Loading...
01 January 22, 2007 Budget & Implementation79307 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Monday, January 22, 2007 LOCATION: Board Chambers County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1' Floor Riverside, CA 92501 i • ***COMMITTEE MEMBERS'*** Jeff Stone, Chair / District Three / County of Riverside Barbara Hanna / Vacant, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Charles Grotke, City of Blythe Gregory S. Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City' Eduardo Garcia / Steven Hernandez, City of Coachella Hank Hohenstein / Yvonne Parks, City, of Desert Hot Springs Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Rick Gibbs /Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Gordon Moller/ Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Dom Betro, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula John F. Tavaglione, District Two / County of Riverside ***STAFF*** Eric Haley, Executive Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer ***AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY*** Annual Budget Development and Oversight Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Measure A Implementation and Capital Programs Public Communications and Outreach Programs Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement and SB 821-Bicycle & Pedestrian Property Management SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol TUMF Program and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. 11.36.06 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Monday, January 22, 2007 BOARD CHAMBERS County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Pt Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee 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. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Pg. 1 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to. the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3. vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end -of the agenda.) Budget and Implementation Committee January 22, 2007 Page 2 7. 8. AWARD OF AGREEMENT. NO. 07-31-069-00 FOR THE REVEGETATION ADJACENT TO SR-74 SEGMENT II FROM WASSON CANYON ROAD TO 7T" STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS Pg. 2 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Direct staff to present its award recommendations to the Committee for Agreement No. 07-31-069-00 for the Revegetation Adjacent to SR-74 Segment II from 0.5 km east of Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the city of Perris; and . 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. M-07-31-097- 00 FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS FROM WASHINGTON STREET TO WEST CITY LIMITS WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA . Pg. 4 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) . No. M-07-31- 097-00 for the funding reimbursement of state highway improvements within the city of La Quinta; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee ® January 22, 2007. Page 3 9. EXTENSION FOR EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT (ENA) WITH BRE PROPERTIES FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT AT THE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION 10. Pg. 19 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve a six-month extension for the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with BRE Properties for Joint Development at the La Sierra Metrolink Station; . 2) Direct staff to enter into discussions with BRE Properties regarding an increase in the good faith deposit up to an additional $25,000; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 4) • Forward to the Commission for final action. PROGRAMMING OF CONGESTION MITIGATION AND . AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) FUNDS FOR THE NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK PARKING STRUCTURE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) 2) Pg.21 Approve programming $15 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds to the North Main Corona Metrolink Parking Structure; and Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee January 22, 2007 Page 4 11. AMENDMENT TO ADVANCE OF FY 2006/07 CITY OF HEMET.MEASURE A LOCAL STREET AND. ROAD FUNDS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 23 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-068-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-31-068-00, to advance to the city of Hemet Measure A Local Street and Road Funds in FY 2007/08 rather than FY 2006/07; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 06-31-068-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for Advance of Measure A Local Streets and Roads Funds; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. PROPOSED AUDIT SCOPE FOR TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION AUDITS Pg. 26 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the proposed audit scope for Measure A recipients and Transportation Development Act claimants; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • •13. MID -YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS Overview - This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 29 1) Approve the Mid -Year Revenue Projections; 2) Approve the budget adjustments to reflect the revised Measure A revenues of.$3,000,000 and expenditures of $1,477,000; 3) Approve the budget adjustments to reflect the revised Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Planning revenues of $371,803 and expenditures of $371,803; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee January 22, 2007 Page 5 14. FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND AND MEASURE. A REVENUE PROJECTIONS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 34 1) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas; 2) • Approve the projections for Measure A and the related allocations; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 39 1) Approve a $229,700 increase in FY 2006/07 expenditures for mid- year budget adjustments; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. 2007 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORMS AND PROGRAMS Pg. 42 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the 2007 Legislative Platforms and Programs; 2) Receive and file the state and federal legislative status report; 3) Approve the following bill positions: • SB 53 (Ducheny, D-San Diego) —.SUPPORT IN CONCEPT • SB 56 (Runner, R-Antelope Valley) — SUPPORT; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 17. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA Budget and Implementation Committee January 22, 2007 Page 6 • 18. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview 1) This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 19. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 A.M., Monday, February 26, 2007, Board Chambers, 1" Floor,. County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. ATTENDANCE ROSTER BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2007 9:30 A.M. NAME 4 aki OvnY`evtsi l'Al eN vex k-.4/--0(-115 / /„ REPRESENTING /S x,41-, t� 5 iefX y -S TA i T J L. cj 6,77 TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL # P (0/ ` z)(:(/ h 1 STo /7e 6 a ry I. (0'14 (7‘6) ?F— ?5-6,2_. MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, October 23, 2006 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and implementation Committee was called to order by Chair Jeff Stone at 9:31 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Merribers/Alternates Present Steve Adams Jim Ayres Roger Berg Rick Gibbs Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Hank Hohenstein Bob Magee Jeff Stone Members Absent Robert Crain Juan DeLara Gordon Moller Gregory Pettis John F. Tavaglione 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Stone announced that the son of Sean Nelson, City Manager for Temecula, was involved in a fatal car accident and extended the Commission's condolences to Mr. Nelson and his family. There were no requests to speak from the public. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 28, 2006 M/S/C (Henderson/Adams) to August 28, 2006 as submitted. Abstain: Hanna approve the minutes Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes October 23, 2006 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS Eric Haley, Executive Director, announced that there were revisions to Agenda Item 12, "Award of Federal Legislative Advocacy Agreement'. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Henderson/Hohenstein) to approve the following Consent Calendar item: 6A. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT 1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for. the first quarter ended September 30, 2006; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH PSOMAS TO PROVIDE FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE PERRIS MULTIMODAL FACILITY Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, provided an overview of the agreement with Psomas to perform final design for the bus portion of the Perris Multimodal Facility. He explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document for the environmental portion is complete and the supplement review for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) portion has been submitted to Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) for review. He requested an addition to the first item of the staff recommendation to include "subject to receipt of FTA concurrence of the NEPA environmental evaluation". M/S/C (Ayres/Henderson) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-33-007-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-33-007, with Psomas to perform Final Design Engineering Services for the Perris Multimodal Facility, for a total not to exceed cost of $524,067, subject to receipt of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) concurrence of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental evaluation; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action_ Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes October 23, 2006 Page 3 8. AMENDMENT TO UTILITY AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 SEGMENT 11 WASSON CANYON ROAD TO 7T" STREET HIGHWAY WIDENING AND REALIGNMENT PROJECT For this item, due to a conflict of interest, Chair Stone passed the gavel to Vice Chair Barbara Hanna. Hideo Sugita provided background information on the agreement that was approved in 2003 to perform the relocation of the gas line on SR-74' Segment 11. MIS/C (Henderson/Hohenstein) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-31-046-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 03-31-046, with Southern California Gas Company for the SR-74 Segment II Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street widening and realignment project for an amount not to exceed $43,062; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Abstain: Stone AGREEMENTS FOR ON -CALL RIGHT-OF-WAY APPRAISAL SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES Min Saysay, Program Manager, provided an overview and background information regarding agreements with appraisal companies to establish a list of on -call appraisers for residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural properties that the Commission may need for current and future projects. He noted that work will be assigned on a rotating basis. Commissioner Jim Ayres expressed strong support for the staff recommendation and explained that these services will be necessary for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) and SR-79 projects. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes October 23, 2006 Page 4 M/S/C (Ayres/Hohenstein) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 07-72-057-00 with . Hennessey & Hennessey LLC; Agreement No. 07-72-061-00 with Paragon Partners Ltd; Agreement No. 07-31-063-00 with R. P. Laurain & Associates; Agreement No. 07-73-062-00 with Lidgard and Associates, Inc.; and Agreement No. 07-33-064-00 with Valentine Appraisal & Associates to perform On -Call Right -of - Way Appraisal Services (Appraisal Services); 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of $225,000; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. AGREEMENTS. FOR ON -CALL RIGHT-OF-WAY APPRAISAL REVIEW SERVICES Min Saysay provided an overview and background information regarding agreements for appraisal review services and explained the difference between these services and the services being rendered in the previous item. He noted that work will be assigned on a rotating basis. In response to Commissioner Henderson's concern regarding an appraisal company reviewing its own work, Min Saysay replied that staff will track all appraisals closely and the review appraiser will not review its own appraisal. M/S/C (Henderson/Hohenstein) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 07-33-060-00 with Hennessey & Hennessey LLC; Agreement No. 07-73-058-00 with Paragon Partners Ltd; and Agreement No. 07-31-059-00 with Lidgard and Associates, Inc. to perform On -Call Right -of -Way Appraisal Review Services (Appraisal Review Services); 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of $78,000; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action_ • Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes October 23, 2006 Page 5 11. CITY OF LA QUINTA'S AMENDED BICYCLETRANSPORTATION PLAN M/S/C (Henderson/Hohenstein) to approve the city of La Quinta's amended Bicycle Transportation Plan as submitted. 12. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY AGREEMENT For this item, due to a conflict of interest, Chair Stone passed the gavel to Vice Chair Barbara Hanna. John Standiford, Public Affairs Director, provided an overview and background information for federal ` legislative advocacy services and discussed an evaluation of the long-term lobbying needs of the Commission. In response to Commissioner Henderson's question regarding the federal lobbyist for San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), John Standiford replied that SANBAG is currently conducting the same process as the Commission. Eric Haley explained that it is the desire of staff is to separate the federal and state lobbyists from SANBAG to establish autonomy. In response to Commissioner Hank Hohenstein's concern regarding potentially seeking additional lobbyists as part of the Commission's long-term plans, John Standiford explained that staff would like to examine all options as the Commission moves forward with larger projects. Eric Haley added that there are some programs where an expertise in terms of resource agencies' politics or the new starts process could be beneficial. M/S/C (Henderson/Ayres) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 07-14-067-00 with Cliff Madison Government Relations for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Abstain: Stone Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes October 23, 2006 Page 6 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 14. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF Eric Haley reported on the 1-215 Conference, noting representation by Commissioners Marion Ashley and Stone. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:54 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board u ij AGENDA ITEM 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE:_ January 22, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board SUBJECT: Election of Officers STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Budget and Implementation Committee to conduct an election of officers for 2007 — Chair and Vice Chair. 11 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The election of officers for the full Commission and its Committees are held on an annual basis. Commissioners Jeff Stone and Barbara Hanna were elected as the Budget and Implementation Committee's officers in January 2006. Once the election has been conducted, the new Chair and Vice Chair will immediately assume the positions. 1 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 22, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Erik Galloway, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Agreement No. 07-31-069-00 for the Revegetation Adjacent to SR-74 Segment II from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the city of Perris STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Direct staff to present its award recommendations to the Committee for Agreement No. 07-31-069-00 for the Revegetation Adjacent to SR-74 Segment II from 0.5 km east of Wasson Canyon Road to 7t Street in the city of Perris; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its December 13, 2006 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise to receive construction bids for the Revegetation adjacent to SR-74 Segment II from 0.5 km east of Wasson Canyon Road to 7t Street in the city of Perris. The overall objective of the Segment II revegetation work is the successful reestablishment of plant communities where they have been temporarily disturbed by construction of the portion of the roadway project in Segment II. This revegetation project addresses the on -site mitigation measures, per special conditions under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorization, under Nationwide Permit #14, the Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification, and the: California Department of Fish and Game Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code. Construction of Segment II was recently completed and accepted by Caltrans on October 23, 2006. The revegetation work for Segment II should be initiated as soon as possible during the winter months to assist in the reestablishment of the native plant communities. 2 The project was advertised starting on December 20, 2006 with the bid opening scheduled for January 18, 2007. The scheduled bid opening will result- in a presentation of the bid results and staff's recommendation to the Committee_ on January 22, 2007. As of January 11, 2007, four sets of Plans and Specifications have been sold. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $40,000450,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 222-31-81301 P-3001 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \p€4.24;ivit Date: 1 /22/07 3 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 22, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Memorandum of Understanding No. M-07-31-097-00 for the Funding and Joint Development of State Highway 111 Improvements from Washington Street to West City Limits within the city of La Quinta STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. M-07-31-097-00 for the funding reimbursement of state highway improvements within the city of La Quinta; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the July 9, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved $12 million for the Coachella " Valley Measure A state highway program of projects and cash flow. As a result, nine projects were programmed for funding under the Measure A Tier II State Route 86 and Highway 111 projects. The city of La Quinta has submitted its request for funding of the fifth of the nine projects which is from Washington Street to West city limits. Staff recommends approval of the MOU with the city of La Quinta, consistent with the approved list of Tier II Route 86 & Highway1 11 project improvements. 4 Financial Information in Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $321,255 Source of Funds: Measure A CVAG Highways Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 253- 31-81301 P3415 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \� ati� Date: 1 /22/07 Attachment: _Memorandum of Understanding for City of La,Quinta 5 Agreement No: M-07-31-097-00 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this — day of 2007, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF LA QUINTA ("CITY"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1 /2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the 'Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates 20 million dollars for the construction of improvements . along Route 111 from Ramon to Indio Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 24000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements along State Highway 111 with the City of La Quinta. 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify for Highway 111 Funds. 2.7 RCTC intends, by this Agreement, to provide Highway 111 Funds for the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, andto participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. R V PUMH SHAN E1724416.3 Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Agreement is intended to provide Highway 111 Funds for design, construction and other services for authorized portions of the Route 111 improvements currently being planned on Highway 111, from Washington Street to the West City Limits, within the City of La Quinta (the "Project"). The Project is more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as requested by the City and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to provide to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, the maximum sum of Three Hundred Twenty -One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty -Five Dollars ($321,255.00) for project development, right of way acquisition, and construction costs for the Project ("Total Funding. Amount"). It is understood and agreed that 100% of the proposed improvements will be installed within the existing State right-of-way. The Total Funding Amount represents one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated Project Costs, as defined in Sections 3.14.1 below, and the maximum amount of funding to be provided by RCTC for the Project. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the City and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit `B",attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 Term/Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until the date the City provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9 or until June 30, 2009, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.5 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his ocher designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. 3.6 The City's Representative. The City hereby designates Tom P. Genovese, City Manager, or his designee as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall 2 R VPUBIHSHANEV 24416.3 coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care; Licenses. The City and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.8 Review of Services. The City and RCTC shall allow RCTC's Representative and City's Representative, respectively, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination. , 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice of termination, RCTC or the City, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway 1.11 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination by RCTC or the City, RCTC shall provide Highway 111 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the City of the written notice of termination. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The City and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et sec ., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The City or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys, fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, consultants; and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code R VPU BU-ISHANE\724416.3 8 Sections 1770 et seq. 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its record copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.12 Indemnification. 3.12.1 City Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its sub -consultants. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditure, including reasonable attomeys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditure, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the City, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC. 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City and RCTC shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete, the Project. One party's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the other party or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a.waiver of any rights the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons, or entities, performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. In addition, RCTC shall be and remain liable to the City, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to the City caused by RCTC's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. RV PUB\HSHAND324416.3 9 3.13 Insurance. The City and RCTC shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their sub -consultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and City. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall . apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance i shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, theirofficials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC or City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 3.14 Payment of Total Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Reimbursable Proiect Costs. Reimbursable Project costs (" Project Costs") include the following items: (1) funds expended in preparation of preliminary engineering study; (2) funds expended for preparation of environmental review documentation for the Project; (3) costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City, and costs of R V P U MII S H AN E17 24416.3 10 reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Project construction contract; (7) construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the City and ROTC; and (8) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and agreed that these costs include costs already incurred by the City .towards completion of the Project. Project Costs are further described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3.14.2 Excluded Project Costs. Project Costs shall not include the following items which shall be borne solely by the City without reimbursement: (1) City Project coordination costs; (3) City costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (4) any City fees attributed to the processing of the Project. 3.14.3 Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage Determination. [Not applicable to this Agreement.] 3.14.4 Pavment. RCTC shall pay for Project Costs as they are incurred and invoiced for design work, right-of-way services and any other services under its responsibilities, which payments shall serve as a credit towards the Total Funding Amount. The City shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultant and other costs for services under its responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced. 3.14.5 SB 300 Reimbursements. [Not applicable.] 3.14.6 Progress Reports. Either party may request the other party to inform it of delays in the Project and provide it with any requested progress reports. 3.14.7 Reimbursement for Expenses. The City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.15 Change Orders. Any change orders in excess of ten thousand dollars . ($10,000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and City. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or ROTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise make reasonable R V PUB\H SHANE1724416.3 • Agreement. corrective efforts. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its consultants relating to the condemnation ofproperty undertaken by City for the Project or for the construction of the Project. 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The City and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of reemployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.20 Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of La Quinta RCTC P.O. Box 1504 Riverside County Transportation Commission R V PU BIH SHANE17244163 7 12 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 ATTN: City Manager 4080 Lemon, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the patties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. • 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the City or any Consultant shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the Project shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the City or consultant, whichever is applicable. The City or consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the Project and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. - RVPUMISHANB724416.3 [Signatures on Following Page] 8 _I3 SIGNATURE PAGE TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF LA QUINTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Terry Henderson, Chair Don Adolph, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission R V PUB\HSHANE17244 16.3 By Katherine Jenson, City Attorney 14 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES The proposed improvements include the construction of curb, gutter, and connecting pavement on the north side of Highway 111 from Point Happy Entrance to West City Limits; the construction of a median island with landscape and irrigation system; and the installation of rock fall stabilization measures. The following services will be provided, as necessary, to complete the improvements: 1. Completion of Project Development Activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards and Project Development Guidelines. 2. Preparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with Caltrans procedures and State and Federal statutes. 3. All needed right-of-way services and acquisition of property needed for improvements. Construction of improvements as shown in attached Exhibit "D". R VPUBU-ISnANE1724416.3 A-1 15 • EXHIBIT `13" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse City for Project Costs up to the Total Funding Amount, as set forth in Section 3.2 of the Agreement. Arrive at appropriate funding for overall Project, up to the Total Funding Amount, in conjunction with City La Quinta prior to award of construction contract by the City. CITY OF LA QUINTA SHALL: Be responsible for design, environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to start of construction. testing. Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all construction activities including inspection, survey and material Arrive at appropriate funding for overall Project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the City. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the City as defined in this exhibit may be changed pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 of the Agreement. RV PUB1H SHANE17244163 B-1 16 EXHIBIT "C" IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY FOR COST SHARING Highway 111 Costs - Measure "A" Share Measure "A" funds provided by RCTC pursuant to this Agreement may be used to fund anv of the permissible Project Costs, as more specifically set forth below, up to Total Funding Amount. Measure "A" Highway funds may be used to pay for any and all improvements that occur as a result of the widening of Route 111 for the Project. Those improvements might include, but not be limited to, additional through lanes, acceleration tapers, deceleration lanes, bus tumouts, utility relocations, street lighting, necessary landscaping to Caltrans Standards, traffic signal installations and modifications, and necessary right-of-way acquisition and services. Right-of-way may be paid for by the appropriate funds dependent upon area of the take, as described below. The intersections between Highway 111 and the cross street may also be funded with Measure "A" Highway funds. The dividing line between Highway 111 and the cross street is defined as the projection of the Highway 111 right-of-way line across the cross street. In the event of an unclear definition of right-of-way points, a line connecting the cross street beginning and end of curbs will be drawn: If the parties disagree on a right-of-way projection the curb return limit will be used. The lines will be used as a guide for the design engineer preparing the estimate to calculate appropriate Highway 111 quantities and costs, and appropriate cross street quantities and costs. Costs for the traffic signals that control Highway 111 and cross street may be paid entirely with Measure "A" Highway funds regardless of pole locations in the Highway 111 or cross street defined boundaries. Signalization, for other locations such as entrances to businesses on Highway 111 may also be funded by Measure "A" Highway funds if warranted and agreed to by RCTC. Cross Street Costs - City Share . The City will be responsible for funding any and all cross street improvements. The cross street improvements would include any element of the project that is not included in the Highway 111 costs as defined above. Landscaping Landscaping will be in accordance with State and City standards and may be included in the cost sharing in the appropriate Route 111 or cross street areas. Excessive landscaping will not be paid for with the Measure "A" Highway funds. Excessive landscaping is a subjective measure, but the intent is not to use Measure "A" Highway.funds to pay for landscaping in excess of what is appropriate for a typical highway project in the Coachella Valley using Caltrans landscaping design standards. R VPUBIHSHANEl7244163 C-1 17 EXHIBIT "D" CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS In general the Project is envisioned to consist of the construction of slope stabilization measures and rock fall protection devices, curb, gutter, median island, landscaping, and irrigation system, hauling off of excess material, the installation of A.C. pavement, and signing and striping. . The following Project budget is anticipated: Project Activity Estimated Cost Construction: $373,027.00 Engineering: . $63,720.00 Construction Engineering (Inspection/Testing/Survey): $41,153.00 Sub -Total: $477,900.00 Contingency: $53,100.00 Total Estimated Cost: $531,000.00 R V PUBU-I SHAN E17244163 D-1 18 R • AGENDA ITEM 9 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: January 22, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Extension for Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with BRE' Properties for Joint Development at the La Sierra Metrolink Station STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve a six-month extension for the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with BRE Properties for Joint Development at the La Sierra Metrolink Station; 2) Direct staff to enter into discussions with BRE Properties regarding an increase in the good faith deposit up to an additional $25,000; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 4). Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 2006 meeting, the Commission awarded an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA), Agreement No. 07-67-004-00, for joint development at the "La Sierra Metrolink Station to BRE Properties for a 180 day period. The ENA allows for the Commission to negotiate exclusively with BRE Properties. Upon execution of the ENA, BRE provided the required $25,000 good faith deposit. The ENA expires on -February 19, 2007. Representatives from the Commission, BRE Properties, Best Best & Krieger, the city. of Riverside (planning and redevelopment), and Keyser Marston Associates (real estate financial . advisory) have had several meetings to discuss various matters regarding the proposed project; however, critical issues related to the legal framework and structure of the deal to allow development of both the public parking and private development components of the project remain unresolved due to their complexity. Commission staff and BRE Properties are requesting a six- month extension of the ENA to provide additional time to continue to resolve these issues. 19 Section 2a of the'ENA provides for an increase in the deposit up to an additional $25,000 upon agreement between the Commission and the developer to cover costs and expenses that may exceed the initial good faith deposit. Upon extension of the ENA, staff will enter into discussions with BRE Properties regarding an increase in the deposit. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: N/A Amount: N/A Source of Funds: N/A Budget Ad ustment: N/A GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: \life,uamiltuicA Date: 01/22/07 20 it 1 GENDA ITEM 10 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 22, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Programming of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds for the North Main Corona Metrolink Parking Structure STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve programming $15 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds to the North Main Corona Metrolink Parking Structure; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The North Main Corona Metrolink Parking Structure was approved in 2002 for $11 million of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds. To date, $1.5 million has been allocated for environmental and design work. The remaining $9.5. million is programmedfor construction. The design phase included the development of plans for three different parking structure configurations. -At the September 14, 2006, meeting, the Commission approved building parking structure C at the North Main Corona station as it yielded the most number of spaces at 1,443 (1,098 structure + 345 east lot) to meet the demand indicated in the ridership forecast. Future plans for building parking structures A and B will be brought back to the Commission at a later time. The design phase is near completion and construction costs for parking structure C are estimated at $29,592,000. Additional funds have been committed to cover construction costs including Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307, State Transit Assistance (STA), and Local Transportation Funds (LTF). However, $15 million is still needed to fully fund the project. 21 Staff- is proposing to program CMAQ funds to cover the funding gap 'since the project meets eligibility requirements and is an excellent candidate for CMAQ funds. The programming of the North Main Corona Parking Structure is proposed as follows: Fund Source Amount (000's) STIP IIP $ 9,500 FTA 5307 1,000 STA 3,524 LTF 568 CMAQ 15,000 Total $ 29, 592 There are sufficient CMAQ funds from SAFETEA-LU to cover this project. . The Commission did not commit all of the SAFETEA-LU funds in order to cover project cost increases and/or projects that were delayed due to the state budget crisis.. Therefore, the programming of CMAQ funds for the North Main Corona parking structure is cons.istent with the Commission's direction. Upon approval by the Commission, staff will amend the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) to reflect the updated funding. Construction of parking structure C is anticipated to begin in Winter 2008. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget:. No Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $15,000,000 Source of Funds: Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Budget Ad ustment: N/A GLA No.: 221-33-41403 P 3808 Fiscal Procedures Approved: . Date: 1 /22/07 22 • AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 22, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Advance of FY 2006/07 City of Hemet Measure A Local Street and Road Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-068-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-31-068-00, to advance to the city of Hemet Measure A Local Street and Road Funds in FY 2007/08 rather than FY 2006/07; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review; to execute Agreement No. 06-31-068-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for Advance of Measure A Local Streets and Roads Funds; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the June 14, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 06-31- 068-00 for an advance of $2,126,000, including accrued interest, to the city of Hemet (City) for its estimated Measure A Local Streets and Roads (LSR) funding for FY 2006/07. City staff had requested that disbursement of the advance be delayed from September 2006 to a later date upon construction award for a city-wide repaving project. Since the City is now in the process of soliciting construction bids, City staff is requesting that the advance be delayed until FY 2007/08 and applied against its FY 2007/08 Measure A LSR allocation. This would result in the disbursement of the advance in September 2007 with repayment due by September 30, 2008. Based on the FY 2007/08 Measure A. revenue projection, it is estimated that the City's share of FY 2007/08 Measure A LSR funding is $2,326,000. Any amounts received over the $2,126,000 advance would be disbursed to the City upon full repayment of the advance. In the unlikely event that the FY 2007/08 Measure A LSR allocations to the City are less than the total 23 advance, any balance due would be deducted from the FY 2008/09 Measure A LSR allocations. Staff is in the process of preparing the amendment to the advance agreement, which is subject to legal counsel review. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $2,126,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: 222-31-12401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \pe,u4Idvi C Date: 1/22/07 Attachment: City of Hemet Public Works Correspondence • 24 Jan 17 07 08:57a 0.2 Emu m• Omra pf PUBLIC WORKS January 17, 2007 510 E. FLORIDA AVENUE • HEMET. CALIFORNIA 92543 • (951)765-3879 Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Tra portation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3'Floor riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: Request for Advance of FY07/08 Measure A Allocations Dear Mr. Haley: ilk Thank you for approving the City's request to advance Measure A funds for this fiscal Iv year. The City of Hemet is currently soliciting construction bids for its city-wide repaving project. The project will start construction in Spring 2007. As such, the City wit already • have received much of its FY06/07 allocation before contractor invoicing will occur. Consequently, the City requests forgoing the advance of this year's allocation and instead receiving an advance of its FY07/08 allocation. As with the original advance, we understand approval of the Commission is needed, principal and interest will be deducted from the FY07/08 allocation, and funds will not ready for disbursement unti September 2007, if approved. Thank you for your cooperation and please contact me at (951) 765-3870 if you need more information. Sincerely, Mike Gow Public Works Director/City Engineer c: City Manager Finance Director 25 • AGENDA ITEM 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 22, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Audit Scope for Transit and Transportation Audits AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Budget and Implementation Committee to: 1) Approve the proposed audit scope for Measure A recipients and Transportation Development Act claimants; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its April 2003 meeting, the Commission approved the selection of Caporicci and Larson (C&L) to perform the Measure A recipient and Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants audits for the Commission, excluding the Riverside Transit Agency and city of Beaumont who have selected their own auditors that have met the Commission's auditor qualification criteria. These financial and compliance audits cover the transit and transportation operations the county of Riverside, the cities in the county, and non-profit organizations receiving the Measure A and TDA funds; however, agreed -upon procedures have been performed for certain Measure A Specialized Transit recipients based on cost-effectiveness considerations. California Code of Regulations Section 6664 requires a fiscal and compliance audit for each claimant of TDA funds (LTF and STAF)_ The audit shall be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and the claimants' financial statements shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Furthermore, the audit is to be directed to determine compliance or noncompliance with the TDA regulations. The TDA claimant audits that have been performed include transit operators (municipal operators, SunLine Transit Agency, and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency) receiving Article 4 and STAF, Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian facility grant claimants, and Article 8 local street and road funds (currently available only in Palo Verde Valley area). 26 The 1989 Measure A requires fiscal audits of the local agencies to ensure' enforcement of the, maintenance of effort requirements. The 2009 Measure A goals and objectivesinclude a, mandatory, annual , financial audit of program expenditures to ensure compliance with Measure A. Additionally, the taxpayer accountability safeguards included in the 2009 Measure A describes compliance' requirements. Over the past few years, the American institute of Certified Public Accountants has issued new auditing standards in response to corporate accounting and ethics scandals, many of whichincluded a focus on auditors and their work. These .new standards will become effective at various dates over the next two years; they are expected to significantly change how audits are performed in the following areas: • Audit documentation; • Understanding of internal control; • Audit evidence related to risk assessment procedures and tests of internal controls; • Audit risk and materiality; • Understanding the entity and its environment and assessing the risk of material misstatement; and • Performing audit procedures in response to assessed risks and evaluating audit evidence obtained. C&L has advised staff that these new auditing standards may significantly impact future audits of the specific transit and/or transportation funds being audited for TDA and Measure A purposes. Specifically, an extensive internal control evaluation and testing at the entity level may be required in .order to develop the basis for the risk assessment. In addition to a potential increase in the cost of the TDA and Measure A audits, the additional efforts may be repetitive for the entity being audited since similar procedures will be performed by the entity's auditors. There are several alternatives to address the impact of the new auditing standards, as described below: • Require the entities to engage their auditors to perform a financial and compliance audit of the transit/transportation funds at their own cost with specific compliance requirements provided by the Commission; • Same as above, except that the Commission would engage auditors to perform agreed -upon procedures regarding compliance at its own cost; • Continue to engage auditors to conduct financial and compliance audits for each Measure A recipient and TDA claimant at the Commission's cost; 27 • Engage auditors to conduct financial and compliance audits for each TDA claimant and to perform agreed -upon procedures for each Measure A recipient, both at the Commission's cost. The latter alternative may be possible if the Measure A audit requirements are interpreted liberally, as the requirements are not as specific as the TDA . audit , requirements. Based on a review of the 1989 Measure A and the 2009 Measure A plans, it could be argued that the accountability focus is on the expenditure of public funds and compliance with the provisions of Measure A. To some extent, this interpretation has been used in determining the audit scope for individual Measure A Specialized Transit recipients, which primarily consist of nonprofit agencies. Agreed -upon procedures, as determined by staff, have been applied to some agencies receiving only capital funds for specific projects as well as agencies receiving smaller amounts of operating funds. Since the procedures to be • performed are developed by the Commission and may be more focused, the expenditure of Measure A funds and related compliance could be more directly evaluated compared to an audit of an entity's financial statements. The difference is a report on the results of agreed -upon procedures compared to an opinion on audited financial statements as well as a report on compliance. Due to the number of entities receiving Measure A funds compared to TDA funds, significant cost savings could be realized with agreed -upon procedures for Measure A compared to full financial statement audits. After consideration. of the alternatives, staff proposes that the scope of services for the TDA claimants consist of a financial statement and compliance audit while the scope for Measure A recipients consist of agreed -upon procedures. At its November 27, 2006 meeting, the Audit Ad Hoc Committee concurred with staff's recommendation. 28 i • AGENDA ITEM 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 22, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Mid -Year Revenue Projections STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Mid -Year Revenue Projections; 2) Approve the budget adjustments to reflect the revised Measure A revenues of $3,000,000 and expenditures of $1,477,000; 3) Approve the budget adjustments to reflect the revised Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Planning revenues of $371,803 and expenditures of $371,803; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, staff made projections regarding the revenue received from Measure A and LTF funds for budget and apportionment purposes, respectively. Staff has tracked these revenues on a monthly basis. Current trends indicate that Measure A and LTF receipts are about 5.3% and 3.5% higher, respectively, for the six months ended. December 31, 2006 compared to the same period last year. Staff noted a significant decrease in year-to-year Measure A and LTF receipts from November 2006 (15.6% for Measure A and 13..2% for LTF) to December 2006 (5.3% for Measure A and 3.5% for LTF). Based on the January 2007 estimates recently provided by the State Board of Equalization, the year-to- year increases for Measure A and LTF rose slightly to 5.8% and 4.2%, respectively. For FY 2005/06, Measure A and LTF receipts were about 15.4% and 14.9% higher, respectively, than the prior year of FY 2004/05. While the Inland Empire's local economy has been perceived as strong except for the slowdown in housing, the significant changes within the .current year as well as compared to the prior years seem unusual and warrant further monitoring over the. next few months. Accordingly, staff has taken a cautious approach to this year's mid -year projection analysis. Based on . an emphasis on the trends of sales tax receipts for the last six months and comparison to the UCLA Anderson Forecast 29 completed in 2006, staff is recommending that the current year revenue projections as follows: FY 2006/07 Revenue Projections Measure A LTF Original (January 2006) $156,150,000 74,850,000 FY 2006/07 Budget Commission Revised for Mid -Year Adjustment $156,150,000 $ 159,150,000 74,850,000 74,850,000' increase the Increase from Budget $ 3,000,000 0 For reference purposes, audited Measure A and LTF revenues for FY 2005/06 were $157,236,314 and $74,673,605, respectively. The FY 2006/07 Measure A mid- year projections reflect an approximate 1 % increase over the FY 2005/06 actual revenues, while the FY 2006/07 LTF mid -year projections are comparable to the FY 2005/06 actual revenues. Additionally, the UCLA Anderson Forecast projected FY 2006/07 Measure A receipts of $159,693,000. The increase in Measure A revenues has a direct effect on the distributions to the geographic areas and related programs, especially local streets and roads (LSR). Accordingly, in addition to the revenue budget adjustments, Measure A budget adjustments are required for the LSR aggregating $1,175,000 as well as regional arterial expenditures of $302,000. The LTF audit was completed and financial statements were issued in November 2006. Staff has revised the original projections to include the carryover that is now available to the local governments and transit agencies amounting to $12,393,440. The revised projections include a • budget adjustment to RCTC Planning for $371,803. The increase for SB821 bicycle and pedestrian projects of $240,433 does not require a budget adjustment as such expenditures are made from the Local Transportation Fund, which is an unbudgeted fund of the Commission. Upon Commission approval of this item, staff will provide this updated information to the necessary local governments and transit operators.. 30 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY2006/07 Amount: $371,803 sales tax $371,803 planning Source of Funds: Local Transportation Fund Budget Ad ustment: Y GLA No.: 106-65-40101 106-65-86205 $371,803 $371,803 LTF Planning sales tax revenues LTF Planning expenditures Fiscal Procedures Approved: \./4€ 14. �' Date: 1 /22/07 Financial Information $3,000,000 sales tax In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $1,477,000 LSR & regional arterials Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Ad ustment: Y Revenues: 227-71-40100 $ 890,000 WesternCounty LSR sales tax 221-33-40100 367,000 Western County Rail sales tax 222-31-40100 856,000 Western County Highway sales tax 225-26-40100 56,000 Western County Special Transit sales tax 226-41-40100 56,000 Western County Commuter Assistance sales tax 254-71-40100 264,000 Coachella Valley LSR sales tax 252-26-40100 75,000 Coachella Valley Special Transit sales tax 253-31-40100 113,000 Coachella Valley Highway sales tax GLA No.: 255-72-40100 302,000 Coachella Valley Regional Arterial sales tax 233-71-40100 21,000 Palo Verde Valley LSR sales tax $3,000,000 Appropriations: 227-71-86104 $ 890,000 Western County LSR 254-71-86104 264,000 Coachella Valley LSR 233-71-86104 21,000 Palo Verde Valley LSR 255-72-86405 302,000 Coachella Valley Regional Arterials $1,477,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \pt€4.446:eti ituiDate: 1 /22/07 Attachments: FY 2006/07 Mid -Year Revenue Projections for Measure A and LTF 31 Estimated Carryover (Unapporli0ned) - Est. Receipts - TOTAL Less: Auditor Less: RCTC Administration Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) Less: SCAG Planning BALANCE Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES Less: 10% Transit Reserves - BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT APPORTIONMENT Westem Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Population Population % of Total 1,449,805 , 77.24% 397,364 21.17% 29,831 1.59% 1,877 000 100.00% RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND FY 2006/2007 APPORTIONMENT (Revised 1/07) Budget FY 2006/2007 Projection (revised) $ 12,393,440 74,850,000 87,243.440 12,000 750,000 2,617,303 . 123,500 83,740,637" 71,719,000 - 12,021,637 1,674,813 1,434,380 240,433 Budget" FY 2006/2007 Projection -. (original) Increase $ - $ 12,393,440 74,850,000 - 0 74,850,000 12,393,440 12,000 0 750,000 0 2,245,500 371,803 123,500 0 82,065,824 70,284,620 11,781,204 8,206,582 7,028,462 1,178,120 " $ 73 859 242 $ 63,256,158 $ 10 603 084 Revised Budget Original Budget FY 2006/2007 FY 2006/2007. - Rail Transit Apportionment Apportionment- Increase 22% 76% $ 57,049,280 $ 48,859,400 $ 8,189,880 $ 12,550,842 $ 44,498,438 15,636,123 13,391,433 2,244,690 1173,839 1,005,325 168,514 $ 73 859 242 $ 63,256,158 $ 10,603,084 - ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT RESERVES (in accordance with Reserve Policy adopted January 12, 2005) Western: -Rail - $1,394,538 Transit: RTA Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside Subtotal Transit $4 944 271 4,944,271 Subtotal Western - 6,338,809 Coachella Valley 1,737,347 Palo Verde Valley - 130,427 Total Reserves $8 206,582 $4,200,960 136,523 120,002 182,836 303,950 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences" - Population Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2005, as adjusted for annexations Allocation of Reserves: FY 2004/05 SRTP Funding Allocations Approved July 14, 2004 W12007%02 February Budget 8 ImplemerdationlTT.CommAttmt 1.2006-2007 LTF Mklyear Revised Appw6onments_xls 1/17/20073:44PM 32 MEASURE "A" PROJECTION LESS: ADMINISTRATION TOTAL PROJECTION CITIES WESTERN COUNTY PORTION BANNING BEAUMONT CALIMESA CANYON LAKES CORONA HEMET LAKE ELSINORE MORENO VALLEY MURRIETA NORCO PERRIS RIVERSIDE SAN JACINTO TEMECULA RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA TOTAL COACHELLA VALLEY PORTION CATHEDRAL CITY COACHELLA DESERT HOT SPRINGS INDIAN WELLS INDIO LA QUINTA PALM SPRINGS PALM DESERT RANCHO MIRAGE RIVERSIDE COUNTY _ CVAG AREA TOTAL $ 39,162,000 $ PALO VERDE PORTION $ 1,102,000 BLYTHE RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA TOTAL RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIOt MEASURE A DISTRIBUTION PROJECTIOt FY 2006/2007 (Revised 1/07) FY 2006/2007 Revised. Projection $159,150,000 3,500,000 155,650,000. FY 2006/2007 FY 2006/2007 Budget Original $156,150,000-$156,150,000 3,500,000 3.500,000 $152,650,000 $152,650,000 Local Streets & Roads Highway 40.00% 38.50% $ 115,386,000 $ 46,154,000 $ 44,423,000 $ 812,000 546,00D 206,000 272,000 5,401,000 2,168,000 1,237,000 4,704,000 2,637,000 - 986,000 _ 1,386,000 9,967,000 753,000 3,813,000 11,266,000 Rail 16.50% $ 19,039,000 Commuter Special Assistance Transportation 2.50% 2.50% $ 2,8135,000 .$. 2,1385,000 $ 46,154,00D $ 44,423,000 §19,039,000 $ 2,885,000 $ 2,885,000 . Local Streets Roads Highway 35% 15% 13,707,000 $ 5,874,000 1,792,000 520,000 408,000 246,00D 1,713,000 2,007,000 2,828,000 . 962,000 1,921,000 1,310,000 Regional Arterial 40% $ 15,665,000 $ 13,707,000 $ 5,874,000 $ 15,665,000 Local Streets Roads 100% $ 1,102,000 $ 852,000 250,000 $ 1,102,000 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences Special Transportation 10% -$ 3,916,000 $ 3,916,000 V:12007102 FebruarylBudget & ImplementationlTT.Comm.Attmt 2.Measure A Mid Yr Proj FY07xls - 1/17/20073:45 PM • 33 AGENDA ITEM 14 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 22, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007/08 Local Transportation Fund and Measure A Revenue Projections STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas; 2) Approve the projections for Measure A and the related allocations; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Local Transportation Fund The LTF projection consists of revenues generated from a quarter cent of the statewide sales tax. These LTF funds are principally used to fund transit requirements within the County of Riverside (County). The Transportation Development Act (TDA) legislation that created LTF requires the County Auditor Controller to annually estimate the amount of revenues expected to be generated from the sales tax. That estimate then becomes the basis for geographic apportionment and for claimant allocation through the Short Range Transit Plan process, which commences in January for the next fiscal year. While the County is the taxing authority and maintains custodial responsibility over the LTF revenues, the Commission by statute is charged with administration of the LTF funding process.. The practice has therefore been for the Commission staff to develop the revenue estimate and then submit it to the County Auditor Controller for concurrence. Once the Commission and the County have agreed on a revenue amount, Commission staff prepares the statutorily required apportionment. Apportionment is the process that assigns revenues to the three major geographic areas (as defined by TDA law) within the County. They are Western Riverside, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. The revenues are divided based on the 34 respective populations for each area. The apportionment occurs after off -the -top ' allocations for administration (distributed to the County, Commission, and 'SCAG) and set asides for planning activities (3%) and bicycle and pedestrian projects (2%). Attached is the FY 2007/08 LTF apportionment based on a revenue estimateof $77,840,000. The Countyhas reviewed the estimate and concurs with it. The estimate is based on a projection for FY 2006/07 of $74,850,000 plus an increase of 4%. After the deductions for administration of $942,000 and set -asides of $3,826,456, the amount available for apportionment is $73,071,544. The balance available for apportionment is as follows: Apportionment Area Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total Amount $ 56,399,429 15,535,602 1,136,513 $ 73,071,544 In accordance with the Reserve Policy adopted by the Commission on January 12, 2005, a reserve of 10% for each apportionment area will be established and set aside for FY 2007/08 for unforeseen cost increases or other emergency. For the Western County apportionment area, a portion of the reserve will be allocated to each of the transit operators; however, an allocation of $0 is currently reflected pending completion of the FY 2004/05 transit and transportation audits. Upon receipt of the completed audits, the Western County transit operator allocations will be adjusted: For public bus transit operators, the allocation of the reserve is based on each operator's proportionate share of FY 2005/06 LTF operating allocations. Operators may access reserve funds by amending their Short Range Transit Plans through the established amendment process. Measure A The Measure A projection consists of revenues generated from the local half -cent sales tax approved by the voters in November 1988. These Measure A funds are principally used to fund highway, commuter rail, regional arterial, local streets and roads, commuter assistance and specialized transportation projects needs in the three geographic areas of Riverside County. The Measure A projection for FY 2006/07 is $167,100,000. This projection will become the basis for the preparation of the FY 2007/08 budget. The budget process typically commences in January of each year following the development of the Measure A revenue projections. Additionally, the amounts for the local streets 35 • and roads and regional arterial programs are usually provided to the local jurisdictions for planning purposes. The attached Measure A estimate of $167,100,000 is based on a revised projection for FY 2006/07 of $159,150,000 plus an increase of 5 %. After the deduction for administration. of $3,700,000 which is approximately 2.2% of Measure A revenues, the amount available for distribution to the three geographic areas is $163,400,000, which is allocated as follows: Geographic Area Amount Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total $ 121,199,000 41,020,000 1,181,000 $ 163,400,000 Upon Commission approval of this item, staff will provide this information to the necessary local jurisdictions and transit operators for planning purposes. Attachments: 1) Local Transportation Fund FY 2007/08 Apportionment 2) Measure A Distribution Projection FY 2007/08 RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND FY 2007/08 APPORTIONMENT Budget FY 2007/08 Projection Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $0 Est. Receipts - 77,840,000 TOTAL 77,840,000 Less: Auditor 12,000 Less: RCTC Administration 800,000 Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) 2,335,200 Less: SCAG Planning 130,000 BALANCE 74,562,800 Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) 1,491,256 BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES 73,071,544 Less: 10%Transit Reserves 7,307,154 BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT $65,764,390 APPORTIONMENT Budget Population FY 2007/08 Rail Transit Population % of Total Apportionment 22 78% Western 1,507,656 77.18% $50,759,485 $11,167,087 $39,592,399 Coachella Valley 415,294 21`.26% 13,982,042 Palo Verde Valley 30,381 1.56% 1,022,862 1,953,331 100.00%. $65,764,390 ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT RESERVES (in accordance with Reserve Policy adopted January 12, 2005) Western: Rail $1,240,787 Transit: RTA $3,758,902 Banning 133,342 Beaumont 0 Corona 176,715 Riverside 330,197 Subtotal Transit $4,399,155 4,399,155 Subtotal Western 5,639,943 Coachella Valley 1,553,560 Palo Verde Valley 113,651 Total Reserves $7,307,154 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences Population Source: Canfomia bepartment of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2006, as adjusted for annexations Allocation of Reserves:. FY 2005/06 SRTP Funding Allocations Approved July 13, 2005 Beaumont allocation to be made upon completionof outstanding audit (FY 2004/05) V:12007102 Februaryl8udget & Implementation1TT.Comm.Attmt 1.2007-2008 LTF Apportionmentsxls 1/17/20073:48 PM 37 MEASURE "A" PROJECTION LESS: ADMINISTRATION TOTAL PROJECTION _ CITIES WESTERN COUNTY PORTION BANNING BEAUMONT - CALIMESA CANYON LAKES CORONA HEMET LAKE ELSINORE MORENO VALLEY MURRIETA NORCO . PERRIS RIVERSIDE SAN JACINTO TEMECULA RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA TOTAL RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIOf MEASURE A DISTRIBUTION PROJECTIOli FY 2007/08 FY 2007/08 Original Projection $1.67,100,000 • 3,700,000 163,400,000 $ 121,199,000 COACHELLA VALLEY PORTION $ 41,020,000 CATHEDRAL CITY COACHELLA DESERT HOT SPRINGS INDIAN WELLS INDIO LA QUINTA PALM SPRINGS - PALM DESERT RANCHO MIRAGE RNERSIDE COUNTY CVAG AREA TOTAL PALO VERDE PORTION BLYTHE RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA TOTAL $ 1,161,000 Local Streets - & Roads Highway Rail - 40.00% 38.50% 16.50% $ 48,479,000 5 46,662,000- 519,998,000 $ 834,000 667,000 207,000 275,000 5,641,000 2,326,000 1,345,000 - - 4,979,000 2,897,000 - t,023,000 1,490,000 10,108,000 829,000 3,961,000 - - 11,895,000 - $ 48,477,000 $ 46,662,000 519,998,000 Local Streets Regional Roads Highway Arterial 35% 15% 40% $ 14,357,000 $ 6,153,000 516,408,000 S 1,793,000 588,000 452,000 272,000 1,809,000 2,003,000 2,861,000 1,052,000 - 2,069,000 - 1,458,000 $ 14,357,000 5 6,153,000 516,408,000 Local Streets Roads 100% $ 1,181,000 $ 914,000 267,000 $ 1,181,000 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences VA2007102 February1Budget & ImplementatiorATT.Comm.Attmt,2.Measure A Proj FY08xis Commuter Special Assistance Transportation 2.50% 2.50% - $ 3,030,000 $ 3,030,000. $ 3,030,000 $ 3,030,000 Special Transportation 10% $ 4,102,000 $ 4,102,000 1/17120073:48 PM -- ` 38 • • AGENDA ITEM 15 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON " DATE: January 22, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Mid -Year Budget Adjustments STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve a $229,700 increase in FY 2006/07 expenditures for mid- year budget adjustments; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff has performed a review of expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 2006 and an estimate of expenditures for the remaining six months of the fiscal year (FY) ending June 30, 2007. As a result of the review, the follovving mid -year budget adjustments are proposed. . Adjustment 1 - $55,400 The Bechtel contract for FY 2005/06 concluded with a $55,400 carryover remaining for the work effort of the 10-year delivery plan for Western Riverside County Measure A Highway program. The initial phase of this work was completed and presented to the Commission in the second quarter of. FY 2006/07. The carryover of $55,400 was not included in the original FY 2006/07 budget; however, it is needed to cover the Bechtel costs related to the work effort for the plan. Adequate Measure A Western County Highway Fund fund balance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. Adjustment 2 - $42,500 A recommendation made as a result of the Commission's last triennial performance audit was to create a transit vision for Riverside County. To assist with the transit visioning process, Transportation Management and Design, Inc. (TMD) was hired October 31, 2006 to provide GIS support services and analysis. This work was 39 not included in the original FY 2006/07 budget. Adequate Local Transportation Fund fund balance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. Adjustment 3 - $52,300 The FY 2006/07 budget included the assumption that 439 call boxes would be removed by December 2006 as a result of decreased call box usage. The contractor has not completed the entire call box removal project by December 2006 due to staff turnover. As a result, the remaining call boxes that have not been removed will continue to incur equipment maintenance and access charges through June 30, 2007 which were not budgeted in FY 2006/07. Adequate SAFE Fund fund balance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. Adjustment 4 - $56,000 The Commuter Assistance program contracted in March 2006 to promote rideshare on a billboard located on State Route 91 in Corona from July 14, 2006 to November 21, 2006. The budget authority for this contract was included in the FY 2005/06 budget and was inadvertently not rebudgeted for . FY 2006/07. Staff is requesting a budget adjustment for the FY 2006/07 rideshare media campaign. Adequate Measure A Commuter Assistance Special Revenue Fund fund balance' exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. Adjustment 5 - $8,000 As a result of organizational changes related to human resources, additional training and resources in human resources as well as communications with legal counsel have been required: These additional costs for human resources training, membership dues, and legal services are estimated at $3,000. Additionally, executive management felt that specific management training for all program managers as a result of the effects of continuing organizational changes was appropriate. The Commission contracted with the University of California Riverside to conduct a Leadership, Supervision and Management Principles and Practices program. The program, which cost $10,000, examines the challenges supervisors face in an increasingly complex organizational environment and understanding organizational change and how to effectively manage the change. While the FY 2006/07 human resources budget included $5,000 for training, a budget adjustment of $5,000 is needed for the additional training cost. Adequate General. Fund fund balance exists to accommodate both budget adjustments totaling $8,000. 40 Adjustment 6 - $8,500 The Commission will be co -sponsoring a University of California Riverside conference, regarding the Riverside County MSHCP, with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. Adequate General Fund fund balance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. Adjustment 7 - $7,000 The original FY 2006/07 budget did not include legal services for the additional legislation needed to implement design -build contracting. Staff continues to work with legal counsel on this matter and will need additional budget authority to continue this effort. Adequate General Fund fund balance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $229,700 Source of Funds: Measure A, LTF, SAFE, FSP Budget Adjustment: Yes 222-31-81001 P2802 $55,400 Program Management 106-62-65520 $42,500 Professional Services 202-45-73301 $30,700 Equipment Maintenance 202-45-81015 $21,600 Access Charges 226-41-73704 P2108 $56,000 Media Ads S-18-65101 P1001 01 $1,100 General Legal Services GLA No.: S-18-73113 P1001 01 $1,000 Membership Dues S-18-73601 P1001 01 $400 Seminars/Conferences S-18-73611 P1001 01 $100 Mileage Reimbursement S-18-73620 P1001 01 $300 Lodging S-18-73630 P1001 01 $100 Meals S-18-73650 P1001 01 $5,000 Training S-11-73601 P1001 02 $8,500 Seminars/Conferences S-14-65101 P1001 02 $7,000 General Legal Services Fiscal Procedures Approved: \pe4z 1 Date: 01 /22/07 41 u AGENDA ITEM 16 ij • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION " DATE: January 22, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Aaron Hake, Staff Analyst -Government Relations THROUGH: John Standiford, Public Affairs Director SUBJECT:. 2007 State and Federal Legislative Platforms and Programs STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the 2007 Legislative Platforms and Programs; 2) Receive and file the state and federal legislative status report; 3) Approve the following bill positions: • SB 53 (Ducheny, D-San Diego) — SUPPORT IN CONCEPT • SB 56 (Runner, R-Antelope Valley) — SUPPORT; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Annually the Commission adopts its legislative platform for the state and federal level. The platform is an opportunity for the Commission to voice its priorities and concerns to decision makers in Washington and Sacramento and is the basis for the Commission's advocacy plans to enhance mobility for the residents of Riverside County. This item contains staff's recommended legislative platforms for the state and federal levels. This year's platforms build on previous. Commission priorities, reflecting the new environment in Sacramento following the passage of Propositions 1 A and 1 B and also the Commission's adoption of the 10 Year Measure A Delivery Plan and toll road proposals on December 13, 2006. The Commission's forefront messages to legislators this year will relate to the Commission's ability to deliver highway capacity above and beyond what is promised in Measure A via publicly -owned toll facilities on SR-91 and 1-15, funding and delivery of the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension, andincreased funding to goods movement projects with an emphasis on highway -rail grade separations. To deliver these and other high -priority messages to decision -makers in our state and nation's capitals, Commission staff has developed legislative programs that 42. illustrate the transportation needs of Riverside County_ In this item, staff- also seeks approval of these draft programs. Draft 2007 RCTC State & Federal Legislative Platforms State Legislative Platform I. Support enhancements of transportation project delivery. Receive legislative authority for the Commission to own and operate toll facilities on the state highway system. • Receive legislative authority for design -build procurement for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension. Receive legislative authority for the Commission and other regional transportation agencies to use design -build contracting for highway projects. • Support measures by the state to streamline the environmental approval process for transportation projects. II. Support accountability and commitment to California voters. • Support transparency and accountability in the administration of Proposition 1 B funding. Support allocation of Proposition 1 B based on objective criteria focused on congestion relief, benefits to the public, and cost vs. benefit analysis; oppose the earmarking of Proposition 1 B funding. • Meet the voters' expectations by fully -funding Proposition 42 and adhering to the provisions of Proposition 1 A. • Support legislation to amend California eminent domain law to more fairly set awardsin eminent domain lawsuits and protect the ability to acquire needed right-of-way for transportation projects. III. Reduce congestion and harmful emissions by supporting funding for alternate transportation modes and air quality programs. • Support measures that assure a fair share of state revenues to intercity and commuter rail (provided by Amtrak, Metrolink or other operators) in Southern California and Riverside County. 43 • Continue to support AB 2766 vehicle license fee funding in the South Coast Air Basin to local jurisdictions and the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Committee (MSRC); support MSRC's role as an independent decision -making body. • Support incentives to employers that enhance or create transit reimbursement or ridesharing programs. • Support incentives for taxpayers who utilize alternative fuels. IV. Support the California economy and the Inland Empire's quality of life through increased funding for goods movement projects. Support the Business, Transportation & Housing Agency and the California Environmental Protection Agency in the implementation of the State Goods Movement Action Plan in concert with the Southern California Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan. Support Proposition 1 B funding allocations to trade corridors and projects based on congestion, air quality, health, and safety data. Support permanent increases in state funding levels available for grade separations and goods movement mitigation projects. V. Support policies that recognize and reward local governments for committing local dollars to transportation projects. Federal Legislative Program I. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs. • Support efforts to bring transportation appropriations to authorized levels. Seek a fair share for Riverside County of any federal funding made available for transportation programs and projects. • Seek a fair share and equitable rate of return for the state of California of federal transportation funding. While California will likely remain a "donor" state, every effort must be made to raise the current percentage of return in federal tax revenues that are generated in the state. 44 • Support continued federal commitment of funds to support public transit and to assure that California and the western states receive a fair share of the AMTRAK funding resources as compared to the North East Corridor.. • Seek specialized funding for goods movement projects of international and national significance that are beyond the funding ability or responsibility of local and state transportation programs and budgets. • Seek funding for airport ground access and other airport development needs in Riverside County. • Seek a "New Starts" or "Small Starts" full funding grant agreement for the Perris Valley Line extension of Metrolink via the Commission -owned San Jacinto Branch Line. • Support local agencies seeking federal transportation funding in a coordinated manner in order to maximize project funding from federal legislation. II. 'Protect and enhance flexibility in use of transportation revenue. • Support funding allocations for the "New Starts" and "Small Starts" category within the new highway authorization bill for projects seeking less than $100 million to enhance the opportunities for funding of the Perris Valley Line extension project. • Support tax benefits and/or incentives for transportation demand management programs and alternative fuel programs to promote the use of alternate modes of transportation. Support increased federal funding for Alameda Corridor East improvements with a special emphasis on ensuring funding for Riverside County rail grade separations. • Support legislation that ensures coordination of transportation and social service agency funding (i.e. Departments of Aging, Rehabilitation, and Welfare). Support legislative or administrative policies that promote a "regional" approach to airport development and usage of March Air Reserve Base, Southern California Logistics, Palm Springs International Airport, San Bernardino International, and Ontario International airports. 45 • III. Reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory requirements. • Support administrative or legislative action to ensure consistency among the federal and the state's congestion management program requirements. Monitor market -based congestion pricing measures regarding their effectiveness to relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality and/or fund transportation alternatives. • Support legislation and/or administrative reforms to enhance highway project delivery, such as simultaneous Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and , engineering studies, and a reasonable level of contracting out of appropriate activities to the private sector. • Support legislation and/or administrative reforms that result in cost savings to environmental clearance processes for transportation construction projects. • Continue to streamline federal reporting/monitoring requirements to ensure efficiency and usefulness of data collected and. eliminate unnecessary and/or duplicative requirements. State Update. Deputy Executive Director Anne Mayer testified to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing on January 17, 2007 regarding the future of transportation finance in California, including public -private partnerships and toll facilities. Her testimony provided a helpful backdrop to the Legislature in discussing the Commission's need for high occupancy toll lanes legislation as well as opportunities for other counties to use innovative financing to deliver additional highway capacity. Additional staff and the Commission's legislative advocate Mark Watts accompanied Anne Mayer on this trip to meet individually with members of Riverside County's legislative leadership and key staff. Two more bills of interest to RCTC have surfaced in the Senate: SB 53 (Ducheny, D-San Diego) — State highways: performance measures Riverside County's own Senator Denise Ducheny has authored a bill that requires Caltrans to establish performance measures that will allow the department to issue an annual rating of the overall quality of the state highway system. Caltrans would be required to report to the Legislature on how resource, staffing, and programming 46 decisions impact the overall condition of the state highway. system (in terms of distressed lane miles, bridge conditions, and life cycle costs). SB 53 would require Ca!trans to consult with agencies such as the Commission in developing its performance measures. Staff recommends the Commission support this bill in concept as it moves through Legislature. Staff believes that calling attention to ,the consequences of resource, staffing, and programming decisions on the performance of California's highways is a positive step for Ca[trans accountability and transportation funding as a statewide priority. SB 56 (Runner, R-Antelope Valley) — Highway construction contracts: Design -Build Demonstration Program: transportation entities. This bill creates a 70-year pilot program, authorizing the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to select a to -be -determined number of transportation agencies to employ design -build contracting on a to -be -determined number of highway, bridge, or tunnel projects. SB 56 sets forth specific requirements for the process which transportation agencies must undertake to utilize design -build. The bill gives the CTC discretion on whether contracts are awarded according to "best -value" 'or low -bid. A peer review committee is established to monitor the procurement process of design -build projects authorized by this bill, and each transportation agency is required to submit annual reports and analysis to the CTC regarding its experiences using design -build. Transportation agencies are also required to implement a labor compliance program. The intent of the legislation is to examine the benefits and challenges of using design -build procurement, particularly relating to the possibility of reduced project costs, expedited project delivery, or design features that would not be achievable through design -bid -build procurement. SB 56 provides a significant opportunity for transportation agencies in California to apply design -build widely enough to demonstrate its potential benefits and weaknesses as a tool for, enhanced project delivery. The stringent process outlined in the bill provides transparency and also begins to address labor concerns raised by opponents of design -build. While it is yet unknown how the transportation industry will react to SB 56, in light of its potential to provide the Commission with greater flexibility to pursue the most efficient and cost-effective project delivery mechanisms, staff recommends the Commission adopt a SUPPORT position on SB 56. 47 • Federal Update The Commission will co -host a reception in honor of the new Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, at the annual Legislative Conference of the American Public Transportation Association on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 in Washington, DC. This event is being co -sponsored by several California transportation agencies, with the Bay Area's Metropolitan. Transportation Commission playing a lead role: Commissioners attending the APTA Legislative Conference are encouraged to attend this reception for an opportunity to build relationships with California's congressional delegation and discuss the Commission's federal priorities. Attachments: 1) Legislative Matrix 2) State Legislative Program 3) Federal Legislative Program 48 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE ANDFEDERALLEGISLATION �«ny k ii ®'- i � ��� >° ` '� @'a(H �` • ''Y �" n�/' , r(�LdW'U'>} ". Jt Y y STATE LEGISLATION SB 9 (Lowenthal) This bill will be a vehicle for establishing a process for the selection of transportation projects to be funded from the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) of Proposition 1 B. The TCIF is a $2 billion fund. Introduced 12/04/06 Monitor 01/10/07 SB 19 (Lowenthal) This bill will be a vehicle for establishing conditions and criteria for projects to be funded under the $1 billion account created by Proposition 1 B dedicated to reducing emissions related to goods movement. Introduced 12/04/06 Monitor 01/10/07 SB 45 (Perata) This bill will establish the application process for allocations from the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account from Proposition 1 B. Introduced 12/22/06 Monitor 01/10/07 SB 47 (Perata) This bill will establish the eligibility; matching fund requirements, and application process for Proposition 1 B funds under the $1 billion State -Local Partnership Program, The State -Local Partnership Program is to be administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Introduced 12/22/06 Monitor 01/10/07 SB 53 (Ducheny) This bill requires Caltrans to establish performance measures that will allow the department to issue an annual rating :of the overall quality of the state highway system. Caltrans would be required to report to the Legislature on how resource, staffing, and programming decisions impact the overall condition of the state highway system (in terms of distressed lane miles, bridge conditions, and life cycle costs). SB 53 would require Caltrans to consult with agencies such as ROTC in developing its performance measures. Introduced 01/10/07 SUPPORT IN CONCEPT Pending Commission Approval SB 56 (Runner) This bill establishes a 10-year pilot program for design -build projects, administered by the CTC. Introduced 01/10/07 SUPPORT Pending Commission Approval F:\users\preprint\jsllegmat.doc FEDERAL LEGISLATION' H.R.5576 (Rep. Knollenberg, R- MI) This is the appropriations bill for the Departments of. Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development,, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia. The House and Senate reports on this bill contain a combined $6.5 million for Riverside County transportation projects, including $.3.0 million for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension. House and Senate reports issued. Monitor 01 / 10/07 F Ausers\p reprint\j s\legmat: doc .7- $7. T.7.1 :72 57, F.71 -71 7,71 r7,1 a.-.1 71; tall r„, 73 771 .,`"?'7` " • ' ' !lir 2-[ • Transportation and mobility are critical concerns, not just for us, but for California State Legislative Program Riverside County Tionspottofion Commission 51 Rush hour in Riverside County means 65% of all freeways are operating at Level of Service F. That's a failing grade in any book. Riverside County residents already tax themselves for transportation. Local development pays its own way through a mitigation fee. Even with federal and state help, we still don't have the $8 to $13 billion it will take to fix the problem. We need authority to: • Own and operate public toll facilities • Use design -build contracting • Environmentally clear projects more efficiently 52 • RCTC heeds innovative tools to get gridlock under control and implement projects faster. The challenge is enormous. It will take $8-13 billion to construct all of the lane -miles of freeway necessary to bring Riverside County freeways just above Level Of Service "F" (LOS F) by 2030. Over 65% of all lane -miles in Riverside County already operate at LOS F during peak periods. Our residents, like all Californians, are demanding relief. RCTC can deliver more lane -miles for commuters more quickly with legislative authority to own and operate toll facilities on the state highway system. RCTC is prepared to deliver toll facilities on SR-91 and I-15 that will integrate with Orange County's 91 Express Lanes and provide a progressive leap toward curing our highway system of its failures. Design -build contracting streamlines project delivery. One entity manages the design and construction of a project. This is a departure from the traditional design -bid -build process where separate entities may be responsible for each segment of a project. Design -build fosters efficiency, centralizes information, promotes communication, and minimizes risk. Streamlining, coordination, and quality are hallmarks of design -build. RCTC supports design -build contracting that is open, fair, competitive. The demand for transportation projects and limited funding available to complete them means pt agencies must get the best value for their money possible. RCTC encourages Caltrans to move forward with accep authority to approve federal environmental docums A streamlined environmental clearance process means n efficient delivery of projects. RCTC calls on the Legislature to take proactive step: give RCTC the ability to deliver urgently needed transporta solutions to the public in the most efficient, responsible, effective manner possible. We cannot wait any longer. 53 Today,100 million metric tons of the nation's freight thunders through Riverside County neighborhoods --a 58% increase from 1997 to 2004. • Riverside County sits in the cross -hair of increasing international trade coming through the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach -and our communities are paying the price. • $40 million more from the PUC Section 190 grade separation account plus $66.7 million o Proposition 1B goods movement funds is the state government's fair share to build the 1E most critical grade separations in Riverside County. Riverside County residents subsidize the nation's and California's economy with their health, their time, and their quality of life. The Ports of L.A. and Long Beach are the nation's second busiest and total almost five times the amount of all 14 other California ports combined. Riverside County is at the epicenter of problems created by this exponential increase. RCTC calls on the Legislature to give us a way to a safer and stronger community. In. September 2006 RCTC adopted a Grade Separation Funding Plan that identifies 18 highest -priority grade crossings that constitute a feasible blueprint for relief in our communities. Local funders have committed $150 million to these projects with as much as $67 million more on the way. Today's freight chokes local roads, inhibits emergency vehicles, degrades air quality, and exposes the public to the dangers of fast-moving trains. If Sacramento does its part to unburden our communities, the results will be striking_ • 37 less hours of crossing gate "down -time" every da Riverside County • 36 fewer accidents per year • 212.25 less tons of projected 2030 emissions per year • 4,374.8 fewer hours of vehicle delay annually. In real terms, our residents will have 4,374.8 more hours their families, participating in the economy, and Ix members of our communities. 55 RCTC is making commuter rail work to reduce congestion. lines serving Riverside County carry almost 18,000 riders per day. Metrolink estimates almost 3% reduction on parallel. freeways from Metrolink service. Providing rail service is an important component of better mobility. • Commuters on trains equal cars off the freeways. • Cars off the freeways equals a faster ride for everyone, cleaner air, a healthier quality of H- and better access to key job centers in Southern California. • RCTC supports state funding for additional rail capacity and rolling stock for increased Metrolink service and Amtrak service from Los Angeles to the. Coachella Valley. • With one in three commuters from western Riverside County traveling to jobs in other counties, more commuter rail benefits the entire region. Riverside County residents can board Metrolink trains at any of five RCTC owned and operated stations and travel to Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Ventura counties more quickly and more relaxed than driving on the freeway. Today, 25% of all Riverside County working households have a commute of 45 minutes or more one way. Metrolink helps improve working residents' quality of life. The volatility of gasoline prices and worsening congestion has driven a surge in Metrolink ridership. In Riverside County, parking at many stations is beyond capacity by 6:30 a.m. RCTC is building a new parking lot at the Riverside -Downtown station and design is underway on a new state -of -the art parking facility at the North Main Corona station. RCTC is leading the charge to extend Metrolink to southwestern Riverside County with the Perris Valley Line. Today residents on the 1-215 corridor are faced with Level of Service F (LOS F) at the key junction where the 1-215 meets the 60 freeway. The Perris Valley Line will serve residents from the growing cities of Moreno Valley, Perris, Murrieta, and Temecula by providing service f south Perris to Riverside, taking pressure off the 1-215 corridor well as helping to serve local employment centers in Riverside . Corona, riders will be able to connect to popular Metrolink I serving job centers in San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Ang counties further reducing traffic on the crowded 91, 60 anc freeways. The Perris Valley Line has been partially funded by STIP, and RCTC seeks additional state dollars for this pro Service will begin by 2010. RCTC has endorsed Caltrans' California State Rail Plan for 200 to 2015-16, which proposes intercity rail service between Angeles and the Coachella Valley, terminating in Indio. Coachella Valley is developing rapidly and ridership potential a this route is promising. Further state investment in passenger rail service will commuters what they are clearly demanding: more opti _ Capital investment in new rail infrastructure and rolling stock build on the momentum of Metrolink's success and open the d to faster commutes and greater mobility in Southern Califomi 57 The cost of building roadways continues to spiral upwards. The timelines required for new construction projects means we are always behind the curve. We can't- build our way out of congestion with- out also encouraging alternatives that promote fewer trips and cleaner air. • Enhancement of incentives to employers with transit reimbursement or ridesharing programs will encourage more commuters to get out of their cars and into other modes c transportation. Less stressful commutes make for happier more productive workers. • RCTC supports incentives for taxpayers who utilize alternative fuels. Alternative fuels pollute less and can insulate consumers from the volatility of gasoline prices. Riverside County residents already tax themselves and impose fees on new development to pay for transportation improve- ments and there's still not enough money to solve all our congestion problems. Only Houston has worse air quality than Riverside County. Altemative fuels and fewer trips mean cleaner air and less congestion for everyone. But Southern Californians have to be coaxed to make different choices about the way they get to work. Incentives, especially in a climate of volatile and seasonally higher gas prices, really work in Riverside County, where many households have stretched their budgets to buy their first affordable home. Ridesharing incentives have a demonstrated track record in Riverside County. 59 Transit service is also a new concept for most sout California residents. Forming a public transit habit t inducement. Once commuters try different ways of gettin work, however, many of them like the benefits of saved I and money and reduced stress and stay with the change. In addition, for these same budget -conscious Riverside Col households, incentives that address the cost differei between alternative fuel and conventional fuel vehicles wi make clean fuel choices more accessible. RCTC is working hard to guarantee mobility for a region that is critical to California's future. i 61 For more information contact: John Standiford (951 ) 787-7969 Aaron Hake (951) 787-7965 (951)787-7141 • www.rctc.org 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • P.O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Riverside County Transportation (ommasinn 62 • If were a state, it would have a bigger population than Idaho or Nebraska,. At the rate its growing, by2020 RiversideCounty will be more populous than bwa, Mississippi, Arkansas, or Kansas. Riverside County is the major rail and roadway freight corridor for the second largest port in the nation. . .;173 ar.0. qt 77 I ;a7.47 Wig S7,-7 Z7.51 Transportation and mobility are critical concerns, not just for us, but for the country. Federal Legislative Program Riverside County Traruportorion Commission 63 Today,100 million metric tons of the nation's freight thunders through Riverside County neighborhoods -- a 58% increase from 1997 to 2004. • Riverside County sits in the cross -hair of increasing international trade coming through the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach —and our communities are paying the price. • $125.8 million in discretionary Congressional funding plus $60 rnillion in formula funds is the federal government's fair share to build the 18 most critical grade separations in Riverside County. • The federal government has already recognized the issue by naming the Alameda Corridor -East a trade corridor of national and regional significance in SAFETEA-LU. 64 Riverside County residents subsidize the nation's economy with their health, their time, and their quality of life. The Ports of L.A. and Long Beach are the nation's second busiest and bear the brunt of burgeoning globalization. Riverside County is at the epi- center of statewide problems created by this exponential increase. RCTC calls on Congress to give us a way to a safer and stronger community. In September 2006 RCTC adopted a Grade Separation Funding Plan that identifies 18 highest -priority grade crossings that con- stitute a feasible blueprint for relief in our communities. Local funders have committed $150 million to these projects with as much as $67 million more on the way. Today, almost 8 of every 10 freight cars that cross our streets are bound for destinations beyond the southwest_ They choke local. roads, inhibit emergency vehicles, degrade air quality, and expose the public to the dangers of fast-moving trains_ If Washington does its part to unburden our communities, the results will be striking: • 37 less hours of crossing gate "down -time' every day in Riverside County • 36 fewer accidents per year • 212.25 less tons of projected 2030 emissions per year • 4,374.8 fewer hours of vehicle delay annually In real terms, our residents will have 4,374.8 more hours • their families, participating in the economy, and being mem of our communities. Freight Destined for South West 23% . • Freight Destined for Rest of U.S. Tr% . 65 Our nation's ability to prosper in the global economy means we must be able tomeet projected demands. If things don't change, we won't be ready to ship and receive three times more goods 20 years from now. We need dedicated federal funding for freight projects. • More than half of the nation's freight leaves and arrives through west coast ports. • Goods movement is a national economic priority and warrants permanent federal fundinc • Most major transportation projects have a fifteen to twenty year timeline, we already have crisis and must act now. The Ports of L.A. and Long Beach will be the nation's key west- ern portal as freight traffic triples over the next 20 years. Riverside County is the conduit for freight from these ports as it goes to and comes from the rest of the country. Our railroads are short on capacity and trucks already clog our congested freeways in unprecedented numbers. Businesses throughout the U.S. rely on timely deliveries and flexible inventories. If major investments are not made in goods move- ment infrastructure our economy will suffer as goods crawl to their destinations. Transportation projects take a long time to plan, approve, fund, and build. If we wait, there will certainly be a crisis. Congress has approved limited funding for projects of nati and regional significance related to goods movement, inc ing the Alameda Corridor -East ($125 million in SAFETEA- and Congress has recognized goods movement as a natii priority by identifying the Alameda Corridor -East as a I Priority Corridor. RCTC supports a new funding mechanism dedicated to gc movement projects of national and regional significance. 67 Riverside County residents already tax themselves for transportation. Local development pays its own way through a mitigation fee. Even with federal and state, help, we still dodthaue enough money to build the transportation infrastructure to unclog roadways and guarantee goods movement.. We need more incentives for private investment in • RCTC supports opening the doors to more partnerships between the public and private sectors to solve transportation challenges. • Tax credits, private activity bonds, TIFIA loans, and other mechanisms will spur private sector investment in infrastructure. • infrastructure, The private sector has a strong financial interest in the efficiency of our nation's transportation network. The move- ment of goods and people translates into economic vitality. Infrastructure is a large capital investment and the overwhelming need for projects makes the costs prohibitive to firms without significant financial incentives. The private sector can be a powerful partner with the public, working together to solve common challenges. RCTC supports more tools to leverage private investment that can move critical projects forward and deliver a win -win for the public and private communities alike. RCTC is working with policymakers in Sacramento to improve state laves to bring more private dollars to California and take advantage of public -private partnership provisions in SAFETEA-LU. 69 Riverside County's population will grow to 3 million between now and 2020. Much of this growth will occur in the already congested 1-21`5 corridor. We need full -funding for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink • Communities to be served are among the fastest growing (2000-2020) in Riverside Coun Perris (167%), Moreno Valley (41%), Murrieta (107%), and Temecula (125%). • Today's bumper to bumper traffic can only be moderately improved by planned highway improvements. With one in three commuters from western Riverside County traveling to jobs in other counties, more commuter rail benefits the entire region. • FTA's recommendation will give commuter rail expansion in Riverside County the green signal. Congestion relief has no better friend than another Metrolink train taking 6,000 ca off the freeway daily. extension to help cope vvith commuter traffic. Today the I-215/SR-60 facility operates at Level of Service "F" {LOS F) during peak hours, and despite planned highway improvements through 2025, bumper -to -bumper traffic will persist. Today, 25% of all Riverside County working house- holds have a commute of 45 minutes or more one way. The Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension will serve residents from the growing cities of Moreno Valley, Perris, Murrieta, and Temecula by providing service from south Perris to Riverside. As well as helping to serve local employment centers in Riverside and Corona, riders will be able to connect to popular Metrolink lines serving job centers in San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles counties further reducing traffic on the crowd- ed 91, 60 and 10 freeways. This congestion reduction will also provide significant air quality benefits to one of the smoggiest regions in the nation. The Perris Valley Line will be a long-term component of the Inland Empire's economic engine. 71 The San Jacinto/Hemet area has 54,500 new homes either under construction or in the pipeline. That's a brand new city of 163,500 people --a community the size of Rancho Cucamonga and bigger than Santa Rosa, Escondido, or Pasadena. The only regional route north and south is circuitous and passes through highly developed neighborhoods. • .SR-79 today mixes regional traffic with local traffic. • There are numerous residential and commercial direct access points along the roadway. • The geometrics of the roadway do not support truck traffic. • Accident rates are higher than state averages for suburban roadways. • Realigning SR-79 through San Jacinto and Hemet will take drivers off a slow, circuitous, and dangerous route and onto an elevated, grade -separated highway that can handle the growth in the San Jacinto Valley.