Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 24, 2022 Budget & Implementation MEETING AGENDA Budget and Implementation Committee Time: 9:30 a.m. Date: October 24, 2022 Location: This meeting is being conducted virtually in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local officials recommending measures to promote social distancing. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Raymond Gregory, Chair / Mark Carnevale, City of Cathedral City Jeremy Smith, Vice Chair / Larry Greene, City of Canyon Lake Mary Hamlin / Alberto Sanchez, City of Banning Lloyd White / David Fenn, City of Beaumont Linda Molina / Wendy Hewitt, City of Calimesa Steven Hernandez / Denise Delgado, City of Coachella Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Lisa DeForest / Cindy Warren, City of Murrieta Jan Harnik / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert Lisa Middleton / Dennis Woods, City of Palm Springs Chuck Conder / Patricia Lock Dawson, City of Riverside Michael Heath / Alonso Ledezma, City of San Jacinto Ben J. Benoit / Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District III STAFF Anne Mayer, Executive Director Aaron Hake, Deputy Executive Director AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY Annual Budget Development and Oversight Competitive Federal and State Grant Programs Countywide Communications and Outreach Programs Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Public Communications and Outreach Programs Short Range Transit Plans RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Monday, October 24, 2022 This meeting is being conducted virtually in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local officials recommending measures to promote social distancing. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION Join Zoom Meeting https://rctc.zoom.us/j/81677531395 Meeting ID: 816 7753 1395 One tap mobile +16699006833,,81677531395# US (San Jose) +16694449171,,81677531395# US Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) For members of the public wishing to submit comment in connection with the Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting please email written comments to the Clerk of the Board at lmobley@rctc.org and your comments will be made part of the official record of the proceedings as long as the comment is received before the end of the meeting’s public comment period. Members of the public may also make public comments through their telephone or Zoom connection when recognized by the Chair. In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, Executive Order N-29-20, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Committee meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. Budget and Implementation Committee October 24, 2022 Page 2 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee 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 Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – AUGUST 22, 2022 Page 1 6B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Page 14 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2022; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. CITIZENS AND SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Page 16 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file an update on the Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee (CSTAC) Transit Needs Public Hearing; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee October 24, 2022 Page 3 8. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Page 25 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 10. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 11. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Overview This item provides the opportunity for brief announcements or comments on items or matters of general interest. 12. ADJOURNMENT The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., November 28, 2022. AGENDA ITEM 6A MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, August 22, 2022 MINUTES 1.CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chair Raymond Gregory at 9:30 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2.ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Ben J. Benoit Lisa DeForest Chuck Conder Mary Hamlin Raymond Gregory Jan Harnik Bob Magee Michael Heath Scott Matas Steven Hernandez Linda Molina Jeremy Smith Lloyd White Chuck Washington Dennis Woods 3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Ben Benoit led the Budget and Implementation Committee in a flag salute. 4.PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5.ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 1 RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2022 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. Chair Gregory requested to pull Agenda Item 6D, “Surplus Declaration of Real Property”, for further discussion. M/S/C (Benoit/White) to approve the following Consent Calendar item(s): 6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JUNE 27, 2022 6B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2022; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6C. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS 1) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for the Quarter 1, 2022 (1Q 2022); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6E. FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 1) Approve an allocation of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for planning in the amount of $1,072,500 for Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and $585,000 for Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) for efforts identified in each agency’s FY 2022/23 LTF Program Objectives/Work Plan (Work Plan) that supports transportation planning programs and functions that are consistent with regional and subregional plans, programs, and requirements; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6F. FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 2020 AND 2021 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION’S SECTION 5310 ENHANCED MOBILITY FOR SENIORS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES PROGRAM 1) Receive and file an update on the Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 2020 and 2021 Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 2 RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 3 6G. QUARTERLY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT METRICS REPORT, APRIL – JUNE 2022 1) Receive and file Quarterly Public Engagement Metrics Report for April – June 2022; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. 2022 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT SELF-EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN Aaron Hake, Deputy Executive Director, acknowledged Erik Galloway, Project Delivery Director, as he was the project manager on this effort and will be available to answer any technical questions. Aaron Hake presented the 2022 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan, highlighting the following areas: • Photos of the RCTC lobby at 4080 Lemon Street, Moreno Valley/March Field station, the 91 Express Lanes Customer Service Center • Purpose o ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan by law for any public entity having 50 or more employees  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) o Intended to identify programmatic and physical barriers that may limit accessibility by persons with disabilities  Standards set by state and federal regulations • Components o ADA Self-Evaluation  The Action Plan – Non-Physical barriers  The Transition Plan – Physical barriers • Self-Evaluation o Began in summer 2021 o ADA surveys issued to 14 RCTC departments o A total of 16 facilities were assessed  91/Perris Valley Line Corridor  Nine Riverside County Metrolink stations  Offices/buildings supporting 91 and 15 Express Lanes  RCTC offices at Lemon Street and 10th Street in Riverside • A summary of the Programmatic (Non-Physical) Barriers o 42 proposed action items  Language in contracts, employment documents, and notices  Internal procedures, awareness, and training  Availability of auxiliary aids and services  Coordination with partner agencies  Testing of equipment/facilities o 0-2 years to implement all action items following plan adoption • An inventory of the physical barriers that were identified at the RCTC facilities 3 RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 4 • Physical barriers – Transition Plan tiered by priority including a list of examples of the barriers identified RCTC will address • Implementation cost (est.) o $2,264,000 o Perris-South Station - $1,876,200  Schedule to be developed − Incorporate into regular maintenance/upgrade schedules − Funding availability − Implementation items will be incorporated into agency budget − Commission approval for items with fiscal impact − Procurement regulations will be followed • Public review and comment o Public input  RCTC’s ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan was made available for public review and comment for 30 days, April 18 - May 18, 2022  In compliance with ADA Title II § 35.105 (b), the team identified 11 organizations that were listed to notify of the posting of the document to seek their input  How the document was made available  Comments were solicited through countywide social media, regional and local partners  Presentation to RCTC Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee April 11, 2022, to announce public comment period and seek input o Comment(s) received  One comment was received from Independent Living Partnership, which confirmed receipt of report and link to press release - “Transportation Bill of Rights Issued for Persons with Disabilities” • RCTC Contact information for the public to continue to make comments Chair Gregory expressed appreciation for the presentation as great care was put into these types of issues when physical facilities are built or when policies are made. It is surprising over time there ends up being such a large list but that also emphasizes why they need to take a step back and look at both of those through a specific lens and noted that it is good this has been done. Commissioner Benoit expressed appreciation to staff for doing this and stated his sibling is fully in a wheelchair and it has been eye opening going to various places with her particularly parking lots, as they have always been an interesting issue. He stated it is amazing how a deteriorated parking lot can really affect someone that is in a wheelchair especially when they have lost all their mobility. He expressed appreciation for doing this and stated at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) they had to also focus on their website and make sure the website is fully accessible and he figured that is 4 RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 5 part of this plan as well. Commissioner Benoit thanked staff for doing this noting it is not easy to do but it is a very big requirement now. M/S/C (White/Conder) to: 1) Direct staff to implement the 2022 ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 STATE OF GOOD REPAIR PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS Eric DeHate, Transit Manager, presented the Fiscal Year 2022/23 State of Good Repair (SGR) Program allocations, highlighting the following: • Background information o State of Good Repair (SGR) established through Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) in 2017 o Provides approximately $105 million statewide annually o Eligible projects: maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital projects o Apportionments based on State Transit Assistance (STA) formulas: Public Utility Codes (PUC) 99313 (discretionary) and 99314 (non-discretionary) o Determined by State Controller’s Office (SCO) – distributed at least twice a year (January and August) • A table of the recommended SGR allocations M/S/C (White/Matas) to: 1) Approve Resolution No. 22-016, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Approving the FY 2022/23 Project List for the California State of Good Repair Program”; 2) Approve an allocation of $4,376,624 related to Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 State of Good Repair (SGR) program funds to eligible Riverside County transit operators; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to review, approve and submit projects to Caltrans which are consistent with SGR program guidelines and to execute and submit required documents for the SGR program, including the Authorized Agent Form; 4) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve administrative amendments to the FY 2022/23 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for incorporation of the SGR funds, as necessary; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 5 RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 6 9. AGREEMENT FOR TRANSIT FUNDING HANDBOOK Monica Morales, Senior Management Analyst, presented background information regarding the federal, state, Local Formula funding, Transit Development Act (TDA) funding, the Transit Operators’ Short Range Transit Plans, and Transit Policies and Procedures; including the procurement process; and the agreement with AMMA Transit Planning for the development of the Transit Funding Handbook. Chair Gregory expressed appreciation as this is such a great project to undertake. He stated it really falls in with how the Commission approaches many things as they try to take these complex funding issues and realizing that many of their end users cannot put forth the staff or pay for consultants to try to simplify that. Chair Gregory explained this is another way where RCTC is taking some very complex policies and methods that must be taken to get funding and to make sure that funding is properly used and properly reported and to get it into a format that even smaller users can use. M/S/C (Molina/Benoit) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 22-62-089-00 to AMMA Transit Planning to develop the Transit Funding Handbook for a one-year term, in the amount of $189,985, plus a contingency amount of $9,500, for a total amount not to exceed $199,485; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and execute the agreement, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these services; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE David Knudsen, External Affairs Director, presented an update for the state and federal legislative activities. Chair Gregory stated in many ways the Commission was successful but as always there is a little bit of a mixed bag in there and still some things pending. M/S/C to: 1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6 RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 7 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 6D. SURPLUS DECLARATION OF REAL PROPERTY Chair Gregory stated this surplus declaration of property appears to be a little different and asked how this request happened, who made the request as there is no letter attached, what is anticipated if the Commission declares it surplus, would it go to the developer, the city or someone else, and does RCTC have any future need for this property as this was not in the staff report. Erick Gutierrez, Senior Management Analyst, replied he will go through each of the points that Chair Gregory addressed. He noted this is property that RCTC owns in fee, it is property that RCTC purchased from or had got conveyed from the railroad company. He explained to address Chair Gregory’s first question, there is an ongoing project called the South Perris Industrial Project in the city of Perris (Perris) and staff has been interacting with a developer looking to develop a specific area in Perris. He then displayed some overhead slides to provide some context in terms of the proposed development, highlighting the following: • Proposed plan that specifies the limits of the proposed project • An ariel with the outlining of the proposed commercial development • Depicts the first two parcels that are in the staff report In response to Chair Gregory’s clarification, Mr. Gutierrez stated the Commission’s railroad line is running parallel with Case Road, it is a 100 foot right of way width. He then presented the street improvements for the proposed commercial development Anne Mayer, Executive Director, referred to the street improvements overhead and stated when looking at the hatched area those are the existing intersections like the existing intersection of Mapes Road and Case Road that will be removed and they are going to have a new intersection there. This area has several nonstandard intersections that have been there for a long time so with the new construction of the intersection it will be a perpendicular intersection. It will be a typical intersection and they will install the appropriate railroad crossing infrastructure that is needed for RCTC’s railroad crossing, which is medians with gates. Erick Gutierrez then presented the other two parcels that are in the staff report In response to Chair Gregory’s clarification the railroad is down the center, Erick Gutierrez showed that it is running parallel with Case Road. Erick Gutierrez then presented the proposed plans to Case Road. 7 RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 8 Erick Gutierrez stated hopefully this gives a better understanding of the proposed areas to be sold for surplus with the new requirements by the Department of Housing and Community Development by the state of California staff now must follow the Surplus Land Act (SLA). He explained it is not only the Commission declaring surplus land, but staff has to follow the guidelines of SLA and go ahead and offer a notice of availability to agencies and developers, and if no response is received it is put out to the public. Chair Gregory stated that it is clearer, but it did not answer most of his questions. Anne Mayer stated this is RCTC’s existing San Jacinto Branch Line where they have constructed the Perris Valley Line and it is generally 100 feet wide. She explained as either a public agency in one of the cities through which RCTC’s right of way exists and/or for a developer if they need to build an at grade crossing for a street, they must cross RCTC’s railroad tracks. This developer has been conditioned to do street improvements so if Perris wanted to do these street improvements RCTC would also surplus the property so they could build the at grade crossings. Chair Gregory asked for clarification on how the Commission got to this point. Anne Mayer replied she is uncertain how far back the request goes, but generally if RCTC is contacted by a developer or a jurisdiction it starts an entire review process where staff goes through a series of meetings and reviews on what exactly is being requested. Both RCTC staff and Metrolink provide feedback on the actual infrastructure that is proposed to be built so prior to it coming to the committee for a request to surplus staff has gone through an extensive series of meetings with the developers. She asked Erick Gutierrez when the first meeting had occurred. Erick Gutierrez referred to Hector Casillas, Right of Way Manager, to respond. Hector Casillas replied in January of 2020. Chair Gregory noted it is confusing because in looking at the item it stated that staff received a request and it did not include who the developer was until it was mentioned, which is IDI Development. Since the developer was not included in the item, he assumed a letter would be attached requesting why the developer needs this property. Chair Gregory explained from the item it is not what he is used to seeing as it did not provide enough details and it gets a little hard to understand how that came about. He noted that it does state it is in support of this warehouse project, but it is not very specific. Erick Gutierrez replied it is staff’s desire to address the questions the Commissioners have, but they are also trying to follow the SLA guidelines and the first thing is to adopt a resolution of declaration to do that. 8 RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 9 Anne Mayer stated it is not uncommon for RCTC to be requested by jurisdictions and/or developers to surplus land and once it is declared surplus it is a generic approval independent of who has made the request and who has been engaged in the process. The decision for the Commission to make is that is this property needed for public purposes for RCTC purposes yes or no and can it be surplused. Anne Mayer explained the specifics will come in when staff puts this property out through the SLA process and they either do or do not get bids on the property it will come back to the Commission for decisions with specifics named about who is involved in the transaction. Currently this is a developer in conjunction with the city they have been working towards approval of this development but when they surplus the property it may or may not be them who would be the low bidder on the property. Chair Gregory replied he is not trying to say that it would matter who asked, he clarified for the sake of transparency why is it not revealed who asked and it seems like they went through a very lengthy process, which is great. He understands that is part of why the Commission does not say they were asked whether that ends up who gets it and that was part of his question also does staff anticipate who would get it. Anne Mayer replied staff does not know and she explained there have been circumstances before where an individual requested RCTC surplus some property and the person who requested did not end up being the one RCTC closed escrow with. She stated there is a lot of uncertainty in the process mainly because the process is heavily regulated. She understands Chair Gregory’s concerns and wants to be able to review with legal counsel what is appropriate for staff. She noted there is the transparency of revealing where the conversation started but by having open discussions on that does that prejudice against people who might bid on the property in a public setting. Staff will provide more detail as directed by legal counsel if it gets through the committee prior to this item going forward to the Commission in September. Anne Mayer stated whatever is done here will become RCTC’s process for all surplus land that has been identified and requested by others to surplus. Chair Gregory stated that only leaves the third part, which is it might encroach on the railroad line, and it appears to be split into two parcels. Is RCTC going to surplus and sell property that possibly in the future somebody may need a grade separation there or need to put another rail line in there and since the property was sold RCTC has to try and buy it back. He asked if they are putting RCTC in a situation or will there be some sort of retained easement where RCTC will have some type of priority if RCTC needs to use part of that property. Erick Gutierrez replied yes, it is his understanding an engineering review has been done on the proposed plans and they looked at it to confirm that it would not 9 RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 10 impact capacity and RCTC’s rail operations for any future projects that RCTC has on that rail line. Anne Mayer stated at Case and Mapes Roads there is already a street crossing there where RCTC’s railroad tracks cross at that location it is just being moved to a different location and she is assuming whoever acquires this property because it will be a public street it will be deeded over to the city for public right of way. RCTC has railroad crossings at street right of ways through out the entire length of their corridor. If they ever were to come back, they have agreements with Perris about each of RCTC’s railroad crossings, so if RCTC wanted to add additional track through there it would go through a normal permitting process with the city because it is an active Public Utilities Commission designated railroad crossing. It would be no different than any other crossing that RCTC has, and she asked legal counsel at any of the rail crossings depends on the crossing whether RCTC has prior rights or not. A. Haviva Shane, legal counsel, replied she does not know. Anne Mayer stated staff would have to look as there is a whole series of prior rights determinations for every railroad crossing that RCTC has and in many cases that old railroad right of way was there before street right of ways, in some cases it is not. Whoever has prior rights at the location is what dictates how they have the transaction, so it would be on a case-by-case basis. She noted they generally do not have issues with RCTC’s member agencies related to railroad crossing. Chair Gregory expressed concern that the Commission will surplus this and they do not know who will end up with it and then at some point they end up wanting to do some type of project through there and they realized that they should have established a right of way before they surplused it or maybe only licensed a portion of it for some use. He wanted to make sure the Commission is looking at those things because he does not want someone coming back in 50 years and saying what was the Commission doing surplusing this property to help a warehouse when there were other options the Commission could have undertaken. At this time, Commissioner Dennis Woods left the meeting. Anne Mayer stated that sort of determination is considered each time they surplus property. Staff looks at will RCTC ever need this property again and is what is being requested of RCTC feasible in terms of their future use. There are several areas where they have not sold the property as RCTC had agreed to a license agreement for the very reason it was mentioned is that they think there might be a possibility they may need it in the future, so RCTC has done long term license agreements. She explained it is a long term license agreement and RCTC gives them two years notice to remove anything they have on the property so RCTC can have it back. Anne Mayer explained every single surplus property staff reviews 10 RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 11 goes through that kind of analysis before it even comes to the Commission for review and if in the public process the bids that come in does not meet RCTC’s requirements the Commission does not have to surplus it. She stated as an example, if the high bidder came in on the property and had a proposed different use for the property then RCTC would not sell it. She clarified RCTC would not surplus this property but for public use at a street crossing. Chair Gregory stated the part that is not clear is once RCTC surplused it, it goes into this whole process where even other public entities have certain rights too, but RCTC does not necessarily have to sell it to them if it ends up not being in the best interest of the Commission. Anne Mayer concurred and stated that RCTC is agnostic with respect to whatever the development is from RCTC’s standpoint it is irrelevant whether the development proposal is a warehouse or a medical building or affordable housing. If the city is conditioning a project for street improvements that is the only thing that staff is considering. Lisa Mobley, Administrative Services Director/Clerk of the Board, stated the committee just lost their quorum. At this time, Chair Gregory determined the committee would take a five-minute break until there was a quorum. At this time, Commissioner Dennis Woods rejoined the meeting. Chair Gregory made the motion to approve staff’s recommendation and requested that this item be on discussion at the September Commission meeting. M/S/C (Gregory/White) to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-017 “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221 that Various Portions of Parcels of Real Property Owned by the Commission Located at Assessor Parcel Numbers 310-160-039, 330- 090-023, 327-210-006, and 327-210-008 in Perris, California, are Non- Exempt Surplus Land, Approving the Form of Notice of Availability Therefor, Authorizing the Executive Director to Comply with the Surplus Land Act, and Finding the Foregoing Categorically Exempt from CEQA Review”; 2) If no response for the non-exempt surplus property is received from public agencies, developers, and/or contiguous landowners, authorize the Executive Director to offer the surplus property for sale to the public; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11 RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 12 12. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT • Anne Mayer announced on August 19 Mobility 21 had its first post-pandemic in- person Summit, it was very well attended and expressed appreciation to Commissioners Gregory and White for attending. Chair Perez was on a panel with his colleagues from the other counties talking about issues of critical importance to Riverside County. There were several other commissioners, the California State Transportation Agency’s Secretary Toks Omishakin, and the new Caltrans Director Tony Tavares that attended as well. The keynote speaker at lunch was retired football player Eric Dickerson and John Standiford, RCTC’s former Deputy Executive Director, was recognized for a lifetime achievement upon his retirement. 13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 13A. Chair Gregory announced the Mobility 21 Summit was a great event and there were about 1,000 people in attendance and there were representatives from all the different agencies from many of the large companies that particularly do work on roadways, freeways, consulting work, transit, and clean energy. He noted Anne Mayer was also on a panel and did a very nice job along with the other executive directors, elected officials, and other experts. He noted it also shows that the Commission here in Riverside County is undertaking so many different initiatives that others are maybe just looking at or thinking about. Chair Gregory expressed appreciation to Anne Mayer, RCTC staff, and the work of the Commission when held up to the optics there of that kind of conference gives them the opportunity to look at. Anne Mayer noted she came in last in the Jeopardy game that she and her colleagues played in front of 1,000 people at Mobility 21 at the end. Chair Gregory stated he assumed that it was just Ms. Mayer’s modesty, and she did not want to shame some of her colleagues. 13B. Commissioner Linda Molina commended staff for the Commission’s constant transparency efforts and their user-friendly approach to business as the Commission does a lot of business and it is very complex. 12 RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 13 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:31 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Mobley Administrative Services Director/Clerk of the Board 13 AGENDA ITEM 6B Agenda Item 6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2022 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Alicia Johnson, Senior Procurement Analyst Jose Mendoza, Procurement Manager THROUGH: Matthew Wallace, Deputy Director of Financial Administration SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2022; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Certain contracts are executed under single signature authority as permitted in the Commission’s Procurement Policy Manual adopted in March 2021. The Executive Director is authorized to sign services contracts that are less than $250,000 individually and in an aggregate amount not to exceed $2 million in any given fiscal year. Additionally, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 130323(c), the Executive Director is authorized to sign contracts for supplies, equipment, materials, and construction of all facilities and works under $50,000 individually. There are no contracts to report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2022, under the single signature authority granted to the Executive Director. The unused capacity of single signature authority for services as of September 30, 2022, is $2,000,000. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of September 30, 2022 14 CONTRACT # CONSULTANT DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT REMAINING CONTRACT AMOUNT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2022 $2,000,000.00 No Contracts to report for first quarter AMOUNT USED 0.00 $2,000,000.00 None N/A $- $- $- Alicia Johnson Matthew Wallace Prepared by Reviewed by SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the first quarter. AMOUNT REMAINING through September 30, 2022 Agreements that fall under Public Utilities Code 130323 (C) V:\2022\11 November\B&I\6B.AJ.A1.SingleSignQ1 15 AGENDA ITEM 7 Agenda Item 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2022 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Eric DeHate, Transit Manager THROUGH: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee Transit Needs Public Hearing Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file an update on the Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee (CSTAC) Transit Needs Public Hearing; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The California State Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that transportation planning agencies ensure the establishment of a citizens’ participation process for each county. This process includes an element in which the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99238.5 states, “The transportation planning agency shall ensure the establishment and implementation of a citizen participation process appropriate for each county. The process shall include a provision for at least one public hearing in the jurisdiction represented by the social services transportation advisory council.” The purpose of the public hearing is to garner public participation and solicit input from transit dependent and transit disadvantaged persons, including the elderly, disabled and persons of limited means. The CSTAC fulfills the citizens advisory council and the social services transportation advisory council TDA requirements. It consists of up to 13 members of the public and two (2) Consolidated Transportation Service Agency members from Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency. The committee assists the Commission in fulfilling TDA regulations by promoting transportation service improvements and enhancements that support the mobility of older adults, persons with disabilities, and persons of limited means. It also establishes an effective communication exchange among Riverside County’s public transit operators, local specialized transit providers, and representatives from diverse transit dependent populations regarding matters of mutual concern. This year the public hearing was held on August 8, 2022, during the CSTAC regularly scheduled meeting. The public hearing was advertised by transit operators, specialized transit providers, 16 Agenda Item 7 and other stakeholders on buses, facilities, and social media. Staff also published a 30-day hearing notice in The Press-Enterprise, The Desert Sun, and The Palo Verde Times. The following methods were made available to the public to submit comments via oral or written testimony: 1) Email at info@rctc.org. 2) Postal Mail to: Riverside County Transportation Commission Attn: Transit Needs Public Hearing Comments P. O. Box 12008, Riverside, CA 92502-2208 3) Via the website at www.rctc.org/contact-us/. 4) By phone at (951) 787-7141 In-person via video/teleconference on Monday, August 8, 2022, at 11:00am at the CSTAC meeting Typically, the CSTAC receives about two (2) to four (4) comments during the public hearing process. Staff provides the comments to the appropriate transit operator(s) for consideration and follow-up as needed. However, this year the CSTAC received 46 public comments, which are provided in Attachment 1. Staff provided the comments to the appropriate transit operators. A summary of the types of comments received is as follows: Public Comment Category No. of Comments* Geographic Area(s) New Service 34 Menifee, Temescal Valley Frequency 4 Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Temescal Valley Bus Stop Improvements 3 Menifee, Perris, Hemet Safety 3 Moreno Valley, Coachella Valley Vehicle Maintenance 2 Coachella Valley Restore Service 1 Wildomar Schedule Changes 1 Hemet Dial-A-Ride 1 Perris Fares 1 Perris Other 2 Hemet, Coachella Valley *Some comments included multiple topics of concern. This is a receive and file item and there is no fiscal impact. Attachment: CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log 17 Attachment 1 No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community 1Bus stop, Dial‐A‐Ride, Fares Just to say thank you to the Commission for the Great Work they have done in  these hard times.   My suggestions are 1.  The new bus stop on Route 41 heading to  Mead Valley via Perris in the city of Perris on the side of the Pulte Homes on Evans  Blvd. and Anira CT can you put a sign there as soon as possible because some of us  residents that have moved in do need that bus stop.  2.  Can you put the new Pulte  home‐Stratford Place on Dial ‐Aride so that we seniors can start using the Dial‐Aride  from here. Also do you plan on lowering Dial‐A Ride back to $1 or even $2 per ride  since the regular bus is back to 25c  for that we are grateful as well Kudos to you all.  Shalom,   Sister Kaycee frequent rider care giver rider with clients Sister Kaycee Perris 2Bus Stop, Frequency To Whom It May Concern: I see that RTA ridership is still way down compared to  pre‐pandemic times. Thank you for the opportunity to share my observations. I  understand the necessity of efficiency in every business.  When the Bus Stops are taken away, it hurts my ability to travel. Some Stops are  already too far apart, unless one is using a mobility device, for which I do not  qualify. Over the course of a year, I ride 9 different RTA routes.  Frequency of #33  and #42 is 110 minutes, except for the second trip which is 105 minutes.  (Prepandemic there were 3 busses that shared these two Routes, and they started  earlier and ended later ‐ that made riding much easier than the current schedules.)  Two to three times a week, I use these busses for local shopping trips. I live within  the quarter mile radius of the intersection of these two busses, Kirby and Fruitvale,  in Hemet. They are critical beginnings to all my travel. The Hemet Mall "Terminal" is  a 1.3 mile walk. When I have to connect too early or late to use #33 or #42, it  becomes necessary for me to walk to/from Hemet Mall to get to it or return from  it. If the Hemet Bus Terminal is taken away from Hemet Mall and moved to Lyon, I  will be unable to walk to/from the proposed new Terminal. I am a retired senior  without a car. I have been riding RTA for more than 9 years.  It is nice to have #28 in Hemet, running every 40 minutes. It is not my favorite thing  to wait an hour to transfer from #28 to #27 at Perris. I do this trip approximately  once a month. I then connect with #200 at Tyler mall and then another bus  company.  One trip I take 6+ times per month, requires 2 RTA busses: one Route's frequency is  70 min apart & one is 110 minutes apart. Very difficult. I then connect with another  bus company. I feel it is important for Major Transfer points to be near bus friendly  eateries,  (Walmart which has Subway or other Fast Food Restaurants) where one is welcome  to buy a snack and wash ones hands. The beautiful Perris Transit is an example of  this oversight Nancy Townsend Hemet  3 Frequency Translated to English "Good afternoon, I made a mistake on the schedule. Instead  of stopping at 1:50, it should stop at 2 because there are several students waiting  just like us. thank you, hopefully you will take it into account." Ma.Dolores Medina Lake Elsinore 4 Frequency To whom it may concern. We need a more frequent bus route on Temescal Canyon  road with more additional hours and stops Thank you Tanya B Johnson Tanya Johnson Temescal Valley 5 Frequency Translated to English "Good morning, I'm a housewife and I don't have a car. I take  my girls to Lakeland school, and they leave 10 [minutes] after the bus passes and  we have to wait an hour for the next bus, can your take into account running the  schedule 10 [minutes earlier]?"  Ma.Dolores Medina Lake Elsinore 6New Service Temescal Valley need and want a Fixed Bus Route NOW . My husband and I are  both seniors and this would be very helpful to us as well as our grandchildren. Thank you Armila Horne Temescal Valley 7New Service For as long as I've been involved in the Temescal Valley  community, I've felt that  our area has not received its "fair share of the pie" in services provided by Riverside  County. Temescal Valley has over 26,000 residents, and yet does not have a fixed  bus route that services our area. Our transportation issues are massive and well‐ known, yet we have no viable options. The needs of our students, general public,  seniors, veterans, and disabled citizens should be considered ‐ and now is the time  for action. Our quality of life has suffered long enough. I respectfully request that  our transportation needs finally be addressed by providing the Temescal Valley  with a fixed bus route. Thank you. Barbara Paul Temescal Valley CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log                                                                             18 Attachment 1 No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log                                                                             8New Service I am emailing in regards to public transportation in the Temescal valley area! This is  long overdue. Our nearest high schools are 8 plus miles away. We are a steadily  growing city and definitely need buses. With all the traffic on the 15 freeway and  gas prices at an all time high, having a city bus would help us tremendously. We  have many seniors in the trilogy area whom do not drive and simply cannot afford  Ubers and Lyfts. We have families who need to get their kids to school and have to  work at the same time. Having a bus can give one independence. I am voting yes on  bringing a city bus to Temescal Valley! Cassie Gilbertson Temescal Valley 9New Service Dear Commissioners, As a development consultant and community volunteer, I work on several projects  in the Temescal Valley area and along the corridor between Corona and Lake Elsinore. There is definitely a need for a "fixed bus route"  to connect the two cities and serve the unincorporated area of Temescal Valley.  The route will provide an alternate mode of transportation for workers and  students to get to their jobs and/or schools. With the traffic congestion on the 15  freeway being as it is and the ridiculously high costs of gas, the residents need a  cost effective way to travel. Over 26,000 residents live in the Valley and more homes and businesses are  coming. There is an opportunity here to relieve traffic by getting some of these cars  off the freeway and have people use mass transit. Most importantly, there are  currently two 55 and older communities in Temescal Valley as well as at least one  mobile home park and an RV Park. Also, a possible assisted living facility is in the  works. It is imperative that the older and disabled residents have access to the  County's Dial A Ride Program that seems to be only available to persons living  within 3/4 of a mile of a "fixed route". As Temescal Valley continues to grow, please  consider the rising number of seniors already living in the area or moving to  Temescal Valley. Please recommend that a "the fixed route" be planned and approved, thus enabling  this "at risk" population the ability to get around and be active in the community  through the use of a "Dial A Ride" Thank you in advance, Chris Mardis Temescal Valley 10 New Service I reside in Temescal Valley. We have 26,000 residents and no fixed bus route. Our  area will be expanding with future planned developments. Between our traffic  issues, inflation, concerns about greenhouse gases and the price of gas, people  need reliable transportation. Many cannot afford to buy a car at this difficult time.  Virtually all of us live too far away from resources and services to walk. Please  strongly consider adding a fixed bus route to our area. Thank you for your time. Cynthia Hafner Temescal Valley 11 New Service To Whom It May Concern: There are over 26,000 residents in Temescal Valley. With this growth, we still  remain isolated from shopping, doctors, Middle and High schools and other  services. Walking is not an option when you are 4 miles or more from your errands,  especially if you have to carry shopping or books home. Please give us a fixed bus  route. Respectfully, Erica Leon Temescal Valley 12 New Service Temescal Valley needs a fixed bus route. Our I‐15 corridor has too many  commuters from the southern parts of the county. With a bus, I can go to the  doctor at Riverside Medical Clinic, shop at Trader Joes and other local shops. Now is the time Fred Fred Vogelgesang Temescal Valley 13 New Service To whom it may concern; Temescal Valley is lacking a fixed bus route along with Dial a Ride for Seniors. My  mother lives in one of the two over 55 communities in Temescal Valley and is no  longer able to drive. Having Dial a Ride would enable her to have a little more  freedom as it would other Seniors in the same predicament. I was disappointed  when I found out there was no such service for the Senior living communities in  Temescal Valley even though they have quite a high volume of residents. Seniors  without cars who have to rely on family and friends feel isolated and suffer a loss of  independence without a bus service. Hoping that my concerns for bus service and  Dial a Ride are heard. Thank you for your time and consideration. G Cape Gabbi Cape Temescal Valley 19 Attachment 1 No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log                                                                             14 New Service To Whom it May concern: I’m a senior citizen, but growing up I took the bus everywhere. As a teen, it was my  transportation to school, to entertainment venues and to the beach. As a young  adult, I took the bus to college and to my first job! I’m a resident of Temescal Valley – an unincorporated county community with  more than 26,000 residents and no fixed bus route. My grandson lives with us. If  we had a fixed bus route, he could have taken the bus to El Cerrito Middle School  when he was a student there. Instead, his grandfather drove him to and picked him  up from school every day. My elderly sister lived with us for 13 months last year.  No longer able to drive, if we had a fixed bus route she could have availed herself of  the Dial‐ARide program. Instead, I drove her to doctor and dental appointments. Temescal Valley needs a fixed bus route. Temescal Valley has two sizable age‐specific communities – Trilogy and Terramor,  and soon will be getting an assisted living center to accommodate 216 additional  senior residents. Temescal Valley needs a fixed bus route. We’ve had commercial  and industrial enterprises discouraged in locating here because of the current  Vehicle Miles Traveled formula used in environmental impact reports and/or  mitigated negative impact reviews require a fixed bus route to lower the percentage of acceptable miles traveled.  Temescal Valley needs a fixed bus route. With the push coming from Sacramento for local governments to utilize  alternatives to the automobile for transportation mobility, without a fixed bus  route, Temescal Valley folks have no alternative but to rely on their private vehicles  for transportation needs. Please consider a fixed bus route for Temescal Valley. Thank you … Jannlee Watson Jannlee Watson Temescal Valley 15 New Service Dear Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee,  This letter shall serve as support for a Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Fixed Bus  Route along the Temescal Canyon Road. The RTA fixed bus route would run  between the cities of Lake Elsinore and Corona. This RTA bus route is needed for  the following reasons. Mitigate traffic congestion on the Interstate 15 prior to and following the  development of the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Southern Extension project.   To support the expected development of 2,559 new residential units and the  development of 7.4 million square feet of commercial/industrial space in the  Temescal Valley. Support employee transportation to and from new commercial/industrial places of  employment Connect current Temescal Valley Residents to commercial centers not  available in the Temescal Valley. This would minimize round trip vehicle travel and  reduce green house gas emissions. If you have any questions, please contact me. Regards, Jerry Sincich Jerry Sincich Temescal Valley 16 New Service We have over 26k residents ‐ it is an essential need for our continually growing  community ‐ keep us off the Cajalco crush and let the Dial A Ride program lift us from the loneliness COVID brought to  so many. With thanks for your time. Joan Valentine California Meadows Joan Valentine Temescal Valley 17 New Service I am trapped in a transportation desert. I don’t drive and I have no vehicle. A bus  route would be a lifesaver for me and other senior citizens. Please consider the  needs of Temescal Valley residents by establishing a fixed bus route. Jolinda Curtin Temescal Valley 18 New Service  I am a senior resident of Te mescal  Valley. I do not drive and have to rely on my  neighbors for rides for medical appointments, grocery shopping and banking. A  fixed bus route would be a lifesaver for me and many other residents of Temescal  Valley. Please consider establishing a fixed bus route for our area. Jolinda Curtin Temescal Valley 19 New Service  A bus route is essenƟal for the people of Temescal  Valley. The freeways are clogged  with 2 senior communities needing to get to medical appts, shopping, services in  Corona & Lk. Elsinore.  Thank you, Leeann Woodruff Leeann Woodruff Temescal Valley 20 Attachment 1 No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log                                                                             20 New Service Please, with the building of so many new homes, Temescal Valley needs a transit  system. Please put a bus line through this growing community and help free up the  15, 91 and Temescal Canyon Road as much as possible. Linda Thompson Temescal Valley 21 New Service There are over 26,000 residents in Temescal Valley. With this growth, we still  remain isolated from shopping, doctors, Middle and High schools and other  services. Walking is not an option when you are 4 miles or more from your errands,  especially if you have to carry shopping or books home. Please give us a fixed bus  route. Lori Gray Temescal Valley 22 New Service We need a Dial A Ride Option near Tom’s Farms bus stop. It needs to run frequently  during the day, we have a large senior 55+ community in the area and a lot of these  people no longer drive and need to get to shops. Pauline Ingrao Temescal Valley 23 New Service We are located in the Trilogy community in unincorporated area of Temescal  Valley. We have a number of disabled, seniors and veteran residents who no longer  drive that have transportation needs. Having a bus service route and the  accompanying availability of Dial A Ride services is extremely important to our area. Richard and Sue Lewis Temescal Valley 24 New Service I would like to put out for the meeting on Monday that we get a fixed transit route  in Temescal Valley. We have 26,000 residents in this area and with present price of operating a vehicle it would be a benefit to our  community for member to get around. With people on fixed income and retire communities this can give us access to Dial a  Ride for the community members who need it. Please establish a fixed bus route in Temescal Valley. Thank you for your time. Robert Hafner Temescal Valley 25 New Service Need bus routes and n Temescal Canyon Road Robert Richardson Temescal Valley 26 New Service Hello I've been a resident of Temescal Valley for 12 years. I personally have never used  public transit in this area. I have however worked with numerous families and youth who need to use it on a daily basis for work or  school. I work for the school district. I have taught students how to read the bus schedule and to download the app to their phone.  For many families public transit and the kindness of others us their most reliable  and affordable means of transportation. We live in an area that geographically  makes it difficult to walk or ride a bike to places. Or it is just too far. Public transit  gives young students the ability to work and attend school without relying on  others fostering independence and confidence. A fixed route would lead to a more  stable community for our residents. Thank you Robin Davenport Robin Davenport Temescal Valley 27 New Service I live in Temescal Valley. We are sorely in need of public transportation in this area.  Currently, the only RTA bus that comes through here is a commuter bus that stops  at Tom's Farms only on weekday early mornings and evenings and has very limited  stops. The Corona Cruiser is the next nearest bus, but the distances of 4.1 miles away for  Dos Lagos (which has Saturday service only) and 5.6 miles for The Crossings makes  it impractical to utilize those routes. How convenient it would be to take a bus from  my home in Temescal Valley to Dos Lagos or The Crossings! With both our senior and school age populations on the rise, the convenience of a  fixed bus route connecting our community to shopping centers, schools, and other  businesses and transportation hubs would be of great benefit. Ruth Brissenden Temescal Valley 28 New Service Hi , We need a fixed route in Temescal valley, so I can take a bus to the station easily  and take my eBike with me to work m. My dad is disabled and he can also take  advantage of the fix route because dial a ride can then come to us if we are under  three quarters of the route. We are located on temescal canyon and mojeska  summit rs. Saad Awais Temescal Valley 29 New Service Hello, In Temescal Valley we are desperate for alternative transportation. We need a bus  route to provide that. Please consider helping the residents young and mature to  get to where we need to be. Our area has a 7/100 walkability score according to  Redfin. Thank you, Sarah Bravo Sarah Bravo Temescal Valley 21 Attachment 1 No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log                                                                             30 New Service I am writing to voice my concerns about there are not  any busing to get my son to  and from Liberty High School in Menifee. There is not adequate sidewalks or  shoulders in the roads  roads on Garbani and Leon or even Scott Road for my son to  be able to walk or ride his bicycle safely. The nightmare of cars lined up in four  lanes and parked all over around the outside of the school is a nightmare to  navigate and very time consuming for parents trying to quickly pick up their child  and get back to work. Some parents like myself cannot always be there at 3:30 to  pick up their child and there's no safe plan for them to walk or ride their bicycle  home instead. Buses are very much needed for this high school especially with the  location out of the way from most things in Menifee and the not developed  areas  that surround it. There will need to be several buses to accommodate the very large  class especially the freshman class this year attending liberty high school. Busing  should have been on the agenda prior to Liberty High School ever opening with the  conditions I mentioned earlier in this email. This was not well planned and thought  out for the working parents. It's even more difficult for single parents such as  myself who do not have someone else to call to pick up my child when I'm at work.  This issue is more needed for after school then it is for the morning.  Stephanie Walker Menifee 31 New Service There are over 26,000 residents in Temescal Valley. With this growth, we still  remain isolated from shopping, doctors, Middle and High schools and other  services. Walking is not an option when you are 4 miles or more from your errands,  especially if you have to carry shopping or books home. Please give us a fixed bus  route. Tracy Davis Temescal Valley 32 New Service Please add a new bus route Temescal Valley. I won't add more than what I wrote in,  but we have a large elderly community that does not have access to Dial‐A‐Ride Jannlee Watson Temescal Valley 33 New Service Tracy Davis has a friend that needs Dial‐A‐Ride and needs to walk two miles to Dos  Lagos. She is not aged qualified for Dial‐A‐Ride. This isn't just for elderly people but  for all people in the area. Tracy Davis Temescal Valley 34 New Service I am writing to request that morning and afternoon stops be added to allow  students to safely transition between Liberty High School (Menifee) and the  Spencer's Crossing neighborhood (Murrieta). At this current time, there is no safe  way that students residing in Spencer's Crossing or neighboring areas can SAFELY  walk or bike to Liberty High School as there is no sidewalk/walkway for them to  use. The speed limit on Leon Road is 50 mph, and since I use this road every day, I  know that drivers do not abide by the posted speed limit. This is a tragedy waiting  to happen, especially during peek hours, when everyone is in a rush to get places  and students are walking alongside the busy, high‐speed road. Thank you for your  consideration and for considering the safety of our children. Anna Price Menifee 35 New Service Please add more stops over by Liberty High School and one dropping off at Liberty!  So many students need rides, including my daughter. Thank you! Best, Hannah DeMarti Hannah DeMarti Menifee 36 New Service Parent has a student that attends Liberty High School. There was a bus stop nearly  two miles near Leon rd. Could a new stop be added and times be added for the  school schedule.  Marcia Menifee 37 New Service Xavier Padilla works at Liberty high school and wondered if they can add a bus stop  near Liberty High School because the closest bus stop is nearly a mile a way.  Voicing concerns of parents and faculty. This is a safety issue. Xavier Padilla Menifee 38 New Service As a disabled person in Temescal Valley we must have a fixed bus route. I cannot  drive and the social worker assigned to me could find no help in Riverside County  unless I lived in specific cities. She was shocked as most of the country has services  for the elderly and disabled. To be behind what rural Red states provide should be  embarrassing but I have made requests for years and it seems like no one actually  cares about anyone in the area that happens to be disabled or elderly.  Stacey Mitchell Temescal Valley 22 Attachment 1 No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log                                                                             39 New Service, Bus stop To Whom This May Concern, I am a driver with Riverside Transit Agency, that has lived in Southwest Riverside  County since 1983. I am honored to be employed in public transit, here in the  community I grew up in. I have seen this once "small‐town" expand to the community we are today! Not  only am I a driver for Riverside Transit Agency, but also a homeowner within the  growing community of Menifee and am currently raising children that are in High  school & Elementary. There are a couple areas of improvement that I feel needs to be addressed: The 1st being added bus service, or offer school trippers, within the Menifee area  of Scott Rd & Leon for the New High School, Liberty High School (Perris Union  School District) this school has opened up last year in August of 2021. I know many  parents are in need of some type of assistance with transportation to & from the  school, especially with the new start times for high school students, along with the  location of the school. The area is very desolate, with no safe walking paths or  sidewalks, along with more building currently underway.  As an employee I know  that we do " School Trippers" for couple of schools throughout the County. I am  sending this email hoping that the idea can be considered for Liberty Highschool  Another stop that I notice needs to be considered is a stop along route 19 is  Webster & Ramona Expressway I have a couple of passengers every morning that  work at the warehouses on Romona Expressway, they end up crossing Romona  expressway to get to the Wherehouse's located in that area & traffic is very high at  all times of the day I'm just thinking the safety of the passengers. maybe we can  extend service across Ramona Express way on Webster?? Thank You for this opportunity of allowing me to voice my opinion as a driver. Roxanne Miller Menifee 40 Other Ms. Townsend stated that since the Sears has closed at the Hemet Mall, there is no  place to stay cool waiting for a bus. She stated that if a bus could be used as a  cooling station in that area or in the mall parking lot, it would greatly help as she  has to wait more than 30 minutes for her bus.” Nancy Townsend Hemet  41 Other Good morning board chair and county supervisors my name is Anthony Garcia. I  was born in Indio and raised in Coachella. I have lived in the Coachella Valley all my  life. I rode sunbus when I was a child. That's what inspired me to be a bus operator  and have proudly served sunline transit agency for over 26 years. I have seen the  changes throughout the valley. I also know who uses our service, who is impacted  by our service, and who needs our service. I was told by a sunline Board Member at  our last Board meeting that I was mindless and that they need to find a way to  make me stop. Another board member, 2nd what they said, and added that we  needed to present facts. Shame on them. As they continue to support this general  manager when they should be supporting the working class, front line works,  person with disabilities, and transit riders who need our public transit service. Fact  is I've work in the public transit sector longer than the Lauren Skiver, sunline's  general manager and her management team that she put there. I am saddened by  what's happened to our transit agency. I ask you, supervisors, is sunline a fueling  station or a public transit agency? It's been well over 15 years since we've  purchased a new CNG bus. Yet, we produce and sell CNG fuel. According to  Anthony Garcia Coachella Valley 42 Restore Service Please reestablish service from Wildomar to Oceanside Hector Ancyra Wildomar 43 Safety, Restore Service 2 comments: 1) Drivers should be given the OK to refuse service to mentally ill  residents behavior with excessive items brought on the bus. 2) Route 18  southbound to Moreno Valley College needs to return. Disservice to the residents  in that area for low income and economically challenged Joel Johnson Moreno Valley 23 Attachment 1 No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log                                                                             44 Safety, Vehicle Maintenance Having problems with hydrogen vehicles and glitches in these systems when people  are waiting in 120 degree weather. I ask that you look into these unsafe vehicles  and help us provide a change as far as going forward with the technology. Green is  good, but these buses aren't working in the desert. They are creating a safety issue  and leaving passengers behind in a system that's not working to provide them to go  to work and doctors, etc. Drivers are getting assaulted, spit on all because these  buses are breaking down and the next driver is coming in and taking the heat from  the passengers. I have been there for 26 years, I love my job, but if we continue to  the change for hydrogen,  we need to look into safety. the steering wheels shut off.  I mean the bus shuts off without any warning and the steering wheel gets hard and  creates an unsafe working condition. Thank you.   Anthony Garcia Coachella Valley 45 Safety, Vehicle Maintenance SunLine member for about 15 years now. My topic mimics Anthony's because we  have buses that are braking down. They shut off completely in the middle of the  freeway and when these hydrogen buses stop, you have to completely shut it off  and wait to go through the motions again to restart and then start it again all  hoping you are not going to rear ended on the 10 freeway. These things will shut  off like this in the middle of an intersection when you are making a turn. These  vehicles are just not working in the desert at all. It is entirely too hot for these  vehicles and then we end up leaving passengers stranded waiting for another bus  and at times and the next bus that comes up is broken down. We just had two  buses broken down the other day. Two buses were towed in at the same time. We  have chronic problems now with driver assaults, passenger assaults on buses,  attempted hijackings, and we have had a murder on a bus. They are just not safe  anymore. With the whole service, something needs to be done and we ask you to  look into this. Thank you.  Joseph Rake Coachella Valley 46 Schedule Changes Mr. Ruben uses google transit to plan his trips using RTA services in the Hemet –  San Jacinto area. With the recent RTA schedule changes, the buses that used to stop at Lincoln and  Florida Avenue now stop at Chicago and Florida which is more difficult for me. Mr.  Ruben states that the buses are not on schedule and the layover at Chicago is now  close to 30 minutes. Mr. Ruben also called 511 and they did not have the updated  schedule. What is being displayed google transit is not reality. Please correct the issue Alton Ruben Hemet  24 CITIZENS AND SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Eric DeHate, Transit Manager 1 Budget and Implementation Committee October 24, 2022 Background 2 •Transportation Development Act PUC 99238.5 –Establish a Citizen Participation Process –Hold one public hearing represented by Social Services Transportation Advisory Council •RCTC created Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee (CSTAC) •13 members of the public and two (2) CTSA’s •Assists the Commission in fulfilling its TDA regulations OCTOBER 24, 2022 Background (cont.) 3 •Public Hearing was held on August 8, 2022 –Advertised by transit operators, specialized transit providers and other stakeholders –30-day notice in The Press Enterprise, The Desert Sun and The Palo Verde Times –Comments were made by email, phone, letter or verbally at the hearing •Comments and Feedback –46 public comments received OCTOBER 24, 2022 Background (cont.) 4 OCTOBER 24, 2022 Staff Recommendation 5 1.Receive and file an update on CSTAC Transit Needs Public Hearing; and 2.Forward to the Commission for final action. OCTOBER 24, 2022 QUESTIONS 6 AGENDA ITEM 8 Agenda Item 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2022 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: David Knudsen, External Affairs Director THROUGH: Aaron Hake, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update The Legislature concluded its 2022 session by sending 1,166 bills to Governor Gavin Newsom for signature or veto. By October 1, 2022, the Governor signed 997 bills and vetoed 169 bills, a veto rate of 14.5 percent. The 169 bills vetoed by the Governor included ones opposed by RCTC, including AB 1951 (Grayson). The bill would have expanded the existing sales and use tax exemption for new equipment purchases by manufacturers, to include local voter-approved sales and use taxes for the next five years. While understanding the economic benefits that an expanded manufacturer’s sales tax exemption could bring, RCTC submitted a veto request to Governor Newsom on September 8 on the grounds that including local sales taxes in the exemption could harm RCTC’s ability to build the infrastructure needed to support residents and the local, state, and national economy. Beyond sales tax revenue alone, the bill would have also impacted RCTC’s ability to finance infrastructure improvements backed by projected Measure A revenue. The Governor’s veto message echoed concerns regarding impact transportation services and other local government functions. Another bill vetoed by the Governor was AB 2438 (Friedman). AB 2438 would have integrated strategies identified in the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) into various transportation funding programs and required future iterations of the California Transportation Plan to be fiscally constrained. On September 8, staff sent a letter to the Governor requesting he veto AB 2438. RCTC was joined by several labor groups, the Self-Help Counties Coalition, the California Association of Councils of Governments, the San Bernardino 25 Agenda Item 8 County Transportation Authority, the Orange County Transportation Authority, and other transportation advocacy groups, in its opposition to the bill due to concerns about the potential for it to impact the ability of transportation planning agencies to invest in operational improvements on roadways and highways while transiting to multimodal transit systems. In his veto message, the Governor indicated that the state is already taking the climate action called for in the legislation and expressed concern for language that would have codified the first version of CAPTI, precluding the state from adapting the plan in the future. Governor Newsom did sign SB 1121 by Senator Lena Gonzalez, Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee. Supported by RCTC, the bill requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) every five years to develop a needs assessment of the cost to operate, maintain, and provide for the future growth and resiliency of the state and local transportation system. In developing the needs assessment, the CTC would be required to consult with relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, metropolitan planning organizations, county transportation commissions, regional transportation planning agencies, local governments, and transit operators. In addition, the bill requires the CTC to estimate the cost to provide for future growth of the state and local transportation system in the needs assessment and must include the cost to address climate change impacts. RCTC previously opposed AB 2237 (Friedman) and AB 2438 (Friedman) due to concerns regarding legislative efforts that prematurely restructure how transportation projects are planned, funded, and delivered, without a comprehensive analysis of infrastructure and service need, nor increased funding and regulatory flexibility. RCTC supported SB 1121 because it provides a meaningful first step as the state explores how to advance climate action goals by transitioning our transportation systems to multimodal transit alternatives. The Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 2594, authored by Assemblymember Phil Ting. AB 2594 changes various processes in the enforcement and collection of tolls and associated penalties, the sale of transponders and other electronic toll collection device mechanisms, and how rental cars can use the toll facilities. The bill was primarily informed by a report authored by the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), a non-profit organization based in the Bay Area focused on advocating for increased equity and sustainability in urban planning and project design. While the Commission did not take a formal position on AB 2594, staff working with the other toll agencies within the California Toll Operators Committee and the author’s office agreed on several amendments that removed the general opposition of all toll agencies within the state. Although the bill had numerous amendments, it will still enact several new requirements focused on creating added equity in the operation of toll facilities. This includes allowing for payment plans, revising state statutory limits on toll penalties, and allowing for more consistency in customer service across toll agencies. As a result of these successful negotiations, the author of the bill has also agreed to explore the potential for future legislation to address concerns toll agencies have advocated over the last few years related to interoperability requirements and communications. The Legislature is adjourned until December 5, 2022. 26 Agenda Item 8 State Budget Update In a sign of fiscal caution, many of the bills vetoed by Governor Newsom relate to ongoing spending obligations that were not negotiated within the budget. This is significant not just for the outlook for future budgets, but also for the future year spending proposed in budget packages. Unless funds are specifically allocated in a given budget for that fiscal year, any funds that are otherwise proposed for future fiscal years are not binding and therefore may not come to fruition. While one-time spending was increase due to the unprecedented budget surplus, the California Department of Finance announced that revenues are coming in roughly $4.4 billion below what was projected earlier this year. Federal Update FY 2023 Appropriations Bills On September 30, 2022, President Biden signed a Continuing Resolution that will fund the federal government through December 16th. Because Congress has yet to pass any of the 12 appropriations, negotiations will continue in order to reach an agreement on spending levels that will allow these bills to pass when Congress returns after the midterm elections. Two Community Project Funding requests remain pending – a $3 million request from Representative Calvert for the 15 Express Lanes Southern Extension and a $3 million request from Representative Takano for the Third Street Grade Separation in Riverside. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a policy and information item. There is no fiscal impact. Attachments: 1) State and Federal Update Legislative Matrix – October 2022 2) AB 1951 Veto Request Letter 3) Governor’s Veto Message – AB 1951 4) AB 2438 Veto Request Letter 5) Governor’s Veto Message – AB 2438 27 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION – OCTOBER 2022 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 1951 (Grayson) This bill would, on and after January 1, 2023, and before January 1, 2028, make this a full exemption of sale and use tax for purchases not exceeding $200,000,000 for qualified manufacturing equipment. Vetoed by Governor September 15, 2022 Opposed Staff action based on platform Sept. 8, 2022 SB 1121 (Gonzalez) This bill would require the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to develop and update every five years a needs assessment of the cost to operate, maintain, and provide for the future growth and resiliency of the state and local transportation system. In developing the needs assessment, the CTC would be required to consult with relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, metropolitan planning organizations, county transportation commissions, regional transportation planning agencies, local governments, and transit operators. In addition, the bill requires the CTC to estimate the cost to provide for future growth of the state and local transportation system in the needs assessment and must include the cost to address climate change impacts. Signed by Governor September 23, 2022 SUPPORT Staff action based on platform June 15, 2022 AB 2344 (Friedman) If enacted as written, AB 2344 would require Caltrans, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), to establish a wildlife connectivity project list of wildlife passage projects. The bill would require the list to be included in the wildlife connectivity action plan and require Caltrans and DFW to prioritize the implementation of projects on the list based on specified factors, including, among others, the project’s ability to enhance connectivity and permeability within a connectivity area or natural landscape area identified in the wildlife connectivity action plan. Signed by Governor September 30, 2022 OPPOSE Unless Amended Staff action based on platform June 3, 2022 SB 1410 (Caballero) This bill would require, by January 1, 2025, to conduct and submit to the Legislature a study on the impacts and implementation of the guidelines described above relating to transportation impacts. The bill would require the office, upon appropriation, to establish a grant program to provide financial assistance to local jurisdictions for implementing those guidelines. Failed to pass Appropriations Committee August 11, 2022 Support May 11, 2022 ATTACHMENT 1 28 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 2237 (Friedman) AB 2237 would limit use of State Transportation Improvement Program funding and reframe the administration of such, while also seeking a redefinition of the roles and responsibilities for metropolitan planning organizations Failed to pass Transportation Committee June 16, 2022 OPPOSE May 11, 2022 AB 2438 (Friedman) This bill would require the agencies that administer those programs to revise the guidelines or plans applicable to those programs to ensure that projects included in the applicable program align with the California Transportation Plan, the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure adopted by the Transportation Agency, and specified greenhouse gas emissions reduction standards. The bill would require the Transportation Agency, the Department of Transportation, and the California Transportation Commission, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board and the Strategic Growth Council, to jointly prepare and submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2025, that comprehensively reevaluates transportation program funding levels, projects, and eligibility criteria with the objective of aligning the largest funding programs with the goals set forth in the above-described plans and away from projects that increase vehicle capacity. Vetoed by Governor September 29, 2022 OPPOSE Staff action based on platform March 24, 2022 AB 1778 (Cristina Garcia) This bill would prohibit any state funds or personnel time from being used to fund or permit freeway widening projects in areas with high rates of pollution and poverty. Failed passage to pass Senate Committee on Transportation June 29, 2022 OPPOSE March 9, 2022 AB 1499 (Daly) Removes the January 1, 2024 sunset date for Department of Transportation and regional transportation agencies to use the design- build procurement method for transportation projects in California. Signed by Governor September 22, 2021 SUPPORT April 14, 2021 SB 623 (Newman) Clarifies existing law to ensure toll operators statewide can improve service to customers and enforce toll policies while increasing privacy protections for the use of personally identifiable information (PII). Failed to Pass House of Origin by January 31, 2022 deadline. February 1, 2022 SUPPORT Staff action based on platform April 5, 2021 29 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 261 (Allen) This bill would require that the sustainable communities strategy be developed to additionally achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sector for 2045 and 2050 and vehicle miles traveled reduction targets for 2035, 2045, and 2050 established by the board. The bill would make various conforming changes to integrate those additional targets into regional transportation plans. Failed to Pass House of Origin by January 31, 2022 deadline. February 1, 2022 OPPOSE May 12, 2021 Federal HR 972 (Calvert) This bill establishes the Western Riverside County Wildlife Refuge which would provide certainty for development of the transportation infrastructure required to meet the future needs of southern California. Ordered Reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources July 14, 2021 SUPPORT Staff action based on platform June 11, 2021 30 September 8, 2022 Governor Gavin Newsom State of California 1021 O Street, Suite 9000 Sacramento, California 95814 RE: Veto Request – AB 1951 (Grayson) Dear Governor Newsom: On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I write in opposition to AB 1951 (Grayson) and request a veto of this legislation. If chaptered into law, the bill would expand the existing sales and use tax exemption for new equipment purchases by manufacturers, to include local voter-approved sales and use taxes for the next five years. This bill could reduce local sales tax revenue by an estimated $2 billion statewide. Furthermore, the bill could impact both the credit ratings of public agencies that bond against that revenue and the ability to meet current, future, or both current and future debt service obligations for which sales and use tax is the pledged source for repayment. AB 1951 would usurp the will of voters that have already approved transportation sales tax measures and fails to recognize the depth of funding self-help counties, like Riverside County, invest in transportation statewide. Riverside County residents approved in 1988 and again in 2002 Measure A, a half-cent sales tax that funds improvements for all transportation modes, including highways, commuter rail, public transit, rideshare programs, complete streets, and even habitat conservation. Some of RCTC’s most consequential projects have been financed with the backing of the Commission’s credit, thanks to the reliable revenue source Measure A provides. If signed into law, AB 1951 could harm RCTC’s ability to seek financing, resulting in either higher interest rates, higher borrowing costs to deliver similar programmed projects, or both. It has taken decades to deliver some of these projects due to insufficient state and federal funding and cumbersome regulatory approval processes, and measures such as AB 1951 do not help and set a terrible precedent. We committed to our residents, based on their vote to support this Measure, to get the job done. RCTC supports economic development efforts and sees its mission of providing multi-modal mobility solutions for the residents and businesses of Riverside County as inextricably linked to the performance of our local economy and prosperity of our communities. The benefit to manufacturers that AB 1951 seeks to provide comes at a cost to RCTC’s ability to maintain regional infrastructure relied upon for the supply chain and the movement of commercial goods. Indeed, 40 percent of the nation’s goods travel through our region from the Ports of Los ATTACHMENT 2 31 Governor Gavin Newsom September 8, 2022 Page 2 Angeles and Long Beach, and this infrastructure must be maintained. Now is not the time to reduce local revenue for vital transportation projects. For these reasons, RCTC opposes AB 1951 and requests a veto of this legislation. If you have any questions regarding RCTC's position, please contact me at (951) 787-7141. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Aaron Hake Deputy Executive Director CC: Ms. Christy Bouma, Legislative Affairs Secretary Members of the Riverside County Legislative Delegation 32 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR SEP 15 2022 To the Members of the Ca lifornia State Assembly: I am returning Assembly Bill 1951 without my signature . This b il l replaces the c u rrent partial manufacturing sales tax exemption with a full exemption until January 1, 2028. This change would result in substantial revenue loss to local governments, which impacts essential health, safety, welfare, and transportation services. Assuming there are no changes in taxpayer behavior, local agencies are estimated to lose over half a b il lion dollars each year. As a strong supporter of California 's business cl imate and manufactu ri ng industry, I agree with the intent of this bill to invest in California's economy, incentivize innovation, and spur a manufacturing marketplace that is competitive nation-wide. However, we cannot ask our local governments to bear this loss in revenue. With our state facing lower-than-expected revenues over the first few months of this fiscal year, it is important to remain disciplined. The Legislature sent measures with potential costs of well over $20 billion in one-time spending commitments and more than $10 billion in ongoing commitments not accounted for in the state budget. Bills with significant cost pressures, such as this measure, should be considered as part of the annua l budget process. For these reasons , I cannot sig n this bill. GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM• SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 445-2841 ~ ATTACHMENT 3 33 I look forward to working with the Legis lature and stakeholders to propose something on this topic next year. 34 Se ptember 8, 2022 Governor Gavin Newsom State of California 1021 O Street, Suite 9000 Sacramento, California 95814 RE: Veto Request – AB 2438 (Friedman) Dear Governor Newsom: On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I write in opposition to AB 2438 and request a veto of this legislation. If chaptered into law, the bill would codify the recently established Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) and incorporate elements into specified transportation funding program guidelines or plans. This will create policy conflicts and will leave underserved communities behind. RCTC recognizes your intention to secure an equitable and climate-resilient future, including for residents in Riverside County. However, RCTC maintains fundamental concerns regarding the implementation of the state’s climate action approach. While CAPTI calls for alignment of climate action efforts across the state, RCTC does not see a coordinated approach between the Legislature and your administration. In an effort to assess state strategies to advance climate action in transportation, you signed AB 285 (Chapter 605, Statutes of 2019) by Assemblymember Friedman. But before the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) could finalize its report, Assemblymember Friedman prematurely introduced AB 2438 under the guise of implementing the draft recommendations. In fact, AB 2438 passed before SGC was able to conclude public comment and stakeholder engagement and release its final report. Furthermore, the bill seeks to codify the current iteration of CAPTI, an administrative document that is subject to adaptation based on the success of its implementation. RCTC engaged in the drafting process of both CAPTI and AB 2438. However, our concerns were not incorporated into the final bill and our issues remain unaddressed. While the bill was narrowed in scope in the Legislature, it still includes SB 1 programs, leaving room for conflict with promises the state made to voters, despite CAPTI affirming its intent to not change program guidelines beyond current code. Arguments that agencies are already voluntarily implementing CAPTI, and that AB 2438 would therefore result in no change, are misleading. AB 2438 threatens the flexibility currently available to regional transportation planning agencies to work directly with the California Transportation Commission to collaboratively develop balanced transportation solutions that supports growing regions like Riverside County. Our most disadvantaged communities, who drive to access their jobs or education, do so not necessarily out of preference, but because of meaningful multimodal transit alternatives do not yet exist for them. Inland regions ATTACHMENT 4 35 Governor Gavin Newsom September 8, 2022 Page 2 already struggle to compete for state transportation funding programs. Their lack of resources, necessary rights- of-way, or sufficient multimodal transit networks from which to augment, would make their applications even less competitive against those from coastal urban centers. Not only would AB 2438 restrict RCTC’s ability to compete for state funding for projects that would provide meaningful alternatives to driving, it would also cut funding eligibility for pro jects intended to provide congestion relief and operational improvements for communities in the interim. AB 2438 fails to recognize the staggering investments the state must make in inland regions before a comprehensive rewrite of critical funding programs can be considered. To place the cart before the horse as AB 2438 does would deny under-resourced regions and their disadvantaged communities of a just transition to a climate -resilient future. Instead, many will be forced to compromise the socioeconomic well-being of their families with traffic. With the dramatic growth of population and goods movement in our region, as well as the further narrowing of state funding programs that AB 2438 proposes, it will only get worse for these communities. RCTC appreciates the author’s recognition of the need for the CTP to consider the full cost of implementation, as well as available resources. Such an analysis that may be objectively compared to regional plans and priorities is long overdue, but RCTC sees this, along with substantial state investment in the development of multimodal systems in inland regions with new funds, as a prerequisite before a comprehensive rewrite of existing state funding programs or even directives for how local governments allocate funds may even be considered. RCTC is a willing partner and has every interest in working with your Administration and the Legislature to turn the page toward innovative, sustainable transportation solutions that are accessible, equitable, and inclusive. But these inequities look different from community to community and from region to region. We must work together to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. As such, RCTC will continue to earnestly engage in discussions of how local and regional agencies may collaborate with the state to ensure a just transition to multimodal transit systems. AB 2438 does not provide the sufficient funding and flexibility our communities need to build the capacity of our multimodal transit systems. Treating transportation funding in California as a zero-sum game dismisses the disparities that exist across our region and the state after years of underinvestment, therefore threatening to leave our region and others behind. For these reasons, RCTC opposes AB 2438 and requests a veto of this legislation. If you have any questions regarding RCTC's position, please contact me at (951) 787-7141. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Aaron Hake Deputy Executive Director CC: Ms. Christy Bouma, Legislative Affairs Secretary Members of the Riverside County Legislative Delegation 36 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR SEP 2 9 2022 To the Members of the California State Assemb ly : I am returning Assemb ly Bil l 2438 without my signature. This bill requires the alignment of certain transportation funding programs with the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI ) adopted in July 2021, and requires additional public transparency procedures in the project se lection process for various transportation programs. Whi le I share the goa l of addressing th e im pacts of the transportation sector on climate change, this bill is unnecessary. Work is well under way at the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), the California Deportment of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Transportation Commission to align funding programs in the bil l with CAPTI, with severa l actions already completed. ColSTA is committed to reviewing outcomes and integrating public feedback in future years to make modifications to CAPTI , as necessary, to meet the needs of the statewide transportation system. Linking these programs in statute to a specific iteration of this plan inhibits the state's ability to appropriately respond to the evolution of the state 's response to climate change. A draft Annua l Report on CAPTI Implementation Progress will be released in October of this year, outlining the progress made on CAPTI implementation since its adoption last July. My Administration will continue collaborating with transportation stakeholders to increase program funding accountability and GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM• SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 445-2841 e ATTACHMENT 5 37 transparency as wel l as enhance financia l plann ing for climate change impacts to transportation infrastructure. For these reasons , I cannot sign this bill. 38 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ROLL CALL OCTOBER 24, 2022 Present Absent County of Riverside, District III X  City of Banning  X City of Beaumont X  City of Calimesa X  City of Canyon Lake X  City of Cathedral City X  City of Coachella  X City of Desert Hot Springs X  City of Lake Elsinore X  City of Murrieta  X City of Palm Desert X  City of Palm Springs X  City of San Jacinto  X City of Riverside X  City of Wildomar X 