Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
09 September 14, 2006 Commission
78086 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 4:00 p.m. DATE: Thursday, September 14, 2006 LOCATION: Embassy Suites Hotel La Quinta 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta Commissioners Chairman: Marion Ashley 1 s` Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson 2' Vice Chairman: Jeff Stone Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Barbara Hanna / Art Welch, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / Joseph DeConinck, City of Blythe John Chlebnik / Shenna Moqeet / Bill Davis, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Charles England, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Alex Bias / Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Mary Roche / Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Douglas McAllister, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Alan Semen, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams, City of Riverside Jim Ayres / Chris Buydos, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Mike Perovich, Governor's Appointee Eric Haley, Executive Director Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission, ff 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 www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 4: 00, p.m. Thursday, September.14, 2006 Embassy Suites Hotel La Quinta 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3 ROLL CALL 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 12, 2006 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission mayadd an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a. unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7. CONSENT CALENDAR. - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 14, 2006 Page 2 7A. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE FINANCING THROUGH STATEWIDE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Page 1 Overview This, item is for the Commission to receive and file the status report on Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) financing, through Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP). 7B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 3- Overview This item is for the. Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the twelve-month period . ended June 30, 2006. 7C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Page 11 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2006. 7D. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT ` Page 21 Overview This item is for the Committee to receive and file the Single, Signature Authority Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2006. 7E. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Page 23 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2006. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 14, 2006 Page 3 7F. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY SERVICES CONTRACT INCREASE Page 25 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve a $400,000 increase for Strategic Partnership Advisory Services and amendments, as necessary, to Agreement Nos. 06-66-026-00, 06-66-027-00 and 06-66-028-00; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute. the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 7G. OBLIGATION AUTHORITY LOAN TO SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS Page 27 Overview Thisitem is for the Commission to receive and 'file the Obligation Authority Loan Report. 7H.. TRANSPORTATION .UNIFORM MITIGATION •FEE REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM — QUARTERLY REPORT Page 31 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program Quarterly Report. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 14, 2006 Page 4 71. CITY OF CORONA TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAMMING REQUEST FOR GREEN RIVER ROAD AND EL CERRITO ROAD PROJECTS Page 35 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve reprogramming of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds fore the Green River Road project to include $200,000 for the environmental phase, $600,000 for the design phase,. and $3,442,000 for construction; 2) Ap.prove extending limits on the Green River Road project to Palisades Drive for plans, specifications, and cost estimate (PS&E) design work only; 3) Approve TUMF Regional Arterial Program funds for construction of the Green River Road project from State -Route 91 to Dominguez Ranch Road; 4) Approve .Agreement No. 06-72-539-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-72-539, to reflect the above changes;. 5) Approve Agreement No. 07-72-038-00 for programming of $1- million in TUMF funds for the El Cerrito-Road/1-15 Interchange improvement project to include $120,000 previously programmed for right-of-way and $880,000 in additional funding for the construction phase; 6) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute. the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 7) Approve, an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of $1.3 million. 7J. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND CITY OF BLYTHE REGARDING STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM INTRA-COUNTY FORMULA FUNDING Page 41 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve Memorandum of Understanding IMOU) No. 07-71-028 with city of Blythe (City) trading a total of $2,291,656 of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Intra-county Palo Verde Valley formula funds with Measure A Western County highway funds. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 14, 2006 Page 5 7K. FISCAL YEAR 2007/11 MEASURE A ` 'FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF LAKE ELSINORE, NORCO AND RANCHO MIRAGE Page 46 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2007/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the cities of Lake Elsinore, Norco and Rancho Mirage as submitted. 7L. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS ALLOCATION FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE PALO VERDE VALLEY APPORTIONMENT AREA Page 67 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the allocation of FY 2006/07 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for local streets and roads purposes in the Palo Verde Valley area as shown on the attached table. 7M. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 70 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update. 7N. _ INTERSTATES 15/215 FREEWAY TRAFFIC DETECTION AUGMENTATION PROJECT Page 76 Overview This item is for the Commission to.: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to enter into . a . Cooperative Agreement No. 07-41-037-00 with Caltrans for the 1-15/1-215 Freeway Traffic Detection augmentation project; and 2) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of $2.3 million. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 14, 2006 Page 6 70. STATE ROUTE .91 COMMUTER EXPRESS BUS - ROUTE 794 • DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Page 81 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the request from the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for the Commission to provide 100% of the RTA's share in the operation of the Route 794 demonstration project costs, using Commuter Assistance Measure A funds, in an amount not to exceed $120,000 for FY 2006/07. 7P. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS Page 87 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the report on State Transit Assistance (STA) funding apportionments. 7Q. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT - RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Page 90 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1► Allocate $3,888 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds ` to Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to cover additional operating costs; 2) Receive and file a report on implementation of a University Pass Program with the University of Riverside, California (UCR) and 3) Amend RTA's •FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the service changes, contingent upon compliance with Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) targets, as well as the implementation of the University Pass Program and implementation of Route 794, an express bus service along State Route 91. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 14, 2006 Page 7 7R. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT- SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $833,657 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) due to a shortfall in federal funding and $25,000 in LTF for development of a Facilities Design Manual; 2) Approve SunLine's request to reprogram funding to purchase ten replacement and five expansion vehicles and 3} Reprogram $194,317 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds and $777,270 in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds to purchase two expansion vehicles. Page 93 7S. FISCAL YEARS 2006/07 AND 2007/08 CALL FOR PROJECTS: MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM - WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Page 96 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the requests for Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in Western Riverside County for: • Blindness Support, Agreement No. 07-26-023-00 • Volunteer Center, Agreement No. 07-26-021-00 • Whiteside Manor, Agreement No. 07-26-024-00 in an aggregate amount not to exceed $323,364 in FY 2006/07 and $317,174 in FY 2007/08; 2) Approve interim funding in the amount of $32,500 for Care Connexxus, Agreement No. 07-26-022-00, covering the months of October through December 2006. Interim funding wilt enable the agency's services to continue without interruption; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to enter into funding agreements as appropriate; and 4) Direct staff to develop a specialized transit program geared towards on -going chemotherapy, radiation and dialysis treatment. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 14, 2006 Page 8 7T. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 07-72-030-00 WITH THE CITY OF CORONA FOR THE FUNDING AND PREPARATION OF A PROJECT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE CAJALCO/ INTERSTATE 15 INTERCHANGE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 106 1) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 07-72-030-00 between the city of Corona and the Commission for the preparation of a_ project report and environmental document (PR&ED) for the Cajalco/I-15 Interchange; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7U. AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-014-03 WITH CHONG PARTNERS ARCHITECTURE. TO PREPARE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR A PARKING STRUCTURE FOR THE NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK STATION Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 115 1► Approve Agreement No. 03-31-014-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 03-31-014, with Chong Partners Architecture Inc. to prepare plans, specifications and cost estimate (PS&E) for the additional amount of $141,225, including a three-month calendar extension to contract term, and a total not to exceed amount of $1,451.,228; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 14, 2006 Page 9 7V. AGREEMENTS WITH PARAGON PARTNERS, LTD., OVERLAND PACIFIC CUTLER, INC., AND, EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS,INC. FOR ON -CALL RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION, REAL PROPERTY SEARCHES, IDENTIFICATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR REPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION ` SITES, COST ESTIMATES, AND UTILITIES RELOCATION SERVICES Page 123 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 07-72-025-00 to Paragon Partners, Ltd., Agreement No. 07-72-026-00 to Overland Pacific Cutler, Inc., and Agreement No. 07-72-027-00 to Epic Land Solutions, Inc. to perform On -Call Right -of -Way (ROW) Acquisition and Relocation, Real Property Searches, Identification and Feasibility Studies for Replacement and Mitigation Sites, Cost Estimates, and Utilities Relocation Services (ROW services); 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount. of $300,000. 7W. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SECURITY SYSTEMS AT THE METROLINK STATIONS Page 126 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve Agreement No. 04-25-962-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 04-25-962, with Inland Vault & Security, Inc: for Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Security Systems Maintenance Services to amend the term and rates of the agreement. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 14, 2006 Page 10 8. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 130 1) Adopt the following positions on statewide ballot propositions:. Propositions 1A & 113 - SUPPORT Proposition 90 - OPPOSE; and 2) Direct staff to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for federal. legislative advocacy services. FORWARD INTEREST RATE SWAP TRANSACTION. Overview This item is for the Commission to receive an oral report on the Forward Interest Rate Swap Transaction. 10. PRESENTATION - NEW COMMUTER EXCHANGE MOBILE EDUCATION VEHICLE Page 138 This item is for the Commission to receive a presentation of the new Commuter Exchange Mobile Education Vehicle. 11. ITEMS. PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 14, 2006 Page 11 13. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners - See List of Property Owners Item APN Property Owner(s) 1 •932-170-018 Biggerstaff 2 362-130-019 Portion of 362-130-010 Borchard 3 932-020-002 Austin Murrieta • 4 569 040 007 569-040-031 SSR Investment Co., LP 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Friday, September 15, 2006, Embassy Suites Hotel La Quinta, 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 Present Absent unty of RiJversi County of Riverside, County<of, Riverside, County of Riverside, County of Rverside City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe ity of; Calirmes`a City of Canyon Lake City of'Cath£edral i,ert City of Coachella Strict_ I'' District II Distnc; District IV !strict ,V. City of Desert Hot Springs Cityrof Hem City of Indian Wells pity of Indio` City of La Quinta City of; Lake,Elsinori City of Moreno Valley City o f Murrie• City of Norco City of,Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City o=f Riversi' City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS ( S)j pi 0-31_ - C., !v iti c f G P ! � fii .c, H i7 K ILo Gic' ✓7 54/4 1)1/ / 5 // // / , Nl if7be2C 4 %. ra0 ���ti 0k4 � O INC �CYL . V'V`a, )04 E, n104. ALin GsA �S <0 2�o/ S 11( oL. �. E �° /��' RA-!Uo/-Eo /I71401- ny c'iGt Ck'...t@ Act ;v6- A ,I41' Oyez 4-:.Q-c' ,(-7_, _A_(_,_,,,-)t_}1 4,,,,,.._-_,) ti .,,E AVhAVV1r Cot/6-r) Cam' �- A/AG sal _ // s--. ,�_/,' — �e.Ut o �L� 1A ✓1 � tom/ Lam' eke) e.iil �5 A. � 4tL / �/ l r l7 (L�-(Pito c.�,ai-1-0,p,-10 �� _5•f9yV 74- ,---- / f?l,cdeZ ,1421-256 ' '� �4 /a Z, /- 7`` f'/4141-hr :',/14-.' S: 2W f �iV K /1-71/4- L L. /UO,CCo •rdiailO S 0a301 eiNtt F/7/9/WC W s 7-- / al tc-wo I//1a e--- % (-/f- -S---e C riq lee.. G4,' �/f �oi/e. A..4.zy &2.,r_ 6- c G'4 A et 33.6 pe mc,�t.frt 7 n i3 t2.)vJ-+0ff I t0.66WAV 436)C 3 hisA4 !" (4),r(I,S:),YGi 4r-k )\r" �Rnn l br-A.'lorx.rckaoV\Y\G* Q {id0,(_LAK 45 verside County ransportation Commission September 13, 2006 R. A. `Barney" Barnett 474 Prospect Avenue Highgrove, California 92507 Riverside County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Stree4 3rd Floor • Riverside, Gtlifsrnia Mailing Address.: Post Office Box 12008 • Riverside, Calirnia 92502 2208 Phone (951) 787-7141 • Fax 050 787-7920 • unouerete.org RE: Transportation Center for Highgrove Area Dear Mr. Barnett, Thank you for your letter of September 8, 2006 regarding your vision for a Highgrove area Transportation Center. In your letter, you expressed concern that a 35 acre parcel in the Highgrove area may be sold by its current owners to a private developer. You further requested that RCTC write a letter to the owners of property to notify them of RCTC's interest in the property and request that they not sell it to a private developer at this time. While we understand your desire for RCTC to move quickly on this matter, as a public agency, RCTC must abide by certain procedures. In particular, state and federal law provide property owners with rights against governmental interference in their use, ownership and sale of property. In this case, RCTC does not have a formal project identified for the property or funding identified for its acquisition. Federal regulations do allow advance acquisition of certain properties under specific conditions. Unfortunately, these conditions do not exist at this time. Based on advice from legal counsel, we are concerned that writing such a letter to the property owners could be construed as creating a cloud on the title of the property which could result in RCTC incurring liability as well as jeopardizing the RCTC's application for federal funding for the entire Perris Valley Line project. Accordingly we do not believe that it is in the best interest of the RCTC to act at this time. That said, you can rest assured that in the meantime we are working hard to find a solution to the serious transportation issues facing the Highgrove area. Again, thank you for all your hard work. Sincerely, Eric Haley Executive Director Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA. 92501 Dear Mr. Haley, Sept. 8, 2006 fp@EilWEE SE:P 12 2006 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The time for immediate action is necessary to make an offer for the vacant property in the Highgrove area for a Transportation Center or it will soon fall into the hands of a developer. First of all, thank you (and Stephanie Wiggins) for meeting with me on August 3, 2006. I have been working very hard since that time to involve others who can help make this an important transportation location for the entire area. On Aug. 10, 2006 I spoke to the Grand Terrace City Council under public comments about the urgency of securing this Highgrove location. On Aug. 22, it was thoroughly discussed at our public community meeting in Highgrove. On Aug. 30, 2006 the City Manager of Grand Terrace, Tom Schwab, their SANBAG representative Bea Cortes and I met at San Bernardino County Supervisor Dennis Hansburger's office to discuss how this station would benefit both counties. The September issue of the Highgrove Happenings delivered on Sept, rt to all the residents of Highgrove included the importance of this location not only for a Metrolink Station but for using this area for a''/s mile extension of Spring St. to connect to Citrus St. to enable all residents on the east side of the 3 BNSF railroad tracks to access the I-215 freeway without having to wait on trains or without having to build an overpass. 'The two main east/west roads in Highgrove were blocked for 18 hours when a train derailment on Aug. 26`h closed both Center St. and Main Street. This proposed extension of Spring St. would have prevented Highgrove residents from being cut off at the grade crossings for such an extended period of time. This proposed road is also in a direct line and within 1/4 mile of the 2,100 new homes of the Spring Mountain Ranch and Springbrook Estates developments. On Sept. 7, 2006 CSA 126 Advisory Board member Don Earp and I met with Jaime Hurtado, Board Assistant to Riverside County Supervisor Ashley, and Juan. Perez who is the Deputy Director of Transportation for Riverside County, to discuss this new road. Returning from our meeting at the County Administration Building, we noticed grading stakes in the field of this vacant 35 acres so I called Brad Hudson, City Manager for the City of Riverside trying to find out if the property had been sold to a developer. Mr. Hudson referred me to Ken Guiterrez, Planning Director for the City of Riverside. That same day I also talked with Assembleyman, Bill Emmerson of the 63rd district to thank him for his Aug. 14, 2006 letter of support for a Metrolink station in Highgrove and stress the urgency of prompt action before this property becomes un-available. 'The following day on Sept. 8, 2006 the City of Riverside' head Planning Director, Ken Gutierrez returned my call concerning the 35 acres with the new grading stakes. He advised me that there is a developer that is currently very interested in the property. I have also talked with Senator Bob Dutton and sent him information about the Highgrove Metroiink Station and will do a follow up with him this week. On Sept. 13, 20061 have another meeting with the Mayor of the City of Colton, Deirdre Bennett and the Mayor of the City of Loma Linda, Rob Christman to discuss their participation. Both Mayors are also their city's SANBAG representatives. If this property is sold to a developer, then one of your 2 options will be eliminated for the route between the Perris Valley line (that RCTC already owns) and Riverside. The only other option will be trying to negotiate an agreement with the Union Pacific to use their railroad from Marlborough Ave. to Riverside. Here is the bottom line: Mr. Haley, I am asking you to write a letter of intent to the owners of this 35 acre property to let them know that the property should not be sold to a developer and that RCTC may also be interested in this 35 acres of vacant land. This action may give more time to re -assess the importance of this location and involve participation from SANBAG or our Calif. State Assembleyman, Bill Emmerson and Senator Bob Dutton before an agreement is signed between the developer and the property owners. Here is one of the Assessors Parcel Numbers and the last shown owners of the property. APN 247150-009 Desai Family limited partnership 3 Dunn St. Laguna Niguel, Ca. 92677 Your prompt action is urgently requested! Please forward this information to all members of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Thank You, It. A. `Barney„ Barnett 474 Prospect Ave. Highgrove, Ca. 92507 (951) 683 4994 Cc: All SANBAG commissioners Asembleyman, Bill Emmerson Senator, Bob Dutton 951-683-4994 (Home) 951-683-7258(Fax) East 2 a. ° vat„ rikvinett etEuittnunc 951-255-6648 (Cell) hi.,ti.....,.or.a...aT. aelnInhia ,,..t AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1. CALL TO -ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Marion Ashley at 10:01 a.m., in the. Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 925.01. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Steve Adams led the Commission in a flag salute. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Steve Adams Marion Ashley Jim Ayres Roger Berg Alex Bias Daryl Busch Bob Buster John Chlebnik Mary Craton Juan DeLara Rick Gibbs Frank Hall Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Richard Kelly Robin Lowe Bob Magee Ron Meepos Jeff Miller Ronald Oden Michael Perovich Gregory Pettis_ Ron Roberts Mary Roche Jeff Stone Michael H. Wilson. Roy Wilson Robert Crain John F. Tavaglione Frank West Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 14, 2006 M/S/C (Lowe/Henderson) to approve the June 14, 2006 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Ayres, Chlebnik, Meepos, M. Wilson 6. PUBLIC HEARING — FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 ALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES Tanya Love, Program Manager, provided an overview of the FY 2006/07 allocation of funding for Riverside County transit services based on the Short Range Transit Plans. Chair Ashley opened the public hearing at this time. No comments were received from the public and the Chair closed the public hearing. M/S/C (M. Wilson/Meepos) to: 1) Approve the FY 2006/07 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 5311 Program . of Projects for Riverside County; 2) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; 3) Approve the FY 2006/07 Local Transportation Fund(LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit as shown in Attachment 2; and 4) Adopt Resolution No. 06-016, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate' State Transit Assistance Funds' 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley announced revisions to the following agenda items: • Agenda Item 9, "Agreements with Lim and Nascimento Engineering Corporation to Prepare an Initial Study and Environmental Re - Evaluation (Phase Al followed by development of Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (Phase B) for the Construction and Highway Improvements Consisting of Two New High Occupancy Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 3 Vehicle Lane Structures at the Interstate 215/State Route 60 East Junction Between Box Springs Over Crossing and Day Street Under Crossing"; and • Agenda Item 11, "Western Riverside County Freeway Strategic Plan". 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Ashley notified the Commissioners to the possible conflict of interest related to Agenda Items 8C, 81, 8J, 8K, 8Q, 9 and 10. Vice Chair Jeff Stone requested that Commission staff or legal counsel request campaign contribution 'statements for the Commissioners to determine if there is a conflict of interest. Eric Haley, Executive Director, stated that staff will work with legal counsel to develop a courtesy review with an understanding that staffis only working with the documents that are currently available and therefore the ultimate responsibility belongs to the Commissioner: Commissioner Jeff Miller expressed concerned' about subjecting the Commission to potential liability and concurred with Eric Haley's comments regarding ultimate responsibility. Commissioners Terry Henderson and Robin Lowe noted' that a list of contracts is provided in the agenda packet. Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, stated that staff can collect and review this information as a courtesy to Commissioners, but the obligation remains with each of the Commissioners to review the list of contracts that are provided in the agenda packet. Commissioner Roy Wilson also noted that as part of a request for proposal, contractors ° are ` required to disclose , any campaign contributions to Commissioners. Eric 'Haley confirmed` that not only is the declaration in each agenda but each prospective bidder is required to identify the contributions. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 4 Eric Haley then commented on Agenda Item 8B, "Harassment -Free Workplace Policy, ,Violence in the Workplace Policy, Drug -Free. Workplace Policy, Equal Opportunity Policy, and Electronic . Communications Policy", noting that these policies apply to Commissioners and staff.: Commissioner Henderson requested a copy of the policies be sent to all Commissioners for inclusion in the Resource Notebook. Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board, responded that she will coordinate this request with John Standiford; Public Affairs Director. At Commissioner Bob Buster's request, Eric Haley provided on overview of Agenda Item 8H, "Southern California Goods Movement Strategy Memorandum of Agreement", highlighting 1) the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan; 2) the importance of a single point of contact for all entities that have independent financial capacity to match federal and state grants; 3) all five of the County Transportation Commissions in Southern California are signatories that simplifies and streamlines the lobbying and financial controls and the decision making process; 4) Southern California Association of Governments involvement; 5) structure of the representation and Commission representatives; and 6) meeting schedule and location. M/S/C (Lowe/Adams) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: - Abstain: Ashley on Agenda Item 8C, Stone. 8A. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND PROPOSED , GOALFOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 1) Adopt 2.90% as its Annual Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal for -Federal FY 2006/07 from October 1, 2006 to September 30,; 2007; 21. Adopt Resolution No. 06-018, "Resolution Of The Riverside. County Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2006/07 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Goal (49 CFR Part 26) as Applies to Funding Received Directly from the Federal Transit Administration'; and 3) Submit the FFY 2006/07 FTA DBE Program and Annual Goal to the FTA. 8B. HARASSMENT -FREE WORKPLACE POLICY, VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE POLICY, DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE POLICY, EQUAL " R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n M i n u t e s J u l y 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 P a g e 5 O P P O R T U N I T Y P O L I C Y , A N D ' E L E C T R O N I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N S P O L I C Y R e c e i v e ` a n d f i l e t h e r e v i s e d H a r a s s m e n t - F r e e W o r k p l a c e P o l i c y , V i o l e n c e i n t h e W o r k p l a c e P o l i c y , D r u g - F r e e W o r k p l a c e P o l i c y , E q u a l O p p o r t u n i t y P o l i c y , a n d E l e c t r o n i c C o m m u n i c a t i o n s P o l i c y . 8 C . A M E N D M E N T T O A G R E E M E N T F O R F I N A N C I A L _ A D V I S O R Y S E R V I C E S 1 ) A p p r o v e A g r e e m e n t N o . 0 4 - 1 9 - 0 2 9 - 0 1 , A m e n d m e n t N o . 1 t o - A g r e e m e n t N o . 0 4 - 1 9 - 0 2 9 , w i t h F i e l d m a n , R o l a p p & A s s o c i a t e s ( F i e l d m a n ) t o a m e n d t h e t e r m a n d r a t e s o f t h e a g r e e m e n t f o r f i n a n c i a l a d v i s o r y s e r v i c e s ; a n d 2 ) A u t h o r i z e t h e C h a i r , p u r s u a n t t o l e g a l c o u n s e l r e v i e w , t o e x e c u t e t h e a g r e e m e n t o n b e h a l f o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n . 8 D . F I S C A L Y E A R 2 0 0 7 / 1 1 M E A S U R E A F I V E - Y E A R C A P I T A L I M P R O V E M E N T P L A N S F O R L O C A L S T R E E T S A N D R O A D S A p p r o v e t h e F Y 2 0 0 7 / 1 1 M e a s u r e A F i v e - Y e a r C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n s ( C I P ) f o r L o c a l S t r e e t s a n d R o a d s a s s u b m i t t e d . 8 E . F I S C A L Y E A R 2 0 0 5 / 0 6 M E A S U R E A C A P I T A L I M P R O V E M E N T P L A N F O R L O C A L S T R E E T S A N D R O A D S F O R T H E C I T Y O F C O R O N A A p p r o v e t h e a m e n d m e n t t o t h e F Y 2 0 0 5 / 0 6 M e a s u r e A C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n ( C I P ) f o r L o c a l S t r e e t s a n d R o a d s f o r t h e c i t y o f C o r o n a a s s u b m i t t e d . 8 F . F I S C A L Y E A R 2 0 0 6 / 0 7 S B 8 2 1 B I C Y C L E ' A N D P E D E S T R I A N F A C I L I T I E S P R O G R A M F U N D I N G R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S A p p r o v e t h e F Y 2 0 0 6 / 0 7 S B 8 2 1 B i c y c l e a n d P e d e s t r i a n F a c i l i t i e s . P r o g r a m r e c o m m e n d e d f u n d i n g a s s h o w n o n t h e a t t a c h e d s c h e d u l e . Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 6 i 8G. AGREEMENT NO. .07-33-007-00 FOR RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION EAST SIDE PARKING LOT PROJEC 1) Award Agreement. No. 07-33-007-00 to Hal Hays Construction, Inc. for the construction of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station East Side Parking Lot Project in the amount of $1,515,404 plus a contingency amount of $224,596 to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed contract authorization of $1.740 million; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Increase the project budget for Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station East Side Parking Lot project by $1.3 million in Measure A funds and $1.3 million in additional project costs and amend the Commuter Rail Short Range Transit. Plan to reflect these changes. 8H. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GOODS MOVEMENT STRATEGY MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 1) Approve the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) No. 07-67-008-00 between the County Transportation Commissions (Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Ventura); and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 81. EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT AT THE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION TO>BRE PROPERTIES, INC. 1) Award an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) No. 07-67-004-00 for Joint Development at the La . Sierra Metrolink Station to BRE Properties, Inc; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant ..to legal counsel review, to execute: the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 7 8J. SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENT 07-25=005-00 TO KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES FOR REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL ADVISORY CONSULTANTS FOR THE RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN JOINT DEVELOPMENT 11 Award Sole Source Agreement No. 07-25-005-00 to Keyser Marston Associates for Consultant Services for the Riverside -Downtown Joint Development Project in an amount not to exceed $70,500; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission 8K. AGREEMENT NO. 07-25-006-00 FOR THE INTERSTATE 15 COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY 1) Award Agreement No. 07-25-006-00 to Wilbur Smith and Associates for the 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study in an amount not to exceed $100,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Amend the FY 2006/07 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect this study. 8L. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 8M. COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT -HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1) Approve the release of a IRFP) Request for Proposal to develop a Coordinated'' Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan; and 2) Direct staff to form a Technical Advisory Committee to guide the development of the plan once the consultant has been selected and approved by the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 8 8N. FISCAL YEARS 2003/04, 2004/05 AND 2005/06 RCTC AND TRANSIT OPERATORS' TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDITS 1) Approve staff's request to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) to conduct a performance audit of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's activities and the seven public transit operators providing services in Riverside County; and 2) Direct the Chair to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to select the consultant to conduct the audits. 80. ANNOUNCEMENT OF GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM Receive and file the announcement of the availability of a RCTC Guaranteed Ride Home Service for ridesharers. 8P. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS Authorize payment of $1,645/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007 to the existing Riverside, Moreno Valley, Corona and Mira Loma buspools. 8Q. STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY AGREEMENT 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-14-009-00 to Smith, Watts & Company for State Legislative Advocacy Services; and 21 Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal . counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8R. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 1) Adopt the following bill position: AB 1699 (Frommer, D-Glendale) OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED (Change in Position); and 2) - Receive and file the State and : Legislative Update as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 9 8S. AMENDMENT TO ESCROW NO. "25123194MA, BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-8 OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE COMMISSION 1`) - Approve an Amendment to the Inducement, Escrow and Workout Agreement by and between the Communities Facilities District No. 88-8 of the County of Riverside ("A" Street - North) and the Commission; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3)- Approve Amended Escrow Instructions between the- Communities Facilities District No. 88-8 of the County of Riverside and the Commission; and 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute said Instructions; and 5) Approve that the Tax Protocol Agreement by and between the County of Riverside and the Commission be ratified: AGREEMENT NO. 07-31-010-00 TO PREPARE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND COST ESTIMATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTING OF TWO NEW HIGHOCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE STRUCTURES AT THE 60/215 EAST JUNCTION_ BETWEEN BOX SPRINGS ROAD OVER -CROSSING AND DAY STREET UNDER -CROSSING Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director, provided an overview of the 60/215 East Junction project and the selection of Lim and Nascimento Engineering Corporation. She noted that final design of this project will be completed in fall 2007 and construction will begin in 2008. M/S/C (Stone/Henderson) to: 1) Approve the selection process and award • Agreement No. 07-31-012-00 to Lim and Nascimento Engineering Corporation (LAN Engineering) to perform an initial study to consider the viability of alternate designs: that could result in cost savings during construction and, if determined by staff to be necessary, an environmental re-evaluation, for construction of; highway improvements at the I-215/SR-60 Interchange in the city of Riverside, city of Moreno Valley, and county of Riverside based on the Phase A project scope schedule and cost for the base amount of $243,580, plus 12.55% contingency amount of $30,561, to cover potential changes in scope total not to exceed amount of $274,141; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 10 2) Upon completion of the initial study and any required environmental re-evaluation, contingent upon obligation of the funds ;with Ca'trans, approve the award of Agreement No. 07-31-010-00 to LAN Engineering to perform final engineering services and prepare Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (PS&E) for construction of highway improvements at the I-215/SR-60 interchange in the city of Riverside, city of Moreno Valley, and county of Riverside based on the Phase B project scope schedule and cost for a 'total not to exceed amount of $2,225,858; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to _ execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director or his designee to approve contingency work as may be required for the project. 10. INTEREST RATE SWAP Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, presented detailed information on an interest rate swap as follows: • Commission Financing Program Status; • Consideration of Interest Rate Swaps; • _ Current Market Yield Curve Opportunities; • Interest Rate Swap Basics; • Illustration. of Typical LIBOR Swap and LIBOR Swap Analysis • Market Context; • Swap Risks and Mitigation;, • Overview of Swap Policy; • Managing Risk Exposure; • Effects of Interest Rate Movements on Swap Termination Value; and • Next Steps for a Swap Transaction. Theresia Trevino requested that the policy be amended from AAA, AA 1 /AA + and A 1 /A + ratings under the Counterparty 'Long -Term Rating {page 161 of the agenda) to AAA, AA and A, respectively. Eric Haley explained that Commission staff has been looking into this type of transaction for four years: He stated that if a discipline is created to guarantee a rate, there can be predictable fiscal decisions. In response to Commissioner Bob Buster's question, Theresia Trevino responded that it will likely be a 20-year swap, Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 11 Commissioner Buster expressed concern regarding the risks involved with this type of transaction and requested that this be reviewed by an expert in the field to provide an analysis and recommendation to the Commission. Theresia Trevino explained that this has been reviewed by the Budget and Implementation Committee and well as the financial consultants, noting that the consultants have no financial interest. She added that the importance of gaining approval today is the potential loss of opportunity to lock in the lowest rate possible as the Commission will not meet again until September Commissioner Buster stated that he would prefer to have another review by an independent source who understands these types of programs. In response to Commissioner Mary Craton's question regarding benefits for the counterparty, Theresia Trevino responded that their interest is the forward premium that is their profit. - Commissioner Steve Adams commended staff for an excellent presentation and explanation on the Interest Rate Swap and asked about stop laws or exit strategies should the interest rates drop. Theresia Trevino responded that the risk is the termination value. The Commission would have to make a'payment to the counterparty that could range from 5%-12% of the notional amount. Commissioner Adams expressed support for the Interest Rate Swap program and felt the Commission needs to fully understand the risks. He added that the penalty of waiting is that the interest ratehas already gone up 20 basis points and it will continue to do so. Commissioner Lowe remarked on discussions with the bonding and rating agencies in New York and stated that there are many benefits to this program and recommended that Commission take action at this time. Commissioner Bob 'Magee concurred with Commissioner Adams' comments and thanked staff for bringing this forward. He explained that his comfort level not only comes from staff but the safeguards that are in place. He then concurred with Commissioner Lowe that the Commission needs to act at this time. Commissioner Henderson explained that there are several agencies that are participating in the Interest Rate Swap. Her concern is that the interest rates' are going to change and the Commission needs to lock in an interest rate that the Commission can go forward to deliver transportation projects. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 12 Commissioner Roy Wilson concurredwith Commissioner Buster's concern about the lack of an outside review. He said he understands the urgency of approving the Interest Rate Swap as the interest rates are increasing. He requested an amendment to the motion to include consultation with Riverside County Treasurer Paul McDonnell. Eric Haley agreed with Commissioner Wilson's request. M/S/C (Lowe/Stone) to: 1) Approve the Riverside County Transportation Commission Swap Policy and revisions to the Debt, Management Policy; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 06-014, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Swap Policy and Revised Debt. Management Policy 3) Direct staff to develop and issue a solicitation for a request for proposals for one or more variable -to -fixed interest rate forward starting swap: transactions related to a total notional amount of $185,000,000; 4) Approve Agreement No. 07-19-011-00 with Fieldman> Rolapp Financial Services, LLC to provide swap advisory services; 5) Approve Agreement No. 05-19-510-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 05-19-510, with Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP to amend the scope of services and related compensation related to legal services related to the execution of a. swap transaction; 6) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel' review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; 7) Adopt Resolution No. 06-015, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Authorizing the Execution of a Swap_ 8) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to bond counsel review, to execute the swap transaction documents, including the International Swap and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA) Master Agreement;, (Local Currency -Single Jurisdiction) (Copyright 1992), . as amended by a Schedule and. Credit Support Annex, with the successful counterparties; and 9) Consult with the Riverside County's Treasurer Paul McDonnell. No: Pettis Abstain: Ashley " R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n M i n u t e s J u l y 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 P a g e 1 3 1 1 . W E S T E R N R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y F R E E W A Y S T R A T E G I C P L A N H i d e o S u g i t a , D e p u t y E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r , p r o v i d e d a b r i e f o v e r v i e w a n d b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e W e s t e r n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y F r e e w a y S t r a t e g i c P l a n a n d i n t r o d u c e d D a r r e n H e n d e r s o n ; T e c h n i c a l M a n a g e r f o r P a r s o n s B r i n k e r h o f f , w h o d i s c u s s e d t h e t e c h n i c a l w o r k a n d s u m m a r i z e d ' t h e k e y f i n d i n g s o n t h e w o r k c o m p l e t e d f o r t h e F r e e w a y S t r a t e g i c S t u d y P h a s e I , h i g h l i g h t i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s : " P u r p o s e o f S t u d y , R e s u l t s o f P h a s e I a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r P h a s e I I ; F r e e w a y C o n d i t i o n s F u t u r e D a i l y L e v e l o f S e r v i c e a n d D a i l y V e h i c l e M i l e s o f T r a v e l o n F r e e w a y S e g m e n t s i n W e s t e r n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y ; " P a s s - T h r o u g h S h a r e ; " N e w D e v e l o p m e n t S h a r e ( F a i r S h a r e A t t r i b u t a b l e t o G r o w t h ) ; " A d d i t i o n a l N e e d s ( O r d e r - o f - M a g n i t u d e C o s t E s t i m a t e s t o A c h i e v e L O S E i n Y e a r 2 0 3 0 ) ; F u n d i n g O p t i o n s ; a n d " P h a s e I I R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . I n r e s p o n s e t o C o m m i s s i o n e r L o w e ' s c o n c e r n t h a t t h e s t u d y i s i n c o m p l e t e d u e t h e e x c l u s i o n o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n U n i f o r m M i t i g a t i o n F e e ( T U M F ) p r o j e c t s , E r i c H a l e y e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e s c o p e o f t h e s t u d y w a s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f c a p a c i t y , n o t t o m a k e a j u s t i f i c a t i o n p r o o r c o n f o r a f e e . I n r e s p o n s e t o V i c e C h a i r . S t o n e ' s q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e p u r p o s e o f P h a s e I I , H i d e o S u g i t a r e s p o n d e d t h a t P h a s e I I w i l l a u t h o r i z e d s t a f f w i l l l o o k a t a l l p r o j e c t s u n d e r w a y a n d m a k e r e f i n e m e n t s , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e p u b l i c / p r i v a t e p a r t n e r s h i p a n d t h e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e b o n d . O n c e a l l o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s h a v e b e e n s u b t r a c t e d , i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e r e w i l l b e a r e m a i n i n g d e l t a w h i c h t h e C o m m i s s i o n w i l l n e e d t o a d d r e s s f u n d i n g f o r . V i c e C h a i r S t o n e n o t e d t h a t p a r t o f ` t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t w a s t o e n t e r t a i n a c o n c e p t o f a f e e a n d e x p r e s s e d s u p p o r t o f P h a s e I I . D a r r e n H e n d e r s o n n o t e d t h a t l e v e l o f s e r v i c e ( L O S ) E i n d i c a t e t h a t s u f f i c i e n t c a p a c i t y i s b e i n g p r o v i d e d t o m e e t t h e d e m a n d , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 5 - 4 5 M P H . C o m m i s s i o n e r A d a m s a s k e d i f o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s o f r e l i e f o t h e r a r e b e i n g l o o k e d ` a t o u t s i d e o f f r e e w a y e x p a n s i o n . Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 14 Darren Henderson stated that this exercise was not intended to get into that level of detail, but those are the types of policies andissues that should be addressed at the next level. At Commissioner Buster's request, Darren Henderson defined "pass -through" trips and the distribution of trips in Riverside County. Commissioner Buster commended staff for the presentation and he stated that this is a very important effort. Shawn Nelson, Temecula City Manager, stated that the results of Phase I are - effective, significant, and provide a good basis to move forward. It also dictates that a comprehensive approach must be pursued to address the future needs of Western Riverside County. He then expressed support for Phase II. John Kain, representing the Building Industry Association and Urban Crossroads, expressed concern that a local fee may be an inappropriate mechanism to address a regional issue and looks forward to the results of the Phase 11 study. Paul Rodriguez, representing the Building Industry Association and Urban Crossroads, expressed concern for how the Phase II studywill be conducted and its implications. Eric Haley commented that .all of the efforts that are path finding from this Commission for the past several years are in context of the freefall and collapse of state financing. This is a request to quantify all theelements of the capital shortfall, add all the projects being worked on and come ,up with a, defensible number, then debate the legitimacy of a fee. Vice Chair Stone explained that no fees are being proposed today and the Commission is looking at all potential funding mechanisms. He believe that the Commission has taken an innovative approach to providing infrastructure for Riverside County and endorses the Phase II of the Freeway Strategic Plan. Commissioner Miller stated that he understands that staff in looking at different potential sources of revenue to fund these projects and expressed concern that staff's recommendationis more reflective of a settlement betvveen Riverside County and the city of Temecula than what he believes the Commission should be doing. i Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 15 Chair Ashley responded that all parties involved' are headed down the same path. The settlement agreement states that the Commission has to go through the process and explore all alternatives. The Commission has to provide a good faith effort to provide transportation to the people of Riverside County. Commissioner Lowe had concern in reconciling the impacts in Phase II from other counties and how that gets mitigated. Vice Chair Stone noted that the study is not only being funded by the Commission but the county of Riverside and the city of Temecula also. He said that if the cities in Eastern Riverside County would like to contribute to the study, he would be pleased to include the entire region. "Eric Haley provided background information concerning the Commission's oversight of the jointly funded resolution of the lawsuit between the county of Riverside and the city of Temecula. Commissioner John Chlebnik expressed concern that the Commission is involved in the financing of the studies since the Commission wasn't a party to the suit or the settlement. He also expressed concern about the Pass area traffic that consists for mostly truck traffic." He said the emphasis for filling the funding gap is going to be on the developers and is concerned that the other surrounding counties are not imposing the same kind of fee structure and improvements on their roads. Vice Chair Henderson offered a friendly amendment to the motion to "show a nexus study" instead of "support a nexus study". Commissioner Adams recommended utilizing the studies that are already available. He stated there are no solutions if there is no coalition between all the cities, the county and state and supports moving forward with Phase II. Commissioner Dick Kelly requested that if a study is done for the Coachella Valley, it be done separately. Commissioner Frank Hall expressed support for the Phase II study. Commissioner Miller requested that in staff's recommendation the last two sentences about the specific developer fee be deleted. Vice Chair Stone responded that it is only an alternative and its part of the settlement agreement between the County of the city of Temecula so it has to remain as potential alternative. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 16 Commissioner Miller replied that the Commission should not be talking about one funding source while looking at a comprehensive problem. Commissioner Roger Berg expressed support for the staff recommendation. M/S/C (Stone/Roberts) to: 1) Direct staff to develop a comprehensive funding strategy to address how future freeway capacity needs for Western Riverside County can be delivered; the strategy will include but not be limited to the 2009 Measure ;A delivery plan development, the review and possible implementation of Public/Private Partnerships (PPP), an updated Measure A revenue forecast, participation in the development of criteria for project selection by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for the infrastructure bonds on the November 2006 ballot, and the development of information necessary to show a nexus for the potential implementation of a development fee to support freeway improvements; 2) Request the city of Temecula and the county of Riverside to participate with the Commission on a 1 /3 share basis to fund the Phase 11 Western County freeway Strategic Plan effort. The estimated budget is $750,000; and 3) Direct staff to develop a scope of services and cost with Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas for the development of Phase II work for the Freeway Strategic Study and return to the Commission with the scope and cost proposal for consideration at the September 2006 Commission meeting. . No: Chlebnik, Miller Abstain: Kelly 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 13. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT • Written Report on APTA 2006 Rail- Conference Commissioners Ron Roberts and Frank West • Briefing on Devore 2 Project by Michael Perovich, Caltrans from Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 12, 2006 Page 17 14. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 • AAA Case No. 72 199 01006 04 VMD • JAMS Case No. 1220032805 There were no announcements on closed session items. 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 1:12 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, August 9, 2006, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, C)-)t" \-1/434.XriClir`s-- Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7A RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Financing through Statewide Community Infrastructure Program BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the status report on Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) financing through Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Commission's June 2005 workshop, staff made a presentation regarding TUMF fee financing, as several developers have expressed an interest in tax-exempt financing of Western County TUMF fees. The proposed TUMF fee financing plan consisted of the issuance of debt by Riverside County (County); the transfer of debt proceeds to the Commission and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG); and the administration, management, and expenditure of debt proceeds by the Commission and WRCOG. As a result of various issues and concerns discussed during the presentation, there was a lack of support for this TUMF fee financing proposal. The Commission's response was reported at a working group meeting of Commission staff, WRCOG staff, County staff, developers and consultants in June 2005. At subsequent meetings of the working group in November and December 2005, County staff and its consultants presented a new proposal whereby the County would apply for participation in the California Statewide Communities Development Authority's (CSCDA) SCIP for development impact fee financing in unincorporated County areas utilizing 1913/1915 Act special assessment obligations. TUMF fees would be financed through SCIP, the issuer of the debt, under a reimbursement program or prefunding program. Based on a building permit survey of 21 developers interested in participating in the SCIP program, it appears that SCIP revenues available to the Commission for Western County regional arterial expenditures could approximate S56 million over a three-year period. In February 2006, the County submitted a formal request for the Commission's Agenda Item 7A 1 participation in the SCIP program. At its March 8, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved in -concept the Commission's participation in the SCIP program. 'In June 2006, WRCOG approved in -concept its participation in the SCIP program. Since the Commission neither collects nor administers the TUMF program, it is no longer required to be a party to any agreements. Participation in the SCIP program will be required of the County by adoption of a resolution, and WRCOG will enter into a fee collection and disbursement agreement with the CSCDA and the County. The issuance and administration of debt would be. the responsibility of. SCIP. As eligible infrastructure expenditures are incurred, the Commission would submit to SCIP a requisition for disbursement. The Commission would have no administrative responsibilities other than submitting such requisitions to pay expenditures. Accordingly, no additional costs for the Commission are'associated with the SCIP. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: Undetermined Source of Funds: TUMF Fees (Financing) Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 210-72-421 10 - TUMF Revenue -Regional Arterials 210-73-421 10 - TUMF Revenue-CETAP Fiscal Procedures Approved: \PLi6,„"ite "„ Date: 8/28/06 Agenda Item 7A AGENDA ITEM 7B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: - Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the twelve-month period ended June 30, 2006. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the past fiscal year, staff has closely monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements show the revenues received and expenditures incurred during the fiscal year. Accrual adjustments for revenue and expenditures have been made for June 30, 2006 and are reflected in these financial statements. The Commission will continue to make year end accrual adjustments depending upon materiality through August 31, 2006. The financial statements show the sales tax revenue for the fiscal year at 101 % of the budget. The accounting for sales tax revenues is in accordance with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales tax revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure A funds and remits them to the Commission after the reporting period forthe businesses. This creates a two -month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to the collections from July 2005 through June 2006. The final accrual of revenue will be made once the September payment, which includes the fourth quarter clean-up adjustment is received. On a cash basis, the Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues are 15% higher than the same period last fiscal year. The Commission did not receive the full budgeted amount of Federal, State, and Local revenues as these revenues are realized on a reimbursement basis. As project costs for the SR-60 East Junction to 1-215 HOV, SR-91 HOV, Agenda Item 7B 3 SR-79 Realignment Study and the Perris Valley Line are incurred, staff will invoice the respective agencies. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues were remitted to the Commission by Western Riverside Counci► of Governments (WRCOG). During the fiscal year, WRCOG remitted TUMF of $57,907,533 to the Commission. The TUMF remittances reflect an increase of 25% over the same period last year. Other revenues are significantly higher than budgeted due to the sale of Commission property in February 2006. The Commission sold the Pierce Street property for $10.25 million. The proceeds from the sale were deposited into the Western County Measure A Rail Program. Investment income is higher than budgeted due to the higher cash investments balances and their related yields. The Administrative and Program/Project expenditure categories were under budget by $368,004 and $168,652,220 respectively. Listed below are the capital related projects that have significant variances and their status: Highway Engineering/Right-of-Way/Land • SR-91 Van Buren interchange ($7.6 million) — The city of Riverside is the lead agency and has experienced delays related to environmental issues. The environmental process is complete pending public comments. Right-of-way acquisition will commence in FY 2006/07. Construction will not commence for 18 months and the city requested, and the Commission approved, amending the Measure A Strategic Plan to allow the Van Buren funds to be used for the construction phase of the La Sierra interchange scheduled for spring 2007. • SR-91 HOV Lanes between Adams Street and 7' Street ($18.3 million) — The Commission is awaiting final approval of the environmental document and geometric approval drawings in order to commence the final design phase currently forecasted for the second quarter in FY 2006/07. • SR-79 Realignment ($7,010,000) — Engineering delays were caused by requests from resource agencies to study new avoidance alternative alignments. Technical reports are being developed while waiting to procure encroachment permits to perform geotechnical investigations. An amendment Agenda Item 7B 4 to the contract was required which resulted in the need for a preaward audit prior to the issuance of a notice to proceed. • SR-74 G Street to 1-215 ($1.45 million) — The Commission is awaiting completion of the traffic studies in order to commence the preliminary and environmental phase of work. Acquisition of right-of-way will not start until FY 2006/07. • SR-74 from 1-15 to 7`h Street ($4.25 million) — The County of Riverside (County) continues to negotiate with parcel owners to acquire the property needed to complete the mitigation requirements of the project. In addition, funding has been allocated to cover settlements through state condemnation for those properties acquired through eminent domain. • SR-60 East Junction to 1-215 HOV ($2,887,700) — Caltrans has approved the project to proceed with the final design. Funding authorization from the Federal Highway Administration is pending. 1-215 Project Study Report ($500,000) — Project is currently on hold pending completion of the traffic model analysis. • Commercial Paper Projects ($43.7 million) — Commercial paper proceeds remain available for right-of-way and land acquisition related to projects and mitigation as opportunities arise; however, the second traunche of $55 million included in the budget as bond proceeds has not been issued due to the balance of unexpended proceeds as of June 30, 2006. Highway Construction • 1-15 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Interchange ($2.7 million) — The County recently awarded the construction contract. Construction began in February 2006 with an estimated 18-month construction period. • SR-74 from 1-15 to 7t' Street ($14.3 million) — The prior year's winter rainfalls caused delays in construction and utility relocation. Delivery of oil base material for asphalt caused additional delays, and construction was completed in August 2006. • SR-60 (81,558,200) - Project is complete; however, punch list items are still being reviewed, and final payment will be released upon settlement of claims. Additionally, the plant establishment that was delayed due to the prior year's rainfalls is now complete and the project has been accepted by Caltrans. Agenda Item 7B 5 " S R - 1 1 1 ( $ 1 , 3 1 1 , 6 0 0 ) T h e w i d e n i n g p r o j e c t i n t h e c i t y o f L a Q u i n t a w a s a w a r d e d , a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n w a s c o m p l e t e d i n M a y 2 0 0 6 . T h e C o m m i s s i o n r e c e n t l y r e c e i v e d a p r o g r e s s p a y m e n t i n v o i c e f r o m t h e c i t y . T h e c i t y o f I n d i o w i l l c o m m e n c e i t s p r o j e c t O c t o b e r 2 0 0 6 . T h e c i t y o f R a n c h o M i r a g e s u b m i t t e d a n i n v o i c e f o r t h e c o m p l e t e d M a g n e s i a F a l l s p r o j e c t i n J u n e 2 0 0 6 f o r $ 1 m i l l i o n a s p a r t o f t h e t e r m s o f a n a g r e e m e n t v v i t h t h e C o m m i s s i o n . " C o m m e r c i a l P a p e r P r o j e c t s ( $ 1 7 , 6 4 8 , 4 0 0 ) C o m m e r c i a l p a p e r p r o c e e d s r e m a i n a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n r e l a t e d t o p r o j e c t s a s o p p o r t u n i t i e s a r i s e ; h o w e v e r , t h e s e c o n d t r a u n c h e o f $ 5 5 m i l l i o n i n c l u d e d . i n t h e b u d g e t a s b o n d p r o c e e d s h a s n o t b e e n i s s u e d d u e t o t h e b a l a n c e o f u n e x p e n d e d p r o c e e d s a s o f J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 . R a i l E n g i n e e r i n g / R i g h t - o f - W a y / L a n d " N o r t h M a i n C o r o n a S t a t i o n P a r k i n g S t r u c t u r e ( $ 1 . 1 m i l l i o n ) T h e C E Q A e n v i r o n m e n t a l d o c u m e n t w a s a p p r o v e d a n d t h e N E P A e n v i r o n m e n t a l d o c u m e n t w a s p r e p a r e d a n d s u b m i t t e d f o r a p p r o v a l t o t h e F e d e r a l T r a n s i t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . F u n d i n g t o p r o c e e d w i t h t h e s t a r t o f f i n a l d e s i g n h a s b e e n a p p r o p r i a t e d a n d a c o n s u l t a n t a g r e e m e n t w a s a w a r d e d i n M a r c h 2 0 0 6 . " P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e ( $ 1 0 , 7 9 1 , 0 0 0 ) P r e l i m i n a r y e n g i n e e r i n g c o n t r a c t a w a r d w a s r e s c h e d u l e d f o r t h e f i r s t q u a r t e r i n F Y 2 0 0 6 / 0 7 . A d d i t i o n a l l y , p r o p e r t y a c q u i s i t i o n h a d b e e n p o s t p o n e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e d e l a y i n . t h e N E P A e n v i r o n m e n t a l d o c u m e n t d u e t o t h e r e v i s i o n o f t h e r i d e r s h i p a n a l y s i s . T h e N e w S t a r t s a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l b e c o m p l e t e o n c e c o n c u r r e n c e i s r e c e i v e d o n t h e f i n a l r i d e r s h i p a n a l y s i s . " R i v e r s i d e D o w n t o w n E a s t s i d e P a r k i n g L o t ( $ 3 7 5 , 0 0 0 ) D e l a y s i n f i n a l d e s i g n o c c u r r e d d u e t o r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r p r e p a r i n g a n d s u b m i t t i n g e n g i n e e r i n g a n d p l a n n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s t o t h e c i t y t o o b t a i n p e r m i t s . E n g i n e e r i n g d r a w i n g s w e r e f i n a l i z e d , t h e R F P p r o c e s s w a s c o m p l e t e d , a n d t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t w a s a w a r d e d i n J u l y 2 0 0 6 . " R a i l S t a t i o n s ( $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 ) E s t i m a t e s f o r p o t e n t i a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o j e c t s w e r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e b u d g e t . S t a f f i s d e v e l o p i n g a s t a t i o n r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p l a n t o m o n i t o r c o s t s g o i n g f o r w a r d . A g e n d a I t e m 7 B 6 Rail Construction • Riverside Downtown Eastside Parking Lot ($1,735,000) — Delays in the final design have occurred due to the requirements for preparation and submittal of the engineering/planning application to the city to obtain permits. Accordingly, the start of construction has been delayed until the first quarter of FY 2006/07. • Rail Stations ($354,000) — Estimates for potential rehabilitation projects were included in the budget. Staff is developing a station rehabilitation plan to monitor costs going forward. TUMF Engineering/Right-of-Way/Land • Mid County Parkway 019.1 million) — Approval of the preaward audit for the consultant was received, and Amendment No. 2 for Phase II preliminary engineering was approved and a notice to proceed was issued December 2005. Work progress has been slowed by various alternative analysis being performed and the, review of jurisdictional delineation and assessment reports. Staff continues to have ongoing discussions with local jurisdictions and developers to try to reserve corridor right-of-way. • Various Western County TUMF Regional Arterial Projects ($33,145,400) — agreements for more than half of the projects have been signed with the cities and County. These agencies are now in the process of preparing requests for proposal to award contracts. Commission staff will continue to actively work with the agencies to have agreements signed for the remaining projects. TUMF Construction • SR-91 Green River Interchange ($3,114,600) — Funding for the project has been committed by the Commission and Caltrans. The project will be awarded and begin construction in FY 2006/07. • Various Western County TUMF Regional Arterial Projects ($13,097,500) — No construction activities on approved regional arterial projects will occur until the final design phases are completed and environmental documents are approved. Intergovernmental distributions are expended as one-time Local Transportation Fund (LTF) payments made at the beginning of the fiscal year based on claims submitted by Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and WRCOG. Agenda Item 7B 7 Unused funds in this category are related to planning and programming departmental expenditures. Capital outlay expenditures are under budget due to unexpended authority for potential office improvements to the computer server room. Staff expects these improvements to take place in FY 2006/07. Additional commercial paper notes were not issued during FY 2005/06, resulting in the variances in bond proceeds and cost of issuance. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements - June 30, 2006 Agenda Item 76 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 4TH QUARTER FOR TWELVE MONTHS ENDED 6/30/2006 DESCRIPTION Revenues Sales tax Federal, stale & local government reimbursements Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Other revenues Interest Total revenues Expenditures Administration Salaries &benefits General legal services Professional services Office lease & utilities General administrative expenditures Total administration Programs/projects Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services General projects Highway engineering Highway construction Highway right of way/land Rail engineering Rail construction Rail right of way TUMF engineering TUMF construction TUMF right of way Local streets & roads Regional arterial Special studies FSP towing Commuter assistance Property management Motorist assistance Rail operations & maintenance STA distributions Specialized transit Planning & programming services Total programs/projects Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay Debt service Principal Interest Arbitrage rebate tax Cost of issuance Total debt service Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Bond proceeds Payment to escrow agent Total financing sources/uses Net change in fund balances Fund balance July 1, 2005 Fund balance June 30, 2006 INcwWreprinum teuanomeemuemr y,oneM BUDGET $ 159,753,428 43,608,200 45,825,000 8,045,952 5,453,600 ACTUAL REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT UTILIZATION. 5 161,823,021 $ 2,069,593 101 % 5,179,179 (38,429,021) 12% 57,907,534 12,082,534 - 126% 18,821,434 10,775,482 234% 8,461,004 3,007,404 155% 262,686,180 252,192,172 (10,494,008) 96% 1,615,900 1,545,841 70,059 96% 111,500 110,354 1,146 99% 1,084,200 1,065,989 18,211 98% 375,000 327,065 47,935 87% 1,142,200 911,547 230,653 80°% 4,328,800 3,960,796 368,004 914‘ 2,276,600 2,101,748 174,852 92% 1,685,000 1,458,216 226,784 87% 3,241,999 1,870469 1,371,530 58% 3,177,200 2,518,035 659,165 79% 24,701,260 7,729,858 16,971,402 31°% 40,241,200 13,108,764 27,132,436 - 33% 55,572,700 11,624,725 " 43,947,975 21% 6,965,700 835,316 6,130,384 12% 2,089,000 230,227 1,858,773 11 % 5,050,000 - 5,050,000 0% 26,125,385 - 8,666,391 17,458,994 33% 16,212,100 782,171 15,429,929 5% 26,120,000 2,298,146 23,821,854 9% 60,919,640 57,921,212 2,998,428 95% 10,350,500 10,350,500 - 100% 2,251,600 1,525,519 726,081 68% 1,446,480 1,433,470 13,010 99% 2,765,000 2,216,647 548,353 80% 110,300 79,792 30,508 72% 2,297,844 622,320 1,675,524 27% 7,042,900 6,725,792 317,108 -95% 5,967,000 4,037,298 1,929,702 68% 5,087,731 4,922,501 165,230 97% 50,800 36,602 14,198 72°% 311,747,939 143,095,719 168,652,220 46% 1,903,628 1,092,091 811,537 57% 429,000 290,461 138,539 68% 28,669,500 8,109,100 236,100 400,000 28,640,000 29,500 100% 7,677,066 432,034 95% 236,058 42 100% - 400,000 0% 37,414,700 36,553,124 861,576 98% 355,824,067 (93,137,887) 46,561,500 46,561,500 55,000,000 55,000,000 (38,137,887) 184,992,191 170,831,876 52% 67,199,981 160,337,868 72% 34,012,133 (12,549,367) 73% 34,012,133 12,549,367 73% (55,000,000) 0% 0% (55,000,000) 0% 67,199,981 105,337,868 -176%. 230,537,100 279,262,635 48,725,535 121 % $ 192,399,213 $ 346,462,616 $ 154,063,403 180% 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • QUARTERLY ACTUA LS BY FUND 4TH QUARTER FOR TWELVE MONTHS ENDED 6r30/06 MEASURE A PALO STATE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM WESTERN COMMERICAL GENERAL FSPI WESTERN VERDE COACHELLA TRANSIT MITIGATION FEE COUNTY PAPER DEBT COMBINED DESCRIPTION FUND SAFE COUNTY VALLEY VALLEY ASSISTANCE TUMF CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM SERVICE TOTAL Revenues Sales tax $ 12,728,831 $ - $ 110,739,015 $ 1,049,791 $ 37,305,384 $ - $ - $ - $ - - $ 161,823,021 Federal, state & local government reimbursements 658,902 2,480,391 2,039,866 - - - - - - 5,179,179 Transportation Uniform Milig.. Fee(TUMF) • - - - - 57,907,534 - - - 57,907,534 Other revenues 559,492 (1,565) 11,041,102 - 1,430545 5.792,360 - - - - 18,821434 Interest 227,044 107,388 3,041,037 2,005 191,674 106,267 2,077,427 6056 825502 1,874,584 8481004 Total revenues 14,174,269 2,586,214 128,861,040 1,051,796 36,927,103 5,900,647 59.954,951 6,056 825502 1,874,584 252,192,172 Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits 1470,935 74,906 General legal services 103,678 5,320 Professional services 737,364 34,800 Office lease & utilities 311.268 15,797 General administrative expenditures 857,695 43,851 Total administration 3,490.941 174,764 Programs/projects Salaries &benefits _ General legal services Professional services General pro)eots Highway engineering Highway construction Highway right of weylland Rail engineering Rail construction Rail right of way TUMF engineering TUMF construction TUMF right of way Lowl streele & roads Regional arterial Special studies FSP towing Commuter assistance Property management Molorist assistance Rail operations & maintenance STA distributions Specialized transit Planning & programming services Total Programsrpmjects 1,179,223 90,436 387,855 104,848 635,019 24,226 1,115,62 79,702 6,725,702 36,602 1,933,470 622,320 655,742 509,001 652,953 2,392,025 7,563,497 11,826,113 (801,580) 835,316 230,227 • 43,801,890 363,343 2,216,647 1,157,582 221 16,283 493 90,333 166,361 1,282,651 1,049,791 13,069,531 10,350,500 3,764,910 165 4,037,298 158.054 280,037 1,063 145.677 • • 8,666,391 782,171 2,298,145 1,356 293,735 295,991 95,761 555,338 12,426,285 26 555 1,545.841 110,354 1,065,999 327,065 911,547 3,900,790 2,191,748 458,216 1,870,469 2,518,035 7,729,858 13,108.764 11,624.725 635.316 200,227 8,666,391 782,171 2,298,146 57,921 212 10,350,500 1,525519 433,470 21fi 647 79,792 622,320 6,725.792 9,037.298 4,922,501 36602 10,160,804 2,275,300 71,442,781 1,050,012 28,693,071 4.037,463 Intergovernmental distribution 1,092,051 - - Capital outlay 51,345 2,606 235,510. Debt service Principal Interest Arbitrage rebate tax Coat of Issuance Total debt service 236,058 236,058 12,332,349 13,103,930 833,84E 26,640,000 6,843,220 143,055,719 1, 092,031 290,461 26,640,000 7 677,066 236,058 833,846 35483,220 36.553,124 Total expenditures 15,031,239 4452,679 71,679,291 1,050,012 26.693,071 4,037,463 12,332,349 - 14,232,876 35,483,220 184,992,191 Excess revenues over (under) expenditures (856,970) 133,549 55,181,749 i 1,704 19,234.032 1,853,184 47,652,612 8,055 (13,407,374) (33,608636) 67,199,981 Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer In Operating transfer out Bond proceeds Payment to escrow agent Total financing sources/uses (26.113.649) (7,898,404) - - 107. - 34011946 Net change in fund balances [850,970) 133,594-.29,068,100 1,764 2,335,626 1,863,164 -- 47,652,612 1 6,163 (13,407,374) 403310 67,190,981 Fund balance July 1, 2005 8,520,480 4,303,900 139,946,240 49,370 8,357,090 3,926,325 63,614,159 100,551 25.463,639 29,981,472 279,262,635 Fund balance June 30, 2006, S 7,663,510 $ 4,436,844 5 184,014,349 5 51,154 $ 10,602,718 5 5,789,509 $ 111,266,771 $ 106,714 $ 12.056,265 $ 30,384,782 $ 346,462,616 107 - 34,012,026 34,012,133 26,113,649 - 7 56409 - - - - 80 34,012,133 Xuse Wonorwgµaemmre, garb AGENDA ITEM 7C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Committee FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief. Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2006. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. The County's Investment Report for the month ended June 30, 2006 is also attached for review. Attachments: 1) Quarterly Investment Report for the Quarter ended June 30, 2006 2) County of Riverside Investment Report for the Month ended June 30, 2006 Agenda Item 7C 11 Po rt(ollo Invastma nt Ty pa Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on March 8, 2006. The Commission has adequate cash flows for six months of operations. • Signed by. � Chief Financial Officer 12 Counry Administrative Center I Investment Objectives • Safety of Principal • )Liquidity • !Public Trust • !Maximum Rate of Return June 2006 Treasurer's Commentary "The Flight of Icarus?" The core Consumer Price Index reported on June 14 was .3°% for the second consecutive month, higher than the expected .2%. This translates to an annualized rate of 2.4°%to go with an annualized CPI of 42%., well outside of the "comfort zone" of investors, analysts and policy makers. These revelations quickly extinguished speculation about whether the Fed was finished raising rates. In fact, since it appears that Fed -watchers have plenty of time and love to speculate, some commentators began to suggest that the Fed might raise 50 basis points instead of the customary.25°%, mirroring immediate changes in the Fed Funds Future markets. The Fed did indeed raise 25 bps. to 5.25% but modified its state- ment language ever so slightly: the economy is cooling, but inflationary pres- sures remain. Investors accustomed to reading the Fed's tea leaves saw this as a sign of the "end -times" for the rate -hike cycle, reflected in a drop, in bond yields and a jump in stock market indices. Further complicating matters, how- ever, was the subsequent release of economic data showing anemic job growth (indicating an economic downturn) along with a higher -than -expected increase in hourly wages (indicating possible inflation). Since historically the Fed seems to favor its inflation -fighting mandate over its maximum employment directive, at least one more rate increase seems in store. Thus, while the professional prognosticators, after envisioning cycle peaks in the 4.5-5% range, vigorously revise their predictions, the question remains: when is the end? How high is too high? Would the Fed push rates up so high that the American economy comes crashing down in a heap of feathers and melted wax? Only time will tell. Paul McDonnell Treasurer -Tax Collector Durable Goods Orders -for June 23rd -.3% actual vs..4% survey Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -fo r June 29th 5.6% actual vs. 5.6% survey Consumer Confidence— Index -June 27th 105.7 actual vs.104.0 survey Factory Orders- July 5th .7%actual vs..1%survey Unemployment Rate- for July 7th 4.6% actual vs. 4.7%survey At month's end, the Fed Funds rate was 5.25%, with a balanced bias. The 2 year T-Note was yielding 5.15% (up 12 bp.) while the 10 year T-Note was yielding 5.14% (up 2 bps.) For May the Pool had an increase of 5 bps. in the average monthly yield. - Portfolio Statistics June May April -- March February _ January Nbnlh-End Book Value $ Nbnth-End Market Value* • . $ 'Paper Gain or (Loss) t F�rcent of Paper Gam or Loss_ .:. 'IYield.Based Upon Book Value ighted Average Maturely (Yrs) Modified Duration *Markel values does not include accrued interest 4,104 307 007 = $ 4,084,169,627 = $ (20 147,380jT $ 0 49%'.",... 4.46` 0 79 0.76 4,043,530,878 $ 4,024,176,242 € $ (19,354,636)1 $ 4.41 ......... 0 eo° Din 4,524,361983 $ 3747481,699 $ 3,709956,618 $ 3,686,186292 4,505,859 884 $ 3,727,832,699 ' $ 3,690,904,657 1 $ 3,668,478 601 18,502,099�- $ (19,648,900)l $ (19 D51,961)° $ (17,707,69�) .__....m........ - 041/1 052% - 0 -.51%1� 048%I �.��. 4.28i� .. . -, .4 10i .�� � 3.99 � .3.901 ....._.072 .. _... 0821 082, 080; 069,..... _ 078 0.79` ����N 07T THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: Aaa/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V1+ BY FITCH RATINGS 14 Portfolio Characteristics SECTOR M arket Value Federal Agency 2,564,316,283 Cash Equivalent & MMF 66,666,600 Commercial Paper 671,562,094 Negotiable CD's 688,007,242 Medium Term Notes 39,698,860 Municipal Bonds 32,840,149 Certificates of Deposit 20,000,000 Local Agency Obligatio ni 1,735,000 Total 4,084,159,627 • Gash Equioalerg & M M F 1.62% 30 days or Less 30�-90 Days�i 90 Days -- 1Year 1- 2 Years 2 - 3 Years Over 3 Years Total • • Federal Agency 62.,Y% M arket Value 628,508,801.94 939,824,906.76 - 1,238,974,535.60�i 769, 591, 363.75 505,525,018.90 1.735.000.00 4,084,159,627 20g-- 10% 0% 12 Month Gross Yield Trends Page 2 CREDIT QUALITY. Federal Agency AAA A-1/ P-io r better' N/R Total M arket Value Market Data 2,564,316,283 72, 539, 009 1, 359, 569, 335 87, 735, 000 4,084,159,627 Federal Agency_ 62.79% 0.04 % 30 days 30 - 90 90 Days - 1 - 2 2 - 3 Over 3 or Les Days 1 Year Years Years Years 15 6/30/06 5/31/06 Diff. 3 M 4.976 4.833 .1427 6 M. 5.230 2 Y 5.150 5 Y 5.093 10 Y 5.136 5.062 5.033 5.032 5.119 .1677 .1168 .0603 .0178 30Y 5.186 5.228 -.0418 O bM0 2YR SYR 10YR 30YR * Treasurer's Institutional Money Market Index (TIMM!) is compiled and reported by the Riverside County Treasurer's Capital Markets division. tt is a composite index derived from the average of three multi -billion dollar AAA rated Prime (funds that invest in a diversified portfolio of U.S. dollar denominated money market instruments includ- ing U.S. Treasuries, government agencies, bankers' acceptances, commercial paper, certificates of deposits, repurchase agreements, etc.) portfolios that the Treasurer tracks. Further details available upon request. ilMTMETIiK0 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report Month End Portfolio hloldi a e e'.�.2 8 8 ru a r::�'.'�'.2 8 g R 8. 8 g 8 R•:A 8 8 SF%8 a u'$ 102.150.001 300 8 8 R 8 i'4 82.; 8?8 88;=°q8'; 88 8 8:.8 a :'S 8. 8 g;; 8. 8 $ 8 r vv C 8iY t, g'4cC pgpg qgw e. g nlio m 8 8� 8tlV v' wN t g 8 O s s E. yE. g";?g x 6 l^ O A B YORTO.. CE 8 p.8 8 N 0 A ���� e M o n t h E n d P o r t f o l i o H o l d i n g s R e p o r t 8 $ 1 8 8 8 8 S R : 8 8 8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 m s e e ��$ 8 8 8 8 8 ` E 8 8 8 8 d 8 8 8 8 8 � A k l � s g 8 8 s s o ��8 : 8 8 8 t 8 8 8 8 S m Y 5 ` 6 F S a . 4 1 ` m 8 ' 8 : 8 8 8 i 8 8 8 j 8 8 8 ' f i n x 8 m f i 8 R S s 8 S ' 8 9 a 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ; 8 8 8 8 8 w 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ; 8 8 r 8 . 8 8 s a s s a : a 2 ' 2 6 : 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 . 8 8 , ��8 $ 8 8 8 8 8 s 8 5 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report ! , !��|| !� ! 412P Summary of Authorized Investments The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund was In FULL COMPLIANCE with the Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy. The County's Investment Policy is more restrictive than the California Government Cade. This policy is reviewed annually by the County's Investment Oversight Committee and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. California Government Code Investment Category LOCALIAGENCY BONDS CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY DEBT 7' �I:ku�safls.a---e. BILLS OF EXCHANGE CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS CaITRUST SHORT TERM FUND SECURED BANK DEPOSITS LOCAL! AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS TFy .Maximum Maturity Authorized %Limit 5 YEARS i NO LIMIT 5 YEARS " NO LIMIT w ,awu,l "1-, 111 5YEARS .CE,..w.. 270 DAYS 40%tar 5 YEARS : 30% i1&ttMit 92 DAYS , 20% N/A N/A 5 YEARS NO LIMIT N/A ? NO LIMIT Quality S&P/ Maximum Matur- Maody's ity i. 1 Coun Investment Poli Authorized % Limit • Quality S&P/ Mocdy's 3 YEARS . 15%/ $150MM . A/A2/A Actual Rmerside Port(ol,o S 2.5% : INVESTMENT GRADE = 0.04% 3 YEARS I ? 180 DAYS 30% j Al/P1/F1 0.00% 60 DAYS S 25%MAX ; AS/P1/F1 t 10% MAX N/A DAILY LIQUIDITY s1% Board Approved 17.34% x No more than 30% of this category may be invested with anyone commercial bank 1 Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days 3 Or must have an investment advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management or $500,000,000. Projected Cash Flow The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash now model. Based upon projected cash receipts and matu- rating investments, there are sufficient Funds to meet future cash flow disbursements over the next 12 months. Monthly Monthly 'Month Receipts Dlsbmts ,Difference" Required Mat. Invest 06/2006 08/2006 10/2006 12/2006 02/2007 612.2 735.6 (123.4) 120.2 806.3 (188.3) 04/2007 1,505.7 738.5 06/2007 (129.6) . Balance Actual Inv. Maturities Avail. To Invest> 1 Yr. 24.4 530.7 295.0 ws t 105.2._.� 109.7 82.4 Totals 9,720.9 9,749.5 (28.6) 120.2 2.93% 2,824.4 68.82°% 3,983.8 97.07% THIS COMPLETES THE REPORT REQUIREMENTS OMLIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 53646 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 7D RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2006. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2006 under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at June 30, 2006 is $223,441. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of June 30, 2006 Agenda Item 7D 21 CONSULTANT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2005 SCAG Advanced Marketing MHV Enterprises, Inc. MBI Media ERA Caporicci & Larson AMOUNT USED SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORM AS OF JUNE 30, 2006 ORIGINAL CONTRACT REMAINING DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT Amendment # 1 for travel demand analysis for San Jacinto branch linel1-215 corridor study Commuter assistance mail -house fulfillment services Amendment # 3 software development programming & support services Video Services -RCTC Video Riverside County Land Value Trends Audit Consulting Services for Sunline Transit Agency 00111ylanmed Tranclt GaitfgrpfAjgatill 6l0S49girogram ,. xr Poskemptoyae-Medical, 14SB'! ee v010.rvice agreemenf to pi.*: —Tii Assistance tnc6Dtiva study j 0041fant for Le Sietv$JStpt suit9ng y�,,, tuns L ii.aLtls'e'j,§ AMOUNT USED, net of adjustments AMOUNT REMAINING through JUNE 30, 2006 Towa Reabrol-DeMorst Michele Cisneros Prepared by Reviewed by Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the third quarter. 22 $500,000.00 _ 12,235.00 0.00 12,235.00 -25,000.00 18,593.20 6,406.80 24,000.00 18,750.00 5,250.00 40,000.00 26,752.92 13,247.08 28,000.00 28,000.00 0.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00 16614,0 r 1483285 it �i;%ty 1,761,16:. y 6,QQO:OQ 25,QP0.RQ.,,� 1104MNtru 25,210�'�©j 276,559.00 276,559.00 $223,441.00 5,960fi0 3'.Iv'it� 5` h00105./1 57562- _ 14,471t381 0,00 160, 915.44 115, 643.56 J,1200e109 SeptemberVn At TT RCTC Attach.4th Ctr Single Signature xls AGENDA ITEM 7E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2006. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; At its April 14, 2004 meeting, the Commission approved the Interfund Loan Policy and adopted Resolution No. 04-009, 'Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans". Subsequently, the Commission requested that the interfund Loan activity be reported on quarterly basis. The attached details list all interfund loan activity through June 30, 2006. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of June 30, 2006 are $575,000. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report Agenda Item 7E 23 Riverside County Transportation Commission Interfund.Loan Activity Report For 4th quarter ended June 30, 2006 Amount Maturity Date of Loan of Loan Date Lending Fund Borrowing Fund April 2, 2003 $ 300,000 July 1, 2006 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Measure A - WC LSR (227) March 4, 2004 275,000 July 1, 2009 Measure A - WC Commuter Assistance (226) Total $ 575,000 Purpose of Loan Advance to make repairs and improvements to Railroad Canyon Road Measure A - WC Highway (222) Additional local match for the SR71 Widening/Animal Crossing Project Date Commission Approved March 12, 2003 December 10, 2003 V 120061➢9 Septemher1Budgel & I mplementation\MC.Attach.Loan Activity Rpt AGENDA ITEM 7F RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Public/Private Financing and Delivery Plan Ad Hoc Committee Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Strategic Partnership Advisory Services Contract Increase PUBLIC/PRIVATE FINANCING AND DELIVERY PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve a $400,000 increase for Strategic Partnership Advisory Services and amendments, as necessary, to Agreement Nos. 06-66-026-00, 06-66-027-00 and 06-66-028-00; and ' 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its February 8, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved the list of pre -qualified firms for On -call Strategic Partnership Advisor Services. The assistance of experts, knowledgeable in the area of transportation economics, federal transportation funding tools and corporate equity investment evaluation, is critical to the success of the Commission's Strategic Public/Private Partnership program. It is likely that the 2009 Measure A 10-year Delivery Plan will identify a significant gap between funding readily available through conventional governmental finance techniques and project needs. Private and public financing, including the development of strategic public/private partnerships, could bridge a significant portion of the funding gap in order to construct the needed projects. Upon Commission approval of the selections, staff and the advisory teams held scoping sessions to analyze opportunities and program criteria. A strategy has been developed and tasks identified to develop a program and project assessment including recommendations. Additional tasks are required in the future to explore other alignment alternatives. The estimated cost to implement the strategy is $1,650,000. The Commission Agenda. Item 7F 25 previously approved a budget of $1,250,000. Therefore an additional contract increase of $400,000 is needed to complete the identified tasks. An oral report on the status of the Strategic Partnership was presented to the Public/Private Financing and Delivery Plan Ad Hoc Committee at its August 28`h meeting. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $400,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Proceeds Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: A303-66-65520 P8200 80 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Y-n�., Date: 08/28/06 Agenda Item 7F 26 AGENDA ITEM 7G RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Obligation Authority Loan to San Bernardino Governments Associated BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Obligation Authority Loan Report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Obligational Authority (OA) is a federal term that refers to the percentage of annual apportionment that is given to a state. Typically, California receives an average of 90% of its annual apportionment. The difference between apportionment and OA, is that OA is the amount of funds that are allowed to be spent, and the apportionment is the ceiling of funding that the federal government authorizes in the Transportation Bill. If a state do not spend 100% of its OA in a given year, the federal government will give the unauthorized OA to other states that can demonstrate they can spend it. This is called the August Redistribution. California normally receives additional federal funding through the August Redistribution. Each year, Caltrans provides county OA targets to ensure each county receives its fair share of OA, which is based on population. Counties may or may not spend 100% of its OA given its respective project delivery schedules for the year. Therefore, if a county spends 75% of its OA target, Caltrans will "credit" the next year's OA target by the amount of unspent funding and vice -versa if a county overspends its OA. This year has been a difficult year for counties to spend all of the OA due to project delivery delays and low delivery planned for federal fiscal year 2005/06. Riverside County's delivery rate was low this year due to accrual of federal funds for large projects such as the SR-91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project. In addition, local agency projects have been delayed for various reasons including Agenda Item 7G 27 environmental issues, new Disadvantage Business Enterprise requirements, and the Environmental Protection Agency's new requirement for projects to address Particulate Matter 2.5. Caltrans Headquarters has indicated that given the low delivery rate throughout the state, that there is a possibility that 100% of the OA may not be spent resulting in. a loss of spending that can't be recaptured. Riverside County's OA target balance is approximately $32 million. The estimated amount of OA that will be spent by the end of the federal fiscal year, September 30, 2006, is approximately $12-14 million. In order to protect the OA, the Commission negotiated with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to "loan" it the balance of OA, which is approximately $16 million. SANBAG has utilized 100% of its OA for the year and could use additional OA to cover cost increases on its 1-215 widening project. This loan will allow SANBAG to proceed with its project with an agreement to payback the OA in FY 2009/10. The OA payback will provide for additional OA needed to fund construction of the SR-91 HOV lane project through downtown Riverside. It should be noted that this OA loan is not real money included in the Commission's budget. It can be viewed in terms of allowing SANBAG to spend more than its county OA target on a large scale project this fiscal year. In turn, the Commission will be allowed to spend more than its county target on a large scale project, which will be needed for construction of the SR-91 HOV lane project in FY 2009/10. Attachment: Joint Letter to Terry Abbott, Caltrans Headquarters Agenda Item 7G 28 T 4080 Lemon Strut, 3 Riverside, CA 92501 (95 t1 787-7141 August 1; 2006 d FGxir Mr'. Terry Abbott; Chief, Division of LocalAssistance Department of Transportation . 1120 N.Street, MS 1 -: Sacramento, CA 95814 t ion - World 1g Together 1170-H': 7XdIv eE San Beniardtn©, CA (909f-88442-W- -_ 41.t1-i7 SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2005-06-©bligational Authority Loan Agreernen as# the Riverside County Transportation Coriimission;(RCTC}and San Bernardino Associated GOvemments (SANBAG) --= - Dear Te This letter js,t©;formalize an agreerrient'betvveen-RCTC.and ANB- regard nga 1pan- ©f'sbligatienal Authority (OA) from RCTC,to SANBAG Dt,fe_to 0r6edt_d will not Obligate its' entire,4A target fvrFscal'�ear (FY)'2©05-Q6 RCTG will h a - balance -of approximately $14 million of QA that;innll not be obligated'bytthe end=ofts;_federal, fiscal year: We expect to=know the final- ©A balance as soon as, the ,C3rvision of _= Local Assistance provides us_the most recent _balances, -including deobltgati©n-of fundsi', hat occurred-durinygjhe fourth quarter bthe Federal Highway --Administration. ;,`' `' SANBAG is in need of additional DA for the Interstate 2 high t cupa i y-Vehicle (H©V);project. Therefore: RCTC agrees_to erati t ttnu- C}Abel ce`#fix t4;theern:Puntrequlred tefulfill their FY2€10 66 obijgatipn requests, to suf-_ verycritical project that will benefitboth Ott- he 4A 100:Will be used toWarq obligation of 821--million in CMAQ fundirtg re earn ad:for theiright-of»way phase:ft Segment 2©f the tnterstate 21. -H©V profit This obligation willTot_require an FS amendment as the funds are programmed, to the;current FSTIP: SANBAG :agrees to payback the CA to :RtrTC:.b $tafe Roule"91 HCV prnject.Presently-in+e ti 2008/09 Or 2049/16. Adjustments should be _rtt TransportationeProgrammirig:Branch and Leal SANBAG's CAA targetSter refteut this loan_agreerrierl re co: of tehstructiOn of the te'ttie poyoack to ciccur i€t_ FY ythe Dej�artmet of t grarns'Branch tc RCiC's:at "d _29�. IVIr:. Terry Abbott August 1, 2006 Page 2 We appreciate this s ppc rtssriit -to Ewan _C3A and sut our tranee,o shirr partners u h'aye-any questroits, Tease contact shirlay"Medina (R TC) at (961) 787J14t, tirAn ea ZureicK (SANBAG) at 0 :8276 'r', Sincerely yours Eric Haley RCTC; Execi e Q i' c Rachelfa alns }3[qu RaulErrgs rditE �aftra f3 rr t Ctarren Rbserna AGENDA ITEM 7H RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterial Program - Quarterly Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program Quarterly Report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the request of the Commission, staff is providing quarterly progress reports on the TUMF Regional Arterial Program. The Commission programmed a total of $48.588 million of TUMF funds to 24 projects in Western Riverside County. The June 2006 quarterly progress report indicated 13 agreements had been executed. To date, there are a total of 16 agreements executed, four in progress, and the remaining four project agreements are expected to be complete by the end of FY 2006/07. Total TUMF Regional Arterial Funds programmed and under agreement include: FY 2005/06 $ 7.978 million FY 2006/07 $26.877 million FY 2007/08 $ 3.821 million FY 2008/09 $ 2.000 million FY 2009/10 $ 0.000 million Total $40.676 million Remaining balance of programmed funds awaiting agreements is $7.912 million. Staff is working with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to review the 2005 TUMF Nexus Study and the associated changes to project cost and scope adjustments. This review will require amendments to existing agreements to reflect the updated nexus study. Attachment: TUMF Regional Arterial Funds Programmed - September 2006 Agenda Item 7H 31 Riverside County Transportation Commission TUMF Regional Arterial Funds Programmed TUMP Regional Arterials Funds: Programmed By,RCTC- Arterials Project Phases: rorxp .+eNnw r$ 1 Arterial Project Details Project Schedule and Funding Programmed i $'s In millions) Note: Amounts In Gre have been re•uested but not •roerammed AGREEMENT STATUS Dale Programmed b RCTC Lead Agency Project Rtie Project Limits Phase FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Phase Total 9/8/2004 Corona Green River Road Project Dominguez Ranch Road to SR91 PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Year Total e $ - $ 4.242 $ 1.2,12 -�'- $ - �,=7T T' X' j $ - $ _ $ i °,r_,.�.»' $ -- 1i1dd '. IT $- 4.242 $0.000� $ SIGNED Amendment pending 9/8/2004 Corona Foothill Parkway- Westerly Extension Paseo Grande to Lincoln Avenue SIGNED $ - $ ___ 2.000 $ 2.000 $ 4.000 -$ — 1111111111.11. $ - -._ _ $ ___ 2000 $ __ 7000 1 / 282 ®�NI$ Year'Dial $17232Mina' $ _ _ _ 1111 k $ r $ 0120 4,. 1 $ 1.505 $0.OWEiliM $ $ 0300 $ 6.000 $ L200 $0. MO rr $ 0389_ 9/8/2004 Corona ern o Rd/ 1-15 Interchange Ca coif :e• Or Canyon Road to the 1-15 Northbound Rams 11EBEN1— R® $ 0.120 EXPECTED OCT'06 $ I.505 $ 0.300 &. =, ss � $ , �' $ 6300 IN N nal 3 - '. a.e $ 7200 Cons Year Total PA&ED PSBE _._ R/W _ Cons Yc-cr Total MIZIECNI$ $ 0.120 $ - $ - $ 0389 9/8/2004 Lake Elsinore at oa• Canyon Road/I-15 Interchange m. Iroveme Interstate 15 to Canyon Hills Road EXPECTED SEPT'06 9/8/2004 Moreno Valley Perris Boulevard Widening Ramona Expressway to Cactus Avenue PS&E R/W _ _ $ 0871 i t,EI. NIN 1111 ' 0.871 ,.. _ S 0.336 $ 1.955 $ 0871 $ 7955 7.710 $7J10EMMEIMI $ O.134 -$ - 0335 ----- $ 1.025- $ 1342 $1.242lEgrEl $ 0.409 WM= Year Total $ - $ 0.389 9/8/2004 Moreno Valley Perris Boulevard Widening Ironwood Avenue to Monza nita Avenue PA&ED --�PS&E - _ __-- -- $ 0134 EXPECTED SEPT'06 ®— i, °8:2 $ 1.361 --- ®� YearTotal PA&ED $ - 0.409 $ 0.134 $ - 12/8/2004 Moreno Valley RecheCyn/ Reche Vista Heacock St to SB Co. Line 1 PS&E R/W - $ 0.409 -__ - — $ - $------- -- - -- A - $ °'4 g --- -- ":' $ — --- $ _ - $0.000 r r $ _ ., i.iiii- - r s i — it � pt ,. $ 1 003 $ - $0.000 MENEM. $ $ _ 'i'' 1' $ $ 0845 $ - $0-000 Cons YearTotal PA&ED Rw ®� YcarTDfel 11/9/2005 Riverside Van Buren Widening Andrew to Garfield SIGNED — $ 1.003 $ 1_003 $ - 4/12/2006 Riverside Van Buren Widening Santa Ana River to Jackson St '®' ' SIGNED MEM— --- R/W _ Cons Year Total _ _ _ $ - _ __ $ 0.845 $ - 0.845 $ - Page 1 of 3 Arterial Project befalls Project Schedule and Funding Programmed ( S's In millions) Note: Amounts In Gre have been re •uesled but not •ro•rammed _--- Dale Programmed b RCM 0 0 - 0 Phase FY 2005 ,FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Phase Total AGREEMENT STATUS 9/8/2004 Riverside Van Buren Blvd -91 Van: Buren Blvd at the 91 PA&ED PS&E — _ _ _..,_.- SIGNED R/W._ 5 2000 6T $ Freeway Freeway Cons - _--_-- _?000 ; : '° $ B.000- Interchange Interchnage Yec;Total $ - $ 2.000 $ - $ 3C00 1,3000 $'. 10.000' 'wersl•e :un•y :u.n•y anyon®' a 11011111.351n 11.111111.11 $ 0712 SIGNED County Canyon Road from 1-15.—� $ _ _ _ _ - 9/8/2004 Transportali Road/Scott Monet° Rood, �— $ ____ -__ _ $ - on Road Scott Road from ®�� $ - $ - $000E De•artment Improveme Mumeta Road Year Total $ 0.712 $ - •Iversl•e ^1•en a e M --- $ - - SIGNED County State Route Route 79 to four �— $ L000 PS&E $ 1.000 2/11 /2004` Transporati 79 (4j lanes from _ R/W _$_. - _ on Improveme Thompson Road gs.$ $ 13.000 De•artment nt Project s•uth limit to Year fatal $ 1.000 $ - $ 13.000 $ - $0.000 5' 14.000 •rversl•e an :uren •n on =uren PA&ED $ EXPECTED SEPT'06 County Bridge Blvd from Clay PS&E _ _ _ _ $ _ ., 9/8/2004 Transpodati Boulevard Street (north R/W $ on Widening limit- approx. Cons 4860 1 4.860 Department and Bra e 1000 feet north Ye Jr 10_ $ - _ $ _ 48SU $ - $ - $0000 •rversi•e an :uren en an :wen PA&ED. $ 0_, SIGNED County Widening- Blvd between PS&E $ 1).564 $ _ 056G 9/8/2004 Transpodati Washington Washington _ _ ..4 N$ on Street to Street and _R/W Cons - $ - De•artment Wood Road Wood Road In Year Total $ 0.226 $ - $ 0.5.4 $ - $0.000IMICE:11 •rversue as ern PA&ED $ 1.000 $ 1.000 $ 1.000 $ 3.000 SIGNED County Bypass Eastern Bypass PS&E $ - 9/8/2004 Transpodati De aliment Project Developme nt from Auld Road to 1-15 ®-- EirEal—on real fatal $ 1_000 - $ 1.000 $ $ - $0.000 $ 3.000 $ I.Oihr •IVern•e •o rero •o rero: v. PA&ED 1.0.1111.--11111.111111101 $ County Boulevard from San - PS&E $ 2.000 �� $ 2.000 9/8/2004 Transpodati Project Timoteo R/W illinu _ on Developme Canyon Road/ 11110111.1—S ____ $ - - De•artment nl Oak Valle Yeartrial $ - $ 2.000 $ - $ - $0 000 $ 2.000 - •rversi•e yew yew aong PA&ED $ $ 0750 SIGNED - County Interchange 15 between the PS&E _ _0750_ rrr $ 2000 9/8/2004 Transpodati on E15 at existing RAN-4250 on Schleisman Limonite Ave IC 11112:2111111111011111111.1.111= 20.000 - De•artment Road and Sixth St IC in Iota)Year $ - $ 0.750 $ - $ 2.000 $24.253 $ 27.000 'Ivere e ��—®_— $ County. Cin}o Keith 0.°M® Transpodati Rd/I-151C Clinton Keith,/I on Improveme 15 Interchange ---R/W Cons - 8ii $ 13500 , De•artment ntProject at fate $ - $ - $ - $ - $13.500 sr Page 2 of 3 Arfedal Project Details Project Schedule and Funding Programmed Note: Amounts In Greyhave been reque ( $'s In millions) ted but not p ogrammed Date Programmed by RCTC 0 0 0 Phase FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Phase Total AGREEMENT STATUS .Riverside 9/8/2004 County Transportati an De••rtment New IC at the Eastern Bypass/I-IS Eastern Bypass/I 15 PA&ED PS&E $,_- 0.500 $0750 $0.750 _ ._ $ _2..000 SIGNED $ _ - $ 2.000 . , ,R/W,-._,__ Cons Year Total PA&ED _ ___„_ $ 0.500 $ 0.040 __ ,,,__, $ 0.750 $ 0.750 '^. _ $ - $0.000 - 9/8/2004 SanJacinto 'omona Expressway Widening (TUMF Priori Sanderson Avenue (Hwy 791 to westerly city limits $ 0040 SIGNED $ 0160 _, ,, _. $ 3000 1ZarEll PS&E $ 0160 R/W , O. 4 'x, II t t )� (II $ - -$_ ':i,$ $0.000 - - Cons Y- h-tol PA&ED -- $ 0.040 $ 0.200 _ $ 3000==I�i. $ 3.160 r $ - 9/3/2004 San Jdclnto xenslono Ramona Expressway (Gap Closure even ree in San Jacinto to Cedar Avenue unIncoraorated $ 0.200 SIGNED $ 0.300 0.900 $ 4.530 1111111= PS&E $ 0.300 R/W _$_0.900 $ 0900 ' $" $` $ a500 't11 _ _'.n 11 $ - _..__..__... �[x` = % 0($ if�� € IIE $0.000 ._.._... _ Cons Year Total $ 0.500 9/8/2004 Temecula Wes ern Bypass Corridor Algnm ent Stud Approximo ey, from 1-15/ SR 79 South Interchange in a northerl PA&ED __ PS&E _ $ 0.700 _. _. $ 0.700 SIGNED __.___..._.....__. $ $ $ 0.700 Cons Year Total PA&ED ____ PS&E $ - __-___..... $ 0.700 _ _..___..._-.___.__..-__._... $ 2.000 CI'1 $ - _ _ RI INEVIIMINI $ - cx� ;�1a .! (FINSIIN11111111111 $ - ._-.__._. ,P,h $ - s,rM., ��. :I t$�... $0.000 :<�o,aeTs' $20000® $0.000 9/3/2004 Temecula rent valley Pkwy/1-15 Overcrossln • and IC •n - , approx 0.98 km north of Winchester Rd (51279) IC and 2.43 km o the $ SIGNED _...__..._.....____. $ 200Q $ 70.000 R/W Cons Year Total PA&ED 5 5.$17 $ - $ 7.517 9/8/2004 Temecula 1-15/SR79 South URlmate Interchange Intersection of 15 and SR79 South _$______ SIGNED $ 0.010 $ 4030 $ -5.900 5 9.910 PS&E --- R/1N Cans Y 1r lnlol $ 4000 _ $ 4.000 5 0.010 _ - $ 0.010 -'. sq�,l $ .5.900 " a ai'(1 � $ - TOTAL FUNDING UNDER AGREEMENT TOTAL TUMF REGIONAL FUNDS PROGRAMMED pbb 8/16/06 PA&ED $ 2678 $ $ g- $ 7.628 PS& E $ 1 300 _3200 $ 4 170 __1.750 $ 2.071 $ 2.000 _ $ 9.541 R/W $ ;$000 _ $ 10.417 _ $ 14 417 ®ln== $ 9.090 $ 9.090 Year total .$ 7.978 $ 26.877 $ 3.821 $ 2.000, $0.000 PA&ED PS&E R/W year 10101 $ 3.087 $ 1.300 $ 4.120 3 723 6.170 10.4I7 13.950 $ 1.750 $ 2.071 34.260 $ 3.821 $ 8.56.0 __.... .. $ _ 11.541 $ 4.537 $ 13.950 $0.000 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 71 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Corona Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterial Programming Request for Green River Road and El Cerrito Road Projects BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the reprogramming of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds for the Green River Road project to include $200,000 for the environmental phase, $600,000 for the design phase, and $3,442,000 for construction; 2) Approve extending limits on the Green River Road project to Palisades Drive for plans, specifications, and cost estimate (PS&E) design work only; 3) Approve TUMF Regional Arterial Program funds for construction of the Green River Road project from State Route 91 to Dominguez Ranch Road; 4) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-539-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-72-539, to reflect the above changes; 5) Approve Agreement No. 07-72-038-00 for programming of $1 million in TUMF funds for the El Cerrito Road/I-15 Interchange improvement project to include $120,000 previously programmed for right-of-way and $880,000 in additional funding for the construction phase; 6) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to amend and/or execute new agreements on behalf of the Commission to reflect the above changes; and 71 Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of $1.3 million. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In September 2004, the Commission programmed TUMF Regional Arterial Program funds to the city of Corona (City) for improvements on Green River Road, SR-91 to Dominguez Ranch Road ($4.242 million for construction) and the El Cerrito Road/ Agenda Item 71 35 1-15 Interchange ($120,000 for right-of-way). The Commission held off programming $1.505 million requested for construction of the El Cerrito project until the project was ready to be constructed. The City is requesting the following: 1) programming of the construction funds for the El Cerrito Road project; 2) adjusting the funds programmed for the Green River Road project to cover early phases of project development previously anticipated to be funded by private development; and 3) programming funds for design of an additional segment of Green River Road from Dominguez Ranch Road to Palisades Drive in order to keep the project moving forward and avoid a gap in the improvements. Green River Road Improvements At the time of the original request for funding, the City anticipated funding participation from developers to cover all of the project development work for the improvements on Green River Road, from Dominguez Ranch Road to SR-91 , and requested funds only for construction. The development has not proceeded as planned and the City wants to proceed with the project on its original schedule. It is requesting a portion of TUMF funding in the amount of $600,000 currently approved for construction to be used for the environmental and design phases. In addition, as part of the 2005 TUMF Nexus update, the limits eligible for TUMF funding were extended easterly, approximately 2,800 feet, from Dominguez Ranch Road to Palisades Drive. This segment is not part of the Commission's. TUMF Regional Arterial Program; however, the City is requesting the use of $200,000 of the TUMF funds programmed for the Dominguez Ranch Road to SR-91 segment for the design phase of Dominguez Ranch Road to Palisades segment so the design of both segments will be consistent and completed on schedule. The City will request all additional TUMF funds for right-of-way and construction of the Dominguez Ranch Road to Palisades Drive segment from the Western Riverside Council of Government's (WRCOG) TUMF Zone Program. The request is summarized as follows: Project Description: Green River Road, SR-91 to Dominguez Ranch Road and SR- 91 to Palisades Drive for project development phases only. TUMF Funding ( in 000's) Fiscal Year PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Total 2005/06 $ /1,2/12 4--4i42 2006/07 $ 200 $ 600 $ 800 2007/08 $ 3,442 $ 3,442 Total $ 200 $ 600 $ 3,442 $ 4,242 Agenda Item 71 36 Staff recommends the approval of the City's request given that the reprogramming of funds among the project phases remains consistent with the total approved allocation of $4.242 million and extend the limits from Dominguez Ranch Road to Palisades Drive to provide funding for the design work for these two segments. Funding the design for both segments at one-time will be cost effective and will ensure that the design of both segments is coordinated and completed on schedule. However, staff recommends that all additional funding needed for right-of-way and construction of the segment from Dominguez Ranch Road to Palisades Drive be funded by the WRCOG TUMF Zone Program to keep the Regional Arterial Program from being overprogrammed. El Cerrito Road/I-15 Interchange Improvements The El Cerrito Road/I-15 project approved for Regional Arterial TUMF funding by the Commission included improvements to Bedford Canyon Road, El Cerrito Road and the interchange at 1-15. The Commission programmed $120,000 for the right-of-way phase and held off programming an additional $1.505 million for construction until the project was ready to proceed. The City is constructing this project in two phases. Phase 1 is the realignment of Bedford Canyon outside of the Caltrans right-of-way. The project is a joint project between the county of Riverside and the City and is currently under construction. The total cost for construction of this phase is estimated at $1 .7 million. The City is requesting the Commission to program $200,000 in TUMF funds for construction in FY 2006/07 with the City funding the balance of the construction cost. The second phase of the project is the widening of the southbound and northbound off -ramps, ramp meter installations and traffic signals at the ramp, and widening of El Cerrito between Bedford Canyon and the northbound ramps. The total cost for construction of this phase is estimated at $1.8 million. There is currently $120,000 of TUMF funds programmed in the right of way phase in FY 2005/06, and the City is requesting that these funds be reprogrammed for the construction phase in FY 2006/07. The City is also requesting an additional $680,000 of TUMF funds be programmed in FY 2006/07 for a total of $800,000 for the construction of the second phase. It should also be noted that Caltrans is contributing $750,000 toward the interchange improvements, and the City will fund the balance with local funds. The request is summarized as follows: Project Description: El Cerrito Road/1-15 Interchange capacity — Bedford Canyon Road to the 1-15 Northbound ramps Agenda Item 71 37 TUMF Funding (in 000's) Fiscal Year PA&ED PS&E R/W Cons Total 2005/06 $ 120 $ 120 2006/07 $ 1.000 $ 1.000 Total $ 1.000 $ 1.000 Note - $1,000 = $200 construction in Phase 1, and $800 in Phase 2. Staff recommends programming the $200,000 of TUMF funds for construction of the phase 1 project, reprogramming the $120,000 of currently allocated funding from right-of-way to construction for phase 2. Staff also recommends programming an additional $680,000 for a total $1 million for construction of the two phases of this project. An amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of $1.3 million is required, as the FY 2006/07 budget includes only $500,000 for the Green River Road project. Should the Commission approve the funding requests, staff will work with the City to amend the existing Green River Road project agreement and develop an agreement for the El Cerrito Road project to reflect the actions included in this agenda item. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $1,300,000 Source of Funds: TUMF Regional Arterial Budget Adjustment: . Yes GLA No.: 210-72-81301 P5101 Corona — El Cerrito Road @ 1-15 210-72-81101 P5103 Corona — Green River/Dominguez Ranch SR-91 $1 000,000 $300,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \lit,ud vilmiz, �o Date: 08/28/06 Attachment: TUMF Programming Request from City of Corona Agenda Item 71 38 C}FFICE OF: -77124 -_ PIMA-006 05" :- - iCtE u0iiNTY= 10`163/35-.1001 c' KAT ON Cl7i' MIJSION (J 255/21-206 PUBLIC"WO,RKS DEPARTMENT" - A Q 2 t:AxV - June: £3;: 2006 4Cl0 5{iUTH VICENTIA AVENUE, P.O. BOX 940; CORC3NA, CALIFORNIA 92$7 ONA CITY !-iALL--.ONLINE, RLL THE TIMt Ihttpi(Iwww,discovercorona.com)- - Cathy.$echfttl;!Deputy_direotorof" Planning Riverside,COOnty`Tranaportation Commission. 4©8GLerifen_ Str®et, 3 ° FI. , Riverside; CA 92b,C2;2248 SUBJECT:-" PROGRAMMING FUNDSFOR IEGION`ALTUNI PROJECT$' referenced projects: 1: °GreenrRiver Road Pr©iect- = The City is requesting amendment of eurrent agreemertt�.to change the projeot limits ea -ate -fly from Uomingiiei Ranch Road -to Palisadas iriye,-to increase the TUMF-allocatkins lay $290 000; and to move=a portien"of, currently appropriated fun'ds,in zhe aineuriT of S80S7'000 for-PAUL) and PS&E The City of Caron d like to`requestthe fa l}ovting prograrnrtiirig af.ftinds nn he-t During the appilceion process for= securing .funds"for ragtin 3lpro-eCts,. the pity. anticipated particlpeGon from developers for PS&E and Right -of Way Fhe'develepment;has not proceeded:" - as planned. The City woulif like'"to`move_forward with the project independently from the developMent. To achieve:this wetriilf needto modify the scope of _the -project by extending -the limits of the project to Palisades Orive.:.The proposed extension is irteonfermance-with;the_ :adopted: 2065 netwerk- COsts'update, that, proposed extension to„ Palisades Drive. .The . proposed extension wr71 increase theiproject;limita epproxtmately 2494 foot and- will widen- GreenBiver Roed'in front,of an-existirig,sh'opping center end: -City owr(edproperties: -VJe_are' also" proposing to 7constructjminimat improvements fiom- Orriinguer Ranch Raotito" SR91:to previde adequate frensiti©ri,ti the'neYV.Green River Road interchange and lea a _the remaining , Improvemente . f©r-tfie :Green Rrdef` Roac9 ; develo_ prrient to complete ;iri a future . development is exempt.frorrt throub .- n .pztying, TUM�F_ fees gh; a,�develaph�errt agreEment =The " = f- project ',devel©pirient casts- for -the reach`.bi wean SR91 and Dominguez °Ranch -`-are ,;approximately 'SBOO;'OOG:. In' order to"prodide:a cost effisctive:stilution-,we arejaropOting-ta • deeigri the reach betinreen_SR91 and Palissee3 for'an addltionl31i;8200,0©€3 2: EI_Cerriti Road11 f ldnterchangs mor©v rnent -„ The-?Gity"requests an":aceeieration of-- schedule _t©"widen Et Cerrito;Road irnproiteme'nt prbj'eci to accommodate the-iricreasedaraffic issues_ The City is, requesting reprogramming!the funds telthe EI:Cerriro11-15_Interchangs - Improvement project " itiordecto expedite prvjeCt Corona decided to split the - - project -into fwo_ptojst is aa-friijbtits; 39,. A.. Realignment of"-Bedf©rd Canyon (Work out ide"C ft rs Ri#1'ts of -Way).: The,;ptofeet entails realigning _Bedford Canyon, signaliiatien at the intersectfon_oi-BedfordlEl Cerrrta widening. EI �Cernto to, add one- lane in,each direetivn between CT" Flight -of -Way 'Iiriearuf -" --Bedfard.Canynn This preject_is cuireritly under constructi©n It=is,joiritly14nde,4 by tf5e- - =' Coun ty_ of ('iiversrde- and=the City of Corona<<<1r3,DeCoberT2404,;totel.dsOital tbsf§ project were estimated to be"5955, 670. ° To date the City has: expended over a:S 1. million on the project. The total e5timat"ed-.eapitafeest5.will, be appreo(S "5it©:S:t.Tinillieh City is requesting $200;000"to cover Widehmg;costs''ari El Cerrite'Rd The balance-wril be. covered by local funds. B; EI Cerri.' 1 ur ercitan4e upgrades (Work witttln Caltrarts Rl hta a =Wavl; Thr pr jec entails widening # rsouthbeund off.xainp _theII rtheound Gff iantp, iris aII, fon Ci# i t -_ meter on the:nortltb ' nd en -ramp, lnetellation ef,traffic,sienals:- t`ihe_snips and wideriiri, EI Cerrito betuWeerxB„dford Cenyon and'the riortjibeurid ramps. The City wilt be receivlt g s contribution of $750,00d,from Coltrane towards these interchange improvements, ,riiVr anticipate:the-proiei t„costs-to be---appr©xirrrstely $ LI :to ,S1.$:Fnillion , Currently. tha:eboye"pro}act-has 51:20 000'programmed tt+wards. ROW in FY 2005/20 We are requestirte_:tl#at these funds 6e'preerat7med-for oortstruction in FY:200612007..: Additi©nally.. we- are requesting $68© Qop be pregrOMined for : construction .in FY: 200642007:1; _ Tltanit you foryoUr cnrrsitt rat aon_ iiould Yesrt - at 95?' 7 9 4823 cti you son reae[t tree drriactly ct lthal;d:Hozr AGENDA ITEM 7J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding between Riverside County Transportation Commission and City of Blythe Regarding State Transportation Improvement Program lntra-County Formula Funding BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 07-71-028 with city of Blythe (City) trading a total of $2,291,656 of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Intra-county Palo Verde Valley formula funds with Measure A Western County highway funds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its January 11, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved trading 2006 STIP Intra-county Palo Verde Valley formula funds in the amount of $416,656 with Measure A funds. This action resulted from past difficulties in programming local arterial projects in the Palo Verde Valley. Staff was also directed to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the city of Blythe (attached). Subsequent to the January 11, 2006 action, the 2006 STIP proposal was revised in response to a decrease in STIP funding availability. This resulted in the removal of two STIP projects in the City totaling $1,875,000. These projects located on Intake Boulevard and Lovekin Boulevard were originally programmed in previous STIP cycles. Given that these local arterial projects are low priority projects when STIP funds are limited, staff felt it would be in the best interest to trade them with Measure A Western County highway funds so that they have a better chance of meeting project schedules and not continue being delayed in the STIP. In turn, Palo Verde Valley STIP funds in the amount of $2,291,656 ($1,875,000 and $416,656) will be programmed by the Commission on Western County state highway projects in the 2008 STIP cycle. The City will be required to amend its Measure A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to include the Intake and Lovekin projects. Agenda Item 7J 41 The attached MOU outlines the terms of the agreement and does not impact the current STIP Intra-county formula. The STIP trade is proposed to continue in future STIP cycles. The amount of the trade for future STIP cycles will be based on the STIP Intra-county formula for Palo Verde Valley and vvill also consider interest impacts and the color of STIP funds. STIP funding for the 2006 STIP cycle is state cash; however, federal funds could be allocated to future STIP funded projects. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $2,291,656 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 222-31-81301 P3994 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \j/ 14,2, rna Date: 08/28/06 Attachment: MOU Blythe-RCTC STIP Fund Trade Agenda Item 7J 42 #07-71-028 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF BLYTHE FOR. TRADING STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM INTRA-COUNTY PALO VERDE VALLEY FORMULA FUNDS 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Memorandum of Understanding for trading State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Intra-county Palo Verde Valley forniula funds is made and entered into as of this day of , 2006 by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Commission") and the city of Blythe. 2. RECITALS 2.1 The Commission allocates STIP funds to three sub -regions per the adopted STIP Intra-county Formula: Western County, Eastern County, and Palo Verde Valley. 2.2 The city of Blythe is responsible for selecting projects for STIP Intra-county Palo Verde Valley Formula funds. 2.3 Due to programming constraints, two projects programmed in Palo Verde Valley totaling $1,875,000 were deleted from the 2006 STIP. 2.4 The California Transportation Commission continues to give higher priority to state highway projects. 2.5 Local arterial improvement projects are a priority in the Palo Verde Valley. 2.6 State highway improvement projects are a priority in Western County. 2.7 On January 11, 2006, the Commission approved trading 2006 STIP Intra-county Palo Verde Valley Formula funds in the amount of $416,656 for Measure A Western County Highway funds due to the low priority of local arterial projects in the STIP. • Page 1 of 3 43 3. TERMS 3.1 The agreement is to trade a total of $2,291,656 of STIP Intra-county Formula funds that were allocated to Palo Verde Valley ($1,875,000 de -programmed from the 2004 STIP and $416,656 of 2006 STIP Intra-county Formula funds that were unable to be programmed in the 2006 STIP) for Measure A Western County Highway funds. 3.2 The Commission will program $2,291,656 of STIP Intra-county Palo Verde Valley Formula funds in the next STIP cycle on a Western County highway project(s) to be determined at the Commission's discretion. 3.3 The city of Blythe will amend its Measure A Capital Improvement Program to include the $1,875,000 of programming for the projects deleted in the 2004 STIP: Intake Boulevard Widening project and Lovekin Boulevard Rehabilitation project. 3.4 The city of Blythe will amend its Measure A Capital Improvement Program to include the January 11, 2006 fund trade of $416,656 and program these funds to eligible Measure A Capital Improvement Program projects. 3.5 Future STIP funds allocated to the Palo Verde Valley per the STIP Intra-county formula will be traded with Measure A Western County Highway funds and programmed on Western County Highway projects until such time that the parties agree to terminate this agreement. 3.6 This MOU does not bear any impact to the current adopted STIP Intra-County Formula and is considered as a separate agreement between the Commission and the city of Blythe. 3.7 The fund trade will continue for future STIP cycles and the amount of the trade will be based upon the STIP Intra-county Formula allocation for Palo Verde Valley and will consider interest impacts and the color of STIP funding. Page 2 of 3 44 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF BLYTHE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Chair Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission Page 3 of 3 General Counsel 45 AGENDA ITEM 7K I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Lake Elsinore, Norco and Rancho Mirage BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2007/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the cities of Lake Elsinore, Norco and Rancho Mirage as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure A Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five-year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and Riverside County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On April 10, 2006, staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the required Five -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The agencies were asked to submit their plans by June 12, 2006 for submission to the Budget and Implementation Committee at its June 26, 2006 meeting and to the Commission on July 12, 2006. At its July 12, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved the Plans for all but seven cities: Beaumont, Calimesa, Cathedral City, Coachella, Lake Elsinore, Norco and Rancho Mirage. Subsequently, staff have received the required plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation from the cities of Lake Elsinore, Norco and Rancho Mirage. The other four cities have been informed that no disbursement of Measure A funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents have been received and approved by the Commission. Attachment: Measure A CIPs for Lake Elsinore, Norco and Rancho Mirage Agenda Item 7K 46 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2007 Agency: City of Lake Elsinore Prepared By: Ken Seumalo - City Engineer Phone No.: (951) 674-3124 ext. 244 Date: 07/19/06 Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME! LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COSTS ($000'S) MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($000'S) 1 Pavement Management Program -Citywide Street Reconstruction & Rehabilitation 800 700 2 Annual Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Progr_am Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk --- - --- - --------- ---------- ------ -- ---- -------- — ----- Program- 100 80 3 Annual Traffic Striping Program Maintain traffic striping and legends 100 93 Casino Drive Bridge - Seismic Retrofit Bridge Seismic Retrofit 550 65 ' Auto Center - Relocate Power Poles Relocate Utilities 400 217 Grand/ Ortega Highway Signal Install Traffic Signal 468 65 I-15/ SR-74 Interim Improvements Interchange Improvements 3,070 ' 400 Page 1 U \engr\Dave SolomorAExcelWeasureA07-11- 7-19-06 48 90.64-L -44-Lev Aseawkiaox3\uowolos.aneavisuavn 6b Z Aced £6 001. spue6al ancipls oilleJ; u1eiu!BA wei6oid 641ldpIS 9+424 lenuuV £ 09 004 .iedaJ lieMapis pue Jean0 'q.in0 wei6oad 5ileMaplS pue Jeun0 `gan0 ienuuy Z 009 - _ ____. _00.0' 4 _ 4 uoge}i i e a 12 uogon4suooe hails apinn D - wea6ad luawe6eueW wawaned (S.000$) S0Nnd ..V.. 3af1SV3W (S.000$) S1SO01V101 3dAl 1031"021d S11W11 GWVN 103POad 'ON W311 4 do Z e6ed 90/6 41LO :elea bbZ 7x0 17Z4£ bL9 (4S6) :'oN auo4d leeu16u3 - olewnes uay{ :Ra paiedaid 0.Jouls13 a�lel to AlD :loua6V 200Z - LOOZ Ad WV11001:1d SONnd 1V001 ..V.. 3af1SV31/1 NOISSIWWOO NOI1VlaOdSNV211 A1Nf100 301Sa3A18 90-61-L -l6-Lovamseamaox3\uouJo os aneav5ua\ n os E s6ed £6 00[ spue6al pue 6ulduls oweal ulelulen wea6oad 6uldla1g meal lenuuy £ 08 00I. nedai Tennapig pue Jenne 'cpno wea6oad Ilemapl8 pue JeunO 'curio lenuuy Z 008 -- - -- -- 000' l - uo{lepuclei{ad -Q-uogonalsuoaaa..laaus _.. ap!mApo-..wea6oad.luaw6eueA-luawaned __ --1 - - (s.000$) SaNnd "V.. 3anSV3IN (S,000$) S1SOo lt/.LO1 3dAl 1O3t'Oad S11WI1 GINVN 1.03f Oad 'ON 1M11311 S bo £ e6ed 901611L0 :alea 417Z 'lxa 17Z1£17L9 496) :'oN auoUd aaeul6u3 - olewnes :AG paaedaid amu!s13 a){el Jo A110 :Aoue6y 600Z 800Z Ad lAMIOC ld SaNnd -wool ..v.. 3ansv3w NOISSMINOO NOLLV1U0dSNVIE. AlNnoo 3O1Sa3Ala RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2009 • 2010 Agency: City of Lake Elsinore Prepared By: Ken Seumalo _ City Engineer Phone No.: (951) 674-3124 ext. 244 Date: 07/19/06 Page 4 of 5 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/ LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COSTS ($000'S) MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($000'S) 1 Pavement Managment Program - Citywide • ------ - Street Reconstruction & Rehabilitation ._ •_ _ .— 1,000 -- ---- - 8G0 -- 2 Annual Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Repair Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk repair 100 80 3 Maintain traffic striping and legends 100 93 Annual Traffic Striping Program Page 4 51 U:1engrlDave Solomon lExcellMeasureA07.11. 7-19-06 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2010 - 2011 Agency: City of Lake Elsinore Prepared By: Ken Seumalo - City Engineer Phone No.: (951) 674-3124 ext. 244 Date: 07/19/06 Page 5 of 5 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/ LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COSTS ($000'5) MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($000'S) 1 Pavement Managrnent Program - Citywide Street Reconstruction & Rehabilitation 1,000 800 -2:- -- Annual.Curb, Gutter -and Sidewalk Repair • Curb-Gutter-and-Sidewalkrepair---: 100 . 80 3 Annual Traffic Striping Program Maintain traffic striping and legends 100 93 Page 5 52 U:\engr\Dave Solomon \ ExcelWleasureA07-11- 7-19-06 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY2006 - 2007 Agency: CITY OF NORCO Page 2 of 8 Prepared by: WILLIAM R. THOMPSON Phone #:951-270-5607 Date: JUNE 15, 2006 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) OVERLAY: 1. Valley View Ave. — First St. to Sierra Ave. and Sixth St. to River Dr. Overlay 350 350 2. Sierra Ave. — Fifth St. to Sixth St. Overaly 150 150 3. Tally -Ho Ln — Corona Ave. to End of Cul-De-Sac Overlay 75 75 4. Smokewood DR. — Sierra Ave. to West End Overlay 35 35 5. Seventh St. — Woodward Ave. to Sierra Ave. Overlay 35 35 6. Pedley Ave. — Seventh St. to Eighth St. Overlay 75 75 7. Hillside Ave. — Sixth St. to River Dr. Overlay 228 228 8. Misc. Pavement Overlays Overlay 0 0 / rivera/measureA5yrform 54 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2006 - 1007 Agency: CITY OF NORCO Page 3 of 8 Prepared by: WILLIAM R. THOMPSON Phone # 951-270-5607 Date: JUNE 15, 2006 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) REHABILITATION AND OVERLAY: 9. River Dr. — Temescal Ave. to Eighth St. Overlay 60 60 10. Reservoir Dr. — Corona Ave. to Temescal Ave. Rehab/Overlay 175 175 11. Parkridge Ave. — Second St. to Kips Korner Rehabilitation 128 128 12. Riding Ring, Western, Cabelieros, Indian Horse Rehabilitation 150 150 13. Western Ave. -Fifth St to South End Overlay 70 70 14. Third St. — Valley View to Corona Ave. Overlay 250 250 15. Third St. Hillside to End/Raquel Overlay 100 100 16. Sierra Ave. - Fourth St. to Third St. Rehabilitation 335 335 17. Crestview Ave. — North Dr. to Sixth St. Rehabilitation 554 554 J rivera/measureA5yrform 55 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A"LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2007 Agency: CITY OF NORCO Page 4 of 8 Prepared by: WILLIAM R. THOMPSON Phone # 951-270-5607 Date: JUNE 15, 2006 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) REHABILITATION AND OVERLAY: 18. River Dr. — Center Ave. to Hillside Ave. Rehab/Overlay 45 45 19. Bluff St. — Vine Ave. to River Rd, Rehabilitation 64 64 20. Traffic Signal Improvements Signal 50 50 21. Fifth St. @ Hamner Ave. Signal Improvements Signal 50 50 22. Sierra Ave. @ Sixth St. Signal Improvements Signal 50 50 23. Street Striping — Various Locations Striping 30 30 24. Miscellaneous Seal Coats - Streets Seal Coat 50 50 25. Miscellaneous Pavement Repairs Street Maintenance 70 70 / rivera / measu reA5yrform 56 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A''' LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY2007 - 2008 Agency: CITY OF NORCO Page 5 of 8 Prepared by: WILLIAM R. THOMPSON Phone # 951-270-5607 Date: JUNE 15, 2006 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000`s) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1. Rocky View — Norco Dr. to Alhambra Overlay 128 128 2. Miscellaneous Street Overlays Overlay 100 100 3. Hillside Ave. — Second St. to Third St. Rehab/Overlay 150 150 4. Golden Gate Circle Rehab/Overlay 25 25 5. Norconian Dr. — Norco Dr. to Fifth St. Rehab/Overlay 200 200 6. Miscellaneous Reconstruction - Streets Reconstruction 200 200 7. Crestvelw Ave. — North Dr. to Sixth St. Rehab/Overlay 554 554 8. Traffic Signal Improvements Signal 50 50 9. Sixth St. Signal Improvements Signal 50 50 , 10. Street Striping - Various Locations Striping 50 50 11. Miscellaneous Seal Coats Seal Coats 50 50 12. Miscellaneous Pavement Repairs Maintenance 50 50 / rlvera! measureA5Y rform 57 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2008 - 2009 Agency: CITY OF NORCO Page of Prepared by: WILLIAM R. THOMPSON Phone # 951-270-5607 Date: TUNE 15, 2006 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1. Miscellaneous Street Overlays Overlay 250 250 2. Corona Ave. — First St. to Second St. Rehab/Overlay 275 275 3. Hillside Ave. — Second St. to Third St. Rehab/Overlay 400 400 4. Miscellaneous Street Reconstruction Reconstruction 200 200 5. Traffic Signal Improvements Signal 50 50 6. Sixth St. Signal Improvements Signal 50 50 7. Street Striping — Various Locations Striping 30 30 8. Miscellaneous Seal Coats Seal Coats 50 50 9. Miscellaneous Pavement Repairs Maintenance 50 50 10. . 11. 12. hivera/ measu reA5yrform 58 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A "LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 1009 - 2010 Agency: CITY OF NORCO Page 7 of 8 Prepared by: WILLIAM R. THOMPSON Phone # 951-270-5607 Date: JUNE 15, 2006 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) i. Miscellaneous Street Overlays Overlay 250 250 2. River Rd. - east of Bluff St./Bluff St. Vine west Rehab/Overlay 250 250 3. Miscellaneous Street Reconstruction Reconstruction 200 200 4. Traffic Signal Improvements Signal 50 50 5. Hamner Ave. Signal Improvements Signal 50 50 6. Street Striping — Various Locations Striping 30 30 7. Miscellaneous Seal Coats Seal Coats 50 50 8. Miscellaneous Pavement Repairs Maintenance 50 50 9. 10. 11. 12. / rivera/ measureA5yrform 59 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A"LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2010 - 2011 Agency: CITY OF NORCO Page _a_ of 8 Prepared by: WILLIAM R. THOMPSON Phone # 951-270-5607 Date: JUNE 15, 2006 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1. Miscellaneous Street Overlays Overlay - 250 250 2. Pikes Peak Rd. — Sixth St. to Mt. Shasta Rehab/Overlay 180 180 3. Miscellaneous Street Reconstruction Reconstruction 200 200 4. Traffic Signal Improvements Signal SO 50 5. River Rd. Signal Improvements Signal 50 50 6. Street Striping — Various Locations Striping 30 30 7. Miscellaneous Seal Coats Seal Coats 50 50 8. Miscellaneous Pavement Repairs Maintenance 50 50 9. 10. 11. 12. nvera/ measureA5yrform 60 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP.ORTATION_COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM EY 2006 - 2007 Agency: City of Rancho Mirage Page 1 of 5 Prepared by: Bruce Harry, Director of Public Works Phone #: (760) 770-3224 Date: June 12, 2006 ITEM NO. PROJECT NANIE/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PROJECT COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1.. Citywide crack sealing, slurry sealing, minor asphalt overlays and street striping on local public streets in the Magnesia Falls Cove, White Sun Ranch, San Jacinto, and Mirage Cove residential areas; and arterial streets such as portions of Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Bob Hope Drive, Frank Sinatra Drive, Los Preventative Maintenance/Pavement Rehabilitation 313 200 Alamos Road, and DaVali Drive. 2. Bob Hope Drive (Dinah Shore to Ginger Rogers) pavement reconstruction and asphalt rubber overlay. Pavement Rehabilitation 325 163 3.. Plumley Road pavement rehabilitation from Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore Drives.* Pavement Rehabilitation 240 240 4. Monterey Avenue street improvements from Gerald Ford to .Country. Club Drives. Widening and Pavement Rehabilitation 4,065 341 *Carryover Project TOTALS 4,943 944 62 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2007 - 2008 Agency: City of Rancho Mirage Page 2 of 5 Prepared by: Bruce Harry, Director of Public Works Phone #: (760) 770-3224 Date: June 12, 2006 ITEM NO.. PROJECT NAME/UNITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PROJECT COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. Citywide rubber crack sealing, rubber slurry sealing, minor asphalt overlays and striping on various public streets. Preventative Maintenance/Pavement Rehabilitation 400 200 2. Monterey Avenue street improvements from Country Club Drive to Magnesia Falls Drive. Widening and Pavement Rehabilitation 2,800 376 3. Frank Sinatra Drive asphalt rubber hot mix overlay from Morningside Drive to Monterey Avenue. Pavement Rehabilitation 850 425 TOTALS 4,050 1,001 63 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM EY 2008 - 2009 Agency: City of Rancho Mirage Page 3 of 5 Prepared by: Brace Harry, Director of Public Works Phone #: (760) 770.3224 Date: June 12, 2006 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PROJECT COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. Citywide crack sealing, slurry sealing, minor asphalt overlays and traffic striping on various public streets. Pavement Maintenance 400 200 2. Highway 111 asphalt rubber hot mix overlay from Bob Hope Drive to east city limit. Pavement Maintenance 850 400 3. Street improvements and pavement rehabilitation of all local public streets within Section 30 which is bordered by Bob Hope Drive, Gerald Ford Drive, Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Dr. Widening, Curb and Gutter and Pavement Rehabilitation 4,896 462 TOTALS 6,146 1,062 64 99 9II`I OS It S'IVIOZ bZ5 S96 uogeliirgeuag luauuaned •( Apa viieurs luem o; anpa gnt0 A.qunoD) uogonxysuooat wails anuQ apis2uiuuow •£ Z6£ S84, uoly uiigvgag wawa ned "(TIT XuNalgt1-i oa anuQ ams8usruow) uopomusuoaaaz halls anuQ gn10 rSrumoD 7 00Z 00t aoueualureN luouuaned •suaaos orignd snopen uo Surdpis pue s:feiaano liegdse JouTuu `SuHuos rfaanis Jagqna `8urieas reaa Jaggna ap!mifiTD •T (S,000$) SQNnd v minsvaini (S,000$) ISOD IDHIOScl 'IVZOI aciA.I LOafO3Td snwi n arnidN .LOarO2id 'ON NMI 900Z `ZT aunp 6ZZ£-OLL (09L) :# mom s4aoM augnd Io ao;aa.ga ‘Saaeg aanag :Sq paasdaad S 3o 6 aged a2argx ogaueg 3o Sija :Saua2v OIOZ - 600Z Ad Iu OO�Id savO?I (INV siaazlIS'IV3O'I 641/„ HIJOSdHIAI NOISSI lw®3 A,I N110a �QIS2I�AI?I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" ]LOCAL, STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY2010-2011 Agency: City of Rancho Mirage Page 5 of 5 Prepared by: Bruce Harry, Director of Public Works Phone #: (760) 770-3224 Date: June 12, 2006 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PROJECT COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1'1'EM NO. 1. Citywide Crack Sealing, Slurry Sealing, minor hot mix overlays and street striping on various public streets. Pavement Maintenance 660 660 2. Rancho Las 'Palmas Drive pavement rehabilitation from Highway 111 to Bob Hope Drive. Pavement Rehabilitation 750 513 TOTAL 1,410 1,173 66 AGENDA ITEM 7L RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006/07 Local Transportation Funds Allocation for Local Streets and Roads for the Palo Verde Valley Apportionment Area BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the allocation of FY 2006/07 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for local streets and roads purposes in the Palo Verde Valley area as shown on the attached table. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The estimated FY 2006/07 apportionment of LTF funds for the Palo Verde Valley apportionment area is $1,005,325. Additional available funds include $302,828 of unallocated funds carried over from FY 2004/05, as per the audited financial statements, and $347,817 from the FY 2005/06 mid -year adjustment. Accordingly, the total available LTF funds for the Palo Verde Valley area is $1,655,970. An Unmet Needs Hearing was held in the city of Blythe on March 1, 2006, and it was subsequently determined that there were no unmet needs that could be reasonably met which allows the Commission to distribute any unallocated LTF funds for local streets and roads. The Commission approved the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) on July 12, 2006, allocating $759,075 to PVVTA. Therefore, a balance of $896,895 is available for local streets and roads purposes in the Palo Verde Valley. The Palo Verde Valley apportionment area is the only area in the county in which LTF funds dollars are still allocated for streets and roads purposes although no funds have been allocated since FY 2002/03. The attached table shows the allocations for the city of Blythe and the county of Riverside (County) based upon a formula previously approved by the Commission. Population figures are from the State Department of Finance E-5 report dated January 1, 2006 for FY 2006/07, and have been adjusted to credit the prison population of 4,037 at Chuckawalla State Prison to the County. Agenda Item 7L 67 Following Commission approval of this allocation, the city of Blythe and the County will be formally notified that a claim must be submitted in order to receive these funds. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: N/A Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: '' �1'-ev� Date: 8/28/06 Attachment: Allocation of LTF Funds for Local Streets and Roads Table Agenda Item 7L 68 Agency Blythe Riverside County TOTAL ALLOCATION OF LTF FUNDS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA FY 2006/07 Total Less Available for Population Percentage Share PVVTA Streets &Roads 18,142 60.82% $1,007,094 $379,538 $627,556 11.689 39.18% $648,876 $379 537 $269,339 29,831 100.00% $1,655,970 $759,075 $896,895 NOTE: Population for City of Blythe excludes prison population of 4,037 for Chuckawalla as of 1/1/06, which is included in County population. Prison population obtained from State Dept. of Finance, Demographics Division. 69 AGENDA ITEM 7M RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Henry Nickel, Commuter Rail Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: IEOC Weekend Service 3,500 3,000 c 2,500 2,000 e 1,500 1,000 500 - 0 Passenger Trips IEOC Weekend Service 2005 —6-2006 'Y 0 a 5 0 1 O 0 ^O �'• ^L The Beach Train has now successfully transitioned to year-round Metrolink Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Weekend Service. Since commencing July 15, daily passenger trips on the new service have averaged 2,350 per weekend which is up 463 C-F24.5%) from a year ago. This service provides both an extension to our existing services for transit dependent riders and existing commuter passengers as well as a fun and practical alternative to driving into Orange County, introducing entirely new users to the Metrolink system. Growth of the service reflects ongoing marketing efforts including print advertising, promotion of www.metrolinkweekends.com, direct mail, seat drops and daily radio spots. Furthermore, the Commission has partnered with parks and recreation departments in cities located near our Metrolink stations through a special ticket consignment program. Agenda Item 7M 70 Riverside Line c 7. 0 5,400 5,000 4,600 4,200 3,800 3,400 3,000 2,600 Passenger Trips Riverside Line L o‹.' o`' o`O o0 0o p�' p`O PJo, 5e� Oe� �o, Oe, lac <<eo fat Pic �a� ,J� Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of July averaged 4,478 which is down 147 (-3%) from the month of June. Compared to one year prior, the Line averaged an overall daily increase of 105 passenger trips, nearly 2% more than a year ago, July 2005. 100 d 95 R 90 Y y 85 m 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) j Riverside Line UP Track Work 1 �0 h ecioh o`�� e°ph oh Q, e�o6 a�o° Q`OD 6° J ob Q 0 O O Q \.v P Month July on -time performance averaged 96% inbound (-1 % from June) and 97% outbound (-3% from June). There were 8 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of July. The following were primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Agenda Item 7M 71 Inland Empire -Orange County Line 4,600 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line I- I coaQ Oo \-\0-1' 0e' )ate Fed eCaPQ� 4<b" Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's IEOC Line for the month of July averaged 4,484, an increase of 100 trips, 2% more than the month of June. The Line has increased by 930 daily trips or 26% from a year ago July 2005. 100 w 95 ▪ 90 ✓ 85 a)80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line ,J\ph mod' h aQ h Groh oOpt eGAh 00 F a� e�`a0o� Qio�o ,Jp�o P 5 O P Month July on -time performance averaged 94% southbound (+10% from June) and 92% northbound (+5% from June). There were 21 delays greater than five minutes during the month of July. The following were primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Agenda Item 7M TOTAL 72 91 Line Passenger Trips 91 Line 2,800 2,600 y 2,400 F 2,200 `0 2,000 at 1,800 1,600 1,400 JAh A h ddoh tioh ,oh oh o� �� von �o� O� �o`O ,Jo� PJ �a 4) Pe a Qe �a QQ 'e �J Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of July averaged 2,483, an increase of 101 trips or a 4% increase from the month of June. The Line averaged an overall increase of 530 (+27%) from a year ago July 2005. Percentage 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goad) 91 Line ,-- �O< O< 0<0 O<0 00 Oy ,O POD �a� �G ��, Qei4 Oro O6 �e‘Pr Hai PQ� 4a\ Month July on -time performance averaged 94% inbound (+9% from June) and 95% outbound (+8% from June). There were 9 delays greater than five minutes during the month of May. The following were primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations TOTAL Attachment: Metrolink Average Weekday Trips and Schedule Adherence Agenda Item 7M 73 %6 %LZ %9Z %S %Z %V %9 %SI. %£ 90InfSn901nf a6ueyo % %0 %4 %Z %4 %E- %£- °10 l %0 %1 90 unr sn 90 Inf a6ue4O % %0 806`14, 88V'Z V8V'4 92.9'9 8LV17 LS9 488'44 69Z'L 000'V 90Inf %Z- 060'Z17 Z8£'Z 1,9£'4 ££9'9 9Z9'V 999 996'44 Z6Z'L Z94'V 90unf %L 49L'ZV 9ZV'Z LLV'V O99'9 892.'17 £99 8Z£'Z4 88Z'L VLZ'V 90 AeW %Z 96614, 6LZ'Z 96£'17 98£'9 6LO, L49 999'44 9V0'L 966'S 90idy %L- 9E6'6£ 6LL'Z V9£'V 964'9 L89'£ L99 4176'44 Z£8'9 LS8'£ 90JeW %0 99Z'OV £817'Z 9L9'17 98Z'9 444'E OV9 £69'Z4 961'9 08L'£ 90Ued %6 EV£'017 1.66'4 48Z'4 L94.9 849'V £V9 9L8'44 SV6'9 Z06'£ 90Uef %44- /96'9£ 408'I. Z99.£ 009'9 SVZ'V 999 EL4'44 ZL9'9 8VZ`E 903aa %4 E48'147 6Z0'Z 460'17 Z9S'9 V6L'4 8V9 L60'Z4 E64'L 660'0 90AeN %£ LL4'l4 ZOO' Z L£Z'V 999'9 999.4 £49 Laid. SO4'L 410'V SO PO %£ 8L0'017 VL9' 4 EV6'£ 99Z'9 099'V 6Z9 five' 4l ZL6'9 696`£ SO des %Z /90'6E 906' I. L8L'E 9ZE'9 L 4£'17 999 V8E' I. 4 1798'9 9E9'£ 90 6ny %Z- 08£`8£ ES6'L 499'E OVE'9 ELE'4 Z49 VV£'44 .9£E'9 998'9 SOlnf 404' a y ' . � �r� aFS Pk# , � .: <: ��^ ? : > . < . I:dfn .'''..1 144 {u{ %., (It'ii3' .Ou - ��7f3* ' s .' �l� iF! � . %4 , (�tl 1 ' Y :. > iFcF{I$� 3 ..ar 104 %��33�I'0 . `uJ: A.` G�' € .. .: amsnra'd Atlan0H - momm H1NOW N3312pH1 SdR11213JN3SSt/d AvaN33M 39V213AV mnotu 31N .uoiyelnoloo awiy-uo ayy w papnioul lou eie sule.4 pe9nuuy •uogeuiuuay Lo;u!od;e awiy-uo Glom Aay3ll 10 paiaplsuoo a,e suleq payeuluuai shiap aigemmal Jo; apew uaaq aney slueu4sntpe oN %96 %56 %56 %96 %96 %L6 %46 %£6 • %OS 9k!i Mahn Ift:P.si61 ' > 6i[l0�lE=00ldty�*1U1:>. aano� �t� %96 %66 '' S,1g+1VIM %66 %004 %E6 %46 %Z6 %96 %£6 %004 ,�a�s1o�9Na°< ; e.PL0kitNat sulell pouad Head 80 INf awtl PelnPet09lo. SelnulW 5 uNIVA 6ulnlLy suleui poliad dead %96 %96 %96 °/a96 • - %46 %Z6 %46 %46` - %06 %oL8 %96 %96 %96 %46 %96 %46 %46 %96 %96 - 90 !nr %E6 %£6 %E6 %L9 %99 %Le %48 %68 %46 %46 %96 %86 %L8 . ` %Se %96 %Se %16 %E6 %96 90 unP %S6 %S6 %96 %96 %E6 %£6 %96 %L6 %46 %1.6- %46 %96 %S6 %46 %96 %96 %L6 %96 %96 90 Am %46 %E6 %96 %69 %06 1599 °AN %46 %06 %Z6 %96 %00L 9'066 %56 %66 %L6%46 %96 %86. 90+dy %E6 %£6 %£6 %Z6 %59 %L9 %99 %96 %LS %U %98 %COL %004 %96 %LS %£6 %56 %L6 %E6 90 Jon %E6 °AU %46 %Z6 %46 %69 %06 %L6 %56 %L9 %E9 %66 %L6 %L6 %96 %E6 %96 %96 %66 90 clod %Z6 %46 95E6 %06 %06 %98 7,26 %69 %E6 %9L %9L %96 %L6 %96 %66 %46 %Z6 %Z6 %96 90 Ypf %46 %46 %S6 %68 %L9 %06 %06 %98 %L6 %46 %L6 %00L %66 %46 %L6 %96 %96 %96 %Le SOo8a %96 %46 %96 %£6 %69 %E6 %96 %96 %E6 %96 %46 %86 %L6 %L6 %96 %99 %56 %46 %96 90 ^oN 11£6 %Z6 %E6 %E6 %a %46 %S6 %L6 %06 %£6 %96 %L6 %S6 %S6 %96 %4B %06 %06 %68 90 no %E6 °k46 %ZS %E6 %96 %46 %99 %96 %69 %96 %E6 %L6 %L6 %96 %96 %06 %46 %L6 %69 90 des %96 %96 %96 %L6 %96 %56 %56 %96 %96 %66 %96 %86 %00 L %86 %96 %68 7096 %96 %96 90 env %£6 %L6 °/a96 %L6 %98 %Z6 %1.6 %46 %Le "/oL8 %06 %66 %00L %96 %66 %1,8 %99 %L6 %£6 50 or bwT t 401WA: � y ,` € s i;t< 3 <' ::.` told g •,- .. € g:: < tnO�i r Crtitiv,6 e ;/g > l <<<, <�'T e >? (T < < I A , suin1�(0 ft ? s> 3t? <^,' ai .0tfia� r , np;t 3s Ut i l)ir , 10,} tiY< : , 0nsi Es A: 0 �1 r A. ' SHINOW-EL 1931V1 awll patnpayos to swum g wpm\ 6upwiv suleil to oBewoo.led 331A1MS AdaN33M - Awl/runs 30N3213HCIV 311103H3S NNI1ONAIN AGENDA ITEM 7N RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interstates 15/215 Freeway Traffic Detection Project Augmentation PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to enter into Cooperative Agreement No. 07-41-037-00 with Ca!trans for the 1-15/1-215 Freeway Traffic Detection augmentation project; and 2) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of $2.3 million. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On January 24, 2005, www.CommuteSmart.info was unveiled as the region's one -stop shopping center on the internet for regional rideshare and commute information. One of the primary information services provided on the website was the real-time traffic information map. While already serving a relatively large area of Southern California, the traffic map was limited in its service of the Inland Empire. Based on the Commission's approval of a staff recommendation at its March 18, 2005 meeting, staff worked closely with its consultant team to enhance the geographic coverage of the county on the map. On September 19, 2005, staff implemented the enhanced map depicting the entire county live onto the website. Once the entire county freeway system was incorporated into the map, it became clear that additional detection resources would be required in order for the map to provide real-time traffic conditions on all freeways in Western County as well as in other outlying areas of the county. Agenda Item 7N 76 DISCUSSION_ Staff, working in partnership with Caltrans District 8, set about to investigate the potential for the deployment of additional detection resources in the county vvith the primary criteria being location based upon need and the cost/timeframe for getting the work in the ground. Staff and District 8 working through this process identified two freeway corridors of high need, based on current congestion levels. These corridors are 1-15 south of the SR-91 to the San Diego County line and 1-215 south of SR-60 to its intersection with 1-15. These two freeways, while requiring detection, also have the distinction of not yet being funded in the District 8 SHOPP budget. As such, and given the parameters identified above, the district prepared a conceptual plan and cost proposal for these two corridors for the Commission to consider. Project Scope The conceptual plan and cost proposal presented by District 8, should it be approved, would result in the deployment of approximately 75 solar powered radar detection stations (some including cameras) covering 67 miles of freeway. The detection stations would be connected to the District 8 Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) via wireless communication and would :provide accurate real-time data regarding traffic congestion levels along with the capability for the identification/classification of commercial vehicles. The Caltrans estimate for this proposal is $2.3 million, which includes design and project management (25%), as well as construction (75%)'1 Caltrans in accepting these funds also agrees to provide the on -going maintenance as well as pay for the monthly wireless communication charges. The monthly communication charges are estimated to be in the range of 5750/month. It is estimated that the _project will take approximately 12 to 18 months to design and construct. The Commuter Assistance Program has a sufficient fund balance to cover these costs although a budget amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget is required. Project Benefits These detection stations, once deployed, would result in the immediate depiction of Riverside County freeway traffic conditions south of the SR-91 on the www.CommuteSmart.info traffic map as well as any other traffic map (such as the future So Cal 511 system) that would use a feed via District 8 or the Caltrans Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS). Given that District 8 is also working on posting travel times on its changeable message signs (CMS) similar to what District 7 has done for Los Angeles County, the CMS system would also be Agenda Item 7N 77 able to take advantage of this new data set and display travel times into and out of the Temecula Valley on both freeway corridors as proposed. Having the ability to review traffic conditions and travel times via the internet prior to departure for work or recreation enables motorists to make a more informed route decision, avoid congestion and make a more informed decision on the use of an alternative mode of transportation such as ridesharing and bus or rail transit. Offering information and choices of this type has been proven to have a positive impact on the freeway system by allowing it to operate more efficiently through the reduction in vehicle trips. Furthermore, the ability to identify/classify commercial vehicles may in the future aid the region in additional goods movement research and analysis. Accurate freeway congestion data is also a necessary ingredient for the securing of state and federal funds to support various Caltrans programs. These additional detection resources would put District 8 in a much better position to compete for those funds. Lastly, approval of this project would advance the district's plan to install detection in these corridors by four to seven years. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $2,300,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Commuter Assistance Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 226 41 81102 P2199 $575,000 226 41 81301 P2199 $1,725,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1414,",,,v,..42-0,,, Date: 08/22/06 Attachments: 1) Project Limits Map 2) Existing CommuteSmart Traffic Map for Riverside County Agenda Item 7N 78 CalTrans Project Fact Sheet Southern Riverside County Traffic Detection Post Mile: Riv-15 PM 0.0 —41.8 Riv 215 PM R8.43 — R29.2 'oodcrest cme Oerdens ros0 ip q12004NA41EpgNorGOr;lno`, Project Description: It is proposed to install Vehicle Detection Stations in Riverside County on Interstate 15 from the San Diego County Line to El Cerrito Avenue, and on Interstate 215 from the I-15/I-215 interchange to Eucalyptus Avenue. The project would install approximately 75 solar powered radar detection units with wireless communications. This system would provide needed traffic data for approximately 67 miles of freeway, where no detection currently exists. Installation of the proposed radar equipment will require no disruption to existing traffic, and minimal earthwork. This would allow for a short project development timeframe. This detection would ultimately be incorporated into the District's overall TMS infrastructure, when the scheduled improvements for these freeways are constructed. Need for Project: District 8 has large segments of freeways without the Transportation Management System (TMS) elements (electronic infrastructure) to monitor the freeway system properly. Roadway detection is one of the important elements that is deficient throughout the region. This leaves the District without the ability to collect traffic volumes and speeds information on a continuous basis. This data is used for a variety of needs. 79 The section of Riverside County -within -the -Project Limits is experiencing tremendous growth in the numbers of vehicle trips. Projects to install TMS elements will not begin the project development process until at least 2010, because of limited funding. The proposed project will enable transportation , agencies to analyze the deficiencies with the freeway, and produce project deal with the growing congestion problem. Purpose of Project: This project will produce the following benefits: • Traveler Information — Information on congestion will be made available to the media, displayed on traffic maps, and travel times can be displayed on changeable message signs. This will allow motorist to make more informed travel decisions. • System Monitoring — Historical congestion data can be recorded and used to initiate projects. In the future, programs like the Freeway Service Patrol and STIP will base their funding on vehicle hours of delay. It is difficult to compete for funding without the baseline information. • System Planning — Planners will have the historical traffic information to make better decisions about expansions to freeway, new interchanges, operational improvements, etc. • Goods Movement — Vehicle classification information can be collected and used to study truck movements. Truck travel data can be accessed at any point in time to assess commerce. Project Funding. Source Const. FY R/W FY Total Fed, State, and local Funds 2,300,000 08 0 NA 2,300,000 Project Schedule: PA&ED PS&E RW Cert. RTL Start Const. End Const. Current NA 12/01/06 NA 02/01/07 05/01/,07 8/01/07 Comments: Major Stakeholders: ROTC, Caltrans Contact Person: Robert Yates (ROTC), Thomas Ainsworth (CT) Created: March 13, 2006 Revised: August 14, 2006 Existing CommuteSmart Traffic Map for Riverside County I [Select New View] f change View _-., - - �• _ - .oe ` $Rn Jacinto Tue 2:26 PM 15-Rug-2006 BC CC1Y M SREi u6 M ERIN a Huff' mom I10 Dig * CLEI[ ON M COLORED RUSTIC IMES N SRON RnEI MS WESTERN RIVERSII �Y u 'k DIEGO�O.UNTY AGENDA ITEM 70 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 91 Commuter Express Demonstration Project Bus - Route 794 PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION; This item is for the Commission to approve the request from the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for the Commission to provide 100% of the RTA's share in the operation of the Route 794 demonstration project costs, using Commuter Assistance Measure A funds, in an amount not to exceed $120,000 for FY 2006/07. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 10, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved a not to exceed amount of $400,000 in Specialized Transit/Commuter Assistance Measure A funds to cover the Commission's share for the demonstration of commuter express bus routes along the State Route 91 freeway corridor. Additionally, this action put a 50/50 split on the funding responsibility for the Riverside County portion of the project evenly between the Commission and the RTA. DISCUSSION: Working in partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and RTA, staff has participated in the design and preparation of a new route that seeks to satisfy the Commission's direction for the implementation of express bus service along SR-91. The new Route 794 Express bus service is intended to primarily serve business commuters traveling from Riverside County into Orange County, and those whose destination is along the Sunflower Corridor in Costa Mesa. The service shall operate weekdays, departing five morning trips from the Galleria at Tyler, along with two additional morning trips departing from the Canyon Community Church in Corona. Agenda Item 70 81 Service is scheduled to begin on September 11, 2006 and shall be operated by OCTA. The buses are conversion coaches and seat up to 22 riders. The initial start-up fare will be $2.50 each way. Average travel time for the approximate 80 mile route is 1 hour and 15 minutes. Staff shall continue to work with OCTA and RTA in order to develop a marketing mechanism to promote the service. The Commuter Assistance Program will also be responsible for cross promotion of the service with its ongoing rideshare campaigns and specifically, shall include a tie—in for the service in its upcoming Rideshare Week.in the Inland Empire Campaign that is slated to be held October 2-6, 2006. Financial Impact In anticipation of the new service start-up in September, RTA has submitted a request dated August 4, 2006, asking for the Commission to pick up 100% of the Riverside County share of demonstration period costs. Approving this request would double the Commission's share of the funding responsibility. 'Given current project cost projections, ,staff is not requesting a budget amendment at this time as the funds made available under the original Commission action should suffice. Given that this project•vvill operate for two years as a demonstration project, RTA shall be responsible for billing and reporting project performance to the Commission on a quarterly basis as well as at the conclusion of the first year of service operation. Should the Commission find the performance of the route acceptable, staff shall bring it back to the Commission for approval to fund the entire Riverside share for the second year of the two-year demonstration program. Upon conclusion of the two-year demonstration period, RTA shall have satisfied itself with the performance parameters of the route. Upon finding the performance acceptable, RTA shall then fund the on -going operation of the route out of its normal transit operating allocations, with no additional Measure A funding coming from the Commuter Assistance Program. For FY 2006/07 and based on county traveled mileage, the Riverside County share of the project cost to the Commission (including the RTA share) is approximately one-third of the total projected service cost of $347,335, or $120,000. The balance of the project costs are to be funded by OCTA. Agenda Item 70 82 b Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: S120,000 Source of Funds: Measure A — Commuter Assistance Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No. 226 41 86101 P2199 Fiscal Procedures Approved: vlb/u4,iviru, Date: 08/22/06 Attachments: 11 RTA Letter Dated August 4, 2006 2.) Line 794 Route Map Agenda Item 70 83 77593 EH/TUSW 1-0E©7[1V/Er AUG 08 NOfi J RIVERSIDE COUNTY . TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION August 4, 2006 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517-1968 Phone: (951) 565-5000 Fax: (951)565-5001. Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon St., 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 z. / c. Dear Mr.. Ha ey: The Route 794 is scheduled to be implemented in mid -September 2006. This is a demonstration commuter bus project with partnerships between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Orange County Transportation Authority (Q.CTA), and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). The Route 794 will primarily; serve • business cominuters traveling between :Riversides and Orange; counties. OCTA will operate the service Monday through. Friday duringmorning and. afternoon; peakhours for a total of 14 trips per day. The cost of this demonstration project will be shared proportionally between the parties based on miles operated in each county. For this 794 commuter bus demonstration project, a total of approximately $120,000 will be shared in Riverside County with RCTC and RTA contributing $60,000 each. This cost represents one-third of the total project cost of approximately $347,335 for FY07. As currently directed by RCTC, the Commission will use Measure A Specialized Transportation — Commuter Assistance Program funds and RTA's share will be funded with Local Transportation Funds (LTF). At the July, 2002 RCTC Board of Commissioners meeting, the Commission approved $100,000 in Measure A funds to be allocated for the implementation of express bus routes on the SR91 corridor and an additional $300,000 in Measure A funds were budgeted toward this project in the RCTC's FY03-04 budget. The total provides $400,000.for the demonstration project: Since this is, a commuter bus demonstration project. RTA: respectfully requests that -.our portion of the cost be funded with Measure`A funds, making, Riverside County's total cost contribution to be funded 100 percent by Measure:A 84 Mr. Eric Haley Riverside County Transportation Commission Route 794 August 4, 2006 Page Two We appreciate your consideration in this matter and look forward to this opportunity to partner with both RCTC and OCTA to provide commuter bus service between Riverside and Orange counties. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly with any questions. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY arry Rubio Chief Executive Officer LR/mh c/ Jeff Fox, Chairman of the Board of Directors, RTA 85 98 9003ISZlL Jeeyoeefos C6LUlsluewnooasseAcros000lNrIN-9010-SONINNVld11 se„w 1111111.11. `-1V6LIti61 sn8 ssaadx3 pasodoad VIINVONVLAi VINVS OHONVN anan iseo0 Li nos o} eualoo yt6L oa}aW }seoa Li nos o} apisJani17.62, (MaN) sdo}s sn8 pasodoad . (6upp(3) sdois sng . I lei 3'11$ IN( AGENDA ITEM 7P RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006/07 State Transit Assistance Funds PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the report on State Transit Assistance funding apportionments. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Annually, the Commission allocates funding to support transit services (public bus and commuter rail) provided by Riverside County public transit operators. While funding sources include local, state and federal funds, the primary source of public transit funding is provided from the Transportation Development Act (TDA) that consists of two major sources of funding. ' The first, the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), provides for a 1/4 cent of the 7%. % state retail sales tax collected in each county. The State Board of Equalization returns the sales tax revenues to the county of Riverside where it is held until the Commission provides written allocation instructions for disbursement. For FY 2006/07, it is estimated that LTF revenue for transit services will be $63,256,158. State Transit Assistance (STA) funding is the second source of TDA funds. STA funds are generated from the statewide sales tax on motor vehicle fuel (gasoline and diesel). The STA funds are appropriated to the State Controller for allocation by formula to each Transportation Planning Agency. The Commission is responsible for the allocation of these funds for Riverside County. The formula allocates 50% of the funds on the basis of the region's population compared to the state's population (STA 99313 funds). The remaining 50% is allocated according to the prior year proportion of the region's transit operator passenger fare and local support revenues (STA 99314 funds). Agenda Item 7P 87 FY 2006/07 STA Funds to Increase by $11.7 Million In January . 2006, the State Controller's Office notified the Commission that the amount of STA funds projected to be received in Riverside County for FY 2006/07 was $6,924,442. In July 2006, the State Controller's Office revised the projected dollar amount of STA funds to be available. The revised projection is $18,672,794 . ($16,545,249 is 99313 discretionary funds and $2, 127,545 is 99314 non -discretionary operator funds)• This represents an increase of 169.7% over the state's original projection. The increase in STA funds includes Proposition 42, prepayment of existing general fund loans that were due in FY 2007/08 and FY 2008/09 as well as the gas sales tax "spillover'." In addition, the increase in the cost of fuel positively impacted the STA funding as illustrated on the following chart: GROWTH IN STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS - AVERAGE COST OF FUEL $7,000,000 ..............:....:.r_ a.:::.;a..::;.,a..r.:.::.;.�..-..- _ :._,,.,.:.M.::a;:�...:.�,:..:.;:::.::.:. $3.00 $2.50 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 FY 2001/02 FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 Source of Fuel Costs: Automobile Association FY 2005/06 $2.00 $1.50 $0.00 -1- STA Revenue t Average Cost of Fuel Spillover for FY 2006/07 partially predetermined under Bay Bridge "deal": first $200 million to general fund, next $125 million to Bay Bridge project. May Revise significantly increased estimated spillover revenues, adding an additional $343 million. Agenda Item 7P 88 Based on Commission adopted policy, the following table provides a breakdown of how the revised STA funding will be apportioned in Riverside County: STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS (PUC 99313) TOTAL WESTERN COUNTY COACHELLA VALLEY PALO VERDE VALLEY Bus Services: 78% Rail Service: 22% $16,545,249 $12,779,550 Bus: $9,968,049 Rail: $2,811,501 $3,502,629 $263,070 State Transit Assistance Funds (PUC 99314) $ 2,127,545 $1,444,075 Banning: $ 10,897 Beaumont: $ 7,782 Corona: $ 24,438 Riverside: $ 22,732 RTA: $665,952 Rail: $712,274 $ 677,612 $ 5,858 REVISED TOTAL: $18,672,794 $14,223,625 $4,180,241 $268,928 ORIGINAL PROJECTION: $6,924,442 $5,298,167 $1,529,001 $97,274 NET INCREASE: $11,748,352 $8,925,458 $2,651,240 $171,654 Short Range Transit Plan Amendments Public transit operators can access the additional STA funding by amending their agency's Short Range Transit Plan. Staff will notify the transit operators of the additional funding once the apportionments are approved. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $11,748,400 Source of Funds: State Transit Assistance Funds Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 241-62-42301 $10,556,100 241-62-42302 $ 1,192,300 STA 99313 revenues STA 99314 revenues Fiscal Procedures Approved: q �ite Date: 08/21 /06 Agenda Item 7P 89 AGENDA ITEM 7Q RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006/07 Short Range Transit Riverside Transit Agency Plan Amendment — PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $3,888 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to cover additional operating costs; 2) Receive and file a report on implementation of a University Pass Program with the University of Riverside, California (UCR); and 3) Amend RTA's FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the service changes, contingent upon compliance with Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) targets, as well as the implementation of the University Pass Program and implementation of Route 794, an express bus service along State Route 91. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) is requesting an increase in operating funds in the amount of $3,888 to cover additional operating costs for the following services: 1) Request for $370 in LTF Funds to Cover Corona/Norco/District 2 Holiday Trolley: RTA is requesting funding to provide a holiday trolley service on the weekends of December 9-10 and December 16-17, 2006 in the Corona/Norco/District 2 area. Total cost to operate the service on both weekends is approximately $2,970. The cities of Corona and Norco have agreed to partially sponsor the service at a cost of $800 per city and the county of Riverside District 2 will provide $1,000 sponsorship resulting in unfunded operational costs for RTA of $370. Agenda Item 7Q 90 2) Request for $3,518 in LTF Funds to Provide Bus Service to the Festival of Lights Downtown Aglow: Annually, the Mission Inn presents a Festival of Lights Switch -on Ceremony. The event is held the day after Thanksgiving in downtown Riverside. This year's event will be held on Friday, November 24" Following the official switch -on ceremony the entire downtown area begins the holiday season by continuing the Festival of Lights celebration with Riverside Downtown Aglow every Thursday, Friday and Saturday between Thanksgiving and Christmas. RTA is requesting funding in the amount of $3,518 to cover the cost of providing bus service targeted in Calimesa, Hemet/San Jacinto, Temecula, Beaumont, Banning, Mead Valley, Corona and Country Village. If approved, RTA staff proposes to serve certain jurisdictions with two buses each on the four Saturdays following Thanksgiving. It is estimated that a total of 267 one-way passenger trips will be provided to the Festival of Lights celebration. 3) Implement a University Pass Program with the UCR As an outgrowth of the "GO Riverside" discussions - an effort to gain community input on transit enhancements within the city of Riverside service area - UCR and RTA discussed ways to better serve university students that populate and utilize facilities throughout Riverside. As a result of the on -going discussions, UCR will reimburse RTA for trips taken using a UCR student identification card. To improve service efficiency, RTA will operate a proposed transit route, called the "Crest Cruiser", which is a route designed to directly link students to campus from off -campus housing in addition to providing a connection to other on -campus routes and adjoining RTA bus service. To implement the program, UCR and RTA will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding that will allow students to board any fixed route RTA bus without paying a fare. Each student trip Will be counted for reimbursement by UCR. UCR will receive a discounted rate of 60 cents per trip with a maximum reimbursement of $32 per month per rider. As part of the program, RTA's fare boxes will be programmed to accept UCR student identification cards. Each time a student swipes the pass through the fare box, the trip will be counted providing the Agenda Item 7Q 91 date, time and number or uses for the pass. The reimbursement program is being modeled after the University of California, Irvine and California State University, Fullerton pass program with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The University Pass Program will be fully subsidized by UCR. 4) SR-91 Commuter Express Bus — Route 794 Demonstration Project: Under a separate agenda item, RTA is requesting approval and funding to implement Route 794, a commuter express bus route along the SR-91'freeway corridor. Working in partnership with OCTA and RTA, Commission staff has participated in the design of this route. Staff is requesting that RTA's FY 2006/07 SRTP be amended to reflect this service addition. Productivity Improvement Program: For FY 2006/07, the Commission adopted the PIP, which established performance targets critical to ensuring that transit service can be maximized in an efficient manner. More importantly, the PIP is a cooperative process between the Commission and the transit providers to work together on approaches to improve mobility in an environment fraught with rising costs for fuel, labor and insurance. It is anticipated that the requested service changes described above will have an impact on RTA's FY 2006/07 PIP targets; however, the actual impacts were not known at the time of writing this staff report. Commission and RTA staff will continue discussions on PIP impacts. Staff recommends that the SRTP amendment be approved contingent on PIP compliance. If it is subsequently determined that RTA is in non-compliance with the PIP targets, staff will seek further direction from the Commission. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $3,888 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 601-62-86101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \,:dv Date: 08/23/06 Agenda Item 7Q 92 AGENDA ITEM 7R RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006/07 Short Range Transit SunLine Transit Agency Plan Amendment — PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $833,657 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) due to a shortfall in federal funding and $25,000 in LTF for development of a Facilities Design Manual; 2) Approve SunLine's request to reprogram funding to purchase ten replacement and five expansion vehicles; and 3) Reprogram $194,317 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds and $777,270 in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds to purchase two expansion vehicles. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SunLine is requesting an amendment to its FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) as follows: 1) Request for $833,657 in Additional Local Transportation Funds (Capital) In FY 2003/04, SunLine was approved to receive $3,296,374 in funding from the FTA for operating and capital assistance to fund projects identified in its FY 2003/04 SRTP. However, FTA appropriated only $2,744,904 of the amount originally requested. In FY 2004/05, SunLine was approved to receive $3,198,470 to fund capital projects identified in the SRTP; however, FTA reduced the amount requested and apportioned only $2,916,283. The following table provides a summary of the original amount requested compared to the actual amounted apportioned by FTA. Agenda Item 7R 93 FISCAL YEAR FUNDS APPROVED BY SUNLINE/RCTC FTA APPORTIONMENT DIFFERENCE 2003/04 $3,296,374 $2,744,904 $551,470 2004/05 $3,198,470 $2,916,283 $282,187 TOTAL $833,657 As a result of the federal funding shortfall, additional LTF capital funding in the amount of $833,657 is required to complete the capital projects. 2) Request $25,000 in LTF Capital Funding to Develop a Facilities Design Manual A recommendation made in SunLine's Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) was that a facilities design manual be developed to provide guidance and direction on how to place transit amenities and facilities throughout SunLine's service area. The design manual is also intended to standardize .amenities and provide guidelines to local jurisdictions and the development community .on how and where amenities should be placed. SunLine staff has estimated that additional funding in the amount of $25,000 is required to cover consultant costs to develop the facilities design manual. 3) Bus Purchase - Request to Reprogram Funds SunLine's FY 2006/07 - FY 2008/09 SRTP identified federal and local funds to purchase 15 expansion buses to implement COA related service improvements. However, due to federal and state mandates on vehicle replacement, SunLine staff is requesting approval to reprogram the funds to purchase ten replacement buses and five expansion buses. This programming change will assist SunLine to continue meeting federal and state mandated regulations on fleet replacement. 4) Reprogram $971,587 in Local and Federal Funds to Purchase Additional Buses In FY 2003/04 and FY 2004/05, $971,587 in local and federal funding was approved to pay SunLine's annual Certificates of Participation (COPS) debt service payments for buses purchased in 1994. Subsequently, SunLine staff has determined that they had previously paid the COPS debt in full and as a result, are requesting that the funding be programmed to purchase two additional buses. Agenda Item 7R 94 The following table provides a summary of the funding originally approved: Fiscal Year STA Funds FTA Section 5307 Funds Total Funds to be Reprogrammed 2003/04 $100,200 $400,800 $501,000 2004/05 $ 94,117 $376,470 $470,587 Total $194,317 $777,270 $971,587 If SunLine's reprogramming request is approved by the Commission, SunLine staff will need to work with the FTA to reprogram the Section 5307 federal funds. Staff is in support of SunLine's FY 2006/07 SRTP amendment. There are adequate LTF funds available in the Coachella Valley apportionment to cover the additional funds requested. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $858,657 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 601-62-86102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: vite,1"44:41 Date: 08/21 /06 Agenda Item 7R 95 AGENDA ITEM 7S RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2006/07 and 2007/08 Call for Projects: Measure A Specialized Transportation Program — Western Riverside County PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE, EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the requests for Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in Western Riverside County for: • Blindness Support, Agreement No. 07-26-023-00 • Volunteer Center, Agreement No. 07-26-021-00 • Whiteside Manor, Agreement No. 07-26-024-00 in an aggregate amount not to exceed $323,364 in FY 2006/07 and $317,174 in FY 2007/08; 2) Approve interim funding in the amount of $32,500 for Care Connexxus covering the months of October through December 2006. Interim funding will enable the agency's services to continue without interruption; 3) Authorize Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to enter into funding agreements as appropriate; and 4) Direct staff to develop a specialized transit program geared towards on -going chemotherapy, radiation and dialysis treatment. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In May 2006, the Commission reviewed requests from 15 non-profit transit operators seeking Western Riverside County Measure A Specialized Transit funding. As a result of that process, funding was approved for nine of the 15 applicants. Commission staff was directed to work with the remaining six applicants during the months of June, July and August to further clarify application information prior to the Commission's further consideration. Agenda Item 7S 96 Since that time, in addition to working directly with the applicants, staff worked with the original Evaluation Committee consisting of a former transportation coordinator for the Inland Regional Center, the county of Riverside's Director of Veterans' Affairs, and two members from the Commissions' Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council as part of the on -going application review process. At this time, four of the remaining six agencies' have resubmitted applications. Following is a brief summary of the revisedfunding requests: 1) Blindness Support Services Blindness Support Services (BSS) provides fixed route travel training to blind/visually impaired Western County residents. The agency proposes to provide training to 80 individuals during FY 2006/07 and. FY 2007/08. Participants will receive both classroom instruction and actual hands-on training in riding fixed route buses. The agency's travel trainer will work with Western Riverside County public transit providers including the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and Metrolink. In addition, BSS will provide four (4) travel training seminars to an estimated 120 blind/disabled consumers over the two-year period. The intent of the seminars is to provide consumers with the necessary information to make the most of their public transportation experience. The travel training seminars will "include information regarding changes occurring within public transportation, information on the Americans with Disabilities Act as it pertains to public transportation and the disabled consumer and the "do's and don'ts" of independent travel using public transportation systems. While BSS has been a long-time recipient of Measure A Specialized Transit funding, the Evaluation Committee's concern is that program costs continue to increase; however, program. goals and actual performance have remained constant. The Evaluation Committee is in support of BSS' application; however, they want to ensure that if funding is approved: a) Management of BSS is aware that future funding increases be based in terms of program value, e.g. ' Of the remaining two applications, it is anticipated that the Department of Mental Health will resubmit in the. October/November 2006 time frame. Due to an executive management staffing change, CASA has withdrawn from the application process. Agenda Item 7S 97 increased goals tied to actual performance, the number of travel training recipients successfully trained2, etc.; and b) A six-month post survey instrument is developed and implemented to determine the actual success of the individualized travel -training program. Staff from RTA volunteered to work with BSS to design the post survey questionnaire. If approved, Commission staff will review actual performance tied to the post survey results during the two-year grant cycle. Based on the above clarification, the Evaluation Committee's recommendation is to provide the requested funding in the amount of $73,377 for FY 2006/07 and $75,114 in FY 2007/08. 2) Volunteer Center of Riverside County The Volunteer Center of Riverside County (VCRC) has been a long time recipient of Measure A Specia►ized Transit funding to distribute bus tickets to improve access to services for at -risk individuals for whom current transportation options make needed services inaccessible. The mission of VCRC is to link people in need with those who can help. While Measure A Specialized Transit funding does not support all of the activities of the VCRC, it does fund the Transportation Access Program (TAP), which leverages its services to link additional VCRC programs with volunteers, seniors with advocacy groups, callers -in -need with a crisis counselor as well as various other community resources. In addition, people at -risk of homelessness are linked with affordable housing options and court -referrals are provided with restitution options. The Evaluation Committee is in support of VCRC's application if the following program changes are implemented: 1).- An on -going training program needs to be implemented to properly: a) Train social service agencies on distribution of bus tickets; and 2 Successful travel training defined as the applicant transitions from dial -a -ride to fixed route services. Agenda Item 7S 98 b) Monitor ticket usage to ensure that tickets are actually used on an occasional basis, e.g.. how does the agency look at frequency of use? More closely monitoring tickets will answer the question of 1) whether the tickets are truly used on an occasional basis or 2) determine if recipients are dependent on the free bus tickets. While the Volunteer Center's application states that "...one of TAP's objectives is to reduce the tendency for on -going dependence on the free tickets," the Eva►uation Committee was concerned that the recipients of the free tickets are probably not going to be financially able to purchase a car or provide for their own transportation in the near term. As a result, in all likelihood, the recipients of the free tickets are probably dependent on receiving the tickets and are on- going recipients. As part of monitoring actual ticket usage, itis possible that the Volunteer Center may need to re-examine its philosophy on weaving program participants into other transportation options as the agency may actually determine that recipients are, and will continue to be, repeat users of the TAP program. Based on the above clarification, the Evaluation Committee's recommendation is to provide funding up to $180,945 for FY 2006/07 and $192,353 in FY 2007/08. 3) Whiteside Manor, Inc. Whiteside Manor (Whiteside) is seeking funding to provide non - emergency medical transportation for its clients including veterans, seniors, disabled and truly needy residents of Western Riverside. Clients of Whiteside suffer from mental illness, the disease of alcoholism and/or drug addiction. The agency is requesting operating funds to support its transportation program as well as funding to purchase a new vehicle and computer equipment to support the agency's transportation program. As stated in the grant application: "The majority of the (Whiteside) clients are not mentally or physically able to use public transportation when they enter treatment due to their diagnosis (mental illness and substance abuse)." Once program participants complete their primary phase of the Whiteside program, training will be provided on the use of public transit. Agenda Item 7S 99 i The Evaluation Committee is in full support of Whiteside's application and recommends that funding be provided up to $69,042 for FY 2006/07 and $49,707 in FY 2007/08. If approved, Whiteside will be a new recipient of Measure A operating funds and as such, Commission staff will work closely with the agency over the two year grant cycle to provide technical support. Care Connexxus, Inc. Interim Funding Care Connexxus, Inc. provides specialized transportation services for participants in its adult -day care programs. The agency specializes in the care of the elderly with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders as well as providing support for their caregivers. While the Evaluation Committee believes that the agency's request for funding has merit, there continues to be concern that several areas of the revised application require further development including performance goals, projected delivery date of identified equipment as well as coordination efforts with public operators. In addition, there are various discrepancies in the proposed budget including vehicle depreciation costs. Commission staff together with RTA staff, as part of the Evaluation Committee, has scheduled a meeting with Care Connexxus to provide hands-on assistance in finalizing its grant application. In the interim, it is the Evaluation Committee's recommendation that interim funding in the amount of $32,500 be provided to the agency so that it can continue to provide the much needed transportation program during the months of October through December 2006. Staff believes that this additional time extension should be adequate to enable Care Connexxus' staff to further develop its application. Non -Emergency Medical Transportation Program Development Attached is a summary of current and proposed Western Riverside Measure A Specialized Transit funding recipients. While the service providers represent a broad range of specialized transportation services, staff continues to believe that a specialized transit program needs to be developed to provide non -emergency medical transportation (NEMT) trips for individuals undergoing chemotherapy, radiation and/or dialysis treatment. As a result, staff is requesting approval to develop an NEMT program designed for these specialized trips. Once developed, staff will present the program concept to the Commission and, in all likelihood, will request additional funding. Agenda Item 7S 100 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $355,864 Source of Funds: Western Riverside Measure A Specialized Transit Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 225-26-86101: $336,529, 225-26-86102: $ 19,335 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ij°,va«,`y�,� Date: 08/21/06 Attachments: 1) Funding Recommendations for FY 2006/07 and FY 2007/08 2) Overview of Measure A Specialized Transit Funding Recipients Agenda Item 7S 101 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAM Funding Recommendations for FY 2006/07 and FY 2007/08 Recommended Funding "Up To" Applicant Geographic Proposed Services FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 Total Location of Agency Blindness Support Services Contract No: 07-26-023-00 City of Riverside Fixed route travel training to blind/visually impaired/disabled Western Riverside County residents. $ 73,377 $ 75,114 $ 148,491 Volunteer County 26-0211-00 Center of Riverside Contract No. 07- City of Riverside Distribution of bus tickets through various social service agencies. Seniors, disabled and truly needy clients comprise the program's targe population. $ 180,945 $ 192,353 $ 373,298 Whiteside Manor, Inc. Contract No. 07-26-024-00 I i City of Riverside Specialized transportation program for low-income, including homeless and persons in recovery for alcoholism and/or drug addiction for medical, recreational and support program appointments. $ 69,042 $ 49,707 $ 118,749 INTERIM FUNDING Care Connexxus City of Riverside Specialized transportation services for participants in its adult -day programs. The agency specializes it the care of the frail elderly with $32,500 $32,500 Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. TOTAL FUNDS RECOMMENDED $ 355,864 $ 102 317,174 $ 673,038 8/30/2006 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 Specialized Transit Measure A Call for Projects WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDING RECIPIENTS FY 2006/07 Blindness Support Services $ 73,377 Riverside, California Provides travel training assistance. Instruction includes teaching the blind/visually impaired/disabled persons how to utilize the local fixed route bus service in western Riverside County. Beaumont Adult School $ 32,933 Beaumont, California Adult School Transportation program for low-income families with small children to attend the Even Start Family Literacy Program. Areas served include Banning, Beaumont, Cherry Valley and Calimesa. Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County $124,745 Temecula, California Before and after school transportation program (Temecula & Murrieta Lake Elsinore area) for school age children between 6-18 years old. Care=A-Van Transit System $ 233,000 San Jacinto, California Specialized curb -to -door transportation service in the Hemet/San Jacinto area that focuses on serving those individuals unable to use the local dial -a -ride due to frailty and/or special medical or emotional conditions, which require extra assistance. Care -A - Van provides skilled escorts who are trained to assist people with disabilities, allowing them to fulfill their mobility needs. Care Connexxus, Inc. $ 65,000 Riverside, California Specialized curb -to -curb transportation services for participants in Adult Day Care programs in Riverside, Sun City/Menifee and Moreno Valley. 103 Western Riverside County Measure A Specialized Transit Funding Recipients FY 2006/07 City of Norco Parks and Recreation $ 69,628 Norco, California Specialized transportation services for elderly and disabled population for non - emergency transportation, nutrition, entertainment and shopping. Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center $ 43,600 Moreno Valley, California The "MoVan" provides weekday inter -community paratransit service from Moreno Valley to surrounding communities (within a 35-mile radius of Moreno Valley). This service meets the out -of -city trip needs of residents by providing access to medical facilities in Riverside, Corona, Loma Linda, Colton and Kaiser -Fontana. Inland AIDS Project $107,500 Riverside, California Demand responsive transportation services for Western Riverside County residents with HIV/AIDS to medical, dental, social service and other health related services in the Inland Empire. This service is available weekdays, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Operation SafeHouse, Inc. Riverside, California Provides 24-hour emergency shelter in Riverside County for runaway, homeless and at - risk youth aged 12 to 18. Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors & Persons w/Disabilities $386,998 Riverside, California $ 5,000 The Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) provides escorted travel and access to medical and other services for the disabled and frail senior citizens, who have no other form of transportation, public or private, available to them. The Program provides incentives to encourage volunteer drivers who. assist eligible program participants. The program also provides information about existing programs through which seniors and persons with disabilities can obtain discounted or free bus tickets for use on public transit. The TRIP program is available countywide, however the Measure A allocation is solely for the Western County participants. 104 Western Riverside County Measure A Specialized Transit Funding Recipients FY 2006/07 Riverside County Regional Medical Center $ 247,005 Moreno Valley, California Program provides non -emergency medical transportation between home to hospitals and clinics in western Riverside County for medical appointments, dialysis appointments and medication pick-up. Volunteer Center of Riverside County $ 180,945 Riverside, California The Transportation Access Program (TAP) assists seniors, disabled and truly needy individuals in western Riverside County for whom current transportation options are inaccessible due to their inability to pay the required fare. TAP distributes bus tickets and passes for Riverside Transit Agency and other public transit services in Western County to social service agencies for distribution to their clientele. Tickets are distributed to allow truly needy persons to use public transit for occasional, urgent and emergency use. Whiteside Manor, Inc. $ 69,042 Riverside, California Program provides trips to Whiteside Manor clients who are not mentally or physically able to use public transportation due to mental illness and disease of alcoholism and drug addiction. Trips are for non -emergency medical appointments, social fitness, recreation trips and AAA meetings during primary treatment phase. TOTAL: $ 1,638,773 105 AGENDA ITEM 7T RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE`. September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement No. 07-72-030-00 with the City of Corona for the Funding and Preparation of a Project Report/Environmental Document for the Cajalco Road/Interstate 15 Interchange BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 07-72-030-00 between the city of Corona and the Commission for the preparation of a project report and environmental document (PR&ED) for the Cajalco Road/I-15 Interchange; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The city of Corona (City) is interested in expediting the improvement of the Cajalco Road/I-15 Interchange because of current and projected congestion levels at this location. The City was successful in securing $6.8 million in SAFETEA-LU High Priority Project Roadway federal demonstration funds for the construction of this new interchange. The City has also programmed local funds, both developer fees and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF), for this project. Improvement of this interchange must be completed in a fashion that would not preclude the connection of the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project at this location. The current schedule for the proposed MCP assumes completion of the PR&ED for the entire 32 mile corridor at the end of 2008, with construction projected for 2011. The City desires to construct the interchange improvement sooner than the planned schedule and has approached the Commission to determine the possibility of having the consultant on the MCP, Jacobs Engineering, complete work on this interchange on an accelerated schedule. In order to allow the interchange improvement to move forward separate from the entire MCP project, a specific Agenda Item 7T 106 PR&ED for the interchange must be prepared. Given the significant work already conducted in this area for the MCP (environmental studies, preliminary engineering) and the importance of coordinating a new local interchange with the proposed system -to -system interchange in this area. Staff supports the City's request to modify the Jacobs' contract to allow advancement of the project as long as it does not slow down the balance of the Commission's project or jeopardize the project development work on the MCP. Staff has had multiple meetings with Caltrans' staff and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to obtain concurrence on advancing this project. The agencies are supportive as long as a new Project Study Report (PSR);and Value Analysis Study (VAS) are completed. The City has agreed to bear the entire cost of completing the additional work. Terms of the agreement are outlined in the attached draft cooperative agreement. The details on the exact scope of services are still being refined through discussions with the City, Jacobs, Caltrans and the Commission. Once the requirements of the project are clarified and a specific cost for the new documents are determined, an amendment to the Jacobs' contract will be brought to the Commission for approval. Attachment: Draft Cooperative Agreement No. 07-72-030-00 Agenda Item 7T 107 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #07-72-030-00 FOR THE FUNDING AND PREPARATION OF A PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE CAJALCO/INTERSTATE 15 INTERCHANGE 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Cooperative Agreement ("Agreement") is executed and entered into this _ day of , 2006, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") and the City of Corona ("City"). Commission and City are sometimes referred to in this Agreement individually as "Party" and collectively as the "Parties 2. Recitals. 2.1 The City of Corona desires to expedite improvements at Cajalco /Interstate 15 because of current and projected congestion at this location. 2.2 The City of Corona has identified local funding to reconstruct the Cajalco/Interestate 15 interchange. 2.3 RCTC has previously awarded a contract to Jacobs Civil, Inc. for the performance of project development work in connection with the transportation project known as the Mid -County Parkway Project ("MCP"). 2.4 The MCP is anticipated to intersect Interstate 15 in Corona and create traffic impacts for the Cajalco/Interstate 15 interchange in Corona, which is scheduled for reconstruction by the City. 2.5 City and RCTC desire to amend Jacobs Civil, Inc.'s scope of work under the existing contract with RCTC to include the preparation of a Project Report and Environmental Document for the Cajalco/Interstate 15 Reconstruction Project, with the cost of such work to be borne by the City under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 3. Terms. 3.1 Effective Date. This Agreement shall take effect on the date on which this Agreement is approved and executed by all of the Parties ("Effective Date"). 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the Effective Date until the date the Services (as defined herein) are completed. RV PUB\AMORRIS\718998.1 108 , 3.3 Award of Change Order. RCTC shall execute and award a change order to Jacobs Civil, Inc., at the rates and under the terms and conditions specified in the contract between RCTC and Jacobs Civil, Inc., for the performance of the Services (as defined herein). 3.4 Description of Services. The Services to be provided by Jacobs Civil, Inc. under the change order described in Section 3.3 shall consist of the preparation of a Project Report and Environmental Document for the Cajalco/Interstate 15 Reconstruction Project, including [insert details of Project Study Report; attach as Exhibit "A" if necessaryl(the "Services"). 3.4.1 Amendments to Services. City may request, in writing, the provision of services in addition to those Services described herein. Changes or additions to the Services are subject to the approval of RCTC, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any change or addition to the Services may require a revision to compensation to be paid by City as set forth herein. 3.5 Payment for Services. 3.5.1 Funding of the Services. City shall bear the entire cost of the Services, as billed to RCTC by Jacobs Civil, Inc, and shall fund this work with local dollars. 3.5.2 Payment of Compensation. At its option, RCTC may submit monthly invoices to City or submit a single invoice upon completion of the Services. All invoices shall include a copy of the Jacobs Civil, Inc. invoice to RCTC for which reimbursement is sought, along with copies of any supporting documentation provided by Jacobs Civil, Inc. to RCTC. City shall pay all invoices submitted to City by RCTC within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. 3.6 Schedule of Services. In consultation with City, RCTC shall require Jacobs Civil, Inc. to provide a schedule for completion of the Services, including milestone dates for completion of discrete portions of the Services jointly identified by City and Jacobs Civil, Inc. 3.7 Party Representatives. 3.7.1 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. 3.7.2 City's Representative. City hereby designates the Public Works Director or his designee as. City's Representative to RCTC. City's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of City for all purposes under this Agreement. City's Representative shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative. 3.8 Termination. R VPUBIAMORRIS1718998.1 109 3.8.1 Termination by RCTC; Notice. RCTC may, by written notice to City, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to City of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. 3.8.2 Termination by City; Notice. City may terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in party at any time, by giving written notice to RCTC of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. 3.8.3 RCTC's Obligations Upon Termination. Upon termination or completion of this Agreement, RCTC shall provide to City copies of all materials, documents, research, and data produced by Jacobs Civil, Inc. as part of the Services. Prior to providing such copies, RCTC shall consult with City regarding whether City has already obtained copies of all such materials directly from Jacobs Civil, Inc. 3.8.4 City's Obligations Upon Termination. City shall reimburse Commission for all Services completed by Jacobs Civil, Inc. up to the effective date of the termination, whether or not an invoice for such Services has been received as of the termination date, as set forth in the final invoice submitted to City by RCTC, based upon the final invoice submitted to RCTC by Jacobs Civil, Inc 3.9 Indemnification. 3.9.1 City's Indemnification Responsibilities. City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of City, or any of its officers, agents, consultants, and employees. City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of City or any of its officers, agents, consultants, and employees. 3.9.2 RCTC's Indemnification Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City and its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC, or its officers, agents, consultants and employees. RCTC will reimburse City for any expenditures, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants and employees.. 3.10 Progress Reports. City may request RCTC to inform City of delays in the completion of the Services and provide City with progress reports. 3.11 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in County of Riverside. RVP1JB\AMORRIS\718998.1 110 3.12 Attorneys' Fees. If any Party commences an action against any other Party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing Party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.13 .Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.14 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of Corona 400 S. Vicentia Avenue Corona, California 92882 ATTN: Public Works Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the Party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.15 Contract Amendment. In the event that the Parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the Parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.16 Entire Agreement.This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.17 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.18 Independent Contractors. Jacobs Civil, Inc., and any other person or entities retained by RCTC or any consultant in connection with this Agreement or the Services shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of City. RCTC shall require Jacobs Civil, Inc. and any other person or entities retained to pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of the Services and as required by law. RVPUB\AMORRIS1718998.1 111 RVPUB \AMORRIS\718998.1 [signatures on the following page] 112 SIGNATURE PAGE TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CITY OF CORONA RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATON COMMISSION By: By: Karen Spiegel Mayor Marion Ashley Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: City Attorney Legal Counsel R V PU 8\AMORRIS1718998.1 113 RV PUB\AMORRIS\718998.1 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES (Will be included in final agreement) Exhibit "A" 114 AGENDA ITEM 7U RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Marlin Feenstra, Capital Projects Program Manager Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 03-31-014-03 with Chong Partners Architecture Inc. to Prepare Construction Plans for a Parking Structure for the North Main Corona Metrolink Station BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-31-014-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 03-31-014, with Chong Partners Architecture Inc. to prepare plans, specifications and cost estimate (PS&E) for the additional amount of $141,225, including a three-month calendar extension to contract term, and a total not to exceed amount of $1,451, 228; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Due to the unique location of the North Main Corona Metrolink station, adjacent to both the Interstate 15 and State Route 91 freeways, demand for parking is currently exceeding station capacity. Staff previously submitted an application for $11 million in Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) funds to construct a 1,000 space parking structure at the North Main Corona Metrolink station. The project was approved as part of the California Transportation Commission's adopted 2002 State. Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). At its September 11, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved an agreement with Gordon H. Chong & Partners, now Chong Partners Architecture Inc. (CPAI), to prepare preliminary plans for a 1,000 stall parking structure at the North Main Corona Metrolink Station for an amount of $316,798. Agenda Item 7U 115 At its September 3, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment No. 1 to the CPAI contract for $77,390 to conduct additional planning for the eventual maximization of parking at the station using the entirety of the existing surface parking area. Following completion and receipt of the preliminary design portionof the North Main Corona Parking Structure, funding was requested to extend the Agreement with CPAI to include the preparation of the final design plans, specifications and cost estimate (PS&E) for this parking structure. Agreement No. 03-31-014 was extended by Amendment 2 that was approved by the Commission on January 11, 2006 in the amount of $915,815 to cover the costs of the fina► design and PS&E. The currently approved conceptual plan will allow for three different parking structure configurations that can be selected to best meet future parking demand. Parking Structure A on the east lot will net 809 new spaces after subtracting the lost surface parking. Parking Structure B will net 671 spaces but must be built after or in conjunction with Parking Structure A because it will use the internal structure constructed by. Parking Structure A. Parking Structure C on the west lot will net 859 additional spaces. If all three parking structures are built they will result in a total of 2,734 spaces that could be made available for Metrolink and rideshare parking at this station. Staff is recommending that the Parking Structure C (west lot) be constructed first. This will net 859 new spaces and bring the total number of parking spaces to 1,443 spaces (1,098 structure + 345 east lot). This will allow the Commission to provide as many as 543 (1,443-900) park and ride spaces based on 2010 demand, which will reduce to 143 (1,443-1,300) based on 2020 demand without the construction of additional parking structure capacity. Staff anticipates having the construction plans ready to bid by Fall 2006. The actual construction will take approximately 16 months. The estimated cost to construct the proposed facility is roughly $20,000/stall plus escalation which results in an early estimate of $24 million for the construction contract. Assuming staff would need 15% for contingencies and 10% for the construction management team, an additional $6 million would be needed to deliver the project, bringing the estimate for construction to $30 million. In addition, since the construction of the parking structure will displace 239 spaces, staff has looked at locations for temporary parking with possible shuttle service during construction. Temporary satellite parking with shuttle services is proving to be impractical, therefore, staff will explore opportunities to better utilize the space at the West Corona Station (currently only at 30% of 540 spaces). Agenda Item 7U 116 i I Need for Amendment No. 3 During final design and preparation of the PS&E, continued consultations with the city of Corona and CPAI revealed the need for additional design elements, security and other considerations to support the intended purpose of the parking structure. CPA) was requested to provide a cost estimate and resulting schedule impact to include these additional considerations in the final PS&E. Negotiations of the CPAI proposal resulted in a forecasted additional cost of $141,225. A three-month extension to the contract time is also requested by staff. A description of these additional services is detailed in Attachment 3 (Exhibit A of the Agreement). Individual cost considerations for each element of this Amendment are also detailed in Attachment 3 (Exhibit C of the Agreement). Staff is recommending that the Commission approve Agreement No. 03-31-014-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement 03-31-014, for a base amount of $141,225 and a new total not to exceed amount of $1,451,228 (excludes fees for city of Corona plan check and building permits). Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006-07 Amount: $141,225 Source of Funds: State Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP): $141,225 Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 221-33-81102 P3800 Final Design Fiscal Procedures Approved: ��" Date: 8/28/06 Attachments: Existing Site Plan Schedule 1) 2) 3) Chong Partners Architecture Proposal, Additional Site Services, dated June 1, 2006, including Exhibit A, Scope of Services and Exhibit C, Compensation and Time Agenda Item 7U 117 t-1' j . ...,.. _ _ -- .. --i-siodir2— ,7i_* I- ,,,;, 1 1 ,. I -- r . -----ONIANd V& Mg» : ..-_-4- — _i , 1 \ 'SY1138 gl. ------ ' - i ONIdY,SONVI(2 - -5-------- _7_-_--- NI I( li = MONA 11 AM 1 Ali 61 .mm•nirrao=gzmovmalvafamvsesio- -i-a 3-8-1 6" -3 N I V-1-3- i 119 EXHIBIT A Scope of Services 1. Survey — as part of the overall replacement parking strategy, new handicap accessible parking spaces will have to be provided on the east parking lot while parking structure `C' is under construction. In addition to constructing the work, a field survey will be necessary to ensure that an ADA compliant path to the existing platform and elevator tower is designed and maintained. 2. Lighting — design of all elevations of the parking structure, street lighting along perimeter roads and lighting of the landscape plantings, consistent with the city of Corona North Main Street Specific Plan. 3. Expanded Electrical Service - .per the city of Corona's determination, structure 'C' and future structures 'A' and `B' will all be considered as one building requiring a single point of entry for the electrical service and re - sizing electrical equipment to support future full build -out. 4. Security System Design — develop an enhanced security system compatible with existing Metrolink system and routed to the Downtown Station Security room. 5. Landscape — design and document hardscape paving areas to delineate intersections and pedestrian crossing zones. 6. Southern California Edison now requires that electrical power for both parking structures as well as the existing Metrolink platform and station be provided thru one, single service connection. This has resulted in the following additional scope of services: a. Site visit and review of existing 12kV SCE service. b. Rerouting of existing 12kV SCE service to avoid both new parking structures. c. Location of existing Metrolink Station connections, service, transformers and electrical loads. d. Design of new primary distribution area to support electrical needs for entire site. e. Overall site coordination with SCE. f Additional coordination with RCTC. 7. Vehicle count system to inform users on the number of parking spaces available on each floor via electrical signage at both garage entrances. When appropriate, signs will indicate "LOT FULL" to prevent further vehicles from entering. 120 8. An entrance gate control system which will provide users with various options for usage payment ; pay on foot, credit card, monthly card or card reader debit system. 9. Notification Board signage at each entrance to inform users of the time remaining until the next train leaves in either direction. 10. A two week extension to Contract Time, moving the Completion date to November 14, 2006. 121 EXHIBIT C Compensation and Time The costs for the additional services included in Amendment 3 are as follows: 1. Additional field survey by TMAD Taylor & Gaines; $3,450.00 plus 20hrs.of CPAI design time at $120.00 avg. per hour for an approximate total cost of $5,850.00. 2. Additional interior and exterior lighting design, expanded electrical services and an enhanced security system, designed by OMB Electrical; $36,700 plus 90hrs.of CPAI design time at $120.00 avg. per hour for an approximate total cost of $47,500.00. 3. Additional landscape and hardscape design by Melendrez Landscape Architects; $9,600.00 plus 10 hrs. of CPAI design time at $120.00 avg. per hour for an approximate total cost of $10,800.00. 4. Southern California Edison required that electrical power to supply both parking lots and the existing Metrolink station be furnished thru one, single tie-in point. This change required OMS Electrical to re -design underground services in the amount of $7,700.00. This alteration also required CPAI to provide additional design services in the amount of 70 hrs. at $120.00 avg. per hour for the approximate total cost of $18,500.00. 5. The design of a Vehicle Count System, Notification Signage and Gate Control System, designed by Walker Parking Consultants will be performed for $28,900.00 plus 140 hrs. of CPAI design time at $120.00 avg per hour for an approximate total cost of $45,700.00. 6. The addition of two weeks of Contract Time translating to an additional architectural effort of approx 191 hrs. at $120.00 per hour or approximately $22,975.00. The total cost of Amendment # 3 is $141,225.00 including a two week extension of Contract time. The revised completion date will be November 14, 2006. 122 AGENDA ITEM 7V RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Min Saysay, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Agreements to Paragon Partners, Ltd., Overland Pacific Cutler, Inc., and, Epic Land Solutions, Inc. for On -Call Right -of - Way Acquisition and Relocation; Real Property Searches, Identification and Feasibility Studies for Replacement and Mitigation Sites; Cost Estimates; and, Utilities Relocation Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 07-72-025-00 to Paragon Partners, Ltd., Agreement No. 07-72-026-00 to Overland Pacific Cutler, Inc., and Agreement No. 07-72-027-00 to Epic Land Solutions, Inc. to perform On -Call Right -of -Way (ROW) Acquisition and Relocation, Real Property Searches, Identification and Feasibility Studies for Replacement and Mitigation Sites, Cost Estimates, and Utilities Relocation Services (ROW services); 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and' 3) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of $ 300, 000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On May 10, 2006, the Commission directed staff to release Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for seven on -call ROW services to support current Commission projects and future Measure A highway and rail projects. This is first of the seven RFPs. Agenda Item 7V 123 Calendar of Events Distribution of RFP Pre -Proposal Conference (not mandatory) Proposals were Delivered to RCTC prior to 2 p.m. Evaluation Committee Review of Proposals Short Listed Firms were Notified Interviews of Short Listed Firms Staff Recommendation to Commission Selection Process June 13, 2006 June 20, 2006 July 13, 2006 . July 20, 2006 July 20, 2006 July 25, 2006 September 9, 2006 A selection panel was assembled that consisted of representatives from Commission staff, Caltrans and county of Riverside. Staff received five proposals. The selection panel reviewed the proposals based on qualifications of the firms, staffing and project organization, work plan, cost and price, and, completeness of response. After review, the panel determined that three firms submitted high quality proposals. The three firms were invited for interviews. After careful evaluation of the personnel of the proposed project teams, knowledge of the services required by the Commission and demonstrated capacity to complete the proposed scope of work, the panel ranked the three interviewed firms as follows: Top Ranked Paragon Partners, Ltd. Second Overland Pacific Cutler, Inc. Third Epic Land Solutions, Inc. Due to the amount of potential ROW services required to deliver future Commission projects such as the SR-79 Realignment and the Mid County Parkway; projects, staff recommends that agreements be executed with all three firms. Cost will be based on time and materials, and the term of each contract is three years with two one-year contract extension options, to be exercised at the sole discretion of the Commission. Work will be awarded on a rotating basis; however, when environmental clearance is obtained for major Commission projects, such as the SR-79 Realignment and the Mid County Parkway projects, work may be divided into three equivalent parts and assigned to the consultants in accordance with the ranking with the top ranked company selecting first, second ranked company selecting second, and the third ranked company will work on the remaining part of the project. Agenda Item 7V 124 These ROW services were not included in the FY 2006/07 budget. A budget amendment is recommended in the amount of $300,000 for anticipated ROW services prior to obtaining environmental clearance of Commission projects. After Commission projects have been environmentally cleared, staff anticipates a significant increase in the budget related to ROW services and staff will come back to the Commission for approval. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $300,000 TUMF $174,000 Source of Funds: CMAQ $37,500 Budget Adjustment: Yes Measure A $88,500 210-72-81403 P5123 $ 75,000 210-72-81403 P5123 $ 50,000 210-73-81403 P5123 $ 50,000 GLA No.: 222-31-81403 P3015 $ 50,000 221-33-81403 P3800 $ 50,000 222-31-81403 P3005 $ 25,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: v tmiitco;juij.. Date: 08/28/06 Agenda Item 7V 125 AGENDA ITEM 7W RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Claudia Chase, Property Administrator Min Saysay, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement for Maintenance of the Closed Circuit Television Security Systems at the Metrolink Stations BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve Agreement No. 04-25-962-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 04-25-962, with Inland Vault & Security, Inc. for Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Security Systems Maintenance Services to amend the term and rates of the agreement. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June 2004, the Commission entered into Agreement No. 04-25-962 with Inland Vault & Security, Inc. (Inland Vault) to provide periodic professional inspections and maintenance services of the CCTV Security Systems at the five Metrolink commuter rail stations. Inland Vault was selected based on the receipt of three bids and is a professional contractor, experienced in providing maintenance services to public clients and licensed in the state of California. In 2005, the term of the agreement was amended to include an additional period of one year, this amendment has expired. Inland Vault is extremely knowledgeable and experienced with the existing CCTV equipment at the Metrolink stations. Inland Vault provides labor, materials, tools, equipment, services and incidental and customary work necessary to adequately maintain the CCTV Security Systems. Amending the agreement with Inland Vault retains its historical knowledge of the equipment and its understanding of the needs of the Commission to provide maximum security at the station properties. Staff is very satisfied with the performance of Inland Vault and recommends authorization of a one-year amendment with two one -.year options to extend the agreement. The proposed rate for Agreement No. 04-25-962-02 is $30,000 annually and has not been adjusted since the original agreement in 2004. Agenda Item 7W 126 Financial Information 1n Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $30,000 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 103-25-73301 P4001, P4002, P4003, P4004, P4006 Fiscal Procedures Approved: v /ft,t, � Date: 08/28/06 Attachment: Agreement No: 04-25-962-02 Agenda Item 7W 127 Agreement No. 04-25-962-02 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR CLOSED CIRCUIT SECURITY SYSTEMS (CCTV) AT THE METROLINK STATIONS 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement for CCTV Security Systems Maintenance Services is made and entered into as of this day of 2006, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Commission") and INLAND VAULT AND SECURITY, INC. ("Consultant"). 2. RECITALS 2.1 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an agreement dated June 8, 2004 for the purpose of providing Maintenance Services for the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Security Systems (the "Master Agreement"). 2.2 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 1 to the Master Agreement, dated October 25, 2005, for the purpose of extending the Master Agreement one (1) year. 2.3 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement to extend the term for an additional one (1) year, with two (2) additional one year options and to provide additional compensation in order to provide the maintenance services for the CCTV Security Systems. 3. TERMS 3.1 The term of the Master Agreement shall be amended for an additional term of one year, commencing on July 1, 2006 and ending on June 30, 2007 (the "Second Extended Term") with two additional one year options. RV PUB\HSHANE\714236.1 128 3.2 The maximum compensation for the Second Extended Term, shall not exceed $30,000. Work shall be performed at the rates set forth in the Master Agreement. 3.3 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY INLAND VAULT AND SECURITY, INC. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Marion Ashley, Chair Signature APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel RVPUMHSHANE714236.1 129 Name Title AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee John Standiford, Public Affairs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the following positions on the following ballot propositions: Propositions 1 A & 113 — SUPPORT Proposition 90 — OPPOSE; and 2) Direct staff to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for federal legislative advocacy services. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update Congress has recessed until early September but prior to leaving for its summer break, the Senate passed its version of the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development bill (HR 5576). The Senate's version differs from the House's version on a few issue items and includes its own earmarks. The most important earmark for the Commission is the inclusion of $3 million for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension. This project received the support of Senator Feinstein, who is a member of the Appropriations Committee. The previously -approved House bill included the following earmarks in Riverside County: 1-10/Ramon Road Bob Hope Interchange State Route 60 Portero Road Interchange Grade Separations in Riverside Riverside and Corona Transit Centers. Riverside Transit Agency Bus Stop Upgrades SunLine Transit Agency Bus Replacement Agenda Item 8 130 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $1,250,000 $ 250,000 $ 500,000 Also included in the House bill, which has been replicated in the Senate bill, is funding for the control tower at Palm Springs International Airport. Final approval of the bill and the fate of various projects and earmarks are not assured until Congress reconvenes, and it is believed that most major bills such as this one will not be addressed until after the November elections. In late August, staff will travel to Washington, D.C. to meet with Federal Transit Administration officials regarding the Perris Valley Line project. It is hoped that the eventual outcome of the meeting will result in a favorable rating for the project. A favorable rating along with Congressional funding will solidify federal support and allow the Commission to move on to the next phase of engineering. President Appoints Peters as Transportation Secretary On September 5, President Bush appointed Mary Peters to succeed Norm Mineta as the Secretary of Transportation. Peters is the former administrator of the Federal Highway Administration and is a westerner who resides in Arizona. In fact, she served as the Director of Arizona's Department of Transportation in the late 1990's. On policy issues, she has repeatedly voiced her support of private sector involvement in transportation financing. Legislative Representation Since 1998, the Commission has contracted with San Bernardino. Associated Governments (SANBAG) for lobbying representation in Washington and Sacramento. The joint contracts with SANBAG were a natural outgrowth of the shared legislative affairs position that both agencies funded from 1998 to 2004. SANBAG and the Commission no longer share a legislative affairs position, and, given the eventual expiration of the lobbying contracts later this year, it marks an opportune time for the Commission to seek its own legislative representation services and its own contract. The Commission recently awarded a contract to Smith, Watts & Company for state representation. The Commission's lobbyist in Washington is Cliff Madison, who works as a subcontractor to the Commission under the contract with SANBAG. Mr. Madison represents a number of transportation industry clients including LA Metro, Fed Ex and a number of major airports. He maintains excellent relationships with elected officials, federal agencies and committee staffs. Given the long-standing nature of the arrangement with one firm and the Commission's contracting processes, it would be prudent to issue a RFQ in order to Agenda Item 8 131 complete a contract prior to the end of the current agreement in December. Staff intends to issue the RFQ in mid to late September with evaluations of the proposals to take place in late October. Staff would return to the Commission with a recommendation of a lobbying representative(s) and approval of a contract in November. State Update While the Legislature returned to work on August 7, much of the focus has been on non -transportation items such as Los Angeles Unified School District, redistricting, term limits, the treatment of pets and the annual softball game between Republicans and Democrats. The legislative session finally ended on the night of August 31 with the usual flurry of action that included the approval of AB 32 by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, which establishes a statewide program to limit greenhouse gases. While the bill does commit the state toward more . efficient use of energy and the resulting environmental benefits, some have questioned the potential business and economic impacts of the legislation. In addition to AB 32, the Legislature also approved SB 927 by Long Beach Senator Allan Lowenthal, which will impose a $60 container fee on cargo that moves through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The revenue would be allocated in thirds with one-third earmarked for port security, another third for air quality mitigation near the ports and the remaining third to rail projects including grade separations. The rail projects would be approved by the California Transportation Commission by September 2007 and only after consulting with county transportation commissions throughout Southern California, including the Commission. The air quality mitigation projects would be approved by the Air Resources Board. The actual fees would not be collected until 2008. It is unclear at this time if the Governor will sign this bill. While he has repeatedly expressed his support for port infrastructure improvements, this bill has been opposed by a wide array of shipping and retail interests who will challenge the bill's legality if it were signed into law. The bill also applies only to the two ports in Los Angeles County and does not apply to Hueneme or Oakland. Another concern is that the way the bill is worded would lock in the assessment figure at the $30 per TEU (twenty -foot equivalent unit). Since most containers are 40-feet long, this results in a $60 fee in 2008 but it would take legislative action to adjust the fee in the future. The major item of interest in Sacramento continues to be November's election, which features a crowded ballot full of contentious propositions. Of keen interest to the Commission are Propositions 1 A and 1 B. The Commission received a briefing regarding the Governor's infrastructure bond proposal from Mark Watts of Agenda Item 8 132 Smith Watts in June. Mr. Watts will also provide additional information on the bond election to, the Commission during its Workshop on Friday, September 15`h Proposition 1A - Provides the Proposition 42 "Fix' Proposition 1 A would provide the much -awaited "fix" to Proposition 42, which was approved by state voters in 2002. The current proposition directs sales tax revenue from the sale of gasoline to transportation purposes rather than the general fund, but it provides an opportunity for the Governor and the Legislature to suspend the transfer in economic emergencies. Proposition 1 A would make it much harder to suspend Proposition 42 and require that diversions of funds be considered as loans with stringent payback requirements. Staff recommends that the Commission take a public, SUPPORT position on Proposition 1 A because it is consistent with previous Commission policy actions on Proposition 42, is uniquely transportation -oriented and would safeguard the voter's strong intent for additional transportation funding. Proposition 1 B - $19.9 Billion Transportation Bond Measure Proposition 1 B is a major part of the Governor's infrastructure bond package and will provide $19.9 billion for a variety of transportation projects. The funding is broken down in the following categories: • $4.5 billion for corridor mobility improvements, allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC); • $4 billion for transit capital, with $3.6 billion in flexible funds to all operators and $400 million in intercity rail funds; • $3 billion for goods movement investments on rail and highway systems, of which $1 billion is reserved for air quality improvements, all allocated by the CTC; • $2 billion to supplement the State Transportation Improvement Program; • $2 billion for cities and counties, divided equally; • $1 billion in state -local partnership funds (with even match for projects funded by local sales tax measures); • $1 billion in safety, security and disaster preparedness funds; • $1 billion for State Route 99 in Bakersfield; • $750 million for the State Highway Operation and Protection Program; • $300 million for, transit -oriented development projects; • $250 million in highway -railroad grade separation funds (with hundreds of millions more in grade separation projects potentially eligible from a separate trade corridor improvement account); and • $100 million for port security. Agenda Item 8 133 The state has already begun work to determine the criteria to be used in evaluating projects for these various categories, and Commission staff has been active in participating in these discussions. With a focus on areas that support housing and job growth, Riverside County is well -positioned to capitalize on this program and should also compete well for goods movement and rail crossing programs. Proposition 1 B is unique to transportation and can potentially provide significant funding for needed projects in Riverside County. Having the state play a stronger role in funding transportation has been a stated policy goal of the Commission for quite sometime. Given this background, staff recommends that the Commission take a public SUPPORT position for Proposition 1 B. Propositions 1 C, 1 D & 1 E — Housing, Schools and Flood Control While transportation comprises the lion's share of the Governor's infrastructure bond package, three other propositions are part of the overall effort to invest in California. Proposition 1 C is a $2.85 billion bond measure for housing and emergency shelter, Proposition 1 D is a $10.4 billion educational facilities bond measure and Proposition 1 E is a $4.09 billion bond measure for flood control facilities. Reasonable people can argue whether issuing bonds is the most efficient way to finance public works projects; however, most will agree that California has neglected to invest in needed public works projects. Still, given that Propositions 1 C, 1 D and 1 E do not address transportation issues, staff would recommend that the Commission not take a position on the remainder of the infrastructure package. Proposition 90 — Eminent Domain At a recent Budget and Implementation Committee meeting, a request was made from a Commissioner to analyze Proposition 90, which will place added restrictions on the use of eminent domain. In June 2005 the United States Supreme Court affirmed in the landmark Kelo v. City of. New London, CT (Kelo) that the power of eminent domain could indeed be used to transfer privately owned land from one private owner to another for the purposes of economic development. The Court ruled that the public benefits of economic growth are a constitutionally permitted "public use" to justify the taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment. The Kelo decision made headlines across the country and private property rights advocates harshly criticized the High Court's ruling. Detractors of the decision expressed concern over the government's ability to condemn land and then use it for purposes where a private entity is making a profit and the correlation to a public Agenda Item 8 134 benefit is indirect, at best. However, the Court's opinion allowed •opportunity for states to take up the issue. Through an effort bankrolled by a New York millionaire, property rights interests in California have responded with a.. ballot initiative that has qualified for the November election. If approved by the voters, this initiative will have multiple significant impacts on local agencies' ability to use eminent domain and may affect transportation projects, including projects under construction or completed. Also known as the "Anderson Initiative", after one of the initiative's sponsors, the "Protect Our Homes Act" is a State Constitutional Amendment that will go into effect with a simple majority approval from California voters this November. The official ballot title given to the initiative by the Secretary of State is, "Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment". The initiative is similar to a pair of constitutional amendments proposed in .the state legislature last year which died in their original committees. The initiative limits the use of eminent domain to "projects of public use" such as road construction, the creation of parks, and zoning. Under the initiative's language, governments cannot condemn private land for private use and then claim a public use on the grounds of economic development or tax revenue. However, private toll roads and privately -owned prison facilities are mentioned as eligible public uses. Additionally, the initiative requires that the property be used only for the stated public use (e.g., if a city acquires property for road purposes, the city may be unable to use it for other unstated purposes such as sewer, water, or cable). Another important impact of the initiative is the immediate effect on pending eminent domain court cases. The initiative will take effect instantly upon voter approval and will apply to all eminent domain cases that have not been fully adjudicated, with the potential consequence of sending many cases to retrial in order to comply with the new law. There are also vague provisions in the initiative that could render a vast majority of past court opinions and orders on eminent domain cases null and void. Further, the initiative allows property owners to request a jury to determine "whether the taking is actually for a public use" as opposed to today's practice of leaving such decisions to a judge. Proposition 90 also makes changes to how property owners are compensated. Agencies will be required to give the property owner copies of all appraisals made on the property, including appraisals upon which offers were never made. Rather than valuing property based on the current use of the property, the initiative calls for property would be valued according to the government's stated use for the property if that use results in a higher value for the land. Generally speaking, the Agenda Item 8 135 initiative adjusts valuation and just compensation laws to favor property owners more so than current statutes. The initiative contains many instances of vague language which, if passed by voters, could be open to a broad range of legal interpretations by the courts. Thus, it is difficult to assess the overall impact of this initiative until the results of the long line of anticipated litigation related to the imprecise, undefined clauses in the initiative are handed down by the courts. Overall, Proposition 90 creates a number of policy changes that could have a negative impact on the Commission's property purchases for transportation projects and mitigation. The impacts for local governments will be more severe especially for redevelopment agencies and communities that are updating general plans or adopting specific plans. That's why organizations such as the League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties are organizing an opposition campaign to the initiative. Environmental organizations such as California League of Conservation Voters have also come out against Proposition 90, because it would make it harder for agencies to buy land for conservation and mitigation purposes. In spite of the many technical and legal problems with Proposition 90, the political reaction to the issue of eminent domain is rather profound. While there is a building coalition against the initiative, opposition to eminent domain can be found across a wide spectrum. For example, Proposition 90 is supported by California Congresswoman Maxine Waters and State Senator Tom McClintock, who would ordinarily oppose each other 99% of the time on every major public policy issue. On Sunday, August 7, Parade Magazine which is inserted in almost every major Sunday newspaper in the country led, with a cover story titled, "Will the Government Take Your Home?" The possibility exists that Proposition 90 has the potential to be one of a handful of initiatives that will be polarizing, controversial and a potential wedge issue in what might be a bruising campaign. While heeding that concern, members of the Commission's Budget and Implementation Committee were emphatic in their opposition to the Proposition 90 and voted unanimously to take an OPPOSE position. The Committee direction also requested that the item be presented as a discussion item for a full Commission meeting. Committee members were especially concerned regarding the impact of Proposition 90 on future Commission projects and pointed out the incongruity of advocating a major transportation bond act while taking away a tool needed to Agenda Item 8 136 acquire right-of-way for the very same transportation projects to be paid for by the, bond. This can become especially acute in a growing area such as Riverside County which requires a number of transportation projects. The coalition opposing Proposition 90 continues to grow and includes a wide array of business, environmental and government organizations. Agenda Item 8 137 AGENDA ITEM 9 ORAL REPORT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 9 Riverside County Transportation Commission Information Release: September 11, 2006 $ 185 Million Forward -Starting Interest Rate Swap Transaction Summary With the Commission's commercial paper program, it is clear that the Commission will be issuing at least $185 million of long-term debt in 2009 to refinance that commercial paper. Current market interest rates have been at or near historic low levels. Over the past year, various financial firms have presented staff with the concept of using an interest rate swap to allow the Commission to lock in the interest rates on debt available under current market conditions. This is a technique used by a number of other self-help counties to reduce the risk of changing interest rates, including Contra Costa Transportation Authority, San Diego Association of Governments, and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. During the past year, staff has attended presentations from underwriting firms and has engaged its financial advisor and bond counsel in discussions on the subject of interest rate swaps. Over that period, staff became comfortable with the issues, risks, and structure required to implement a forward -starting interest rate swap. On July 12, 2006, the Board adopted a policy on interest rate swaps, amended its existing debt management policy to accommodate the new swap policy, and authorized staff to request bids from qualified counterparties and to enter into no more than two interest rate swap agreements with a combined notional amount not !to exceed $185 million. As a part of that resolution, staff and its financial/swap advisor discussed the proposed forward -starting swap with the county's Treasurer -Tax Collector, Paul McDonnell Mr. McDonnell inquired about certain of the provisions relating to termination of the swap and some of the economics underlying both the decision to enter into a swap and the resulting economic effects. On direct inquiry of the Executive Director, Mr. McDonnell endorsed the decision to enter into a forward - starting interest rate swap. On or about August 9, 2006, the Commission, through its swap advisor, Fieldman, Rolapp Financial Services (Fieldman), issued a bid package to eight potential counterparties—large financial firms appearing to meet the requirements of the Commission's swap policy with regard to the ratings and financial resources of counterparties. The Commission requested potential counterparties to provide a letter certifying eligibility under the Commission's swap policy and to provide details of major exceptions to the proposed swap documentation. The Commission requested that such be provided to Fieldman by 1 p.m. on August 16, 2006. Four firms provided eligibility letters and comments timely, two firms did not meet RCTC's swap policy rating criteria, one firm submitted a response after the imposed deadline, and one firm did not respond. The untimely submittal was not considered. Staff and its consultants reviewed the exceptions of the four qualified respondents, and due diligence calls were conducted with each qualified respondent. The respondents were notified of changes to documentation by. August 21, 2006. All of the agreed upon changes to documentation were determined to be minor in consequence to the Commission on the advice of bond counsel and swap advisor. At 9:00 am on August 22, 2006, the Commission received two bids. The winning bidder was Bank of America with an interest rate of 3.679% to be paid by the Commission; the second bid was from Lehman Brothers at an interest rate of 3.681 %. Bank of America was awarded a swap of $ 100 million, and, pursuant to the bidding process, Lehman Brothers was offered the opportunity to enter into a swap for $85 million at a rate equal to the rate bid by Bank of America. Lehman Brothers agreed, and the interest rate swap agreements were awarded accordingly. Documentation was executed on a swap agreement with each counterparty by August 31, 2006. If the costs of maintaining variable rate debt are assumed to be 26 basis points per year (0.26%), the fixed payment rate of 3.679% results in a 20 year financing of $185 million principal amount with an effective cost estimated to be 3.939%. Including the ongoing costs for auction rate bonds (approximately 26 basis points), this represents a savings of approximately 28 basis points over a comparable 20-year AAA insured bond issue. The forward premium on the interest rate swap is estimated to be approximately 4.5 basis points—i.e., the rate for a swap starting in 2009 is about 0.045% higher than the rate on a comparable swap beginning in 2006. For additional information, contact Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, at (951) 787-7926 or ttrevino@rctc.org. Interest Rate Swap: Transaction Results Presentation to Riverside County Transportation Commission NI': � "'� e.rta,Y.waleli • Presented by: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer September 14, 2006 - FIELDMAN I ROO LAPP ASS RCTC Interest Rate Swap Considerations ❑ Insulate RCTC Financing Program against future interest rate volatility ❑ Manage exposure to changing market conditions in anticipation of bond issuance ❑ Capture current market economics for future debt issue ❑ Take advantage of market opportunities • Relatively low forward premium — flat yield curve • Low overall rate structure FIEIDMAN I FOLA r September 14, 2006 Page 1 Swap process: Very Dynamic a July 12, 2006: Commission authorization ❑ August 9, 2006: Draft RFQ released to 8 firms ❑ August 16, 2006: Letters of eligibility and draft RFQ comments received from four qualified firms • Rejected one submission received after deadline • Negotiated comments/terms through August 21 ❑ August 21, 2006: Final RFQ released to four firms ❑ August 22, 2006: Swap bids due at 9 a.m. • Two bids received • Bank of America submitted winning bid of 3.679% • Lehman Brothers matched winning bid ❑ August 31, 2006: Swap documents executed rep_11444 r.r,rnrr•`.u. September 14, 2006 z FIELEMANI1122t1 Page 2 Interest Rate Swap Basics: Filling in the Blanks ❑ Business decision, not speculation • Related to anticipated long-term refinancing of $185 million commercial paper program with variable rate debt • Variable rate debt likely to be based on Bond Market Association (BMA) index ❑ Contract between two parties to exchange cash flows • $100,000,000 notional contract--RCTC and Bank of America • $85,000,000 notional contract --Lehman Brothers • Contracts will commence October 1, 2009 (anticipated refinancing date) ❑ RCTC pays a fixed interest rate of 3.679% to Bank of America/Lehman ❑ Bank of America/Lehman pay a floating/variable interest rate • 67% of London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) ❑ Payments are based upon a notional amount • Principal amounts are not exchanged ear 4•00•10.1dea• September 14, 2006 FIELOMANI A0Lar Page 3 Illustration of $185 Million Floating -to - Fixed Rate Swap Liquidity/ Remarketing Fees" wr o.,rrt.w. RCTC E g Da _s pa w A T O a Bond Holders 3.679% Fixed Rate , Floating Rate' (Linked to 67% of LIBOR) Counterparties (Bank of America 8 Lehman) • Relationship between rates could vary weekly •• Estimated fees are 26 by September 14, 2006 71 FIELDMANIFILAFP Page 4 LIBOR Swap Analysis Example —Today Notional amount = $185 million For the week ended September 8, 2006 ❑ RCTC receives 67% of LIBOR (floating) 3.57% $128,460 ❑ RCTC pays BMA to bond holders (floating) 3.354)/0 120,507 ❑ RCTC basis differential = Gain/(Cost) 0.22% $ 7,953 ❑ RCTC pays counterparty and liquidity provider/remarketing agent (fixed) 3.94% 151,850 ❑ RCTC net cost of funds for that week 3.72% $143,897 .` muds u„r..t.r > HELDMAN I NOL�P September 14, 2006 Page 5 Conclusion: Perfect Timing Cl0 00 e 5 i Rat. Comparison M Year CAAn. -MTurniC SWAP — A Veer R4l0 dv]pA 016 om. ..rsa.ns.u.._ . a F1ELDRWJIROLAPP September 14, 2006 a Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 10 PRESENTATION RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Director of Regional Programs SUBJECT: Presentation - New Commuter Exchange Mobile Education Vehicle STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive a presentation of the new Commuter Exchange Mobile Education Vehicle. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On August 23, 2004, the Commission approved the purchase and construction of a new Commuter Exchange Mobile Education Vehicle. In approving the new vehicle, the Commission set a budget of a not to exceed amount of $345,000. Robert Yates, Commuter Assistance Program Manager, will present the goals and objectives related to the Commuter Exchange Program along with information regarding the construction details of the new vehicle. A tour of the new vehicle will follow the Commission meeting. Attachment: Commuter Exchange Mobile Education Vehicle Presentation Agenda Item 10 138 " C o m m u t e r E x c h a n g e R C T C ' s M o b i l e E d u c a t i o n V e h i c l e S e p t e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 C o m m u t e r E x c h a n g e ( 1 9 9 4 2 0 0 6 ) " 4 0 ' l i g h t d u t y R V c o n v e r s i o n c h a s s i s " G a s o l i n e p o w e r e d " S t a t i c e x h i b i t s g e a r e d t o w a r d s g r a d e s c h o o l s t u d e n t s " C u r r e n t v e h i c l e h a s r e a c h e d e n d o f 1 2 y e a r o p e r a t i n g l i f e " S m a l l c l a s s r o o m s p a c e w i t h l i t t l e s t o r a g e " N o n A D A c o m p l i a n t " H i g h c o s t t o m a i n t a i n v e h i c l e i n o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n Where it has been... 5/ The Challenge... Challenge... Number of Events Ci�t (1994-2006) Banning 4 Beaumont 12 Cabazon 1 Corona 69 Hemet 8 Lake Elsinore 5 Menifee 2 Moreno Valley 86 Norco 9 Perris 44 Riverside 271 San Jacinto 3 Temecula 17 Ramoland 12 Areas Outside of 18 Westem Riverside County Total Events 561 Over 50,000 people served... 'I�'i '1 77 I ROTC' To update and refresh the Commuter Exchange Mobile Education Vehicle Commuter Exchange Mobile Education Vehicle (2006 - ?) • 40' heavy duty transit coach chassis • CNG clean air powered • Multiple electronic displays appealing to broader audience including students and adults • Projected 20 year operational life • Raised roof and wider floor plan for ample classroom space • Ample storage designed into vehicle • ADA compliant • Satellite internet service New Goals • Increase awareness and consideration of transportation alternatives with youth through age 18 • Increase vehicle message appeal to adults • Expand service to include more public events and employer fairs countywide • Expand curriculum to provide information on "all" modes of alternative transportation • Provide real-time information (traffic maps/ ridematches/ trip plans) to visitors • Projected to attend 1,100 events serving approximately 125,000 people New Exhibits • Metrolink ticket vending machine tutorial • Choose your carpool partner video • Interactive rideshare messages • www.Commutesmart.info website access available via satellite • Rolling billboard for RCTC • Interior video exhibits and interior/ exterior wraps designed to be easily and economically refreshed or upgraded Construction • Competitive RFP process to procure vehicle manufacturer • Commission approval and vendor selection on August 23, 2004 • Commission established budget of $345,000 • Vehicle shell delivery on December 5, 2005 • Interior exhibit development started March 20, 2006 • Vehicle in service date of October 1, 2006 • Vehicle construction cost $336,826 Construction �7!.111 n memos;:1 r L., 1 RCTC Completed Vehicle Vehicle Tour • You're cordiany invited after the Commission meeting to step outside and experience the interior exhibits°°