Loading...
07 July 9, 2008 CommissionRECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, July 9, 2008 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chair: Jeff Stone 15t Vice Chair: Bob Magee 2nd Vice Chair: Bob Buster 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 Bob Botts / Brenda Sales, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Robert Crain, 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 / Eugene Montanez, City of Corona Yvonne Parks / Scott Matas, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Eric McBride, City of Hemet Patrick J. Mullany / Larry Spicer, City of Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Melanie Fesmire, 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 / Malcolm. Miller, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Ginny Foat / Steve Pougnet, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Gordon Moller / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Chris Carlson / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Pending Appointment, City of Wildomar Karla Sutliff, Governor's Appointee Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, 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. 84574 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, July 9, 2008 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. 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 (9511 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 (31 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 (21 continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for`ny individual item or topic is thirty (301 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 or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2008 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 11, 2008 6. PUBLIC HEARING - FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 ALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Approve the FY 2008/09 Federal Transit . Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 5311 Program of Projects (POP) for Riverside County; 2). Conduct a public hearing at the July Commission meeting on the proposed Section 5307 POP as attached; 3} Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); 4) Approve the FY 2008/09 LTF and State Transit Assistance• (STA) fund allocations for transit as attached; and 5) Adopt Resolution No. 08-018, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Fund. 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS - The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 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. 8.. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate actionon specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. • Riverside County Transportation Commission. Agenda July 9, 2008 Page 3 8A. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND PROPOSED GOAL FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 Page16 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt 6.4% as its annual Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for FFY 2008/09 from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009; 2) . Adopt Resolution No. 08-019, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2008/09 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 2008/09 and receive comments for 45 days; and 4) Submit the FFY 2008/09 FTA DBE prograrn and annual goal to the FTA. 8B. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND CALTRANS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND PROPOSED ANNUAL ANTICIPATED DBE PARTICIPATION LEVEL FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 Page 24 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt 0.45% as its Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) for FFY 2008/09 from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 08-020, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2008/09 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 2008/09 DBE program and AAPDL to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2008 Page 4 8C. DISBANDMENT OF THE TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE Overview Page 35 This item is for the Commission to disband the Transit Policy Committee and direct all transit agenda items to the Plans and Programs Committee. 8D. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Page 42 Overview Thisitem is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the third quarter ended March 31, 2008. 8E. 2008 STATE ROUTE 91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE Page 44 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the 2008 State Route 91 Implementation Plan. 8F. PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY RESULTS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the results of the Public Opinion Survey for the SR-91 corridor improvement project. Page 57 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2008 Page 5 8G. AMENDMENT WITH KLEINFELDER TO DEEPEN COREHOLES DURING THE SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL FIELD EXPLORATION, TESTING SERVICES, AND TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED IRVINE TO CORONA EXPRESSWAY PROJECT Page 72 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-65-105-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 07-65-105-00, with Kleinfelder for a not to exceed: amount of $650,000 to deepen two coreholes during the supplemental geotechnical field exploration, testing services, and technical evaluations for the proposed Irvine to Corona Expressway project; 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 optional tasks as may be required for the project. 8H. AMENDMENT WITH CIVIC RESOURCES GROUP — WEB -BASED PROJECT. MANAGEMENT DATABASE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 75 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-66-044-01, Amendment No. 1.to Agreement No. 06-66-044-00, with Civic Resources Group (CRG) to increase the contract amount from $48,510 to $57,380 (increase of $8,870) to complete the project management database and extend the term of the contract to December 31, 2008; and 2) Authorize the Chair; pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2008 Page 6 81. ` REQUEST TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS TO REFRESH AND EXPAND THE EXISTING ON -CALL LIST FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS Page 78 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve allowing staff to develop a request for qualifications (RFQ) and conduct a selection process to refresh and expand the existing on -call consulting services list for Measure A highway projects. 8J. AGREEMENT WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR RAIL DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE. STATE ROUTE 91 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE PROJECT FROM ADAMS STREET TO INTERSTATE 215/STATE ROUTE 60 INTERCHANGE Page 80 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-003-00 with. HDR. Engineering, Inc. (HDR) for rail design services for the SR-91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) project for a base of $198,582 and a contingency amount of $45,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $243,582; 2) Approve an adjustment of the project budget of an additional $243,582 for final design services and state reimbursement revenues; . 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute an agreement with Caltrans for reimbursement of the additional costs for the final design services; 4) • Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf.of.the Commission; and 5) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency as may be .required for the project. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2008 Page 7 8K. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES, CALIFORNIA COMFORT HVAC, INC., TROPICAL PLAZA NURSERY, INC., AND SPOTLESS JANITORIAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES AT THE COMMISSION -OWNED METROLINK STATIONS Page 83 Overview This itemis for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-25-042-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-25-042-00, with Amtech Elevator Services to provide elevatorrepair services in the amount of $20,000; 2) Agreement No. 07-25-081-02, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-25-081-00, with California Comfort HVAC, Inc. to provide air conditioning system repair services in the amount of $15,000; 3) Agreement No. 08-24-050-05, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 08-24-050-00, with Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc. to provide landscape maintenance and irrigation system repair services in the amount of $90,000; 4) Agreement No. 08-24-023-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 08-24-023-00, with Spotless Janitorial Services to provide additional. cleaning and grounds maintenance services in the amount of $10,000; and 5) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. _ 8L. COMMUTER RAIL COMPREHENSIVE STATION SECURITY UPGRADE Page 86 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Commission's Commuter Rail Program FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)'for the Comprehensive Station Security Upgrade Program to reflect the Proposition 1 B California Transit Security Grant Program — California Transit Assistance Funds (CTSGP-CTAF) and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds; and 2) Amend the Commission's FY 2008/09 budget for Rail Capital to include $347,852 in Proposition 1B funds and $$20,000 in LTF funds to be used for the Comprehensive Station Security Upgrade Program. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2008 Page 8 8M. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE. Page 89 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file : an update on the Commuter Rail Program. 8N. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS FOR JOBS ACCESS REVERSE COMMUTE AND NEW FREEDOM GRANT PROGRAMS Page 96 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 09-62-001-00"with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom grant programs. 80. FISCAL YEAR. 2008/09 MINIMUM FARE .REVENUE RATIO FOR RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Page 104 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Reaffirm the methodology •used to calculate the required fare box recovery ratio; and 2) Approve the FY 2008/09 minimum fare revenue to operating cost ratio of 17..58% for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and 17.82% for SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). 8P. FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS Page 108 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month maximum per buspool. for the period July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 to the existing Riverside, Corona and Mira Loma buspools; and 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool-reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2008 Page 9 8Q. FISCAL YEAR ' 2009-13 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF CALIMESA, COACHELLA, AND DESERT HOT SPRINGS Page111 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2009-13 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the cities. of Calimesa, Coachella, and Desert Hot Springs as submitted. 8R. CALIFORNIA CONSENSUS REAUTHORIZATION PRINCIPLES Page 137 Overview This item is for the Commission to endorse the statewide California Consensus document. 9. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REQUEST FOR MEASURE A •REGIONAL ARTERIAL FUNDS Page 144 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-72-004-00 with the city of Lake Elsinore for the State Route 74/Interstate 15 interchange improvement project inthe city of Lake Elsinore in the amount of $2 million of Measure A Regional Arterial program funds; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalfof the Commission. 10. PERRIS VALLEY LINE STATION DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY LIST Page 147 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the Station Development Opening Day Priority List. 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 9, 2008 Page 10 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Page 149 Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission_ activities. Written Report on American Public Transportation Association 2008 Rail Conference from Commissioners DarylBuschand Frank West. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) • Case No. RIC 443300 • Case No. RIC 462975 13B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (c) Possible Initiation of Litigation: One Case 13C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS 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) 279-030-003 279-030-004 279-030-005 279-030-006 279-030-008 279-190-034 Mike Kerr 279-240-001 279-240-008 279-240-009 282-040-003 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 930 a.m., Wednesday, September 10, 2008, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JULY 9, 2008 NAME� (( AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS `i 0{�, o`1-ts A—ti A) \Wdy G ecj �� !7 , �J A--�/LJ ,/ (-4, a ii °�—� ai _11/4. oR,e.c) U _ ._ ire C, ..- S. cu/..tZ`,:� fral, c_a. �� ` i J . `> e.'6611,_._ fc". in, bes-t---1----- rl)lJ��Orv�`7�N�� �oNii-- -"C'° T''''' v 9 K! � 1 X/r L^� /JJa &e-6-,--)ez._ i-; X�f ���V d 1 \ -\ Y \. d ar— yl i e ii-w� _ k/ - try / (—act) r i6 J f) e. N ©� 1s • '. \ ail.: li- r�I•r i�l� i�A�r/ ef z , J . i [I%�/i� .4 A/ -I / w ,l , , ` ///,_ / �� %j s ,/io„_C.,/,,,,„le ,,,,„ `f RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL JULY 9, 2008 Presen Absent County of Riverside, District County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, Distnct ll'I', County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of. Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City-. _ of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley_ City of Murriet_a City of Norco City of Palm .Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City,of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 vc rsilWn-xIvv-avomri—rv-rrm-cscnn-vr-me-ovwnv DATE: d ()I CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: O PUBLIC COMMENTS: 4�3' AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1 O SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDAS AGENDA',ITEM: �� �� t) L CI ^1P (L NAME: 2 �,,a-l l PHONE NO.: ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE REPRESENTING: PHONE NO.: NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE Rj91?i Vtr PRVrr !MIRY vvv11n1 ■ ■ V r Ac vr_mrs Vr'-r rrc WWWW1V DATE: 7 9 — o g CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: l PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mktvo ImK S`iato AGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE cAGENDA) AGENDA ITEM: NAME: .1j-k11 1 S K Ns A A. PHONE NO.: ADDRESS: 97 0 CR h1-4 Ir St. i -14 1 q' � q - 0 ve_ y � S D `/ STREET: / /CITY ZIP CODE / / REPRESENTING: 44 1 q ki r0 V-k I Y j�� � A C—' PHONE NO.: 7a 7 7 g3 — 406 NA E O AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE l7crzwri-Puivro- {iomi 1 V I nc'{TLRM CJr-1'17c aysanv DATE: ��1t D 9 200e AGENDA ITEM NO.: 9 (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA( CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: O PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF Gfy oK LA re g2Sivat— 4e&L r FoK AGENDA ITEM: n4E1Yu2s' A keelgUVAL. AatTEt /Ac Amtp9S NAME: KE'y St A t o ADDRESS: (30 SYA-1.1+ /uRIA/S LAKE STREET REPRESENTING: UTy OF LAKE ELS-Woke ALSIA/17,er PHONE NO.: 92s3� CITY ZIP CODE NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: /3b Sac.T* 44A1Ai ST STREET PHONE NO.: 9S-Afr - 312y 24# I-4PC ELfw6RE y2 S30 CITY ZIP CODE VGfMVf7 tllw OUP I 1 V mnc um -cm% Vr tf7c ov/RnV DATE: / — / - O CHECK IF ,4 SUBJECT OF PUBL C COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: 17E-YRO LI NA° ST�7 ®N lii ijs) L/VE AGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECTIOF (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: ADDRESS: AGENDA ITEM: g es tf rE77". PHONE NO.: [J I Coe3" T / %z STREET CITY ZIP CODE {�,� wUMc� L_ REPRESENTING: litAGgOVE mVyILlytrL A-DI/15' I PHONE NO.: NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE Highgrove Metrolink Stop instead of Palmyrita Avenue July 9, 2008 For the last 6'h years surrounding cities and organizations have continually pointed to Highgrove as an ideal location for a Metrolink stop. In the past, we have been told that SANBAG needs to be financially involved if a station were to be located in the Highgrove area because it is so close to the county line. RCTC needs the property at the Highgrove location for a curved track from the Perris Valley Line to the BNSF right of way, but this same property could also be used for a Metrolink platform. In addition, RCTC also wants to purchase another piece of property south of Palmyrita Ave. for a platform and parking where there are no existing commuter trains. With this plan, I see a duplication of expenses for the purchase of 2 properties instead of 1 and I also see a delay of several more years for Metrolink service to this area. And I am sure these expenses are without any help from SANBAG for the purchase of the 2 different properties. 7 days a week, there are commuter trains that pass through Highgrove but do not stop. This amounts to 62 trains a week or 3, 224 commuter trains a year. Highgrove has commuter trains that can serve riders in 3 different directions: To and from Riverside, to and from San Bemardino, and eventually to and from Perris, and it is only %2 mile north of the Palmyrita location. We believe the Highgrove location would benefit the entire region on both sides of the county line. Why is Highgrove preferred over Palmyrita? 1. One platform on the west side of the Highgrove property would immediately serve riders between Riverside and San Bemardino and this same platform could serve riders between Riverside and Perris in 3 or 4 years. 2. During the Perris Valley Line construction timeframe of 3 years, for example, there will be 967 commuter trains that pass through Highgrove that could stop for passengers! 3. Grading is currently underway for 2 warehouses on the south side of the arroyo but all of the 35 acres are still vacant and are "For Sale"! 4. A dirt road has been graded across the arroyo near the BNSF tracks that makes the north 19 acres accessible to Metrolink commuters where there is ample parking. We oppose building a station at Pahnyrita where there will be no commuter trains for several years. We have waited 6 '/2 years and there is no need to wait an additional 3 years or more for commuter service. We already have commuter trains every day of the week! We just need some of these trains to stop at Highgrove. We do not want to stop the Perris Valley Line project, just change the station location from Palmyrita Ave. to Highgrove. Simply put: BUILD A PLATFORM WHERE THE COMMUTER TRAINS ALREADY EXIST!!! R. A. "Barney" Barnett (951) 683 4994 or highgrovenews@roadrunner.com Please visit our web site at: www.highgrovehappenings.net and click on Metrolink! • • • AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES M • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday; June 11, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Jeff Stone at 9:36 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 Miller led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Steve Adams Marion Ashley Roger Berg Bob Botts Daryl 'Busch Bob Buster Chris Carlson John Chlebnik Mary Craton Joseph DeConinck Kathleen DeRosa Ginny Foat Rick Gibbs Frank Hall Terry Henderson Dick Kelly 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4A. Chair Stone: Robin Lowe Bob Magee Jeff Miller Gordon Moller Patrick J. Mullany Yvonne Parks Ron Roberts Jeff Stone Karla Sutliff John F. Tavaglione Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Eduardo Garcia • Congratulated Commissioner Miller for his Republican nomination to the State Assembly 71" District; Commissioner Bob Buster for his re-election as 1st District Supervisor for Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 2 Riverside County; and the city of Menifee for becoming the 26"' city in Riverside County; and • Announced Cathy Zaitz, wife of Commission alternate John Zaitz, city of Canyon Lake, passed away this morning and Chair Stone requested a moment of silence in her memory. 4B. Anne Mayer, Executive Director, introduced and commended Caltrans and Commission staff that participated in, the approval of: the draft project report and environmental document for the Interstate 215 improvements. 4C. Michael Perovich, former director of Caltrans District 8, introduced Karla Sutliff, Acting District Director of Caltrans District 8. Chair Stone thanked Michael Perovich for all of his years of service. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 28-29 AND MAY 14, 2008 M/S/C (Craton/Carlson) to approve the minutes of February 28-29 and May 14, 2008, as submitted. Abstain: Ashley, Berg, and Pettis 6. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager, presented an overview of specific activities included in the proposed Budget for .. FY 2008/09 and she addressed the following areas: • Budget summary; • Revenues and other sources; • Summary of expenditures; • Management services; • Regional programs; • Capital program; • Capital program highlights - Significant Highway, Regional Arterial, Rail Projects, Local Street and Roads, and Regional Arterials in the Coachella Valley; • Expenditures breakdown by function; • Measure A Administration; and Next steps. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 3 Commissioner John Chlebnik noted an error on page 2 of the agenda item, concerning the "increase of $1,933,300 million" and requested the word "million" be deleted. Michele Cisneros concurred with the request. Commissioner Michael Wilson referred to page 7 of the Executive Summary, noting the recognition of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) award of Distinguished Budget Presentation, and commended staff for a terrific job, especially with the economic downturn. Chair Stone asked Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, and Finance staff to stand up and be recognized for a job well done on the budget. Chair Stone announced the continuance of the public hearing from the May 14 meeting and requested comments from the public at this time. No comments were received from the public and the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Steve Adams expressed concern for the $60 million being allocation for acquisition of land to the Western Riverside County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Anne Mayer explained with respect to the budget agenda item, staff has included funds for acquisition of land in accordance with the Commission's agreement with the MSHCP. She expressed any funds that are included in the Budget for 'FY 2008/09 are subject to future decisions by the. Commission to make individual land acquisitions. She stated with respect to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the Commission, Caltrans, and any other agency who builds within the existing freeway right-of-way has a collective commitment to acquire 3,000 acres for the MSHCP. She explained with the acquisition of 3,000 acres, there will be 75 years of coverage for mitigation on any project within the existing highway right-of-way. Anne Mayer then discussed a letter received by Riverside Conservation Authority that was jointly signed by USFWS and DFG and its significance. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 4 In response to Commissioner Ginny Foat's request for clarification regarding reimbursement and a fluctuation between fiscal years, Theresia Trevino replied the Commission has significant projects next year that have federal and state reimbursements. Anne Mayer provided an update on the Commission's bond package that was completed this week.She stated the Commission now has full capacity of $185 million in the commercial paper program. M/S/C (M. Wilson/Henderson) to adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2008/09. 7_ ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 8 CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (R. Wilson/Magee) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Abstain — Agenda Item 8C: Ashley, Buster, Tavaglione, Stone, R. Wilson 8A. RESOLUTION NO. 08-017, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION'S APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL, YEAR 2008/09" Approve Resolution No. 08-017, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2008/09' 8B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the. Quarterly Financial Statements for the third quarter ended March 31, 2008. 8C. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 Approve the recurring contracts for FY 2008/09. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 5 8D. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4, 2007. 8E. MEASURE A DESIGNATION OF HIGHWAY 111 SEGMENTS 1) Approve an amendment to the Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan/Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) to add the following segments on Highway 111: a) In Palm Springs, from the intersection of Ramon Road and Gene Autry Trail, north on Gene Autry Trail to Vista Chino Drive, thence west on Vista Chino Drive to North Palm. Canyon Drive, thence northerly on the existing Highway 111 alignment to Interstate 10; b) In Indio, from the crossing of Golf Center Parkway over Indio Boulevard, northerly on Golf Center Parkway to Interstate 10; and c) In Indio, from the intersection of Highway 111 and Indio Boulevard, southeasterly on Indio Boulevard and Grapefruit Boulevard, the existing and former Highway 111 alignment, through the city of Coachella and Riverside County to the intersection of State Route 1.95 (Avenue 66). 2) Process the amendment to the TIP for inclusion of the Highway 111 new segments as outlined in Section 240302 of the Public Utilities Code. 8F. OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY LOAN TO SACRAMENTO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Receive and file the Obligational Authority Loan to Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG). 8G. FISCAL YEAR 2009-13 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Approve the FY 2009-13 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for local streets and roads as submitted. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 6 8H. FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the FY 2008/09 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program recommended funding as shown on the attached schedule. 81. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO Grant the city of San Jacinto an extension to June 30, 2009 to complete the De Anza Drive sidewalk and handicap ramps improvement project. 8J. MULTI -COUNTY GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH STUDY UPDATE 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-25-536-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 05-25-536, with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) in the amount of $27,419 for consultant services provided by Wilbur Smith and Associates (WSA); 2) Allocate $27,419 in Local. Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to Metro; 3) Approve the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP); 4) Receive a status report on the Environmental Justice (EJ) Analysis and Community Outreach Study; 5) Allocate $2,000 in LTF funding to serve as local match support for the EJ grant; and 6) Approve Agreement No. 07-67-071-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-67-071-00, with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for $4,000 in local funding in support of the EJ grant. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 7 8K. ON -CALL GOODS MOVEMENT CONSULTANT SERVICES 1) Approve the list of pre -qualified firms for on -call goods movement consultant services and award agreements as follows: a) Agreement Inc.; b) Agreement c) Agreement Associates, d) Agreement No. 08-67-119-00 to Cambridge Systematics, No. 08-67-120-00to lteris; No. 08-67-121-00 to Kimley-Horn and Inc.; No. 08-67-122-00. to Moore lanofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG); and. e) Agreement No. 08-67-123-00 to Wilbur Smith Associates; with contract term of three years with two one-year options; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8L. PROPOSED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 1) Adopt the preliminary FY 2008/09 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) operating and capital budget; 2) Allocate the Commission's funding commitment to the Metrolink in an amount not to exceed $8,086,400 comprised of $6,529,700 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for train_ operations and maintenance -of -way, and $1,556,700 for capital projects to be funded by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds as local match; and 3) Authorize Metrolink to apply $1.1 million of the Commission's prior year carry over funds to its FY 2008/09 operating budget. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 8 8M. AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDING PARTNERSHIP WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK SHUTTLE SERVICE 1) Authorize Agreement No. 03-25-303-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 03-25-303, with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) for inclusion of the Riverside Transit Agency North Main Corona shuttle service as part of the Transfer Funding Partnership; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8N. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AND LICENSE WITH RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FOR THE USE, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERRIS MULTIMODAL FACILITY 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-24-117-00 with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to provide for a cooperative agreement and license for the , use, operation, and maintenance for the Perris Multimodal Facility that will be constructed on Commission property; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 80. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. 8P. PROPOSITION 113 FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 CALIFORNIA TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM - CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND AND SUPPORTING RESOLUTION Adopt Resolution No. - 08-016, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Approving the Allocation of Proposition 1B California Transit $ecurity Grant Program California Transit Assistance Funds (CTSGP-CTAF) Government Code 8879.58(a)(2) Population Funds," totaling $1,553,822 to the following lead project sponsors: • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 9 Western Riverside County — • City of Banning $ 14,850 • City of Beaumont $ 9,008 • City of Corona $ 32,376 • City of Riverside $ 29,235 • Riverside Transit Agency $849,938 • RCTC Commuter Rail $263,832 Coachella Valley — • SunLine Transit Agency $330,343 Palo Verde Valley — • Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency $ 24,240 8Q. FISCAL YEARS 2008/09 - 2010/11 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Review and approve, in concept, the FY 2008/09 - FY 2010/11 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) for the cities of Banning, Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program, as presented. 8R. PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT 1) Reallocate $100,000 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) State Transit Assistance (STA) capital funds from the Clean Natural Gas (CNG) fueling station project to the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) new office project; and 2) Approve Amendment No. 1 to the PVVTA FY 2007/08 Short. Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the reallocation of funding among the capital projects as outlined above. 8S. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT 1) Allocate $1, 399,784 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) Local Transportation Fund (LTF) operating funds to cover federal and Measure A funding shortfalls for operating assistance; 2) Allocate $444,000 in TDA State Transit Assistance (STA) capital funds to cover cost increases in the purchase of paratransit buses; 3) Approve Amendment No. 3 to the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional funding outlined above; and 4) Amend the FY 2007/08 Budget by $1,843,784 to reflect the additional funding outlined above. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 10 8T. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT INTERIM FUNDING 1) Approve up to $433,481 of additional Western Riverside County Measure A Specialized Transit funds to the approved grantees identified in Attachment 1 contingent upon grantee submittal of the Commission's Universal Specialized Transit application by June 16, 2008 at 2:00 p.m_; and 2) Authorize the Executive . Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to extend the applicable grantee contracts through September 30, 2008. 8U. PALO VERDE VALLEY - FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING 1) Reaffirm the Commission's definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet" standards; and . 2) Make a finding through the adoption of Resolution No. 08-013, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting A Finding That There Are No Unmet Transit Needs That Are Reasonable To Meet In ,The Palo Verde Valley Area" that based upon a review of the requests for services received through the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, there are no unmet transit needs which .;can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley. 8V. AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT' PROJECT IN THE VICINITY OF THE CITIES OF SAN JACINTO AND HEMET 1) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 08-72-112-00 with Caltrans for project approval and environmental document (PA/ED) for the State Route 79 realignment project in the vicinity of the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, . pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement and future non -funding related amendments and/or additional cooperative agreements with Caltrans District 8 on behalf of the Commission for this project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 11 8W. AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES, AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) ACQUISITION FOR THE INTERSTATE 215 WIDENING PROJECT FROM THE INTERSTATE 15/INTERSTATE 215 SEPARATION TO SCOTT ROAD, NORTH OF THE CITY OF'MURRIETA 1) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 08-31-114-00 with Caltrans District 8 for project approval and environmental document (PA/ED), plans, specifications, and estimates (PS/E), and right-of-way ;(ROW) acquisition for the 1-215 widening project from the 1-15/1-215 Separation to Scott Road, north of the city of Murrieta; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement and future non -funding related amendments and/or additional cooperative agreements with Caltrans District 8 for the 1-215 widening project from the 1-15/1-215. separation to Scott Road on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute future non -funding related cooperative agreements and amendments with Caltrans District 8 for the PA/ED, PS/E, ROW, and construction phases of the 1-215 widening project from Scott Road to Nuevo Road in the city of Perris. 8X. AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND CONNECTION OF A SEWER LATERAL, FROM ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO CITY O:F PERRIS SEWER MAIN RELATED TO STATE ROUTE 74 CLOSEOUT WORK 1) Award Agreement No. 08-31-103-00 for construction and connection of a sewer lateral, from a single family residence, to the city of Perris sewer main to Romo Pipeline, Inc. for the amount of $54,500 plus a contingency amount of $9,500 to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed contract authorization of $64,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 12 8Y. AGREEMENT WITH SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE PROJECT FINANCING WORK IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 11 Approve Agreement No. 08-31-113-00 between the Commission and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to further inter -county . cooperation related to alternative project financing and to utilize existing Commission contracts to expedite initial feasibility 'work in San Bernardino County; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve the following amendments to agreements for on -call strategic partnership advisory services by incorporating the terms of the agreement between the Commission and the SANBAG:, a) Agreement No. 06-66-026-05, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 06-66-026 with KPMG Corporate Finance LLC; b) Agreement No. 06-66-027-17, Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. 06-66-027 with PB Consult Inc.; c) Agreement No. 06-66-028-07, Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 06-66-028 with Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP; and 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendments to the agreements on behalf. of the Commission. TRANSIT - VISION ADOPTION AND RELATEDFUNDING FORMULAS FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND MEASURE A FUNDS FOR 2009-2019 John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, acknowledged and thanked Commission staff, the transit operators, and the Transit Policy Committee for their hard work on the 10-year Transit Vision Plan for Riverside County, and discussed the following, areas: • Transit Vision elements, goals, trends/challenges ahead, roadmap of future services, expected outcome by 2019, :funding sources and funding recommendation; and • Call to action — Need vs. available funds, advance planning, and increase competitiveness for discretionary funding sources. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 13 M/S/C (Lowe/M. Wilson) to: 1) Adopt the Transit Vision for 2009-2019; 2) Continue the existing funding formula for the Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds [Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds]: a) Coachella Valley - 100% public bus operator; b) = Palo Verde Valley = 100% public bus operator (subject to the statutory "unmet needs hearing"); c) Western Riverside County - 78% public bus and 22% commuter rail operators; 3) Establish a funding formula for the Western Riverside County Public Transit Account of Measure A Ordinance No. 02-001: a) Allocate the Commuter Rail and Intercity Bus Service funds - 80% Commuter Rail and 20% Western Riverside County Public Bus Operators; b) Allocate 25% of Western Riverside. County Specialized Transit funds to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) as the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency for Western Riverside County; and 4) Approve a timeline for the TDA and Measure A funding formulas to be reviewed in FY 2018/19 with proposed changes to be implemented in FY 2020/21. 10. INTERSTATE 215/VAN BUREN INTERCHANGE: TRADE CORRIDORS IMPROVEMENT FUND Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager, presented the request from the county of Riverside for a Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) allocation for Interstate 215/Van Buren interchange. In response to, Commissioner Mary Craton's question regarding contributions by the developer involved in this project, Tanya Love replied there are many distribution centers at the. Meridian Business Park and. various funding sources. Commissioner Buster replied that with the escalation in costs concerning this project, there will be participation by the redevelopment tax increments that are ,generated out of the Meridian Business Park. Art Cassel, Lake Mathews area resident, discussed the area of the proposed I-215/Van Buren - interchange project and a proposal to improve the interchange at a minimal expense. He expressed strong concern that the tax payers will be funding the impact of Meridian Business Park and its developer, LNR. He recommended the Commission not support this item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 14 Commissioner Craton asked if LNR is funding any of the improvements. Commissioner Roger Berg stated these improvements are to enhance the economy. He expressed the Commission needs to partner with the private industry in order to provide easier access to jobs within Riverside County and supports funding this project. Chair Stone stated hebelievesLNR has paid: significant TUMF and other development impact fees. Additionally, this interchange improvement will not only be utilized for the Meridian Business Park, but for the expansion of the March Global Port. The goal is to create jobs locally so that the residents can work close to home. He expressed support for these improvements and believes LNR is funding its fair share. Commissioner Chris Carlson explained that this project was envisioned when the economic development fund was created and is exactly the type of project that this fund, is set up for. She motioned to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner M. Wilsonexpressed support for staff's recommendation. Commissioner Gregory Pettis requested staff address the concern regarding LNR funding its fair share of the costs. Commissioner Carlson clarified that the developer is LNR and not: Lennar Homes. Commissioner John Tavaglione_ explained that with the renewal of Measure A and the evaluation of TUMF, major interchanges were part of that analysis, including the 1-215/Van Buren interchange. He expressed that the economic development fund was created solely for the purpose of attracting and promoting major projects that are the most logical for economic growth. He does not believe that this item is to relieve LNR from its financial responsibilities. Commissioner Marion Ashley_ explained the traffic congestion is increasing op the 1-215 because of the I-215/Van Buren interchange, noting that the Meridian Business -Park is not utilizing this interchange at this time. There will be approximately 15,000 jobs created in that area within the next five years, not including the other surrounding expansion impacts. He stated that he understands Mr. Cassel's concerns regarding economic development funds being used for this interchange, however he believes the same argument could be made for any interchange project. He then stated his support for staff's recommendation. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 200-8 Page 15 Commissioner Henderson noted that there have been public speakers before the Commission that have spoken passionately about bringing the jobs to Riverside County. She believes that this item addresses those requests. Commissioner Gordon Moller asked who is responsible to fund this interchange and stated that he believes creating additional jobs outweighs the $10 million in economic development funds spent. Anne Mayer explained that the Commission is not responsible for interchange projects. Most interchanges in Riverside County are funded from a variety of sources with the local agency serving as the lead agency to ensure those projects are completed. Additionally, some projects are an immediate need, therefore, those existing projects need to identify funding sources that are not development based. In general, an interchange project in Riverside County is funded by a variety of sources. The Commission funds interchange projects from a variety of different sources based on requests that are made from the lead agency. In this particular instance, the request for funding from Riverside County is clearly in line with what the Commission had envisioned when Measure A was adopted and is consistent with the economic development program. Commissioner Buster explained that the Meridian Business Park and LNR will create several jobs in the middle of Western Riverside County around the I-2.15/Van Buren interchange, which is an area that is prime for local jobs. He expressed appreciation for the comments from the Commissioners because this approach will need to continue in other areas of the 1-215 and supports this motion as this will help with the future quality of life for Riverside County. Commissioner M. Wilson stated that the benefits received by investing $10 million in economic development funds for job creation outweigh the cost and referred to this as the Commission's economic stimulus package. Chair Stone reminded the Commission that there is a multiplier effect when jobs are created. Commissioner Robin Lowe explained that the economic development program when Measure A was renewed promised the voters that economic development funds would be set aside to be used for this purpose and this Commission is keeping one of those commitments by approving this improvement project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 16 Commissioner Pettis asked if it is the Commission's intention to proportionately allocate these economic development funds to the eastern portion of the county as well. Anne Mayer replied that the economic development funds are only for allocation in Western Riverside County. M/S/C (Carlson/Henderson) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-31-124-00 ` with the county of Riverside (County) for an "off the top" allocation of $10 million in Measure A Economic Development funds in support of the 1-215Nan Buren interchange; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Abstain: Pettis 11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, provided an update on state and federal legislation and discussed the following areas: • Commission Legislation - Next hearings for SB 1316 (Correa) SR-91 being held Monday; June 16 and AB 1954 (Jeffries) 1-15 being held Tuesday, June 24; • Broad -based coalition of support; • AB 3034 (Galgiani) High Speed Rail - Staff recommendation:, Support; • AB 996 (Spitzer) Toll violation enforcement - Staff recommendation: Support with Amendments; • SB 1646 (Padilla) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Clean Fuels Program - Staff recommendation: Support; • SB 1507 (Oropeza) . Highway construction near schools - Staff recommendation: Oppose; and • H.R. 5102 (Calvert) -Our Nations Trade Infrastructure Mobility and Efficiency Act (ON TIME Act) - Staff recommendation: Support in Concept. - Commissioner M. Wilson requested clarification of AB 996 (Spitzer) regarding the Confidential Records Program (CRP); asking if there is a way to only allow law enforcement agencies to access the information aind pass through the funds to the local jurisdictions. He is concerned with the confidentiality and safety issues involved. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 17 Aaron Hake concurred with Commissioner M. Wilson and indicated staff will pass this suggestion on to Assemblymember Todd Spitzer for consideration. Commissioner Tavaglione stated with regard to SB 1507 (Oropez.a) that school districts do not have to go through any local governmental entity to build a school and suggested there may be better legislation to put the responsibility on the school district to not build near highways. Commissioner Kelly expressed opposition to AB 996 as he is opposed to a. private firm having access to confidential information. Chair Stone asked Commissioner Roy Wilson, in his role as a SCAQMD board member, for clarification regarding the administrative cap that will be raised from 3% to 5% through SB 1646 (Padilla) and if he believes the raise is justified. Commissioner R. Wilson replied SCAQMD has been spending about 5% in administrative costs as this is a very extensive program and SCAQMD has been supplementing those funds from other sources. Chair Stone recommended the Commissioners vote on each bill on an individual basis. At this time, Commissioner Miller left the room. M/S/C to receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; M/S/C (R. Wilson/Ashley) to adopt the position of Support fore AB 3034 (Galgiani); M/S/C (M. Wilson/Pettis) to adopt the position of Support with Amendments for AB 996 (Spitzer); No: Foat, Kelly, Mullany, and Stone M/S/C IR. Wilson/Lowe) to adopt the position of Support for SB 1646 (Padilla); No: Carlson and Magee Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 11, 2008 Page 18 M/S/C (Tavaglione/M. Wilson) to adopt the position of Oppose for SB 1507 (Oropeza); and No: Botts, Moller, and Roberts M/S/C (R. Wilson/Craton) to adopt the position Support in Concept for H.R. 5102 (Calvert). 12. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION There were no agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 13. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 13A. Commissioner M. Wilson announced the wife of Councilmember Richard Kite, city of Rancho Mirage, has passed away. 13B. Commissioner Rick Gibbs requested additional outreach for public education. 13C. Chair Stone requested to have a Commission meeting in the eastern portion of Riverside County. 13D. Commissioner Henderson complimented the Commission for its public outreach efforts and stated that she has never seen an agency such as the -Commission perform as much public outreach as this one has nor has she seen such consistent negative public comments on certain issues. Chair Stone concurred that the Commission does an excellent job of public outreach. He also believes that any public agency with the appropriate resources can always do more. 13E. Anne Mayer announced: • Two public meetings on the Perris Valley Line project scheduled for June 16 and 17; • Staff is beginning work on community outreach for the `1-15 project; • Robert Yates was promoted to Multimodal Services Director; • Brian Cunanan was promoted to Commuter Assistance Program Manager; and • New employee Gina Gallagher, Senior Staff Analyst, to the Right -of -Way Department; Riverside County Transportation Commission Mihutes June 11, 2008 Page 19 14. CLOSED SESSION 14A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) Names of Parties: RCTC and Liston Brick of Corona, et al. 14B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners See List of Property Owners Item APN Property Ownerls) 571-170-007 571-170-028 571-170-029 571-170-030 571-170-032 571-170-033 571-170-039 571-170-042 1 571-170-140 Winchester 700 571-170-141 580-470-003 580-470-004 580-480-001 900-070-001 900-070-008 900-070-009 900-070-010 15. 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., Wednesday, July 9, 2008, in the Board" Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, )x)^49-&._ Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • • • AGENDA ITEM 6 PUBLIC HEARING 11 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Fina Clemente, Staff Analyst Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2008/09 Allocation of Funding for Riverside County Transit Services PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the FY 2008/09 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 5311 Program of Projects (POP) for Riverside County; 2) Conduct a public hearing at the July Commission meeting on the proposed Section 5307 POP as attached; 3) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); 4) Approve the FY 2008/09 LTF and State Transit Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit as attached; and 5) Adopt Resolution No. 08-018, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Fund." BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its June 11, 2008, the Commission approved the FY 2008/09 through FY 2010/11 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for the cities of Banning, Riverside Special Services, Corona, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), Palo Verde Valley Transit Authority and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program. The SRTPs cover the county's three apportionment areas and outline the planned operating and capital expenditures for a three-year period. Actual operating and capital fund allocations are requested only for year one of the three-year plan. As the transportation planning agency, the Commission is responsible for planning transit services, allocation of transit funds, and operator oversight/fiduciary responsibilities. The approved SRTPs provide the basis for the oversight activities. At this time, Beaumont has completed its SRTP document for FY 2008/09 but due to its late submittal, its SRTP has not been reviewed and approved. Staff Agenda Item 6 1 recommends that the allocation be approved with funds approved for disbursement only upon final review and staff approval of the SRTP document. Staff anticipates bringing the city of Beaumont`s SRTP forward to the Commission for action in fall 2008. SRTP Financial and Ridership Overview The FY 2008/09 SRTPs estimate that $178,695,563 in funding is required to support the operating and capital requests for the provision of Riverside County transit services. The following chart provides an overview of the operating and capital costs together with projected ridership levels by apportionment area and transit operator: FY 2008/09 Operating, Capital and Ridership AGENCY/APPORTIONMENT AREA Operating Capital City of Banning $ 1,265,087 $ 862,300 City of Beaumont* $ 1,140,246 $ 198,090 City of Corona $ 2,133,373 $ 306,276 Riverside Special Services $ 3,170,017 $ 1,230,000 Riverside Transit Agency $ 55,574,808 $ 7,839,411 Western County: Bus $ 63,283,531 $ 10,435,987 Western County: Rail $ 10,396,100 $ 20,066,708 WESTERN COUNTY: TOTAL $ 73,679,631 $ 30,502,695 SunUne Transit Agency $ 22,735,270 $ 14,795,540 COACHELLA VALLEY: TOTAL $ 22,735,270 $ 14,795,540 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency $ 931,949 $ 979,878 PALO VERDE VALLEY: TOTAL $ 931,949 $ 979,878 TOTAL: ALL AREAS $ 97,346,850 $ 46,278,113 Leverage of Commuter Rail Funds" Total: *City of Beaumont allocation requires approval of final SRTP. Total Costs $ 2,127,387. $ 1,338,246 $ 2,439,649 $ 4,400,017 $ 63,414,219 $ 73,719,518 $ 30,462,808 $ 104,182,326 $ 37,530,810 $ 37,530,810 $ 1,911,827 $ 1,911,827 $ 143,624,963 $ 35,070,600 $ 178,695,563 "*Commuter Rail's costs include RCTC's share of approximately $10.4 million plus LA Metro, OCTA and SANBAG's share of approximately $35 million (consists of $16,138,800 - Additional Commuter Rail operating subsidy plus $18,931,800 - Commuter Rail Farebox). Fiscal Year 2008/09 Operating and Capital Costs Ridership 147,000 108,700 232,873 160,000 7,641,193 8,289,766 3,143,274 11,433,040 3,577,536 3,577,536 46,615 46,515 15,057,091 The following chart provides an overview, by funding source, of the operating and capital costs required to provide transit services in Riverside County: Agenda Item 6 2 • • Federal - Formula Funds (Section 5307 & 5311) $24,647,947 14% Prop 1B Capital & Security Funding $842,049 0% Federal -Discretionary Funds (Section 5309) $1,823,328 1% Riverside County: FY 2008/09 Operating and Capital Costs TDA (LTF & STA Funds) Measure A $74,725,575 _ $15,062,168 43% _\ _ 8% Add91 Commuter Rail Operating subsidy paid by _ - Sec 5316 & 5317 SANBAG, OCTA & LA — $519,385 Metro 0% $16,138,800 9% Other Miscellaneous Revenues CMAQ, AOMD & TUMF Passenger Fares $9,503,439 $3,225,649 $32:207.223 518°k % 2% Of the $178,695,563 amount identified in the above chart, approximately $61.08 million (34.2%) is derived from: • Passenger fares; • Western Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Air Quality Management District (AQMD) funds; • Miscellaneous other revenue; and • Commuter rail member agencies' revenue share and fuel rebate revenues. The remaining balance of approximately WI7.6 million (65.8%) consists of federal, state and local funds that are allocated through Commission action. Agenda Item 6 3 Request for Allocation of Fiscal Year 2008/09 Funding - Federal Funding: Section 5307, Section 5309 and Section 5311 Section 5307 Formula Funds On an annual basis, the FTA distributes federal operating and capital block grant funds to urbanized areas through its Section 5307 program. There are four urbanized areas in Riverside County: • Riverside/San Bernardino; • Hemet/San Jacinto; • Temecula/Murrieta; and • Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs. Prior to an operator submitting its Section 5307 grant application to FTA, the Commission must develop and approve a POP for each urbanized area and conduct a public hearing. Attachment 2 to this staff report is the proposed Section 5307 POP for Riverside County. The draft POP, if not amended through the public hearing process, will become final as presented and will be included in an approved RTIP and subsequently forwarded to the Southern California Association of Governments for review and processing. Section 5307 Formula Funds City of Riverside Special Services Riverside Transit Agency Commission Regional Commuter Rail SunLine Transit Agency $ 944,000 18, 574, 349 1,245,000 3,146,400, $ 23,909,749 The actual Section 5307 apportionments for FY 2008/09 will not be known until later this calendar -year when final appropriations are made by Congress. The POP was developed at the highest anticipated funding amount to allow the operators to proceed with their grant applications and to avoid delays associated with program amendments and additional paperwork should the actual apportionments come in lower than estimated. Balances, if any, will be carried over to subsequent fiscal years and will be made available to meet future transit needs. Section 5309 Discretionary Funds The Section 5309 program provides capital assistance, on a discretionary basis, for new and replacement buses and related facilities. For FY 2008/09, RTA and SunLine have identified projects totaling $1,823,328 in Section 5309 discretionary funds. Prior to the operators accessing these funds, the projects must be included in an approved RTIP. Agenda Item 6 4 • • Section 5311 Formula and Discretionary Funds The Section 5311 Rural Transit Assistance program available through the FTA provides federal operating assistance funds for rural transit operators. These funds are administered by Caltrans and the majority of the funds are passed through to counties based on a population formula. The remaining funds, if sufficient to justify a call for projects, are awarded in a statewide discretionary program by Caltrans for rural capital projects and intercity bus programs. Transit operators in counties where formula funds are fully programmed submit projects for discretionary funding to Caltrans. In order for grants to be approved, the Commission must develop and approve a Section 5311 POP. This year's program was prepared using the FY 2007/08 funding level for transit operations. As with the Section 5307 program, the actual apportionments will not be known until later this calendar -year when final appropriations are made by Congress. By programming at what may be a higher level of funding, the operators will be able to apply for maximum funding and avoid delays and additional work to amend programs and grants. The proposed program allocates the estimated $738,198 in formula funds for Riverside County in FY 2008/09 to RTA at 61.7% and SunLine at 38.3%. The 61.7%/38.3% formula was approved by the Commission in 1987 and was based on the level of service each agency operated in the non -urbanized areas of the county. In FY 2002/03, Commission staff discussed the formula with staff from RTA and SunLine to determine if the formula was still applicable. Both agencies agreed that the formula should remain at the current percentage splits. The following is the proposed FY 2008/09 Section 5311 Program of Projects: Section 5311 Formula Funds County - 100% Federal Funds Available $738,198 RTA — 61.7% SunLine - 38.3% $455,468 $282,730 Both RTA and SunLine identified the use of Section 5311 formula funds for operating during FY 2008/09. Should additional funds be identified, available funds will be carried over and available for programming in FY 2009/10. Transportation Development Act Funding The TDA provides two major sources of funding for public transportation. The first, LTF, provides for a % cent of the 7 % % state retail sales tax collected in each county. The state Board of Equalization returns the sales tax revenues to the county of Riverside where it is held until the Commission provides written Agenda Item 6 5 allocation instructions for disbursement. For FY 2008/09, it is estimated that LTF revenue for transit services will be $62,837,1101. STA funding is the second source of TDA funds. STA funds are generated from the statewide sales tax on motor vehicle fuel (gasoline and diesel). The STA funds are appropriated to the state controller for allocation by formula to each transportation planning agency. The Commission is responsible for the allocation of these funds for Riverside County. The formula allocates 50% of the funds on the basis of the region's population compared to the state's population (STA 99313 funds). The remaining 50% is allocated according to the prior year proportion of the region's transit operator passenger fare and local support revenues (STA 99314 funds). According to the state controller's office, the amount of STA funds projected to be received in Riverside County for FY 2008/09 is $20,693,290 (S18,030,677-is 99313 discretionary funds and S2,662,613 is 99314 non -discretionary operator funds). Prior to approving the STA allocations, the Commission must adopt the attached resolution as specified in the TDA statutes, California Code of Regulations. In order for the public transit operators to claim LTF and/or STA funds for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the FY 2008/09 SRTP. The requested allocations are consistent with the approved SRTPs and the funds are explicitly for the projects as stated in the approved plans. Attached to this staff report are the specific operators' requested TDA allocations for FY 2008/09. Staff recommends the approval of the TDA and FTA funds as presented. As in previous years, any modifications in fare box revenues, federal grants, Measure A funding, or carry over funds may require operators to revise their services to operate within the funding limitations. Fiscal Impact The FY 2008/09 budget adopted at the June 11, 2008 Commission meeting included $74,087,000 in LTF transit operating expenditures, $1,046,400 in LTF. capital expenditures and $22,928,000 in STA capital expenditures. These budgeted expenditures are expected to be funded by FY 2008/09 revenues as well as available fund balance. No budget adjustments are required based on these recommended allocations. Of the $62,837,11.0 LTF amount, $6,283,711 has been set aside as reserve funds based on Commission approved policy. Agenda Item 6 6 • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $57,542,483 (LTF) $17,183,092 (STA) Source of Funds: Transportation Deve opment Act: LTF and STA Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE Western County Bus Western County Bus 601 62 86101 P2210 $34,475,754 Western County Rail 241 62 86102 P2201 $5,963,913 Western County Rail 601 62 86101 P2213 $ 9,296,100 Coachella Valley 241 62 86102 P2213 $2,031,004 Coachella Valley 601 62 86101 P2211 $12,823,846 Palo Verde Valley 241 62 86102 P2202 $8,596,977 Palo Verde Valley 601 62 86101 P2212 $ 834,999 601 62 86102 P2212 $ 111,784 241 62 86102 P2203 $ 591,198 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \j/lbwid n Date: 6/17/08 Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 08-018 2) Section 5307 Program of Projects 3) TDA spreadsheets (LTF and STA) Agenda Item 6 7 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 08-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has examined the Short Range Transit Plans and Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for claimants to meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268.9, as applicable; and WHEREAS, the claimant is making full use of federal funds available under the Federal Transit Act; and WHEREAS, the sum of the claimant's allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority regional, countywide, or area -wide public transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 99244; and WHEREAS, the claimant is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979, from employing part-time drivers or contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license; and • ATTACHMENT 1 WHEREAS, operators are in full compliance with Section 18081.1 of the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code Section 99251. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allocate State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 2008/09 as detailed in Attachment 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 2008. Jeff Stone, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: • Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 9 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2008/09 URBANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) _ Bus Rail Apportionment $8,616,377 $5,117,822 Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover $6,342,456 $14,522,313 Total Funds Available $14,958,833 $19,640,135 Less Current Requests $14,951,885 $1 245 000 Balance (Projected) $6,948 $18,395,135 Sub Area Allocation Corona, City of $0 Riverside, City of $944,000 . Riverside Transit Agency $14,007,885 RCTC's Commuter Rail $1,245,000 TOTAL $16,196,885 ATTACHMENT Page 1 of 4 FEDERAL DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS TOTAL AMOUNT SHARE PROJECT TYPE RECIPIENT Riverside, City of 1) Preventive Maintenance $ 100,000 $ 80,000 Capital/Operaling SCAG 2) Purchase of Equipment $ 20,000 $ 16,000 Capital SCAG 3) Purchase of Communications Equipment $ 30,000 $ 24,000 Capital SCAG :) Fleet Bay Expansion $ 1,030,000 $ 824,000 Capital SCAG TOTAL: City of Riverside $ 1,180,000 $ 944,000 Riverside Transit Agency 5) Capitalized Preventative Maintenance $ 7,977,548 $ 5,949,180 Capital/Operating SCAG 6) Capital Cost of Contracting $ 7,178,429 $ 5,742,743 Capital SCAG 7) COP Debt Service $ 2,032,357 $ 1,625,886 Capital SCAG 8) Replacement Support Vehicle $ 53,875 $ 43,100 Capital SCAG 9) Facility Maintenance $ 429,720 $ - 343,776 Capital SCAG 10) Information Systems $ 379,000 $ 303,200 Capital SCAG TOTAL: Riverside Transit Agency $ 18,050,929 $ 14,007,885 RCTC's Commuter Rail 11) SCRRA Rehab/Renovation - FY 09 RCTC's share $ 1,557,000 $ 1,245,000 Capital SCAG TOTAL: RCTC Rail $ 1,557,000 $ 1,245,000 TOTAL: GRAND TOTAL $ 20,787,929 $ 16,196,885 Approved: 7/09/08(Pending) Page 1 V:UClemente153071POPlRivSan Bemardino0809.xls 10 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 of 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2008/09 URBANIZED AREA: HEMET/SAN JACINTO RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior, year actuals) Apportionment $1,778,355 Carryover $0 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) $0 Total Funds Available $1,778,355 Less Current Requests $1,778,355 Balance (Projected) $0 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1) Operating assistance $ 45,432,968 $ 1,778,355 Operating Caltrans TOTAL: $ 45,432,968 $ 1,778,355 Approved: 7/09/08(Pending) Pagel V:UClemente\5307\POPWemet- San Jacinto UZAxls 11 i ATTACHMENT Page 3 of 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2008/09 URBANIZED AREA: INDIO/CATHEDRAL CITY/PALM SPRINGS RECIPIENT: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment $3,347,820 Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover $0 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) $0 Total Funds Available $3,347,820 Less Current Requests $3,146,400 Balance (Projected) $201,420 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) TOTAL: Capitalized Preventive Operating/ SCAG Maintenance $1,20Q000 $960,000 Capital Transit Enhancements $750,000 $600,000 Capital SCAG Expansion Buses - Paratransit $665,000 $532,000 Capital SCAG Support Vehicles (Expansion) $84,000 $67,200 Capital SCAG Support Vehicles (Replacement) $324,000 $259,200 Capital SCAG Computer 8 Office Equipment $110,000 $88,000 Capital SCAG ITS Equipment $1,500,000 $200,000 Capital SCAG Facility Improvements $450,000 $360,000 Capital SCAG Maintenance Equipment $100,000 $80,000 Capital SCAG $5,183,000 $3,146,400 Approved: 7/9/08 (Pending) ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 Page 3 of 4 12 ATTACHMENT Page 4 of 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2008/09 URBANIZED AREA: TEMECULA/MURRIETA RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment $2,788,109 Lapsing Funds (per FTA) $0 Carryover $0 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) $0 Total Funds Available $2,788,109 Less Current Requests $2,788,109 Balance (Projected) $0 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1) Capitalized Preventive Maintenance $ 4,192,660 $ 2,164,292 Operating/Capital SCAG 2) Operating Assistance $ 15,304,308 $ 623,817 Operating SCAG TOTAL: $19,496,968 $2,788,109 Approved: 7/9/08(Pending) Page 1 V3JCIemente153071POP\Temecula-Murrieta:xls 13 • suopeOPIN V1S All 90/LOOZ ,1d 1/id 91.:Zt 900Z/9Z/9 • spcuopeoollV tl1S 4oseoolld All/8luawalOf 49L'LU 40L'LLL b9L'lll 6 reo�oz nAn� $ 669'0€VLS $ 666'4E8 666'b£9 ere'£Zet eve'£ze'z 004'06n 00L'96t6 b0L'S1b'b£ L L6b£8'LZ 9L0'£9L'Z 969'999'l 299'9£0'1 $ L£9'9£l'l $ 60/900Z AA spunA lella eO All spun] ou.1ereo0 All �L aBed 3WHOV1IV �L d121S 60/800Z Ad /0 leAwdde Bulpued anellene apew aq plm =moue lenuuy :eloN •els= 6upeJado;O eiege s,01021 s! 004'96£'01.$ lun0we leL6;0 :dndS 10 b elgel Jed IN 9' Lb$ le palew!lse eJe s1s00 660J000 s,lle21 Jelnwwo0 £817'ZVS'LS $ 08V'Z80'98 $ E9617Z9'£46 $ . E66`8LZ'9V $ 058'917E`L6 $ 9V101301M A1Nf20O E9e946 £8L'9b6 948'E29'2 L 949'£Z9'ZL 00 L'96Z'6 00 L'962'6 45e6L4'4£ L66'0£8'LZ SL0'£SL'2 869'999' L L85'9E0' L L£S'9£L'L 440'$96 bb0'S96 496.901'4Z b96'90L'bZ 80L'99 L' LZ SOL' 99 L' L Z 49L'£4Z'6£ ZO£'C99'S£ Z00'LL9'L L96'ZSL 699' l0£ $ OS8'886 GU' LW 120'LL6'4 OL9'0£S'L£ OL8'OES'L£ 808$94'0£ 909'Z9b'0£ 9LS%LL'£L 6LZ'blb'£9 L L O'OOb'b 649'6£b'Z 9t729££' L $ L0V/2L'Z 00/900Z 93f1N3A3a dll Ad 210d SN011V0011V NON 031VWI1S3 lISNV211 dll 030N3WW00321 9L8'6L6 9L9'6L6 04S'S6V4l 0179'S6L'17L 80L'990'0Z 90L'990'0Z L86'S£b'0 L L Lb'6£S'L 000'0£Z' L 9LV90£ 000'96 L $ 00£'Z99 S 1V101 031VWI1S3 646' LE6 A311VA 30213n OIVd 1V101 6b6' L£6 lous6y llsueJl XelleA ormeA oled OLZ'S£L'ZZ OG2'S£L'ZZ 00 L'96£'0 L OO L'96£'0L L£S'£9Z'£9 908'bL4'S5 LLO'OLL'£ EL£'E£CZ 91720b l' L $ L80'99Z'l Sl$00 1V11dV0 031VWI1S3 $ S1S00 ONI1V213d0 031VW11S3 A311VA V113H0V00:1V101 Roue6y llsueJl eununS .11V2! aainWW00 • 3016N3A121 Na3163M 1V101 NollOJlalry) Ilea Jelnulwo0 9,010.8 sne • 301SN3AI21 NN31S3M 1V101 A01.1e6y llsueJl eppanla saOlnJaS lepedS eppienN 6=00;o A60 luowneeg;o Apo 661066E p A110 V321V 1N3WN011210ddV1AON3OV :SONIld NO111/1210dSNV211 1b/001'. SNOLLV3011V 11SNVM160/800Z Ad ONIONflA 19V 1N31/4dOl3A30 NOLLV1210dSNV211 NOISSIWW00 NOLLV1210dSNV211 A1Nf100 301S213A121 • • Z60'E8L`L4$ - $ 964' 46S 86l'l69 LL6'96V8 LL6'969'9 400' 1.En 400' LEO'z £L6'E96'S 6££'46£'4 000' 9 a 92190E 000'96l $ 86z'64a - 80/900Z Ad 60/800Z Ad spun] spund le8deO V1S &mend() V1S Z 1.0 Z eBed £ 1N3WH3V.L1`d 'd1219 60/800Z Ad p lenadde 6uipued eigenene spew eq piM uNeoone lenuuy :eloN Z60`£86`LL $ $ Z60`£86`LL $ $ 1V10131:1IM A1Nnoo 86 4' 46S 86l' l69 LL6'9603 LL6'969'8 ti00' L£0'Z 400'L£0'Z 86V1.65 86 L' l69 LL6'965'8 LL6'969'8 b00`L£0`Z 1400' L£0'Z A311VA 30213A O1Vd 1V101 Aoue6y lisueii RepeA epaeA oled A311VA V113H0V00 :1V101 Roua6y pueal eununS 11V21 213111WW03 • 301S213AR1 N2131S3M :1V101 Olu11049M Ile2i Jelnwwo0 s,01021 £46'E96'2 £46'£96`S • sne • 30IS213n12I N2131S3M 1V101 6££`176£'b 6££'b6£'4 000'91.Z 000'92 9LV90£ 92Z'90£ 000'861. $ 000'861. $ 86V649 $ - $ 86Z'648 $ - 60/800Z Ad SaNfld 210d SNOI1V0011V 213n0 ANNY0 11SNV LL V1S V1S a31VWI1S3 030N3W1N00321 S1S031VlidV3 S 0-3 V1S 031VWI1S3 JNI1V213d0 V1S 031VWI1S3 /oue6y eplsaenN seopuee lepede episienN emo0 }o (310 wowneee 6wuuee V321V 1N3WN01121OddV/A0N3OV :SUNf13 30NV1SISSY 11SNV21131V1S SNOLI.V0011V lISNV211 60/800Z Ad ONIQNN 10171N3Wd013A30 NOLLV1210ASN'd211 NOISSIWW03 N011V1210dSNV211 A1N1100 301S213A121 AGENDA ITEM 8A L • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Transit Administration Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Proposed Goal for Federal Fiscal Year 2008/09 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt 6.4% as its annual Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for FFY 2008/09 from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 08-019, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2008/09 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 2008/09 and receive comments for 45 days; and 4) Submit the FFY 2008/09 FTA DBE program and annual goal to the FTA. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the FTA, 49 CFR Part 26, the Commission must adopt its DBE annual goal as a condition to receive a commitment for federal financial assistance from the FTA as a direct recipient. For FFY 2008/09, it is proposed that the annual FTA DBE goal be 6.4%. Statistics were based on the U.S. Census Bureau "County Business Patterns" for 2005, using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). As in previous years, staff used statistics within the four -county area - Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino - that the Commission draws bids from. The analysis attached to this staff report details the formula utilized in developing the overall annual goal for FFY 2008/09. Agenda Item 8A 16 For FFY 2007/08, the Commission set an annual DBE goal of 3.59%. To date, the total percentage of DBE award is 9.54%. The Commission awarded two FTA funded Consultant Contracts and one FTA funded Construction Contract. The DBE percentage achieved was 9.54%. Staff anticipated awarding the Construction of the Perris Multimodal Facility contract in FFY 2007/08. But due to design, right-of-way, and funding issues, this was delayed until FFY 2008/09. For FFY 2008/09, there is one project receiving direct FTA funding: Perris Multimodal Facility Scope of Work — Construction of the Perris Multimodal Facility at the site of the future Perris Metrolink commuter rail station. Estimated Total Amount of Contract: S 4,168,680 Estimated Federal Funds: S 2,715,273 As required, the public notice has been published in the newspaper to inform the public of the proposed goals and the rationale for setting the goal. These documents are available for inspection at the Commission for 30 days following the date of the notice, with a 45-day comment period. If there are no substantive comments received, the adopted goal and goal methodology shall be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration prior to the start of the FFY on October 1, 2008. Attachments: 1) DBE Goal Methodology 2) Resolution No. 08-019 Agenda Item 8A • 17 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM PROPOSED ANNUAL OVERALL GOAL FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FUNDED PROJECTS I. GOAL METHODOLOGY As required by Federal Regulations 49 CFR Section 26, public agencies receiving Federal Department of Transportation -assisted funds must adopt its annual overall DBE goal by using every effort to meet its goal through race neutral measures. Agencies may establish specific contract goals, including goals for particular projects through subcontracting opportunities, in those instances when race neutral measure are not sufficient to meet the Commission's overall goal. The following methodology was used in establishing a Base Figure for DBE availability for FFY 2008/09: • NUMERATOR - DBE firms in the four -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange) DENOMINATOR — Total number of construction firms, the work category identified within the four -county area based on the most recent available data from the U.S. Census Bureau — 2005 Under the Construction/Consulting Categories, the following lists the number of DBEs in each of the four county areas: CONSTRUCTION CALTRANS DBE CODE NAICS COUNTY FIPS CODE COUNTY NO. OF FIRMS 19 037 Los Angeles 13,272 30 059 Orange 6,818 33 065 Riverside 4,408 36 071 San Bernardino 3,465 TOTAL 27,963 Of the 27,963 firms, there are 579 identified available DBE firms in the Caltrans DBE directory of firms in the construction work codes that operate within the four- county areas. 18 CONSULTING SERVICES CALTRANS DBE CODE NAICS COUNTY FIPS CODE COUNTY NO. OF FIRMS 19 037 Los Angeles 29,820 30 059 Orange 13,330 33 065 Riverside 2,956 36 071 San Bernardino 2,326 TOTAL 48,432 Of the 48,432 firms, there are 333 identified available DBE firms in the Ca!trans DBE directory of firms in the consultant services work codes that operate within the four -county areas. The following lists the total amount of contracts in each of the Work Category and the projected federal funds for FFY 2008/09. WORK CATEGORY AMOUNT OF FY 2008/09 CONTRACTS ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS % OF FEDERAL FUNDS Consultant Services $0 $0 0.00% Construction (Including Materials and Trucking) $4,168,680 $2,715,273 65.14% The formula that is provided to determine calculation of DBE goal is as follows. The weighted Base Figure is calculated by first determining the number of ready, willing, and able DBEs in the four counties for the work category shown above, divided by the number of total firms in the category. Using this method determines the availability by the number of firms that have directly participated in, or attempted to participate in, past federally -funded assisted contracting efforts. The application of the formula yields the following baseline information: Number of. Ready, Willing and Able DBEs Number of All Ready, Willing and Able Firms The Base Figure resulting from the calculation is as follows: A. Construction 579 = 2.07°% 27,963 Base Figure 19 • • • B. Consulting Services 333 = 0.69% 48,432 C. Base Figure Using the percentage of federal funds projected to be available for FFY 2008/09 and the percentage of available for each DBEs for each work category, the result is a base figure of 0.45% 0.00 ( 579 ) + 0.6514( 333 ) = 0.0045 27,963 48,432 II. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BASE FIGURE: Staff reviewed and assessed other known relevant evidence to determine what additional adjustments, if any, were needed to adapt the Base Figure to the four -county area marketplace. Several factors as outlined under Title 49 were considered to see if there was a need to adjust the base goal. In reviewing last year's goal, the Commission set a 3.59% annual goal based on the DBEs available in the four -county area. In awarding its federally - funded projects for this fiscal year, the Commission awarded two (2) FTA funded Consultant Contracts and one (1) FTA funded Construction Contract.. The DBE percentage achieved was 9.54%. Staff anticipated awarding the Construction of the Perris Multimodal Facility contract in FFY 2007/08. But due to design, right-of-way, and funding issues, this was delayed until FFY 2008/09. Staff is recommending that an adjustment be made to the base figure using the difference of its FY 2007/08 annual goal, 3.59%, and the attained percentage to date, 9.54%, which results in an adjustment of 5.95%. With the adjustment, the base figure and the proposed goal for FY 2008/09 is 6.4%. III. ANTICIPATED PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 The following project represents the projected Federal Transit Administration funded contracts for DBE Federal Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. 20 A. Perris Multimodal Facility Scope of Work — Construction of the Perris Multimodal Facility at the site of the future Perris Metrolink commuter rail station. Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $ 4,168,680 Estimated Federal Funds: $ 2,715,273 IV. UTILIZATION OF RACE/GENDER-NEUTRAL METHOD Staff foresees meeting the proposed 6.4% goal utilizing race -neutral methods by: 1) making efforts to ensure that the Request for Proposals (RFPs) and Invitation for Bids (IFBs) process and the contracting requirements facilitate participation by DBEs and other small businesses; 2) encouraging the prime consultant and contractors to subcontract portions of the work to DBEs; 3) distributing the RFPs and IFBs to organizations that represent and assist DBEs; and, 4) listing the RFPs and IFBs on the Commission website www.rctc.org. V. PUBLIC NOTICE IN SETTING OVERALL ANNUAL DBE GOAL As required, the public notice informs the public of the proposed goals and the rationale for setting the goal, which are available for inspection at the Commission for 30 days following the date of the notice. The Commission will receive comments for 45 days. If there are no substantive comments received, the adopted goal and goal methodology shall be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration prior to the start of the FFY on October 1, 2008. VI. ESTABLISHMENT OF GOAL Based on the information presented in the report, it is proposed that the Commission's overall DBE goal for FFY 2008/09 be established at 6.4%. 21 • RESOLUTION NO. 08-019 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING ITS FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND GOAL (49 CFR PART 26) AS APPLIES TO FUNDING RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) adopted its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program in 1999; WHEREAS, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision regarding the Washington State Department of Transportation, determined that sufficient evidence must exist to support the use of race conscious measures on federal -aid contracts; WHEREAS, the Commission is still required, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 26, to adopt a DBE goal and implement its DBE program as applies to federal funding received by the Commission directly from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA); WHEREAS, the methodology to determine the agency's DBE goal shall be in accordance with 49 CFR Part 26; WHEREAS, the Commission is a direct recipient of FTA funds; WHEREAS, the Commission does not currently have sufficient evidence of discrimination or its effects which would .support the adoption or implementation of a race -conscious DBE goal; 22 WHEREAS, in light of the Ninth Circuit ruling and the FTA directive, and in accordance with 49 CFR Part 26, the Commission has utilized all race- neutral methodology in calculating the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2008/09 DBE goal. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission amends its DBE program goal for FFY 2008/09 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). SECTION 2. The Commission goal for FFY 2008/09 shall be 6.4 %. SECTION 3. The Commission shall implement a race -neutral DBE program, and shall take affirmative steps to utilize race -neutral means . of meeting its overall goal. ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 2008. Jeff Stone, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 23 AGENDA ITEM 8B • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Proposed Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level for Federal Fiscal Year 2008/09 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt 0.45% as its Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) for FFY 2008/09 from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 08-020, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2008/09 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level as Applies to Funding Received from the Federal Highway Administration Through Cahrans "; 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 2008/09 DBE program and AAPDL to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation and FTA, 49 CFR Part 26, and the "DBE Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies" with Caltrans, the Commission must adopt its AADPL as a condition to receive a commitment for federal financial assistance from FHWA through Caltrans. For FFY 2008/09, it is proposed that the AADPL be 0.45%. Statistics were based on the U.S. Census Bureau "County Business Patterns" for 2005, using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). As in previous years, staff used statistics within the four -county area — Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino — areas that the Commission draws bids from. The analysis attached to this staff report details the formula utilized in developing the AADPL for FFY 2008/09. Agenda Item 8B 24 For FFY 2007/08, the Commission set an AADPL of 4.47%. However, the funding source for the projects that were anticipated for award, Perris Multimodal Facility and North Main Corona parking structure, was changed to FTA. Therefore, the total percentage of DBE award for FFY 2007/08 is 0.0%. For FFY 2008/09, there is a possibility that the funding source for the Perris Multimodal Facility will be changed from FTA to FHWA. Therefore, in anticipation of this potential funding change, the Perris Multimodal Facility is listed as an anticipated project for FFY 2008/09, which will assist in the. development of the AADPL Perris Multimodal facility Scope of Work - Construction of the Perris Multimodal Facility at the site of the future Perris Metrolink commuter rail station. Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $ 4,168,680 Estimated Federal Funds: $ 2,715,273 Attachments: 1) AADPL Goal Methodology 2) Resolution No. 08-020 3) Annual Submittal Form Agenda Item 8B 25 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 ANNUAL ANTICIPATED DBE PARTICIPATION LEVEL (AADPL) FOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FUNDED PROJECTS RCTC is required to calculate the Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) and utilization that RCTC expects can be achieved on contracts that are to be awarded within its jurisdiction in the following federal fiscal year. This information must be provided to Caltrans, for Caltrans' use in establishing the statewide overall AADPL. I. AADPL METHODOLOGY The following methodology was used in establishing the AADPL for FFY 2008/09: • NUMERATOR - DBE firms in the four -county area (Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Orange) • DENOMINATOR - Total number of construction firms, the work category identified within the four -county area based on the most recent available data from the U.S. Census Bureau - 2005 Under the Construction/Consulting Categories, the following lists the number of DBEs in each of the four county areas: CONSTRUCTION CALTRANS DBE CODE NAICS COUNTY FIPS CODE COUNTY NO. OF FIRMS 19 037 Los Angeles 13,272 30 059 Orange 6,818 33 065 Riverside 4,408 36 071 San Bernardino 3,465 TOTAL 27,963 Of the 27,963 firms, there are 579 identified available DBE firms in the Caltrans DBE directory of firms in the construction work codes that operate within the four - county area. 26 CONSULTING SERVICES CALTRANS DBE CODE NAICS COUNTY FIPS CODE COUNTY NO. OF FIRMS 19 037 Los Angeles 29,820 30 059 Orange 13,330 33 065 Riverside 2,956 36 071 San Bernardino 2,326 TOTAL 48,432 Of the 48,432 firms, there are 333 identified available DBE firms in the Ca[trans DBE directory of firms in the consultant services work codes that operate within the four -county area. The following lists the total amount of contracts in each of the Work Category and the projected federal funds for FFY 2008/09. WORK CATEGORY AMOUNT OF FFY 08-09 CONTRACTS ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS % OF FEDERAL FUNDS Consultant Services $0 $0 0% Construction (Including Materials and Trucking) $4,168,680 $2,715,273 65.14% The formula that is provided to determine calculation of AADPL is as follows. The weighted Base Figure is calculated by first determining the number of ready, willing, and able DBEs in the four counties for the work category shown above, divided by the number of total firms in the category. Using this method determines the availability by the number of firms that have directly participated in, or attempted to participate in, past federally -funded assisted contracting efforts. The application of the formula yields the following baseline information: Number of Ready, Willing and Able DBEs = Base Figure Number of All Ready, Willing and Able Firms 27 III. ANTICIPATED PROJECTS FOR FFY 2008/09 As of the date of this item, no projects have been identified to receive Federal Highway Administration funding. But there is a slight possibility that the funding source for the Perris Multimodal Facility will be changed from FTA to FHWA. Therefore, in anticipation of this potential funding change the Perris Multimodal Facility is listed as an anticipated project for 2008/2009 which will assist in the development of the AADPL. A. Perris Multimodal Facility Scope of Work — Construction of the Perris Multimodal Facility at the site of the future Perris Metrolink commuter rail station. Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $ 4,168,680 Estimated Federal Funds: $ 2,715,273 IV. UTILIZATION OF RACE/GENDER-NEUTRAL METHOD Staff foresees meeting the proposed 0.45% goal utilizing race -neutral methods by: 1) making efforts to ensure that the Request for Proposals (RFPs) and Invitation for Bids (IFBs) process and the contracting requirements facilitate participation by DBEs and other small businesses; 2) encouraging the prime consultant and contractors to subcontract portions of the work to DBEs; 3) distributing the RFPs and IFBs to organizations that represent and assist DBEs; and, 4) listing the RFPs and IFBs on the Commission website www.rctc.org. V. ESTABLISHMENT OF AADPL Based on the information presented in the report, it is proposed that the Commission's overall AADPL for FFY 2008/09 be established at 0.45%. • 29 • • RESOLUTION NO. 08-020 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING ITS FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND ANNUAL ANTICIPATED DBE PARTICIPATION LEVEL AS APPLIES TO FUNDING RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION THROUGH CALTRANS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission adopted its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in 1999; WHEREAS, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision regarding the Washington State Department of Transportation, determined that sufficient evidence must exist to support the use of race conscious measures on federal -aid contracts; WHEREAS, Caltrans conducted an assessment of its DBE program, including an extended public comment period, and determined that the use of race conscious programs and goals could violate the Ninth Circuit ruling, which is controlling authority for California; WHEREAS, as of May 1, 2006, Caltrans adopted and began implementing the "California Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan" ("Caltrans DBE program") to institute a race -neutral DBE program at both the state and local level; WHEREAS, the Caltrans DBE program replaces the existing Caltrans race -conscious DBE program as well as all existing local agency DBE programs, unless a local agency program has been directly approved by a federal agency; 30 WHEREAS, local agencies no longer have their own separate DBE programs, but must instead complete a "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race -Neutral Implementation Agreement" between the local agency and Caltrans; WHEREAS, rather than establishing their own DBE goals, local agencies are now required to calculate their Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) based on factors set forth in the Local Programs Procedures, which revise the Local Assistance Procedures Manual to provide for a solely race -neutral program, and to submit the AADPL to Caltrans via the "DBE Annual Submittal Form" for the relevant federal fiscal year; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the Caltrans DBE program and authorizes the Chair to take the following actions: A. Execute the Local Agency "DBE -Annual Submittal Form" on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to legal counsel review, as Exhibit A to this resolution; SECTION 2. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts 0.45% as its Annual Anticipated DBE participation Level (AADPL) for the FFY 2008/09. 31 ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 2008. Jeff Stone, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 32 • Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form TO: CALTRANS DISTRICT 8 District Local Assistance Engineer The amount of the Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) and methodology are presented herein, in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, and the State of California, Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Plan. The Riverside County Transportation Commission submits our AADPL information. We have established an AADPL of 0.45% for the Federal Fiscal Year 2008/2009, beginning on October 1 through September 30. Methodology RCTC followed the methodology as outlined in Chapter 9 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM). The base figure for the relative availability of DBE's was determined by using DBE Directories and Census Bureau Data. This base figure was adjusted based on the current capacity of DBEs to perform work on RCTC projects as measured to the volume of Work DBE's have performed in recent years. Disadvantaged Business RCTC's DBELO is Mailing Address: 4080 Phone: (951) 787-7141 Prompt Pay Federal regulation (49 federal -aid contracts to the prime contractor or RCTC has identified the Submitted by: Enterprise Liaison Officer (DBELO) Jennifer Harmon — Clerk of the Board; Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, California, 92501; Fax: (951) 787-7920; email: jharmon@rctc.org CFR 26.29) requires one of three methods be used in ensure prompt and full payment of any retainage, kept by subcontractor, to a subcontractor. On the attached page Prompt Pay method that will be utilized. Jeff Stone, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission (Print Name) Reviewed by Caltrans: 1 of 2 Date 951-787-7141 Phone Number 33 Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer IDLAED Date Prompt Payment of Withheld Funds to Subcontractors Federal regulation (49 CFR 26.29) requires one of the following three methods be used in. federal -aid contracts to ensure prompt and full payment of any retainage kept by the prime contractor or subcontractor to a subcontractor. Please check the box of the method chosen by the local agency to ensure prompt and full payment of any retainage. ❑ No retainage will be held by the agency from progress payments due to the prime contractor. Prime contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from holding retainage from subcontractors. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating contractor or subcontractor to the penalties; sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impairany contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor, deficient subcontractor performance,and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors ❑ No retainage will be held by the agency from progress payments due the prime contractor. Any retainage kept by the prime contractor or by a subcontractor must be paid in full to the earning subcontractor in 30-days after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the contractor, deficient subcontractor performance, and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. ® The agency shall hold retainage from the prime contractor and shall make prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions, as determined by the agency of the contract work and pay retainage to the prime contractor based on these acceptances. The prime contractor or subcontractor shall return all monies withheld in retention from all subcontractors within 30 days after receiving payment for work satisfactorily completed and accepted including incremental acceptances of portions of the contract work by the agency. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the agency's prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating prime contractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies otherwise available to the contractor or subcontractor in the event of: a dispute involving late payment. or nonpayment by the contractor; deficient subcontractor performance and/or noncompliance by a subcontractor_ This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. 2 of 2 34 • AGENDA ITEM 8C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008. TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Disbandment of the Transit Policy Committee STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to disband the Transit Policy Committee and direct all transit agenda items to the Plans and Programs Committee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In May 2004, the Riverside County Transportation Commission directed the formation of a standing committee to accomplish four major goals. The four goals included: • Monitor transit implementation; • Review performance of operators; • Bring regional perspective to transit; and • Guide the preparation of a transit vision. The creation of the Committee was an outgrowth of the findings of the Commission's Triennial Performance Audit that recommended that the Commission develop a vision for transit service in Riverside County and to ensure its success by giving it a high priority and designating a dedicated committee consisting of Commissioners to guide it through the process. Over the course of approximately three years, the Transit Policy Committee addressed the issue of formulating a transit vision by addressing the following policy issues: • Route productivity; • Reserves: What, if any, is appropriate level; • Funds allocated, unclaimed; • State mandated farebox recovery ratio; • Accrual of interest on allocated, unclaimed funds; • Timeliness of spending allocated capital funds; and • Allocation of 2009 Measure "A" funds: Western Riverside. Agenda Item 8C 35 Thanks to the dedicated work of the Transit Policy Committee, these policy issues were thoroughly considered and culminated in the Commission's adoption of a Transit Vision in May. The Transit Vision provides the necessary framework to expand transit service throughout the county, address cost effectiveness and funding issues, helps ensure continued service for seniors and persons with disabilities and allocated the first 10 years of Western Riverside transit funding that is included in Measure A. Moreover the creation of the transit vision was the byproduct of a collaborative effort between the Commission and every public transit operator in the county. Given the successful adoption of the Transit Vision, staff recommends the disbanding of the Transit Policy Committee. The Committee's proscribed responsibilities in the triennial audit have been fulfilled and ongoing issues regarding public transit service and funding issues can be addressed by the Commission's Plans and Programs Committee. Since the original creation of the Transit Policy Committee was made possible through a formal action of the Commission, formal Commission approval is necessary to disband the Committee and reassign its policy responsibilities. The current Transit Policy Committee members are: Roger Berg, City of Beaumont, Chair John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Michael Wilson, City of Indio Frank West, City of Moreno Valley Frank Hall, City of Norco, Vice -Chair Daryl Busch, City of Perris Steve Adams, City of Riverside Ron Roberts, City of Temecula John Tavaglione, County of Riverside, District 2 Jeff Stone, County of Riverside, District 3 Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District 4 Attachment: Transit Policy Committee Minutes, May 22, 2008 Agenda Item 8C 36 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE May 22, 2008 Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Transit Policy Committee was called to order by Vice -Chair Frank Hall at 10:07 a.m. in Conference Room C, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Fifth Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present Steve Adams Daryl Busch John Chlebnik Frank Hall Ron Roberts Frank West Members Absent Roger Berg Jeff Stone John F. Tavaglione Michael Wilson Roy Wilson 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 21, 2008 M/S/C (Roberts/West) to approve the minutes of February 21, 2008 as submitted. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 37 Transit Policy Committee Minutes May 22, 2008 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (West/Roberts) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 6A. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT 1► Allocate $1,399,784 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) Local Transportation Fund (LTF) operating funds to cover federal. and Measure A funding shortfalls for operating assistance; 2) Allocate $444,000 in TDA State Transit Assistance (STA) capital funds to cover cost increases in the purchase of paratransit buses; 3) Approve Amendment No. 3 to the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional funding outlined above; 4) Amend the FY 2007/08 Budget by $1,843,784 to reflect the additional funding outlined above; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6B. PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT 1) Reallocate $100,000 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) State Transit Assistance (STA) capital funds from the Clean Natural Gas (CNG) fueling station project to the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) new office project; 2) Approve Amendment No. 1 to the PVVTA FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the reallocation of funding among the capital projects as outlined above; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. TRANSIT VISION ADOPTION AND RELATED FUNDING FORMULAS FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND MEASURE A FUNDS FOR 2009-2019 Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director, provided an overview of the Transit Vision and related funding formulas for Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A funds for 2009-2019 and discussed the following areas: 38 Transit Policy Committee Minutes May 22, 2008 Page 3 • Transit Vision elements; Transit Vision goals; • Trends/challenges ahead; The roadmap on future services for a 10-year initiative for Bus Transit, Specialized Transit, Commuter Rail, Commuter Assistance, and all modes and programs - trends/challenges and estimated costs; Expected outcome by 2019; Funding sources; Funding recommendations; Call to action - Need vs. available funds, advance planning, increase competitiveness for discretionary funding sources; and • Next steps. M/S/C IBusch/Roberts) to: 1) Adopt the Transit Vision for 2009-2019; 2) Continue the existing funding formula for the Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds [Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds): a) Coachella Valley - 100% public bus operator; b) Palo Verde Valley - 100% public bus operator (subject to the statutory "unmet needs hearing"); c) Western Riverside County - 78% public bus and 22% commuter rail operators; 3) Establish a funding formula for the Western Riverside County Public Transit Account of Measure A Ordinance No. 02-001: a) Allocate the Commuter Rail and Intercity Bus Service funds - 80% Commuter Rail and 20% Western Riverside County Public Bus Operators; b) Allocate 25% of Western Riverside County Specialized Transit funds to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) as the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency for Western Riverside County; 4) Approve a timeline for the TDA and Measure A funding formulas to be reviewed in FY 2018/19 with proposed changes to be implemented in FY 2020/21; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 39 Transit Policy Committee Minutes May 22, 2008 Page 4 8. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT INTERIM FUNDING Stephanie Wiggins provided an overview_ on the Western Riverside County Measure A Specialized Transit interim funding. M/S/C (Busch/Adams) to: 1) Approve up to $433,481 of additional Western Riverside County Measure A Specialized Transit funds to the approved grantees identified in Attachment 1 contingent upon grantee submittal of the Commission's Universal Specialized Transit application by June 16, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to extend the applicable grantee contracts through September 30, 2008; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. FISCAL YEARS 2008/09 - FY 2010/11 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Fina Clemente, Staff Analyst, provided an overview of the Fiscal Years 2008/09 - FY 2010/11 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) for the cities of Banning, Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), RTA, Surtine Transit Agency (SunLine), and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program. Commissioner Ron Roberts requested the status of combining the transit administrations of the cities of Banning and Beaumont. Commissioner John Chlebnik noted that the two cities coordinate schedules and routes, however, there are two separate transit administrations. Michelle Green, city of Banning, concurred that the routes and schedules are being coordinated between the cities of Banning and Beaumont. She said there have been several changes made recently with the city of 13eaumont's services. Her understanding is that there are a number of political issues with regard to having only one administration instead of two separate administrations. She noted that both cities have recently hired transit management firms and are beginning discussions. 40 Transit Policy Committee Minutes May 22, 2008 Page 5 In response to Commissioner Daryl Busch's question regarding the Commission's authority to direct the cities of Banning and Beaumont to establish a single administration, Steve DeBaun, legal counsel, stated that the Commission can encourage and facilitate the process. M/S/C (Busch/Adams) to: 1) Review and approve, in concept, the FY 2008/09 - FY 2010/11 Short Range Transit Plans for the cities of Banning, Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program, as presented; and 21 Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Transit Policy Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:47 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board k\CULH cyr—. 41 AGENDA ITEM 8D • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the third quarter ended March 31, 2008. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the third quarter ended March 31, 2008 under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at March 31, 2008 is $453,000. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of March 31, 2008. Agenda Item 8D 42 96'999'91 ZS'O9 90'SCV92 99'656't2 'Japenb p-041 041 PI paISO floalwoo mop apalaaldel Deis papaya :eloN Rq pemaInea SOIeUSID eIDy01Iry OD'000'ESOS 00'000'24 00'00012 roul 'easna•Hal WJoDaW ypm seolmea own J011pa W eel6y 00'000'009S 1NOOWV LOVNINOO 1NOOWVCIPid 11COPIV DNINIVW3tl .L0VN1N00 1VNIOIaO S30IAi13S d0 N011dINDS30 SODZ `6E HONtlW dO Sb AiwoHinv 32 nivNois 310NIS np paiedaid moyye0gmgeey amp/ 9002'09 Gunf yOnmyi ONINIVW3111N91091V (nen 1Nf10WV •aUl'09anS•)401W00511 2002't llnf 31SV11VAV LNrIOV1V 1Ny.onsN00 • • • AGENDA ITEM 8E • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Michael Blomquist, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2008 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the 2008 State Route 91 Implementation Plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Assembly Bill 1010 (Correa) allowed the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to purchase the 91 Express Lanes franchise from the California Private Transportation Company. The purchase agreement was completed in January 2003 at a cost of $207.5 million. AB 1010 also eliminated the existing non -compete clause in the franchise agreement that prohibited any capacity - enhancing improvements from being made to SR-91 until the year 2030. The purchase of the 91 Express Lanes and the elimination of the non -compete clause has allowed much -needed improvements to be planned and implemented within the SR-91 corridor. OCTA, the Commission, and Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 have been coordinating these improvements. Also required by AB 1010 is the creation and annual update of an implementation plan of SR-91 improvements for the State Legislature. This State Route 91 Implementation Plan was created by OCTA, in consultation with Caltrans and the Commission, and details proposed projects and completion schedules for transportation improvements between Riverside and Orange Counties. The plan includes improvements to Metrolink, express bus, freeways and interchanges, new east -west highway corridors, and high speed rail.. Attachment: 2008 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Presentation Agenda Item 8E 44 vipt ► W 800Z `£Z eunf uoiss!wwoo uogepodsueal Alunoo episaan!N gti Z 9 t7 6upuanbas laoibol pua ssaulpaaa Aq pazpeam spafoad Allanuua palapdn pua uol.alsibal peal Holt builgaua Aq paiinba� Al!I!gal!ana buipuni j.o wapuadapui swewenoadw! laqualod samTdao asaud wewdolanap auk us aaa spefoad snoaauanN lanaa� Awnoo-aawi anoadw! uald uoupq-mnVV • VI 0 • Lt sdais ixaN spAieua oweJT LON supwien aaaA uonEweweldw! padnoaO aaa saafoad spolle wawdolanap pafoad o Egt, uongsodoad ° y amsaaN oimd ° UV emsem pannauaV100 ° uald kleA lea aaaA-0 1. ° :salaaodaoaui alepdn uald 8O0Z 817 0'9Z 9'09 9'6 b'9£ £'bZ aanpn.4s 6upped uorps euc opails uieW N 11-dS o� 67Z-dS woo uogippy euei punocpse3 Alunoo lqunoo a6ueip — quewenoadwi sn8 ssaadx3 veld uoisuedx3 u.191-1.10yS )11.1!10.49 Tueweoeldad 6uissoJoJeno peod aanid u99a0 6dOZ aeeA A8 (W$) lso0 itaewwns pafaad .0N loofah] • 6ti £Eti$ S L'917 g' 66 001.11. 66 96 $ pienainog }uouped }e a6uepia}u1 ma 06 enuany ugsnl }e euei punogpsem 66-1:1S 6 s}uawanoadw! a6uegaaa}ui wa}sAs pue seuei ssaadx2 }o uoisuevg sJ0109uu00 }Demo pue speod 00 }seg uogoaaia peg ui euel dJ au° Aq 66-2:1S uap!M 8 peon{ (GO) ao}ngpsip-ao}oallopue spewenoidw! a6ueyaa}ul 66-�ISl6L-�JS 1 uogoaaiQ peg uw auei do y}g e 6uippy Aq 6b3-2iS '8 gg-bS uaann}ag 66-bS uep!M 9 S60Z JeaA Ag ( $) lsoo . AJewwng .pafoid •oN pafoad • 9 05 596 - 989 $ :lePgnS 00Z 5££ 06b - OS 6 $ squewenoadual e6ueuwelul 66- 1S/99-?:IS £6 quewenoadwi uops pue eovues 5140.491A1 Z4 ao}oauuo0 Ilol Aouedn000-u6!H/810NeA Apuedn000-116!H 1.6-2JS/117Z-?IS 66 (M) 3So3 itaeuawnS pa(oad ,oN pa(oad. • 69 089'8 $ :Ielopps a ai 096'9 OZL'Z $ Ile2� paadS-1-161H nodal d leuogewalul ouew) o} wIeLleuy 9L peoy oolefe0/96-101 ££6-bS/617Z-bS uao4 (8 aopluoa SI IN) 41!1Ped auel-b SI. 56-1 617Z-2i3 wo.g (d a013P-100 SI IN) AIVed auel-b pe}enal2 ti1. OCOZ A8 (NS) lsoa 'Limn nS 4aatoid •oN pafoad z5 saaaA uozpoq pua `wpaiui `buRsixa Jo; paluasaad silnseH sioafoad aorew to sweuaq smogs buinanb oglaar auil ew uo Ali ewpd pasnoo; lapow suoReJedo E1VV OEOZ 0£OZ /tuna° episienN 0 Ajunoo e6uwo OZOZ SLOZ LLOZ (LOOZ) 6w;six3 (swum ul) euall laneal aBeaany anoH plead Wbr SS- 1S o; S1.-1 uaoad 66-11S punognsem aullulew 900Z b00Z 01. OZ OE Ob OS 09 OL 09 QI- t9 Awnoo apisaanN a Awnoo a6ualo 9'8V OEOZ 0£OZ OZOZ 940Z 440Z `d LOOZ (LOOZ) 6up!x2 (swum! ui) quail WWI eBeaanyinoH dead Wd s4-I o4 ss-Ns woal 46-Ns punocpse3 aunumn 900Z OZ Ob 09 08 004 OZ4 6upeaui0ua pua Ienidaouoo aoj. Ouipunj lai.aad anau giOZ puoAeq si.oafoad papunl Ailn j aaa sloafoad L 1,OZ papunl Anna. aaa sioafoad Ila ioN uonq 5z' 1,s ApTewpcoadda si uald sluff ui si.oafoad isoo la�ol z� 95 seplunpoddo 6uipunl leas anupoo slaojja uopi.uauaaldw! ioafoad anui.uoo aani.alsOei awls uaid panadda paann.,iod Ainr Apee/aunr a�a� ui spaao8 oio•H pua vino Tuasaad • • AGENDA ITEM 8F • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Michael Blomquist, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Public Opinion Survey Results for the State Route 91 Improvement Project Corridor PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the results of the Public Opinion Survey for the SR-91 corridor improvement project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The SR-91 corridor improvement project includes extending the 91 Express Lanes to Interstate 15, the addition of a new general purpose lane in each direction from SR-241 to 1-15, and other improvements. The project is part of the Commission's 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan and the SR-91 Implementation Plan. Work on the environmental approval phase commenced in September 2007. One work element for the project is to conduct a public survey of residents within the vicinity of the project and the region. The goal of this general survey is to gauge the public's opinion on a variety of topics including attitudes toward SR-91 traffic congestion, transit alternatives, tolling and toll facility use, transportation funding, knowledge of the SR-91 corridor improvement project, and other topics. The results of this public opinion survey will be used to help the Commission and local officials better understand the concerns and issues of residents most impacted by the SR-91 corridor improvement project. Further, the survey results will help staff identify issues that require additional information to be prepared and presented to the public at future public meetings and hearings. Lastly, the survey results can be compared with similar regional and national surveys to identify common trends. Attachment: SR-91 Utilization Survey Agenda Item 8F 57 Opinion Research & Public .Policy Analysis TO: FROM: DATE: RE: SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Team Fairbanlc, Maslin, Maullin & Associates April 25, 2008 Summary of Survey Results Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates (FMM&A) recently conducted a telephone surveys of 1,000 Riverside County residents to determine usage pattems of local toll roads and highways, support for expansion of existing toll roads and assess attitudes toward traffic congestion and the affect it has on residents. Overall, the survey results show that frequency of driving on SR-91 (at least twice a month) has an important on attitudes toward transportation issues in general, traffic congestion and support for toll roads. Residents' proximity to SR-91 appears to have less impact on opinions and preferences. While the economy is the primary concern for Riverside residents, traffic congestion is considered one of the top issues facing the region. (See Figure 1) Regardless of proximity to and usage of SR-91, more than ten percent of residents identify traffic congestion to be the most serious issue facing Southern California. Further, the proportion of residents identifying traffic congestion as their top concern is statistically similar to the proportion who regards home foreclosures, crime or education to be the most serious issue. Survey Methodology: From March 13-19, 2008, FMM&A conducted a Random -Digit -Dial (RDD) Telephone Survey of 1,000 residents in Riverside County. 500 interviews were with residents living in SR-91 Adjacent Zip Codes; 250 interviews were conducted Countywide with residents who use SR-91 at least twice a month; and 250 interviews were conducted Countywide with residents who do not use SR-91 at least twice a month. Four Population Subsets are presented for. Analysis: 1) SR-91 Adjacent/Use at least 2 times a month; n=344. 2) Non-SR- 91 Adjacent/Use at least 2 times a month; n=181. 3) SR-91 Adjacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month; n=275. 4) Non-SR-91 Adjacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month; n=200. 2425 Colorado Ave. Suite 180 Santa Monica, CA 90404 Phone: (310) 828-1183 Fax: (310) 453-6562 1999Harrison Street Suite 1290 Oakland, CA Phone: Fax: 94612 (510) 451-9521 (510) 451-0384 58 Traffic congestion Home foreclosures Crime Education The environment Summary of Survey Results Page 2 Figure 1: Most Serious Issue Facing Southern California (Ranked by SR-91 Adjacent/Use at least 2 times a month) `SR-91 Allaceml er Useatleast, 2 times a month 15°% 13% 10°le Non=SR51 { Adjacentt, ' Use of least ' 21h.nes a`month 14% 15% 8% 11% 1% SR-91 Adjacent( Do Not Use at least 2 times a month 12°% 13% Non-SR-9 Adjacent(' Do Not Use at lea 2 times a'monti 11% 13% 14% 13% 2% Illegal immigration 1 %' 2% 2% Gas price 1% 1°% 0% Gov't/Politicians tl%' 0% 1% All of Above 4% 4°% DK/NA 3% 3% Other 1% 0% 0% Not surprisingly, residents who use SR-91 at least twice a month are the most likely to have used a toll road or express lane due to traffic problems. Seven -in -ten residents who live in SR-91 adjacent communities and use SR-91 twice a month report using a toll road or express lane due to traffic problems, and 61 percent of non-SR-9I adjacent residents who use SR-91 twice a month also answered yes to this question. (See Figure 2) There was no difference in use of toll roads and express lanes due to traffic problems among the residents who do not use SR-91 at least twice a month. Figure 2: Have you used a toll road or express lanes do to traffic problems? SR-91 Adiacent/Use at least 2 times a month SR-91 Ad iacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month 59 Yes 61% Non-SR-9l Adiacent/Use at least 2 times a month No 39% Non-SR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month Yes 41% No 59% �`turbaitk • Summary of Survey Results Page 3 Inconvenience was the primary reason residents cited for not using toll roads and express lanes. (See Figure 3) The other most frequently identified reason for not driving on these roads is the cost. It should be noted that those who use SR-91 twice a month mentioned cost as a barrier to usage in higher percentages as compared to non-SR-91 users. Within each population subgroup, ten percent or fewer stated the cost of a transponder and congestion on express lanes were the main reasons for not using the roads. Figure 3: Main Reason Why You Never Use Toll Roads or Express Lanes (Ranked by SR-91 Adjacent/Use at least 2 times a month) Toll roads and express lanes are not convenient to where you travel Trip costs too much SR 9i Non -SR 91 SR 91 " - Npn-SR 81ry =,Adjacentitoa"_:Adjacentt `1'4dlacenU.e a'Ad'acenti Use at teastUse at'least— 'DO Not Dse at' Do Nuf Use at` -2 dines a a.- 2 krises a' ' leastViii? es least"Z times`ta `>. montFt morith ,�� f ,,ainonth' e jl amdnth' 27% 46% 25% 18% 45% 11% Do you not have a transponder and just don't want to slop at toll plazas 7% 4% Transponder costs too high 4% ; 3% 2% Toll roads and express lanes are too congested to -justify the ton 3% 3% Don't use it/use something else 2% 2% 3% Not in area/wrong direction 2% 0%. 1% 2% Dont need it 0% 2% Don't drive/hardly drive 0% D�- 2% Don't travel 0% 0°l0 _w 0% Provided by job/business account 0% 0% Retired/disability/not working 0% 0% None /no reason 0% 0% DK/NA 13% 8% 13%. 13% Other 7% Io"/a 13% Residents who use SR-91 at least twice a month are most likely to have a Fast -Track account. (See Figure 4) Survey results showed that Fast -Track accounts were most common with SR-91 adjacent residents who use the road at least twice a month (45 percent). In comparison, a third (36 percent) of non -adjacent regular users did have an account. There was no difference in having a Fast -Track account among non -regular users of SR-91 regardless of whether they lived in adjacent or non -adjacent communities. Ass 60 Summary of Survey Results Page 4 Figure 4: Do you have a Fast -Track Account? SR-91 Adjacent/Use at Non-SR-91 Adjacent/Use least 2 times a month at least 2 times a month SR-91 Adjacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month No 84% Yes 16% Yes 36% DK/NA 1% Non-SR-91 Adjacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month No For all residents, cost was the most common reason given for not having a Fast -Track Account. (See Figure 5) Residents stated that they do not use toll roads and express lanes enough to justify the cost of a transponder, or that the cost to drive on these roads is prohibitive. It should be noted that a one -in -four regular users of SR-91 who live in non -adjacent communities cited the "costs" itself, while at least a third of residents in the other population subgroups identified transponder costs as the main reason for not having an account. Additionally, slight more than one -in -five of all non -adjacent residents and SR-91 adjacent non - regular users responded that the main reason they do not have an account is because toll roads and express lanes are not convenient. Figure 5: Main Reason Why You Do Not Have a Fast -Track Account (Ranked by SR-91 Adjacent/Use at least 2 times a month) SR-91 Adjacent/ Use at least 2 times month Don't use toll roads or express lanes enough to justify the transponder costs :Non-SR-91 SR-91'Adjacent/ `Adjacent/ Do Not Use at Use at least least times 2 times a month a month 25% Non-SR•9:1 -� Ad acenU _ Do Njot Use a4" leasY2 times .: a month§, 38% It costs too much 26% '. 27% 12% Toll roads and express lanes are not convenient to where you travel 22% 21% Don't want others to know when and where - you drive 2% 0% Don't know tow to gel an account o% 3% I; 1% Too complicated to get an account 4% 1% Don't need it 3% 6% Toll roads are too congested relative to non - toll roads 3% 2% Provided by jobslbusiness account 1% 0% Not in area/wrong direction 0% 1% Don't use it/use something else 2% 1% Don't drive/hardy drive 1% 2% Don'ttravel 0% 0% - 0% Retired/disability/not working 0% 2% None/no reason DKNA. Other lost._ 61 0% 12% 0% _.:0°�_ _ 1% to% Summary of Survey Results Page S The survey results show little awareness or consensus on usage of revenue raised by the gas and diesel tax. (See Figure 6) There were no statistically significant differences in perception of tax revenue usage, as about one -in -five residents in all population subgroups thought these taxes fund the maintenance of existing roads and freeways. Further, about 30 percent of all residents across the four subgroups responded that that did not know how these tax dollars are spent. Figure 6: Knowledge and Usage of Gas and Diesel Tax Funds (Ranked by SR-91 Adjacent/Use at least 2 times a month) Maintaining existing roads and freeways SR 91 Non SR-91 i SR 91 Non-SR-91,i�,< Adjacent/ Adjacent/ , Adjacent/ ,'', Adjacent/ Use at least„ Use at least Do Not Use at, Ito Not Use at 2 times 2 times least times least 2 times`? a month a month:_ a month"' a month, 21% 22% 23% 17./ General government use 17% 16% 15% 16% Building new roads and freeways 12% 8% 12% 14% All of the above 19% 21% 15% 17% Unaware of gas tax 3% 5% 5% 3% Don't know how gas tax used 17% 19% 21% 23% DK/NA 12% 9% 9°A 12% Residents who regularly drive on SR-91 were more familiar with the proposed widening of the road. (See Figure 7) Those who use SR-91 at least twice a month and live in the adjacent communities were most aware of widening plans (2.5 mean score). With a mean score of 2.3, non -adjacent users were the next most aware group of residents. Awareness among adjacent non -regular users (2.0 mean score) was slightly higher than non -adjacent non -regular users (1.8 mean score.) Figure 7: Familiarity with Plans to Widen SR-91, including Extension to I-15 (Mean Score Scale: 1 to 5 scale with / equal to ':`tol Familial' and .5 equal to "Very Familiar 7) 1 (Not Familiar) 2 3 4 5 (Very Familiar) DK/NA 1 (Not Familiar) 2 3 4 5 (Very Familiar) DKINA SR-91 Adiacent/Use at least 2 times a month .% SOIL •e. ss% • % SR-91 Adjacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month 1% 156% Mean Score: 2.0 62 1 (Not Familiar) 2 3 4 5 (Very FariFsar) DKJNA 1 (Not Far i6ar) 2 3 4 5 (Very Fa elar) DKJNA Non-SR-91 Adiacent/Use at least 2 times a month 9% 17% Mean Score: 2.3 Non-SR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month .% el 2.% I.% 40% Y% UM ..% • % Summary of Survey Results Page 6 When asked if they would be willing to spend $10 to save ten, twenty or thirty minutest regular SR-91 users were always more willing to pay than non -regular users of SR-91. (See Figure 8) SR-9I adjacent residents who do not regularly use the road were always the least likely to be willing to pay $10 dollars to save any increment of time. Nevertheless, willingness to pay $10 at least doubled among all population subgroups when comparing saving thirty minutes to ten minutes. Figure 8: Willingness to Pay $10 to Save SR-91'AdJacentlUse at least 2 times.: a month 10 minutes 20 minutes 30 minutes Non-SR-91-- Adjacent/Use a' least 2 times t a month t Minutes between SR-241 and I-15 SR-91 Adjacent/Do� Not -Use `at feast `; I 2:times amonthS= AdjacenUDa Not ., „Use atleast, 2 times a month; Residents identified reducing traffic congestion and creating a safer highway to be the most important outcomes for the SR-91 widening project. (See Figure 10) Adjacent and non- adjacent regular users of SR-9I put a greater priority on reducing traffic congestion than residents who do not use SR-91 at least twice a month. There were no differences in importance by population subgroup for reduced impact on the natural environment, nose reduction for nearby communities or improved landscaping and highway appearance. Figure 10: Importance of SR-91 Widening Project Outcomes (Mean Score Scaled to 5 stale with I equal to "Not Irnportaat" mid 5 equal to "Very Iniporian J (Ranked by 5R-91 Adjacent/Use at least 2 times a month Mean Score) Reduced traffic congestion SR 91 Non SR-91 SR-991 " Non•SR-91 Adjacently Adjacent/ '" Adjacent/Do Adjacent/Do Use at least Use at least Not Use at Nat Use at, k 2 times a 2:times least 2 times 'least.2 times i month a month a month a month ; 4.5 4.3 4.0 3.9 A safer highway 4.4 4.3 4A 4.1 Reduced impact on the natural environment 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.4 Noise reduction for nearby communities 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 Improved landscaping and highway appearance 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 63 Summary of Survey Results Page 7 All population subgroups expressed the most concern that constructionassociated with the SR-91 widening project will result in worse traffic congestion. (See Figure 11) Although the differences were not dramatic, the survey results indicated that non -regular users who live in adjacent communities were slightly more concerned about the effects of the SR-91 widening projects, particularly the potential loss of homes. Figure 11: Concerns about SR-91 Widening Project (Mean Store Scale-:1 to 5 scale with I equal (o "Low Concern" and 5 equal to "Nigh Concern") (Ranked by SR-91 Adjacent/Use at least 2 times a month Mean Score) �.� SR-91 ;z *Non -SR 91 SR 91 Non SR§tom+ Adjacent/ Adjacentf Adjacent/Do Adjacent/Do Use at least Use at ,least, i' Not Use at ,' NotUseat; ;< 2times ,�' 2tirnes least 2times least 2bales 'i a month a month a F`x a month a month ,< Worse traffic during construction The improved highway drawing more traffic A loss of business A loss of homes Construction noise and dust The potential for increased accidents is the top concern for all Riverside County residents. As shown in Figure 12, irrespective of usage and proximity to SR-91, survey results demonstrated that "more accidents from motorists cutting in and out of express lanes at unauthorized locations" was the biggest concern about extending express lanes. Regular and non -regular users of SR-91 who live in adjacent communities were slightly more concerned that the extension project will increase the cost of express lanes. "Fewer people using express lanes while there is traffic congestion in the free lanes" was the least concerning possible outcome among all residents. Figure 12: Concerns about Extending Express Lanes (Meer Score Scale: I to 5 seate with 1 equal to `Low Concern" tool equal lo "High Concern') (Ranked by SR-9I Adjacent/Use at least 2 times a month Mean Score) Express lanes becoming too expensive for using the full length More accidents from motorists cutting in and out of express lanes at unauthorized locations Few people using the express lanes while there is traffic congestion in the free lanes SR-91 , Adjacent Use'at least 2 tines"I a month 3.8 3.8 3.2 'Non-SR-913` SR-81- Adjacentf AdjacenttDo' Use at least' NQF Use ak �.T -2times least'2tme's a month == a month ` 3.5 3.7 3.1 3.7 3.9 3.3 Non•SR-91 AdjeeentlDo Not Use at east 2 times 3.5 3.9 3.2 _Fairba rn' 9sctrcae#e 64 Summary of Survey Results Page 8 Among the options tested to reduce congestion on local highways, residents identified increasing the number of toll roads and express lanes as their preferred option. (See Figure 13) For all population subgroups, residents chose developing more express lanes by at least a three -to -one margin over various forms of tax increases. It should also be noted that within each subgroup a nearly equal number of residents did not considered any of the funding options as desirable. Figure 13: Preferences for Improving Highway Capacity and Reducing Congestion (Ranked by SR-91 Adjacent/Use at least 2 times a month) 'SR.-91 Adjacent/ Use at leas 2 times a month None of these/no increase in funding Developing more toll roads and/or express lanes Increasing the retail sales tax Increasing the gasoline tax Increasing the slate income tax Non=SR-91 Adjacent/ _ Use at least. 2jtimes a month SR-91 Non-SR-91.;''. Adjacent/Do Adjacent/Do : Not Use at Not Use 'at Least 2 times least 2 times' a month a months 1. Residents who drive on SR-91 at least twice a month rated the freeways they use as "very congested" more frequently than non -regular users of SR-91. Three -in -five (62 percent) of adjacent SR-91 regular users rated freeways as very congested and 55 percent of non -adjacent regular users considered freeways they drive on to be very congested. (See Figure 14) In comparison, less than half (48 percent) of adjacent non -regular SR-91 users perceived the freeways they use to be very congestion and only 38 percent non -adjacent non -regular users had a similar perception. Figure 14: Rating of Congestion on Freeways You Drive (Mean Score Scale: ] to 5 scale with 7 equal to "Vet), Congested" and 5 equal to Not Congested') Non-SR-91 Adiaeent/Use at least 2 times a month 1 (Very congested) 2 3 4 5 (Not congested) DKINA 1 (Very congested) 2 3 4 5 (Not congested) DK/NA SR-91 Adjacent/Use at least 2 times a month 0% >R YS SR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month SR n% A % 201 Y% 65 1 (Very congested) 2 • 3 4 5 (Not congested) DKNA 1 (Very congested) 2 3 4 5(Not congested) 1% A% A% >R A % Non-SR-91 Adiaeent/Do No Use at least 2 limes a month 4% • 1 (Very congested) 2 3 4 5 (Not congested) (I never use them) DKfNA Summary of'Survey Results Page 9 All residents consider toll roads and express lanes to be significantly less congested than the freeways they drive. Among adjacent and non -adjacent residents who use SR-91 at least twice a month, just one -in -five rated toll roads and express lanes they drive to be very congested. For non -regular uses, only one -in -ten considered these types of roads to be very congested. (See Figure15) Figure 15: Rating of Congestion on Toll Roads and Express Lanes You Drive Gideon Score Noah: I to 5 scale with I equal to "Very Congested " and 5 equal to "Not Congested") SR-91 Adjacent/Use at Non-SR-91 Adjacent/Use least 2 times a month at least 2 times a month 1 (Very congested) 2 119% 1 14% 24% 1 15% 10% 12% ! Mean Score: 2.9 .% lig% 241 20% 40% 5 % SR-91 Ad jacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month 1 (Very congested) __a: a 4110 % 2': j6o. 3 4 set 112%- 5 (Not congested) 117% 114% (1 never use them) K' DKINA 2% Mean Score: 3.2 .% .% 20% 20% 40% m% Iis% 19% 3 i'S '' i``. `itt" 124% 4 5 (Not congested) (1 never use them) DK/NA 12% 1117% 1 (Very congested) 2 3 4 5 (Not congested) (I never use them) DK/NA 119% Mean Score: 3.0 .% s% 20% 20x 4e4 m% Non-SR-91 Adjacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month l 39% 95% Mean Score: 3.4 2.4 20% 40% 50% The survey results indicate that a significant portion of residents consider traffic congestion to affect the quality of their life, but adjacent residents who regularly use SR-91 were most impacted. (See Figure 16) Thirty percent of SR-91 adjacent residents that use the road at least twice a month said that their quality of life was negatively affected by traffic congestion and only 8 percent thought traffic congestion had no affect. Figure 16: Negative Affect of Traffic Congestion ou the Quality of Your Life (Mean Saone Seale: 1 to 5 scale wiffi I twat to Negatively "Very ,4Jjeemd"anti 5 equal to Negatively "Noe .9f iu2ted') SR-9I Adiacent/Use at Non-SR-91 Adjacent/Use least 2 times a month at least 2 times a month 1 (Very affected) 2 3 4 5 (Not affected) DK/NA .% .% 201 ..% 4274 y% SR-91 Adtacent/Do Not Use at least 2times a month 11% 16% Mean Score: 2.7 1 (Very affected) 2 3 4 5 (Not affected) DK/NA .% .% 20% a% 40% x% Non-SR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2times a month Summary of Survey Results Page 10 At least two-thirds of all population subgroups consider traffic congestion today "much worse" than it was five years ago. (See Figure 17) The differences among the population subgroups are not great, but it should be noted that slightly fewer adjacent residents who use SR- 91 at least twice a month think traffic has gotten much worse in the past five years. This finding is surprising since a greater proportion of these residents were most likely to state that traffic congestion has negatively affected the quality of their lives. Figure 17: Traffic Congestion Today vs. Five Years Ago Much less About the same Much worse I did not live in the area 5 years ago DK/NA Much less About the same Much worse I did not live in the area 5 years ago DK/NA .x SR-91 Adiacentalse at least 2 times a month aA SR-91 Adiaeent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month IS ,n. .> n.x Much less About the same Much worse 1 did not five in the area 5 years ago DKNA Much less About the same Much worse I did not live in the area 5 years ago DK/NA Non-SR-91 Adiacent/Use at least 2 times a month .v vx Se% v.x 300% Non-SR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month % Residents living in SR-91 adjacent communities and use the road at least twice a month reported changing jobs most often due to traffic congestion. (See Figure 18) More than one -in -four (28 percent) adjacent regular SR-91 users said they have changed jobs as a result of traffic, while 22 percent of regular SR-91 users in non -adjacent communities took a different job due to traffic congestion. Regardless of their proximity to the road, one -in -five non -regular users of SR-91 have changed jobs because of traffic congestion. Figure 18: Have You Changed Jobs Due to Traffic Congestion? SR-91 Adiacent/Use at Non-SR-91 Adiacent/Use least 2 times a month at least 2 times a month SR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month 67 Non-SR-91 Adiacent/DoNot Use at least 2 times a month Faitd �l`atlfrt, AA. ?a01110 ctr ._.........................:.. r#ssoc lutes '- • • • Summary of Survey Results Page 11 Regardless of their proximity and usage of SR-91, large portions of residents reported changing when they go to and from work due to traffic problems. (See Figure 19) Three - in -five (59 percent) adjacent regular SR-91 users adjusted their drive times due to traffic and so have 53 percent of non -adjacent SR-91 users. For non -regular users of SR-91, 45 percent of residents in adjacent communities and 40 percent of non -adjacent residents have changed when they drive to and from work as a result of traffic problems. Figure 19: Have You Changed the Time you go to and from Work Due to Traffic Problems? SR-91 Adiacent/Use at least 2 times a month Yes 59% No 40% DKINA 1% SR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month Yes 45% DKINA 1% No 54% NonSR-91 Adiacent/Use at least 2 times a month Yes 53%. DK/NA 1% No 46% Non-SR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month The number of residents who have turned down a job due to traffic problems worsening constitutes a small minority of all population subgroups. (See Figure 20) Residents who use SR-9I at least twice a month were most likely to have refused a promotion due to traffic, but it was fewer than one -in -five. Still, it is impressive that at last one in ten say they have passed up a promotion or job opportunity just because of traffic congestion. Figure 20: Have You Turned Down a Promotion Due to Traffic becoming Worse? NonSR-9I Adiacent/Use at least 2 times a month SR-91 AdiacentlUse at least 2 times month Yes 16% DKlNA 1% SR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2times a month No 83% NonSR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month No 90% Summary o f Survey Results Page 12 The vast maiority of residents have not used public transportation due to traffic problems. (See Figure 21) Within the population subgroups, a slightly higher proportion of residents who use SR-91 at least twice a month reported using public transportation than residents that do not use the road regularly. Figure 21: Have You Used Public Transportation due to Traffic Problems? SR-91 Adiacent/Useat least 2 times a month SR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month NonSR-91 Adiacent/Use at least 2 times a month Yes 19% No 81% Non-SR-91 Adjacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times amonth Yes 17% Carpooling was much more common among residents as a way to address traffic problems. Following the trends of previous survey results, both adjacent (45 percent) and non -adjacent (41 percent) residents who use SR-91 at least twice a month were more likely to have carpooled. In comparison, about three -in -ten non -regular SR-91 users have carpooled due to traffic problems. (See Figure 22) Figure 22: Have You Carpooled due to Traffic Problems? SR-91 AdiacentlUse at least 2 times a month Yes 45% SR-91 Adjacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month No ss% 69 NonSR-91 AdiacentfUse at least 2 times a month No 59% Non-SR-91 AdjacenUDo Not Use at least 2 times a month Yes 32% Summary of Survey Results Page 13 The survey results showed that fewer residents participated in vanpooling to address traffic problems. (See Figure 23) Twelve percent of adjacent and non -adjacent residents who use SR- 91 at least twice a month reported vanpooling. Non -regular adjacent residents who do not use SR-91 regularly are the least likely population subgroup to vanpool. Figure 23: Have You Carpooled due to Traffic Problems? SR-91 Adjacent/Use at least 2 times a month Yes 12% SR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month No 88% No 89% Non-SR-91 AdiacentfUsc at least 2 times a month No 87% Non-SR-91 Adiacent/Do Not Use at least 2 times a month No 95% Regardless of current usage of SR-91 and proximity to the road, all residents agreed that if it reduced their commuting time in half they would increase usage of toll roads and express lanes. (See Figure 24) More than 60 percent of all regular users of SR-91 were more apt to agree with this statement, as were a solid majority of those who do not drive on SR-91 at least twice a month. Additionally, strong majorities of all population subgroups disagree with increasing the number of people in a vehicle to three to permit usage of a toll road or express lane. There was less of a consensus on allowing single passenger cars into HOV lanes when roads are not congested. Also, attitudes toward allowing all drivers to use carpool lanes on the 91-freeway were mixed, as a majority of non -adjacent regular SR-91 users and adjacent non - regulars users agreed with this concept but others were less likely to agree. Further, likely due to the fact that they commute more often and longer distances, regular users of SR-91 were more likely to agree that current gas taxes provide enough funding to reduce traffic congestion. The survey result also showed that regular SR-91 users have a greater understanding of why the cost of toll roads change based on the time of day. 70 Summary of Survey Results Page 14 Figure 24: Agree/Disagree with Statements about Transportation Issues (Ranked by SR91Adjacent/Use at least l times a month Agree) Current gas taxes are enough to pay for all the road improvements needed to reduce traffic congestion I would increase my own use of toll roads and express lanes by at least 50 percent if it meant that my commute or travel lime was cut in half I understand why the toll charged on the 91 Express Lanes can change throughout the day The carpool lane in Riverside County on the 91 freeway should be converted to a lane for everyone's general use Vehicles with one occupant should be allowed to use car pool lanes for a fee when it was not congested The money required to improve local freeways and reduce traffic congestion should come from an increase in taxes such as personal income tax, sales tax and/or gas tax rather than creating more tolls roads or increasing tolls To keep car pool lanes free flowing, I support increasing the requirement that car pool lanes can only be used by vehicles with at least 3 people as opposed to 2 as is the case now SR-91 ' - AdjacentlUse a j�least 2 times a month NorrSR-91SR-91 Non-SR-91„ AdjacentlUse ate AdjacerrtDo Not t Adjacenti0o Not least 2 times Use at least ` -� Use at least a month,f, 2 times a month 2 times a month , A�rc'e Dsagree:i Agree Disagree 66% 60% 59% 55°% 55% 40°% 30% 71 26% 31% 31% 36% 43°% 54% 67% Agree , ree Agree Disagree 52% 56% 56% 45°% 41 °% 39% 27% 34% 30°% 36% 45% 54°% 53% 71% AGENDA ITEM 8G Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: FROM: DATE: Riverside County Transportation Commission Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board July 3, 2008 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues - RCTC Agenda of July 9, 2008 The July 9, 2008 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. 8G Amendment with Kleinfelder to Deepen Coreholes During the Supplemental Geotechnical Field Exploration, Testing Services, and Technical Evaluations for the Proposed Irvine to Corona Expressway Project Consultant(s): Kleinfelder Paul Guptill 8 Pasteur, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92618 GeoPentech John Waggoner 525 N. Cabrillo Park Dr., Suite 280 Santa Ana, CA 92701 PBQD James Monsees 505 S. Main Street, Suite 900 Orange, CA 92868 Axion, Inc. 1451 Edinger Ave. Tustin, CA 92780 Coast Surveying Ruel Del Castillo 15031 Parkway Loop Suite B Tustin, CA 92780-6527 Jacobs Associates Stephen Klein 465 California St. Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94104 CRUX Subsurface, Inc. Nick Salisbury 16707 E. Euclid Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99216 ACT Consulting Engineers Yok Pang 5 Corporate Park, Suite 260 Irvine, CA 92606 NORCAL Geophysical Consultants, Inc. Kenneth Blom 321 Blodgett Street Cotati, California 94931 Agenda Item No. 8K Amendments to Agreements with Amtech Elevator Services, California Comfort HVAC Inc., Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc., and Spotless Janitorial Services to Provide Repair and Maintenance Services at the Commission -Owned Metrolink Stations Consultant(s): Amtech Elevator Services Catherine Clendenen 1550 S. Sunkist Street, Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 California Comfort HVAC, Inc. Chris Williams 14427-J Meridian Parkway Riverside, CA 92518 Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc. Leslie Fields, President 9642 Santiago Blvd. Villa Park, CA 92861 Spotless Janitorial Services Christina Lara 5416 Lauder Ct. Riverside, CA 92507 B & J Tree Care Co. Bobbie Gilbert, Owner 17300 17th St., Suite J231 Tustin, CA 92780 Agenda Item No. 13 - Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property Owner: Mike Kerr • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, 'Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment with Kleinfelder to Deepen Coreholes During the Supplemental Geotechnical Field Exploration, Testing Services, and Technical Evaluations for the Proposed Irvine to Corona Expressway Project PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-65-105-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 07-65-105-00, with Kleinfelder for a not to exceed amount of $650,000 to deepen two coreholes during the supplemental geotechnical field exploration, testing services, and technical evaluations for the proposed Irvine to Corona Expressway project; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve optional tasks as may be required for the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2006, the Commission executed a cooperative agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) to develop and manage geotechnical feasibility studies for a potential transportation and utility corridor linking Riverside and Orange Counties. The Commission is charged with administering the cooperative agreement and is responsible for the receipt and expenditure of federal and state funds to accomplish the geotechnical studies. At its February 14, 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 07-65-105-00 to Kleinfelder to provide supplemental geotechnical field Agenda Item 8G 72 exploration, testing services, and technical evaluations for the proposed Irvine to Corona Expressway project for a total not to exceed amount of $6,158,608. Administrative Amendment Nos. 07-65-105-01 and 07-65-105-02 were issued to Kleinfelder in August 2007 and June 2008, respectively. Amendment No. 1 covered additional costs for a web -based management system and Amendment No. 2 covered the costs associated with bringing in fire monitors required by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service. The two amendments did not require an increase to the budget as there was sufficient approved budget authority. During a meeting with Congressman Ken Calvert and Metropolitan Water District (MWD) staff, the Commission was asked whether there might be an opportunity to supplement the recently completed data obtained by MWD for its Central Pool Augmentation (CPA) project, which was conducted within the Cleveland National Forest. The corehole sites are within a similar alignment to the CPA project sites, and deepening of two corehole locations to be at an equal depth/elevation to the MWD coreholes would provide good additional data for both projects. In consultation with MWD staff and the Commission's technical specialists, Commission staff determined that by deepening the planned drilling an additional 550 feet on the eastern corehole location (ICE-1) and an additional 202 feet on the western corehole (ICE-5), valuable information could be obtained with minimal schedule impact (attachment). Staff recommends that the Commission approve Amendment No. 3 with Kleinf elder for the deepening of two corehole locations for a not to exceed amount of $650,000, bringing the total contract amount to $6,808,608. Funding for this work is available from the federal funds identified specifically for this geotechnical work. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $650,000 Source of Funds: SAFETEA LU 80°!o RCTC/OCTA 20% split 50/50 Budget Ad ustment: g Yes GLA No.: 106 65 81501 P2310 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Ple4I> Date: 6/17/08 Attachment: Corehole Schematic Agenda Item 8G 73 11 000. - -t7L Ku 01, lw 9 R1-1 9 • 01 • • AGENDA ITEM 8H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment with Civic Resources Group — Management Database Web -Based Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-66-044-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-66-044-00, with Civic Resources Group (CRG) to increase the contract amount from $48,510 to $57,380 (increase of $8,870) to complete the project management database and extend the term of the contract to December 31, 2008; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION_ In June 2006, the Commission entered into Agreement No. 06-66-044-00 with CRG to develop a web -based project management database. The database is 85% complete and staff is recommending that the Commission approve an additional $8,870 to complete the database. The development of the project database included a thorough assessment of the Commission's project management data requirements including capturing programming and project information contained in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) data, and project milestone reports. The database also allows for access to information including interactive maps, tracking of project related documents, and expanded funding classifications to facilitate better analysis of project funding. The database will be accessible by Commission project delivery staff and local agency staff. Additionally, local agency staff will have the ability to review and update project information resulting in time and cost savings. There have been a few delays to the project due to circumstances beyond the consultant's control, which included a request by staff to evaluate new software applications, the Commission key staff resignation, and the Commission Agenda Item 8H 75 programming staff assignment priorities; 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The 2008 RTP and RTIP updates required a tremendous amount of time and the project database development was put on hold so that programming staff can meet the RTP and RTIP deadlines. In March 2008, the RTP and RTIP work subsided, and in May 2008, an additional staff person was hired to fill the vacated Senior Staff Analyst position. Programming staff is now fully prepared to work with the consultant to finish the remaining tasks. The database architecture is fully complete and operating including navigation among the various project screens and tabs. Project information has been incorporated with minor updates to projects currently being added by the Commission staff. In order to complete the database, the following items need to be completed by CRG: • Fund Coding Sort Options - This will allow Commission staff the capability of reporting project delivery per fund source, per year. Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) require quarterly reports on federally funded projects. The Commission must be able to quickly assess its delivery and prevent funding lapse issues. • Activating on line Project Milestone Reports - Local agencies, will have the ability to update their project status on line. This will greatly reduce the time it takes to send out and receive the reports. The Commission will have the ability to prepare and submit the reports to Caltrans, FHWA, and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in a much more efficient and timely manner. • Adding weblinks to SCAG's RTP and RTIP programming documents - In order to obligate federal funds or receive federal approvals for environmental documents or other project requirements, the RTP and RTIP programming documents must always be referenced. Having a direct link into the programming documents (beyond SCAG's website homepage) will allow project sponsors to easily and quickly retrieve the project information. • Conducting Database User Workshop - CRG would provide users of the database one or two training workshops. The database is designed to be user friendly. Staff recommends approval of an additional $8,870 to the CRG contract to complete the web -based database and extend the term of the contract to December 31, 2008. Hosting options include a basic upgrade and maintenance fee Agenda Item 8H 76 • and also a fee for full-time hosting. Staff is reviewing the option of hosting this database at another facility, and having CRG provide basic upgrade and maintenance hosting at S445 per month. A hosting agreement will be brought back to the Commission upon completion of the database. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $8,870 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Fund Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 106 66 81501 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \;dv Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item 8H 77 • AGENDA ITEM 81 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request to Advertise Request for Qualifications to Refresh and Expand the Existing On -Call List for Consulting Services for Measure A Highway Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve allowing staff to develop a request for qualifications (RFQ) and conduct a selection process to refresh and expand the existing on -call consulting services list for Measure A highway projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In November 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved the extension of the current Riverside County Measure A Y2 cent sales tax for 30 years, from 2009 to 2039, to fund transportation improvement projects throughout Riverside County. In December of 2006 the Commission approved a 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan (Delivery Plan) for new Measure projects. As part of this approval, staff was directed to conduct consultant selection processes to assist in project delivery efforts for the first five years of the Delivery Plan. In the spring of 2007, staff developed an RFQ to develop a list of on -call consultants to assist in project development efforts (project reports, environmental documents, and possible final design (PS&E) for new highway projects. This selection process resulted in selection of the following firms and new contracts: 1) Post Buckley Shuh & Jernigan (PBS&J) — Widening Interstate 215 from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road, and 1-215 from Scott Road to Nuevo Road; 21 Parsons Transportation Group — State Route 91/State Route 71 Connector; 3) HDR Corporation — 1-15 from San Bernardino County Line to 1-215; and 41 URS Corporation and Jacobs Engineering — not yet awarded a contract. In order to maintain eligibility for federal funding, the existing on -call list must be refreshed after one year. Legal counsel has advised that firms from the previous Agenda Item 81 78 Fist for which work has not yet been assigned (URS and Jacobs) may be reinstated to the new list provided they provide evidence that their qualifications are current and that appropriate key personnel and other resources are available to perform the work. Staff proposes to add two firms to the on -call list to maintain the ability to quickly begin project development should unforseen circumstances arise, ,such as the inability to come to terms with one of the qualified firms, disqualification of a firm on the list, or the need to begin work on additional projects. Extension of this list will allow staff to continue to negotiate contracts with firms selected from the existing list established in 2007 (after it has been demonstrated that adequate qualifications and resource availability has been maintained) and. augment the list to make available additional consultants for new projects that are expected to initiate project development in the coming year. These on -call consulting services include planning and engineering studies, environmental studies, and possible final design (plans, specifications, and estimate) assignments. A proposed schedule for advertisement and award is as follows: Release of RFQ Bidders Information Meeting (not mandatory) Statement of Qualifications Delivered to the Commission Prior to 2 p.m. Notification of Shortlist for Interview Interviews of Short Listed Firms Staff Recommendation to Commission Agenda Item 81 July 14, 2008 July 28, 2008 August 25, 2008 September 8, 2008 September 22, 2008 October 13, 2008 79 AGENDA ITEM 8J r r. I 1 1 11 c • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director Patti Castillo, Capital Projects Manager Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Rail Design Services for the State Route 91 High Occupancy Vehicle Project from Adams Street to Interstate 215/State Route 60 Interchange STAFF RECOMMENDATION_ This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-003-00 with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) for rail design services for the SR-91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) project for a base of $198,582 and a contingency amount of $45,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $243,582; 2) Approve an adjustment of the project budget of an additional $243,582 for final design services and state reimbursement revenues; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute an agreement with Caltrans for reimbursement of the additional costs for the final design services; 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 5) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency as may be required for the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The SR-91 HOV project from Adams Street to the 1-215/SR-60 interchange is one of the projects included in the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA). Given the stringent deadlines associated with CMIA projects, the Commission, and Caltrans District 8 decided to partner on the right-of-way activities, including railroad relocation activities, associated with the delivery of the project. At its July 11, 2007 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 08-31-002-00, right-of-way cooperative agreement with Caltrans for the SR-91 HOV CMIA project. Agenda Item 8J 80 The improvements associated with the SR-91 HOV CMIA project require that the existing SR-91 Pachappa undercrossing, for the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR); be replaced with a longer structure to accommodate the widening of the freeway. To minimize costs for the Commission, and the impact to UPRR, the new longer structure and track will be constructed adjacent to the existing structure and the UPRR will switch to the new alignment and abandon the old alignment. This track realignment will also impact the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), the Metrolink track to the Riverside Downtown station, the Cridge Street grade crossing and the Panorama grade crossing. The division of work associated with the replacement of the Pachappa undercrossing is that Caltrans will develop the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) and construct the new Pachappa undercrossing structure, the grading, drainage, roadway, retaining walls, and removal of the old structure, and the Commission is responsible for the PS&E for the realignment of the track to allow for the replacement of the Pachappa undercrossing. The UPRR will construct all the UPRR track improvements. As part of the right-of-way cooperative agreement, the Commission is responsible for the coordination of agreements with the three rail agencies (UPRR, BNSF, Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)) and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for impacts associated with the project. To come to an agreement with these four agencies requires that the new UPRR Pachappa track alignment and final design be finalized. To meet the CMIA schedule commitments, Caltrans requested that the Commission take the lead, using consultant engineering services, in developing the new UPRR Pachappa track alignment and final design. The Commission concurred with Caltrans' request and entered into Agreement No. 08-31-090-00 with HDR on March 17, 2008, for the not to exceed amount of $49,999 to provide preliminary track design services to allow for the replacement of the Pachappa undercrossing. HDR was selected to provide these services based upon the fact that HDR had just completed a track improvement study for UPRR for this area, and that HDR was included in the Commission's on -call list of engineering consultants, approved by the Commission in June 2007. The HDR preliminary track design services have been completed, transmitted to UPRR, BNSF, and SCRRA for their review and approval. The CMIA schedule also requires that the Commission move forward with the final PS&E for the realignment of the track to allow for the replacement of the Pachappa undercrossing. Staff requested, received, and concurs with the attached HDR scope of work, schedule and cost estimate to provide the final PS&E rail design services. Staff is recommending a contingency of $25,000 for possible project Agenda Item 8J 81 • management coordination between the UPRR, BNSF, SCRRA, and PUC, plus a general contingency of $20,000, for a total of $45,000. This additional work will require an adjustment of the project budget for an increase of $243,582, but because this work was originally within Caltrans' scope of work, staff intends to pursue reimbursement of $243,582 from Caltrans for this work. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $243,582 Source of Funds: State reimbursements Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 222 31 41509 P3005 222 31 81102 P3005 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \jhudi,c16, Date: 6/24/2008 Agenda Item 8J 82 • AGENDA ITEM 8K • • I'. i I f, 1 r- • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendments to Agreements with Amtech Elevator Services, California Comfort HVAC, Inc., Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc., and Spotless Janitorial Services to Provide Repair and Maintenance Services at the Commission -Owned Metrolink Stations STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-25-042-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-25-042-00, with Amtech Elevator Services to provide elevator repair services in the amount of $20,000; 2) Agreement No. 07-25-081-02, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No.07-25-081-00, with California Comfort HVAC, Inc. to provide air conditioning system repair services in the amount of $15,000; 3) Agreement No. 08-24-050-05, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 08-24-050-00, with Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc. to provide landscape maintenance and irrigation system repair services in the amount of $90,000; 4) Agreement No. 08-24-023-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 08-24-023-00, with Spotless Janitorial Services to provide additional cleaning and grounds maintenance services in the amount of $10,000; and 5) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Funding for repair services needed to repair various fixtures and equipment installed at the Commission -owned Metrolink stations is currently authorized on the basis of purchase orders issued to contractors with whom the Commission has the relevant maintenance contracts. A recent staff review of the corresponding procedures revealed opportunities to enhance internal controls and procure the services on a more timely and efficient basis through the inclusion of specific budget and authority for such services in each existing maintenance contract. Agenda Item 8K 83 Amtech Elevator Services In October 2006, the Commission entered into an agreement with Amtech Elevator Services to provide maintenance services for the elevators at four Metrolink stations with compensation of $57,276 for three years. Based on the projected cost to replace aging major equipment components as recommended by maintenance technicians, staff recommends additional compensation of $20,000 to cover elevator repairs for the remaining term of this contract. California Comfort HVAC, Inc. In January 2007, the Commission entered into an agreement with California Comfort HVAC, Inc., to provide maintenance services for the air conditioning systems at the five Metrolink stations with compensation of $5,895 for three years. That amount covered cleaning, testing, and other routine maintenance rendered every two months and semi-annually at the various stations. Based on historical experience and expected repairs of air conditioning equipment, staff recommends an additional $15,000 compensation to be added to this contract for its remaining term. Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc. In January 2008, the Commission entered into an agreement with Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc., to provide landscape maintenance services at the five Metrolink stations with compensation of $135,000 for one year. Based on recent experience with repairs required on the irrigation systems, staff recommends an amendment of this contract to provide $90,000 for such repairs. . Spotless Janitorial Services In December 2007, the Commission entered into an agreement with Spotless Janitorial Services to provide cleaning and grounds maintenance services for the five Metrolink stations with compensation of $196,380 for three years. Dust, debris, and other sources of dirt contamination from construction activities at the North Main Corona station has created conditions requiring additional cleaning services, which are expected to cost an additional $15,000 in the coming months. Staff recommends increasing the compensation for this contract to cover this expenditure. In summary, staff projects that an additional $140,000 will be required to cover the anticipated repairs and additional cleaning work. Agenda Item 8K 84 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $140,000 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Fund Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 103 24 73315 P4001, P4002, P4003, P4004, P4006 $125,000 103 24 73317 P4006 5 15,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ ltz tr Date: 06/13/2008 Agenda Item 8K 85 AGENDA ITEM 8L _ _ _ a_ _ _ -_ _ _ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Comprehensive Station Security Upgrade PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Commission's Commuter Rail Program FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for the Comprehensive Station Security Upgrade Program to reflect the Proposition 1B California Transit Security Grant Program — California Transit Assistance Funds (CTSGP-CTAF) and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds; and ® 2) Amend the Commission's FY 2008/09 budget for Rail Capital to include $347,852 in Proposition 1B funds and $20,000 in LTF funds to be used for the Comprehensive Station Security Upgrade Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as part of Proposition 1B in November 2006, includes a program of funding in the amount of $1 billion to be deposited in the Transit System Safety, Security and Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA). The FY 2007/08 Budget Act includes $100 million for the TSSSDRA. Sixty percent of those funds are being made available for eligible transit system safety and security projects under the CTSGP-CTAF. The CTAF is administered by the Governor's Office of Homeland Security (OHS). At its June 2008 meeting, the Commission adopted the resolution allowing the local transit agencies to apply for these grant funds. The Commuter Rail Program is eligible for $347,852, which is comprised of $263,832 of population funds per Section 99313 and $84,020 of operator funds per Section 99314. In addition, the Commuter Rail Department proposes $20,000 of LTF revenues to apply to this project as a local match. Together these funds will provide for a comprehensive station security upgrade to the Riverside County Agenda Item 8L 86 commuter rail stations. All of the identified projects comply with the requirements of the CTSGP-CTAF. Comprehensive Station Security Upgrade Program Improved and Expanded CCTV System • Enhanced remote video surveillance capabilities will allow security personnel, law enforcement, and first responders to better monitor and assess incidents at all Riverside County Metrolink stations. This includes increasing video surveillance capacity required for new parking structure facilities currently under construction as well as additional stations under construction or planned for construction within the next two years. This will include added cameras in the elevators and along the walkways. It will also provide for additional cameras in the parking lots to expand video coverage. Metrolink Station Fencing, Bo/lards, and Lighting • Limited and controlled access to stations and platforms will mitigate .the potential of criminal activity at the stations that often result in personal injury, property damage, theft, etc. Furthermore, it will provide a means of limiting or preventing public access to the property in the event of a catastrophic accident or disaster. The projects include gating vehicle access points at the stations and providing bollards to protect access to trains and platforms. • Improved lighting and visibility will mitigate the potential of personal injury and criminal activity at the stations. As the stations do operate during non -daylight periods of the day, particularly during the winter months, it is essential to provide adequate lighting both for the physical safety of passengers as well as to discourage potential criminal activity. Furthermore, battery backup systems will ensure visibility in the event of equipment failure or power outage. Improved Security Monitoring and Response Upgrades • These projects will ensure security personnel are better equipped to rapidly respond to incidents and provide an enhanced presence throughout the large station properties by utilizing golf carts and retrofitting elevators to revert to the first floor for evacuation in the event of equipment failure or power outage. Agenda Item 8L 87 • To expedite the delivery of these projects the Commuter Rail Department intends to utilize the existing competitively bid contractors to perform the work and will return to the Commission with contract extensions for the Comprehensive Station Security Upgrade Program projects. Financial Impact A budget adjustment is required for the additional Proposition 1 B revenue of $347,852 and $20,000 in LTF matching funds for a total of $367,852. A budget adjustment of $367,852 is also required for the property improvement expenditures of $367,852. A budget adjustment for the allocation of LTF funding by the LTF fund is not required as adequate rail transit capital funds are included in the FY 2008/09 budget. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $367,852 Prop 1 B CTSGP-CTAF Population Funds Source of Funds: $263,832, Prop 1 B Section 93313 $84,020 Budget Adjustment: Yes LTF $20,000 221 33 41509 P4199 $347,852 GLA No.: 221 33 40101 P4199 $20,000 221 33 90701 P4199 $367,852 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \144,.e 1,1, e Date: 06/16/2008 Agenda Item 8L 88 • AGENDA ITEM 8M • : ;i: II • L_ • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION_ Inland Empire -Orange County Weekend Service Performance Q4 FY 07/08 Passenger Trips IEOC Weekend Service 5000 — 4000 — 3000 — 2000 — 1000 -- 0 Free Ride Day FY 06/07 --6--FY 07/08 �,;ib Bpi `o, A� o� o� o`� o� o� Daily passenger trips on the year-round Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Metrolink weekend service have continued to grow through the third quarter and into the fourth quarter, providing 12,649 passenger trips quarter to date. This is an increase of over 67.16% over the 7,567 trips provided at this point last year, attributed to the extraordinary ridership resulting from the May 17 Free Ride Day. The success of this service is due in large part to the coordinated marketing efforts among the Commission, Orange County Transportation Authority and San Bernardino Associated Governments. Most of the responsibilities for marketing of the service have transitioned to Metrolink, this has included revised seat drops, branding, and consolidation of the various weekend services under a single promotional umbrella. Agenda Item 8M 89 Metrolink Ticket Evasion Rate Under 1 % Metrolink reports a systemwide ticket evasion rate of 0.83% for the past two years of operation while the number of trains inspected has more than doubled over the same period. Fare enforcement inspections typically occur between two stations coordinated among Metrolink conductors, deputies and law enforcement technicians (LETs) of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. Citations are issued subject to the discretion of the inspector in cases where the passenger fails to present a ticket or presents invalid fare media. The report stated that the majority of documented evasions occur on lines other than those serving Riverside County. The majority of violators have a ticket though not for the correct station pair or an unvalidated ten trip. Ten trip ticket abuses are the most common offenses, increasing 23% over the last 6 months. When identified, problem lines are isolated and targeted for increased inspections. Metrolink regularly monitors enforcement activity, receiving both monthly and annual audit reports of deputies and LETs. These reports are prepared by Metrolink Sheriff supervisors. Metrolink reports that though inspection rates have increased, evasion rates have remained relatively steady, indicating optimal fare inspection and cost/benefit for the fare enforcement program. Metrolink Releases New Locomotive and Passenger Car Delivery Schedule Metrolink recently took delivery of the first of 15 new locomotives, to be conditionally accepted after approval of operator and maintenance manuals. The remaining vehicles will be delivered at the rate of one locomotive every two weeks through December 27. The locomotive is 10 feet longer than current Metrolink locomotives and can haul 10 passenger cars instead of six. This translates to an extra 1,200 passengers. That means more room for more riders who leave their vehicles behind. These state of the art high efficiency and low emission locomotives will greatly expand and enhance the existing fleet. The new MotivePower MPXpresso commuter locomotive. In addition, the first of the new passenger cars is scheduled for delivery in March of next year. A total of 54 trailer or standard cars and 33 cab cars will be delivered over Agenda Item 8M • 90 • the following of 14 months. Additionally, Metrolink will have the option to purchase an additional 10 trailer cars and 10 cab cars in June and July of 2010. This additional equipment will help Metrolink address increased demand throughout the system as well as meet the new demand of the Perris Valley Line extension. Riverside Line W G F 0 Passenger Trips Riverside Line 6,000 5,600 5,200 4,800 4,400 4,000 5S‘ 01 61 01 O� O� 01 OA ��� J>� Pie deg p6, �o�' Dec Month Jac hero 4,ac • Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of May averaged 5,389, an increase of 273, 5% more than the month of April. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily increase of 88 passenger trips. This is nearly 2% more than a year ago. On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line 100 m 95 ▪ 90 y 85 - 80 a 75 Agenda Item 8M 70 0A A �pA OA oA p1 p1 pA AR, p`b p`b �4 pRD �a� �Jo �J P,>( 5e� Oeti �o Owe Sao Fed mac Month 91 May on -time performance averaged 98% inbound (no change from April) and 99% outbound 1+7% from April). There were three delays greater than five minutes during the month of May. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line 6,000 5,600 m Q 5,200 F 5 4,800 4,400 4,000 a�0 Jo0 J\0 Al 4 4�01 0,0� Go1 00 ��0 `�0 `off �pcb e1` > > PJ co O � Oe �a �a �a QQ �a Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's IEOC Line for the month of May averaged 4,963, a decrease of 45 trips, 1 % less than the month of April. The line has increased by 150 daily trips or 3% from a year ago May 2007. 100 m 95 ▪ 90 ro 85 a) 80 a 75 70 A 4$\ Agenda Item 8M On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line p1 A. 0A O� o\ o`� o� o93 O7 pc' J� A Cj o` () CO c ' c PO 0e O Oe �a Qa �`a QQ kva, Month 92 • • • May on -time performance averaged 95% southbound (no change from April) and 95% northbound (-1 % from April). There were 18 delays greater than five minutes during the month of May. The following are primary causes: 91 Line Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 4 4 8 11% '. 22 % 22 % 55% TOTAL 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 A 4a� �°c PJ o �eQ �`' �Oe �a° � ��a PQ �a� Month Passenger Trips 91 Line Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of May averaged 2,268 a decrease of 101 trips, 4% less than the month of April. The line has decreased by 80 daily trips or -3% from a year ago May 2007. On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line 100 m 95 90 c 85 d a- 80 a� 75 70 01 01 01 4 01 01 1 1 O� O$ O� 00 �a� ��� �o� P�� yet O°`°4 Oaf lac <,(0 �'ai PIV 0 Month May on -time performance averaged 96% inbound (-1 % from April) and 94% outbound (-3% from April). There were 9 delays greater than five minutes during the month of May. The following are primary causes: Agenda Item 8M 93 Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 2 0 5 22% 22% 0% 56% TOTAL Connecting Transit Service Performance The Commission's role facilitating interconnectivity between Metrolink and connecting transit services is essential to ongoing viability of system. Such services address the needs of transit dependent riders as well as help mitigate congestion and the necessity for expensive parking capacity at the Commission 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. Within Riverside County, services include free transfers to routes operated by RTA, RTA's Commuter Link service and Corona Cruiser. The following graphs show total monthly Metrolink transfer passenger trips on each of the three services. 3,000 • 2,500 a I- 2,000 w 0 1,500 1,000 Passenger Trips RTA Fixed Route �01 Ok Ok 6 ,01 Ok 00 �ef' fCi� 00 O \al Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's connecting fixed routes (1, 3, 15, 16, 21, 29, and 38) totaled 2,338 for the month of May, a decrease of 48 trips, 2.01 % less than the month of April. Monthly trips decreased by 10 or -0.43% over last year. Agenda Item 8M 94 • 7,600 7,000 a 6,400 F 5,800 w 5,200 4,600 4,000 Passenger Trips RTA Commuter Link OA 1 1 1 0 0p 0 Qo� �eQ cp= �o�' Deg' fat` �a� mar Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA`s Commuter Link routes (202, 204, 206, 208, and 210) totaled 7,547 for the month of May, an increase of 511 trips, +7.26% from the month of April. This is primarily attributed to a steady increase in ridership on Route 210. Monthly trips have increased by 1,334 or 21.47% over the last year. Passenger Trips Corona Cruiser 700 600 co CI- 500 I- 400 300 200 100 07 1 p1 01 01 01 01 °1 as oq aCt os \- P 5 0` � O Month 0 Fa�e?. fz. 4�o' Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on the Corona Cruiser totaled 669 for the month of May, a decrease of 13, -1.91 % from the month of April. Monthly trips have increased by 48 or +7.73% over the past fiscal year. Agenda Item 8M 95 • • • AGENDA ITEM 8N -1 -. _ _ ._ ___ _ __ ._ . .___...... • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding with the Southern California Association of Governments for Jobs Access Reverse Commute and New Freedom Grant Programs PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 09-62-001-00 with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom grant programs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The JARC program is for projects relating to the development and maintenance of transportation services designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their employment. These funds are intended for public transportation projects designed to transport residents of urbanized areas and non -urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities (49 USC §5316); The New Freedom program is for new public transportation services and public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC 12101 et seq.) that assist individuals with disabilities with transportation, including transportation to and from jobs and employment support services (49 USC §5317); San Bernardino Associated Governments and the Commission are the lead agencies in their respective counties responsible for development of a Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan, in accordance with 49 USC Sections 5316 and 5317 and FTA Circulars C 9050.1 and C 9045.1. Resulting from the development of the Coordinated Plan in both counties, the JARC and New Freedom funds are now available to providers in Riverside County as well as San Bernardino County. These funds will be made available to qualified projects via the Coordinated Plan next steps that was approved by the Commission at its April 2008 meeting, which included the Universal Call for Projects. It is through the Agenda Item 8N 96 Universal Call for Projects where the Commission will receive project proposals from interested providers. DISCUSSION: SCAG is an agency with responsibility for comprehensive and coordinated regional transportation planning and programming in the six county SCAG region. In accordance with applicable federal and state law, these responsibilities primarily include but are not limited to preparation and adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). SCAG is also the designated recipient of Federal Transit Agency (FTA) JARC and New Freedom program funds under 49 USC Sections 5316 and 5317, for large urbanized areas (UZAs) with populations of 200,000 or more in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, including Riverside -San Bernardino, Indio -Cathedral City - Palm Springs, and Temecula-Murrieta. In administering the JARC and New Freedom formula program funds that is the subject of the agreement, SCAG shall be responsible for the following actions: 1) Applying for program funds using the Transportation Electronic Award and Management (TEAM) System on behalf of SANBAG and the Commission; and 2) Managing program funds distribution and oversight for sub -recipients receiving funds under this program. As previously mentioned, the Commission approved the Universal Call for Projects at its April 2008 meeting. Since that time, an application was prepared and distributed. Project proposals were received on June 16, 2008 and are now in the process of evaluation. Staff expects to come before the Commission at the September 2008 meeting with a recommendation for award. Accordingly, the agreement with SCAG will need to be in place so that funds can be disbursed to the designated sub -recipients. Since the Commission is only responsible for the allocation of funds once received by SCAG through the Universal Call for Projects, there are no financial impacts to the Commission associated with this agreement. The terms and conditions for which SCAG will receive a share of these funds for performing its duties as identified in the agreement are still to be negotiated and will be subject to review and approval by legal counsel. Attachment: Draft MOU No. 09-62-001-00 Agenda Item 8N 97 • • • MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, AND SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS FOR THE JARC AND NEW FREEDOM GRANT PROGRAMS RECITALS WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Govern .ents (SCAG) is a joint powers agency formed pursuant to Title 1, Division 7, C . ler 5 of the California Government Code (Section 6500 et seq.) and is the Metr. . n Planning Organization (MPO) recognized under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5 WHEREAS, SCAG is responsible for developin Regional Transportation Improvement Programs, U.S.C.134 et seq., Cal Gov. Code Section 65 seq., and corresponding Federal and State WHEREAS, SCAG is the designated recipien Access and Reverse Commute (JAq and New Sections 5316 and 5317, for large ` q . _ . areas more in Riverside and San Bernar Indio -Cathedral City -Palm Springs, an onal Tr ant to 49 U. seq., Cal. Pub. Uti bons and uidance; WHEREAS, Rivers' Transportation Com is charged pursu federal and state programming and sh WHER Cou WHE Transpo is charged and transit f planning for San won ere ereto with way a n Tran pursu proval transit fu ortation Plans and 5303 et seq., 23 de §130300 et al Transit Agency (FTA) Job m program funds under 49 USC with populations of 200,000 or Riverside -San Bernardino, Co `g lion (RCTC) is a County Public Utilities Code Section 130052 and projects within Riverside County utilizing and is responsible for transportation risdiction; nal Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Riverside e federal MPO designation; ino ociated Governments (SANBAG) is a County reated pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 130000 and r approval of all projects utilizing federal and state highway onsible for transportation programming and short range o County; WHEREAS, the Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub.L. 109-059; enacted August 10, 2005) changed the JARC and New Freedom programs from discretionary to formula grant programs and set forth new requirements, under 49 USC Sections 5316 and 5317; WHEREAS, on May 1, 2007, FTA issued new circulars which provide guidance for receiving funds under these programs; Page 1 of 6 PC Docs # 146164 98 WHEREAS, the JARC program is for projects relating to the development and maintenance of transportation services designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their employment, and for public transportation projects designed to transport residents of urbanized areas and non -urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities (49 USC §5316); WHEREAS, the New Freedom program is for new public transportation services and public transportation alternatives beyond those required b, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC 12101 et seq.) that assist *duals with disabilities with transportation, including transportation to and from 1d employment support services (49 USC §5317); WHEREAS, SANBAG and RCTC are the lead responsible for development of a coordi Transportation Plan, in accordance with 49 Circulars C 9050.1 and C 9045.1; WHEREAS, �� aj( SANBAG adop Services Transportation Plan ("SA G Coordina WHEREAS, Services Transportation Plan ("RCTC WHEREAS, SANBAG SCAG and are cons NOW, THEREF COVENANTS PRO AGREE 1.1 SCA coordin SCAG re responsibiliti WS cies in th Public Tran Sections 5316 espective counties uman Services 17 and FTA dinated Public Transit- Human ); ed Public Transit- Human ans w=eveloped in coordination with planning process. F THE MUTUAL PROMISES AND AG, RCTC, AND SANBAG HEREBY Section I M MANAGEMENT is an agency with responsibility for comprehensive and transportation planning and programming in the six county accordance with applicable federal and state taw, these marily include but are not limited to preparation and adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). SCAG is the designated recipient of Federal Transit Agency (FTA) Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom program funds under 49 USC Sections 5316 and 5317, for large urbanized areas (UZAs) with populations of 200,000 or more in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, including Riverside San Bernardino, Indio -Cathedral City -Palm Springs, and Temecula-Murrieta; Page 2 of 6 PC Docs # 146164 99 • • • In administering the JARC and New Freedom formula program funds ("Program Funds"), SCAG shall be responsible for the following actions: aE Applying for Program Funds using the Transportation Electronic Award and Management (TEAM) System on behalf of SANBAG and RCTC; and b) Managing Program Funds distribution and oversight for sub -recipients receiving funds under this program; and 1.2 Roles of SANBAG and RCTC: By signing this Agreement, SANBAG and Sections 5316 and 5317 and FTA Circula extent as required by SCAG as the Freedom Program Funds, for large and shall submit to SCAG any docum validity of such certification. agree imply with 49 USC 9050.1 and ` 5.1 to the same nated recipient o ' C and New in their re..ective plan Boundaries, ion rep- ed by SCAG g assure the SANBAG and RCTC shall b� trA® sible for .flowing actions, as a condition of receiving the Program Fun a) Administering b) Certifying compet c) Certifying ted Certifying m representati ervices provi a onductin ve Selection process; ution of Program Funds resulting from the as derived from a locally developed, rvices Transportation Plan; ans are developed through a process that included private, and non-profit transportation and human cipation by the public; and s required by FTA or SCAG. 1.4 Program ent Plan The parties agree to adhere to the Program Management Plan attached hereto and incorporated by reference as "Exhibit A," which includes program objectives, policies, procedures, and administrative requirements pursuant to applicable FTA requirements. 1.5 Annual Certification and Assurances Regarding the JARC and New Freedom Programs: By signing this MOU, SANBAG and RCTC agree to comply with the applicable FTA annual certifications and assurances for the JARC and New Freedom Programs (published annually in the Federal Register), and agree to Page 3 of 6 PC Docs # 146164 100 forward to SCAG a signed copy of its Certifications and Assurances form each year. 1.6 Documentation. Each Applicant shall submit to SCAG any documentation required under FTA C 9045.1 or FTA C 9050.1, or reasonably requested by SCAG to assure the validity of all above certifications and assurances made by the Applicant. Section 2 General Provisi 2.1 Term of Agreement: This Agreement sh date such party executes this Agreeme withdraws from this Agreement or thi Section 2.7. 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Drafting: This Agreement ha and endorsed by each. effective as d continues in full eement is _;-rminated in ch party on the unless a party dance with een prepare f parties and has been reviewed Amendments: This Agreeme nde• by the execution by all parties of a written ndment Jurisdiction a the laws accordance exclusive juns an nt shall be deemed an Agreement under for all purposes shall be interpreted in s hereby agree and consent to the tate of California and that the venue of os Angeles County, California. may assign this Agreement, or any part thereof, each party to this Agreement. 2.6 it . RCT a'd SANBAG agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless e officers, agents and employees from and against any and osts, or liability arising from or connected with intentional or rs or omissions, or any violations of law (including non- ertifications and Assurances contained herein) attributable only to performance of the responsibilities as set forth in this MOU by the indemnifying party (Indemnitor) or its officers, agents, employees, contractors and subcontractors under this MOU, except to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of SCAG. In SCA all clai negligent compliance 2.7 Withdrawal and Termination. Any party may withdraw from this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to each party, providing that the notice of withdrawal sets forth the Page 4 of 6 PC Docs # 146164 101 • • • effective date of withdrawal and the reason for withdrawal. Additionally, the notice of withdrawal shall provide that the parties during the period prior to the effective date of withdrawal meet to try to resolve any dispute, if applicable. In the event that the withdrawal is for cause, the withdrawal shall not be effective if the party cures the default in its performance within the thirty day period. b. SCAG shall notify FTA of the withdrawal from this reement of any Applicant, and shall not be obligated to administ c C or New Freedom Grant Funds. c. SCAG may terminate this Agreement at a written notice to each party, providing forth the effective date of terminatio 2.8 Notice. Any notice or notices requi Agreement may be personally served notice, or may be served by certified mai and addresses as follows: Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Di SCAG 818 West 7th Stre Los Angeles, C Anne May RCTC 4800 demon P. ! 12008 1 San eborah R. Bar BAG .3rd Stree ardino, ve Director d Floor 2410-1715 thirty (30) days mination sets to be given uant to this by the pa iving such ipt requested, to the names 2.9 Counterpart" is Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the dates set forth below. The Southern California Association of Govemments Page 5 of 6 PC Docs # 146164 102 By: Hasan Ikhrata Executive Director Approved as to Form: Joseph Burton Chief Counsel/Director of Legal Services Riverside County Transportation Commission By: Executive Director Approved as to Form: San : �_ : dino Asp meted"� rnments By: Executiv Approved as to Form. Page 6 of 6 PC Docs # 146164 Date: Date: Date: Date: 103 AGENDA ITEM 80 • I R". II ' 1 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Fina Clemente, Staff Analyst Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2008/09 Minimum Fare Revenue Ratio for Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required fare box recovery ratio; and 2) Approve the FY 2008/09 minimum fare revenue to operating cost ratio of 17.58% for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and 17.82% for SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RTA and SunLine serve both urbanized and non -urbanized areas of Riverside County. Therefore, as required by state law, these agencies' minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio would fall somewhere between the 10% requirement for non -urbanized area services and 20% requirement for urbanized area services. Since the Commission is responsible for calculating the intermediate ratio, a methodology was developed by the Commission to calculate the required minimum ratio. This was consequently approved by the state. Per Transportation Development Act, Section 99270.1, Caltrans must review and approve the methodology on an annual basis. Caltrans' staff concurred in writing on June 12, 2008, that the methodology is still applicable. Formula used is as follows: R=.1Cn+.2Cu Cn + Cu R = Required Ratio Cn = Costs of Services in Non -Urbanized Areas Cu = Costs of Services in Urbanized Areas Agenda Item 80 104 The costs for new or expanded services are exempted from the calculation for the year of implementation plus two full fiscal years of operation. For FY 2008/09, RTA has 12 new routes that are exempt from the farebox recovery requirement. SunLine has two new routes that are also exempt from farebox recovery calculation. Using the above formula and the Short Range Transit Plans, the FY 2007/08 minimum required ratio for RTA is 17.58% and 17.82% for SunLine. This means that passenger fares for RTA and SunLine should cover at least 17.58% and 17.82%, respectively, of the actual cost to operate services. Balance of the operating cost is covered by state, federal and local funding. The farebox recovery ratios for FY 2008/09 have been reviewed and approved by RTA and SunLine staff. Upon adoption of the required ratio by the Commission, the ratios are then fixed for the year and cannot be changed even though actual revenues and expenses may differ from the Short Range Transit Plan estimates. Attachment: Rules and Regulations for Determining Required Fare Revenue Agenda teem 80 105 • • i RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR DETERMINING REQUIRED FARE REVENUE TO OPERATING COST RATIOS FOR TRANSIT OPERATORS SERVING BOTH URBANIZED AND NON -URBANIZED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY I. Based on the latest annually adopted Short Range Transit Plans for Riverside County, the Riverside County Transportation Commission with the cooperation of the transit operator will determine separately the operating cost of those transit services provided in non -urbanized areas and the operating cost of those services in urbanized areas. • For the purpose of this calculation, the operating cost in the urbanized areas shall include the cost of fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within an urbanized area. The operating cost in the non -urbanized area shall include the cost of all fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within a non -urbanized area. • For fixed route lines operating partly within an urbanized area and partly within a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to the urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the route miles in the non -urbanized area and the route miles in the urbanized area. • For demand response systems serving both an urbanized area and a non - urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the population of the urbanized area served and the population of the non -urbanized area served. • The costs of extension of public transit service pursuant to Section 99268.8 of the Public Utilities Code (PUC) shall not be included in any of these calculations. II. The required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost in compliance with PUC Sections 99268.3 and 99268.4 shall be calculated as follows: R = .1 Cn + .2 Cu Cn + Cu R = Required Ratio Cn = Operating Cost in Non -Urbanized Areas Cu = Operating Cost in Urbanized Areas III. Annually, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall calculate the required revenue to operating cost ratio for each transit operator serving both urbanized and non -urbanized Agenda item 80 106 areas and submit this calculation to Caltrans. Caltrans shall approve the methodology used to calculate the blended fare box ratio prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Once approved, the ratio is not subject to change: Agenda Item 80 107 AGENDA ITEM 8P • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2008/09 Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month maximum per buspool for the period July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 to the existing Riverside, Corona and Mira Loma buspools; and 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Measure A Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their commutes along the SR-91 corridor. The Commission adopted the Measure A buspool subsidy in October 1990 and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1 ,175 or $25/seat/month in support of commuter buspool operations. In July 2004, the Commission set the subsidy rate to $35/seat/month ($1,645/month) to help offset increases to operational costs during the previous 14 years. To provide additional guidance, the Commission also established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff to report to the Commission when a buspool's ridership falls to 25 or below and seek direction regarding the continuation of the buspool's subsidy. Like all commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation, the Measure A $35/seat/month subsidy is administered as a "user side subsidy." The Commission's subsidy is an important factor that makes buspools an attractive alternative for these commuters with roundtrip commutes in excess of 100 miles. Also, the Commission's subsidy remains cost-effective compared to the typical public transit subsidy rate of 80%. While the monthly cost of each buspool varies according to the number of route Agenda Item 8P 108 miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission's monthly subsidy reflects a subsidy rate of 14%. Average Monthly Buspool Fare Per Rider $ 246.00 RCTC Subsidy,: Per Seat ? $ 35.00 Subsidy Rate 14% Unlike some of the other Commission approved ridesharing incentives, which have a limited term, the buspool subsidy is on -going. To renew its annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to: • Request in writing, continuation of funding from the Commission for the new fiscal year; • Consistently meet minimum ridership requirements; and • Submit monthly ridership reports throughout the year. The three existing buspools have completed all the requirements for funding as set forth by the Commission including the submittal of monthly ridership reports and annual funding continuation requests. They have consistently exceeded the minimum ridership level of 25 riders per month and have collectively averaged 41 riders/month/buspool this current fiscal year. Buspools;, Corona Mira Loma Riverside Average Riders/Month 43 39 42 Roundtrip Distance --110 mi --123 mi --135 mi Annual; Miles Saved 1,221,898 1,224,375 1,459,872 Annual One Way Trips Reduced 22,176 19,844 21,692 68,194 Estimated Pounds of Emissions Reduced 3,906,144 Miles Saved 63,712 Trips Reduced In reducing the number of vehicles on SR-91 during peak periods, the buspool program saved nearly 3.9 million miles and 68,194 pounds of vehicle emissions in FY 2007/08. The buspool subsidy proves to be an effective use of Measure A Commuter Assistance funds and a budget of $100,000 is proposed for FY 2008/09. Based on the established monthly $1,645/month per buspool subsidy policy, the funds will support the continuation of the three existing buspools plus two new start-up buspools. Agenda Item 8P 109 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $100,000 Source of Funds: Measure A funds Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 226 41 81030 P2109 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Arbtaa,.tzi Date: 6/16/2008 Agenda Item 8P 110 AGENDA ITEM 8Q L. , E__ ___ , r ._ , --) _ • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Motorist Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009-13 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Calimesa, Coachella, and Desert Hot Springs STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2009-13 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the cities of Calimesa, Coachella, and Desert Hot Springs as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure A Ordinance 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 required to submit the annual certification of maintenance of effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On March 18, 2008, Commission staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the required five-year CIP. The agencies were asked to submit their CIPs by May 12, 2008 for submission to the Commission on June 11, 2008. At its June 1 1 , 2008 meeting, the Commission approved the plans for all but six cities of Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Murrieta and Norco. Subsequently, the Commission has received the required CIP, MOE certification and supporting documentation from the cities of Calimesa, Coachella, and Desert Hot Springs. 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 8Q 111 Attachment: Measure A Capital Improvement Plans for Calimesa, Coachella, and Desert Hot Springs Agenda Item 8Q 112 • • ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008 - 2009 PAGE 1 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Anne Schneider Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: June-08 Item No, Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed $40 $40 2 Prop 1 B Sidewalk & Ramps, St. Repair, Drainage IP's $400 $40 3 TCSPP Third St Sidewalk, pave out and drainage IP's $893 $235 4 DEMOSTL County Line Road Street widening and drainage IP's $400 $80 5 TE Calimesa Boulevard Landscaping Landscape Enhancement $363 $33 6 Administrative Charge Overhead $13 $13 Total Measure "A" Funds 113 441,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2009-2010 PAGE 2 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by, Anne Schneider Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: Jun-08 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cast (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed $40 $40 2 Avenue L rehab R & R pavement $81 $14 3 DEMOSTL County Line Road Street widening and drainage IP's $1,900 $600 4 Administrative Charge Overhead $13 $13 Total Measure "A" Funds $667,000 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2010- 2011 PAGE 3OF5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Anne Schneider Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: Jun-08 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed $113 $113 2 Administrative Charge Overhead $9 $9 Total Measure "A" Funds 115 $122,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2011- 2012 PAGE 4 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Anne Schneider Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: June-08 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed $117 $117 2 Administrative Charge Overhead $10 $10 Total Measure "A" Funds $127,000 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2012- 2013 PAGE 5OF5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Anne Schneider Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: June-08 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed $124 $124 2 Administrative Charge Overhead $11 $11 Total Measure "A" Funds $135,000 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF COACHELLA 1515 SIXTH STREET, COACHELLA. CALIFORNIA 92236 PHour-. (760) 398-3502 . FAX (760) 398-8117 + WWW.COACHELL.A.ORG May 16, 2008 Mr. Jerry Rivera Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3580 University Avenue, Suite 111 Riverside, California 92507 Subject: Capital Improvement Plan - Measure "A" Projects Fiscal Years 2009-2013 Dear Jerry, Attached is the City of Coachella's Capital Improvement Plan for Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads. Dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest thousand. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Frank Crain of my staff, or me. Frank can be reached at (760) 398-5744 ext. 138, and I can be reached at (760) 398-5744 ext. 134. Sincerely, Tony Lu ero, P.E. City Engineer cc: Tim Brown, City Manager Paul Toor, Director of Public Works John Gerardi, Finance Director Frank Crain, Civil Engineering Associate Attachments JVECEUVE HAy 1 9 AO D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COlvdinvoN An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer 118 X.29.24 L IF Olt 04. CITY OF COACHELLA 1515 SIXTH STREET, COACHaLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 PHONE (760)398-3502 • FAX (760)398-8117 • WWW.COACHFI IA.ORG NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION I TO: Tony Lucero, City Engineer FROM: Caroline Hernandez, CMC Deputy City Clerk DATE: April 29, 2008 S1U13.IECT: Coachella City Council Regular Meeting of April 23, 2008 REF: l li. Request Approval of Fiscal Year 2009-2013 Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Plan and Authorize Staff to Submit the Program to Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). ACTION: This item was approved by a 5-0 vote of the City Council. leer „Ai/T14m1�� arolme Hernandez, CM Deputy City Clerk An Affirmative Actior✓Equal Oppornmity Employer 119 • • Honorable Mayor and Members of the Coachella City Council Background City Council Meeting of April 23, 2008 ApproyalkofRFiSOINettrsaI109;;2013 t. Measure "A";LocarStreets sail Ro s Caprt4Iifiprovement Plan and Anthorize Staff to Submit the:Program to x'12iverside County Transportation Commission'(RCTCr Riverside County voters previously approved a''/2 cent sales tax increase (Measure "A") to pay for transportation related infrastructure improvements. This allows the City to receive it's share of the Local Measure "A" funds. The estimated amount that is allocated to the City is approximately $506,000 for fiscal year 2008-09 as reflected in the attached exhibit. This calendar year the City will be rehabilitating a major portion of its older roadways. Most of the work will be financed by gas tax bond money in the amount of approximately $6.1 million dollars. Additional funding from Proposition 1B amounts to $0.6 million. The remaining portion of approximately $0.6 million is part of this Capital Improvement Plan to be funded with Measure "A" funds. Attached is the proposed program for the next fiscal year and the projection for the next four years_ This program must be submitted to RCTC each year for their approval in order to receive the Measure "A" funds. Also a Certification of Maintenance of Effort is required to be submitted with the program. Fiscal Impact This program will have no impact on the General Fund but will provide funds for street projects listed from the MPnsure "A" program. Concur: JoG rardi, Finance Director 120 Recommendation That the City Council approve the Measure "A" Capital Improvement Program and authorize staff to submit the program to RCTC. Concur: orks Director 121 • WeasACFP.2007.11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008 - 2009 Agency: City of Coachella Page 1 of 5 Prepared by: T. Lucero Phone #: 760.398.5744 Date: 4/17/08 Item No. Project Name ! Limits Project Type Total Cost 1$000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1 8i° Street From 7r" Street to Grapefruit BI. Reconstruct $190 $190 2 9r" Street From Grapefruit Blvd. to Bagdad Avenue Reconstruct $213 $213 3 Palm Avenue From 1th Street to 7th Street Reconstruct $489 $103 Preprint/users/nImeasureA5yrform TOTALS $892. $506 122 \MeasACFP.2007.11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2009 - 2010 Agency: City of Coachella Page 2 of 5 Prepared hy: T. Lucero Phone #: 760.398.5744 Date: 4/17/08 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1 Naomi Court Reconstruct $147 $147 From La Ponderosa to East End 2 Perez Street Reconstruct $160 $160 From Naomi Ct. to La Hernandez 3 Romaukla Court Reconstruct $25 $25 Perez Street to La Hernandez East End 4 Reconstruct $68 $ 68 Ortiz Street From Perez St. to La Hemadez 5 Avenida De Platina Reconstruct $85 $85 From Ave. 50 to Via Conchilla 6 Via Conchilla From Avenida De Plata to Reconstruct $42 $21 Avenida De Plantina Preprint/usershitmeasureA5yrform TOTALS $ 527 $ 506 123 • • • MeasACFP.2007.11 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2010 - 2011 Agency: City of Coachella Page 3 of 5 Prepared by: T. Lucero Phone #: 760.398.5744 Date: 4/17/08 item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost 1$000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1 Avenida De Oro Reconstruct $240 $240 From Ave. 50 to Gultron Street 2 Avenida Cortez From Avenue 50 to Calle Leon Reconstruct $168 $168 3 Calle Leon From Calle Vega to Avenida Reconstruct $64 $64 Cortez 4 Calle Vega From Calle Leon to Paseo Reconstruct $53 $45 Laredo PreprintiusersirilmeasureA5yrform TOTALS $525 $517 124 MeasACFP.2007.1 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2011 - 2012 Agency: City of Coachella Page 4 of 5 Prepared by: T. Luce►o Phone #: 760.398.5744 Date: Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost l$000's) Measure A funds ($000's) , 1 Paseo De Lareda Reconstruct $88 $88 From Frederick to Avenida Cortez 2 Via Durango From Avenida Cortez to End Reconstruct $59 $59 3 Via Hermosa Reconstruct $59 $59 From Avenida. Cortez to End 4 Vera Cruz Reconstruct $59 $59 From Avenida Cortez to End 5 Frederick Street Reconstruct $660 $272 From Avenue 50 to Avenue 49 PreprimlusershilmeasureA5yrform TOTALS $925 $537 125 • • MeasACFP.2007.11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2012 - 2013 Agency: City of Coachella Page 5 of 5 Prepared by: T. Lucero Phone #:760.398.5744 Date: 4/17/08 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1 Avenue 49 From Harrison to Van Buren Reconstruct $1,008 $569 Pre pn m/oseranimeasureA 5yrform TOTALS $1,008 $569 126 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for .r7itdd �a. (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds receivedpursuant to Ordinance No. 88-1 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure Al 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: fiej, , 2008' 127 Yvonne Parks Maya Scott Matas Mayor Pro Tem Karl Baker, Jr. Councifinember June 10, 2008 Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 UN ATTACHMENT 3 -111 MD jU RE: CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL 2008-2009 — 2012-2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (GIP) Dear Mr. Rivera: Per your request, I am sending you the project status for the 2007 —2008 CIP Projects in the City of Desert Hot Springs. This status report is as of June 10, Russell Betts 2008. Councifinember Al Schmidt Councilmember Rick Daniels City Manager 465950 Pierson Blvd. Desert Hot Springs California 92240 41150)329-6411 www.cityofdhs.org 5003: Hacienda Ave. Rehabilitation, West Dr. to Palm Dr.- plans and specifications complete. Waiting for Caltrans authorization to proceed. 5011: City Wide Slurry Seal Improvements —moved to 2008-2009. Combine with previous 2008-2009 allocation. 5014: City Wide Striping Improvements — moved to 2008-2009. 5008: Streets with Mission Springs Water District — moved to 2008-2009. Combine with previous 2008-2009 allocation. Attached for your nse is the City of Desert Hot Springs Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), prepared for Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads. Also enclosed is the City's Certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) and documentation supporting the City's MOE calculation. Sin_rely, nathan D. Hoy blic Works Director/City Engineer Enclosure: 2007-2008 CIP — Measure A 2006-2007 Notes to Financial Statements Cc: Rick Daniels, City Manager Linda Kelly, Finance Director X.29.23 128 • Agency: Prepared By: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 City of Desert Hot Springs Jonathan Hoy, Director of Public Works 760-329-6411, extension 247 •• March 6, 2008 — Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" $ 5003 Hacienda Avenue Rehab West to Palm Pavement Reconstruction $547,100.00 $257,000.00 5011 City Wide Slurry Seal Improvements Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Misc. Streets $250,000.00 $261,650.00 5014 City Wide Striping Improvements New striping and reflective paint imprv. $35,000.00 $38,000.00 5008 Streets with MSWD Street and Sewer Improvements $500,000.00 $63,000.00 $619,660.00 Totals $1,332,100.00 Note Includes unspent funds from FY06-07 budget Agency: Prepared By: Phone #: Dater RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 City of Desert Hot Springs Jonathan Hoy, Director of Public Works 780-329-8411, extension 247 June 10, 2008- Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" $ 1 Western Ave -Scenic Dr Design/Environ Pavement Construction $355,080.00 $5,136.00 2, 5011 Slurry Seal Various City Streets Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Misc. Streets $523,300.00 $523,300.00 3, 5008 Streets with MSWD Street and Sewer Improvements $500,000.00 $94,214.00 4 Sidewalk Construction - Two Bunch Palms Trail & Pierson Blvd Construct Sidewalks on existing Streets $260,000.00 $65,000.00 5014 City Wide Striping Improvements New striping and reflective paint imprv. $35,000.00 $38,000.00 5003 Hacienda Avenue Rehab West to Palm Pavement Reconstruction $547,100.00 $257,000.00 $982,650.00- Totals $2,220,480.00 Note Includes unspent funds from FY07.08 budget Agency: Prepared By: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 City of Desert Hot Springs Jonathan Hoy, Director of Public Works 760-329.6411, extension 247 June 10, 2008 . ' Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" $ 1 Western Ave - Scenic Dr Construction Pavement Construction $314,353.00 $35,564.00 2 Street Rehabilitation - 2yr Project Pavement Construction $500,000.00 $159,000.00 3 City Wide Slurry Seal Improvements Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Misc. Streets $168,436,00 $168,436.00 Totals $982,789.00 $363,000.00 00'000'140 00'000`09a sie;o1 OD'ODO`093 00'000'04l$ slaails oswy leas pe.1O pue leas lu nis sluawenoidumlees /umis ep!M 40 Z 00'000'4ZZ$ 00'000'049$ uor;onmuooaa;uawaned JeeA puZ- ualeilipeuea leads 4 $ ..d., ainseaW isoO 187o1 sal loalord siluil7/aweN pollard 'oN wall _ .:800Z '01-aunr ISTZ uolsuNxe `CLi9-6Z8-091 swots oll9ndlo.ro;Dada '/roll ueyleuar S6uudS 1o147 osso 10 Apo 110Z-010Z 21,3A 71,3SId W 1Y2/'JO2fd SON(ld WOO -I „V,. 3MI1SV3W NO1SS11NWOO NO11V1.21OdSN*11 AD11700 3QIS213A1d -:ateo- :# auo4d pafedaid aoua6y • 00.000`98E$ w000'ne$ 00'000'98£$ 00'000'99E$ spans 'owl leas pei0 pue leas timis quewenadwl lees kunls epw t �G10 6 $ . y„ croseew )soO leiol edit( l0ef0Jd s;1wp/eweN pafoid 'ON Wen 900Z 'OI eunr :elep L4Z uotsuaPre '14$11-6Ze•092 :# euoild swots allgnd Jo folaai (3 `AON ue y;suer :A8 peiedeid sbupdg pasap/o Ano :.fauaby ZGOZ-140Z dn3A 7VOSId wed0021d SONRd 711007„4'„ 3WISteN NOISSIWWOO NO11411210dSNVELL A1NRO3 3O1S213AId • • ow000'sov$ 00'000'60P$ 00'000'604$ 00'000'604$ saaa�lS 'oslW leas Noeio pue leas Alms slueuwanoidwl lees anis epim 6 $ „b„ amseapy 3So0 fe3o1 adAR 3oefoid si u npmeN 33ejoid "ON Wan • -800-'0L eunp LYZ uo►suspra 1149-6Ze-092 sworn orignd Jo Jopalja 'Aoy umpeuop sBu/fdg loy pried 10 Ago 810Z-Z10Z 8V3A 7VOS1d WbM'JOad sound woo7..v.. 3811S17'3W NOISSlWWOO NOLLVidOdSN1YN1.11Nn00 31:71SURAI 1 :Om :# euo4d :gig paredaid :Aotued y • • MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for City of Desert Hot Springs (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 88-1 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 riot 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: June d0; Zap g City M�ger, Rick Daniels 135 City of Desert Hot Springs Measure A Transportation Fund Notes to Financial Statements Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee Program As required under Measure A, Measure A monies cannot be allocated to individual cities in the Coachella Valley unless they participate in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, which is necessary for the implementation of the planned Regional Arterial System. The City collected TUMF fees totaling approximately $768,322 in 2007, which were remitted to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). i Maintenance of Effort In accordance; with the laws and regulations of Measure A, the City is required to maintain its continuous commitment of local discretionary expenditures for streets and roads. The base year calculation of local discretionary expenditures (Base Year) represents the average amount of streets and road expenditures incurred for 1986 through 1988. During 2007, the City's local discretionary expenditures for streets and roads, as calculated below, indicates the City is in conformance with this requirement. The City has a total cumulative excess of local discretionary expenditures of $322,776 on June 30, 2007. • Current Year local discretionary expenditures Less: Base Year 2007 $81,719 $(57 586) Excess of current year expenditures under Base Year $24,133 Excess local expenditures at the beginning of the year $298.643 Excess local expenditures at the end of the year $322,776 136 N AGENDA ITEM 8R • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Federal Authorization Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: California Consensus Reauthorization Principles FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATIVE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to endorse the statewide California Consensus document. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The California Department of Transportation (Ca[trans) and the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (BTH) have developed a set of seven principles that capture the state's priorities for the next federal authorization bill. Those principles are part of a consensus document attached to this staff report. The document was developed through a series of open meetings and workshops that began in December 2007. Extensive input was provided from the state's metropolitan planning organizations, regional transportation planning agencies, other transportation agencies, the private sector, and multiple public interest groups. In general, the group reached consensus on the following seven principles: • Ensure the financial integrity of the Highway and Transit Trust Funds. • Rebuild and maintain transportation infrastructure in a good state of repair. • Establish goods movement, as a national economic priority. • Enhance mobility through congestion relief within and between metropolitan areas. • Strengthen the federal commitment to safety and security, particularly with respect to rural roads and access. • Strengthen comprehensive environmental stewardship. • Streamline project delivery. Agenda Item 8R 137 In the next several months, the adopting stakeholders will use this document to raise awareness of California's intentions for the next authorization with the state's Congressional delegation, other statewide and national organizations, and candidates for national office working on authorization policy and positions. The group is timing the release of this document to influence committee staff before it begins drafting of proposals, which is expected to begin in the middle of November 2008. This set of principles is a general document by both necessity and by design. Because the state seeks consensus from a diverse group of stakeholders, the language is vague. The state provides opportunity for further detail and elaboration, allowing entities such as the Commission to build upon the framework and make stronger statements that reflect its specific interests within those principles. Adoption of these principles allows the Commission to advocate as a partner with the state and sister agencies. However, staff is aware of the multiplicity of groups that are in the process of adopting principles for reauthorization, and believes that the Commission should be selective in which documents it endorses. Staff also notes that these principles do not conflict with, and in fact support the 10 federal programs proposed by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission, which was the subject of the April 2008 ad hoc committee meeting. For reference, the national commission's recommended program structure is attached. Staff has overlaid that structure with the Commission projects as a demonstration of how it fits with the Commission priorities and also is reflected in the California Consensus principles. Endorsing this document allows the transportation interests in the state to go arm -in -arm with as unified a voice as possible to ensure the greatest return to California in the next bill. Attachments: 1) California Consensus Principles for Next Transportation Authorization 2) National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission 10 Programs Agenda Item 8R 138 • FINAL DRAFT California Consensus on Federal Transportation Authorization 2008 ATTACHMENT 1 Under the leadership of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, and the California Department of Transportation, stakeholders from across California have united on a basic set of principles that we ask our delegation in Washington, DC to adopt in the upcoming debate on the future of this nation's transportation policies. 1. Ensure the financial integrity of the Highway and Transit Trust Funds The financial integrity of the transportation trust fund is at a crossroads. Current user fees are not keeping pace with needs or even the authorized levels in current law. In the long-term, the per -gallon fees now charged on current fuels will not provide the revenue or stability needed, especially as new fuels enter the marketplace. This authorization will need to stabilize the existing revenue system and prepare the way for the transition to new methods of funding our nation's transportation infrastructure. • Maintain the basic principle of a user -based, pay-as-you-go system. • Continue the budgetary protections for the Highway Trust Fund and General Fund supplementation of the Mass Transportation Account. • Assure a federal funding commitment that supports a program size based on an objective analysis of national needs, which will likely require additional revenue. • To diversify and augment trust fund resources, authorize states to implement innovative funding mechanisms such as tolling, variable pricing, carbon offset banks, freight user fees, and alternatives to the per -gallon gasoline tax that are accepted by the public, and fully dedicated to transportation. • Minimize the number and the dollar amount of earmarks, reserving them only for those projects in approved transportation plans and programs. 2. Rebuild and maintain transportation infrastructure in a good state of repair. Conditions on California's surface transportation systems are deteriorating while demand is increasing. This is adversely affecting the operational efficiency of our key transportation assets, hindering mobility, commerce, quality of life and the environment. • Give top priority to preservation and maintenance of the existing system of roads, highways, bridges and transit. • Continue the historic needs -based nature of the federal transit capital replacement programs. 3. Establish goods movement, as a national economic priority. Interstate commerce is the historic cornerstone defining the federal role in transportation. The efficient movement of goods, across state and international boundaries increases the nation's ability to remain globally competitive and generate jobs. • Create a new federal program and funding sources dedicated to relieving growing congestion at America's global gateways that are now acting as trade barriers and creating environmental hot spots. • Ensure state and local flexibility in project selection. • Recognize that some states have made a substantial investment of their own funds in nationally significant goods movement projects and support their investments by granting them priority for federal funding to bridge the gap between need and local resources. • Include adequate funding to mitigate the environmental and community impacts associated with goods movement. -1- 05/28/2008 139 ATTACHMENT 1 FINAL DRAFT 4. Enhance mobility through congestion relief within and between metropolitan areas. California is home to the six of the 25 most congested metropolitan areas in the nation. These mega - regions represent a large majority of the population affected by travel delay and exposure to air pollutants. • Increase funding for enhanced capacity for all modes aimed at reducing congestion and promoting mobility in the most congested areas. • Provide increased state flexibility to implement performance -based infrastructure projects and public - private partnerships, including interstate tolling and innovative finance programs. • Consolidate federal programs by combining existing programs using needs, performance -based, and air quality criteria. • Expand project eligibility within programs and increase flexibility among programs. 5. Strengthen the federal commitment to safety and security, particularly with respect to rural roads and access. California recognizes that traffic safety involves saving lives, reducing injuries and optimizing the uninterrupted flow of traffic on the state's roadways. California has completed a comprehensive Strategic Highway Safety Plan. • Increase funding for safety projects aimed at reducing fatalities, especially on the secondary highway system where fatality rates are the highest. • Support behavioral safety programs — speed, occupant restraint, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, road -sharing, etc. -- through enforcement and education. • Address licensing, driver improvement, and adjudication issues and their impact on traffic safety. • Assess and integrate emerging traffic safety technologies, including improved data collection systems. • Fund a national program to provide security on our nation's transportation systems, including public transit. 6. Strengthen comprehensive environmental stewardship. Environmental mitigation is part of every transportation project and program. The federal role is to provide the tools that will help mitigate future impacts and to cope with changes to our environment. Integrate consideration of climate change and joint land use -transportation linkages into the planning process. Provide funding for planning and implementation of measures that have the potential to reduce emissions and improve health such as new vehicle technologies, alternative fuels, clean transit vehicles, transit -oriented development and increased transit usage, ride -sharing, and bicycle and pedestrian travel Provide finding to mitigate the air, water and other environmental impacts of transportation projects. 7. Streamline Project Delivery Extended processing time for environmental clearances, federal permits and reviews, etc. add to the cost of projects. Given constrained resources, it is all the more critical that these clearances and reviews be kept to the minimum possible consistent with good stewardship of natural resources. Increase opportunities for state stewardship through delegation programs for NEPA, air quality conformity, transit projects, etc. • Increase state flexibility for using at -risk design and design -build. -2- 05/28/2008 • 140 • ATTACHMENT 1 FINAL DRAFT • Ensure that federal project oversight is commensurate to the amount of federal funding. • Require federal permitting agencies to engage actively and collaboratively in project development and approval. • Integrate planning, project development, review, permitting, and environmental processes to reduce delay. -3- 05/28/2008 141 • ATTACHMENT 2 SAFETEA-LU Section 1909: National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission — Recommended streamlining of the federal program with overlay of RCTC projects 1. Rebuilding America: A National Asset Management Program 2. Freight Transportation: A Program to Enhance U.S. Global Competitiveness • Grade separations • SR-86 • 1-10 • 1-15 • Truck lanes or highway widening 3. Congestion Relief: A Program for Improved Metropolitan Mobility • SR-91 • 1-15 • 1-215 • SR-60 • SR-79 • 1-10 • Mid County Parkway • Commuter rail capacity expansion 4. Saving Lives: A National Safe Mobility Program • Freeway Service Patrol 5. Connecting America: A National Access Program for Smaller Cities and Rural. Areas • 1-10 • Mid County Parkway • SR-79 6. Intercity Passenger Rail: A Program to Serve High -Growth Corridors by Rail • Post -Perris Valley Line expansion projects • Pass and Coachella Valley service 7. Environmental Stewardship: A Transportation Investment Program to Support a Healthy Environment • Transit capacity 142 • Grade Separations • Commuter Assistance Program 8. Energy Security: A Program to Accelerate the Development of Environmentally - Friendly Replacement Fuels 9. Federal Lands: A Program for Improving Public Access 10. Research, Development & Technology: A Coherent Transportation Research Program for the Nation 143 AGENDA ITEM 9 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Lake Elsinore Request for Measure A Regional Arterial Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-72-004-00 with the city of Lake Elsinore for the State Route 74/Interstate 15 interchange improvement project in the city of Lake Elsinore in the amount of $2 million of Measure A Regional Arterial program funds; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission released a call for projects for Measure A Regional Arterial program funds in October 2007. There were 11 projects submitted under the Measure A Regional Arterial call for projects that were also approved under the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program. At the March 2008 Commission meeting, staff reported that the pace of the call for projects was being slowed down to review Measure A and TUMF revenues, and project costs and schedules of TUMF Regional Arterial projects. This effort is needed to ensure the viability and deliverability of the TUMF program before the Commission begins implementation of the Measure A Regional Arterial program. Staff anticipates presenting recommendations on the Measure A Regional Arterial call for projects to the Commission in September 2008, in addition to reporting the status of the TUMF Regional Arterial program. There is one project that was submitted for Measure A Regional Arterial funds that will be ready to advertise in July 2008. This project is the SR-74/I-15 interchange improvement project in the city of Lake Elsinore. The city has submitted a letter requesting $2 million of Measure A Regional Arterial funds. The total project cost is $5 million with the city funding the remaining $3 million with local funds. Staff Agenda Item 9 144 supports funding the SR-74/I-15 interchange improvement project in advance of the overall program recommendations given the following reasons: • Permits have been issued by Ca[trans; • Project ranked very high on technical ranking (17 points out of 19 points); and • Project meets intention of call for projects to fund projects that can be delivered in a timely manner. This recommendation has been discussed with the Western County Public Works Directors and has received their support. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: S2,000,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper as advance of 2009 Measure A Regional Arterial Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 266 72 81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Ptlitij Date: 07/01 /2008 Attachment: Letter from the City of Lake Elsinore Agenda Item 9 145 4„___444\CITY OF ACE L LSINOU �� DREAM EXTREME e June 27, 2008 Anne Mayer Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 lemon Street, 3Ed Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Dear Ms. Mayer, Please accept this letter as the City of Lake Elsinore's request to have the Measure A Arterial funding for the SR-74/I-15 improvements placed on the July 9, 2008, RCTC agenda. This project funding request, in the amount of $2,000,000, was reviewed by the Public Works Technical Advisory Committee (Public Works TAC) on June 19, 2008, and is currently ranked in the top five of the thirty-four projects submitted. The City of Lake Elsinore is requesting the funding consideration in advance of the program approval schedule because of the project's readiness to begin the construction phase. Thanks to the initiative of you and your staff, the other members of the Public Works TAC were notified of this request and were in support of it proceeding to the Commission for consideration. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ken Seumalo at 951/ 674-3124 x244. hank you: 1 1 Hickman Mayor cc: Bob Brady, City Manager Shirley Medina, Program Manager Ken Seumalo, Director of Public Works 951.674.3124 . S. MAIN STREET KE ELSINORE. CA 92530 W W W.I AKE-ELS I NOREORG 146 AGENDA ITEM 10 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: San Jacinto Branch Line Ad Hoc Committee Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director Edda Rosso, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Perris Valley Line Station Development Priority List SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Station Development Opening Day Priority List. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its March 12, 2008 meeting, the Commission approved the evaluation criteria to be used to assist in the prioritization of station development for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project. The PVL project currently identifies a proposal for seven new stations: Palymrita, UC Riverside, Fair Isle, Moreno Valley/March Field, Ramona, Downtown Perris, and South Perris. As the Committee will recall, the Small Starts program evaluates the Commission's project based on opening year projections for ridership, operating costs, and capital costs. Not all stations are required for start-up service in 2011. Thus, over the past few months, staff has been working with the consultants from STV Incorporated and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas (PBQ&D) to analyze various criteria by station to assist staff in developing a recommended list of stations that should be constructed for opening day service, and those which could be delayed to a later phase. Criteria considered includes: ridership projections, hours of user benefit, station costs, low income access, employment, land use, and community input. Staff's recommendation for stations to be operational at opening day is: • Palymrita — High ridership in model; serves Hunter Park/Hunter Technology Park and adjacent high-tech firms, industries, and research facilities as well as nearby residential and business communities. Agenda Item 10 147 • UC Riverside - Serves important and growing activity center at UCR, would be the first line in the Metrolink system to directly serve a UC campus, lowest cost since right-of-way already owned and anticipate a smaller drop-off only station. • Moreno Valley/March Field - An important destination station serving a growing industrial and business center at the Meridian Business Park and March Air Reserve Base. Will also serve local Moreno Valley commuters. • Perris - Significant local support and facilitates transit -oriented development in the downtown area, transit hub with the construction of the first phase of. the multi -model center being initiated in late 2008. • South Perris - Highest ridership, will serve as an important gateway linking Metrolink to the south county and Hemet Valley, will include space for overnight storage of the trains. The Ramona station has lower projected ridership at opening day, however staff anticipate with the fulfillment of the planned development in the Lakeview -Nuevo area, this station will soon serve a growing market. However, at opening day, staff believes the adjacent stations can accommodate demand, saving the Commission a couple of years of station maintenance and operating costs. The Fair Isle station has an uncertain development status and is unlikely to be constructed at the advent of commuter rail service on the line. The proposed Fair Isle station is not being environmentally cleared by the Commission; that station is proposed to be built by a private developer and must be cleared by that project in order to move forward. - Staff will have the consultants from STV and PBQ&D present at the Commission meeting to provide a detailed overview of the analysis completed on station locations. Agenda Item 10 148 Overview of Station Priority Analysis ■ December 2007 — FTA grants PVL Project permission to enter Project Development Phase ❑ Project Cost Effectiveness Index = $23.93 ❑ FTA regularly monitors the CEI during PD ■ March 2008 — RCTC identifies evaluation criteria to assist in phasing of stations. ❑ 7 stations identified in base scenario ❑ Not all have to be open at service start-up ■ August 2008 — Submit annual package to FTA Evaluation Criteria ■ Cost Effectiveness (50% weighting) ❑ Capital Cost per Station (40%) ❑ Ridership per Station (60%) ■ Effectiveness (40`)/0 weighting) ❑ Mobility Improvements (40%) ■ Low -Income Rider Access ■ Opening Year Employment ❑ Economic Development /Land Use (60%) ■ Community Input (10% weighting) Base (7 Stations) ■ Palmyrita ■ UC Riverside ■ Fair Isle ■ Moreno Valley /March Field ■ Ramona ■ Perris ■ South Perris 4 Recommended Phasing Plan Option 1 (5 stations) ■ Palmyrita ■ UC Riverside ■ fair Isle ■ Moreno Valley /March Field ■ Ramona ■ Perris ■ South Perris 5 Station Evaluations Cost Effectiveness Station Cap Cost ($Mil) Daily Riders Cost / Rider Score Palmyrita $4.28 1,140 $3,756 • UC Riverside $2.00 363 $5,510 O Fair Isle $3.20 510 $6,281 Q Moreno Valley / March Field $3.44 742 $4,636 Q Ramona $2.60 429 $6,061 p Perris $2.88 823 $3,499 • South Perris $5.12 1,097 $4,667 Q Worst 01 02 Q 3 Q 4 05 Best 6 Station Evaluations Effectiveness Station Low Income Access Employ _ment Land Use Total Score Palmyrita Q UC Riverside Q Q Q Q Fair Isle O Q Q Q Moreno Valley / March Field O 0 O O Ramona 0 O O O Perris • Q South Perris • O O O Worst 01 O 2 O 3 o 4 05 Best 7 Community Input Station Community Input Score Palmyrita Q UC Riverside a Fair Isle Q Moreno Valley / March Field Q Ramona • Perris a South Perris • Station Evaluations Worst 01 02 O 3 a 4 05 Best 8 Station Evaluations Overall Score Station Cost Effectiveness Low -Income Access Employment Land Use Community Input Total Score Palmyrita 50.0 4.8 8.0 24.0 6.0 92.8 UC Riverside 20.0 4.8 4.8 14.4 8.0 52.0 Fair Isle 10.0 3.2 4.8 14.4 6.0 38.4 Moreno Valley ! March Field 30.0 1.6 4.8 9.6 6.0 52.0 Ramona 10.0 4.8 4.8 9.6 10.0 39.2 Perris 50.0 8.0 4.8 24.0 8.0 94.8 South Perris 30.0 8.0 1.6 4.8 10.0 54.4 9 Recommendations ■ Fair Isle Station — Do Not Include for Opening Day ❑ Uncertain development status ❑ Not included in previous submittals ■ Ramona Station — Do Not Include for Opening Day ❑ Low ridership in model ❑ Likely will become more important as planned development to the east occurs and Mid -County Parkway is constructed ■ South Perris, Perris, Moreno Valley / March Field, Palmyrita Stations — Include for Opening Day ❑ High ridership in model ❑ Serve key markets to north & south, as well as key Perris Valley cities ■ UC Riverside Station — Include for Opening Day ❑ Serves very important activity center at UCR ❑ Provides service to supportive land uses and markets ❑ Lower ridership in model 10 Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) Cost l Effectiveness = Index Incremental Cost of Proposed Project User Benefit Hours (Build O&M Annual Cost - Baseline O&M Annual Cost) (Build Capital Cost - Baseline Capital Cost) / Travel time savings (shorter transit trips, less transfers, faster service) converted to hours. 12 Cost Effectiveness Index Implications Approximate CEI Calculations Phasing Plan Annualized Capital Cost A ($ Mil) Annual O&M Cost A ($ Mil) Annual User Benefits (Hours) CEI (Dollars / Hour Saved) Dec. 2007 Submittal (6 Stations) $10.97 $4.72 655,637 $23.93 Base (7 Stations) $10.93 $5.45 709,156 $23 1 — Remove Ramona, Fair Isle $11.09 $4.81 658,869 $24 1b — Remove Ramona, Fair Isle, Limit Perris $11.09 $4.81 635,606 $25 2 — Remove Ramona, UC Riverside $11.02 $4.82 701,059 $23 3 — Remove Ramona, UC Riverside, Perris $11.09 $4.37 466,058 $33 4 — Remove UC Riverside, Perris $10.99 $4.77 609,976 $26 5 — Remove Ramona, UC Riverside, Fair Isle, Limit Perris $11.12 $4.48 598,936 $26 13 Cost Effectiveness Index Implications ■ Annualized Capital Costs Stay Constant ❑ Stations only account for 10% of Cap. Costs ❑ Stations also removed from Baseline Alt. ■ Significant O&M Cost Savings ❑ RCTC has major station upkeep costs ❑ Bus stations for Baseline Alt. are not significant O&M Costs ■ Major Loss of User Benefits for Most Scenarios ❑ Fewer stations means fewer riders, longer drives to stations 14 Cost Effectiveness Index Implications ■ Modifying station plans varies Capital & O&M Costs and User Benefits, resulting in unpredictable impacts on CEI ■ Best case phasing plan has only 2% positive impact on CEI ■ All others push project out of cost effective range AGENDA ITEM 12 COMMISSIONERS REPORT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Commissioner Frank West and Daryl Busch SUBJECT: American Public Transportation Association Rail Conference 2008 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The recent passage of Assembly 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 San Francisco, California, June 1-4, 2008. On an annual basis, the APTA Rail Conference is held to address nearly every aspect of commuter rail and rail transit. This provides a great opportunity to learn more about the industry's latest trends and challenges to developing effective transportation alternatives. ATTENDEES: Commission members Daryl Busch and Frank West participated in the APTA Rail Conference. Sheldon Peterson attended for Commission staff. WORKSHOPS AND SEMINARS: There was a full assortment of workshops that directly related to Metrolink Commuter Rail operations or the development of the Perris Valley Line. The following list provides some examples: • Making the Case for Investing in Rail • Commuter Rail Update • Security — Where's the Money, Where's the Support, and Who's Doing What? • Alternative Methods for Financing and Project Delivery • Energy, Environment, and Transit • The Role of Passenger Rail in Sustainable Development • High Speed Rail Fuels the Economy • New Direction is Federal Regulation of Rail Safety and Security • Rail: The Better Environmental Alternative Agenda Item 12 149 • Energy, Environment, and Passenger Locomotives • ADA Requirements for Rail Operations • Shared Use Corridors • What's on the Horizon for Rail? (Cathy Bechtel presented the Perris Valley Line) SUMMARY: This year's conference provided very useful and timely information related to Metrolink and the Commission's Commuter Rail operations. This was a particularly informative conference that started off with a Host Forum Presentation from the Speakerof the House Nancy Pelosi, who emphasized the need for expanded infrastructure for rail transit and transportation. There were a number of workshop and luncheon events. One such luncheon speech was called "Positioning Rail in the World of Sustainability", this was a particularly interesting speech with the very enthusiastic Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom. In addition to these sessions, the conference provided a unique opportunity for networking and to discuss the issues related to rail service with others throughout the country. During the trade show, it was useful to learn about the new tools that vendors are using for corridor development and rail planning. Also it was encouraging to talk to others regarding fuel costs, ridership growth, and the challenges of expanding service. Overall the conference was a success and provided a great opportunity to learn more about the industry. Agenda Item 12 150 RCTC Conflict of Interest Form Purpose: This form is provided to assist members of the RCTC Commissioners in meeting requirements of 87105 in documenting conflict of interests as related to RCTC RCTC Commissioners may be required to disclose and in, influencing, or voting on an agenda item due to personal business positions, or receipt of campaign contributions. If state the following information, for entry into the public agenda item(s) and turn in the completed form to the Clerk Government Code Section 84308 and Commission/Committee agenda items. Instructions: Under certain circumstances, disqualify themselves from participating income, real property interests, investments, applicable, Commissioners must personally record, prior to consideration of the involved of the Board prior to leaving the meeting. I. Board Member Information Board Member Name City/County Name Meeting Date II. Campaign Contributions (For contracts, permits and other entitlements only) 1. I,have a disqualifying campaign contribution km and therefore I am abstaining from participation 2. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore 1 am abstaining from participation 3. 1 have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation 4. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution ` and therefore I am abstaining from participation of over $250 from L`.1Ak'F-��� r (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item ?" —, Subject: aktiv-.^Ge✓ MS . Ct-`c m f°l4 t of over $250 from A.A_\1C� 1L-�"A./L , (Identity the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item [IC -Subject: c.1/4--cdh'yl c(-\C-crri cij . k_,- r-&-*G-r-vi-Tt.be! of over $250 from �` Ar� tit L. PG— �9� Id ntify the na a of the company and/or Indiv dual) , on Agenda iterrr �, Subject: 'c ts-e ce _.cf`C'V't a..., of over $250 from , (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: III. Financial Interest 1. I have a financial interest of , from/in - (State income, and therefore I am abstaining from participation 2. I have a financial interest of real property interest, investment or business position) (identify name of company or property location) on Agenda Item , Subject: , from/in (State income, and therefore I am abstaining from participation real property interest, investment or business position) (Identify name of company or property location) on Agenda Item , Subject: IV. Signature Board Member Signature: atiLA, Date: ° I-) - 1 -Or Please remember you must state the information into the public record prior to consideration of the involved agenda itemis) and turn in the completed form to the Clerk of the Board prior to leaving the meeting. Please use reverse side of form to include any additional information