Loading...
09 September 12, 2007 CommissionRECORDS 81642 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chair: Terry Henderson 1 s` Vice Chair: Jeff Stone 2' Vice Chair: Bob Magee Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Barbara Hanna / Brenda Salas, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Charles Grotke, City of Blythe John Chlebnik / Ray Quinto, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Eduardo Garcia / Steven Hernandez, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Alex Bias / Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Eric McBride, City of Hemet Patrick J. Mullany / Larry Spicer, City of Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Gordon Moller / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage , Steve Adams / Dom Betro, City of Riverside Chris Carlson / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Mike Perovich, Governor's Appointee Eric Haley, Executive Director Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. if you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.00 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9: 30 a.m. Wednesday, September 12, 2007 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate . public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual. information onto be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JULY 11, 2007 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 12, 2007 Page 2 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS - The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members: present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2007. 76. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Page 3 Overview This • item is for the Commission- to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2007. 7C. •QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Overview Page 16 This .itern is . for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2007. 7D. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Pa9e 22 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and fife. the Single Signature Authority Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2007. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 12, 2007 Page 3 7E. 2009 MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT GUIDELINES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 24 1) Approve the 2009 Measure .A Local Streets and Roads Program Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Guidelines; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 07-011, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Program Maintenance of Effort Guidelines." 7F. STATE ROUTE 60/INTERSTATE 215 EAST JUNCTION CONNECTORS ADDITIONAL FUNDS REQUEST Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve $4 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program funds for the 60/215 East. Junction connectors project for the right-of-way phase; 2) Approve $459,000 of Measure A funds as match to the $4 million CMAQ funds in the event it is needed; 3) Approve a budget amendment for a $4 million increase to federal revenues in FY 2007/08; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to .legal counsel review, to execute associated amendment •agreements to reflect additional funding. Page 37 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 12, 2007 Page 4 7G. ADDITIONAL FUNDS REQUEST FOR STATE ROUTE 60/VALLEY •WAY TO INTERSTATE 15 PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve an additional $1.5 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program funds for the . SR-60/Valley Way to 1-15 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and mixed flow gap closure project; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute associated amendment agreements to reflect additional funding. 7H. Page 39 COMMISSION POSITION ON PROPOSED GOODS MOVEMENT CONTROL MEASURES FOR THE 2007 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN/2008 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page4i Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) . Request that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) develop and approve Goods Movement Control . Measures for the inclusion in the 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, (AQMP)/2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that: a) demonstrates the feasibility of implementation by the attainment/implementation deadline(s); b) specifically identifies roles, responsibilities, and funding of all parties involved including funding that the Commission agrees with; c) does : not put the region at risk of losing federal transportation funds; and 2) Work with SCAG, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the county transportation commissions to ensure fair and equitable responsibility for emissions reductions that also include federal regulatory agencies. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 12, 2007 Page 5 71. FISCAL YEAR 2008-12 MEASURE • A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF CALIMESA, MURRIETA, AND NORCO Overview Page 43 Thisitem is for the Commission to approve the FY 2008-12 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for local streets and roads for the cities of Calimesa, Murrieta, and Norco as submitted. 7J. FISCAL YEAR 2007-11 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF CALIMESA 7K. Overview Page 63 This item is for the Commission to approve- the FY 2007-1.1 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for local streets and roads for the city of Calimesa as submitted. FISCAL YEAR 2007-11 MEASURE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF CORONA Page 69 Overview This item is for the Commission toapprove the amendment to the FY 2007-1 1 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for local streets and roads for the city of Corona as submitted. 7L. CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS AND OUTREACH FOR THE MULTI -COUNTY GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN Page 73 Overview This •item is for the Commission to: 1) • Award Agreement No. 08-67-017-00 in the amount of $223,970 to Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) to provide consultant services for Environmental Justice Analysis and Outreach for the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP); and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, toexecute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 12, 2007 Page 6 7M. GRADE SEPARATION JUMP START FUNDING AWARD FOR TRADE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 76 1) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreements on behalf of the Commission for grade separation project development for: a) City of Corona, Agreement No. 08-33-014-00 for $2.5 million b) City of Riverside, Agreement No. 08-33-012.00 for $4.5 million c) County of Riverside, Agreement No. 08-33-013-00 for $3 million; and 2) Amend the FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for the Commuter Rail Program to reflect the increased :funding. 7N. AGREEMENT WITH BRE PROPERTIES FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AT THE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 79 1) Ap.prove Agreement No. 08-67.-018-00 .with BRE Properties for transit oriented development (TOD) at the La Sierra Metrolink Station; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approval, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 70. RELEASE OF STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOWED BY A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT/TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH MAIN CORONA STATION Page 85 Overview This item is for the Commissionto approve the releaseof a statement of qualifications (SOQ) followed by a request for proposals (RFP) for the joint development/transit oriented development (TOD) of the North Main Corona Station. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 12, 2007 Page 7 7P. AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PERRIS VALLEY PIPELINE Page 96 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-33-019-00 with the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California for the construction of the Perris Valley Pipeline in the San Jacinto Branch Line , rail right-of-way; and . 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel (Adorno, Yoss, Alvarado & Smith) review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7Q. AGREEMENT FOR . CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE NORTH MAIN CORONA PARKING STRUCTURE AND THE PERRIS MULTIMODAL FACILITY AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE NORTH MAIN CORONA PARKING STRUCTURE AND THE PERRIS MULTIMODAL FACILITY Page 113 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the selection process and authorize the Executive Director to . negotiate a base contract and subsequent amendments to Agreement No. 08-33-01 1-00 with Transtech Owen Group to provide construction management services to support the construction of the North .Main Corona parking structure in the city of Corona and the Perris Multimodal Facility in the city of Perris, for a total not -to -exceed amount of $ 3 million; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize staff to advertise to receive bids for the construction of the North Main Corona parking structure in the city of Corona and the Perris Multi.modal .Facility in the city of 'Perris, contingent on federal funding authorization. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 12, 2007 Page 8 7R. AGREEMENT WITH STV INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, PLANNING, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT Page 1.16 Overview Thisitem is for .the Commission to: 1) Approve the selection process and award Agreement No. 07-33-123-00 to STV Incorporated to provide planning, environmental, and preliminary engineering services for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) for a not -to -exceed amount of $12 million contingent on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approval to enter into preliminary engineering (PE). Work will be authorized on a task order basis; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) • Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve amendments for potential additional work to the STV Incorporated contract from a contingency fund in the amount of $5.3 million to provide for: a) $1.5 million in general contingency; b) $1 million for final design for stations, pending Commission decision on selection of stations and decision to deliver stations on a design -bid -build (DBB) basis and c) $ 2.8 million for consultant support during construction if decision is made to deliver the remainder of the project on a design -build (DB) basis. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 12, 2007 Page 9 7S. AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR ON -CALL MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR FOR THE METROLINK STATIONS Page 120 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to develop and advertise a request for statement of qualifications (SOQ) for on -call maintenance contractor services for the five Commission -owned Metrolink commuter rail stations; 2) Form a selection committee comprised of Commission and Metrolink staff to review, evaluate, and rank all SOQs received; and 3) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top -ranked contractor and bring back a recommendation to the Commission for contract award. 7T. PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM POLICY REVISIONS Page 122 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the following policy revisions to the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP): a) Change operating cost per revenue hour from a mandatory target to a discretionary target; and b) Increase the number of minimum discretionary performance targets operators must meet from three to four. 7U. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 135 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. 7V. INTERSTATE 215 BI-COUNTY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT — INCREASE INFUNDING FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WORK Page . 144 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize an increase in funding from $2 million to $4 million for -the development of a project report and environmental document (PR/ED) for the 1-215 Bi-County improvement project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 12, 2007 Page 10 7W. STATE AND FEDERAL STATUS REPORT Page 146 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the State and Federal Status Report as an information item. 8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRADE CORRIDORS IMPROVEMENT FUND CONSENSUS POSITION AND CANDIDATE LIST Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 152 1) Approve the Southern California Consensus Position on the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) allocation process asidentified in Attachment 1; 2) Endorse the resulting Southern California TCIF ,Candidate List of Projects as identified in Attachment 2; and 3) Continue to work with the Southern California Working Group to advocate for inclusion of the consensus position in future legislation and/or California Transportation Commission (CTC) guidelines for the TCIF. • IDENTIFICATION . OF A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY Page 162 Overview This item is for the Commission to designate Alternative 9, the far south alternative, as the Commission's locally preferred alternative for the Mid County Parkway (MCP). 10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 11. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview Page 170 This item provides . the opportunity for the Commissioners .:and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences andany other items related to Commission activities. Written Report on APTA 2007 Rail Commissioners Daryl Busch and. John Chlebnik. Conference from • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 12, 2007 Page 11 12. CLOSED SESSION 12A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Significant exposure to litigation. Number of potential cases: 1 12B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Negotiating Parties: Seller: RCTC - .Executive Director or Designee Buyer: EMWS Property Description: APN 297-100-003 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, October 10, 2007, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board DATE: September 12, 2007 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues - RCTC Agenda of September 12, 2007 The September 12, 2007 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. An RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 7L - Consultant Services for Environmental Justice Analysis and Outreach for the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan Consultant(s): Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. Transportation and Land Use Susan M. Goltsman, President Collaborative Pat McLaughlin, Principal Monica Villalobos, Exec. Director 169 North Marengo Avenue 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211 Pasadena, CA 91101-1703 Los Angeles, CA 90013 ICF Consulting, Inc. Sudhakar Kesavan Chairman & CEO 394 Pacific Avenue, 2° Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-1715 Ultrasystems Environmental, Inc. Betsy Lindsay Chief Executive Officer 100 Pacifica, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92618 Agenda Item No. 7N - Agreement with BRE Properties for Transit Oriented Development at the La Sierra Metrolink Station Consultant(s): BRE Properties, Inc. Bradley Griggs, EVP and CIO 5141 California Avenue, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92617 Agenda Item No. 7Q - Agreement for Construction Management Services to Support the North Main Corona Parking Structure and the Perris Multimodal Facility and Authorization to Advertise for Construction Bids for the North Main Corona Parking Structure and the Perris Multimodal Facility Consultant(s): Transtech Owen Group Michael M. Chegini 20 Morgan Irvine, CA 92618 Jacobus & Yuang Jacobus Malan 6477 Telephone Road, Suite 7-25 Ventura, CA 93003 Leighton Consulting, Inc. Dina Gartland 17781 Cowan Irvine, CA 92614 Ninyo and Moore Kurt Yoshi! 475 Goddard, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Simplex Construction Management, Inc. Crystal Matsuoka Christensen 970 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 201 Anaheim, CA 92807 Agenda Item No. 7R - Agreement with STV Incorporated to Provide Preliminary Engineering, Planning, and Environmental Services for the Perris Valley Line Project Consultant(s): STV Incorporated Anthony P. Venturato Dominick M. Servedio 9130 Anaheim Place, Suite 210 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Kleinfelder, Inc. Kevin Crennan 5015 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Rail Surveyors and Engineers, Inc. Phil Leong 1075 Old County Road Belmont, CA 94002 Ima Design Group William F. Shulz 2500 Michelson Drive, Suite 125 Irvine, CA 92612 J. L. Patterson & Associates, Inc. Jacqueline L. Patterson Town & Country Road, Suite 300 Orange, CA 92868 DMJM Harris Don Sepulveda 515 S. Flower Street, 911' Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Pacific Railway Enterprises, Inc. Cathy L. Hirsch 3560 University Avenue, Suite F Riverside, CA 92501 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 CI- q dsp a.,m County of RiYerSide,r-Disircf I - County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, 'District -III. County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside Dis-tirrict7V *-7 City of Banning City.Of Beaumont City of Blythe City of. Calimesa ' ' - ..,„- , City of Canyon Lake City of .Cathedral City 11, Present Absent City of Coachella City:Of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells O Of'Indib ''.777`7 City of La Quinta —tyoftae .E1Sinbe.• City of Moreno Valley /Er City of Murrieta - City of Norco City_of-,Palrn Desert it • City of Palm Springs City.of 'Perris . ,„ City of Rancho Mirage City of, Riverside, City of San Jacinto City of tTerneCula is_ - Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 O RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS pp ! "ri airy v1,v\¢.\ i i v1 V)1 Vl ba)( jou 4l/k64 0 W(Dt i Gt_ Lco. 644- ,a 6� 6 v J A ;74:6- - (f A, ��ll� 7 � �� C 1G S ,fu % l/r/ E 57- _ � lJ /z 6-4.. a v, L L �l •. ' . Ar' - dir 1- Al: ;al,LO,, , .. ('>ezir� ./s/L- �� 7-ef0icectele'y ------� nv i7vti0sbti j e CrrY Csv.,ruL de Wl ISM". � AC.. "��► 1 �I � �=r i� Escwi l/ C4 ��'reM --'-,f27L-J7/--- - r..;Th4 �rl e-r1 r C A- 1 R5 S- Ln rti G 6-e) �C04,1nb-.t —� V z v, `�y,. ��,� f/I Ll LJ v 4- `` '- CiG»7-1:---- ',„„ Le/ / j I� �i _, _- . ,�ih c,P�O` ,,,,,s--A.,,,t,s TAVC Jr 4 friA5 ,F (/ co /V. r ---4),ijrr CH& cgA II{ C 4GmEs4 ivi/GHRFL /1- G.%/!LLod /.) /0 4 � ) is \ i' Cd ‘""\ �R"i /G/�'v ' P4044-,4,av mibikt.) z 3 (1'1 Q le--,___ %°�1m SA, ,.„gs /, „� ete, 0e,„,�. �. __e9A Co ,1/4,J("Jui./(ck ) /.4,4 , G�i�e�Cli . v sia,1-7`- �� O. �,- .9 - . �0. 3000 dIZ AL7 J33I1J.S a •+91.4/5 :ssmaad ss3Nlsne K� dI1011O / NOIIVZINV0110 / A0N30V d0 3UYVN 'a vK-695 rON 3N0Hd ~' hf; 14"110"Ve9 SPA.re 9N11A13S311d311 3000 dIZ ..1�1� J33ats /L 4 e"-e76 � �J& 5 fi "l a g ° � I/ %� :SS3aan 0/ 19 6_s-,9 �-S�j rON 3N0Hd A -1./2.y • 7 `�,��1 � -3INVN CFQ n2' Va •W311 VaN3pq_ dO 411 8715 :S1N31A11/1103 311811e1 dO 13318f1s G r/ IV0N3•Jt/'3H1 NO'431SIlISF%►� ; ,ON W3�111daN V -S1N3W WOO:�Ilaf�l'd"' dl' H-63�H0'• a-5 pir84 311�/a f••l1.IA1•• '1• • • •A V\1,17A M,JJ_dl 3000 d1Z A113 133II1S :SS3l1001/ SS3N1SOS d110119 / NOLLVZINVOE10 / A3N3OV i0 3WtlN :'ON 3N0Hd :ON11N3S3ad31:1 3000 dIZ ua 133a1S -"ON 3NOHd 'Ir/.sti cva `71. Iwo NA C -W311 VaN301/ dO Iowans :SS3lIaOV :3INVN IVON3OV 3H1 NO 031SI1 SV) rON IN311 VON391/ =S1N3WW00 31180d O :S1N3WW00 onand dO 103P8nS Al H03H0 �31t/O 3000 dIZ A113 133111S y d`p ► s�� n► h x‘'g Qom}. ss3aaav sS3NIS08 r rya yt" n�/ N011VZINVONO / A3N30V d0 3WVN :'ON 3N0Hd �,�y�CJ �o ''WSSDI S1»�Y/S :ONIlN3S3Hd3H 3000 dIZ A110 Qs vow s bl.4 p hi :SS3a0at/ 9 Iisi E' ° g i-o QS0'ON 3N0Hd , Q 1►'Zi , 7 1'3T1'91 :3INVN � S I 113WIIA \D m W�c`�311 V0N3D11 L (VON3'JV 3H1 NO ausn SV) r d0103rans n :'ON W311 VON3DV f'" 1\1 intalij h))Pr'��,j, " (AI :SIN3WINO3 onana �:S1N3WINO3 onana d0 103P8f1S dl 3103110 b -31V0 /Iww .w10.1 AGEN A ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Terry Henderson at 9:33 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Jeff Stone led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Steve Adams Marion Ashley Alex Bias Roger Berg Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Carlson Mary Craton Joseph DeConinck Frank Hall Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Steven Hernandez Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Bob Magee Jeff. Miller Patrick Mullany Ronald Oden Michael Perovich Ray Quinto Ron Roberts Alan Seman Jeff Stone Frank West Michael H. Wilson Commissioners Absent Rick Gibbs Gregory Pettis John F. Tavagtione * Roy . Wilson *Commissioner John Tavaglione assigned: his proxy vote to 'Commissioner Jeff Stone.: A letter has been filed with the Clerk of the Board. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 2 . PUBLIC COMMENTS Arnold San Miguel, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), announced that SCAG will host a Dare to Prepare SCAG Regional Earthquake Awareness and Preparedness Conference being held on Wednesday, August 8, 2007, from 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. at the Ontario Convention Center. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 13, 2007 M/S/C (M. Wilson/Ashley) to approve the June 13, 2007 minutes. Abstain. Seman PUBLIC HEARING - FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 ALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES AND SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN ACTION PLAN APPROVAL Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director, provided .an overview of the FY 2007/08 allocation of funding for Riverside County transit services based on the Short Range Transit Plans and the proposed Section 5307 Program of Projects. Chair Henderson opened the public hearing at :this time. No 'comments., were received from the public and the Chair closed the public hearing. M/S/-C (Stone/Miller) to: 1) Review and approve the FY 2007/08 through FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) and action plans for the ` city of Corona (Corona) and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA); 2) Allocate up to $ 270,000 in Local Transportation Fund ' (LTF) funds to the city of Beaumont (Beaumont) pending submittal of its FY. 2007/08 through FY 2009/1`0 SRTP and action plan; 3) Approve Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request for a Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) : waiver on operating cost per revenue hour thereby resetting its target to $76'54'; 4) Approve the FY. 2007/08 Federal Transit Administration's r(FTA) . Section 5307 and 5311 Program of Projects (PUP). for Riverside County; 5). Conduct a public hearing at the July 11, 2007 Commission meeting on the proposed Section 5.307 POP .as attached, • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 3 6) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); 7) Approve the FY 2007/08 LTF and State Transit Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit as attached; 8) Approve budget increases to LTF expenditures of $626,200 and to STA expenditures of $ 530,800; and 9) Adopt Resolution No. 07-007, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds". 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board, announced staff's request for Agenda Item 8N "Agreement with the Top -Ranked Firm to Provide Landscape Maintenance Services for the Five Commission -Owned and Operated Metrolink Stations" to be pulled from the agenda as the vendor selection has not been made. Staff anticipates that this item will be brought forward to the Commission at its September meeting. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Eric Haley, Executive Director, highlighted the following agenda items due to the timeliness and scale of major work being done with all these' projects: Agenda Item 8T, "Agreement with David Evans and Associates for the Development of Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate for the Construction of the State Route 74/Interstate 215 Interchange Improvement project in the City of Perris"; the major commitment to the Corridor 'Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) and Commission projects with Agenda item 8U, "Agreement with Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jerrigan, Inc. to Provide Preliminary Engineering Services, Project Reports and Environmental Documents for the Interstate 215 Corridor from the lnterstates 215/15 Interchange to Nuevo Road in the City of Perris" and Agenda Item 8V, "Agreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas to Prepare a Project Report and Environmental Document for the State Route 91 Project from State Route 241 to Pierce Street, a State Route 91/Interstate 15 Median Direct Connector and Interstate 15 Median Widening - from State Route 91 to Cajalco Road." Commissioner Bob Magee thanked staff and the consultant for bringing forward Agenda Item 8L, "Interstate 15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study." He highlighted alternatives C and C 1 that extend the rail tine from Corona to Lake Elsinore and explained that these alternatives are more feasible than the other alternatives. He believes that there are developers that would be Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 4 interested in providing capital for rail stations and right-of-way. He urged the Commission and staff to look for an opportunity to implement.. Eric Haley suggested, as part of the adoption of the consent calendar, that the Commission is open to private sector participation on any and all of these segments Commissioner Barbara Hanna asked for clarification concerning the funding amount on Agenda Item 8V, "Agreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas to Prepare a Project Report and Environmental. Document for the State Route" 91 Project from State Route 241,to Pierce Street, a .State Route 91/1nterstate 1,5 Median Direct Connector and interstate 15 Median Widening from State Route 91 to Cajalco Road. Chair Henderson explained the staff report is correct, however the announcement on the agenda had not been updated. Commissioner Bob Buster, with regard to Agenda Item 8J, "Agreement Between the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee and Riverside County Transportation Commission to Fund New Freeway Service Patrol Segments", asked if Caltrans would be issuing a report on its findings and identifying funding to implement a program as a result ,of the series of hearings being conducted related to clearing accidents and incidents to reduce congestion and travel time. Commissioners ;Mike Perovich explained that: Caltrans has been measuring how long it takes to clear incidents along the freeway. There. are a ' number of factors that are outside of Caltrans' direct control.:: Caltrans is working with .different agencies, including the Sheriff's office, California Highway Patrol (CHP), and the Coroner's office, to address, traffic impacts,. Commissioner Buster suggested working with Caltrans, possibly through one of the Committees, to address this issue as effectively as possible. Mike Perovich welcomed the Commission's support.: Chair Henderson added that with the new emphasis on greenhouse gases, this is also an area that a reduction can be shown as traffic flow 'improves. 3aked .on Commissioner Buster's suggestion, Chair Henderson deferred this to staff to examination the Commission's existing committees for appropriate referral or form an ;ad hoc committee if necessary. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 5 In response to Commissioner Buster's question regarding Agenda Item 8K, "Grade Separation Jump Start Funding Award for Trade Corridor Improvement Fund", Stephanie Wiggins replied that it is the Commission's intent to provide seed money so that these projects are in a better position to compete for the Trade Corridor Improvement Funds (TCIF) with the assumption that project readiness and development would be key criteria. It also positions these projects to not only compete for the TCIF but any federal or discretionary funds that could be available. Commissioner Buster explainedthat even though the preliminary work is complete, these projects may not be able to obtain the funding necessary for construction so portions of work may need to be redone. He expressed that the Commission is making great efforts to prepare as many major grade separations in hopes to secure funding for them. He believes that local leadership for the grade separations is necessary to engage the voters in the process of solving the funding issue once and for all. At Eric Haley's request, Tom Boyd, Deputy Public Works Director for the city of Riverside, provided information on the categorical exemptions on some of the environmental documents for grade separations that could be covered under National Environmental Policy Act (N:EPA) or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Commissioner Michael Wilson, in response to the discussion on Agenda Item 8J, expressed that from a public safety perspective, the difficulty in dealing with a decision of whether or not to open a lane and the consequences of a rush to judgment. He expressed support to refer this issue to a Committee. M/S/C (Stone/M. Wilson) to: 1) State that the Cornmission is open to private sector participation on any and all of the rail line segments referred to in Agenda 'item 81_; and 2} Approve the following Consent Calendar items: Abstain: Ashley on Agenda Item 8T due to a conflict of interest. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 6 8A. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND PROPOSED GOAL FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 1) Adopt 3.59% as its annual Federal Transit Administration. (FTA) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for FFY 2007/08 from October 1, 2007 to. September 30, 2008; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 07-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2007/08 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Goal .(49 CFR Part 26) as Applies to Funding Received Directly from the Federal Transit Administration 3) Post the proposed DBE overall annual goal for FFY 2007/08 and receive comments for 45 days; and 4) Submit the FFY 2007/08 FTA DBE program and annual goal to the FTA. 8B. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND CALTRANS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAMAND PROPOSED ANNUAL ANTICIPATED DBE PARTICIPATION LEVEL FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 1) Adopt 4.47% as its Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) for FFY 2007/08 from October ° 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 07-009, "Resolution of the Riverside County .Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2007/08 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level as Applies to Funding Received from the Federal Highway Administration Through. Caltrans"; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the Local Agency DBE Annual. Submittal Form on behalf of the Commission for submission to Caltrans; and 4) Submit the FFY 2007/08 DBE program and AAPDL .to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 7 8C. TOLL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS 1) Receive and file a status report on the implementation of the Toll Program; and 2) Receive and file a report on the Corridor A Alignment Feasibility Study. 8D. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAMMING REQUEST FOR STATE ROUTE 79, THOMPSON ROAD TO DOMENIGONI PARKWAY PROJECT - PHASE Approve the county of Riverside's (County) request to program $4 million of Transportation Uniform Mitigation _Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial funds on the SR-79, Thompson Road to .Domenigoni Parkway, widening project for Phase I construction from Thompson Road to Whispering Heights Parkway. 8E. CITY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAMMING REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE VAN BUREN BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE AT STATE ROUTE 91. RIGHT-OF-WAY PHASE 1) Approve the city of Riverside's (City) request to increase the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial funds for right-of-way on the SR-91 /Van Buren Boulevard interchange project from $2 million to $8 million; 2) Approve an increase for expenditures of $6 million in the FY 2007/08 budget; 3) Approve Amendment No. 06-72-036-01 with the City to incorporate the request; and 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8F. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT Receive and file the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program Quarterly Report. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 8 8G. FISCAL YEAR 2008-12 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Approve the FY 2008-12 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement. Plans (CIPs) for local streets and roads as submitted. 81-1. FISCAL YEAR 2007-11 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF COACHELLA Approve the FY 2007-11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement. Plan (CIP) for local streets and roads for the city of Coachella. 81. FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the FY 2007/08 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program recommended funding as shown on the attached schedule. 8J. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION REVIEW COMMITTEE AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO FUND NEW FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SEGMENTS 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-45-132-00 with the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) for $825,000 to fund two new Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) beats; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8K. GRADE SEPARATION JUMP START FUNDING AWARD FOR TRADE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT FUND Approve the award and allocation of $10 million of Western Riverside County Rail Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to support the project development (preliminary engineering) of ten grade separation projects in the Western Riverside County, as outlined in the attachment. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has identified two grade separation projects in the Coachella Valley, . Avenue 52 and Avenue 66, for an award of $3 million, to be funded by CVAG. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 9 8L. INTERSTATE 15 COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Receive and file the draft 1-15 Commuter Rail feasibility Study. 8M. CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENT SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE NORTH MAIN CORONA PARKING STRUCTURE AND THE PERRIS MULTIMODAL FACILITY Authorize the release of a request for proposal (RFP) to firms interested in providing construction management services for the North Main Corona parking structure and the Perris Multimodal Facility construction operations contingent upon federal and state funding agency approvals 8N. AGREEMENT WITH THE TOP -RANKED FIRM TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR THE FIVE COMMISSION - OWNED AND OPERATED METROLINK STATIONS This item was pulled for the agenda. 80. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program 8P. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF BANNING'S MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SYSTEM 1) Allocate additional operating funds of $39,461 in Local Transportation fund (LTF) funds to the city of Banning's Municipal Transit System (Banning); and 2) Amend Banning's FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional operating funds. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 10 8Q. TRANSTRACK SYSTEMS LICENSE AGREEMENT 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-62-005-00 with TransTrack Systems, LLC (TransTrack) for end -user software license maintenance and support services for $52,000 for FY 2007/08 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds with two one-year term extensions; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8R. FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS FOR STATE ROUTE 60 AND STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDORS 1) Authorize payment of $1, 645/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 to the existing Riverside, Corona and Mira Loma buspools; 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments; and 3) Direct staff to develop an expanded buspool program along the interstate 15 corridor to San Diego. 8S. AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR THE STATE : ROUTE 74 OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT STUDY 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-65-004-00 with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for the SR-74 Operational and Safety Improvement Study; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to; legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 1.1, 2007 Page 11 8T. AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND COST ESTIMATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 74/INTERSTATE 215 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY OF PERRIS 1) Approve the selection process and award consultant Agreement No. 07-31 122-00 to David Evans and Associates, Inc. to perform final engineering services and prepare plans, specifications, and cost estimate- (PS&E) for the construction of the SR-74/I-215 interchange improvement project in the city of Perris (Perris) based on the attached project scope, schedule and cost for the base amount of $2,091,662 plus a contingency amount of $218,338 (10.4%), to cover potential changes in scope for a total not to exceed amount of $ 2, 310, 000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work as may be required for the project. 8U. AGREEMENT WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH AND ` JERRIGAN, INC TO PROVIDE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES, PROJECT REPORTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE INTERSTATE 215 CORRIDOR FROM THE INTERSTATES 215/15 INTERCHANGE TO NUEVO ROAD IN THE CITY OF PERRIS 1) Approve the selection and retain the top five ranked consultant teams as part of a pre -qualified ranked list to be used to assist the Commission with preliminary engineering services required' for the preparation, to final approval, of separate project reports (PR) and environmental documents (ED) for proposed improvements to I-10 I-215, and State Route 91, for four Measure A projects and one on -call project, in Western Riverside County, which are .proposed to be delivered in the first five years of the 10=Year Western Riverside Highway Delivery Plan (Delivery Plan). The list will be valid for a one-year duration; 2) Award consultant- services Agreement No. 08=31-006-00 to Post, Buckley,. Schuh and Jerrigan, Inc. (PBS&J), the first ranked consultant team, to provide preliminary engineering services for the preparation of Caltrans PR/ED for the proposed improvements to the . 1-215 corridor, from the 1-215/I-15 Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 12 interchange to Nuevo Road in the city of Perris, subject to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) scheduled action on July 25-26, 2007, which would fund this effort for a "not to. exceed" budget, including contingency, of $13 million; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to negotiate final costs, terms and conditions with PBS&J for the preparation of the PR/ED; 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 5) if PBS&J's performance is acceptable in completing the PR/ED,_ authorize the Executive Director the option to proceed with final design and to request a proposal from PBS&J to provide final design plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for the proposed improvements to the I-215 corridor, from the 1-215/1 1 '5 interchange to Nuevo Road in the city of Perris and to bring back a recommendation to the Commission for PS&E contract award. 8V. AGREEMENT WITH PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF TO PREPARE A PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 PROJECT FROM STATE ROUTE 241 TO PIERCE STREET, STATE ROUTE 91 /INTERSTATE 15 MEDIAN DIRECT CONNECTOR AND INTERSTATE 15 MEDIAN WIDENING FROM STATE ROUTE 91 TO CAJALCO ROAD 1) Approve the selection process, award a consultant services contract and approve Agreement No. 08-3,1-001-00 to Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. (PBQ&D) to perform preliminary engineering services and prepare .a:, Ca!trans project report (PR) and environmental __ document (ED) for the development of proposed improvements to the SR-91 corridor, from SR-241 to Pierce Street, including the proposed . addition of a northbound (NB) to eastbound (EB) SR-91 /1-15 median direct connector and proposed improvements to 1-15 from SR-91 to Cajalco Road and for a maximum base amount of $26,930,574 with: additional high risk tasks of $5,610,730 for a total not .to exceed amount of $ 32, 541, 304; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to negotiate final costs, terms and conditions. • Riverside County Transportation. Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 13 8W AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE PROJECT FROM ADAMS STREET TO INTERSTATE 215/STATE ROUTE 60 INTERCHANGE 1) Approve Agreement No. 08 31-002-00 with Cal.trans for the SR-91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) project; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8X. RESOLUTION NO. 07-010 FOR COMMISSION ELECTION TO HEAR FUTURE RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE PROJECT AND DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION'S GENERAL COUNSEL Adopt Resolution No. 07-010, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Electing to Hear Future Resolutions of Necessity for the State Route 91 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Project from Adams Street to the Interstate 2 15/State Route 60 Interchange and Designation of Commission General Counsel to Process Resolution of Necessity. Packages for the Project". 8Y. RIGHT-OF-WAY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 1) Adopt the Right -of -Way Policies and Procedures manual as . policyguidelines for the acquisition and sale of right-of-way, appraisal of real property, relocation of displaced individuals and. businesses, and management of Commission -owned real property; and 2) Recommend that the Commission authorize the Property Committee to approve subsequent changes to the right-of-way policies and procedures manual. 8Z. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 1) Approve the following 'bill position: H.R.27.01 - MONITOR; and 2) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 14 POLICY: USER FEES FOR METROLiNK STATION. PARKING STRUCTURES Stephanie Wiggins presented the policy consideration of user . fees at Metrolink station parking structures. The user fees can .be used as a revenue source to assist with financing the construction and/or . maintenance of parking structures. As parking demands continue to rise at existing and future stations, securing funding will become even more difficult. The Commission is looking into the Government Code Section 5956-5956.10 that offers some opportunities for financing parking structures., At Commissioner Buster's request, Stephanie Wiggins : confirmed that throughout the Metrolink system, the Commission is the only agency that assumes the operation and maintenance responsibilities. Increasingly, the cities are moving towards the issue of whether or not to charge for parking.. There are current Metrolink stations with parking structures that are charging approximately $1.00 per day. Commissioner Buster replied that at least the option is there and the Commission can look at this and see how it affects ridership at the stations. He expressed that the operation to pay for parking at the stations should be as simple as possible. Commissioner Ron Roberts suggested the use of a monthly parking pass and concurred with Commissioner Buster's comments to keep the ` process simple. He expressed concern that the Metrolink parking lots are being utilized as a park and ride and supports a user fee for the parking,, structures in order to provide a revenue stream. In response to Commissioner Daryl Busch, Stephanie Wiggins confirmed that the policy tdiscussion related to parking structures .and not parking lots. Eric Haley stated that this action assumes that a specific application of :this policy would come back to this Commission for approval. He explained that one of the main uses of this fee could be for security at the stations, which has the dual: effect of making the adjacent commercial properties .that much better, as well as .providing security for the parking structure': Commissioner Stone expressed concern that the user fee " could create a disincentive for commuters to use Metrolink and Concurred With Commissioners Buster and Roberts that the user fee needs to be as convenient as, possible for the commuter. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 15 Stephanie Wiggins responded that in deciding to comply with the government code, it does not compel the Commission to charge or collect a user fee. It does compel the Commission to conduct a public hearing. The Commission ultimately decides whether or not to implement the user fee for the parking structures. Additionally, the Commission will also determine whether or not to accept the deal with the developer that incorporates or contemplates complying with this government code and in what manner the code will be used. Commissioner Stone expressed support for conducting public hearings on the issue. Commissioner Jeff Miller suggested staff prepare a financial model that distinguishes the difference between the capital and the maintenance costs. He also suggested working with the local police departments to have a baseline to work from concerning security as there is ongoing partnership amongst all the local agencies. He also recommended a study to show any specific situations for utilizing the user fee and evaluate if it is a disincentive. Commissioner Steve Adams expressed his belief that a parking fee needs to be evaluated. Commissioner Bob Buster noted that there was an article dated July 11, 2007, in the L.A. Times "Smart growth? Wise up" on transit oriented developments (TODs) that looked at four developments and there were not many results on these developments for improved mass transit. He requested staff provide to the Commission with news articles on transportation. M/S/C (Adams/Oden) to adopt a policy that supports the possible implementation of user fees as a new revenue source to assist with financing the construction and/or maintenance (.i.e. security) associated with a parking structure at Commission -owned Metrolink stations through compliance with the Government Code Section 5956 5956.10. This policy decision is required in order to facilitate ongoing. discussions with the development community regarding the viability of transit oriented development at Commission stations. 10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 16 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1.1 A. Chair Henderson announced the Cornmisson meeting scheduled for August 8, 2007, and the Budget and Implementation and Plans and Programs Committee meetings scheduled for July 23, 2007, are cancelled. 11 B. Commissioner Jeff Miller complimented Ca[trans for its promptness in removing graffiti on the SR-91 /1-15 overpass. 11 C. Eric Haley briefed the Commission on the anticipated schedule for the opening of various areas of the 60/91 /215 interchange project. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS 12A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section. 54956.9 Significant exposure to litigation. Number of potential cases: 1 12B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY 'NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC - Executive Director or Designee Property Owners - See List of Property Owners Item APN Property Owner(s) 1 278-190-010 278-190-01 1 Bolton 2 321-330-009 321-330-008 John and Emma Roth 3 323-020-033 Campion 4 366-320-001 Rullo Vonmoos 5 390-280-002 Ralph and Nancy Mauger 6 . 391-790-005 Bishop 7 391-790-013 391-790=012 Deetz, Fenster and Wieler 8 932-020-021 Adel Eldahmy Damietta 'Ranch 9 932-050-003 Robert Lan'cina 10 384-230-001 Shiang, Shiang, Chow and Lee There were no announcement for closed session items. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 11, 2007 Page 17 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday, September 12, 2007, in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, 0-1"4"."--4(._ 163.2..)C Or` — Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • • AGENDA ITEM 7A • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION -COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2007. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its April 14, 2004 meeting, the Commission approved the Interfund Loan 'Policy and adopted Resolution No. 04-009, "Resolution of .the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans". Subsequently, the Commission requested that the interfund loan activity be reported on a quarterly basis. The attached report includes all interfund loan activity through March 31, 2007. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of June 30, 2007 are $361,607. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report Agenda Item 7A £OOZ `01 Age -We° £00Z 'Z 1. 4a�8W penoLddy uolssiwwo0 ele0 loofa,' Owes° Iewpvi6upeOIM LL219 841 uolew 1e3011euoI11PPY peob uo6ueo peapeLd of spowenadwl pue seeds.' eyew of eouenpy ueoi }o esodmd L09'L9£ S 0000009L9 SS lelol (9ZZ) (ZZZ) Abet4311-1.OM - V emseeW eouemeev jelnwwoo OM - y emseeW 000'92Z 600Z' L Alnr 000'SLZ 400Z 17 LIMN (LZZ) 2151 OM • N emseeW (ZZZ),(em40!H OM • y emseeW 209'99 $ 900Z't RInP 000.00£ $ COOZ'Z IPdV punj BulmuLog punj Bumue-1 13ulpuelsln0 swBeg ueoi;o uetri e3e0 LOOZ'0£ eunp papue Lepenb toy Lod podea A11n11oy ueo-i punpem uolsslwwoo uollepodsueil lqunoo eplsienw lunowy wetuAedeLd lunowy ueoi • • • AGENDA ITEM 7B • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION_COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended. June 30, 2007. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. The county of Riverside's Investment Report for the month ended June 30, 2007 is also attached for review. Attachments: 1) Quarterly Investment Report for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2007 2) County of Riverside Investment Report for the Month Ended June 30, 2007 Agenda Item 7B 3 • • ,.1,04.1ro.a m.ro,. Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on April 11, 2007. The Commission has adequate cash flows for six months offoperations. Signed by- '"` 41 I Chief Financial Officer 4 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Investment Portfolio Report Period Ended: June 2007 RATING COUPO PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIEILD TO PURCHASE UNREALIEZED FAIR VALUE MOODYS/FITCH N VALUE DATE,. DATE .MATURITY COST MARKET VALUE GAIN (LOSS) OPERATING FUNDS City National Bank Deposits s 31,699 ANEIBB+ N/A N/A County Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund 363,676.763 Aaa/MR1/AAAN+1 N/A 5,15% 'Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 3,288,224 Not Rated N/A N/A Agency/Treasury Securities: Money Market Mutual Funds -CNI Charter 437,046 ANVAAA N/A 437,046 4.66% 437,046 437,046 - Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)Note-of 2.245,073 AAA/AAA 4.750% 2,250,000 11/15/05 11/09/07 4.80% 2,242,575 2,245.073i 2,498 US TreasuryNote-noncallable 1,994,840 AAA/AAA 4.375% 2.000.000 02/02/06 12/31/07 4.90% 1,992,734 1,994,840 2,106 FHLMC Reerence Note-noncallable 1,996.260 AAA/AAA 4.000% 2,00too0 02/02/06 08/17/07 4.00% 1,975,974 1,996,260 20,286 FNMA Note -callable 1.996,880 AAA/AAA 5.125% 2,000,000 02/02/06 01/18/08 5.40% 2400,000 1,996,880 (3,120 FHLB Note-noncallable 1,993,760 AAA/AAA 4.850% 2,000,000 02/06/06 02/06/08 5.40% 2400.000 1.993,760 (8,240 General Electric Capital Corp Med Term Note-noncallat 1,004,920 AAA/AAA 6.500% 1,000,000 02/06/06 12/10/07 6.50% 1,026,650 1,004,920 (21,930 RABOBANK Negotiable CD 3.997,880 AAA/A+1 5.310% 4000000 ` .02/15/07 02/15/08 5.31% 4000,000 3.997880 (2.120 Subtotal Operating Funds - 492,66.3,344 3 15,867,046 5 15,666'858 $ (8.521 FUNDS HELD IN TRUST County Treasurers Pooled Investment Fund: Local Transportation Fund 77,513,222 Aaa-MRVAAAN+1 NIA 5.15% Subtotal Funds Held In Trust 77,513,222 INVESTMENT WITH CITIES (1) City of Canyon Lake 65,044 N/A 4.750% $ 300.000 04/02/03 06/01/09 N/A $ 300,000 N/A N/A Subtotal investment with cities 65.044 COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE First American Treasury Obligations Fund 8,195,798 Aaa/AAAm WA Investment Agreement 15,613,532 NIA 6.000% S 15.926.000 0524/05 11/29/07 4.80% e a W! $ 15,613,532 $ 312.468 First American Government Obligation Fund 25,071,243 Aaa/AAAm WA Flat American Treasury Obligations Fund- Held In Tru; Aaa/AAAm WA Subtotal Bond Project Funds/Debt Reserve 48,880,573 TOTAL All Cash and Investments 1 5C122,183 Investment Transactions for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2007 Purchaeesi None Per Value at Coupon Maturities: Maturity Maturity Date Rate Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) Nole•noncallable $ 3,000,000 06/29/07 4.010% Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) Note•nontallable $ 3,000,000 04/27/07 4,125% FHLB Construction Bond•noncallable $ 2,000,000 06/20/07 3.625%. SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE Banks $ 31,699 County Pool 441,189,984 LAIF 3288,224 Mutual Funds: CNI Charter 437,046 First American Treasury Obligations Fund -Trust 8,195,798 First American. Government Obligation Fund 25.071.243 Sub •Total Mutual Funds 33,704,086 Federal Agency securitles Certificates of Deposit U.S. Treasury securities Corporate Note/Commercial Paper Investment Agreements 8,231,973 3.997.880 1,994,840 1,004,820 15,678,576. TOTAL 509,122,183 (1) Investment with cities Is reported as a ban receivable for financial reporting purposes. • Investment Objectives • Safety of Principal • Liquidity • Public Trust _ Maximum Rate of. Return County Administrative Center "Summer Rate Wave" The summer heat is not the only thing rising this June. Long temt interest rates had a huge jump in yields this month. The 10 year Treasury jumped over 35 bps. from a low of 4.92% on June.4th to a high of 5.30% on June 12`"; which will likely further increase the pressures in the housing market. This trend is very similar with the 2 year Treasury as well, with a jump of almost 14 bps. from a low of 4.97% to a high of 5.10%. This move was hard on ,the heels of former FED Chairman Alan Greenspan predicting higher rates were imminent; so much for "old soldiers just fade away". Some -of this increase is due to positive economic news here in the U.S. Moreover, an increase in interest rates overseas has put pressure on U.S. interest rates to keep pace with foreign central banks, as well as remaining competitive in a tight market; a very large number of buyers of U.S. Treasury debt are foreign central_. banks. - 9 _ For the ninth consecutive meeting, the FOMC left rates unchanged at 5.25% on their June 28th meeting, maintaining an inflation risk bias. However, the FED statement after the meeting wasless hawkish than earlier meetings; it still appears that inflation is the FED's predominant concem. Rates have moderated since their highs mid -month and are now closer to .levels seen at the begin- ning of June. The overall trend could continue upwards, baring any further problems as a result of the subprime mortgage market meltdown, as rates continue to increase abroad. In the long run, the Pool yield will benefit if this should occur. �C Paul McDonnell Treasurer -Tax Collector Durable Goods Orders_released-on -June 27th -2.8% actual vs. -1.5% survey Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -released on June 28th .7% actual vs..8%survey Consumer Confidence- Index- released on June.26th 103.9 actual vs.-105 survey Factory Orders-releasedcn July 3rd -.5% actual vs. =1:2% survey Employment Situation- released on -June 1st Unemployment 4.5% actual vs. 4.5% survey :Nonfarm payrolls ' WM change 157,000 actual vs. 135,000_survey Consumer Price- Index= , released` .:onJune . 15th .7% actual vs..6% survey; core CPI.1% actual vs..2% survey At month's end, the Fed Funds rate remained at 5.25%. The 2 year T-Note was yielding 4.87% (down,5bps) while the 10 year T-Note was yielding 5.03% (up 13bps). For June, the Pool had an increase of 1 bp. in the average monthly yield. Portfolio Statistics Month -End Book Value June $ 4,757,119,372 May $ 4,999,179,741 April > $ 5,484,286,694 March $ 4,,700,110,339 February $ 4,552,435,696 . January $ 4,534,811,540 Month -End Market Value* $ 4,752,010,568 $ 4,993,963,302 $ 5,483,370,456 . $ 4,697,880,401 $ 4,550,957,799 $ 4,528,343,596 Paper Gain or (Loss) $ (5,108,805) $ (5,216,439) $ (916,238) . $ (2,229,938) $ (1,477,897) $ (6,467,944) Percent of Paper Gain or Loss -0.11% -0.10% =0.02% -0.05% -0.03% =0.14%. Yield Based Upon Book Value 5.17 5.16 5.13 5.09 5.05 5.02 Weighted Average Maturity (Yrs). 1.14 . 1.07 : 0.9,9 0.96 0.94 0.95 Modified Duration =Marker val,... A..... ;.,rl,—, -- —4 ,...--.... 1.06 0.99 0.91 0.88 0.87 . 0.88 • THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: Aaa/Mii1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V1+ BY FITCHRATINGS Portfolio Characteristics SECTOR Federal Agency Market Value 2,802,711,103 Cash Equivalent. & MMF Commercial Paper 252,000,000 668, 892, 334 Negotiable CDs Medium Term Notes Municipal Bonds Certificates of Deposit Local Agency Obligation 700, 005,131 Total 284,051,238 18,655,762m 20, 000, 000 5,695,000 4,752,010,568 Certificates of Deposit 0.42% Local Agency --� G)bligation 4;02% 30 days Or Less 30 - 90 Days 90 Days - 1Year 1,187, 063,189 706;506,413 -1,383,758,617 12- Month Gross Yield Trends CREDITQUALITY Federal Agency Market Value 2, 802, 711,103 AAA 475, 707, 000 A-1 / P-1 or better 1, 368, 897,465 N/R Total 104, 695, 000 4, 752, 010, 568 A-1 / P-1 or better WR 29% .. :2%: 30:90 _ 90 Days - 1 - 2 ' Days 1 Year Years 0.14% Over 3 Years * Treasurer's Institutional Money Market index (r1MMq is compiled and reported bythe Riverside.County Treasurer's Capital Markets division.' It is • a composite index derived from the average of three multi billion dollar AAA rated Prime (funds that invest in a diversified portfolio of US. dollar . denominated money market instruments including U.S. Treasuries, government agencies, bankers' acceptances, commercial paper, ceriffieates of deposits, repurchase agreements, etc.) portfolios that the Treasuier tracks: 'Further details available upon request Page 1 7 Market Data 06/29/07 05/31/07- DJIA 13408.6 13,627.6 S&P 500 17503.35r 1,53.0.62 NASDAQ 2,603.23. 2,604.52 Crude Oil (barrel) 70,68 64.01 Gold (ounce) 650.90 656.95 Prime Rate 8.25% 8.25% , 3-Month LIBOR 5.36% 5.36% Fed Fund Futures . (for-07/07) 5.245% 5.225% Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 29, 2007 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP PAR DESCRIPTION CASH - UBOC DEPOSIT ACCOUNT 25,000,000.00 CLTR - CALTRUST SHORT TERM FUND CPD COUPON MATURITY BOOK VALUES M. VALUE' GAIN/LOSS YLD MAT' M Dur: Avg, Life' 54,000,000.00 COMMERCIAL PAPER -DISCOUNT 0556N1U68 4497W1UA2 36959JV18 ariikt„; 89233HVF8 2254EBVX6 4497W1 W69 0556N1WS8 59018KX14 �sY�3 40427SXR5 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 5.17 0.08 0.09 10,721,000.00 BNP PARIBAS FIN A1+/P1 14,000,000.00 ING Al+/P1 50 000,000.00 GE CAPITAL At+/P1 50,000,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR A1+/P1 50,000,000.00 CREDIT SUISSEAI+/P1 11,000,000.00 ING Al+/P1 40,000,000.00 BNP PARIBAS At+/P1 50,000000.00 MERRILL LYNCH A1+/P1 50 000 000.00 HSBC USA INC A1+/P1 680,721,000.00 FFCB - FED FARM CREDIT BANK 31331SR62 iYR}Y� wc4ca 54,000,000.00 5.20 07/06/2007 10,566,141.11 98.56 5.22 07/10/2007 13,815,270.00 98.68 48,680,875.00 5.19 08/01/2007 08/15/2007 520 08/31/2007 5.18 09/06/2007 5.17 09/26/2007 5.20 10/01/2007 5.16 10/25/2007 szirr 48,575,500.00 97.36 97.15 49,017,777.78 98.04 10,762,583 33 97.84 39,121,950.00 97.80 49111,666.67 98.68 48 696 930.56 98.33 10,000 000 00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2YrNc3Mo 31331 SMQ3 5,000 000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2.5YrNc6Mo 31331SMN0 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2.75YrNc9M 3133so=1XLZ3 31331VAE6 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 1YrNc 00,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2.5YrNc3Mo 31331SWM1 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNc1Yr 31331VLG9 31331SD42 31331SQ63 31331S4V2 31331V6V3 31331XLY6 31331XXT4 31331XZC9 J 31331XMB5 31331XUB6 31331XVL3 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2.4Nc 666,707,742.37 4.18 07/20/2007 10,000,000.00 100.00 3.65 08/10/2007 5,000 000.00 100.00 5,000,000.00 3.70 11/09/2007 5,000,000.00 99.41 5.13 01/18/2008 4,997,200.00 99.84 �. 7MA 4.54 03/27/2008. 7,495,312.50 99.41 423 05/09/2008 5,000 54,000,000.00 10,566,141.11 13,815,270_00 48,680,875.00 48 575 500.00 49 017 777.78 10,762,583.33 39,121,950.00 49,340 500.00 49,166 500.00 �Y 668,892,334.03 000.00 99.09 4.70 05/23/2008 5,000,000.00 99.47 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNc1Yr1X f' 10 000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANk3YrNc3Mo 5 000 000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNc1 Yr1X 10,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc1Yr 5,000 000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc 06,000,000.00 98.88 /30/2008 y5 ;1�"Mi:4 Y.��F.y">£,4° nF.�'"n .0 ii�i lE�.41.1 '3:,..e .M.144 4,48 07/21/2008 9,993,750.00 99.19 4.6&2. 09/08/2008 4,998,437.50 99.22 5.13 10/10/2008 5.01 01/22/2009 . 4at�-0 - 7,469,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc3Mo 10,000 000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc1Yr <4' 9 5,000.000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 3YNc1Yr1X 5,000 000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 3YrNe1Yr 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 3YrNc1Yr =$t�i 31331XWX6 10,000,000.00. FED FARM CREDIT BANK 3YrNc1Yr 70 Sate,. 260,219,000.00' FFILB - FED HOME LOAN BANK 3133XGDE1 3133XGGC2 3133xjqu5 biz.-'MTa��e��sa 3133XAQ26 3133XERL5 3133XD6G1 5 000 000.00 . �e I n. FED HOME LOAN BANK1YrNc 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK1YrNc 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 1.5Yrk1c3Mo f 144 8,155,000.00 'FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.5YrNc1Yr1 n 5,000,000.00' FED HOME LOAN BANK1.5YrNc3Mo 5,000,000.00. FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Mo i.datt.4 3133XDGC9 • 5,000,000.00: FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Yr1X 5.25 05/07/2009 5.14 05/22/2009 525 01/25/2010 '^sa`s; 5.15 04/09/2010 520 04/16/2010 520 04/30/2010 5.50 07/20/2007 e.iV 5.38 08/01/2007 5.30 sYn'4ni:c' 08/15/2007 3.75 08/24/2007 ;1 4.50 1W12/2007 9,997,100.00 99.69 4 997 150.00 99.66 E.t#Sr; 7,466 012.40 99.72 10,000,000.00 99.66 10,000,000.00 4,970,300.00 4,992,290.00 7,455,450.00 4 954,700.00 » 4,973,450.00 4,943,750.00 9,918,800.00 9,968,800.00 4 082 800.00 7,448,012.11 y y9,965,600.00 5,000,000.00 99.75 5 000,000.00 99.34 4.996.150.00 ",z14:"L'; 10,000 000.00 260,136,744.82 „s 4,987,500.00 4,967,200.00 99.50 n 99.44 4,998.300.00 99.97 e. 10,000,000.00 100.00 5,000.000.00 100.00 F f§E.Rx','� 8,155,000.00 100.00 4,996,093.75 Page 2 h 99.75 4,975,000.00 • 9,943,s8,0�0,.00 r 259,050,677.03 4,998,300.00 10,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 8,155,000_00 4,9E47,500_00 5.29 0.08 0.09 5.28 0.02 0.02.E 5.29 0.03 0 03 5.33 0.09 5.34 0.12 0.09 0.13 5.30 0.17 0.17 5.29 0.18 0.19 5.28 0.24 0.24 228,833.33 5.29 0.25 0.26 469,569.44 5.29 0.31 0.32 2,184,591.66 5.29 0.18 0.18 4.18 0.06 0.06 3.65 '0.11 0.12 29,700.00 3.70 0.35 0.36 5,000.001.. 5.18 0.53 0.56 39,862.50 .4.57 • 0.72 0.75 45,300.00) 4.23 0.83 0.86 26,550.00 4.70 0.87 0.90 56,250.00 74,950.00 4.13 0.95 4.50 1.01 3; 1.01 1.06 37,487.50 .4.63 1.13 1.20 28,300.00 5.14 1.21 14 350.00 5.04 1.46 18 '000.29 ;�y 8 34:400.00 12,500.00 5.27 , 1.73 5.14 1.78 5.25 2.33 1.28 1.57 1:86 1.90 2.58 32 800.00 5.15 2.53 2.78 20.150.00 56,200.00 (1,086,067.79) ^'i 5.24 2.55 6.20 2.59 k 2.80 F 2.84 4.79 1.23 5.54 �GYB 9 0 06 5.38 0.09 1.33 0.06 0.09 5.30 0.12 0.13 ^k� 3.75 0.15 C4 t8• 0.15 0.19 (8,593:75) 4.54 0.28 ' 0.29 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 29, 2007 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP I PAR DESCRIPTION COUPON MATURITY BOOK VALUE' PRICE M.VALUE' GAIN/LOSS YLO M Avg. MAT' Du,' Life` 3133XDGC9 3133XDGB1 3133XCJS3 :. rYc?,�jzjta'd 3133XD2D2 3133X96N5 3133XBVA0 3133XAYA9 3133X9TN0 3133XJMP0 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Yr1X 1,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2Yrt4c1Mo 5 000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.25Nc6Mo a6: 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.25Nc3Mo 000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Mo 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.5YrNc6Mo 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.75 YrNc1Y :c 5,000.000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Mo %��i�'.(Y. 13 000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 1YrNc 3133XAE86 10 000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3yRnC3Mo 3133XDVA6 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK225YrNc3Mo 3133XASM0 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc3Mo 3133XBGR0 3133XGRV8 3133XC2Z5 3133XCBF9 5,000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Yr1X 1,1,;.�V,V, : rzf". 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK1.75YNc1Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc1Yr 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc6Mo 3133XEEH8 10 000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc1Yr1X 3133XCJ46 3133XGH49 3133XGH49 3133x.iqu5 3133XCYK3 3133XGUJ1 3133XDRX1 3133XEB01 3133XJP77 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Yr1X q= . 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc , { � • cv� 5,000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2-NC 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 1.5YrNc3Mo z' hoer 3133XGFP4 F7�r 3133XKA47 5{.44,11", 3133XKVD4 3133XKZ01 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc6Mo 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2Yrt4c6Mo 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Yr1X 'x Yam, 5,000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Yr 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2-NC6M0 5 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YrNc1Yr1X F 5,000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc3Mo 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc1M0 15,000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc1Yr1X 3�a at 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3-NC2 IX 30,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.75YrNc3Mo 4.50 10/12/2007 4.63 10/25/2007 4.30 11/09/2007 i�dZ,ps3.3 �5,j'8•;99:? i ;f.it�3"."s.' ,i' 4.42 3.50 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 426 12/07/2007 4.05 12/24/2007 4.00 12/28/2007 5.13 01/16✓2008 5,000,000.00 99.75 1,000,000.00 90-75 5 000,000.00 99.63 4,996,875.00 99.66 �3e 5,000,000.00 99.31 3 5,000,000.00 99.50 10,000,000.00 9938 5,000,000.00 99-31 12,996,100.00 99.84 10,000,000.00 4 987,500.00 997,50(1.00 4 981 50.00 4,982,800.00 us: 4,965,650.00 4,975 000.00 C 9 937,500.00 4,965,650.00 12,979,720.00 12,500.00 4.50 028 2 500.00 18,750�.z00 14,075.00 .. . ittiC l£ {w 34,350.00 E3 25 000.00 a,3f 62 500.00 4.63 0.31 4.30 0.35 0.29 0.32 0.36 4.45 0.37 ' 0.38 , 3.50' 0:37 0.38 5 i• r <4? 4.26 0.43 0.44 4.05 0.48 3� 34,350.00 4.00 0.49 16,380.00 5.16. 0.52 0.49 0.50 ,0.55 �f ;,` 09.19 .. ":'J'";,•'; is . 5.00 02/28/20(18 5,000 000.00 99.75 4.02 03/14/2008 10.000,000.00 99.09 5.35 4.00 4.38 4.90 4.40 06/13/2008 06/30/2008 07/11/2008 07/24/2008 07/28/2008 a; 5.13 08/08/2008 5.13 08/08I2008 5.30 08/15/2008 4.69 OW09/2008 5.35 09/26/2008 5.02 11/07/2008 D 5.09 01/12/2009 527 02/02/2009 5.63 02/23/2009 5.38 03/19/2009 - 5.50 05/21/2009 08/30/2039 07/21/2009 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 9,912,000.00 99.97 98.72 99.09 99.59 5,000,000.00 99.09 4,993,900.00 99.84 4,989100.00 99.84 10,000,000.00 99.91 P=: 4,998,437.50 99.31 �ff 7 4,099.050.00 99.88 5,000,000.00 99.59 5,000,000.00 99.63 4,997,656.25 99.78 E 5,000,000.00 100.03 5,000 000.00 99.88 �4 10,000,000.00 99.97 10,000 000.00 5,000,000.00 z4 9 918 800.00 4 987 500.00 9,909,400.00 4 971 900.00 4 998,450.00 4,935,950.00 4,954,700.00 9,959,400.00 4,954,700.00 81,200.00 4.00 0.58 0.60 12 500.00 .5.00 0.64 0.67 • 90,600.00 4.02 0.68 0.71 2 593.34 5.03 0.75 0.79 1550.00 64 050.00 45,300. 0 47 400.00 4,992,200.00 4 992 00.00 9,990,600.00 4,965,650.00 4 993,750.00 ,r 4,079 700.00 ' 4,981,250.00 sseeta 4 989,050.00 5,001,550.00 4,993 750.00 9,098,900.00 10,006,300.00 5,017,200.00 • 45,300.00 1 700.00 5.35 4.00 4.38 5.37 4.40 0.92 0.95 0.98 1.01 1.03 . 0.96 1.01 1.04 1.07 1.08 :1e 5.19 1.04 .-1.11 3,100.00 5.24 1.04 • �?at.e�a 9,400.00 32,787.50 5 300.00 20,300.00 2?3I9,�3i": 18,750.00 8,606.25 1,550.00 6,250.00 2 3,100.00 23 400.00 6 300.00 17,200.00 37 500.00 • 5.30 1.06 1.11 1.13 4.70 1.13 1.20 5.36 1.17 1.25 5.02 1.29 1.38 5.09 1.43 , 1.54 5.29 1.48 5.63 1.53 y,x 5.38 1.60 5.50 1.77 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.5YN6MBerrn riMita a. HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1 5Yr1X 09/04/2009 5,000 000.00 99.94 1.60 1.66 1.72 1.00 2.07 2.19 2.20 1.1 5.30 09/28/2000 5 000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc3Mo 5,000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc2Yr1X 5,000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc2Yr21X 5,000,000.00 99-84 5,000,000.00 99.94 5,000,000.00 99.41 4.992,200.00 4,996,900.00 4,970 300.00 7,800.00 3,100.00 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc2Yr1X 4,970,300.00 • Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 29, 2007 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report CUs' P PAR 3133XHF80 3133XHLL4 3133XHG97 3133XHS94 3133XJ2E7 313.XXJHL5 3133XK4F9 3133XJYE2 3133XKGU3 3133XKLV5 O 3133XKQL2 'MOMS 3133XL4P5 3133XL7H0 §� 3133XLFZ1 'l DESCRIPTION 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1YrBERM 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1.5Yr1X 5,000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc6Mo 5,000,000.00 30,000,000.00 15,000 000.00 15,000 000.00 10,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 �c ? FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Yr1X ja'tt FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Mo FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Mo FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc6Mo FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc2Yr1X s3 15,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNct.5Yr FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YNc1.5Yr1X FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1Yr1X FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc2Yr1X 12,000 000.00 5,000,000.�0n,0�r 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc2Yr 994,605,000.0D FHLC - FHLB - MORTG. CERT. MAW3128X4AT8 3128X4HM6 3128X4HM6 WC ID3128X35Z2 3128X4PX3 3 zt 3128X4PX 3128X4AL5 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG CERT 2.25YrNc1X 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT2YrNc1Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FHLB = MORTG. CERT.2YrNc1YriX 10,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2.5YrNc6Mo 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc1Yr1X 3 5,000,000.00 FHLB 5,000,000.00 FHLB MORTG. CERT.2.5YrNc6Mo 3128X4XN6 10 000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2YrNc1Yr1X 3128X4YF2 3128X4Y88 3128X36H1 3128X42D2 ':. ; 3128X4VS7 3128X4DW8 X�yawa.��Erk: 3128X4HK0 T./Sari 3128X4G54 3128X4MQ1 3128X5MP0 MORTG. CERT.2Yrt4c1Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG +u CERT.2YrNc6Mo 15,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.1.75-NC3M0 �i 10,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.3Y[Nc6Mo 3:°3, 10,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT2.1YrNc6Mo s z 10,000 000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.2.5YrNc6Mo1 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.3YrNc6MoSte ytb 3a a�3�s�„ 5,000000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.3YrNc1Yr1X 10,000 000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT2.5YrNc6Mo1 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT. 10,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT. 2YrNc1Yr1X .�" :'++. °e::' fi;2{,a `,.a� b,Pad•la,,,F#`./ YrAS.r$"n3,nbre�y�y.➢ir6ff, 3128X4G70 3 3128X5:190 3128X54U9 3128X6CH7 3128X5C30 3128X5MS4 10.000 000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.3YrNc2Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FHLB = MORTG. CERT. 2YrNc3Mo 5,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT 2YrNc6Mo1X a 15,000,000.00 FHLB = MORTG. CERT 2YrNclYr1X 5,000.000.00 FHLB - MORTG CERT 2.5YrNclYrtX 10,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT. 3NC-2Yr 1 COUPON ; MATURITY { BOOK VALUE' 5.05 10/23/2009 5.25 11/02/2009 5.50 525 a 11/03/2009 11/13/2009 5.32 12/22/2009 10,000,000.00 1D,000,000.00 4 998 750.00 4,995,000.00 A 30,000,000.00 5.50 01/26/2010 15,000,000.00 5.50 03/05/2010 15,000.000.00 5.50 5.03 03/12/2010 04/16/2010 5.10 , 04/30/2010 10,000,000.00 ,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 PRICE 99.41 99.75 99.88 99.81 99.86 99.88 99.84 99.81 99.34 99.34 M. VALUE' 9,940,600.00 9,975,000.00 4 993,750.00 4,990,650.00 • YLD _ M Avg, GAIN/LOSS MAT' Dur° Life' �' 59,400.00 25,000.00 5.05 2.14 2.32 2.16 . 2.35 :A ems" k` ii;N3 s.s r� 4444"4"1,"?5 29,896,1300.00 14,981,250.00 14,976,600.00 9,981,300.00 4,967 200 00 14,901,600.00 508 05/07/2010 12,000,000.00 99.34A 11,921 280.00 5.30 06/04/2010 5,000,000.00 528 06/11/20105,000,000.00 99.69 4,984,400.00 99.88 4,993,750.00 5.50 06/29/2010 5,600,000.00 100 994,373,020.72 4.00 08/10/2007 5,009,000.00 4.50 08/22/2007 5000,000.00 4.50 08/22/2007 5,000,000.00 4.00 09/24/2007 10,000,000.00 100.00 4.50 10/11/2007 �5 000 oo0:o0 34 5,017,200.00 991,898,522.01 4.50 4.82 10/11/2007 4.20 11/09/2007 01/11/2008 5.00 01/28/2008 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 99.56 10 000 006.06 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.75 5,000 000.00 5.30 01/31/2008 99.75 99.70 99.77 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 4 987,1300.00 4,987,600.00 4,978,150.00 9 970,200.00 4.988 600.00 14,988,150.00 �'��,�� a�°,"•`i„�=;:=?�%n�,�a a��ana i 4�i s`°x�y'r'?..i,,°��i``7s" �s er':.nx;�,�$�� 4.18 03/28/2008 >ti< 5.34 05/07/2008 5.00 06/16/2008 4.50 07/11/2008 15,000,000.00 99.92 10,000,000.00 99.15 F:d• 10,000,000.0099.91 10,000,000.00 99.72 9,915,400.00 9,990,500.00 9,972,300.00 5 0013,000.00 99.66 4.63 08/15/2008 5.05 08/22/2008 4.48 09/19/2008 4 939 200.00 99.29 10 000 oo0.00 9915 :n 4961250.00 99.05 5.25 11/07/2008 10,000,000.00 99.86 5.02 02/27/2009 :1' 5.50 03/05/2009 .525 05/07/2009 5.31 06/25/2009 5.30 08/1312009 5.05 12/18/2009 ovosnoto 10.000 000.00 5,000.000.00 4.998.950.00 99.54 99.96 y. L_<Cek 99.83 15,000 000.00 99.88 `i 5,003,000.00 99.81 000.00 09.37 4,983,200.00 4 964 600.00 9,974 500.00 4,952,500.00 9,986,200.00 9 953 800.00 4,998,050.00 T 4.991.700.00 i� 4,968,550.00 t 5 000.00 5.51 '..:WV. Y,"fi. 4.350.00 n 103,200.00 18 750.00' 23 400.00' 18,700.00 32,800.00 98,400.00 78,720.00 5.29 5.32 5.50 2.15 2.19 2.35 •."`jam ,, f r. 2.38 2.29 2.48 2.32 5.50 2.42 5.50 5.03 2.44 2.55 2 2.68 2.70 '. 2.80 5.10 2.59 .2.84 5.08 2.64 2.86 15,600.00) 5.30 f"2.67 6,250.00 2,93 5.28 2.69 2.95 17,200.00 5.50 2.73 - . 3.00 (2,474,498.71)' , 5.04 1.52 1.66' 12 400.00 12.400.00 4.00 0.14 0.12 4.50 0.14 0.,15 rr 4.50 0.14 0.15 4.00 0.23 0.24 4.74 0.28 028 4.74 0.28 0.28 21,850.00) 4.,20 0.35 0.36 29 800.00 11400.00 11,850.00 4.82 5.00 5.30 0.51 0.54 0.55 0.56 . 84,600.00 ' 4.18 0.72 9 500.00 5.34 0.82 27 700.00 5.00 0.93 16,800mo 4.50 0.98 25 400.00 s 5.28 1.07 25 500.00 u; 8,750.00 Az.E„,;',.)"R 5.05 1.08 Aiat.� 5.08 '1.16 0.58 0.59 0.75 0.86 0.97 1.04• 1.13 1.15 1.23 13,800.00 5.25 1.28 1.36 46 200.00 5.02 1.55 1.67 1,950.00 5.50 1.56 'e: tVg� ;;;`,.-OP:.";w"4Y'5.^P ,7":12gF is 7,250 00 5.26 18,160.00 24,400.00 5.31 5.30 5.40 6.05 1.68 1.73 1.86 so 1.04 2.29 2.13 2.47 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 29, 2007 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report'. CUSIP PAR DESCRIPTION COUPON I MATURITY fY NI. VALUE' GAIN/LOSS YLD NI Avg. MAT' Dur.° Life2 3128X5UB2 ^7i )?£• - 3128X5VX3 3128X5XV5 3128X5C55 3128X5T40 Aff, 3128X54J4 Skit 6', 10,000,000.00 fHL6 - MORTG CERT 3YrNc1.5Yr1X ;s 20,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT 31114c3Mo 10 000000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT. 3YrNc38.10 5,000,000.00 FHLB"- MORTG. CERT. 3YrNc6Mo 10,000,000.00 FHLB'-MORTG CERT.3YrNc1.5YriX 15 000 000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT.3NC20C • 3128X6BN5 20 000,600.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT 3YrNc2Yr1X 585,000,000.00 FNMA - FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. =t 3136F7EB9 31359MG34 31359MZB2 31359MK51 31359M2H5 31359MZK2 31359MP56 3136F7PE1 - 31359ME66 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc3Mo sZq 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.1.5YrNc3Mo 5 000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc1Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.1.5YrNa6Mo 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.1YrNc 5 000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc1Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG.ASSOC.1.5YrNc 5 000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2Yr14c1Yr1X ° 5,000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc1Yr1X 3136F7FE2 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2.5YrNc1Yr 31359MF65 31359MU92 5,000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc1Yr1X , %z 5,006,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 1.5YrNc 31359MG49 10 000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc1Yr1X 31359MB93 a;s 7,995 000.00- FED NAT MORTG ASSOC .1.SYrNc 3436F7XR3 20,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC2.1Yr 4c6Mo 3136F3XS0 31359MU27 ,t`Js'<6�Sa4�a;a3't�,'y s4��r3:.�... �'�d Pls=•'�';�AY k';"u'.&a�y�'�.. 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORT ASS005YrNc6MoBerrn v •�;s 7�i" >p a 5,000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC:2YrNc1Yr1X " 3136F7RV1 3136F8DX0 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2.5YrNc6Mo 5,000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 2Yr14c3Mo :x z` 31359MF24 5 000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc6Mo 31359M4S9 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2YrNc1Yr1X 3136F7UF2 12,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC:3YrNc2Yr1X 3136F8GE9 3136F7XS1 3136F7XS1 5 000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG'ASSOC 2YrNc6Mo • MOO 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YtNc6Mo 5,000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc6Mo 10,000,000 00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2YrNclYr1X 3136F72R7 10 000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc2Yr1X 30 000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 3YrNc7Mo r 5.07 01/11/2010 5.52 01/12/2010 s;Fa 5.50 01126/2010 5.50 03/05/2010 5.05 03/22/2010 5.07 04/27/2010 525 06/04/2010 �F 425 0727/2007 5.00 08/242007 s e £ tf 4.38 09/072007 BOOK VALUE' PRICE 40,000,000.00 99.40 20,000,000.00 99.82 ,^ 10,000.000.00 99.84 5,000,000.00 NM k 10,000,000.00 99.29 15,000,000.00 99.38 20,000,000.00 99.76 b 584,892,157.90 4,995,31250 99.91 5,000,000.00 100.00 s�A 4,997,600.00 99.95 520 s< 5.15 0928/2007 11212007 x gl Ia. zrttg::;, 4.90 1128/2007 5.25 12103/2007 4.88 12282007 4.88 01/112008 A 5.40 02/012008 5.00 02/272008 4.30 05/05/2008 3.00 06/12/2008 999,250.00 99.94 0,006,400.00 99.01 5,000,000.00 99.81 4,996 250.00 5,000,000.00 99.94 99.75 5,000,000.00 99.72 5,021,900.00 100.00 10 000 000.00 99.75 7,907,859.04 99.16 19,996,875.00 99.91 4,857,650.00 97.91 is°r3. ':;n;?,Y:i.r 5.70 07/172008 5.00 08/15/2068 5.45 0123/2009 5.08 01272009 Y 525 01292009 5.05 02/132009 5.00 03/122009 5.50 0420/2009 5.50 04202008 • 06/18/2009 06/19/2009 5.50 10/27/2009 • 5,000 000.00 100.00 4,970,050.00 99.63 "ras,s'"aza; 5,000.000.00 99.97 4 997,250.00 09.63 5 000 000.00 99.88 12,000,000.00 99.50, ‘k# '`3F , 5 000 000.00 99.81 5 000,000.00 99.97 l' 4,995,500.00 99.97 15,000,000.00 10,000 000.00 6,805,000.00 99.97 10 000 000 00 99.72 shy 9,940200.00 19,964,400.00 i?7 9 984 00.00 4,990,900.00 9,929,100.00 14,906,550.00 19 952,600.00 a • 59,800.00 35,600.00 a3s 15.800.00 9,100.00 F;5ti�9 70,900.00 93,450.00 47 400.00 5,07 2.30 5.52 2.28 5.50 2.32 5.50 5.05 2.42 2.54 2.54 2.58 2.68 2.49, 2.73 . 5.07 2.58 2.83 5.25 2.67 2.93 583,165,050.00 (1,727,1)7.90) 5.05 .1,54 . 1.67 4,995,312.50 5,000,000.00 4,997,600.00 4,996,900.00 9,990,600.00 4 990 650.00 . 4,996.900.00 4,987,500.00 4,985,050.00 5,000,000.00 9 975 000.00 7,927,522.20 19,981,200.00 4,895,300.00 5,000,000.00 4,981,250.00 z� 2,350.00 4.30 0.08 0.08 . 5.00 0.15 ' 0.15 ..4.40 0.18 0.19 521 0.24 0.25 15,800.00) 5.08 0.38 '..'0.40 9 350.00 650.00 �a 12,500.00 4.90 0.40 5.30 4.88 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.49 14,050.00 4.88 0.51 21,900.00 25 000.00 x 19 663.16 15,675.00 37,650.00 11,200.00 5.05 0.56 0.50 0.54 0.59 5.00 0.63 • 0.67 5.07 0.82 0.85 5.30 0.88 0.92 5.00 0.92 �i 5.70 0.98 5.32 1.06 .r;�a"y �'`'=4;ss.?<�af:w,w., , ,4• �:� r ���i7aja;�.:,':>�.: �F� s : �?#,�.�x • 4,998,450.00 4 981 50.00 4,993,750.00 11,940,000.00 4,990 650.00 4 998 450.00 4,998,450.00 14,981,250.00 0.96 1.05 1.13 1'550.00 , 5.45. 1.45 " 1.57 - 16,000.00 6250.00 . 60,000.00 9,350.00 1 550.00 5.10 1.47 1.58 5.25 1.47 1.59 5.05 1.51 . 5.00 . 1.59 1.63 1.70 5.50 1.68 . 1.81, 2,950.00 5.53 1.68 ' 1.81 18,750.06 3,100.00 2,109.55 5.30 1.84 • 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORT ASSOC3YrNc1.5YrIX 5,000 000.00 99.72' 10,000,000.00 99.50 14,957,850.00 9,950,000.00 • Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 29, 2007 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report MOM DESCRIPTION 3136F8AR6 15,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG'ASSOC.3YrNc1YKr 3136F8BS3 3136FSBB0 3136F8CJ2 3136F8BZ7 6 31359m2u6 3136F8DF9 31359M3X9 31359M4L4 3136F8EH4 31359M4Q3 ''WU,•• 31359M5N9 3136F8JG1 t; s 10,000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC3YrNc1.5Yr 10,000,000.00 • a FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc1Yr 5,0013,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc3Mo 5,000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YNc1YBerm 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc1Yr1X 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3Yrt4c1X 5,000,000.00 10,000 1 000.00 10,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc1Yr1X FED NAT MORTG FED NAT MORTG FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YNc1.5Y1X n F ASSOC 3YrNc1.5Yr ASSOC 3YrNc1Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc1Yr1X g‘;.�x 15,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc3Mo 31359M6B4 10,000,000.00 31359M6B4 13 �00'n0 000 00 Re>�i.;+g d '� 31359M6B4 31359M6G3 3136F8JS5 31359M7T4 31359M7T4 v`te w 3136F8LB9 31398ACF7 e1 r 5,000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNclYr1X FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc1Yr1X COUPON MATURITY MIO�� 5.17 5.00 12/14/2009 12/18/2009 BOOK VALUE' , I PRICE 1 M. VALUE' 15,000,000.00 99.47 9 997,200.00 5.11 12/18/2000 9,988 437.50 F1!**,•W"''.02 q••: 5.50 12/28/2009 5.25 12/28/2009 .5.25 12/28/2009 5.05 01/08/2010 99.25 5,000,000.00 99.84 5 000 000.00 99.59 �e;sts 4 995,850.00 99.75 .:.w:,. r 10,009,100.00 99.41 525 01/11/2010 .4,998,437.50 525 01/22/2010 10,000,000.00 14,920,350.00 9,925,000.00 9.937,500.00 4,992,200.00 4 979 700.00 4 987,500.00' 9,940,600.00 99.75 4,987,500.00 99.69 9,968,800.00 5.18 01/29/2010 10,000,000.00 99.50 5.38 02/01/2010 5.30 02/26/2010 5,000,000.00 99.88 4,993,750.00 5,000 000.00 99.75 5.50 03/22/2010 15,000,0o0.00 9084 5.20 520 Q3/20/2010 03/26/2010 cif➢`3,�a.@�'�`z'�..�`..Sn��Sk". �`b�E �X<�ys�,4':�:&o<: %{E p'aY� FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc1Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc1Yr1X 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3Yrt4c6Mo 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc1Yr1X 10,000,000.00 30,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3NC1X FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc3Mo 5 000 000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3YrNc3Mo 971,035,000.00 LAO - LOCAL AGENCY OBLIGATIONS 935 000.00 MARCH JPA 5,695,000.00 MMF - MONEY MARKET FUND 173,000,000.00 MTNO - MED TERM NOTES 520 03/26/2010 525 03/26/2010 5.35 04/12/2010 10,000,000.00 12,992200.00 99.81 99.81 5,000 000.00 99-81 5,000,000.00 99.69 4,999,218.75 99.66 5.30 04/16/2010 5,000,000.00 5.30 04/16/2010 10,000,000.00 'fl"rite-VH.ta 5.50 04/26/2010 30,000,090.0o 5.55 06/04/2010 4 998 437.50 99.72 99.72 99.78 99.88 4,987,500.00 14,976,600.00 9,981,300.00 12,975,690.00 GAIN/LOSS 4,990,650.00 . 4,984,400.00 4,982,800.00 4,985,950.00 9,971 900.00 29,934,300.00 4 993 750.00 YLD MAT' M D u r." 79,650.00 5.17 2.28 72,200.00 60,937.50 7,800.00 20 300.00 (8 350.00 59,400.00 5.01 5.12 2.29 2.29 Avg. Life' 2.46 2.47 2A7 5.50 2.30 2.50 5.25 2.31 5.28 2.31 5.05 2.29 10;937.50 5.26 2.29 31,200.00 2.50 2.50 2.53 5.25 2.32 2.57 50,000.00) 5.18 2.34 2.59 6,250.00 rt 3; • 12,500.00. 23,400.00' 18,700.00 (16,510.00 9,350.00 , : 5.38 2.34 2:60 5.30 2.41, 5.50 2.47 2.67 2.73 5.20 2.49 2.74 5.22 2.49 5.20 2.49 2.74 2.74• 15,600.00 , 5.25 2.49 2.74 { (16,418.75 r 5.36 2.53 2.79 14,050.00) 5.30 2.54 2.80 28 100.00 65,700.00 4,687.50 i� 5.30 5.50 2.54 2.56 f 5.56 2.66 2.80 2.83 2.93 970,573,378.12 ;';P'Zt Ms.EAs ?Xi) 5.67 07/15/2012 935,000.00 100.00 968,596,853.99 - a 935,000.00 E{ F I 3 t Q} i',Yp1,�'„� ,,,•:r ����ii<^Ad�s?1���..%e� 5,695,000.00 5,695,000.00 ,, SAllai,.s„in i E 6': 89E (1,976,524.1n 5.24 1.80 5.67 4.23 5.40 2.49 1.96 5.05 3.17 173,000,000.00 173,000,000.00 526 0.08 0.09 36962GZZ0 5 000 000 00 GE CAP CORP Aaa/AANAAA 949746.1105 949746EX5 74977ENS8 026874AR8 084664AC5 36962GN34 55266LFC5 9,200000.00 CITIGROUP INC Ana/AAA/AAA 10 000,000.00 WELLS FARGO AAcAr-/Aa1 WELLS FARGOCO Ana/AAA/AAA 10,000,000.00 RABOBANK Ana/AAA/AAA 17 168,000.00 AMERICAN INTL GROUP Aa2/AA/AA 19,525,000.00 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY Aaa/AAA/AAA 5,000,000.00 GE CAP CORP Ana/AAA/AAA 5 000 000.00 MBIA GLOBAL FDG Aaa/AAA/AAA 286,617,000.00 MUNI - MUNICIPAL BONDS 5.38 01/15/2008 3.50 02/01/2008 4.13 03/10/2008 526 05/06/2008 2.88 05/15/2008 3.38 10/15/2008 3.7'7 10/30/2008 5.34 01/23/2009 4,934,000.00 Sia:Z 98.99 4,949,450.00 9 905,400.00 99.04 672,648 10,000 000 00 99.70 16 777,084.64 97.81 19,017,154:75 4.857.500.00 97.58 97.82 5.000.000.00 99.88 284,032,279.80 12 1.673,480.88 9,969,800.00 16 791,162.40 19,052,495.00 4,891,200.00 c 4 993,750.00 284,051,237.82 3,105.00 22,500.00 15,450.00 19,750.00 34,500.00 0.55 0.55 0.55 z�:or 0.59 0.59 30 0.57 0.59 1500.00 5.17 0.67 0.70 832.02 5.45 0.74 0.77 30,200.00 5.26 0.82 0.85 14 077.76 35,340.25 33,700.00 6,250.00 (26,100.00) "A's 5.25 0.85 5.44 5.29 1.24 1.27 5.34 1.45 5.30 1.80 0.88 1.30 1.34 1.57 1.92 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 29, 2007 Month End. Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP DESCRIPTION • COUPON MATURITY BOOK VALUE' YLD. NI Avg. M.VALUE' GAIN/LOSS MAT' Dur4 Life 987388BD6 76886PAV5 797398BJ2 130795AB3. 1,350,000.00 YOSEMITE CA CMNTCOLLEGEAAA/Aaa 1,545,000.00 RCC GO BONDS 2004B AA-/Aa3 1 000 000.00 SAN DIEGO PENSION Aaa/AAA Ms� 1,200,000.00 CA DEV TXB Al PEN Aaa/AAA/AAA S 5446443A3 2,200,000.00 LA USD TXB 2005 D.Aaa/AAA/AAA • u 18,835,000.00 NC D - NEGOTIABLE CD 86959E4Z9 90263KNW4 ra�i; a�s a f� 50,000,000.00 SVENSKA HANDELSBANKEN Aaa/AAA � sir 5,0�.,�000,000.00 UBS AG STAMFORD Ali-/P1 �1;3 539430XB4 50,000,000:00 LLOYDS BANK A1.01 78009HT90 4�a 8911A2XY5 40411JFL6 74977FLE8 s; ' :50,000,000.00 : ROYAL BANK OF CANADA Aaa/AAA ls5. a. 50 000 000.00 TORONTO DOMINION Al.4/P1 50,000,000.00 HBOS TREAS SRVCS A1+/P1/Ft+ 30,000,000.00 RABOBANK A1+/P1/F4+ �ss°s ai,e adz pe '�� ` 700000,000.00 TCD - TIME DEPOSITS . u 10,000,000.00 CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK 20,000,000.00 TOTAL 4,774,727,00.0.00 1. The market value and yield of short-term money market searities are based on Purchase price 2. Average life is *re number of years untfl principal is returned at mahudy, weighted by market value. 3. Local Agency Obligations have variable rate coupons, spread to Pool. 4. Modified Duration. The percentage price change of a securiy for a given change. The higher the modified duration of a seairily, the higher the Ask 3.93 08/O1/2007 3.63 08/01/2007 3.88 08/15/2008 5.06 .08/01/2000 5.06 07/01/2009 5.30 07/12/2007 5.29 07/18/2007 5.30 07/31/2007 ';.• 528 06/31/2007 529 5.31 09/12/2007 1,350,216.00 100.02 1,550,871.00 100.38 5 984 870.00 98.50 1,200.000.00 99.60 r 2,200,308.00 18,702,065.95 50,000,623.61 99.78 100.00 50,000,872A9 100.00 50,000,765.20 :100-00 50,000,000.00 100,00 50,001 052.45 100.00 10/15/2007 50,001,851.81 5.30 05/07/2008 7M„ 5.15 10/0172007 x3 100.00 30,000,000.00 100.00 700,006,982.63 10,000 000.00 100.00 20,000,000.00 4,757,119,372.31 13 i¢ 1,350 16.00 1 550,871,00 985,040_00 1,195,212.00 2,195,050.00 170.00 3.92 ',0.09- 3.49 0.09 5.04 1.07 4,788,00 5.06 5,258.00 5.05 0.09 �tv 1.13 1.80 1.03 - 1.84 �s 2.01 18,655,762:00 ;4 50,000,623.61 50 000,872.49 - 50 000 76520 . 50,000,000.00 50,001,052.45 50,000,000.00 ggiik tab 30,000,000.00 700,005,130.82 • 10,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 4,752,010,567.70 (46,303.95) 4.66 1.26 1.36 5.29 0.04 0.04 • ma�Y £28 0.05 5.29 0.08 0.05. o.09 5.28 0.17 0.17 5.28 0.20 0.21 1 851.81 5.30 0.29 . 0.30 a 5.30 ` 0.82 0.86 a (1,851.81) 5.29 010 0.20 ' 5.15. ,0.25 0.26 5.18 0.22. 0:23 ` (5,108,804.61) 5.17 1.06 ' . IA • Summary of Authorized Investments The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund was in FULL COMPLIANCE with the Treasurer's more restrictive than the California Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by County Board of Supervisors. Investment Category CA AGENCY BONDS California Government Code Maximum Authorized Quality Maturity I % Limit S&P/ Moody's 5YEARS NO UMIT LOCAL AGENCY OBUGATIONS 5 YEARS 1 NO LIMIT BILLS OF EXCHANGE 270 DAYS 40%(1 CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS 5 YEARS 30% REVERSE REPOS • 92 DAYS 20% I CaITRUST SHORT TERM FUND N/A IN/A f N/A SECURED BANK DEPOSITS 5YEARS NO LIMIT LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS Investment Policy is and approved by the 15.15% N/A NO LIMIT Statement of Investment Policy. The County's the County's Investment Oversight Committee County Investment Policy Maximum Authorized Quality Maturity %Limit S&P/ Moody's 3 YEARS 3 YEARS 180 DAYS j..nz.L »r. A 1 YEAR 60 DAYS 15%/ $150MM A/A2/A x 2.50% INVESTMENT GRADE 30% A1/P1/{F1 :25% MAX A1/P1/F1 10% MAX DAILY UQUIDITY 1% Board Approved 3 YEARS 2 lVo more than 30% of this category may be invested with any one commercial bank Y Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days 3 Or must have an investment advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of $500,000,000 Projected Cash Flow The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. Based upon projected cash receipts and matu- rating investments, there are sufficient Funds to meet future cash flow'disbursements over the next 12.months. Month '0-1 `" Monthly Receipts Monthly Disbmts Difference Required Mat. Invest �?'S�},h;!'E.Yy�'w.____.��,�,�,'i,s;r."�;�"k'�'�r•,,.�°c".s'.�'.Z'.a".�.we ""."`"".:.�x��.S"."-"� ��rr:;"..'v,>,.,>...>.s.:.�.:^rr,:�•c. s-.>•at> Balance Actual Inv. Maturities Avail. To Invest> 1Yr. 07/2007 728.3 983.1 (254.8) 204.9 09/2007 11/2007 542.1 740.5 671.1 694.1 (129.0) 46.4 g 129.0 82.4 730.8 421.0 80.0 t 01/2008 03/2008 05/2008 Totals 717.7 730.2 609.0 1,406.1 (688.4) 812.9 (82.7) • 6 pf- 1,367.9 (758.9) 74N 10,222.8 10,915.2 (692A) 642.5 13:51 %. 165.9 131.9 e, 157.0 57.5 182.2 2,680.4 56.35% 4,114.6 86A9% 14 THIS COMPLETES THE REPORT REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 53646 Page 8 County Administrative Center 4080 Lennon Street, 4th Floor - Capital Markets Riverside, CA 92502-2205 capitalmarkets@co.riverside.ca.us www.countytreasurer.org (951 ) 955-3967 15 • AGENDA ITEM 7C • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION _COMMISSION DATE: September 12,2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager. THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial. Statements for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2007. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the ' past fiscal year, staff has closely monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements present the° revenues received and . expenditures incurred during the fiscal year. Accrual adjustments for revenue and expenditures have been . made for June 30, 2007 and are reflected in these financial statements. The Commission will continue to make year end accrual adjustrnents depending upon materiality through August 31, 2007. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the fiscal Year at _ 95 % of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales tax revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of sale. The State Board of Equalization collects the 'Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds and remits them to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections through April 2007. The final accrual of revenue will be made once. the September payment, which includes the fourth quarter clean-up adjustment, is received. On a cash basis, the Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues are 1 % higher, respectively, than the same period last fiscal year. Staff has been closely monitoring this change in comparison to the UCLA Anderson Forecast and will report to the Commission if necessary action is 'needed, to adjust the sales tax revenue budget for subsequent fiscal ,years. Agenda Item 7C 16 Federal, state and local government reimbursements and other revenues are. on a reimbursement bass;.- and the Commission will receive these - revenues. as the projects are completed and invoiced to the respective agencies. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues were remitted to the Commission by Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). During : the fiscal year, WRCOG remitted TUMF of $32,191,690 to the _Commission. The TUMF remittances reflect a -decrease of 62% from the same period last year. The decrease is a direct result of the softening in the housing market,. The expenditure categories are in line overall with the expectations -,of the budget. Listed below are the significant capital related projects and their status: Highway Engineering/Construction/Right-of-Way/Land State Route 60 East Junction to Interstate 215 High :' Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Connector - Engineering was delayed as a result of pending decisions on the scope of the project. SR-74 Curve Realignment - Engineering is pending due to .. integration of future realignment of the SR-79 project - 1-215 Bi-County Project - Engineering is pending due to federal approval on scope and traffic analysis. San Bernardino Associated Governments will proceed when approval is obtained. SR-9:1 ' La Sierra Interchange - The city `: of Riverside awarded a construction contract in August 2007. Construction is expected to begin, in October 2007. SR-91 Van Buren Interchange - The city of Riverside is coordinating with Caltrans on alignment issues that are impacting the right-of-way acquisition and environmental process. When alignment issues are resolved, the city of Riverside will 'begin the acquisition process and complete design engineering, which °is forecasted to be completed by June 2008. Construction is forecasted to start in !FY 2008/09. Commercial paper 'proceeds remain available for right-of-way and Land acquisition related to projects and rnitigation as opportunities arise; the. third traunche of . $15 million included in the budget as bond proceeds has been spent and' the Commission has subsequently issued a fourth traunche of $25' million in May 2007. Agenda Item 7C 17 • • Rail Engineering/Construction/Right-of-Way/Land • Perris Multimodal Facility - Surveys were recently completed subsequent to year end and title searches are in process to determine the need and location of the temporary construction easements. Once completed, property owners will be notified and the Commission can proceed with completing final design scheduled for December 2007. Perris Valley 'Line — Preliminary engineering interviews were completed in July 2007 and a consultant was selected. Discussions are in process to complete contract and cost issues. Preliminary engineering is anticipated to begin in September 2007 after Federal Transit Administration approval is received. North Main Corona Parking Structure — Construction was pending review of replacement parking and approval by the city of Corona counsel. Approval was granted on May 9, 2007. State and federal funding was approved in July 2007 and construction is scheduled to start December 2007. TUMF Enginee_ring/Construction/Right-of-Way/Land. • SR-91 Green River Interchange — The final engineer's estimate resulted in a cost increase to construction and the project could not be advertised until all funding was available. Commission action was required and approved to increase the TUMF contribution amount. In addition, a decision was to be made on whether PM 2.5 was going to be required, which delayed moving ahead with construction. Construction is currently underway. • Commercial paper proceeds remain available for right-of-way and land acquisition related to projects and mitigation as opportunities arise; the third traunche of $15 million included in the budget as bond proceeds has been spent and the Commission has subsequently issued a fourth traunche of $25 million in May 2007. Intergovernmental distributions are expended as one-time LTF payments made at the beginning of the fiscal year based on claims submitted by Coachella Valley Association of Governments and WRCOG. Unused funds in this category_ are related to planning and programming departmental expenditures. Agenda Item 7C 18 Capital outlay expenditures are under budget due to unexpended authority for potential office improvements and station improvements. Staff expects these improvements to take place in FY 2007/08. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements — June 2007 Agenda Item 7C 19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 4TH QUARTER FOR TWELVE MONTHS ENDED 6/30/2007 DESCRIPTION Revenues Sales tax Federal, slate & local govemmenl reimbursements Transportation Uniform Mifigaion Fee (TUMF) Other revenues Interest Total revenues Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services Office lease & utilities General administrative expenditures Total administration Programs/projects Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services General projects Highway engineering - Highway construction Highway right of way/land Rail engineering Rail construction Rail right of way TUMF engineering TUMF construction TUMF.right of way Local streets & roads " Regional arterial Special studies FSP towing Commuter assistance Property management Motorist assistance Ran operations & maintenance STA distributions Specialized transit Planning & programming services Total programs/projects Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay Debt service Principal Interest Cost of issuance Total debt service Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (raider) expenditures Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Bond proceeds Total financing sources/uses Net change in fund balances Fund balance July 1, 2006 Fund balance June 30, 2007 BUDGET $ 171,741,917 24,014,102 42,000,000 24,153,975 12,509,000 274,418,994 1,831,800 181,600 1,640,200 387,300 1,690,600 5,131,500 3,140,500 1,305,300 4,769,378 5,161,503 6,703,977 43,334,566 31,543,600 7,440,000 8,237,989 5,269,000 35,174,000 9,607,990 107,169,500 59,493,300 14,021,400 2,842,414 1,639,620 2,782,800 346,300 1,888,880 7,547,800 10,685,595 7,680,800 92,200 377,878,412 ACTUAL REMAINING BALANCE $ 163,625,767 $ (8,116,150) 5,061,056 (18,953,046) 32,191,690 (9,808,310) 25,119,006 965,031 15,869,013 3,360,013 241,866,532 (32,552,462) 1,493,809 337,991 180,757 843 1,252,084 388,116 337,696 49,604 971,560 119,040 4,235,906 895,595 2,529,075 611,425 1,2133,449 21,851 2,665,235 2,104,143 3,326,055 1,835,448 4,402,714 2,301,263 7,643,992 35,690,574 30,791,653 751,947 771,560 6,668,440 1,711,175 .6,526,814 1,249,594 4,019,406 11,142,153 24,031,847 9,607,988 2 5,679,111 101,490,389 58,206,081 ' - 1,287,219 9,138,548 4,882,852 610,409 2,232,005 1,639,617 3 2,402,369 380,431 131,665 214,635 597,816 1,291,064 7,244,536 303,264 3,423,057 7,262,538 6,291,426 1,389,374 49,730 42,470 PERCENT UTILIZATION 95% 21% 77% 104% 127% 88% 82% 100% 76% 87% 89% 83% 81% 98% 56% 64% 66% 18% 98% 10% 21% 24% 32% 100% -5% 98% 65% 21% 100% 86% 38% 32% 96% 32% 82 % 54% 172,539,008 205,339,403 46% 1,364,603 974,193 390,410 71% 431,000 128,435 302,565 30% 30,364,400 9,063,600 150,000 39,578,000 424,383,515 (149,964,521) 83,053,100 83,053,100 80,000,000 80,000,000 (69.964,521) 30200,000 164,400 99% 6,564,420 2,499,180 72% - 150,000 0% 36,764,420 2.813580 93% 214,641,962 209,741,553 51% 27,224,570 177,189,091 16% 35,016,908 35,016,908 50,000,000 (48,036,192) 42% 48,036,192 42°! (30,000,000) 63% 50,000.000 (30,000,000) 63% 77,224,570 147,189,091 -110% 376,727,234 376,727,234 100% $ 306,762,713 $ 453,951,804 $ 147,189,091 148Y. 20 lZ POOLOOCSb S LL L'LEL'LC P SLL'OM LE S LBCIII S PSG 'lZC'601 P eee'Bee'lz s ogeLs be9e_P� lesee" L80L ° ePI E� BB'S S en eSEn S Looz'cc DM' muam(' Wnj 9C2'Lle9LC 9EL'esVoc 929'eS0'ZL Col'L01 9lE'Re•9E1 • DZS'ZD9'S Lei'1.0L'Ll pee LS Leg PO8'EBL eta co ego 'ocze 9o0z'L ADE aOue129 Pond 0L51,2Z•L2 IEOLL9 B9S'l00'BL 099'9 BCLIOS'01. E08181'S1 69L'9SC'£ OZD'L 98O2910S2 LSS•LSB OSO'0211 gmualaq puny Le Ogg vg 000'000'OS L£L'SOO 9C Se8'BBB 'Bb £CO'£0£ IEE'DS (goo 'e89'L1 - (8l9'£eb'BZ) 9102L ogoomo nos Doglegmo1 000'000'0S - 000'000.0S - - - spemgd pug 9oe'910'ss oLL'b£1 Sl £ZL'2 - Do0'eee'1 oce'zBS•Bz etviec In0 Agog) BullgedO 808.9L0'SC LS9•ecrec ODVSOE MOOS - blCBC1 002'BL£ ul 2e19e8•11011lgadO eeenryegoloa Bupuau8 ieLpo OLvez2'LZ (99L'Lze'£E) feeo'eent) owl, 90L'98COL z09LLe'S1 SSL•9sz'Ll OZSL 002131d2S SD8£D9 020'921.1 sun eBdzo1o1Nn)ign0 egnueee., ea8113 zee'loole.z 94B'PIP 'SE 989'RE'LT eEObLB'Dz SZE'S , E BES'S20'SZ C28'BLO'1 289'88C'LL ell 'lelZ 91C'011£'61 ag IDogdxg goy 0ZVEDL'DC see'CLb'es SLe'eszl. gluon gRD Igol . gouenoq to Von 02014g13 Stre'airs stelae't Iaoolul 00600VDC 000'008OS 9Sde2L C9COL8 90011ES'ELl OCL'Bb 920' 1024 LSO'E29'C 9CSb92'L cee'Les NW ICI BDC'Z0b•2 uD'e£e'1 801 018 geeeCCe Leo'e0Z'es L l' ug's EBB'LOD e ESC26L'LL V1138b2' 1 ;CV ll1'L 09SLLL ER'LBL'OC 28B'E60•L 91 •2099 SSO'OEVE 5CZ'598'2 0bb'ED2'L SLO'eZSO 800'5E2V 0B5'LLB gee'LCE beo'LSZ'l LEL'081 BOB'W 1 89'009112 eB0.00r Z29bt9 • 0901109 ESS'401 EObL0'BZ COO'Sb • LLL'eL9'S 898'[09'e E9CZ01%1 eec'el Da% LZL'ZOL 809'Odl SLC'CZ6'£ L9O'CZ C eIC CICTSLO'BZ DBC90g', D99'E£1'e (Kea L'CL ZOOM'L e£s'tl CLO'LBL bOO WOOL BSL'6CL 0110. f8ze'6) CBL'PLO ZB'BLO1 • 90L1921d ELD'806'2 8L8'80811 DCLIP ECOPPOL SD8'l£1 eB9'99L Ctn.8L1 8DV206•L L29'B0b oc'eLol 989'Z00'£0 ZZ 9BS'61/V1 SLI'LICL eeVLSL 092'£Ei•Z oonni'e gatelel, C8SBL0•C 8SCE08 8LE'b08 zaase Rdpood mluoe IggO gong goBlgo uognoom IagauB 101461gel ggafolgAuluBgd gel stages BuOuwgOgd S BOIWgIO egg po8lepads • aegingplolP VAS Dmve.111.10 V mgs•DBB Baa 01.8'LB9 muele100810P01081 luau gges u ADodgd oouappaa grAutuo0 LL9b£9'L Bupn51 d9d aelPolslopadS nova lougl8aa apag 9 nogg grog AgA10 19Bp dWfLL eelgMnm dWl'LL Bupaguleuo gym Am 1919012 IRa e41011/lgem Ilea 22.0'02 BounulBee paa puel/Aaw,lo WBy Aamyd,N eogggleum Ae OI/ B000gul8ug ARBOR agafgd pouoe bl8'Bl 222EEL aoOWaa Ruolsnpad 990'0d 0L8'ZDZ ambles leer gouge 802'18 P91'220'L n9ougq y eopeles goolcudpgghoj 1001•11. Cee'LR'E eagigplwpe plot 200'29 - 899'920 aomgpuodxe anpeggeryge house 11071 gee'LZC o001lllnf onol 001110 Obe'9C 9L141L amPoeslouolnalgd LOWC £1,91L agODuog gaol gouge L00'11 i48'l L9'L nymee n1181e8 gungpuWrd 2fS'698'!1b2 99CL91' 89C110£ ' Re's. S622LL'LE LEL'Loe'BL car LSZ'BC SPE'L90'I Z0D•609'CLL eSB•evec SzeetegL sannnu Ploy £1099V91 881 L912 8E£'90C 988'b b0E'CbL'S CD L bEP SSL'LSE bbE'L B9L'LLE'S BBL POE 810.59E orgRoo 900'011'92 - 900'088131 L82'OEV1 219'Lb21b 9bL'D2 LLS'19S genumu oy10 08B'ieL'2C - 190'620'1E utuy 8S0'L80'S - • . LgrZeL (dWflLFead rgooloWB once %KB'p oiled LSZVEILO Ub L'fl0'E 299'832 nvewavmggig luewwonoB loo44alvg'Imaged LBL'SZB'EBL S - T - f - f - S � - - 4 I SZ'£eb'Lf p eBf'BLO'l S 99Z'OBLbLI S • S Z88'eSZ'9l f a91 oWoS nnegnga 1V101 30tA1139 WVBOUad 3O11081811SNOO died 38NV1SISSV 'A3TtlA A311VA A1N000 3d118 ONBd NOLL0I110930 0304I88100 1830 a3dVd A.LNf100 ' 33A NOLLtl01118i 118NVa1 V113301/03 eanee 81131S3M PISA 1V8333e 1V81a3WW00 Na31SDM 81110dIN0 N011V1a0dSNVa1 DIVIS O1Vel V eaOSV3W L002/0C/9 030N3 SNINOW 3A13M1 a0d nice to ILLS ON11dd AD 61V11101/ Ala31aV00 NO1881818100 NOLLV1a0e/SNVa1 A1N000 301833AR • • • AGENDA ITEM 7D • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2007. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2007 under the single signature authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at. June 30, 2007 is $206,475. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of June 30, 2007 Agenda Item 7D 22 CONSULTANT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2008 SINGLE SIGNORE AUTHORITY AS OF June 30, 2007 • ORIGINAL CONTRACT REMAINING DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT O'Mella Consulting Transit Vision Conceptual Planning Services Dudek On -Cali Environmental Services Transportation Management and Design GIS support for RCTC Visioning Project Altmayer Consulting Development of FTA Procurement Policy and Procedures Manual Douglas Wood and Associates Professional consulting services for Arantine Hills Land Use Study Douglas Wood and Associates Professional consulting services for Arantine Hills Land Use Study U.S. Institute Intergovernmental Agreement for Environmental Conflict Resolution Bartel Associates Actuarial Valuation Services Said:Log "r ,. Arbitrage services' on 1989 MeasureA Bonds, Bond Loglstlx �. "` Arbitrage Caidulation Services for Commercial'. Paper Program Tv/Campaign Challengeiof the 91 Freeway US Army Engineer Research and Development Canter ., Gooperativ'e;Researnli and Development (sgreanr ngO�RADAj for,�lterna�Jve,an5iysis tr the f�ld,'Counly Parkway r AMOUNT USED AMOUNT REMAINING through June 30, 2007 Towa Reabrol•DeMorst Michele Cisneros Prepared by Reviewed by Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed In the fourth quarter. 23 8500,000.00 26,000.00 10,004.17 15,995.83 50,000.00 - 0.00 50,000.00 42,508,00 32,415.00 10,093.00 14.500.00 14,000.00 500.00 6,000.00 25,210.00 5,807.00 8,000.00 27,525.46 5,807.00 0.00 (2,315.48) 0.00 31,500.00 16,750.00 14,750.00 145;000.00 '-_' 2 10000 , , 42,800400` 12,000.00 0!;80 12,000100:= 20,000.00 i_ 20 000.00 .: ' jS,bbo.00 o.00 293,525.00 5206,475.00 75,000s0�0..', 134,601.63 158, 923.37 J:12007109Septemben7D.A1.TT.RCTC.Attach.4th Qtr Single Signaturexls AGENDA ITEM 7E • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION -COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Comrnittee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric 'Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Program .Maintenance of Effort Guidelines BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMIITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1 ) Approve the 20009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads. Program Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Guidelines; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 07-011, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Program Maintenance of Effort Guidelines. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: MOE guidelines have been in place for the Local Streets and Roads program since the commencement of the 1989 Measure A. The county of Riverside and the local cities must comply with these guidelines in order to receive Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds. As the commencement of the 2009 Measure A approaches, staff has reviewed the current MOE guidelines for application to the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads program. Based on this review and consultation with legal counsel, staff revised the guidelines developed for the 1989 Measure A, revised the dates and references, and inserted some clarifying language. Staff also presented a draft to the Technical Advisory Committee on June 18, 2007, and subsequently received comments fromtwo cities that have been considered in the revisions. In addition to updating dates and references to the applicable ordinance, language has been added to establish "base year" MOE amounts for cities incorporated after July 1, 2007, and to reevaluate the 'MOE in 2019 (10 years later) and in 2029 (20 years later). Further, the revised guidelines include language relative to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee and Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan requirements in Western Riverside County. The new guidelines will also establish a Agenda Item 7E 24 "base year" amount for the three cities incorporated after the passage of the 1989 Measure A. The new guidelines will becorne effective July 1, 2009 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 07-011, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Maintenance of Effort Guidelines" 2) 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Maintenance of Effort Guidelines (track changes) Agenda [tern 7E 25 RESOLUTION NO. 07-011 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE 2009 MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") has established maintenance of effort guidelines for the 1989 Measure A (Ordinance 88-1) Local Streets and Roads program; and WHEREAS, the 2009 Measure A (Ordinance No. 02-001) was adopted by the Commission in 2002 and approved by Riverside County voters on November 5, 2002 for the collection of the %z percent sales tax to fund transportation . improvements commencing on July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2039; WHEREAS, the 2009 Measure A includes a Local Streets and Roads Program in each of the three geographic area of the county of Riverside; and WHEREAS, the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Program includes a maintenance of effort requirement. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, that the Riverside County Transportation Commission has adopted the 2009 Measure. A Local Streets and Roads Maintenance of Effort Guidelines set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12' day of September, 2007. Terry Henderson, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board 26 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2009 MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT GUIDELINES INTENT Ordinance No. 02-001, adopted by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in 2002, approved a county -wide transportation expenditure plan and called for the placement of Measure A on the November ballot to secure voter approval of a 1/2 percent sales tax to fund transportation improvements. On November '5, 2002, Riverside County voters approved Measure A and collection of the sales tax will commence on July 1, 2009. Ordinance No. 02-001, in accordance with state law, imposes specific requirements on local agencies wishing to receive Measure A funds. In particular, in orderto ensure continued local effort to maintain local streets and roads., the Ordinance requires that local agenciescontinue to expend the same amount for construction: and _maintenance, of local roads which they have expended in the past. The guidelines set forth below ;establish specific maintenance of effort requirements and are intended to satisfy the Commission's responsibility to ensure that local transportation expenditures are maintained. GUIDELINES I. In order to qualify for Measure A funds, each local agency entitled to funding under Ordinance No. 02-001 must demonstrate a continuing commitment of local discretionary funds to local street and road improvements and maintenance. The following actions are required annually to show a continued maintenance of locale effort: A. Each local agency must submit to the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") a list of proposed uses for Measure A funds for the next five fiscal years (5-Year Plan). B. Each local agency must provide a certification to the Commission that Measure A funds will not replace existing local discretionary funds being used for local 27 transportation purposes. Examples of local non -discretionary funds include, but are not limited to, gas; tax revenues, federal funding, and local transportation funds (LTF). This certificationshall be based on one of the following findings: 1. That the same level of discretionary funds was expended for local streets and roads purposes during the past fiscal year as was reported in the. State Controller's Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads for fiscal year = 2007/08 (herein referred to as the"base year"); or 2. That extraordinary expenditures made by the local agency during fiscal year 2007/08 make use of the State Controller's Annual Report for that year unrealistic. In this case, the local agency may, upon approval of the Commission, determine its local maintenance of effort requirement using one of the following methods; a. Averaging the amount of local discretionary funds reported to the State Controller for the three year period of fiscal years 2005/06 through 2007/08; or b. Subtracting extraordinary expenditures (including but not limited to assessment district funds, redevelopment agency contributions, or other non- recurring contributions) from its total expenditures during the 2007/08 fiscal year. Development impact fees paid by developers constructing new housing to offset the impact of development on local streets and roads may be subtracted only if the local agency does not use such funds to satisfy its maintenance of effort requirement, or c. Petitioning the Commission for special consideration. The Commission recognizes that there may be cases where the two methods described above will not produce a dollar amount which adequately reflects the agency's past commitment of local revenues to the construction and maintenance of local streets and roads. In such cases, the Commission may establish a new minimum level of local streets and roads expenditures for the local agency based on factors which the Commission deterrnines are relevant. The Commission may also allow, in its sole discretion, a local agency to use developer fees to satisfy its maintenance of effort requirement. A local agency petitioning, the Commission under .this provision has the responsibility of presenting evidence which shows the need - for ,special consideration and which supports the new minimum expenditure limit. C. For cities incorporated after July 1, 2007, the base year shall, be the 28 • • average of the first three fiscal years of operations. The maintenance of local effort requirement shall apply to all fiscal years subsequent to the base -year. D. The maintenance of local effort shall be reevaluated and revised in 2019 and 2029 using the guidelines in Section 1.6 above with the following substitutions: a. In 2019, the fiscal year reference shall be 2017/18 and the three- year period of fiscal years shall be 2015/16 through 2017/18. The revised base year,will be effective in fiscal year 2019/20; and b. In 2029, the fiscal year reference shall be 2027/28 and the three- year period of .fiscal years shall be 2025/26 through 2027/28. The revised base year will be effective in fiscal year 2029/30. II. The Commission may, in its sole discretion, order an independent audit of a local agency's local streets and roads expenditures to verify that the maintenance of effort requirement has been met. I I I . When a local agency does not meet its maintenance of effort requirement in the fiscal year, the allocation to that agency in the following fiscal year will be reduced. The amount of the reduction will be an amount equal to . the amount, which the agency's- ; expenditures were below the maintenance of effort requirement. Revenues withheld from a local agency for failure to meet the maintenance of effort requirement will remain in the Measure A area in .which the agency is located, and will be allocated to the local agencies in the area, that are in compliance with the maintenance of effort requirement, using the allocation formula specified for the area. IV. Ordinance 02-001 also requires that local agencies, in the Western County and Coachella Valley areas must, in addition to meeting the maintenance of effort requirement, implement the Transportation Uniform Mitigation 'Fee (TUMF) developed by the Western 'Riverside Council of Govemments (VVRCOG) or the Coachella Valley Association of ,Governments (CVAG), respectively, in order to be eligible to receive Measure A Local Streets and Road Program funds. In addition, local agencies in the Westem County must participate in the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) by endorsing the permit and executing the Implementation Agreement in order to be eligible to receive Measure A Local Streets and Road Program funds. Funds withheld from a local agency in these areas for failure to implement the TUMF or the 'MSHCP will be 29 disbursed to the Commission or CVAG, as applicable, and must be used by the Commission or CVAG for the regional arterial program. Local Streets and Road Program formula funds disbursed to the Commission or CVAG will be credited as local match funds for the Measure A Regional Arterial Program formula funds. V. For the purpose of determining the amount of local discretionary funds expended by a local agency for local street and road purposes during :a fiscal year., the agency may use any local discretionary funds expended for local street and road purposes during the preceding years which were in excess of the agency's maintenance of effort requirement as determined by the Commission. APPROVED BY RCTC: September 12, 2007 30 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned hereby agrees and certifies for (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Measure A) shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Dated: , 20 City Manager Attest: City Clerk 31 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2009 MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT GUIDELINES INTENT Ordinance No. ,p2-00.1, adopted by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in,2002,_ approved a county -wide transportation expenditure ;plan and called for the placement of Measure A on the November ballot to secure voter approval of a 1/2 percent sales tax to fund transportation improvements. On November.5, 2002, Riverside County voters approved. Measure A and collection of _. the sales taxpill commence on July 1,2009. Ordinance No. ;02-001, in accordance with state law, Imposes spedflc , requirements on local agencies wishing to receive Measure A funds. In particular, in order to ensure continued local effort to maintain local streets and roads, the Ordinance requires that local agencies continue ,to expend the same amount for construction and maintenance of local roads which they have expended in the past. The guidelines set forth below establish specific maintenance of effort requirements and are intended. to satisfy the Commission's. responsibility to ensure .that local, transportation expenditures are maintained. GUIDELINES I. In order to qualify for Measure A funds, each local agency entitled to funding under Ordinance No. 1)2-001 must demonstrate a continuing commitment of local discretionary funds to local street and road improvements and maintenance. The following actions are required annually to show a continued maintenance of local effort: A. Each local agency must submit to the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") a list of proposed uses for Measure A funds for. the next five fiscal years (5-Year Plan). 32 Deleted: 88-1 Deleted: 1988 Deleted: 8, 1988 { Deleted: has since commenced i Deleted: 88-1 Deleted: 88-1 { Deleted: s B. Each local agency must provide a certification to the Commission that Measure A funds will not replace existing local discretionary funds being used for local transportation purposes. Examples of local non -discretionary funds include, but are not limited to, gas tax revenues, federal funding, and local transportation funds (LTF). This certification shall be based on one of the following findings: 1. That the same level of discretionary funds arras expended for local streets and roads purposes during the past fiscal year as was reported in the State Controller's Annual 'Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads for fiscal year .2007/08 (herein referred to as the "base year"); or 2. That extraordinary expenditures made by the local agency during fiscal year2007/08 make use of the State Controller's Annual Report for that year unrealistic. In this case, the local agency may, upon approval of the Commission, determine its local maintenance of effort requirement using one of the following methods: a. Averaging the amount of 'local discretionary funds reported to the State Controller for the three year period of fiscal years 2005/06 through 2007/08; or b. Subtracting extraordinary expenditures (including but not limited tossessment district funds, redevelopment agency contributions, or other non -recurring contributions) from its total expenditures during the 2007/08 fiscal year. Development impact fees paid by developers constructing new housing to offset the impact of development on local streets and roads may be subtracted only if the local agency does not use such funds to satisfy its maintenance of effort requirement, or c. Petitioning the Commission for special consideration. The Commission recognizes that there may be cases where the two methods described above will not produce a dollar amount which adequately reflects the agency's past commitment of local revenues to the construction and maintenance of local streets and roads. In such cases, the Commission may establish a new minimum level of local streets and roads expenditures for the local 33 t Deleted: were Deleted: 1987-88 Deleted: 1987-88 Deleted• 1988-86 Deleted: 1987-88'. . -t Deleted: SB 300 funds, Deleted: 1987-88 • • agency based on factors which the Commission determines are . relevant. The Commission may also allow, in its sole discretion, a local agency to use developer fees to satisfy its maintenance of effort requirement. A local agency petitioning the Commission under this provision has. the responsibility of presenting evidence which shows the need for special consideration and which supports the new minimum expenditure limit. C. For cities incorporated after July 1, 2007, the base year shall be the average of :the first three fiscal years of operations. The maintenance of local effort requirement shall apply to all fiscal years subsequent to the base year. D. The maintenance of local effort shall be reevaluated and revised in 2019 and 2029 using the guidelines in Section 1.E3 above with the following substitutions: a. -In 2019, the fiscal year reference shall be 2017/18 and the three-year period of fiscal years shall be 2015/16 through 2017/18. The revised base year will be effective in fiscal year 201.9/20; and b. In 2029, the fiscal year reference shall be 2027/28 and the three-year period of fiscal years shall be 2025/26 through 2027/28. The revised base year will be effective in fiscal year 2029/30. II. The Commission may, in its sole discretion, order an independent audit of a local agency's local streets and roads expenditures to verify that the maintenance of effort requirement has been met. I II ..When a local agency does not meet its maintenance of effort` �- requirement in the fiscal year, the allocation to that agency :in the following fiscal year will be reduced. The amount of the reduction will be an amount equal to the amount which the agency's expenditures were 'below the maintenance of effort requirement. Revenues withheld from a local agency for failure to meet the maintenance of effort requirement will remain in the Measure A area in which the agency is located, and will be allocated to the local agencies in the area, that are in compliance with the maintenance of effort requirement, using the allocation formula specified for the area. IV. Ordinance 02-001 also requires that local agencies, in the Western, 34 4 Deleted: 88-1 County and Coachella Valley areas must, in addition to meeting the maintenance of effort requirement, implement the Transportation Uniform Mitigation fee_ (TUMF) developed by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (VVRCOG) or the Coachella Valley Association of Govemments (CVAG), respectively, in order to be eligible to receive Measure A Local Streets and Road Program funds. In addition, local agencies in. the Western County must participate in the 'Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) , by endorsing the permit and executing the Implementation. Agreement in order to be eligible to receive Measure A Local Streets and Road Program funds. Funds withheld from a local agency in these areas for failure to implement the TUMF or the MSHCP will be disbursed to the Commission or CVAG, as applicable, and must be used by the Commission or CVAG for the regional arterial program. Local Streets and Road Program formula funds disbursed to the Commission or CVAG will be credited as local match funds for the Measure A Regional Arterial Program formula funds. V. For the purpose of determining the amount of local discretionary funds expended by a local agency for local street and road purposes during a fiscal year, the agency may use any local discretionary funds expended for local street and road purposes during the preceding years, which were in excess of the agency's maintenance of effort requirement as determined by the Commission. APPROVED BY'RCTC' September , 2007 35 Deleted; Coachella, Valley Area { Deleted.: MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned hereby agrees and certifies for (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. A2-001 of the Riverside County_ Transportation Commission (Measure A) shall . , be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously. expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Dated: ,20 City Manager 36 { Deleted: xx-1 l Deleted: Secretary¶ AGENDA ITEM 7F • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM• ' Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director ' SUBJECT: State Route 60/1nterstate 215 East Junction Connectors -Additional Funds Request BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve $4 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program funds for the '60/215 'East Junction connectors project for the right-of-way phase; 2) Approve $459,000 of Measure A funds as matchto the CMAQ funds in the event it is needed; 8) Approve a budget amendment for a $4 million increase to federal revenues in FY 2007/08; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute associated amendment agreements to reflect additional funding. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: $:4 rnillion The 60/215 East Junction connectors project is currently in the design phase. This project is the seventh segment of the overall design sequencing project, 60/91 /215 interchange and corridor improvements project, currently under construction and scheduled for completion in April 2008. As the design sequencing project is nearing completion, project elements have been shifted to be constructed as part of the 60/215 East Junction connectors -seventh segment project to avoid repeated closures, reducing impacts to the community. The project elements shifted include realignment of the frontage road and widening along Box Springs Road between Ironwood Road and Fair Isle/Box Springs Road interchange. This additional project element will require the purchase of right-of-way in the amount of $4 million. The original 60/215 East Junction project did not require the purchase of right-of-way since it was originally identified under the design sequencing project. However, costs have increased . since the original estimate 'bringing the right-of-way cost total to $4 million. Agenda Item 7F 37 Staff recommends programming $4 'minion of CMAQ funds for the :right-of-way phase. There are enough CMAQ funds available this fiscal year to cover this request. CMAQ funds are restricted to certain project types and this project is eligible for these funds. Further, there are State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds programmed for the construction phase. Staff will request that these funds be considered as match for the $4 million in CMAQ funds. If this. request is denied, staff recommends the approval of $459,000 of Measure A funds be used as match. The total project cast including the $4 million for right-of-way is $38 million. Other funding committed on this project includes $2.2 million of CMAQ for the design phase with $287,000 of Measure A as match funds, and $31.6 million of STIP funding for the construction phase. Environmental and .preliminary engineering was previously completed under the design sequencing project. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget No Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $4,000,000 $ 459,000 Source of 'Funds: CMAQ Measure A Budget Adjustment: Yes No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 08/20/2007 Agenda Item 7F 38 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA T/ON=COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Additional Funds Request For State Route 60/Valley Way to Interstate 15 Project BUDGET AND IMPLEMENA T/ON COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the 'Commission to: 1) Approve an additional $ 1.5 million of 'Congestion Mitigation and . Air Quality, (CMAQ) ;program funds for the SR-60/Valley Way to 1-15 'high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and mixed flow gap closure project; and 2} Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute associated amendment agreements to reflect additional' funding. _ BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The SR-60/Valley Way to I-15 HOV and gap closure project has been under construction since May 2006. During construction, the . project encountered problems such as. unsuitable material (large rocks and boulders), different site conditions during trenching of electrical conduits and drilling for most sound walls, and other changes related to field conditions for roadway work, utilities, and bridge structure work. The project needs an additional $1.5 million to cover increased costs associated with the above work. The Commission previously approved a total of $26 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, of which, $21 million was a loan to the state to replace suspended Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) funds during the state budget crisis. In addition, $8.881 million of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program funds were loaned by the Commission in December 2004 to allow the project to proceed due to lack of available State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding during the state budget crisis. Agenda Item 7G 39 A Letter of No Prejudice was approved by the California. Transportation Commission (CTC) in March 2005 allowing repayment of $21 million dollars of TCR funds, which will be repaid upon completion of the SR-60 project currently scheduled for January 2009. Further, the $8.881 million TUMF loan was repaid during the 2006 STIP cycle and was programmed on the 60/215 East Junction project. Staff recornmends programming the additional $1.5 million needed to complete the SR-60 ,project with CMAQ funds. There are enough CMAQ funds ,available .this. fiscal year to cover this request. Should the Commission approve staff's recommendation, the Commission's funding participation for this project after. receipt of .the TCR repayment will be $6.5 million of CMAQ funds.. The. total project cost including the additional $1.5 million is $65.445 million. Financial 'Information In Fiscal Year ;Budget: N/A Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $1,500,000 Source of Funds: Federal CMAQ Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA. N N/A Fiscal. Procedures Approved: Agenda Item 7G 40 Date: 08./22/2007 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA T/ON_ COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM:. Plans and Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commission Position on Proposed Goods Movement Control' Measures . for the 2007 South Coast Air Quality :Management Plan/2008 Regional Transportation Plan PLAINS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Request that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) develop and approve Goods 'Movernent Control Measures for the inclusion in the 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)/2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that a) demonstrates the feasibility of implementation by the attainment/implementation deadline(s); b) specifically identifies roles, responsibilities, and funding of all parties involved including funding that the Commission agrees with; c) does not put the region at -risk of losing federal transportation funds; and 2) Work with SCAG, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the county transportation commissions to ensure fair and equitable responsibility for emissions reductions that also include federal regulatory agencies. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SCAG is responsible for developing the transportation component of. the AQMP, which includes the development of transportation programs, measures, and strategies that meet air quality standards and attainment . dates. Of issue is meeting the new emission standard for Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 by 2014. If the AQMP cannot demonstrate attainment of PM 2.5 by 2014, the region would be at risk of losing federal funding. Agenda Item 7H 41 SCAG has been working with the SCAQMD, Air Resources Board (ARB) and county transportation commissions on developing Goods Movement Control strategies which currently include a High Speed Transport system and Truck -only lanes. Last April, the ARB released its Draft State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP), which identifies a number of near -term control measures that are aimed at reducing emissions from mobile sources and consumer ;products. The Goods Movement Control strategies together with the state strategy should meet our attainment requirement. However, if these strategies are not approved by ARB and the 'Environmental 'Protection Agency (EPA), SCAG will need to propose additional strategies for inclusion in the 2007 AQMP. Currently, SCAG is proposing the following :projects as a back up to the Goods Movement Control Measure strategy and for inclusion in the 2008RT:P update: 1) electrification of various rail corridors; 2) grade separation strategies; and 3) the implementation of ''lower emission railroad locomotives within the South Coast Air Basin. A range of options that :includes the above projects are 'being studied, which have different emission benefits and costs. SCAG assumes that a tiered implementation approach to meet 2014 and beyond attainment dates will be funded by a combination of sources, including county transportation cornmission funds; new Metrolink bonds, State Proposition 1 B goods movement and air quality bonds, SB 974 container fees, and bonding through a public/private ,partnership. None of these fund sources are currently committed to the proposed strategies. Although staff supports the proposed strategies conceptually, if these proposed strategies are ; incorporated in to the AQMP and/or . the financially constrained element of the RTP, the SCAG region would be "on the hook`' to implement these projects even though funding is not committed. This would result in the county transportation commissions being forced to fund these projects orr risk the loss of federal funds, thereby jeopardizing already committed projects. The coordination of many entities (public and private) would be necessary to implement the >proposed projects, and would take a considerable amount of time to achieve a consensus on how to implement and fund these projects. Therefore' staff supports the development of a detailed funding and implementation plan. Staff will continue to work with SCAG and the other county transportation commissions in developing a Goods Movement Control Measure strategy that will rneet the requisite attainment dates and can be implemented in a reasonable timeframe Staff will also work with these agencies to ensure that federally regulated PM 2.5 contributors such as ports, trains, and planes do their fair share in reducing PM 2.5 emissions. Agenda Item 7H 42 t • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION_ COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry 'Rivera, Program !Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: .. Fiscal Year 2008-12 Measure A Five -Yeas Capital lmprovement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Calimesa,' Murrieta, and 'Norco BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2008-12 Measure A ,Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for local streets and roads for the cities of Calimesa, Murrieta, and Norco as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. Measure A requires each recipient of Local streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five-year plan on 'how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the Coachella Valley and Western County cities and the county must be participating in either the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) .Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TU'MF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of maintenance of effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On April 20, 2007,.Commission staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the, required CIP. The agencies were asked to submit their CIPs by June 11, 2007 for: submission to the 'Budget and Implementation Committee at its June 25, 2007 meeting and to the Commission on July 11, 2007. At its July 11, 2007 meeting, the Commission approved the plans for all but six cities: Beaumont, Desert Hot Springs, Calimesa, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta and Norco. Subsequently, staff has received the required CIP, MOE certification and supporting documentation from the cities of Calimesa, Murrieta, and Norco. The other three cities have been informed that. no disbursement of Measure A funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents have been received and approved by the Commission. Agenda Item 71 43 Attachment: Measure A Capital Improvement Plans for Calimesa, Agenda Item 71 44 Murrieta, and 81353 J'R EaRgy-of Calime8a ,_ AUG 1 32007 .� RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION August 9, 2007 Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTN: Jerry Rivera 3560 University Avenue #1`00 Riverside, CA 92501 : FY2008-12 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Plan Dear Mr. Rivera: I am submitting the 2008-2012 Measure A expenditure plan as required on behalf of our City Engineer, Anne Schneider. As a reminder (per our prior City Engineer), the City of Calunesa was not incorporated prior to the voter approval and is therefore, not subject to the Measure A Maintenance of Effort Certification. If you have any questions please call me at 909-795-9801 x 230. Sincerely, 4 i i1, Debbie Cain Finance Director Cc: Anne Schneider, City Engineer Dave Lane, City Manager Printed on Recycled Papa -P.O. Box 1190 • Calimesa, Cal omia 92320 • (909) 795-9801 X.29.04 000't z spund „yn aanseeW leol 000`L I. _ $ 000`L I. pueto8A0 a0ieyo atigeiisluLuapy E 000'L6 L $ 000'L6 i $ 1Bnuuy pelbud uo ruisuoaea `leas kin `Aepen0 epo 40 slams snopeA z spund y aineBe W }sod le}ol adAl pafoad uogdlaosaQ pafoad •oN uaa}( LOU '93 Alnf 1ema 1086-96L-606 : •oN auoud (aolown eoueuu `Limo apnea aaplauyos euuy paasdaJd eseu 180 Jo AII0 :A0N9 Jb 80-L0aZ AJ INV800dd SONN 1V001 'NH 3unsv3W NflISSIINW00 NOLLVIIIOd.SNbal AlNnoo 3a1Sa3A111 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008-09. AGENCY: City of Calimesa Prepared by: Anne Schneider (Debbie Cain, Finance Director) Rhone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: July 26, 2007 Item No. Project Description _ Project Type _ _ Total Cost _ _ Measure A Funds 2 Various Streets City Wide Overlay, Slurry Seal, Reconstruction Project Annual $__ _ _ _ 208,900 208,900_ 3 Administrative Charge Overhead _ $ _ _ _ 18,100 $ 18,100 Total Measure "A" Funds 227,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2009-10- AGENCY; City of Calimesa Prepared by: Anne Schneider (Debbie Cain, Finance Director) Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Dater July 26, 2007 Item No. Project Description Project Type :: Total Cost Measure A Funds 2 Various Streets City Wide Overlay, Slurry Seal, Reconstruction Project Annual $ 159,200 . $ 159,200 3 Administrative Charge _ Overhead _ $ _ _ _ 13,800: $ 13,800 Total Measure "A" Funds 173,000 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2010--1.1�_�'--._.. AGENCY: City of Calimesa Prepared by: Angie Schneider(Debbie Cain, Finance Directory Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: July26, 2007 Item No. Protect Description Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds_ 2 Various Streets City Wide Overlay, Slurry Seal, Reconstruction Project Annual $ 167,500 $ 167,500 3 Administrative Charge Overhead _ $ 14,500 $ 14,500 Total Measure "A Funds 182,000 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2011-12 AGENCY: City of Calimesa Prepared by: Anne Schneider (Debbie Cain, Finance Director) Phone No.: 909-795.9801 Date: August 9, 2007 Item No. Project Description Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2 Various Streets City Wide Overlay, Slurry Seal, ., Reconstruction Project Annual $ 176,100 $ 176,100 3 Administrative Charge 9 Overhead $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Total Measure "A" Funds 50 191,100 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2007: 2008 Agency: City of Murrieta �. Page: 1 of 5 Prepared by: Bob Moehling, Acting Public Works Director Phone #r (951 ) 461-6036 Date: 7/16/2007 Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Project Name / Limits CIP 8043 Pavement Resurfacing Asphalt Overlay CIP 8228 1-215 Overcrossing @ Linnel CIP 8366 Los Alamos Raised Medians CI'P 8367 Hancock @ Calle Yorba Vista Signal CIP 8368 Washingyton Raised Medians CIP 8431 Stepp Road/Antelope By Pass CIP 8430 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program CIP 8432 Clinton Keith/Meadowlark Lane Total 5-.2 Project Type Maintenance • Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Total Cost $ 2,740,174 $ $ 12,667,166 $ $ 251,762 $ $ 30,082 $ $ 253,805 $ $ 945,318 $ 150,750 $ $ 70,000 $ Measure A Funds 2,740,1(74 1,500,000 251,762 30,082 253,805 539,318 150,750 70,000 5;535,891 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008-2009 Agency City of Murrieta Page: 2 of 5 Prepared by Bob Moehling, Acting Public Works Director Phone #: (951) 461-6036 Date 7/16/2007 Item # 1. 2' 3 4 5 6 7 Project Name / Lhnits , CIP 8043 Pavement Resurfacing Asphalt Overlay CIP 8430 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Debt Service - COP 2007 for 1-215 Interchange @ Clinton Keith CIP 8059 Guava: Jefferson to Murrieta Creek CIP 8303 I-215 Interchange @ Clinton Keith Debt Service - COP 1997 refinances for I-15 & 1-215 Interchanges @ Murrieta Hot Springs Road CIP 8323 Guava Bridge over Murrieta Creek Total Project Type Maintenance • Construction Debt Service Construction Construction Debt Service Construction Measure A Total Cost Funds $ 1,370,087 $ 1,370,0187 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 6,069,850 $ 1,085,000 $ 23,717,651 $ 2,000,000 $ 711,000 $ $ 4,418,454 $ 711,000 2,136,500 • $ 7;952,587 Oontz`£ $ o00`000`L $ t9tb'8417'b $ 000` L 11 000`osc $ 000`oo£ mines spund y a mseaw 000` 6 (.L 000`09£ $ 000`00£ 00Z'L89 ;so° le;ol uollonu suo0 eolivas qaq. uoRon4suo0 eoueual.umN ea/ oxford 1% 5 le�ol meal°. elepinW JOAo a6ppa enen0 £Z£8 d10 peon Oupds 10H elal»nW sa6ueyoaalul 91,Z-1'8 91.1 aol seoueu jeu L666 d00 - eouuaS Asa 4112)1 uolu110 eBueyoia}ul 9 LZ-1 ao LoOZ d00 - GOINGS plea weZo d }uewa6euew °um' pooyaogy6laN 0£V9 d10 AGIJOn0;leydsy - 6uloejinsau puawened £V09 d10 snuin / aweNPafo rd LOOZ/96/L :wed 9£09-1917 (1.56) :## auoyd Jo;oeila svoM ollgnd &MY `6u114aon qo9 :AQ peueclard 510 £ . :abed elepinW Alb MOuafb 01.0Z-600Z Ad 141V1100dd SCINnd 7V907 MlnS1Y311V NOISSIWI/100 NOIl tildOdSNVZ:LL A1N1100 HOISdaAld • 14,4 . 00Z`9.176` I $ 000` 6 61 $ 000` 1.6L 000`09£ $ 000`09£ 00'Z'L88 $ 00eL89 spund ;so° mai y a Inseam, $ aouues lgaa $ gown ma $ eoueuemen ads l paload peo8 s6u!ads }oH ela!�nW se6uegoaalui 91 Z-I V 91.1 col seoueuga.l 2.661. d00 - eowaS lgaa y ia)1 uolu!la 96ueyoaalul S62-1aoi LOOZ d00 - eo!NaS Asa Aepanp l!eydsy - 6upejansall luawened £1709 d13 sniu/71 BWeN pafoad Z # wen LOOZl91./L :a;ea 9£09-69t (1.96) :# auogd Jopain svoM 61410y 16uilgeovi goe peredead 9 to :oBed elepann Jo Ain aoua6d kkOZ=OLOZ Ad 14It/d9OUd SONnd It/007 V Hansvgx NOISSIWWOO NOIL.ifidOdSNI ll AiNnoo 3Q SZl3AW 996' 6Z8` 7 $ 89L`£18`Z $ 8911£L9`Z $ 000' L 61 $ 000' 141 $ 0004098 $ 000`09£ $ OOZ'L8s $ 00Z`188 • spun] . ;soo. fe;ol v ainsem uogorAsuoo eowaS igaa aowaS lgaa • aqueual,uleW aal ;0*id !Bpi dwe l punogymos 91.-0ennped /tem youaad 81•08 dia peoN s6ulyds loH eielimw saBuet.pawl 91Z-1'9 91.-1 ion seoueugeu L66 6 dO0 - eoVues Aea 1-111eN uolulla @'� e6ueyaaalul 91•Z-I JOI LOOZ d03 - eowag Aaa Aepenp lleydsy - 6upepnsad wewened £1709 dla Pluq7 / aweN Pero id LOOZ/9 : a;e° 9909-1.917(1.96) :# euoyd Jopaila svoM olignd 6ugoy `6uliyaoW qo8 pandard 9 jo 9 :eBed elep.mW;o A110 aouaBy GOZ-140Z Ad 141b'2 90dd 7V007 V 3b117Sb'3W NOISSIINI 100 NOLLVI JOdSNV81 A-LIM00 3021Sti3/Iid • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A "LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2007, - 2088 Agency: CITY 4F NORCO Page a_ of _t_ Prepared by: WILLIAM R. THOMPSON Phone # 951-270-5507 Date: ,DUNE 15, 2007 Item No. Project Name/ Limits 1. Rocky View 2, Hillside Ave. — Sixth St. to River Dr. 3. Unspecified Pavement Overlays 4. Unspecified Rehabilitabon and Overlay 5 Pikes Peak — Sixth St to Mt Shasta 5• Golden Gate °rile, Hilltop Lane 7. Noncoman Dr. - Frfth St. to Norco Dr. 8. Parkndge Ave.— Second St. to Kips Korner 9. Misc. Reconstruction Projects 10. Crestview Ave. North Dr.. to Sixth St. 11. Hidden Valley, Raver Dr. — Center to Hillside 12. Traffic Signal Improvements Fifth, Sixth St 13. Miscellaneous Pavement Repair's 14. Miscellaneous Seal Coats / nvera/ meatw reA Syrfonn Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Overlay Overlay Overlay Overlay/ Reconstruction Overlay/'Reconstruction Overlay/ Reconstruction Overlay/Reconstruction Overlay/ Reconstruction ` Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruction. Signal Street Maintenance Seal Coat Measure A Funds ($000's) 12s.. 250 100 100 180 50 Zoo 150 200 554 75 300 75 50 58 128 250 100 100 180 50 200 150 200 554 75 " 300 75 50 SE OS SZ OS 00Z SLZ 00E OOT OOT OSZ (s.000$) spunu v e.tnseew SC OS SZ OS 00Z SLZ 00C OOT 00; OSZ )CJ' suiduiS 3003 le0S Inas aaueuaauiew aaQS umpn 0suooaa Repanp umpruasuoaau /AepaA0 uomn.;suomi /LteµaA0 AeNaAo AepaA0 AepaAO U JOVA J115estuienALI/ 6uidµits PARS sleoa leas snoeuenaosiki 1411ewaAaudwY Ieu6is a eat medal' }uawaAed snoeuenenipi spa[ad uorpn.0suopas 'asfw 'IS PuoaaS a4 •;s — -*Ay euwo3 S pmu. 14S puopas -- •aiky apislUH Aep*A0 p.ue uoye:1111g04011 painadsuri silepaA0 4uawaAed petinadsun puaaaS a} 1S —'0AV melA AalleA (5,0.000 pco 141 adA4 pa[oud sanull / eweN Perak, ,oN usa�I cooz 1st aNne :yea .. L09S-OLZ-tSb_ # auoyd NOSdi•10H.L '?! 14V111IM .Aq PaedeJd 96ed 0DIJON JO ALID .:Aaua611 . 600e 800ntd WVIID ZId savozi 5133aLS 7E707321175VIN • RIVERSIDE -COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2009 : - 2010 Agency: CITY OF NORCO Page of , Prepared by: WILLIAM R. THOMPSON Phone # 951.270-5607 Date: DUNE 15, 2007 Item No. 1. 2. 3. a. _5. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. Project Name./ Limits Unspecified Pavement overlays Unspecified Rehabilitation and Overlay Reservotr Dr. - Corona Ave. to Teinescal Ave. River Rd. -- Santa Ana River to Corydon Misc. Reconstrucbon Projects Miscellaneous Pavement Repairs Traffic Signal improvements Miscellaneous Seal Coats Street Stnping / rivera / rmeasureASyriortn Project Type Overlay Overlay Overlay Overlay/Reconstruction Overlay/Reconstruction Street Maintenance Signal Seal Coat Stnping Total Cost ($a00's) 250 100 200 250 200 50 50 50 30 • Measure A Funds ($000's) 250 100 zoo 250 275 50 50 50 30 OE OS OS OS 00Z OSZ OSZ OE OS OS OS 00Z OSZ OSZ (s,000$) spuna b ainseew 6uidiiIS leoleas leuths a3ueualwew lea s 1.1014,3n,gsuooeu uorpnl4suo3oH /AepaA0 AttpaA0 (s,000$) 2so3 mai adAl pa[aad cwomAnseaw/tuatiu/ Buidi4S laa4S sleo7 leas snoeueliantw swetueAcudwi ieuBrg )ideal saleded rimmed snoaueneossw spew(' u01131tttsuooeu *asiw Aes.sano pue uogeli geueH pagmdsull sAepeA0 3uawaned pa �3adsu�} 'Zt 'TT •O '6 .$ .L ' 9 ' S "b 'E .Z .T sliturl / aweN Pare d '4N. wan LOOZ ST aunt *WO L09S-OLZ-TS6 # auoyd NOSd140H1 ' 1 wvrrnm :Aq pasedaad 03110N A0 MD :AzuaBp itIKIDo?!d SODDY 513. 111.5 7K707 a Vn 311175V314 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY--TRAIVSPDRTA nay.CQMMISSI o sir MEASURE "A' LOCAL STRESS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 20411 - 201 Agency CITY OF NORCO Page Zof Prepared by: WILL AM R. TH`OMPSON Phone # 951-270-5607 Date: 3UNE 15 2007. Item No. Project Name J Limits 1. Unspecified Pavement Overlays 2 unspecified Rehabilitation and Overlay 3. Misc, Reconstruction Projects 4. Miscellaneous Pavement Repairs 5, Traffic Signal Improvements b. Miscellaneous Seal Coats 7. Street Striping a. 9. 10. 11. 12. JriveraJmeasureA5yrtorm . Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($00'0's) Overlay Overlay/ Reconstruction Reconstruction Street Maintenance Signal Seal Coat Striping 62 250 SOO 200 50 50 50 30 250 SO0 200 50 SO 50 30 AGENDA ITE f� • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION_ COMMISSION DATE: September- 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry -Rivera, 'Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007-11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Calimesa BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION. - This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2007-1 1 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for local streets and roads for the city of Calimesa as submitted. BACKGROUIUD .INFORMATION: Measure A requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the _Commission ' a ,.five-year. plan- on how t`hose;funds .ar-eto be expended in order- to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the Coachella Valley and Western County cities and the county must be participating in either the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of maintenance of effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On April 10, 2006, Commission staff provided the local agencies with Measure A. revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the: required CIP for 'FY 2007-11. The agencies were asked to submit their CIPs by June 12, 2006, for submission to the Commission on July 12, 2006. The required CIP, MOE certification and supporting documentation was recently received from the city of Calimesa. Attachment: Measure A Capital Improvement 'Plan for City of Calimesa Agenda Item 7J 63 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY2006-07 AGENCY: City of Calimesa Prepared by: Anne Schneider (Debbie Cain, Finance Director) . Phone No.: 909.7959801 Date: July 26, 2007 Item Nv. Project Description „ Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2 Various_ Streets City Wide _ Overlay, Slurry Seal, Reconstruction Project Annual $ 186,000 ; $ _ ._ _ _ 186,000 3 Administrative Charge Overhead _ _ $ 16,000 _ $ _ 16,000 . Total Measure "A" Funds 202,000 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY2007-08 AGENCY: City of Calimesa Prepared by. Anne Schneider (Debbie Cain, Finance Director) Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: July 26, 2007 Item No. Protect Description _ _ Project Type Total Cost _ Measure_A Funds 2yarious_Streets City Wide Overlay, Slurry Seal, Reconstruction Project Annual $_ _ 197,000„$ _ _- 197,000 3_ Administrative Charge Overhead $ 17,000 $ _ _ 17,000 Total Measure "A" Funds 214,000 • RIVERSIDE -COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE."A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM. FY2008-09 AGENCY: City of Calimesa Prepared by: Anne Schneider (Debbie Cain, Finance Director) Phone No.: 909-795.9801 Date: July 26, 2007 Ite Fi No, Project Description Project Type Total Cost _ Measure A Funds 2 Various Streets City .Wide Overlay, Slurry Seal, Reconstruction Project Annual $ 208,900 $ 208,900 3 Administrative Char a Overhead :$ 18,100 _ _$ 18,100 Total Measure "A" Funds 227,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY2009-10 AGENCY: City of Calimesa Prepared by: Anne Schneider (Debbie Cain, Finance Director) Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: July 26, 2007 Item No. _ Project, Description Project Type: Total Cast _Measure A Funds 2 Various Streets CityWide Overlay, Slurry Seal, Reconstruction Project Annual $ 159i200 $ 159,200 3 Administrative Charge Overhead $ 13,800 $ _ 13,800 Total Measure 'IA" Funds 173,000 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY2010-11- AGENCY: City of Calimesa Prepared by: Anne Schneider (Debbie Cain, Finance Director) Phone No.: 909-795.8801 Date: July 26, 2007 Item No. Project Description_ _ Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2 Various Streets City Wide Overlay, Slurry Seal, Reconstruction Project Annual $ 167,500 ..$ 167,500,. 3 Administrative Charge Overhead $ • i4,500 . $: 14,500 Total Measure "A" Funds 68 182,000 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION_COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH:. Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007-11 Measure A Capital Improvement Amendment for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Corona Plan BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the FY 2007-11 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for local streets and roads for the city of Corona as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Measure A requires each recipient of local streets and roads monies to annually provide _to: the -Commission a five-year "plan on 'how those funds -are -to be' expended in order to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the Coachella Valley_ and Western County cities and the county must be participating in either the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform 'Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are also required to submit an annual certification of maintenance of effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The CIP for the city of Corona was approved by the Commission at its September 14, 2006 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The city of Corona is requesting to .amend its FY 2007-11 CIP to reflect adjustments to the city's capital projects that have been approved by the city council throughout the fiscal year. Attachment: Letter from the City of Corona with Revised CIP Schedule Agenda Item 7K 69 (951) 736-2447 (951) 279-3627,(FAX) AtiE@ci.corona.ca.us (E-mail) • June 7, 2007 OFFICE OF: 80032 J R PUBLIC WORKS DEP RIVERSIDE COUNTY 400 SOUTH VICENTIA AVENUE, P.O. BOX ,MgRA,0 1iMIS 1IA 92878-0940 CORONA CITY HALL - ONLINE, ALL THE TIME (http:!/www.discovercoronacom) Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 ;University Avenue #100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attention: Jerry Rivera eM©Ern48107 l�112�07 U SUBJECT:- CITY OF CORONA 2006107 FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET We. hereby:. request a revision to the FY 2006/07 Five Year Capital, .Improvement Plan Budget:;, The adjustment to capital projects will be reported in Project Status Report as 'continuing appropriations into the 2007/08 Fiscal Year. The Corona City Council has approved the attached Measure A Capital Improvement Project funding using available fund balance. All current year budgetary realignments have also been identified on the same attachment. If you have any: questions please contact Reza Zolghadr, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer, at 951- 736-2441, or Barbara Thierjung, 'Finance Manager, at 951-736-2314. Sincerely, A'l I ESKANDARI, P.E. Assistant Public Works Director AEIRZIirt attachment cc: Barbara Thierjung, Finance Manager Reza Zolghadr, 'P.E., Senior Civil Engineer 70 x.29.07 0 0 • 5t 8' I L St78` EL ia8pn;g iruope.todp (puogianp) uric uo teoul iv isoo sAID I 1 , 000`00T 000`00,1 s4rmaaid put saSu ‘sproN airpcIn luawaig uop nail 01 000'0.51 000'05I sXumaat, pur safppy `sproN wawomidaN/uone11risu:I aounD I8 gpno 'xtrmapl8 6 000'09 0.00109 sgrmoaa8 pur saSpp8 `sproN sauautanoldtui Jannwq.m3 luiuopiM iaaus Ir6o/ . K 8179`Z£5 8179`Z£5 s4rnkaa.td pur saSppe •sproN upa woos anuany t us/saffplig 4emaalg L OZ I'9 OZ I `9 sapworg pur •swamis `8ulpun9 uopeollddd sip optntdio 9 M. (000'51) (000'51) saoafold d °instayNI aatpo of poarajsueu 000'0b5 000'0t75 Zi I `ZZb' I (000`0.6I) (0004LL5) s,Srmaaid pus sa2ppg •spro21 Suluapi/A ItTolid uopy ipunop 9oa uo I aad »a fold moue of uolilppb sinafoad d aansraN law° of palaaisueal, urid isaX g snolnaad uo pa»lwgns tunowr of uopoauoD ' (09ti`L£i `l) 90/IZ/9 uo uoudopr la8pnq lad =ford anogr of uoponpaN LRC*9tiS 000'LL9"£ samtaa..id our saSppf{ `sproN uopulllige4o21 luatuannd Jof iAt t °ono I 000`00 I armaaad pur sa8pug 'sprom Spills iumuaBruew luawaned i 00.0`00t 000`0017 sieuSls our Suptgln siruSis a0;tru apvetSio Z - 00.0'00i [Vale uopod Hounop 90/6t/Z I lad Jaafold anogr of uomppd uouoy itouno' 90/ZI/01 .tad loafoid anoge ua uoPIPPd 000'008`Z $ 000100WZ $ sArmaaaA pur saEppg °speuN sto-sns pool aoI uollrllllgegaN luatuanrd I L00z-900ZRd ts.? 1S0 7V,L01 Hdhil (C 024»3)idgrONd _ • SIM117/HIV VN► agfOlid *ON UW3747.77E-OS bwifISVall SntorsdINVO&MVA43nt LOOZ-900ZA f Ngll LOOZ•900Z JvaR Iuasgd IIOZ-010Z o; LOOZ-900Z Ad 141WIDOUd ScINal 71307 „ V„ ZWILS .7141 NOISSINPV03 AIOLLVIY0d ,AT I,L A.. N170 3QISWHAIW zooz `zz kW TIPPt-9£'L 0.96) nuolofo Cto :atnQ parbta8 :a111a :VW auot{d �g pa odav : ottaSy • N Agency: Prepared By Phone No.: Date: Revised Date: City of Corona. Reza Zolghadr (951) 736-2441 Mr-30 6 May 22, 2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 Fiscal Year 2006-2007 ITEM NO. <. PROJECT NAME /'LIMITS PROJECT (Category) TYPE - FY 2006.2007 NEW APPROPRIATIONS TOTAL COST MEASURE A ENTITLEMENTS Est. FY 2006-2007 12 1-15/Ontario interchange Roads. Bridges and Freeways Transferred from other Measure A projects 15,000 - 13 Lincoln Avenue Congestion Relief Improvements Roads. Bridges and Freeways Transferred from other Measure A projects 15,000 15,000 14 Mc Kinley/Santa Fe Railroad Grade Separation Roads, Bridges and Freeways Transferred from other Measure A projects 25.000 - 15 Magnolia/I-15 Freeway Corridor Roads. Bridges and Freeways Addition to above project per budget adoption on 6/21/06 3.400,000 - Transferred to other Measure A projects (443.216) - Transferred from other Measure A projects 50,000 - 16 Auto Center/Santa Fe Railroad Grade Separation Roads. Bridges and Freeways Addition to above project per 1/10/07 Council Action 1,280,260 - Transferred from other Measure A projects 100,000 - 17 Sixth Street Beautification Roads, Bridges and Freeways Realigned to fund balance (458,403) - 18 Street improvement Project Roads, Bridges and Freeways Addition to above project per 11 /30/06 Council Action` : 120,400 - Q Difference funded by prior available fund balance. Q Funding realigned to/from other Measure A projects. Q Project closed - prior funding realigned to fund balance. Original Total - Revised Total 8,137,613 $, 5,297,000 . . 12.087,242 $ . 5,297,000 Original Revised Estimated Measure A Entitlements Disbursements: $ 5,297,000 $ 5,297,000 Prior Year's Estimated Fund Balancer: 3,140,613 $ 6,790,242 Q $ 8,437,613 $ 12,087,242 Page 2 of 2' D • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION_ COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission F'ROIVI: Plans and 'Programs Committee Tanya Love, Prograrn Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Consultant Services for Environmental Justice Analysis and Outreach for the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 08-67=017-00 in the amount of $223,970 to Moore lacofano .Go'Itsman, Inc. (MIG) to provide consultant: services for Environmental Justice Analysis and Outreach for the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP); and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In January 2007, the Commission approved entering into an agreement : with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for $200,000 in; grant funds' from the Environmental Justice (EJ): Context -Sensitive Transportation , Planning grant program. In addition to committing $6,000 in local funds, the Comrnission. entered into funding agreements with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for the local funding match of $24,000 in support of the 'EJ grant. With funding in place, staff was authorized to release a- request for proposal (RFP) to conduct an EJ analysis and community outreach to supplement the MCGMAP, which is a work effort designed to model goods movement growth trends, identify possible public -private partnerships, and highlight near to long-term strategies, as well as development of a list of potential projects to be funded. The request for proposals was distributed to approximately 25 firms. A total of three proposals were received and consultant interviews were conducted on August 15, 2007. The selection committee consisted of staff from the Commission together with agency representatives from Ventura County Agenda Item 7L 73 Transportation Commission (VCTC), Ca!trans, Metro, OCTA, SANBAG, . a community member impacted by goods movement and an individual from the business community . - .The following criteria were used to evaluate the ,:proposals:: 1 ) Qualification and experience of the firm; 2) Staffing and project organization; 3) Work plan; and 4) ' Completeness of response. The three.. firms each demonstrated capability of completing the proposed scope of work. After, careful evaluation of the project teams, knowledge of the project , and proposed project approach, the selection team ranked the firms as follows: Ranking Firm Name Top Ranked Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. Second Network Public Affairs Third PMC After MIG' was selected as the top ranked firm, its cost proposal was opened and usedas; a starting point in further negotiations. At the time of writing this agenda item, Commission. staff is in the process of working with MIG to refine its proposal. It is anticipated that negotiations will be finalized prior to the September 12, 2007. Commission meeting. Based on the results of the selection committee, staff recommends that Agreement No. 08=67-017-00 be awarded to MIG to perform the environmental justice analysis and community outreach efforts. If approved,it :is anticipated that the study will be completed within 12 months. Although the work effort will be administered by Commission staff, .it will include active .cooperation and input from each MCGMAP staff representative regarding direct public outreach in each respective. county. The study will include the following work elements: 1) Identify representative target communities within each county :in the goods movement study area; 2) Analyze potential environmental justice impacts resulting from goods rovement activities and investments; 3) Establish local community feedback groups and obtain feedback, 4) Identify best practices and develop potential strategies to avoid or reduce potential impacts and maximize opportunities; and 5) Develop and finalize a Strategic Report and Guidebook for Communities that can be used by local jurisdictions to help` mitigate. the impacts of goods movement. Agenda Item 7L 74 As identified previously, $200,000 in grant funding was secured through a Caltrans grant. The local snatch of $24,000 was provided by Metro, OCTA, SANBAG and the Commission. Financial Information In Fiscal Year No FY 2007/08 $74,000 Budget: No Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $ 50,000 State: $200,000 Source of funds: Local Match from RCTC (LTF): $6,000 Budget Adjustment:: Yes Local Match from other CTCs: $18,000 N/A 106 67 41509 P2.404 S40 $66,000 GLA'No.: 106 67 41203 P2404 S40 $ 8,000 J 106 67 65520 P3404 S40 $74,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: � Date: 8/20/07 Agenda Item 7L 75 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation. Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Grade Separation Jump Start Funding Award for Trade Corridor'! Improvement Program PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreements on behalf of the Commission for grade separation project development for: a) City of Corona, Agreement No. 08-33-014-00 for $2.5 million b) City of Riverside, Agreement No. 08-33-012-00 for $4.5 million County of Riverside, Agreement ' No. 08-33-013=00 for $3 million; and 2), Amend the FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for the Commuter 'Rail Program to reflect the increased funding. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 11, 2007 meeting, the Commission in anticipation of the first round of Trade Corridor Improvement Fund allocations, allocated $10 million of Western 'Riverside County Rail Local Transportation fund (LTF) funds to support the project development (preliminary engineering) of ten grade separation projects in Western Riverside County'. The next step in the process of allocating the funding is to enter into agreements with the city of Corona, city of Riverside and county of Riverside in order for the respective agencies to access the funds. Attached is an overview of the Western Riverside jump start grade separation projects that were approved at the July 11, 2007 Commission meeting. In addition, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments identified two grade separation projects in the Coachella Valley, Avenue 52 and Avenue 66, for an award of $3 million which will be funded by CVAG. Agenda Item 7M 76 Staff is requesting an amendment to the FY 2007/08 SRTP for the Commuter Rail :Program to reflect the $ 10 million in LTF funding. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Arnount: $10,000,000 Source of Funds: Local. Transportation Funds - Commuter Rail Budget Adjustment: Yes 221 3.3 .86102 P4008 S 10 - $ 2.5 million - City of Corona GLA No: 221 33 86102 P4008 S11 - $4.5 million - City of Riverside 221 ,33: 86102 P4008 S12 - $3 million - County of Riverside Fiscal Procedures Approved: 14,24, Date: 8/20/07 Attachment: Jump Start TCIF Funding Agenda Item 7M 77 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JUMP START TCIF PROGRAM Western Riverside County AGENCY/GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT Preliminary City of Corona PA&ED and PS&E Engineering Total McKinley Street/BNSF $ 1,500,000 $ - Railroad Street/BNSF $ - $ 250,000 Smith Street/BNSF - 250,000 Auto Center Drive/BNSF - 500,000 Subtotal: City of Corona $ 1,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,500,000 City .of Riverside Streeter Avenue/UP 1,500,000 - Iowa Avenue/BNSF 1,500,000 - Riverside Avenue/UP 1,500,000 Subtotal: City of Riverside $ 4,500,000 $ - $ 4,500,000 County of Riverside Jurupa Road/UP 1,500,000 Bellegrave Avenue/UP 1,000,000 - Center Street/BNSF 500000 Subtotal; County of Riverside $ 2,500,000 $ 500,000 •Grand Total: $ 8,500,000 • 78 3,000000 1,,500,000 $ 10,000,000 8/29/2007 TL Preprint TC1F Folder Financial. Tracking • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA T/ON- COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Property "Committee of the Whole" Stephanie Wiggins, Regional 'Programs Director Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with BRE Properties for Transit Oriented Development' at the La Sierra Metrolink Station PROPERTY "COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the 'Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-67-018-00 with BRE Properties for transit oriented development (TOD) at the La Sierra 'Metrolink Station; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review and Federal Transit Administration ('FTA) approval, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:• At its July 12, 2006 meeting, the Commission awarded Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) 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. At its February 14, 2007 meeting, the Commission authorized a six-month extension of the negotiating period. 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 participated in the negotiations. Briefings with Riverside Public Utilities and Riverside Transit Agency representatives have also been held. The TOD project at the La Sierra Station proposed by BRE Properties contemplates construction of two 1,000 space parking structures to the Commission for Metrolink parking in exchange for Commission property in Agenda Item 7N 79 two phases. The first phase option would terminate in December 2009, while the second phase option would terminate in December 2012. The proposed option agreement also contemplates the use of the Fee 'Infrastructure 'Financing Act, which would require a public hearing prior to the opening of each Metrolink parking structure related to a .parking fee to cover maintenance of the parking structure. The proposal does not require a fee for the capital: construction of the parking structure since the Commission would convey its property to the developer, BRE Properties. The proposed option agreement with BRE Properties addresses the Cornrnission's adopted Joint Developrnent Policy Guidelines as follows: 1) . Promote and enhance rail transit ridership; 2) Enhance and protect the commuter rail station and corridor; 3) Encourage comprehensive and complementary planning and development around the Commission -owned station sites; 4) Reduce auto use and congestion through encouragement of rail transit -linked development, consistent with Commission policy to pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development; and 5) ` Demonstrate a fiscal benefit to the Commission based on a fair market return on public investment. By approving the option agreement, the Commission is not prescribing the private development. BRE Properties must continue to follow the city of Riverside procedures regarding its private development. This agreement only addresses the proposed disposition of Commission property in exchange for the construction of the Metrolink=only parking structures. In addition, since the La Sierra Station property was purchased with FTA funds, the agreement is subject to its final approval. Attached are the deal points developed and agreed to by the Commission and IRE Properties staffs, subject to respective policy board approval. Attachment: Final Deal Points for Agreement No. 08-67-018-00 Agenda Item 7N 80 • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Final Deal Points for La Sierra Agreement August 17, 2007 Subject to verification by RCTC, as used herein, Sites 1 and 2 shall refer to approximately 8.8 Net Acres _(383,328 square feet) which are labeled as Sites 1 and 2 in the Conceptual Site and Phasing Plan dated January 5, 2007. Subject to verification by RCTC, as used herein, Site 3 shall refer to approximately 5.5 acres (239,580 square feet) which is labeled as Site 3 " in the Conceptual Site and Phasing Plan dated January 5, 2007. The proposed agreement contemplates that Sites 1 through 3 will be conveyed to BRE. Subject to verification by RCTC, as used. herein, Site 4 and 5 shall refer to Sites 4 and 5 as depicted in the Conceptual Site and Phasing Plan dated January 5, 2007. Sites 4 and 5 shall not be conveyed to BRE and shall remain RCTC. property. (1) BRE will construct the project without public bidding pursuant to the Infrastructure Financing Act (Government Code sections 5956-5956.10) (the "Act"). The Option/Purchase and Sale- Agreement will : comply with the requirements of the Act, especially Government Code section 5956.6 (b). In order to comply with the Act, BRE and RCTC will .enter into a lease covering the completed parking structure for a term ending approximately two years after the completion of each parking structure. BRE will be responsible for maintenance and operation until expiration of the Tease term. BRE will be paid for maintenance with users fees' and/or through a fee paid by.. RCTC. The maintenance/operation .fee which will be paid_ by RCTC will be capped at an set amount as a 'condition of exercising the option for , Sites" l and 2 and as a condition of exercising the option for Site 3. (2) BRE will be required to pay prevailing wage for the construction of the parking structures. . (3) BRE will be fully compensated for its costs associated with construction of the Parking Structures through its acquisition of the La Sierra Parcels. In exchange for the conveyance of Sites l and 2, RCTC shall receive one 1,000 space parking 'structure on Site 4 (sometimes referred herein as "Parking Structure 1") and surface parking on Site 3. In exchange for the conveyance of Site 3, RCTC shall receive another 1,000 space parking structure on Site 5 (sometimes referred herein as "Parking Structure 2"). Temporary parking on Site 3 must be available for exclusive Metrolink (RCTC) use at all times ,during the construction of the first phase of BRE's private development. No less than .one thousand and thirty spaces must be ` available at all times during the construction of either phase. (4) In accordance with Government Code section 5956, RCTC will hold a public hearing regarding the imposition of a user fee which will go to partially fiend" the operation of the parking structure facilities (e.g. for security) At this hearing, the RCTC Board may or may not impose a user fee. (5) BRE's full indemnification of RCTC in the event the agreement is challenged on CEQA, prevailing wage, and failure to bid grounds. (6) RCTC has no interest in prescribing the development for Sites 1, 2, and 3.: As for the parking RVPUBIUBALLIN\737242. I 81 structures, ROTC will provide the scope of work and specifications for the Metrolinkparking structures as an exhibit to the option agreement and BRE will design and construct the, parking structures in accordance with the scope of work and specifications. (7) RCTC is selling the property "as is, subject to all faults." Of course, BRE shall have the right to inspect the various parcels with proper notice as well as RCTC's title to the property. (8) BRE shall be liable for all real property taxes, if any, with respect to the various„parcels from the close of the ;applicable escrow onwards. This provision would be placed in the purchase and sale agreement. (9) BRE shall be responsible for the costs of relocating the solar panels installed pursuant to. the "Agreement between :City of Riverside and Riverside County Transportation Commission for a Joint Photovoltaic Project at La 'Siena. Metrolink". BRE must be responsible for. relocation of an equal number of panels as those displaced, and they will be completed concurrent with the construction of the first garage. The second garage will not be required to have solar panels. 10 BRE must. maintain vehicular and pedestrian access (ingress and egress) from La Sierra Station and the Parking Structures to Indiana Avenue. Accordingly, RCTC shall reserve an easement over Sites 1 and 2 in the approximate location indicated on the Conceptual Site and Phasing Plan dated January 5, 2007 and BRE shall be responsible for maintaining this easement.: 11 Upon the execution of the Option Agreement BRE shall deposit $500,000 into escrow ( ) P g eP within` 3 business days after receipt of the signed Option Agreement from RCTC The Option Agreement shall provide that BRE will have a period of 90 days from the date that both parties signed the Option Agreement (the "Effective Date") to complete its due diligence investigations ("Due Diligence Period"). If BRE terminates the Option Agreement within the Due Diligence Period, the $500,000 deposit shall be released to BRE. If BRE does not terminate the Option Agreement within the Due Diligence Period, the $500,000 shall remain is escrow and $100,000 shall immediately become non-refundable except in the event' of RCTC's default or BRE`s completion of the -RCTC Parking Structure 1, and the surface parking on Site 3: Each month _ thereafter an additional $25,000 of the escrow deposit shall become non refundable. If BRE terminates the Option Agreement prior to the outside date (December. 1, 2009) for exercise of . Option One or does not exercise Option One on or before the outside date, the non-refundable portion of the $500,000 shall be released to RCTC and refundable portion of the $500,000 deposit, if any, shall be released to BRE. If BRE timely exercises Option One, the $500,000 shall remain in escrow and :be released to BRE upon completion of the RCTC Parking Structure ,1 and the surface parking on Site 3. If BRE breaches its obligation to construct the RCTC Parking Structure 2 within two years of exercising the option, the deposit shall be. paid entirely to RCTC. BRE shall make a second option deposit of $500,000 into escrow on or before January 2; -2010. The $500,000 deposit shall be non-refundable except in the event of RCTC's default or BRE`s completion of RCTC. Parking Structure 2. If BRE terminates the Option Agreement or does not exercise the .Option Two pnor:. to ,the outside date (December 1, 2012) for exercise of Option Two, the $500,000: shall be released to RCTC. If BRE exercises Option Two, the $500,000 shall remain in escrow and released to BRE upon completion of the RCTC Parking. Structure. 2. If BRE breaches its obligation to construct the RCTC Parking Structure 1 " and the surface parking RVPUB\DBALLIN1737242. I 82 • • on Site 3 within two years of exercising the option, the deposit shall be paid -entirely to RCTC. Interest earned on the option deposits shall follow the principal. - (12) The option agreement should have a separate purchase and sale agreement/infrastructure financing agreement attached to it which will be executed upon the exercise of either option. The conditions of exercising the option should be separate and apart from the conditions of closing the purchase and sale of the property. The structure of the transaction will have an option agreement separate and apart from the purchase and sale agreement. If possible, the terms of the sale and the terms of the infrastructure financing will be included in a single purchase and sale . agreement, otherwise a separate infrastructure financing agreement will be prepared (and attached as an exhibit to the option agreement) to cover the :terms that cannot be included in the purchase and sale agreement. (13) A condition of exercising each option, BRE shall execute and deliver the purchase and sale agreement (including any infrastructure financing agreement) that is an exhibit to the option agreement. RCTC will execute the purchase and sale agreement (including any infrastructure financing agreement) within 60 days after receipt of the signed agreements from BRE. (14) RCTC will draft the option agreement and the purchase and sale agreement itself. (15) Any approval of the option agreement and the purchase and sale agreement/infrastructure financing agreement must be subject to FTA approval. (16) RCTC must be, .able to use. Site 3 as temporary._ parking until . the construction of BRE's private development on Site 3. (17) The first option must be exercised no later than December 1, 2009, otherwise the entire option expires. The second option must be exercised no later than December 1, 2012 otherwise the option expires with respect to Site 3. (18) As a condition of closing the purchase and sale agreement for Sites 1 and 2, BRE shall procure a standby letter of credit ("LOC") in a form fully satisfactory to RCTC. RCTC shall be a beneficiary of this LOC and RCTC shall have the right to immediately draw upon this LOC in the event BRE fails to construct RCTC Parking Structure 1 on Site 4 and the Surface Parking on Site 3 within 24 months (no extensions permitted) of exercising the option. The LOC shall be no less than eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000). From the start of construction of RCTC Parking Structure 1 and the surface parking, the LOC shall be reduced every six months until the construction is complete and BRE procures certificates of occupancy or their equivalent for the parking structure. Design costs shall not be used to reduce the amount of the LOC. Each reduction shall correspond to the amount BRE has paid for the construction of the facility. BRE shall not reduce the LOC until RCTC has verified the cost of construction and only after BRE has received written approval from RCTC to reduce the LOC. If any portion of the costs are disputed, BRE shall only reduce the LOC as to the undisputed amounts. As for the disputed amounts, BRE shall have no right to reduce the LOC. BRE shall not reduce the LOC below five million dollars ($5,000,000) until BRE has obtained a certificate of occupancy or its equivalent for Parking Structure 1 and has completed the surface ;parking. R V PUB\DBALLIN1737242.1 83 (19) As a condition of closing the purchase and sale agreement for Sites 3, BRE shall procure a standby letter of credit ("LOC") in a form fully satisfactory to RCTC. RCTC shall be a beneficiary of this LOC and RCTC shall have the right to immediately draw upon this LOC in the event BRE fails to construct Parking Structure 2 on Site 5 within 24 months (no. extensions permitted) of exercising the option. The LOC shall be no less than eighteen million 'dollars ($18,000,000). From the start of construction of RCTC Parking Structure 2, the LOC .shall be reduced every six „months until the construction is complete and BRE procures certificates of occupancy or their equivalent for the parking structure. Design costs shall not be used to reduce the amount of the LOC. Each reduction shall correspond to the amount BRE has paid for the construction of the facility. BRE shall not reduce the LOC until RCTC has verified the cost of construction and:only after BRE has received written approval from RCTC to reduce the LOC. If any portion of the costs are disputed, BRE shall only reduce the LOC as to the undisputed amounts: As for the disputed amounts, BRE shall have no right to reduce the LOC. BRE shall not reduce the LOC below five million dollars ($5,000,000) until BRE has obtained a certificate of occupancy or its equivalent for Parking Structure 2. (20) The option agreement, purchase and sale agreement and the infrastructure financing agreement shall not be assignable without RCTC's prior written consent which RCTC can withhold in its full and absolute discretion. In other words, BRE's option to purchase Sites 1, 2, and 2 and its obligations to construct the applicable parking facilities shall not be assigned except as stated above. (21) As a condition of closing each purchase and sale agreement, BRE shall have entered into a construction contract for the construction of the parking facilities and obtain a payment bond.As an additional requirement, BRE shall procure all builder's risk insurance in a form and in. amounts acceptable to ROTC. If BRE does not desire to provide a payment bond, then it shall maintain each LOC for the greater of two years after the completion of each parking structure or the resolution of all claims. Further, if there is no bond, the LOC cannot be drawn down. (22) As a condition of ,exercising the first option, BRE shall have within its conditions of approval for Phase 1 (Sites 1 and 2) a requirement that BRE complete (as defined below) construction of RCTC Parking Structure 1 and the Surface Parking on Site 3. As a condition of exercising the second option, BRE shall have within its conditions of approval for Phase 2 (Site 3) a requirement thatBRE complete (as defined below) construction of RCTC Parking Structure 2. The. term "complete" means that BRE obtained a certificates of occupancy or the equivalent: for the applicable RCTC Parking structure. (23) As a condition of exercising either option, BRE shall have secured all entitlements which are necessary for the construction of the parking structures (other than building permits). (24) As a condition of closing each purchase and sale agreement, BRE must obtain insurance in a form and in amounts acceptable to RCTC. RVPUBID13ALLIN1737242. I 84 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA T/ON_ COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Property "Committee of the Whole" Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric 'Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Release of Statement of Qualifications followed by a Request for ~ Proposal for the Joint Development/Transit Oriented Development of the North Main Corona Station PROPERTY "COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the release of a statement of qualifications (SOQ) followed by a request for proposals (RFP) for the. joint development/transit oriented development (TOD) of the North Main Corona Station. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Commuter rail service- has been a`- growing success- in Riverside -County since its inception in 1993 with the Riverside Line to Los Angeles. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority, known as Metrolink, is responsible for operating the - commuter trains as well as maintaining the track right-of-way and related facilities while local agencies are responsible for building and maintaining Metrolink stations. In 1993, the Commission constructed two Metrolink stations, Riverside -Downtown and Pedley. Implementation of commuter rail service on the Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) line in 1995 brought the construction of two more stations to this region, Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona. In 2003, the Commission constructed the North Main Corona station to serve the IEOC and 91 lines. Today, the Commission owns and operates these five ?Metrolink stations.: located in Western Riverside County. - Joint Development and Transit Oriented 'Development Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and transit -adjacent development — terms referring to a form of urban planning that connects development with locations near public transportation properties — is growing in its popularity as transit systems take an increasingly active role in the process along with developers and local governments.' Over the past five years, public transit agencies have been American Public Transportation Association Agenda item 70 8'5 stepping up efforts to capitalize on underused agency properties that can be used for TOD in aft effort to boost ridership, revenues, or for other benefits. In an era of tightening budgets, the agencies are looking for greater non-farebox revenues, which may be TOD. Impact to RCTC As. the 'Metrolink ..system begins to prove attractive to developers who recognize the potential revenue stream that can be generated by locating their developments near rail stations, these developments may generate additional revenue potential for the Commission, provide benefit to existing passengers who frequent these stations., and encourage new transit ridership. At its June 2, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved the Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines. The city of Corona staff has notified the :Commission staff of the interest in potential development :projects adjacent to: and/or on the North Main Corona Station property. In order to ;provide an open competitive selection process, the Commission does not accept unsolicited proposals.. Therefore, staff recommends that the Property Committee authorize the release of a SOQ followed by an RFP for the joint development of the North Main Corona Station. The goals of the Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines are to: 1) Promote and enhance rail transit ridership; 2) Enhance and protect the commuter rail station and corridor; 3) Encourage comprehensive and complementary planning . and development around the Commission -owned station sites 4} Reduce auto use and congestion through encourageMent of rail transit -linked ° development, consistent with Comrnission -policy to pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development; and 5) Demonstrate a fiscal benefit to the Commission based on a fair market return on public investment. Attachments: 1) Commission's Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines 2) Joint Development Implementation Process Agenda Item 70 86 Riverside County Transportation Commission Draft Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines April 2005 PURPOSE These guidelines are issued under the .. authority of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) which seeks to enter into joint development partnerships to enhance the financial return and, overall patronage of the Commission's significant rail transportation infrastructure investment. For purposes of these guidelines, joint development is defined as a real property asset development and .management ;program intended to secure the most appropriate private and/or public sector development on ROTC -owned property at and adjacent to 'Metrolin'k comrnuter rail stations and corridors. Joint development also includes coordination with local jurisdictions in station -area land use planning in the interest of establishing development that enhances tail transit use. It is the intention of the RCTC to realize the maximum benefits from and utilization of property owned and acquired by the Commission consistent with transportation mobility and community development objectives. The RCTC joint development guidelines seek to: 1. 'Promote and enhance rail transit ridership; 2. 'Enhance and protect the commuter rail station and corridor; 3. Encourage comprehensive and complementary planning and development around RCTC-owned station sites; 4. Reduce auto use and congestion through encouragement of rail transit -'linked development, consistent with Commission policy to pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development; and 5. ;Demonstrate a fiscal benefit to the Commission based on a fair market return on public investment. POLICIES The basic construct of joint development guidelines encourages comprehensive planning of station -area development. These policies are limited to solicited proposals. To facilitate coordinated transportation and land use decisions, RCTC will: 87 Consult and work cooperatively with local jurisdictions, redevelopment agencies, developers, and other public and private sector entities to facilitate land use . policies and plans which encourage intensive, high quality development` at current and planned RCTC-owned stations and surrounding properties; 2. In consultation with local jurisdictions, prepare conceptual development strategies .specific to each joint development site that articulate; the intensity and types of land use that the RCTC envisions for that site as well as any of the desired transit facility features; 3. Encourage transit compatible land use plans that enhance RCTC's regional mobility, air quality, economic development, ridership and revenue goals 4.:'Consider joint development opportunities in the location of new station .sites for future rail corridors, and construction of station facilities; 5.:Encourage and allow surrounding property owners/developers, . at their expense, to construct direct connections to stations from their property/buildings, in particular, pedestrian connections whichenhance the overall pedestrian flow of the project area; and 6. An modifications of these y guidelines may be made by the ROTC Property . Committee. Additionally;_ the: RCTC shall consider new joint development projects based .on the following standards: 1 Projects shall be evaluated for consistency with development strategies as delineated in site -specific Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the Commission; 2. Projects shall not negatively impact present or future public transportation facilities; 3. !Projects shall be evaluated for consistency with regional and local. jurisdictions' policies and plans; 4. Projects must demonstrate, at a minimum, fair market value return to RCTC;. 5. If -there are multiple proposals for the same site, selection between ,projects will be based on those which meet the above criteria and additionally demonstrate a. The greatest potential to increase rail transit ridership :and enhance the transit system environment; b. The greatest economic development potential to the community consistent with adopted land use plans; and c. Responsiveness to community needs for employment,services, housing orother facilities. 88 6. Projects are encouraged which create a long-term source of revenue for the RCTC and allow the RCTC to participate in the increase in value of its real estate assets over time. This will generally take the form of a long-term lease. Under some circumstances, the Commission may consider the sale of property if it is determined to be in RCTC's best interest; 7. Projects are encouraged which require no commitment of RCTC financial resources, minimize any investment risk, and maximize asset security for RCTC; 8. Where appropriate, as defined in the site -specific conceptual development guidelines enumerated in the 'RFP, projects are encouraged which provide new or additional station parking facilities; and 9. 'Projects must allow RCTC to retain station facility and related transportation service design and location authority and access to all necessary station operational facilities. Rail Station Joint Development Implementation Procedures RCTC will periodically prepare conceptual development strategies for RCTC-owned properties .at Metrolink commuter rail stations. The RCTC will also consult with Focal jurisdictions regarding local land use development efforts. These' conceptual development strategies and consultations with local jurisdictions shall .provide the basis for establishing. project priorities and . implementation approaches : ,to_. ensure:_ maximum attainment -of RCTC's joint development goals. RCTC will be open and competitive in marketing its properties. RCTC shall solicit competitive proposals for joint development of its. properties. The standard RCTC Request for Proposals procedure shall be used as the general guideline for determining the appropriate process for solicitation. RCTC shall not accept unsolicited written proposals for joint development on RCTC owned property. Proposal Issuance and Evaluation Process RCTC may periodically initiate an RFP process to solicit development proposals. In soliciting joint development proposals, the RCTC shall provide available relevant site information including the conceptual development strategies for the site and encourage developers to seek inforrnation or consult with local jurisdictions regarding current and planned land uses in the project area. The RFP will outline the minimum qualifications and project selection criteria, including any unique capabilities or credentials which would be required of the proposer. Pre -proposal conferences may be held, as deemed necessary by RCTC. Public notice of the RFP issuance will be posted at least 60 days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals. 89 Proposals shall be evaluated by a review panel selected by the Executive Director. It is anticipated that the panel will include representatives from the local jurisdiction and 'ROTC staff. Additionally, an urban design panel may be used to evaluate projects in an advisory capacity to the review committee. The 'RCTC shall notify° Proposers within 30 days following their proposal submittals as to the estimated, time frame; for proposal review. It is the intent of the Commission to review proposals as expeditiously as possible, and review periods may be dependent: on the volume and complexity of the proposals. The review committee will use the Rail Station .point Development Checklist to evaluate the initial submittals and make' recommendations to the Commission on the selected developer/proposal to be considered foradvancement to the Exclusive Negotiations Agreement phase. Exclusive Negotiations Agreement Upon recommendation and approval of the Commission, the Executive Director may enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA) with the selected developer for a period of 180 days or such other term that is mutually acceptable to the parties. A. Requirements of proposer/developer under the ENA: 1. Developer shall provide the Executive Director with ` a 'good faith' refundable deposit," in the amount of $25,000 in the form of cash or certified check or an alternative amount determined by the Executive Director or his designee. The amount shall be sufficient to cover reasonable expenses incurred by the RCTC in carrying out the ..analysis of the proposal. 2. Developer shall have 120 days to provide the Executive Director with the following information: a. A preliminary site plan showing building layout and dimensions, parking, landscaping and access. b. Project development schedule including milestones for site control, financing commitments, design and environmental clearances, entitlements, construction and completion. c. Cost estimates and project data for the proposal in sufficient detail to permit adequate financial analysis. d. Evidence of a firm commitment from key managerial members or tenants of the proposed projects. e. A comprehensive list of previous experience in the specific project area and of like projects for both construction and operation of the said project type, as well as disclose full credit and litigation history under penalty of perjury. 90 3. Evidence of a firm financial plan, including: a. Evidence of construction financing. -b. Evidence of long-term financing. c. Evidence of other financial sources. necessary to carry out the project Evidence shall consist of a letter of commitment from a financial institution or any reasonably acceptable party providing development capital. The financial plan shall include a proforma statement of project return adequate to enable the Commission to evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed project. 4. Developer shall provide a written offer to the RCTC for fee purchase of land, purchase of lease rights, or other development rights as appropriate to the proposal. 5. Evidence of control of any properties not owned by RCTC . but considered essential to the project. Evidence shalt be in the form of letters of intent from each of the owners stating commitment of land, economic terms and costs basis as well as a detailed action plan and schedule relating'to the acquisition of the properties. B. Responsibilities of the RCTC under the 'ENA: The RCTC shall approve no other joint development proposals for the, land; in question during the .period of the ENA. The ENA shall serve as proof of control of land for acquiring letters of financial commitment by the developer. 2. The Executive Director shall place the "good faith" deposit in an interest- bearing account, and shall' have the right to draw down from the account payment for reasonable expenses incurred by the RCTC for such items as land and development rights appraisals, materials, data and other information costs, and other administrative and consultant costs expended in the evaluation of the proposal. 3. The RCTC shall provide the developer with an appraisal for the fair market' value of the fee interest or lease rights or other development rights appropriate to the project. 4. The RCTC shall deliver, within 34 days of receipt of written request, any existing RCTC-owned information, studies, reports, site and construction plans or other documents requested by the developer to facilitate project design at cost to the developer. 5. If, at the conclusion of the ENA period, the proposal is terminated, the Executive Director shall return any remaining balance of the "good faith deposit," including any interest accrued thereon to the developer. 6. If, at the conclusion of the : ENA, a Development Agreement is entered into, the remaining balance of the "good faith deposit, including .interest accrued thereon, shall be subtracted from the cost of land lease or other development rights conveyed to ` the developer by the RCTC. 91 Extension of ENA Either the developer or the Executive Director may request from the Commission an extension of the 180-day exclusive negotiation period. The Commission will determine vvhether sufficient progress has been made toward . fulfillment of the above requirements in their consideration of extension. Environmental Documents The developer shall bear the responsibility and costs associated with, the preparation and certification of any required environmental clearance. :It is generally assumed that the -local jurisdiction will be the lead agency in : the preparation of anyrequired environmental clearance for the development Conclusion of the Rai/ Station Joint Development Evaluation Process Uponsatisfactory fulfillment of all the development requirements in the . ENA the RCTC may enter into a Joint Development Agreement for the implementation of the project. Joint Development Agreement The Joint Development Agreement shall describe the rights and responsibilities of both parties and shall contain, but not be limited to the following elements: 1. Identification of the parties to the agreement including prohibition against change, .transfer or assignment of ownership, management and/orcontrol of developer 2. Description of the site including a map. If the; subject of the lease is an air space development, placement of supports shall be included on the map; 3. Requirement that the developer must secure from appropriate local agencies all necessary permits and approvals; 4.: The terms and conditions of the lease (if applicable) including but not :limited to: Lease price and payment schedule; Conveyance and delivery for possession; Payment .of taxes and insurance requirement; Condition of site at time of beginning and end of lease; Financial statement of developer; Hold harmless :and indemnity clauses; Limitations of use and germs of lease; and Schedule of the RCTC approval of all plans and drawings. 92 5. if the development incorporates a sale of property, the conditions and terms of such sate including but not limited to: - • Sale or purchase price and payment schedule; • Escrow instructions; • Conditions, covenants, restrictions and other limitations of use as terms of sale; • Conveyance and delivery of possession; • Form of deed as approved by RCTC counsel; • Condition of title andinsurance. of title; • Time and place for delivery of deed; • Taxes, assessments, and insurance requirements • Condition of site at time of sales; • Financial statement of developer; and • Prohibition of transfer without ;prior Board approval: 6. The scope .of the development of the site including: a. Schedule for submission of concept, schematic, construction, grading and landscaping plans and drawings; b. Schedule for 'local agency and the RCTC review, .and approval of _plans and, _drawings The stuff :review: vvill include; but . not: be limited to: 1) Design of site and improvements; (2) Relationship to the urban design of the community. both form and scale; (3) Architectural design and visual continuity; (4) Effects on railway operations; (5) Type and quality of building materials; (6) Structure location, 'height and lot coverage, (7) Parking requirements and design; (8) Streetscape and landscaping; and (9) Vehicular circulation. c. Schedule of performance; and d. Insurance requirements. 6. Failure of either party to perform including defaults, remedies and termination by either party; 7. Ownership of improvements constructed upon leased land upon the expiration or termination of Tease term; 8. Requirements. to restore leased property to original condition upon expiration or termination of lease term; 9. Possible performance bond requirements; and 10. Any other general or special provisions which are deemed necessary by the Commission. 93 Use of Revenue Revenue obtained from joint use and development of property including concessions and advertising will first be applied to the maintenance and operation of RCTC-owned facilities from which the revenue is generated, with any additional revenue being applied to any other RCTC commuter rail operations. Applicability of Guidelines Nothing in these guidelines shall 1) require RCTC to enter into any agreements or. commitments or 2) invalidate any action of the Commission, or 3) require any action by the Commission. 94 versideCounly ronspo align Commission RCTC adopts design guidelines for each joint development site. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Drat Joint Development Implementation Process RCTC circulates List o Potential Joint Development Sites. RCTC Issues Joint Development Request for Proposals. No End Process As of 4/19/05 60 days Solicited Proposal(s) Submitted to RCTC. Initial Evaluation by Review Panel Yes Developer• * Conceptual design .including Site Plan & Sections * Schedule * Environmental Clearance * Financing Plan w/Pro-forma Operating & Construction, Cost & Revenue Projections * Business Term Sheet • • RCTC: * Approve no other proposals * Place deposit in interest- bearing account * Use deposit for related Extend Negotiations Period (Up to 180 clays) 120 days RCTC Evaluation & Negotiations Maybe Exclusive 'Negotiating Agreement; Developer Good Faith Deposit so days Yes Implement Joint Development Agreement • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA T/ON-COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Property "Committee of the Whole" Min Saysay, 'Right -of -Way "Manager THROUGH: Eric 'Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: ' -Agreement vvith the Metropolitan Water District of California for the Construction of the Perris Valley Pipeline Southern PROPERTY "COMMITTEE OF THE 'WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-33-019-00 with the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California for the construction of the Perris Valley Pipeline ;in the San Jacinto Branch Line rail right-of-way; and. 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel (Adorn°, Voss,'Alvarado & Smith) review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the `Co`mmission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On 'February 14, 2005, the March Joint Powers Authority (JPA) entered into .an agreement with the Commission to exchange properties associated with the realignment of Interstate 215. The property exchange has not yet been executed Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) and MWD have undertaken a . public works project to construct a 96-inch diameter water transmission pipeline (hereinafter referred to as the "Perris Valley Pipeline") for the purpose of providing additional municipal water supply within the service areas of WMWD and MWD. A ;portion of the Perris Valley Pipeline project will be constructed on properties that are involved ,in the open exchange-_ between the Commission and March JPA. WMWD commenced an action to exercise its authority under the California Eminent Domain Law to acquire an easement to construct, operate and maintain the Perris Valley Pipeline across the March JPA property, including the exchange properties. After completion of the eminent domain action to acquire the easement, Agenda Item 7P 96 the easement will be assigned to MWD, who is solely responsible for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Perris Valley pipeline within the .. easement and will execute a public works contract for its construction. At its June 13, 2007 meeting, the Commission approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the MWD for the construction of the Perris Valley Pipeline and the provision of a substitute easement. The MOU would allow the. Perris Valley Pipeline to be installed and constructed by MWD, at MWD's sole cost. The MOU provides that within 30 days of MWD's receipt of the assignment of the easement from WMWD, MWD will execute the Easement Agreement with. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for a 96-Inch Water Transmission Pipeline, which is the subject matter of this agenda item. The easement agreement grants a . non-exclusive easement from the Commission to MWD for the purpose of. Locating, . constructing, reconstructing, maintaining, operating, inspecting. and repairing the Perris Valley Pipeline. The Commission retains the right of use of the surface area of the easement for railroad purposes. Since Best,' Best. and Krieger also represents WMWD, the Commission retained the services of Adorno, Yoss, Alvarado & Smith in drafting the easement; agreement and the MOU. It is currently expected that construction of the pipeline will be completed July 2008. Attachment: Easement Agreement with the MWD for Perris Valley Pipeline Agenda ltern 7P 97 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR PERRIS VALLEY PIPELINE 1. Parties and Date. THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement"), is made this day of 2007 by and between the RIVERSIDE , COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public agency existing under the authority of the laws of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor") and THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (MWD), a public corporation organized and existing under the Metropolitan Water District Act of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"). 2. Recitals. 2:1 Grantor is the owner in fee of certain real property, referred to herein as Parcel 773 0-1 in the County of Riverside, California (the "Property"). 'Grantor maintains railroad tracks over and across the Property, and intends to maintain said railroad tracks in the future, to: include the potential laying of new tracks and increasing the amount and frequency of railroad travel on the Property as required by Grantor. 2.2 Grantee is constructing a water transmission pipeline for purposes of transporting and distributing public water supplies and has requested permission from Grantor to use a finite portion of the Property to install and maintain the 96-inch water transmission pipeline ("Perris Valley Pipeline") under and across Grantor's real property. 3. Terms. 3..1 Grant of Easement. Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee, its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement ("Easement") over a portion of the Property hereinafter described in Section 3..3, for the purpose of locating, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining, operating, inspecting, and repairing the Perris Valley Pipeline, and all fixtures and appurtenances incidental thereto and for use in connection therewith, for the transmission and distribution of water and all uses and purposes incidental thereto. 3.2 Location of Easement and Perris Valley Pipeline. The Easement and Perris Valley Pipeline shall be designed and installed to minimize their proximity to the railroad tracks 1037459.1 98 and railroad corridor owned and maintained by RCTC. The Easement and Perris Valley Pipeline will cross the railroad tracks and railroad corridor in as close to perpendicular alignment as possible, consistent with safe engineering practices. Within the Easement, the Perris Valley Pipeline shall not parallel the railroad tracks and railroad corridor for a span of more than one -hundred (100) feet: 3.3 Description of Easement. The location of .the Easement is particularly described and shown in the legal description and map that comprise Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated, herein by this reference. 3.4 Grantee's Use. Grantee shall use the Easement and Perris Valley. Pipeline solely for the transmission of water, and shall not use the Easement for any purposes other than those set forth in Section 3.1. 3.5 Grantor's Use. Grantor shall have the right to use the surface area of the Easement hereby granted for railroad uses, to include the right to cross over or make use of the surface of the land in a manner that is not detrimental to the installation, construction, operation, inspection, repair, maintenance or replacement of the Perris Valley Pipeline, or to any other purposes or uses as are or may be necessary or incidental to the construction, maintenance and operation of the Grantee's Perris Valley Pipeline. 3.6 : Agreement Supersedes All Previous Easements. The Easement described: herein shall supplant and supersede any and all prior easements for the location, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, operation, inspection, and repair of the Perris Valley Pipeline within the Easement area on the Property, and in particular supersedes and supplants that certain easement obtained by the Western Municipal Water District through eminent domain in that certain Riverside County Superior Court case no. RIC 465991 and assigned to Grantee, but only to the extent that the superseded easement affects and encumbers the Easement area on the Property. 3.7 . Liens. Grantee shall not permit to be placed against the Property, or anypart thereof, any liens by the followinggroups of persons: design professionals; mechanics; materialmen contractors; or subcontractors that result from Grantee's use of the Easement area on the Property. Grantee agrees to hold Grantor harmless for any loss or expense, including attorneys fees and costs incurred, arising from any such liens which might be filed against the Property. 3.8 Hazardous Materials Use and Related Indemnity: A. Use and Termination. Grantee covenants that it will not release Hazardous Materials within the Easement. As used in this Agreement, "Hazardous Materials" means any chemical, substance or material which is now or becomes in the future listed, defined or regulated in any manner by any Environmental Law based upon, directly or indirectly, its properties or effects.: As used in the preceding sentence,. "Environmental Law" means any federal, state or local environmental, health and/or safety -related laws, regulations, standards, decisions ofthe courts, 1037459.1 99 • • permits or permit conditions, currently existing or as amended or adopted in the future which are or become applicable to the Grantee, the Easement, or the Perris Valley Pipeline. In the event Grantee releases Hazardous Materials within the Easement, Grantee agrees fully to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, orders, decisions and ordinances (hereinafter referred to as "Hazardous Materials Standards") concerning Hazardous Materials. Grantee further agrees that, at Grantor's request, it will furnish Grantor with proof, satisfactory to Grantor, that Grantee is in such compliance. 13. Indemnity. Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Agreement and to the extent permitted by law; in case of a breach of the obligations contained in this Section 3.8, Grantee agrees to assume liability for and to save and hold harmless Grantor from :and against any and all injuries to any person; including wrongful death, and damage to property, including without limitation, property of Grantor, and all related expenses, including without limitation attorneys` fees, investigators' fees and litigation expenses, resulting in whole or in part from Grantee's failure to comply with any Hazardous Materials Standards related to the use of the Easement or the Perris Valley Pipeline, issued by any governmental authority concerning Hazardous Materials. Grantee, at its cost, shall assume the defense of all claims, in accordance with Section 3.18 hereof, that may arise from Grantee's breach of the obligations contained in this Section 3.8. Grantee agrees to reimburse Grantor for all costs ;reasonably incurred by Grantor as a result of Grantee's failure to comply with this Section 3.8, including, but not limited to, fines, penalties, clean-up and disposal costs, and legal costs incurred as a.result of Grantee's release of Hazardous Materials on the Easement.* Nothing in this _Section 3,8 shall apply to any Hazardous Materials that exist on or within the Easement prior to Grantee's entry, or to the release of Hazardous Materials on the Easement by any person unrelated to Grantee or the construction of the Perris Valley Pipeline. 3.9 Maintenance and Repair. Grantee shall, at its own cost, repair, maintain and operate the Perris Valley Pipeline within the Easement so that it shall not create a dangerous condition to the present or fixture railroad tracks or roadbed in the Easement, or the safe operation of Grantor's railroad within the Easement. Repair and maintenance work shall not interfere with rail traffic on the Line unless prior approval has been obtained from Grantor, which approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld. Except for emergency repairs or maintenance, Grantee shall provide Grantor no less than thirty (30) days written notice prior to Grantee's commencement of any repair or maintenancework to be performed within the Easement. As used herein, "emergency" shall mean any pipeline rupture or threatened rupture of the Perris Valley Pipeline, with a threatened rupture defined as a condition that causes, or will imminently cause, the Perris Valley Pipeline to exceed its design and structural limitations. In the event of an emergency related to or caused by the Perris Valley Pipeline, such that the notice provisions concerning maintenance and repair delineated above are impractical, Grantee shall immediately, through, best means available, contact Grantor's Rail Department Manager and the. operating railroad's Roadmaster; provided that Grantor has informed Grantee of the identity and contact inforrnation for those persons. 3.10 Standards. Grantee shall comply with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders and :decisions (hereinafter referred to as "Standards"), issued by any federal, 1037459.1 100 state or local. governmental body or agency established thereby including without limitation, the Interstate Railroad Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, (hereinafter collectively referred to. as "Agency"), relating to Grantee's use of the Perris Valley. Pipeline and Easement hereunder. In its use of the Perris Valley Pipeline and Easement, Grantee shall at all times be in compliance with all Standards, present or future, set by any Agency, including, but not limited to, Standards concerning air quality, water quality, noise, and Hazardous Materials. In the event Grantor determines. that . Grantee is not in compliance with Standards set by any Agency, Grantor shall :promptly give notice of the failure to Grantee. If Grantee, within a reasonable time after delivery of such notice, fails to correct such non-compliance, Grantor may take vvhatever action it determines in its sole discretion to be necessary to protect Grantor's railroad and operations. Grantee shall, to the extent permitted by law, assume liability for and shall save and hold harmless Grantor from any claim, except a claim by Grantor, of a violation of the Standards which results from Grantee's use of the Easement. Grantee, at its cost, shall assume the defense of all such claims as provided for in .Section 3.18 hereof. 3.1.1 Tests and Inspections. Grantor shall have the right, upon reasonable notice to Grantee, to inspect the Easement and the exterior of the Perris Valley Pipeline to monitor compliance with this Agreement. If, in Grantor's sole judgment, any construction, use or condition of the Grantee's Perris Valley Pipeline, or Grantee's use of the Easement, may have an adverse effect on Grantor's railroad or Grantor's operations, Grantor shall notify Grantee. Grantee shall consider any matters raised by Grantor and make any necessary changes or repairs to the Perris Valley Pipeline or its use of the Easement, appropriate to address the issues raised by Grantor. Any changes or repairs implemented in response to Grantor's notice shall be at no cost to Grantor. 3.12 Relocation of Pipeline. If,. for any reason, the Perris Valley Pipeline is relocated, Grantee shall bear any and all costs of such relocation, including, but not limited to, design, permit fees and any other cost so incurred, including such :engineering, or construction costs, p , costs as may be incurred by ,Grantor due to the relocation. Upon relocation of the Perris Valley Pipeline for any reason, Grantee, upon demand of Grantor and at Grantee's own cost and expense, shall restore the Easement, including the right-of-way and tracks of Grantor, to the same condition in which they were prior to the placing of the Perris. Valley Pipeline thereunder, reasonable wear and tear excepted. If relocation of the Perris Valley Pipeline is deemed necessary or required, Grantee agrees to complete the relocation and restoration. of Grantor's property in a timely manner to minimize the disruption to Grantor's railroad tracks. „ 3.13 Underground Storage Tanks. Grantee shall not install or use any underground storage tanks on the Easement unless specifically approved in advance in writing by Grantor,: which approval may be withheld in Grantor's sole discretion. 3.14 Subordinate Rights. This Agreement is subject and subordinate to the prior and future rights and obligations of Grantor, its successors and assigns, to use its property in the exercise of its powers and in performance of its duties, including those as a County transportation commission and a member of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. 1037459.1 101 Accordingly, there is reserved and retained unto Grantor, its successors, assigns and permittees, the right to construct, reconstruct, maintain and use existing and future rail tracks, facilities and appurtenances and existing and future transportation, communication, pipeline and other facilities and appurtenances in, upon, over, under, across and along the Property and the Easement, and in connection therewith, the right to grant and convey to others, rights and interests to the Property in, on and around the Easement. 3.15 Insurance. Grantee is self -insured for ;general liability in the amount of $25,000,000 and shall maintain this level of self-insurance throughout the use of the Easement. In addition, Grantee shall require that its third ,party agents and construction contractors who enter the 'Easement, at -their sole cost and expense, obtain and continually maintain in' full force and effect a Railroad Protective Liability Policy, with Grantor named as Additional Insured; in the amounts and coverage specified and issued by insurancecompanies as described in Exhibit "B" Grantor reserves the right to review and change the amount and type of insurance coverage it requires in connection with this Section 3.15 or the work or maintenance to be performedcm the Perris Valley Pipeline. Prior to Grantee's third party agents and contractors (i) entering the areaofthe Easement or (ii) performing any work or maintenance on the Perris Valley Pipeline, Grantee shall furnish Grantor with the insurance endorsements and certificates in the form and amounts specified in Exhibit "B," evidencing the existence, amounts and coverage of the insurance required to be maintained hereunder. 3.16 Indemnity. Grantee shall indemnify and save harmless Grantor against all loss, damages, or expenses that Grantor sustains and/or becomes liablefor, resulting .from the construction, operation, presence or maintenance of the Perris -Valley Pipeline within the Easement, or the Grantee's use and maintenance of the Easement, including, but not limited to, any loss, damages or expenses arising out of (a) loss of or damage to property, (b) injury to or death of persons, (c) mechanics' or other liens of any character, (d) taxes or assessments of any kind, or (e) interference with the use of the Grantor's tracks and operations, except to the extent that any loss of or damage to property or injury to or death of persons is caused by the negligence of Grantor. 3.17 Assumption .of Risk and Waiver. To the maximum extent allowed by law, Grantee assumes any and all risk of loss, damage or injury of any kind to any person or property, including without limitation, the Perris Valley Pipeline within the Easement, that is caused by the non -negligent use of Grantor's railroad operations. 3.18 Defense. Upon written notice -from Grantor, Grantee agrees to assume the defense of any lawsuit, administrative action or other proceeding brought against Grantor by any public body, individual, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity, relating to any matter covered by this Agreement for which Grantee has an obligation to assume liability for and/or to indemnify or save and hold harmless the Grantor. Grantee shall pay all the costs incident to such defense, including, but not limited to, attorneys' -fees, investigators' fees, experts' fees, litigation expenses, settlement payments, and amounts paid in satisfaction of judgments. Any and all lawsuits or administrative actions brought or threatened on any theory of relief available at law, in equity or under the rules of any administrative agency shall be covered by this section 1037459.1 102 3.19 Attorneys' Fees. In any judicial or arbitration proceeding involving performance under this Agreement, or default or breach thereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys` fees and costs. 3.20 Successors and Assigns. All the covenants and provisions of this Agreement shall be.binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors, legal representatives and assigns of the Grantor and Grantee to the same extent and effect as the same are binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto. 3.21 Assignment. This Agreement is an easement in gross for the benefit of the Grantee. Grantee shall not assign or transfer this Agreement in whole or in part or permit any person or entity, other than the employees, agents and contractors of Grantee, to use the rights or privileges hereby conveyed, without the prior written consent of Grantor, which may be withheld in Grantor's sole and absolute discretion. 3.22 Waiver of Covenants or Conditions. The waiver by Grantor of the performance of any covenant or condition under this Agreement shall not invalidate this Agreement nor shall it be considered a waiver by it of any other covenant or condition under this Agreement. 3.23 Amendment: This Agreement may be amended at any time by the written. agreement of Grantor and Grantee. All amendments to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties _despite any lack of legal consideration, so long as the same shall be in .writing and executed by the ,parties hereto. 3.24 Abandonment. Should Grantee abandon the use of the Perris Valley Pipeline or the Easement, for a continuous period of three (3) years, then the Grantor may terminate this Agreement to the extent of the portion so abandoned or discontinued. 3.25 Condemnation. In the event all or any portion of the Easement shall be taken or condemned for public use (including conveyance by deed in.lieu of or in settlement of condemnation proceedings), Grantee shall receive compensation(if any) only for the taking.and damage to the Pipeline. Any other compensation or damages arising out of such taking or condemnation awarded to Grantee are hereby assigned by Grantee to Grantor. 3.26 Severability. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall to any extent be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the terms, covenants, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. 3.27 Captions. The Captions included in this Agreement are for convenience only and in no way define, limit, or otherwise describe the scope or intent of this Agreement or any provision hereof, or in any way affect the interpretation of this Agreement. - 1037459.1 3.28 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 103 3.29 Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the Exhibits hereto constitute the entire agreement between the Grantor and Grantee with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior verbal or written agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to the items set forth herein. 3.30 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 1037459.1 [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 104 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this -Agreement in duplicate the day and year first above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY METROPOLITAN WATER °DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA By: Eric Haley, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Its: Director of APPROVED AS TO FORM: By By: Keith E. McCullough, Adorn. Yoss, Alvarado and Smith, `Special Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission 105 Joseph Vanderhorst Senior Deputy General Counsel Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 1031459.1 EXHIBIT "A" MAP DEPICTING EXACT LOCATION OF EASEMENT, PIPELINE AND PROPERTY 106 EXHIBIT "A„ 3 PERMANENT EASEMENT 4 PORTION OF RCTC S APN 297-100-022 6 7 8 BEING THAT PORTION OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN 9 BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSID,E, STATE OF 10 CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 140, PAGES 30 11 THROUGH 40, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, 12 DESCRIBED 'AS FOLLOWS: 13 14 BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 215 AND ALESSAN.DRO _BOULEVARD, AS 15 SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY, THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE LINE OF 16 ALESSANDRO BOULEVARD, SOUTH 89°53'24" WEST A DISTANCE OF 731.97 FEET; 7 1'8- THENCE LEAVING, SAID CENTERLINE,. AT A RIGHT ANGLE, SOUTH 00706'36". EAST ,A 19 I . DISTANCE OF 184.59 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 20 21 THENCE NORTH 89°54'34" EAST A DISTANCE OF 102.04 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 22 NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1860.00 FEET, A 23 -RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 78°07'29" EAST; 24 25 THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID NON -TANGENT CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE 26 03°10'00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 102.80 FEET TO A NON -TANGENT. LINE; 27 28 THENCE ALONG SAID NON -TANGENT LINE SOUTH 89°54'34" WEST A DISTANCE OF 29 103.32 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND 30 HAVING A RADIUS OF 1960.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 31 ! 89°54'34" EAST; 32 33 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID NON -TANGENT CURVE. THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE 34 02°59'48" AN_ARC'DISTANCE OF 102.51 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF. BEGINNING. 35 36 37 M:12014‘040200‘sunry‘ier..aMwtr-RC rC-esmt fix: Created on 12/120.006 PAGE 1 OF 2 107 1 2 CONTAINING 10,266 SQUARE FEET OR 0:236 ACRES, MORE OR MESS. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 12 KART J. LAUNE DATE 13 14 15 16 17 18 9. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 AS MORE PARTICULARLY SHOWN ON 'EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. PLS 5679 EXPIRES 09/30/2007 MA2BLA0 02001surveyllegalsUm-ItCTC-csmt dor Created an 12/12/2006 PAGE 2 OF 2 108 EXHIBIT "B" i SO0'06'36 "E 184.59 S78'44102"W {RADIAL} �t R=1960.00 L=102.51.44 A=2" 59' 48". S75'44'14"W (RADIAL) 589154' 34"W 1 03.32' ROTC OPERATED BY B.N.S.F. (FORMERLY AT&SF) NtC1AlllY MAP. r 200' LEGEND POB TPQB _N89'54'3.4"E �' ' 102.04' --� '`�ocso N78'(37'29"E (RADIAL) ��'�� �'�� R 1.860.04 �' �. L=102.80 11 "10'.00" Va N74'57'29"E (RADIAL) 9' .' '` e To 9At oe cp VD: ' a' SEE SHEET 2 = PERMANENT EASEMENT = CENTERLINE REFERENCE LINES = POINT OF BEGINNING = TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING DESCRIPTION: PORTION OF RCTC BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP .3 sourH. RANGE, 4 WEST, •SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, 1N THE ;',.COLINTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CAUFORNIA 109 WESTERN WATER DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SCALE DRAFTED • 200' koh CHECKED kI DATE I2/II 2006 JOB NUMBER 2BLA040200 Point Bearing PERMANENT ESMTRCTC j N 89/54'./34 E 2 N 78/07./29 E Delta = N 74/57/29 E 3 "S 89/54/34 W 12, N 75/44/14 E Delta = N 78/44/02 E Area; Error: Distance N-Coordinates-E 102.04 Radial 3/10,/00 Radial 103.32 Radial 2/59/48 Radial 10265.50 SgFt N= 0.000 W= 10000.000 • 10000,161 R= 1860.00 9900.197 9900.034 R= 1960.00 10000.000 10102.040 L= 102.80 10125.963 3.0022.643 L= 102.51 0.2357 Acres 0.004 110 EXHIBIT "B" IINSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Grantee shall require any consultant or contractor entering the Grantor's property on its behalf to obtain insurance of the types and in the. amounts described below and satisfactory to the Commission. A. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Grantee shall require its consultants and contractors to maintain occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less then $1000,000 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit it shall apply separately to this Agreement or be no less than two times gPP y p y b'�' the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 1.Include the Grantor, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insureds with respect to the consultant's or contractor's work on the Pipeline and the Property and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insureds; 2. Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering the Grantor, its officials; officers, employees, agents and consultants; and Contain standard separation` of insured provisions. B. Railroad Protective Liability. Grantee shall, in connection with any construction activities undertaken with respect to the Pipeline by its agents or contractors, require those agents and contractors to acquire and keep in force during the period of such construction $1,000,000 (combined single limit) of railroad protective liability insurance. C. Pollution Liability Insurance. N/A. D. Workers' Compensation. Insurance. Grantee shall require its consultants and contractors to maintain workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance. with limits of not less than $1,000,000 each accident. E. Certificates of Insurance. Grantee shall, prior to commencement of any work on the Property by its consultants or contractors; require those consultants and contractors to furnish the Grantor with properly executed certificates of insurance and, if requested by the Grantor, certified copies of endorsements and policies, which clearly evidence all insurance required under this Agreement and provide that such insurance shall be not canceled, allowed to expire or be materially reduced in coverage, except on thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the Grantor. The Grantor shall have the sole discretion to determine whether the certificates and endorsements presented comply with the provisions of this Agreement. ;'Exhibit "_B" Page 1,of 2 111 1 F. Coverage Maintenance. Grantee shall require its consultants and contractors to replace certificates, policies and endorsements for any insurance expiring prior to the termination of their work on the Property. Further, Grantee shall require its consultants and contractors to maintain such insurance from their entry onto the Property, until the completion of all their work, . including any restoration work, on the Property, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. G. Licensed Insurer. Grantee shall require its consultants and contractors to place such insurance with insurers having A.M. Best Company ratings of no less than A+:VIII and licensed to do business in California, unless otherwise approved, .in writing, by the Grantor. Exhibit "B" Page 2 of 2 112 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION _COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Edda Rosso, Program Manager Richard Bryan, 'Bechtel Program Manager Stan 'Haas, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement for Construction Management Services .to Support the North Main Corona Parking Structure and the Perris Multimodal Facility and Authorization to Advertise for Construction .Bids for the North Main Corona Parking Structure and -the Perris Multimodal Facility BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDA-TIO/V•• This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the selection process and authorize the Executive Director to -` negotiate a base contract and subsequent amendments for the award of Agreement No. 08-33-011-00 with Transtech Owen Group : to provide construction management services to support the construction of the North Main Corona parking structure in the city of Corona and the Perris Multimodal Facility in the city of Perris, for a total. not -to -exceed amount of $3 million; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize staff to advertise to receive bids .for the construction of the North Main Corona parking structure in the city of Corona and the Perris Multimodal facility in the city of Perris, contingent on federal funding authorization. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission and Gordon H..Chong & Partners entered into an agreement to perform conceptual design and environmental services in connection with the construction of a new, multi -level parking structure containing 1,000 parking spaces at the North Main Corona Metrolink. Station. The agreement was then amended to include final design of the structure and :preparation of contract plans, specifications and estimate (PS&E). The parking structure final design is cornplete Agenda Item 7Q 1 3 and city approvals have been obtained; the current estimated construction cost is $25 million. Staff is preparing the construction documents to be ready to advertise for construction once funding is authorized. Prior to advertisement of the project for construction, staff would like to establish an agreement with a qualified construction ' management consultant to review the plans and administer , the construction contract. In addition, the Perris Multimodal Facility is in final design, which .includes eight bus bays, shelters, platform, and a 141 space parking lot. This will be operated as :a bus terminal by Riverside Transit Agency prior to service by the Perris. Valley Line. The projected construction cost for this project is $5 million. This project will also. require a_. construction management consultant to review the plans and administer the construction contract. At ,its July 11, 2007 :meeting, the Commission authorized and directed staff to issue a request for proposal (RFP) for construction management services to firrns interested in providing construction management services. Calendar of Events Issued RFP (Advertisement) Pre -;proposal Conference Written Questions Deadline Responses Posted Deadline RCTC Addendum Deadline Proposal Deadline Short Listed Firms Notified Interview; Date Anticipated Contract Award Date Anticipated Project Start Date. (NT'P) July_27, 2007 August 9, 2007 August 13, 2007 August 15, 2007 August 15, 2007 August 17, 2007 August 24, 2007 August 30, 2007 September 12, 2007:. October 10, 2007 The calendar of events was developed so that a construction management consultant can be under contract prior to the advertisement of the construction proiects. This will allow the consultant to perform a constructability review prior to advertisement so as to identify any potential construction related problems, alternative; means, methods, or materials that could reduce the construction duration or costs. Selection Process Staff assembled a selection panel, which consisted of <representatives from .the Commission, cities of Corona and Perris, and Bechtel. The proposals were received on August 17, 2007, and ranked by the panel. The short listed firms were Agenda ltem 7Q 114 • requested to participate in an interview with the panel. At the completion of the interviews, the panel selected Transtech Owen Group a-s the top ranked firm. Staff is continuing to negotiate a few 'budgetary items and presents this for the Commission approval as a not -to -exceed 'budget for the project. In addition, staff is requesting authorization from the Commission to advertise for construction bids for the North Main Corona parking structure and the Perris Multimodal Facility, pendingseparate funding authorizations from Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. Upon authorization of federal funds, the construction contracts will be advertised. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $1,500,000 Measure A Funds for Perris Muitimodal Facility (P3816); Source of Funds: State Transit Assistance Funds for Budget Adjustment: No North Main 'Corona Parking Structure ( (P3808) GLA No.: 221 33 81302 P3808 $ 1,000,000 2 221 33 81302 P3816 $ 500,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: . PP r� _ _ Date: 09/05/2007., Agenda Item 7Q 11 5 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CONIM/SSION _ -DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Comrnission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director Edda Rosso, Program Manager Richard Bryan, Bechtel Perris Valley Line Design Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director - SUBJECT: Agreement with STV Incorporated to Provide Preliminary Engineering, Planning, and Environmental Services for the Perris Valley Line Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the selection process and award Agreement' No.07-33-123-00 to STV Incorporated to provide planning, - environmental, and preliminary engineering services for ` the Perris Valley Line ('PVL) for a not -to -exceed amount of $12 . million contingent on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approval to enter into preliminary engineering (PE). Work will be authorized on . a task order basis; 2') Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve amendments for potential additional work to the STV Incorporated contract from a contingency fund in the amount of $5.3 million to provide for: a) $1.5 million in general contingency; b) $1 million for final design for stations, pending Commission decision on selection of stations and decision to deliver stations on a design -bid -build (DBB) basis; and c) $2.8 million for consultant support during construction if decision is made to deriver the remainder of the project on a; design -build (DB) basis. Agenda Item 7R 1 16 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff is currently. working with the FTA toward receiving approval to enter into. PE under the FTA Small Starts process. All required docurnents have been submitted to the FTA and are under final review. Approval has been obtained for some submittals .;such as ridership "Make the Case" document and the financial plan submittal. Approval is pending for the :project management planand cost estimates. , FTA approval of all of these documents is required prior to receiving a project rating and authorization to enter into PE. In addition, the FTA is reviewing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental document. FTA processes also require that the Commission seek FTA approvals prior to proceeding vvith other project development stages, including - final design and construction. These approvals may be affected by the project delivery methods chosen by. the Commission, such as DB (since both final design and construction commence as the next step after PE). Recent discussion between staff and 'FTA has indicated strong interest in exploring the use of DB for the .PVL project. The Commission does not currently have the iegislative authority to proceed with DB. Stuff is continuing to pursue legislative options as well as having discussions with the Southern California Regional .:Rail Authority (SCRRA) to evaluate an option to contract with SCRRA for all or part of the construction on the PVL project. As a transit agency, SCRRA has DB authority. While these opportunities continue to be explored, staff believes it is prudent to keep options open as the Commission proceeds into PE. it is important to note . that the final products of PE are substantially different under DBB than for: traditional DB. Therefore, staff has structured the PE scope of work in such a way that four options continue under evaluation: Conduct PE assuming entire project will be constructed as DBB. II. Conduct PE assuming entire project will be constructed as DB. III. Start PE for the entire project as DBB but convert to DB after Six months (allowing time for decision -making). Start PE as . DBB but convert track/systems portion to DB after Six months (deliver stations using DBB approach). Preliminary schedule analysis indicates that Options II, Ill, and 1V enable the Commission to deliver the PVL project by the end of 2010 (assuming FTA responds to allow initiation of PE in a timely manner) and Option I does not. .The scope of work presented in this contract allows for continued evaluation and implementation of all four options. The $12 million covers PE for Options I, II, and III. Should Option IV be selected, staff would need to add the final design of .the stations to the scope of work; hence, $1 million has been placed into contingency Agenda Item 7R 17 • to allow staff to make this conversion in a timely manner. if Option II, III, or IV is selected, staff would require additional engineering services in order to review the work of a design -builder and support a fast track schedule of engineering work. Therefore, staff has requested $2.8 million in contingency to support the DB approaches should one of them be implemented. If Option I is selected, staff would need to return to the. Commission for additional resources to perform the final design of the Track/Systems scope of work. In all cases, staff will keep the Commission informed on ,progress and recommended implementation approach. Other efforts included in the scope of work necessary prior to proceeding with the PVL PE project include: Additional environmental studies and process to comply with California ;Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), possible updates to the NEPA environmental document, and environmental permitting. Mapping and engineering services to support planning and right=of-way verification efforts. Additional planning efforts to assess compatibility with . long terra 'freight and Metrolink corridor needs, as well as future stations Evaluation of project :implementation strategies, including DB. Calendar of Events RFP Issued Proposal Deadline Interviev►cs, Ranking and Selection Selection Process April 5, 2007 May 7, 2007 May 29, 2007 At its May 9, 2007 meeting, the Commission directed . staff to proceed with selection and negotiation of a preliminary engineering contract for the PVL and to return its recommendations directly to the Commission. A selection :panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from the Commission, SCRRA, the city of Riverside, and Bechtel. Proposals were received from two firms. The selection panel reviewed both proposals and concluded that both firms demonstrated the capability to perform the proposed scope of work. The selection panel then interviewed both firms. After careful evaluation the selection, the panel ranked the two firms as follows: STV Incorporated First ranked Carter & Burgess, Inc. Second ranked Agenda Item 7R 1 18 The evaluation panel recornmends that STV Incorporated be awarded the contract to provide planning, environmental and preliminary engineering services for the PVL Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2007/08. FY 2008/09 Amount: $ 5,000,000 $ 12,300,000 Source of Funds: FTA 5307 Funds and Measure A Funds Budget Adjustment: No N/A GLA No. 221 33 81101 P3800 $5,000,000 Fiscal 'Procedures .Approved: Date: 09/05/2007 Agenda item 7R 1 19 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA T/ON-COMIM/SS/ON DATE: September 1.2, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Claudia Chase, 'Property Administrator Min Saysay, Right -of -Way 'Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, :Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorization to Issue a Request for Statement of Qualifications' for On -call Maintenance Contractor for the Metrolink. Stations BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to develop and advertise a request for statement of qualifications (SOQ) for on -call maintenance contractor services for the five Commission -owned Metrolink commuter rail stations; 2) Form a selection committee comprised of Commission and. Metrolink staff to review', evaluate, and rank all SOQs='received; and 3) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top -ranked contractor` and bring back a recommendation to the Commission for contract award. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission is the owner and operator of five Metrolink stations in Riverside County. These five stations were constructed and began operation 5 to 15 years. ago. During this time, the stations general maintenance . and repairs were performed through purchase orders. Scopes of work were prepared, advertised, and awarded to the lowest bidder who best met the required qualifications. This process has resulted in an unacceptable amount of time passing between the identification of the problem and its eventual repair. Staff is currently working on selecting contractors to improve the maintenance of Commission -owned operating facilities. This includes landscape maintenance, station cleaning, lighting maintenance, and general electrical. This on -call list will allow the Commission to. contract and direct one of the service providers to perform the necessary work. This SOQ will complete the range of service contracts by addressing the need for an on -call maintenance contractor who can perform repairs and maintenance to the stations structures, pedestrian overcrossings,,and parking facilities. Services Agenda Item 7S 120 include, but are, not limited to, repair and maintenance of canopies, concrete platform, asphalt parking dots, plumbing, roofing, structural steel, hand rail/guard rail, at -grade pedestrian crossings, sliding/rolling gates, painting drywall removal/replacement, non -slip flooring treatment, sign removal and installation, electrical work within railroad right-of-way, concrete curb and gutter, storm drain inlet repairs, and other general repairs and maintenance that may arise. SOQ will be ;evaluated and ranked on the basis of qualification and experience. Thereafter, a short Fist of responders will be invited to participate in the next phase of the selection process. Short listed firms will be required to provide unit rates for personnel services (classification and job function) and equipment, and bulk > rates for iterns of work, such as, removal or replacement of 4-inch thick = asphalt pavements ($/sq. ft.), removal and replacement of platform tile ($/sq. ft.) Cost and price proposals will be considered in the final evaluation ;process to ensure that the Commission is receiving the best service for the lowest possible price. The contract will be for three years with two one-year options to be exercised at the discretion of the Commission. The total contract budget is $300,000 and $100,000 is included in the 'FY 2007/08 budget. The funding for these station. repairs will come frorn Local Transportation Fund and Measure A funds. Schedule The schedule for the selection +process is proposed as follows: Distribution of SOQ Pre -proposal Conference (not mandatory) Written Questions Responses .Posted Proposal Deadline (by 2:00 p.m.) Short listed Firms Notified Interview Date Staff ;.Recommendations to Commission September 13, 2007 September 17, 2007 September 19, 2007 September 21, 2007 September 28, 2007 October 10, 2007 October 17, 2007 . November 14, 2007 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $ 100,000 Source of Funds: LTF & Measure A Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 103 24 73315 P4001, P4002, P4003, P4004, P4005 and P4006 $ 50,000 221 33 9070.1 P4199 $ 50,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14 1, Date: 08/22/2007 `. Agenda Item 7S 121 TEM 7T • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION_ COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Transit Policy Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Regional 'Programs Director Josefina Clemente, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Productivity Improvement Program Policy Revisions TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the following policy revisions to the. Productivity Improvement 'Program (PIP): a) b) Change operating .cost per revenue hour from a mandatory target to a. discretionary target; and Increase the number of minimum discretionary performance targets, operators must meet from three to four. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In an effort to improve the effectivenessand efficiency of transit services, the Commission reaffirmed its commitment to the PIP in 2005 as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to provide better service while improving mobility. Under state law, the Commission is tasked with the responsibility to identify, analyze. and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operators. The Commission oversees transit service in Riverside County primarily through the approval of Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP), which detail the operating and capital costs that are planned ,for transit services. Each operator develops a plan and then provides data through TransTrack, a web based performance software monitoring system, which the Commission implemented to assist with analyzing operator data. The PIP establishes both mandatory and discretionary performance targets that are then evaluated against actual operator performance. Both the PIP and TransTrac'k. program. were fully implemented during FY 2006/07. While Commission staff believes that both systems will continue to assist with monitoring transit performance through real time data analysis,, there has been a learning curve Agenda item 7T 1-22 associated with program implementation. Now that the Commission and transit agency staffs _have a full year of experience with the programs, several administrative changes to the PIP are recommended. The: majority of recommended changes are ;procedural in nature (example: due to the implementation of TransTrack, data is reported rnonthly: instead of quarterly). In addition to the procedural changes, a policy change is requested regarding the cornposition of the :mandatory and discretionary targets. Currently, there are two : mandatory targets: 1) farebox recovery ratio; and - 2) operating cost per revenue -hour. While meeting the farebox recovery ratio is a. required state mandate under the Transportation Development Act (TDA), operating cost per revenue hour' is a target that determines the operator's eligibility to receive State Transit Assistance (STA) operating' funds. The TDA provides two major sources of funding for public transportation. The first, the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) provides for a. %4 cent of the 7 %4 % state retail sales tax collected in each county. The second source of TDA funding is STA funds, which are generated from the statewide sales tax on motor vehicle fuel (gasolineand diesel). Under TDA Public Utilities Code regulations, to be eligible to receive STA operating. funds, the operator rnust meet one of the following efficiency standards: 1) "The operator's total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour in the Latest year for which audited data are available does not exceed the sum of the preceding year's total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour and an amount equal to the product of the percentage change in -the` Consumer Price Index for the same period multiplied by the preceding year's total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour. 2) The operator's average total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour in. the latest three years for which audited data are available does not exceed the sum of the average of the total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour in the three years preceding the latest year for .which audited data are available and an amount equal to the product of the average percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for the same period multiplied by the average total operating cost per revenue hour in the same three years." Although the use of the Consumer Price Index may not be the ;best growth indicator for transit services, it is mandatory per TDA in :order for STA funds to be allocated to cover operating expenses. Due to the TDA restriction, the Comrnission has historically allocated STA funds to rcover capital costs. Agenda Item 7T 123 • • To more closely align the PIP with the TDA requirements, it is recommended that the operating cost per revenue flour target be reclassified from a mandatory target to a discretionary target. In exchange, transit operators would develop the SRTP based on meeting the state mandated fare box recovery requirement as well as four of the discretionary targets instead of three. Staff discussed the proposed PIP policy revisions with the transit operators and incorporated their feedback into the attached PIP document. Overall feedback from the transit operators regarding the proposed changes was positive. Attachment: Productivity Improvement Program Agenda Item 7T 124 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PRODUCTIVITY .IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Approved: 1998 Revised: 2005 Revised Draft: 6/30/07(pending Commission approval) The 'Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) was designed to meet Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99244 which requires the Commission to annually identify, analyze, and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit .operations (public bus and commuter rail) through the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) process. This process requires the transit operators to address recommendations made through the triennial performance .audit. Additionally, as part ofthe review process, compliance with PUC requirements for State -mandated fare box recovery and cost <efficiency (operating cost per revenue hour) is considered. The 'PIP consists of three tasks: 1) Issuance of SRTP instructions; 2) Review and approval of SRTPs, and 3) Collection of performance information through the quarterly Transit Operator's Ridership report TransTrack web based performance software program. e following outlines the PIP for Riverside County. .Task 1 Issue SRTP Instructions With implementation of the 'PIP, RCTC staff will provide SRTP instructions to the transit operators consisting of the following items: 1) Funding estimates; 2) . Schedule for SRTP submittal, review and approval; 3) Required SRTP forms and informational sections, AN -la and 4) Performance audit recommendations which will require transit operators to report implementation progress. 12'5 The SRTP submitted by transit operators will include a discussion of actions taken and results relative to. these recommendations. RCTC staff will review these activities and after collaboration with the transit operator snake a recommendation to the Commission as to whether or not transit operator progress to date represents a "reasonable effort".' If the transit agency makes a "reasonable effort", RCTC staff will recommend that the Commission adopt a finding that the transit operator has made a "reasonable effort" ;prior to approving TDA Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding increases above the prior year level. If the finding is that "no reasonable effort" was made, RCTC staff will recommend that no increase in Transportation Development ACT (TDA)- funding be allocated over the prior year funding level. 5) Performance targets that transit operators would strive to meet in development of the SRTP service and financial plan. System wide performance targets by operator will be developed for eight performance indicators according to the following guidelines: Performance Indicator Method for Establishing Performance Targets i) Fare Box Recovery Ratio 1) Operating Cost Revenue Per PUC requirements and RCTC policy increases more than CPI per Neuf no 2) Operating Cost per Revenue Hour 2) Fare Box Recovery Ratio Increases no. more than CPf PUC RCTC per requirements and peliey for operators to receive STA funds to cover operating costs 3) Subsidy per Passenger +/- 15% variance 4) Subsidy per Passenger Mile +/- 15% variance 5) Subsidy per Revenue Hour +/- 15% variance ' Reasonable effort to include meeting(s) and open, continuous communication'between 'RCTC and the transit agency to address concerns identified in the triennial performance audit, or in the case of non-compliance with the PIP, development of an action plan to achieve compliance. 2 Source for Annual CPI Data: "U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange County CA CPI for urban wage earners and :clerical workers." RCTC will determine the CPI based on the most recently completed 12 months ended 6/30 over the prior 12 months ended 6/30. Example: For FY 2007/08, CPI was determined based on FY 2006 (June). over. 'FY 2005 (June). 126 6) Subsidy per Revenue Mile +/- 15% variance 7) Passengers per Revenue Hour +/- 15% variance 8) Passengers per Revenue Mile +/- 15% variance 9) Ridership Growth (raid program) Goal: 2% rninimurn growth 10) Passengers per Revenue Car Mile (rail program) Goal: 30: passengers per revenue car mile These targets (identified .on Attachment 2) are to be used by . transit operators as they :prepare their SRTPs. The first two performance targets (Ora„t;nn G t Ne Reve • e u nd Fare Box Recovery Ratio) are is mandatory per PUC requirements. Transit operators will prepare the SRTP to meet a minimum of three four of the remaining six performance indicators. Future updates of performance targets will be considered annually' based on audited prior year information and other long range productivity improvement considerations, and . 6) The process to determine ,performance to PIP will include RCTC and transit .operator staff -,will use first and second: third quarter performance results (cumulative) compared tothe planned results presented in the SRTP and PIP targets to collaboratively develop an action plan to achieve compliance with the PIP. The action plan will be presented to the Commission for approval. Task 2: Review and Approve SRTPs Transit operators will prepare SRTPs in accordance with RCTC instructions (Task.. 1). Draft . SRTPs will be approved by transit operator policy. boards and then reviewed by RCTC staff to ensure conformity to guidelines Key questions to be addressed in this review process include: 1) , Is there planning to do better in future? 2) Will minimum PIP targets be met with SRTP implementation? 3) Is planned performance achievable given past results? 4) Is service growth keeping pace with ;population growth? 127 5} is there equity in service coverage and allocation of resources? 6} Have reasonable efforts been made to address concerns identified in the triennial performance audit?, and 7} If applicable, have reasonable efforts been made to .address 'PIPnon- compliance Each transit operator should identify whether he it is in compliance with the PIP based on . TransTrack data. when they submit their agency's quarterly Transit Operator's Ridership Report. Upon completion of a review by RCTC staff :and, the transit operator to determine whether instances of non-compliance exist, the following steps will occur: 1) A meeting will be scheduled with transit operator and RCTC staff to jointly develop an action plan to meet the PIP targets 2} The agreed upon action plan, together with the Transit Operator's Ridership Report current year Service Provider Performance Targets Report will be ,presented to the Commission for approval, and The approved' action plan/methodology to come into compliance with the 'PIP will be included as part of the following fiscal year's Short Range Transit Plan. Should the Commission approved :action plan fail to achieve compliance with "the PIP within 12 months of the approved plan, staff from ,the transit operator and RCTC will ;jointly develop a status report and identify progress as well as proposed -modifications to the action plan. The revised action planwill be submitted : to the Commission for approval. The "reasonable effort" finding would be based on transit operator actions to. implement-rsrier trienRial . udit Eem.mnd-atiens provide effective andefficient transit services based on performance data. A positive finding of "reasonable effort" .is required prior to Commission approval of TDA funding increases over the prior year. The worst case scenario would be if a transit operator refused to take any. action to improve performance relative to a specific PIP recommendation and performance continued to decline or remained well below that of similar services. In such instance, the Commission may determine that a "reasonable effort" :was not made. If this should occur, TDA funding increases would be set aside until such time that the operator took action deemed "reasonable" by the Commission.. 128 • • Task 3: Collect Quarterly Performance Information through from -Transit -Operators! Ridership -Report TransTrack Transit operators will report performance information monthly through the TransTrack program. on a quarterly basis to RCTC. Annually, RCTC staff will prepare a report to the full Commission which compares: 1) Prior year audited performance results; 2) Current year first and seeend third quarter results; 3) Current year performance indicators/targets, as defined in individual transit operator SRTPs, and 4) Performance ;indicators/targets for up -coming fiscal year (issued —with SRTP instructions based on cumulative third quarter actual performance). As stated previously, the PIP is based on the philosophy that transportation principals in Riverside County are interested in providing 'high quality public transit services as efficient) as possible, recognizing :- . _. - _ Y P . -that there are.... diverse, factors. affecting service demand and perforrnance results. Attachments: 1) Performance Indicators 24 PIP Targets for FY 2007/08 SRTP -32) Data Definitions 129 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Transit operators will develop SRTPs consistent with the following eight ten performance standards. Transit operators must meet five of the eight standards, including the system wide fare box recovery and system wide cost efficiency standards.The remaining three standards are at the operator's discretion. Operators (Public Bus and Commuter Rail) will prepare its SRTP to meet the State mandated fare box recovery ratio. In addition, operators will meet a minimum of four of the remaining performance indicators. Two separate performance indicators will be used for the system wide performance targets (excluding new service exemptions): 1) Fare 'Box Recovery Ratio requirement using State PUC requirements and existing RCTC policy, and 2) Growth in the Operating Cost per Revenue Hour shall not exceed the estimated growth in the Consumer Price index - All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange Co., CA area - in order to remain eligible for STA operating funds. /n addition, Ssix separate performance indicators will be used to , establish performance targets by service type using a variance of +/-15%. This "variance will :be reset on a yearly basis. Performance goals will be added to the transit operator report various TransTrack reports to identify whether they -are operator is within the 15% +/- range. When updating the SRTP, transit operators must project that they will meet a minimum four of three of the performance targets established for the indicators shown below: 1) Operating Cost per Revenue Hour 2) Subsidy per Passenger 3) Subsidy per Passenger Mile 4) Subsidy per Revenue Hour 5) Subsidy per Revenue Mile 6) Passengers per Revenue Hour 7) Passengers per 'Revenue Mile 8) Ridership Growth (Rail Program): Goal: 2% minimum growth annually 9) Passengers per Revenue Car Mile (Rail Program): Goal: 30 passengers per revenue car mile. The following four service quality indicators will continue to be part of the Transit Operator's nuarterEy IQi ershi Reports and will be used by the transit operators to 130 • review performance by service type. The intent behind this analysis is for the transit operators to compare data between years for the following four indicators: 1) Revenue miles between collision accidents; 2) Percentage on -time; 3) Complaints per 1,000 passengers, and 4) Total miles between road calls. Because data definitions for some of these items will vary by transit operator, comparisons between operators may not be valid. 131 • • DATA DEFINITIONS Data definitions for the Riverside County Transit Operator PIP are taken from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) program and: the State Public Utilities Code (PUC) as noted. ▪ Unlinked Passenger Trips (NTD Definition): The number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles. A passenger is counted each time . he/she boards a vehicle even though he/she may be on the same journey from origin to destination. Short Title: Passengers. PUC reference: Passengers. Passenger Miles (NTD Definition): The cumulative sum of the distances ridden ;by each passenger. 'Collecting Passenger Mile Data: Sampling for passenger mile data must meet the FTA's requirements for minimum 'levels of confidence (9`5%) and precision (1 O%) for annual figures by mode. Because the Riverside'. County Transit Operator PIP uses service types by quarter, data will be less accurate than FTA prescribed levels. FTA Suggested Techniques: FTA., has developed .:several , suggested techniques to assist transit agencies. If you use any of these techniques you must follow it exactly. Do not change the prescribed number of trips in the sample. The techniques are designed in two circulars that provide definitions, sampling procedures, data recording procedures, annual report compilation, and sample selection information: ➢ FTA C 2710. 1A Sampling Techniques for Obtaining Fixed Route. Bus Operating Data Required under the Section 15 Reporting System; • FTA C 2710.2A Sampling Procedures for Obtaining Demand Responsive Bus System Operating Data Required under the Section 15 Reporting System. Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles/Hours (NTD Definition): The miles/hours a vehicle travels while in revenue service. A transit vehicle is in revenue service only when the vehicle is , available to the public and there is.. a reasonable expectation of carrying passengers that either directly pay fares, are subsidized by public policy, or provide payment through some contractual arrangement. This does not imply that 'a cash fare must be paid. Vehicles operated in free fare service are considered in revenue service. Vehicle revenue miles/hours include 'layover/recovery, but excludes travel to and from storage facilities training operators prior 132 to revenue service, road tests and deadhead travei, as well as school bus and charter services. Short Title: Revenue 'Miles/Hours. PUC Reference:. Vehicle Service miles/Hours or Revenue Vehicle Miles/Hours. Total Actual Vehicles Miles (NTD Definition): The miles a vehicle travels while in revenue service (actual vehicle revenue miles) plus deadhead miles. For rail vehicles, vehicle miles refer to passenger car miles. Actual vehicle miles exclude miles and hours for charter services, school :bus service, operator training and maintenance testing. Short Title: Total Miles. Collisions (NTD Definition): Collisions involving transit agency vehicles with any other vehicles, with objects (e.g. buildings, shopping carts), .and ' with° people if they result in a fatality, injury, or transit property .damage greater than $7,500. ,Major Revenue Vehicle System failures (NTD Definition): ;A failure of some major mechanical element of the revenue vehicle .that .requires: 1) assistance from someone other than the revenue vehicle operator or crew to restore the vehicle to operating condition and 2) prevents the vehicle from continuing in revenue service because actual movement is.limited .or,; Y because of safety concerns. Short Title: Road calls. Total Passenger Complaints: Passenger complaints that are documented through a letter, comment card, or over the telephone. Fora,compl.aint to be counted, the person must provide a name and contact reference (i.e., either telephone number or address). Transit operators who report complaints to .their policy board should use the same definition when reporting to the 'RCTC. Short Title: Complaints. Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled: For demand response service, this .refers to each scheduled pick-up, regardless of the :number: of people to board at each pick-up location. For fixed route bus and commuter rail services, this refers to each one-way shown on published time -schedules. Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips: For fixed route bus service, revenue vehicles that depart published time -point locations within 0- minutes early to 5-minutes late time period are considered on -time. For demand responsive service, revenue vehicles that arrive at : a pick-up location within a 30 minute window are. considered on -time. Short Title: % On -Time Trips or Trips On -Time. 133 • ■ Total Operating Expenses (PUC 'Definition): All costs in the operating expense object classes exclusive of the costs in the depreciation and amortization expense object class of the uniform system of accounts and records and exclusive of all direct costs for providing charter services, and exclusive of all vehicle lease costs. Operating cost also includes the amount of fare revenues that are received by the entity providing the services and not transferred to the clairnant. Short Title: Operating Costs: PUC Reference: Operating Cost. Total Passenger Fare Revenues (PUC Definition): All revenues in the account classes of the uniform system of accounts, including: 401 Passenger Fares for Transit Services; 402 Special Transit Fares; and 403 School Bus Service Revenues. Fare revenues alsoinclude the amount of fare revenues that are: 1) received by the entity providing the ,services and not transferred to the claimant; 2) earned under contractual arrangement with public or private entities either for transit fares for a specified group of employees, members, or clients, or to guarantee a minimum revenue on a line operating especially for the benefit of the paying entity (e.g., an employer, shopping center, university); and 3) cash donations made by individual passengers in lieu of a prescribed fare. Short Title: Fare Box Revenue. PUC Reference: Fare Revenues. Net Operating Expenses (calculation based on PUC defined variables): Total Operating Expenses less Total Passenger Fare Revenues. Short Title: Subsidy. 134 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst Sheldon Peterson, 'Program Manager - THROUGH: Eric Haley, 'Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Cornmission to receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Inland Empire -Orange County Weekend Service Completes Its ;First Year Cumulative Passenger Trips IEOC Weekend Service 70,000 60,000 a 50,000 t: 40,000 c 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 ® FY 2006-07 FY 2005-06 Daily passenger trips on the new year-round IEOC weekend service have remained consistent through July. To date, the IEOC weekend service has provided. 62,719 passenger trips since commencing July 15, 2006. This constitutes 43,787 additional trips resulting from year-round service compared to 18,932 Summerlink seasonal trips in 2005. The success of this service .is due in large part to the coordinated initial marketing efforts among the Commission, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). Since discussions began in March, marketing responsibilities have been steadily transitioning to .Metrolink staff to address the expanded . weekend service Agenda Item 7U 135 throughout the system. By fall of this year, most all responsibilities for marketing of the IEOC weekend service will transfer to Metrolink as part of an overall` Weekend Service marketing campaign. Schedule Changes Effective Tuesday, September 4 On S:epternber 4, Metrolink will implement modifications to its existing schedule. These are being made to add the Buena Park Station to the 91 Line and extend more IEOC trains to Laguna Niguel from Irvine. Of those routes serving Riverside County, both the 91 and IEOC Lines will be affected as follows: Station Riverside -La Sierra i c6. YA2 YiMNkii "`.ai"u£." West Corona 91 Line Departures 5:39a 6:39a 2:34p 5:59 5:53a 6:53a 2:48p 6:13p IEOC Line Departures 803. 805 807 811 5:21 a 5:51 a 6:26a 11:54a. 5:35a 6:05a 6:40a 12:08p Additionally, there will be modifications to the San Bernardino Line weekend service to and from Riverside to allow for better connection from Riverside on Saturdays. ROUTE PERFORMANCE.' Riverside Line 6000 5,600 e 5,200 4800 c 4;400. *t 4,000 3,600 3,200 Passenger Trips Riverside Line UP Track Work OrO Oq) prO CS° 0�O pr° J� � PJ 5�� pc' �o Oec' Ox Month Agenda Item :7U 1 36 • Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of July averaged 5,093, a decrease of 48, 1 % less than the month of June Compared to one year prior, the 'Line averaged an overall daily increase of 615 passenger trips. This is nearly 14% more than a year ago, a tremendous irnprovement due to consistent on time performance above 95% for the past five months. 100 d 95 ▪ 90 d • 85 m 80 n. 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line UP Track Work b J� 0� G�O� o,A� e►c 5� ( P . O � O ok 01 off ,01 p1 0� �6> 4,§,Pit �� Month July on -time performance averaged 97% inbound (-1 % from June) . and 94% outbound (no change from June). There were 11 delays greater than five minutes during the month __of.July. Thefollowing,are:_primary causes. Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations TOTAL 2 2 0 7 18 % 18% 0% 64 % Inland Empire -Orange County (1E0C) Line Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County tine 5,000 4,800 a 4,600 4,400 0 4,200 It 4,000 3,800 3,600 \Pi ,Q° �J PJ� • �e, 00 01 O� O� 0�� ‘N. ,oe <( fat ,PA Month Agenda Item 7U 137 OA Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of July averaged 4,588, a decrease of 128 trips, 3% less than the month of June. The line has increased by 104 daily trips or 2% from a year ago July 2006 100 :m. 95 • 90 m 85 d 80 a 75 70 mob Vital On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line oc fro ADO o1 c1 ,c1 ,c1 A 01 ��'� �oJ Oho �a� ��� fat v9 0\ 1 Month July on -time performance averaged 98% southbound (+2% from June) and 93% northbound (-1 % from June). There were 15 delays greater than five minutes during the month of July. The 'following are primary causes: 91 Line Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations TOTAL 5 2 2 6 33 % 13%. 13 % 41% 2,800. 2,600 0 2,400 2,200 ~ • 2,000 0 1,800 1,600 1,400 Passenger Trips 99 Line 06 ,,d3 pro ,p° O�° cco ck ,01 ,(k ,c1 01 VV Month Agenda [tern 7U 138 • • Daily passenger trips on 'Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of July averaged 2,023, a decrease of 33 trips, 8% less than the month of June. The line has decreased by 460 daily trips or -19% from a year ago July 2006. This is primarily due to passengers returning to a better performing Riverside Line. 100. m 95 as 90. c 85 m 80 a. 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal). 91 Line -Month July on -time performance averaged 96% inbound (-2% from June) and 97% outbound (-2% from June). There were six delays greater than five minutes during the month of July. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 0 1 0 5 0% 16% 0% 84% TOTAL Connecting. Transit Service Performance The Commission's role facilitating interconnectivity between Metrolink and connecting transit services is essential to the ongoing viability of the system. These services address the needs of transit dependent riders as well as help mitigate congestion and the necessity for expensive parking capacity at the stations. The Commission is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transit connections. In order to meet these requirements, the Commission has worked with Metrolink and local transit operators to offer "connecting services to and from Riverside County _ 'Metrolink stations at no cost for those with valid Metrolink tickets. Agenda Item 7U 139 Within Riverside County, services include free transfers to routes operated by Riverside Transit. Agency (RTA), RTA's Commuter Link service and Corona Cruiser. The followinggraphs show total monthly Metrolink transfer passenger trips on ;each of the three services. 3,000 H 2,500 Q. I- 2,000 0 1,500 1,000 o`O Off, Passenger Trips RTA Fixed Route Month 1 1 �0 PQ 41' �J Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's connecting fixed routes (1, 3, 15, 16, 21, 29, and 38) totaled 2,601 for the month of July, a decrease of 105 trips, -3.88 % more than the month of June. Monthly trips have increased by 233 . or 9.8.4% over the last fiscal year. 7,000 6,400 to °' 5,800 F- 0 5,200 4 4,600 4,000 rq 5 Passenger Trips RTA Commuter Link o� 01 01 01 Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's Commuter Link routes :(202, 204, 206, and 208) totaled 4,622 for the month of July, a decrease of 227 trips, -4.68% from the month of June. Monthly trips have increased by 150 or 26.46 % over the last fiscal year. A9enda Item 7U 140 • • 700 600 Q, 500 .` I- 400 w 300 200 100 OHO ,`,�° ,OrO O� �� o6 �° O'brj Passenger Trips Corona Cruiser ,ac• 4.2 �01 �a`01 Month Q�. P Monthly 'Metrolink transfer trips on the Corona Cruiser totaled 494 for the month of July, a decrease of 46 trips, =8.52% less than the month of June. Monthly trips have increased by 245 or 98.39 % over the past fiscal year. This is partially attributed to the development and distribution of a promotional brochure in December and improved driver retention. Attachments: 1) Metrolink..Avera e. Weekday Passenger Trips 2) Metrolink Schedule Adherence Summary — Weekday Service Agenda Item 7U 141 4 0 eu1'tAltnY!Aug algal siePr8 My aeueyo % . %t• %1- ' %Z` . %I.. %C.' %I... °%t- _. %0 %.Z- LO AM SA LO unr eBueya % %1_ matt, 9Lt'Z 9Ll`# 19149 LPCS 049 L 9S£'1 901.17 LO un % llp`£it 9t7E`z £8` E99'9 LOE'9. 949 SOL`ZI. 9££'L £LZ' LO itew %0 6S9t17 9 E`Z L.6L't 69V9_ 966'b 919 oL L'ZI E`L LLO`tr LO idy %4 %£ E.tg'z 13017 Z17 1ZZ'Z 96Z`Z 9179 17 L01'b Z6q'9 19V9 6Z6`p 9Z917 £1. 919 LS£'Z L ZZ 1.'Z I. 66Z'1 9L 1 `L boa `b 9£L`ti LO 2W LO qeA %6 960' 14 I. £'Z L 0117 L£b`9 990`.t L99 4E6' L L 096'9 Z96'£ LO uer• %L' %0 Zin$`L£ S91.1t 0£S `Zb £89' L trOZ'tr 11.9"9 0 8 t 949 9/6'01 vs9'9 ZZ9`E 90 300 z$o'z 9,17eZ 9ZL't ........:... SE9't Z1.9' 9 OZIY9 119. 1.90'z'L ZtrG `L 9a AoN 199'9 096'b OLL L6Z`Z L LSL'L OLO'a; 90 PC) °IoZ % 19£`Zb 06£`Ltr` 8Q6' w 060`Zfi 91V Z 999't 9LVI9 0117 Z99 90Z'ZL ZL 1"L 1.£0'i� 90 des t�Ztr`Z 86S'tr; 96E' 9 L09'b _ ZZ9 £99' 16 91Z�� OKE 90 any E8fi`Z t79t`b 919' 9 8117 4E9 19911E 69Z'L 000`b 941nr zs£'Z 178£'b £E9`9 9Z9`t7 999 926`1.1 Z6Z'L Z9 G't 90 unr a3lsnrab xdai101-1 - moaNIM H1NOW N331111H1 Sd1tl1 ti3ON3SSVd AVO)433Nt 3019%13AV NNI1ON131N • %L6 'Yo96 °k86 56 Juopeinam et,up-uo 4,44 ul pepnpw lou eye sule4 pepuuy -uogeulwue; lupd ettm-uo GRIM Alta fl j0 Ps1's um) We SUIE4 pelevp.wej •sAiijap eigenellei Jo) spew ueeq eney quetulsn(pe oN %96. %00l` %Z6: %Se %tr6 %96 %.06 %00I - 0%00 L %OM %L6 %96 % 6 %ee °%LB %66 r - 1 'I k, t.v:,:t . �1 r`rrv'. . L n'r � �:+ :•i 'i ' 3 .�� '�'' a r."i �xfx>,� .,r,•,,, p�.-� � �.�. ft. ,. � t y „6 '*, r v- r FF i :ca3 k ;1 :i: i -A 4�� �'e•�''Mpp � a � TI � �E :�i 1 i:. , n r ,:6a :'1 ' 85'':f•- .�:'.t.t ...._ . .. !IVY; �y..�•l.a,, t S'� • t.,,rw, .'+,..i, _�; :;.:a;Ju> �.:r. ,., ,�,�:, ;'� . iv.._....., :a:,.0 .. �uCaY':.�_,�.6 �(,. . ^°��t�r a�.f.. a�ix7i s•m.�, !_c s,.. + AC �t-J � i �R � i - 4_1 stimi Po le* `O uny atuE1 PBIPPottaS 10 somulW 6 ultDIM 6u1MRLY Bul l Pied feed %L6 %L8 %Le %66 %96 � %176 %96 %96 %96 %.t►e %e6 %00I 110001. %96 , %96. l'' %t►8 %L6 **-'%96 ' %66 LO unr %96 %96 ` . %Z6 %96 %86 %£6 %L6 %S6 %L6 % a %96 °l016 %66 %!B %86 '/ot$ %t6 %Lfi : °/nL6 _ LO 42I41. %96 %96 %LB %96 %00I %£6 %Z6 %96 1%96 %96 %66 %/6 %66 %96 %66 �%£6 %CO . ' %16 %66 LO rely loth %56 %176 %96 %Z6 % L6 %176 %96 %C6 %DS %96 %16 %L6 %98 %L6 %99 %.£9 °%6$%L6 LO MI %96 %g6 %96 %DOI %46 _ %96 °%Pe %96 %96 %oe %Kt %l6 %OW. ' %96 %oL6 '%S6 %L6 %46 %L6 LO qed %S6 %96 %96 %DOI %LB %S6 %06 %L6 %Z6 %PS t°%06 °%L6 %Be %96 %L6 %oLe %£6 %96 %96 %66 LOler %9.6 %46 %S6 _ %96 %96 °%46 %96 %P6 °%06 °%99 °%L6 %96 '73/096 °%L6 %b6 %S6 %g6 %Le 90 Taa %le %le %06 %£6 %E6 ' °%19 %46 %GB %99 %L6 %06 %96 %9.6 %I6 %L6 '%oZ6 %I6 %69 °%99 ' 90 AoN %.96 "%96 %Le %96 °Iob.6 %96 %g6 %96 %96 %6.6 %Le °%$6 %00I. %b6 %96 %46 6/096 %96 %00I. 90 PO %98 'Vail %96 %56 %P.e %99 %99 %96' %Z6 %96 %96 %Z6 6/066 %V6 %96 %SS %96 +4"/o96 % OS 90 Cr5S 6446 %oSe %be %96 %Z6 °%Z6 ,f28 %S6.. %L6 %4343 %S6 %9.6 %66 %9.6 0%be 0,4ee. ._ °%E6. _ %96 %LB ' 90-env °%SB %g6 %S6 %96 %b6 i i i %Z6 %be %PS %06 %/.6 %N %96 %:96 %be °%98 %rb6 %P6 %96 %86 90 Inf. %E6 %£6 % b6 %L8.; _ %g9 %/9 'lotr8 %BB °h176 ^ %t78 %S6 °%Its. %86 . %B6 %96 %96 °I°L6 9k£6 %96 9Q unf o •"k... ?+G.' t t 1 .. .. J. 1fA 1 i.. i. .r•i . u.. �'�'f v.. m,t. •,t-.}..� Y. .... .. ... ...... Y 77 c= .'({.rv. ,,, ,;ice"Y f ft 3 ;kn 'u -..c.. .,. i v�.. ..°,,t. { ._ � .. ,.. .... rv,—.. ��f .tv r.. .. /.:: 11*. / 1 . I-' q. . , � v i +.: •.r�.: .rr. ^•t,. ',,:e -+4. . ,�,. ,d^ '�., 3.3:, .. Y `,a, .,^....,,.,,,.. -.:.,. rr¢� .d ,• t r. i.�,,, ,{.,,Y nii '. .w•.,•p. ., :� +�c:- .. ..•' .ram ..,_ C vC. .. .' : �... ,. i %) 1,J .. � r TT s "Y T-`^^"7.-.,5,.. *y ^. , k �. "Y .'•.�., t:..,�i�. t+3".1.=5 ,-,1•.>. �. �. � "f .a_..,.,..��.... _ ...... ... .>, rk S�iY+. v.yy��I .-lrh''. l.. i. �!� .,: ? ,r , d 6,.:.1 .ii'Bl Y....: +,� ., ,.i..tr'N. rf } _ : �' i; r� dad • @a mk �_. d .��eA- i:1r Uk t':! H �� t{. ..�rfi°,.. E: TT i.. i J' :�••es .i ..i+•.an•.� a.. 5 r.,.i2 8 r '�r75 �!9.�,..r�.., !L"F'''6. _l,^� -''. -'T' a- 6r � d • : �� 'i r7"•_nci.d i:i..... ., ,..ta .... _ ,� h 1'� .p m ,. �' .r S ." ,.G � .� �i.. /4�' l�l. ... �. i. r,. .. rk., . .�:r .1 wi A .� .. Fi. ,�, y 'Y.,Sy��� it e...t,,:�:.,,�1n: ..1..iry Q•. :h' Y �y �•' F'." _ ''�' { .�¢.! x::... i.. Y ..� ,��. Asti.: a f •:e �. 4 �.; +s 4 .y .rn., . �',". m 3 �;t..�r � ,_..'�w.. Y,. Gy 5 # .('a �'. ��i 'c �. vi •r'�I.r{. :'f' ,'.�1. fir, r �' �1 rY : , b 1• ..( � ' �!�k:i i G,� tl' :i-r ..).t' '�d W , �q G: - � , Y �; �.��;. .�i .,'' �T'r F . ^f'-t'dr 1. � y !f�' •i-+' �j}'. - „tea j 'G 1 •. r T �•:.,d. ,.r-1�m 'n�+r,. :_i�j t; r;.'+"CC•`t.o .f -r =a'•1:., w, i, ): ,. 61 >n �; : i1 � 1 4� i �:�'. SNINOW .1S31ft1 ew�1 peinpetps to swum 9 uiliMM sumti Jo etiqueaaed 391n13s ANAQ)33M Jlsvumns 39N3N3Had 3-ina3Hos )1N110Z113IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION_ COMMISS/ON DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy 'Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Robert Wunderlich, Bechtel Project 'Coordinator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interstate 215 Bi-County. Improvement Project — Increase Funding for Project Development Work in BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize. an increase in funding from ,$:2. million to $4 million for the development of a project report and, environmental document . (PR/ED) for the 1-215 Bi-County improvement project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Expanding .1-215 from SR-60 to San Bernardino County Line is a significant project identified in 'both the 1989 .and 2009 Measure A programs. In the 1989 'Measure, this project was dependent on there 'being a matching project in San Bernardino County which, until recently, was not programrned. 1n the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Planof the 2009 Measure, $55 million was identified for this project — primarily for PR/ED. The San Bernardino Association of °Governments (SANBAG) has identified funds for developing a project on 1-215 from the Riverside County Line to Orange Show Road. The combined project, referred to as the 1-21`5 Bi-County improvement project, will include :the addition of one rnixed flow lane and one high occupancy vehicle lane in each direction. At its April 9, 2003 meeting, the Cornmission approved entering into Cooperative Agreement No. 03-31-068 with SANBAG for the development of a PR/ED for the 1-215 Bi-County improvement project. The cooperative agreement identified SANBAG as lead agency for the project, required the Commission to .participate in funding at a prescribed 25 % of project cost rate, and provided for the Commission to be lead on scope issues in Riverside County. The cooperative agreement also required 'SANBAG to provide contract management, be lead on scope issues in San Bernardino County, and support 75 % of the project costs. The cooperative agreement with SANBAG is still in full force and effect. At its April 9, 2003 Agenda Item 7V 144 meeting, the Commission also .approved $2 million to fund the first three years of the <Commission's . portion of the 1-215 Bi-County improvement project :costs, which included_ up to $1 million for special studies associated with the ultimate facility study that the federal Highway Administration has requested be performed on the: 60/9.1/215 interchange. As required by the cooperative agreement with SANBAG,- all costs associated with the special studies on the 60/91 /215 interchange will be born entirely by the Commission. In early 2003, SANBAG issued a request for qualifications to select a environmental consultant and design consultant to begin the requisite studies to support the development of a PR/ED for the project. Commission staff participated on both selection panels and SANBAG awarded Contract No. CO30046. to 'Lim and Nascimento Engineering Corporation (LAN) for engineering services; and Contract No.. 'CO30045_ to LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) for environmental services for the 1-215 Bi-County improvement project. SANBAG recently requested that LAN and LSA complete a reevaluation of the scope, cost, and schedule to complete the PR/ED. As a result of this reevaluation, SANBAG anticipates the cost of the development of a PR/ED for the 1-215. Bi-County irnprovement project to be $1 1.5 million, with a scheduled completion in August 2012..The Commission's 25% share of the project cost is $2.87.5. million. Including 'a reasonable contingency and the cost of up to $1 million for special studies on. the 60/91 /215 interchange, the Commission's total cost is anticipated to be $4 million. Staff recommends an increase in funding from $2 million to $4 million for the development of a PR/ED for the 1-215 Bi-County improvement project. The'. previous action of the Commission. identified the funding for the project as a loan of funds from the 1989 'Measure to -the 2009 Measure. Staff recomrriends continuing to fund this project as a loan to preserve 1989 Measure program capital,. Financial Information 1n Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 Amount: 500,000 $3,`500,00,0 ... Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment:: No GLA No.: 222 31 81101 P3012 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \44,..4,o ft,, Date: 08/22/2007 Agenda Item 7V 145 AGEND • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPOR TA T/ON- COMMISSION DATE: Septernber 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation 'Committee John Standiford, Public Affairs Director THROUGH: Eric 'Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Status Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:. This item is for the Commission to receive and file the State . and Federal Status Report as an information ;item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Budget Update While comedians and political pundits have been able to milk a few laughs out of the Legislature's inability `to ;pass a 'budget, 'many- others, depending on state funding or for those needing Legislative action on other matters, the multi -week delay of the budget is 'hardly a laughing matter. The Legislature returned from its recess on August 20, and fully reached a budget agreement on August 21, 2007. While the . Assembly did approve a budget in early July and then adjourned, the Senate has been unable to pull together the 2/3rds vote needed to approve a spending plan. Republicans, with one exception, have remained united in opposing the budget that was approved by the Assembly. Certainly, overall spending is a major cause of the opposition, but there are a number of policy issues that are contained in a variety of trailer- bills. Trailer bills are often amended -right before a vote, which allows for little public notice and are urgency bills that 'become law immediately after being signed by the Governor. This year there. has been an opportunity to notice some of these bills given the delay in passing a budget. Overall there are more than 20 trailer bills that have also been approved in one Legislative house or another and a handful are connected to transportation. AB 88 is one such bill and its intent is to implement a number of provisions of Proposition 1 B. Among the provisions of interest are funding for local governments, policy direction on funding for railroad crossing, and the allocation of emissions reduction funding for goods movement. Agenda Item 7W 146 For local governments, the news is somewhat grim for larger cities. Proposition 113 provides a total of $ 1 billion to cities and an additional to $1 billion to counties for local road maintenance and construction. Local government interests had hoped that the entire $2 billion would be allocated as quickly possible, however only $350 million is allocated in this particular bill, thus deferring additional funding until a future year. This might reflect the state's worsening economic situationand will need to be monitored in the future with the implementation of the whole infrastructure bond package. SB 88 still allows small cities to receive the $400,000 minimum that was guaranteed to every incorporated city. While that will be welcome news in very small communities, larger cities will be required to receive a prorated share of .the available funding. The bill also directs Public Utilities Commission and the California Transportation Commission to develop ru'Iemaking for the allocation of $250 million in grade separation dollars. The criteria set forth in this 'bill should benefit a number of projects locally given its emphasis on crossings that serve a combination of passenger rail and freight rail. Another topic that has caused friction regarding the budget is Attorney General Jerry Brown's lawsuit against San Bernardino County for ` its newly approved` General Plan (Plan). The Attorney General has sued to block the implementation of the Plan because it does not address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to AB 32 from last year's legislative session. Regulations regarding this issue are not expected to be approved for at least a few years, however the Attorney General was arguing that the newly -adopted Plan needed to address the issue. Senate Republicans sought a provision in a trailer bill that would prevent this type of suit from being brought against projects and local governments. Regardless of the outcome of the legislation and litigation, greenhouse gas issues rnust' becorne a priority along with other air quality issues as agencies continue to move forward on transportation projects in the future. Trade Corridor Infrastructure Fund Talks Continue One item of Proposition 1 B that is not covered by SB 88 is the $2 billion Goods Movement Infrastructure component that is often referred to as the Trade Corridor Infrastructure Fund (TCIF). During the past month Stephanie Wiggins of Commission staff has led an effort to bring together the transportation commissions from five southern California counties, the Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, and the... Ports of 'Long Beach and Los Angeles to develop a consensus approach on TCIF funding for all of. Southern California. Agenda item 7W 147 • • The main goal of the effort is to maximize the amount of funding from this program for Southern California and would fund projects throughout the entire system including railroad grade separations in Riverside County. As part of these discussions, the ports have indicated that they are working towards the establishment of a voluntary tariff program to provide matching funding. Although this is far from certain, it reflects a growing understanding that those involved in the chain of goods movement -related transportation will have to contribute to its expansion. A legislative briefing of Capitol staff was scheduled for Thursday, August 30, 2007, in Sacramento. The issue of goods movement remains a top priority for local legislators. On July 24, 2007, Commission made a presentation on the Commission's Grade Separation Strategy before a group of city managers and mayors in Assemblyman Bill Emmerson's district. The Assemblyman hosted the gathering of approximately 60 people that focused on goods movement transportation issues in both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Federal Update Bridge 'Failure leads to Gas Tax Increase Proposal Congressman James. Oberstar _('D-Minnesota), who serves as Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, will be introducing a.;proposal to raise the federal gas tax by five cents to pay for bridge repairs throughout the nation. The bill would establish a three-year program to raise $8.`5 billion. A Congressional Hearing on bridge safety is scheduled for September '5, 2007 when Congress returns from its summer recess. Chairman Oberstar has yet to introduce the actual legislation; Commission staff will return with more information once the bill is introduced. Attachment: Legislative 'Matrix Agenda Item 7W 148 f COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSfON -POSITION'S ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION Revised: 8/20/07 s llyb.w.. . ..'.`.mod spy e�t�F STATE LEGISLATION _ AB 291 (Jeffries & Benoit) This, bill relinquishes state control of the portions of SR-74 within Lake Elsinore city limits to the City Lake Elsinore. Approved by Senate Transportation Committee and referred to Senate Appropriations Committee — 07/1 1 /07 Support 04/1 1 /07 AB 1240 (Benoit) This bill authorizes the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to use design -build contracting in the delivery of the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension. RCTC is the sponsor of this bill. Hearing cancelled at request of author. Two-year bill. Support 04/1 1 /07 , AB 1351 (Levine) This bill establishes guidelines for the expenditure of the $1 billion of State -Local Partnership Funding in Proposition 1 B. The bill is consistent with the intent of Prop. 1 B in supporting self-help counties, such as Riverside, match sales tax dollars with state dollars on large projects on the state highway system. Approved by Assembly .Transportation Committee, amended, and referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee — 07/12/07 Support 06/13/07 AJR 14 (Jeffries) This joint resolution -calls on the President of the U.S. and Congress to enact federal legislation that ensures, a substantial increment of new revenues from customs duties and importation fees is dedicated to goods movement projects in California and other impacted states. Enrolled and chaptered by Secretary of State — 07/03/0.7 Support . 04/1 1 /07 SB 9 (Lowenthal) This bill is an evolving vehicle for establishing a process for the selection of transportation projects to be funded from the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TGIF) of Proposition 1 B. The TGIF is a $2 billion fund. Approved by Assembly Transportation Committee, amended, and referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee — 07/17/07 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. Approved by Assembly Transportation Committee, amended, and referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee — 07/19/07 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: ._ Approved by Assembly Transportation Committee, amended, and .referred to Assembly Appropriations . . Committee. — 07/1.0/07, _; Monitor 01 /10/07 .�` i' rr_�.r 'aw>. .'bg^ '�� "•k Z:, 9�a Vic: � 3•. 'i' � `$$� & 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 Referred to Rules Committee - 01 /18/07 Monitor 01 /10/07 SB 53 (Duchen) y This bill requires Ca!trans to establish performance measures that will . allow the department to issue an annual rating of the overall quality of the state highway system. Caitrans 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 Approved by Assembly Transportation Committee and referred to -Assembly Appropriations Committee and placed in the suspense file - 0`7/1 1 /07 Support 2/14/07 SB 56 (Runner) . This bill establishes a 10-year pilot program for design -build projects, administered by the CTC. Held in Senate Appropriations Committee under submission -- 06/01 /07 , Support 2/14/07 SB 224 (Battin) This bill relinquishes state control of SR-1 1 1 and SR-79 to local jurisdictions. SR-1 1 1 is relinquished within the city limits of La Quinta, Indian Wells, Indio, and Palm Desert. SR-79 is relinquished within the city limits of Temecula, San Jacinto and Hemet. Approved by Assembly Transportation Committee and referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee and placed in the suspense file - 07/1 1/07 Support 04/1 1 /07 SB 375 (Steinberg) :. This bill would require regional transportation planning agencies to adopt "preferred growth scenarios" that reduce vehicle miles traveled per household. The amount of reduced vehicle miles traveled to be reduced would be part of an emissions inventory to be completed by CARB.. Additional provisions would require the CTC to adopt guidelines for the use of travel demand models that meet a number of standards and would require the state to ensure that projects that are included in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program reflect this orientation toward "preferred growth scenarios." Approved by Assembly Transportation Committee, amended, and referred to CAssembly Appropriations ommittee - 07/17/07 - Oppose 06/13/07 SB 748 . (Corbett) ;... This bill establishes the criteria for the State -Local PartnershipApproved program created when voters approved Proposition 1 B. The bill p' broad) defines agencies_ who: may a I for _funding from the.. Y g y apply g program and also broadly includes voter -approved' taxes as eligible matching funds. ,.. - pproved by Assembly Transportation Committee, . P . amended, and referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee - 07/1:2/07' Oppose Unless Amended 06/13/07 SB 872 (Ackerman). This bill establishes the criteria for the State -Local Partnership program created when voters approved Proposition 1 B. The bill allocates $200 million per year statewide over five FY's beginning FY 10-11. Funding goes only to self-help counties and to projects with a minimum cost of $25 million.. Held in Senate Appropriations Committee under submission — 05/61 /07 Support 04/ 1 1 /07 FEDERAL. LEGISLATION H.R. 1475 (McGovern, D- MA) This bill equalizes the fringe benefit employers may offer their employees tax-free for transit reimbursement and parking reimbursement to $200/month. Presently, employers may reimburse parking up to $175/month while transit may only be reimbursed up to $100/month. Referred to House Ways & " Means Committee; Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee — 03/12/07 Support 04/ 1 1 /07 H.R. 2701 (0berstar, D- MN) This bill provides addresses ways that transportation policy can help mitigate climate change and improve energy efficiency. The bill includes additional transit funding and an increased federal share of CMAQ projects. A new mechanism for negotiating with railroads is also part of the legislation 151 Markup scheduled in Transportation & Infrastructure Committee for 06/20/07 Monitor 07/1 1 /07 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION -COMMISSION DATE: September :12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric 'Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Southern California Trade Corridors improvement Fund Consensus' Position and Candidate List STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This itern is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Southern California Consensus Position orr the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (.TCIF) allocation process as identified in Attachment 1; 2) Endorse the resulting Southern California TCI'F Candidate: _ List of Projects as identified in Attachment 2; and 3) Continue to work with the Southern California Working Group to advocate 'for inclusion inclusion of the °consensus position in future 'legislation ' and/or California Transportation Commission (CTC). guidelines for: the TGIF. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; In November 2006, voters passed Proposition 1 B, a $19.9 billion transportation bond initiative. Proposition 1 B authorizes $2 billion to the TGIF, which targets the funding for goods movement infrastructure projects. The TCIF guidelines must .be ' approved by the state legislature. Following this adoption, the fund will be allocated by the CTC along federally designated "trade corridors of national significance" and other corridors with high volumes of freight movement. In March of this year, the CTC convened a statewide working group for TC1F. The working group met each month through June to . discuss the potential allocation process of the $2 billion. A potential approach to allocating the dollars is to distribute the funding among four regional corridors in the state and have the individual regional corridors determine the allocation of funding among specific projects. The Los Angeles -Inland Empire region has been identified as one of the four regional corridors. Agenda Item 8 152 Since late June of this year, staff has been working with the agency staffs of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority, San Bernardino Associated Governments; Orange County Transportation Authority, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Ventura County Transportation Commission, and the 'Southern California Regional Rail Authority to develop a consensus on_ a recommended process for allocating $2 billion in state general obligation bonds ; (Attachment-1). These entities are likely recipients of TCIF and . can best identify and deliver the required program of projects within the Los Angeles -Inland Empire region. The Southern 'California Working Group also includes representatives from Ca!trans Districts 7, 8, and 12 as well as from South Coast . Air Quality Management District, and the Southern California Association of Governrnents who serve .as advisors to the Working Group. A disproportionate share of impacts from international trade is =felt by Southern California residents. The Southern California Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan has identified more than $50 billion in goods movement infrastructure needs. The impacts include congestion, increased need for public safety, and an increase in health_ related impacts through pollutants in the air. While there are positives in, terms of ,economic activity and job creation, Southern California's contribution to the state's, trade corridor infrastructure far outweighs any other locale in California. The result of, the collaborative efforts of all of the above agencies is the formulation of a consensus position on a recommended process for allocating the TCIF statewide and. ,a regional candidate list of projects for Southern California. The Southern California Working Group recommendation is to allocate $1 `.7 billion. in . the Los Angeles -Inland Empire corridor to a goods movement solution set of projects that total $4.5 billion. These projects benefit the entire state through near .` term TC1F investments in the following: 46% Community 'Mitigation - ACE Grade Separations ($783.2 rnillion° TCIF) 38%Port Capacity and Efficiency Improvements On -dock rail ($645.5 million) 16% Highway/Rail Capacity Improvements ($267.3 million) Agenda . Item 8 15 3 • • The Southern California Regional Candidate List priorities include: • Deliverability — recommended .projects start construction by 20121; • Matching Funds projects must have a 1:1 non -Prop 1 B bond match. Construction -related expenditures made after November 7, 2006 shall be credited toward the non -Prop 1 B match; and • Performance — simultaneous and continuous improvement requires a solution set that reduces freight movement emissions, reduces freight delays, increases freight reliability and decreases the congestion impact on communities. Impact to Riverside County All of the projects on the Regional. Candidate List benefit the Los Angeles -Inland Empire region in reducing the negative impacts of goods movement while increasing economic activity and job creation (Attachment 2). The following candidate projects with proposed TCIF funding are located in Riverside County: • • • • • • • • ACE: Columbia Avenue Grade Separation (Riverside) - $5.5 million ACE: Magnolia Avenue Grade Separation (Riverside) $25 million ACE: Sunset Avenue Grade Separation (Banning) - $5 million ACE: Avenue 52 Grade Separation (Coachella) -- $10 :million ACE: Avenue 66 Grade Separation (Coachella) - $10 million ACE: Iowa Avenue Grade Separation (Riverside) - $13.5 million ACE: Streeter Avenue Grade Separation (Riverside) $17.5 million ACE: 3`a Street Grade Separation (Riverside) - $17.5 million ACE Riverside Avenue Grade Separation (Riverside) - $12.5 million ACE: Madison Grade Separation (Riverside) - $12.5 million March ARB/Global Cargo Port — I-215/Van Buren Interchange $40 million Additional candidate projects located in Riverside County that are anticipated to begin construction after 2012 include: •. • • ACE: Auto Center Drive Grade Separation (Corona) - $12.5 million ACE: Tyler Grade Separation (Riverside) - $12.5 million SR-60/I-10 Truck Climbing Lane (Calimesa/Beaumont) - $23 million ACE: McKinley Avenue Grade Separation (Corona) - $40 million ' NOTE: The region has identified a need of $2.3 billion of TCIF for eligible projects that can begin construction by June 30, 2013 however,P! this amount exceeds the entire $2 billion available statewide. Agenda Item 8 154 While the Commission awaits action by the Legislature regarding the TCIF allocation, staff will continue to work with the Southern California Working Group to advocate for the consensus position. Attachments: 1) Southern California Consensus Position on TCIF Allocation Process 2) Southern California TCIF Solution Set and Candidate 'List Agenda Item 8 15 5 • Southern California Consensus Position on TCIF Allocation Process July 19, 2007 Preamble The staffs of several transportation agencies in Southern California have reached a consensus on a recommended process for allocating $2 billion in state General Obligation bonds from the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TC1F). This is part of $19.925 billionavailable through Proposition 1 B, which was approved by California voters on November 7, 2006. The following agencies have participated in this discussion. Port of Los Angeles (POLA) Port of Long Beach (POLB) Alameda Conridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) Alameda Comdor-East Construction Authority (ACECA) Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) Southern California Regional Rail Authority (S'CRRA) The governing Boards of these agencies have not yet acted on the consensus position. Consensus Position 1) There should be an initial allocation of the $2 billion among the four different regions (called `Corridors" in the state Goods Movement Action Plan) based on a weighted average of each region's share of goods movement activity or impact for calendar year 2006 or the most recent year for which data are available. Suggested measures include: Annual waterborne containerized cargo in Twenty -Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) Annual waterborne non -containerized, non -liquid bulk cargo in metric tons Vehicle Hours of Delay per Day (VHDD) for all vehicles on state highways (measure of roadway congestion) Annual Heavy duty truck miles of travel on state highways Freight train miles/day (including Class I and short line railroads) Vehicle Hours of Delay per Day (VHDD) for all vehicles at railroad grade crossings • Population exposed to DPM/NOx health risk (methodology prescribed by CARE) For each measure, the share that each region bears to the total for the four regions would be calculated. The shares would then be weighted to develop an overall weighted average share that would be applied to the $2 billion available from the TCIF. This 156 allocation would yield a guaranteed minimum for each of the four regions. This process would ensure geographical nexus and equity, based on objective -measurable criteria, in the programming of TCIF funds. 2) Projects would be nominated for funding from a systemm plan developedby the regional stakeholders based on regionally determined criteria consistent with Proposition 1B. Project priorities and phasing would be determined by the regional stakeholders, and the amount of TCIF recommended for award to each project would be negotiated. Once` . the candidate list is approved by the regional stakeholders, the list would be forwarded to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for programming. Projects would have to provide a minimum of 1:1 non -Prop 1B bond match. Construction -related expenditures made after November 7, 2006 shall be credited toward the non -Prop 113 bond match. 3) . With respect to project eligibility and selection and the ultimate programming of funds, regions (and the CTC) should not deviate from the six types of goods movement projects` approved by the voters is Proposition 111. The types of projects are clearly identified in Proposition 1B and repeated under the "Programming Objectives" section on pages 5 and b of CTCs June 4 draft on Programming Framework Alternatives. As approved by the voters, the TCIF was never intended for all types of 'goods movement projects. The six types of projects specifically approved by the voters are listed below: (i) Highway capacity improvements and operational improvements to _ more efficiently accommodate the movement of freight, particularly for ingress and egress to and from the states seaports, including navigable inland waterways used to transport freight. between seaports, land ports of entry, and airports, and to relieve traffic congestion along major.; trade or goods movement corridors. (ii) Freight rail system improvements to enhance the ability to move goods from seaports, land ports of entry, and airports to warehousing and distribution centers throughout California, . including projects that separate rail lines from .. highway or local road traffic, improve freight rail mobility through mountainous regions, relocate rail switching yards, and other projects that improve the efficiency and capacity of the rail freight system. (iii) Projects to enhance the capacity and efficiency of ports. (iv) Truck corridor improvements, including dedicated truck facilities or truck toll facilities. (v) Border access improvements that enhance goods movement between California and Mexico and that maximize the state's ability to access coordinated border infrastructure funds made available to the state by federal law. (vi) Surface transportation improvements to facilitate the movement of goods to and from the state's airports. 4) CTC staff and Senator Lowenthal's office are considering splitting the program .into two phases. It is the ` consensus ,position of the above -mentioned Southern California Construction -related -expenditures include: ROW acquisition, utility relocation, site remediation, project mitigation, construction, and construction management. 157 agencies that there is no point in separating the allocations into two phases. It is clear that there will be more than enough candidate projects for the $2 billion fund 5) It is the consensus of these regional stakeholders that a legislative mandate for a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is unnecessary given the cooperative approach that now exists to Trade Corridor issues. Furthermore, should it become necessary to form a JPA at a later time, the regional stakeholders believe that existing law already permits it. 158 3 Solution Set As of 8/24/07 #1 — 'Replace Gerald Desmond Bridge — 10% of `F the 'Nation's waterborne cargo .travels over the Desmond Bridge. Replacement allows for a wider facility with a higher span. #2, #3, #7-9, #11, #15-21, #25-30, #35-41, #45-46, #52-53 - Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Grade Separation — Eliminates at -grade crossings on . mainline track resulting in reduced emissions, noise, and vehicle delay. #4 Reconstruct US 101 (Rice Avenue) — Improves access to Port Hueneme #5, #11, #13, #44 — 1-110 Connector Improvement. Program — Interchange improvements include grade separation. #6 - Ports Rail System — On -do F ail infrastructure improvements #10 — Washington Blvd Widening=� Reconstruction — Improves circulation from Int of Indiana St to the 1-5 freeway *t of daily tra volume is truck traffic.also includes reconstruction ode cro #14 - SR-47 Expres chuyler H Bridge Replacement — Reduces'; roxie{y the port related truck traffic 0 ee ra #22-24 id Si Line .��=.ses capac for the r rail lope Valley t destined <4. f #31 A • '. one on WB SR kibetween SR-55 f connector . - j ' stin Ave interd ge — 8.7% of daily traffic volts truck tra ect reduces ro m � � j 855 vehicle hours b #32 I-10 Widfdn & Interchange Improvements (LA Counfif 'Line to I-215) — non- HOV improvements #33 — SR-58 Realignment & Widening — Truck traffic represents 39% of ADT. Eliminates existing gap between adjacent 4-lane roadway. Increases Truck Throughput/Reduces Truck Delay #34 — freight Siding on the Orange County Line — Increases capacity for rail freight from San Diego County. 159 #42 — March ARB/Global Cargo 'Port 1-215/Van Buren Interchange —improves ground airport access to the Global Cargo airport. #43 —1-15 Wideninas Devore Interchange (at 1- 215) Reconstruc #47 — S Increasev. Truck Climbing Lane iughput/Reduces Truck 'Delay. connecting e "'flange on WB S h ITS elements �:.#�49 - Add Aux. Lane through ►tween SR-57 & 1-5 ck climb lane fr`iwli;Lambert Rd. my Line — Increases Truck educes Truce Delay #50 — Desert Corridor — Phase 1 A - ,ay Connector to westbound 47) 54—1-5'Ii^ A Lanes (SR-14 to Calgrove) #55 - Colton Crossing — Mainline railroad to ailroad grade separation project. Eliminates rail height bottleneck. #56 — Signal Communications Improvement — Improves rail freight safety #57-59 — Track Capacity Improvements increases rail throughput. Candidate List As of 8/24/07 Summary Matrix by Project Readiness Project Description Replace Gerald Desmond Bridge 2007 TOTAL PROJECT COST (in miittons) Coust Start: (Year) TCIF Amount Request (rn mitirCns) Total Nail Papi tch 1 . Match $ 800_5 2008 $ 250.0 $ 550.5 ACE: Columbia Ave (BNSF &'UP) Grade Separation $ 27.0 2008 $ 5.5 $ 21.5_ ACE: _ Magnolia Ave (UP) Grade Separation $ 50.0 . 2008 $ 25.0 $ Reconstruct US 101- Rice Avenue IC (Port Hueneme) $ 75.0 2008 $ 37.5 ':5 1-110/SR-47 Interchange &John S. Gibson Bl. Intersection/NB 1-110/SR-47 Ramp Access Improvements . $ 39.0 2009 $ 1 . s 24.4 ; Ports Rail System $ 631.1 2009 4s� $ 1.1 ACE: Sunset Ave (UP) Grade Separation $ 26.0 2009 F.' $ .O $ , ACE: Avenue 52 UP Grade ( ) Separation $ 20A 2009 � 10.0 4.. $ 12. ACE: Avenue 66 UP ( ) Grade Separation $ 20.0 2 10.0 $ 12.0 Washington Blvd. VAdening and Reconstruction Project $ 32.0 s� tl $ 5.8 .$ 26.2 :. ACE: Milliken/Alhambra Line $ 724, ^ `� ,. -1 $ 55.0 South, Wilmington Grade Separation �. $ 36.1 1-110 Fwy/C Street Interchange Improvement $ 220 20 � 3 $ 13.7 SR47 Port Access Expressway/Schuyler Heim Bridge Replacement Syr �-0 2010 ' a 158.0 - , $ 528.0 , Y ACE: Iowa Ave (BNSF 8 UP) Grade Separation ° � O 2010 3.5 17.0 I �� ACE: Streeter Ave:(UP) Grade Separation a� °z�� f�,t . 10 ' $ 18.0 ACE -San Gabriel Valley _ r , 700.0 $ 3 as 350.0 ACE: Kraemer Blvd Undercrq� acentia) $ 5 9 s e .. 3 0 $ y 23:0 . ; ACE: Oranethorpe Avenue is &$4_ �. p 010 e Y. 0 $ 42.0 ACE: Tustin Avenire/Rose l vercrossing tia & F $ 2010 $ 31.7. $ 31.7. I ACE: Placentia Ay ercrossing (Place tlerton � ) ?k $ 29 ; 2010 $ 14.9 $ 14.9, Relief Siding betweed ' Ravenna Sidi the Ante) < , ey Line . M r° $ 3 0 10 $ 1.5 $ 1.5 I Relief Siding between Vinc ik ancas , Antelope r`" �z: � ' 10 $ 1.5 $ 1.5 I Upgra,&dings on the ley Line to 40 � mph I. " a $ 2010 $ 4.5. $ 4.5 , I ACE. Sta� Blvd (FEsi _' $ 54.6 2010 $ 27.3 $ 27.3 - ACE: 3rd St (BNSF , rade S $ 35.0 2011 $ 17.5 ACE: Riverside Ave (U a Separati ..; $ 25.0 2011 $ 12.5, $ 13.0 9 ' E: Lakeview Avenue Ov (Placentia` s Anaheim) f. $ 54.5 2011 $ 27.3 $ 27.3. i ateway: Valley View Grit on $ 79.0 2011 $ 26.0 $ 53.0.: $ A •icon BNSF. ( ) on $ 25.0 2012 $ 12.5 $ 13.0'. $ Add a lane an 91 be Int rmector &Tustin � a. oo $ 95.0 2012 $ 47.5, $ 47.5 1-10 Widening & Int nits (LA Co. Line to 7 $ 160.0 2012 $ 80.0 $ 80.0 $ �2� SR-58 Realignment & VVr Project (between' Hinkley & Barstow) $ 113.0 2012 $ 56.0 $ 57,0. $ Freight Siding on the Orange County Line $ 15.0 2012 $ 7.5 $ 7.5 $ ACE: Glen Helen at BNSF/UP $ 29.0 2012 $ 14.5 $ 14.5 $ ACE: S. Milliken at UP Los Angeles $ 26.0 2012 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ ACE: Valley at BNSF/UP $ 32.0 2012 $ 16.0 . $ 16.0 $ ACE: Palm at BNSF/UP $ 27.0 2012 $ 13.5 $ 13.5 $ ACE: Vineyard at UP Alhambra $ 30.0 2012 $ 15.0 $ 15.0 $ ACE: Main St at BNSF/UP (to be shared with Riv Co - only' SB costs shown) $ 14.0 2012 $ 7.0 $ 7.0 . $ ACE: S. Archibald Ave at UP Alhambra $ 32.0 2012 $ 16.0 $ 16.0. $ March ARB/Globalrn ge 1-215JVanBuren $ 900 M12 $ 40.0 $ 45.0 $ 160 umulative TCIF Request 250.0 $ 255.5 $ 280.5 $ 318.0 $ 332.7 . $ 532.7 6 59 :4 6 605.7 6 763.7 ' 6 777.2 S 794.7 > 1,144.7. 1,167.7 1,209.6 ~ 1,241.3. . i 1,256.3 i 1,257.8 i 1,259.3 1,263.8 1,291.1 1,308.6 1,321.1 1,348.4 1,374.4 1,386..9 . 1,434.4 . 1,514.4 1,570.4 1,577.9 1,592.4. 1,605.4 1,621.4 1,634.9 1,649.9 1,656.9 1672.9 1,712.9 43 44 45 46 47 ' 48 49 50 51 `52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 1-15 Widening & Devore interchange (at 1-215) Reconstruction $ 200-0 2013 $;: 100A 100.0. SR-47. On -Ramp and Off -Ramp at Front Street $ 20.0 2013 $. 10.0, $. 10.0.. ACE: Auto Center Dr (BNSF) Grade Separation $ 25.0 2013 $ 12.5 $ 13.0 ACE: Tyler (BNSF) Grade Separation $ 25.0 2013 $ 12.5 $ 18.0 SR-60/1-10 Truck Climbing Lane $ 46.0 2013 $ 23.0 $ 19.5 Connecting existing Aux: Lane through interchange on WB SR-91. between SR-57 & 1-5 with ITS elements $ 72.0 2013 $ 36.0 $ 36.0 Add NB truck climb lane from Lambert Rd. to LA County Line $ 156.6 2013 $ 78.3 $ 78.3. High Desert Corridor Phase 1a - Intermodal Gateway $ 490.0 2013 $ 0 $ 245.0 Navy Way Connector to Westbound Seaside Ave (SR47) $ 40.0 2013 20.0 $ 20.0 ACE: Jefferson Street Overcrossing (Placentia & Anaheim) $ 37.1 hZ:. 201 4 q; - 18.6 $ = 18.6 ACE: McKinley (BNSF) Grade Separation $ 80.0 20 $ t_ :. 40.0 I-5 Truck Lanes, approx. SR14 to Ca!grove (moved to larger list) $ 392009 t� $ 136. 0 11.7 Colton Crossing $ r ® + # 2013 $ 100.0 Signal/Communications Improvements and Positive Train Control; � $ b 0 2013 R � 37.5 , $ Double Tracking various segments on the Riverside Line {UP) 16 .. 2 ' $ 500 $ - Double Track Beech (47.6) to Locust (50.7) on San Bernardino Line $ 25 0 :.` �. $ 12.5 $ - ; Triple Track East of Fullerton on'BNS �i 340.0 . 2 $ 170.0 $ - 1-710 Early Action Project $ ( TBD < ' r.. TBD... TBD 60°PROJECTS'. (1);::. GRAND 161 i 2;814.7 $ 3,391.0 22.86% -. _ 1,812.9 1,822.9 ` 1,835.4 1,847.9 1,870.9 1906.9 1,985.2 2,230.2, 2,250.2' 2,268.7 .. 2,308.7 2,444.7 2,544.7 2,582.2 2632.2 2,644.7, 2,814.7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION -COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative for Mid County Parkway the PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:: This item is for the Commission to designate Alternative -`9, the . far . south alternative, as the Commission's locally preferred alternative for the Mid County Parkway (MCP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since 2003, the Commission has been working on the MCP in partnership with Ca!trans, the federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and federal and; state resource agencies. Early analysis and discussion for this east -west corridor was initiated and studied as part of the Riverside County Integrated . Project (RCIP) efforts, which began back in 1999. One of the milestones agreed to by the 'MCP partner agencies, the transportation and resource agencies that constitute the small working group (SWG), was to consider designation of a preferred alternative in the draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) following completion of the draft technical studies. The partner agencies agreed that if one alternative "rose to the top" with respect to being the likely least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), this would help streamline the 'National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process by allowing the agencies to focus on this preferred alternative through the preparation and review of the, draft EIR/EtS. The MCP study team has completed the draft environrnental and engineering technical studies for the five MCP build alternatives. Now that the technical studies have been completed and the information is readily available for comparison of the project alternatives, staff recommends that the Commission identify a locally preferred alternative. Agenda Item 9 162 Project Alternatives The five 'build alternatives under evaluation (Alternatives 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9) were developed through a collaborative process with the SWG following the NEPA/404 integration process. Attachment 1 depicts the five build alternatives being evaluated as part of the draft EIR/EIS. These alternatives were intended to provide a reasonable range of alternatives with the potential to address the purpose and need for the project. The range of alternatives is intended to rneet the requirements for alternatives analysis under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), NEPA, Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), and Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (49 USC 303) Key milestone actions to date include: 1) Execution of an interagency partnering agreement (October 2003); 2) Concurrence on Purpose and Need (January 2004); 3) Preliminary agreement on an initial suite of alternatives (November 2004); ) Consensus on evaluation criteria for selection of a ,preferred alternative (December 2004); and 5) Preliminary agreement on a revised suite of alternatives ('November 2005). The preliminary agreement on a revised suite of alternatives was required to'. address elimination of two alternatives deemed impracticable due to potential safety and operational impacts to the Lake Mathews and Perris darns, and the addition of a new alternative that fully avoided the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) reserve lands. Environmental and engineering technical studies have been in preparation since 2004, and draft technical reports have undergone concurrent review by the MCP partner agencies. The MCP alternatives have been evaluated using the selection criteria agreed to by the SWG ,in December 2004 for use in selecting the LEDPA. A total of 17 primary criteria and 56 sub -criteria was developed and agreed to by the partner agencies. Key criteria include impacts to the following: cost, people and homes, businesses, water resources, endangered and threatened species, existing habitat . conservation plans, cultural resources, land use, and impacts to communities. ' While area residents are likely more concerned about effects on their homes and other' community impacts, the criteria addressing natural resources must also be considered as they are critical to the ability of the resource agencies to grant future approvals and permits for the project. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of . Engineers can only approve , a Section 404 permit for the alternative with the least Agenda Item 9 163 • • impacts to waters of the U.S. (the LEDPA), unless it is shown that such an alternative is neither reasonable nor practicable. - Also, all projects involving a federal action (funding, permit, or land) must comply with Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice .in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations. This EO directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects .on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. State 'law also requires consideration :of environmental justice. = Two general issues are weighed for environmental justice analysis for transportation projects: Whether the adverse impact(s) of the proposed project will be predominantly borne by a minority or low-income population group; or Whether the. adverse impacts) of the proposed project will be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse impacts to non -minority and/or non -low-income population groups even after mitigation measures and offsetting project benefits are considered. For a project the size of the MCP (30 + mile corridor), the primary data source used -for analysis is 2000 census data.. Based on the census data, census tracts in Mead Valley were identified as having the highest populations of low income and/or, minority residents within the MCP study area. All MCP build alternatives would benefit all study area residents, including minority and low-income populations, by improving mobility and circulation throughout the study area and the Western Riverside County region. The construction of any of the MCP build alternatives will have impacts on the surrounding areas. However, when comparing the alternatives, alternatives 4-7 have a greater impact on low- income and minority populations than Alternative 9, due to direct impacts resulting from property displacements along Cajalco 'Road. While none of the MCP build' alternatives are considered to have disproportionately high impacts to minority and low-income populations as defined in EO 12898, Alternative 9 has a lesser impact on these populations. Designation of Preferred Alternative The analysis performed, using findings from the draft MCP technical studies, shows that Alternative 9, the far south alternative; is superior under almost every criterion and rises to the top as the least impacting alternative. Attachment 2 provides a comparison of some key criteriaby alternative. = Since this alternative appears to be Agenda Item 9 164 superior to all of the other alternatives based on the criteria for alternative selection, per the agreement with FHWA and the federal and state resource agencies, Commission staff is recommending identification of Alternative 9 as the Commission's ;preferred alternative. The designation of a preferred alternative in the draft ElR/EIS should significantly aid in the analysis and completion of the environmental process. The strengths and weaknesses of: this early identification of a preferred alternative are shown below. Strengths: 1) Provides. early disclosure to the public of the preferred alternative 2) Allows the public to provide focused input on a single alignment, 3): Saves money and minimizes impacts by limiting the scope of the remaining cultural resource studies. The state historic ` preservation office has agreed that cultural phase two testing can be limited to just the preferred alignment, thus miniroizing disturbance. to cultural resources since studies will not have to be done on the other alignments; 4) Does not preclude the Commission from making adjustments tothe preferred alternative during the public comment process; and Streamlines federal permit processing as selection of a preferred alternative allows for the initiation of key coordination with federal resource agencies earlier in the process. Weaknesses: 1) May require more time and work if the preferred alternativechanges due to unforeseen impacts brought forward during the public review process (would have to revise the EIR/EIS). One concern that has been raised is regarding the ;potential for .the MCP to be growth inducing (i.e., would it encourage unplanned growth?). The growth analysis conducted for the MCP concluded that implementation of the MCP project is expected to have little influence on the location, amount, rate, or type of growth in the area. The basis for this conclusion is: 1) the area has been undergoing rapid developrnent since well before the MCP planning (and prior CETAP corridor planning) had begun; 2) the MCP project has been . integrated into the overall planning of the .area based on the inclusion of the CETAP corridor overlay in the Riverside County general plan circulation element; and. 3) based on the Cornmission's monthly reviewmeetings with the local land use authorities, there has been no indication of developers intensifying or substantially. modifying 'their development proposals in response to the proposed MCP project. Agenda Item 9 165 • • For Alternative 9, the potential for growth -related effects is constrained by topography and existing land use patterns, including the overall rural character of the areas. The growth inducing potential of Alternative 9 is limited due to the provision of three local service interchanges between 1-15 and I-215 and current general plan land use, which calls for low density, rural residential development. Changes to this land use can only be done through a discretionary action by the county of Riverside. CONCLUSION: Based on the key evaluation criteria for the MCP build alternatives, Alternative 9 is recommended to be designated as the locally preferred alternative in the draft EIR/EIS. Alternative 9 is the least damaging to water resources and aquatic ecosystems, threatened and endangered species, Section 4(f) resources, and existing reserve lands; cornpletely avoids the MWD MSHCP reserve area; and avoids a potential sacred cultural site. Alternative 9 is the least impacting to existing . business and residential access and travel patterns, irnpacts the least acreage of farmland, and requires the least number of residential and business displacements for right-of-way acquisition. Alternative 9 does not impact schools and has the lowestdirect impacts to low income/minority populations. Finally, Alternative 9 will have the least impact to noise sensitive land uses. By designating Alternative 9 as the ;preferred alternative, public agency resources can be focused on reviewing the impacts and proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for this alternative during the draft EIR/E1S review period. In addition, the many communities not along the preferred alignment may experience some level of relief by the early identification of a preferred alternative. The identification of a locally preferred alternative is not a final decision, but it does indicate the Commission's staff opinion. It also allows the Commission to review this choice in its discussions with the other public agencies involved in the decision -making process: the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Environmental 'Protection Agency, the FHWA, the California ':Department of Fish and Game, and Caltrans. Selection of a locally preferred alternative does not complete the approval ,process. There are still many phases of work left to complete before a final selection of the LEDPA is made and construction can begin. The draft EIR/EIS will be released in early 2008 for comment and review by the public, resource agencies and local governments. At that time,1 there will be an opportunity for public comments and a full review of the draft EIR/EIS findings with the involved federal and state agencies. Once the EIR/EIS is finalized to address comments received during the public hearing period, the Commission will select a final alternative, certify the EI'R Agenda Item 9 166 under CEQA and approve the project. Once this is completed, and agreement on the LEDPA is: reached by the agencies involved in the federal decision -making process, the Cornmission will be able to obtain needed federal and . state :permits and finalize engineering designs for the project in summer 2009. The earliest . construction is projected to begin is 2011. Given the length of the projected corridor of 32miles and cost of $3.1 billion, it is 'likely the project would be constructed in stages as funding is secured. Possible funding sources include Measure A, Traffic Uniform Mitigation fees, and federal and state funds. Following the Commission's action, the Commission will request FHWA's concurrence on , identification of Alternative 9 as the preferred alternative in the draft EIR/EISfor, the MCP. This request will be made pursuant to the provisions of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation °Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Section 6002, and in the belief that the public is better served by early disclosure of a preferred alternative. Attachments: 1) MCP Build Alternatives Map 2) Comparison of Key Criteria by Alternative Agenda Item 9 167 3000 dIZ A119 13381S • - -AQ4 , 510 aulbS :SS3lIOOV SS3NISna dnous / NOILVZINVONO / A3N3011 30 31NVN QQIL (sb) rON 3N0Hd astau,wn 30 sJagwbq, Aviloaa;7) :9NI1N3S3ad3a 3000 dIZ ( ose jo IMMO -allUal1Is laq 1u n S 8 bi :SSMI00V _13N3 0Hd n'? !V: ALIO -ap I sJ ..A•,tcv.ra. % e P au aia a I l i ,. j •� y F 1 MjNed uno-3 PAW -o-44 )04 /� b7 o Is A U0 7 i .Ua' aO1o3P8f1S -S1N3wwO3 mond JO 103rons =W311. VaNIOV T 'b 31Nt►N (VON3`)V 3H1 NO O370. SVI 'ONt W311. itiPbO : o �slN3ww0� �iiana� .�: jl H030p r. A..YAA 11111. .� S.I.71A 1_01 1 L9/Zl6 ■ uw.nAA /11114I uAM 19/f :31VCI 3000 dIz A110 133H1S 'a✓wtbes rON 3N0Hd -a "0" :SS31I001/ SS3NIS1113 anoue / NOI1tl21NVOHO / A3N3OV dO 3WtlN S✓drvddi SyLLS-e ve/rr:9NI1N3S3lld31:1 3000 d12 �..-1410_ MILLS /Z/76-�Ls� 11/ i "�'7 �� �9,9/re °� -5 IIw :SS3a0On O /%a% -. / h rON 3NOHd GA U :3INVN (%1 �%-% ro✓ iy, k"!'% AIN :W31I VON39f/ (VON3�JV,3H1 NO,g31S1� Flo '/ jo 103P8fit o111"w3*eitarino i704 , /I ole 0,10‘7 ki, ' , ,, i . �` ,...9A l 0pvaer=S1N3WWOO 011Blld S1N3WWoo ploand, �- /^ a01331'8f1$ al )031*2 boor r/ y•0`a's %" Auvwfl ..MA •A \OIL 111 • • A • I ••••AA!• AM.v ..wv • 1011 =31VO 3000 dIZ A113 1331l1S �e•,5\a7.6 3a1�/101- R 907011 dp _01 .3Q :SS3tla01/ SS3NIS118 &loss / souvzsuvouO / AON3'JV d0 3WtlN /l/�' E-S`9'/...pg "ON 3NOHd ispftly 7t7 9/Iyysad. ?Poviiiv 4,Liovv :DNI1N3S311d311 3000 d1Z AlIO 133tl1S tug*. 4_99 ' jph "ON 3NOHd XI-P1nid0i /UM0.7-r1/41SW :SS3}10OV b(�{ltly�jlJ.l Iv5». ;31At/N :W311 f/ON3OV � WORMY 3H1 NO 031SI1 Stl) d0 103rans "ON W311 VON39V :S1N3WW00 onand :S1N31NW00 onand d0 103rans di NO3H0 r//6 =31VO /\uvA/1 1• • • •A W•1m•Mk nji• wJ • MEMWI AA /•••w • •AV • nun 3000 dIZ A1I3 1331113 :'ON 3NOHd =SS3aaaV SS3NISMI drIOHO / NOLLVZINVOHO / A3N30V d0 3 W VN 41r�Z IJ� } ON 'ON 3N0Hd PqM* (\°\Vv) 44A i\-5'\1\>OW �\-{-VMf3 :0NIlN3S3Hd3H 133a1s !.q _bLl \A V9 !Ttz�l -A)rudon :SS3HOGY =3INVN :1A1311 VON301/ IVON3OV 3H1 NO 031311 MO 3013311ms :'ON IN311 1/0N301/ :S1N3WW00 011$30d g :S1N3ININ00 011130d d0103rans al H03H0 3000 da Arlo 1331:113 3003 d1Z zf 6 :'ON 3NOHd Arlo' 7 r•••••2 e 1-t _t p' ON 3N0Hd 07 1 N 1/7' '1..174 :SS3HOCIV SS3NIS08 df10lio / NOI1tlZINVA: / A3N39V O 3WtlN 1+947 /74 :ONI1N3S3Hd3H 13311AS rat �, '„r riff LI '' "a ^1 `vj9 Q(G i :SS3HOGY vc.. ri• �^ w) 0 i :3 W 1/N 1 `J yl 1 / _ , :IN311 VCIN3OV (tlON3•Jtl 3H1 NO O31SI7 Stl) / "I// AO 103P8f1S b .'ON W311 tlON3Ov ,I" 'WAS :S1N3WW00 01180d A :S1N3WW00 0118f1d d0 103P8t1S Al H03H0 C 60/ '1I 4).77w49i•311f0 31303 dIZ A113 � /1:2 p 1 , ='ON 3NOHd )(--(=9 l aa1 l.� G =SS311001/ SS3NIS08 d110a9 / NOI1tlZINV980 / A0N391, d0 3WVN 31303 dIZ Ally V U L Sr:' 6 s 1 1 1 �1ryc? 5 �'�5 (�� •'ON NOHd �6L-L S' a� U IQ I � w v,r � \ -7 Yld °s I c� \ 15 aS-1-1---0 11 �l -be obi 9 Pi WCa�'J �-1 P7gsj � Crd-7)d inV Co» k o 17q-d r 1 :W311 VON3OV JO 103rans :ONI1N3S3ild3H 133111S ffSQ1`'il (VON39V 3H1 NO 1331311 SW rON IN311 VON3OV b :S1N31NINO3 onand JO 103f130S :ssmaaV :3INVN 1 :S1N31NW00 onand JI H03H0 L°/160 :31" 3000 dIZ A113 os26 —X5?,?rl/ 1331113 O5'S 3J.:s f' vi,v Ydme :SS31:I4:10t/ SS3NIS013 df10tl9 / NOLLVZINV9110 / A3N39V dO 31NVN ozpg-ZQoilig6rON 3N0Hd S4k00.04.4.0-9 r v<ran=0NI1N3S31:1d3H 3000 dIZ A110 133313 =SS3HOOt/ rON 3NOHd �1�Q� \rbd :3WVN J _7„,11V��1 ' ii te3�'1, 4I� W31I . trtms (VON3eg3H1NO4315171SV1 �` I �0,133P8f1S ON W311 VON3 V- S1N3WW03 mend C :S1N3WWO3 31113011i �O 133P8f1Sb'N33H3; -÷,XTL 12I •y :31lia AuyAI• �... •A •••-.7w 7i. • A • • ••1•!•AA A1•V ■ •AY • •Iff 3000 dIZ A110 133 „.",// /i/ "ON 3N0Hd v /Y :SS3HCIOV SS3NISna &Imo / NOIIVZINVO!!0 / AON39V dO 3WVN /7 ,:ONI1N3S311d3l1 3000 dIZ ILO 1331:11S QZ-S'zd /77, nfir�a9 AP©y/ B tri://1vV7 o �/5/�' :SS3lIOOV 771)9/7/17, "ON 3N0Hd /(--Z oa/ /1/J 3WVN "'(70y / Y� 9 :W311 VON3OV / 1 M3OV 3H1 NO 031SI1 SIN 4� /!U/�� d0 1331110S fj "ON IN311 VON3011 vy- /ice/ 7, / ��711/,'�i(/77, p7 =S1N31NINO3 ona ld ® :S1N3WWO0 ona 1d d0 103P8f1S Al 3103H0 LD�Z//6 =31V0 �u)(3 -7nr:0\-x 0+ p rao m ' �0-4as v,s ,vm -\-0vr, s a o 3003 dIZ 443 rON 3NOHd +113 133U12 I a r I s� a �► I )4.0 �I 0 :SS310a0d SS3NIS013 1 Of df10F!•J / NOLLtlZINVONO / A3N301/ d0 3INVN :ONI1N3S311d311 3000 dIZ Al13 � S N � 133tl1S O L _S R 6 s i -^ a� S 4_, o h q) :SS3aaOV A mh, /Sb rON 3N0Hd _ ��+ �( t,l o � `o ID 'uv144.a-1 W311 VON3OV (VON3pV,3H1 NO a4s).1 SV) f V v aalbarans :Orir01311 V4N3J\il=.". :S1N3WW00 31180d :S1N3ININO0 -611,90d aO 19,3C8f1S aLNo3,Hp1. L vo e - P7 - b o a11/a ti /•••VA•• 1• ■ • •A \•l•71A 7• • • A • • ■•OI•A" fAR1V ■ ■AV 7A 3003 dIZ 3003 dIZ A110 p-}- -11n.-NOWO hy)UT3 p\a0\ a � I Saar' 13311.LS /L+ )Log pd=SS3813011SS3NISna df10110 / NOLLVZINVOHO / A3N30V d0 31NVN rON3NOHd S A110 to Y�f� =JNI1N3S3l1d38 1333.12 oLsto6 -1-S ` s'^roct, 0hrgi '*ON 31‘10Hd 11 >: t 'y � V NO :SS3!lOaV :3WVN :1N311 VON3DIf IVON3OV Nil NO O31S11 SV) AO 133P8nS b rON 1N311 VON391/ � Cv141:S1N31NIN00 0118nd =S1N3W W00 0118nd V AO 103P8nS dl )103110 Loot- t • b 0 :31V0 •••uvwe• • • • ••• u••••n ..•• • w• •Ua•n.1.11w r•ua •JoNkv•=A• 3000 dIZ Ala -.0 la1s-1aP 133a1S h X oCZ) C7 :SS3HOOV SS3NISO8 MOHO / NOIIVZINVOHO / A0N3OV d0 3INVN rON3NOHrrmitu1M -3-or-449 30 -307sv cvva))15-01,:oNI1N3S3Hd3a 31303 dIZ Ala 133H1S Us VDOS-0 {' 101-.4r.ht �iL/�'p8L `(i Sb ..ON3N Hd �0� r®I �j1�n 3W�IN Lm�j"I'� Ls'(� CD�W311 VON3'JV 0111N30V 3H1 NO O31SI7 SVI dO 103P811S rON W311 VON3OV :SS3aaOV :S1N3WW00 0118nd 0=S1N3WW00 onand d0 103P8t1S dl NO3H0 ..uv.vn +... NA %n111�01. .111I ■ Olk■ ■uun An new 1 Mi+ L -c 1. :31VO WRITTEN COMMENTS AGENDA ITEM 9 Jennifer Harmon - Re: mid county parkway Page 1 From: Cathy Bechtel To: Theresa Hoag Date: 9/10/2007 10:43:17 AM Subject: Re: mid county parkway Thank you for your comment, Ms. Hoag. I will make sure it is included as part of the administrative record for the Mid County Parkway Project. Sincerely, Cathy Bechtel Cathy Bechtel Project Development Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141, (951)787-7920 fax »> Theresa Hoag <wholegallon@yahoo.com> 9/9/2007 9:13 PM >>> My name is Theresa Hoag and I live on Ridgedale in the Lake Mathews area. I am not in favor of the Mid -county parkway going throught the plateau (and directly behind my house). I understand the need to for a transportion route, but contrary to the report recommending Route 9, the parkway WILL encourage growth and developers will be coming here to build hundreds of homes. We want to keep our rurual atmosphere. The environmental impact on this area will be great - 8 lanes!! Please understand, I'm not opposed to only Route 9, I am against any parkway being built. I want this email to be a part of the public record on agenda Item # 9-Mid County Parkway. Thank you. Theresa Hoag 21475 Ridgedale Dr. Perris, CA 92570 Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. CC: Jennifer Harmon Jennifer Harmon - Re: Mid -County Parkway Page 1 From: Cathy Bechtel To: judy@piquetfamily.com Date: 9/11/2007 10:37:30 AM Subject: Re: Mid -County Parkway Dear Ms. Piquet, Thank you for your emails. We will make sure your comments are shared with the Commission as requested. -Cathy Cathy Bechtel Project Development Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141, (951)787-7920 fax »> jpiquet@airenetworks.com 9/10/2007 6:36:16 PM »> {Please make this a part of the public record on agenda item 9-Mid County Parkway}My husband and I would like to voice our opinion about the Southern Route through Gavilan Hills. We think this is the absolute best route. It is far superior to using Cajalco. Let's keep the area around the Lake as pristine as possible. It would be wonderful if the large trucks that frequent Cajalco would use the new Parkway. It is a matter of conservation and safety. By the way, the new paving job is going beautifully! What little of it we can drive on is such a treat! We can't wait until the entire road is paved, from Kirkpatrick to Temescal Valley Road.Thank you for forwarding this information to the Commission.Judy Piquetjudy@piquetfamily.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.12/997 - Release Date: 9/9/2007 10:17 AM CC: Jennifer Harmon Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Martha Thompson 13586 Cajalco Rd. Penis, CA 92570 September 10, 2007 Dear Ms. Bechte: As a home owner in the area, I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my disagreement with the proposal at Wednesday's hearing. Thank you. Sincerely %%744/ttAU alayefOG9 Martha Thompson Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 6cptember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, I live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 Carlynn McCormick 16233 Rocky Bluff Road Gavilan Hills, CA 92570 September 10, 2007 Dear Ms. Bechte, I am extremely opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal that ventures to bring a four lane roadway through the Gavilan Plateau. I understand it is slated to be the alternate truck route to avoid Cajalco Road and damage to the dam. But for Gavilan Hills residents, the roadway would bring added pollution and noise. It represents a travesty to us, our children, our animals and our peaceful lifestyle. Please understand that the Gavilan Plateau is a haven for people embracing a back - to -nature environment; I don't believe any long-time resident wants to have it spoiled. For me personally, I have been here over twenty-five years and my love of the area is highly spiritual! Of course, the community doesn't want the dam damaged either, but I am 100% certain there are other and better solutions. I implore you to find them. Thank you. Sincerely, ar;' n McCormick Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 Torina Shea Wood 16253 Rocky Bluff Road Gavilan Hills, CA 92570 September 10, 2007 Dear Ms. Bechte, I grew up in Gavilan Hills, my marriage ceremony took place in Gavilan Hills, my husband and I started our new life together in Gavilan Hills, our child has never lived anywhere else but in Gavilan Hills; my family and I LOVE it here. We are against the Mid County Parkway proposal because it will affect our lifestyle and that of our neighbors. Please, please, please look for and fmd a better place to put the parkway. Thank you for reading what I have to say. Sincerely, ,LLsol 2i)cvd Torina Shea Wood Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951)787-7141 Matthew Wood 16253 Rocky Bluff Road Gavilan Hills, CA 92570 September 10, 2007 Dear Ms. Bechte, I am very much opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal because it will negatively impact our lifestyle. As a home owner and ten-year resident of Gavilan Hills, please take my opinion into consideration. Thank you. Matthew Wood U�� September 10, 2007 Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Karina Holly Wood 16253 Rocky Bluff Road Gavilan Hills, CA 92570 (Letter dictated by six -year old Karina) Dear Lady, I love all kinds of animals and I want to work in a zoo when I grow up. I love where I live because there are so many wild animals — rabbits, lizards, snakes, coyotes, bob cats, kangaroo rats, owls, eagles and more. If a bunch of trucks keep driving by they will scare all the animals away and I will be very, very, very sad. Please don't let that happen. Thank you. k-/INih Ka rina Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 John McCormick 16233 Rocky Bluff Road Gavilan Hills, CA 92570 September 10, 2007 Dear Ms. Bechte, I am in disagreement with the Mid -County Parkway proposal because it is not the best solution and will negatively impact our rural lifestyle. As a 27-year homeowner and resident of Gavilan Hills, please take my viewpoint into consideration. Thank you. Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 Mary Adams 16233 Rocky Bluff Road Gavilan Hills, CA 92570 September 10, 2007 Dear Ms. Bechte, The Gavilan Plateau is an equestrian paradise and refuge for our delicate wildlife. We need to keep it that way. Thus, I am very much opposed to the Mid - County Parkway proposal as I feel it will negatively impact the balance of our animal friendly environment. Please register my opinion at the proposal hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Cordially yours, 717 Mary Ada Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Claudia Nicolosi 15020 Burwood Drive Perris, CA 92570 September 10, 2007 Dear Ms. Bechte: I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal as it will negatively impact our rural lifestyle. Please take my opinion into consideration at the upcoming Hearing. Thank you. Claudia Nicolosi Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. BOX 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Brian Thompson 13586 Cajalco Rd. Perris, CA 92570 September 10, 2007 Dear Ms. Bechte: As a home owner in the area, I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my disagreement with the proposal at Wednesday's hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Brian Thompson Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 �‘:ptember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, I live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, a ij (} ,41V171�U v �,_ RKz3 j CIS (2) is �o Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Jaime Andy Manzanea 14989 Burwood Drive Perris, CA 92570 September 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, I live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Tiber McCormick 20700 Onaknoll Rd. Perris, CA 92570 September 10, 2007 Dear Madam, I grew up in Gavilan Hills and am now a home owner in Lake Matthews. As a long time resident of the area I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. I feel it will negatively impact our equestrian lifestyle and be detrimental to our close knit community. Please take my opinion into consideration. Thank you. Best re Tiber MECoilni Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 �cptember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, L live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and 1 am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, CC,( IbS rYlaririll eZ iN � �, Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 �tptember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, I live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and 1 am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, Agehicraikagmaimea Da\lP ( 04--te (2_ 1 i I Z,CQ In doh 0 [ r���� cat q Zs- b Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 cpptember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, 1 live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, i Toy 4/v2 170od iltdc UPK fie(^,`S L e7aS-7v Cathy B,echte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 �cNtember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, I live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, ?cl-r10101X 0(90 D Q�.V; l c, n P-cP Per C'rtS , c clas-40 Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 scptember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, I live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, A k kehiormastaineas 2 Zv D qatv) 1) Yl 62_ p ���_ 7id _,7 (77 Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 �uptember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, I live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, rgiu;-= 13'he kd 9257 CD Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 scptember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, I live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday'. Thank you. Sincerely, iL ,2,V060 abL,b ,)-6L_Ls , Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 S.;Ntember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, I live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and 1 am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, I\AcKc() A f))0N( f)c( c79 () �-?d Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 September 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, 1 live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and 1 am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, ANZIto;�v KVLwM14< HIt-Lt• cZ GAsJiLAfs4 i-t‘C.lg" CA (�iJ.s70 Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 6cptember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, I live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and l am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, / 7L c(). 7 Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 `,.;ptember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, I live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, laitimOtaidijiMuilatlea 'l iC,4rd J 01-1itfS0A g3d•ID LfSPk �r> -Rvn's CA Cathy Bechte Mid -County Parkway Project Manager P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 6cptember 10, 2007 Dear Miss Bechte, I live in the Lake Matthews — Gavilan Hills community and I am opposed to the Mid -County Parkway proposal. Please register my opinion at the proposal's hearing on Wednesday. Thank you. Sincerely, / 7 - a so��` �/z �s ,�q/ Pep,v5 61 72.57 Page 1 of 3 Subj: Date: From: Replyrto: To: Re; [LakeMathewsTaiks] RCTC Subverting the GA Brown Parkway/Sept.12 - 9/10/2007 2:39:29 P.MPaoifc bayligt t Time wholegallon@yahoo.com LakeMathewsTalks@yahoogroups.com LakeMathewsTalks@yahoogroups.com i ! .. Act/Agenda item 9/1Vid .Coun Could you give me Cathy Bechtel's a -mail ,address so that I can. complain, too? I've signed up for information through their web site -and I of course wasn't... P3 art �t ,:,' , , r ,I notified of any meeting. I think it will, help; "them be accountable if they know` many people are expecting them to keep'us°infoed..Thank`s` a l,ot f CindyRAGLM@acol.com wrote: Cathy Bechtel, I need to address some issues L have with ROT! tt, _.' � in regard to the Mid County Parkway and thls_Wed RC _ agenda item # 9. ou and I have been talking about:t111$_ 1: arkway, for .a nur of ears now and have even meet at the RCTC . off ce to addrembess } issues on this project. I haveJalso been slgned.onto the .RGTC 'S eb newsletter site and I have not been given ANY .notice what o ever of this public hearing on Wed: `Sept. 12. 1Nhy didn't.! hear.'. rom either you or RCTC at some level ... web newsletter or omething that this public hearing was being held Wed? In going to RCTC's web site, this is what it states (I've highlighted my point in red bold text) under "Contact/Meeting" Email us: o sign up for information, newsletters,' and to be 'notified' for' upcoming meetings via email click. HERE: ` o send your comments about the Mid County Parkway via 'email click HERE, ell, I've let RCTC :.. you directly know that I want to be informed of ANY movement on the Mid County Parkway project. The web newsletter site should have been a back up to some kind of contact from RCTC direct to me. nother issue I have, When you go to the RCTC web site and ou go to "Contact/Meeting" it also says this (I've used red, bold ext to highlight my point): ttend a meeting: he next public meetings are currently anticipated at the time of he Draft EIR/EIS in early 2008. ouldn't you have to call this just a little misleading to the public? If a resident came to the RCTC sight to gain info. on the Mid County Parkway, they would go away thinking "No problem, Tuesday, September 11, 2007 America Online: CindyRAGLM s 1 t RECENT ACTIVITY• Neva A 101Pbers Visit ,our Group , ' ='Yahoo! bye ._ -odd. NewsW ou w,on'Obelieve it, but,it's true Ne4 business? 'Get riew customers:' ° :;List your website, , in :Yahoo!: Search Fashion Groups' On Yahoo! Groups`, A great place';to connect and share Page 2 of 3 the next public hearing isn't until early 2008. And then what? In 2008 when they cartie 'back to the RCTC web site to check again" they would find out this was placed on the Septa 12; 2007 agenda as agenda item # 9? Oh, sorry, too late to speak on that issue` anymore. think that the fact that your ,web site,, which was, created "to' communicate' with the public, has'posted incorrect information, in .regard to the.Mid County Parkway and ,fixing: it now would 1\14T give the property 3 dray notice ... By rules of the CA Brown ACT r , ., , A, agends that: agenda item: 9 should be removed from the Sept 12 and rescheduled for another date. The County RCTC web site should be made to 'properly show the public hearing` date Arid `that ALL those signed up with you, RCTC and or on the newsletter web sitebe given proper notification of the new hearing date.. Too many: people now use the county web sites as their main source ° of information on proposed `hearings. This web site has ` subverted the CA Brown Act. ` A' new hearing date needs to be set .and agenda item # 9 needs 1C) be removed or continued without discussion to' 'another date: Community Spokesperson for:the.:Greater;Lake Mathews area., Owner/Operator of: LakeMathewsTalks@Yahoogrou_s com; GHSchoolRedistrictingCommittee@Yahoogroups.com,Lake_, Mathew_ s. ; .:., Transit©Yahoogroups.com and Wait LMCOl©Yahoogroups.coin Member/Monitor of: RAGLMNotice©Yahoogroups.com.and WoodcrestTalksaYahoogroups corgi CindyRAGLM@aol.com (bestirvay to reach met (951) 657-6610 Page 1 of 3 Subj: Date: From: Reply -to: To: Cindy, Re: [RAGLMNotice] ROTC Subverting the CA Brown ActlAgenda Item 91Mid. County Parkway/Sept.12 " _ . . €> a .Ste, 9/10/2007 2:35:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time{ y NSHarrigan@msn.com RAGLMNotice©a yahoogroups.com RAGLMNotice@yahoogroups. com y tl4 cfy. J �.Y We signed up a year ago to receive notification of updates and meetings on this ROTC mid county: parkway web, page and. have- never received a single e-mail from them. Their web page sign up- specifically states "1 want to be informed about public meetings to be held as a pars of the environmental process"._, Nate and Charline Harrigan ----- Original Message From: CindyRAGLM@aol.com : ` ' '' o: CindyRAGLM@aol.com ; cbechtelgrdd.org `lparrish@rceb:brg ; r raysmith@rceo.org ; BBUSTER cQi cosiverside ca:us hBBiisterarcbos org , ' r RCaliva@rcbos.org ; DStahovich@cosiverside.ca.us ; LakeMathewsTalks@ ahoogroups.com ; SJlsom@rcbos.org ; Lake Mathews Transit@Yahoogro ups.com ; RAGLMNotice@Yahoogroups.com ; JPerez@rctc.org ; oodcrestTalks@Yahoogroupscom ent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 7:40-PM ubject: [RAGLMNoticei RCTC Subverting ,the CA- Brorwn Act/Agenda ltern,r •/Mid County Parkway/Sept.12 achy Bechtel, I need to address some issues` t have with RC 'n regard to the Mid County Parkway pan' this Wetl ' ags item#9. :. : ,..�,:;_ ,RCTC .; u .:a3:...,�, e• • ou and I have been talking abo ifthis parkway for a number o ears now and have even meet at 'the ;RCTC office ;tog address issues on this project. I have also been signed `ontolhe RCTC eb newsletter site and I have not been given ANY notice ,vvhat s_ o ver of this public hearing on rWed.' Sept. =2. ` Why didn't I hear, rom either you or RCTC at some level ... web newsletter or omething that this public hearing was being held Wed? In going to RCTC's •web site, this is what it states (I've highlighted y point in red bold text) under "Contact/Meeting" Email us: o sign up for information, newsletters; and to be notigedlor" upcoming meetings via email click HERE. o send your comments about the Mid County Parkway via email lick HERE. a 1!J . s RECENT AMVITY_ 1New,Members Vint Your,.Grou,p,. .Yahoo! .Groupe ,... r Join a yoga group ,and take the stress `out vf'yourlife: hest of Y ;Group Check Lout r and nominate your group to' be -featured. • *Yahoo! Groups Real Food Group Share recipes andfavoritemeals. Monday; 'September 10 2007: America Online CindyRAGtM .t fir` Page 2 of 3 Well, I've let RCTC ... you directly know that I want to be informed of ANY movement on'the Mod'Cou �nty Parkway project. 'The`web newsletter site should have been a back up to some kind of:. contact from RCTC direct to me. Another issue I have, When you go to the RCTC web site and you .go`to "Contact/Meeting" it also says this (I've used red, bold text to highlight'rny'point): Attend a' meeting: The next public meetings are currently anticipated: at,thetime of the -Draft EIR/EIS in earl 2 Wouldn't you; have'to call this just a little misleading to theYpublic? If a resident came to the RCTC sight to gain info. on the Mid County Parkway they :would go away thinking "No problem, the next public hearing isn't until early 2008. And then what? In 2008 when they came back to the RCTC web site to check again they would find" out this was placed on the Sept.12, 2007 agenda as ;. agenda item # 9? Oh, sorry, toolate to speak on thatissue anymore: - I think that the fact that your web site, which was created to communicate with the public, has posted incorrect information in regard to the Mid County .Parkvvay' and fixing ifnow' would. -NOT give the property 3 day notice ... By rules of the CA Brown ACT that agenda item_9 should beremoved from the Sept.12 agenda4j and rescheduled for another date. The County RCTC:web site ..r should be madeto properly showrthe public hearing date' and that ALL those signed up with you, RCTC and or on the newsletter web site be given Proper notification of the new hearing date. Too many people now use the county web sites as their main source of information on proposed hearings This web site has. . t. _: date .,tisubverted the' CA. Brown Act. A new tiearing needs to be set and agenda item # "9 needs to ;be removed or continued without discussion to another date. Cindy Ferry Community Spokesperson for the; Greater Lake Mathews area.,•: Owner/Operator of: LakeMathewsTalks@Yahoogroups.com, GHSchoolRedistrictingCommittee@Yahoogroups.com Lake .Mathews .. Transit@Yahoogroups.com and Watt_LMCOI(Vahoogroups.com' Monday,, September 10, 2007 Arneriea .Online CindyRAGI M Page 3 of 3 Member/Monitor of: RAGLMNotice@Yahoogroups.com and WoodcrestTalks@Yahoogroups.com CindyRAGLM@aol.com (best way to reach me) (951) 657-6610 16115 Rocky Bluff 'Road Gavilan Hills, CA. 92570-7471 See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) I Start a new topic Messages I Ekes i Photos) Links I Database ( Polls 1 Members I Calendar GROUPS Change settings via the web (Yahoo! ID required) :flange settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest I Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group i Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use I Unsubscribe Monday, September 10, 2007 America Online: CindyRAGLM samleu.tamv pima dpw - I wat,utpe fit/ suoinauuo) pasodoad 11V 01 NOW WO3 894 (L'S S3AIlVNa31lV) H11105 5111213d t9 `V S3AI1VN1I31110 11'9 S3AIlVM1311V) Mild 1V213N39 L'9'S '4 (S'6 S3AI1VN11311V) SM3HIV41 3711/1 Kmos NIV80 14801S A311VA SI11213d S3AI1V1,8311V 01 NOW W03 6 3AIlVNi1311V 1► • • Critetia Lost Differential', Water R;ea°Oroes_ Threatens drEndenctered+5.pecies Sensitive'Piant: Communities Habitat, Conservation Ptan'(HCP) Western Riverside Cet nty,Molt) Species HCP.Criteria Area Parks and Recreation' Cultural 'Resournes (Based'on Preliminary Data) Social/Commuriity tweets Altemativ,e4, t'$4?0 "mllllon gvtr-base:' Affects 31:titres Affects 346 acres ofdesignated• crillcel.hebllat Affects412.acres Affeds�41'5.acres Affects I miiit $ch001 2 significant stes Affects 303propanies Alternative 5 +5150'million War ban. Affects 29: atre3 Atfecls,346iecres of deslgnaled crlilcal habitat Affects 415'acres :- Affects 405:acres Affects.l HI h School 2ilignificant s tes Affects"243properties' Alternative`6 +$610 mllllon overhese. Medi 34 eCrei. Affects 498;;acres of designated critical habitat. Affects:459acres Affects 537;acies Affects 545,scres Affects fHi§6 Ochool 2°signiffcantsites Affects 307 properties Augustn007 Alternative 7 +s310 million over base Affetts92 acres Affects 490--ecres of designated: critical habitat: Atfects:458acres Affects 537 acres .- Affects ;666acres�. Affects) High 6chool 2 tgniflcart ites Affects 241 prepenies Alternative 9' Affects 458 acres Affects 639iecres: AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTAT/ON_COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Commissioners Daryl Busch and John Chlebnik SUBJECT: 2007 American Public Transportation Association Rail Conference BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The passage of Senate Bill 1234 requires a report on trips that are made by an elected official on behalf of a public agency. The purpose of this report is to provide information on the recently completed American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Rail Conference in Toronto, Ontario that Commissioners Daryl Busch and John Chlebnik attended from June 3 through June 6, 2007. On an annual basis . the APTA Rail Conference is designed to increase the . effectiveness in operating and maintaining rail systems, and offers a dynamic mix of technical and sessions developed specifically for today's rail industry professionals. A number of highly relevant courses were offered regarding the latest trends in commuter rail operations . and development. The Commissioners attended the meetings and workshops to gain a better understanding of the challenges and needs facing the industry. The events also included several networking opportunities to better connect with other leaders in the public transportation arena. The knowledge gained at the conference will be brought back and applied to the implementation and expansion of Metrolink in Riverside County. Agenda Item 11 170