Loading...
01 January 12, 2000 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 6727 MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 LOCATION: Chancellor's Conference Room, #207 University of California @ Riverside 1201 University Avenue, Riverside 92507 Commissioners Chairman: Jack F. van Haaster, City of Murrieta Vice Chairman: Tom Mullen, County of Riverside Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside James A. Venable, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside John Hunt / Michael Bracken, City of Banning Jan Leja / Brian DeForge, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / Gary Grimm, City of Blythe John M. Chlebnik / Gregory V. Schook, City of Calimesa Gene Bourbonnais / Cora Sue Barrett, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Sarah DiGrandi, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Andrea M. Puga / Karen E. Stein, City of Corona Greg Ruppert / Jerry Pisha, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin ReeserLowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Conrad Negron, City of Indian Wells Marcos Lopez / Mike Wilson, City of Indio John J. Pena / Ron Perkins, City of La Quinta Kevin W. Pape / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Bill Batey, City of Moreno Valley Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert William G. Kleindienst / Stan Barnes, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Donald F. Yokaitis, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore, City of Riverside Patrick Williams / Chris Carlson-Buydos, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Director Stan Lisiewicz, Caltrans District #8 Eric Haley, Executive Director Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. 11.36.00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION http://www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. Chancellor's Conference Room, #207 University of California @ Riverside 1201 University Avenue, Riverside 92507 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, January 12, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. COMMISSIONERS SELF INTRODUCTIONS 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items Not Listed on the Agenda). 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Overview An election must be held on an annual basis for the Commission Chair and Vice Chair positions. The Chair shall be elected by the Commission for a one-year term and shall annually alternate between a regular member of the Commission representing a city and a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The current Chair and Vice Chair are Commissioners Jack van Haaster (Murrieta) and Tom Mullen (County District 5), respectively. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 8, 1999 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the Agenda. An action adding an item to the Agenda requires a 2/3 vote of the Commission, or if less than 2/3 of the Commission members are present, a unanimous vote.) RCTC Meeting Agenda January 12, 2000 Page 2 8. 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. 8A. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TEA) PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS Overvie w To approve the recommended list of projects and direct staff to include these projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. 8B. AMENDMENT TO FY 1999 - 2000 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR THE COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM AND RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES AND REVISED LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (LTF) AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE (STA) FUND ALLOCATIONS Overvie w To approve: 1) An amendment to the Commuter Rail Program FY 1999-2000 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP); 2) The revision of the FY 1999/00 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) allocation to the Commuter Rail Program; 3) The revision of the FY 1999/00 State Transit Assistance Fund allocations in Riverside County as presented on the included in the memorandum; and, 4) The adoption of Resolution No. 00-001, "A Resolution of The Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds" 8C. LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION TEMPORARY PARKING LOT O vervie w To authorize staff to advertise the construction bid package for a temporary parking lot adjacent to the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station. RCTC Meeting Agenda January 12, 2000 Page 3 8D. FY 2001 AND 2002 SPECIALIZED TRANSIT TWO-YEAR CALL FOR PROJECTS O vervie w To authorize staff to release a two-year call for Projects for Specialized Transit covering western Riverside County, appoint a Commission representative to be seated on the Evaluation Committee and reserve funding to support matching of Section 5310 federal capital grants. 8E. AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RCTC'S COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Overview To: 1) Award a consultant contract for an 18 month period with two -one year extension options to Inland Transportation Services, Inc. in an amount not to exceed the negotiated price for the management and implementation of RCTC's Commuter Assistance Program, and 2) Authorize RCTC's Chairman to executive the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8F. MEASURE "A" PARK AND RIDE LEASE - LAKE ELSINORE O vervie w To authorize: 1) The leasing of 50 Park and Ride spaces at 17600 Collier Avenue, Lake Elsinore, California; and, 2) RCTC's Chairman to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission 8G. REVIEW OF SECURITY SERVICES AND CONTINUATION OF CONTRACT O vervie w To approve the continuation of RCTC's contract for security guard services with Group 70 Protective and Investigative Services through June 30, 2000 RCTC Meeting Agenda January 12, 2000 Page 4 8H. TRANSIT BUS TICKETS FOR COUNTY JURORS O vervie w Receive and file the report on Transit Bus Tickets for County Jurors 81. FY1999/2000 BEACH TRAIN PROGRAM Overview To approve the proposed Beach Train Program for FY 2000/01, consisting of up to seventeen dates between June and October, including the commitment to underwrite costs of service beyond fare revenues. Projected revenues and expenses will be reflected in the FY 01 Budget 8J. AUDIT OF CALL BOX SYSTEM MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 O vervie w To receive and file the Audit of Call Box System Maintenance Costs for Fiscal Year 1998-99 8K. MONTHLY COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT O vervie w To receive and file the Monthly Cost and Schedule Report. 8L. CHAIR APPOINTMENT TO COMMITTEES AND AGENCY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES Overview For information, presented is the list of Commissioners to Budget and Implementation Committee, Plans and Programs Committee and other agency committees. Requests for appointment by Commissioners to RCTC Committees and other agency committees must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board by Friday, January 28th. Appointment requests will be forwarded to the Chair for action. RCTC Meeting Agenda January 12, 2000 Page 5 9. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS O vervie w To hold a public hearing to adopt Resolution No. 00-002, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring That the Acquisition of Fee Interests in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, More Particularly described as APNS 349-080-001 & 002, By Eminent Domain is Necessary For the Construction of a Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Greenwald/Meadowbrook Avenue and State Route 74". 10. CLOSED SESSION - Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9 (a) Name of Parties: Riverside County Transportation Commission v. State of California Department of Transportation, California Private Transportation Company Case Number: 336963 11. CETAP - WORKING PAPER #3 "EVALUATION OF CORRIDORS" AND "RECOMMENDATIONS ON CORRIDORS TO MOVE FORWARD TO CETAP PHASE II" Overvie w To receive and file Working Paper #3 and approve the recommendations from the CETAP Advisory Committee on the corridors to move forward to CETAP Phase II. 12. MEASURE "A" STRATEGIC PLAN BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS O vervie w To 1) support full funding for the widening of State Route 91 between Mary and Seventh Streets that is consistent with previously approved formulas for countywide highway projects and does not exceed a total cost of $ 170.7 million (current dollars); 2) Reaffirm previously approved Commission actions RCTC Meeting Agenda January 12, 2000 Page 6 allocating funding for Western County highway projects while protecting and maintaining the formula share of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Dollars (currently estimated at $58 million) for countywide discretionary needs; and, 3) Receive and file the Draft Supplemental Project Study Report on the widening of State Route 91 between Mary and Seventh Streets in the City of Riverside. 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview Commissioners and the Executive Director may report on attendance of meetings/conferences/workshops attended and issues relating to the Commission. 15. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, February 9, 2000 in Norco. A map to the meeting site will be included in the agenda packet. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services/Clerk of the Board SUBJECT: Election of Commission Chair and Vice Chair STAFF RECOMMENDATION To hold an election of the Chair and the Vice Chair of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On an annual basis, at the first meeting in January, the Commission must elect its Chair and Vice Chair. In accordance to the Administrative Code, the Chair shall be elected for a one-year term and shall annually alternate between a regular member of the Commission representing a city and a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and shall exercise and perform such other powers and duties as may be from time to time assigned to him/her by the Commission. In any case in which the execution of a document or the performance of an act is directed, the Chair, unless the act of the Commission otherwise provides, is empowered to execute such document or perform such act. The Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in his/her absence. When so acting, the Vice Chair shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon, the Chair. Last January, the Commissioners elected Jack van Haaster (Murrieta) as its Chair and Tom Mullen (County District 5) as its Vice Chair to preside during 1999. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Jack van Haaster called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to order at 9:30 a.m. at the UCR Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California 92507. Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Bob Buster Gene Bourbonnais Percy L. Byrd John M. Chlebnik Robert Crain Juan M. DeLara Frank Hall John Hunt Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst* Jan Leja Stan Lisiewicz Robin Reeser Lowe Ameal Moore Tom Mullen John J. Pena Gregory S. Pettis Andrea M. Puga Ron Roberts Greg Ruppert* John F. Tavaglione Jack van Haaster James A. Venable Frank West Patrick A. Williams Michael Wilson Roy Wilson Donald F. Yokaitis Arrived after start of meeting 2. COMMISSIONERS SELF INTRODUCTIONS A roundtable self introductions followed. Daryl Busch RCTC Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 2 3. PRESENTATIONS On behalf of the Commission, Eric Haley, Executive Director, recognized the 10 years of service of Jerry Rivera as a member of Commission staff. A plaque was presented in honor of years of service. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) approve the minutes of the November 10, 1999, meeting, as presented. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. Agenda Item No. 15, Closed Session, was moved and taken up by the Commission after the Consent Calendar Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR. M/S/C (Wilson/Hall) to approve the following Consent Calendar items. 7A. 2000 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Authorize staff to develop and forward a letter under the Chairman's signature to request the CTC to either allow the Commission additional time to develop a 2000 STIP proposal and/or set aside the Commission's unprogrammed county shares in the development of the 2000 STIP. 7B. 2001 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) UPDATE Receive and file. 7C. 1999/2000 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Approve the Draft Updated 1999/2000 RCTC/SANBAG State and Federal Legislative Program. RCTC Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 3 7D. SB 45 2% PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 1) Amend the SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) Activities program for the Eastern County to adjust the PPM allocation on the Interstate 10 Lane Widening Project Study Report project from $175,000 to $199,780 ( + $24,780) and the Palo Verde Valley Transportation Master Plan allocation from $100,000 to $125,000 (+ $ 25,000); 2) Direct staff to seek a STIP amendment by the California Transportation Commission to program and allocate a total of $49,780 in PPM funds for these projects; and 3) Amend the funding agreement between CVAG and RCTC to allow for contract award by May 31,2000. 7E. CITY OF RIVERSIDE SUBSTITUTION OF (STP) SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PROJECT Approve the City of Riverside's request to reprogram funds from a traffic signal installation at Market Street and State Route 60 to a traffic signal installation at Van Buren Boulevard and Cleveland Avenue. 7F. CITY OF RIVERSIDE REQUEST TO EXCHANGE ISTEA STP DISCRETIONARY FUNDS Approve the City of Riverside's request to exchange Surface Transportation Program Discretionary funds for local Measure "A" funds on the Van Buren Boulevard widening project. 7G. CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS FY 2000-2004 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Approve the FY2000-2004 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Desert Hot Springs. 7H. CITY OF MURRIETA AB 1020 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Approve the City of Murrieta's AB 1020 Bicycle Transportation Plan. 71. AWARD CONTRACT NO. RO-9952 TO PB FARRADYNE, INC., FOR PHASE I COMMUNICATION STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION (CCTV) SYSTEM FOR THE PEDLEY METROLINK STATION 1) Award Contract No. RO 9952 to PB Farradyne, Inc., for Phase I Communication Study, in an amount not to exceed $17,000; and, 2) Authorize the use of CMAQ funds for the Phase I work. RCTC Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 4 7J. RAILROAD LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RCTC AND CALTRANS FOR THE CALTRANS PROPOSED WIDENING OF THE EASTBOUND I-215/BOX SPRINGS OVERHEAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ADJACENT TO THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE Approve the agreement with Caltrans, subject to RCTC Legal Counsel's final review and approval. 7K. CHANGES TO CONTRACTS RO-9337, RO-2041 AND FUNDING AUTHORIZATIONS FOR MEASURE "A" STATE HIGHWAY 74 WIDENING BETWEEN 1-15 AND 7th STREET NEAR THE CITY OF PERRIS 1) Authorize the re -allocation of $4,264,485 of Measure "A" funds from the SHOPP back to the Route 74 Measure "A" widening project and direct staff to begin negotiation of agreement(s) with State to transfer Route 74 SHOPP funds to the Measure "A" project; 2) Approve entering into an Agreement RO-2041 for Real Property Services with the County of Riverside General Services Agency for an amount not to exceed $2,494,000; and, 3) Authorize that the remaining funds from the $4,264,485, after funding the County of Riverside contract, can be used for right-of-way acquisition. 7L. CLARIFY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-1067 FOR ROUTE 91 SOUND WALLS, PHASE I AND PHASE II, AND AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION BIDS 1) Acknowledge and affirm that the previously approved Caltrans Construction Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1067 for construction of the Route 91 Sound Walls, from Magnolia to Mary Street, in the City of Riverside, is applicable to Phase I and Phase II Sound Walls; and 2) Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids for Sound Wall #635. 7M. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE Receive and file. 7N. COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Direct staff to enter into contract negotiations with Inland Transportation Services, Inc. for management of RCTC's Commuter Assistance Program. 70. CONTRACT FOR A PROGRAMMER TO MAINTAIN RCTC'S VARIOUS DATABASE PROGRAMS Renew the contract with Digital Advantage at the current billing rate of $50/hour - with the total amount of contract not to exceed $20,000. RCTC Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 5 7P. RCTC MEETING SCHEDULE FOR YEAR 2000 Approve the schedule of RCTC Commission and Committees for the year 2000. 7Q. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT Receive and file. 7R. MONTHLY COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file. 7S. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file. At this time, the Commission announced and adjourned to a Closed Session. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9. Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c). Number of potential cases: 1 After the Closed Session, the Commission reconvened and announced that the Riverside County Transportation Commission had authorized Legal Counsel to file a lawsuit to: 1) Halt the sale of bonds to finance the sale of the tollroad to NewTrak; and, 2) Require Caltrans to operate the Riverside Transition Zone in a manner consistent with the agreement between the parties. 8. 1999 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE M/S/C (Mullen/Lowe) Approve the 1999 Congestion Management Program 9. RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN - VISION STATEMENT M/S/C (Lowe/Leja) Endorse the draft Vision Statement(s) long and summary versions of the Riverside County Integrated Plan 10. AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. RO-9961 TO PREPARE A PROJECT STUDY REPORT FOR STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE CITIES OF SAN JACINTO AND HEMET M/S/C (Venable/Lowe) Award Contract No. RO-9961 to CH2M-Hill to Prepare a Project Study Report for State Route 79 Realignment in the vicinity of the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet for an amount not to exceed $730,212. RCTC Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 6 11. CHANGES TO MODEL RAILROAD LICENSE AGREEMENT M/S/C (Mullen/Venable) 1) Approve the changes to the railroad license model agreement requested by the City of San Jacinto related to liability - indemnity and assumption of risks, except that the Commission shall not agree to protect against the acts of third parties; 2) Approve the revised railroad license model agreement and authorize the Executive Director, upon advice from legal counsel, to execute license agreements based on the model; and, 3) Notify other public agencies with existing agreements of the liability changes authorized by the Commission and offer them the opportunity to incorporate the changes into their existing agreements with the Commission. 12. MEDIAN BARRIERS ON INTERSTATES 15 AND 215 A presentation was made by Commissioner Stan Lisiewicz showing the median barrier projects under construction in Riverside County. Two gaps remain - one in the Murrieta/Temecula area (approximately 8.8 mile gap north of the 21 5/1 5 split and another shorter gap around the Sun City area. The reason for the gaps is that they do not presently meet the criteria for installation of a median barrier. The present criteria for installation of median barrier on a divided freeway is that the median width must be less than 75 feet and the average daily traffic must more than 20,000. An additional criteria is that a median barrier must meet the number of accidents (3) that could be prevented by a median barrier within five years. However, they are currently working with Caltrans Headquarters to get the two gaps qualified. He noted that the area must meet the standards for median barrier to alleviate liability problems that may arose. In response to Commissioner Bob Buster asked if there was a way that the Commission could assist and if there were any consideration when there are differences in average speed limits between the highways, Commissioner Lisiewicz responded that Caltrans staff is working with Headquarters. As such, if the sections qualify as a safety projects, it will be funded. He added that Caltrans District 8 has and continues to allocate available funds ($25 million) for median barrier projects. With regards to the speed limits, the standards are based on the speed limits with the area. 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA No items were pulled from the Consent Calendar agenda.. 14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Eric Haley informed the Commissioners that: 1) Paul Blackwelder has formally announced his retirement and a retirement dinner will be held on January 20, 2000, at the Canyon Crest Country Club; 2) It is Commissioner Jan Leja's last meeting; 3) Commissioners Greg Ruppert (Desert Hot Springs) and Mike Wilson (Indio) joins the Commission; and, 4) Effective December 29, 1999, Hideo Sugita was appointed as Deputy Executive Director, and Cathy Bechtel as Director of Plans and Programs. RCTC Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 7 B. Commissioner Robin Lowe announced that Commissioner Ron Roberts was appointed as Vice -Chairman of the SCAG Transportation Committee. 15. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 1 1 :25 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 12, 2000 at the UCR Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California 92507. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopen ver Clerk of the Board C.01,0\kss(or.) 1 �-\ozlq g N ARE -(2>Ju0D,& S�a,) i Srs2L.-L.)1c 7- 16.� d�E4_77.3 PAr/Z/ Pk inl /L L i/9 r4s f Ale--a/1 MOO 1`2., J01-11Q r i - 1-Y7,01/PeZ r✓/t 1L.-1 0)414 P P Cfie S-74- ref /(./ CC f7 e 8o u ✓ a 11 �1 0,1 S Jamo Rt.> \ so R, c, /6_ <l Cif K \i:\ENN ec, Oi fel 6! waist i 6� R /z,, 4, /j✓A/ a Atez- , , //a*,, /i%airto,tia A/o2 C.c) r_ge» pNya� CA i. rMEsA ,v� • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programs SUBJECT: Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Allocations BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the recommended list of projects for Transportation Enhancement Activities funds be approved as presented and direct staff to include these projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Transportation Enhancement Activities Program (TEA) provides federal funds for transportation related projects that enhance quality of life, in or around transportation facilities. Projects must be over and above required mitigation and must be directly related to the transportation system. The TEA Program apportionments parallel the state -local split called for in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) with the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies having responsibility for programming 75 % of the total share of funds available to the state. Approximately $13,404,000 in TEA funds are estimated to be available in Riverside County through FY 2003/2004. At the Commission's July 1999 meeting, staff was directed to develop and release a Call for Projects to obtain project proposals for this program. The Commission's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was designated as the Evaluation Committee to score the proposals and develop a recommended list of projects for the Commission's consideration. The TAC worked closely with staff to develop selection criteria based on the state- wide TEA criteria. The selection criteria was reviewed by the Caltrans State TEA Coordinator to ensure consistency with state and federal requirements. The Commission approved the use of the selection criteria (Attachment I) at their October 1999 meeting. A total of 39 applications from 23 local agencies were received in response to our Call for Projects requesting a total of $27,070,667 in TEA funds. The TAC convened on December 13, 1999 to evaluate the proposals. All applicants were invited to attend the meeting to observe the evaluation process and answer any questions that might be raised by the TAC. Every application was evaluated using the Commission's approved selection criteria and scoring was done on a consensus basis by the TAC. Twenty-one TAC members were in attendance; members abstained from evaluating their own application. Attachment II presents the recommending funding list. All projects are grouped by score and listed in alphabetical order. In order to fund all projects with a score of 12 and above, the members agreed to a 4.81% reduction in TEA funding for each of the projects. This adjustment provided funding for 24 projects from 19 local agencies. The 4.8% reduction in TEA funding will be covered through an increase in local match or a slight modification to the project. The Commission's intra-county formula was adhered to by the TAC for the recommended distribution of project funds. This distribution is as follows: Total Available through FY 2004 (est.) Discretionary Pot (24.2%) Available for formula allocation: Western County (72.23%) Coachella Valley (26.39%) Palo Verde Valley (1 .38(Y0) Formula Total $13,404,000 $ 3,243,768 $ 10,160,232 $ 7,338,736 $ 2,681,285 $ 140,211 $10,160,232 The recommended funding list allocates the discretionary funds as follows: $1,422,264 (43.8%)for programming in the Western County, $1,765,795 (54.4%) in the Coachella Valley, and $35,789 (1 .1 %) in the Palo Verde Valley. A total of $19,920 (.6%) of the discretionary pot remains available in case of slight variations in apportioned funding levels. Staff concurs with the TAC's recommended funding list as presented. Financial Assessment Project Cost $13,384,000 Source of Funds Transportation Enhancement Activities Funds (Y/IV;) Included in Fiscal Year Budget N/A Year Included in Program Budget Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required ATTACHMENT 1 Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Call for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 VI. PROJECT SCORING CRITERIA UNDER WHICH DIVISION SHOULD YOUR PROJECT BE SCORED? (Must designate only one.) The Divisions are groupings of the 11 activity categories into four divisions with similar characteristics The divisions are for ease ofsconng only and are not intended to affect the distribution of funds Division A: Bicycle, Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right -of -Way (Categories 1,2,8) Division B: Historic/Archaeological (Categories 3,4,6,7,10, 12) Division C: Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values (Categories 3,4,5,9) Division D: Environmental Mitigation (Category 11) ALL APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 1-3 1) Describe why the project is beneficial. How does the project improve overall quality -of -life, community and/or environment? Does the project connect transportation modes or does the activity have other multi -modal aspects? Does the project reinforce or complement the regional transportation system or fill a deficiency in the system? (0-6 points) 2) Describe degree of regional and/or community support for the project. (0-3 points) 3) If project has in excess of the required 12% local match describe sources and commitment for the additional matching funds. (0-3 points) Answer the two questions that correspond to the Project Scoring Division designated above, either Division A, B, C, or D. DIVISION A: Bicycle, Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right -of -Way Projects 1) What is the need for the proposed facilities or programs? Please specify high, medium or low and explain your answer. For example, is there a shortage of bicycle or pedestrian facilities available? Is there a missing link in connecting the intermodal system; how important is this link? How necessary are new facilities serving the system? (0-3 points) } nRyKUe cie County Transportation Commission . r,l a VIIIIIIIIIMENIMPNERNIEZM ,.,:;i;�„< <:. Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Call for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY20O4 2) Describe how the proposed project meets the needs or addresses opportunities for bicycle or pedestrian facilities or programs. (0-3 points) DIVISION B: Historic/Archaeological Projects 1) Specify the current recognition of historical or archaeological significance.. Please specify whether the recognition is federal, state, local or some other measure of significance. (0-3 points) National Register of Historic Places (Date: State Historical Landmark (No. ) State Points of Historical Interest (No. California Register of Historical Resources Regional Archaeological Information Ctr (No. Local Landmarks Program 2) How will the project enhance, preserve, or protect a historic or archaeological resource? (0-3 points) DIVISION C: Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values Projects 1) How are the scenic or aesthetic resources rare, unique, or significant, or how does the potential exist for landscaping or scenic beautification or improvements? (0-3 points) 2) How does the project preserve, rehabilitate, or develop scenic or aesthetic resources? (0-3 points) DIVISION D: Environmental Mitigation 1) What are the environmental problems caused by the highway runoff to be mitigated? If project is to reduce vehicle -caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity, provide specific data on wildlife mortality, motorist issues, habitat fragmentation, etc. (0-3 points) Riverside County Transportation Commission 5 4()0006 Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Call for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 2) How does the proposal solve the problem? (0-3 points) VII. Please attach an 8 1/2 x 11 site map and/or photos of proposed project. VIII. STANDARD ASSURANCES Project Sponsoring Agency possesses legal authority to nominate transportation enhancement activity and to finance, acquire, and construct the proposed project; and by action of an official authorized to submit the project on behalf of the agency, authorizes the nomination of the transportation enhancement activity, including all understanding and assurances contained therein, and authorizes the person identified as the official representative of the Sponsoring Agency to act in connection with the nomination and to provide such additional information'as may be required. Project Sponsoring Agency will maintain and operate the property acquired, developed, rehabilitated, or restored for the life of the resultant facility(ies) or activity. With the approval of the California Department of Transportation, the Sponsoring Agency or its successors in interest in the property may transfer the responsibility to maintain and operate the property. Project Sponsoring Agency will give the California Department of Transportation's representative access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the transportation enhancement activity. Project Sponsoring Agency will cause work on the project to be commenced within a reasonable time after receipt of notification from the State that funds have been approved by the Federal Highway Administration and that the project will be carried to completion with reasonable diligence. Project Sponsoring Agency will comply where applicable with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and any other federal, state, and/or local laws, rules, and/or regulations. I certify that the information contained in this transportation enhancement activity application, including required attachments, is accurate and that I have read and understand the important information and agree to the assurances on this form. Signed Title Date Printed (Name, Agency) ) �Q (jl i ide County Transportation Commission 6 FY 1997/98-2003/04 CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TEA) PROGRAM AMT. AVAILABLE: $13,404,000 SCORE AGENCY L Recommended for Fundinq: PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL PROJ MATCH ORIGINAL TEA REQ. ADJUSTED TEA REQUEST(.4.8%) CUMULATIVE ADJ TOT W. C.172.23%1 57.338.736 C V_126.39%1 $2,681,205 PM 11 38%1 $140.211 18 Hemet State Street Multi -Use Bicycle and Pedestrian Path $798,000 $279,300 $518,700 $494,000 8494,000 5494,000 $0 50 18 Rancho Mirage Hwy, 111 Meandering Bikepath and Landscaping Proj $510,600 5178,710 $331,890 $316,000 $810,000 50 $316,000 SO 17 County SR60 and 1-15 IC Landscaping & Scenic Beautificatio $2,574,000 $899,000 $1,675,000 $1,595,000 $2,405,000 $1,595,000 $0 $0 17 Palm Desert 1-10/Monterey Avenue Landscape and Sculpture $1,216,325 $616,325 $600,000 $572,000 $2,977,000 50 $572,000 SO 17 Riverside University Ave Streetscape Enhancements $1,100,000 $600,000 $500,000 $476,000 $3,453,000 $476,000 $0 SO 17 San Jacinto State Street Sidewalk Improvements $350,000 $73,500 $276,500 $264,000 $3,717,000 $264,000 50 50 16 Norco Santa Ana River Trail -Missing Link through Norco $500,000 $75,000 _ $425,000 $405,000 $4,122,000 5405,000 $0 $0 15 Cathedral City Ramon Road Corridor Improvements $831,000 $531,000 $300,000 $286,000 $4,408,000 $0 $286,000 SO 15 County 1-10/Monterey and Washington IC Landscape Beautif. $842,424 $126,364 $716,060 $682,000 $5,090,000 $0 $682,000 $0 15 Indian Wells Deep Cyn. Crossing Bicycle Bridge $392,126 $64,583 $327,543 $312,000 $5,402,000 $0 $312,000 SO 15 Palm Springs Gene Autry Trail/Ramon Rd. Median Island Landscap $629,000 $108,188 $520,812 $496,000 55,898,000 $0 $496,000 SO 15 Perris Restoration of Historic Santa Fe Railway Depot in Per $431,000 $73,270 $357,730 $341,000 $6,239,000 $341,000 $0 $0 15 Rancho Mirage Hwy. 111 Median Island Landscaping Beautification $765,000 $420,750 $344,250 $328,000 $6,567,000 $0 $328,000 $0 14 Blythe E. Hobsonway Pedestrian Improvements $250,000 565,000 $185,000 5176,000 $6,743,000 $0 $0 $176,000 14 Indio Indio Boulevard Enhancements $1,830,000 $301,950 $1,528,050 $1,455,000 $8,198,000 $0 $1,455,000 $0 14 Murrieta Landscape/Beautification 1-15&1-215 IC Murr H.S. Rd $659,040 $75,592 $583,448 $555,000 $8,753,000 $555,000 50 $0 14 Riverside Historic Victoria Parkway Restoration Project $1,000,000 $490,000 $510,000 $486,000 $9,239,000 $486,000 50 $0 13 Caiimesa I-10 Freeway Landscaping -Co. Line Rd -Singleton Rd $300,000 $34,410 $265,590 $253,000 $9,492,000 $253,000 50 SO 13 Corona Main Street Scenic Corridor Beautification $871,000 $201,000 $670,000 5638,000 $10,130,000 $638,000 $0 $0 12 Corona Landscape Beautification at SR91/Main St IC Ramps $380,000 $50,000 $330,000 $314,000 $10,444,000 $314,000 $0 SO 12 Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel Pedestrian and Bicycle Corridor $527,800 $95,000 $432,800 $412,000 $10,856,000 $412,000 $0 $O 12 Moreno Valley Aqueduct Bike Trail $1,300,000 $250,000 $1,050,000 $1,000,000 $11,856,000 $1,000,000 $0 SO 12 Riverside SR 91 Freeway/Pierce Street IC Landscaping $400,000 $70,000 $330,000 $314,000 $12,170,000 $314,000 $0 $0 12 Temecula Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail $1,500,000 $225,000 $1,275,000 $1,214,000 $13,384,000 $1,214,000 $0 SO Unfunded Projects: 11 County French Valley Habitat Connectivity Resource Area $3,500,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 11 County Indian Wash Habitat Connectivity Corridor $1,704,545 $204,545 $1,500,000 11 Moreno Valley Village Plan Streetscape Corridor Project $1,300,000 $250,000 $1,050,000 10 Lake Elsinore Collier Avenue Median Landscaping $341,004 $58,520 $282,484 10 La Quinta Hwy. 111 Beautification Project $3,183,903 $524,388 $2,659,515 10 La Quinta The Village at La Quinta Streetscape Improvements $917,109 $151,048 $766,061 10 LaQ/Indio/County Jefferson St. Regional Landscaping/Beautification $1,411,604 $161,911 $1,249,693 10 Rancho Mirage Bob Hope Drive Class 1 Meandering Bikepath $258,060 $30,967 $227,093 10 Riverside Mitchell Avenue Multipurpose Trail $482,300 $60,000 5422,300 9 Corona Sidewalk Installation to Improve Accessibility $299,987 G35,998 $263,989 9 CV Mtns Consery Scenic Area Acquisition Project $960,000 $560,000 $400,000 9 Perris Rehab of Railroad Infrestr. Serving Historic Perris Dep $1,091,000 $140,000 $951,000 8 Rancho Mirage Rancho Mirage Entry Median Beautification Project $463,700 $185,480 $278,220 5 Beaumont Palm Ave Bike Lane Historic Lighting Rehab Project $356,693 $53,504 $303,189 5 Caltrans SR 91 Landscape Enhancement Project PM11.1-17.8 $750,000 $86,250 $663,750 TOTAL REQUESTS $36,977,220 $9,906,553 $27,070,667 TOTAL $13,384,000 $8,761,000 $4,447,000 $176,000 DISC $-$3,223,848-$1,422,264-$1,765,795-$35,789 FORMULA $ $10,160,152 $7,338,736 $2,681,205 $140,211 7:58 AM12/15/99 N RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Susan Cornelison, Program Manager Stephanie Wiggins, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to FY 1999 - 2000 Short Range Transit Plan for the Commuter Rail Program and Riverside Special Services and Revised Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund Allocations PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Commission approve 1) an amendment to the Commuter Rail Program FY 1999-2000 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP); 2) revision of the FY 1999/00 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) allocation to the Commuter Rail Program; 3) revision of the FY1999/00 State Transit Assistance Fund allocations in Riverside County as presented on the attached table; and, 4) adopt Resolution No. 00-001 . BACKGROUND INFORMATION The FY 2000-2006 Rail Short Range Transit Plan for Commuter Rail was approved by the Commission at its July 14, 1999 meeting. The federal grants for the capital projects included in the approved plan have now been submitted and will require a local match. An additional $1,667,000 in LTF funds and $574,000 in STA funds are required. As illustrated below, the Commuter Rail program has existing LTF and STA funds to allocate as match to these projects. Commuter Rail Projects Approved in FY1999/2000 SRTP Requiring Local Match CAPITAL PROJECTS FEDERAL FUNDS ($000's) LOCAL FUNDS ($000's) Overcrossings & Video Surveillance at La Sierra & West Corona Metrolink Stations & Pedley Video Surveillance $4,140 $537 New Start - San Jacinto Line Preliminary Engineering & Design $496 $124 Tier II Stations - Van Buren & Corona (Federal portion only) $6,000 $1,580 TOTALS $10,636 $2,241 Rail Program (5000's) LTF STA Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,608 $ 1,109 FY99/00 Apportionment $ 5,819 $ 356 FY99/00 Allocation - Capital (approved July 99) $ (315) $ 0 FY99/00 Allocation - Operating (approved July 99) $ (4,114) $ 0 Subtotal $ 2,998 $ 1,465 (Requested Allocation $ (1,667) $ (574) Ending Fund Balance $ 1,331 $ 891 In addition, the approved FY 1999-2000 Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside Special Services included STA funding of $100,000 for the Riverside Downtown Terminal which was omitted from the allocation table approved by the Commission at its October 13, 1999 meeting. The revised table includes all approved STA allocations for FY 1999-2000. Financial Assessment Project Cost $2,341,000 Source of Funds Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assistance (Y/N) Included in Fiscal Year Budget N Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 1999-00 Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable Attachment A State Transit Assistance Fiscal Year 2000 Allocation County Allocation Western County Bus Rail Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Current Year Allocation Requests per SRTP Banning $9,000 Beaumont $145,000 Corona $1 5,000 Commuter Rail $574,Qp0 Riverside Special Services Si 0,,O0 Riverside Transit Agency $967,095_ SunLine Transit Agency $734,000 Total Current Year Funding Requests $2,544,095 $1,236,095 $574,000 $734,000 $0 Revised amounts in BOLD. f Auserslbechtelcllotus199staf.w k4 15-Dec-99 RESOLUTION NO. 00-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has examined the Short Range Transit Plan and Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for claimants to meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268.9, as applicable; and WHEREAS, the claimant is making full use of federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended; and WHEREAS, the sum of the claimant's allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority regional, countywide, or area -wide public transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 99244; and WHEREAS, the claimant is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979 from employing part-time drivers or contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license. WHEREAS, operators are in full compliance Section 1808.1 of the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code section 99251. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allocate State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 1999-00 as detailed in Attachment A. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Approved and adopted this 12th day of January, 2000. By: Riverside County Transportation Commission Attest: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: La Sierra Metrolink Station Temporary Parking Lot BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to advertise the construction bid package for a temporary parking lot adjacent to the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RCTC adopted the recommendations of the Tier II Station study at the April 1999 Commission meeting. One recommendation was to provide for a temporary parking facility at the La Sierra Metrolink Station because the current parking lot use was running higher than 90%. The need for the temporary parking lot will be eliminated as soon as the Van Buren Metrolink Station is constructed. In November of 1999, the Commission awarded a Contract to Pountney & Associates for the Final Design Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) for a new Metrolink Commuter Rail Station adjacent to the Van Buren/Route 91 intersection. It is anticipated that it will take approximately eighteen months to design and construct the new Van Buren Metrolink Station. This will necessitate a need for the temporary parking lot in the interim period of time, and perhaps longer. The land for the present La Sierra parking lot was leased from Riverside Community College (RCC) in 1994 for 49 years with an option to extend for another 50 years. Additional land would be required for the proposed temporary parking lot. At the September 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission agreed to lease the additional acreage for the temporary parking lot from RCC and authorized staff to proceed with the design of a temporary parking lot. The terms of the lease stipulate that RCTC may lease the land for free but must remove the temporary parking lot improvements prior to June 1, 2001 (90 days after termination of the agreement on February 29, 2001). The design of the temporary parking lot is nearing completion. It is anticipated that RCC, RCTC, and the City of Riverside will approve the temporary parking lot final plans within the next month. The preliminary plans indicate that the temporary parking lot will accommodate approximately 223 addition vehicles with an estimated construction cost of approximately $150,000 to $175,000. It will take approximately two months to construct. Staff recommends that the Commission seek bids at this time. Based on the bid process, staff will, at a future date, seek Commission approval to award a construction contract to the lowest responsive bidder. Financial Assessment Project Cost $150,000 to $175,000 plus $25,000 contingency Source of Funds TDA (Y/N) Included in Fiscal Year Budget N Year Included in Program Budget N Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 2001 and 2002 Specialized Transit Two -Year Call For Projects PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize staff to release a two-year call for Projects for Specialized Transit covering western Riverside County, appoint a Commission representative to be seated on the Evaluation Committee and reserve funding to support matching of Section 5310 federal capital grants. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff is requesting authorization to release a call for projects for the Western County Measure A Specialized Transit program covering fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The Measure A half -cent sales tax identifies 5% of annual revenues for implementation of Specialized Transportation Programs. The Commission policy apportions 2.5% of these funds for Commuter Assistance programs and the remaining 2.5% for Specialized Transit programs which benefits seniors, persons with disabilities and the truly needy. It is projected that $2.5 million will be available for programming over the two years. Staff is requesting that $2.3 million be used for the two-year call and that $0.2 million be set aside to support matching of Section 5310 federal capital grants for the purchase of equipment and vehicles for the elderly and physically disabled. The Commission has had a long-time commitment to meeting the special transit needs for seniors and persons with disabilities through its specialized transit grant program. In addition to traditional public dial -a -ride services, the Commission has granted funds to non-profit agencies to provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas, for inter -community travel, and for riders having very special transit needs. These programs have been very successful over the years in providing improved transit access for Western County riders. Attachment A is a historical listing of Measure A Specialized Transit Program recipients. Staff anticipates strong competition for funds and recommends that the review committee consist of: • One Representative from the Commission; • Two Representatives from the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee; and • One Representative from an out of county agency to foster objectivity based on an impartial perspective. It is recommended that the priorities for funding and evaluation of applications be based on the following criteria: 1) Support of existing Measure A funded services which, if unfunded, would leave an area and/or special population without alternate service options; 2) Support of capital match requests (up to 20%) which aid in the purchase of equipment serving seniors and persons with disabilities; 3) Support of existing services which offer an improved level of service coordination and/or high level of individualized passenger assistance; 4) Support of new services which will leverage other revenue sources and will not require long-term support from Measure A (more than the two- year funding cycle); and 5) Support of new or expansion of existing services. As part of the evaluation process, all service requests will be reviewed with respect to their productivity and whether service coordination opportunities exist before a funding commitment is recommended. If approved, Attachment B is the proposed time line for the two-year call for projects. Financial Assessment Project Cost $2.5 million ($2.3 million 2-year call plus $200,000 for Section 5310 Source of Funds Measure "A" Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Will be included in FY 01 and FY 02 budget Financial Impact Not Applicable Attachment A 1� Al;f 141:Y SI IIV111 A111 A11,1,1y Lnu1115 1.01o1.06.1,!.1,1 A111,1 Valley Seoul% n11rr1 '-- IIIIn1111C;5Stlopnll RwelSnle1Aly kale A Van 1+,81511 Sysleul Wesleln Cnllnly I:dy ul Mt/1 mq 1:Ity ill Il.uuunq 1:11y of Ile aolnn'11 1:4y of Ileaulnul 1'aly ill Curulua---' 1 .11y (A (:(,In11a 1 anitly $e1vu.P A'S'.u1 r, 111rn1 ill Inn, pa Liul I4,1 Wes6•,o Itive,5111v 1:11u111y Itublduue Au•as f Pivots ill Moro) Valll+y Seuull Leulerl City 01 Modem) � blond AII15 l'r1,le, 1 Western Coolly 1111•n 14v Valley Mahe al Le111e1 Suulllwesleul C1 MI San 11111110 AllIa,ll,o l'a1f11e15.1111/P0'1111H 731111 11150141A 1;11:Ildlon 14efue4 8 `:er11u1 Vnlunteel5' I5nyl,un 111vee51e1e Conllty 11e11 Cononun,ly A( -Ilan fllvelslde Coolly (Mice of I_due a11un 18verside 1'nuoly Sovu:e Area 141 Rlveeselle General I1os1Mal iwe1s11131 Sp0(lal Servl('e5 Itivc,sule 11anS11 Agency 11nl11151111• 11,111511 Mlcnl yf111, 11; f tiver5ul1. r.uunly- 11,ue,po i.11n n1 ('unlnusslnn 11,111•41 ,11.111,,11 pl , 1.111s1srf.6',1,11 nits Vulunlre, 1 e1111.1 ,1117,1eilei Ilnel Sol ,Ia1,n11n 111(. Wedeln Cnunly Wesloue Cuullty, Wesleln Coolly r Wesleln Coolly Mnll,elal [erne( ill Weslcul Coolly Illy of Iflvelcnle Weslori Catfuly Wesleln Cuo y. 1tn, e1 6111r/1','18, •y ! 1(1n111Ke•',lt',I1 (.I,k 11,1n5pn11,1111,11 11111 101 A I_ Measure "A" Specialized Transit Program Western County Area FISCAL YEAR - O DC 4 89 90 90 91 91.92 92 93 93.94 94 nnra $30.428 $B r $2 $24 000 HA Pe,illey _ $27 000 $15,840` $1 $46154 $51.657 $15500 $100.000 $ID! 'u0ey y $14.000 _ $2: Area 1 nurly Al ea $36 $1Q800 k , I , A, ea $025 _ $43,4u8 $43,409 $152 ever' AI e..1 ` tilf'`' $5- 13U 1 ' $6 A $24 550 1ma $70 5111 $70 112 $40. -- $23,696 515.295 $ Ira $43.911 $11.950 $480, $20. ( $161 illy Arl,;l $ In 120 520 320 4 520 320 1 $40 2511 $100 915 $95 • 512'I ! 11111,II,0r1 ti -.11'1,1 Sa 8Sn $68.551 AM0111,11 APPROVED 95 95 96 96 97 1 073 000 5.825 589 Our $95 111'. 740 $ 100 nail 250 , 000 .948 990 612 891 100 011 0(1 $ I8'.011 $49411 $III -IISn Si 911' $511 I'lu $46 0011 $16.1 4'41 $I4.'rHi'1 f80 464 $155,18J 1323,595 1393,973 $1.319,711 51,245,1161 FN 11111111111111111111111m.1.171 $97 OW $ I 1 2.14 $ 12 181 $98 15i $125 0011 $: 6 04141 1021162 $200.864 $ 3.4811 $ 16 6811 $24 904 52'1I519 s 1.1.' nun Situ 1n1. S 1 251,36$ 97 98 1 .' 4 1110 E 17', nor $,r, nun 14,1 1110 $ 1011 000 98 99 512 14n $ 1011 Olin $'.,0 000 $4 1.1100 $1146.'1 $2 1 .1n0 $fit nun r C.0 11� 0 99 00 � I(1IAA $24,100 $ t; /411 $65.480 $ 35.503 $110(00 $613$01 $i. '1111 11111 110 1100 124l).11llu g.,'.n1 nun $!41111 $148n $ I •11111 701/ $1 115 f0,1 $51 unit $, 1; 1100 $ 1911 nrn� — L1,1111nn ? 11 1i 9 1 1 I 1 n 1 r' 1 1,,1 11,501 811 1„ , , 1 11 11 11.11 $112.329 $107,181 1402,327 1814.010 $102 350 1136.557 $16 BOO 1925 $1 450,731 $ 7,985 $6.948 $19.050 $24.550 1170 748 1131,481 1 1110.574 $ 2n O $ If, 000 !. I. 11 unr1� 11 n4,5 9(15 '11,1111111, 11. 14 181 $ i-051 0211 $9 /89.312 • • C.C. 41:1,.i1/41C.111 p TASK Measure A Specialized Transit FY00-02 Call for Projects TIMELINE DATE CAC Meeting Budget & Implementation Mtg Approval of Call by RCTC Board Release Call for Projects Responses to Call are Due Review Responses Budget 8 Implementation Mtg Approval of Grants by RCTC Grants Awarded Dec-99 I Jan-00 1 Feb-00 1 Mar-00 I Apr-00 1 May-00 20 20 12 14 28 6-10 V 12 • - 1)00(1266 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Consultant Contract for Management and Implementation of RCTC's Commuter Assistance Program PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) award a consultant contract for an 18 month period with two -one year extension options to Inland Transportation Services, Inc. in an amount not to exceed the negotiated price as detailed on Exhibit A for the management and implementation of RCTC's Commuter Assistance Program, and 2) authorize RCTC's Chairman, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its December 1999 meeting, the Commission took action to direct staff to enter into contract negotiations with Inland Transportation Services, Inc. (ITS) for management and implementation of RCTC's Commuter Assistance Program. Inland Transportation Services, Inc. was the successful bidder in response to an RCTC request for proposal (RFP) issued for consultant services. The RFP was mailed to 77 consultants throughout the four county region. A pre -bid meeting was held for interested bidders during which the RFP and its requirements were reviewed in detail as well as RCTC's contract requirements and office space/equipment options. Oral questions were responded to as no written questions were received by the deadline. Two bids were submitted in response to the RFP including Inland Transportation Services, Inc. (Rancho Cucamonga) and Sundstrom Rising (Alta Loma). A technical staff panel was convened to rate the proposals including representatives from: ❑ Southern California Rideshare ❑ Caltrans, District #8 ❑ San Bernardino Associated Governments ❑ Riverside County Transportation Commission The technical panel reviewed and rated each proposal based on the established 100 point evaluation criteria as defined in the RFP including: 1. Qualifications of key personnel 25 points 2. Work Plan 25 points 3. Cost proposal 25 points 4. Qualifications of the firm/team 15 points 5. Responsiveness to the RFP 10 points Each rater submitted individual score sheets for the two proposals and provided written and verbal comments regarding their assessment and overall ranking. All four evaluators rated the two proposals in the same order. The scores were averaged resulting in the following ranking: 1) Inland Transportation Services, Inc., and 2) Sundstrom Rising. Based on the RFP technical ratings and given that Inland Transportations Services, Inc. has, on a consultant basis, professionally managed the Commuter Assistance Program for a number of years, staff is seeking Commission approval to execute an agreement with ITS based on the negotiated labor rates and hours as summarized on Exhibit A to deliver a scope of services which is detailed by project and sets specific performance goals. The Commission's labor and expense costs for the 18 month period total $693,854, averaging $38,547 per month. RCTC's Commuter Assistance Program is primarily funded by Measure A and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality sources although grant funds such as SB 836 or Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) are occasionally acquire for demonstration projects. Funds to support the contract period of January 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 were approved as part of RCTC's FY 99-00 budget. Funds to support the balance of the 18 month contract from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 will be approved as part of the Commission's upcoming budget process. Also included in the consultant agreement will be work to be performed on behalf of San Bernardino Associated Governments who contracts with RCTC to manage and implement their "sister" Commuter Assistance Program as part of the two agencies long standing efforts to deliver coordinated rideshare services to commuters and employers within the Inland Empire. EXHIBIT A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SUMMARY OF NEGOTIATED COSTS FOR INLAND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. CONSULTANT SERVICES RCTC PROJECTS PROGRAM/GOAL(S) TOTAL HOURS TOTAL CONSULTING COSTS TOTAL CONSULTING EXPENSES TOTAL ALL COSTS Advantage Rideshare In County Goal: 750 Vehicles Reduced 3,415 $167,692 $3,300 $170,992 Advantage Rideshare Out of County Goal: 50 Vehicles Reduced 359 $17,021 $1,000 $18,021 Club Ride Goal: 2,225 Members 3,360 $156,129 $3,800 $159, 929 ICES - Riverside Goal: 80 Employers Representing 143 Work Sites 4,325 $232,521 $5,250 $237,771 Commuter Exchange Goal: 90 Visits 1,920 $79,616 $2,025 $81,641 Special Projects $25,000 $500 $25,500 RCTC TOTAL 13,379 $677,979 $15,875 $693,854 MONTHLY AVERAGE COST $38,547 SANBAG PROJECTS Option Rideshare In County Goal: 900 Vehicles Reduced 4,035 $175,037 $3,750 $178,787 Option Rideshare Out of County Goal: 50 Vehicles Reduced 359 $17,021 $1,000 $18,021 Team Ride Goal: 1,410 Members 2,089 $90,999 $2,300 $93,299 ICES - San Bernardino Goal: 125 Employers Representing 361 Work Sites 5,525 $251,973 $5,500 $257,473 Special Projects $25,000 $500 $25, 500 SANBAG TOTAL 12,008 $560,030 $13,050 $573,080 MONTHLY AVERAGE COST $33,254 GRANT FUNDS SB 836 Goal: 300 Vehicles Reduced 600 Members TOTAL 1,342 $59,579 1,342 $59,579 • $200 $59,779 $200 $59,779 GRANT FUND TOTAL $59,779 MONTHLY AVERAGE COST $3,321 HOURLY POSITION RATES Program Manager $95.98 Program Administrator $44.10 Marketing Specialist $36.75 Administrative Assistant $41.45 CONTRACT SUMMARY OF CHARGES 1 /5/00 9:22 AM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure "A" Park and Ride Lease - Lake Elsinore PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize the leasing of 50 Park and Ride spaces at 17600 Collier Avenue, Lake Elsinore, California, and authorize RCTC's Chairman to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission has a long-time commitment to meeting the needs of commuters by leasing park and ride spaces. Providing park and ride spaces is an important component to assist commuters in making ridesharing a habit. Caltrans has traditionally been the agency developing and maintaining park and ride lots. However, demand for park and rides sometimes exceeds supply. To bridge the gap, the Commission has leased unused parking areas from property owners. This approach allows us to meet commuters' demands while Caltrans develops permanent facilities. If approved, the Commission's cost to lease the 50 park and ride spaces will be $9,000 annually ($15/space times 50 spaces times 12 months). Caltrans will provide standard liability insurance for the lot as well as all directional signage. There are currently two park and ride lots in Lake Elsinore. Daily usage at these two lots exceeds available paved parking on an on -going basis. Commuters have been parking on the street or in a dirt field adjacent to the designated park and ride lots. To accommodate the need for additional park and ride lots, program staff met with the City of Lake Elsinore to determine the most appropriate location for an additional park and ride site. The site selected is located at the Prime Outlets Mall adjacent to 1-15. The General Manager from Prime Outlets has reviewed the model Park and Ride Lease Agreement and has verbally approved leasing the site to the Commission. The selected area is well lit and secure as Prime Outlets provides 24 hour security service throughout the mall parking area. Attachment A is a map of the proposed site. Financial Assessment Project Cost $9,000 Source of Funds Measure "A" (YIN Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable • 4- • • New Lake Elsinore Park and Ride Lot l� N 7�^ �D \ co < 17600 �� Collier Ave: \, �L Attachment A CAMBE-RN J0Q0316- RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Claudia Chase, Property Agent Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Review of Security Services and Continuation of Contract. PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the continuation of RCTC's contract for security guard services with Group 70 Protective and Investigative Services through June 30, 2000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April, 1999, the Commission authorized staff to contract with a new vendor for security services at our four Metrolink stations. We had been dissatisfied with the performance of the two previous companies contracted for system -wide security and had obtained Metrolink's permission to seek a company more responsive to our needs. The current fiscal year budget authorized a full year of service from our new vendor Group 70 Protective Services and Investigations; however, the initial contract was only executed for a period of eight months to allow for a mid-term review. This initial contract expires December 31, 1999. Staff has been exceedingly pleased with Group 70's performance, accessibility, and reporting procedures. Their management personnel act as partners with RCTC and Metrolink in responding to potential safety and security issues at our properties. In addition, our rail passengers and the general public continue to comment on the helpful attitude and professional demeanor of the assigned guards, who are often called upon for Metrolink operating information and ticketing assistance. We believe that Group 70 has fulfilled all expectations during this trial period and recommend the continuation of the contract, as budgeted, through the close of the fiscal year. Pending Commission action of January 12, staff will authorize Group 70's continuation of service through January 31. A proposal for security services for FY2000-01 will be brought forward as part of the RCTC and Metrolink budget process. Financial Assessment Project Cost $456,000 base Source of Funds Rail Program Operating Budget & Property Management Account (Y1N) Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Current Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation Current Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable Yes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transit Bus Tickets for County Jurors PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Commission receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION SunLine Transit Agency implemented a program in August 1998 to provide free bus tickets to sitting jurors in the Coachella Valley. The jury summons instructs potential jurors to contact the Jury Commissioner if they need transportation. SunLine provides the tickets to the Jury Commissioner whose staff issues them to needy jurors. In the fifteen months of the program, SunLine has provided 250 bus tickets and the program has been a great success. It provides the much needed transportation and gets people to use the bus while at the same time doing their civic duty. It has been requested that the Commission implement a similar program in Western Riverside County. Staff is proposing to have The Volunteer Center of Riverside County issue the tickets to the Jury Commissioner as part of the Transportation Access Program (TAP). It is estimated that 150 bus tickets would be needed for the balance of FY 1999-2000. The Volunteer Center has informed Commission staff that the tickets could be issued out of their existing supply, so no additional cost would be incurred at this time. Furthermore, staff will meet with the Riverside Transit Agency and the Jury Commissioner to discuss establishing a permanent bus ticket program for jurors in the Western County area, to include possible reimbursement to RCTC from the Jury Commissioner through the jurors' mileage account. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Susan Cornelison, Program Manager Stephanie Wiggins, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY1 999/2000 Beach Train Program PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Commission approve the proposed Beach Train Program for FY 2000/01, consisting of up to seventeen dates between June and October, including the commitment to underwrite costs of service beyond fare revenues. Projected revenues and expenses will be reflected in the FY 01 Budget. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Developed and administered by RCTC in 1996, the Beach Train is a popular program designed to maximize opportunities for public use of the commuter rail system in Riverside County. The seasonal trains operate on various weekends between the months of June and October and provide thousands of Riverside County residents a stress -free alternative to freeway congestion. The popularity of the program continued through the 1999 season. Trains departed from Rialto, San Bernardino, Riverside, La Sierra, and West Corona Metrolink stations headed for San Juan Capistrano, North Beach, San Clemente, and -- this year -- Oceanside. Expansion of the operation during the season resulted in over 10,600 riders, the program's highest patronage since inception. Total patronage over the last four years exceeds 30,000 (over 60,000 one-way trips). Not all costs for the 1999 season are confirmed as yet, but it appears that the 1999 season will result in a subsidy of approximately $1 .83 per trip. As the planning process begins for the fifth season, the goal is to build upon the success of prior years by developing a plan to create a self-sustaining program not requiring public subsidy or day-to-day management by RCTC staff. In order to plan for appropriate staffing and budget resources at Metrolink, and to provide the necessary lead time for promotion, the Commission is being asked to decide at this time if it wishes to proceed with scheduling Beach Trains next summer. Staff is working with Metrolink administration to determine a per train cost cap in order to accurately set fares and service levels with a continued goal of the program meeting a break even point. Though several logistical matters are yet to be determined, staff is confident in recommending a continuation of the program in 2000. The attached report provides an analysis of last season's experience and details recommendations for service for the upcoming year. Financial Assessment Project Cost Source of Funds (Y/N Included in Fiscal Year Budget N Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable Beach Train 2000 Tentative Proposal Executive Summary Background Developed and administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 1996, the Beach Train carries Inland Empire residents to the beach on Metrolink trains via the Inland Empire - Orange County (IEOC) line. The seasonal service provides thousands of Riverside County residents a stress -free alternative to freeway congestion and serves as a positive public relations vehicle for the Commission. The popularity of the program continued through the 1999 season. Trains departed from Rialto, San Bernardino, Riverside, La Sierra, and West Corona Metrolink stations headed for San Juan Capistrano, North Beach, San Clemente, and -- this year — Oceanside. Expansion of the operation during the season resulted in over 10,600 riders, the program's highest patronage since inception. Total patronage over the last four years exceeds 30,000 (over 60,000 one-way trips). As the planning process begins for the fifth season, the goal is to build upon the success of prior years by developing a plan to create a self-sustaining program not requiring public subsidy or day-to-day management by RCTC staff. Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to outline a proposal for a successful Beach Train 2000 program with an emphasis on restructuring RCTC staff involvement in the day-to-day operations. The outline includes the recommended operating, marketing, and staffing plans for the 2000 season. Proposed Mission Statement The Beach Train 2000 will be a self-supporting program that provides Riverside County residents alternative transportation to the beach via the Metrolink IEOC line. The objective is to design a plan that maximizes ridership, requires no public subsidy, does not require active day-to-day management by RCTC staff, and maintains a high level of customer service. Key Recommendations In order to achieve the goal of a self-sustaining program for the 2000 season, two essential recommendations involve the restructuring of staffing and marketing efforts. 1) Hire RCTC Casual Employees to Manage Day -to -Day Operations. Between May and September of the 1999 Beach Train season, RCTC Staff managed the day-to-day operations. The time spent on day-to-day management often resulted in conflicts with policy -related duties and responsibilities. The addition of temporary personnel to manage the day-to-day operations will result in a net gain to the Commission from a decrease in labor costs. 2) Design a Marketing Plan to Focus on Increasing Patronage for the Second Train. The addition of the second train with no targeted marketing plan resulted in substantially poor performance, as compared to the first train. Revenues from the first train exceeded expenses. Although total ridership for the 1999 season exceeds the prior year by 35%, patronage on the second train did not break-even. The first train average load factor of 499 riders per train is 2.9 times greater than the second train average load factor of 172 riders per train. Consequently, the overall average load factor for the season was lower than any previous year. Summer Summer Summer 1997 1998 1999 Performance/Workload Indicators Actuals Actuals Estimate Operating Dates Number of Trains/Date Number of Key Destinations Ridership Fare Revenue Average Load Factor/Trip Day -to -Day Management By 19 14 15 1 1 2 1 1 2 6,900 7,400 10,600 $80,477 $76,000 $116,000 383 528 336 RCTC Staff RCTC Staff RCTC Staff Summer 2000 Proposed 15 -- 17 2 2 13,000 $159, 200 433 Casual Employees Overview The Beach Train is a popular program, administered by RCTC and operated by Metrolink, developed to maximize opportunities for public use of the commuter rail system in Riverside County. While often introducing Riverside County residents to Metrolink commuter trains for the first time, the program serves as a public relations opportunity for the Commission. These seasonal trains operate on various weekends between the months of June and October. Since 1996, the Beach Trains have transported over 30,000 riders. As the planning process begins for the fifth season, the goal is to create a self-sustaining operation that requires no public subsidy. Train Operations After three years of operating one beach train, the 1999 program expanded with an additional train and extension of the route to Oceanside. While expansion of the operating plan offered the public more alternatives, the addition of a second train increased overall patronage and the public subsidy. Therefore, the proposal for the 2000 season includes the following modifications to the second train: ♦ Modify the second train schedule to an earlier start time. ♦ Originate from Riverside rather than Rialto due to scheduling conflicts. If in the course of planning the 2000 season, circumstances change and the second train may accommodate service to Rialto without a compromise in service, staff should reconsider this option. ♦ Maintain the key destinations of San Clemente and Oceanside, however, intermediate stops in Orange County will be eliminated, thereby creating two "express" trains. Modifications to the operating schedule for the upcoming year is the first step in improving the performance of the second train. Patronage on the first train has increased every year over the past four years and the addition of the second train brings new opportunities to maximize ridership. Ridership As in the prior year, the 1999 season patronage on the first train did not require a public subsidy. However, the second train did not break-even and as a result, accounted for the entire 1999 deficit of $39,000. Tickets Sold 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Jun 1999 Break -Even by Train Jul Aug Sep Oct ®1st Train 2nd Train Break -Even The 1999 Beach Trains carried over 10,600 riders, an increase of 42% over prior year. Initial analysis shows that this growth is due to the addition of the second train as ridership on the first train experienced little growth (an increase of only 7% over prior year). Further analysis shows that the increase is more likely "spillover" from the first train. Therefore, the first train is responsible for the entire increase because there was no targeted marketing for the second train. 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Beach Train Ridership (1996 - 1999) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2nd Train ■ 1st Train RCTC staff made a deliberate decision not to market the second train. The primary reasons were the fear of overcrowding given the unavailability of running two -six car sets on each train date and the ability for passengers to purchase tickets at the stations through the ticket vending machine (TVM). Advance purchase of tickets allow control of how many tickets are purchased, however TVM's allow unlimited purchases regardless of train size. Beach Train 2000 proposes to eliminate the TVM option and return to advance purchase for both trains. Marketing Plan The target market for the Beach Trains are Western Riverside County as well as San Bernardino County residents'. Marketing efforts for the 1999 season occurred chiefly at the beginning of the season. Ads placed in "The Press Enterprise" and "The Sun" ran in July and August, respectively. Although RCTC Staff worked more than 400 hours during the season, they were unavailable to work on any additional marketing efforts once the season began due to conflicts with policy duties. Given the low patronage and lack of targeted marketing of the second train during the 1999 season, the 2000 program seeks to aggressively market the Beach Trains, with a special emphasis on the second train. The San Clemente and Oceanside Chambers of Commerce have already committed to $7,000 for advertising for the upcoming 2000 season. The 2000 program will also continue all partnerships with San Clemente and Oceanside businesses with respect to 1) printing of the tickets and promotional materials in exchange for advertising, 2) business sponsorship of bus shuttle service, 3) and special events. During the 1999 season, ridership was greatest when special events were hosted by the destination city. Consequently, the 2000 season will feature more special event dates to maximize ridership. While second train ridership was low, the addition of the train doubled the capacity. The increase in capacity provides many opportunities to increase patronage. Amplifying the use of marketing tools such as advanced group sales, radio promotions, and public/private partnerships; the 2000 program seeks to increase ridership by 25%. Staffing To initiate Beach Train service in 1996, RCTC Staff needed to be intimately involved in the day-to-day operation. Ridership statistics above are testimony that the attention showed by RCTC staff has resulted in a successful and sustained program over the last four years. It is now evident that the service is no longer in the start-up phase and as such does not require day-to-day management from RCTC staff. Accordingly, the recommendation for next year's program is to restructure RCTC staff involvement. Between May and September of the 1999 Beach Train season, RCTC Staff worked in excess of 400 hours, an average of 20 hours per week, managing the day-to-day operations. These duties involved ticket distribution, liaison with ticketing outlets, handling telephone inquiries, marketing, ambassador duties on train dates, and data entry. Given these tasks are routine in nature, the recommendation is to hire temporary personnel to take over these duties for the 2000 season. Although the addition of temporary personnel increases direct costs to the program, the reallocation of RCTC staff time to policy issues results in a net gain to the Commission. 1 See Appendix A: 1999 Tickets Purchased by County & City The proposed staffing plan for next season, May - October: ♦ Beach Train Coordinator, hired by RCTC as a Casual Employee, manages day-to-day operations: recruit and supervise Ambassadors, market program to employers, liaison to ticketing outlets and revenue collection vendor; initial ticket distribution, oversee data entry for weekly sales reports. Total Hours: 500. ♦ Beach Train Office Support, hired by RCTC as a Casual Employee, handles telephone inquiries, processes mail order tickets, data entry, assist with any other duties. Total Hours: 300 ♦ RCTC Staff would provide limited oversight of the program. Total Hours: 20 Proposed Beach Train 2000 Staffing Plan RCTC Staff Program Oversight Total Hours: 20 T RCTC Casual Employee Beach Train Coordinator Total Hours: 500 RCTC Casual Employee Beach Train Office Support Phone Inquiries, Mail Orders Total Hours: 300 1 Ambassadors (10) Work only on Train Dates Casual Employees Metrolink Staff, Volunteers, & Ticketing Outlets Riverside Parks & Rec Corona Parks & Rec Rialto City Clerk's Office 1 Revenue Collection Vendor: TBD $3,000 • BOLD Boxes = new positions Budget Traditionally, deficits incurred by the Beach Train program are borne as a marketing cost within the rail program budget. The proposed budget for the 2000 season seeks to eliminate the need for any public subsidy by implementing an aggressive marketing plan and modifying the fare structure. A fare change is likely due to the average cost per ticket paid last year ($11.75 versus actual costs of $15). The low ridership on the second train and the group discount fare structure contributed to the 1999 deficit of $39,000.2 Consequently, upon further discussion with Metrolink on the train costs for 2 See Appendix C: 1999 Income & Expense Statement the 2000 season, RCTC staff will review and modify the fare structure in order to meet projected expenses. Beach Train 2000 Projected Expenditures Train Operations 15 trains @ $10,000 per date $150,000 Ticket Fulfillment Riverside Park & Rec — 6000 tickets $ 6,000 Casual Employees Beach Train Coordinator 500 hrs @ $11 $5,500 Beach Train Assistant 300 hrs @ $9 $2,700 Ambassadors 100 hrs @ $10 $1,000 Revenue Collection $3,000 In -House Printing & Mailing $1,000 Printing Donated Advertising Donated Total Projected Expenditures Proposed Beach Train 2000 Budget casual employees 6% ticket fulfillment 4% revenue collection 2% $159,200 train operations 88% Next Steps The proposal above outlines a Beach Train 2000 plan to maximize ridership while restructuring the management of day-to-day operations away from RCTC staff. In order to implement a successful program, planning must begin now. The following benchmarks are critical to a successful Beach Train 2000 season. November'99 Senior Management Approval of 2000 Beach Train Program January '00 RCTC Approval of 2000 Beach Train Program March '00 Metrolink Approval of Train Operating Plan Begin Marketing Efforts May '00 Hire Seasonal Beach Train Coordinator (hourly employee) Jun '00 Beach Train Season Begins A: Origin of Ticket Purchasers by County & City* (1999 Season) San Bernardino County 45% Riverside County Los Angeles County 1% Riverside County 54% San Bernardino County Los Angeles County Banning Adelanto Alta Loma Beaumont Apple Valley Arleta Blythe Barstow Claremont Calimesa Big Bear Lake Diamond Bar Corona Bloomington Duarte Hemet Bryn Mawr Hacienda Heights Idyllwild Chino Los Angeles Lake Elsinore Chino Hills Monterey Park Mira Loma Colton Pomona Moreno Valley Crestline San Dimas Norco Etiwanda Torrance Perris Fontana Van Nuys Riverside Grand Terrace Walnut San Jacinto Green Valley Lake West Covina Sun City Hesperia Temecula Highland Wildomar Loma Linda Mentone Ontario Patton Rancho Cucamonga Redlands Rialto Running Springs San Bernardino Sugarloaf Twenty -Nine Palms Upland Victorville Wrightwood Yucaipa * The percentage reflects the number of ticket transactions, not the number of tickets sold. (Excludes AMTRAK & NM sales) B: 1999 Ticket Sales per Train Date Sold Prior Year Train #1 Sales Train #2 Sales** 26June 249 364 40 3 July* 264 364 84 10 July 325 515 254 17 July 668 700 218 18 July 539 520 133 24 July 459 426 75 31 July 431 401 78 7 Aug 594 464 74 8 Aug 678 674 236 14 Aug 686 620 78 21 Aug 656 501 83 28 Aug 660 653 217 4 Sep 516 330 88 N/A 5 Sep 262 108 3 Oct 708 698 316 Grand Total 7,433 7,492 2,082 Tickets Sold 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Dates in BOLD = Special Event Dates "Does not include NM sales Jun 1999 Break -Even by Train Jul Aug Sep Oct ®1st Train 2nd Train —4— Break -Even C: 1999 Income & Expense Statement Beach Train 1999 Estimated Revenues Ridership Ticket Outlets Amtrak WM Total Projected Revenues Beach Train 1999 Estimated Expenditures $99,921 86% $6,840 6% $9,500 8% $116,261 100% Train Operations 15 trains @ $9,577 per date $144,000 93% Ticket Fulfillment Riverside Park & Rec — 5,007 tickets $ 5,007 3% Telephone Charges/Stamps $ 700 Casual Employees Beach Train Ambassadors (2) $2 400 2% Revenue Collection $2,850 2% Printing ($10,000 estimate) Donated 1,000 tickets 10,000 self mailers 275 11 x 17 posters Ads created for 2 park & rec publications Advertising ($5,500) Donated "Press Enterprise" & "The Sun" Shuttle Service ($10,000 estimate) Donated Total Projected Expenditures $155,000 1000/0 NET (Loss) ($38,739) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Audit of Call Box System Maintenance Costs for Fiscal Year 1998-99 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the SAFE Board receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached is a report on the Riverside County Call Box System maintenance costs prepared by TeleTran Tek Services, the Commission's call box consultant, for the period of July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999. The report summarizes cost information for corrective maintenance (basic call box system maintenance), preventive maintenance (site maintenance), and above contract repairs (knockdowns, vandalism, graffiti, etc.), as well as the number of incidents for each category, provided by our maintenance contractor, Comarco Wireless Technologies. Comarco has a ten-year contract which expires in April 2000 to maintain the call boxes as well as install any additional boxes as authorized by the Commission. In fiscal year 1998-99, the Commission incurred $1 16,899 for corrective maintenance, $79,416 for preventive maintenance, and $103,623 for above contract repairs. Staff will begin discussions with Comarco after the first of the year to renegotiate its current maintenance contract. Unfortunately, Comarco is the only company that is currently providing the service, and it maintains the call boxes for all of the existing call box agencies statewide. They recently completed negotiations with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the Bay Area and agreed on a flat fee price of $290 per call box per year. This equates to $333,210 for Riverside County or $33,272 more than the actual costs paid in 1998-99. Staff will return to the Commission in March 2000 seeking formal approval of a maintenance contract with Comarco Wireless Technologies. No major findings were presented in the report. Staff will follow-up with T-3 staff to determine if the call box sites that are repeatedly knocked down should be relocated and with Comarco staff to make certain we are not being charged for boxes that have been permanently removed. July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 Riverside County Transportation Commission Audit of Call Box System Costs July 1, 1998 —June 30, 1999 Introduction This report takes data from the monthly invoices and work orders received from Comarco Wireless Technology and makes a compact and detailed report for the period of July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999. TeleTran Tek Services reviewed copies of invoices and work orders, checked for discrepancies, and entered the data into a database. This database is used to summarize costs, the number of incidents for a specific time period (trends) and any cost saving actions that might be taken. Examples of the latter are relocating a call box that has been knocked down several times and installing graffiti overlays on call box signs in areas repeatedly vandalized. From the database, TeleTranTek builds tables and summaries to show costs and the number of events for: • Preventive Maintenance (site maintenance) • Corrective Maintenance (basic call box system maintenance) • Above Contract costs (categories are not covered by the basic Corrective Maintenance coverage. Based on labor and material costs). • In the Above Contract Cost categories are two categories that do not occur every year, New Installations and Program Area Codes. These costs are totaled after the Above Contract Costs so we can compare the years accurately. Included in this report are tables for: • Preventive Maintenance Costs by month. TeleTran Tek Services July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 • Corrective Maintenance Costs by month. • Summary of Costs and Incidents for July 1, 1998 to June 30. 1999. • Call boxes knocked down more than three times. • Incidents and Costs Totals since January 1995. Definitions of Above Contract Categc: The following is a description of the Above Contract categories: Knockdowns - Call boxes damaged from being struck by vehicles. Vandalism Call box damage by vandals (i.e. gunshots, parts pulled off, damage from being struck). Graffiti - Call boxes that have been spray painted by vandals. Antenna - Call boxes requiring an antenna upgrade or adjustment. Remove/Installs - Call boxes removed for freeway construction or reinstalle after freeway construction is completed. Ants - Infestation of ants that short out circuit boards. Other/Misc. - Fraud — Illegal cloning of the call box phone number. Wind - Call box damage attributed to wind (i.e. sign(s) blown off, ben or not recovered). Site Work - Maintaining site conditions due to erosion and rotting timbers. Service Calls - Usually at the request of the California Highway Patrol for a reported call box problem. New Installs - The installation of new call boxes for in -fills on existing highways. New installs do not occur yearly and should be viewed separately when comparing year to year costs. TeleTran Tek Services July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 Area Codes Portions of Riverside County have had area code changes. All call boxes in the affected area were required to change their area code. This entailed a visit to each call box to manually enter the new prefix. This type of action does not occur every year and should be viewed separately when comparing year to year costs. Aurnloer of Call Boxes in System As of 12/8/1999, the total number of call boxes in the RCTC call box system is 1,154. The number of temporarily removed call boxes is 35. Two of these have been permanently removed, RV-079-0167 and RV-079-0182. Route RV-091 Total by Route 161 Temporary Removals 0 RV-243 14 0 RV-033 2 0 RV-060 81 6 RV-071 •3 3 RV-074 30 1 RV-079 33 3* RV-111 13 0 RV-010 RV-078 RV-095 398 7 7 0 0 0 RV-086/86S R V-215 RV-062 RV-015 RV-031 RV-371 RV-177 25 98 27 211 6 12 26 Total 1154 Total Active Call 1154 Boxes 1 10 0 11 0 0 0 35 1119* Total includes two call boxes permanently removed. TeleTran Tek Services July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 Preventive Maintenance "Preventive Maintenance" consists of visiting each call box site to maintain and clean equipment and also remove vegetation and trash that may hinder access. Comarco Wireless Technology is contracted to make two visits to every call box during a 12- month time period (ideally, once every 6 months). In the chart below, the Quantity refers to the number of call boxes serviced (or- visited) for that month. As of December 12.1999 there is a total of 1,154 call boxes in the RCTC system. Comarco Invoices Preventive Maintenance July 1998 through June 1999 July - 1998 August Quantity 163 103 Cost $36.00 Total $5, 868 I 3,708 1 36.00 September 219 36.00- .. i 7,884 October 152 36.00 5,472 November 356 36.00 12,816 December 83 36.00 2,988 January 50 36.00 1,800 January 36 36.00 1,296 February 151 36.00 5,436 March 236 36.00 8,496 April 106 ! 36.00 3,816 April 111 36.00 3,996 May 234 36.00 8,424 June - 1999 206 36.00 7,416 Total 2,206 $79,416 Multiple Comarco invoices for the same month are the result of the cut off date for billing. TeleTran Tek Services July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 Corrective Maintenance RCTC is charged a monthly basic maintenance fee for "Corrective Maintenance... Corrective Maintenance covers monitoring of the call boxes and replacement of covered parts. Each call box is programmed to make a status call to the maintenance computer at the Comarco Wireless. Maintenance Facility in Colton. The maintenance/status calls are typically made once every three days and help ensure that each call box is working properly with the least amount of down time. The resulting report produced by the maintenance computer is used to evaluate and note any problems. If a call box fails to check in, an exception report is made and a field technician will travel to the call box and investigate. Examples of work covered by corrective maintenance include low batteries and solar panel problems. Comarco Invoices Corrective Maintenance July 1998 through Juhe 1999 Quantity Amount Total July - 1998 1,149 $8.35 $9,594 August 1,149 8.49 9,755 September 1,149 8.49 9,755 October 1,149 8.49 9,755 November 1,149 8.49 9,755 December 1,149 8.49 9,755 January 1,149 8.49 9,755 February 1,149 8.49 9,755 March 1,149 8.49 9,755 April 1,149 8.49 9,755 May 1,149 8.49 9,755 June - 1999 1,149 1 8.49 9,755 Total 13,788 $116,899 Monthly charges for Corrective Maintenance are incurred on all call boxes existing in the system, including call boxes that have been temporarily removed. Currently, Comarco charges a monthly fee based on 1,149 Call Boxes. TeleTran Tek Services July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 Above Contract Repairs Above Contract costs are assigned to one of two areas: Uncontrollable circumstances resulting in damage to call Boxes: Knockdowns Wind/Sign Vandalism Site Work Graffiti Service Calls Antenna Upgrades System logistics - Costs resulting from expected changes: Remove/Install ITS -Intelligent Transportation Systems New Install/In-fills Above Contract Repair Maintenance Summary July 1998 through June 1999 Maintenance Description Incidents Total Cost Average Cost Knockdowns 67 $75,626 $1,129 Vandalism 44 9,605 218 Graffiti 32 1,624 51 Remove/installs 11 3,308 301 Site repairs 5 1,020 204 Service calls 23 1,228 53 Antenna 47 3,381 72 Wind/signs 24 3,250 135 Fraud 1 402 • 402 Its 12 4,179 $348 Total 266 $103,623 TeleTran Tek Services July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 Maintenance Description l.1+1iili:l11''(H. i 1 ilia I.I4:111!. by I 1999 2nd 1999 1st 1998 4th 1998 3rd 1998 2nd Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter 1998 1st Quarter Knockdowns 15 16 18 18 18 17 Vandalism 4 17 9 14 13 7 Graffiti Vandalism 4 15 5 8 5 2 Antenna Upgrades 6 3 4 36 12 4 Remove/Installs 2 9 6 3 Wind/Sign 4 9 7 4 15 15 Service Calls 4 6 5 8 8 3 Fraud 1 1 Site Work 1 3 1 - 2 • 3 Program Area Code - - ITS 12 Total 40 90 49 89 80 54 Maintenance Description Comparison of Total Costs by Quarter 1999 2nd 1999 1st 1998 4th 1998 3rd 1998 2nd 1998 1st Quarter Quarter Quarter •• Quarter Quarter Quarter 1997 4th 1997 3rd Quarter Quarter 22 9 6 11 2 4 7 7 3 4 5 9 4 1 1 1 53 50 1997 4th Quarter 1997 3rd Quarter Knockdowns $13,533 $16,255 $23,215 $22,623 $26,501 $24,832 $37,177 $16,016 Vandalism 1,583 4,261 1,298 2,463 6,167 5,148 3,579 1,975 Graffiti Vandalism 126 906 306 285 210 260 546 111 Antenna Upgrades 695 341 503 1,841 1,173 160 629 787 Remove/Installs 213 3,095 519 1,270 370 1,843 881 - -- Wind/Sign 165 1,032 1,662 392 4,130 3,163 Service Calls 236 442 216 334 420 196 194 467 Fraud 402 - 61.73 876.5 306 Site Work 272 562 186 226 480 136 Program Area Code - $35,571 876 4.494 ITS 4,179 ' - $46,091 $25,172 Total $16,823 $31,074 $27,386 $28,340 $39,346 TeleTran Tek Services July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 Jul-98 Aug - 98 Sep-98 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Jan-99 Feb-99 Mar-99 Apr-99 May-99 Jun-99 Total KNOCK DOWNS 3 4 5 9 6 7 3 7 5 3 67 VANDALISM GRAFFIT Incidents REMOVE/IN SITE SERVICE ANTENNA STALLS REPAIRS CALLS WIND/ FRAUD ITS 3 4 2 18. VII i. 5 4 5 10 - 6 — 1 6 3 1 1 3 6 2 1 5 1 - _ 6 1 1 - 4 10 9 3 3 6 - 4 4 - 1 2 8 3 6 5 3 2 1 4 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 - 1 3 3 - 2 2 2 1 - 44 32 11 5 23 47 24 1 12 KNOCK VANDALISM GRAFFITI REMOVE/IN SITE DOWNS STALLS REPAIRS SERVICE ANTENNA CALLS WIND FRAUD ITS Jul-98 Aug-98 Sep-98 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Jan-99 Feb-99 Mar-99 Apr-99 Nay-99 Jun-99 $5,082 $359 $173 $0 $0 $74 $815 $49 $0 $0 11,385 6,156 1,340 113 222 790 _ 764 - 38 236 342 402 4,281 134 231 1,471 - 6,948 266 25 - - 216 - 191 11,986 898 50 186 - 503 _ 7,470 2,032 607 562 191 921 7,009 1,321 2,488 - 75 40 3,058 1,981 908 300 607 251 266 71 1,121 7,349 1,209 105 272 25 216 3,330 374 - 20 _ 30 229 89 75 $3,250 - $402 - $4,179 R 2,650 213 181 251 Total $75,626 $9,605 $1,624 $3,308 $1,020 $1,228 $3,381 TeleTran Tek Services 8 July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 .,Love Contract Incident Totals aria January 1995 through June 199� This table shows the total incidents and costs for all categories for the last four years. The time period starts January 1995, the date the database was started. and goes to the present quarter. All data was taken from the Invoices and work orders. Call Box Totals =rom January 1995 to Present Incident Cost Totals Totals (Knockdowns 273 $382,446 'Vandalism I 313 74,937 Graffiti Vandalism 219 7,559 Antenna Upgrades 129 11,771 Remove/Installs 77 21,079 1Wind/Sign 113 23,668 'Service Calls 92 4,832 Site Work - 45 7,792 Ants 3 1 27R Fraud ITS Installs Total 23 25 7,521 65,502 $608, 384 TeieTran Tek Services July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 Knockdowns Knockdowns are by far the costliest Above Contract Category. As mentioned earlier, they fall into the area beyond the control of RCTC. The amount of damage can range from a few hundred dollars to well over $3.500. Knockdowns average 15.2 incidents per quarter. The table of figures represents actual quarters (i.e. January 1st to March 31') Quarter Call Boxes in Knockdowns System by Quarter 1 s' Quarter-95 1,064 16 Cost Percent of Total System 1 50°/ 2nd Quarter-95. 1,086 16 23,037 1.47% 3fa Quarter-95 1,086 15 25,902 1.38% 4`h Quarter-95 1,093 12 16,550 1.10% 1" Quarter-96 1,093 21 38,546 1.92% 2" Quarter-96 1,097 10 10,152 0.91% 3`d Quarter-96 1,100 11 11,543 1.00% 4w Quarter-96 1,100 15 18,237 1.36% 1s' Quarter-97 1,100 10 - 13,724 0.91% 2"4 Quarter-97 1,100 14 24,421 1.27% 3'd Quarter-97 1,123 9 16,016 0.80% 4'F Quarter-97 1,149 22 37,177 1.91 1" Quarter-98 1,149 17 24,832 1.48% 2' Quarter-98 ' 1,149 18 26,501 1.57% _ 3'° Quarter-98 1,149 18 22,623 1.57% 4'h Quarter-98 ' 1,149 18 23,215 1.57/0 1" Quarter-99 1,149 .16 16,255 1.39% 2'nd Quarter-99 1,149 15 13,533 1.31 Three new sites were added this time period to the list of call boxes that have been knocked down more 3 or more times. 1. RV-010-1383 2. RV-010-1423 3. RV-010-1512 4. RV-015-0016 5. RV-015-0134 6. RV-060-0043 7. RV-060-0052" TeieTran Tek Services 8. RV-091-0042 9. RV-091-0088* 10. RV-091-0158 11. RV-091-0191 12. RV-111-0593* 13. RV-215-0127 July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 There are currently 13 sites in Riverside County in the "knocked down three or more times' category. A list of sites and dates when the knockdown occurred: Call box Date Call box Date RV-010-1383 5/5/95 RV-091-0042 3/16/95 5/23/96 2/9/96 3/17/97 11 /11 /96 6/5/97 RV-010-1423 4/24/95 8/28/95 RV-091-0088 3/6/95 10/6/97 4/12/96 11 /4/98 RV-010-1512 1/23/95 4/2/95 RV-091-0158 5/1 /97 1 /9/98 4/22/98 8/31 /98 RV-015-0016 1/11/95 3/6/95 RV-091-0191 6/25/96 2/1 /96 11 /26/96 12/26/97 • 8/26/97 2/24/98 11 /3/97 11 /24/98 RV-015-0134 11 /14/97 2/9/98 RV-111-0593 12/31 /97 5/1 /98 1 /22/99 5/11 /99 RV-060-0043 1 /8/95 5/25/99 2/22/96 10/3/96 RV-215-0127 10/9/95 11 /22/96 1 /22/96 1 /27/96 RV-060-0052 1/8/97 1/11/97 1 /17/97 6/20/97 2/16/99 These knock down sites should be evaluated. If there are accident reports for these sites, perhaps some insight about why they are repeatedly knocked down could be gathered. T- Cubed will evaluate these sites when a trip can be coordinated with other tasks, unless RCTC Staff directs a special trip. TeleTran Tek Services July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 Descriptions of sites knocked down three or more times: Site RV-010-1383 • Location: WEST BOUND 3 M E/OF WILEY'S WELL RD • Type A site. • Reasons for knockdowns: Unknown • Recommendations: T-Cubed can review on next Salvage Audit. Site RV-010-1423 • Location: WEST BOUND 3 MILES WEST OF MESA DR. • Type A site. • Reasons for knockdowns: Unknown • Recommendations: T-Cubed can review on next Salvage Audit. Site RV-010-1512 • Location: N/A • Type A site. • Reasons for knockdowns: Unknown • Recommendations: T-Cubed can review on next Salvage Audit. Site RV-060-0043 • Location: WEST BOUND WEST OF PEDLEY RD. • Type C site. • Reasons for knockdowns: Unknown • Recommendations: T-Cubed can review on next Salvage Audit. Site RV-060-0052 • Location: E/B E/OF PEDLEY RD. • Type C site. • Reasons for knockdowns: Unknown • Recommendations: T-Cubed can review on next Salvage Audit. Site RV-091-0042- - • Location: EAST BOUND SR-91 EAST OF SERFAS CLUB DRIVE • Type B site. TeleTran Tek Services 12 July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 • Reasons for knockdowns: Unknown • Recommendations: T-Cubed can review on next Salvage Audit. Site RV-091-0088 • Location E/B JUST W/OF .McKINLEY • Type C site. • Reasons for knockdowns: Unknown • Recommendations: T-Cubed can review on next Salvage Audit. Site RV-091-0158 • Location: EAST BOUND JUST EAST OF ADAM ST. • Type B site. • Reasons for knockdowns: Unknown • Recommendations: T-Cubed can review on next Salvage Audit. Site RV-091-0191 • Location: WEST BOUND EAST OF CENTRAL AVE. • Type B site. • Reasons for knockdowns: Unknown • Recommendations: T-Cubed can review on next Salvage Audit. Site RV-111-0593. • Location: S/B @ OVERTURE • Type C site. • . Reasons for knockdowns: Unknown. • Recommendations: T-Cubed can review on next Salvage Audit. Site RV-015-0016 Reviewed October 1996 and relocated • Location: NORTH BOUND .5 MI NORTH OF CHECKPOINT • Type F site. • Reasons for knockdowns: Site was reviewed, relocated and changed to F site. • Recommendations: Reviewed, site is now behind guardrail. TeleTran Tek Services July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 Site RV-215-0127 Reviewed October 1996 • Location: SOUTH BOUND NORTH OF TEMECULA. I-215 2 AT ANTELOPE ROAD • Type C site. • Reasons for knockdowns: No apparent reason to attract knockdowns • Recommendations: Reviewed. No apparent reason is evident. Site RV-015-0134 • Location: NORTH BOUND JUST SOUTH OF CLINTON KEITH RD. • Type A site. • Reasons for knockdowns: Unknown • Recommendations: T-Cubed can review on next Salvage Audit. T-Cubed will contact RCTC prior to performing a review of these sites. The review process will investigate for any causes and then report recommended solutions for each site. Digital pictures will be taken at each site to record any problems and show possible solutions. Summary Tele Tran Tek Services suggests that RCTC contact Comarco about the two permanently removed call boxes on RV-079 to make 'sure that they are not paying Corrective and Preventive Maintenance costs for them. No other problems were noted for this period. If you have any questions or suggestions about this report please feel free to contact Rick Brookshier @ (858) 279-1299 or e-mail: rickb@tcubed.net. TeleTran Tek Services 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending November 30, 1999. Attachments RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION November 30, 1999 TO DATE COMUITMNTS TO DATE ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Englneering/Environ/ROW (R093379954,9966) ............................................. . SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/E nviron./ROW (R09961) Realignment study, Right tum lanes SUBTOTAL ROIJTE.79 ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538) 9635,9743,9849-9851,9857 ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall design and construction (R09101, 9337,9847,9)361, 9848, 9832,9969) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535) Sndwall Landscaping (R09933,9946,9945) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) SUBTOTAL 141E $6,508,900 $5,508,900 $537,000 $537;00: $15,933,909 016433,909 $5,923,000 $2,300,000 $883,450 $9,108,460 $6,726,504 $8,7 044 $6,508,900 $6,509 900 $537,000 000 $15,933,909 ....................... $15,933404 $5,590,043 $2,300,000 $798,291 $8,88B33A $5,878,173 45471073 100.0% 10DA9' 100.0% tN4 100.0% 1004 h: 94.4% 100.0% 90.4% M5.41 87.4% $109,206 $100400 $222 l422 $378,866 $371,4434 $144,431 $185 4144,88 $803,101 $80S,10f' $6,216 $9,068,013 $9,088,0 fJ 44,702,672 $1,797,708 $595,101 $7,0M5,48T $5,704,897 i;7 997. 12.3% 124% 1.2% 1214 56.9% 'Mk 84.1 % 78.2% 74.5% �1.714 97.1 % Page 1 of 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL %COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION November 30, 1999 % EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST TO DATE COMMTMNTS TO DATE INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946) 'SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE PROJECT 8 CONSTR. MGMT SERV, (RO 2000) SUBTOTAL BECHTEL PROGRAM PLAN 8 SERVICES North/South Comdar study (R09936) SUBTOTAL PROGRAM PLAN 1k SVCS. PARK-N-RIDEfINCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2001-2014) (9813) SUBTOTAL PARKfit-RdDE COMMUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering (RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (R00000,9920,9836,9843,9845,9953, 9957,9932) sl�TarAL cnMMu'rER>zA1L TOTALS $350,000 • $350,000 $304,060 $304,000 $1,550,000 $1,470,000 $1,550,000$1,470,000 $100,000 $100,000 4100,000. • • $100,000 86.9% $13,468 . ,413,468 94.8% $81,958 941% 881,958 100.0% $293,178 $293,178' $438,026 $4.18,020 $0 1@0.076 f. $2,293,911 $2,293,911 100.0% $128,894 $2,293,911 $2,293,911 100.0%; wS125,894 $1,648,600 $1,648,600 100.0% $5,514 $9,350,502 S10,809,102 $8,369,000 89.5% $92,711 410,017400 913% $01,225 54T165,776t 481,731827 95 % 55,45$ 31 $489,725 $4 00.-1 $1,571,661 $7,817,792 ._ 5949053 -; vAlt0490, ; 96.4% 29.8% 0.0% 21.3% T1'314 95.3% 93.4% 93.7% Page 2 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION COMMITMENT November 30, 1999 ADVANCES BALANCE COMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT. CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL.CPTYOFCORONA- " CITY OF PERRIS Local streets 8, road improvements CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road Improvements CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road Improvements CITY OF NORCO Yuma VC & Local streets and road Impmds TOTALS $1,600,000 $5,212,623 ,212623'. $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $17,908,[i38 $0 $1,600,000 $ .400,000' $5,212,623 $5,212,823 $0 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 517,3064035 NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. $1,289,170 $1,21t9,179. $3,896,717 $3A96011 $1,623,917 $1,110,753 $4,271,944 $1,793,861 $1341tte,*!.. $0 $o $t1 so $o $0 ao $o 80.6% 80 694 74.8% 83.9% 83.9% 83.9% 83.9% 80.8% Shhu as or: rrisan0 Page 3 of 3 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services and Clerk of the Board SUBJECT: Chair Appointment to Committees and to Agency Boards and Committees STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Commission members review the list of representation to the Budget and Implementation Committee, Plans and Programs Committee and to other agency committees and send the appointment requests for Chair appointment to the Clerk of the Board by January 28, 2000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION It appears there are city members that will be making appointments as to their respective representatives and alternates to the Commission and there will be changes to the current membership. We expect that most of the city agencies will finalize their appointments this month. When the requests are received, staff will forward them to the Chair for his/her determination. As in the past, the Chair has the authority to make the appointments and, therefore, Commission action is not required. BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE - Annual Budget Development and Oversight, Countywide Strategic Plan, Legislation, Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs, Public Communications and Outreach Programs, Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement and SB 821-Bicycle & Pedestrian, Property Management, SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol, and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. 1999 APPOINTED MEMBERS: Jim Venable / County of Riverside Ron Roberts / City of Temecula John Hunt / City of Banning Gregory S. Pettis / City of Cathedral City Juan DeLara / City of Coachella Andrea Puga / City of Corona John Pena / City of La Quinta Kevin Pape / City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / City of Moreno Valley Don Yokaitis / City of Rancho Mirage Alex Clifford/ City of Riverside Tom Mullen / County of Riverside John Tavaglione / County of Riverside Patrick Williams / City of San Jacinto PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE- State Transportation Improvement Program, Regional Transportation Improvement Program, New Corridors, Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare), Air Quality and Clean Fuels, Regional Agencies/Regional Planning, Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs, Congestion Management Program 1999 APPOINTED MEMBERS: Roy Wilson / County of Riverside Robin ReeserLowe / City of Hemet Jan Leja / City of Beaumont Robert Crain / City of Blythe John Chlebnik / City of Calimesa Eugene Bourbonnais / City of Canyon Lake Greg Ruppert / City of Desert Hot Springs Percy Byrd / City of Indian Wells Mike Wilson / City of Indio Frank Hall / City of Norco Dick Kelly / City of Palm Desert Will Kleindienst / City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / City of Perris Bob Buster / County of Riverside 'AlI1:10H19V ONI1NIOddV 3H1 3AVH 10N S10011 SV d(101:10 3H1 01 031NIOddV 38 Ol H3NOISS1WW00 V ON3WIN003H AVW 010H ,310N )531,10SV3W NVId AlIlV00 HIV Ol S31V138 11 SV S3f15S1 SS3NIS139 ONV 1N3WNH3A09 1V001 SSHDSIO Ol S301d30 OWOVOS 3H1 lV 'AVOW 1SHI3 'A1HINOW S1331N- df108D AHOSIAOV SS3NIS01311VWS ONVIN3WNH3A001V001 NIN931H3 NHOf df10H0 AHOSIAOV SS3NISf18 11VWS ONV 1N3WNH3A001V001 100HON/VNOHOO .S111H ONIHO 'MVO ONOWVIO "V31d9) SVRV 93NHOD H00d 3H1 ONOOHV S3f1SSI 1VN0103H90S 83H10 ONV NOIIV1HOdSNVH1 NO S3NSS1 SS(10SIO Ol 5311NN00 S3139NV SO1 ONV "0NIOHVN839 NVS "30NVH0 '301SH3AIH INOH3 33V1S ONV SIVIDIddO 0313313 d0 O3S0d1/300 SI df10H0 31-11 - dOOHD NOI1VNIOH000 A3I10d SH3N1100 HOOd A31031/3S N SH30NV1 lV 11VH NNVHd 3N011DVAV1 NHOf dO0H0 N011VNIOH000 1.0110d SH3NHOD unod "S3HSS1 OVOH 1101 5SH0S10 01 AIlVD1001H3d S1331/3 - 331111AWO3 00H OV OVOH 1101 S1839013 NOH All3N NO10 H3ISVVH NVA NOVf VoHd V3HONV 11VH NNVHd N311nW WO1 3N0119VAV1 NHof OHOdd110 X31V H31Sf19 909 331111MW0D 00H OV OVOH 1101 )S3HSSI N011V1HOdSNVHl NO IION000 1VN01031] 3H1 Ol SON3WW0031d ONV SM31A38 'S3130NV SO1 NI 'W'd E Ol NOON ZI. WOHd H11,101/3 AH3A3 30 AVOSHOHl 1981d 3H1 NO AIHINOW S1331N- 33111WW03 SNOIlVOINfIWWODF N011V11:10dSNVH1 OVOS 11V )81113d 03HD 3M01 N1901J 331 OVOS )30133HHODNOD OHV09 OWOVOS H11M ONIONN3 SOHVMV ONV (99LZ 9V) WVHOOHd AHVN01131:10S10 31-11 HSI18V1S3 B3DIdd0 OINOVDS 3H11V AlH1NOW S1113,1 - 331111A1W00 M31A3H N0110003H NOI1f1110d HIV 30HOOS 31190W 11V "1S3M NNVHd 1SN310NI31N 111M 331111/31/300 M31A3H 30Hf105 311901A1 )S313DNV SO1 NI 1-11NOW AH3A3 d0 ONINHOW AVOSHOH1 1SHI3 3H1 NO S1331A1ONV OVDS 30 AO09 DNINH3A00 - lI0Nf1001VN0103H OVOS 3M01 N1901:1 110NH00 1VN01031:1OVDS 'S311113d0Hd 01D11 ONISH S31111191SSOd 1VI083WWOD SS00SI0 Ol 3801N3A 1NIOf V SV 03d013A3O SVM Vdf 3H1 )0NI133W 13S ON '301SH3AIH 30 AlID 3H1 ONV 3101d d0 03SIHdW00 ADN30V SH3MOd 1NIOf V SI SIHl - A1I110H10V DNIONVNIA NOIIV11:10dSNVH1 301SH3AIH 3dVd NIA3N N31101/3WOl A11HOH10V ONIDNVNId N011V1H0dSNVHl 301SH3A1H "S30SSI 1DIldN00 AINOOD-H31NI ONV A1N000-I110W NO A11V103d S3 '99311V1A1 NOIIV1HOdSNVHl 913I0HV03H lIDN00D 1VN0103H 3H1 3DIAOV A31-11 •OVOS ONV SNVH11V0 "SNOISSIW W OD N011V180dSNVH1 AINHOD d0 do 30V W 'SS3DOHd 9bZ I. 9V 3H1 WOHd 03HSI19V1S3 SVM WfU1HOSNOD 3H1 .S33Idd0 OVDS 1V SISV8 AlH1NOW V NO S1331/3 - W1111HOSN00 S310N3DV dSNVH1 1VN0103F1 N311f1/3WOl WOIIHOSNOD 8310N39V dSNVHl 1VNOID3H )S1d311VW IIVH 033dS HOIH ONIOHVD311 A11V01001H3d S133W - 3080d NSV1 30H OV IIVH O33dS HD1H VAIIS SIHHO SIVNN08H1109 3N30113 SH30NV1 lV S18390H NOH 319VN3A WIf OHOddIID X31V 301:103 NSV1 DOH OV IIVH 133dS HOIH .S31301,1V SO1 NI H1NOAI HDV3 l0 AVOIHd H1Hf10d 3H1 NO A11-1IN01/3 1331/3 A3H1 ONV VHHDS d0 33111WW00 V Ol 03NDISSV 38V S31VN8311V ONV SH38013W 8V1f103H '9H311VW 1NNI10813W1 IIVH H3IHWWOD DNIOHV91M 'S3130NV SO1 NI 1H1N01/3 HOV3 3O DNINHOW AVOIHd eNZ 3H1 NO 'A1HIN01/3 S1331/3 OHV093H1- AlIHOHinvlIVHIVNOID31:1VINHOdI1V0 NH3H100S 11V 'S1H390H NO8 11V'vond V3HONV 1SN310N131N 11IM IS33111WWOO '3 011V09) A1180H1OV IIVH 1VN01038 VINd0311V3 NH3H100S S1N3W1NlOdd b' 010li 1N3NN/70 3311/WWOO /01lIf09 S33111WW00/S01:1V08 Sf101EIVA NO NOI1V1N3S3k1d3a 010E1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Todd Kurtz, Project Coordinator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, by Eminent Domain, for Construction of Safety Improvements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing, approve the necessary findings as stated below, and adopt Resolution No. 00-002, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission authorizing the Acquisition of Certain Real Property located in Riverside County, California, more particularly described as APN's 349-080-001 and 349-080- 002 by Eminent Domain for construction of safety improvements consisting of a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwald/Meadowbrook Ave and Route 74." BACKGROUND: Staff is recommending the adoption of Resolution No. 00-002, authorizing the acquisition of real property, by eminent domain, described in Exhibit "A", for a project to construct safety improvements consisting of a traffic signal, located at the intersection of Greenwald/Meadowbrook Avenue and Route 74 (the Project), in the County of Riverside. The project will be advertised and constructed by Caltrans. RCTC has agreed to acquire the necessary right-of-way for the signal project because the property required is also required for the Measure "A" highway widening project between 1-15 and 7th Street in the City of Perris. The County of Riverside Real Property Department is acting as right-of-way acquisition agent for the Commission in this acquisition. Two (2) parcels are required for the project. Right-of-way acquisition agents for the County have begun the negotiation process to acquire the required parcels. In the interest of expediting installation of the traffic signal, it may be necessary to acquire some or all of these parcels described in Exhibit "A" by eminent domain. The initiation of the eminent domain process is the adoption of a resolution of necessity. Prior to adopting a resolution of necessity, the Commission must give each person whose property is to be acquired, and whose name and address appears on the last equalized County Tax Assessor's roll, notice and a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard on: (1) whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (2) whether the proposed project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (3) whether the acquisition of the parcels of land are necessary for the project; (4) whether the required offers to acquire the parcels of land have been made. Note: The value of the property is not an issue at the hearing. The notice must be mailed by first class mail and state the intent of the Commission to consider the adoption of the resolution, the right of each person to appear and be heard on these issues, and that the failure to file a written request to appear will result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard. The Commission must then hold a hearing at which all persons who filed a written request within 15 days of the date the notice was mailed may appear and be heard. The required notice will be mailed to the property owners, identified in Exhibit "A", on December 28, 1999. DISCUSSION The following addresses the four findings that are required for adoption of the resolution of necessity: (1) THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE PROPOSED PROJECT With increased traffic volumes over the past several years, safety has become the primary concern at this intersection. A deficient safety record has been documented in reports prepared in support of this project and is addressed in the 1991 Existing Conditions Report, the 1994 Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and the 1999 Route 74 and Meadowbrook Avenue Traffic Signal/Safety Lighting Project Report prepared by Caltrans. During the period from January 1995 through June 1998 there were 20 accidents reported at this intersection. Ten of these accidents were injury accidents. Fourteen were broadside accidents. Broadside accidents are considered correctable with signalization. Furthermore, a Traffic Safety Index of 2408 was calculated in the 1999 Project Report. An index of over 200 justifies the project. A significant amount of public support for this project has been evident at RCTC commission meetings and has resulted in the acceleration of the implementation of the Route 74 widening project from 1-15 in Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in Perris. As a result of this public input, at the September 8, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission established a sub -committee of Commissioners Gene Bourbonnais, Al Landers, Tom Mullen, and Kevin Pape to expedite improvement to Route 74. The Committee met on September 17, 1999 and reviewed project status for both the Measure "A" State Route 74 improvement project and the various Caltrans SHOPP (State Highway Operations and Protection Program) projects. The meeting was also attended by members of the public that are interested in accelerating improvements to this segment of Highway 74. After consideration of the information presented, the Committee members were unanimous in their desire to recommend to the Commission that it assist Caltrans with delivering the Meadowbrook/Greenwald signal project and have the remainder of the Caltrans SHOPP projects combined with the Measure "A" improvement project within the limits of 1-15 and 7' Street on State Highway 74 with the intent of accelerating the construction of all improvements. At the October 13, 1999 RCTC meeting, the State Route 74 project was accelerated via approval of agenda item #9. (2) THE PROJECT IS PLANNED OR LOCATED IN A MANNER THAT WILL BE MOST COMPATIBLE WITH THE GREATEST PUBLIC GOOD AND THE LEAST PRIVATE INJURY The placement of the traffic signal poles and controllers was established by Caltrans to provide safety improvements for the intersection. The amount of right-of-way being acquired will serve two purposes: first, the acquired land is sufficient for the installation of the traffic signal, and second, it coincides with the right-of-way requirements for the ultimate widening project. The project has been planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. Of the two (2) parcels being acquired, the first parcel (No. 17821- 1) is vacant. The second parcel (No. 17369-1) is being used as a parking area for and adjacent store. (3) THE TWO (2) PARCELS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT Construction of the traffic signal is required to improve safety at this intersection. The property required is compatible with the ultimate Route 74 alignment and provides for the required safety improvements. Without these two (2) parcels, it would not be possible to construct the traffic signal to the required standards and to have the right of way necessary to build the ultimate project. (4) THE OFFERS OF JUST COMPENSATION HAVE BEEN MADE Government Code Section 7267.2 requires that an offer of the fair market value of the parcels to be acquired be made to the owner. Appraisals were prepared on our behalf, and offers of the fair market value were made to the individual property owners. While negotiation is still ongoing, the property owners have not accepted the offer to date. The adoption of the resolution of necessity does not preclude continuing negotiations with the property owners. Financial Assessment Project Cost Funds are currently available for the acquisition of the named parcels. Source of Funds Measure "A" (Y/N) Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable EXHIBIT "A" ROUTE 74 - GREENWALD/MEADOWBROOK SIGNAL PROJECT REQUIRED REAL PROPERTY That has not been obtained through negotiations APNS (CALTRANS PARCEL NO.) GRANTOR 1 349-080-001 (17821-1) Heirs of Devisees of Helen B. Gritton, Deceased, and Lynn R. Gritton 2 349-080-002 (17369-1) Heirs of Devisees of Helen B. Gritton, Deceased, and Lynn R. Gritton LAND THOMAS J.OATMAN Exp S 09-30-00 NO \6B]7 / /y.„. OF C tkO� ONT, 08 LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR /t — S 99 �• ,�`� i COUNTY RIV. ROUTE 74 POST HIE 20.9 f J 5 S J R � rl S J J NJ J SECTION 21 -o c O N W DATE APPROVED S 6 9 ° 2 0' 2 2 "E 8.052m N'LY LINE INSTRUMENT NO.32449 MAY 5.1958 \ / \\. t�8 0, 00, /i / / 288mJ / �o C782I- o' i v� r �� / •4. / / v / �i /`�• / 4� � i �. I • P W C. (/� _ �"� 41 ; / / r/ CI fin/ �V �' ,/ / I N78 °53,57 ,W P.O.B. <v o-1 i � MEq p0wBR ___ A. 1OZ aQ ..7 0 \"4' (2)•\.`,-' I / / •/ i, / / / / / / / I3.098 / / / / / / STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCALE I:400 LAND OIST. COUNTY ROUTE POST WlE � N263. 583p �-_ 5"' W , 1 tc; S'LY LINE a,/ I Ct � INSTRUMENT . F �- N0. 32449 0' oo F 3 / MAY 5.1958 `:' 4' 40 =fin, °' `O,oM' �v / �'. / (A, �� / / / 4r sG9\ THOMAS J.OATMAN Exp No F C AL�� 09-30-00 683J . o%Q � 0 -- o O CO co N LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR /l - s-9? DATE APPROVED J lJ S J R J SECTION 21 � MEq pO weR • 08 RIV. 74 20.9 S78 - 53'5 7., - 9.924m, E , / 17369-I F� s / < ti (le �' / "•° 8m) / J J NJ J A 2 `jeg STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY �• _O� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION W'LY LINE R.D.437/205 ,� �j SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY FEB.10.1916 A LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCALE I:400 RESOLUTION NO. 00-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DECLARING THAT THE ACQUISITION OF FEE INTERESTS IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APNS 349-080-001 & 002, BY EMINENT DOMAIN IS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTING OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF GREENWALD/MEADOWBROOK AVENUE AND STATE ROUTE 74 WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the"Commission") proposes to acquire fee interests in certain real property, located at 27205 and 27217 Highway 74, Perris, California, more particularly described as Project Parcel Nos. 17821-1 and 17369-1 (APNS 349-080-001 & 002), for purposes of the construction of safety improvements consisting of a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwald/Meadowbrook Avenue and State Route 74, pursuant to the authority granted to it by section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Commission scheduled a public hearing for Wednesday, January 12, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., at the Chancellor = s Conference Room, University Village, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California, and gave to each person whose property is to be acquired and whose name and address appeared on the last equalized county assessment roll, notice and a reasonable opportunity to appear at said hearing and be heard on the matters referred to in section 1240.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; and WHEREAS, said hearing has been held by the Commission and each person whose property is to be acquired by eminent domain was afforded an opportunity to be heard on said matters; and WHEREAS, the Commission may now adopt a Resolution of Necessity pursuant to section 1240.040 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure. There has been compliance by the Commission with the requirements of section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure regarding notice and hearing. Section 2. Public Use. The public use for which the fee interests are to be acquired is the construction of safety improvements consisting of a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwald/Meadowbrook Avenue and State Route 74, pursuant to the authority granted to it by section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code. Section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes the Commission to acquire by eminent domain property necessary for such purposes. Section 3. Description of Property. Attached and marked as Exhibit "A" are the legal descriptions and plats of the real property to be acquired by the Commission, which describe the general location and extent of the property with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. Section 4. Findings. The Commission hereby finds and determines each of the following: (a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (b) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; (c) The property described in Exhibit "A" is necessary for the proposed project; and (d) The offer required by section 7267.2 of the California Government Code was made. Section 5. Use Not Unreasonably Interfering with Existing Public Use(s). Some or all of the real property to be acquired is subject to easements and rights -of -way appropriated to existing public uses. The legal descriptions of these easements and rights -of -way are on file with the Commission and describe the general location and extent of the easements and rights -of -way with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. In the event the herein described use or uses will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, counsel for the Commission is authorized to acquire the herein described real property subject to such existing public use(s) pursuant to section 1240.510 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Section 6. More Necessary Public Use. Some or all of the real property to be acquired is subject to easements and rights -of -way appropriated to existing public uses. To the extent that the herein described use or uses will unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, the Commission finds and determines that the herein described use or uses are more necessary than said existing public use. Counsel for the Commission is authorized to acquire the herein described real property appropriated to such existing public use(s) pursuant to section 1240.610 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Staff is further authorized to make such improvements to the real property being acquired that it determines are reasonably necessary to mitigate any adverse impact upon the existing public use. Section 7. Further Activities. Counsel for the Commission is hereby authorized to acquire the hereinabove described real property in the name of and on behalf of the Commission by eminent domain, and counsel is authorized to institute and prosecute such legal proceedings as may be required in connection therewith. Legal counsel is further authorized to take such steps as may be authorized and required by law, and to make such security deposits as may be required by order of court, to permit the Commission to take possession of and use said real property at the earliest possible time. Counsel is further authorized to correct any errors or to make or agree to non -material changes in the legal description of the real property that are deemed necessary for the conduct of the condemnation action or other proceedings or transaction required to acquire the subject real property. Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. Approved and adopted this 12th day of January, 2000. By: Riverside County Transportation Commission Attest: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission EXHIBIT "A" That portion of the East half of the Northeast quarter of Section 21, Township 5 South, Range 4 West, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, according to the Official Plat thereof, lying Westerly of the Westerly line of State Highway Route 74 (formerly a County Road) being 60.00 feet (18.288 meters) wide as described in a deed to the County of Riverside recorded February 10, 1916 in Book 437, Page 205 of Deeds in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: BEGINNING on the Northerly line of Meadowbrook Avenue being 60:00 feet (18.288 meters) wide as described in a deed to the County of Riverside recorded on May 5, 1958 as Instrument No. 32449 of Official Records in the office of the County Recorder of said County and on said Westerly line of said Highway; thence North 78°53'57" West 13.098 meters along said Northerly line; thence North 59°30'29" East 8.722 meters; thence North 19°49'30" East 41.640 meters; thence South 69°20'22" East 8.052 meters to said Westerly line; thence South 20°39'38" West 46.253 meters along said line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Together with underlying fee interest if any, contiguous to the above described property in and to the adjoining public way "Meadowbrook Avenue". Coordinates and bearings are on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Distances and stationing are grid distances. Multiply distances by 1.00010238 to obtain ground distances. 08-Riv-74-20.9-17821 (17821-1) This real property description has been prepared by me. or under my direction. in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. C Signature v�74 Professional Land Surveyor. Date �� 5 99 EXHIBIT Pt PAGE..1.._.. 41 LAND c�0 \\ THOMAS J.OATMAN Exp s� 09-30-00 No 6833 ��� l\OF C M-‘ . A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR /t-5-^9? DATE APPROVED r,E5 E; R 24 VA, 3 rl JI SECTION 21 N'LY LINE INSTRUMENT NO.32449 MAY 5.1958 RIV. 74 20.9 •hte PST. cowry POST Mu 08 S69 ° 20'22"E 8.052m STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCALE 1:400 FXHIRIT A PAGE. EXHIBIT "A" That portion of the East half of the Northeast quarter of Section 21, Township 5 South, Range 4 West, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, according to the Official Plat thereof, lying Westerly of the Westerly line of State Highway Route 74 (formerly a County road) being 60.00 feet (18.288 meters) wide as described in Deed to the County of Riverside recorded on February 10, 1916 in Book 437, Page 205 of Deeds, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, and also lying Southerly of the Southerly line of Meadowbrook Avenue, being 60.00 feet (18.288 meters) wide as described in Deed to said County recorded on May 5, 1958 as Instrument No. 32449 of Official Records in the Office of said County Recorder, described as follows: BEGINNING on said Southerly line and said Westerly line; thence South 20°39'38" West 23.645 meters along said Westerly line; thence North 69°20'22" West 7.517 meters; thence North 22°03'14" East 19.500 meters; thence North 26°58'05" West 3.713 meters to said Southerly line; thence South 78°53'57" East 9.924 meters along said Southerly line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Together with underlying fee interest if any, contiguous to the above described property in and to the adjoining public way "Meadowbrook Avenue". Coordinates and bearings are on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Distances and stationing are grid distances. Multiply distances by 1.00010238 to obtain ground distances. 08-Riv-74-20.8-17369 (17369-1) This real property description has been prepared by me. or under my direction. in conformance with the Professional land Surveyors Act. Signature Date Professional Land Surveyor EXHIBIT.. PAGE.. NOTICE OF HEARING TO PROPERTY OWNERS Pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, you are hereby notified that at a regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, January 12, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., at the Chancellor's Conference Room, University Village, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California, the Commission of the Riverside County Transportation Commission intends to consider adopting a Resolution of Necessity authorizing the commencement of an eminent domain proceeding for the acquisition of fee interests in certain real property for public use which, according to the last equalized county assessment roll, is owned by you. The public use for which this interest is to be acquired is the construction of safety improvements consisting of a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwald/Meadowbrook Avenue and State Route 74. The description of the property to be acquired is attached as Exhibit "A" to this notice. A hearing will be held at the time and place mentioned above. You have the right to appear and be heard on the following matters: 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the project for which your property is sought to be acquired. 2. Whether the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. 3. Whether your property is necessary for the proposed project. 4. Whether the offer required by Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code has been made. RVLIT\KAR\545543 Your failure to file a written request to appear and be heard within 15 days after the mailing of this notice will result in the waiver of your right to appear and be heard. ALL COMMUNICATIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 DATE OF HEARING: PLACE OF HEARING: DATED: December 22, 1999. RVLIT\KAR\545543 Wednesday, January 12, 2000 9:00 a.m. Chancellor's Conference Room, University Village 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207 Riverside, California BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP By: (6tftee, l�� /1'44 v Kendall H. MacVey / Attorneys for Riverside County Transportation Commission PROOF OF MAILING NOTICE I, Kimberly A. Reed, acting on behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereby certify that on December 22, 1999, I mailed a copy of the attached notice by first-class mail to the following owners of real property located at 27205 and 27217 Highway 74, Perris, California, more particularly described as Project Parcel Nos. 17821-1 and 17369-1 (Assessor Parcel Nos. 349-080-001 & 002): The Estate of Helen B. Gritton Ruth V. Gritton Lynn R. Gritton c/o Preston Gritton 27245 Highway 74 Perris, CA 92570 Dated: December 23, 1999. RVLITIKAR1545543 EXHIBIT "A" That portion of the East half of the Northeast quarter of Section 21, Township 5 South, Range 4 West, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, according to the Official Plat thereof, lying Westerly of the Westerly line of State Highway Route 74 (formerly a County Road) being 60.00 feet (18.288 meters) wide as described in a deed to the County of Riverside recorded February 10, 1916 in Book 437, Page 205 of Deeds in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: BEGINNING on the Northerly line of Meadowbrook Avenue being 60:00 feet (18.288 meters) wide as described in a deed to the County of Riverside recorded on May 5, 1958 as Instrument No. 32449 of Official Records in the office of the County Recorder of said County and on said Westerly line of said Highway; thence North 78°53'57" West 13.098 meters along said Northerly line; thence North 59°30'29" East 8.722 meters; thence North 19°49'30" East 41.640 meters; thence South 69°20'22" East 8.052 meters to said Westerly line; thence South 20°39'38" West 46.253 meters along said line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Together with underlying fee interest if any, contiguous to the above described property in and to the adjoining public way "Meadowbrook Avenue". Coordinates and bearings are on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Distances and stationing are grid distances. Multiply distances by 1.00010238 to obtain ground distances. 08-Riv-74-20.9-17821 (17821-1) This real property description has been prepared by me. or under my direction. in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Signature Professional fond surveyor. Date /! - 5-- 99 PAGE...L.... / LAND 1, s&9 G� THOMAS J.OATMAN Exp 09-30-00 No 6833 l� F Cm-`c11- -r aco N'LY LINE INSTRUMENT NO.32449 MAY 5,1958 � %,6, --'---- BR�OK-- 5 R 4 W n rl S,�,JI, SECTION 21 OST. COUNTY POST NLE 08 RIV. 74 20.9 4:93"7r LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR\) //-'5"- 99 1...' �� i DATE APPROVED S69. 20/22"E 8.052m � �O / , ,\ / 60.00- / ri8.288m J (0 rn 7821- °' `. 4. P CDC 4.y. ^� / P O Al '��• / n� / �ao Q /..:i � M J� � / ` �i `�, ' � .v �' / J�' �� tJ / �j Z�' t / I .' / / / / t / 13.(1n., / N18.53,5?„W ' / STATE OF CAUFORNIA BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCALE 1:400 FYHIRIT A PAGE. EXHIBIT "A" That portion of the East half of the Northeast quarter of Section 21, Township 5 South, Range 4 West, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, according to the Official Plat thereof, lying Westerly of the Westerly line of State Highway Route 74 (formerly a County road) being 60.00 feet (18.288 meters) wide as described in Deed to the County of Riverside recorded on February 10, 1916 in Book 437, Page 205 of Deeds, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, and also lying Southerly of the Southerly line of Meadowbrook Avenue, being 60.00 feet (18.288 meters) wide as described in Deed to said County recorded on May 5, 1958 as Instrument No. 32449 of Official Records in the Office of said County Recorder, described as follows: BEGINNING on said Southerly line and said Westerly line; thence South 20°39'38" West 23.645 meters along said Westerly line; thence North 69°20'22" West 7.517 meters; thence North 22°03'14" East 19.500 meters; thence North 26°58'05" West 3.713 meters to said Southerly line; thence South 78°53'57" East 9.924 meters along said Southerly line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Together with underlying fee interest if any, contiguous to the above described property in and to the adjoining public way "Meadowbrook Avenue". Coordinates and bearings are on the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Distances and stationing are grid distances. Multiply distances by 1.00010238 to obtain ground distances. 08-Riv-74-20.8-17369 (17369-1) This real property description has been prepored by me. or under my direction. in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Signature Professional Land Surveyor Date EXHIBIT A PAGE.._ LAND �c`O SG9G\ THOMAS J.OATMAN Exp 09-30-00 6833 /1 — ss-9? No T\ � GATE APPROVED �F C 0 -o o Q'MEA-- -- DOwBR00K A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR TJ lJ J 'trio Oat. COUNTY ROUTE POST MILE 08 RIV. 74 20.9 f� J '1 W J s J J J NJ J SECTION 21 S'LY UNE �" INSTRUMENT � DF r�' / N0.32449 o oeo MAY 5.1958 nn, 2 �• M G/ S 78 ° S3, 24m, P•O 9 g 57 E / 17369- W'LY UNE R.D. 437/205 FEB.10.1916 . / ,' / F "v 6 / rib 28 0' l ° , 8m) / STATE OF CALIFORNIA �� BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY � � DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION `,' J • �� �',.. SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY Yj �o A LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCALE I:400 LAND c�0 THOMAS J.OATMAN Exp 09-J0-00 No 68i3 DATE APPROVED OF C %0 LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR TJ J O6T, COUNTY POST MILE 08 RIV. 74 20.9 R J /1 'I�J J J J NJ J SECTION 21 / / Qki / o e o / co _- _ ME / to oci ——__A�OWBR09 / / / 3.713 ' '"•�• o' / N26 ° 58,451w - .Ig i / S'LY LINE INSTRUMENT ,, PcF 1-...° / A. NO.32449 ,o o F q, / MAY 5.1958 =� / �' • C� / ti / I , � / I , / ,' / Q7369 - I ;,\ �� 6°' °o' l ``' � 8.288 "•° 0,� / c \ STATE OF CALIFORNIA _ �� BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY / �° N. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION S78 °53 .5 7„ 9.92q� E RD. 437/205 UNE ,�' SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY FEB.10.1916 to A LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCALE I:400 EXHIBITS PAGE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: CETAP - Working Paper #3 "Evaluation of Corridors" and "Recommendations on Corridors to Move Forward to CETAP Phase II" PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file Working Paper #3 and approve the recommendations from the CETAP Advisory Committee on the corridors to move forward to CETAP Phase II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Working papers #1 "Overview of Candidate Corridors" and #2 "Draft Corridor Evaluation Criteria were presented to the Plans and Programs Committee at the September 27, 1999 meeting. Subsequently, the CETAP consultant has produced Working Paper #3 "Evaluation of Corridors" which is attached as a separate document in your agenda package. Working Paper #3 was presented to the CETAP Advisory Committee at their November 8, 1999 meeting. At that time, the CETAP Advisory Committee was also provided an assignment to review the working paper and provide their respective assessment of corridor priorities to staff and the consultant. At their meeting on December 7, 1999, the CETAP Advisory Committee reviewed the evaluation of the 13 candidate corridors and provided their recommendations on which corridors are of the highest priority (5), of medium priority (4) and low priority (4). The initial draft priorities were included in "Recommendations on Corridors to Move Forward to CETAP Phase II -DRAFT", which was reviewed by the Plans and Programs Committee on December 20, 1999. At their meeting on January 4, 2000, the CETAP Advisory Committee reviewed the Plans and Programs Committee and CETAP Task Force comments and suggested corridor refinements which have resulted in the following 4 corridors being recommended for further refinement in Phase II: Riverside County to Orange County, Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County, Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore, and Banning/Beaumont to Temecula. Please note that the CETAP effort is currently not fully funded. While it is our intent to bring 2 of the corridors recommended for Phase II work to Tier I El status, this will be dependent on obtaining additional funding commitments. Of the $5.5 million budget for CETAP, there remains an approximate $2.4 million shortfall in funding. We continue to make headway in obtaining additional funds, but funding will have a direct impact on what can be accomplished. MEMORANDUM TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission and Riverside County Board of Supervisors FROM: CETAP Advisory Committee SUBJECT: Recommendations on corridors to move forward to Phase II of the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) DATE: January 4, 2000 This memorandum represents a set of recommendations from the CETAP Advisory Committee for the set of transportation corridors to carry forward for further analysis in Phase II of CETAP. In addition, recommended actions also are identified for corridors that are not suggested for further analysis in Phase II. The recommendations are based on: 1) the various analyses that have been conducted in CETAP so far, as reflected in Working Paper No. 3, Evaluation of Corridors, and several memoranda previously distributed to the committee, 2) input received from CETAP Advisory Committee members on their Corridor Priorities forms, and 3) the existence of other planning and analysis activities currently being conducted or that have been conducted in the recent past. These recommendations may be modified based on discussions with the CETAP Advisory Committee. The failure of a corridor to be recommended for further analysis does not mean that the corridor is unimportant. There are important transportation issues in all the corridors. However, the urgency of engaging in corridor development activities varies. In some cases, there are alternate avenues for pursuing improvements in some of these corridors. In addition, further analysis within most of the corridors will take place as part of the development of the General Plan Circulation Element, but at a less detailed level. Analysis will also take place at the system level, including location of potential transit station areas and supportive land use strategies along the transit spine network. THE OVERALL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY The CETAP process is intended to think not only in terms of improvements to individual corridors, but in terms of how the transportation system operates together to support the County's vision. The following elements of an overall transportation strategy are recommended, based on the analysis to date and input from the community: • Place significant investment in attracting jobs to Riverside County — This is a win -win scenario for virtually every aspect of the vision, including transportation. • Recognize that even with a significant shift in jobs to Riverside County, a reshaping of development patterns within the County, or a substantial investment in transit, keeping highway traffic moving will be a daunting challenge. Maintaining mobility on the County's highway system and on linkages to other counties is critical to the County's economy and to making the County an enjoyable place to live. This will require a serious effort of improving and expanding freeway systems and providing a supporting arterial system that provides access for shorter trips, and preserves mobility on the freeways for longer trips. • Provide a transit "spine network" that can develop and grow with the County. If higher capacity transit options are not currently viable in certain corridors, at least retain the flexibility to incorporate these types of transit options into strategic corridors at a later date. The corridors that may be considered for this transit "spine network- include: existing Metrolink lines from Riverside to Orange County, Metrolink extension on the San Jacinto 1 Branch line to Moreno Valley, Perris, and Hemet/San Jacinto, connections to the San .lacinto Branch line along the SR-79 corridor and/or I-215 corridor to Temecula, a transit corridor along 1-15 between Temecula and Ontario, and a corridor from Banning/Beaumont and the Coachella Valley to Riverside. The form of transit (express bus, commuter rail, light rail, etc.) would be determined at the time when such service becomes viable and could involve a phasing in over time to higher grade service. • Work with Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties to improve feeder services at their end of the Metrolink lines, to allow for greater opportunity for County residents to use Metrolink. • As much as the market permits, provide for cluster development along transit corridors and in nodes of development that can be served by transit. Provide incentives to the development community that promote more compact development along corridors and in potential station areas (both Metrolink and other future transit station areas) that are along the "spine network." • Continue to reinforce transportation options that promote efficient use of the system: carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, and advanced transportation technologies. • Preserve and expand opportunities for a network of bikeways, pathways, and equestrian trails as the transportation system is developed. • Design corridors to reinforce the character of the communities through which they pass. • Where transportation facilities must traverse wildlife areas, provide for effective treatment of wildlife crossings. Provide a set of standards that can be used county -wide, developed with full involvement of stakeholders. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL CORRIDORS This section suggests initial recommendations for each individual corridor. It indicates the recommendation of whether to carry the corridor forward into Phase II, and other recommendations for subsequent action. A recommendation to carry a corridor forward into Phase II does not imply support for any particular transportation alternative. Multi -modal alternatives will be further developed and analyzed in Phase II, with full opportunity for input from stakeholders on transportation, environmental and community issues. These recommendations do not represent a commitment of funding for any individual project or set of projects. A funding plan will need to be developed for any particular improvements recommended. RCTC will serve as lead agency for all the corridor efforts, unless otherwise specified. The County will continue to serve as lead agency for development of the County Circulation Element. The corridor recommendations are provided below, arranged in general categories, not as a specific ranking of corridors. All of the recommendations for Phase 11 study may not be fundable with known CETAP resources. Specific activities that can be funded will need to be determined following specific detailing of scope and conversations with officials in adjacent counties as recommended for the corridors to Orange County and San Bernardino. Corridors To Be Considered for Full Study In CETAP Phase II (subject to available resources) Riverside County to Orange County • Recommend for corridor development in CETAP Phase II, with following proviso: Initiate two months of multi -level meetings with Orange County officials, Forest Service, development community, and environmental/resource agencies/groups to formulate a study strategy. Report to be generated at end of February 2000 that will make final recommendation on corridor development strategy and could be used for scoping meetings in both Riverside and Orange Counties. All multimodal transportation options for improving travel between the counties will be considered, including both improvement of existing transportation facilities and development of new corridors. • In parallel, wort: with Orange County to improve transit connections to Metrolink. • Formulate land use policy for development around Metrolink stations in Riverside County Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County • Initiate a two -month joint effort with San Bernardino County to develop a study strategy to improve north -south mobility between Moreno Valley and San Bernardino. This could involve pursuing the development of transportation improvements such as the arterial improvements considered in the 1995 study conducted in this corridor by San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. It could also consider further improvements to SR-60/1-215 in the Box Springs area and on 1-215 north from SR-60. The decision of whether to pursue corridor development in CETAP Phase II or under separate effort from CETAP will be made as a part of the two -month effort to develop the study strategy. Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore • Recommend for corridor development in CETAP Phase II, coordinated with Orange County corridor. Scope would include potential reservation of right-of-way for highway corridor improvements as well as potential transit connections from Hemet/San Jacinto. including location of transit stations and land use policies around transit stations. Banning/Beaumont to Temecula • Recommend for corridor development in CETAP Phase II, addressing future SR-79 alignment and cross-section and transit station development from the San Jacinto Branch line south to Temecula. Emphasize the accommodation of regional traffic flows through the Temecula/Murietta area, with the possibility of a bypass around the area connecting to 1-15 south to San Diego. Also emphasize east -west connections between SR-79, 1-215 and 1-15. Closely coordinate with SR-79 realignment study being conducted from south of SR-74 to Lambs Canyon. Corridors To Be Considered for More Limited, Targeted Study Moreno Valley/Riverside to Corona • Develop plan to preserve/improve arterial mobility between I-215 and SR-91. Should include Van Buren, Cajalco/Mockingbird Canyon, and Alessandro. The section of Van Buren from SR- 91 to SR-60 will also be considered. Plan to be completed by June, 2000 as part of CETAP process. Plan could include: policies to limit driveway access, locations for intersection improvements, limitations on new traffic signals, identification of future interchange locations, identification of ultimate roadway cross -sections, and improvements to transit service. • Promote ongoing Caltrans and RCTC efforts to widen SR-60/I-215, SR-9l through the City of Riverside, and 1-215 north of SR-91. • Set a target timeframe for extension of Metrolink to March ARB. Temecula to Corona/Ontario • Recommend six-month effort as part of CETAP to define future/ultimate cross-section of 1-15 and future interchange needs, coupled with freeway agreements with cities and the County to promote effective land use planning and prevent encroachment on right-of-way. Include transit opportunities as a consideration in defining the cross-section. 3 Temecula to Riverside • Recommend six-month effort as part of CETAP to define future/ultimate cross-section of 1-215 and future interchange needs, coupled with freeway agreements with cities and the County to promote effective land use planning and prevent encroachment on right-of-way. Include transit opportunities as a consideration. Other Corridor Recommendations Riverside to Los Angeles County • Support Four Corners recommendations, but with the additional recommendation to improve connections to Orange County. Recommend that RCTC send a letter to Four Corners steering committee to this effect. • Work with Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties to improve transit connections to Metrolink. RCTC to take lead. • Formulate land use policy for development around Metrolink stations in Riverside County. Riverside to Fontana • CETAP Advisory Committee to provide input to the North -South Corridor Study being initiated in that area. No additional study warranted under CETAP. Hemet to Riverside • Addressed in Moreno Valley/Riverside to Corona recommendations. • Identify specific station locations so that land use planning can be conducted with expectation of future rail service in corridor. Temecula to San Diego • Work with San Diego County officials to initiate express bus service, similar to Coachella Valley initiative. RTA to take lead. Banning/Beaumont to Riverside • Promote and monitor improvements to 1-10 in San Bernardino County. • Support improvements to local arterial system in Banning/Beaumont that will preserve mobility on 1-10, SR-60 and SR-79. • Support safety improvements on SR-60 through the Badlands. Coachella Valley to Banning/Beaumont • Support express bus service being initiated by SunLine. • Support development of inter -city rail from the Coachella Valley to Riverside/San Bernardino and Los Angeles • Support investigation of a route to allow trucks to bypass the Coachella Valley • Recommend improvements to local arterial system that will preserve mobility- on 1-10, SR-60 and SR-79. 4 0 C m Ae!IBA ouaaoW aJOU!SO a)1e1 n 0 0 m 2 r 2 2 2 2 2 2 r 2 2 2 r r r 2 r 2 r r r r r 0 C m a 2 E N 0 CO N N v w Cn N cn CO V rn .n CO rn CO A Q) 0 N CO 0 w 0 rn A fT w N V N siagwayy aawwwoo Riverside to L.A. Riverside County to Orange County Riverside to Fontana M. Valley to RiversidelCorona M. Valley to San Bernardino Co. Hemet to Corona, Lake Elsinore Hemet to Riverside Temecula to Corona/Ontario Temecula to Riverside Temecula to San Diego Banning/Beaumont to Riverside Banning/Beaumont to Temecula Coachella Valley to Banning/Beau. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure "A" Strategic Plan Background Assumptions Information and STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Support full funding for the widening of State Route 91 between Mary and Seventh Streets that is consistent with previously approved formulas for countywide highway projects and does not exceed a total of cost of $170.7 million (current dollars). 2. Reaffirm previously approved Commission actions allocating funding for Western County highway projects while protecting and maintaining the formula share of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Dollars (currently estimated at $58 million) for countywide discretionary needs. 3. Receive and file the Draft Supplemental Project Study Report on the widening of State Route 91 between Mary and Seventh Streets in the City of Riverside. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The purpose of this staff report is to provide a comprehensive review of the Measure "A" Strategic Plan and to provide the information necessary for basing decisions on the allocation of future STIP revenues. Direction for bringing this item back to the Commission was approved during the November meeting held in Indio when a recommendation was first made to allocate $58 million in STIP discretionary funds for the widening of the 91 between Mary and Seventh Streets. Although the staff recommendation had been approved by the Plans and Programs Committee of the Commission, the recommendation was rejected by the Commission as a whole. The vote against the recommendation was then followed by a motion by Commissioners Robin Lowe and Tom Mullen to bring back the overall funding issue to the Commission in January. During the Commission meeting in November, Commissioners expressed widely divergent views on the funding recommendation. Some, strongly supported the recommendation while others sharply dissented. Regardless of position, it became clear that more information would be needed to address the issue properly and it would be advisable to forward a number of alternative funding strategies to fund the 91 project while protection a portion or all of the discretionary STIP funds for other possible uses. The widening of State Route 91 is one of the cornerstone projects specified in the Measure "A" ordinance approved by voters in 1988. Before examining the highway projects, it is instructive to consider the overall history of Measure "A". In doing so, special care should be taken to consider the role of the STIP in carrying out the will of the voters who approved Measure "A" in 1988. STIP revenues and Measure "A" dollars are intended to work together to implement the highway portion of the Measure "A" program. In fact, Measure "A" has enabled the RCTC to obtain more dollars in state and federal funding and has enabled the Commission to leverage its dollars for greater effect and benefits for Riverside County residents and commuters. Given that backdrop, that means that any consideration of the allocation of STIP highway dollars has an effect on the implementation of the Measure "A" program. The issue of funding the widening of Route 91 between Mary and Seventh Streets has been particularly vexing for RCTC for a number of years. When first considered by Caltrans a number of years ago, the preliminary engineering report identified a cost of approximately $231 million. The scoping of the project was so extensive that right of way needs would have eliminated a significant number of businesses and homes and would have destroyed much of Downtown Riverside's distinctive landscaping and character. Not surprisingly, the City of Riverside opposed the project and the prohibitive cost made funding consideration impossible until only a few months ago. PREVIOUS SHORTFALL ELIMINATED The good news is that Caltrans District 8 has now revised the cost estimate for the Route 91 project. A revised Supplemental Project Study Report (SPSR) is currently in draft form that indicates that more than $100 million can be saved by designing a project that is much less invasive in scope. A copy of the report is attached. The changes reduce the need for right of way and will have less of an impact on businesses and homes in Downtown Riverside. More importantly, the reduction in scope means that the project can be funded through Measure "A" and STIP revenues that have already been dedicated to Western Riverside County freeway projects. The previous shortfall that had been discussed at the Commission meeting in Indio indicated a shortfall of approximately $58 million. This shortfall has now been erased. It also means the Commission can issue a call for projects over the next several years for the $58 million in discretionary funds that had been previously recommended for this project. In considering this good news, it is still helpful to revisit recent Measure "A" accomplishments and to discuss future policy directions in implementing the Commission's Strategic Plan. Since there continues to be extensive consideration of legislation to enable the extension of local option, transportation sales taxes, it is advisable to take stock of what has already been accomplished by Measure "A" and what can be considered through an extension. ENABLING LEGISLATION Measure "A", the 1 /2 cent, voter -approved, transportation sales tax was developed by the Riverside County Transportation Commission under the authority of AB 1637 (Eaves, 1987) and approved by 78.9% of the voters in 1988. A copy of AB 1637 is attached and labeled as Attachment A (the portions relevant to Riverside County are pages 1, 10-1 8). AB 1 637 required the Commission to prepare an Ordinance which identified the tax to be imposed and an Expenditure Plan which identified the purposes for which the tax revenues would be used. The Expenditure Plan was required to, at a minimum, include the following provisions: (1) The proportional distribution of revenues among various purposes; (2) The specific projects to be funded under the state highway and freeway portion; and (3) the formula for distribution of city and county portions, which may be amended by voter approval. Once approved by the voters, the Expenditure Plan could only be amended through a specific process. To date, the Expenditure Plan has not been amended. A copy of the sample ballot and expenditure plan has been included and labeled as Attachment B. MEASURE "A" ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN A copy of the Measure "A" Ordinance No. 88-1 and Expenditure Plan approved by the voters in 1988 is attached. The Expenditure Plan clearly contains the following: 1. A return to source provision that requires revenues generated to be returned to three specific areas of the county: the Western County Area; the Coachella Valley Area; and the Palo Verde Valley Area. This provision was intended to provide equity in the distribution of funds generated by Measure A. 2. An Expenditure Plan for each of the three areas which identify the purposes for which the funds will be used and the specific state highway and freeway projects to be funded. Three distinct plans were developed to meet the unique needs of each of the areas. 3. A reasonable balance between the competing highway, commuter rail, transit, and local street and road needs . The Expenditure Plan, as required by AB 1637, contained a listing of projects and a map to identify the specific state highway and freeway projects which would be funded. In addition, it contained; a listing and map which identifying the specific commuter rail improvements to be funded in the Western County Area; the four highest priority Regional Arterial projects in the Coachella Valley Area; and a requirement for a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program in the Coachella Valley Area. The identification of the highest priority arterials and TUMF requirements were viewed as critical components of the plan by CVAG to gain voter approval of Measure "A" by the voters in that area. SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION Specialized transportation services programs were identified to receive 5% of the revenues generated in the Western County and 5-10% of the revenues generated in the Coachella Valley Area. In the Western County Area, these funds have been used for discounted fares and additional transit services for seniors and persons with disabilities, and commuter services including ridesharing through buspools, carpools, and vanpools. In the Coachella Valley, these funds have been used by SunLine Transit Agency to provide additional transit for seniors and persons with disabilities, bus purchases, and expand transit service. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRESS Each of the three area plans called for a percentage of funds to be allocated to the cities and the County for local street and road purposes. A table showing the amount of funding allocated to each city and the county over the past ten years from FY 1990 through FY 1999 is attached and labeled as Attachment C. In the Western County Area, 40% of all Measure "A" revenues generated are designated to be returned to the cities and the county through a formula based 75% on population and 25% on revenues generated. From FY 1990 through FY1999, a total of $145.9 million has been allocated to the cities and the county. In the Coachella Valley Area, 35 - 40% is designated to be returned to the cities and the county through a formula based 50% on dwelling units and 50% on revenue generated. Local agencies which do not participate in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program are not eligible for these revenues and their allocations are made to CVAG for use in the regional arterial program. In the ten years from FY 1990 through FY 1999, 35% of the Measure "A" revenues, or $42.4 million, has been allocated to the cities, the county, and CVAG. In the Palo Verde Valley Area, 100% of the Measure "A" revenues are designated to be returned to the city of Blythe and the County of Riverside through a formula based 75% on population and 25% on revenues generated. Over the past ten years from FY 1990 through FY 1999, $7.2 million has been allocated to the city and county. REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM The Coachella Valley Area Expenditure Plan included funding for the State Highway and Regional Arterial Program. Of the total revenues generated, 55% were identified for this purpose based on an estimated 15% for specific highway projects and 40% for regional arterial projects. The plan noted that: 1) the total regional arterial program cost estimate was in excess of $200 million (1988 dollars); 2) a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee would be placed on new development and used for the regional arterial plan; and, 3) the regional arterial program would be implemented through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. The Expenditure Plan and map identified the four highest priority regional arterials which would be funded. Those projects are: the Mid Valley Parkway from Gene Autry to I-10 at Monterey Avenue; Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail from the Mid Valley Parkway to Desert Hot Springs; Fred Waring Drive from Route 111 to Indio Boulevard; and Jefferson Street from Avenue 54 to Indio Boulevard. CVAG has provided information to the Commission which states that all of the four highest priority regional arterial projects identified in the Expenditure Plan submitted to the voters will be completed or under construction by 2002. CVAG has also provided a significant list of additional regional arterial projects which have been constructed. The list provided by CVAG is attached as Attachment D and includes interchanges, bridges, major widening, and minor improvements funded by a combination of Measure "A", TUMF, and local funds. COMMUTER RAIL The Western County Expenditure Plan identified a commuter rail program to provide service to from Riverside and San Bernardino to Orange and Los Angeles Counties, and potential expansion to Moreno Valley, Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto using existing rail lines along Route 91, 1-10 and 1-215. Through the formation of Metrolink with the Counties of Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Ventura, commuter rail services have been implemented from Riverside, Corona, and the unincorporated area of Pedley to San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties using rail lines owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and by Union Pacific Southern Pacific (UPSP). Commuter rail stations have been constructed in Downtown Riverside, at La Sierra Avenue in Riverside, in West Corona, and in Pedley. Two additional stations are planned at Van Buren Boulevard in Riverside and in Downtown Corona. The rail program has been funded to date by Measure "A", State Rail Bond, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Federal formula funding now becoming available from the Federal Transit Administration will be added to these sources for future capital improvements including the new Van Buren and Corona stations. Based on a decision by the Commission to provide a proportional share of the Western County Area Highway and Rail Measure "A" revenues to the commuter rail program, it is estimated that $67.4 million will be available through 2009 for additional capital improvements and as match funds for state and federal revenues. The RCTC owns the San Jacinto Branch Line as a result of the original deal between Metrolink with the BNSF to start services from Riverside to San Bernardino, Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Decisions will need to be made by the Commission on A. How much of the Branch Line is likely to be used for the expansion of commuter rail service in the foreseeable future? B. What source of funding will be used to provide the long term operating subsidy which will be required? C. Should Measure "A" funds be reserved for rail stations and improvements in the Pass Area if commuter or intercity rail service is extended to the Coachella Valley? STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS The Measure "A" Expenditure Plan, as required by AB 1637, identified specific highway projects to be funded. The Expenditure Plan also stated that the RCTC fully expected to continue receive its fair share of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) revenues. At the time Measure "A" was passed, STIP funds could only be used for highway improvements and were allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) based on county minimums and funding of the highest priority projects. Prior to Measure "A", the Commission, at the request of CVAG ,had made the construction of Route 86 on a new alignment its co -top priority project along with the improvement of 1-215 to freeway standards through Moreno Valley to Perris for seeking STIP funds. The Commission maintained that commitment and Route 86 became its top priority project after 1-215 was fully funded and when Measure "A" was approved. In the 1996 STIP proposal when funding was reduced and projects had to be eliminated, the Commission deleted a needed Route 60 project through Moreno Valley and maintained full funding on Route 86. The decision on which projects would be funded through STIP funds remained with the CTC until the passage of SB 45 (Kopp, 1997) which placed that authority with the individual County Transportation Commissions and expanded the types of eligible projects eligible for funding to include transit, local arterials and other capital improvements beginning in 1998. Tables are attached (Attachments E and F) which show the STIP and Measure "A" revenues expected to be available for the period 2000 to 2009 to be programmed for projects proposed years and funding sources recommended by staff to complete those projects. STIP funds are estimated to be $60 million per STIP cycle in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. Of the $60 million per cycle, $14.52 million is identified as Discretionary funding and $45.48 million as formula funding to be programmed in the Western County, the Coachella Valley, and the Palo Verde Valley areas per the formula previously approved by the Commission in March 1988. Among the specific freeway projects called out in the expenditure plan, the Route 91 improvement to add a second lane from Magnolia Avenue to Route 71 identified in Measure "A" has not been entirely completed partly because of revenue estimates, but also due to factors beyond the control of the RCTC. The franchise agreement between the State and CPTC, the toll road owners, has restricted the ability of the RCTC to add additional capacity to Route 91 from 1-15 to the Orange County Line. The 1-215 for widening from the 60/91 /1-215 Interchange to the San Bernardino County Line has also not been funded partly due to current revenue estimates, but also due to factors beyond the control of the RCTC. The present scope for the improvements on this segment of 1-215 preferred by the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans would have a cost which could not be funded with projected revenues, and without a funding commitment for continuing the improvements from the San Bernardino County Line to 1-10 the project, cannot proceed. During the November Commission meeting, there was considerable opposition to funding the Route 91 widening project between Mary and Seventh Streets through the use of discretionary funds. Concerns and opposition were raised by a number of Commissioners who feared that far too much of the discretionary funds would be earmarked for a single highway project and who wished to maintain the funding formula agreed by the Commission in March 1998. Now that the shortfall has been erased through a more reasonable scope for the project, there is no need to allocate additional discretionary STIP dollars for this project. Instead, the STIP formula funds that had been allocated for Western County highway projects will be sufficient to fund the project and complete this major component of the Measure "A" program. Caltrans should be commended for developing a more realistic and supportable scope for the project. The support for the project is evident in a letter attached from the City of Riverside that is supportive of the new project along with a direction to consider additional improvements at the Arlington Avenue interchange. Those options will be identified along with Caltrans, but are unlikely to exceed the overall $170.7 million budget for the project. During the February Commission meeting, staff will present a finalized Supplemental Project Study Report as well as a full update to the Strategic Plan. FUTURE ACTIONS AND NEXT STEPS Since, $58 million in STIP discretionary funds will remain available, it will require the Commission to consider other options or a call for projects in the near future to allocate these dollars. What should be remembered is that these dollars will actually become available for programming in STIP cycles corresponding with years 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. Since those revenues are to become available over the course of eight years, staff recommends a call for projects will be issued consistent with the STIP development schedule. In the meantime, staff recommends moving forward with Caltrans to implement additional engineering and design for the Route 91 project. SUPPLE V LOCATION MAP ENTAL PROJECT STUDY REPORT rd. DRAFT DECEMBER 1999 08-RIV-9I-K.P.28/33 .fare ; ,. r SAN BERNARDIN CO NTY C di) , t 'MOT' , NOT TO SCALE ON STATE ROUTE 91 FROM MARY STREET TO UNIVERSITY AVENUE IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 08-RIV-9I-KP 28.0/33.0 CONSTRUCT 2-HOV LANES AND MODIFY INTERCHANGES EA # 08-804-44840K HB5 Program December 1999 1. INTRODUCTION This Supplemental Project Study Report (SPSR) outlines revisions to original scope of work for improvements to State Route 91 (SR-91) outlined in the approved Project Study Reports for projects EA 46160K and EA 466900. The PSR for EA 46160K was approved on February 2, 1994, and outlined three alternatives for the widening of SR-91 from Temescal Wash (PM 6.6) west of I-15 to Cridge St. (PM 19.63) in downtown Riverside. The alternatives ranged from adding two to four additional lanes with a wide range of standard and reduced sections, and several interchange geometric configurations. The total project cost ranged from about $195 million to $270 million. The PSR for EA 466900 was approved on October 22, 1993, and outlined similar mainline and interchange improvements on SR-91 between Cridge St. (PM 19.63) and the 60/91/215 IC (PM 21.6), at an estimated construction cost of $55 million. Revisions to the original scope of work, consist primarily of limiting or eliminating high cost alternatives, that would have required the acquisition of substantial additional right of way, and would have resulted in significant adverse impacts on the business and residential developments along the freeway corridor. The revised project scope and range of alternatives addressed in this report will be limited to the addition of a single HOV lane in each direction between the end of the existing HOV lanes at Mary Street (KP 28.0) and University Ave. (KP 33.0) in downtown Riverside. See Exhibit 1 for Location Map. The primary objectives of this project are to increase freeway capacity and relieve congestion, and to provide for the continuity of the HOV network while minimizing adverse impacts to the community. Outside widening, bridge replacements, reconfiguration of existing interchanges, and the use of extensive retaining walls will be required to accomplish the above objectives. The estimated cost of the proposed mainline and interchange improvements has been estimated between $113 million for the Reduced Standard HOV Alternative and $261 million for the Standard HOV Alternative. Funding for this project is expected from the Regional Improvement Program in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) under the HOV Operational Improvement (HB5) Program. Federal funding is anticipated. 2.BACKGROUND SR-91 begins in Los Angeles County at the junction with State Route 1 and continues easterly through Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties, where it ends at the 60/91/215 Interchange (West Junction) in the City of Riverside. SR-91 was constructed in 1952 as a four -lane divided facility. In 1972 one (1) additional lane was added in each direction within the median, providing a six 6-lane facility. Subsequent to that, HOV lanes have been added to the facility. The last link between Magnolia Ave. (PM 11.1) and Mary Street (PM 17.4) was recently completed and became operational in October of 1996. A project (EA 42210K) to pave the median, construct a concrete median barrier, and rehabilitate the existing pavement between Mary Street and the West Junction, is expected to be under construction during fiscal year 2000/2001. The improvements in the above project have been coordinated with the proposed mainline and interchange improvements under this project. In addition, the Project Report and Environmental Document for project EA 466900 are in the late stages of development for improvements to Interstate 215 (I-215) and State Routes 60 and 91 in the vicinity of the 60/91/215 Interchange. The proposed improvements on SR-91 in the above referenced project have been grouped under EA 462710. The proposed improvements include the widening and realignment of SR-91 to accommodate the reconstruction of several of the existing freeway to freeway connectors, and to provide for future HOV lanes between University Ave. and the West Junction. This project is expected to be under construction during fiscal year 2001/2002. The ultimate corridor for this segment of SR-91 consists of a 10-lane facility (8 MF + 2 HOV lanes) as indicated in the approved Route Concept Report dated October 25, 1989. The intent of this project is not to address the requirements of the ultimate corridor. However, the proposed mainline and interchange improvements outlined in this report will be designed to accommodate future widening of the facility. A report identifying the locations of the proposed noise barriers along SR-91 within the limits of this project will be prepared during the Project Report (PR) phase. The Noise Wall Study will be coordinated with the City of Riverside and RCTC to ensure consistency with community goals and values. 3. NEED AND PURPOSE The 1998 Regional Transportation Plan by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) predicts that the population of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties will increase over 80% by the year 2020. This growth is expected to result in increased local and commuter traffic along SR-91. Existing operating conditions on SR- 91 within the project limits are characterized as breakdown conditions or Level of Service (LOS) F during peak hours. Unless significant improvements are implemented in the near future, the carrying capacity and operational efficiency of the facility will deteriorate even further as traffic demand increases. The increased congestion would result in increased commuting time, commuter frustration and higher travel costs, and air quality will worsen due to increased emissions. Also, poor levels of service at the facility are expected to have adverse impacts on adjacent freeways and on the local streets network as motorist seek less congested alternate routes. SR-91 is a major commuter link between Riverside/San Bernardino and employment centers in Orange County and southern Los Angeles County, and is essential to the economic vitality of the Inland Empire. Therefore, in order to address current deficiencies and to meet future traffic needs at an acceptable level of service, it is recommended that the proposed mainline and interchange improvements outlined in this report be implemented as soon as possible. The proposed improvements are consistent with the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) and the District's Long Range Operations Plan (LROP). EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES: Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic (1998 AADT) volumes on SR-91 within the project limits range from 76,700 to 81,700. The Peak -Hourly volumes range from 6020 vph to 7780 vph. Existing mainline AADT on SR-91 are as follows and as shown on Exhibit 2.1: SR-91 EASTBOUND 1) Mary St. to Arlington Ave. 2) Arlington Ave. to Central Ave. 3) Central Ave. to 14TH St. 4) 14TH St. to University Ave. 80,000 76,700 79,800 81,700 WESTBOUND 79,000 77,900 79,200 81,300 Existing mainline peak -hourly volumes on SR-91 during the AM and PM peak hours are as follows and as shown on Exhibit 2.2: SR-91 1) Mary St. to Arlington Ave. 2) Arlington Ave. to Central Ave. 3) Central Ave. to 14TH St. 4) 14TH St. to University Ave. EASTBOUND AM PM 6,020 6,300 6,620 6,620 7,630 7,670 7,780 7,720 WESTBOUND AM PM 7,280 7,270 7,050 7,290 7,370 7,310 7,510 7,590 Existing peak -hourly volumes at ramps on SR-91 during the AM and PM peak hours are as follows and as shown on Exhibit 2.2: SR-91 Arlington Ave. Central Ave. 14 TH St. University Ave. Off -Ramp AM PM EB WB 590 520 500 600 650 740 780 - EB WB 830 620 770 840 840 900 870 AM EB WB 870 730 820 620 650 500 - 680 On -Ramp PM EB WB 870 680 880 640 780 820 970 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS): The transportation concept level of service for SR-91 is LOS F0. Existing operating conditions on SR-91 during the AM and PM peak - hours are as follows and as shown in Exhibit 2.3: SR-91 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND AM PM AM PM 1) Mary St. to Arlington Ave. E F F F 2) Arlington Ave. to Central Ave. E F F F 3) Central Ave. to 14TH St. E F F F 4) 14TH St. to University Ave. E F F F Existing Levels of Service (LOS) at ramp merge/diverge and weaving areas on SR-91 during the AM and PM peak hours are as follows and as shown on Exhibit 2.4: Off -Ramp On -Ramp SR-91 AM PM AM PM EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB Arlington Ave. E F E F E E E F Central Ave. E F E F E E F E 14 TH St. E F F F F F F F Accident data in the Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS), Table B for SR-91 indicates that the accident rate within the project limits for a three-year period from January 1, 1996 through December 31,1998, was lower than average rates for similar facilities. The actual and expected average accident rates based on TASAS Table B are presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 below. TABLE 3-1 TASAS Table B Selective Accident Rate Calculation (ACCIDENT RATES PER MILLION VEHICLE MILES) Segment ACCIDENT RATE ACTUAL AVERAGE Fatal Fatal + Injury Total Fatal Fatal + Injury Total RIV-91 K.P. 28.0/33.0 0.013 0.28 1.11 0.009 0.43 1.27 SOURCE: TASAS Selective Record Retrieval for the period August 1, 1996 to July 31, 1999. TABLE 3-2 TASAS Selective Record Retrieval Data ACCIDENT TYPE RIV-91 K.P. 28.0/33.0 Accidents Accidents % Head-on 3 0.4 Sideswipe 85 13.1 Rear -End 350 54.0 Broadside 34 5.2 Hit Object 159 24.5 Overturn 7 1.0 Pedestrian 1 0.1 Other 9 1.3 NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES, YEAR 2020: The projected mainline peak -hourly volumes on SR-91 within the project limits will vary from 6700 vph to 9070 vph by the year 2020. Ramp volumes will vary from 670 vph to 1410 vph. The highest ramp volumes of 1410 vph are expected at the Central Ave. EB on -ramp during the PM peak hour. Projected mainline peak -hourly volumes on SR-91 during the AM and PM peak hours for the No -Build Alternative are as follows and as shown on Exhibit 3.1: SR-91 1) Mary St. to Arlington Ave. 2) Arlington Ave. to Central Ave. 3) Central Ave. to 14TH St. 4) 14TH St. to University Ave. EASTBOUND AM PM 6,700 7,120 7,740 7,790 8,500 8,570 9,070 8,960 WESTBOUND AM PM 8,000 7,720 7,970 8,130 7,770 7,680 8,070 8,220 Projected peak -hourly volumes at ramps on SR-91 during the AM and PM peak hours for the No -Build Alternative are as follows and as shown on Exhibit 3.1: SR-91 Arlington Ave. Central Ave. 14 TH St. University Ave. Off -Ramp AM PM EB WB EB WB 880 770 1030 880 670 980 910 1280 850 950 1070 1160 1100 1250 On -Ramp AM PM EB WB EB WB 1300 1050 1100 970 1290 730 1410 890 900 790 960 1010 900 - 1390 NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE, YEAR 2020: Projected Levels of Service (LOS) throughout the project limits are expected to continue as LOS F, with significant longer delays under this alternative. See Exhibits 3.2 and 3.3 for projected levels of service on the mainline, ramp merge/diverge areas, and weaving sections for this alternative. HOV ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES, YEAR 2020: Projected Peak -Hourly volumes within the project limits including the proposed HOV lanes and interchange improvements are as follows and as shown on Exhibit 4.1: SR-91 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND AM PM AM PM 1) Mary St. to Arlington Ave. 6,840<1020>* 8600<1,700> 8,150<1,700> 7,760<1,650> 2) Arlington Ave. to Central Ave. 7,310<1,020> 8,740<1,700> 7,790<1,700> 7,780<1,650> 3) Central Ave. to 14TH St. 7,900<1060> 9,200<1,700> 8,040<1,700> 8,200<1,650> 4) 14TH St. to University Ave. 7,950<1,060> 9,010<1,700> 8,190<1,700> 8,270<1,700> *: Numbers within <> represent HOV traffic volumes. Projected peak -hourly volumes at ramps within the project limits for the HOV Alternative will be as follows and as shown on Exhibit 4.1: Off -Ramp On -Ramp SR-91 AM PM AM PM EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB Arlington Ave. 990 830 1,130 1,080 1,460 1,190 1,270 1,060 Central Ave. 780 1,030 1,040 1,320 1,370 780 1,500 900 14 TH St. 900 1,060 1,220 1,270 990 910 1,030 1,150 University Ave. 1,250 - 1,460 - - 1,030 - 1,520 HOV ALTERNATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE, YEAR 2020: Projected mainline and ramps operating conditions within the project limits are expected to improve slightly at some locations, but in general would remain at LOS F. Projected operating conditions for the mainline and ramps are depicted in Exhibit 4.2 and 4.3. 4. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives being considered for this project are the No -Build Alternative, the Standard HOV Alternative, and the Reduced Standard HOV Alternative. NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE: This alternative is considered the base case and assumes that no improvements are implemented on the existing facility within the project limits at this time. However, it does not preclude the construction of future improvements. This alternative would not address the existing capacity deficiencies and congestion problems along SR-91. Without significant improvements, traffic congestion will continue to increase, and the operating conditions, which are already at LOS F, are going to continue to deteriorate, resulting in longer delays and even longer commute times. In addition, this alternative is consistent with the regional mobility goals and objectives of the California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission. STANDARD HOV ALTERNATIVE: This alternative consists primarily of the addition of one (1) HOV lane in each direction on SR-91 between Mary Street and University Ave., the reconfiguration of existing interchanges, and the reconstruction of existing overcrossings to accommodate the proposed mainline improvements. In addition, this alternative includes the geometric improvements necessary to upgrade the vertical and horizontal alignments to provide a design speed of 110 km/hr. The following is a summary of the proposed mainline and interchange improvements in this alternative: . Construct one (1) HOV lane in each direction from Mary St. to University Ave. . Reconstruct the Arlington Ave. Underscrossing Br. no. 56-330, and reconstruct ramps. . Construct a new undercrossing to provide for the realignment of the Arlington EB off -ramp. . Construct an auxiliary lane between Arlington Ave. and Central Ave. in the EB and WB directions. . Reconstruct the Central Ave. Undercrossing Br. No. 56-356, and reconstruct ramps. . Reconstruct the existing overcrossing at: Ivy St. Br. No. 56-329, Cridge St. Br. No. 56-312, and Fourteenth St. Br. no. 56-313. . Construct a new structure and remove the existing Pachappa Railroad Underpass Br. no. 56-325. . Replace existing diamond entrance and exit ramps between Fourteenth St. and University Ave. with braided ramps in both directions. . Construct a new overcrossing to accommodate the proposed Fourteenth Street EB entrance braided ramp. . Construct a new overcrossing to accommodate the proposed Fourteenth Street WB exit braided ramp. . Widen roadbed to increase horizontal stopping sight distance to 110 km/hr at five locations. . Reconstruct the roadbed to adjust the vertical alignment to increase the vertical stopping sight distance to 110 km/hr between Mary Street and just west of Cridge St. . Construct an auxiliary lane at the Fourteenth St. EB off -ramp. Other major elements of work include significant retaining wall construction, sound wall construction for noise abatement, and landscape replacement. Substantial right of way would be required at several locations to accommodate the proposed mainline and interchange improvements, and to improve the vertical and horizontal alignments. Refer to Appendix A for details on typical cross sections and project layout plans. The total project cost (12/99) for the STANDARD HOV ALTERNATIVE has been estimated at approximately $261 million. The cost estimate breakdown is as follows: Roadway Construction $79,554,000 Bridge Construction $29,105,000 R/W & Utility Relocation $99,800,000 Total Capital Cost $208,459,000 Support Cost $52,115,000 Total Project Cost $260,574,000 REDUCED STANDARD HOV ALTERNATIVE: The proposed mainline and interchange improvements in this alternative are essentially the same as those of the STANDARD HOV ALTERNATIVE described above. The main difference between the two alternatives is that under the REDUCED STANDARD HOV ALTERNATIVE, the vertical alignment of the facility would be maintained in its present configuration, and the horizontal alignment would be improved to provide a design speed of 95 km/hr instead of 110 km/hr. The need to consider the REDUCED STANDARD HOV ALTERNATIVE as a viable alternative stems primarily from the disproportionate impacts of the STANDARD HOV ALTERNATIVE on the community, the substantially higher project costs, and the impracticality of the reconstruction required to achieve a higher geometric standard. The proposed mainline and interchange improvements in this alternative are as follows: . Construct one (1) HOV lane in each direction from Mary St. to University Ave. . Widen the Arlington Ave. Underscrossing Br. no. 56-330, and reconstruct ramps. . Construct a new undercrossing to provide for the realignment of the Arlington EB off -ramp. . Construct an auxiliary lane between Arlington Ave. and Central Ave. in the EB and WB directions. . Widen the Central Ave. Undercrossing Br. No. 56-356, and reconstruct ramps. . Reconstruct the existing overcrossing at: Ivy St. Br. No. 56-329, Cridge St. Br. No. 56-312, and Fourteenth St. Br. no. 56-313. . Construct a new structure and remove the existing Pachappa Railroad Underpass Br. no. 56-325. . Replace existing diamond entrance and exit ramps between Fourteenth St. and University Ave. with braided ramps in both directions. . Construct a new overcrossing to accommodate the proposed Fourteenth Street EB entrance braided ramp. . Construct a new overcrossing to accommodate the proposed Fourteenth Street WB exit braided ramp. . Widen roadbed to increase horizontal stopping sight distance to 95 km/hr. . Construct an auxiliary lane at the Fourteenth St. EB off -ramp. Additional elements of work include significant retaining wall construction to minimize right of way impacts, sound wall construction for noise abatement, and landscape replacement. Refer to Appendix A for details on typical cross sections and project layout plans. The total project cost (12/99) for the REDUCED STANDARD ALTERNATIVE has been estimated at approximately $113 million. The cost estimate breakdown is as follows: Roadway Construction Bridge Construction R/W & Utility Relocation Total Capital Cost Support Cost Total Project Cost ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES $60,758,000 $19,659,000 $ 9,612,000 $90,029,000 $22,507,000 $112,536,000 A comparison of projected traffic volumes between the No -Build and the HOV Alternatives for the year 2020 indicates that traffic volumes for the HOV Alternative would be higher than those of the No -Build Alternative, because of the additional capacity of the proposed HOV lanes as illustrated below. NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE SR-91 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND AM PM AM PM 1) Mary St. to Arlington Ave. 6,700 8,500 8,000 7,770 2) Arlington Ave. to Central Ave. 7,120 8,570 7,720 7,680 3) Central Ave. to 14TH St. 7,740 9,070 7,970 8,070 4) 14TH St. to University Ave. 7,790 8,960 8,130 8,220 HOV ALTERNATIVE SR-91 1) Mary St. to Arlington Ave. 2) Arlington Ave. to Central Ave. 3) Central Ave. to 14TH St. 4) 14TH St. to University Ave. EASTBOUND AM PM 6,840<1020>* 8600<1,700> 7,310<1,020> 8,740<1,700> 7,900<1060> 9,200<1,700> 7,950<1,060> 9,010<1,700> *: Numbers within <> represent HOV traffic volumes. WESTBOUND AM PM 8,150<1,700> 7,760<1,650> 7,790<1,700> 7,780<1,650> 8,040<1,700> 8,200<1,650> 8,190<1,700> 8,270<1,700> Even though the additional HOV lanes are expected to increase capacity, operating conditions within the project limits are expected to remain in general at LOS F because current traffic demand already exceeds the carrying capacity of the facility. The additional HOV lanes are expected to bring only temporary relief, since traffic demand is expected to continue to increase at an accelerated rate. In terms of the impacts and benefits of the proposed mainline and interchange improvements, it was determined that although it is desirable to upgrade SR-91 to current design standards, the cumulative impacts of such endeavor would be too severe on the community for the realized benefits. Therefore, the STANDARD HOV ALTERNATIVE was determined to be not a viable alternative. The REDUCED SATANDARD HOV ALTERNATIVE increases highway capacity, relieves congestion, and provides for the continuity of the HOV network, while minimizing adverse impacts to the community. However, operating conditions would be restricted by the existing geometric alignment of the facility. A Fact Sheet for Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards has been prepared to identify existing and proposed features that do not conform to current design standards. Refer to Appendix F for additional details. 5. SYSTEM PLANNING: The proposed improvements are consistent with statewide, regional and local planning goals are being coordinated with impacted governmental, regulatory and private agencies in the area to ensure consistency with specific local goals and objectives. The proposed improvements will not preclude the development of the ultimate concept facility called for in the approved Route Concept Report dated October 1989. 6. HAZARDOUS WASTE: An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) has identified potential hazardous waste sites, which may have an adverse impact on the project's scope, cost, and schedule. Affected sites will be evaluated further to determine levels of contamination and appropriate remediation strategies. Refer to Appendix D for approved ISA. 7. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN: A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) will be required to minimize traffic impacts during construction. A detailed TMP will be developed during the preparation of Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E). The estimated cost of the TMP is included in the cost estimate. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The following are areas of potential environmental concern: . Removal of several residential and business properties; . Increased noise and air -emission levels to sensitive receptors; . Impacts on habitats, including wetlands, and populations of sensitive biological species; . Archeological and historical resources; . Construction -related impacts. In compliance with the environmental processing requirements in: Division 13, Public Resources Code (State) and 42 U.S.C.4332 (2) © (Federal), an Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) has been prepared. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Finding of No Significant Impact is anticipated. If further studies reveal that unmitigated impacts will occur, an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Study (EIR/EIS) would be required. Refer to Appendix E. 9. FUNDING/SCHEDULING: This project is eligible for programming in the 2000 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) under the HOV Operational Improvements (HB5) Program. The following is a summary of the tentative project schedule milestones for this project: MILESTONE DURATION FROM SPSR APPROVAL Approve SPSR 0 months PA&ED 24 months District PS&E 48 months R/W Certification 50 months HQ Advertisement 54 months Complete Project 90 months 10. REVIEWS This SPSR was reviewed by Mr. Ron Nelson, Headquarters Project Development Coordinator on December 22, 1999; Mr. Norm Suydam, Headquarters Geometric Reviewer in December, 1999; Mr. Jerry Champa, Headquarters Traffic Reviewer in December, 1999; and Mr. Jason Dietz, FHWA Transportation Engineer in December, 1999. All concur with the project concept. 11. PROJECT PERSONNEL Greg B. Ramirez Catalino Pining Yong H. Kim Safaa Bayati Sumner Baker George L. Pink 12. RECOMMENDATION Branch Chief Pre-Prog./Engr. Studies Br. Project Engineer Pre-Prog./Engr. Studies Br. Project Engineer Pre-Prog./Engr. Studies Br. Project Manager Prog./Proj. Mgmt. Branch Chief Env. Planning and Mgmt. Branch Chief R/W Proj. Coord. Supp. Service (909) 383-6309 Calnet 670-6309 (909) 383-6414 Calnet 670-6414 (909) 383-7027 Calnet 670-7027 (909) 383-6480 Calnet 670-6480 (909) 383-4079 Calnet 670-4079 (909) 383-4582 Calnet 670-4582 In order to address existing and projected capacity deficiencies, reduce congestion, and provide for the continuity of the HOV network, it is recommended that the proposed mainline and interchange improvements in the REDUCED STANDARD HOV ALTERNATIVE described above, be used as the basis for programming, funding, and scheduling. Final determination of the preferred alternative will be done during the 74,r.555s Riverside CITY OF RIVERSIDE IIIIr `People Serving People' 199S ja.nuary 5, 2000 �u. E is Haley, Executive Director RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CONLMISSION :560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 State Route 91 Supplement Project Study_ Report Mary Street to University avenue The City of Riverside has reviewed the draft Supplement Project Study Report for the construction of HOV lanes on State Route 91 between Mary Street and University Avenue. The City prefers the scope and design of reduced standard HOV alternative with the exception of the eastbound ramp configuration at Arlington Avenue. We are concerned that the ramp configuration may have a detrimental impact on the operation of Arlington Avenue and land lock a significant commercial parcel_ After discussing our concerns with your staff and Caltrans, we believe that several viable alternatives exist to address our concerns. The City is requesting that additional access alternatives for Arlington Avenue be developed and analyzed during the project report phase of the project. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call either myself at 782-5560 or Tom Boyd at 782-5575. Sincerely, /ad- 291( J1.4.0,a Rick McGrath Public Works Director Post-ir Fax Note 7671 Date s j,0 pages, / ro _Ei Li Nu. he 5 Fr°m T ry1 ._,d eofDept co / R Phone Phone* 7,� —5`5 75 Fax x / ? / ' / 56. e) V Fax* ? 4� �V tD?Z _ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3900 MAIN STuizr • RIVERSIDE, CAuroRNIA 92522 • (909) 782-5341 Fax: (909) 782-5622 Assembly Bill No. 1637 ATTACHMENT A CIIAPTER 270 An act to add Division 20 (commencing with Section 1900001 and Division 25 (commencing with Section 240000) to the Public Utilities Code, and to add Sections 7252.21 and 7252.22 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to county transportation commissions, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. [Became law without Governor's signature. Filed with Secretary of State July 28, 1987.1 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGIST AB 1637, Eaves. Local transportation agency: San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. (1) Existing law authorizes the establishment of local transportation agencies in particular counties and authorizes those agencies, upon voter approval, to impose a retail transactions and use tax and to issue limited obligation bonds, and to use the revenue for specified transportation purposes. (a) This bill would enact the San Bernardino County Transportation Sales Tax Act, which would authorize the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, at the request of the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission, to adopt and submit to the voters for approval, by majority vote, an ordinance authorizing the commission to impose a 1% or yq% retail transactions and use tax to finance highway and local transportation improvements in San Bernardino County, which would become effective if approved by the commission and the voters, as specified. (b) The bill would also enact the Riverside County Transportation Sales Tax Act, which would authorize the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to adopt and submit to the voters for approval, by majority vote, an ordinance authorizing the Riverside County Transportation Commission to impose a 2% retail transactions and use tax to finance highway and local transportation improvements in Riverside County, which would become effective if approved by the commission and the voters, as specified. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for staking that reimbursement. This bill would impose a state -mandated local program by requiring the counties referred to in (a) and (b), above, to hold elections and by creating and prescribing new duties for the county transportation commissions in those counties. The bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons. Ch. 270 : 2 — (3) The bill world declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. The people of the .State of California do enact as follows: SECTION I. Division 20 (commencing with Section 190000) is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read: DIVISION 20. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CIIAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS, FINDINGS, AND DEFINITIONS 190000. The division shall be known and may be cited as the San Bernardino County Transportation Sales Tax Act. 190001. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following: (a) Recognizing the, scarcity of resources available for all transportation development, alternative methods of financing provided in this division are needed to finance the cost of constructing, developing, acquiring, and maintaining and providing highways, streets, roads, and public transportation services in the County of San Bernardino and these methods will increase economic opportunities, contribute to economic development, be in the public interest and serve a public purpose, and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens within the County of San Bernardino. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this division, that the County of San Bernardino continue to receive its equitable share of funds under the state transportation improvement program and that incentives he provided to reward rather than to penalize counties that adopt local sales tax measures. (c) It is in the public interest to allow the voters of San Bernardino County to adopt a specific revenue source and to authorize new duties for the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission so that local decisions can be implemented in a tirnely manner to provide improvements to the transportation system. 190002. "Bonds" means indebtedness tmcl securities of any kind or class, including bonds, notes, bond anticipation notes, and commercial paper. 190003. "Commission" means the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission created pursuant to Section 130054. 190004. "County" means the County of San Bernardino. 190005. "San Bernardino Associated Governments" means the joint powers agency established pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 65O0) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code. Any board, commission, department, or officer succeeding to the functions of the association is grunted the powers and duties of the association under this division. _ 3 — Ch. 270 Ch. 270 — 4 — CHAPTER 4. TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION 190100. The commission shall expend only that amount of the funds generated pursuant to this division for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities pursuant to this division, and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed 1 percent of the annual amount of revenue raised by the tax. 190101. The commission shall do all of the following with respect to the revenues derived from the transactions and use tax levied pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 190300): (a) Adopt an annual budget. (b) Cause a postaudit of the financial transactions and records of the commission and of all revenues expended pursuant to this division to be made at least annually by a certified public accountant. (c) Do any and all things necessary to carry out the purposes of this division. 190102. (a) The commission shall publish, pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code, notice of the time and place of the public hearing for the adoption of the annual budget not later than 15 days prior to the date of the hearing. (b) The proposed annual budget shall be available for public inspection at least 15 days prior to the hearing. 190103. The commission may approve a transaction and use tax ordinance and ballot proposition and call an election in accordance with Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 190300). CHAPTER 3. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS 190200. The commission may sue and be sued, except as otherwise provided by law, in all actions and proceedings, in all courts and tribunals of competent jurisdiction. 190201. All claims for money or damages against the commission are governed by Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code except as provided therein, or by other statutes or regulations expressly applicable thereto. 190202. The commission may make contracts and enter into stipulations of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, contracts and stipulations to indemnify and hold harmless, to employ labor, and to do all acts necessary and convenient for the full exercise of the powers granted in this division. 190203. The commission may contract with any department or agency of the United States of America, with any public agency, including, but not limited to, the Department of Transportation; any transit development board, county, or city; or any person upon any terms and conditions that the commission finds is in its best interest. 190300. The Legislature, by the enactment of this chapter, intends the additional funds provided government agencies by this chapter to supplement existing local revenues being used for transportation purposes. The government agencies shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for transportation purposes pursuant to an ordinance adopted by the commission to enforce this section. The commission may levy a retail transactions and use tax applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the county in accordance with this chapter and Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The ordinance shall only become effective if adopted by a two-thirds vote of the commission and subsequently approved by a majority of the electors voting on the measure at a special election called for the purpose by the board of supervisors or at any regular election. The board of supervisors shall call the election upon being requested to do so by a resolution adopted by the commission, but not otherwise. The commission shall specify in the ordinance that not more than 1 percent of the annual amount of revenues raised by the tax may be used to fund the salaries and benefits of the staff of the commission in administering the programs funded from that tax. The ordinance shall take effect at the close of the polls on the day of election at which the proposition is adopted. The initial collection of the transactions and use tax shall take place in accordance with Section 190304. If the voters do not approve the ordinance, the board of supervisors may, at any time thereafter, submit the same, or a different, measure, if adopted by a two-thirds vote of the commission, to the voters in accordance with this division. 190302. (a) The commission, in the ordinance, shall state the nature of the tax to be imposed, the tax rate or the maximum tax rate, the purposes for which the revenue derived from the tax will be used, and shall set a term during which the tax will be imposed. (b) The purposes for which the tax revenues may be used may include, but are not limited to, the administration of this division, including legal actions related thereto, the construction, capital acquisition, maintenance, and operation of streets, roads, and highways, including state highways. These purposes include expenditures for the planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right-of-way acquisition. (c) The ordinance shall contain an expenditure plan which shall include the allocation of revenues for the purposes authorized by this section and shall include, at a minimum, the following provisions: (1) The proportional distribution of the revenues among various purposes. (2) The specific projects to be funded under the state highway' _ 5 — Ch. 270 and freeway portion. Following adoption of the ordinance by the voters, the plan may only be amended, if required, by the following process: (A) Initiation of amendment by the commission, reciting findings of necessity. (B) Approval by the board of supervisors. (C) Approval by a majority of the cities constituting a majority of the incorporated population. (3) The formula for distribution of the city and the county portion, which may be amended by voter approval. (4) A requirement that the arterial portion be expended pursuant to a five-year project list to be adopted by the commission, extended annually for one year, available for public review, to be first adopted at least 30 days prior to the election held pursuant to Section 190301. (5) A requirement that the city and the county portions be expended pursuant to a five-year project list to be adopted by a resolution by each city and the board of supervisors, respectively, extended annually for one year, available for public review, to be first adopted at least 30 days prior to the election held pursuant to Section 190301. 190303. (a) The county shall conduct an election called by the board of supervisors pursuant to Section 190301. (b) The election shall be called and conducted in the same manner as provided by law for the conduct of elections by a county. 190304. (a) Any transactions and use tax ordinance adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be operative on the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 120 days after adoption of the ordinance. (b) Prior to the operative date of the ordinance, the commission shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of the ordinance. 190305. The revenues from the taxes imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be allocated by the commission for transportation purposes consistent with the adopted regional transportation improvement program and the regional transportation plan. 190306. (a) The commission, subject to the approval of the voters, may impose a maximum tax rate of one-half of 1 percent under this division and Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and the commission may state the maximum tax rate in terms of not to exceed one-half of 1 percent, or any lesser percentage thereof. Neither this division nor the ordinance shall affect any tax otherwise authorized. (b) The tax rate adopted pursuant to this chapter, unless otherwise prohibited, may be increased by the commission by ordinance adopted in the manner and by the vote stated in Section 190301 and approved by a majority of the electors voting on the measure at an election called for that purpose by the. commission. Ch. 270 — 6 — 190307. The commission may reduce a tax rate to percentages lower than that approved by the voters and may further provide for an increase of the tax rate if it has previously been lowered. However, the tax rate may not be increased to a rate above the tax rate approved by the voters. Any reduced tax rate may be adopted only if the commission determines, by a two-thirds vote, that the proceeds of the taxes with the altered tax rate will be sufficient to provide for the payment of principal of, and interest on, any limited tax bonds and any other indebtedness incurred by the commission which was to be payable from the proceeds of the retail transactions and use tax. 190307.5. Any increase or reduction in the tax rate adopted pursuant to Section 190306 or 190307 shall become effective on the first day of the calendar quarter which commences at least 120 days following the date of the commission's vote approving the increased or reduced rate. 190308. (a) If requested to do so by the commission in its resolution calling for an election, the board of supervisors, as part of the ballot proposition to approve the imposition of a retail transactions and use tax, may seek authorization to issue bonds for capital outlay expenditures as may be provided for in the ordinance expenditure plan payable solely from the proceeds of the tax. (b) The maximum bonded indebtedness which may be outstanding at any one time shall be an amount equal to the sum of the principal of, and interest on, the bonds, but not to exceed the estimated proceeds of the tax, as determined by the plan. The amount of bonds outstanding at any one time does not include the amount of bonds, refunding bonds, or bond anticipation notes for which funds necessary for the payments thereof have been set aside for that purpose in a trust or escrow account. (c) The proposition shall set forth the actual percent of the tax. (d) The proposition 'shall set forth the duration of the tax if the plan specifies a time limit. (e) The proposition shall set forth the amount of bonds, if any, payable from the proceeds of the tax. (f) The proposition shall set forth the commission as the agency imposing the tax. (g) The proposition shall set forth the appropriations limit of the commission pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. (h) The sample ballot to be mailed to the voters, pursuant to Section 10010 of the Elections Code, shall be the full proposition, as set forth• in the ordinance calling the election, and the voter information handbook shall include the entire ordinance expenditure plan. • 190309. (a) The bonds authorized by the voters concurrently with the approval of the retail transactions and use tax may be issued at any time by the commission and shall be payable from the proceeds of the tax. The bonds shall be referred to as -limited tax bonds." The bonds may be secured by a pledge of revenues from the proceeds of the tax. (b) The pledge of the tax to the limited tax bonds authorized under this chapter shall have priority over the use of any of the tax for "pay-as-you-go" financing, except to the extent that that priority is expressly restricted in the resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds. 190310. Limited tax bonds shall be issued pursuant to a resolution adopted at any time by a two-thirds vote of the commission. Kleh resolution shall provide for the issuance of bonds in the amounts as may be necessary, until the full amount of bonds authorized have been issued. The full amount of bonds may be divided into two or more series and different dates of payment fixed for the bonds of each series. A bond need not mature on its anniversary date. 190311. (a) A resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds shall state all of the following: (1) The purposes for which the proposed debt is to be incurred, which may include all costs and estimated costs incidental to, or connected with, the accomplishment of those purposes, including, without limitation, engineering, inspection, legal, fiscal agents, financial consultant and other fees, bond and other reserve funds, working capital, bond interest estimated to accrue daring the construction period and for a period not to exceed three years thereafter, and expenses of all proceedings for the authorization, issuance, and sale of the bonds. (2) The estimated cost of accomplishing those purposes. (3) The amount of the principal of the indebtedness. (4) The maximum term the bonds proposed to be issued shall run before maturity, which shall not be beyond the date of termination of the imposition of the retail transactions and use tax. (5) The maximum rate of interest to be paid, which shall not exceed the maximum allowable by law. (6) The denomination or denominations of the bonds, which shall not be less than five thousand dollars ($5,000). (7) The form of the bonds, including, without limitation, registered bonds and coupon bonds, to the extent permitted by federal law, and the form of any coupons to be attached thereto, the registration, conversion, and exchange privileges, if any, pertaining thereto, and the time when all of, or any part of, the principal becomes due and payable. (b) The resolution may also contain any other matters authorized by this chapter or any other law. 190312. The bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates not exceeding the maximum allowable by law, payable at intervals determined by the commission, except that the first interest payable on the bonds, or any series thereof, may be for ar.y period not Ch. 270 — 8 — exceeding one year, as determined by the commission. 190313. In the resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds, the commission may also provide for the call and redemption of the bonds prior to maturity at the times and prices and upon other terms as specified. However, no bond is subject to call or redemption prior to maturity, unless it contains a recital to that effect or unless a statement to that effect is printed. 190314. The principal of, and interest on, the bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States at the office of the treasurer of the commission, or at other places as may be designated, or at both the office and other places at the option of the holders of the bonds. 190315. The bonds, or each series thereof, shall be dated and numbered consecutively and shall be signed by the chairperson or vice chairperson of the commission and the auditor -controller of the commission, and the official seal, if any, of the commission shall be attached. The interest coupons of the bonds shall be signed by the auditor -controller of the commission. All of the signatures and seal may be printed, lithographed, or mechanically reproduced. If any officer whose signature appears on the bonds or coupons ceases to be that officer before the delivery of the bonds, the officer's signature is as effective as if the officer had remained in office. 190316. The bonds may be sold as the commission determines by resolution, and the bonds may be sold at a price below par, whether by negotiated or public sale. 190317. Delivery of any bonds may be made at any place either inside or outside the state, and the purchase price may be received in cash or bank credits. 190318. All accrued interest and premiums received on the sale of the bonds shall be placed in the fund to be used for the payment of the principal of, and interest on, the bonds, and the remainder of the proceeds of the bonds shall be placed in the treasury of the commission and applied to secure the bonds or for the purposes for which the debt was incurred. However, when the purposes have been accomplished, any money remaining shall be either (a) transferred to the fund to be used for the payment of principal of, and interest on, the bonds or (b) placed in a fund to be used for the purchase of the outstanding bonds in the open market at prices and in the manner, either at public or private sale or otherwise, as determined by the commission. Bonds so purchased shall be canceled immediately. 190319. (a) The commission may provide for the issuance, sale, or exchange of refunding bonds to redeem or retire any bonds issued by the commission upon the terms, at the times and in the manner which it determines. (b) Refunding bonds may be issued in a principal amount sufficient to pay all, or any part of, the principal of the outstanding — g _ Ch. 270 bonds, the premiums, if any, due upon call and redemption thereof prior to maturity, all expenses of the refunding, and either of the following: (1) The interest upon the refunding bonds from the date of sale thereof to the date of payment of the bonds to be refunded out of the proceeds of the sale of the refunding bonds or to the date upon which the bonds to be refunded will be paid pursuant to call or agreement with the holders of the bonds. (2) The interest upon the bonds to be refunded from the date of sale of the refunding bonds to the date of payment of the bonds to be refunded or to the date upon which the bonds to be refunded will be paid pursuant to call or agreement with the holder of the bonds. (c) The provisions of this chapter for the issuance and sale of bonds apply to the issuance and sale of refunding bonds. 190320. (a) The commission may borrow money in anticipation of the sale of bonds which have been authorized pursuant to this chapter, but which have not been sold or delivered, and may issue negotiable bond anticipation notes therefor and may renew the bond anticipation notes from time to time. however, the maximum maturity of any bond anticipation notes, including the renewals thereof, shall not exceed five years from the date of delivery of the original bond anticipation notes. (b) The bond anticipation notes, and the interest thereon, may be paid from any money of the commission available therefor, including the revenues from the tax. If not previously otherwise paid, the bond anticipation notes, or any portion thereof, or the interest thereon, shall be paid from the proceeds of the next sale of the bonds of the commission in anticipation of which the notes were issued. (c) The bond anticipation notes shall not be issued in any amount in excess of the aggregate amount of the bonds which the commission has been authorized to issue, less the amount of any bonds of the authorized issue previously sold, and also less the amount of other bond anticipation notes therefor issued and then outstanding. The bond anticipation notes shall be issued and sold in the same manner as the bonds. (d) The bond anticipation notes and the resolutions authorizing them may contain any provisions, conditions, or limitations which a resolution of the commission may contain. 190321. Any bonds issued under this chapter are legal investment for all trust funds; for the funds of insurance companies, commercial • and savings banks, and trust companies; and for state school funds; and whenever any money or funds may, by any law now or hereafter enacted, be invested in bonds of cities, counties, school districts, or other districts within the state, that money or those funds may be invested in the bonds issued under this chapter, and whenever bonds of cities, counties, school districts, or other districts within the state may, by any law now or hereafter enacted, be used as security for the, performance of any act or the deposit of any public money, the bonds Ch. 270 — l0 — issued under this chapter may be so used. The provisions of this chapter are in addition to all other laws relating to legal investments and shall be controlling as the latest expression of the Legislature with respect thereto. 190322. Any action or proceeding wherein the validity of the adoption of the retail transactions and use tax ordinance provided for in this chapter or the issuance of any bonds thereunder or any of the proceedings in relation thereto is contested, questioned, or denied, shall be commenced within six months from the date of the election at which the ordinance is approved; otherwise, the bonds and all proceedings in relation thereto, including the adoption and approval of the ordinance, shall be held to be valid and in every respect legal and incontestable. 190323. The commission has no power to impose any tax other than the transactions and use tax imposed upon approval of the voters in accordance with this division. SEC. 2. Division 25 (commencing with Section 240000) is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read: DIVISION 25. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS, FINDINGS, AND DEFINITIONS 240000. The division shall be known and may be cited as the Riverside County Transportation Sales Tax Act. 240001. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following: (a) Recognizing the scarcity of resources available for all transportation development, alternative methods of financing provided in this division are needed to finance the cost of constructing, developing, acquiring, and maintaining and providing highways, streets, roads, and public transportation services in the County of Riverside and these methods will increase economic opportunities, contribute to economic development, be in the public interest and serve a public purpose, and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens within the County of Riverside. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this division, that the County of Riverside continue to receive its equitable share of funds under the state transportation improvement program and that incentives be provided to reward rather than to penalize counties that adopt local sales tax measures. (c) It is in the public interest to allow the voters of Riverside County to adopt a specific revenue source and to authorize new duties for the Riverside County Transportation Commission so that local decisions can be implemented in a timely manner to provide improvements to the transportation system. 240002. "Bonds" means indebtedness and securities of any kind Ch. 270 — 12 — or class, including bonds, commercial paper. 240003. "Commission" Transportation Commission 240004. "County" means — 11 — Ch. 270 notes, bond anticipation notes, and means the Riverside County created pursuant to Section 130054. the County of Riverside. CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION 240100. The commission shall expend only that amount of the funds generated pursuant to this division for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities pursuant to this division. The commission shall not expend more than 1 percent of the funds received from the transactions and use tax levied pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 240300) for the salaries and benefits for the commission's staff. 240101. The commission shall do all of the following with respect to the revenues derived from the transactions and use tax levied pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 240300): (a) Adopt art annual budget. (b) Cause a postaudit of the financial transactions and records of the commission and of all revenues expended pursuant to this division to be made at least annually by a certified public accountant. (c) Do any and all things necessary to carry out the purposes of this division. 240102. (a) The commission shall publish, pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code, notice of the time and place of the public hearing for the adoption of the annual budget not later than 15 days prior to the date of the hearing. (b) The proposed annual budget shall be available for public inspection at least 15 days prior to the hearing. 240103. The commission may approve a transaction and use tax ordinance and ballot proposition and call an election in accordance with Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 240300). CHAPTER 3. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS 240200. The commission may sue and be sued, except as otherwise provided by law, in all actions and proceedings, in all courts and tribunals of competent jurisdiction. 240201. All claims for money or damages against the commission are governed by Division 3.6 (commencing with Section MO) of Title 1 of the Government Code except as provided therein, or by other statutes or regulations expressly applicable thereto. 240202. The commission may make contracts and enter into stipulations of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, contracts and stipulations to indemnify and hold harmless, to employ labor, and to do all acts necessary and convenient for the full exercise of the powers granted in this division. 240203. The commission may contract with any department or agency of the United States of America, with any public agency, including, but not limited to. the Department of Transportation, any transit development board, county, or city, or with any person upon any terms and conditions that the commission finds is in its best interest. CHAPTER 4. TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX 240300. The Legislature, by the enactment of this chapter, intends the additional funds provided government agencies by this chapter to supplement existing local revenues being used for transportation purposes. The government agencies shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street, highway, and Public transit purposes pursuant to an .ordinance adopted by the commission to enforce this section. 240301. The commission may levy a retail transactions and use lax applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the county in accordance with this chapter and Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The ordinance shall only become effective if adopted by a two-thirds vote of the commission and subsequently approved by a majority of the electors voting on the measure at a special election called for the purpose by the board of supervisors or at any regular election. The commission shall specify in the ordinance that not more than 1 percent of the annual net amount of revenues raised by the tax may be used to fund the salaries and benefits of the staff of the commission in administering the programs funded from that tax. The ordinance shall take effect at the close of the polls on the day of election at which the proposition is adopted. The initial collection of the transactions and use tax shall take place in accordance with Section 240304. if the voters do not approve the ordinance, the board of supervisors may, at any time thereafter, submit the same, or a different, measure, if adopted by a two-thirds vote of the, commission, to the voters in accordance with this division. 240302. (a) The commission, in the ordinance, shall state the nature of the tax to be imposed, the tax rate or the maximum tax rate, the purposes for which the revenue derived from the tax will be used, and shall set a term during which the tax will be imposed. (b) The purposes for which the tax revenues may be used may include; but are not limited to, the administration of this division, including legal actions related thereto, the construction, capital acquisition, maintenance, and operation of streets, roads, highways, including state highways, and public transit systems. These purposes include expenditures for the planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right-of-way acquisition. — 13 — Ch. 270 (c) The ordinance shall contain an expenditure plan which shall include the allocation of revenues for the purposes authorized by' this section and shall include, :it a minimum, the following provisions: (1) The proportional distribution of the revenues among various purposes. (2) The specific projects to be funded under the state highway and freeway portion. (3) The formula for distribution of the city and county portion, which may be amended by voter approval. (d) Following adoption of the ordinance by the voters, the expenditure plan may only be amended, if required, by the following process: (1) Initiation of amendment by the commission, reciting findings of necessity. (2) Approval by the board of supervisors. (3) Approval by a majority of the cities constituting a majority of the incorporated population. 240303. (a) The county shall conduct an election called by the board of supervisors pursuant to Section 240301. (b) The election shall be called and conducted in the same manner as provided by law for the conduct of elections by a county. 240304. (a) Any transactions and use tax ordinance adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be operative on the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 120 days after adoption of the ordinance. (b) Prior to the operative date of the ordinance, the commission shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of the ordinance. 240305. The revenues from the taxes imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be allocated by the commission for transportation purposes consistent with the adopted regional transportation improvement program and the regional transportation plan. 240306. (a) The commission, subject to the approval of the voters, may impose a maximum tax rate of one-half of 1 percent under this division and Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and the commission may state the maximum tax rate in terms of not to exceed one-half of 1 percent, or any lesser percentage thereof. Neither this division nor the ordinance shall affect any tax otherwise authorized. (b) The tax rate adopted pursuant to this chapter, unless otherwise prohibited, may be increased by the commission by ordinance adopted in the manner and by the vote stated in Section 240301 and approved by a majority of the electors voting on the measure at an election called for that purpose by the commission. 240307. Any increase or reduction in the tax rate adopted pursuant to Section 240306 or 240307 shall become effective on the first day of the calendar quarter which commences at least 120 days Ch. 270 —19 — following the date of the commission's vote approving the increased or reduced rate. 290308. (a) If requested to do so by the commission in its resolution calling for an election, the board of supervisors, as part of the ballot proposition to approve the imposition of a retail transactions and use tax, may seek authorization to issue bonds for capital outlay expenditures as may be provided for in the ordinance expenditure plan payable from the proceeds of the tax. (b) The maximum bonded indebtedness which may be outstanding at any one time shall be an amount equal to the sum of the principal of, and interest on, the bonds, but not to exceed the estimated proceeds of the tax, as determined by the plan. The amount of bonds outstanding at any one time does not include the amount of bonds, refunding bonds, or bond anticipation notes for which funds necessary for the payment thereof have been set aside for that purpose in a trust or escrow account. (c) The proposition shall set forth each of the following: (1) The actual percent of the tax. (2) The duration of the tax if the plan specifies a time limit. (3) The amount of bonds, if any, payable from the proceeds of the tax. (4) The commission as the agency imposing the tax. (5) The appropriations limit of the commission, pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. (g) The sample ballot to be mailed to the voters, pursuant to Section 10010 of the Elections Code, shall be the full proposition, as set forth in the ordinance calling the election, and the voter information handbook shall include the entire ordinance expenditure plan. 240309. (a) The bonds authorized by the voters concurrently with the approval of the retail transactions and use tax may be issued at any time by the commission and shall be payable from the proceeds of the tax. The bonds shall be referred to as "limited tax bonds." The bonds may be secured by a pledge of revenues from the proceeds of the tax. (b) The pledge of the tax to the limited tax bonds authorized under this chapter shall have priority over the use of any of the tax for "pay-as-you-go" financing, except to the extent that that priority is expressly restricted in the resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds. 240310. Limited tax bonds shall be issued pursuant to a resolution adopted at any time by a two-thirds vote of the commission. Each resolution shall provide for the issuance of bonds in the amounts as may be necessary, until the full amount of bonds authorized have been issued. The full amount of bonds may be divided into two or more series and different dates of payment fixed for the bonds of each series. A bond need not mature on its anniversP.ry date. — 15 — Ch. 270 Ch. 270 — 16 — 240311. (a) A resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds shall state all of the following: (1) The purposes for which the proposed debt is to be incurred, which may include all costs and estimated costs incidental to, or connected with, the accomplishment of those purposes, including, without limitation.. engineering, inspection, legal, fiscal agents, financial consultant and other fees, bond and other reserve funds, working capital, bond interest estimated to accrue during the construction period and for a period not to exceed three years thereafter, and expenses of all proceedings for the authorization, issuance, and sale of the bonds. (2) The estimated cost of accomplishing those purposes. (3) The amount of the principal of the indebtedness. (4) The maximum term the bonds proposed to be issued shall run before maturity, which shall not be beyond the elate of termination of the imposition of the retail transactions and use tax. (5) The maximum rate of interest to be paid, which shall not exceed the maximum allowable by law. (6) The denomination or denominations of the bonds, which shall not be less than five thousand dollars ($5,001)). (7) The form of the bonds, including, without limitation, registered bonds and coupon bonds, to the extent permitted by federal law, and the form of any coupons to be attached thereto, the registration, conversion, and exchange privileges, if any, pertaining thereto, and the time when all of, or any part of, the principal becomes due and payable. (b) The resolution may also contain any other matters authorized by this chapter or any other law. 240312. The bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates not exceeding the maximum allowable by law, payable at intervals determined by the commission, except that the first interest payable on the bonds, or any series thereof, may be for any period not exceeding one year, as determined by the commission. 240313. In the resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds, the commission may also provide for the call and redemption of the bonds prior to maturity at the times and prices and upon other terms as specified. However, no bond is subject to call or redemption prior to maturity, unless it contains a recital to that effect or unless a statement to that effect is printed. 240314: The principal of, and interest on, the bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States at the office of the treasurer of the commission, or at other places as may be designated, or at both the office and other places at the option of the holders of the bonds. • 240315. The bonds, or each series thereof, shall be dated and numbered consecutively and shall be signed by the chairperson or vice chairperson of the commission and the auditor -controller of the commission, and the official seal, if any, of the commission shall be attached. The interest coupons of the bonds shall be signed by the auditor -controller of the commission. All of the signatures and seal may be printed, lithographed, or mechanically reproduced. If any officer whose signature appears on the bonds or coupons ceases to be that officer before the delivery of the bonds, the officer's signature is as effective as if the officer had remained in office. 240316. The bonds may be sold as the commission determines by resolution, and the bonds may be sold at a price below par, whether by negotiated or public sale. 240317. Delivery of any bonds may be made at any place either inside or outside the state, and the purchase price may he received in cash or bank credits. 240318. All accrued interest and premiums received on the sale of the bonds shall be placed in the fund to be used for the payment of the principal of, and interest on, the bonds, and the remainder of the proceeds of the bonds shall be placed in the treasury of the commission and applied to secure the boncls or for the purposes for which the debt was incurred. However, when the purposes have been accomplished, any money remaining shall be either (a) transferred to the fund to be used for the payment of principal of, and interest on, the bonds or (b) placed in a fund to be used for the purchase of the outstanding bonds in the open market at prices and in the manner, either at public or private sale or otherwise, as determined by the commission. Bonds so purchased shall be canceled immediately. 240319. (a) The commission may provide for the issuance, sale, or exchange of refunding bonds to redeem or retire any boncls issued by the commission upon the terms, at the, times and in the manner which it determines. (b) Refunding bonds may be issued in a principal amount sufficient to pay all, or any part of, the principal of the outstanding bonds, the premiums, if any, due upon call and redemption thereof prior to maturity, all expenses of the refunding, and either of the following: (1) The interest upon the refunding bonds from the date of sale thereof to the date of payment of the bonds to be refunded out of the proceeds of the sale of the refunding bonds or to the date upon which the bonds to be refunded will be paid pursuant to call or agreement with the holders of the bonds. (2) The interest upon the bonds to be refunded from the date of sale of the refunding bonds to the date of payment of the bonds to be refunded or to the date upon which the bonds to be refunded will be paid pursuant to call or agreement with the holder of the bonds. (c) The provisions of this chapter for the issuance and sale of bonds apply to the issuance and sale of refunding bonds. 240320. (a) The commission may borrow money in anticipation of the sale of bonds which have been authorized pursuant to this — 17 — Ch. 270 chapter, but which have not been sold or delivered, and may issue negotiable bond anticipation notes therefor and may renew i he bond anticipation notes from time to time. However, the maximum maturity of any bond anticipation notes, including the renewals thereof, shall not exceed five years from the elate of delivery of the original bond anticipation notes. (b) The bond anticipation notes, and the interest thereon, may be paid from any money of the commission available therefor, including the revenues from the tax. If not previously otherwise paid, the bond anticipation notes, or any portion thereof, or the interest thereon, shall be paid from the proceeds of the next sale of the bonds of the commission in anticipation of which the notes were. issued. (c) The bond anticipation notes shall not be issued in any amount in excess of the aggregate amount of the hands which the commission has been authorized to issue, less the aninunt of any bonds of the authorized issue previously sold, and also less the amount of other bond anticipation notes therefor issued and then outstanding. The bond anticipation notes shall be issued and sold in the same manner as the bonds. (d) The bond anticipation notes and the resolutions authorizing them may contain any provisions, conditions, or limitations which a resolution of the commission may contain. 240321. Any bonds issued under this chapter are legal investment for all trust funds; for the funds of insurance companies, commercial and savings banks, and trust companies; and for state school funds; and whenever any money or funds may, by any law now or hereafter enacted, be invested in bonds of cities, counties, school districts, or other districts within the state, that money or those funds may be invested in the bonds issued under this chapter, and whenever bonds of cities, counties, school districts, or other districts within the state may, by any law now or hereafter enacted, be used as seem ily for the performance of any act or the deposit of any public money, the bonds issued under this chapter may be so used. The provisions of this chapter are in addition to all other laws relating to legal investments and shall be controlling as the latest expression of the legislature with respect thereto. 240322. Any action or proceeding wherein the validity of the adoption of the retail transactions and use tax ordinance provided for in this chapter or the issuance of any bonds thereunder or any of the proceedings in relation thereto is contested, questioned, or denied, shall be commenced within six months from the date of the election at which the ordinance is approved; otherwise, the bonds and all proceedings in relation thereto, including the adoption and approval of the ordinance, shall be held to be valid and in every respect legal and incontestable. 240323. The commission has no power to impose any tax other than the transactions and use tax imposed upon approval of the voters in accordance with this division. (Th. 270 — 18 — SEC. 3. Section 7252.21 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read: 7252.21. "District," as used in this part, also means the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission, if authorized to impose transactions and use taxes pursuant to this part. SEC. 4. Section 7252.22 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read: 7252.22. "District," as used in this part, also means the Riverside County Transportation Commission, if authorized to impose transactions and use taxes pursuant to this part. SEC. 5. No appropriation is made by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because (1) this act is in accordance with the request of a local agency which desired legislative authority to carry out the program specified in this act, and (2) self-financing authority is provided in Section 22003 of the Elections Code to cover any costs that may be incurred in carrying on any program or perforrning any service required to be carried on or performed by this act. SEC:. 6. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: In order to enable the electors of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties to authorize at the earliest possible time a proposition to put into effect a plan and funding mechanism for improving the transportation infrastructure of those counties, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately. 8 11113WHOVlld E3A00 NOYE NO 1.07111E E310A S.N3S$V 1:1071 NOLLVOi iodV :3OILON lawitued uor euuqui inciA pue 1011VEI 31dIAIVS 886L '8 t13811113A0N N0113313 71/113N39 Q31ti0110SNO3 301S1:13A111 I Efts -elk I ArN SIDE 1 CARD E SIDE 2 MEASURES SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS —COUNTY Vt‘S ‘S st,‘lpt Sp Traffic Improvement Ordinance 88-1 To help relieve traffic congestion, increase safety, Aimprove air quality, provide funds to match developers fees and State and local moneys for transportation and plan adequately for traffic by providing essential Countywide transportation im- provements including: — Relieve commuter traffic by increasing the number of lanes on State Route 91 (Riverside Freeway) from 6 to 10 lanes from the Orange County line through the City of Riverside (21anes in each direction). — Further reduce traffic congestion and increase safety by widening or improving Highways 60 (Pomona Freeway), 1-215, I I I, 74, 79, 86, and the Mid -Valley Parkway in the desert, including the improvement of the 91/60/1-215 interchange. — Reduce price of transit passes and extend- •t ES ed special transit services for seniors and the disabled. NO — Improve traffic and increase safety through the repair and improvement of local streets and roads in every city and in the unincorporated areas of the County. — Provide commuter rail within Riverside County and to Los Angeles and Orange Counties. — Expand the program for commuter carpools, vanpools and park -and -ride lots along key com- muter routes in the County, including State Route 91 (Riverside Freeway). Shall the Riverside County Transportation Commis- sion be authorized to establish by Ordinance No. 88-1, a one-half of one percent transaction and use tax for a period not to exceed twenty years, with the proceeds placed in aspecial fund solely for transpor- tation improvements; establish an appropriations limit (pursuant to Section XI of Ordinance No. 88-1); and, be authorized to issue limited tax bonds (pursuant to Section VI of Ordinance No. MI) to fund improvements consistent with the Expenditure Plan? 11 1111111 IIIIIII 1111111 IIIIIII Illllll 1111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 111111 IIIIIII 1111111 1111111 IIIIIII Illllll 1111111 IIIIIII 1111111 1111111 Ilttlll 1111111 1111111 IIIIIII Q Shall the ordinance implementing a growth manage- ment plan for the unincorporated arras of Riverside County, as set forth in the first Growth Management Initiative, be YES adopted? NO Q IIIIIII II III III III 111 111 II 111 111111 111111 I 1 111 III III 111111 ll 111 IIIIIII IIIIIII 11111 IIIIIII 1111111 111111 1111111 1111111 num Illllll 1111111 omit 1111111 1111111 111111 IIIIIII 1111111 1111111 1111111 0 Q Shall the ordinance as set forth in the Small Farms CInitiative providing that: any initiative mea- sure limiting and/or regulating growth shall not apply to lands located in the YES unincorporated areas of Riverside County used for residential and/or light agricultural NO 1.'"j1 purposes with a minimum parcel size of 10 acres, be adopted? 1111111 111111 111111 0 IIIIIII 111111 IIIIIII E 601 VOTE FRONT AND BACK MEASURE SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS — COUNTY Shall a portion of the existing motor vehicle now collected statewide, be YES Q Drevenues, spent in Riverside County on rail transit projects? NO Q MEASURES SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS — MUNICIPAL Shall the Ordinance amending Measure C to an exemption for land YES Q Oestablish situated within the boundaries of the Business Park Specific Plan be NO adopted? CIHunter Shall the Ordinance amending Measure C to Section 6 and to establish a YES p Prepeal partial exemption for land situated NO within the boundaries of the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan be adopted? Q un I III Shall the Ordinance amending Measure C to establish a partial exemption for land YES Q situated within the boundaries of the NO Sycamore Canyon Business Park Specific Plan be adopted? Q in II li _ 18 n IIII 1111 u IUI 111 u Ill tin nut II IIII Inn n IIII uu in IIII uu I 111 II u MI 111 m IIII uu II IIII uu 111 IIII uu ul IIII E6111 VOTE FRONT AND BACK co CD r— E 183 IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS MEASURE A Measure A would authorize the Riverside County Transportation Commission to impose a maximum retail transaction and use tax of one-half of 1 percent throughout Riverside County for a period not to exceed twenty years to be used to supplement existing local revenues being used for transportation purposes pursuant to Ordinance No. 88-1 of the Riverside Transportation Commission. Measure A would establish an appropriations limit for the Riverside County Transportation Commission of $75 million for the first fiscal year pursuant to Article XIII B of the Califomia Constitution and authorize issuance of limited tax bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $300 million far capital outlay expenditures and, to carry out the transportation projects in the expenditure plan adopted as part of Ordinance No. 88-1. Measure A provides that not more than 1 percent of the annual net income of revenues raised by the retail transaction and use tax may be used to fund the salaries and benefits of the staff of the Riverside County Transportation Commission in administering the programs funded and requires Cities and the County to certify annually that they are maintaining their existing commitment of local funds for street, highway and public transit purposes while using their allotment of the retail transaction and use tax to supplement existing local revenues. A majority of the electors voting on Measure A must vote "yes" in order for the measure to pass. Passage of Measure A will result in Ordinance No. 88-1 becoming effective at the close of the polls on November 8, 1988, with an operative date of the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 120 days after adoption of Ordinance No. 88-1. By County Council ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A If you are as sick and tired of living with traffic congestion as we are, do something about it Vote yes on Measure A. Measure A is a new approach to our traffic problem. It offers us a well -thought-out plan to deal with traffic and improve the quality of life in Riverside County. "Yes on A" will widen the Riverside Freeway from six to ten lanes from the Orange County line through to the City of Riverside. It guarantees major improvements to other existing highways such as Routes 60 (Pomona Freeway), I-215, 86, 74, the Mid -Valley Parkway in the desert, adding an all-weather bridge to 19 and improving the 91 /60/1-215 interchange. "Yes on A" means cleaner air by reducing the time our cars spend needlessly idling in traffic jams, producing SMOG. "Yes on A" helps seniors and disabled citizens by increasing transit service and guaranteeing half-price fares. "Yes on A" repairs, improves and maintains local streets and roads by halting road deterioration and preventing more costly repairs. "Yes on A" provides new commuter rail service on existing railroad tracks within Riverside County and to Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Convenient commuter rail means fewer cars and less traffic on our freeways and roads. "Yes on A" encourages carpools and vanpools with mare park -and -ride lots and by adding carpool lanes. "Yes on A" improves safety an our major highways by adding call boxes throughout the county. Measure A is a new approach to solving one of the worst problems in our community. It will mean safer roads, cleaner air and shorter commutes for our families, workers, students, seniors and disabled; in other words, a major improvement in the quality of life for all Riverside County. Please join us in supporting Measure A. By: Virginia L Field, President Clean Air Now Art Pick Executive Vice President Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce Marvin A. Axelton, Founder, Past President Corona Chapter AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) Bab Lofton, Associate Oirector, GSMOL (Golden State Mobilhome Owners league, Inc.) Region Nine, Riverside County Mary Curtin, Past President League of Women Voters NO ARGUMENT AGAINST PRECEEDING MEASURE WAS SUBMITTED. 183-04 ORDINANCE NO. 88-1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordnance Preamble The transportation system in Riverside County is rapidly deteriorating. Mainte- nance and repairs of existing roadways and improvements to relieve congestion cannot be accomplished with available funds. Without additional funds, the system will bog down and pavement will crumble into permanent disrepair. State highway funds are inadequate and competition for funds is increasing. Projects in areas where local sales tax funds are available will be viewed much more favorably in the selection process of the California Transportation Commission. Local governments must either generate revenues to save the system or watch the system collapse and endanger the health, welfare and safety of all Riverside County residents. A one-half percent sales tax for transportation to supplement traditional revenues and revenues to be generated through locally -adopted developer fees and assessment districts for transportation improvements is the only way local governments can be sure the transportation system will serve the current and future travel needs of Riverside County. The Riverside County Transportation Commission will continua to seek maximum funding for transportation improvements through State programs. The Commission will not provide sales tax revenues to any city or to the County unless revenues currently used by that agency for transportation are continued to be used for transportation purposes. The Riverside County Transportation Commission ordains as follows: SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance provides for the imposition of a retail transaction and use tax of one-half percent for a period of twenty (20) years, the euthority to issue limited tax bonds, and the administration of the tax proceeds and a county transportation expenditure plan. SECTION 0. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply in this ordinance: A. Expenditure Plan. 'The Expenditure Plan" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission Expenditure Plan (attached as Exhibit 8) and adopted as part of this Ordinance including any future amendments thereto. B. "County" means the County of Riverside. C. "Commission" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission created pursuant to Sections 130053 and 130053.5 of the Public Utilities Code. SECTION III. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is enacted, in part pursuant to the provisions of Division 25 (commencing with Section 240000) of the Public Utilities Code, and Section 7252.22 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. SECTION IV. IMPOSITION OF RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX. Upon voter approval of the same, the Commission shall impose, in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside, a retail transactions and use tax (referred to as the Measure "A" fund tax) at the rate of one-half of one percent (0.5%) for a period of twenty(20) yean from the date which the Commission and the State Board of Equalization agree to begin collection of the tax. The tax shall be in addition to any other taxes authorized by law, including any existing or future state or local sales tax or transactions and use tax SECTION V. PURPOSES. Measure "A" funds may only be used for transportation purpose including the administration of Division 25, including legal actions related thereto, the construction, capital, acquisition, maintenance, and operation of streets. roads, highways, including state highways and public transit systems and for related purposes. These purposes include expenditures for the planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right-of-way acquisition. SECTION VI. BONDING AUTHORITY. Upon voter approval of Measure "A" funds, the Commission shall have the power to sell or issue, from time to time, limited tax bonds in the aggregate principal amount at any one time outstanding of not to exceed $300 million for capital outlay expenditure for the purposes set forth in Section V hereof, including to carry out the transportation projects described in the Expenditure Plan. SECTION VII. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT. The Commission, by the enactment of this Ordinance, intends the additional funds provided govemment agencies by this chapter to supplement existing local revenues being used far transportation purposes. The government agencies shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for sueet highway and public transit purposes pursuant to this Ordinance, and the Commission shall enforce this Section by appropriate actions including fiscal audits of the local agencies. The local cities and the County shall annually submit to the Commission a list of the proposed uses for these funds and a certification that the maintenance of effort requirement is being met. If in any fiscal year the maintenance of effort requirements is not met, the agency shall not be eligible for any Measure "A" funds in the following fiscal year. Such funds shall be distributed to the remaining local governments using the formula for the area. SECTION VIII. RETURN TO SOURCE. Funds for transportation purposes shall be allocated to the Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas proportionate to the Measure "A" funds generated within these areas. SECTION IX. ADMINISTRATION OF PLANS. The Commision shall impose and collect Measure "A" funds, shall allocate revenues derived, and shall administer the Expenditure Plan, consistent with the Authority cited herein. SECTION X. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. The Commission shall expend only that amount of tha funds generated from Measure "A" for staff support, audit. administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities pursuant to Division 25, and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent 0%► of the annual net amount of revenue raised by Measure "A". SECTION Xl. ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT. Pursuant to Article XIII8 of the Califomia Constitution and Public Utilities Code S131108 (g), an appropriations limit of $75 million is established for the Commission for the first fiscal year. The appropriations limit shall be subject to adjustment as provided by law. SECTION XIL EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES. Subject to voter approval, this ordinance shall take effect at the close of the polls on November 8, 1988. SECTION XIII. ELECTION. The Commission requests the Baud of Supervisors to call an election for voter approval of Measure "A" (Exhibit A), which election shall be held on November 8. 1988 and consolidated with other elections to be held on that same date. The election shall be called and conducted in the same manner as provided by law for the conduct of elections by a county. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code S131108, the sample ballot to be mailed to the voters shag be the full proposition as set forth in the ordinance, and the voter information handbook shall include the entire Expenditure Plan. Approval of the attached proposition, and the imposition of Measure "A", shall require the vote of a majority of the electors voting on the attached proposition at the election described in this section. SECTION XIV. EXPENDITURE PLAN AMENDMENTS. The Expenditure Plan far Measure "A" funds may only be amended, if required, by the following process: (1) Initiation of amendments by the Commission reciting findings of necessity: (2) Approval by the Board of Supervisors: and. (3) Approval by a majority of the cities constituting a majority of the incorporated population. SECTION XV. SEVERABILITY. nut,/ tax or provision of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining Measure "A" funds or provisions, and the Commiuion declares that it would have passed each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part. BY: Ron Mum Vice Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission 163-05 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN JULY 13, 1988 GOALS AND POUCIES IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN THE DUAUTY OF UFE IN RIVERSIOE COUNTY BY SUPPLEMENTING EXISTING FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION. — Enhance Riverside County's ability to secure State and Federal funding for transportation by offering matching local funds. — Avoid "Los Angelaation" of Riverside County by reducing current traffic congestion problems Now. PROVIDE FOR EOUITY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF MEASURE A REVENUES. — Return funds to the Western County, Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley proportionate to funds generated in those areas. — Adopt Improvement Plan proposals which address the unique needs of each of these areas of the County. — Provide for a reasonable balance between competing highway, commuter rail, transit, and local street and road needs. PROVIDE FOR LOCAL CONTROL OF THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROGRAM. — Provide for cost-effective, local administration of the program through the existing Riverside County Transportation Commission. No new agency would be created to administer these funds. — Delegate appropriate administrative responsibility to cities, the county, and other local agencies for local programs. This TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN, which shall also act as the County's expenditure plan, was prepared by the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the proposed 14% local transactions and use tax for transportation to be collected for the next 20 years if approved by voters on November 8, 1988 — Measure A. This is proposed by the Commission as a means to fill the funding shortfall to implement needed highway and commuter nil projects. local street and road programs and transit improvements for the seniors and handicapped people. SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY The Improvement Plan Map illustrates both the Western Riverside County and Coachella Valley areas. The Western County area includes the cities of Riverside, Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Hemet Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Norco. Perris, and San Jacinto. It also includes the unincorporated communities of Sun City, Canyon Lakes, and Rancho California and other sparsely populated unincorporated areas. 1. State Highways Many more state highway projects are needed to deal with congestion and safety problems than existing federal and state revenues can fund. The major focus in the Western County area is improvement to State Route 91 and the State Routes 91/60/1-215 interchange. The 1988 costs of these and other priority highway projects in the Western County area exceed $620 million. Estimated funds from existing state and federal sources will meet only about one-half of these needs. Measure A funds are anticipated to cover the other half. The highway projects to be implemented with funding assistance from Measure A funds returned to the Western County area are as follows: Route Limits Project Cast Range (1 Millions) Rte 91 Orange County line to Mag- nolia Avenue (South-west Riverside)(Riverside Freeway) Widen from 6 to 101anes (Add 1 lanes in each direction) Rte 91 Magnolia Avenue to 91/60/ Add up to 1 lanes in each 1.215 Interchange (Riverside direction Freeway) Rte 60 Interstate 215 to Redlands Widen to 6 lanes (add 1 lane Boulevard (Pomona Freeway) in each direction) $118.0 173.5 21.7 Route Limits Project Rte 60 Route 91 to Valley Way (Pomona Freeway) Rte 74 Interstate 15 to Interstate 215 Rte 74 Winchester Road to Warren Road Rte 79/ Interstate 10 to Route 74 near Sanderson Hemet/San Jacinto Rte 19 Newport Road to Keller Road Rte 60/ Route 91 to Route 60 1.215 'Rte 1-215 Interchange to San Bernardino County Line Rte 91/60 60/91/1-215 Interchange Rte 60 & Various locations 91 Rte 60. 91 Various locations & 1.215 All Various locations All Spaced per standard/all highways Contingencies TOTAL $624.7 If connecting projects are constructed in San Bernardino County. Funds to support these projects will come from a highway and commuter rail transportation account of $339 million. 2. Local Streets cued Roads Cost Range ($ Millions) Widen to 6 lanes (add 1 lane 16.8 in each direction) Widen to 4 lanes (add 1 lane 28.8 in each direction) Realign tune 2.0 Widen portions to 4 lanes & 19.4 construct all-weather crossing at Sanderson Widen to 4 lanes (Add 1 lane 10.0 in each direction) Widen to 8 lanes (add 1 lane 18.8 in each direction) Widen to 8 lanes (add 1 lane 14.2 in each direction), Reconstruct with 2 direct 115.0 freeway to freeway ramps Lease Park & Hide lots 2.0 Interchange work to improve 30.5 local circulation Share cost of interchanges for 20.0 job development Augmem highway call box 2.0 funding 32.0 Over the last 20 years, available funds for maintenance of local streets and roads has declined. At the same time, these facilities are reaching "middle age," with potholes and need for major reconstruction. Local street improvements adjacent to new residential acid business developments will continue to be paid for by the developers. The greatest need is for maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing city and county road system. Current resources cover only 25% to 50% of the pavement maintenance needs. The Improvement Plan proposes that 40% of the Measure A funds to be returned to the Western County area shall be used to assist funding for local streets and roads. Funds should be distributed to the cities and the County by a formula based 75% an proportionate population and 25% on Measure A revenues generated within each jurisdiction. Five year Capital Improvement Programs will be prepared and annually updated within each city and the County with public participation. 3. Discouet Faros and More Transit Service for Seniors and Handicapped Discount transit fares for seniors (age 60 and older) and handicapped people are now one-half the normal fare for fixed route transit service within the Western County area. Measure A funds will be used to guarantee continuation of this reduced fare for 20 years. In addition, funds will be used to provide further reductions for the truly needy. Funds will be used to expand existing services and implement new services. Ways to do this include providing vans and operating assistance to social service agencies, contracts for evening taxi service for medical purposes. and an outreach program to advise seniors and handicapped people of all available transit services and how to use them. The intent of this program is to provide service to those with no other means of transportation. Funding for this program would come from $31 million for specialized transportation. 183.06 4. Commuter Buses, Carpools and Vanpools A systematic program will be implemented that encourages the use of commuter bus, carpools and vanpools to make our existing highway system work better during congested rush hour periods. The commuter bus component will consist of express bus service between major points for home and work trips utilizing special bus/carpool lanes on the freeway system as they are constructed. The use of carpool and vanpools will be encouraged by improving computer assisted ridesharing matching programs, encouraging positive incentives by major employ- ers and providing "seed" money far the start up of vanpool groups for initial vehicle purchase, insurance and related costs. Funding for this program would come from 331 million for specialized transportation programs. 5. Commuter Rail to Los Angeles and Orange Counties Recent studies indicate that development of a commuter rail system using existing rail lines from the Riverside/San Bemardino areas to Los Angeles and Orange Counties is feasible. Commuter rail service would be beneficial to Riverside area commuters, and Los Angeles and Orange County employers. There are considerable federal and state funds available to match local dollars for the provision of rail transit service. It is the intent of this Improvement Plan to match to the maximum extent possible these federal and state funds for the implementation of commuter rail service to both Los Angeles and Orange Counties. It is anticipated that this program will involve a cooperative plan to be funded by Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Orange Counties. In order for Riverside County to be able to qualify for full state matching funds for commuter rail. Measure 0 on this same ballot will need to be passed by the voters. This will allow Riverside County to be allocated a share of the $75 million per year which the California Transportation Commission must, by law, set aside from the state highway account for rail transit. Commuter Rail Route Limits Parallel to Riverside to Los Angeles and Rte 91. Orange Counties 1.10 and 1.215 Cost Range Project (e Minions) Commuter rail on existing 3100.0 lines Riverside County's share of funds for these projects will come from a highway and commuter rail transportation account of $339 million. COACHELLA VALLEY The Transportation Improvement Plan generally illustrates the proposals for the Coachella Valley Area. The area includes the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Walls, Indio, La Ouinta, Palm Desert. Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage. It also includes the major unincorporated areas and a substantial amount of more sparsely populated county areas. 1. State Highways and Major Regional Road Projects ' Fifty-five percent of the Measure A funds generated within the Coachella Valley will be used far state highways and major regional road projects. The Coachella Valley area is served by few state highways. The proposed Regional Arterial System developed through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments would function much like state highways to address future needs for the area. Of the 55% share, about one -quarter will supplement federal and state funds for the following state highway projects: Cost Range Route Limits Project ($ Millions) Ate 86 Dillon Road to Oasis Construct 4-lane freeway $ 55.7 Rte 111 Ramon to Indio Boulevard Various operational 20.0 improvements All Spaced per standard/all Augment highway call box 1.0 highways funding Contingencies 2.8 TOTAL $ 79.5 The remaining Measure A share of this fund will be used to implement the planned Regional Arterial System. The estimated cost for arterial system improvements will exceed S200 million. The proposed system is to be implemented with a mix of existing funding required from new development, a Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee which would also be paid by developers from new development. and Measure A funds returned to the Coachella Valley Area. The Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee schedule shall be established in order to generate at least the equivalent of Measure A funding toward the regional arterial system. It is anticipated that this plan will be implemented through the Coachella Valley Association of Gavemments. The highest priority projects include the Mid -Valley Parkway (from Gene Autry north of Vista China to 1-10 at Monterey), Palm Orive/Gene Autry Trail (from the Mid -Valley Parkway to Oesert Hot Springs), Fred Waring Drive (from Route 111 in Palm Desert to Indio Boulevard), and Jefferson Street (from Avenue 54 to Indio Boulevard). 2. Local Streets and Roads As in Westem Riverside County, over the last 20 years available funds have not kept pace with local streets and roads needn; in the Coachella Valley. Cities and the county are also faced with the problems of an aging system and potholes. The Measure A funds would supplement existing federal, state. and local funds. Local street improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments will continue to be paid for by the developers. The greatest need is for maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing city and county road system. Current resources cover only 259E of the pavement maintenance needs. The Coachella Valley Association of Govemments will play a role in determining allocations to local governments for streets and roads. local streets and roads funds will be provided to Coachella Valley cities and the county if they participate in the uniform Traffic Mitigation lee program to assist in financing the priority Regional Arterial System. If local agencies choose not to levy the additional developer fees. the funds they would otherwise receive far local streets and toads will be added to the Measure A funds for the Regional Arterial System. In addition. the Coachella Valley Association of Governments will have the discretion to provide a portion of these funds to increase funding for specialized transit programs for seniors and handicapped people, bus replacement or other transit programs which may improve air quality. The Coachella Valley Improvement Plan anticipates that from $84 to S96 million of the funds will be available for local streets and roads projects. Allocations of funds to the cities and the County will ba based on a formula weighted 50% on proportionate dwelling units and 50%r on Measure A revenues generated within each jurisdiction. Five year Capital Improvement Programs will be prepared and annually updated within each city and the County with public participation. 3. Discount Fares and More Transit Service for Seniors and Handicapped Discount transit fares for seniors (age 60 and older) and handicapped people are now one-half the normal fare for fixed route transit service for most of the day within the Coachella Valley area. Measure A funds will be used to guarantee reduced fares for 20 years. In addition, Measure A funds will be used to provide further reductions for the truly needy. Funds will be used to expand existing services and implement new services. Ways to do this include providing vans and operating assistance to social service agencies, contracts for evening taxi service for medical purposes, and an outreach program to advise seniors and handicapped people of all available transit services. The intent of this program is to provide service to those with no other means of transportation. Funding far this program would come from $12 million of the retail transaction and use tax funds set aside for specialized transportation programs. 4. Commuter buses. Carpools and Vaapools A systematic program to encourage the use of commuter buses, carpools and vanpools is also proposed for the Coachella Valley. This program would be particularly beneficial to get employees to seasonal jobs in the Desert hospitality industry. It will also improve air quality within the Coachella Valley. The commuter bus component will consist of express buses serving major work locations. The use of carpools and vanpools will also be encouraged by improving computer assisted ridesharing matching programs. encouraging positive incentives by major employers and providing "seed" money for the start up of vanpool groups for initial vehicle purchase. insurance and related costs. Funding for this program would come from the $12 million set aside for specialized transportation programs. 5. Bus replacemeet and More Service Saline Transit Agency does not have enough federal and state funds to replace 183-07 their buses as they wear out Despite continuous maintenance and periodic rehabilitation, the need to replace the fleet within the next 20 years is anticipated. Replacement buses would also meet more stringent air pollution control requirements. Funding may also be needed for additional bus service. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments may provide up to an additional $12 million. PALO VERGE VALLEY The Palo Verde Valley is located en the far eastern side of Riverside County. It is geographically separated and remote from the Westem and Coachella Valley areas. The population within the area is relatively small, and significant growth over the next 20 years is not anticipated. The Palo Verde Valley is served by Interstate 10 as a divided freeway providing adequate connections to more westerly portions of Riverside County and east to Arizona. Increas- ed transit needs can be adequately met from existing available sources. The greatest need within the Palo Verde Valley area is additional funding to maintain and rehabilitate local Streets and roads. All of the $13 million Measure A funds to be retumed to the Palo Verde Valley are to be used for local streets and roads. Funds shall be distributed to the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside by formula. The formula distribution is based 75%on proportionate population and 25% on sales tax revenues generated in each jurisdiction. (Measure A Florence Allocations (a millions) Western County Area Highway: and Commuter Rail Account Streets and Roads Account Specialized Transportation Account Total Western County Area Measure A Funds Coachella Valley Area Highways and Regional Arterial Account Local Streets and Roads Account Specialized Transportation Account Total Coachella Valley Measure A Feeds Palo Verde Valley Area Local Streets and Roads Account Total Palo Verde Valley Area Massaro A Funds TOTAL 20 YEAR MEASURE A REVENUES S339.0 247.0 31.0 $617.0 $132.0 84.0.96.0 12.0 - 24.0 3240.0 S 13.0 S 110 $870.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1. Basis for Reruns Estimates Federal and state participation for highway and commuter rail funding is based upon an assumed statewids SI billion annual capacity expanding program. jEx- cluding highway rehabilitation and safety improvement projects.) Riverside County's "70% county minimum" share of this amount is assumed to be about $25 million. Reflecting the need to reserve about 20% of these funds for projects proposed by CalTrans which are not included in this Transportation Improvement Plan, the assumed federal and state funding is about $20 million per year. This is approximately 50% of the highway projects within this Plan. Measure A revenue estimates have not been adjusted to reflect inflation. It is assumed that inflation related revenue increases will be offset by inflating project costs. "Real growth" is assumed to parallel county -wide population growth. Prudent growth rates of the State Department of finance have been used —4.5% to 1990.3.5% to 1995. and 2.5% thereafter. Based upon these factors, total Measure A revenues over the 20 year period are assumed to be about $870 million. L Bases for Cost Estimates All cost estimates within this Improvement Plan ars preliminary and are based on 1988 values. Future costs may increase due to inflation or other factors beyond the control of the Commission. 1988 cost estimates are to be used to determine the proportionate distribution of funds by area and category of transportation program. 3. State Highway lad Commuter Rail Programs a. Eligible state highway project costs include engineering, right-of-way acquisition and long-term leases, and construction. Funds are intended to supplement existing Federal and state sources — not replace them. At minimum, 50% of the funds for the highway projects listed in the Plan should come from state and federal sources. If it is determined that Riverside County is not receiving its lair share of existing funds, sales tax funds may be redirected to other types of transportation needs. b. Commuter Rail projects aro anticipated to be on existing rail lines to Los Angdles and Orange Counties, or internal to Riverside County. If commuter rail service is to occur, railroads must agree to a Plan to use their right-of-way and tracks, an agency for implementation of a multi -county system must be created, funding must be secured for on -going operations if a subsidy is required and state and/or federal and other county funding participation must be secured c. The scope of highway and commuter rail projects to be implemented is to be determined through required environmental analysis and full consideration of alternatives. Public participation during the environmental analysis process is required. d. The Commission shall establish a "State Highway and Commuter Rail Transportation Account" for funding capital expenditures for state highways and commuter rail. This account will consist of 60%of the Measure A funds far the Westem County area and 15% of the funds for the Coachella Valley area. 4. SpeciaGzed Transportation Programs a. Eligible transit programs include special discount fares for seniors and handicapped people, commuter bus services, funding for computer assisted rideshare programs, and "seed' programs to encourage the creation of vanpools. Bus capital replacement and additional bus service may also be an eligible program within the Coachella Valley, subject to a determination of funding by the Coachella Valley Association of Govemments. b. The Commission shall establish a "Specialized Transportation Programs Account" for funding these programs. The Commission shall determine to which public uansportation or specialized transportation service operators, or carpool/vanpool facilitating agencies, shall receive funding assistance. Based on 20 year funding estimates, the amount of funds should be $30.8 million for the Westem County area and $12 million for the Coachella Valley Area. The fund for the Coachella Valley may increase up to an additional $12 million for Sunline Transit Agency capital replacement, at the discretion of the Coachella Valley Association of Govemments. 5. Local Streets and Roads Projects a. Eligible local sueet and road project costs include any engineering, capital or maintenance cost Decisions on projects are to be made by local jurisdictions, but subject to Capital Improvement Program requirements. The first five year program shall be submitted to the Commission by the local agencies by May 1, 1989. b. Annual population estimates used for the distribution formula for the Westem County and Palo Verde Valley areas shall be from the State Oepartment of Finance. Dwelling unit estimates used for the distribution formula for the Coachella Valley shall be from the Riverside County Planning Department. Actual State Board of Equalization retail sales transactions shall be used for the formula in all three areas for cities. The County Planning Department shall estimate the share for each of the unincorporated areas for the three areas, from the total retail sales transactions for the total unincorporated area. c. The Commission shall assure the cities' and county compliance with maintenance of effort funding requirements before allocating funds for local streets and roads. Further, the Commission shall not allocate funds to an 1e3.OS t individual city or the County for local streets and road use within the Coachella Valley area unless the Coachella Valley Association of Governments indicates participation of that agency in the Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee program necessary for implementation of the planned Regional Arterial System. d. The Commission shall establish a 'local Streets and Roads Program Account" Based on 20 year funding estimates, the amount of funds should be $ 216 million for the Westem County area, and from $ 84 to $96 million for the Coachella Valley Area. 6. Fondieg Flexibirdy and Roadmg to Expedite Program The commission may mats maximum use of available funds by temporarily shifting allocations between geographic areas and transportation purposes. Hovnver, the proportionate shares for areas or the purposes over the 20 year period may not be changed without an amendment to the Improvement Plan as required by law. Shifts may not be made without previous consultation with the affected agencies. The Commission may also use bonds to speed implementation of some projects. Bonding will not be used without first determining that the benefits of an accelerated program outweigh the additional cost of interest on borrowed funds. 7. Informing the Public of local Forge' Support All state highway, commuter rail and regional arterial projects using $ 1 million or more of sales tax revenues shall be signed to inform the public that local voter approved revenues are being used to support the project S. Seagram, Provision If any provision of this Improvement Plan is for any reason held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the Commission declares that it would have passed each part of this Plan irrespective of the validity of any other part. MEASURE A: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN Major Highway, Arterial, Commuter Rail. and Transit Projects Local Weal and road, local bus, pin -A -Aida, and ca I boa improvements not shown J WESTERN COUNTY DESERT *sot st+waa e•••• ti MIMaNeMOe G/1401W Orr Ga••CNO ••••0[ • 1t� ►IIeA••• w10ud.r eM Mreto.wewae egad.s e►. e4 Fate. 111.74. 7e. et end etn0F21a YdFtnntsal nn«.1.gie.•••• 14 • • v • HbolvaePMlocholslo a .a4a.de et Keg Leeeea•e , s t �CA•mouler Psi Go , 1a Togas A.•wu e• Cedtt eM ~ dOMO:W r la Lae Angels* Grins* ae111Yd61e 40 O Op IOW Pat.ear Calwuler Rol CanMae144.61E Yee • • • Cawdrdet tM CerpaalnrrApod P,eereny Pond wEL1 a r• VLA Gdun r4 COACHELLA VALLEY IF LARGER SCALE MAP REQUIRED PLEASE CALL (714) 787-2921 I 1u.oa ATTACHMENT C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS ANNUAL DISBURSEMENT: FOR THE PERIOD 1990-1999 Total Total WESTERN COUNTY AREA COACHELLA VALLEY AREA BANNING $3,253,742 CATHEDRAL CITY $6,554,152 BEAUMONT $1,352,825 COACHELLA CALIMESA $893,975 DESERT HOT SPRINGS $343,359 CANYON LAKES $1,187,363 INDIAN WELLS $1,098,011 CORONA $14,862,810 INDIO $5,871,772 HEMET $7,533,259 LAQUINTA LAKE ELSINORE $3,579,331 PALM SPRINGS $10,034,285 MORENO VALLEY $16,850,888 PALM DESERT $9,588,813 MURRIETA $3,650,821 RANCHO MIRAGE $3,623,474 NORCO $3,671,598 RIVERSIDE COUNTY $6,201,984 PERRIS $3,980,776 CVAG $5,145,330 RIVERSIDE $38,875,710 AREA TOTAL S48,461,180 SAN JACINTO $2,688,660 PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA TEMECULA $6,986,378 BLYTHE $5,285,659 RIVERSIDE COUNTY $36,539,768 RIVERSIDE COUNTY $1,951,036 AREA TOTAL S145,907,905 AREA TOTAL $7,236,695 OVERALL TOTAL $201,605,780 ATTACHMENT D CtlACHELLd VALLEY ASSbCIJTIbN GOVERNMENTS COA'CHELLAVALLEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS THROUGH MEASURE "A" REGIONAL MONEY )OMPLETED PROJECTS 8 'ROJECTS IN PROGRESS " PROJECT DESCRIPTION WAG EXPENDITURES LOCAL AGENCY CONTRIBUTION' TOTAL COST nterchanges Cook Sl/110Interchange '** $18,986,226 + $18,986,226 Monterey /110 Interchange *" $21,676,876 + $21,676,876 Washington / 110 Interchange'" $14,147,790 + $14,147,790 Ramon, Date Palm, Palm/Gene Autry, Indian Project Study Reports $319,075 $100,000 $419,075 Palm Drive/Gene Autry 1-10 Interchange ** $1,524,000 ++ $1,524,000 Date Palm 1-10Interchange *' $1,702,000 ++ $1,702,000 3ridges Fred Waring Drive (Madison to Indio Blvd, Intl WWR Brg) $5,127,684 $1,482,711 $6,610,395 Avenue 52 (Hwy 111 to New SR 86, Including VVWR Bridge) $1,736,072 $1,736,072 $3,472,144 Eldorado Bridge (at Whitewater Channel) $1,840,265 $501,667 $2,341,932 Washington Street (HWY 111 to and including WWR Bridge) $1,384,458 $1,384,458 $2,768,916 Cook Street Whitewater River Crossing $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $3,400,000 Country Club Low Water Crossing 5367,649 $367,649 $735,298 Fred Waring Drive Bridge at Whitewater River in Indian Wells $1,459,046 $1,459,046 $2,918,092 Monterey Ave (Torremolinos to Clancy Line, Incl WWR Brg) $3,919,558 $1,196,526 $5,116,084 Fred Waring (Jefferson to Madison, Ind AA Canal Crossing) $1,323,981 $223,039 $1,547,020 Feasibility Study (Indian Canyon, Gene Autry and Vista Chino) $90,000 +++ $90,000 Miles Avenue $10,000 $633,720 $643,720 Aid -Valley Gerald Ford Drive (Bob Hope to Monterey - MVP Ph I) $1,057,076 $1,443,257 $2,500,333 'arkway MVP Economic Impact Study $21,190 +++ $21,190 Mesquite (Gene Autry Trail to Dinah Shore incl. Bridge) $15,747,000 +++ $15,747,000 Bob Hope Drive (Dinah Shore Drive to Gerald Ford Drive) $1,136,703 $1,136,703 $2,273,406 Airport Extension (on -street Airport) $2,936,100 $2,936,100 $5,872,200 MVP Date Palm to Plumley ** $588,750 $196,250 $785,000 MVP Plumley to Bob Hope ** $4,642,875 $1,547,625 $6,190,500 krterlals Vista Chino (Sunrise to Gene Autry) $325,295 $325,295 $650,590 Vista Chino (Date Palm to Landau) $216,641 $216,641 $433,282 Country Club Realignment $153,643 $153,643 $307,286 Monterey Avenue (Frank Sinatra to Dinah Shore) $354,012 $354,012 $708,024 Date Palm (McCallum to Vista Chino) $543,581 $543,581 $1,087,162 Jefferson/Indio Boulevard Intersection Signalizalion $157,579 $157,579 $315,158 Washington/Country Club Intersection $85,521 $85,521 $171,042 Avenue 48 (Washington to Dune Palms) $1,273,778 $1,273,778 $2,547,556 Avenue 48 (Dune Palms to Jefferson) $594,900 $594,900 $1,189,800 Washington Street (from 500' S. of La Quinta to Avenue 50) " Future $1,647,184 $1,647,183 $3,294,367 Palm Drive (I-10 to two Bunch Palms) ** $3,542,360 $2,759,621 $6,301,981 Monterey Avenue/Country Club Intersection** $350,000 $1,025,000 $1,375,000 Jefferson Street ( Avenue 54 to Hwy111) " $11,746,245 $3,915,415 $15,661,660 :mall Projects Madison Street (Highway 111 to Avenue 46) $50,000 $85,000 $135,000 runds Monterey Avenue (Intersection with Fred Waring Drive) $50,000 $127,266 $177,266 Traffic Signal Improvements (Fred Waring / Adams / Miles)95/96 $50,000 $105,528 $155,528 Hacienda Avenue (Palm Drive to West Drive) $50,000 $103,000 $153,000 Airport Boulevard $50,000 $815,275 $865,275 Dinah Shore Drive $50,000 $83,080 $133,080 Fred Waring Widening $50,000 $276,000 $326,000 Avenue 48 (Jefferson to Shields) $50,000 $200,000 $250,000 Madison Street (Miles to Avenue 46) $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 Fred Waring (Eldorado to East) $50,000 $105,000 $155,000 WashingtoNCalle Tampico $50,000 $53,408 $103,408 Country Club(Washington to to Park Center) $49,143 $49,143 $98,286 Indian Canyon north ofTramview $22,472 $22,472 $44,944 Vista Chino widen across WWR $26,169 $26,169 $52,338 Ramon Rd. (DaVall to Mission Hills) $23,705 $23,705 $47,410 Hacienda Avenue (Ocotillo Road to Miracle Hill) 94/95 $50,000 $357,762 $407,762 :OMPLETED PROJECTS $99,413,188 $22,488,706 $121,901,894 'ROJECTS IN PROGRESS ** $25,743,414 $31,153,722 $56,897,136 -OTAL $125,156,602 $53,642,428 $178,799,030 Source of. Funds are m the form of Developer Contribution, FederaRState Grant, Local Agency Contribution. Projects in Progress Agencies Contnbution for the Cook, Monterey, Washington 1-10 interchanges is m the amount of $11,385,625 where 75% pail by 2005 and remaining by FY201612017 + $351 000 for Palen Drive/Gene Autry -'IU:Interchange and $551,000 for Date Palm 1-10 Interchange when Construction tamale ++ Pay Bali to CVAG In the amount of $45,000for feasibility -Study prior to con-100[ on of construction and $7,400000 for MVP Project when Land': Develops File Name'. c'gpwasnneptjsttMae Run Date. 18-Oct-W ATTACHMENT E Analysis to Show how State Route 91 Mary to 7th Street Project Could be Funded How the available STIP funding will be allocated within Riverside County Year Funding is Programmed in STIP Totals 2002 2004 2006 2008 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 240,000 Future STIP Discretionary! Formula Split Formula recipients Formula Split Formula 75.80% Western Riverside County 72.23% $ 32,850 $ 32,850 $ 32,850 $ 32,850 $ 131,401 Coachella Valley 26.39% $ 12,002 $ 12,002 $ 12,002 $ 12,002 $ 48,009 Palo Verde Valley 1.38% $ 628 $ 628 $ 628 $ 628 $ 2,510 Subtotal Formula 100.00% $ 45,480 $ 45,480 $ 45,480 $ 45,480 $ 181,920 Discretionary 24.20% $ 14,520 $ 14,520 $ 14,520 $ 14,520 $ 58,080 Subtotal 100.00% $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 240,000 Note: There was no formula split for the 1998 STIP Funding Available for SR 91 Proj. Western Riverside County STIP Share (see Table Above) $ 131,401 1998 STIP Reservation $ 10,411 Measure "A" Funding $ 28,968 Total $ 170,780 ATTACHMENT F Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Western County Highway Summary (in thousands) Projects Proposed for Future STIP Funding Route Project 1998 STIP 2000 STIP 2002 STIP 2004 STIP 2006 STIP 2008 STIP TOTAL SR 91 Mary to 60/91/215 10,411 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 131,400 SR 91 Mary to SR 71 SR 91 60/91/215 to S.B. County Line 1-215 60/91/215 Riverside 168,000 168,000 Total Programmed 178,411 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 299,400 Project Proposed for Measure A Funding Route Project 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL SR 91 Magnolia to Mary 1,625 2,750 8,260 12,635 SR 91 Mary to 60/91/215 28,968 28,698 SR 74 1-15 to Seventh Street 610 6,553 21,086 5,251 7,000 40,500 SR 74 G Street @ 1-215 19,895 2,095 21,990 SR 74 Winchester to Warren 2,000 2,000 SR 60 60/215 to Relands 500 500 5,000 6,000 Economic Development Interchanges 1-15 Galena Interchange 2,734 2,734 Local Circulation Interchanges SR 60 Fredrick @ SR 60 7,323 7,323 SR 60 Valley Way @ SR 60 7,004 7,004 SR 91 Adams @ SR 91 11,758 11,758 SR 91 La Sierra @ SR 91 15,460 15,460 10,570 SR 91 Van Buren @ SR 91 750 650 9,170 Program Management 8 Support Casts 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 700 700 700 18,100 Total Programmed 4,985 12,453 19,930 9,734 2,000 23,086 7,251 24,460 20,595 21,557 38,991 185,042 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC i— SUBJECT OF _ COMMENTS: X PUBLIC COMMENTS: I p V.' "; 11 O t l ��5 ocorl b 1) o hl AGENDA ITEM NOIS) AND SUBJECTISI: NAME: a la a 0. v GRlahli_ DATE: p�1 _ry 1 -1 ,2 (')b ADDRESS: 12'756 6 cJ7A g1/l ��S??`1TEL. NO: 6d 7 " / 3/ 1 i REPRESENTING: ����l�o1J 1640Dl BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: ✓ PUBLIC COMMENTS: ( U al"k I AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECTIS): NAME: C� O R 1s® N DATE: I- 11- Or-, ADDRESS: TEL. NO: 3 v 6 - // Z REPRESENTING: MAC; / BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board. PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS: e#14bt C AGENDA ITEM N AND SUBJECTISI: NAME: Pt ick retz ce -ceer ADDRESS: PI / 42— Gintv Ifj CRC Xwcrs QCk 42.6-Z( REPRESENTING: vcR cc - BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 DATE: I / 2- /bc TEL. NO: 1 of - S' TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM NOM) Q AND SUBJECTISI: J NAME: NoMPiw c7 ,.0g."' DATE: j'I-'6-0 ii�2`�JfI % TEL. NO: 201-6`S""+o< ADDRESS: REPRESENTING: Cr( v • • w " BUSINESS ADDRESS: 1406'1" RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO:"^ "` ()) cvA, rbA ovvi" L 0—D �c�So4�.e i 6a-vo ,n+,Q-Are Measure "A" safety commitment 1988 In 1997 concerned citizens who use highway 74 regularly, gathered at the R.C.T.C. office to protest the number of accidents occurring between the city of Perris and Lake Elsinore. The outcome was a promise from the board. Safety would be the priority regarding future measure "A" projects. This would put Highway 74 up front according to the deaths and accidents that have occurred on this stretch of dangerous highway. According to the California Highway Patrol, from 1988 through 1997, reported statistics were: 45 Deaths, 1026 Injuries, and 1131 total reported accidents. Not included: Deaths resulting from injuries incurred in these accidents. On January 22, 1992 at Perris High School: Public information meeting; Planned improvements to state route 74 were exhibited. On September 22, 1994 at Temescal High School: Public information meeting; February 1994 Final Project Report of planned improvements to highway 74 was exhibited. Attachment 8 says that peak hours of 1991 statistics were used. Highway speed is planned for 70 M.P.H. This eliminates the opportunity for curbs and gutters according to Cal -Trans. Due to the growth of population along this highway and the future growth coupled with the number of ingress and egress access, makes the idea of 70 M.P.H. ridiculous. For safety, the speed limit should be held at 45 M.P.H. along the complete stretch of the project. This also allows future development and existing communities the ability to develop sidewalks. Pedestrian mobility has been completely ignored throughout this project, along with pull offs for school and R.T.A. buses. Now back to this date, October 1999. R.C.T.C. is still in the planning process, with the promise of a traffic light at Meadowbrook and Greenwald by April 2000. To be fair to Riverside County Transportation Commission, there are two agencies involved here, Riverside County Transportation Commission and Cal -Trans. This traffic light was promised for August 1999, but due to misunderstandings related to acquisition of land, caused by Cal -Trans. negotiations, this delay will undoubtably be the cause of further suffering. Seven months is an unreasonable delay, especially when negotiations originally commenced in June of 1999. Meanwhile, overpasses in Murrieta and Temecula continue, also upgrade to Jefferson to a 6-lane highway, safety upgrade Pull off and buffer on center lane of the 215 from Sun City, and traffic lights going in at places where no record of accidents compares to Greenwald and Highway 74. We are therefore putting everyone who holds elected positions responsible for planning highways on notice that; This issue is above politics and should be considered a major emergency. See accompanying Petition i 1 I have read the statement regarding Measure "A" Safety Commitment and I agree with it. This issue is above politics and should be considered a major emergency. nature Printed Name Address k i rie4 i S c- 4 _ k3 -J04,NC fzG-4 ,4- Fe. l;c...;e.11a 2(2,e,e,srps:7-",-7 .1499--9Ya9K s7. R R i S 9;,5 l o / �0 �� % �.t Q,,e. 40m6:„,99s 7 d �4 .� 7rf� / J �vZ vrs- S 7`. �rlt /z /.1^ 111 0940 rems, G j g.160'P- �'1 -�// e PO a 0.1 PA 9 f 15 30.r - be La4,-c4 Si.1' (.c kc set rare CA 9 zS 30 j.0. I 7a2 173:- A69h tuba-- mhtor,� � � a ,ot , 1, �� SQNC? \5 2 j 3 �4lLTu 4 5 5.0.4,Ka 7 9)9 8� 9 424.-t I 0 ee/ 14 15 I have read the statement regarding Measure "A" Safety Commitment and I t agree with it. This issue is above politics and should be considered a major emergency. ,Signature 1 t trial C u. erg Printed Name //i/e09 Address / t- it 37 C414o9 \Iraryi26110 1 E0_0%3 C4 / y/94/4‘Z aEt.71.3 p.„ „ - ► ` , a. 7 c� Nr`7 - /]/L!gtA) Da- R n Ltle )--r)� `Ail 747AL_ z27/6 �s� ��- Gam. z27/¢10 rs71,1ER (57 PERe/ i a 92576 (iv ri %0(0 es(c/l=A1S1 dr�F 6r7 7G 2 2 0 S' / 43 K, /6' Z. L 7 Q4 dal/ 1114, fl4up.deP,r2 92,‘g7 g g 5( "iVo/f/1////L1-- ° /1/ c / ! y / fit4/.5 '�b st // s r �PI"a�2i•,•ca �-d rz•�-�z �'� - �S - �rv�-�• dc • a-�+j.4c, •v%J !2 /n(6 i4►t,( qZo !3 CIS c cC_( 02 t c,� S7Z !4-✓aisit 7 Cilk-s-ri)1 t-> • `Z «q (y..)‘ ,'Sol, po :5 0s i Jledecs 7a % Bay !De/4 Pe (-h.( rn , /702S72_ ,6 � '5--Ovrivet Lye ? • 72-)SS- 14011400,1 €1-. 00,1. a. 92S 20 i' / 8 //� v ��. (AY :/ / /' 11, /do; e- Zt e 0- ,:-.,128" T-e R,Pke e____ � (--.0-_,-. C71- ?cAs-zo 0 e'iciv-t ' , Cc,tt,-not ic'zE1z 9,(7 . 09 >u,9 ►J,0 Alit'Aier- 41 ?2-s 3 Y7d C,,,A. 925 7c Printed Name I have read the statement regarding Measure "A" Safety Commitment and I agree with it. This issue is above politics and should be considered a major emergency. Signature )/Zr,e2 10--2.) ,e,,e4.5" �/ � L- 65 ,z7i57 YsT7-v- /I mE-6,30�� a ,--<-VJ. (104, f\ ni1 . �1C�-�c-\&-' i),`��-kTD,\ `JvcKS VA:\Ni\,5rce_kk • Cj127,0.04 BOILeMti1- ose r- 273 yo SAry i .S s r Per r st 5 f CA- q�'7 C jcP-- )/747-7 1� 2 9 s- Address D _'a �e i�d5- CuYIA,D I have read the statement regarding Measure "A" Safety Commitment and I agree with it. This issue is above politics and should be considered a major emergency. Address S T/ � � ufi )4 fi Iv// ,� / / 7» /4 � % 1 r1 � 1�AA/t '4h 1--G�A y�l /7 1%'�r, "i yr- Altri 4/ tinkotiAd 6 _ 4ijj P.-LrtA A 0 7?» Z- 71 /sue �_ �> /;-L 2 s F.Di EA1 C zyrip:zp ie eQ (Q Ai O ff- Q-)D-3'ub* Seve6,4 - / 330 f� �s.rir a�E� () 0/ /V2P% ct.ctt 4-16e6 C 2/n G 3 Sfre."..d c��ti G,�. C//;/Ci<77- 4<- PFReig 0/1-- 16 .7) PetM /Vt 6_ 15 61 7;)-5-'-716 5 a,(--c'k dc--(() a'7(C tilarra0 �'YY1 S -TANIS CD12�i . <izi1,2U�� ��. Pe.e.k1 5, s Perrr' �S a 4051 f;(7 Lr„ toceo✓ �Pv" I have read the statement regarding Measure "A" Safety Commitment and I agree with it. This issue is above politics and should be considered a major emergency. Signature 3 Printed Name Address &-1 ak . 5 N( ;19 go )is,Gy f P? /di, , 7/ 4." I D7ajn y /3 > �3w4 7' 7J,--7 ," / oi/00 Pn-rrw.54 PEXR7_5- 74- 1c �, ,Z 2 r ,5-. 70757 --.-Z -)670( / _--tfiqf- _S5" 2- 1-4--) l we L,v. =40,(3 - _( % U 4 �.AY' 7 Z-igh;5- 3tiq brifiu>all . LE Q2 5:30 Z 7 / - kruks rc(6c-:.) �UTr" ;cs—t— J t� ,2l7 44 --I-- Es' 2fiV 021 ' 1 e 0/ M. Se/7 /9oe evi—e Lg(e)-cfi s 77) I/ gg‘z.z.) �. L7.e-(F/ � � 6_,(,(e„epAA2„ qc,25-7) fiez ldi{1ft,. a 9 g So (`66,2i.iSf I �rr�s��� ra$7n �. 01 c� kteiS fv5As7v2, I have read the statement regarding Measure "A" Safety Commitment and I agree with it. This issue is above politics and should be considered a major emergency. nature rinted . me vGtiG�_ dress 2 6-,I 9' p Poor-ag 4 exyl 5 0, 1 z vA-7 t-)! . 1 o f N(- a- 42-Y7 �fi n ,�' 7 7(qo )aivit'• I'--- e e v Q. S �./- a)b Z-796 ha 5 - r )9602.15 12,76, l-/21C 51-612 w, 11 r 1:,,,,�(;_r, - ,f ,,'t -3 I Alit) rcer /% k1 -1 X y t4cc- u 5 l? 1 war b-076-7A-L)_,'25 5,1 l ('_ )4- - . !rl c--,_ci, „_; o k . I% Pc1�, k 2 b 73 $i 176 Acii S� `� fe nsS flf-ttAD ODI/Y9 i/P- ILI 0') (1)Z- 4 6 V/) 1_77 f 'l t ci c e' / P ) 12/0 1/,r rko �A�wfy cq 2� /ZS /9-vS'7,/, _ �T Lu A- op d -c1 1,5 A -lets (5fd- in v5ie--��- 1 1 1) cf2Sq 0 A/ /vf A 71/ 7) ,aG�✓ -yam 911 7 o c N( A /V A w / (431 1 Z 2 Y6 %,,g-tas 4114.01 2 7(So o 57-f U15rit f� v F 3 a 9 r 3 f?t,c��rr brz - %�l> f&--rf I � 2,s7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 17 18 19 )O ?1 �2 ?3 ?4 ?5 '_6 '7 1 2 3 4 I have read the statement regarding Measure "A" Safety Commitment and I t agree with it. This issue is above politics and should be considered a major emergency. Signature Printed Name ��� , Cam_. IA c �aa00 ./K,L) egoacA Address s L� p.,iePT7r .D ` e� 5 7 "� 1a m e i iG'/+� �.-Yt: ZZ2 0 d ��µ-el /`["a1�/lo c2 ()) eijer ted cr-, �� (moo, G"); ///'mrnc 5“2 (lci_t_l�-S-07 fe(riSSZS}l /3/?' �.. YG'--dUt. %kn A 4.2 "`J-367 c�01cgpp--PkIeR -2b * (v .A6gfS`1+u.i 7Y (24, `7 4'i Lti fotivk / 1. 41 to, I 0 FLATFIA-itiAc s-STVP A0956 Meif/posfi,et 44,C%��V'n,o�rL erLfaa 1\.ram 11/.0 ;t li r2 a-ft) dg-cdt-e_o Zerye-721 /S2 e7/ge( Dr,Rce_,44-� 14iP/e/77— AP 305r �lT� Ol e ,Z /1.01 / h S S d(/, L":d lZ / n , g co o�d''gtD� T-iv.- r - ems 72773 RP, (6n W(`) 3 1 �►vl . C,o //fw.rLL Ai/ 2.�-2-00/eivery:4- ifarfijc,4 92.57o -2722‘ reenc✓,,jd e- eenri's C11 i 2 s 7v 42�ce2 Mo �ye4 �,.y 6py� SIPIz 13Ei-G-R/Avt A,vb� G. G, q I have read the statement regarding Measure "A" Safety Commitment and I agree with it. This issue is above olitics and should be considered a ma'or emer enc . i nature 1r 2 4 S 6 7 J 8 ` �v - 9 0 of,b, A;47z-b(ce,5, 11 12 13 14 IS 6 7 ' rinted Name oorz afar f 4 a L Lb2 p9 c c. _c.7(9 Lek e det e 66(e._ 3C tC reC, Address 0? a�� C_�a5->a c1zS t 97 / PO -) F.(LICe). • /33C; A' /F )/9 4-; S t�N Sr PrIs�i � 7(PLl2 � � ' e � '`• S / `G• Stir � y(_ - .r�..,,�'c� � ° pei • o „if n4 -lc) ',ea% 0 S `77i A) o /4%)/lia C 5 `Ar7% tiV �83oi �.v6, pia if 754.E G).i sB6 U er c3 -5� ,A Pta P I have read the statement regarding Measure "A" Safety Commitment and I agree with it This issue is above politics and should be considered a major emergency. 2�`��.�-' ���`�„ /41 0215,99' ers;-4.1xe 3 v-)97� Gv;cki)0dt ��5 �,49,4 (51, Si%�N2u�� 9g,. 1�r-Ak(91 . n 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 i3 4 4/ 15 16 aA7igurirto tr60 17 18 19 '0 ?1 2 F. - ?3 ?4 ?5 ?6 ?7 �g ?9 30 C`� 4 L /2 Er�� ,4 n F ll,t z93ri ao,�-4-y st st, iv ,te �3 1,„ tic L� 3 Qzu,6A-4 C�M7110 E Cfm,e At 6 ,c) n 3 i r � g3i 9.9-04E 4i2,1EZ ��e/ r ,ate. /dd/fittil /179/P/W-ex) -:2(-11cP0 24'-'14--"-:- -45 1 6 4-Cex S)l,-A- 2 si S-'1/-e-e-L.el Pi, (i-,,%a(1- p -( dose \IAt art a--7 ` 1 G v ork RIB Amit$n/ A c it f-36-0- �'��l- �s'a-s /u, i%a1° 11/Ti `f`� l C� . �'`�Sf%ikfr -r ea-C g2r7-0 54‘"90)- 20-( ee.1404/Nn c i o st T#7SPER 1\ckmas 546 .K4D� Ave . n Q /r,.c3 d6-77()xre g*`f /-dQ,-73,x4A�i' Ye.�-- S 29,zC‘ 13/0,,)/APK. S✓,v6/7/ /126' N EP rowr Tr&4P-ni &L CAeaS 771-0 5114 D1-4 o. Sve Ty C 9 eyed- /y) \r✓fi e 'VmN c4_12,1r-e_ev M ,cii-c2/5- -Atop 7ij rri__51 z� C(( A-ic. • ,(i evo y'c;SO .o- �,c till ems) C.t1 42s/2- 01 kittig 11\i4 ejans596 *Pt Z.Qcp F1' cR,rri`s 25-70 1�3'7� Reatbt �,� , 01, V ca. 9.955