Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 10, 2004 Commission• TIME: • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA RECORDS 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, November 10, 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 Jeff Miller / Jeff Bennett, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer / Mary Roche, City of Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Kelly Seyarto / Jack van Haaster, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Anne Mayer, Director, Caltrans District 8 Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. /f you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. • • • 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, November 10, 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 - October 13, 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 November 10, 2004 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 6A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 2004. 6B. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Overview Page 5 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended September 30, 2004. 6C. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview • Page 7 • This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2004. 6D. RESOLUTION NO. 04-018, "EMPLOYER PICKUP RESOLUTION PRE-TAX PAYROLL DEDUCTION PLAN FOR SERVICE CRED/T PURCHASES (CONTRIBUTION CODE 141" Page 9 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 04-018, "Employer Pickup Resolution Pre -Tax Payroll Deduction Plan for Service Credit Purchases (Contribution Code 14)", to allow an option for its employees to purchase additional service credits using pre-tax dollars. There is no employer contribution towards employee purchasing additional service credits. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 10, 2004 Page 3 • • • 6E. PROJECT STATUS REPORT OF FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDED PROJECTS Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Project Status Report of Federal and State funded projects. Page 13 6F. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES FUNDS SIX-MONTH EXTENSION REQUEST Page 22 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Enhancement Activities Funds Six -Month Extension Request. 6G. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-33-519 (AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO AGREEMENT NO. RO-2128) TO STV INCORPORATED FOR SERVICES RELATED TO THE NEW START APPLICATION FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 25 1) Award Agreement No. 05-33-519 (Amendment No. 9 to Agreement No. RO-2128) to STV Incorporated for additional scope of work related to the final environmental assessment, rerun of SCAG's transit model, update of the New Start application, and BNSF coordination for the Perris Valley Line project for an additional base amount of $548,430; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate an additional $500,000 of STA funds and increase the FY 2004-05 Rail Capital budget to accommodate the allocation; and, 4) Amend the FY 2004-05 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 10, 2004 Page 4 6H. APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. M-24-006 FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA Page 37 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. M-24-006 for the funding reimbursement of State Highway 1 1 1 improvements within the City of La Quinta; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the memorandum of understanding on behalf of the Commission. 61. AMENDMENT TO THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN TO PURCHASE ADVANCED TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEM EQUIPMENT Page 53 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve an amendment to the Riverside Transit Agency's FY 2004-05 Short Range Transit Plan to purchase Advanced Traveler Information System Equipment at a cost of $72,815 in Section 5309 funds. 6J. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY OPERATIONAL EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Page 54 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 October 27, 2004 meeting. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 10, 2004 Page 5 6K. MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 AND FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 CALL FOR PROJECTS - CITY OF CALIMESA AND CARE CONNEXXUS Page 61 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $30,000 to the City of Calimesa and $65,000 to Care Connexxus, Inc., in Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds available in western Riverside County; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 05-26-521 for City of Calimesa and Agreement No. 05-26-522 for Care Connexxus, Inc., on behalf of the Commission. 6L. APPROVE THE FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 05-45-520 BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Page 65 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 05-45-520 between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program in the amount of $1,071,368 in State funding for FY 2004-05; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6M. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 73 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 November 10, 2004 Page 6 6N. AUTHORIZATION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR A WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Page 91 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize the development and release of a Request for Proposal for the purpose of performing a Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. 60. SURPLUS OF PERRIS WYE PROPERTY Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 94 1) Declare the property identified as the Perris Wye Property, a portion of APN 313-271-018, as surplus, as shown on the attached parcel map; 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. 7. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND TRANSPORTATION MEASURES UPDATE Page 96 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the update on State and Federal Legislation and the results of the transportation measures on the ballot for November 2nd as an information item. 8. PRESENTATION — TUMF REVENUE PROJECTIONS Page 102 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenue Projections and presentation prepared by David Taussig and Associates, Inc. 9. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 10, 2004 Page 7 Ili 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 • • Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners - See List of Property Owners Item APN Owner 1 347-1 10-072 347-110-073 Rachel Schwenn 2 347-110-033 Norma Federow 3 347-1 10-057 347-110-059 347-110-070 347-110-077 Nicolas and Kathryn Abood 4 347-110-011 Robert Hildom 5 347-110-010 Eleanor Armstong and Barbara Page 6 347-1 10-030 James and Michael Duffy 7 347-110-016 347-110-018 347-1 10-023 347-1 10-029 347-110-031 Adel Abusamra 8 347-1 10-063 347-110-065 Adel Abusamra Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 10, 2004 Page 8 12. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, December 8, 2004, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • • • AGENDA ITEM 4 • Minutes • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Roy Wilson at 9:02 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Roger Berg Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy Byrd Jeff Comerchero Juan DeLara Frank Hall Terry Henderson Hank Hohenstein Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Bob Magee Paul Marchand Anne Mayer Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Shenna Moqeet Ronald Oden Kelly Seyarto John F. Tavaglione Jim Venable Jack Wamsley Art Welch Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain Ron Meepos Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 2 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Miller/Byrd) to approve of the September 8, 2004 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Comerchero, Oden 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR THE RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO UZA Tanya Love, Program Manager, reviewed the request to amend the Commuter Rail Program and Riverside Transit Agency's Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) to reprogram FTA Section 5307 and LTF funds. She noted that no written or verbal comments have been received regarding the proposed projects. At this time, Chairman Wilson opened the public hearing. No comments were received from the public and the Chairman closed the public hearing. M/S/C (Venable/Tavaglione) to approve the following Public Hearing items: 6A. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM 1) Approve the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5307 Program of Projects for the Riverside/San Bernardino UZA; 2) Direct staff to add additional funding for the Perris Valley Line Extension to the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; and, 3) 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. e • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 3 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 1) 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; 2) Reprogram $66,000 in Local Transportation Funds from capital to operating to cover the cost to conduct two benefit studies; and, 3) Approve the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5307 Program of Projects for the Riverside/San Bernardino UZA. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (M. Wilson/Lowe) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Contracts Cost and Schedule report for the months of June, July, and August 2004. 7B. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT 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 Approve the budget amendment of $9,206,667 for Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Expenditures. 7D. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. 24-005 WITH SCAG FOR FUNDING PARTICIPATION REQUEST FOR HEAVY DUTY TRUCK MODEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 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 Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 4 7E. RIVERSIDE COUNTY -ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY (MIS) MOBILITY PROBLEM AND PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT 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 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 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. 7H. FISCAL YEARS 1997 THROUGH 2003 CAPITAL PROJECTS STATUS REPORT 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 5 • • • 71. FARE BOX RECOVERY POLICY Approve the Fare Box Recovery Policy. 7J. MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT TAXI DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 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. 7K. 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 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 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. 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 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 Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 6 7N. AMENDMENT TO MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF MORENO VALLEY AND PALM DESERT 1) Amend the FY 2004 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Moreno Valley; and, 2) Amend the FY 2005-2009 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert. 70. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-45-518 FOR DIGITAL CELLULAR SERVICE FOR CALL BOX PROGRAM 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 Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 7Q. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 05-14-515 TO AMEND THE RCTC/SANBAG CONTRACT FOR SHARED FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES 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 Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 7 7S. $15 MILLION SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) CALL FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS 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. 8. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SOUNDWALL ISSUE ON THE STATE ROUTE 60 EAST JUNCTION 1-215 TO REDLANDS BOULEVARD Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager and RCTC Consultant, reviewed the State Route 60 HOV project, outlining the process used to determine if noise mitigation is feasible and reasonable for the project. He explained the final requirement to qualify a soundwall is a vote of the impacted property owners and the voting threshold necessitated by the type of property. He reviewed the request from Commission Alternate and Moreno Valley Councilmember Charles White to reconsider the project decision to not provide noise mitigation for 30 homes located on Elder Avenue, east of Perris Boulevard and north of SR 60, highlighting the following information: • The voting threshold for approving the subject soundwall requires 100% of impacted property owners to vote 'yes'. • 18 property owners voted 'yes', 2 votes 'no', 10 did not respond. • Letters were mailed to property owners on October 17, 2001, including notification of an opportunity for construction of a soundwall at the rear of the property, schedule for public meeting, a vote form, and Caltrans contact information for questions. • November 1, 2001 — Public Meeting as held in Moreno Valley attended by 11 of the property owners. • January 15, 2002 — Presentation made to the Moreno Valley City Council and Planning Commission on the project. • April 2002 — Results of voting were mailed to property owners, noting lapse in time due to efforts to seek response from non -respondent property owners. • May 2002 — Environmental Document approved. • October 2002 — Project Report approved. • June 2003 — RCTC awarded construction package to lowest responsive bidder. • August 2003 — Project construction started. • July 2004 — Request received from property owners to reconsider the construction of a soundwall. • December 2004 — Construction is scheduled to be completed. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 8 Eric Haley, Executive Director, thanked Councilman White and the property owners for the courtesy and professionalism demonstrated in this process since the request was received. He then outlined staff concerns on this issue as follows: 1) Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will not fund a soundwall project after the federal process of polling the homeowners is complete, the environmental document is closed, and construction has commenced. A written response has been received from FHWA rejecting an obligation for financing the soundwall and noting that CMAQ funds are not eligible for retrofit soundwalls; 2) In 1998, Caltrans ceased to finance retrofit soundwalls due to the realignment of responsibility in SB 45. Neither Measure "A" expenditures plans include funds for retrofit soundwalls; and, 3) Reopening the environmental document would set a major precedent. There are several high profile soundwall projects from individuals, neighborhoods and public institutions that initially rejected soundwalls and are now considering making formal requests for reconsideration. RCTC's finance exposure of assuming unfunded retrofit soundwall would be several millions. As an example, the subject soundwall is estimated to cost more than $ 1 million, excluding the cost of reopening the environmental document to justify a new project. Councilman Charles White requested reconsideration to reopen and fund Soundwall No. 264 along State Route 60 and Elder Avenue in Moreno Valley. He reviewed the letters received by the property owners advising them of the approval requirements and public meetings. He quoted a statement in the letter mailed to property owners that "We are proposing preliminary locations for soundwalls adjacent to your property," but did not indicate that the soundwalls would be on their property. Also, the letter advised that the proposed wall locations were preliminary as the FHWA had not reviewed and approved the noise report for the State Route 60 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) project. He believed that this confused the property owners as to the location of the soundwall. He then referenced another letter received by the property owners stating that an insufficient number of affirmative votes were received to warrant a soundwall and will, therefore, not be constructed behind said property. By using the word 'behind' gave the property owners the impression that the soundwall was to be built on public property causing further confusion. He stated that he did not attend either of the public meetings held regarding the subject soundwall. He then outlined the reason for which he believes the Commission should approve funding of the soundwall project as follows: 1) There has not been a clear and direct notification to the property owners that the subject soundwall was to be constructed on their private property, stating that the property owners believed that a majority vote would be • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 9 • • • sufficient to approve and construct the soundwall; 2) An appeal process was not afforded the property owners subsequent to the denial of the soundwall; 3) His belief that the original funds in the amount of $700,000 allocated to the subject soundwall are still available as the project is not complete; and 4) Attenuation of the noise is an absolute necessity as traffic will continue to increase. Commissioner Jack Wamsley asked if the environmental document indicated decibel levels above 65 dBA. Councilman White indicated he belief that the decibel level was slightly higher than 65 dBA. Liz Islas, property owner on Elder Avenue, representing the 30 property owners, expressed confusion with the letters received regarding the location of the soundwall. She did not attend either public meeting but was informed that glass blocks would be placed on the existing wall, which she believes was the reason for the 'no' votes. She also expressed her belief that the vote only required a majority, and not a unanimous vote, to approve the soundwall. Commissioner Frank West stated his support for the request due to the confusion expressed by the property owners, lack of an appeal process, and existing funds allocated for construction of the subject soundwall. Commissioner Marion Ashley concurred with Commissioner West's comments. He added that the soundwall is a necessity and needs to be funded and requested direction from staff on how to remedy this issue. In response to Commissioner Roger Berg's concern regarding the proposed height of the subject soundwall, Bill Hughes responded that the required height was 12 feet to reduce the decibel level by about 5 dBA. Commissioner Berg, questioning the cost estimate, noted his experience and example of a wall that he has built and then asked who constructed the other walls along the new developments on SR 60. Bill Hughes explained that the difference in the material and requirements for constructing garden walls as opposed to highway soundwalls. Staff has reliable and consistent cost data for the construction of a soundwall in this location because of the number of recent construction of other soundwalls along the SR 60 project. In reviewing funding for this project, there are approximately $500,000 remaining, however, all claims have not yet been filed. He added that the construction cost estimate for the subject soundwall exceeds $1 million, excluding right-of-way and temporary construction easement costs necessary to build the soundwall. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 10 Eric Haley noted that a communication from FHWA to Caltrans District 8 indicates that since construction of the SR 60 HOV lane project will be complete in December 2004, construction of additional soundwall has to be a separate project, and the only funding available is CMAQ funds which cannot be used to construct a retrofit soundwall. He then reiterated the precedence that it would set to reopen the SR 60 soundwall project as with absolute certainty, major institutions will request to reopen soundwall claims resulting in the Commission's financial exposure of several millions. He noted and restated that the Federal regulations were established to maximize property owners' rights so that no one could be coerced to assume a soundwall on private property. He then addressed the issue of an appeals process, noting that it would be appealing a vote, which has raised concern regarding maintenance of privacy and potential for coercion. Commissioner Anne Mayer confirmed Eric Haley's statements regarding the funding concerns at the State and Federal levels. She also expressed Caltrans' primary concern that if the environmental document is reopened, a precedent is established to reopen environmental documents on all Riverside County projects should requests be submitted by concerned property owners or communities. Commissioner Jack Wamsley stated his belief that insufficient environmental information has been provided and property owners deserve protection. He suggested the process be reviewed to ensure that necessary soundwalls are built as he believes an error may have been made and steps need to be taken to correct it, noting the property owners' confusion during the process. In response, Commissioner Mayer said that soundwall was warranted and were proposed for construction as part of the SR 60 HOV project. However, the vote by property owners was necessary to build the soundwall, which was not obtained in this case. Eric Haley reiterated the number of challenges RCTC will be faced with if RCTC reconsiders the construction of a soundwall as follows; 1) funds to construct the soundwall; 2) timeframe involved in reopening the environmental document; and 3) type of exposure with approximately 50 major projects to be constructed in Riverside County over the next 30 years. He then stated that RCTC needs to adhere to the processes as set forth. In response to Commissioner Shenna Moqeet's concerns regarding the communication with property owners, Commissioner Mayer responded that two public hearing were conducted with staff wherein information and maps of the project and noise studies available. Federal guidelines were utilized to determine the amount and type of public outreach. There is no appeal process in place. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 11 • • • Commissioner Jim Venable reminded the Commission of a similar situation in the Sun City area approximately 4 years ago impacting over than 50 properties and at that time is was determined that it was not feasible to build a soundwall. Commissioner Kelly Seyarto expressed his belief that there is a shared responsibility to be involved in the process. He also supported the review of the process and stated that he believes that funds should not be spent outside of the process due to negative impacts on the process. He suggested shared fiscal responsibility of the affected parties, city, and supervisorial district. Commissioner Bob Buster recommended the development of a program to provide for retrofit soundwalls including a funding mechanism as the Commission bears the responsibility to protect property owners. He commented on the need for the Federal process to be improved and concurred with the request made by Councilman White. Commissioner John Tavaglione acknowledged the community's concern. However, he believed that the process must be followed as deviation from the process is unfair to constituents resulting in favoritism. He also noted that reopening an environmental document is a major issue that will cause delays and additional costs. At Commissioner West's request, Craig Newsteader, Traffic Engineer for the City of Moreno Valley, testified that while a specific funding program for soundwalls is not in place at the City of Moreno Valley at this time, they could establish a program to assist in funding such projects. Commissioner West stated his support for a shared funding method. Commissioner Ashley stated that he agreed that the environmental document should not be reopened. He concurred with the suggestion of shared cost and requested the assistance of the Executive Director to structure a motion to grant the request of Councilman White and the property owners, to develop a method for cost sharing to fund such projects, and to avoid setting any negative precedents and reopening of the environmental document. He also recommended review of the process due to difficulty obtaining a 100% vote. Eric Haley explained that the 100% 'yes' vote requirement of the affected property owners is necessary to obtain Federal funding and going outside of Federal regulations provides a pass on the obligation, resulting in a 100% local program. He then highlighted points of consideration in the Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 12 development of a program; 1) form a group of public works directors and Commissioners; 2) develop a cost sharing formula; and, 3) three local sources of revenue to work with: Measure "A", Measure "A" local discretionary funds, and TUMF, noting the difficulties with each. He then reiterated that there is no flexible revenue at the present time and would require funding from other obligations. Commissioner Paul Marchand supported the comments of Commissioners Ashley and Buster. Commissioner Percy Byrd stated his belief that rules should be maintained and expressed concern that the Commission cannot operate under conditions that allow individuals or communities to change their position once a vote has been held. Commissioner Berg expressed concern that the issues of the property owners are not being addressed and concurred with the suggestions of Commissioners Ashley and Buster. Commissioner Moqeet concurred with the suggestions of Commissioners Ashley and Buster to develop a program to address such funding issues and review the current process. She also expressed her concurrence with Commissioner Tavaglione regarding adherence to the accepted method of process. At Commissioner Ameal Moore's request, Eric Haley reiterated the Federal process and its objective to protect property owners' rights. Commissioner Moore then expressed support for the motion. Commissioner Michael Wilson suggested the local jurisdiction become the lead agency and submit a new project through the process. He then expressed support for the motion. Commissioner Terry Henderson expressed opposition for a motion that would implicate the Commission to accept responsibility for ensuring that the subject soundwall is built. She supports a partnership between the local jurisdictions. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 13 • • • M/S (Ashley/Buster) to: 1) Accept the request for consideration of a sound wall by property owners that live adjacent to State Route 60 in Moreno Valley; and, 2) Direct staff to work with the local jurisdiction and property owners to establish a process to locally fund the request as a new project. Yes: 13 No: 14 M/S/C (Byrd/Henderson) to: 1) Respectfully deny the request for a soundwall by property owners as part of the State Route 60 HOV project in Moreno Valley; and, 2) Direct staff to establish a process to locally fund the request as a new project. No: Ashley, Berg, Buster, DeLara, Wamsley, Welch, West 9. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 10. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Eric Haley reported that the Focus on the Future: Self -Help Counties Coalition will be held in La Quinta on November 14th -16tH 11. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 1) Negotiating Parties: RCTC - Executive Director or Designee County of Riverside APNs 317-110-929-2; 317-1 10-030-2; 317-110-031-3; 317-110-032-4; 317-110-039-1; and 317-110-040-1 There were no announcements from Closed Session. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 13, 2004 Page 14 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:38 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission • • • AGENDA ITEM 6A • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the first three months of the fiscal year, staff has monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The first quarter of the year is primarily directed toward completing end of the year activities. Staff expects most of the categories to present a more realistic outlook by the end of the second quarter. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the first quarter at 8% of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales tax revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of sale. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure "A" funds and remits them to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two -month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections for July 2004. On a cash basis, the Measure "A" and LTF sales tax revenues are 13% and 11% higher respectively than the same period last fiscal year. Federal, state, and local government reimbursements and other revenues are on a reimbursement basis, and the Commission will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced to the respective agencies. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee revenues of $5,255,742 were billed subsequent to September 30 and will be submitted to the Commission by Western Riverside Council of Governments. Agenda Item 6A The expenditure categories are in line overall with the expectations of the budget. General administrative expenditures are higher due to a one-time payment in July for the Commission's general business insurance for FY 2004-05. Intergovernmental distributions are higher than budgeted due to the annual LTF administrative payments made to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and Western Riverside Council of Governments. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and notify the Commission of any unusual events. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements — September 2004 • Agenda Item 6A 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 1ST QUARTER FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED 9/30/04 DESCRIPTION REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues Sales tax $ 122,479,100 $ 10,084,420 $ (112,394,680) 8% Federal, state & local govemment reimbursements 21,924,100 1,130,050 (20,794,050) 5% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 28,000,000 - (28,000,000) 0% Other revenues 4,727,000 131,833 (4,595,167) 3% Interest 3,030,700 105,230 (2,925,470) 3% Total revenues 180,160,900 11,451,533 (168,709,367) 6% Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits 1,358,400 257,337 1,101,063 19% General legal services 108,500 5,570 102,930 5% Professional services 998,500 137,923 860,577 14% Office lease & utilities 363,000 104,045 258,955 29% General administrative expenses 927,700 390,555 537,145 42% Total administration 3,756,100 895,430 2,860,670 24% Programs/projects Salaries & benefits 1,786,700 387,572 1,399,128 22% General legal services 964,000 107,603 856,397 11% Professional services 1,335,870 157,309 1,178,561 12% General projects 1,924,000 62,772 1,861,228 3% Highway engineering 2,985,000 11,864 2,973,136 0% Highway construction 34,405,000 4,979,277 29,425,723 14% Highway right of way 9,720,000 41,143 9,678,857 0% Rail engineering 2,770,000 28,120 2,741,880 1% Rail construction 2,200,000 11,681 2,188,319 1% Rail right of way 4,857,000 - 4,857,000 0% Local streets & roads 42,545,000 2,752,289 39,792,711 6% Regional arterial 9,000,000 2,506,854 6,493,146 28% TUMF engineering 4,000,000 355,326 3,644,674 9% TUMF construction 500 (500) 0% TUMF right of way 30,000 100,000 (70,000) 0% Special studies 1,383,800 37,132 1,346,668 3% FSP towing 1,483,600 246,325 1,237,275 17% Commuter assistance 2,522,540 498,267 2,024,273 20% Property management 137,200 17,795 119,405 13% Motorist assistance 1,464,500 78,926 1,385,574 5% Rail operations & maintenance 4,457,500 1,068,411 3,389,089 24% STA distributions 2,762,000 147,418 2,614,582 5% Specialized transit 5,295,900 1,090,305 4,205,595 21% Planning & programming services 54,900 21,971 32,929 40% Total programs/projects 138,084,510 14,708,860 123,375,650 11% Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay 786,900 241,848 545,052 31% 340,000 20,266 319,734 6% Debt service Principal 27,200,000 - 27,200,000 0% Interest 8,286,000 - 8,286,000 0% Total debt service 35,486,000 - 35,486,000 0% Total expenditures 178,453,510 15,866,404 162,587,106 9% Excess of revenues over expenditures 1,707,390 (4,414,871) (2,707,481) -259% Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in 35,766,300 5,668,715 30,097,585 16% Operating transfer out (35,766,300) (5,668,715) (30,097,585) 16% Bond proceeds - 0% Payment to escrow agent 0% Cost of issuance - - - 0% Total financing sources/uses - - - 0% Net change in fund balances 1,707,390 (4,414,871) (2,707,481) -259% Fund balance July 1, 2004 177,506,700 202,781,114 25,274,414 114% Fund balance September 30, 2004 $ 179,214,090 $ 198,366,243 $ 19,152,153 111% t/users/prepent/mc/quarterhes/master quarterly 3 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAATION COMMISSION4111 QUARTERLY ACTUALS BY FUND 1ST QUARTER FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED 9/30/04 MEASURE"A" PALO STATE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM WESTERN GENERAL FSP/ WESTERN VERDE COACHELLA TRANSIT MITIGATION FEE COUNTY DEBT COMBINED DESCRIPTION FUND SAFE COUNTY VALLEY VALLEY ASSISTANCE TUMF C ONSTRUCTION SERVICE T OTAL Re ve nue s Sales tax $ 2,587,320 $ $ 5,581,787 $ 58,862 $ 1,856,451 $ $ $ - $ $ 10,084,420 Federal, state & local govemment reimbursements 347 125,866 1,003,837 1,130,050 Transportation Unifo rm Mitigation Fee (TUMF) - - - Other revenue s 131,826 2 5 131,833 Interest 74 3,990 47,061 6 20 3,191 1,271 49,608 105,230 Total revenues 2,719,567 129,858 6,632,690 58,868 1,856,471 3,191 9 1,271 49,608 11,451,533 Expenditures Administration Sala rie s & benefits 245,555 11,782 _ _ General legal services 5,301 269 _ _ - 257,337 Professional service s 131,261 6,662 _ _ - 5,570 Offic e lease & utilities 99,020 5,025 - 137,923 General administrativ e expenses 371,691 18,864 - _ - 104,045 Total administration 852,828 42,602 _ - 390,555 895,430 Programs/projects Salaries & be ne fits G eneral legal services Professional servic es General projects Highway e ngineering Highway construction Highway right of way Rail engineering Rail constru ction Rail right of way TUMF enginee ring TUMF construction TUM F right of way Loca l streets & roads Regiona l arterial Special studies FSP towing C ommuter assistance Property management M oto rist assistance Rail operatio ns & maintenance STA distributions Specialized tra nsit Planning & programming services Total programs/pro jects 211,477 20,330 115,676 36,552 160 65,489 15,928 2,805 108,486 57,578 11,864 4,979,277 41,143 28,120 11,681 25,163 17,795 1,068,411 21,971 1,397,298 246,325 78,926 2,043,669 11, 970 498,267 58,862 3,305 770 649,758 2,506,854 264,741 825,564 348,546 8,237,961 Intergove rnmental distribution 241,848 - Ca pital outlay 19,287 979 Debt servic e Principal Interest Total debt se rvice 90 147,418 58,862 3,986,251 147,508 36,781 387,569 5,403 107,604 30,000 - 157,310 4,424 - - 62,772 11,864 4,979,277 41,143 28,120 11,681 355,326 - 355,326 500 - - 500 100,000 - - 100,000 • 2,752,289 2,506,854 37,133 246,325 498,267 17,795 78,926 - - 1,068,411 147,418 1,090,305 21,971 532,434 - - 14,708,860 241,848 20,266 Total expenditures 2,511,261 392,127 8,237,961 58,862 3,986,251 147,508 532,434 15,866,404 Excess revenues over (under) expenditures 208,306 (262,269) (1,605,271) 6 (2,129,780) (144,317) (532,425) 1,271 49,608 (4,414,871) Other financ ing sources/uses Operating transfer in - • O pe rating transfer out 4,352,218 1,316,497 - 5,668,715 5,668,715 Bond proceeds - - - 5,668,715 Payment to escrow agent - - - - Cost of issuance Tota l financing sources/uses 4,352,218 1,316,497 - - (5,668,715) Ne t change in fund balances 208,306 (262,269) (5,957,489) 6 (3,446,277) (144,317) (532,425) 1,271 5,718,323 (4,414,871) Fund balanc e July 1, 2004 7,352,174 3,559,966 115,098,845 47,727 7,253,630 2,566,624 34,439,947 2,208,202 30,253,999 202,781,114 Fund ba lance September 30, 2004 $ 7,560,480 $ 3,297,697 $ 109,141,356 $ 47,733 $ 3,807,353 $ 2,422,307 $ 33,907,522 $ 2,209,473 $ 35,972,322 $ 198,366,243 nusereiwewet mo au artenm cm mee, quarterly 4 AGENDA ITEM 6B • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended September 30, 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 14, 2004 the Commission approved the Interfund Loan Policy and adopted Resolution No. 04-009 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans". The Commission requested that interfund loan activity be reported on a monthly basis. The attached report details all interfund loan activity through September 30, 2004. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of September 30, 2004 are $575,000. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report Agenda Item 6B • • • Riverside County Transp ortation Commission Interfund Loan Activity Report For peri od ended September 30, 2004 Amount Maturity Date Commissioned Date of Loan of Loan Date Lending Fund Borr owing Fund P urpose of L oan Appr oved April 2, 2003 $ 300,000 July 1, 2006 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Measure A - WC LSR (227) M arch 4, 2004 275,000 July 1, 2009 Measure A - WC Commuter Total $ 575,000 Advance to make repairs and improvements to Railroad Canyon Road March 12, 2003 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Additional local match for the SR71 December 10, 2003 Assistance (226) Widening/Animal Crossing Project 6 AGENDA ITEM 6C • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at September 30, 2004 is $462,500. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report — September 2004 Agenda Item 6C • CONSULTANT • SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2004 Taussig tes TU MF program c eh flow projects AMOUNT USED AM OUNT REM AINING THROUGH September 30, 2004 Michele Cisneros Theresia Trevino Prepared by Reviewed by Note: Shaded area represents new co ntracts listed in the first quarter. ORIGINAL REMAINING CONTRACT CONTRACT A MOUNT PAID AMOUNT A MOUNT $500,000 .00 37,500.00 30,000 .00 37,500 .00 $462,500 .00 • 30,000 .00 7,500 .00 8 AGENDA ITEM 6D • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 04-018, "Employer Pickup Resolution Pre -Tax Payroll Deduction Plan for Service Credit Purchases (Contribution Code 14)" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 04-018, "Employer Pickup Resolution Pre -Tax Payroll Deduction Plan for Service Credit Purchases (Contribution Code 14)", to allow an option for its employees to purchase additional service credits using pre-tax dollars. There is no employer contribution towards employee purchasing additional service credits. • BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • Assembly Bill 719, which became effective on January 1, 2004, provided the opportunity for eligible members of the California Public Employees Retirement System (CaIPERS) the ability to purchase additional retirement service credit that can be applied toward retirement benefits. This additional service credit is referred to as Non Qualified Service, which is not based on actual employment with a CaIPERS employer. In order to be eligible, the purchaser must be a CaIPERS member in compensated employment with a CaIPERS covered employer and have at least five years of earned service credit at the time that they elect to purchase additional service credit. Up to five years of additional service credit could be purchased. Credit must be purchased in whole year increments and only one election is afforded to the CaIPERS member. No Board approval is required for employees to purchase additional service credit. In addition to purchasing a non qualified service credit, employees may also have the option of purchasing past service years that they previously cashed out. All purchase of additional service credits are paid for by employees making the purchase. Adoption of the Resolution will allow employees the ability to purchase additional service credit using pre-tax dollars. In order for the agency to provide this option to its employees, a resolution must be filed with CaIPERS to extend the pick up of member contributions under Internal Revenue Code Section 414(h)(2) provision for Agenda Item 6D 9 members by payroll deductions for service credit purchases. To reiterate, there is no cost to the employer to approve use of pre-tax dollars for service credit purchases. Employers who opt to participate in this pick up program provide their employees, who elect to participate, with the benefit of deferring income tax liability on member service credit purchases. The effective date for commencement of the plan cannot be any earlier than the date the completed resolution is received and approved in CaIPERS. For information, CaIPERS has a backlog of requests for cost information to purchase additional service credit. They are just processing those requests that they received in February 2004. So, the likelihood of any RCTC staff to start the purchase may not be until early Fall of next year. There are some guidelines for employees purchasing additional service credits: • Even though the employer has adopted the Resolution to use pre-tax dollars, employees has the option to purchase additional service credit with after tax or pre-tax dollars. • Once CaIPERS letter is received by the employee on the cost information for the number of service years to purchase and the length of time to purchase, it is irrevocable and cannot be adjusted at any time during the payroll deduction schedule. • If an employee selected using pre-tax dollars, the deductions are member contributions and are subject to income taxes when received by the member as either a retirement benefit or refund. • An employee who elects the pre-tax plan deductions then changes employers will automatically continue pre-tax payroll deduction payments if the new employer is a Plan participant. If not a Plan participant, the deductions will be taken on an after tax basis. • A member who elects the pre-tax Plan is not allowed to make additional direct cash payments (i.e., lump sum, partial payments, or increased scheduled payments.) • A member who elects the pre-tax Plan and terminates employment will be given the option to pay the lump sum balance or continue payments on an after tax basis through Direct Payments to CaIPERS. • A member who elects the pre-tax Plan and retires may request to pay the lump sum balance. If no request is made, payments will continue through retirement allowance deductions. Adoption of Resolution 04-018 provides an option to employees to purchase additional service credit using pre-tax dollars. However, RCTC will have the responsibility through its payroll for reducing the taxable income of the employee by the pre-tax payroll deduction amount. Since there is no cost to the Commission to provide the option, it is recommended that the resolution be adopted. Attachment: Resolution No. 04-018 Agenda Item 6D • • • 10 • RESOLUTION NO. 04-018 EMPLOYER PICKUP RESOLUTION PRE-TAX PAYROLL DEDUCTION PLAN FOR SERVICE CREDIT PURCHASES (CONTRIBUTION CODE 14) WHEREAS, the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) at the April 1996 meeting approved a pre-tax payroll deduction plan for service credit purchases under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 414(h)(2); and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, has the authority to implement the provisions of IRC section 414(h)(2) and has determined that even though implementation is not required by law, the tax benefit offered by this section should be provided to those employees who are members of CaIPERS; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission elects to participate in the pre-tax payroll deduction plan for all employees in the following CaIPERS coverage group: Miscellaneous Group NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: I. That the Riverside County Transportation Commission will implement the provisions of IRC section 414(h)(2) by making employee contributions for service credit purchases pursuant to the California State Government Code on behalf of its employees who are member of CaIPERS and who have made a binding irrevocable election to participate in the pre-tax payroll deduction plan. "Employee contributions" shall mean those contributions reported to CaIPERS which are deducted from the salary of employees and are credited to individual employee accounts for service credit purchases, thereby resulting in tax deferral of employee contributions. II. That the contributions made by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to CaIPERS, although designated as employee contributions, are being paid by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in lieu of contributions by the employees who are members of CaIPERS. III. That the employees shall not have the option of choosing to receive the contributed amounts directly instead of having them paid by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to CaIPERS. IV. That the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall pay to CaIPERS the contributions designated as employee contributions from the same source of funds as used in paying salary, thereby resulting in tax deferral of employee contributions. V. That the effective date for commencement of the pre-tax payroll deduction plan cannot be any earlier than July 1, 1996, or the date the completed resolution is received and approved in CaIPERS, whichever is later. VI. That the governing body of the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall participate in and adhere to requirements and restrictions of the pre-tax payroll deduction plan by reporting pre-tax payroll deductions when authorized by CaIPERS for those employees of the above stated Coverage Group who have elected to participate in this plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the governing body of the Riverside County Transportation Commission this 10th day of November, 2004. BY: Roy Wilson, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • 12 AGENDA ITEM 6E • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Development Policy THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Project Status Report of Federal and State Funded Projects BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Project Status Report of Federal and State funded projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Transportation Commission is responsible for allocating state and federal funds for transportation improvement projects. Along with this responsibility is the monitoring of fund obligations and expenditures so that funds are not subject to lapse. Monitoring projects is a major work activity in the planning and programming department as it is required to report on AB 1012 "Use It or Lose It" provisions and provide updates on state and federal projects programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The following provides a summary of monitoring activities. AB 1012 Project Monitoring Under the AB 1012 "Use It or Lose It" provision, fund balances that are three years old are subject to reprogramming by the California Transportation Commission. The fund programs included under AB 1012 are: 1) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ); 2) Surface Transportation Program (STP); and 3) Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA). RCTC must monitor three year old balances to ensure that these funds are obligated (Caltrans authorization to proceed with advertising) so that funds are not lost. The CTC allows only one six-month extension for the obligation of three-year old balances. To date, RCTC has not lost funds under AB 1012. Agenda Item 6E 13 FTIP Monitoring All federal and state funded projects are included in the FTIP. The FTIP is updated approximately every two years; however, funding and project descriptions are constantly being amended to reflect changes occurring to projects during the development stages. In addition, once funds are obligated, the project funding is adjusted to show the obligation of funds, which indicates that the project is progressing. STIP Monitoring Various deadlines are associated with STIP projects. Each phase must be closely monitored to ensure the allocation of STIP funds occur as programmed or if an amendment to the STIP is warranted. Once STIP funds are allocated, the clock begins on when the phase must be completed. For example, construction allocations have one year to award a contract. Although we have been monitoring the status of projects for many years, we thought it would be beneficial to provide the Commission a summary report of all the projects programmed with the following funds: • CMAQ • STP • TEA • DEMO • STIP (RIP) The attached "Project Status Report" reflects projects that the Commission previously approved for funding that await obligation of funds. This report includes information received from agencies in July 2004 and any additional information we may have received to date. Staff has been sending out "project milestone reports" to each project sponsor three times during the fiscal year (July, November, and March). We plan on providing a summary report to the Commission twice a year. There are many projects being delayed for various reasons such as: 1) the state budget crisis; 2) environmental delays; and 3) unrealistic project schedules. During the Technical Advisory Committee meetings, staff has emphasized the importance of local jurisdictions informing staff of any delays experienced with projects so that staff can assist in resolving these problems and work with Caltrans and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to prepare project amendments to the STIP and FTIP, if needed. Attachment: Project Status — November 2004 • Agenda Item 6E 14 • for Unobligated Project Status Reports CMAQ, DEMO, STPL, STIP, and TEA Funded Projects y" July 2004 Reporting Cycle Project Fund Type Appr oved Am ount Currently Unobligated g (000's) 2004 STIP/FTIP Pr ogramming 1 2004/2005 Estimated J uly 2004 Milestone Reports Obligati on Dates as of: Comments Project Phase Fis cal Year N ovember 2004 March 2005 City of Banning Ramsey Road, Construct 4- Lane Extension DEMO DEMO DEMO Total: City of Blythe 50 Eng Design Cons U.S 95/Intake Blvd widening from 2 to 4 Lanes Install Signal Lovekin Rehab/Reconst from So of 1-10 ramps to 14th St STIP-RIP STIP-RIP STIP-RIP 53 928 Total: $ 1,031 STIP-RIP STIP-RIP 05/06 Jul -05 06/07 Jul -06 07/08 Apr -07 $ 54 $ 760 Total: $ 814 Design Cons 06/07 Jul -06 07/08 I Jul -07 Hobson Way Rehab/ Channelization TEA $ 202 Total: $ 202 Cons Proj ect received federal earmark in FY 03/04 . New project in 2004 STIP. New project in 2004 STIP . 03/04 1 Dec -041 TE funds will be required to be amended in to the STIP if not obligated by 5/01/05. City of Calimesa Calimesa Blvd Landscaping Improvements TEA $ 56 Design Cons TEA $ 236 Total: $ 292 04/05 I Oct -05 04/05 Dec -04 TE funds will be required to be amended into the STIP if not obligat ed by 5/01/05. Caltran s On 1-10 Ramon Rd IC and Bob Hope IC Total: $ 19,388 Project delays due to environmental clearance, design changes, and r/w mitigation funding increases. In June 2004, CVAG approved $11 .7 million of TU MF and Meas A funds for additional right of way mitigation costs. 15 2004 STIP/FTIP 1 2004/2005 Milestone Rep orts Project Fund Approved Am ount Programming Estimated Obligation Dates as of: C omments July N ovember March Type (000s) Project Fiscal Phase Year 2004 2004 2005 Caltrans - (co n't) On SR71/SR 91: Conduct Wildlife Movement Study for M itigation Commitment DEMO ST -CASH Total: On SR91 at Green River IC: Reconstruct/Replace IC Including Overcross Widening fro m 3 to 6 Lanes and WB Ramps Widening City of Cathedral City Ramon Road Corridor Improvements RIP-IIP DEMO TCRF Total: STIP delay - construction moved from fy 05/06 to 07/08. In In May 2004, RCTC approved local funds to advance project to meet construction schedule in fy 05/06. STPL TEA 54 $ 312 Total: $ 366 Widen Ramon Rd 2 to 6 Lanes - Date Palm to CL Date Palm/White Water Bridge Restoration STIP-RIP Total: $ 1,385 $ 1,385 STPL Total: $ 135 $ 135 Cons Cons 08/09 1 Jun -06 05/06 05/06 Nov -05 Nov -05 Cons 05/06 Aug -05 Project is tied to other work in Ramon Corridor. TE projects will be required to be amended into the STIP reprogramming if not obligat ed by 5/01/05. STIP funds delay - may advance if funds are availabl e. Delay due to additional recomm endations from Caltrans maintenance inspector . City of Coachella Dillon Road 4 Lane Grade Separation STIP-RIP $ 4,559 Total: $ 4,559 Cons STIP delay - project reprogrammed from 06/07 to 08/09. May advance if project is ready and funds are available. Dillon Road Widening 2 to 4 Lanes - SR86 to 1-10 CVAG STIP-RIP $ 2,117 Total: $ 2,117 Cons 07/08 1 Apr -05 STIP delay - project reprogrammed from 06/07 to 07/08. May advance if project is ready and funds are available. PM10 Engineering PM10 PM 10 Program Cons LS PM10 Morongo Ck Fences PM10 FTL Fences CMAQ CMAQ CMAQ CMAQ Total: $ 2,718 314 1,540 704 160 Eng Cons Cons Cons 04/05 04/05 04/05 04/05 Feb -05 Sep -05 Mar -05 Feb -05 •16 • • • Project Fund Type Appr oved Am ount OOOs I 2004 STIP/FTIP Programming j 2004/2005 Milest one Rep orts Estimated Obligation Dates as of: C omments Pr oject Phase Fiscal Year July 2004 Nov ember 2004 March 2005 City of Corona Lincoln Ave/Pomona Rd Channelization STPL Total: M agnolia Ave IC Ramp STPL Improvements 671 671 Cons I 04/05 T Oct -04 L Jan 04 RCTC reprogrammed STIP funds with STPL funds. $ 6,418 Total: $ 6,418 Cons I 04/05 I Oct -04 Jan 04 RCTC reprogrammed STIP funds with STPL funds . City of Desert Ho t Springs Pierson Blvd Rehab and M inor Widening STIP-RIP Total: 627 $ 627 Cons 05/06 I Jul -05 Environmental delays. City of Hemet Construct Park -N -Ride at Harvard/Latham Ave State St M ulti -Use Bicycle and Pedestrian Path CMAQ To tal: $ 207 $ 207 Cons 04/05 1 Nov -04 TCM project TEA $ 520 Total: $ 520 Cons 04/05 I Jun -05 Project is dependent on completion of another project. TE funds will be amended into STIP if not obligated by 5/05 . City of Indian Wells Rubberized Pavement Overlay/Rehab on Cook St. STPL Total: 84 $ 84 Cons 04/05 I Jan -05 City of In dio Widen/Reconstruct Jefferson IC - STIP-RIP 2 to 6 Lanes Total $ 10,710 $ 10,710 Cons 07/08 I Jun -07 STIP funds delayed due to State budget crisis. City of M oreno Valley Modify/Reconstruct Nason St IC STPL and Nason St from Elder to Fir DEMO 4,500 Cons 2,200 Cons Total: $ 6,700 04/05 I Mar 06I 06/07 Mar 06 Several environmental issues have delayed the project . Widen Perris Blvd 2 to 4 Lanes STIP-RIP Total: $ 3,184 $ 3,184 Cons 05/06 I Oct -05 Reche Vista Dr Realignment STIP-RIP $ 1,967 Total: $ 1,967 Cons 05/06 I Oct 06 17 Ave 2004 STIP/FTIP 2004/2005 Milestone Rep orts Project Fund Approved Amount Programming Estimated Obligation Dates as of: C omments Type (000s) Project Fiscal July N ovember March Phase Year 2004 2004 2005 More no Valley (co n't) Rehab/Reconstruct Ironwood STPL 1 $ 1,111 Total: $ 1,111 Cons 05/06 Nov -05 Aqueduct Bike Trail TEA Total: I_$ 688 $ 688 Cons 1 04/05 May -05 TE funds will be amended into STIP if not obligated by 5/1/05. Widen Cal Oaks/Kalmia St IC 4 to 6 Lanes STIP-RIP STIP-RIP 2,224 5,142 R/W Cons 05/06 06/07 Dec -05 Jun -06 Total: $ 7,366 STIP funds delayed City of No rco "I Signal Installation at Parkridge/Lincoln / First STPL Total: $ 75 $ 75 Cons 04/05 1 Feb -05 Santa Ana River Trail Missing Link TEA $ 365 Total: $ 365 Cons 04/05 1 Dec -04 TE funds will be amended into STIP if not obligated by 5/01/05. Construct New Portola IC (4 Lanes) and Ramps at 1-10 Total: City of Palm Springs On 1-10 at Indian Ave: Widen Overcorssing from 2 to 6 Lanes and Ramps 1 to 2 Lanes 1,275 STIP funds delayed - may advance if project is ready and funds are available. STIP-RIP $ 2,000 R/W 06/07 Jan -05 STIP-RIP DEMO $ 13,262 $ 1,260 Cons Cons 07/08 07/08 Feb -06 Feb -06 Total: $ 16,522 Widen Gene Autry Trail from 2 to 6 Lanes from Salvia to South of UPRR Bridge Widen Indian Canyon Dr 2 to 6 Lanes - Garne t to UPRR Bridge STPL $ 190 Eng Cons 04/05 1 Nov -04 STPL $ 1,540 05/06 May 05 Total: $ 1,730 STIP funds delayed - In Jan 04 RCTC replaced STIP funds with STPL funds. STPL $ 146 To tal: $ 146 Cons 05/06 1 Jun -06,,,_' Environmental d elays . Federal Bridge funds delayed to fy 07/08. May advance if project is r eady and funding is avaialble. • • 18 • • • 2004 STIP/FTIP I 2004/2005 Milest one Reports Project Fund Type Appro ved Amount Programming Fiscal Estimated Obligati on Dates as of: C omments Project (000s) Phase Year July N ovember March 2004 2004 2005 Widen Indian Cyn Dr 2 to 6 STPL Lanes (Phase 1 - 2 to 4 Lanes) UPRR to Tramview City of Perris Reconstruct Intersection at 4th St/Redlands Blvd Including ST -CASH $ 750 Cons Roundabout, Minor Landscaping & R/W Total: $ 944 263 1,936 2,199 Eng Cons 04/05 07/08 May -07 Nov -07 STIP funds delayed - In Jan 04 RCTC replaced STIP funds with STPL funds . CMAQ $ 194 Cons 04/05 I Jan -05 04/05 Jan -05 Scope change including roundabout and IC ramp improvements by Caltrans have delayed project Restoration of Historic Sante Fe Depot TEA Total: $ 298 $ 298 Cons 04/05 1 Jan -051 ",j', Environmental delays, Sec 106. TE funds will be amended int o STIP if not obligated by 5/01/05 . City of Rive rside Construct Underpass at Jurupa Ave/UPRR CMAQ CMAQ $ 3,100 $ 3,171 Total: $ 6,271 R/W Cons 04/05 1 Oct -04 04/05 Jun -05 Environmental document delays. SR91Nan Buren IC: Reconstruct Ramps, Widen Overcrossing 4 to 6 Lanes CMAQ STPL $ 500 $ 1,681 R/W Cons 04/05 Sep -05 05/06 1 Sep -05 Total: $ 2,181 Rehab Various City Streets STPL $ 235 Total: $ 235 Cons 04/05 ' Jun -05 Widen Van Buren Blvd - Jackson to Santa Ana Riv STIP-RIP $ 3,465 Total: $ 3,465 Cons 06/07 I May -07 STIP funds delayed . University Ave Streetscape Enhancements TEA $ 502 Total: $ 502 Cons 04/05 I Nov -05 Environmental delays, Sec 106 . TE funds will be amended into STIP if not obligated by 5/01/05. Riverside County SR60Nalley Way IC - Relocate/Construct Ramps CMAQ $ 2,670 Cons 04/05 I May 05 1 ,,' Environmental and preliminary design delays . Total: $ 2,670 Construct New Galena St Interchange at 1-15 DEMO $ 1,750 Cons 04/05 Nov 04 c Environmental delays . Obligation of funds will occur over the next few months. STPL $ 9,432 Cons 05/06 Nov 04 I , Total: $ 11,182 19 2004 STIP/FTIP J 2004/2005 Milestone Reports Project F und Appro ved Amount Programming Estimated Obligati on Dates as of: Comments Type (000s) Pr oject Fiscal July November March Phase Year 2004 2004 2005 Rive rside Coun (con 't Miles/Clinton Widening & Bridge Construction STIP $ 2,040 Total: $ 2,040 STIP-RIP 1 $ 810 Total: $ 810 Cons Rehab Defrain Blvd from Hobson Way to 6th St Signal Installation at SR74 and Sherman Ave 05/06 I May -06 Cons 07/08 1 Jul -071,!, ,, STPL $ 305 Total: $ 305 Cons 04/05 1 Nov -04F Schedule being developed. Rehab Cajalco Road from Lake Matthews to Kirpatrick Monterey Ave from Varner Rd to Ramon Rd - Rehab STPL $ 761 Total: $ 761 STPL Total: $ 425 Cons 04/05 1 Jan -05 $ 425 Cons 04/05 1 Nov -04 Ramon Rd from M iguelito to 1000 Palms - Rehab Ramon Rd from Varner Rd to UPRR Bridge - Rehab STPL 1 $ 1,000 Total: $ 1,000 STPL Total: $ 512 4 Cons 04/05 1 Nov -04r $ 512 Cons 04/05 1 Nov -04 Varner Rd from Ramon Rd to E. Harry Oliver Tr - Rehab STPL Total: 550 550 Cons 1 04/05 1 Nov -04 SR79 from Hunter to Domenigoni Pkwy (1st Phase Widening 2 to 4 lanes) STPL STPL STPL 1,000 1,012 676 Eng 04/05 1 Jan -05 Eng 05/06 Jan -05 R/W 05/06 Apr -06 Apr -06 STPL 1,300 R/W 06/07 STPL $ 16,857 Total: $ 20,845 Cons 07/08 Aug -07 STIP funds delayed. Jan 04 RCTC replaced STIP funds with STPL funds . RCTC Prepare PA&ED Alignment Alternatives -South of Domenigoni Pkwy to Gilman DEMO $ 1,502 Total: $ 1,502 R/W 04/05 1 Jan -05 Construct Corona North Main Parking Structure STIP-ITIP $ 1,000 STIP-ITIP $ 9,500 Total: $ 10,500 Design 05/06 Sep -05 Cons 08/09 Nov -07 STIP (IIP funds) delay - construction reprogrammed from fy 05/06 to 08/09. • • 20 • • Project Fund Type Approved Amo unt (000s) 2004 STIP/FTIP Programming 1 2004/2005 Estimated July 2004 Milestone Obligati on as of: N ovember 2004 Reports Dates March 2005 Comments Project Phase Fiscal Year RCTC (co n't) Regional Rideshare Program SR91 HOV Lanes - Mary St to Jct SR91/60/215 STIP-RIP STIP-RIP STIP-RIP STIP-RIP $ 400 $ 300 $ 400 $ 120 Total: $ 1,220 Cons Cons Cons Cons 05/06 May -05 06/07 May -06 07/08 May -07 08/09 May -08 STIP-RIP Total: SB45 - Planning, Programming, and Monitoring STIP-RIP 13,070 13,070 $ 170 Design 05/06 1 Jul051 `, Eng Eng Eng Eng Eng 04/05 STIP-RIP STIP-RIP STIP-RIP STIP-RIP Total: $ 953 105 500 500 2,228 Aug 04 C 05/06 Aug -05;;N. 06/07 07/08 08/09 Aug -06 Aug -07 Aug -08 Eng and design currently programmed. Funding for construction anticipated from 2006 & 2008 STIP cycles . Allocation requested FY 04/05 in August, STIP funds not availabl e until later in FY . FY 05/06 funding includes CETAP work. Perris Valley Line STPL $ 500 Total: $ 500 Eng 04/05 I Apr -05 SCRRA Purchase Expansio n Rolling Stock STIP-ITIP Total: $ 12,000 Cons $ 12,000 07/08 STIP (IIP) delay - construction reprogrammed from FY 05/06 to 07/08. Procurement process initiated in May 04. City of Teme cula Pavement Rehab and Reconstruction Lump Sum Total: 2,720 FY 06/07 funds may be advanced if project(s) is ready and funds are available. Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail TEA Total: $ 886 886 Cons 1 04/05 I Mar -05[; Additional required environmental studies have delayed project. TE funds may be subject to reprogramming by CTC if not obligated by 5/01/05. 21 AGENDA ITEM 6F • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transportation Enhancement Activities Funds Six -Month Extension Request STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Enhancement Activities Funds Six -Month Extension Request. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Under AB 1012 "Use It or Lose It" provisions, federal fund balances that are three years old are subject to reprogramming by the California Transportation Commission at the end of the federal fiscal year. Caltrans posts the balances for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Surface Transportation Program (STP), and Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) regularly on its website. The three-year old balance for STP and CMAQ funds is zero; however, the balance for TEA funds is $1.5 million. This balance is subject to reprogramming if not obligated by December 2004. Under AB 1012, regions are allowed to request a six-month extension for obligating their respective three-year old balances. Staff has prepared an extension request that identifies projects scheduled for obligation over the next few months. The list includes eight projects totaling $3.2 million scheduled for obligation between October 2004 and May 2005. It is imperative that each project meet their obligation date in the event that one of the other project schedules slip, especially since Temecula and Moreno Valley have project obligations of nearly $1 million dollars each. Staff will report to the Commission the status of these obligations prior to the six-month expiration. AB 1012 extension requests are due to Caltrans by November 1, 2004 to be placed on the December 2004 CTC agenda. It is anticipated that the CTC will grant the six-month extension allowing the $1.5 million target to be obligated by May 2005. Agenda Item 6F 22 Over the past year, Caltrans restructured the administration of TEA funds. As a result, TEA projects that are not obligated by June 2005 will be amended into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). TEA projects will then be subject to the same process for allocating and obligating funds as other STIP projects. For example: 1) changes to project descriptions and/or funding will require a STIP amendment; 2) allocation requests will be required for each phase; and 3) timing restrictions must be adhered to or risk loss of funds (e.g. projects must be awarded within 12 months after the CTC grants an allocation). In April 2005, staff will forward to the Commission the list of TEA projects that will be amended into the STIP. Attachment: Request for AB 1012 Time Extension • Agenda Item 6F 23 REGIONAL TEA FUNDS REQUEST FOR AB 1012 TIME EXTENSION • October 25, 2004 Ms. Wendy Li District Local Assistance Engineer Caltrans, Division of Local Assistance 464 West Fourth Street, 6`" Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 Subject: Request for AB 1012 Time Extension for Transportation Enhancement Activities Funds — Cycle 5 Dear Wendy: We request that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) approve a 6 -month time extension for obligation of Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) funds for the projects listed below. It is our understanding that the CTC will consider this request at either their December 2004 meeting. Please forward this request to the appropriate staff at Caltrans Headquarters and CTC. Per the 8/31/04 Apportionment Status Report, the balance of TEA Cycle 5 is $1,484,697. Projects that are scheduled to be obligated over the next few months are as follows: Agency Project Phase Amount Estimated Obligation Riverside Historic Victoria Parkway Restoration Con $ 511,571 October 2004 Blythe Hobsonway Pedestrian Improvements Con $ 201,571 December 2004 Calimesa Calimesa Blvd Landscaping PS&E $ 56,000 December 2004 Norco Santa Ana Regional Trail Con $ 364,174 December 2004 Perris Restoration of Historic Santa Fe Depot Con $ 297,518 December 2004 Temecula Murrieta Creek Multi -purpose Tail Con $ 885,511 March 2005 Moreno Valley Aqueduct Bike Trail Con $ 892,776 May 2005 Total $3,209,121 • • All but one project will be ready to obligate construction funds within the next few months. These projects have required extensive environmental studies and reviews (including Section 106 studies) that required coordination with other agencies, (e.g. flood control, Santa Ana River Conservancy, Fish and Wildlife, flood control districts, etc.). In addition, Caltrans District 08 Office of Local Assistance lost three key staff members over the last year, which has caused additional delays with project approvals. This Request for AB 1012 Time Extension form has been prepared in accordance with CTC Resolution G-01-30 dated October 4, 2001. I certify that information provided in this document is accurate and correct. I understand that if the required information has not been provided, this form will be returned and the request may be delayed. Please advise us as soon as the time extension has been approved. You may direct any questions to Shirley Medina at (951) 787-7141 Signature: Title: Program Manager Date: October 2004 Agency/Commission: Riverside County Transportation Commission F. Regional Transportation Planning Agency/County Transportation Commission Concurrence Concurred Signature: Title: Program Manager Date: October 2004 Agency/Commission: Riverside County Transportation Commission G. Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer Acceptance I have reviewed the information submitted on the Request for AB 1012 Time Extension form and agree it is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CTC Resolution G-01-30 dated October 4, 2001. Signature: Title: 24 AGENDA ITEM 6G • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Program Manager Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 05-33-519 (Amendment No. 9 to Agreement No. RO-2128) to STV Incorporated for services related to the New Start Application for the Perris Valley Line Project BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION; This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-33-519 (Amendment No. 9 to Agreement No. RO-2128) to STV Incorporated for additional scope of work related to the final environmental assessment, rerun of SCAG's transit model, update of the New Start application, and BNSF coordination for the Perris Valley Line project for an additional base amount of $548,430; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate an additional $500,000 of STA funds and increase the FY 2004-05 Rail Capital budget to accommodate the allocation; and, 4) Amend the FY 2004-05 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the January 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Contract No. RO-2128 with STV Incorporated (STV). The scope of work for this contract was to perform preliminary engineering that would result in improvements to the San Jacinto Branch Line for a new commuter connection between Downtown Riverside and the City of Perris. Agenda Item 6G 25 Over the past three years, the Commission has approved a total of eight amendments to the STV agreement to provide notices to proceed with various stages of project development. All elements of work will ultimately lead to the completion and submittal of the New Start application to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The New Start application is required in order to obtain authorization to proceed with preliminary engineering by the spring of 2005 from the FTA. Below is a summary table showing the authorized amounts and descriptions for each amendment approved by the Commission: Date Authorized Description Authorized Amount 1 /10/01 Original Agreement - Preliminary Engineering $166,187 2/14/01 Amend. #1 - Additional Aerial Photography and Mapping $40,636 4/11/01 Amend. #2 - Alternative Analysis for use of UPRR RIL $104,170 6/25/01 Amend. #3 - Additional Studies for Completion of New Starts Appl. $157,730 9/10/01 Amend. #4 - Studies for the Evaluation of Highgrove Connections $76,536 11/14/01 Amend. #5 - Add. Env. Investigations from Riverside to Romoland $254,320 1/31/02 Amend. #6 - Extended Term of Agreement N/A 7/30/02 Amend. #7 - Additional Engineering Design Studies $33,394 9/9/03 Amend. #8 - New SCAG Travel Demand Model/New Start Appl. $314,616 11/9/04 New - Final EA, SCAG's Model Update and New Start Application $548,430 TOTAL Proposed Contract Value $1,696,019 Staff recommends that the Commission approve Amendment No. 9 to incorporate additional studies for the final environmental assessment, revise and rerun of a new SCAG travel demand model, update the New Start application, and continue coordination with the BNSF for an additional base amount of $548,430. Of this amount, $48,430 was included in an amendment to the Commuter Rail's Short Range Transit Plan approved by the Commission on October 13, 2004. Accordingly, a budget adjustment of $500,000 is required to increase State Transit Assistance revenues and expenditures for the Commuter Rail Capital program. The proposed Amendment No. 9 will bring the total authorized contract value to $1,696,019 with $68,719 remaining in contingency for a total not to exceed contract value of $1,764,738. Staff will use the standard agreement format, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. • Agenda Item 6G 26 • • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 04-05 Amount: $500,000 Source of Funds: State Transit Assistance Funds Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 221-33-81101 P-3800-19 Fiscal Procedures Approved: U./1,14 cll�}�� ¢ti Date: 10/25/04 Attachment: STV's Description of Scope of Work and Cost Breakdown for Amendment No. 9. Agenda Item 6G 27 • • • IOC STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 fax:(215)832-3599 October 15, 2004 Mr. Gustavo Quintero Project Coordinator Bechtel Infrastructure Group County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 RE: RCTC Perris Valley Line - STV Job No.: 06-10533 Out -of -Scope Extra Work Through September 30, 2004 and New Work Through May 31, 2005 for Completion of Final Environmental Assessment, Oversight of SCAG's Model Update and Resulting Revised PE New Start Application. Dear Mr. Quintero: Attached you will find a request for out -of -scope extra work and a request for new work for the Perris Valley Line Study. The explanation for requesting the out-of-scope/new work is provided below. Out -of -Scope Extra Work Please find attached an estimate of cost for extra work in the amount of $37,548.27 for performing Out -of -Scope Extra Work under our ceiling budget of $1,147,589.00. The request and justification for out -of -scope extra work is as follows: • Task 1 - Project Management — Project Management includes those activities associated with administrative and managerial tasks from the period of January 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004 due to the extension of the project beyond the previous end date of December 31, 2003. This task also includes project manager time for the preparation and conduct of the monthly (or bi-monthly) project review meeting held in person or via conference call. • Task 7 - BNSF Coordination and Analysis — STV attended and documented meetings, reviewed and edited scopes of work, reviewed operating agreement and assisted RCTC with responses to BNSF for the Alessandro siding (storage track) requested by the BNSF. E n g i n e e r s! A r c h i t e c t s! P l a n n e r s! G o n s t r u c t i o n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 28 STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 1ax:(215)832-3599 • Subcontractor Services — Jones & Stokes Public Meeting Noise Impact Assistance — ATS Consulting was brought in under Jones & Stokes in an effort to assist with the four open houses for the draft EA, particularly for answering questions related to noise and vibration impacts and mitigations. This was requested by RCTC and necessary given the high level of noise impacts associated with the LPA throughout the corridor. Project Management & Miscellaneous (Jones & Stokes) — Due to the extension of the study from December 31, 2003 through September 2004, Jones and Stokes attended additional Project Review Meetings and LPA specific meetings with the Ad -Hoc committee and RCTC Board. Attached you will find a labor and direct expense cost estimate by task and person for STV (Exhibit 1) with subcontractor expenses for Jones & Stokes for the items above. New Work for Final EA, SCAG Model Update, Additional BNSF Coordination & Analysis, and an Updated PE New Start Application As agreed to since our last conference call with FTA and our last EA review session, several tasks and deliverables will be undertaken to fix the SCAG model, produce a revised FTA New Starts submittal and supplement the EA in several critical impact/mitigation areas with additional, more detailed analyses. Please find attached an estimate in the amount of $510,880.51 for performing new work above our previous ceiling budget of $1,147,589.00. This request is necessary for two reasons: 1. FTA's recent decision that the SCAG model is fatally flawed, producing unreasonable ridership results and related outputs that cannot be accepted as a basis for moving into Preliminary Engineering. 2. The study team's decision to allow the Draft EA to remain open while more detailed analysis is completed in response to specific comments from the public, regional stakeholders and resource agencies. The following tasks have been identified as new work items necessary to complete the overall tasks identified above: • Task 1 - Project Management — Project Management includes those activities associated with administrative and managerial tasks from the period of October 1, 2004 thru May 31, 2005. This task will include: E n g i n e e r 's / A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r $ / C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 • • • 29 • • • �i STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 fax:(215)832-3599 — Project management to guide the revision of tasks and completion of final deliverables for the Final EA (including required public meetings), New Start PE Application (including coordination and meetings with FTA in Washington D.C. and SCAG in Los Angeles) and BNSF coordination. Project manager time for the preparation and conduct of the monthly project review meeting held in person or via conference call when appropriate. Preparation and delivery of presentations to the Ad -Hoc Committee and RCTC Board of Commissioners ▪ Task 2 - Ridership Coordination / New Starts Update — Coordination and management efforts by STV associated with the revision of the travel demand model conducted by PB Consult and SCAG for the TSM and Perris Valley Line alternatives, and the subsequent update / preparation of New Starts submittals to FTA. STV will: Coordinate and manage ridership activities including a schedule and reporting mechanism (weekly status call) to ensure adequate progress by sub -consultant and appropriate support from SCAG. Review intermediate results of the model update and provide assistance in model validation based on previous analysis of regional travel patterns. Direct the rerunning of the TSM and LPA by working with travel demand consultant to re -define the alternatives and make subsequent adjustments necessary to optimize the operation of the project for achieving the proper level of cost effectiveness (Transit System User Benefit). Update, parking demand, train consist requirements and fare revenue estimates based on new ridership results for both the TSM and LPA. - Update capital and operating costs for both the TSM and LPA based on changes in ridership estimates, vehicle requirements and design changes (e.g. park and ride capacities.) Update New Start Quantitative templates for travel time savings, air quality/energy, cost effectiveness (including annualized capital costs), system efficiency and new costs per new riders Update New Start Financial Volume (impacts due to different operating and/or capital costs) and Land Use Volume (if needed) including all related templates. Assemble SUMMIT package including user benefit maps and detailed data tables for FTA review/analysis. Prepare updated travel demand PowerPoint presentation to present final ridership results and communicate merits of project to FTA in Washington D.C. • Task 3 - BNSF Coordination — STV will support RCTC in communications and negotiations with BNSF Railroad. This effort can include: — Track alignment issues such as locations, spacing, curvature and impacts on future passenger operations. n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 30 311 STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 fax:(215)832-3599 Storage facility areas for both passenger and freight operations. Operational capacity issues and integration between passenger and freight movements. Maintenance of way issues. Discussions and review of issues related to existing operating agreements Attendance at meetings including the development of agendas, minutes and other materials to illustrate and complement RCTC's position at all meetings. • Task 4 - Noise Mitigation Design — At the request of RCTC, STV staff, based on recommendations by the noise consultant (see Subcontractor description below), will prepare sample designs of specific noise mitigations for three selected sites. The sample designs will be useful in understanding and communicating physical noise mitigation measures in the context of local situations along the Perris Valley line, and will be incorporated into the public meeting materials discussed below. • Task 5 - Public Involvement & Agency Coordination (Round 4) — STV staff in coordination with Jones & Stokes will prepare necessary presentation materials for three open house public meetings to present the results of the Final EA. Additionally, the STV team will present to the Ad -Hoc Committee and RCTC Board of Commissioners as appropriate. This effort will include: Development of presentation materials for three open house meetings, Stakeholder Committee, Ad -Hoc Committee and the RCTC Board as appropriate. Presentations to stakeholders as needed throughout the study period • Task 6 - General Engineering/Planning Tasks — At the request of RCTC, this general category includes additional engineering, planning and environmental analysis that are not directly related to the specific tasks identified above. The assignment of these efforts will be at the direction of RCTC. This effort may include: Analysis of street closures at specified locations. Analysis of general property issues along the SJBL right-of-way Advanced engineering tasks such as schematics, mapping, facility footprints, station definition, etc. Additional targeted outreach meetings to gain consensus for the project. Other requests as directed by RCTC that are related to the Perris Valley Line and the eventual implementation of commuter rail in the corridor. nee r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 • • • 31 • STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 fax:(215)832-3599 Subcontractor Services Environmental Assessment (Jones & Stokes) — The following issues that were identified in comments on the Draft EA need additional technical analysis in order to thoroughly develop responses to comments and for concurrent incorporation into the Mitigated Negative Declaration. This effort will include: - Air Quality (respond to EPA comment) - Develop response to CO impacts, new regional AQ regulations, SCAQMD future implementation date, quarterly construction schedule methodology, applicability/effectiveness of EPA's suggested mitigation measures. - Biology (respond to EPA comment) - Clarify consistency with MSHCP, clarify potential indirect impacts to Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, clarify potential runoff impacts, address use of native species vis-a-vis Executive Order 13112. - Water Resources - Clarify discharge of fill materials and effects under S. 404, provide summary of jurisdictional waters, clarify jurisdictional determinations. - Detailed noise and vibration impact assessment per FTA guidance sufficient to respond to EA comments. The tasks are as follows. ➢ Project Review and Coordination: Review project materials and coordinate with project team regarding schedule and outstanding issues. ➢ Noise Measurements: Take long-term (24 hour) noise measurements at a minimum of 5 locations. The exact locations depend on commitments made during the public outreach process. ➢ Vibration Measurements: Measure existing levels of freight train vibration at five locations, including three in Riverside (two residences, a mobile home park, and a school) and one representative location in Perris Valley. ➢ Data Analysis: Based on the measurement data, develop projections of future noise and vibration levels resulting from the proposed project and identify areas of potential impact. ➢ Mitigation Measures: Develop preliminary recommendations for noise and vibration mitigation. Our recommendations may include those measures outlined in the Draft EA, such as sound walls, wayside horns, closing grade crossings, residential sound insulation, ballast mats, etc. The approximate location and dimensions of the mitigation will be provided, along with the expected reduction in noise and vibration achieved by the mitigation. ➢ Reporting: Prepare a comprehensive technical report summarizing our methods/procedures, findings, and recommendations. ➢ Public Meeting: Attend three public meetings regarding the Final EA. E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s! P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 32 STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 tax:(215)832-3599 Travel Demand Modeling (PB Consult, Inc.) — To appropriately address FTA's concerns with regard to the SCAG travel demand model, a collective decision has been made by STV and RCTC staff to employ PB Consult to take over the primary control of the travel demand activities from SCAG for the project. PB Consult staff have successfully performed similar work for OCTA and bring the benefits of in depth knowledge of the SCAG region and model, and a close working relationship with FTA. The following tasks will be performed by PB Consult, with assistance from SCAG, where needed: - Network Evaluation & Comparison — The current model transit times, access coding, and pathbuilding parameters will be evaluated. On -board rider surveys will be assigned and evaluated. Path and skim matrix creation scripts will be developed, and the baseline and build transit networks will be updated. The results will be analyzed and differences compared to the existing model. Calibration Target Value Development— Target value estimates for calibration will be obtained from LACMTA. These will be modified, as appropriate, and observed data frequency distributions will be prepared. - Trip Distribution Pattern Analysis/Evaluation — With assistance from SCAG, observed trip distribution data will be compiled from the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP). This data will be compared to Year 2000 model HBW trip distribution matrix. Revisions and adjustments will be recommended and implemented, as appropriate. Mode Choice Model Specification & Calibration — The mode choice nesting structure and purpose -specific coefficients will be defined. A mechanism for station capacity restraint will be designed, and the mode choice application program will be developed. The alternative specific constants will be calibrated and key parameters and frequency distributions evaluated. - Mode Choice Model Validation — using the new mode choice application, the Year 2000 transit trip matrices will be assigned and the resulting estimated boardings compared to observed data by mode and route type. Particular focus will be applied to Metrolink boardings at the Route level. Adjustments, as needed, will be identified and the mode choice model re -calibrated. Optimize Build Alternative Performance — Revised baseline and build alternatives will be modeled for the forecast years. A range of forecasts will be prepared by varying the alternative specific constants. A user benefit analysis will investigate causes of negative and capped user benefits and the alternatives will be re -run as needed to optimize the project performance. E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r$ 1 C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 • 33 • �i STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 fax:(215)832-3599 FTA Coordination — PB Consult will coordinate closely with FTA staff at each step of the travel demand process. FTA input and buy -in will be obtained during model specification, after calibration and validation, on the definition of the alternatives, and once forecasting results and user benefit data has been obtained. Attached you will find a labor and direct expense cost estimate for new work by task and person (Exhibit 2) with subcontractor expenses for Jones & Stokes and PB Consult. If you have any questions or comments related to the extra work items above or the attached cost estimate, please call me at 215-832-3525 or 267-254-7111 (Cell). Thank you. Sincerely, Richard M. Amodei Vice President Attachments: Cost Estimate Worksheets (Exhibits 1 and 2) File: RCTC San Jacinto Branchline Cc: Bill Matts (STV) Belia Cardenas (STV) Margarita Gagliardi (STV) n e e r s/ A r C h i t e C t s/ P l a n it e r s/ C o n s i r u c t i u n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 34 • • Exhibit 1 Out of Scope Extra Work for PVL NS Submittal and BNSF Coordination Through September 30, 2004 Labor and Direct Expenses TASK DESCRIPTION Amodel (Prof Director) Mohr (Pro). Mgr.) Semmler (Eng/Plan) Trembath (Eng/Plan) Furgerson (Planner) Craft Engineer Bell Engineer TOTAL HRS Task 1 Project Management Project Management - 1/1/04 thru 9/30/04 72 72 0 Subtotal Hours 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 Task 7 BNSF Coordination Storage tracks (including meetings) 7 67 21 95 0 Subtotal Hours 0 7 0 0 0 67 21 95 TOTAL HOURS 72 7 0 0 0 67 21 167 HOURLY RATE $65.65 $65.75 $35.24 $24.78 $26.14 $59.20 $79.34 DIRECT LABOR $4,726.80 $460.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,966.40 $1,666.14 $10,819.59 OVERHEAT@ 119% $12,875.31 TOTAL LABOR COST $23,694.90 Travel & Other Costs Semmler 2 trips @ $800 Other Costs Miscellaneous Subcontractor Jones & Stokes ATS Noise Assistance Additional Project Management Meetings $1,600.00 $5,000.00 $4,596.00 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $11,196.00 FEE ON SUBS 3% PROFIT @ 10% $287.88 $2,369.49 TOTAL COST FOR EXTRA WORK $37,548.27 Exhibit 2 New Work for San Jacinto Branchline Project Completion Through March 31, 2005 Labor and Direct Expenses Amodei Clarke Mohr Semmler Trembath Furgerson Craft TOTAL TASK DESCRIPTION (Proj Princ.) (S. Advisor) (Proj. Mgr.) (Eng/Plan) (Eng/Plan) (Planner) Engineer HRS Task 1 Project Management Project Management - 1/1/04 thru 3/1/05 48 48 0 Subtotal Hours 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 Task 2 Riderhship Coordination/NS Update Model Update ManagemenUCoord 8 40 48 Rerun Alts using New Model: Review 18 18 Assist in Optimizing Alternatives 40 40 Update revenue, costs, cost effectiveness 8 24 24 56 Update remaining NS templates 8 16 16 40 Update New Starts Volumes 8 8 16 32 Assemble SUMMIT Package 16 8 24 Prepare updated FTA Presentation 8 40 8 16 72 Subtotal Hours 40 0 0 202 16 72 0 330 Task 3 BNSF Coordination Right of Way Analyses 48 24 72 Track Alignment Issues 24 40 64 Siding / Service Tracks 48 40 88 0 Subtotal Hours - 0 0 120 0 0 0 104 224 Task 4 Noise Mitigation Design Design sample mitigation at 3 selected sites 8 24 24 24 80 Prepare official noise mitigation response 4 8 8 24 44 0 Subtotal Hours 4 8 32 32 0 0 48 124 Task 5 Public Involvement & Agency Coordination Prepare Materials for Open House Meetings 4 8 40 40 92 Attend and conduct 3 Open House Meetings 16 16 32 Presentation to RCTC Board and Ad -Hoc Committee 8 8 16 0 Subtotal Hours 28 0 0 32 40 40 0 140 Task 6 General Engineering/Planning Tasks Street Closures 16 16 16 48 Highway/Bridge Issues 40 40 80 Massachusetts Avenue 24 24 16 64 Advanced Engineering/Planning 24 40 40 40 144 Additional Targeted Outreach 16 16 Other Requests as Per RCTC 8 16 16 40 80 Subtotal Hours 24 48 136 88 0 0 136 432 TOTAL HOURS 144 56 288 354 56 112 288 1298 HOURLY RATE $65.65 $93.84 $65.75 $36.24 $24.78 $27.06 $59.20 DIRECT LABOR $9,453.60 $5,255.04 $18,936.00 $12,828.96 $1,387.68 $3,030.72 $17,049.60 $67,941.60 OVERHEAD @ 119% $80,850.50 TOTAL LABOR COST $148,792.10 Travel & Other Costs Amodei 5 trips @ $800 $4,000.00 Semmler 3 trips @ $800 $2,400.00 Other Costs Miscellaneous (e.g. Fedex, Board Mounting, etc) $250.00 Subcontractor Jones & Stokes (ATS as specialty consultant) Detailed noise mitigation analysis $65,000.00 Biology and Water Resource analysis $15,000.00 Air Quality (EPA follow-up) $10,000.00 Project Management and Meetings $10,000.00 PB Consult, Inc. (with AECOM as specialty consultant) Travel demand model development, alternative modeling, analysis, optimization, and FTA Coordination $230,640.00 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $337,290.00 FEE ON SUBS 3% $9,919.20 PROFIT @ 10% $14,879.21 TOTAL COST FOR EXTRA WORK $510,880.51 • • • 36 AGENDA ITEM 6H • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Memorandum of Understanding No. M24-006 for the Funding and Joint Development of State Highway 1 1 1 Improvements within the City of La Quinta BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. M24-006 for the funding reimbursement of State Highway 1 1 1 improvements within the City of La Quinta; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the memorandum of understanding on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 1988 Measure "A" Program includes a state highway element that provides 15% of the Coachella Valley area's Measure "A" funds to project improvements on State Routes 86 and 1 1 1 . At the July 2001 meeting, the Commission approved funding for SR 86 and 111 projects, as recommended by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) totaling $15.42 million. Subsequently, the Measure "A" revenue forecast was updated by Ernst & Young to support the development of the extension programs. The updated revenue forecast projected a reduced revenue expectation between FY 2004 and FY 2009 resulting in a need to realign the program for the SR 86 and 1 1 1 projects with the new revenue forecast. The new revenue forecast for the period is $12.0 million, a difference of $3.42 million in comparison to previously approved project costs. Through meetings with CVAG staff, the CVAG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and RCTC staff, project scope and cost estimates were refined reducing the projected costs for Tier II projects to $13.8 million. Agenda Item 6H 37 Given the FY 2004-2009 revenue projection of $12.0 million, a shortfall of $1.8 million dollars is forecast. CVAG has committed to cover this shortfall in FY 2008-09, if necessary. The CVAG Executive Committee approved this commitment at its March 2003 meeting. A MOU for the fourth of nine projects programmed for funding under the Measure "A" Tier II State Routes 86 and 1 1 1 program is being submitted for funding authorization by the City of La Quinta — Adams Street to Jefferson Street. This MOU is consistent with the Coachella Valley Measure "A" state highway program of projects and cash flow which was approved by the Commission at the July 9, 2003 meeting. Staff recommends approval of the MOU for the City of La Quinta, consistent with the approved list of Tier II State Route 86 and 1 1 1 project improvements. Attachments: 1) Memorandum of Understanding for City of La Quinta 2) Coachella Valley Area Highway Revenues • Agenda Item 6H 38 • • • Agreement No. M-24-006 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this day of , 2004, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF LA QUINTA ("CITY"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates 20 million dollars for the construction of improvements along Route 111 from Ramon to Indio Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements along State Highway 111 with the City of La Quinta. 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify for Highway 111 Funds. 2.7 RCTC intends, by this Agreement, to allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. AJM\681474.1 1 39 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Agreement is intended to allocate Highway 111 Funds to provide funding, design and other services for authorized portions of the Route 111 improvements currently being planned on Highway 111, from Adams Street to Jefferson Street, within the City of La Quinta (the "Project"). The Project is more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as requested by the City and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of ROTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to allocate to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, a sum not to exceed One Million Eight Hundred Sixty Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five Dollars ($1,860,635.00) for project development, right of way acquisition, and construction costs ("Funding Amount"). It is also understood and agreed that 100% of the proposed improvements will be installed within the existing State right-of-way. Therefore, the Initial Funding Amount represents one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated Total Project Costs, as defined in Sections 3.14.1 and 3.14.2 below. This cost/Funding allocation percentage ("Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage") is subject to an adjustment pursuant to Section 3.14.3 below. In addition, the Funding Amount is subject to an adjustment pursuant to section 3.14.5 based upon the final Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage and the final Total Project Cost. 3.2.1 Increased Funding. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the Funding Amount will not exceed $1,860,635.00 for any reason, including but not limited to cost increases or delays, unless (i) additional Measure A funds become available for projects within the Coachella Valley; (ii) the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") directs RCTC to disburse a portion of the additional available funding to reimburse the City for increased Project costs; and (iii) the proposed increase is approved in writing by RCTC's Executive Director. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the City and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 Teiin/Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until the date the City provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9 or until June 30, 2009, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. AJM\681474.1 2 • • 3.5 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. 3.6 The City's Representative. The City hereby designates Tom P. Genovese, City Manager, or his designee as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care; Licenses. The City and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.8 Review of Services. The City and RCTC shall allow RCTC's Representative and City's Representative, respectively, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination. 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice of teinunation, RCTC or the City, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway 111 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination by RCTC or the City, RCTC shall allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. Such allocation shall be determined by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage (which shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 3.13.3) by the amount of the Total Project Cost, as defined in Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, incurred prior to the date of termination. The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the City of the written notice of termination. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. AJM\681474.1 3 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The City and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The City or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys, fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, consultants; and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its record copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.12 Indemnification. 3.12.1 City Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its sub -consultants. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissionsor willful misconduct of RCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys ❑ fees, incurred by the City, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC. 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. RCTC's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the City or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons, or entities, performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. AJM\681474.1 4 • 42 • • • 3.13 Insurance. The City shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their sub -consultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and City. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC or City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4. Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 3.14 Payment of Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Total Project Cost. The total Project costs ("Total Project Cost") shall include the following items: (1) funds expended by in preparation ofpreliminary engineering study; (2) funds expended for preparation of environmental review documentation for the Project; (3) all costs associated_ with right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City, and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Project construction contract; (7) construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the City and RCTC; and (8) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and AJM\681474.1 5 43 agreed that these costs may include costs already incurred by the City towards completion of the Project. 3.14.2 Excluded Total Project Cost. The Total Project Cost shall not include the following items which shall be borne solely by the individual parties without reimbursement: (1) City Project coordination costs; (2) City costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (3) any City fees attributed to the processing of the Project; and (4) expenses for items of work not included within the Project services and improvements in Exhibits "A" and "D". 3.14.3 Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage Determination. The final determination of the appropriate Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made by the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator using the guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference, and the best available cost estimate information from the project design engineer. The determination of the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made after the design review process has terminated, but prior to the award of the Project for public contracting purposes. In the event of a disagreement between the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, RCTC's Executive Director and the City Manager shall review the determination and attempt to resolve the dispute. If the City Manager and Executive Director are unable to agree, either party may appeal, m writing, to the RCTC Board. The RCTC Board's determination regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be final. With the exception of funding increases authorized pursuant to Section 3.2.1, the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage will not be determined in a manner that results in an increase in the Funding Amount. 3.14.4 Payment. The City shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultant and other costs for services under this responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced, which amounts, if appropriate pursuant to Sections 3.14.1 and 3.14.2, shall be applied towards the Total Project Cost. 3.14.5 Funding Amount/Adjustment. If the Project is completed before June 30, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator shall meet with the City's Representative within thirty (30) days following the filing of a proper written Notice of Completion of the Project by the City to determine the Funding Amount. This determination shall be made by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage by the Total Project Cost. The Total Project Cost shall be determined upon completion of the Project. In the event the Project is not completed by June 30, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator and the City's Representative shall meet to determine the Funding Amount to be allocated up through June 30, 2009. The City shall not be entitled to any funding pursuant to this Agreement after June 30, 2009. Notwithstanding any increase in the Total Project Cost over the initial estimated Project cost, RCTC's funding obligation will not exceed the amount set forth in Section 3.2, unless a funding increase has been authorized pursuant to Section 3.2.1. 3.14.6 f reserved] 3.14.7 Progress Reports. RCTC may request the City to inform RCTC of delays in ,the Project and provide RCTC with progress reports. AJM\681474.1 6 • • • 44 • • • 3.14.8 Reimbursement for Expenses. The City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.15 Change Orders. Any change orders in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and City. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City for the Project or for the construction of the Project. 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The City and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of reemployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. Agreement. AJM\68I474.1 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this 7 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 ATTN: City Manager RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement; or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the City or any Consultant shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the Project shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the City or consultant, whichever is applicable. The City or consultant shall pay all AJM\681474.1 8 • 46 • wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the Project and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF LA QUINTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Roy Wilson, Chairman Don Adolph, Mayor APPROVED • • AJM\681474.1 to the Riverside County Transportation ission 9 APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Katherine Jenson, City Attorney • • • EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES The proposed improvements will widen Highway 111 to its ultimate General Plan Configuration, from Adams Street to Jefferson Street. This segment of Highway 111 is partially complete to six lanes with raised curb median. The unimproved area represents approximately 3,890 linear feet. Improvements include the installation of one 12' travel lane, 8' shoulder, curb and gutter, 8' sidewalk, 4 handicap ramps, intersection improvements, traffic signal modifications and potentially the acquisition of 15 feet of right of way. The following services will be provided, as necessary, to complete the improvements: 1. Completion of Project Development Activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards and Project Development Guidelines. 2. Preparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with Caltrans procedures and State and Federal statutes. 3. All needed right-of-way services and acquisition of property needed for improvements. 4. Construction of improvements as shown in attached Exhibit "D". AJM\681474.1 A-1 • • EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse City with appropriate funding contribution at completion of project or in accordance with the phased reimbursement schedule approved by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"). CVAG's phased reimbursement schedule allocates $200,000 during Fiscal Year 2004/2005, $96,101 during Fiscal Year 2005/2006, $400,000 during Fiscal Year 2006/2007, $500,000 during Fiscal Year 2007/2008, and $664,534 during Fiscal Year 2008/2009 for eligible project components. Notwithstanding this reimbursement schedule, RCTC shall not be obligated to provide reimbursement to City in an amount that exceeds the Total Project Cost. Arrive at an appropriate funding allocation for overall Project in conjunction with the City of La Quinta prior to award of construction contract by the City. CITY OF LA QUINTA SHALL: Be responsible for design, environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to start of construction. Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all Construction Management of the construction activities including survey and material testing. Arrive at an appropriate funding allocation for overall project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the City. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the City as defined in this exhibit may be changed pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 of the Agreement. AJM\681474.1 B-1 • • EXHIBIT "C" IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY FOR COST SHARING Highway 111 Costs - Measure "A" Share Measure "A" Highway funds will be used to pay for any and all improvements that occur as a result of the widening of Route 111 for the Project, and for which the expenditures by the City are considered part of the Total Project Cost pursuant to Section 3.14.1. Those improvements might include, but are not limited to, additional through lanes, acceleration tapers, deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, utility relocations, street lighting, necessary landscaping to Caltrans Standards, traffic signal installations and modifications, and necessary right-of-way acquisition and services. Right-of-way would be paid for by the appropriate funds dependent upon area of the take, as described below. The intersections between Highway 111 and the cross street shall also be funded with Measure "A" Highway funds. The dividing line between Highway 111 and the cross street is defined as the projection of the Highway 111 right-of-way line across the cross street. In the event of an unclear definition of right-of-way points, a line connecting the cross street beginning and end of curbs will be drawn. If the parties disagree on a right-of-way projection the curb return limit will be used. The lines will be used as a guide for the design engineer preparing the estimate to calculate appropriate Highway 111 quantities and costs, and appropriate cross street quantities and costs. Costs for the traffic signals that control Highway 111 and cross street will be paid entirely with Measure "A" Highway funds regardless of pole locations in the Highway 111 or cross street defined boundaries. Signalization, for other locations such as entrances to businesses on Highway 111 will also be funded by Measure "A" Highway funds if warranted and agreed to by RCTC. Cross Street Costs - City Share The City will be responsible for funding any and all cross street improvements. The cross street improvements would include any element of the project that is not included in the Highway 111 costs as defined above. Landscaping Landscaping will be in accordance with State and City standards and will be included in the cost sharing in the appropriate Route 111 or cross street areas. Excessive landscaping will not be paid for with the Measure "A" Highway funds. Excessive landscaping is a subjective measure, but the intent is not to use Measure "A" Highway funds to pay for landscaping in excess of what is appropriate for a typical highway project in the Coachella Valley using Caltrans landscaping design standards. AJM\681474.1 C-1 • • EXHIBIT "D" CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS The proposed improvements will widen Highway 111 to its ultimate General Plan Configuration, from Adams Street to Jefferson Street. This segment of Highway 111 is partially complete to six lanes with raised curb median. The unimproved area represents approximately 3,890 linear feet. Improvements include the installation of one 12' travel lane, 8' shoulder, curb and gutter, 8' sidewalk, 4 handicap ramps, intersection improvements, traffic signal modifications and the potentially the acquisition of 15 feet of right of way. The following project budget is anticipated: AJM\681474.1 Project Activity Estimated Cost Construction: $834,000.00 Engineering: $83,400.00. Construction Management: $83,400.00 Construction Engineering (Inspection/Testing/Survey): $64,635.00. Right -of -Way: $583,500.00 Sub -Total: $1,648,935.00 Contingency: $211,700.00 Total Estimated Cost and Maximum Reimbursement Amount: $1,860,635.00 D-1 • COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION / 15% STATE HIGHWAY MEASURE "A" FUNDS PROJECTS PROGRAMMED TO RECEIVE 15% STATE HIGHWAY MEASURE "A" FUNDS SCHEDULE FOR RCTC PAYBACK BY FISCAL YEAR 02/03 - 08/09 Available Funds per RCTC Plan Lead Project Revised Description Aaency Cost Cost State Route 111 Projects 1- West Cathedral Ca nyon Channel Bridge CC 1,584,000 1,584,000 2- Jefferson St. to Madison St. IND 3,200,000 3,200,000 3- Simon Dr. to Adams St. LQ 291,507 311,644 4- Adams St. to Jefferson St. LQ 2,433,995 1,860,635 5- West City Limits to Washington St. LQ 244,616 321,255 6- Magnesia Falls to Fairwa y ""RM 6,500,000 6,100,000 7- Intersection Improvements @ Lincoln/4th CO R 800,000 80,000 8- Left turnlane @ Pierce COR 100,000 100,000 State Route 86 Projects 9- Traffic Signal © 66th Ave. Total Authorize d COR 271,000 271,000 15,425,118 13,828,534 • EXHIBIT A• FY02/03 FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 *" TOTAL 0 1,600,000 I 1,800,000 I 1,900, 000 2,100,000 2,200,000 2,400,000 12,000,000 0 100,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 484,000 1,584,000 0 0 300,000 400,000 300,000 300,000 1,900,000 3,200,000 0 200,000 111,644 0 0 0 0 311,644 0 100,000 100,000 96,101 400,000 500,000 664,534 1,860,635 0 0 100,000 121,255 100,000 321,255 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 6,100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,000 80,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 88,356 82,644 0 0 0 271,000 0 1,600,000 1,800,000 1,900,000 2,100,000 2,200,000 4,228,534 13,828,534 " FY08/09 shortfall from RCTC funds of $1,828,534 will be c ov ered by CVAG TUMF/Measure"A" funds, if necessary - CVAG will advance the City of Rancho M irage pro ject cost ($6,100,000) in accordance with Available Funds per RCTC Plan, from TUMF/Measure "A" funds . RCTC will reimburse CVAG according to the RCTC Payback by Fiscal Year 02/03-08/09 for the City of Rancho Mirage, shown in the table ab ove 1- West Cathedral Canyon Channel Bridge: This project is scheduled to start Design in Feb, Mar of 2003 (4-6 months) including Environmental, then 2 months advertising followed by 6-8 months construction 2- Jefferson St. to Madison St. This project is scheduled to start Construction in January 2004. Construction will be completed in 90 days. The cost for Design is 5300,000 and c onstruction is $2,900,000 3- Simon Dr. to Adams St. 4- Adams St. to Jefferson St. The above two La Q uinta Projects will be in design once the City finalizes an agreement with RCTC to secure the reimbursement. Start design in March, April 2003 for 6-8 months, followed by c onstruction for 10-12 months 5- West City Limits to Washington St. Project will start once funding is available. 6- Magnesia Falls to Fairway -Project completed 7- Interse ctio n Improvements Lincoln/4th County of Riverside withdrew this project County of Riv erside did some Design, Env. & Survey work which cost $80,000. This project needs more money , $1. 6Million. If there are no funds, county will drop this project, otherwise they like to proceed with this project . 8- Leftturnlane © Pierce 9- Traffic Signal @ 66th Av e. The above two County projects are waiting fo r the money to be available so they can start working on them. 52 AGENDA ITEM 61 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Riverside Transit Agency's Fiscal Year 2004 - 2005 Short Range Transit Plan to Purchase Advanced Traveler Information System Equipment STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve an amendment to the Riverside Transit Agency's FY 2004-05 Short Range Transit Plan to purchase Advanced Traveler Information System Equipment at a cost of $72,815 in Section 5309 funds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) is requesting approval to amend its FY 2004-05 Short Range Transit Plan to purchase multi -jurisdictional Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) equipment. RTA has received Section 5309 funding in the amount of $72,815 and has identified Transportation Uniform Mitigation Funds as the local match. The ATIS system will work in conjunction with other on -vehicle technologies such as automated vehicle locators, and automatic passenger counters. The ATIS will provide instant feedback as to the location of a vehicle, occupancy, and adherence to route schedules. Transit riders will be able to access information at kiosks, bus stops, on RTA's linked-websites and over interactive voice response telephone systems. If approved, the Magnolia corridor has been selected to receive the ATIS equipment. RTA's Board approved this request at its October 28, 2004 meeting. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: N/A Amount: $72,815 Source of Funds: Section 5309 Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: N. d . 2,-j Date: 10/19/04 Agenda Item 61 53 AGENDA ITEM 6J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 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 October 27, 2004 meeting. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • • At the Commission's June 11, 2003 meeting, the Commission directed staff to have an independent, internal audit conducted of SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) and SunLine Services Group (SSG). In response, Macias Consulting Group, Inc. (Macias) was hired to perform an operational evaluation of SunLine and SSG. The evaluation report prepared by Macias highlighted five areas and brought forth a total of 52 recommendations for SunLine to implement as the agency corrects previous problems and moves into the future. In response to the recommendations, SunLine prepared the attached matrix which details the 52 recommendations, identifies the corrective action and provides a timeline for resolution. It is anticipated that updates to this report will be presented to the Commission on a monthly basis. Attachment: Operational Evaluation Recommendation Summary Report Agenda Item 6J 54 • SUNLINE TRAT AGENCY OPERATIONAL EV ALUATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2004 COMPLETE D ITEMS The following items have been completed a nd closed: • RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME DATE ACCOMPLISHED 3 CFO provide training on ethical issues Ethics policy was adopted April 2004 by board action; training will continue with new HR director. AA Completed April 2004 (p olicy) 4 CFO maintain finance files that are not av ailable 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 segregatio n of duties for AP processing New procedures ha ve been implemented. Mar 04 Completed Mar 04 6 CFO prov ide for recording receipt (immediate), entering and payment of inv oices by AP New procedures have been implemented. AA Completed Apr 04 7 CFO process employee reimbursements at specific times and maintain and no. separately New procedures have been implemented. AA Completed Apr 04 8 CFO implement new petty cash procedures, i.e., imprest, petty cash v ouchers 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 Payro ll 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 rev ised 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 55 RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME DATE ACCOMPLISHED 19 GM to require monthly financial and update info on projects and pro vide same to Board Completed Oct 2003 21 GM to require Board appro val for hiring consultants AA Completed Sept 2003 23 GM to ensure completion of invent ory 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 C ompleted 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 M gr and SSG Exec Dir to conduct reco nciliations at project closeout for each grant Process has been established, and as each project closes, reconciliation will be done. Monthly reconciliation and re view being done now with CFO . AA Completed Apr 2004 27 CFO to dev elop methodology to determine indirect cost allocations Project completed as part of NREL audit, and overhead rates established . AA C ompleted 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 f or 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 centralize all purchasing Purchasing centralized under Director of Maintenance supervision AA C ompleted Mar 2004 33 Purchasing management process to require annual physical inv entories Use current software to provide greater detail of fixed assets vs. equipment inv entory. Annual inventory taken June, 2004. Regular monthly physical invento ries now being taken. AA June 04 Completed 6/30/04 • •56 • • • • RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME DATE ACCOMPLISHED 34 GM to establish IT policies and procedures with emphasis on security, including HR's invo lvement regarding departing employees IT audit completed, IT policies ad opted by Board 6/04 Jun 04 Jun 04 Completed 6/23/04 35 GM to implement updating employee authorization to the core system IT audit completed, IT policies adopted by Board 6/04 Jun 04 Jun 04 Completed 7/04 36 GM to cancel RFP to purchase computers with Windows 98 operating system 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 -lo gging 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 Aug 2004 46 CFO to utilize feature to record accrued liabilities upon receipt of invoices All liabilities are entered upon receipt of inv entory 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 57 RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FR AME DATE ACCOMPLISHED 48 CFO to establish a budget process system, to include a budget committee, 3 years of prior comparisons, estimates to actuals, etc . New GM and CFO have established process for FY 2005 June & July 04 Completed July 2004 49 GM , CFO & Directors to address forecasted budget projections of a $ 1 .5 M deficit. See Note No. 1 Feb 04 Not applicable 50 CFO to implement corrective acti on to address SunLine and SSG fiscal concerns Staff report to Board on April 28, 2004; RCTC appro ved 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 le vels Line of credit cancelled at bank; no other new debt allowed N ot applicable 52 CFO to create aging payable reports to fo recast cash flow and to communicate status to Bo ard Cash flow forecasts, projections, and accounts payable status reviewed at least weekly AA C ompleted Mar 04 NOTES: No. 1 (Recommendation 49): No 2. (IT recommendatio ns): • The $1. 5M number was a computer -generated pr ojected number based on auditor's software and prior 3 -year financial history. Changes already adopted for current year ha ve reduced expenditures dramatically. Pending final year end closing, SunLine completed FY 2004 within budget . The Board authorized an IT audit, which was c ompleted in May and June, 2004. New IT policies were ado pted 6/23/04, and are in place. New network s oftware and hardware has been ordered, and major system re -structuring is under way . Fleet -Net, the Agency's operatio ns software, is testing a new version of its software, and fr om their promotional literature, it promises to have significant impro vements. 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 s oftware 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. •58 • • SUNLINE TRAIT AGENCY OPER ATIONAL EVALUATION RECOMMEND ATION SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2004 ONGOING ITEMS • RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BOARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME DATE ACCOMPLISHED 1 CFO develop finance department policies and procedures manual All policies and procedures are being reviewed, and a number of them ha ve been re vised by Board adoption . As Appropriate Began Feb 04 & ongoing Ongoing 2 CFO hold perio dic meetings and provide staff training A number of training issues ha ve been identified, and appr opriate 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 activ ities 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 co re financial management system Establishment of project mgmt module has begun July 04 Ongoing, began July/04 59 SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY OPERATION AL EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION SUMM ARY REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2004 OPEN ITEMS RECOMMENDATION CORRECTION DATE TO BO ARD AS APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME DATE ACCOMPLISHED 14 HR Director update and distribute employee handbook In process AA Summer 2005 In process with new HR Director 15 HR Director to dev elop job descriptions for all positions In process AA June 04 16 HR Director to conduct job position audits Dept. directors and HR to audit job positions with employee annual re views. AA Jun 04 17 HR Director provide employee compensation plan and annual review of salaries In process 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 hav e training on regulations See #18 above AA June 04 • 60 • AGENDA ITEM 6K • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure "A" Specialized Transit Program Fiscal Year 2004-2005 and Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Call for Projects - City of Calimesa and Care Connexxus STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $30,000 to the City of Calimesa and $65,000 to Care Connexxus, Inc., in Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds available in western Riverside County; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 05-26-521 for City of Calimesa and 05-26-522 for Care Connexxus, Inc., 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 funds available in 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. Eight of the proposals were approved for funding at the June 2004 Commission meeting; additional information was requested from the remaining four applicants. The City of Calimesa (Calimesa) and Care Connexxus, Inc. (CCI) have provided additional information which was reviewed and approved by the Evaluation Committee with some recommended modifications. As a result, the majority of the members of the Evaluation Committee recommend that Measure "A" Specialized Transit funding in the amount of $30,000 for Calimesa and $65,000 for CCI be approved to cover six months of service during FY 2004-05. Agenda Item 6K 61 OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS: City of Calimesa Calimesa's revised proposal is requesting $60,000 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds for FY 2004-05 and $60,000 for FY 2005-06. Calimesa has identified an agency match of $34,030 and $42,120 for each fiscal year. Proposed service will be operated through the Calimesa Senior Center and, if approved, service will be provided to seniors and persons with disabilities for scheduled group trips (senior tours and social programs) as well as out of town trips including hospital or doctor appointments and shopping trips. Projected ridership for the year is 1,300 one-way trips; ridership for FY 2005-06 is projected to be 1,750. The revised proposal does a good job of differentiating its services from RTA as it will provide more hands on passenger assistance (including carrying grocery bags and other personal items). The service will focus on the Cities of Yucaipa and Calimesa but transportation will also be provided to out of town destinations including medical facilities (Beaver Medical Clinic, Loma Linda Hospital and the Veterans' Hospital). The proposal also identifies shopping trips at the Inland Center Mall which is located in San Bernardino County. A concern is that current ridership on existing dial -a -ride services provided by RTA continues to decline. Attached is a chart depicting the Calimesa DAR Ridership for FY 2003-04 (2,460 one-way trips for the year; ridership for the first two months of FY 2004-05 is reported at six). Lastly, there is a concern that the program is based on the use of volunteer drivers. The use of volunteer drivers is a cost savings; however, experience in Anza Valley proved that volunteer drivers are not always available/reliable on a scheduled basis. Evaluation Committee Recommendation for Calimesa Project Given that Calimesa has differentiated its services from RTA (including the provision of services to medical facilities located in Redlands and Loma Linda), the majority of the members of the Evaluation Committee recommend that the proposed services be approved for six months of Measure "A" Specialized Transit funding in an amount not to exceed $30,000. It was felt that six months would be an adequate amount of time to build ridership and identify whether using volunteer drivers is a viable option. It is further recommended that shopping excursions be limited to within Riverside County. • Agenda Item 6K 62 • • Care Connexxus, Inc. Care Connexxus' revised proposal is requesting $130,000 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds for FY 2004-05 and $130,000 in FY 2005-06; they have identified an agency match of $65,000 for each of the fiscal years. Projected one- way passenger trips is 19,000 and 23,000 respectively. Care Connexxus is proposing to provide specialized transit services for participants in Adult Day Care Programs of Riverside and Sun City/Menifee Valley. The agency specializes in the care of the frail elderly with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders and support for their caregivers. Participants attend from one to five days a week and, on average, are 74 years old. Unfortunately, typical public transit is not always adequate for clients participating in adult day care programs as they typically need attention over and above what public mass transit can provide. There is a concern that CCI is inexperienced in providing specialized transportation services. Across the State, non-profit transportation providers are going out of business due to the high cost of insurance and gasoline as well as the challenges that providing transportation can pose. On a positive note, CCI was successful in securing several vehicles through the State of California's Section 5310 program which provides capital assistance to non-profit agencies. Evaluation Committee Recommendation for Care Connexxus Project Approve CCI's proposed services for six months with Measure "A" Specialized Transit funding in an amount not to exceed $65,000. Monitoring the program for six months to determine ridership levels, etc., will provide an insight as to the success of the proposed services. If approved, Commission staff will work closely with Calimesa and CCI staff over the next six months to provide assistance in implementing the programs. A status report will be provided to the Commission no later than April 2005. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $95,000 Source of Funds: Western Riverside County Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funding Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 225-26-86101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ d � Date: 10/19/04 • Attachment: Calimesa DAR Ridership Chart Agenda Item 6K 63 • • CALIMESA DAR RIDERSHIP CALIMES A/ YUCAIPA 300 - 250 Numbe r of Pas se ngers 200 150 100 50 • FY 2004 • FY 2005 ,§;" ��� 0ec CY" a�� c, `7> er g FY FY 2004 FY 2005 % Change Note: July ----- Mar -- -.-- . uy c "pi Lt ivtay rune 232 282 249 279 219 209 242 200 215 173 81 79 6 0 August September October v N umber of Passen gers h • • T otal 2,460 6 -97.41% -100. 00% -100. 00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100. 00% -100. 00% -100. 00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00 % -99.76% Service began on November 5, 1990. On Jan uary 20, 1997 one and -a -half service hours per weekday were added to comply with the ADA . On April 18, 1999 service was disco ntinued. Service began again on March 5, 2001. 64 AGENDA ITEM 6L • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 05-45-520 Between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Operation of a Freeway Service Patrol Program in Riverside County BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 05-45-520 between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program in the amount of $1,071,368 in State funding for FY 2004-05; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program has been in operation for over ten years and provides roving tow truck service on five beats on SR 91, -215/SR 60, and 1-15 during the morning and afternoon commute hours. The FSP program is funded by the State of California (80%) and local SAFE fees (20%). Funds are allocated to participating agencies through a formula based on population, urban freeway lane miles, and levels of congestion. The agreement for FY 2004-05 provides for continued State funding in the amount of $1,071,368 and requires a local match of $267,842. This is an increase of $29,750 over the funding level for FY 2003-04. The Commission's FY 2004-05 budget for the Motorist Assistance Program includes $1,012,304 in State funding and $253,076 in local matching funds. The additional State and local match funds are not being requested at this time. Staff, along with the CHP and Caltrans, will review the hours of operation and service level to determine if any additional service is warranted. Agenda Item 6L 65 Annually, the program provides approximately 32,200 assists to stranded motorists along Riverside county freeways. The Commission contracts with three tow truck operators to provide thirteen tow trucks to patrol these routes Monday through Friday during the peak commute hours, 5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The programs day to day field supervision is handled by the California Highway Patrol. Attachment: FSP Program Fund Transfer Agreement No. 05-45-520 0 Agenda Item 6L 66 Agreement No. 05-45-520 FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT (Non Federal) • • • Agreement No. FSP05-6054(001) Location: 08-RIV-Var-RCTC Project No.: FSP05-6054(041) EA: 08-924849L THIS AGREEMENT, effective on July 1, 2004, is between the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as STATE, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public agency, hereinafter referred to as "ADMINISTERING AGENCY." WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code (S&HC) Section 2560 et seq. authorizes STATE and administering agencies to develop and implement a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on traffic -congested urban freeways throughout the state; and WHEREAS, STATE has distributed available State Highway Account funds to administering agencies participating in the FSP Program in accordance with S&HC Section 2562; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has applied to STATE and has been selected to receive funds from the FSP Program for the purpose of Freeway Service Patrols for fiscal year 2004- 2005, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, proposed PROJECT funding is as follows: Total Cost State Funds $1,339,210.00 $1,071,368.00 Local Funds $267,842.00 ; and WHEREAS, STATE is required to enter into an agreement with ADMINISTERING AGENCY to delineate the respective responsibilities of the parties relative to prosecution of said PROJECT; and WHEREAS, STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY mutually desire to cooperate and jointly participate in the FSP program and desire to specify herein the terms and conditions under which the FSP program is to be conducted; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has approved entering into this Agreement under authority of Resolution No. approved by ADMINISTERING AGENCY on , a copy of which is attached. For Caltrans Use Only 1 hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance Original S'yned B Inbat Mahmood Chapter! t utesJ Item 1 Fiscal Year 1 Program Accounting Officer teak � 1$ I O 1 /,s36 0.OV 1 BC 1 a Source 208 1 2004 1 2660-102-042 12004/2005120.30.010.600 1 C 1224040 1114-042-T lion/3 / O i 4-,Q Page 1 of 6 67 Non -Fed FSP NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I STATE AGREES: • 1. To define or specify, in cooperation with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the limits of the State Highway segments to be served by the FSP as well as the nature and amount of the FSP dedicated equipment, if any, that is to be funded under the FSP program. 2. To pay ADMINISTERING AGENCY the STATE's share, in amount not to exceed $1,071,368.00, of eligible participating PROJECT costs. 3. To Deposit with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY's award of a contract for PROJECT services and receipt of an original and two signed copies of an invoice in the proper form, including identification of this Agreement Number and Project Number, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the amount of $171,418.88. This initial deposit represents STATE's share of the estimated costs for the initial two months of PROJECT. Thereafter, to make reimbursements to ADMINISTERING AGENCY as promptly as state fiscal procedures will permit, but not more often than monthly in arrears, upon receipt of an original and two signed copies of invoices in the proper form covering actual allowable costs incurred for the prior sequential month's period of the Progress Payment Invoice. (The initial deposit will be calculated at 16% of the STATE's total share.) 4. When conducting an audit of the costs claimed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the provisions of this Agreement, STATE will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior au of ADMINISTERING AGENCY performed pursuant to the provisions of state and federal laws. the absence of such an audit, work of other auditors will be relied upon to the extent that work is acceptable to STATE when planning and conducting additional audits. SECTION II ADMINISTERING AGENCY AGREES: 1. To commit and contribute matching funds totaling $267,842.00, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY resources, which shall be an amount not less than 25 percent of the amount provided by STATE from the State Highway Account. 2. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY's detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal which identifies all anticipated direct and indirect PROJECT costs which ADMINISTERING AGENCY may invoice STATE for reimbursement under this Agreement is attached hereto and made an express part of this Agreement. The detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal reflects the provisions and/or regulations of Section III, Article 8, of this Agreement. 3. To use all state funds paid hereunder only for those transportation related PROJECT purposes that conform to Article XIX of the California State Constitution. 4. STATE funds provided to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement shall not be used for administrative purposes by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. • Page 2 of 6 68 Non -Fed FSP • • • 5. To develop, in cooperation with STATE, advertise, award and administer PROJECT contract(s) in accordance with ADMINISTERING AGENCY competitive procurement procedures. 6. Upon award of a contract for PROJECT, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of invoicing for STATE's initial deposit specified in Section I, Article 3. Thereafter, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of progress invoicing for STATE's share of actual expenditures for allowable PROJECT costs. 7. Said invoicing shall evidence the expenditure of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's PROJECT participation in paying not less than 20% of all allowable PROJECT costs and shall contain the information described in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and shall be mailed to the Department of Transportation, Accounting Service Center, MS 33, Local Program Accounting Branch, P.Q. Box 942874, Sacramento CA, 94274-0001. 8. Within 60 days after completion of PROJECT work to be reimbursed under this Agreement, to prepare a final invoice reporting all actual eligible costs expended, including all costs paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and submit that signed invoice, along with any refund due STATE, to the District Local Assistance Engineer. Backup information submitted with said final invoice shall include all FSP operational contract invoices paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to contracted operators included in expenditures billed for to STATE under this Agreement. 9. COST PRINCIPLES A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with, and require all project sponsors to comply with, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Government, and 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. B) ADMINISTERING AGENCY will assure that its Fund recipients will be obligated to agree that 1. Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allowability of individual PROJECT cost items and 2. those parties shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Every sub -recipient receiving Funds as a contractor or subcontractor under this Agreement shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. C) Any Fund expenditures for costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 or 49 CFR, Part 18, are subject to repayment by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to STATE. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY fail to reimburse Fund moneys due STATE within 30 days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the Parties hereto, STATE is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due ADMINISTERING AGENCY from STATE or any third -party source, including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer, the State Controller and the California Transportation Commission. Page 3 of 6 69 Non -Fed FSP 10. THIRD PARTY CONTRACTING A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not award a construction contract over $10,000 or other contracts over $25,000 [excluding professional service contracts of the type which are required be procured in accordance with Government Code Sections 4525 (d), (e) and (f)] on the basis of noncompetitive negotiation for work to be performed using Funds without the prior written approval of STATE. B) Any subcontract or agreement entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY as a result of disbursing Funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall contain all of the fiscal provisions of this Agreement; and shall mandate that travel and per diem reimbursements and third -party contract reimbursements to subcontractors will be allowable as project costs only after those costs are incurred and paid for by the subcontractors. C) In addition to the above, the preaward requirements of third party contractor/consultants with ADMINISTERING AGENCY should be consistent with Local Program Procedures as published by STATE. 11. ACCOUNTING SYSTEM ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate Fund expenditures by line item. The accounting system of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices. • 12. RIGHT TO AUDIT For the purpose of determining compliance with this Agreement and other matters connected with the performance of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contracts with third parties, ADMINISTERING AGENCY, ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contractors and subcontractors and STATE shall each maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts. All of the above referenced parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times for three years from the date of final payment of Funds to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. STATE, the California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of STATE or the United States Department of Transportation, shall each have access to any books, records, and documents that are pertinent for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall furnish copies thereof if requested. 13. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE Payments to only ADMINISTERING AGENCY for travel and subsistence expenses of ADMINISTERING AGENCY forces and its subcontractors claimed for reimbursement or applied as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid exempt non -represented State employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules. If the rates invoiced are in excess of those authorized DPA rates, then ADMINISTERING AGENCY* responsible for the cost difference and any overpayments shall be reimbursed to STATE demand. Page 4 of 6 70 Non -Fed FSP • 14. SINGLE AUDIT ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to include all state (Funds) and federal funded projects in the schedule of projects to be examined in ADMINISTERING AGENCY's annual audit and in the schedule of projects to be examined under its single audit prepared in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the encumbrance of funds under this Agreement. Funding and reimbursement is available only upon the passage of the State Budget Act containing these STATE funds. The starting date of eligible reimbursable activities shall be JULY 1,2004. 2. All obligations of ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the terms of this Agreement are subject to authorization and allocation of resources by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and STATE shall jointly define the initial FSP program as well as the appropriate level of FSP funding recommendations and scope of service and equipment required to provide and manage the FSP program. No changes shall be made in these unless mutually agreed to in writing by the parties to this Agreement. 4. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to this Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. 5. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section .810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. 6. Neither ADMINISTERING AGENCY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. Page 5 of 6 71 Non -Fed FSP 7. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will maintain an inventory of all non -expendable PROJEC equipment, defined as having a useful life of at least two years and an acquisition cost of $500 more, paid for with PROJECT funds. At the conclusion of this Agreement, ADMINISTERING AGENCY may either keep such equipment and credit STATE its share of equipment's fair market value or sell such equipment at the best price obtainable at a public or private sale (in accordance with established STATE procedures) and reimburse STATE its proportional share of the sale price. 8. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its sub -contractors will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including but not limited to, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-97, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments (49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments). 9. In the event that ADMINISTERING AGENCY fails to operate the PROJECT commenced and reimbursed under this Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or fails to comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, STATE reserves the right to terminate funding for PROJECT, or portions thereof, upon written notice to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 10. This Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 2006; However, the non -expendable equipment, and liability clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. • STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY Department of Transportation TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Office of Project Implementation, South Title: Division of Local Assistance Date: Date: Approved as to Form By: Best, Best & Krieger Legal Counsel • Page 6 of 6 72 Non -Fed FSP • AGENDA ITEM 6M • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of September averaged 4,829 which is up 153 (3%) from the month of August. The line has averaged an overall increase of 9% from a year ago September 2003. September on -time performance averaged 86% inbound (-7% from August) and 89% outbound (-3% from August). There were 32 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of August, a 13 point increase from the month of August. The following were the primary causes: Signals/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other* 4 18 2 8 13% 56% 6% 25% TOTAL 1, *Passenger Holds, Track Switch Problems Agenda Item 6M 73 Inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of September averaged 3,555, a change of 87 more riders or an increase of 3% from the month of August. The line has averaged a decrease of 2% from a year ago September 2003. This slight decrease could be attributed to the continual drop in on- time performance, with peak period performance for the line averaging 86%. This was the lowest in the system for the month. September on -time performance averaged 91 % inbound (-4% from August) and 87% outbound (-2% from August). There were 27 delays greater than five minutes during the month of August, a 6 point increase from the month of August. The primary causes were: 9 Signals/Detectors/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other* 10 1 7 33% 37% 4% 26% TOTAL fa 1, *Track Switch Problems, Passenger Hold Policy 91 Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of September averaged 1,974, up 193 riders or an increase of 11%, from the month of August. The line has averaged an increase of 22% from a year ago September 2003. September on -time performance averaged 93% inbound (+1% from August) and 89% outbound (-5% from August). There were 18 delays greater than five minutes during the month of August, up 6 from August. The primary causes were: Signals/Detectors Dispatching Track/Switch Other 1 13 1 3 TOTAL 1 1 OC • Agenda Item 6M 74 Metrolink RCTC Subsidy Update The RCTC portion of the FY 2004-05 Metrolink subsidy is planned at $3,128,000 and amounts to 6.2% of the Metrolink systemwide subsidy. Since FY 1999-2000, the RCTC subsidy has grown 7.9% while the systemwide subsidy is up 27.8%. In comparison, the ridership on the three Riverside County rail lines has grown 54.7%, and systemwide ridership is up 26.5%. In addition, the number of trains serving the Riverside County area has increased by 32% from 25 daily trains to 33 daily trains. Metrolink systemwide service for FY 04-05 has 142 weekday trains on seven lines and 32 weekend trains on two lines. Table 1 provides the details on an annual basis of growth trends in subsidy, ridership, and level of service. In reviewing this data, it is clear that Riverside County is enjoying an exceptional level of service and ridership growth in a cost effective manner. This is due to the partnership of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties that share the subsidy for our three lines. With a modest 7.9% increase in subsidy over the past 5 years, we are transporting 3,555 more daily riders to help alleviate the already congested freeway system. Based on the feedback from the Plans and Programs Committee, staff will include quarterly budget and financial progress information in future Commuter Rail Updates. Table 1. Metrolink RCTC Subsi RCTC (3 Lines) FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 5 Year Growth RCTC Subsidy (000s) $ 2,900 $ 3,148 $ 2,695 $ 3,029 $ 3,056 $ 3,128 7.9% Annual Subsidy Growth 8.6% -14.4% 12.4% 0.9% 2.4% Budget Riv Line Avg Wk Ridership 4,239 4,427 4,448 4,164 4,329 4,315 1.8% IE0C Line Avg Wk Ridershi 1,957 2,760 2,881 3,120 3,541 3,752 91.7% 91 Line Av Wk Ridershi 1,534 1,662 1,686 9.9% RCTC Ridership 6,196 7,187 7,329 8,818 9,532 9,753 57.4% Annual Ridership Growth 16.0% 2.0% 20.3% 8.1% 2.3% Riv Line # of Trains 12 16 16 12* 12 12 * Weekend Svc Cancelled IE0C Line # of Trains 10 12 12 12 12 12 91 Line # of Trains 3 3 3 9 9 9 RCTC # of Trains 25 31 31 33 33 33 32.0% Annual Growth # of Trains 24.0% 0.0% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% System -wide (7 Lines) FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 5 Year Growth System -wide Subsidy (000s) $ 38,990 $ 39,896 $ 43,896 $ 45,712 $ 48,689 $ 49,843 27.8% Annual Subsidy Growth 2.3% 10.0% 4.1% 6.5% 2.4% System -wide Ridership 29,196 31,549 32,136 33,798 35,494 36,947 26.5% Annual Ridership Growth 8.1% 1.9% 5.2% 5.0% 4.1% Actuals 1st Qtr 04/05 4,704 3,483 1,852 10,039 5.3% Agenda Item 6M 75 Metrolink Holiday Train Passenger Service Metrolink has completed the schedule for the 2nd year of Thanksgiving Day train service on selected routes. This year there will be two routes operating from Riverside. The first will provide six roundtrip trains to Orange County and second will have one roundtrip to Los Angeles via San Bernardino. 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 21st the train will be at Riverside - Downtown from 5:15 p.m., La Sierra at 6:05 p.m., and North Main Corona at 6:55 p.m. The train will visit the Pedley Station at 5:20 p.m. on Saturday, November 27th. 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 in the Riverside, Alvord, Corona -Norco, and Jurupa Unified School Districts. All classes with over 10 donations will be entered into a drawing to 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 third quarter of 2004 (July - September), there were 7 criminal/trespassing incidents (down 3 from April - June), and no crisis situations (same as April - June). This quarter there was one broken vehicle window and one recovered stolen vehicle in the parking lot. In addition, there were several vagrants removed from the stations. Attached is summary data covering the third quarter of 2004. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Performance Summaries - September 2004 2) Station Activities Detail Report • Agenda Item 6M 76 METROLINK PERFOR MANCE SUMM ARIES September 2004 i([�V�111 METROLINK PERCENT PASSENGERS ON -TIME vs TRAINS ON -TIME * 100.0% 90.0% — - — 85.0% 80.0% Oct Nov Dec Jan Sep 03 * Within 5 -Minutes Of Schedule Includes We ekend Service Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Sep 04 ❑ Passenger OTP% D Train OTP% Aug • 079 • • • 100.0%7 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) 91% Sep 03 95% Oct 03 94% Nov 03 96% 96% Jan 04 95% Feb 04 96% Mar 04 Dec 03 Apr 04 95% 97% May 04 % Arriving Within 5 -Minutes of Scheduled Time 96% Jun 04 94% Jul 04 94% Aug 04 93% Sep 04 80 • • • PERFORM ANCE CHARTS - BACK-UP 11� IIMETROLINK • Sep 03 • METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED • Ventura County Oct 03 3,883 4,295 5,748 10,624 5,583 9,965 6urba .n Turns' 540 639 4,431 5,780 3,638 1,620 36,264 5% 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% Apr 04 May 04 Jun 04 4,107 3,970 3,868 6,262 6,180 6,258 11,046 11,213 11,013 599 645 645 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% Jul 04 3,829 6,384 10,674 615 4,606 5,900 3,427 1,802 37,237 -3% Aug 04 3,822 6,327 10,456 613 4,676 5,943 3,468 1,781 37,086 -2% Sep 04 3,954 6,370 10,913 632 4,829 5,755 3,555 1,974 37,982 2% Change Sep 04 vs Aug 04 3% 1% , 4% 3% 3% -3% 3% 11 % 2% Change Sep 04 vs Sep 03 2% 11% 3% 17% 9% 0% -2% 22% 5% Sep -03 993 217 175 AVERAGE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY PASSHOLDERS ON AMTRAK THIRTEEN MON TH WINDOW 227 1% -24% -6 % �A�trst�t..i 111 62 52 1,104 279 100 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 Mar 04 1,117 1,113 360 242 201 228 119 128 55 51 28 44 1,236 1,241 415 293 229 272 6% 0% 92 % -29% 48% 19% 99 94 Apr 04 1,132 186 225 133 48 48 1,265 234 273 2% -20% 0% 118 May 04 (7) Jun 04 1,123 1,112 278 269 265 220 120 119 34 47 35 26 1,243 1,231 312 316 300 246 -2% -1% 33% 1% 10% -18 % 104 90 Jul 04 (8) 1,110 247 230 128 37 26 1,238 284 256 1% -10% 4% 118 Aug 04 Sep -04 (9) 1,110 1,106 244 210 275 199. 128 135 86 21 34 25 1,238 1,241 330 231 309 224 0% 0% 16% -30% 21% -28% 99 93 % C. hange Sep 04 vs Aug 04 0% -14% -28% 5% -76% -26% 0% -30% -28% Change Sep04 vs Sep03 11% -3% 14% 22% -66% -52% 12% -17% -1% (1) Prior to Rail 2 Rail, Amtrak Step-Up/No Step• Up program was only good on Amtra k weekday trains. (2) Rall 2 Rail program started September 1, 2002. (3) Missing data has been adjusted by using the lowe st 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 week (5) Average excluding 12125 (6) Average excluding January 1 (7) Average excluding May 31 (8) Average excluding July 5 (9) Average excluding Labor Day • •83 -6% % perf summ- a1110/8/2004 • • • 40,000 38,000 36,000 METROLINK AVER AGE WEEKD AY PASSENGER TRIPS - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED INCEPTION TO DATE 34,000 32,000 J- 30,000 { 28,000 _. 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 X 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 1 Jul Aug Sep Fy 04/05 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar x FY 03/04 FY 02/03 :kFY01/02 .. FY 00/01 'FY 99/00 FY 98/99 .:4FY 97/98 X FY 96/97 FY 95/96 XXFY 94/95 FY 93/94 Apr May Jun 84 _,�.�; �,:� • Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Avg Daily Riders 3500 3000- 2500- 2000 1500- 1000 - 500 - Sep - 03 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep -04 86 METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY Percentage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time LATEST 13 MONTHS Route:: :.. 'emir Caurt . 4►?k.4 . , :Lr� , C��t.. ..:.. , :! .: :e:. ..l .. tt�....:. :... ..t�itt. i dart &rn►xl. n ..:: .. .r. .... ... .... .,.. ... ... . .. jr� ., :.. :..�iu .:: :..... u .ben rs::::: ks •fi.... .....:... ...... ..1 .. .,"E. .t.............f? ..n .. ..... .d.....m ..... .. . ... .. . i . . .. .:: ht.. .:. >::>:::<:1 u s d........ . ... .. . ... ... . • �n .:., .. :. .:..:..:: : r. v :>: . .. ... ....fl t ..:.... .. n.. :. ... .; . u.. ... ... . >:::! 5t# .. C.. ...... ..... .. ... ....#:........ :.: .::: :af :: :.::,: .: ..::. :. ....... ... . t�:<:"'::::> 1st.:: .. .. 4t1 :> 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% Mar04 100% 98% 97% 95% 97% 97% 99% 99% 95% 89% 95% 96 % 88 % 86 % 97 % 95% 96% 95% 96% Apr04 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% Sep 04 99% 98% 98% . 95% 94% 91% 98% 100% 86% 89% 89% 91% 91% 87 % 93% 89% 94 % 93% 93% Peak Period Trains Arriving Within 5 M inutes of Scheduled Time Sep 04 <:<:i:::VENTiRouie::>::;>:::::» ;:<:»:<>AUi::. .rsute•:.�..: .:: :: :. htB:,. ute�::r»>:::,>::::«>ss> lJi/T s:::::<:<:::>:«:>>:RIV>:Eitout i>s:::::<:::::<:::::i]i::>a:!].A:.Route::;:: »>:::1nE; D GiRouia:;::::>::>::>:: «::9f.;iAs<::«>:::::Tcsi:attbe€':sTatipsitita'fot:: `st»: Peak Period Trains 100% 97% 99% 92% 99% 89% 98% 100% 85% 92% 91% 88% 88% 84% 98% 81% 95% 91% 93% 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. • • 87 • • CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS September 2004 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CAUSE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INL/ OC 91 -LA TOTAL Signals/Detectors 0 6 2 0 3 3 8 1 23 Slow Orders/MOW 0 1 2 0 1 4 1 0 9 Track/Switch 0 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 9 Dispatching 0 0 1 1 18 15 10 13 58 Mechanical 1 1 3 0 2 2 1 0 10 Freight Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amtrak Train 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 6 Metrolink Meet/Turn 0 2 18 0 0 0 0 0 20 Vandalism 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 Passenger(s) 0 2 11 0 1 0 1 0 15 SCRRA Hold Policy 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 6 Other 4 1 15 0 4 7 4 2 37 TOTAL 7 18 54 2 32 38 27 18 196 % of TOT 12% 5% 5% 30% 5% 0% 3% 100% Saturday SNB 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 10 0 20 • Saturday AVL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Sunday SNB 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 2 9 88 0405CAUS FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION September 2004 MINUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL TOTAL % of TOT NO DELAY 379 419 499 228 188 298 197 158 2366 79 .4% 1 MIN - 5 MIN 34 67 161 22 32 59 28 13 416 14.0% 6 MIN - 10 MIN 1 13 29 2 10 17 14 8 94 3.2% 11 MIN -20 MIN 2 4 21 0 14 14 8 5 68 2.3% 21 MIN - 30 MIN 1 1 2 0 5 2 1 2 14 0.5 % GREATER THAN 30 MIN 3 0 2 0 3 5 4 3 20 0.7 % ANNULLED 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0.2% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD 420 504 714 252 252 395 252 . 189 2978 100% TRAINS DELAYED >0 min 41 85 215 24 64 97 55 31 612 20.6% TRAINS DELAYED > 5 min 7 18 54 2 32 38 27 18 196 6.6% • 089 • 20:414 e Cti!iilley 1.ixt4sp ruui,i niv >w,f/IfFIJIf K!f1P1?t Riverside - D owntown Activity Detail Report Ge ner ated from 7/01/2004 to 10/01/2004 Date Time Activity Log # Descripti on 7/20/2004 2:10pm 8/28/2004 10:40pm La Sierra 79202 Security caught a transient urinating behind TVM 80183 Security escorted a black male adult off property Acti vity Type 5 - Miscellaneous 5 - Miscellaneous Activity S ubtype 2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 2B - Vagrants / Trespassing # Vehicles 0 0 Date Time Activity Log # Descriptio n 7/15/2004 9:50pm West Corona 79076 Vehicles in far east lot started doing donuts. Th A ctivity Type 5 - Miscellaneous Activity Subtype 2B - Vagrants / Trespassing # Vehicles 0 Date Time A ctivity Lo g # Descriptio n 7/16/2004 7:00pm. North Main Co ro na 79107 Corona PD recovered a stolen vehicle . Activity Type 2 - Criminal Incidents Activity Subtype 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandalis # Vehicles 0 D ate Time Ac tivity Log # D escription 7/22/2004 9:40pm 79275 Window broken on vehicle, called Corona PD. PD did 7/26/2004 7:00pm 79380 Homeless male going through trash cans on station. 7/29/2004 79473 Graffiti in south elevator, security cleaned it of Activity Type 2 - Criminal Incidents 5 - Miscellaneous 2 - Criminal Incidents Activity Subtype # Vehicles 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandalis 2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 2E - Grafitti 0 0 0 .. ..:.. .... ... ... .....:. ::.. ..• •••• •• ••• :• :•:• :,. ...: .....:. n:. ... .. .+ ; }\, :.. .:: .6u, Vin\ : :... . x,y,.:.S:a>.. n.+...:: 4.:: ::w: /.•:.� :.. .i::: ::}:i: .: \.\ \J<i.�yJ:�iiiv .:::;:r::o:ii :ti . n. ...... ... Tu esda y, Octo ber 12, 2004 Page 1 of 1 90 AGENDA ITEM 6N • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorization for Development and Release of a Request for Proposal for a Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize the development and release of a Request for Proposal for the purpose of performing a Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Commuter rail service has been a growing success in Riverside County since its inception in 1993 with the Riverside Line to Los Angeles. In 1995, the Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line began providing service to Orange County, followed most recently by the start of peak -period service on the 91 (Riverside - Fullerton -Los Angeles) Line in 2002. Also in 1993, the Commission acquired the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) with the eventual goal of providing passenger rail service. Upon completion of a commuter rail feasibility study in 2000, the Commission authorized staff to develop commuter rail service on the SJBL to Perris, known as the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project. Currently, the PVL project is in the environmental review phase and awaiting FTA approval to advance to preliminary engineering once acceptable modeling forecasts are produced. The 2000 study also concluded that it was not cost effective to extend commuter rail service to Hemet -San Jacinto on the SJBL because the current and forecast population growth would not generate sufficient ridership to support its development and operation. However, since the study, population growth and land use plan updates have sufficiently changed to support revisiting the subject. Additionally, RCTC staff is participating at both technical and management levels in the development of three separate five -county strategic efforts that will impact passenger and freight rail capacity in our region: Agenda Item 6N 91 • Metrolink Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment A 30 -year commuter rail strategic plan for current service and planned III extensions with a timeline for completion by August 2005. The Riverside County geographic scope is the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 Lines with the planned PVL extension. • Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan A 30 -year plan that reflects regional agreement on a phased strategy to maintain mobility for freight movement to, from, and within Southern California, and determine how best to minimize the impacts of freight movement (truck, train, airport) on local communities, the existing transportation system, and the environment. The timeline for completion is Spring 2006 in order to provide timely input to the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. The Riverside County geographic scope includes, at a minimum, the following freeways — 1-10, 1-15, SR 60, SR 91, SR 86, and corresponding freight rail lines and related cargo airports. • Five -County Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) Joint Venture A joint advocacy effort with BNSF and UP railroads to develop new short- term federal funding and long-term public -private financing mechanisms for port -generated rail and truck capacity improvements in the SCAG region. The Riverside County geographic scope includes Alameda Corridor East grade separation projects and rail capacity improvements on the BNSF and UP main lines that parallel the SR 91 and 1-10 freeways. These activities in the Southern California basin will result in an assessment of passenger and freight rail capacity requirements that will require some form of public subsidy. As a result, the Commission should look at the entire commuter rail system as a whole for our region to determine if additional extensions, beyond the PVL Project, should be assessed in the regional study efforts. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to perform an objective evaluation of the potential for commuter rail extensions to Hemet -San Jacinto, and other areas as addressed in the various strategic planning efforts identified above. The study will: • Examine operations, ridership, and costs to determine the feasibility of implementation of the service; and, • Establish estimates for the physical, operational, and financial feasibility of a major capital investment and operating subsidy projections. Agenda Item 6N 92 • • • Findings from this study will allow public officials and area residents to better understand the general issues and cost estimates of potential extensions of commuter rail to directly serve these communities. The study will consider a 30 -year window of transportation demand and be used as input to the SCRRA Strategic Plan effort and the Commission's Long Range Rail Plan for the 2007 SCAG RTP update. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The intent of this effort is to answer the following major policy questions for each geographic area: • Is a commuter rail extension viable and effective, as part of a multi -modal transportation system to maintain or enhance mobility and contribute to improving the quality of life? If viable: • Are the railroads willing to share their corridor? If so, what are their requirements? • What service levels are appropriate to meet forecasted demand? • How much will it cost (capital and operating) to provide potential rail service levels? • How should the service and capital projects be phased -in over time? The Commission will seek consultant assistance to perform this work over a six to eight month period. Source of funding identified for the planning study is Western Riverside County Rail Local Transportation Funds. The anticipated schedule for retention of a consultant firm is as follows: November 19, 2004 December 13, 2004 December 22, 2004 January 7, 2005 January 12, 2005 Release of Request for Proposal Deadline for Receipt of Proposals Short List of Proposals by Evaluation Committee (if necessary) Interviews of Short List Firms by Evaluation Committee (if necessary) Award of Contract by Commission Agenda Item 6N 93 AGENDA ITEM 60 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Claudia Chase, Property Agent Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Surplus of Perris Wye Property STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Declare the property identified as the Perris Wye Property, a portion of APN 313-271-018, as surplus, as shown on the attached parcel map; and, 2) Authorize staff to initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period and if no interest is expressed, authorize the Executive Director to offer the parcels for sale. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 1993, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, currently known as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, sold various parcels of land along the San Bernardino and San Jacinto subdivision corridors, including the San Jacinto Branch Line and right-of-way, to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). Portions of the San Jacinto Branch Line were abandoned and the tracks removed prior to RCTC's acquisition. The Perris Wye is located within the city limits of Perris. This property is a portion of a larger parcel, identified as Assessor Parcel Number 313-271-018. The subject property is located southwesterly of and adjacent to the operating portion of the San Jacinto Branch Line crossing 'D' Street. The property consists of a narrow strip sixty feet (60') of rail right-of-way. The tracks have already been removed. Staff has identified this property to be of no future use for RCTC and will not interfere with the future development of the Perris Valley Line and recommends surplus of the property for sale. Attachment: Perris Wye Assessor Parcel Map Agenda Item 60 94 ' AGENDA ITEM 7 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 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 Legislation and Transportation Measures Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the update on State and Federal Legislation and the results of the transportation measures on the ballot for November 2nd as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update California Performance Review Governor Schwarzenegger's California Performance Review (CPR) held its eighth and last public hearing on October 20 at the University of California, Irvine. The purpose of the Irvine hearing was to review public comment on the entire plan, and will result in a report from the Commission that provides recommendations to the Governor. In the case of transportation issues, the most promising recommendation in the report is a call for more flexible project delivery methods. This would include design -build and design -sequencing efforts that could speed the delivery of construction projects. So far the Legislature and the Governor have approved a pilot program for design sequencing which is being utilized on the current construction project at the 60/91/215 interchange. The CPR also includes recommendations regarding performance and warranty specifications and construction costs that should be helpful. These recommendations will require legislative action and staff will return to the Commission when specific legislative proposals are introduced. Other beneficial areas of the CPR include support for upholding Proposition 42, a call for California to receive a greater share of federal transportation funding, support for environmental streamlining and comprehensive planning, and the Agenda Item 7 96 ongoing development of alternative, cleaner -burning fuels. These are all long -held positions by RCTC; however the jump between including it in the CPR and accomplishing some of the goals will be a challenge. For example, almost everyone in California agrees that the state should receive a greater share of federal funding, but that lies in the hands of Congress which has yet to pass a long-term extension of the Federal Transportation Act. Upholding the provisions of Proposition 42 would maintain the will of the state's voters who approved the Measure in 2002; however what other choices will the state have if it is faced with yet another multi- billion dollar budget shortfall? Finally, there are a number of suggested improvements in the CPR that raise concerns and Commission staff will pay close attention to any legislative action that might take place next year. For example, one provision in the report suggests that a number of state highways could be turned over to local jurisdictions. This was based on a Caltrans report that was issued in 1995 that called for the relinquishment of 3,262 miles of state highway. The CPR suggests that this would save the state $108 million annually from reduced costs. During the CPR Public Hearing held in Riverside on August 13, Senator Jim Brulte (R -Rancho Cucamonga) expressed a concern that it was inappropriate for the state to claim a savings on any recommendation that merely passed on a responsibility to another level of government. He asked for a full accounting for provisions of this type and relinquishing state highways to local governments certainly fits that description. If this proposal is to be implemented, it will likely result in a contentious legislative fight which impacts areas throughout the state. Another controversial facet of the CPR is the recommendation to create an infrastructure agency that would be overseen by a commission appointed by the Governor. This would meld a number of agencies including Caltrans into a much larger structure with a vast scope of responsibilities. The intent of the proposal would be to look at the state's infrastructure needs in a comprehensive approach that would consider the state's housing, transportation and water needs. While it is certainly true that these subjects are not always coordinated, does combining the issues make it too unwieldy for a state commission to deal with all of it? Moreover, could a commission appointed entirely by the Governor be ready to consider all of the issues in an informed manner and would it be advisable to concentrate this much power with any governor? Implementation of this idea will likely require legislative and voter approval and might be years in the making. It appears as if the CPR Commission will suggest a State Department of Infrastructure but will refrain from recommending changes to the California Transportation Commission. • Agenda Item 7 97 • • • Staff's conclusion is that the California Performance Review exercise will result in a number of worthwhile improvements and changes to state government in a number of areas. However, the issuance of the report in August of this year should be considered the start of the process rather than a defining statement of what will happen. Some press accounts have suggested that a number of recommendations in the CPR are likely to be shelved or scaled back. Some of the CPR Commissioners including Assembly Patricia Bates (R -Laguna Niguel) have called for additional public comment before action is taken. Actual implementation of the recommendations in the report will depend on the subject matter. Some recommendations will require legislation or even voter approval if it involves a constitutional change while simpler recommendations can be implemented by gubernatorial action. Legislative actions and public reaction will either hasten or hinder the implementation of provision in the CPR. Staff will provide ongoing updates and requests for Commission positions as the process unwinds next year and beyond. Bay Bridge Bid Expires On another state subject that is of interest to everyone is the issue of the San Francisco -Oakland Bay Bridge seismic retrofit project. The issue was one of the most contentious items debated by the Legislature during the final hours of their session and was unresolved. It became an issue of statewide importance because a construction bid $2.5 billion more than originally anticipated would have placed statewide transportation resources in even more jeopardy than they already are. Moreover, long -held state policies of an equitable north -south split in transportation funding would be made a moot point. At first, the Governor reacted by stating that the bridge was a Bay Area problem and costs should be borne by local residents through higher tolls. Northern California legislators countered that claim by arguing that the bridge was of statewide importance and deserving of statewide funding. The state has now responded by rejecting the only bid that was submitted for the project. The next step is in the state's hands and could involve re -bidding the project or choosing a simpler design that could prove to be less costly. The problem is that a new design could delay environmental review of the project which could eat into any potential savings. Sunne McPeak, the state's Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing has promised a recommendation by the end of this year. Agenda Item 7 98 Federal Update Federal Reauthorization Delayed Yet Again Congress has yet again decided to approve a short-term extension of the Federal Transportation Act. This time, the action is a six-month extension which effectively punts the bill to the next Congress. While some members have vowed to bring up the bill again before the end of this session, action is highly unlikely. Grade Crossing Funding & Priorities When action is finally taken in the future to pass a federal reauthorization bill, one item of interest to Riverside County and to all of Southern California will be the issue of goods movement. Most specifically the need for federal funding of railroad grade separations is especially acute in a number of communities within the county. Recently, a number of Congressional leaders including all of Riverside County's congressional delegation signed on to a letter to Chairman Don Young of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee urging a total of $900 million be 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. Without a reauthorization of the federal transportation bill, funding for grade separations will remain uncertain and will once again be an important Commission priority next year. During the September meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee, a number of members sought additional information regarding the Commission's grade separation priority list. The current priority list, which is attached, was approved by the Commission in March 2001. The criteria used to develop the list was based on the following seven factors: • Existing Vehicle Delay • Future Vehicle Delay (2020) • Accident Reduction (Safety) • Distance from other grade separations • Local ranking • Emission reduction • Noise reduction (impact on nearby residential areas) • Agenda Item 7 99 • • • Since the list was first approved, one grade separation has been completed in Coachella at Avenue 50 and the Union Pacific Line. It is certainly advisable that the Commission continue to update its priority list and make changes when circumstances require such a re-evaluation. The 2001 effort required a significant level of data collection and work with local jurisdictions on a countywide basis. Ethanol Taxation Fix Approved There is good news, however on the issue of ethanol. Congress recently passed a corporate tax reform bill known as the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. As is usually the case with federal legislation, various amendments for special interest groups can often overwhelm this kind of bill. As one news article stated, ". . .The final 633 -page product pared taxes for interests ranging from major manufacturers to native Alaskan whalers and ethanol producers. Other winners included fishing tackle box makers, NASCAR track owners, Chinese ceiling fan importers, and foreigners placing winning bets at U.S. horse and dog racing tracks. .." Of interest to California and other states that are required to blend their gasoline with ethanol, was a provision that will no longer divert money from the Federal Highway Trust Fund to pay for ethanol production. Under the new law, ethanol production will still be subsidized but 5.2 cents per gallon in federal gas taxes will no longer be siphoned away to pay for the subsidy. What it means for California is that as much as $2.7 billion in federal transportation dollars over the next five years will continue to flow to the state. Attachment: RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Need List March 2001 Agenda Item 7 100 • • • RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Need List, March 2001 Rail Line Cross Street Jurisdiction Overall Weighted Score* Priority Group BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside 4260 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Iowa Av Riverside 3880 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 48/ Dillon Rd Indio/Coachella 3775 1 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley St Corona 3600 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside County 3600 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 50 Coachella 3500 1 (Completed 1/04) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Av Riverside 3440 1 UP (LA SUB) Streeter Av Riverside 3000 1** BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St Riverside 3180 1 UP (LA SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside 3100 1 UP (LA SUB) Riverside Av Riverside 3060 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside 3320 2** BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Columbia Av Riverside 2940 2 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge St Riverside 2820 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 52 Coachella 2750 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona 2738 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Sunset Av Banning 2675 2 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Riverside County 2650 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Washington St Riverside 2520 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Center St Riverside County 2500 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning 2500 3 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 2480 3 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Kansas Av Riverside 2480 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside 2460 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside 2400 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Riverside 2240 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd Calimesa 2225 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) California Av Beaumont 2200 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona 2113 3 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St Riverside 2000 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Railroad St Corona 1975 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway Riverside County 1950 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 1885 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St Riverside 1880 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St Corona 1850 3 UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riverside 1820 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 1755 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St Banning 1750 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St Riverside 1740 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside 1740 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Cota St Corona 1713 4 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Av Riverside County 1700 4 UP (LA SUB) Clay St Riverside County 1700 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Pennsylvania Av Beaumont 1667 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Av Banning 1625 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Airport Road Riverside County 1450 4 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main St Riverside County 1350 4 ** = Per RCTC March 2001 * Seven factors were considered in determining the overall score and resulting priority group; they were identified in consultation with technical staff of the affected jurisdictions, and approved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The factors include: • Safety — Accident Score (combination of frequency & severity) • Delay — Daily Vehicle Delay • Delay — 2020 Daily Vehicle Delay • Emissions Reduction • Noise Reduction • Adjacent Grade Separations; and • Local Priority Ranking 20% of total score 20% of total score 20% of total score 10% of total score 10% of total score 10% of total score 10% of total score AGENDA ITEM 8 • PRESENTATION • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: TUMF Revenue Projections STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenue Projections and presentation prepared by David Taussig and Associates, Inc. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) are the agencies responsible for the administration and delivery of the western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) arterial program. As a result of the growth that western Riverside County has been experiencing, construction of the backbone and zonal road improvements funded through the TUMF program need to be delivered expeditiously. On June 9, 2004, the Commission approved a "Call for Project Priorities for Regional Arterial Segments." On September 8, 2004, the Commission approved the "TUMF Regional Arterial Priority Project Recommendations." In order to facilitate the prioritization of specific road improvements and determine the appropriate phasing of these improvements, it is necessary to take into consideration the TUMF program fees that have been collected to date as well as projections of TUMF revenues expected to be generated by new development in future years. Additionally, the Commission may consider issuing commercial paper to accelerate construction prior to the actual collection of related TUMF revenues. Such short-term debt would be repaid with TUMF revenues expected to be generated by new development in the near -term future. Accordingly, the Commission and WRCOG retained David Taussig and Associates, Inc. (Taussig), a financial consulting firm, along with its subconsultant, The Concord Group (Concord), to prepare TUMF revenue projections for this purpose. Questionnaires and related templates were developed by the consultants and forwarded to the 16 public agencies that are responsible for all future development entitlements in western Riverside County. Information was requested regarding the Agenda Item 8 102 current state of development entitlements within each jurisdiction and the current status of developments that are actually under construction within each jurisdiction. The information that was collected from all agencies was used to generate a database of planned future development for each of the five TUMF funding zones. The database was then adjusted based on a regional residential and commercial/industrial development demand analysis prepared by Concord to more accurately project the magnitude of anticipated development in each funding zone in six-month increments over a five-year period. The resulting development projections were disaggregated into the five land use fee categories that are used for the TUMF program to estimate the TUMF revenues that will be generated during each of these six-month periods. Three scenarios were considered in these projections for the five-year period beginning July 1, 2004 and ending June 30, 2009: slow growth (conservative), average (realistic) growth, and aggressive growth. The cash flow model developed by Taussig can be updated by the Commission or WRCOG in the future through collection of updated development, fee credit, and planning information from the participating jurisdictions. Taussig submitted its report dated September 24, 2004. The report included an Executive Summary which is included as an attachment. Table ES -4 provides a summary of the projected TUMF revenues, net of exemptions already granted by some of the jurisdictions, by six-month period and growth scenario for the five-year period ending June 30, 2009. The results of the projections are summarized below: Gross TUMF revenues Less: exemptions/credits Net TUMF revenues Growth Scenarios Realistic Aggressive $726,292,730 (180,202,990) $802,442,830 (199,468,200) Conservative $664,957,900 (165,055,970) $546,089,740 $602,974,630 $499,901,930 A presentation of the revenue projections will be made by the consultants to provide highlights of the methodology, assumptions, results, and differences between each growth scenario. Attachment: Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenue Projections, Executive Summary • Agenda Item 8 103 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REVENUE PROJECTIONS Newport Bich Riverside ,an lemon 104 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REVENUE PROJECTIONS Prepared for RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION & WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Prepared by DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1301 Dove Street, Suite 600 Newport Beach, California 92660 (800) 969-4382 THE CONCORD GROUP, LLC 130 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 717-6450 • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION B. METHODOLOGY i1 C. CONCLUSION vii SECTION 1 - SUMMARY OF NET TUMF REVENUE PROJECTIONS BY IMPROVEMENT ZONE 1 A. REALISTIC GROWTH SCENARIO 4 B. AGGRESSIVE GROWTH SCENARIO C. CONSERVATIVE GROWTH SCENARIO 8 SECTION 2 - SUMMARY OF BUILDING PERMITS AND GROSS TUMF REVENUES BY IMPROVEMENT ZONE AND LAND USE CATEGORY 9 A. REALISTIC GROWTH SCENARIO 9 B. AGGRESSIVE GROWTH SCENARIO 10 C. CONSERVATIVE GROWTH SCENARIO 10 SECTION 3 - METHODOLOGY FOR TUMF REVENUE ANALYSIS 11 A. OVERVIEW 11 B. METHODOLOGY 11 C. INLAND EMPIRE GROWTH PROJECTIONS 11 D. WESTERN RIVERSIDE CAPTURE OF REGIONAL INLAND EMPIRE GROWTH 12 E. TUMF IMPROVEMENT ZONE CAPTURE OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE GROWTH 12 APPENDIX • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION The attached Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") revenue projections (the "Revenue Projections") and report (the "Report") have been prepared on behalf of Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") and Western Riverside Council of Government ("WRCOG"), collectively referred to as the "Clients." The consulting firms responsible for the Revenue Projections and Report, David Taussig and Associates, Inc. and The Concord Group, LLC, collectively referred to as the "Consultants," were hired by the Clients to provide third party demographic and real estate market expertise necessary to analyze the revenues anticipated to be collected over the next five years through the TUMF Program in Western Riverside County. The Consultants were selected for this engagement as a result of their extensive experience working with both public and private sector clients throughout Western Riverside County on public financing and real estate market -related issues. The TUMF Program was enacted in 2003 by the County of Riverside (on behalf of unincorporated Riverside County) and by the fourteen cities located in Western Riverside County, as well as the March Air Force Base Joint Powers Authority. In brief, TUMF fees are collected by each of these sixteen local jurisdictions from builders and/or land developers at either building permit issuance or Certificate of Occupancy for new development. The TUMF Program is intended to construct $2.6 billion in road infrastructure, which includes regionally significant highways, arterials and collector roads (other than freeways) and other facilities that are necessary to support inter -community motor vehicle trips in Western Riverside County. The amount and timing of the TUMF revenues to be collected from new development in Western Riverside County between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2009 are critical to the successful planning, design and construction of the regional network of new and improved roads that constitute the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (the "Regional System"). Based on a Memorandum of Understanding executed on July 10, 2003 by RCTC and WRCOG, of the TUMF revenues generated prior to April 1, 2009, 48.1% will be allocated to RCTC for regional arterials and Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process ("CETAP") corridor road projects. An additional 48.1% will be administered by WRCOG and will be allocated to each of five TUMF Improvement Zones to be utilized for regional roads of more local significance. Finally, the remaining 3.8% of the TUMF fees generated will be used for regional mass transit projects with the County. The TUMF Fee levels being collected from builders and developers by the sixteen local jurisdictions during Fiscal Year 2004-05 are listed below in Table ES -1. These fee levels may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. The fees may be increased or decreased to reflect changes in the actual and estimated costs of the Regional System. WRCOG must review the fee levels within two years of program implementation, and no less than every five years thereafter. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the WRCOG Executive Committee will approve an annual increase of 2.6% every July, beginning in July 2005. This figure reflects the average annual increase over the past 5 years (from June 1999 to June 2004) of the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for Los Angeles. David Taussig & Associates and The Concord Group, LLC Page i Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenue Projections September 24, 2004 107 TABLE ES - 1' TUMF FEE LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-05 LAND USE CATEGORY FEE LEVEL Single Family Residential Unit $6,650 per unit Multi Family Residential Unit $4,607 per unit Industrial Project $.48 per square foot Retail Commercial Project $2.60 per square foot Service Commercial Project $1.61 per square foot ITUMF fee levels for Industrial, Retail and Service Commercial projects will be phased in over a three-year period: $0.48 per square foot of Industrial, $2.60 per square foot of Retail Commercial and $1.61 per square foot of Service Commercial development for the period July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005, and $0.96 per square foot of Industrial, $5.20 per square foot of Retail Commercial and $3.25 per square foot of Service Commercial development for July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006. On July 1, 2006, the full fee levels of $1.45 per square foot of Industrial, $7.81 per square foot of Retail Commercial, and $4.84 per square foot of Service Commercial development will take effect. B. METHODOLOGY In order to project TUMF revenues in six month increments over the next five years (July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2009), the Consultants relied on development and entitlement data provided by each of the sixteen participating jurisdictions. As explained in Sections 1 and 3 of the Report, which provide details on the methodology utilized by the Consultants, five land use categories were selected for data collection to coincide with the five separate categories listed in Table ES -1, so that the five designated TUMF fee levels could each be applied to their appropriate land use category. The data received from each of the sixteen jurisdictions for the five land use categories reflected the amount of development currently within that specific jurisdiction at each of six construction/entitlement stages: (i) Application Filed (ii) Concept Plan Approved (iii) Specific Plan Approved (iv) Tentative Map Approved (v) Final Map Recorded (vi) Under Construction The entitlement data collected from the jurisdictions were then aggregated by TUMF Improvement Zone, according to the Zone in which each jurisdiction was located. The five TUMF Improvement Zones and the jurisdictions belonging to each Zone are listed in Table ES - 2, below. David Taussig & Associates and The Concord Group, LLC Page ii Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenue Projections September 24, 2004 • 108 • TABLE ES - 2 JURISDICTIONS WITHIN EACH TUMF IMPROVEMENT ZONE ZONE JURISDICTIONS Zone 1 (Northwest) Riverside, Norco, and Corona Zone 2 (Southwest) Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula Zone 3 (Central) Moreno Valley, Perris, and the March Air Force Base Joint Powers Authority Zone 4 (San Jacinto) San Jacinto and Hemet Zone 5 (Pass) Calimesa, Beaumont, and Banning Once the development/entitlement data for each of the five land use categories had been aggregated by TUMF Improvement Zone, this data was applied to a regional residential and non- residential demand and trending analysis prepared by The Concord Group for Western Riverside County. The construction/entitlement data for each TUMF Improvement Zone essentially represented a supply of development for each of the five land use categories, and by comparing this supply for each land use category with the appropriate demand factor, the Consultants were able to phase the anticipated development over a five year period in six month increments to match projected demand. In developing its demand and trending analysis, The Concord Group considered three separate growth scenarios that could potentially occur over the next five years. All three scenarios have the following same underlying assumptions: • Employment growth in the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) will average 37,000 new jobs annually over the next six years (2004 to 2009), per the July 2004 Economic Forecast published by the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation ("LAEDC"). The LAEDC forecast is more conservative than the Southern California Association of Government's ("SCAG") projection of 45,000 new jobs per year (per the 2004 RTP Growth Forecast). The Concord Group has found SCAG to typically overestimate employment growth, and as such, favored the LAEDC projection. The Inland Empire's highest annual growth was 57,000 jobs, established in 1999. During 2003, 24,000 jobs were added, a 7 -year low. The LAEDC forecast is a middle point between the Inland Empire's moderate and peak growth levels. Housing unit growth in the Inland Empire will average 41,000 new units over the same time period, a forecast that takes into consideration both the LAEDC and SCAG forecasts. Over the next three years, LAEDC forecasts annual housing growth of 47,000 units, while SCAG only projects 30,000 units. The LAEDC projection appears aggressive, in light of historical growth and building permit levels. The 2003 level of 43,000 issuances was a 14 -year high, and a level buoyed by low mortgage rates. The SCAG projection appears conservative, considering the Inland Empire's increasing David Taussig & Associates and The Concord Group, LLC Page iii Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenue Projections September 24, 2004 109 capture of regional Southern California growth. Over the next five years, strong employment growth and limited availability of developable land in neighboring counties, in combination with rising interest rates, will lead to continued strong, yet moderated, housing growth. As such, The Concord Group forecast is a relative middle ground between the LAEDC and SCAG projections. The basic assumptions listed above define the drivers of growth — employment and households. Employment drives industrial and office growth, while households drive demand for housing units and retail. The table on the following page identifies the key differences between each of the growth scenarios. David Taussig & Associates and The Concord Group, LLC Page iv Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenue Projections September 24, 2004 110 • Residential Western Riverside Capture of Inland Empire Projected Housing Units: Office 45% (per early 1990s capture) Ratio of New Office Deliveries to Employment Growth: 9 sf/job (per economic down cycle) Western Riverside Capture of Inland Empire Office Deliveries: 57% (per 2000 to 2003 capture) Industrial Ratio of New Industrial Deliveries to Employment Growth: 200 sf/job (per economic down cycle) Western Riverside Capture of Inland Empire Industrial Deliveries: 23% (per 2000 to 2003 capture) Retail Ratio of Retail Inventory to Housing Units: (dependent on conservative housing unit projection) CPNARICV2 Residential 62 sf/du (per Q2 2004 retail inventory) Western Riverside Capture of Inland Empire Projected Housing Units: Office 50% (per 2003 capture) Ratio of New Office Deliveries to Employment Growth: 11 sf/job (1992 to 2003 average ratio) Western Riverside Capture of Inland Empire Office Deliveries: 57% (per 2000 to 2003 capture) Industrial Ratio of New Industrial Deliveries to Employment Growth: 298 sf/job (1992 to 2003 average ratio) Western Riverside Capture of Inland Empire Industrial Deliveries: 23% (per 2000 to 2003 capture) Retail Ratio of Retail Inventory to Housing Units: (dependent on realistic housing unit projection) ;ssl Residential 62 sf/du (per Q2 2004 retail inventory) Western Riverside Capture of Inland Empire Projected Housing Units: Office 55% (per trending of the market) Ratio of New Office Deliveries to Employment Growth: 13 sf/job (2000 to 2003 average ratio) Western Riverside Capture of Inland Empire Office Deliveries: 57% (per 2000 to 2003 capture) Industrial Ratio of New Industrial Deliveries to Employment Growth: 403 sf/job (2000 to 2003 average ratio) Western Riverside Capture of Inland Empire Industrial Deliveries: 23% (per 2000 to 2003 capture) Retail Ratio of Retail Inventory to Housing Units: 62 sf/du (per Q2 2004 retail inventory) (dependent on aggressive housing unit projection) The above scenarios provide a projection of future development in Western Riverside County. To assign future development to the five TUMF Improvement Zones, The Concord Group considered each zone's historical capture of development (for each of four land uses with the two residential categories being combined) as well as each zone's future development pipeline. The building permit issuance data, by TUMF Improvement Zone and land use category for each of the three alternative growth scenarios, are listed and discussed in Section 2 of this Report. David Taussig & Associates and The Concord Group, LLC Page v Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenue Projections September 24, 2004 111 This building permit data were then multiplied by the TUMF fee levels listed in Table ES -1 (with a 2.6% inflation factor applied annually in years two through five) to produce Revenue Projections for each TUMF Improvement Zone under the three growth scenarios. For purposes of this Report, these projections were defined as Gross Revenue Projections, because they did not take into consideration those developments that have been exempted from paying TUMF fees by their local jurisdictions, nor did they include future development that will not pay TUMF fees because they will receive credits for building TUMF facilities. While many of the exempted projects are constructing road improvements in return for their exemptions and are therefore contributing to Riverside County's infrastructure needs, as will those projects receiving TUMF credits in the future, both still represent new development that will not be paying fees under the TUMF Program and therefore will cause a reduction in the projected revenue stream. The TUMF exemptions that have already been granted by some of the local jurisdictions for projects currently under construction or already in the development pipeline were identified by these jurisdictions at the same time that they provided general development data to the Consultants. By comparing the exemptions granted by the jurisdictions that constitute each TUMF Zone for each of the five land use categories with the development under construction or in the pipeline in those same jurisdictions, the Consultants determined a projected percentage of exempt projects for each TUMF Zone (see Table ES -3). The Gross Revenue Projections for each TUMF Zone for each of the ten projected six-month periods were then reduced by the exempt percentage in that TUMF Zone to generate the Net Revenue Projections for each Zone. It is the intent of both RCTC and WRCOG to carefully monitor the actual number of exemptions and credits that are exercised by developers over the next twelve months, and adjustments will be made to future Revenue Projections as deemed appropriate. TABLE ES -3 Exempt Development Percentages All Zones & All Product Types All Growth Scenarios Single Family Multi -Family Office Retail Industrial 4% 8% 75% 85% 61% 26% 64% 82% 70% 0% 20% 0% 2% 43% 0% 11% 41% 38% 48% 2% 52% 98% 71% 0% 0% David Taussig & Associates and The Concord Group, LLC Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenue Projections September 24, 2004 112 Page vi • • • The five year TUMF Net Revenue Projections for each of the three growth scenarios, in six- month increments, are summarized in Table ES -4 and illustrated in Charts ES -1, ES -2 and ES -3. C. CONCLUSION Under the Realistic Growth Scenario, Net TUMF Revenues generated in Western Riverside County will total $546,089,740 over the next five years. Annual Revenues are anticipated to be $111,884,510 in Fiscal Year 2004-05, decreasing to $105,870,610 by Fiscal Year 2008-09. While the projected 2.6% annual TUMF fee escalator is a factor that would support an anticipated increase in revenues, a projected decrease in annual residential and retail development building permit issuances over the five year period is the reason for a projected drop in TUMF revenues over that period. The number of exemptions granted to -date by local jurisdictions had a major impact on the projected revenue stream under the Realistic Growth Scenario, reducing it over the five-year period by almost 25% ($180,202,980) from the Gross TUMF Revenues calculated in Section 2 of the Report. Under the Aggressive Growth Scenario, Net TUMF Revenues generated in Western Riverside County will total $602,974,630 over the next five years. Annual Revenues are anticipated to be $122,675,120 in Fiscal Year 2004-05, decreasing to $116,935,500 by Fiscal Year 2008-09. Once again, the impact of a drop in building permit issuances for residential and retail development more than neutralizes a rise in TUMF fee levels, and leads to a drop in annual TUMF Revenues over the five year period. Gross TUMF Revenues under the Aggressive Growth Scenario were again reduced by almost 25% as a result of the TUMF exemptions granted to -date by local jurisdictions. Under the Conservative Growth Scenario, Net TUMF Revenues generated in Western Riverside County will total $499,901,930 over the next five years. Annual Revenues are anticipated to be $102,149,600 in Fiscal Year 2004-05, but would drop to $96,851,590 by Fiscal Year 2008-09. This decline in annual revenues is again a result of a projected decline in annual residential and retail development building permits over the five-year period. Once again, Gross TUMF Revenues under the Conservative Growth Scenario were reduced by almost 25% as a result of the TUMF exemptions granted to -date by local jurisdictions. David Taussig & Associates and The Concord Group, LLC Page vii Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenue Projections September 24, 2004 113 • Growth Scen ario Note: $'s in 1,000s 2"d Half 2004 55,951.27 61,609.12 • T ABLE ES — 4 PROJECTED NET TUMF REVENUES BY PERI OD AND G ROWTH SCENARI O 1st H alf 2005 55,448. 87 61,066. 00 2"d Half 2005 1st Half 2006 53,099.14 49,463.82 51,659.18 53,994.17 2"d Half 2006 62,488.84 lst Half 2007 2"d Half 2007 1st Half 2008 • 2nd H alf 2008 1st Half 2009 NET T OTAL 53,668.98 54,796.52 51,919 .35 53,054.62 52,815.99 $546,08974 59,590.20 59,336 .54 60,620 .01 57,376 .56 58,630.21 58,305 .28 51,300.64 50,848.95 49,061.78 50,145.81 47,471.02 48,539 .61 48,31 1.99 $499,901.93 David Tau ssig & Associa tes and The Con cord Grou p, LLC Page viii Riverside Co unty Transportatio n Uniform Mitiga tion Fee R evenu e Proje ctions September 24, 2004 114 RIVE RSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATIO N FEE REVENUE PROJECTIONS N ovember 10, 2004 Dav id Taussig & Associates, Inc. 1301 Dove Street, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 955-1500 The Concord Group, LLC 130 Newport Beach, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 717-6450 Absorption Methodology EX HIBIT S3 -I SUMMA RY OF MET HOD OL OGY DRIVE RS OF DEVEL OPMENT - INL AND EMPIRE Metrics: Employm ent Proje cti ons Ho usehold Projections Population Projections Metrics: Residential Buildi ng Permits Commercial/Industrial Permits Commercial/Ind ustrial Deliveries O UTPUT Emp loy ment Driv es Office In dustrial Metrics: Historical Capture D ev elopmen t Pipeline Inland Empire Growth Employment Households WESTERN RIVERSIDE CAPTU RE Conside r Western Riverside's Hist orical Cantur e of Inl and Western Ri verside Gr owth Empl oyment Househ olds RE SULTANT Consider TUMF Z one Captu re Growth Projection s by TUMF Zone Residential du's Office sf Industrial sf Retail sf So urces: LAE DC Chapm an Forecast SCA G So urces: U.S. Housing and Urban Dev. Construction Industry Research Board CoSt ar Households Drive Residential Retail Sources: All of above City & Co unty Planni ng Departme nts Key Assumptions —Inland Empire 38,000 jobs — drives office and industrial — realistic scenario The employment forecast drives the growth projections for industrial and office development. Key Assumptions — Inland Empire 40,000 building permits — households drive retail — realistic scenario 50,000 45,000 - 40,000 - t 35,000 - e" 30,000 — 4 25,000 - a -a' 20,000 15,000 - 10,000 5,000 Projection The residential b ui ding permit forecast dri ves the growth projectio ns for residential a nd retail development. 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004e 2005f 2006f 2007f 2008f 2009f Historical ® LA EDC Forecast SCAG Forecast* 0 TCG Fo recast** Key Assumptions —Western Riverside Capture 50% capture of residential building permits 50,000 50% 45,000 — 40,000 /" �''�✓ — 45% 35,000 — ca 30,000 — ad a, c 25,000 — a 2• 0,000 — a 15,000 -- cC 10,000 5,000 — 0 1992 Wester n Riverside Capture 2003 - 50% (realistic) 1992-2003 = 45% (c ons ervative) Trending = 55% (aggressive) Western Riverside's capture of total Inland Empire building permit issuances has been steadily increasing, rising fr om 37% in 1992 to nearly 50% in 2003. 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 In lan d Empire Western Riv erside* Western R iverside Capt ure 2002 2003 — 40% — 35% - 30% 25% Western Riverside Capture of Inland Empire Key Assumptions — Western Riverside Capture 57% capture of office 700,000 80% 600,000 — — o 500,000 — — 60% E a W — 50% .^1 G� V — 40% ;? 77 > GPI — 30% 100,000 — s` a — 20% 2000 2001 2002 In land Empire MI Western Riverside Western Riverside Capture 10% 2003 Key Assumptions — Western Riverside Capture 23% capture of industrial An nual Industrial D eliveries (sf) 22,500,000 20,000,000 — 17,500,000 15,000,000 — 12,500,000 — 10,000,000 7,500,000 — 5,000,000 1 2,500,000 — 2000 2001 Weste rn Riverside Capture 2000-2003 = 23% 2002 In land Empire NMI Western Riv erside Western Riverside C apture 2003 50% — 45% — 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% — 5% 0% Wester n Riverside Capture of I nla nd Empire Key Assumptions — TUMF Zone Capture Historical Capture Key Assumptions — TUMF Zone Capture Future Development Pipeline TUMF Zone Capture of Residen tial U nits in Each Plannin g Stage 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% A pplicatio n C oncept Plan Specific Plan Ten tative Map Final Map Under Constructio n U nknown ® Zone 1 ■ Zo ne 2 ❑ Zon e 3 ❑ Zone 4 ® Zone 5 Total: All Stages Result - Projected Development by TUMF Zone TUMF ZONE: RESIDENTI AL (UNITS) INDUSTRIAL (SF) OFFICE (SF) RETAIL (SF) TOTAL SFD MT 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 SCENARIO 1- CONSERV ATIVE 7/01-12/31 2004 461,101 130,853 31,155 0 0 47,760 19,381 692 692 692 184,110 203,181 88,876 95,233 63,510 2,954 3,260 1,426 1,528 1,019 2,275 2,738 1,184 1,452 958 679 522 242 76 61 1/01 - 6/30 2005 654,356 185,696 44,213 0 0 67,188 27,897 982 1,179 982 180,495 203,181 87,692 95,296 64,382 2,896 3,260 1,407 1,529 1,033 2,215 2,722 1,161 1,445 966 681 538 246 84 67 7/01-12/31 2005 610,143 185,696 88,427 0 0 66,599 28,290 982 1,375 982 177,939 204,490 87,069 95,919 65,629 2,855 3,281 1,397 1,539 1,053 2,170 2,723 1,146 1,447 979 685 558 251 92 74 1/01 - 6/30 2006 476,266 185,215 220,494 0 0 65,838 28,608 980 1,568 980 163,729 192,025 80,712 90,123 62,450 2,627 3 ,081 1,295 1,446 1,002 1,983 2,542 1,055 1,352 927 644 539 240 94 75 7/01-12/31 2006 423,348 185,215 264,592 0 8,820 65,250 29,000 980 1,764 980 161,361 193,209 80,088 90,684 63,634 2,589 3 ,100 1,285 1,455 1,021 1,942 2,542 1,041 1,353 939 647 558 244 102 82 1/01 - 6/30 2007 374,324 182,809 304,682 0 8,705 63,823 29,010 967 1,934 967 151,451 185,107 75,726 86,944 61,702 2 ,430 2,970 1,215 1,395 990 1,810 2,421 978 1,290 906 620 549 237 105 84 7/01-12/31 2007 343,855 182,809 326,445 0 17,410 63,242 29,397 967 2,127 967 149,207 186,229 75,165 87,505 62,824 2,394 2,988 1,206 1,404 1,008 1,772 2,420 965 1,292 917 622 568 241 112 91 1/01 - 6/30 2008 313,616 177,998 339,044 0 16,952 61,013 29,000 942 2,260 942 139,609 178,002 70,864 83,64! 60,767 2,240 2,856 1,137 1,342 975 1,646 2,299 904 1,228 882 594 557 233 114 93 7/01-12/31 2008 266,997 177,998 360,235 16,952 25,428 60,448 29,377 942 2,448 942 137,490 179,061 70,366 84,202 61,827 2,206 2,873 1,129 1,351 992 1,610 2,298 892 1,229 893 596 575 237 122 99 1/01 - 6/30 2009 239,164 173,188 371, 116 16,494 24,741 58,265 28,949 916 2,565 916 135,371 180,121 69,805 84,700 62,886 2,172 2,890 1,120 1,359 1,009 1,575 2,298 879 1,230 903 597 592 241 129 106 SCENA RIO 2 - REALISTIC 7/01-12/31 2004 686,214 194,736 46,366 0 0 57,540 23,350 834 834 834 204,552 225,743 98,786 105,829 70,553 3,282 3,622 1,585 1,698 1,132 2 ,527 3,042 1,316 1,613 1,064 581 487 224 81 64 1/01 - 6/30 2005 973,818 276,354 65,799 0 0 80,947 33,609 1,183 1,420 1,183 200,564 225,805 97,477 105,891 71,550 3,218 3,623 1,564 1,699 1,148 2,462 3,025 1,290 1,606 1,073 579 499 226 88 70 7/01-12/31 2005 908,019 276,354 131,597 0 0 80,237 34,083 1,183 1,657 1,183 197,759 227,177 96,792 106,577 72,921 3,173 3,645 1,553 1,710 1,170 2,411 3,025 1,273 1,607 1,088 579 514 229 96 76 1/01 - 6/30 2006 708,783 275,638 328,140 0 0 79, 321 34,467 1,180 1,889 1,180 181,928 213,340 89,686 100 ,157 69,368 2,919 3,423 1,439 1,607 1,113 2,204 2,824 1,173 1,503 1,030 540 494 217 98 77 7/01-12/31 2006 630,029 275,638 393,768 0 13,126 78,613 34,939 1,180 2,125 1,180 179,311 214,649 89,001 100,780 70,677 2,877 3,444 1,428 1,617 1,134 2,158 2,824 1,157 1,504 1,043 540 508 220 105 83 1/01 - 6/30 2007 571,731 279,217 465,362 0 13,296 78,916 35,871 1,196 2,391 1,196 168,279 205,674 84,139 96,605 68,558 2,700 3,300 1,350 1,550 1,100 2,012 2,690 1,087 1,434 1,007 513 498 212 108 86 7/01-12/31 2007 525,195 279,217 498,603 0 26,592 78,199 36,349 1,196 2,631 1,196 165,786 206,921 83,516 97,228 69,805 2,660 3,320 1,340 1,560 1,120 1,968 2,689 1,072 1,435 1,019 512 511 214 115 92 1/01 - 6/30 2008 498,262 282,797 538,661 0 26,933 78,475 37,300 1,211 2,906 1,211 155,128 197,759 78,779 92,990 67,499 2,489 3,173 1,264 1,492 1,083 1,829 2,554 1,005 1,365 980 485 498 206 116 93 7/01-12/31 2008 424,196 282,797 572,328 26,933 40,400 77,748 37,784 1,211 3,149 1,211 152,760 198,943 78,156 93,551 68,683 2,451 3,192 1,254 1,501 1,102 1,789 2,554 991 1,366 992 483 511 208 123 99 1/01 - 6/30 2009 395,473 286,377 613,665 27,274 40,911 77,996 38,753 1,226 3,434 1,226 150,392 200,127 77,595 94,174 69,867 2,413 3,211 1,245 1,511 1,121 1,749 2,553 977 1,367 1,003 481 523 210 130 105 SCENAR IO 3 - AGGRESSIV E 7/01-12/31 2004 928,089 263,377 62,709 0 0 71,327 28,944 1,034 1,034 1,034 224,995 248,305 108,633 116,362 77,595 3,610 3,984 1,743 1,867 1,245 2,780 3,347 1,447 1,774 1,170 639 536 246 89 70 1/01 - 6/30 2005 1,317,067 373,762 88,991 0 0 100,340 41,662 1,467 1,760 1,467 220,570 248,367 107,200 116,486 78,655 3,539 3,985 1,720 1,869 1,262 2,707 3,327 1,419 1,766 1,180 636 549 248 97 77 7/01-12/31 2005 1,228,076 373,762 177,982 0 0 99,460 42,248 1,467 2,054 1,467 217,516 249,925 106,452 !17,234 80,213 3,490 4,010 1,708 1,881 1,287 2,652 3,328 1,401 1,768 1,197 636 566 252 106 84 1/01 - 6/30 2006 958,613 372,794 443,802 0 0 98,324 42,724 1,463 2,341 1,463 200,127 234,656 98,599 110,129 76,286 3,211 3,765 1,582 1,767 1,224 2,424 3,106 1,289 1,652 1,132 594 544 238 107 85 7/01-12/31 2006 852,100 372,794 532,563 0 17,752 97,446 43,310 1,463 2,634 1,463 197,260 236,089 97,913 110,877 77,720 3,165 3,788 1,571 1,779 1,247 2,374 3,106 1,273 1,654 1,147 594 559 242 116 92 1/01 - 6/30 2007 753,427 367,953 613,254 0 17,522 95,315 43,325 1,444 2,888 1,444 185,107 226,242 92,553 106,265 75,414 2,970 3,630 1,485 1,705 1,210 2,213 2,958 1,195 1,577 1,107 564 547 233 118 94 7/01-12/31 2007 692,101 367,953 657,058 0 35,043 94,448 43,902 1,444 3,177 1,444 182,365 227,613 91,868 106,951 76,785 2,926 3,652 1,474 1,716 1,232 2,165 2,958 1,179 1,579 1,121 563 562 236 126 101 1/01 - 6/30 2008 631,237 358,269 682,418 0 34,121 91,119 43, 310 1,406 3,375 1,406 170,647 217,516 86,633 102,276 74,230 2,738 3,490 1,390 1,641 1,191 2,012 2,809 1,105 1,502 1,078 533 548 227 128 102 7/01-12/31 2008 537,404 358,269 725,069 34,121 51,181 90,275 43,872 1,406 3,656 1,406 168,030 218,825 85,947 102,899 75,539 2,696 3,511 1,379 1,651 1,212 1,968 2,809 1,089 1,502 1,091 531 562 229 135 109 1/01 - 6/30 2009 481,381 348,587 746,971 33,199 49,798 87,014 43,234 1,368 3,831 1,368 165,412 220,134 85,324 103,585 76,847 2,654 3,532 1,369 1,662 1,233 1,924 2,808 1,075 1,504 1,104 529 576 231 143 116 Key Differences Between each Growth Scenario SCENARIO 1 - CONSERVATIVE Residential We stern Riversid e Capture of Inland Empire Proj ected Housing Units: 45% (per early 1990s capture) Offi ce Ratio of New Office Deliveries to Employment G rowth: 9 sf/job (per economic down cy cl e) Western Riv ersid e Captu re of Inland Empire Office D eliveries: 57% (per 2000 to 2003 captu re) Industrial Ratio of New Indust rial Deliveries to Employment Growth: 200 sf/job (per economi c down cycle) Western Riverside Captu re of Inland Empire Industrial Deliv eries: Retail 23% (per 2000 to 2003 c aptu re) Ratio of Retail Inventory to Housing Units: (depe ndent on conservative hou sing unit projection) ;NARIO 2 - REALISTICr Resid ential 62 sf/du (p er Q2 2004 r etail inv entory) We ster n Riverside Capture of Inland Empi re Project ed Housing Units: Office 50% (per 2003 captur e) Ratio of New Offi ce Deliveries to Employment Growth: Western Riverside Capture of Inland Empire Offi ce Deliverie s: Industr ial 11 sf/job (1992 to 2003 average ratio) 57% (pe r 2000 to 2003 captu re) Ratio of New Industrial De live ries to Employ ment Growth: 298 sf/job (1992 to 2003 aver age ratio) Western Riverside Capture of Inland Empire Industrial Delive ries: Retail 23% (pe r 2000 to 2003 capture) Ratio of Retail Inventory to Housing Units: (depende nt on realistic housing unit pro jection) SCENARIO 3 - AGGRESSIVE;; Residential 62 sf/du (per Q2 2004 retail inventory) Western Rive rside Capture of Inla nd Empire Projecte d Housing Units: Office 55% (per trending of the market) Ratio of Ne w Office Deliveries to Employme nt Growth: Western Riverside Cap ture of Inland Empire Office Deliver ies: Ind ustrial 13 sf/job (2000 to 2003 av erag e ratio) 57% (per 2000 to 2003 ca pture) Ra tio of New Industr ial Deliveries to E mployment Growth: 403 sf/job (2000 to 2003 ave rage ratio) Wester n Riverside Ca pture of Inland Empire Industrial Deliveries: 23% (per 2000 to 2003 capture) Retail Ratio of Retail Inventory to Housing Units: 62 sf/du (per Q2 2004 retail invento ry) (de pendent on aggressive housing unit p rojection) TABLE 1-4 - TUMF REVENUES SUMMARY PROJECTED NET REVENUES BY PERIOD & Z ONE FOR ALL PRODUCT TYPES REALISTIC GROWTH SCENARIO 1,000) ZONE 1 GROSS '(LESS C. RE UTSIEXEMPTIiiN1 2ND HALF 2004 1ST HALF 2005 2ND HALF 2005 1 ST HALF 2006 2ND HALF 2006 Projection Period 1ST HALF 2007 2ND HALF 2007 t 1ST HALF 2008 2ND H ALF 2008 1ST HALF 2009 ZONE TOTAL $20,435.07 (51,280.14) $20,158 98 ($1,376.66) $21,347.63 ($1,845.43) $19,474 .38 ($1,637,38) $20,419 .91 ($1,983.54) $19097.70 ($1,864:02) $19,180 48 ($1,849.81) $17,923.69 ($1,758 .31) $17,948.51 ($1,714,91) $17,581.49 ($1,672.48) $193,567.85 ($16,982.69) 1 NET REVENUES 519,154. 94 518,782 .32 $19,502.20 517,837 .01 518,436 .37 517,233 .69 $17,330.66 $16,165.38 516,233 .59 515,909 .01 5176,585 .16 '7ONle 2 � e" GROSS ? ', (LESS C'®�ITSIEXEMFTIiONS) $23,190. 91 ($7,156. 62) $23,189.00 ($7,174.58) $24,626 .23 ($7,921.10) $23,088.90 ($7,449.01) $24,477.66 ($8,166.47) $23,430.73 ($7,839.30) $24,109 .80 (88,092.56) $23,012.13 ($7,744.31) $23,689.02 ($7,997.89) $23,763.04 ($8,046.67) $236,577.41 ($77,588.52) NET R 516,034. 28 516,014.41 516,705 .13 $15,639 .89 516,311 .19 515,591 .43 $16,017 .23 515,267 .82 515,691 .13 515,716 .37 $158,988.89 ZION GR,, (L8 4� o a P'TIUI $10,063.81 (81746 36) $9,906.61 ($1712.18) $10,401.48 ($1,739.16) $9,814 .19 ($1;803.61) $10,438.04 ($1828.73) $9,975.14 ($1531 06) $10,181.17 ($1549 57) $9,681.86 ($1,453.46) $9,886.90 (81,470 86) $9,852.51 ($1 ,450.571 $100,201.72 ($15,885 .55) NE', $VEN0 ZO r� - --- Jib ZON 't R fLE'? 1 58,317. 45 58,194.43 58,662.32 58,210 .58 58,809.31 58,444 .08 58,631 .60 58,228.41 58,416.04 58,401.94 584,316 .18 $11,376. 12 ($2,X1. 28) $11,362.92 ($2,395 65) $11,977.76 ($2,579.51) $11,245.00 ($2,429.84) $11,835 .04 ($2,606 27) $11,328.25 ($2,502 .91) $11,670.98 ($2,586 .05) $11,140.60 ($2,475.78) $11,520 .32 (82,559.34) $11,570.52 ($2,578 .00) $115,027 .49 ($25,104 .E;2) 58,984.84 58,967.27 59398. 25 58,815. 16 59.228.77 58,825.34 59,084 .92 58,664 .81 58,960 .98 58,992 .52 $89,922 .87 $7,555.23 ($4,095. 471 $7,645:87 ($4,155. 43) $8,165.58 (84,478 75) $7,756.10 ($4,264.57) $8,280.56 ($4,580.97) 88,026.88 ($4,452.44) 88,381.39 ($4,649 .29 $8,088 .36 ($4,495.42) $8,448.01 ($4,695 .14) $8,570 .29 ($4,774.14) $80,918.26 ($44,641 .61) NET! 1ES $3,459. 76 $3,490.44 53,686.83 $3,491. 53 $3,699.60 $3,574 .44 $3,732.10 $3,592 .93 $3,752 .87 $3,796 .15 536,276 .65 PERI e AL GR (LESS CREDITL'EFEl R NET REVENUES 572,621.14 ($16,669.87) 572,263.38 ($16,814. 51) 576,518. 69 !$18,563. 95) $71,378:57 ($17,384.40) $75,451.21 ($18,965.97) $71,858.69 ($18,189.72) $73,523.81 ($18,727.29 $69,846.64 ._ ($17,927, X97 $71,492.75 ($18,438.13) $71,337.84 ($18,52T.86) $726,292.73 ($180,202.98) $55,951. 27 555,448. 87 557.954. 73 553,994. 17 $56,485. 24 553,668.98 554,796.52 551,919.35 $53,054 .62 552,815.99 $546,089.74 $144,884 51 {$33,424 37} Zone 1 = Rivers,de, Norco, Corona $111,400.14 Zone 2 = Canyon Lake, La ke Elsinore, M urneta, Temecula Zone 3 = M oreno Va lley, Marc h JPA, Perris Zone 4 = San Jac into, He met 1st Nall = January 2nd half = July 9st _ _ 9st June 30th - December 31st $142,630 60 ' ($36,959 99) $105,870.61 - 0 .248113434. - one, - a (mesa, Beaumo nt, TABLE 2-1 - DET AILED BUILDING PERMIT AND GROSS REVENUES SUM MARY - ALL ZONES PROJECTED REVENUES AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSU ANCE BY PERIOD REALISTIC GROWTH SCENARIO PRODUCT TYPE I YRE 1 EI�I 2ND HALF 2004 1ST HALF 2005 2ND HALF 2005 1ST HALF 2006 FVojecti on;Period 2ND HALF 2006 1ST HALF 2007 2ND HALF 2007 1ST HALF 2008 2ND HALF 2008 1ST HALF 2009 PRODUCT TOTALS ET T�� 9,562 9,456 9,404 8,734 8,686 8,230 8,183 7,733 7,692 7,649 85,329 E1 $6,650.00 $6,650 .00 $6,822 .90 $6,822.90 $7,000.30 $7,000.30 $7,182.30 $7,182.30 $7,369 .04 $7,369 .04 NA $63,587.30 $62,882 .40 $64,162.55 $59,591.21 $60,804 .57 $57,612.43 $58,772 .79 $55,540 75 $56,682.68 $56,365 .81 $596,002.48 P 1a 1,437 $4,607. 00 1,462 $4,607.00 1,494 $4,726.78 1,426 $4,726.78 1,456 $4,849.68 1,417 $4,849 .68 1,444 $4,975.77 1,398 $4,975 .77 1,424 $5,105.14 1,449 $5,105.14 14,407 NA ®' 6 $6,62026 $6,735.43 $7,061.81 $6,740.39 $7,061.13 $6,871 .99 $7,185.01 $6,956 .13 $7,269.72 $7,397 .35 $69,899.23 k :u 705,463 701,287 701,226 654,479 654,418 623,255 623,256 592,155 592,093 592,155 6,439,787 $2.60 $2.60 $5. 20 $5 .20 $7.81 $7.81 $8.01 $8.01 $822 $8 .22 NA $1,834.20 $1,823.35 $3,646.38 $3,403.29 $5,111.00 $4,867 .62 $4,994.19 $4,744 .97 $4,867.83 $4,868.34 $40,161.18 83,392 118,342 118,343 118,037 118,037 119,570 119,571 121,103 121,103 122,635 1,160,133 $1.61 $1. 61 $325 $3.25 $4.84 $4.84 $4 .97 $4.97 $5 .09 $5 .09 NA $134.26 $190.53 $384.61 $383.62 $571 .30 $578.72 $593.77 $601.38 $617.01 $624.82 $4,680 .03 927,316 1,315,971 1,315,970 1,312,561 1,312,561 1,329,606 1,329,607 1,346,653 1,346,654 1,363,700 12,900,599 a` $0.48 $0.48 $0.96 $0.96 $1. 45 $1 .45 $1.49 $1.49 $1.53 $1 .53 NA i i ®E $445.11 $631.67 $1,263. 33 $1,260.06 $1,903.21 $1,927.93 $1,978 .06 $2,003.42 $2,055.51 $2,081 .52 $15,549.81 V $72,621.14 $72,263.38 $76,518. 69 $71,378. 57 $75,451. 21 $71,858 69 $73,523.81 $69,846.64 $71,492.75 $71,337 .84 $726,292.73 Zo ne 1 = Rive rside, Norco, Corona Zone 2 = Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Temecula Zon e 3 = Moreno Valley, March JPA, Perris Zon e 4 = San Jacinto, Hemet Zone 5 = Calimesa, Beaumont, Banning 1st Half = Janua ry 1st - June 30 h 2nd Half = July 1s t - De cember 31st TABLE 2-2 - DETAILED BUILDING PERMIT AND GROSS REVENUES SUMMARY - ZONE 1 PROJECTED REVENUES AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BY PERIOD REALISTIC GROWTH SCENARIO PRODUCT TYPE 1N L FAMILY 1t� 3ENTIAI��` 2ND HALF 2004 1ST HALF 2005 2ND HALF 2005 1ST HALF 2006 Projection 2ND HALF 2006 Period 1ST HALF 2007 2ND HALF 2007 1ST HALF 2008 2ND HALF 2008 1ST H ALF 2009 PRODUCT TOTALS 2,527 2,462 2,411 2204 2,158 2,012 1,968 1,829 1,789 1,749 21,109 ddTUMF PER FIT p $6,650.00 $6,650.00 $6,822 .90 $6,822.90 $7,000 .30 $7,000.30 $7,182 .30 $7,182.30 $7,369.04 $7,369.04 NA rROS REVENL5 J0i, $16,804.55 $16,372 .30 $16,450.01 $15,037.67 $15,106 .64 $14,084.59 $14,134 .77 $13,136 .43 $13,183 .22 $12,888 .46 $147,198.64 2r ptilin�4mu k ( � �: A ILP7CE$1 -�: $680.79 $663 .28 $666.43 $609.21 $612.01 $570 .60 $572 .64 $532.19 $534 .09 $522.14 581 579 579 540 540 513 512 485 483 481 5,293 "1?EE $4,607. 00 $4,607.00 $4,726.78 $4,726 .78 $4,849 .68 $4,849.68 $4,975.77 $4,975 .77 $5,105.14 $5,105 .14 NA i(= F®aw r $2,676.67 $2,667.45 $2,736.81 $2,552.46 $2,618.83 $2,487.88 $2,547 .59 $2,413 .25 $2,465 .78 $2,455.57 $25,622 .30 $212.45 $211.72 $217.23 $202.60 $207 .86 $197 .47 $202.21 $191.55 $195.72 $194.91 204,552 200,564 197,759 181,928 179,311 168,279 165,786 155,128 152,760 150,392 1,756,459 iFE P• $2.60 $2.60 $5.20 $5.20 $7.81 $7 .81 $8.01 $8.01 $8.22 $8.22 NA ��� t� $531. 84 $521.47 $1,028.35 $946.03 11 ,400.42 11,314.26 $1,328 .45 $1,243.05 $1,255 .90 $1,236.43 $10,806.19 $105. 81 $103.75 $204.59 $188.22 $278.62 $261.48 $264.30 $247 .31 $249.87 $245.99 57,540 80,947 80,237 79,321 78,613 78,916 78,199 78,475 77,748 77,996 767,992 $1. 61 $1.61 $3.25 $3.25 $4.84 $4.84 $4 .97 $4 .97 $5.09 $5 .09 NA $92.64 $130.32 $260.77 $257.79 $380.49 $381 .95 $388 .32 $389,69 $396.12 $397.39 $3,075.49 $79.09 $111.27 $222.64 $220.09 $324.85 $326.10 $331.54 $332.71 $338.19 $339.27 ��C1 P1 686,214 973,818 908,019 708,783 630,029 571,731 525,195 498,262 424,19E 395,473 6,321,720 ' $0.48 $0.48 $0. 96 $0.96 $1.45 $1.45 $1.49 $1 .49 $1 .53 $1.53 NA $329.38 $467.43 $871.70 $680.43 $913.54 $829 .01 $781.33 $741.26 $647.48 $603.64 $6,865.22 $201. 99 $286.64 $534. 55 $417. 26 $560.21 $508.37 $479.13 $454.56 $397.05 $370.17 !T EN 1" r $20,435.07 $20,158.98 $21,347.63 $19, 474.38 $20,419. 91 $19,097.70 $19,180.48 $17,923.69 $17,948.51 $17,581.49 $193,567.85 �1 1e p�+ nour4 Q i� 11,280. 14 $1,376.66 $1,845. 43 $1,637. 38 $1 ,983.54 11,864.02 $1,849 .81 $1,758.31 $1,714.91 $1,672.48 $16,982 .69 Zone 1 = Riverside, No rco , Coro na Zone 2= Ca nyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, M urrieta, Temecu la Zone 3 = Moreno Valley, March JPA, Perris Zone 4= Sa n Jacinto, Hemet Zone 5 = Ca/!mesa, Beaumon t, Ban ning 1st Half = JanuaryIs t - June 30 h 2nd Half = July 1st - December 31st TABLE 2-3 - DETAILED BUILDING PERMIT AND GROSS REVENUES SUMMARY - ZONE 2 PROJECTED REVENUES AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BY PERIOD REALISTIC GROWTH SCENARIO PRODUCT TYPE NGLE F MIL i MF t 2ND HALF 2004 1ST H ALF 2005 2ND HALF 2005 1ST HALF 2006 Proj ection 2ND HALF 2006 Period 1ST HALF 2007 2ND HALF 2007 1ST HALF 2008 2ND HALF 2008 1ST HALF 2009 PRODUCT TOTALS EP 'ISI U 3,042 3025 3,025 2,824 2,824 2,690 2,689 2,554 2,554 2,553 27,780 1T1t1FF P "* m ( "� $6,650.00 $6,650.00 $6,822.90 $6,822 .90 $7,000.30 $7,000.30 $7,182.30 $7,182.30 $7,369 .04 $7,369.04 NA iCP , $20,229.30 $20,116.25 $20,639 .27 $19,267.87 $19,768.83 $18,83079 $19,313.21 $18,343.60 $18,820 .54 $18,813.17 $194,142 .84 4 $5,211.25 $5,182.13 $5,316 .87 $4,963.58 $5,092 .63 $4,850 .99 $4,975 .26 $4,725 .48 $4,848.34 $4,846.44 T E9 487 499 514 494 508 498 511 498 511 523 5,043 $4,607. 00 $4,607.00 $4,726.78 $4,726.78 $4,849 .68 $4,849.68 $4,975.77 $4,975.77 $5,105.14 $5,105.14 NA $2,243. 61 $2,298.89 $2,429.57 $2,335.03 $2,463.64 $2,415,14 $2,542 .62 $2,477.93 $2,608.73 $2,669.99 $24,485.14 $1,436.59 $1,471.99 $1,555.66 $1,495.13 $1,577 .47 $1,546.42 $1,628.05 $1,586.63 $1 ,670.38 $1,709.60 ¢ ._ T 225,743 225,805 227,177 213,340 214,649 205,674 206,921 197,759 198,943 200,127 2,116,138 $2. 60 $260 $5.20 $5 .20 $7 .81 $7 .81 $8.01 $8 .01 $6.22 $8.22 NA $586.93 $587. 09 $1,181.32 $1,109.37 $1,676.41 $1,606,31 $1 ,658.07 $1,584.65 $1,635 .59 $1,645.32 $13,271.07 $482. 49 $482.62 $971.11 $911.96 $1,378.10 $1,320 .48 $1,363,03 $1,302 .68 $1,344.55 $1,352.55 23,350 33,609 34,083 34,467 34,939 35,871 36,349 37,300 37,784 38,753 346,505 ' $1.61 $1.61 $3.25 $3.25 $4.84 $4.84 $4.97 $4.97 $5.09 $5.09 NA sfi $37_59 $54.11 $110. 77 $112.02 $169 .10 $173 .62 $180.50 $185.23 $192.51 $197.44 $1,412.89 $26.29 $37.84 $77.46 $78.33 $118 .26 $121 .41 $126.23 $129.53 $134.62 $138 .07 di 1 194,736 276,354 276,354 275,638 275,638 279,217 279,217 282,797 282,797 286,377 2,709,125 $0.48 $0.48 $096 $0.96 $1.45 $1.45 $1 .49 $1 .49 $1.53 $1.53 NA $93.47 $132. 65 $265.30 $264.61 $399.68 $404 .86 $415.39 $420 .72 $431.66 $437.12 $3,265 .46 i i4� �.ti1 H� �• $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0. 00 $0. 00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 t $23,190.91 $23,189.00 $24,626.23 $23,088.90 $24,477. 66 $23,430.73 $24,109.80 $23,012.13 $23,689.02 $23,763 .04 $236,577 .41 T t !'17&e ptior $7,156.62 $7,174. 58 $7,921.10 $7,449. 01 $8,166.47 $7,839.30 $8,092.56 $7,744 .31 $7,997 .89 $8,046 .67 $77,588.52 Zone 1 = Riverside, Norco , Coron a Zone 2 = Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Temecula Zone 3= M oreno Valley, March JPA, Pe rris Zone 4 = San Jacinto, He met Zone 5 = Ca limesa, Beaumon t, Banning 1st Half = January 1st - June 30 h 2nd Half = July 1st - December 31st TABLE 2-4 - DET AILED BUILDING PERMIT AND GROSS REVENUES SUMM ARY - ZONE 3 PROJECTED REVENUES AND BUILDING PER MIT ISSUANCE BY PERIOD REALISTIC GROWTH SCENARIO S1N' PRODUCT' TYPE a Projection P eriod 2ND HALF 1ST HALF 2ND HALF 1ST HALF 2ND H ALF 1ST HALF 2ND HALF 1 ST HALF 2ND HALF 1ST HALF 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 1,316 1,290 1,273 1,173 1,157 1,087 1,072 1,005 991 977 $6,650.00 $6,650.00 $6,822 .90 $6,822.90 $7,000.30 $7,000.30 $7,182 .30 $7,182.30 $7,369.04 $7,369.04 $8,751.40 $8,578.50 $8,685.55 $8,003.26 $8,099.34 $7,609.32 $7,699 .43 $7,218 .21 $7,302.72 $7,199.55 $1,741.13 $1,706 .73 $1,728.03 $1,592.28 $1,611.40 $1,51390 $1,531 .83 $1,436.09 $1,452 .91 $1,432.38 224 226 229 217 220 212 214 206 208 210 $4,607.00 $4,607.00 $4,726 .78 $4,726 .78 $4,849.68 $4,849.68 $4,975 .77 $4,975 .77 $5,105 .14 $5,105.14 $1,031. 97 $1,041.18 $1,082.43 $1,025.71 $1,066.93 $1,028.13 $1,064.81 $1,025.01 $1,061.87 $1,072.08 $0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 .00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 98,786 97,477 96,792 89,686 89,001 84,139 83,516 78,779 78,156 77,595 $2.60 $2.60 $5.20 $5.20 $7.81 $7.81 $8 .01 $8 .01 $8.22 $8.22 $256.84 $253. 44 $503.32 $466.37 $695.10 $657.13 $669.22 $631 .26 $642.55 $637.94 $4. 56 $4.50 $8.93 $8 .28 $12 .34 $11.66 $11.88 $11.20 $11.41 $11.32 834 1,183 1,183 1,180 1,180 1,196 1 ,196 1,211 1,211 1,226 $1.61 $1. 61 $3.25 $3.25 $4.84 $4.84 $4.97 $4.97 $5.09 $5.09 $1.34 $1.90 $3.84 $3.84 $5 .71 $5 .79 $5.94 $6.01 $6.17 $6.25 $0. 57 $0. 81 $1. 64 $1.63 $2 .43 $2.46 $2.53 $2.56 $2.62 $2 .66 46,366 65,799 131,597 328,140 393,768 465,362 498,603 538,661 572,328 613,665 $0.48 $0.48 $0.96 $0.96 $1.45 $1.45 $1 .49 $1.49 $1.53 $1.53 $22.26 $31.58 $126. 33 $315. 01 $570.96 $674.77 $741 .77 $801.37 $873.59 $936.69 $0.10 $0.14 $0.57 $1.42 $2.57 $3.03 $3.33 $3.60 $3.93 $4.21 $10,063. 81 $9,906.61 $10,401.48 $9,814.19 $10,438.04 $9,975.14 $10,181 .17 $9,681.86 $9,886.90 $9,852 .51 $1,746.36 $1,712.18 $1,739.16 $1,603.61 $1,628.73 $1,531.06 $1,549.57 $1,453 .46 $1,470.86 $1,450.57 Zone 1 = Riverside , Norco, Corona Zo ne 2= Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, M urreta, Temecula Zone 3 = Moreno Valley, Ma rch JPA, Pe rris Zon e 4= San Jacin to, Hemet Zone 5 = Calimesa, Beaumont, Banning 1s t Half = Janua ry 1st - June 30 h 2n d Half = Ju ly 1st - Dec ember 31st PRODUCT TOTALS 11,341 NA $79,147.30 2,166 NA $10,500.13 $100,201 .72 $15,885 .55 873,927 NA $5,413.16 11,600 NA $46 .80 3,654,289 $5,094.34 TABLE 2-5 - DETAILED BUILDING PERMIT AND GROSS REVENUES SUMM ARY - ZONE 4 PROJECTED REVENUES AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSU ANCE BY PERIOD REALISTIC GR OWTH SCEN ARIO PRODUCT TYPE Zone 1 = Riverside, Norco, Corona Zone 2 = Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Temecu la Zone 3= M oreno Valle y, Marc h JPA, Perris Zone 4 = San Jacinto, Hemet Zone 5 = Calimesa, Beaumont, Banning JD HALF 2004 1ST HALF 2005 2ND HALF 2005 1ST HALF 2006 Projection 2ND HALF 2006 Period 1ST HALF 2007 2ND HALF 2007 1ST HALF 2008 2ND H ALF 2008 1ST HALF 2009 PRODUCT TOTALS 1,613 1,606 1,607 1503 1,504 1,434 1,435 1,365 1,366 1,367 14,800 $6,650.00 $6,650 .00 $6,822 .90 $6,822 .90 $7,000 .30 $7,000.30 $7,182.30 $7,182.30 $7,369.04 $7,369.04 NA ;10,726.45 $10,679.90 $10,964.40 $10,254.82 $10,528 .44 $10,038.42 $10,306.60 $9,803.84 $10,066.11 $10,073 .48 $103,442 .48 $2,134.07 $2,124.81 $2,181.41 $2,040.24 $2,094.68 $1,997.18 $2,050 .54 $1,950.51 $2,002 .69 $2,004.16 81 88 96 98 105 108 115 116 123 130 1,060 $4,607.00 $4,607.00 $4,726 .78 $4,726 .78 $4,849 .68 $4,849.68 $4,975.77 $4,975.77 $5,105.14 55,105 .14 NA $373.17 *405.42 $453 .77 $463.22 $509.22 $523.77 $572 .21 $577.19 $627.93 $663 .67 $5,169.56 $151. 89 $165.02 $184.70 $188 .55 $207 .27 $213 .19 $232.92 $234.94 $255.59 $270.14 105,829 105,891 106,577 100,157 100,780 96,605 97,228 92,990 93,551 94,174 993,782 $2.60 $2.60 $5.20 $5 .20 $7.81 $7.81 $8.01 $8.01 $8 .22 $8.22 NA $275.16 $275.32 $554. 20 $520.82 $787 .09 $754.49 $779.09 $745.13 $769.12 $774.24 $6,234 .66 $104.67 $104.74 $210. 83 $198 .13 $299.42 $287.02 $296.38 $283 .46 $292.59 $294 .54 834 1,420 1,657 1,889 2,125 2,391 2,631 2,906 3,149 3,434 22,436 $1.61 $1.61 $3.25 $3.25 $4.84 $4.84 $4.97 $4.97 $5.09 $5 .09 NA $1.34 $2.29 $5.39 $6.14 $10.29 $11.57 $13 .07 $14.43 $16.04 $17 .50 $98.05 $0.64 $1.09 $2.56 $2.92 $4 .89 $5 .51 $6.22 $6 .87 $7.64 $8.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,933 27,274 54,207 $0.48 $0.48 $0. 96 $0. 96 $1.45 $1.45 $1 .49 $1.49 $1.53 $1 .53 NA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 .00 $0 .00 $0.00 $41.11 $41.63 $82.74 $0 .82 $0.84 11,376.12 $11,362.92 $11,977.76 $11,245.00 $11,835.04 $11,328.25 $11,670.98 $11,140 .60 $11,520 .32 $11,570.52 $115,027.49 $2,391.28 $2,395.65 $2,579.51 $2,429.84 $2,606. 27 $2,502.91 $2,586.05 $2,475.78 $2,559.34 $2,578.00 $25,104.62 1st Half = January 1st - June 30 h 2n d Half = July 1st December 31st TABLE 2-6 - DETAILED BUILDING PERMIT AND GROSS REVENUES SUMM ARY - ZONE 5 PROJECTED REVENUES AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSU ANCE BY PERIOD REALISTIC GROWTH SCEN ARIO ILE, R 5 I. IF' FE Eemptj' ;M ULTI FAO - RIIITS p Zone 1 = Riverside, Norco, Corona Zone 2 = Canyon Lake, La ke Elsinore, Murrieta, Temecula Zone 3= M oreno Valley, March JPA, Perris Zone 4 = San Jacinto, Hemet Zone 5 = Calrmesa, Beaumon t, Banning 2ND HALF 2004 1ST HALF 2005 2ND HALF 2005 1ST HALF 2006 2ND HALF 2006 1ST HALF 2007 2ND HALF 2007 1ST HALF 2008 2ND HALF 2008 1ST HALF 2009 PRODUCT TOTALS 1,064 $6,650.00 $7,075.60 $3,676. 41 64 $4,607.00 $294.85 $288.17 70,553 $2.60 $183.44 $130.90 834 $1.61 $1.34 $0.00 0 $0.48 $0.00 $0. 00 $7,555. 23 $4,095.47 1,073 $6,650.00 $7,135 .45 $3,707.50 70 $4,607.00 $322.49 $315. 18 71,550 $2.60 $186.03 $132.74 1,183 $1.61 $1.90 $0.00 0 $0.48 $0.00 $0.00 $7,645.87 $4,155.43 1,088 $6 ,822.90 $7,423.32 $3,857.08 76 $4,726 .78 $359 .24 $351 .10 72,921 $5.20 $379.19 $270.58 1,183 $3. 25 $3.84 $0.00 0 $0.96 $0.00 $0.00 $8,165,58 $4,478 75 1,030 $6,822.90 $7,027.59 $3,651 .46 77 $4,726.78 $363.96 $355 .72 69,368 $5.20 $360.71 $257 .39 1,180 $3.25 $3.84 $0. 00 0 $0.96 $0.00 $0.00 $7,756.10 $4,264.57 1,043 $7,000.30 $7,301.31 $3,793.68 83 $4,849 .68 $402 .52 $393.40 70,677 $7.81 $551.99 $393.88 1,180 $4 .84 $5.71 $0.00 13,126 $1.45 $19.03 $0.00 $8,280. 56 $4,580. 97 1st Half = January 1st - June 30 h 2nd Half = July 1st - December 31st 1,007 $7,000.30 $7,049.30 $3,662.74 86 $4,849 .68 $417 .07 $407.62 68,558 $7.81 $535.44 $382.07 1,196 $4.84 $5.79 $0 .00 13,296 $1.45 $19 .28 $0.00 $8,026 .88 $4,452.44 1,019 $7,182.30 $7,318.77 $3,802 .75 92 $4,975.77 $457.77 $447.40 69,805 $8.01 $559 .35 $399.13 1,196 $4.97 $5 .94 $0.00 26,592 $1.49 $39.56 $0.00 $8,381.39 $4 ,649.29 980 $7,182 .30 $7,038.66 $3,657.21 93 $4,975 .77 $462 .75 $452.26 67,499 $8.01 $540 .87 $385.95 1,211 $4.97 $6.01 $0.00 26,933 $1 .49 $40.07 $0.00 $8,088 36 $4,495 .42 992 $7,369.04 $7,310 .09 $3,798 .25 99 $5,105 .14 $505.41 $493 .96 68,683 $8.22 $564.67 $402 .93 1,211 $5.09 $6.17 $0 .00 40,400 $1.53 $61.67 $0 .00 $8,448.01 $4,695 .14 1,003 $7,369 .04 $7,391 .15 $3,840.36 105 $5,105.14 $536,04 $523 .90 69,867 $8.22 $574.40 $409.88 1,226 $5.09 $6.25 $0.00 40,911 $1 .53 $62.45 $0.00 $8,570 .29 $4,774 .14 10,299 NA $72,071.22 845 NA $4,122.10 699,481 NA $4,436.10 11,600 NA $46.80 161,258 NA $242.05 $80,918.26 $44,641.61 E xempt Development Percentages All Zones & All Product Types All Growth Scenarios Single Family Industrial Note: $'s in 1,000s Projected Net TUMF Revenues By Peri od And Growth Scenario 2nd Half 1st Half 2nd Half 1st Half 2nd Half 1st Half 2nd Half 1 st Half 2 nd Half 1st Half NET 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 TOT AL 55,951.27 55,448. 87 57,954.73 53,994 .17 56,485 .24 53,668.98 54,796 .52 51,919 .35 53,054.62 52,815.99 $546,089 .74 61,609.12 61,066.00 63,951.87 59,590.20 62,488.84 59,336.54 60,620.01 57,376 .56 58,630.21 58,305 .28 $602,974.63 51,300. 64 50,848. 95 53,099. 14 49,463.82 51,659 .18 49,061.78 50,145.81 47,471.02 48, 539.61 48,311.99 $499,901 .93 Chart 1-1 Total TUMF Reven ues By Zone — All Product Types Realistic Growth Scenario 6.6% 16.5% 32.3% 29.1% ❑Zone 1 DZone 2 ® Zone 3 ■ Zone 4 ■ Zone 5 Chart ES -1 TUMF Re venues By Period — All Zones & Product Types Realistic Growth Scenario $57,955 0 0 0 Y1 un 6.9 un a4 = Cl. 0.4 2H-04 111-05 211-05 111-06 2H-06 111-07 Time Period 2H-07 1H-08 211-08 111-09 Chart ES -2 TUMF Revenues By Period — All Zones & Product Types Aggressi ve Growth Scenario 0 0 0 • CO S - CJ 04 COn $70,000-V $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 $61,609 $61,066 $63,952 $59,590 $62,489 2H-04 111-05 2H-05 111-06 211-06 1H-07 $59,337 Time Period $60,620 211-07 $57,377 $58,630 $58,305 111-08 211.08 111-09 Chart ES -3 TUMF Reven ues By Period — All Zones & Product Types Conservative Growth Scenario 1-1 con CO D- CLe $60,000 -" $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 $51,3 1 $50,849 $53,099 $49,464 211-04 1H-05 2H-05 111-06 2H-06 111-07 $51,659 $49,062 Time Period $50,146 2H-07 $47,471 $48,540 $48,312 111-08 211-08 111-09 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL November 10, 2004 Present Absent ,� 0 County of Riverside, District 1 O � County of Riverside, District 11 Ply 40 CI"1C4' S County of Riverside, District 111 ;roiv• 0 County of Riverside, District IV D County of Riverside, District V J� City of Banning 0 o City of Beaumont O 0 City of Blythe ,�, City of Calimesa O City of Canyon Lake O City of Cathedral City O City of Coachella :0-• D City of Corona ,,.0" 0 City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet 0 City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET November 10, 2004 AGENCY E-MAIL ADDRESS _ '' 44 NAME • �/ % ✓ Dade S / __141E- c -o7 L- ,{ U' ' ' 1 J �- 4, Gil J i1'( f e t-��,,� /�.(/e--r 1Mo/f� (%/J 'i7i4. JA {-,44 L A/a<c v 1f/ `j, 5e.ti c.r 1? L,1-1P)ac\. I fat) r e.) el, e di t" et/42r'SiLli) ■l 2 -V < Jr- - /I r , `-r /v(r/e�-- /crJ�i� ki,,,,t �^- ,.(4,--,.r-,S ST eU LIA De.Scc ,,A f r, GI l„ti,nJ S uti". ALun KKI4r.,., I L /' £h.-, �Cire•r". --p o..�r- - I & C N C)--1 \I L 1_ J �i (/ -1 - `, i VIoAHJ C/,Leg/ ),'< C-AL//t eSX ____1 CR iti 4 VI _51'75- Y ef --r- y c F Ci4Y.ON Milir — ()VW Ai 4> a- all OF warAzl/A- j II( ,lrt/ra dc. Vv, ,>.). G � 4 �1- j) UM, L 3' I2/ 11_ c 77 hA IVA -7 /IL") = c k\A/li L'hke'Am-ti'vii ) tt-C h1.9140- (• (ibi. L 5.���iAts c,40iyi7 G-i4r•�,� �1q1 7y ,,"oQe,N..►v c_o— c..F+ wc,.1r. .