Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 31, 1998 Special Funding(o9f37 SPECIAL FUNDING COMMITTEE FIRST MEETING: 8:00 A.M., SATURDAY, JANUARY 31, 1998 MISSION INN, RIVERSIDE ELECTED OFFICIALS o RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB BUSTER JIM VENABLE TOM MULLEN ROY WILSON JOHN TAVAGLIONE o RON LOVERIDGE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE o BILL BATEY, CITY OF MORENO VALLEY o JIM HYATT, CITY OF CALIMESA o DICK KELLY, CITY OF PALM DESERT o RON ROBERTS, CITY OF TEMECULA o CHUCK WASHINGTON, CITY OF MURRIETA o DON YOKAITIS, CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE o ANDREA PUGA, CITY OF CORONA o ROBIN LOWE, CITY OF HEMET PRIVATE o REPRESENTATIVE FROM MONDAY MORNING GROUP BOB KRIEGER o REPRESENTATIVE FROM VALLEY GROUP BILL SWEENEY o REPRESENTATIVE FROM BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION BORRE WINCKEL o REPRESENTATIVE FROM A COACHELLA VALLEY GROUP ED KIBBEY o REPRESENTATIVE FROM A CORONA/NORCO GROUP TO BE NAMED o PAUL GILL, MORENO VALLEY ACTION COMMITTEE o REPRESENTATIVE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY DAN SILVER o REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEMECULA/MURRIETA GROUP SAM ALHADEFF EX -OFFICIO o REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE INDIAN TRIBES COMMUNITY JIM FLETCHER . DD 8:00 A.M. SATURDAY, JANUARY 31, 1998 MISSION INN - GALLERIA 3649 MISSION INN AVENUE, RIVERSIDE 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. INTRODUCTIONS (RCTC CHAIRMAN BOB BUSTER AND COMMISSIONER TOM MULLEN). 3. OVERVIEW OF MEETING ISSUES (JOHN HUSING, Ph.D.). 4. BACKGROUND: TRANSPORTATION FINANCES & PROJECTS. A. BUDGET (SALL YANDERSON/THERESIA TREV/NO, ERNST & YOUNG) 1. FORECASTED REVENUE FOR MEASURE "A" 2. ACTUAL REVENUE REALIZED FROM MEASURE "A" 3. WHY ACTUAL REVENUE HAS FALLEN SHORT OF FORECAST B. PROJECTS (PAUL BLACKWELDER & CORKYLARSON) 1. PROJECTS THAT WERE TO BE FINANCED BY MEASURE "A" AND STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) 2. PROJECT STATUS TODAY: a. COMPLETE c. BUDGETED b. IN PROCESS d. LACKING AVAILABLE FUNDING C. STATE PERSPECTIVE (ROBERT WOLF CHAIRMAN, CTC) 1. EXPLANATION OF SB 45 2. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR 25% FINANCING D. DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS (JOHN HUSING, Ph.D.) 1. LATEST FORECAST OF RIVERSIDE POPULATION AND HOUSING 5. DISCUSSION: DECISION MAKING PRINCIPLES & STANDARDS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION FUNDING. A. WHAT PRINCIPLES SHOULD GUIDE COMMISSION DECISION MAKING 1. PUBLIC INTEREST 4. REGIONAL INTERESTS 2. EQUITY 5. OTHER 3. ECONOMIC HEALTH B. WHAT STANDARDS SHOULD BE USED IN SETTING PROJECT OR FUNDING ALLOCATIONS 1. SAFETY 5. REGIONAL NEEDS 2. CONGESTION (INCLUDING GAPS) 6. FLEXIBILITY 3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 7. OTHER 4. COUNTYWIDE NEEDS 6. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED NEXT MEETING. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS. (ITEMS NOT RELATED TO AN AGENDA ITEM.) 8. NEXT MEETING - SET DATE & TIME. 9. ADJOURNMENT. 8:00 A.M. SATURDAY, JANUARY 31, 1998 MISSION INN - GALLERIA MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Supervisor Bob Buster, Chairman of the Riverside County Transportation Commission called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. and welcomed those present. 2. INTRODUCTIONS (RCTC CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER TOM MULLEN) Chairman Buster explained that RCTC has just engaged in a decision upon how not only to allocate future state gas taxes funds but also prioritization of projects. The Commission has reached a point where there is now significant disagreement regarding these decisions but how the Commission reforms itself to meet the fastest growing area in the region. At this time the Commission has decided to take this issue to a larger group of community leaders, because they are now on the threshold of significant change. By bringing this issue to the communities within Riverside County, the Commission is hoping to promote fairness and equity in the funding process and come to a consensus among all regions of the county regarding key issues. The most pressing issue is to decide what projects to submit for state gas tax funding. He said that this first meeting is to bring everyone up to speed regarding these issues and hold at least two more meetings to resolve some of these issues, In addition to the short time frame set for the committee to respond to the Commission (60 days), there is also a recruitment happening concurrently for a new Executive Director for RCTC. Chairman Buster said that although the specific local, city and area interests are important, he hoped that everyone would consider the "big picture" that will help to strengthen the county -wide transportation system. Self -introductions were then made and Chairman Buster then said explained that the Commission is here today to get feedback from the community regarding how they are doing and how best to solve the immediate problem which then links into how RCTC will be restructured and what funding will be used for future projects Commissioner Mullen said that the task before us is one of the more important one for the next twenty years. He then introduced the facilitator for the meeting, John Husing and gave an overview of his background and qualifications. 3. OVERVIEW OF MEETING ISSUES (JOHN HUSING, Ph.D) Dr. Husing said that he has had the privilege to work on behalf of the Inland Empire and after many years have gotten those agencies who set bond ratings to recognize the Riverside and San Bernardino counties as separate areas from Los Angeles and Orange counties. He anticipated that his role today is to help facilitate a good conversation. Each entity represented has a great interest in seeing Riverside county delivered the ultimate level of prosperity for its current and future residents. He explained that this process will begin by taking a look at some of the factual background in regards to the issues we are facing and bring everyone to the same level of understanding. Secondly there is a requirement for RCTC, in less than sixty days, to come forward with a list of projects for the RTI P. The group will be advising RCTC on a set of principles or standards by which to make those decisions. One of the things that will be shown is that there are more needs than money available and hopefully the committee will begin to develop a consensus regarding recommendations on how to deal with the funding shortfall in a longer term context. Finally, there is the issue of how over the next couple of decades how these decisions will be made in the long term. Over the three meetings that will occur they will begin with common fact, then hold a broad discussion regarding fundamental principles that will lead to the ultimate prosperity of the region and given that commonality how should we go about making decisions on this subject. Then given this common belief regarding how decisions should be made the process will move onto more practical issues such as what standards should we be using to make these decisions. Finally the discussion will turn toward questions as to what extent should certain things we done be discretionary funding, to what extent they should be by formula or a combination of the both. 4. BACKGROUND: TRANSPORTATION FINANCES & PROJECTS A. BUDGET: Sally Anderson, Ernest & Young Ms. Anderson explained that the purpose of her presentation was to give a brief historical background of Measure A; the original revenue forecast, the projects listed in Measure A along with what the requirements for these projects and compare where we are today and where we will be in twenty years. In 1998 the original model used for revenue projects was based on drawing a correlation between population growth and taxable sales and was not adjusted for inflation. The revenue anticipated was felt to be a very conservative figure and did not anticipate recession. She then highlighted the highway and commuter rail projects described in Measure A showing the projected revenue and the actual shortfall of funding for these projects. Some of the major assumptions and estimates that were part of the revenue forecast included: 1. The revenues were not adjusted for inflation. 2. It assumed annual federal and state funding of $20 million per year even though the STIP is every two years, or approximately 50% of the plan's highway projects. 3. Cost estimates (engineering, ROW and construction) were not adjusted for inflation although it was understood that Caltrans would be paying for much of the engineering and design costs. 4. A minimum of 50% of highway project funds was expected from federal and state sources. 5. RCTC was given the opportunity to use bonds to accelerate project implementation although there was no funding put in the Measure for bond costs or interest. Even though there was a recession the original estimate for revenue received was exceeded by $120 million. She then went on to show a comparison of projects costs with the most notable shortfall the San Jacinto Rail which at this time does not look like it will be completed. The original measure did not anticipate the cost of debt services. In summary the revenue from Measure A exceeded original expectations and the match funds from federal and state sources are expected to just meet the 50% requirement in the Measure. Over the past eight years inflation has not been a factor so it is the conclusion of Ernst & Young is that the primary reason the Measure monies are not sufficient to pay for all the projects is because of the changes in the original anticipated design standards as was allowed in the Measure. When it came down to the projects being built, it was their understanding that Bechtel refused to lower their design standards. Dr. Husing summed up her presentation by saying that as he understands it the revenues were more than anticipated, the ratio of federal and state funding to the Measure was as expected but the shortfall is coming from the cost side. B. PROJECTS (PAUL BLACKWELDER & CORKY LARSON) Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission, said that when they originally put the program together for Measure A it was done by surveying voters and working with Caltrans to determine what projects could reasonablely be done on freeways and highways with problems. The project that was looked at, at that time, was a mixed flow lane that could be used by everyone, once Measure A was in place, however, Caftans staff changed the scope to HOV lanes. This change in scope required inside shoulders and buffers which required an extra twenty-four feet to complete. The single HOV lanes required the same amount of space as two additional regular lanes of traffic. This incurred additional costs because more right of way purchases had to be made and at times it almost required moving mountains. There is now a new Director at Caltrans District 8 who is working with RCTC and Bechtel staff to reduce the shoulder requirement. Dr. Husing summed this up by stating when designing Measure A they tried to design expanded capacity within those right-of-way lines so more property was not needed. So Measure A was passed on the assumption that you would not need to go outside those lines to acquire more property. Having to acquire those right-of-ways do two things, you have to negotiate with property owners and environmental processes are started that would not have occurred if they had stayed within the original right-of-way. So in effect this begins to draws costs beyond what was anticipated when Measure A was designed. Mr. Blackwelder then went on to show the Measure A projects as they were originally put together in 1988. He then showed the projects that have been completed to date and what is currently programmed to be completed in the current State Transportation Improvement Program. The final question he addressed was that with the current funding levels between now the end of Measure A what projects could be completed and those that could not. He then discussed the project on Hwy. 79 and why it was not listed as completed because of the issue of possible realignment. said that when Measure A was originally put together the City Council was not in favor of this realignment, they have since revisited this issue because of the impact of the Eastside Reservoir was not thought of at that time. Chairman Buster explained that Measure A does provide for amendments and then he went on to explain the circumstances by which they could occur. Commissioner Mullen reiterated that the action the Commission took on moving forward this forum was that the 601215/91 Interchange was not up for discussion and this project would be funded and is moving forward. urged RCTC to look at Hemet/San Jacinto Rail Line on a smaller scale not as commuter. This will again impact the Eastside Reservoir and tourism opportunities in the area. Mr. Blackwelder replied that although this project is listed as one that cannot be funded the Commission continues to urge staff and Bechtel to work with Caltrans to get more of the unfunded projects completed. Corky Larson, Coachella Valley Association of Governments Executive Director, presented their Capital Improvement Plan and Arterial Program. She explained that the first page of the handout show the projects that have been completed since Measure A began and those that are currently under contract. In the next few months they will be developing a new priority list and some of the projects will drop off because they are no longer relevant and projects will be added because of the tremendous growth in the area. She explained that there were only four projects named in Measure A but the Capital Improvement Plan distributed to the members was mentioned in the Measure. The Capital Improvement Plan is based on a study completed by Southern California Associated Governments which assessed the need of the highway system in the Coachella Valley. Mayor Bill Batey said that after a conversation with Ms. Larson that they came to an understanding that the projects listed in the RCTC Strategic Plan were for Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley has their own list of projects. Councilman Chuck stated that about a year ago the WRCOG was asked to develop a "wish list" of projects for Western Riverside County and yet it is not reflected in any of the handouts. Commissioner Mullen replied that at that time they were trying to look forward and develop a plan to expand Measure A, so these are two very distinct issues. Wes McDaniels, Interim Executive Director Western Riverside Council of Governments, said that over a three-year period the Western Riverside Council of Governments has completed a Comprehensive Transportation Plan for West County with a price tag of approximately 8 billion dollars. This document will be provided to the committee at their next meeting. said there seems to be a number missing in all this information and that is the large portion which will be privately funded through assessment districts and area road protection districts. This needs to be discussed at some point in time and recognize what the contribution by the development industry through assessment fees will be. Councilman Dick Kelly said that this was a very good point because many of the arterials in the Coachella Valley are funded by assessment districts and developer fees. We do have to recognize what has been done and what will be done with these fees. Commissioner Mullen reminded the committee that it is very important to keep the Coachella Valley Strategic Plan incorporated in their portion of Measure A because that is what it was done in conjunction with. The document mentioned by Mr. McDaniels is outside of Western Riverside County Measure A project and it is critical to maintain this distinction. The County of Riverside should be able to provide the CFD numbers countywide and they will attempt to get that by the next meeting and if not definitely for the meeting after that. The Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees in Coachella Valley were part of the ballot the CFD's in Western Riverside County was not because they came along afterwards. Ms. Larson said that we must continue to focus on the real problem which is the fact that there is not enough money to meet our transportation needs. The private sector can only be hit so hard so we must continue to look at alternative sources of funds. We all have the same problems so we must look at the mutual problem that we do not have enough money to go around to maintain the quality of life that we want to see through a transportation infrastructure. Dan Silver questioned how the decision was made that some projects would be funded and others would not. Commissioner Mullen explained that during a strategic planning session held recently ROTC in early 1997 set forth the following principles in deciding which projects would be funded: 1. Safety above all. 2. Congestion 3. Economic Development Chairman Buster said that this is a very important issue and he has questioned several times whether the baseline data used is the most up-to-date and whether or not the projects they are prioritizing are where the problems will be in the future. Jim Fletcher, representing the nine tribal groups which reside in the county, stated that they are currently producing one billion dollars in revenue which goes back into the county and employee 3,000 individuals and have road plans which will require an infrastructure especially those leading into the tribal lands. At Morongo they are developing four square miles along the interstate which not only brings money into the reservation but also bring significant revenue into the county thus the need for developing a working relationship with such organizations as RCTC Mr. Blackwelder explained that Measure A funds do not replace developer fees. As to the question of what factors determined which projects would not be completed he stated reasons such as change in the project scope, lower priority and the cost becoming too high. Councilman Torres said that is very important to go back to the original intent of Measure A and we must complete the projects listed in there to keep the trust of the voters. This will become increasingly important if in the future there is a need to return to voters and request expansion or continuation of Measure A. Commissioner Mullen stated that in many motions made at RCTC meetings it has been deemed extremely important to complete Measure A to keep the faith of the voters. In Western Riverside County the Measure has not been modified at all and the projects have not been changed and it is the same with all areas of the county. C. STATE PERSPECTIVE (ROBERT WOLF, CHAIRMAN, CTC) Robert Wolf, Chairman California Transportation Commission, opened his presentation by extending greetings from Governor Wilson and Secretary Dunphy and his colleagues on the California Transportation Commission. He extended their sincere congratulated to the committee for setting the example for counties statewide by holding this type of discussion which follows the intent of SB 45. He explained that under the old rules there was a simple division of funds and it said that in the forty-five northern counties forty percent of the funds available for capital projects would go there and the thirteen counties would receive sixty percent of the remaining funds as a function of population. Each county within each subgroup would be allocated a certain amount of money based on centerline lane miles within the county territory based on population. There was a county minimum that would be received. Under the new system SB 45 states that those at the county level know better how to spend the funds allocated and should have the opportunity to do so. The whole concept was to empower local organizations and then hold them accountable. After much discussion it was decided that the overarching responsibilities of the state included getting people, goods and services to you as a region and through so there are no breaks or gaps in the plan. Once this was decided SB 45 set aside twenty percent of the funds available to accomplish this to aggregate dollars to focus them on much needed infrastructures. He suggested that this could also be done at the county level by the local CTC's who look at the County in a holistic approach and would allow them to focus dollars on much needed infrastructures to move people, goods and services from one end of the county to another. Without this approach there will be gaps in the Transportation Plan for the County of Riverside. Before making any decision on projects the committee should stipulate to the fact that there is not enough money and the way that funds will be allocated by some formula. If the committee decides to stick with a true return to source formula there is also a need to set aside funds to focus them on the county -wide transportation issues. The other change brought forth by SB 45 is that the STIP is now a four-year plan with projects segmented into four distinct areas which means you can now program any or all those projects' elements into the STIP that can be completed during the time period of the STIP. This opens up the opportunity to be realistic about what can be done, programming only those aspects that can be done thus freeing up funding for other necessary projects. There is also a stipulation that you can move forward projects when you are ready to complete and he noted that the state does have funding available at this time. In a summation he stated that nine programs that have been compressed into two, there are local empowerment, there is a realization that there is overarching responsibilities at the state level and opportunity to follow the state example and set aside funds to aggregate for transportation needs that complete the countywide transportation plan. D. DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS (JOHN HUSING, Ph.D) Dr. Husing distributed a packet of five charts that he referred to during his presentation. The Press Enterprise recently ran an article which stated that the State Department of Finance has released its most recent statement of population for Riverside County as of July 1997. As of that period of time they showed the county's population for the twelve-month period going up something more than 2%. He highlighted the SCAG's estimates looking out to the 2020 regarding what is anticipated happening to the number of households in Riverside County. This estimation shows that roughly for every household in Riverside County there will be two households in the year 2020. This county is looking forward to an enormous change in the number of people and families who live in this area roughly doubling it in a 24 -year period of time. He then went on to split out the change among the three areas of the county. This chart showed that for every household in Western Riverside County there will be 1.1 households by the year 2020 and in the Coachella Valley through the Blythe area now for everyone household existing there will be another .6`h of a household in 2020. He then reviewed the deltas for each time period and how much the households would change during each period. He said that one of the things that is crystal clear about history of Southern California's Economic Development is that is based on dirt, who has it and who doesn't. This means houses will be less expensive, land is less expensive and that is conducive to growth. More gradual growth is expected in the Coachella Valley. The message is that Riverside County will continue to be for a long period of time an area of intense family and population growth just simply because of geography. Commissioner Tavaglione asked Dr. H using to draw a correlation in the county between economic and population growth. Dr. Husing replied that during the period of 1990-97 the number of jobs created and the growth in population has been about equal. The fastest growing area of job creation is roughly between Rancho Cucamonga and Corona along the 115. Exactly the same set of forces that are driving population here is driving companies here. This does put a downward pressure on wages and salaries in the area and across the board there is a six to six 1/2% differential between wages paid in this area are less and also drives companies here. The real issue is that there may be a shoot up in population that is not matched by the number of jobs created. Commissioner Mullen in response to Councilman Torres' question regarding how this economic data related to the formula for dividing how transportation dollars are spent replied that is how they came to an impasse. The discussion that took place at the Commission was one of equity versus needs and how the Measure A or the state pot should be divided up. The distribution of Measure A funds were simple because the formula to be used (return to source) was in the legislation, when it came to state monies the argument was made by Coachella Valley that based upon the Measure A language all funds would be returned based upon formula. It then came down to a question of equity that if we are to keep the county together and it is done in a fair way then their needs to be some sort of formula for the distribution of funds. Ms. Larson proposed that the same formula (25% road centerline road miles and 75% population) that is used in SB 45 should be applied to how the county divides the funds. This of course can be modified to include the 25% for interregional distribution so that we can take care of linkage wherever it is needed. Everyone .has reiterated the need to complete Measure A but the fastest growing portion of the County south of Highway 74 was left out of Measure A and this needs to be looked at. There is nothing in Measure A that takes into account the expected growth in the Beaumont area along the 60 freeway, the Eastside reservoir or the fastest growing industrial area in the Corona/Norco/Mira Loma area. We will be adding approximately one million people in the western portion of the county alone and without at least two new corridors we will be bottled in economically. We need to keep our commitment in regards to the completion of Measure A, identify additional funds needed in the near future in order to provide all the needed infrastructures for commerce, livable communities and recreation. The work that will be done here is absolutely essential along with keeping the county together. The question not addressed here yet is how each of the areas of the county are tied together economically. Mr. Silver said that growth need not be accommodated in just one way. Growth and development can occur in an advantageous manner and the policy decision made in a forum of this nature will be the guiding force. Mayor Loveridge asked that since we are currently undergoing a change in the Regional Transportation how this will affect the decisions that are being made in this forum. Hideo Siguta replied that the new RTP is now more project oriented instead of being so bogged down in policy which allows more flexibility. Dr. Husing summarized the conversation up to this point by stating that the dollars that have been collected whether they are State, Measure A or federal sources have exceeded what was programmed when Measure A was passed. However, there is a shortfall to accomplish the work plan. The reason for this shortfall is a change in the design standards on many of the projects which pushed them outside of existing right-of-ways which caused land purchases and official processes which drove up costs. Which means four of the projects mentioned in Measure A in Western Riverside County cannot be completed and the projects listed in the Coachella Valley Strategic Plan will not be completed. There are also now additional projects on the horizon which will also not be completed because of the funding shortfall. He then explained that the next portion of the agenda will deal with how decisions are made in the future. 5. DISCUSSION: DECISION MAKING PRINCIPLES & STANDARDS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Dr. Husing asked each of the members to answer the following question: "What principles should guide how RCTC does its decision -making?" Mayor Yucaitis said that his immediate response would be that decisions regarding projects should be made by the COG's and with the new concept of a reserve RCTC would make the decision regarding these countrywide projects. Mayor Loveridge said that we must continue to see the big picture and he likes the concept of using the movement of people, goods and services as how we look at transportation in this county. He said that the principles used for prioritization should be safety, congestion and economic development. Mr. Silver commented that since there is a gap between transportation needs and the funds available to complete the needed infrastructure we should promote smart and efficient patterns of growth that would allow for higher density and become more pedestrian oriented. Commissioner Wilson said that we must focus on the reauthorization and expansion of Measure A. The integrity of Measure A should be upheld and there should be a true return to source formula implemented. Councilman Washington stated that we must keep in mind what brought us here in the first place is that we can't decide how to distribute the funding available. The need has been illustrated today to set -aside a reserve in which we can focus on inter -county issues and from there we can build consensuses. We must look at how we will accommodate the anticipated growth countywide and where the economic development growth will be and can we do this as one county. We need to revisit the issue of scope and possibly take some steps backwards if we can work out our differences with Caltrans and work more efficiently. One of the challenges faced on the local level is that residents do not want more density. Councilman Kelly said that we must keep in mind that there is separate areas of the county which is driven by different economic sources, agriculture and tourism. Western Riverside County has more need for a set aside than Coachella Valley. The very integrity of Measure A must be upheld with a true return to source. Paul Gill said that we must keep in mind what has been promised, what is needed and what is fair. Morton said that forecasted appreciation of housing will not keep up with funding needed for infrastructures. In the next 18 months there will be a massive increase in fees that will need to be financed to provide the fees required. Housing will not be able to carry any new financing needed. Congestion is a major issue and RCTC should rethink standards on how to build livable communities that we find in Europe and how the planning was originally done. Housing will not be able to finance the shortfalls there would need to be a twenty percent appreciation to do this which is not likely to happen. Chairman Buster stated that to the extent that we can identify locations where dollars are being brought in from outside the county to generate net sources. Realize there should be some return to source. We must realize that their will need to be a 213 vote to pass any expansion or extension of Measure A so their will need to be a very convincing argument made to the voters. That will be maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Return to source is a very important concept but there needs to be reserve funding for county issues. Mayor Puga said that it is very important that we stay together as a county and we must keep in mind the regional interest, She is willing to look at the big picture as to how we get goods and people to and through the County of Riverside. Public transportation needs to be enhanced and this will improve the quality of life. Safety should be the first consideration versus congestion. Mike Stearns said equity is the overriding issue in the various areas of the county. Safety should be the first consideration and then the public interest. Judy Nieburger said that we need to remember that needs are in the eye of the beholder but we need to look at the broader picture through a regional approach. Discretionary funding is needed to address these broader issues. Joan Spark reiterated that regional issues should be the priority. Debit service and design standards changes must be included in any future legislation. John Yazmin said that we must address regional issues and one way of doing this could be use development of a geo coded county map and standardized information which would assist decision makers in understanding the impact to the region. Jim Heidt stated that we must consider issues on a regional basis while coming to equitable solutions and even within Western Riverside County there are four distinct areas. It is very important to keep the commitment made to the voters in Measure A. Clayton said that it is important to remember that we are one county and suggested using the State formula to distribute funds. The integrity of Measure A should be upheld. Mayor Batey said that fairness and equity should be upheld while considering regional issues. Quality of life must be addressed while keeping the County whole. Mr. Fletcher reminded the committee of the many opportunities available for partnerships Commissioner Venable said that we must recognize the need to keep the county whole and discuss regional issues. The restructuring of ROTC will accomplish this by allowing membership from each of the cities in the county. When the lines go away we will begin to function better. Ed Kirby stated that with new leadership and changes in standards an impact can be made. RCTC does need to become involved in land planning issues, Measure A being a contract of public trust and we must honor all aspects of it. The principles behind the decision making should be needs, use patterns, public interest and cost constrainment. Commissioner Tavaglione said that we must look at transportation from a regional stand point. Jim Smedley stated that the formula for transit was seriously flawed because it should be based on ridership and miles traveled. Measure A is also flawed because it does not take into account the needs of smaller cities. Grant said with employment limited in heavy industry transportation access is extremely important. Commissioner Mullen said that equity is extremely important in the distribution of Measure A and STIP funds for near and midterm economic growth. Long-term infrastructure needs must be met and overriding issue in all decisions should be safety throughout the county. 6. NEXT MEETING - SET DATE & TIME The next meeting was set for Saturday, February 7th at 1:00 p.m. with the location to be announced. Dr. Husing said that he will summarize the discussion held today and fax it out to the members. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Nati Kopenhaver Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 31, 1998 MISSION INN SIGN IN SHEET NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE NO �►', l titiY414Al -64 r /2957o �a -31/_y05/ Lfr3 - 3000 io \ik�F cht-gm/K gill ll mage,wo v,4 -11r t Cl? R�Cc ✓cl ii --5 4c'�ro h crow Lc -c( 2G 13 ! n ! %."... Lr a Z ~tc*9 A - fie! rriS `li .b -6 �p4/ ce-dt ,%,iU4-0 f'/4 G ,.. 24/2 -%Oa 7' YV C kh1 evil /CCTC .jaAAA,Pt-ce 7YUARAA-.)-d il� i9 -qi`PO tv V4b.icv .n_ �► 32k- 1-31` ,hAffi 7 e? -5-3-0 It) r Gr. ft --1. 141 9 16..(• _ gi?..-_5-0,/ SAX 1,„) , A �., v- Cz 5-61Aw-.)Q-q3u,v4_, ' C'TC-- ' c,t5J. 6 yfr 14,m .'??1 .)/(1 lc"- g -c -r?-. 27s-loio /1/L e. - 4 f.. G.- n e ©C.- 1 el -1 TN' 1:z - ,, 7376ai I - cvl ,f-» -- Cet-t,J es ;e-- 7, = i,W G- G "1 fle-4(-,,,, (,,,, PI,. ,,,,%.1„..-7--,„,i, C, ,,,v ()_7 G c.4 7 2-- g 6kt ?tr-i 17/ I 61-14, ()Atte" Li 1 ")ol,(7 s C9LL6Z IA, CAd-d M .. , tit -Are -4- 4A 9(134, 11)6 f 44-451ntretra/ 141(M-0 c 677- 1/3r F44h7 417-344S- A A- -- o b a0 SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 31, 1998 MISSION INN SIGN IN SHEET NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE NO rte' D ;dm 13/0 7Gdo-se-2Y7b P9 -33.5"- 7‘ CO 7,--01.-7- - _ eci tt ' -76-72400 Jam, ri----- y ,,,m4 VIMA4,tvi tt a, f', /174-- % /41%, L c[ 'b�f Y Y 1 LtC1 /.4..G 6%----417 .!---4- 90, 4, , 3/00 T Pte* f / [10 -L &a -v.4 -y_, 111 / Do (NI y0K ,T,s ct-01 km.,ctdo 14.1 ,24Ga 3ZY-arcl/ I c IC. keit <y ci 47 1- 1►Ai (-74 i.riAao/ ?AA.e-AA.6 it c<L\ re Covo-kA et 0 t)9h3c, -2-lted SA �%, l , dai d � PO �9C ?1 6� lc 54 1'-'- t- C V CS ?Coa 34� ,i -f/.z-/7/-tZ--/->d) CPC- Tom- 0,7 01 I) 777 wts G,,irt,il//Ez.. GU/ G 7z-7 6.5-Y. Rt, - 2 Q 3b1., -s / EfrlG co, -4 G 74-/ - C e/116 ,Z i* a), 10 (_ AA- Coto)-, 6177 660k-7 ` --c,-/--- 1----� C z-1-1 ecc 601)70.- Tsar SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 31, 1998 MISSION INN SIGN IN SHEET NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE NO CT A 8.11.1 Q%Q.A 4-1 & o 6, $ a rx firs h it k 6 5 7. 93 / , P rr2.1S CA 91570 r_htAkoh nc,,J.. C cnCaY1 \ -fix --1 [-5 tcg