transit Operators 1. OCTA — Orange County Transportation Authority — Free on all local routes 2. Omnitrans — San Bernardino County's transit operator 3. MARTA — Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority from Big Bear to SNB & RCM 4. NCTD — North County Transit District, Breeze busses only, no transfers on Coaster train 5. RTA — Riverside Transit Authority — Good on Local and Commuterlink (Except 202) •6. VVTA — Victor Valley Transit Authority — Not free, Discount off of monthly VVTA fare 7. SCAT — South Coast Area Transit, from Oxnard. No agreement but allows free transfers. 8. City of Anaheim — Anaheim downtown rail feeder route 9. City of Azusa — Free rail feeder route from Covina station 10. City of Baldwin Park — Pumpkin and Teal shuttles 11. City of Corona — Corona Cruiser and Dial a Ride 12. City of El Monte — Flair Park and Civic Center commuter shuttles 13. City of Glendora — Mini Bus from Covina station 14. City of Simi Valley — Local routes 15. City of West Covina —"GO West" busses from Baldwin Park & Covina stations • M1111117/1 CONNIC17011 MI77IDhIN,- IILNSr TEs Metrolink and Los Angeles County EZ Transit Pass The Los Angeles County transit operators have established a monthly pass program that allows EZ Transit Pass holders' unlimited local transfers onto most of the county and municipal transit operators without paying an additional charge. Metrolink is now participating in the EZ Transit Pass program. The new EZ Transit Pass Program has replaced many of the former Transfer Agreements. EZ Pass allows Metrolink riders with a valid Metrolink ticket or pass unlimited local connections on participating EZ Transit Pass providers, including all Metro bus and rail lines, LADOT DASH service, and Foothill Transit. This agreement allows local transfers only, express service will be added in the near future. On certain express routes (i.e. Foothill Transit), a Metrolink ticket or pass holder can ride the express route and pay the difference between local fare and the express fare. The EZ Transit Pass logo will be printed on Metrolink tickets, even though all fare media are currently acceptable for EZ Pass Transfers. Note: EZ Transit Passes are not valid for Metrolink travel. Current Los Angeles EZ Transit Pass Operators 1. AVTA (Antelope Valley Transit Authority) 2. Burbank Local Transit 3. City of Commerce 4. Culver City Municipal Bus Lines 5. Foothill Transit 6. Gardena Municipal Bus Lines 7. Glendale Beeline 8. LADOT 9. Long Beach Transit 10. Metro Local & Rapid Buses Metro Rail — Red, Gold, Blue, Green lines 11. Montebello Bus Lines 12. Monterey Park Spirit Bus 13. Norwalk Transit 14. Pasadena ARTS 15. Santa Clarita Transit 16. Santa Fe Springs Metro Express 17. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus **(Will not accept Metrolink Tickets) 18. South Pasadena Gold Link 19. Torrance MAX 20. Torrance Transit • Special Situation: Santa Clarita Transit has several commuter routes between Lancaster, Santa Clarita, and Los Angeles. If a Metrolink ticket or pass holder has a valid ticket they can travel on the bus for the portion of the trip covered by the origin/destination for free. For example, a monthly pass holder from Lancaster to Los Angeles can travel on train 209 from Los Angeles to Newhall and connect with bus 795 to Lancaster for no additional charge. If someone wanted to use a 10 trip from Los Angeles to Santa Clarita on bus 799, their 10 -trip ticket would have to be validated at Union Station prior to boarding the bus. • tr00Z `1Z aegcuaides can !wo o swe iBo ad pue sun:, uo!ss i u oo..uo a ods ueal if un oo apisaanid rq mead do;s-pe;!w!l' sai;unoo eplsieni '1 ., fi r•• �.,; e� r r. 1 1CI 19 11 14 15 16 22 25 20 19 104 I4) Sunlink 3 Country Witiagc Park-A11d• Ride �hC�:F1GiI 1 7 2!32 244 470 490 192 ON 1 .103 (Jm t1ians P iiles E5 Ci%E Fri 70. 90 MOliiuk Hi kicn a r ri z w Iiairi4 si CORONA 01;03, N. IVIa ... -r tMlefioIt ff�tl f tCater Elsinore LAKE ELSINORE 2.3 heimeti,rr ua (uH URA TA TEMECLI . Prom enade MaU Par#c>Ar d4llLde !xis of Sa zyx & f4mirdi Litt\ d Ca lawnt TORE VALLEY ,Route 202 Rion*:iota Tomet aln ^ ()Cersneit:: ` •`rdri rl Center Taik attout j y Wing Now !Mougln December St, 2004. anyone can rate aft the *ay le Oce anside far only S1 (regularly S4) . You can 5.56 your NIA 31 -day pass and discounts are available tar seniors and the disabled, Route 202 offers Marlette and Temecula commuters li mited - stop Eros seryrce to Oceanside Making crannectione is easy since Co mmuterLink OUSTS ward up at the 0cearslde Ganart Center where y ou can transfer le C oaster, Metrulink, Amtrak nt NOD buses , So leave your car at name and enjoy a stress -tree ride in cushioned, redoing scats, Al RTA , •co o {mpruv,ng out bite service by making 4 the same tilt everyone' ea9y . 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 M 0 a) • M 0 qzr VCS qqr Q • qzr MI Route 202 Route 204 --- Route 206 Route 208 • 1,200-Y 1,000- 800 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Route 202 Murrieta - Oceanside 3,500-/ 3,000- 2,500-' 2,000- 1,500-"' f f 1,000-' Route 204 Riverside - Montclair Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 04 Feb Mar Apr 04 May Jun 04 Jul 04 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 04 Feb Mar Apr 04 May Jun 04 Jul 04 Aug 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 ® Metrolink Transfers ■ Bus Only Route 206 Temecula - Corona 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 Metrolink Transfers ■ Bus Only R oute 208 Temecula - Ri verside .r nvl, ✓. ter^ P ,. . .fk. . :: Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 04 Feb Mar Apr 04 May Jun 04 Jul 04 AugSep Oct Nov Dec Jan 04 Feb Mar Apr 04 May Jun 04 Jul 04 Aug 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 133 Metrolink Transfers ■ Bus Only AGENDA ITEM 7Q • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement No. 05-14-515 to Amend the RCTC/SANBAG Contract for Shared Federal Legislative Advocacy Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve agreement No. 05-14-515, an extension of the shared Federal Legislative Advocacy Services (SANBAG Contract No. 00-051) between RCTC and SANBAG, for a two-year period in a total amount not to exceed $ 144,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In July 2002, at the direction of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) governing boards, staff released a request for proposals for RCTC/SANBAG Shared Federal Advocacy Services. The RFP generated responses from seven firms to provide Federal Advocacy Services, four of which were interviewed by a joint RCTC/SANBAG selection committee with the advocacy team of Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez, Denton, and Shockey with Cliff Madison Government Relations ultimately being agreed to by both RCTC and SANBAG. At that time, staff negotiated a two-year contract with two, two-year options commencing January 1, 2003. The thinking behind the length of the agreement was that Congress would have approved a reauthorization of the federal transportation act for a six -year period. The two-year contract with two, two-year options would ensure consistency of federal representation for the duration of the federal act and could result in a number of advantages in seeking subsequent federal funding in future years. Agenda Item 7Q 135 Additionally, this arrangement was fashioned at a time when SANBAG and RCTC shared the staff position of Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs. The procurement was designed to result in a contract structure that was similar to the staffing arrangement. Since then, RCTC and SANBAG have abandoned the shared position, although there has been a significant and productive collaboration between the agencies on federal legislative issues. Recently the agencies worked together to seek favorable language in the reauthorization bill regarding funding for Alameda Corridor East improvements that would benefit both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The language has been supported by all of Riverside County's Congressional delegation. The existing federal advocacy contract has provided effective support in this effort and in developing funding support for a number of individual projects. At the Budget and Implementation Committee meeting, the Committee members requested staff to bring the grade separation project list back to the Committee/Commission for further review and/or additional discussion. Staff has included this item to be on the agenda for the next meeting. Unfortunately, Congress has yet to definitively act on a reauthorization and we have been left with short-term extensions of the federal transportation act. In spite of these circumstances, the existing contract for federal legislative advocacy has been effective for both SANBAG and RCTC. RCTC primarily relies on the services of Cliff Madison who has extensive experience and contacts regarding transportation and has capably served the Commission even prior to this joint agreement. The Copeland team has also provided effective representation for the region and will play a big role, along with Cliff Madison when Congress finally acts on a comprehensive federal reauthorization. Given the general satisfaction with the current contract arrangement staff recommends the exercise of the first two-year contact extension as part of the original agreement. Assuming Congress acts sometime next year on a federal reauthorization, the Commission can then re-evaluate its federal advocacy needs before the December 31, 2006 expiration of the option. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 04/05 Amount: $72,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A" and LTF Sales Taxes SAFE Fees and FSP Revenues Budget Ad ustment: g N GLA No.: S-14-65506 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \A 'u , 1,2,v, Date: 9/27/04 • Agenda Item 7Q 136 AGENDA ITEM 7R • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 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 receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update Congress is likely to pass yet another short-term extension of the Federal Transportation Act by the end of September. With the upcoming elections, this means that a multi -year reauthorization well have to start over with the next Congress in 2005. While Congress is expected to reconvene for a "lame duck" session after the election, the actions will most likely be limited to appropriations bills and consideration of a federal transportation authorization act is doubtful. Congress' inaction jeopardizes more than $20 billion in federal transportation funds that could have been made available if legislation would have been passed that is similar to the Senate's version of the bill (S.1072). To further complicate the matter, the issue of ethanol taxation is still unresolved. With California's phase -out of the gasoline additive MTBE, ethanol has taken its place. Yet the grain -based product receives federal subsides that allow it to be taxed at a fraction of the 18.3 cents per gallon federal gas tax that is deposited in the state's general fund. When this is combined with the ongoing diversion of state transportation dollars to the General Fund, it's not surprising to find that the California Transportation Commission is not programming funding for new projects. On a more positive note, Congressional awareness and support for funding of goods -movement -related projects in Southern California is increasing. Fourteen Congressional representatives signed on to a letter to Chairman Don Young of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee urging a total of $900 million be Agenda Item 7R 137 allocated to the Alameda Corridor East project and for the funding to be split equally between Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. It would also recognize the Alameda Corridor East as a project of national significance and provide Riverside County with its most significant amount of federal funding for freight -related projects which could be used for grade separations. The letter was signed by all of Riverside County's Congressional delegation and also garnered bi-partisan support from representatives in Los Angeles County. Of course, the approval of this funding depends on the passage of a federal transportation bill. While that might have to wait until next year, having this type of widespread Congressional support on the record at this time establishes a positive precedent in the future. State Update With the conclusion of the Legislative session, Governor Schwarzenegger is now faced with the task of deciding the fate of hundreds of measures that have been approved by the Legislature and placed on his desk. In many cases, he has moved swiftly and sought to protect California's business climate by vetoing a number of bills including an increase in the minimum wage. Two bills of interest to the Commission are Assembly Bill 2948, which would ease the way for SANBAG to offer additional Freeway Service Patrols and SB 18 which deals with CEQA notification requirements regarding Native American tribes. The Commission supported AB 2498 because it will improve the area of coverage for drivers throughout this region. The Governor signed the bill into law on September 21. As for SB 18 the Commission opposed previous versions of the bill that would have made most projects extremely vulnerable to challenges from Native American tribes. The bill was opposed by business interests and governmental organizations such as the League of Cities and numerous local governments. Facing widespread opposition, the bill was amended to remove a number of onerous provisions and was eventually approved by a bi-partisan 2-4 vote in the Assembly and 30-4 in the Senate. The Governor had not decided on SB 18 as of the writing of this staff report. The information will be updated prior to the Commission's meeting on October 13. Attachment: Legislative Matrix • Agenda Item 7R 138 • Legslaticol • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POSITIONS ON ST ATE LEGISLATION UPDATED September 20, 2004 • 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. OPPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED Passed Assembly 52- 24, referred to Senate Natural Resources Committee - DEAD AB 2372 Correa AB 2498 Longville 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. Clarifies state regulations to allow the creation of additional Freeway Service Patrol programs, especially in San Bernardino County Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee -DEAD Passed by Assembly and the Senate and sent to the Go vern or SUPPORT SUPPORT AB 2628 Pavley Would allow hybrid -electric cars to be operated by solo drivers in HOV Lanes Signed by the Governor OPPOSE AB 3007 Plesica Eliminates property acquisition and litigation discussions fr om closed meetings under the Brown Act. Referred to Assembly Local Government Committee - DEAD OPPOSE ACA 7 Dutra Reduces voter threshold for transportation sales tax measures to 55 percent Passed Assembly Elections and Appropriations Committees -DEAD SUPPORT ACA 9 Levine Allows local jurisdictions to approve special taxes for infrastructure pro jects with only a majority v ote. The bill includes a number of restrictions and specifications on how this could be imposed . Passed Assembly L ocal Government and Appr opriations Committees -DEAD ACA 11 Levine Lowers the v oter threshold to 55 percent for local bond measures for specified infrastructure projects. Passed Assembly L ocal Go vernment and Appropriations Committees -DEAD 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 -DEAD 139 Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee — DEAD SUPPORT ACA 21 Bogh & Spitzer Raises Legislative threshold for the suspension of Proposition 42 to a 4/5ths vote 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 - DEAD SUPPORT ACA 29 Harman (Coauthor: Benoit) SB 18 Burton 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 . Establishes changes to the CEQA project for traditional tribal cultural sites Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee - DEAD Amended Significantly and Approved by both houses and sent to the Governor SUPPORT OPPOSE SB 87 Hollingsworth SB 380 McClintock and Murray SB 541 Torlakson Would relinquish part of State Route 79 to the City of Temecula . Requires Caltrans to e valuate 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 alternativ es 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. Indexes the state gas tax to ensure that it increases with inflation. Signed by the Go vernor Passed Senate Transportation Committee and is now Senate Appropriations Suspense File . - DEAD Failed passage in Senate Transportation. Reconsideration has been granted . SUPPORT 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 SCA 2 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 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. " Signed by the Governor Passed Senate Transportation and Constitutional Amendments Committees. -DEAD SUPPORT SEEK AMEND MENTS • •40 • • 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 Appr opriations — Hearing date pending - DEAD Position SUPPORT 141 AGENDA ITEM 7S • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: $15 Million Surface Transportation Program Rehabilitation Projects (STP) Call For BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMM/TTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the criteria for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) Call for Rehabilitation Projects; and, 2) Authorize staff to release the call for rehabilitation projects in November 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On January 14, 2004, the Commission approved the use of TEA 21 Reauthorization Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to replace approximately $40 million of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP). This action was in response to the Commissions' direction to backfill the STIP projects that were impacted by the state funding crisis. The recommendation also consisted of earmarking $15 million of TEA 21 Reauthorization STP funds specifically for rehabilitation projects. Previous STP programming (from ISTEA and TEA 21) consisted of funding rehabilitation projects for local agencies. This was discontinued as a result of the state funding crisis and the Commissions priority to backfill previously committed STIP projects. However, given the suspension of Proposition 42 funding, the local agencies' reliance on funding rehabilitation projects with STP funds was even greater. The RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) established a sub -committee that met in July and September to define the parameters and develop evaluation criteria for the upcoming call for projects. The TAC subcommittee recommended establishing two levels of criteria. Local agencies will be required to submit Agenda Item 7S 142 projects to RCTC that meet Tier 1 criteria as noted below. Projects meeting Tier I criteria will be reviewed by RCTC for concurrence and then Tier 11 criteria will be applied, which is the distribution of the STP funds based on a combination of road miles and population for each local agency. STP Rehabilitation Criteria TIER 1 Criteria • Projects must be on the Federal -aid highway system (i.e. on any highways, including NHS and Interstate Highways that are not functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors) or on bridges (including bridges on public roads of all functional classifications). • Projects must be rehabilitation and/or consist of other maintenance needs within the roadway right-of-way (e.g. curb, gutter, loop detector replacement as a result of rehabilitation work, and sidewalk improvements including ADA requirements). • Funds must be programmed for construction. • Projects must be evaluated at the local level and only high priority rehabilitation projects are to be submitted (PMS score/factor or other qualified ranking system must be identified in submittal). • Local match (minimum of 11.47% programmed in construction) must be committed by local agency and a copy of the city council/county board minute action must be included in the submittal. TIER 11 Criteria Projects meeting the Tier I criteria will receive funding based on a combination of road miles and population. Target allocations for each agency are included in Attachment A. The criteria recommended for this call for projects meets the federal requirements for sub -allocating STP funds. Tier 1 criteria is based on a competitive evaluation of projects at the local level, which ensures high priority projects are funded throughout the County. Tier 11 criteria distributes the funds relative to the demand on the arterial system and ensures road rehabilitation/maintenance improvements are implemented throughout the countywide arterial system. RCTC encourages local agencies to spread the programming of rehabilitation funds over a three-year time period starting with fiscal year 2005/06. Given the project schedules provided by the local agencies, RCTC will use its discretion in project programming. Close monitoring of the status of projects will need to occur so that projects can be delivered as scheduled and programmed in the RTIP. RCTC staff will make every effort to advance projects if possible. • • • Agenda Item 7S 143 • • • It should be noted that the County continues to receive annual allocations for rural roads, as specified in TEA 21 legislation, in addition to the target allocation from this $15 million call for rehabilitation projects. Caltrans takes these rural funds off - the -top of the total Riverside County STP allocation. The amount is equivalent to pre-ISTEA levels, which is $1 .2 million annually. Attachment: Agency Allocation Tier II Calculation Agenda Item 7S 144 Attachment A Agency Allocation Tier II Calculation $15 Million STP Rehabilitation CaII for Projects Agencies Recommended Agency Allocation Agency Allocation Agency Allocation (Avg. of Road Mile & Per Road Mile Per 2000 Census 2000 Census Pop.) $ 185,575 $ $ 138,611 Banning Beaumont ,- Blythe 228,700 ,1.9,497 117,980 69,29 96,597 $ 207,138 1`5,456 128,296 Canyon Lake Coachella ;;Corona: Desert Hot Springs Hemet Indian Wells 4,876 $ $ 175,158 $ 230,168 $ 160,950 $ 220,566 E7 $ 35,142 33,245 $ 37,039 Lake Elsinore $ 341,207 $ La Quint ; 227;055 Moreno Valley $ 1,368,353 $ Norco Nor 1�,� _ esert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Rivers)E San Jacinto Temecula ;` Unincorporated ,308,294 191,249 $ 580,551 $ 186,395 $ 128,599 $ 157,497 50,737 043106 197,862 195,559 280,784 1,381,994 234,475 415,498 51,2 $ 310,996 228,523 $ 1,375,174 fi; 369,055< $ 212,862 328,884 $ 274, 17191 230,806 209 Total • 5,821,845 $ 15,000,000 $ $ 279,845 4,164,288 $ 4,993,067 15,000,000 $ 15,000,000 AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Consideration of a Sound Wall Issue on the State Route 60 East Junction 1-215 to Redlands Boulevard STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Consider a request for a sound wall by property owners that live adjacent to Route 60 in Moreno Valley; and, 2) Respectfully deny the request based on previous Commission precedents and regarding sound walls. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission is currently widening State Route 60 (East Junction 1-215 to Redlands Blvd.) through the City of Moreno Valley. The State Route 60 project, funded with Western County Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) funds matched with Measure "A" dollars, adds a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane on the freeway in each direction. As mitigation for project impacts, sound walls are being constructed at various locations along the project. Subsequent to finalizing the project environmental document, 2002, and near the end of roadway construction, a sound wall issue was raised by a group of 30 homeowners whose backyards are elevated above SR 60 on the north side of the freeway, between Perris Boulevard and Nason Street Interchanges. As part of the federal process to complete the environmental phase for the SR 60 project, noise studies were performed for all sensitive receptors (in this case, homes). As part of the noise study, sound measurements were taken and evaluated. The results demonstrated that 18 areas representing approximately 18,000 linear feet of sound walls were eligible to receive consideration for sound wall construction. Federal law requires that all highway capacity increasing projects must consider noise impacts and the mitigation of those impacts, if any, in the environmental phase for the project. Agenda Item 8 146 Following the determination of eligibility for sound walls, there are several additional tests which the federal process requires of the project sponsor (RCTC). The two tests are "feasible" and "reasonable". The first step is a determination of whether or not an effective sound wall can be built either on the Caltrans right of way or private property. An example of an infeasible location to mitigate noise is on elevated freeway to freeway interchange ramps. In the case of the SR 60 project, all qualified walls were determined to be "feasible". The next test of "reasonable" is then applied. The reasonableness test is an assessment that the cost of constructing the wall is cost effective in accordance with the cost basis in effect at that time. The cost basis for noise attenuation for this project, at the time of approval, was approximately $23,000 to $35,000 per residence. After applying the "reasonable" criteria, it was determined that of the 18 qualified sound walls, 14 were determined to be reasonable (including the subject area). Four walls exceeded their reasonable cost basis and were not proposed to be built. The range of cost for those walls determined to not be reasonable was $50,900 to $113,500 per residence. The final requirement to qualify a sound wall is a vote of the impacted property owners. In the case of a sound wall built on State property, the voting threshold for approving the wall is 50% + 1 of the property owners adjacent to the wall in order to move forward. To qualify a sound wall to be constructed on private property, the voting threshold for approving the wall requires 100% of the impacted property owners to vote "yes" for the construction of the wall. In this case, the sound wall that is being sought would have to be constructed on private property. It is located on the north side of SR 60, just east of Perris Boulevard, off of Elder Avenue. Because the homes are on land that is elevated above the level of the freeway, a sound wall located on the State right of way would not effectively mitigate noise impacts. The only way to effectively mitigate the noise impact is to construct the wall on the property owners' land, requiring an approval vote of 100% of the property owners. Unfortunately, of the 30 property owners, 2 voted no, 10 did not respond, and 18 voted yes. Given the lack of the required 100% support, a sound wall was not considered for construction. Staff has been informed that Charles White, RCTC Alternate Commissioner from the City of Moreno Valley, and several of the home owners will be present at the October 13, 2004 Commission meeting to appeal their situation. The property owners have secured support for a sound wall from all 30 affected property owners after the finalization of the environmental document and very near the completion of the project this fall. • Agenda Item 8 147 • • • Staff has the following issues/concerns regarding this request: • In order to meet the request of these property owners, either the existing environmental document would have to be reopened with an environmental reassessment or a new environment document prepared. In the former case, the highway project will have been completed prior to the environmental reassessment being undertaken. • The Commission has previously received requests for construction of sound walls at various locations adjacent to the regional highway system. This will likely set a precedent leading to new requests or requests to reconsider prior actions and fund other sound walls. This could include another sound wall on private property in the current Route 60 improvement project that did not qualify due to not receiving a 100% "yes" vote during the process and a sound wall on Route 91, near California Baptist University, which was initially rejected by the school. • While it is difficult to predict the Commission's financial exposure from setting the precedent that noise mitigation for a project should remain open after the environmental document is approved, staff believes the exposure is well beyond $10 million and may be in the range of tens of millions of dollars with no identified funding source. • If the project is no longer viewed as being mitigation for the SR 60 project, the current State Route 60 HOV lane widening funding sources (Federal CMAQ and Measure "A") will no longer be eligible as funding sources. If this is the case, the only way to build a sound wall at this site will be to seek funding from another source. The Commission will continually add many sound walls through Riverside County as new projects are built to widen existing freeways. As an example, sound walls were added adjacent to SR 91 between Mary Street and Magnolia Street in Riverside in 2002 with the addition of HOV lanes. Given the wide scope of freeway improvements in the Measure "A" program, the Commission's emphasis should be placed on ensuring that the current sound wall evaluation process is continued on future projects. While staff and the Commissioners are sympathetic to the plight of these property owners, staff recommends that the Commission respectfully reject the appeal. Attachments: 1) Project Maps Showing the 30 Homes in Question 2) Letters Regarding the Subject Sound Wall Agenda Item 8 148 DATE REV /SE0 re a 3� a ♦6. Cal ro a U CH ECKED BY r aSC NOTE* FOR C R/W AN0 ACCURATE ACCESS DATA, SEE R/W ORMAPS AT DISTRICT OFFICE. N J V REMOVE. CONCRETE ARRIER (TYPE R1 • fl LINE .5„ •E DATA R 3040. 778 A 16'00'30 .1" ? REMOv CONOR EFE- 428 .564 851 .545 '. MR 30 . 5 m--FUNaTE 60 CONFOR M . - • o • ALL DIAENSIONS ARE IN METERS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN 019T COU NT , t i `ro4"Aoj sir mwRSIN C01LRY IR4WSORTIIO N C4W65UN 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE . SUITE 04 RIYEASIOC, CAL ICORNI4 92501 L NARVER . INC . 999 TONN L COUNTRY 4040 00.90E. Ca 90664 I4 SrWs r WNW or Ns draws a, apps ~NO ta '_.4.• En 0. as ola w n m1We'nw aI warn * alto of ms Om MAI NZ S HEET • TOY . SHE/ u, L.cc-A'rlc LAYOUT SCALE 1:500 L-13 149 NOTES FOR COMPLETE R/W ANO ACCURATE ACCESS DATA, SEE R/W RECORD MAPS AT OISTRICT OFFICE. l9 3 CURVE DATA LINE A T 304T.TTB (8'00'30.1^ 428,564 851 .545 pyEfV(jF REMOVE CONC ._ '.-HARRIMCN--F: .PE M1 —__._ --. __4_. _._.,.�... ____-•_ _. .�., .. ,. ..._..^--. .� ._ _Y.. .. A te• — y7 �„ ._ -••• • .- ter"_... . • *-S41c .,T �Y_ �_ _._ . , . •• 11 - 1 f I —r -;.._ tr I -i f 1 atria ■ CONFORM . o 0151 09 Ai DT Pk0 CDCTT R20. 48/32. T6 REGISTERED CIVIL ENOI xEER ' 0,11)iE9 LUT MOM PLANS APPRO VAL DATE RMUMIi C 0 A/ t 1AAN$PORTATtN COVNISS.00 Ea c•IZ-31-07 3550 UNIVERSI TT AVE NUE . SNITS 100CALM/ARIACIVIL �- RIVERSIDE. CALM/ARIA 92501 ROf cAA"� NOLUES L NARVER. INC . 994 TURN 1 0000191 8010 ORANGE, CA 92195 Zh Snf, Or COKyN. Y KS QYimli o, o grot +o, e el 1 ,amtwh >b fb smraY m mow'/mar d WCrWc MTW d IN, Ono OW. C r'_ T9•050-009 A ,1 > \% '. . .�' A75-050-008—YY..'' '15 -Q$O 0ot'1• �� . `' 47 15.b06 '' 87-5005,,± 479-650-004 t 50 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS UNLESS OTHER WISE SHOWN • 0 01 VO N LAYOUT SCALE 11500 L-14 CIS COU NTY ROUTE AIL R EV ISED BY OAIE REV IS ED 2 om `z rN sa 0 W u 0 a kS pi g NOTE: FOR CORM AND ACCURATE ACCESS DATA. SEE R/9 ORD MAPS AT 015TR ICT OFFICE . Qr N V1 WZ 1 - 1' r-' ! i' 1, 1- ` I,,. p' i ITT' 1-7-.. I y:C ate: f CURVE DA7A • LINE R O L 22858.332 0 .22'55 .1" 76.194 152.387 - -. REMOVE C01iREL _ 5M No. 269 ON`'. BARRIER {TYPE i. - — - — AET-•Miittr• t -E69'*. ... . • w' C'^"""1p"R•T-r'4 "`'y SN.Y,k1EAD — BOULEVARO t 7—'7- , -. .--In �. �./ �i; :.- -_- - �„ i ; > / li\ BRAD IFUAY PLACE APARTMS • •30.3 • �.l -47'423-021 10TH NEI O8 Rlv R20. 48/32.76 NEOI STEREO GII -1101 PL ANS APPROVAL PATE NMI= COINIY TdIRPORTAM*N C010000ON 3560 UNIVERSITY AVE NUE . S UITE 100 RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 00501 NOLMES i NA14001 . INC. 999 T0141 6 C OUNTRY ROAR ORANGE. CA 52666 N.** 0' tS dT&04 r UM or nrI r a *0* a r eNNr6Y fir ND roomy r NwheraR r PW * NNW Or 044 PN 0 « .v, Tc 4o. a� 479-44,3:022 479 -A23 -02'F117.423'01',4!9-423-.025, ,479-423-026 029-423-027 . CONFORM _ a '. — _ AV- E NC . -269 ON-..- RET "MAL•b .. .N o.--269 H .4.2mti4'I "'•• `- .L'!6 FEET HIGH • Cod, 6 - 2_1_1,3 4 m T. C 2.4 Oq � �+ g, pOp t g .. � iitT" NC BARFCi FTAPER . - ' • F ` r,� 479 362 008 4 g4g 363 042 _ ♦ .'..1 »1 T -r , 47 479=050.001 cc'-,# T ... 479.36Z:,R ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS UNLESS OTHER WISE 5HOw N LAYOUT 5C4tE Io500 L-15 151 68724 BH, GQ, EH City Council City Hail 14177 Frederick Sweet P O. Box 88005 Moreno Malley CA 92552-0805 Phoney 909.413.3008 Fax 909.413.3760 www.mortno-valley.ca.us July 27, 2004 Eric Haley Executive Director, RCTC PO Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Subject: SR 60 HOV Lanes Project Sound Wall No. 264 Dear Eric: -EctlWIE JUL 2 9 2004 ma43ElailiggamYissicti 1 9 Thank you for giving of your time and knowledge to myself and the 30 residents that reside on Elder Ave., Moreno Valley on July 8, 2004. The residents are very appreciative and are glad to know that someone is paying attention to their concerns. I also want to thank you for the documentation provided me by Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator, RCTC. I have been in contact with Mr. Rodney Bennett, 25441 Elder Ave., on a regular basis since the meeting of July 8. Mr. Bennett has spoken to all the neighbors and has received unanimous agreement, backed up with signatures, that the sound wail is not only wanted but needed to attenuate the noise element that Is produced by the continual flow of traffic on SR 60. Having visited Mr. Bennett's home with me, I'm sure you will agree that the situation as it now stands is an untenable one for the residents. Eric, I have reviewed the documentation and it brings 3 questions to mind, which I asked of the homeowners and now pose the same questions to RCTC and CALTRANS: 1. Were the homeowners advised, in writing, by anyone connected with the project that the sound wall was to be built on homeowner's property? I am advised by the homeowners that no such notification was received in writing or otherwise. 2. Were the homeowners aware of the 2 "no votes" prior to the decision to not erect the sound wall? The homeowner's have advised me that they knew nothing until the letter of denial was received by them. Charles R White Richard A. Stewart District 1 District B.1.18.7 Frank West Bonnie Flickinger Willioin H. Boxy 1l District 3 District 4 District 5 T52 3. Were the homeowner's offered the opportunity to persuade the no voters and the non -responders to render a yes vote? The homeowner's advised that they had no chance to appeal or address the sound wall action taken by the deciding authority. With the above questions and answers received from the homeowners, it appears due process was not totally offered to the homeowners for the following reasons: • The homeowners having not been aware that the wall was to have been built on their property were of the opinion that a majority vote was all that was needed. • The homeowners were not made aware of the dire consequences of the 2 "no votes" and therefore a right of appeal was not afforded them. .. . rt bq:Og, liven an appeal -process they were unable to seek ajchange of the no dotes and to persuade the non -responders. I am aware of budgetary problems facing all levels of government. However, with the money having originally been budgeted for this project it appears the Oilers should still be available. 1 also understand that this project is scheduled for completion at the end of this year or early next year. Also, that this is a Federal project with the lead agency being CALTRANS and RCTC disbursing the funds as required. With that said, I recommend the Riverside County Transportation Commission and CALTRANS reopen this project and build the sound wall as originally planned. Respectfully Yours, Cha e `. r hate; man City of Moreno Va ey Cc: Annie Mey = r, CALTRANS Tony Louk : , CALTRANS Moreno Va ley City Council Gene Rog , City Manager Rodney Bennett, Resident Homeowner • • • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 AlkRESTRICT DIRECFOR (MS 1201) WEST 4'h STREET, 6`h FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400 PHONE (909) 383-6385 FAX (909) 3834494 TTY (909) 383.6300 • • August 4, 2004 Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Conunission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Dear Mr. 68776 r DEC C DV AUGill 062004 TAR f risspoN Flan your power! Be enemy efficient, D We have reviewed Moreno Valley Councilman Charles White's letter regarding freeway noise from State Route 60 along Elder Avenge in Moreno Valley. The following are our responses to his comments: 1. Were the homeowners advised, in writin, by anyone connected with the project that the soundwall was to be built on homeowner's property? Yes. The affected property owners were sent a letter and a voting form from Riverside County Transportation Commission in ber 2001. The letter indicated that one hundred percent approval by all aff property owners is needed to authorize construction of a soundwall on private perty. 2. Were the homeowners aware of the two "no votes" prior to the decision to not erect the soundwall? No. The votes are confidential. 3. Were the homeowners offered the opprtunity to persuade the no voters and the non -responders to render a yes vote? No. The votes are confidential to participants. Because the soundwall was not included project to provide the soundwall would co Program as a "retrofit" soundwall. inpnaver tect the integrity of the process and the part of the current project, any subsequent under the Community Noise Abatement B.1.18.7 03-31-052 Mr. Eric Haley August 4, 2004 Page 2 • Based on available funding and if reasonable and feasible, the soundwall would compete for finding with other eligible soundwalls in Riverside County. Again, one hundred percent of the affected property owners mutt agree to have the soundwall built on their properties. If you have farther questions, please call Mt. Tony Louka, Office Chief, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 383-6385. Sincerely, ANNE MAYER District Director c: Tony Louka, CA Department of Transportation Moreno Valley City Council Gene Rogers, Moreno Valley City M Rodney Bennett, Resident Homeowner "CabInwes Impr ws mobility across coda 155 City Council Gay tti,n 14171 Frexksick Surer I? O. Box 88005 Moreno Valley. CA G552-0805 Phone: 909 .413 . 3008 fax 909.413.37#x0 wwvionorrrno valley.CO.0 August 10, 2004 Department of Transportation District Director (MS;241) 464 W. 4' St, 6`4 Floor Sari Eretnardino, CA 92401-1400 Re: Councilman Charles White's Letter July 27, 2004. ( Elder Ave Sound Wall) Dear Ms Mayer, 1 am in receipt of your letter of August 4, 2004 in response to the above subject and would lie to thank you for your quick reply. However,1 do not believe that question #1 in my later was addressed sufficiently; Question: "Were the homeowners advised, in writing, by anyone connected with the project that the sound wall was to be built on homeowners property?" Your response: "Yes. The affected property owners were sent a letter and a voting form from Riverside County Transportation Corwnission in October 2001. The letter indicated that one hundred percent approval by all affected property owners is needed to authori= construction of sound wall on private property". Letter of October 17, 2001 to which you refer, Par 2. " Please note that your vote is iniportant as 51% of the property owners votes are needed to construct a sound wall if the wall is constructed on State right-of-way. If the sound wall is proposed on private property, a 100% approval is needed to construct the wall" Par 3. "Please note that the proposed wall locations are preliminary as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has not reviewed and approved the Noise Report for the HOV lanes project". Clacks R. White Richard A. $lcwart Prink Vdest Bonnie Ftiatij CT 'Awtlli m H. sum 1f District] District Dtststa3 District District 156 No where in the letter or on the voting form that was provided the homeowners did it say "the sound wall is to be constructed on your property" The homeowners are 1ef1 to guess what their voting requirement is, 51% or 100%; And, paragraph 3 of the October 17 letter leaves doubt as to where the wall is to be located. As regards this confidentiality of the votes I agree totally_ However, I believe that without identifying the dissenting voters the home owners could have been given appropriate notice that they were about to lose the wall, with the reason therefore, and given an opportunity of 30 days in which they might contact ail the homeowners involved and attempt to rectify a negative situation. I do not believe the previous vote would have butt jeopardized in any way, Ms. Mayer, 1 still believe there is sufficient cause to reopen sound wall project #264 and erect the sound wall as originally plaemed for the reasons I have given above. However, i1 as you suggest, we have to participate in a Community Noise Abatement Program as a retrofit sound wall what, other than the 100% participation, will be required of the involved homeowners and who would initiate the retrofit program? Also, how manly years are we talking about? Respectfully "Yours, es ` * 'te, Z:ounailman City of Moreno Valley cc: Eric Haley, ROTC Tony Louka, CALTRANS MV City Council Gene Rosen, City Manager Rodney Bennett, Resident Owner • 157 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 DISTRICT DIRECTOR (MS 1201) 464 WEST 4* STREET, 6th FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400 • PHONE (909) 383-4055 FAX (909) 3$36239 TTY (909) 383-6300- • August 25, 2004 The Honorable Charles R. White Councilmember, City of Moreno Valley City Hail 14177 Frederick Street Moreno Valley, CA 9►2552.0805 Dear C.ounci member White: 68964 BH, HS, EH DEPOEDWIE in AUG 27 20011 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Rex yewporter, Be energy cifielanl This is in response to your recut letter requesting additional .h formation regarding soundwall number 264 along State Route 60 (SR -60) and Eider Avenue in Moreno Valley. 1 hope this clarifies the situation, The . Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) . and the California. Department of Transportation (Department) sent a letter on .October 17, 2001, to all potentially affected first -line noise receptors .within the overall project limits. Please note, the letter was sent to .all property owners affected by each of : the fourteen soundwalls that were under consideration to be constructed for the SR -60 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Project, not just to those involved . with the decision to construct soundwall number 264. As such, the letter addressed the possibility of soundwalls constructed on state right of way, as well as soundwails that would need to be constructed on private property. This is why the letter included the statement that a fifty-one percent approval vote would be needed to construct a . soundwall on state right .of way and a one hundred= percent :approval vote would be needed to construct a soundwall on private property. The Letter also indicated the need for the Federal Highway AchniniStra*ion (FHWA) to approve the locations of the soundwalls. The approval of location is not with respect to whether or not the soundwalls would be located on state or private property, as suggested in your letter. The FWHA approval refers to whether each of the proposed soundwalls along the project alignment would meet the federal standards for being both reasonable and feasible. Eachwall was evaluated separately and if it did not meet the required criteria, the wall wouldnot be constructed. The same letter also advised of a November 1, 2001,, public meeting in Moreno Valley. At that meeting, the public was informed as to where the soundwalls were to be located 'Colima improves mobility acme Car " 158 B.1.18.5 The Honorable Charles ILWhite August 25, 2004 Page 2 and whether or not they would be on .state right of way or on private property.. The letter also advised the public that if they could not attend the public meeting, they should call Mr. Tony Louka, Office Chief, Environmental Engineering, for specific information pertaining to their properties. Based on information gained at the public meeting and/or through a telephone call with Mr.: Louka, the public was expected to, make an informed decision regarding provision of a soundwall and to vote accordingly. Sign -in sheets from the public meeting indicate eleven of the residents along Elder Avenue attended the public meeting. The results of the vote were sent via letter to those. affected by soundwall number 264 in April 2002, some six months after the public notification and vote. Affected homeowners had more than ample time to discuss and consult on the issue. Nonetheless, the one hundred percent compliance was not achieved The SR -60 HOV Project is funded with Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program and Measure "A" finds. Neither of these sources is currently available for use on a "stand alone" soumdwall project. While it is up to RCTC whether or not to implement and fund a Community Noise Abatement Program for "retrofit" soundwalls in Riverside County, it is our understanding that due to funding constraints and other transportation priorities, RCTC does not have an active program at this time. Our information on the construction dates of the affected residences shows all were constructed in the 1980s, well after construction of SR -60, As such, these residences would not be eligible_ to participate in a Community Noise Abatement Program; even if. there was one. The Department will continue to provide technical support and freeway noise abatement expertise to the City of Moreno Valley. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this issue, please contact Mr. Steven Keel, Deputy District Director, Environmental Planning, at (909) 388-7725. Sincerely, Original db,4NIMEAV R ANNE MAYER District Director Attachment c: Eric Haley, Riverside County Transportation Commission: Gene Rogers,. City of Moreno Valley "Cahrans Lipman nobility avow California" • 159 September 2, 2004 • • • Rodney Bennett 25441 Elder Ave Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Subject: Soandwall Meeting 8-31-2004 Dear Mr. Bennett, On Tncsday August 31, 2004 I meet with Caltrans Director Annie Mayer and Deputy Director Steven L. Keel, and RCTC Executive Director, Erik Haley and Deputy Director, Hideo Sugita to discuss the possibility of reconsidering continuation of construction of soundwall number 264 that was to be located behind the affected 30 homes on Elder Ave. After much discussion and some give and take it was concluded that it is possible to reopen the project u a new project which would have to start at square 1. That means Envitoanental Impact Report (EIR), Request for proposal to construct (RFP), accepting fair market value for lend and providing right of way (ROW) for access to construct and maintain the wail. However, approval for the reconsideration mutt come from the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). It is the ROTC Commissions sole determination weaver or not a new project will be authorized. To that end 1 will present, along with I. or 2 of the homeowners representatives, to the RCTC COMMitifti021 on October 13, 2004 our request to authorize the new project and, to appropriate the funds to do so. If the RCTC Commission authorizes and appropriates the hinds to undertake this new project it is understood by everyone, that all homeowners (100%) will have signed an agreement that includes the following: • Agree to allow Caltrans personnel, representatives and contractors to enter upon their property for purposes of constructing the noise barrier and all other related work. • Agree to allow Caltrans personnel and representatives to enter upon their property with appropriate prior notification for the purpose of periodic inspection or structural repair of the barrier. • Agree to accept aesthetic maintenance responsibility of their respective portion of the noise barrier upon its completion, and that the barriers initial aesthetic qualities will be perpetuated. • Agree not to remove the noise barrier without IWI consent of all other affected property owners and Caltrans. • Agree that the contract provisions will be a permanent burden upon the property involved. The District Right of Way Branch will determine specific wording which, as a minimum, should include these provisions: "The term of this +contract shall be a burden which runs with the land, and shall inure and be binding upon the successors, assigns or transferees of the property owner." "The undersigned knowingly waives the right to just compensation." (When Appropriate) All parties to the contract must agree to record the document in the official record of the appropriate County Recorders office. 160 Rodney, please pass this on to the other affected homeowners and let them know that this letter will be discussed at our meeting on September 9.1 assumed we will be meeting at your home. If I have assumed incorrectly please tat me know. A word of caution; It will only take one homeowner to flinch or to not agree with the above to have this ,chance lost forever. The -moment we have a negative all bets arc off and we can forget the soundwall. Mr. Stevan Keel, Deputy Director, Calmar will join us on September 9a. He will be able to answer many questions regarding the soundwall. Sincerely. Charles White Councihnan • 161 69174 EH, HS, NK, BH City Council City Ball 14177 Frederick Street P O. Box 88005 Moreno Valley, CA 92552-0805 -'- Phone: 909.413.3008 4-4. •Aside • � Fax: 909. 413.3760 wwwrrtoreno-valleycc us September 11, 2004 • Eric Haley Executive Director, RCTC PO Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Subject:. SR 60 HOV Lanes Project Soundwall No ..264 Dear Eric, 13)ECEEVEll 311 sEP 142004 RNERSCE COMM TRANSPORTATION I0N At the conclusion of our meeting on August 31, 20041 arranged to meet again with the homeowners on Elder Ave on September 9, 2004 as 1 had indicated 1 would. Attending the meeting in addition to the homeowners were your Deputy Director, Hideo Sugita, Caltrans Deputy Director, Steven Keel and his assistant, Tony Luka. The discussion was not much different than previous discussions other than the homeowners are very much aware of and willing to accept the normal requirements of ingress and egress for ROW during construction and future maintenance of the soundwall and will accept fair market value for any property that may be required. Eric, 1 would like to appear before the RCTC meeting of October 13, 2004 along with 2 representatives of the homeowners to plead our case for reopening and funding the project. For the information of the Commissioners 1 am enclosing copies of letters that have transpired between RCTC, Caltrans and myself. Respectfully, Charles R. White, Councilman, District #1 City of Moreno Valley Enclosures: 1. Letter July 27, 2004 2. Letter August 4, 2004 3. Letter August 10, 2004 4. Letter August 25, 2004 5. Letter September 2, 2004 03-31-052 b.01.18.07 Charles R. White Richard A. Stewart Frank West Bonnie Flickinger William H. Fatey, 11 District 1 Dtsitrkt 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 162 DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE B1� RD Speakers shall co mplete the follo wing: PUBLIC COMMENTS: O SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: A GENDA ITEM NO.: (A S LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: :7 IA as A DDRESS: 2,942A aAcc.. „ Street City SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC/nk 10/03 LJ\)E Name of Gro up TEL . NO.: DATE: 2D TEL. NO. : (-)..1---9\LA, \})\ \1011\\ 2,j k 87 ,,51 Zip C ode DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Speakers shall complete the following: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS: D ATE:? P— /,3— O (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) AGENDA ITEM NO. : �r SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: ,Se, avd !�/,c // /(/ � /'' ,� NA ME: ADDRESS: le de,C /3 Street TEL . NO .: �f,- 3D D G cYf, k 91.2 `1 Sal eel? Zip Code REPRESENTING: e(iteA /`/Ve 9 4;414 ac, ,/,s-'c� Name of Group BUSINESS ADDRESS: TEL . NO.: 01-)'ev L RCTC/nk 10/03 City RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL October 13, 2004 Present Absent fJ- 0 County of Riverside, District I 2 0 County of Riverside, District II 3'l 0 County of Riverside, District 111 ,r2r 0 County of Riverside, District IV 0 County of Riverside, District V ,0' 0 City of Banning ,17./ 0 City of Beaumont 1 0 JL City of Blythe 0 City of Calimesa O City of Canyon Lake 0 D City of Cathedral City ,17 - City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet rY D City of Indian Wells 71- r City of Indio 17r, 0 City of La Quinta ,171- 0 City of Lake Elsinore 171 - 0 City of Moreno Valley 1 0-- City of Norco O City of Murrieta -E D City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs -0' 0 City of Perris a 0. City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside ,I7 0 City of San Jacinto O City of Temecula O Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET October 13, 2004 NAME AGENCY E-MAIL ADDRESS --=—z '"- l / i ) c s le L LJ I L -S -o 6- r-) .DL,V ge-ee (-- f / fr.v/-t WE S I— (' i i4.---vo I% £- iL Con e4- -ems f_az_Gr.f ecz..._cc.X '--,eiii e ardd MvsV",vkC/N /'L 4 r:# //L� G G�CJ /n p4/ e_1 e i P t e„,,,cc, L Ey id -?v 1y c.(4, - {c e P'.v- � lkii, y e 5 e v TL /171•`/e Co20,v/} iu 0 U ,v W1/ Ir ,is L Ho. (� - j 6,,i. „ i,G/ . Xb� c,, .19 / i 1) ti �f , V,, 5 ;tu/'L 5. "114/ A40,11.> Ci7— tiGr7'�J✓L 1/ /