Loading...
09 September 15, 2008 Technical Advisory Committee85194 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: September 15, 2008 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA Conference Room A, 3`d Floor In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. DRAFT COUNTY TRANSPORTATION MODEL PRESENTATION (Verbal Presentation) 6. MSHCP STATUS (Verbal Presentation) 7. 2008 STATE BUDGET — POTENTIAL IMPACT TO 2008 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) (Attachment) 8. LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT (Verbal Presentation) 11.36.02 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 15, 2008 Page 2 9. 2008 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (RTIP) AMENDMENT STATUS (Attachment) 10. PROJECT MILESTONE REPORT (Attachment) 11. SEPTEMBER 10 COMMISSION ITEMS (Attachment) • TUMF MOU AMENDMENT • CVAG HIGHWAY 111 REDESIGNATION • MARA UPDATE 12. OTHER BUSINESS 13. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be October 20, 2008, 10:00 A.M. in Banning.) MINUTES • • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 16, 2008 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 A.M. at Banning City Hall Civic Center, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Patrick Hally, Ca!trans District 8 Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Jonathan Hoy, City of Desert Hot Springs Bill Hughes, City of Temecula Prem Kumar, City of Moreno Valley Tony Lucero, City of Coachella Bob Morin, City of Corona Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris & San Jacinto Nick Nickerson, City of La Quinta Kahono Oei, City of Banning Juan Perez, County of Riverside Tom Rafferty, City of Indio Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Others Present: Fred Alamolhoda, LAE Assoc. Grace Alvarez, RCTC Shirley Gooding, RCTC Osabuogbe Igbinedion Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Shirley Medina, RCTC Mila Nelson, RTA Bret Teebken, RTA Andrea Zureick, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 16, 2008 Page 2 3. Approval of Minutes The May 19, 2008 minutes were approved as submitted. 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. 2008 STIP ADOPTION Shirley Medina, ROTC, corrected her staff report to indicate that on May 29, 2008, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) adopted the 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) per the CTC staff recommendation that was released on May 9, 2008. She reminded the committee that the 2008 STIP Staff Recommendation — County Share was provided at the May TAC meeting. It was approved at the May 29 CTC meeting. Also at the May TAC meeting, it was reported that all the projects that were submitted were accepted as programmed with the exception of the 60/215 East Junction which was moved out two years. She explained that through a technical amendment, CTC will move the 60/215 East Junction project back to the year we proposed. This will be approved at the June 25 CTC meeting. 6. TAC SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FY 08/09 TE ALLOCATIONS Ms. Medina reported that the TAC Subcommittee met prior to the TAC meeting to discuss the fact that there are more projects to be delivered in the next two years than available funding. She made reference to the written subcommittee recommendations and said she would e-mail the document to all TAC members. She reported that the committee reviewed the funding for FY 2008/09 and there is $3.8 million available and $4.5 million of projects that are ready for construction. She further specked the current project schedules and the demand for FY 2009/10 STIP TE programming. It is expected that later this year, the sub- committee will review project readiness and other funding, if available, and develop an allocation plan for TE projects over the next three to four years. 7. HEMET TE PROJECT RE -SLOPING REQUEST Shirley Medina conveyed that the city of Hemet sent a letter requesting to change the scope of its TE funded State Street Multi -Use Bicycle and Pedestrian Path project. The project was originally submitted under the TEA 21 program. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 16, 2008 Page 3 The city was waiting for the State Street widening project to be completed, which took longer than expected, and rather than requesting more funding it looked at downscaling the project to fit the amount of available TE funding that was originally awarded. Mike Gow, city of Hemet, added that the segment lane was downsized from1.6 miles to 1,200 feet with the same features as the original application. He further stated that the original cost estimate was done eight to ten years ago and costs have escalated since then. The city intends to condition the property owner to complete the trail to the ultimate length as the property develops. Ms. Medina stated that the project will be programmed for funding in FY 2010/11. Regarding the city of Calimesa's request, its project has been carried over from TEA 21 also. The project has been carried over for several years and attempts will be made to obtain the required updated project milestone report. M/S/C (Motlagh/Wassil) to approve the city of Hemet's request. 8. PROCESS FOR TE ALLOCATION REQUESTS AND RFA SUBMITTALS Andrea Zureick, RCTC, reminded the committee that the TE process requires submission of an Allocation Request to California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Request for Authorization (RFA) to Caltrans Local Assistance, at the same time, to obligate the funds. Once NEPA clearance has been obtained, right-of-way certified and the agency is ready to advertise the projects, the requests should be submitted to RCTC for review. Following review, RCTC will forward to Caltrans Local Assistance for its review. The Preliminary 2008 Preparation Schedule attached to the staff report includes the CTC meeting deadlines for items going to the CTC for allocation. The deadline for local agencies to submit their allocation requests to local assistance is about two months before they go to the CTC. The process between sending to RCTC and the CTC authorization to proceed to advertisement could be four months. Ms. Medina added that concurrent submittal of the CTC allocation request and the RFA is necessary to meet the six month deadline the CTC requires between allocation and award of a construction contract. 9. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT INACTIVE PROJECTS Patrick Nally, Caltrans Local Assistance, provided a current inactive list and briefly outlined the projects and responded to various questions. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 16, 2008 Page 4 10. 4111 QUARTER OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY (OA) DELIVERY/PROJECT MILESTONE REPORTS Shirley Medina stated that most of the agencies said they were going to deliver their STP/CMAQ projects this federal fiscal year. She provided a list of the projects and also stated that staff will work closely with Pat Nally and area engineers to find out the status of the projects. She requested that the agencies whose projects are on the list notify RCTC if the RFA has been submitted to Caltrans. An important note is that the state has an obligation authority amount to meet. Each county starts out with an OA target but after June 1, they can exceed that OA target. If a county does not use its OA, other counties may use it. Ms. Zureick stated that at year end, the 2008 RTIP will be adopted and any STP/CMAQ projects that are not obligated this fiscal year will have to be amended into the new RTIP to be able to receive their obligation in FY 2008/09. Currently, RCTC is allowed to program $20 million of STP in FY 2008/09. When the 2008 RTIP is started, that amount will reduce to $17 million. Mr. Hally invited agencies to contact him or the area engineer if they need assistance. 11. 2006 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO. 19 Grace Alvarez, RCTC, reported that Amendment Number 19 was submitted to SCAG. It is believed that it is the last amendment to the 2006 RTIP and included 7 local projects, 2 state projects, and 4 transit projects. She briefly described the projects and further reported that all of the amendments that have been submitted have been approved by the Federal Highway Administration with the exception of Amendment 19 which was just submitted on June 13, 2008. 12. COMMISSION CONNECTION/COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Medina reported that the Commission's budget was approved. Staff will work with CVAG and legal counsel to extend the limits of the Measure A designation of Highway 111 segment. An amendment will have to be taken to the Measure A TIP to each city and the Board of Supervisors for approval. In addition, the Commission was informed of an Obligational Authority loan to Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). SACOG will pay back the loan to RCTC in a future fiscal year. FY 2008/09 SB 821, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, was approved. Contact Jerry Rivera, RCTC, if you have any questions. • • • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 16, 2008 Page 5 Riverside County's $10 million request for Economic Development Funds for the 1-215 @ Van Buren interchange was approved. 13. OTHER BUSINESS Regarding the Ca!trans Cooperative Agreement, Juan Perez said there is no update at this time. Bill Hughes, city of Temecula, indicated that staff supports the TAC's representation at the committee meetings and he asked if there is any value to having conference calling available at the meetings, for listening but not for participating. Ms. Medina stated that staff will see if this is allowable. In response to a question of whether the TAC should go dark in July or August, Ms. Medina indicated that if there are important issues of interest, an e-mail will be sent and the committee could go dark in July or August, depending on the number and substance of agenda items. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:55 A.M. The next meeting is scheduled for July 21, 2008, 10:00 A.M., Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Medi Program Manager AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 15, 2008 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: 2008 State Budget — Potential Impact to Improvement Program (STIP) 2008 State Transportation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the time this item was written, the 2008 State Budget had not been passed. In the January 2008 release of the draft budget and subsequent May revise, Proposition 42 funding remained intact and there was a strong commitment from the Governor and legislature that Proposition 42 funds would not be "borrowed" to address budget shortfall issues. However, because of the current stalemate positions among the politicians, there remains a possibility that transportation funds may be borrowed after all. If this happens, the 2008 STIP would be impacted, which could result in the development of a revised STIP Fund Estimate and revised 2008 STIP. At the August 27, 2008 California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting, staff reported that the STIP Fund Estimated assumed a transfer of Proposition 42 funds in the amount of $692 million for the STIP in FY 2008/09. CTC staff further stated that a Proposition 42 suspension would result in postponing allocations until a revised Fund Estimate is adopted in January 2009, and would result in project delays to the current STIP as follows: • 18% of the 2008/09 projects delayed to 2009/10 • 70% of the 2009/10 projects delayed to 2010/11 • 90% of the 2010/11 projects delayed to 2011/12 There is an active statewide effort among the transportation community to inform legislators of the dire need to maintain Proposition 42 funding. As you may recall, the Transportation Bond passed in November 2006 included a protection clause for Proposition 42 funds stating that any funds borrowed must be repaid within three years including interest. Another major issue that would result if Proposition 42 is suspended is the impact to Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs). Since STIP projects are required to be included in RTPs and RTIPs, project schedules and financial constraint requirements would not be met resulting in a new conformity determination. Projects not exempt from air quality conformity would be impacted and all federal actions including funding obligations and project approvals would be halted until a new conformity determination is approved by federal agencies. • AGENDA ITEM 8 AGENDA ITEM 9 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 15, 2008 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst Grace Alvarez, Staff Analyst 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) Amendment Status SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2008 RTP The 2008 RTP (long-range transportation plan) was adopted by SCAG Regional Council on May 8, 2008, and received a positive conformity determination by FHWA and FTA on June 5, 2008. Shortly thereafter, it came to SCAG's attention that several projects required amendment to either access federal funding or to receive environmental approval. SCAG initiated the first amendment to the 2008 RTP in July 2008. Riverside County submittal for Amendment #1 included: • 4 new projects • 29 state highway projects • 1 grade separation project • 29 local highway projects The most common amendment request was to move the project completion date. A project -level air quality conformity determination requires that the project be modeled in the correct modeling year for the regional emissions analysis; without a positive conformity determination, an environmental document cannot be approved. Because the model years are so closely spaced in the near term, i.e. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2020, 2023, 2030, 2035, a slight slip in the schedule could trigger the requirement for an RTP amendment if the construction date crosses over a model year. Staff will make every effort to work closely with local agencies, especially those in the environmental phase, to ensure that potential problems are dealt with proactively. In addition, staff will be working with SCAG to develop guidance that will more clearly communicate the purpose of the RTP and the regional emissions analysis so that amendments can be avoided to the extent possible in the future. The schedule for Amendment #1 is as follows: July 14, 2008 July 30, 2008 August/September 2008 October/November 2008 December 4, 2008 December 5, 2008 February 2008 2008 RTIP SCAG announced development of Amendment #1 County submittals due to SCAG Modeling and fiscal constraint review Public review and comment SCAG Regional Council adopts 2008 RTP Amendment #1 Report transmitted to Caltrans, FHWA, FTA, and EPA Conformity determination approval by federal agencies The 2008 RTIP (short-term transportation program) was adopted by SCAG Regional Council on July 14, 2008 and subsequently forwarded for review and approval to Caltrans, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on July 17, 2008. Riverside County 2008 RTIP submittal included: • 73 state highway projects totaling $3,802,529,000 • 72 local highway projects totaling $869,867,000 • 87 transit projects totaling $325,582,000 Currently, the public review period for the four year, 2009 Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP — 2008/2009 — 2011/2012) is underway; the public review comment ends September 20, 2008. Following the public review comment / response period, the California Department of Transportation will submit its final FSTIP to FTA/FHWA for concurrence. The anticipated 2008 RTIP approval by FTA and FHWA is beginning of November 2008. • 2008 RTIP — AMENDMENT #1 SLAG will be opening the 2008 RTIP Amendment #1 to the participating RTPAs, for submission of project amendments. RCTC's anticipated submittal deadline to SLAG, for the 2008 RTIP Amendment #1 is October 22, 2008. RCTC staff will be contacting the local agencies in the next couple of weeks, to verify the proposed project changes for their respective jurisdictions, for inclusion in the amendment submittal. The projects that are consistent with the 2008 RTP and/or 2008 RTP Amendment #1 can be included in this amendment. Projects that were included in the 2006 RTIP Amendments #11 through #19 • will also be part of the 2008 RTIP Amendment #1. AGENDA ITEM ZO • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 15, 2008 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: Project Milestone Reports — FY 2008/09 Obligation Delivery Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This item serves as a reminder to agencies that Project Milestone Reports are due to RCTC by September 15, 2008. These reports provide critical information for development of the FY 2008/09 obligation delivery plan that will be submitted to Caltrans and for the financial plan for the first amendment to the 2008 RTIP. Annually, each region or county has a target amount of federal funds that needs to be obligated (also referred to as OA). It is crucial that project schedules incorporate potential issues such as the time required for environmental review and right of certification to ensure that the schedules are realistic. Having access to accurate information regarding project schedules helps staff to develop contingency plans, such as OA loans between regions or project substitution, based on the availability of OA. Likewise, the obligation delivery plan helps Caltrans to develop contingency plans for the state as well as anticipate workload for District staff. Until this upcoming fiscal year, regions have had until June 1st of each year to obligate their annual OA target, after which the OA becomes available for use by other regions within the state. Starting with FY 2008/09, that deadline will be moved up to May 1st The state is hopeful that this deadline change will reduce the impact of the fourth quarter "rush" for obligations while also increasing the opportunity for the state to receive funds from other states that have low delivery, referred to as "August Redistribution". Therefore, while some projects simply can not obligate earlier than the schedule allows because of issues such as environmental or right of way certification requirements, staff encourages agencies to obligate as early as possible to increase the likelihood that there will be OA available for the project. The FY2008/09 obligation delivery plan will be presented at the October TAC meeting after the milestone reports have been received. As always, RCTC staff is available as a resource to local agencies when navigating the federal process. AGENDA ITEM 11 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 10, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee of the Whole" Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning. Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT:Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program - Memorandum of Understanding Amendment BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION_ This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No_ 04-72-002-01, Amendment No_ 1 to MOU No_ M23-002, between the Commission and Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) regarding the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF); 2) Authorize the Executive Director to execute_ the amendment on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Approve the TUMF Administrative Plan amendment_ BACKGROUND INFORMATION. The 2009 Measure A program required each agency to participate in a TUMF program. The WRCOG was designated as the administrator of the TUMF funds and responsible for the development and implementation of the TUMF Zone program, and the Commission is responsible for the TUMF Regional Arterial program. Additionally, the 2009 Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) stated that the first $400 million would be made available to the Commission to equally fund the TUMF regional arterial system and the Community Environmental Transportation Approval Process (CETAP) corridors_ In 2003, the Commission and WRCOG entered into a MOU to split the arterial revenue between both agencies in accordance with the TUMF Nexus Study until the 2009 Measure A took effect_ The agreement further stipulated that if upon July 1, 2009 the $400 million was not repaid,. 100% of the TUMF funds would then go to the Commission until the $400 million was satisfied_ Given the current economic condition, the $400 million will not be paid to the Commission by July 1, 2009. In order to prevent a disruption of funding for TUMF projects, Agenda Item 711 58 Commission andWRCOGstaff have met to discuss and resolve this issue_ As a result, the Commission and WRCOG have agreed that the $400 million cap should be lifted and the Commission would continue receiving an equal share of the TUMF regional arterial revenue indefinitely_ Therefore, both -agencies will continue administering TUMF programs; the Commission's Regional Arterial program and WRCOG's Zone program. A TUMF Gatekeepers Committee will be established consisting of elected leaders from both agencies_ The above agreements have been reflected in the TUMF MOU amendment. The MOU amendment will replace the July 10, 2003 MOU_ The TUMF Administrative Plan has also been amended to reflect the Commission's role in administering the Regional Arterial program.. The plan also reflects how the Commission and WRCOG committee structures will be coordinated so that recommendations from respective committees will be included and forwarded to each respective committee and board, including the TUMF Gatekeepers Committee. Attachments: 1) TUMF MOU Amendment 2) TUMF Administrative Plan Agenda Item 7H 59 • Agreement No_ 04-72-002-01 REVISED AND RESTATED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CLARIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEASURE "A" AND TUMF THIS REVISED AND RESTATED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is made and effective this day of , 2008, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CRCTC"}and the WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ("WRCOG")_ RCTC and WRCOG are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "PARTIES". RECITALS A. On May 8, 2002, RCTC enacted Ordinance No_ 02-001 for the purpose, among others, of imposing a 0.5% retail transactions and use tax (Measure "A" (2002)) the proceeds of which would be spent in accordance with the Transportation Improvement Plan attached to the Ordinance as Exhibit "13" ("TIP"). The collection of Measure "A" (2002) sales taxes shalt commence upon the expiration of the existing Measure "A" sales tax on or about April 2009. B. On November 5, 2002, a supermajority of Riverside County voters approved Measure "A" (2002), including the TIP. By its terms, the TIP conditioned the expenditure of Measure "A" (2002) revenues in city and county jurisdictions with the requirement, among other things, that matching revenues be generated within such jurisdictions in the form of a "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee", or "TUMF". C. WRCOG is a joint powers public agency consisting of the County of Riverside, fifteen cities, and two regional water districts situated in the wester end of Riverside County. WRCOG developed a TUMF ordinance and Administrative Plan that was adopted by its member agencies between December 2003 and April 2004 that would serve to implement the TUMF_ The TUMF is expected to result in transportation improvements in Wester Riverside County valued at about $5 biltion, and the ordinance designates WRCOG as the program administrator. D. The TIP includes a requirement that $400 million of TUMF revenues (the 1400 Million TUMF Requirement") be transferred to RCTC to fund, equally, the Measure "A" (2002) Regional Arterial System and the CETAP Corridors System that are identified as part of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. t 60 E. Because the TUMF program was not finalized by the time Measure "A" (2002) was approved by Riverside county voters, the details necessary to fully coordinate the two revenue programs could not be worked out. F. On July 10,:2003 WRCOG and RCTC entered into an MOU (the "Original MOU") that established the process whereby the $400 Million would be transferred to . RCTC. The agreement stipulated that after WRCOG deducted the administrative component, the balance of the revenue would be allocated as follows: 48.1 % to RCTC for the RCTC regional program, 48.1% for the WRCOG Zone program. and 3.8% for the Riverside Transit Agency for regional transit projects: Further, the agreement stipulated that if the $400 Million TUMF requirement was not satisfied by April 1, 2009 then all TUMF revenues, excluding administrative cost, would be transferred to RCTC until the obligation had been satisfied. G. Between 2003 - 2007 both agencies adopted TUMF Transportation Improvement Programs with significant funding commitments. In order not to disrupt funding for existing project commitments both parties have agreed to revise the Original MOU to assure that funding will be available to support the delivery of projects programmed by WRCOG, RCTC and RTA. H. WRCOG and ROTC have agreed to this Revised and Restated MOU for the purpose of, among other things, of revising the Original MOU to 1.) delete the requirement in the Original MOU that after April 2009 all TUMF revenues (excluding administrative costs) be allocated to RCTC until the. $400 Million TUMF Requirement is satisfied; 2) remove the $400 Minion cap on TUMF revenues to be allocated to RCTC under the TUMF program; and 3) to direct TUMF revenues (after deduction for administrative costs, transit funding and MSHCP funding) equally to the WRCOG Zone program and RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program. I_ This Revised and Restated MOU supersedes the Original MOU as of April 30, 2009_ Prior to April 30, 2009, the Original MOU shall control. MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing facts and mutual understandings, the PARTIES wish to memorialize, by this Memorandum, the following mutual understandings:' 1. Allocation of TUMF Revenues from October 1, 2008 thereafter. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq., WRCOG has prepared and periodically updates at Nexus Study (the "Nexus Study") to support the imposition of the TUMF. The Nexus Study will determine the percent allocation for each of the program components under the TUMF. After the set aside of funds for Program Administration and the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"), TUMF revenues shall be allocated for the following purposes in accordance with the Nexus Study as follows: 2 • • 61 • a. Regional transit; and b_ Equally to: 1) the RCTC Regional Menai TUMF Program consistent with Measure "A" (2002) and the TIP; and 2) the WRCOG Zone Program, as more specifically provided for in the WRCOG TUMF Administrative Plan. The allocation of revenues set forth in this Section 1 shall continue until this Revised and Restated MOU is modified or amended in writing by the parties and shall not be capped at a total of $400 Million. 2. Satisfaction of the $400 Million TUMF Requirement. WRCOG and RCTC agree that the requirements of this MOU shall satisfy the $400 Million TUMF Requirement set forth in Measure "A" (2002). 3. RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program_ The development and approval of the RCTC 'Regional Arterial TUMF Program of projects and funding priorities will be through the following integrated RCTC /WRCOG process. a. For the purpose of developing and updating the RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program, the western jurisdictions of the RCTC TAC will be combined with the WRCOG Public Works Committee into a single committee known as the TUMF Public Works Committee (TPWC). This Committee will be comprised of the Public Works Directors from each city in western Riverside County and the Transportation Director from the County of Riverside and will meet on a regular basis according to an adopted schedule_ The TPWC will make recommendations regarding the RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program to the WRCOG TAC and RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee. b. WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee (WRCOG TAC), comprised of the City Managers, County Executive management, General Managers from two regional water districts, and the Executive Director of March JPA meets regularly according to an adopted schedule and will review the TPWC recommendations and forward the recommendations on the RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program with any revisions to the WRCOG Executive Committee for action. c. RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee, comprised of RCTC Commissioners, meets monthly according to an adopted schedule and will review the RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program along with the TPWC recommendations and any additional recommendations from the WRCOG TAC and forward their recommendation to the full RCTC Board for action. 3 62 d. WRCOG Executive Committee will review the RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program along with the WRCOG TAC recommendations and any additional informationfrom the RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee and forward their recommendations to the RCTC Board_ The RCTC Board of Commissioners shall be presented with the proposed RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program along with any concerns raised by any of the RCTC or WRCOG Committees described above. If the Board of Commissioners desires: to make any changes to the Program, the RCTC. Regional Arterial Program shall be referred to the Coordinating Committee for resolution and approval. It is intended that steps a — e will be accomplished within a 30 flay meeting cycle_ This. process is designed to move quickly and build better consensus for the two agencies for project delivery. In the event that approval of the RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program is not achieved within 90 days of presentation of the matter to the TUMF Public Works Committee, the Program shall be returned to the RCTC Board for final consideration and approval, or redirection to the appropriate committee. In such cases, the action of the RCTC Board of Commissions shall be final and not subject to further review under this MOU. 4_ CETAP Corridors as TUMF Improvements_ TUMF revenues shall not be used to develop new CETAP corridors that are not also designated on the Regional System of Highways and Arterials as established in the TUMF Nexus Study. 5_ RCTC's Expenditure of TUMF Revenues. Accounting and expenditure of TUMF revenues shall be in conformance with the Nexus Study, the Administrative Plan and applicable state laws, including Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. 6. Allocation of Unclaimed Measure "A" (2002) Local Streets and Roads Funds. Section 5.D. of the "General Provisions of the Transportation Improvement Plan" of the TIP establishes the method for allocating Local Streets and Roads Funds of agencies not participafing in the TUMF. RCTC agrees that in allocating such funds, that it will consider, among. other things_ a. The zones created by WRCOG for the TUMF. b. The allocation to Regional Arterial improvements so as to allow the timely use of such funds_ 7. Establishment of a Coordinating Committee. There is hereby established a six -member "Measure"A"/TUMF Policy Coordinating Committee", consisting of the Chairperson, Vice -Chairperson and the Second Vice Chairperson of RCTC, and the Chairperson, Vice -Chairperson and Second Vice Chairperson of the WRCOG Executive Committee_ The Policy Coordinating Committee shall meet as necessary for the purpose of 4 • 63 coordinating the allocation and expenditure of TIME and Measure "A" revenues or review the RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program as described herein. If any of the above listed positions at WRCOG or RCTC are vacant, the Chair of the respective agency may appoint a temporary member. 8. Amendment_ This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended in writing by mutual agreement of the PARTIES. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be signed as of the date first above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF GOVERNMENTS By: By: Jeff Stone, Chairperson Jeff Stone, Chairperson Reviewed and Recommended Reviewed and Recommended for approval: for approval: By: By: Anne Mayer, Executive Director Rick Bishop, Executive Director 5 64 • Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN Revised August 4, 2008 TUMF WR'COG PREPARED BY THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RIVERSIDE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER ANNEX 4080 LEMON STREET, 3RD FLOOR, MS 1032 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, 92501-3609 PHONE (951) 955-7985 FAX (951) 787-7991 Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Administrative Plan for the 65 • Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program Table of Contents Preamble I. Purpose II. Authority III_ Imposition of and Participation in the TUMF Program IV. Allocation of Funds V. Administration of Plans VI. Administration of Credits VII_ Administration of Reimbursements VIII. Administrative Responsibilities IX. Administrative Costs X. Appeals X!_ Arbitration XII. TUMF Program Amendments XIII_ CEQA Admi :isfradve Plan (Adapted) C804011DOC 66 4-7 Exhibits: A. Decision Making Process B. TUMF Credit/Reimbursement Eligibility Process C. Guidelines for the Administratiori of the Programming projects for the Zone Five Year Transportation Improvement Programs ET‘SharedkLupeWRCOG TUMF Admini-ralive Plan lAclopfed) 080408.00C; • • 67 Administrative Plan for the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee f TUMFI Program Preamble Future development within Western Riverside County will result in traffic volumes exceeding the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA or Regional System) as it presently exists_ The Regional System needs to be expanded to accommodate anticipated future growth; current funds are inadequate to construct the Regional System needed to avoid the unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and related adverse impacts_ The TUMF Program will provide significant additional funds from new development to make improvements to the Regional System, complementing funds generated by Measure A and the Reauthorized Measure A, local transportation fee programs, and other potential funding sources_ By establishing a fee on new development in the sub -region, local agencies can establish a mechanism by which developers will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system_ This is a twenty-year program and will be influenced by a variety of market factors that could cause a shortfall or surplus in the revenue projections_ The TUMF Program shall be reviewed at fewer than five-year intervals to ensure the integrity of the program .with the first review occurring in June of 2005_ The program is not designed to be the only source of revenue to construct the identified facilities, and it will be necessary for matching funds from a variety of available sources to be provided_ It is the intent that TUMF requirements may be met by paying cash, building eligible facilities or through public financing, suds as Community Facility Districts and Assessment Districts, or private financing vehicles consistent with local jurisdiction policies_ General TUMF Program parameters, definitions and procedures are described in the TUMF Program Ordnance adopted by participating Western Riverside County jurisdictions. The ` Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) is designated as the TUMF Program Administrator, and as such will work closely with member jurisdictions, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, and the Riverside Transit Agency to coordinate transportation expenditure programs to maximize the effectiveness of future transportation investments_ The Program Administrator, WRCOG, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless any TUMF Program participant, and its respective agents, officers, members, officials, employees, and attomeys, whose TUMF Ordinance is challenged in court, from and against all claims, liabilities, damages, or costs of any kind whatsoever, including attorneys' fees and court costs; provided, however, that such indemnity and defense shall not extend or apply to challenges alleging procedural defects in the adoption of the TUMF Ordinance_ "TUMF Administrative Plan" means the Administrative Plan for the Western Riverside County TUMF Program prepared by WRCOG dated March 24, 2003, in substantially the form approved by the WRCOG Executive Committee on April 7, 2003, as may be amended from time to time, provided that; any material amendments to the TUMF Administrative Plan shall be approved by WRCOG Executive Committee." This Administrative Plan serves as the guideline to implement the TUMF Program and will be amended as needed to address changing conditions over the life of the program_ r :' .harsjatu e%1NRCOG T1J 4F ?��j.=llt': tf".-'=ye la (Adopted? 080408.DOC 4 68 1_ Purpose - The Purpose of this Administrative Plan is to provide those jurisdictions anel agencies that am participants in TUMF Program with guidelines and policies for implementation of the TUMF Program. This Administrative Plan specifies implementation and responsibilities for the TUMF Program. TUMF Program funds may only be used for capital expenditures associated with the Regional System of Highways and Arterials and for capital expenditures for transit system improvements consistent with the TUMF Nexus Study. These purposes include expenditures for the planning, environmental review, engineering and design costs, right of way acquisition; and administrative costs. II. Authority - The TUMF Program applies to those jurisdictions in Western Riverside . County (County of Riverside and the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, take Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Mur ieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, Temecula, Wildomar and the March JPA) that have adopted and are implementing_ the TUMF Program Ordinance, The TUMF Program has been developed pursuant to and consistent with authority provided in the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600 or the Mitigation Fee Act) which. governs the assessment of development impact fees in California_ The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow two basic rules when instituting impact fees as follows: A. Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development impact fee's use and the type of project for which the fee is required; B. The fee must not exceed the project's proportional "fair share" of the proposed improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems onto make improvements for existing development_ III imposition of and Participation in the TUMF Program - Participating jurisdictions in Western Riverside County are responsible for collecting the fees on new development within their jurisdictions. To be considered a participant in the TUMF Program a jurisdiction must have an effective date for the TUMF Ordinance of no later than June 1, 2003 and adopt any amendment of the TUMF Ordinance within ninety (90) days of approval by the WRCOG Executive Committee unless otherwise. directed by the WRCOG Executive Committee_ The local jurisdictions must adopt the Model TUMF Ordinance and any amendments as prepared by WRCOG staff and approved by the WRCOG Executive Committee_ Participating jurisdictions shall not modify the Model TUMF Ordinance, except to meet local municipal codes and references. Further, in order to be considered a participating jurisdiction, local jurisdictions shall collect the full TUMF and transmit the fee to WRCOG as provided herein. Those jurisdictions that have ordinances with an effective date after June 1, 2003 or opt out of the TUMF Program and decide to participate at a later date must remit to WRCOG the amount of TUMF Program fees for new development that were not collected by the jurisdiction. In order to verify the amount of revenue that would have been collected during the period in which a jurisdiction did not participate, said jurisdiction shall provide WRCOG with an annual report of building permit activity by the land uses identified in the Nexus Study. The remittance of the fee can be accomplished . either in a lump sum or through a separate MOU with WRCOG with a repayment schedule. Those jurisdictions that are not considered participants in the TUMF Program t=_ Sha;s,i;ttipe ViRCOO'r=JMF Adminiaratre Plan (Adopted; t78040&.DOC - rj 69 shall not be eligible to participate in the. TUMF Program or the decision -making processes as more fully described in this document Non -participating jurisdictions will be ineligible to vote on any TUMF Program item and to receive their share of an estimated $970 million in local streets and Toads hinds that will be allocated from the Reauthorized Measure A A. Expir-ation Of Building Permits - If a building permit should expire, is revoked, or is voluntarily surrendered and is, therefore voided and no construction or improvement of land or construction has commenced, then the applicant is entitled to a refund of the TUMF (Fee) collected which was paid as a condition of approval, less administration.. The fee payer shall submit an application for a refund to the local jurisdiction who will forward it to WRCOG for processing. The applicant must pay the appropriate TUMF in full if he reapplies for the permit. If a development project is partially under construction at the time of the effective date of the TUMF Ordinance, the TUMF shall be paid only on that portion of the development for which a building pem it is next issued. B. Calculation of the TUMF - Each participating jurisdiction shall calculate and collect the TUMF for projects as outlined in the Fee Calculation Handbook_ For residential, the fee is based on the number of units and for non-residential the fee is based on the square footage. This method of calculation may be different from how the local development impact fee is determined. The TUMF shall be calculated using the most current fee schedule in effect at the time the fee is due. Participating jurisdictions are prohibited from freezing TUMF by such means as "locking" a fee rate by paying a deposit or a portion of the fee prior to the date the fee is due or by entering into a Development Agreement or other agreement with a developer that freezes the fee at a certain level Partial Payments or Deposits: WRCOG discourages the use of deposits: and partial payments as it will create additional reporting requirements for the jurisdictions and may give the developer the impression that the fees are not subject to change. However, if a jurisdiction allows for deposits or partial payments, it will transmit the partial payment/deposit to WRCOG in accordance with the TUMF ordinance along with a remittance report_ to the variance column of the Remittance report, the jurisdiction shall indicate that the fee collected isa: portion of the total due: Wben the balance is paid, the jurisdiction will calculate the total fee for the project based on the TUMF fee schedule in place at the time the balance is paid and deduct the partial payment against the total. The balance will be transmitted in accordance with the TUMF ordinance and this Administrative Plan. The variance column of the Remittance report shall indicate that the balance is paid If there is a fee adjustment between the deposit/partial payment and the payment of the balance, the fee which is required to be paid will. be based on the most current TUMF fee schedule. C. March Joint Powers Authority - The March Joint Powers Authority (JPA) has land use authority and will need to adopt the TUMF Program in the same manner as the cities and county: The March JPA will not have a separate vote at the WRCOG Executive Committee as it has representation by elected officials from the County of Riverside and cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley and Perris. The H:j.SharedlupeksiV?COO?UMFAd..fniairaevePtaa(Asap(' )oi3,34o8.Doc 70 Executive Director of the March JPA shall be a voting member of the WRCOG TAC for TUMF Program items only. IV. Allocation of Funds — After administrative costs are allocated as specified in Section IX herein, TUMF funds shalt be distributed in accordance with WRCOG Executive Committee actions, the Nexus Study, this Administrative Plan and any future amendments thereto A. /location to Regional Transit Improvements - Of the TUMF funds received by WRCOG, 2.6% shall be allocated to the Riverside Transit Agency for making regional transit improvements. Allocation to Regionally Significant Transportation Improvements - Of the TUMF funds received by WRCOG, 48.7% shall be allocated to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) forprogramming improvements to the arterials of regional significance on the Regional System of Highways and Arterials_ C. Allocation to Zones - Of the TUMF funds received by WRCOG, 48.7% shall be allocated to the five Zones for programming improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials as determined by the respective Zone Committees_ The amount of TUMF funds allocated to. each Zone shall be proportionate to the amount of TUMF revenue generated from the zone_ V. Administration of the Plan - WRCOG shall administer the TUMF Program as described in the enabling Ordinance adopted by participating jurisdictions and further defined in this Administrative Plan_ VI. Administration of Credits - Each jurisdiction shall be responsible for the administration of TUMF credit agreements_ Each jurisdiction shall transmit all TUMF credit agreements to WRCOG within 60 days of execution by that jurisdiction. WRCOG may administer credit agreements upon written request from that jurisdiction. The credit agreements shall be in accordance with the following A. Developer Credits - If a developer constricts improvements identified on the RSHA, the developer shall receive credit for all costs associated with the improvements based on approved unit cost assumptions for the RSHA. Typically, major infrastructure, such as rail grade separations, interchanges, transit projects, etc., is constructed by the local jurisdiction rather than the developer, and involves multiple parties, as such; this section makes the distinction between credit agreements for major infrastructure and the standard arterial improvements_ The amount of the development fee credit shall not exceed the maximum amount determined by the most current unit cost assumptions for the RSHA, or actual costs, whichever is less_ This shall be known as the maximum TUMF credit. The maximum TUMF credit shall be determined based on approved Improvement Plans and after Conditions of Approval have been determined. The maximum TUMF credit shall identify, at a minimum, the facility, the dimensions of the facility, the number of lanes, and applicable unit costs components as identified in Appendix F in the adopted Nexus Study_ The credit /reimbursement eligibility process is outlined in Exhibit "B" of this document_ t=:taltaredImpeWRCOG PJFdF Administrative plan (Adopted` CiK408.00C 7 71 Any improvement made to the RSHA that is obligated through an existing fee district (prier to June 1, 2003) shalt not be eligible for TUMF credit_ Should it be determined that a jurisdiction granted credits exceeding the maximum TUMF credit, that jurisdiction shaU provide WRCOG payment in the amount equal to the excess credit amount. 1_ Credits - Prior to receiving any credit, a written credit agreement shall be executed between the jurisdiction or and the developer_ 2. Credit for Right of Way (ROW) Dedication — A developer may receive credit for dedication of ROW for RSHA improvements_ This section addresses the crediting of ROW dedications which are not part of construction projects_ The ROW component in the current Nexus Study determines the maximum share of credit available_ An appraisal is required to determine the value of the ROW being dedicated_ The appraisal of the ROW is determined by one of the following methods: a. The developer provides to the jurisdiction a current appraisal (no more than two years old), of the ROW to be dedicated. The jurisdiction reviews it and determines if the appraisal is valid and acceptable. or b_ The developer accepts the appraisal of the jurisdiction_ B. Local Development Impact Fees and other funding programs - The local jurisdiction shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the RSHA and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program. 1. New Financing Districts and Bond Issues: For a financing district created or bonds or other evidence of indebtedness issued on or after June 1, 2003, the local jurisdiction.may allow a property owner, in lieu of the payment of the TUMF, to participate in such a financing district for the following facilities: (i) a Regionally Significant Transportation Improvement, as defined as those facilities that typically are, proposed to have six lanes at build out and extend between multiple jurisdictions, or discrete useable segment thereof, as determined by WRCOG,. (ii) any interchange on an interstate or state highway with an estimated construction cost of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) or more, (iii) any railroad crossing with an estimated construction cost of more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000), and (iv) any bridge located on a regionally significant arterial as defined in (i) of this section. 1. Prior to excusing payment under this Section VI.B__ the local jurisdiction must do both of the following: (a) Sell bonds in an amount sufficient to construct the improvement for which the financing district is created; and Receive written approval from the WRCOG Executive Director, or designee. In the event that a local jurisdiction is unable to satisfy the (b) (c) F tShare4tvpe .YRCQG TUMF Adrdristrarve Ptar (Adopted) 080408.00C $ 72 requirements of section I (a), above, the local jurisdiction may sfill excuse the payment of bonds if the local jurisdiction enters into an agreement with WRCOG in which it commits to pay the full amount of any excused Fee, plus interest at the average rate e.amecl by WRCOG over the past twelve months, in the event that the bonds. maybe extendedup to an additional S years with the approval of the WRCOG Executive Committee. 2 if a local jurisdiction proposes to excuse payment of the TUMF as provided in this Section VI.B, then the jurisdiction shall provide WRCOG reasonable information to account for the credit. 3. if payment is excused as provided in this Section VI.B, then the jurisdiction shall be responsible for construction of the improvements and those improvements shall not be eligible for TUMF Program prioritization or funding. 4. As used in this section, a financing district means a. community facilities district, a local road and bridge district, or an assessment district. 5. Where there is an existing financing district or an existing fee program established prior to June 1, 2003, with bonded indebtedness, then the local jurisdiction may excuse payment of the TUMF for that portion of the facility identified' in troth programs. Notwithstanding the previous sentence,. a local jurisdiction shalt not excuse fee payment for any facilities for which bonds have been issued after February 4, 2008, regardless of when the financing district was first created. 6. Any dispute regarding this implementation of this Section VI.B. may be appealed by the local jurisdiction to the WRCOG Executive Committee for a final determination_ 7_ This Section VI.B is not intended to impact the administration of credits under Section VITA. of the Administrative Plan. C. Use of Credit by Developer— Any TUMF credit shall be used first by developer to offset any obligation of the developer to pay TUMF impact fees of the same development project. - Credits may not be transferred or sold to other development projects. - Developers must exhaust all credits before they are eligible for reimbursements_ - Credits shall run withh the sale of the land. VII_ Administration; of Reimbursements - Local jurisdictions/agencies and developers are eligible for reimbursement for construction of TUMF facilities. The processes for both are different and are described below_ 1_ Developer Reimbursements: Each jurisdiction shall be responsible for the administration of reimbursement agreements_ WRCOG may administer reimbursement agreements upon written request from the jurisdiction- 1-1: S ."e ac rJMF Admiri>trave Plar< Odoptea; 08 ?ca.DOC 73 Should the developer construct RSHA improvements in excess of the TUMF obligation the developer may be reimbursed based on actual costs or the approved unit cost assumptions, whichever is less at the time of the agreement A development that is exempt from paying the TUMF is not eligible for a reimbursement. Reimbursements shalt be made through an agreement between the developer, and the local jurisdiction, and contingent upon funds being available. , in aN cases reimbursements under such agreements must coincide with construction of the transportation improvements as scheduled in the five year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) adopted annually by WRCOG. The developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the jurisdiction to reimburse the developer/owner for the direct and verifiable costs of constructing improvements to the RSHA when all of the following conditions are met: a. All available credits are exhausted; b. The improvements received prior approval from the jurisdiction and WRCOG based on the review of the TUMFproject priority list; c_ The jurisdiction and WRCOG have reviewed and approved the scope of the project to be constructed. In no event shall the developer be reimbursed for improvements to the RSHA in excess of the most current approved unit cost assumptions for the TUMF at the time of the agreement_ 2. Local Jurisdictions/Agencies: Local jurisdictions are exempt from paying TUMF as such there are no credits given for projects constructed by a local jurisdiction, however the contribution to the RSHA maybe considerable. In such cases where a local jurisdiction constructs TUMF facilities it is eligible for reimbursement up to the maximum share identified in the Nexus Study or actual cost whichever is less, in accordance with the prioritization schedule in the adopted Transportation Improvement Plan. Local jurisdictions are required to enter into a reimbursement agreement with WRCOG in order to be eligible to receive TUMF revenue_ VIII. Administrative Responsibilities A. Program Administration - As set forth in Section II above, WRCOG is designated as the TUMF Program Administrator. As Administrator, WRCOG will receive all fees generated from the TUMF as collected by local jurisdictions. WRCOG shall invest, account for and expend such fees in accordance with the TUMF Ordinance and applicable state laws.. For jurisdictions that are not participating in the TUMF Program, the representative for that jurisdiction shah not be eligible to vote on any matter related to the TUMF Program that goes before the WRCOG TAC and WRCOG Executive Committee_ 1. The WRCOG Executive Director - Reporting to the WRCOG Executive Committee, the Executive Director shall be responsible for the following TUMF Program activities_ liAShared'sLupe`WRCOG TUMF Adrpnutra v-e Plan (Adapted) 080408DO 74 10 a. Administration of the TUMF Program, including development of credit and reimbursement agreements, fee collection process and processing Program appeals: b. An independent fiscal audit conducted to report on the evidence that the expenditure of funds collected is itt accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act The audit shall be presented to the WRCOG Executive Committee and made available to the public. - c_ Establishment and management of the `TUMF Program Trust Fund" for the purposes of depositing TUMF revenues and income interest earned on Trust Fund deposits; d. Preparation of an Annual Report for consideration by the WRCOG Executive Committee detailing the status of the TUMF Program including but not limited to fees collected and disseminated, capital projects planned for, prioritized, and built, reimbursement and credit agreements, appeals, and recommendations for TUMF Program adjustments; e_ Preparation of periodic comprehensive TUMF program review ' reports that provide, in concert with requirements of the California . Mitigation Fee Act, an analysis of the TUMF Program, including review of the various Nexus Study inputs and assumptions, and preparation of recommendations on potential TUMF Program revisions for consideration by the WRCOG Executive Committee. Such reports may include, but are not limited to recommended fee adjustments based on changes in the facilities required to be constructed, and revenues received pursuant to the Ordinance; f_ Preparation of technical studies/analysis required to select and prioritize Regionally Significant Arterial projects; g. Development of a 10-year Strategic Plan that identifies long term planning goals and objectives for implementation of the TUMF Program; h. Development of a five year TIP that identifies projects that are scheduled and funded for construction over a specified period of time and is reviewed on an annual basis; i_ Staff support to and coordination with each of the TUMF Zone Committees as necessary; j_ Other related activities as directed by the WRCOG Executive Committee_ k. Approve Zone and RTA TIP Administrative Amendments; I_ Execute att Amendments to TUMF reimbursement agreements. 2. The WRCOG Executive Committee - The WRCOG Executive Committee shall be responsible for reviewing and acting on recommendations for project selection and prioritization -of the Regionally Significant Arterials, 10-year Strategic Plan, and the TIP. The WRCOG Executive Committee shall review and consider recommendations on projects from the Public Works Committee and WRCOG TAG. The WRCOG Executive Committee shall also be responsible for approval of the TUMF Program Administrative Plan and any subsequent amendments thereto. From time to time, the WRCOG Executive Committee shall recommend changes to the Ordinance for consideration by participating jurisdictions. • H haredki_uvekViRCOG UMW Administrative Plan (Adopted) 080408.DOC 75 11 .E In developing recommendations on Regionally Significant Arterials for consideration by the WRCOG Executive Committee, WRCOG staff and the Committee structure shall work with RCTC to coordinate compatibility with Measure A project priorities and schedules of area transportation improvements. WRCOG staff and the WRCOG Executive Committee shall also work with WRCOG jurisdictions and each Zone. Committee for the same purposes_ For jurisdictions that are not participating in the TUMF Program, the WRCOG Executive Committee representative for that jurisdiction shall not be eligible to vote on any matter related to the TUMF that goes before the WRCOG Executive Committee. 3. The WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The WRCOG TAC shall review the technical documents and recommendations. for Regionally Significant Arterials developed by the Public Works Committee and other committees that may be convened by the WRCOG Exectitive Committee. The WRCOG TAC shall forward any recommendations to the WRCOG Executive Committee for its consideration_ The WRCOG TAC shall also provide additional assistance to the TUMF Program as requested by the WRCOG Executive Committee. For jurisdictions that are not participating in the TUMF Program, the WRCOG TAC representative for that jurisdiction shall not be eligible to vote on any matter related to the TUMF Program that goes before the WRCOG Executive Committee_ 4_ The Public Works Committee/lUMF PWC (PWC) - The PWC shall be comprised of the Public Works Director or designee from each participating jurisdiction of WRCOG, RCTC, RTA and WRCOG and shall be responsible for the following: a. Developing objective criteria for project selection and prioritization including but not limited to the following factors: traffic safety issues potentially created by growth, regional significance, availability of matching funds, mitigation of congestion created by new development, system continuity, geographic balance, project readiness, and completed projects with reimbursement agreements; b_ Providing additional assistance to the TUMF Program as requested by the WRCOG Executive Committee, RCTC and/or the WRCOG TAC; c. Preparing the 10 year Strategic Plan; d. Preparing the five year TIP which will be reviewed annually and amended every two years;. e Review and recommend the RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program of Projects; to the WRCOG TAC,:WRCOG Executive Committee and RCTC; f_ Select a lead agency for each of the projects in the TIP; g. Review Annual Report prepared by WRCOG; h_ Review and revise the RSHA as may be necessary (at a minimum every 5 years); i. Review and revise Unit Cost Assumptions to the RSHA as may be necessary (at a minimum every 5.years); h kSha-ed LupONRGO:; TUMF AJ�inistra ve star: (Adopted) c8c4os DOC 12 76 13. Regional Arterial Administration - RCTC through an MOU with WRCOG (effective October 1, 2008) is the responsible agency for programming and delivering the Regionally Significant Arterials as defined in the Nexus Study. . WRCOG and RCTC have established a committee structure that incorporates the Public Works Directors, City Manager and WRCOG Executive Committee and the RCTC Board for the development, review and approval- of the Regional Arterial TUMF Program of projects. 1. The RCTC Executive Director- Reporting to the RCTC, the Executive Director shall be responsible for the following TUMF Program activities: a_ Establishment and management of the "TUMF Program Trust Fund for the purposes of depositing TUMF revenues and income interest earned on Trust Fund deposits; b: Development of the RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program that identifies projects that are scheduled and funded for construction over a specified period of time and is reviewed on an annual. basis; c. Staff support to and coordination with the TUMF Committees as necessary; d. Other related activities as directed by the RCTC Board. 2. The RCTC Board - The RCTC Board shall be responsible for reviewing and acting on recommendations for project selection and prioritization of the RCTC Regional Arterial TUMF Program_ The RCTC Board shall review and consider recommendations on projects from the TUMF Public Works Committee, WRCOG TAC and WRCOG Executive Committee. C. Zone Administration - Each Zone shall establish a committee structure, similar to the one outlined in Exhibit A, for the purpose of developing a Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) consistent with the Strategic Plan for the project prioritization scheduling, and construction of zonal RSHA projects using. TUMF funds returned to each zone. Each zone shall also be responsible for selecting a lead agency for each project listed in the TIP. All zones shaft approve their TIP by consensus and forward their recommendations to WRCOG for review and approval to ensure compatibility with the intent of the 10 year Strategic Plan. Zone dollars are to be allocated by the Zone Committee only and can not be utilized or borrowed for projects located outside the zone unless such projects are: 1) proposed and approved by the Zone Committee and 2) it is consistent with the Nexus Study. In furtherance of this Section VIII.B; each Zone shall abide by the Guidelines set forth in Exhibit "C"_ The Riverside County Transportation improvement Plan approved by Riverside County voters on November 5, 2002 states "Funding which is not allocated to a city or county because it is not a participant in the TUMF Program in the Coachella Valley area and the TUMFand MSHCP in the Western County area shall be allocated to the Regional Arterial Program in the geographic area in which the city or portion of the county is located". Each City and a portion of the unincorporated area of Riverside County are assigned to each of the zones_ The five Zones are as follows: • F:eShara,tlopelWRCOG TUMF Administrative Flan,- tAdap!ed) 08040813 C 77 13 t. Northwest Zone —The Cities of Riverside, Corona, Norco and the County of Riverside, March JPA; 2. Southwest Zone — The Cities of Temecula, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Canyon Lake, Wr7domar and the County of Riverside; 3. Central Zone — The Cities of Moreno Valley and Perris, and the County of Riverside, March JPA; 4_ Pass Zone - The Cities of Banning, Beaumont; Calimesa, and the County of Riverside; 5. Hemet/San Jacinto Zone — The Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto and the County of Riverside. D. Local Administration - As described in the TUMF Ordinance, participating jurisdictions are responsible for collecting the TUMF. fees collected and a' corresponding Remittance Report are required to be transmitted to the Ecectitive Director of WRCOG. In accordance with the TUMF Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act, WRCOG. will deposit, investment, account and expend the transmitted fees. Participating jurisdictions are required to transmit reports as set forth below to WRCOG which shall include, but not be limited to the following information regarding the TUMF Program status. 1. Monthly Remittance Reports - Participating jurisdictions are required to submit the standard Remittance Report to WRCOG by the close of the month for the previous month's activity, for example; Junes Remittance report is due August 1. The report willcontain information necessary for WRCOG to determine the total amount of fees collected within each fee category as it relates to the number of building permits, certificates of occupancy, or final inspections issued during the same period of time_ Remittance reports are required even when no fees have been collected, provided building permits or certificates of occupancy have been issued. In addition the participatng jurisdiction shall provide WRCOG the following information: the name of the developer or payee, project address, APN, total square feet, credits issued, and such other information as requested by WRCOG. This information will assist WRCOG in tracking new development, total revenue received and revenue projections for purposes of program audits and program updates.. 2. Remittance Delays - If a participating jurisdiction does not transmit the fee,, along with a corresponding Remittance Report by the close of the month for the previous month in which fees were collected, the following. fiscal policy shalt be applied: On the first working day after the close of the month WRCOG staff wilt notify; in writing, the delinquent jurisdiction of the delinquency and request that said jurisdiction remit by the fifteenth (15t), the fees and the required Remittance Report; If fees and Remittance Report have not been received, by the forty-fifth (45t) day, WRCOG staff will invoice the jurisdiction for the approximate F =-Sita-edlimpekW SCOS UMW Administrat.e Plan (Adopted) 080408-DOC 14 78 amount owed plus interest and penalties from the first day of the month following the closing of the month being reported; VVRCOG staff wilt continue this notification until sixty (60) days after the dose of the month. At which time, WRCOG will determine if an audit is necessary of the jurisdiction's TUMF account, general ledger and any other financial data. if an audit is conducted, WRCOG will investigate the amount owed and the cause of delay. Upon completion of the audit, WRCOG staff shall make any recommendations to resolve any outstanding issues: ` If an audit is required due to reporting and remittance irregularities, the jurisdiction couldincur the cost of the audit. E. Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) — In accordance with the Nexus Study 2.6% of funds received will be made available to the RTA to make capital .facilities improvements for transit purposes as identified in the Nexus Study. The RTA' shall provide a report to the WRCOG Executive Committee each year, which has been reviewed by the City Managers/County Executives and the technical committees, detailing its expenditures of TUMF Program funds received, as well as future commitments for transit facilifies using TUMF Programrevenues as determined by the RTA Board of Directors. IX. Administrative Costs_ The TUMF Ordinance authorizes WRCOG to expend funds generated from TUMF that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities_ The WRCOG Executive Committee adopted a series of policies that darify the expenditure and retention of program funds for the Administration of the Program and they are as follows: 1. WRCOG will budget no more than one percent (1 %) of the TUMF Program revenue for administration salaries and benefits; 2_ Administration costs will be budgeted at whatever is reasonable and necessary, but not to exceed four percent (4%) of the TUMF revenues (inclusive of the one percent administrative salaries and benefit cap). 3. Beginning July 1, 2006, WRCOG shall take the administrative component from the revenue collected based on the total fee obligation inclusive of executed credit agreements.. 4. Beginning July 1, 2006, all CFD's, SCIP and other financing mechanisms will pay the maximum (4%) administrative component in cash to WRCOG_ When the administrative component is 1F` S than 4% then the surplus revenue will be allocated in accordance to their adopted percentages to the Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan, RCTC, RTA and the Zones: 5 For refunds, whether it is because the project is no longer going forward or expiration of building permits (where no construction has commenced), the applicant is entitled to a refund I= the administrative component_ X_ Appeals. Appeals shall only be made in accordance with the provisions of this Section X A. Persons or Entities Who Having Standing to Appeal. No person or entity shall have standing to avail themselves of this Section X, except those persons or individuals who are responsible for paying the TUMF and have an unresolved appealable issue or matter_ i=_;-Slharadd apelVVRCOG PJMF ArirninMraNv Plan. (Adopted; 0,130408DOC 15 79 • B. Appealable Issues and Matters_ No issue or matter shalt be heard or reviewed under this Section X unless the issue or matter is appealable. An issue or matter is appealable, if a qualified person or entity. ("Appellant) has a good -faith dispute directly related to Appellant's Property ('TUMF Dispute") regarding (i) the amount of Appellant's TUMF obligation; (ii) the administration of TUMF Credits; (iii) exemption of Appellant's property, from the TUMF Program; (iv) administration of TUMF reimbursements; or (v) TUMF refunds. C. Appeal Process. 1. If a qualified person or entity has a TUMF Dispute, he or she shalt first attempt to resolve the dispute informally with the staff of the local jurisdiction_ If the TUMF Dispute remains unresolved after a reasonable attempt to address it at the local level., the qualified person or entity may submit a written appeal to the appropriate department of the local jurisdiction: The written appeal shall thoroughly identify the TUMF ' Dispute. If the staff of the focal jurisdiction determines the issue or matter is not a TUMF Dispute, the written appeal shall be rejected. Staff's decision shall be provided in writing to the Appellant. In such cases, if the Appellant desires further review from the Board of Supervisors/City Council of the affected local jurisdiction, the Appellant must submit a written request for review to the Clerk of the Board/City Council within five (5) days of receiving staffs written decision. The decision of the Board/City Council shall be forwarded to the WRCOG Executive Committee in the same manner set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Section. If the written appeal identifies a TUMF Dispute, the Appellant and staff from the local jurisdiction shall attempt to resolve the issue within thirty (30) days of the local jurisdiction's receipt of the appeal. At the request of the local jurisdiction, or on its own accord, WRCOG staff may also participate in such discussions. At the conclusion of the thirty (30) day period, staff of the local jurisdiction shall render a written decision on the appeal. 3- The issue or matter shall be heard by the Board of Supervisors/City Council of the affected local jurisdiction; provided, the Appellant submits a written request for further review to the Clerk of the Board/City Council within five (5) days of Appellant's receipt of the local jurisdiction's written decision regarding the Appellant's appeal. The Board/City Council shall forward its written decision to WRCOG for review and concurrence. If the WRCOG Executive Committee disagrees with the decision of the City Council/Board of Supervisors the WRCOG Executive Committee shall determine a. proper course of action and notify the jurisdiction of its findings. Arbitration. When there is a dispute among the Zone members that can not be resolved and prevents the adoption of a project prioritization schedule, the matter shall be forwarded to the WRCOG TAC and WRCOG Executive Committee for a determination. Once the WRCOG Executive Committee takes action on the issue the decision is final_ if there is a dispute at the WRCOG Executive Committee level regarding project prioritization of a specific project(s) and a consensus cannot be reached, that project WiSharR3iLupeVA ?COG PJ ;AF Admir trallwe Plan ,'.Adopted, 08C408.DOC 16 80 shall be tabled until such time as new information is presented and the matter can be resolved. XII. TUMF Program Amendments. WRCOG shall undertake a review of all components of the TUMF Program in accordance with AB 1600 and other applicable laws, and, if necessary, recommend Program amendments and/or adjustments. Amendments to the Administrative Plan will be subject to the approval of the WRCOG Executive Committee_ Amendments required to the TUMF Program Ordinance shall be approved by each participating jurisdiction, acting on recommendations provided by the WRCOG Executive Committee. The review shall consider whether future administration costs to participating jurisdictions are needed_ XIII. CEQA. The TUMF Program currently is a financing mechanism dependent on future actions of the WRCOG Executive Committee for improvements to the RSFIA. WRCOG and its associated committees will be prioritizing and scheduling improvements on the RS1-1A, as such, the appropriate environmental documentation, shall be completed before a project can commence construction_ The TUMF Program was developed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of future growth on the RSHA. It was not developed to mitigate project -specific traffic impacts. Accordingly the program does not relieve any development project of the responsibility to mitigate project -specific impacts identified in the environmental analysis prepared for the project. When a development project is required to construct RSHA facilities as project -specific mitigation, it shall be eligible for credit and or reimbursement. HAShared;lup-e',WRCOC TUMF Arlin istrat've Plat ( led) 08^:08.00C 81 17 EXHIBIT "A" TUMF Decision Making WRCOG ZONE (Example of a single zone) WRCOG Executive WRCOG TAC • PWC Arterials of Regional Significance Elected Officials i Management Technical Zone Improvements t':LShxeei_vpeWVRCOG TUMF Administrative titan (Adopted) Cie 408.BCC 18 82 EXHIBIT "B" TUMF Credit / Reimbursement Eligibility Process 1. Prior to the construction of any TUMF Improvement, Developer shall follow the steps listed below a. Prepare a separate bid package for the TUMF Improvements_ b. The plans, cost estimate, specifications and contract document shall require all contractors to pay prevailing wages and to comply with applicable provisions of the Labor Code, Government Code, and Public Contract Code relating to Public Works Projects. c. Bids shalt be obtained and processed in accordance with the formal public works bidding requirements of the City/County_ d. The contract(s) for the construction of TUMF Improvements shall be awarded -to the lowest responsiblebidder(s) for the construction of such facilities in accordance with the City's/County's requirements and guidelines_ e. Contractor(s) shall be required to provide proof of insurance coverage throughout the duration of the construction. 2. Prior to the determination and application of any Credit pursuant to a TUMF Improvement and Credit Agreement executed between City/County and Developer ("Agreement"), Developer shall provide the City/County and WRCOG with the following: a. Copies of all information listed under Item 1 above_ b. Surety Bond, Letter of Credit; or other form of security permitted under the Agreement and acceptable to the City/County and WRCOG, guaranteeing the constriction of all applicable TUMF Improvements_ 3. Prior to the City's/County's acceptance of any completed TUMF Improvement, and in order to initiate the construction cost verification process, the Developer shall comply with the requirements as set forth in Sections 7, 14.3 and 14.4 of the Agreement, and the following conditions shall also be satsfied: a_ Developer shall have completed the construction of all TUMF Improvements in accordance with the approved Plans and Specifications_ b_ Developer shalt have satisfied the City's/County's inspection punch list. c_ After final inspection and approval of the completed TUMF Improvements, the City/County shall have provided the Developer a Gnat inspection release letter. d. City/County shall have filed a Notice of Completion with respect to the TUMF Improvements pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code with the County Recorder's Office, and provided a copy of filed Notice of Completion to WRCOG. e. Developer shall have provided City/County a copy of the As -Built plans for the TUMF Improvements. f_ Developer shall have provided City/County copies of all permits or agreements that may have been required by various resource/regulatory agencies for construction, operation and maintenance of any TUMF improvements. g. Developer shall have submitted a documentation package to the City/County to determine the final cost of the TUMF Improvements, which shall include at a minimum, the following documents related to the TUMF Improvements: t < Sha!�fLupe',WRCOG TUMF Acnicistratve Plan (Aftrzpiee.';: G8C408_€ OC 19 83 i_ Plans; specifications, and Developers Civil Engineer's cost estimates; or Engineer's Report showing the cost estimates n_ Contracts/agreements, insurance certificates and change orders with each vendor or contractor. Invoices from all vendors and service providers. iv_ Copies of cancelled checks, front and back, for payments made to contractors, vendors and service providers_ v. Final lien releases from each contractor and vendor (unconditional waiver and release). vi. Cedified contract workers payroll for City/County verification of compliance with prevailing wages_ vii. A total cost summary, in spreadsheet format (MS Excel ispreferred) and on disk, showing a breakdown of the total costs incurred. The summary should include for each item claimed the check number, cost, invoice numbers, and name of payee_ See attached sample for details. 4. The amount of the development credit shall not exceed the maximumamount determined by the most current unit cost assumptions for the RSHA in the adopted Nexus Study, or actual costs whichever is less. This shalt be known as the maximum credit. The maximum TUMF credit shall be determined based on an approved Improvement Plan and after the Conditions of Approval have been detemiined. edi.Lupe°,3 RCOC TtikfF Adr insiracve Dian (Adopted) 0804381)0C 84 20 • Exhibit "C" Guidelines for Administration of Programmed Projects in Zone's Adopted 5-Year TIP Once each Zone's 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee, said TIPs shall be inco rp©rated into and governed by these =3 guidelines, the Administrative Plan, and 10-Year Strategic Plan in accordance with AB 1600 :: Annually, WRCOG staff meets with the Zone Technical Advisory Committees to review the `'� status of all programmed projects on the 5-Year Ws and bring the subsequent project `'`- adjustment requests to the Zone Committees for approval_ The goals of the annual review process are as follows: (i) to update project cost estimates; (ii) to review project status; (ill) to determine the continued viability of projects; (iv) review the backlog of reimbursement `o { projects;(v) to address local jurisdiction issues; and (vi) address compliance with AB 1600_ 7f Adjustments: In accordance with the 10-Year Strategic Plan and the original reimbursement agreement _-_ s:- jurisdiction, all a { '1 "a entered into with the lead f approved projects' funding .and schedules are directlxy :3 s tied to critical milestones_ As such, requests to change a projects funding or schedule shall necessitate an amendment to the original agreement and the adopted TIP_ Annual 5-Year TIP adjustments could include, but are not limited to: b • Scope of work reductions or additions, - project or phase delays, - project or phase cancellations, • new shelf -ready network projects being added as replacement projects, project or phase advances, and ▪ request to transfer funding beyond a programmed project's limits within a Zone Levels of Approval: A. Zone Committee/WRCOG Executive Committee The following shall be approved by the Zone Committee and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee as required in the Administrative Plan: 1) Annual updates to the Zone TIP_ 2) Requests to increase total TUMF funding allocations to projects in the Zone TIP_ These requests may be made by the local jurisdiction administratively outside of the annual TIP update cycles if deemed necessary by one of the Zone participating jurisdictions and WRCOG management due to unforeseen circumstances that necessitate immediate action_ Such unforeseen circumstances shall include, but not be limited to, higher than expected bid prices, Might want to give more examplesj WRCOG staff will obtain action from the Zone Committee in these cases either by calling for a Special Zone Committee meeting or through individual consultation_ H t7iharedtt ure'- YRCOG nJk;F Adrnirristra ve Plan (Adopted) O8:140$.00C 85 Administrative requests to advance funds or adjust project schedules on TIP approved projects, upon the recommendation of the Public Works Committee. Such advancements are subject to: - Jurisdicfion's proof of readiness to move forward with project, Zone's currentcashflow can support the advancement or change. B_ WRCOG Executive Director The WRCOG Executive Director shall be responsible for the review and approval of the following changes to an approved Zone TIP, including the review and approval of any -r agreements, for 1) Change in Lead Jurisdiction, with the written consent of the transferring and accepting Lead Jurisdiction. Cancellation of project upon request of the focal jurisdiction. In the event of cancellation, all funds shall revert to the Zone TIP Trust account. 3) Approval of final completion of the project_ Upon notification from the Jurisdiction that the Project has been completed, all unused funds programmed for that Project shall revert to the Zone TIP Trust account. 4) All other administrative requests, upon consultation with the Public Works Committee_ C. Public Works Committee The Public Works Committee shall be responsible for the review and approval of the following: 1) Requests to move funds within project categories (environmental, design, etc.) administratively, contingent upon participafing jurisdiction's certification of viability of all phases. 2) Provide recommendations to the WRCOG Executive Director on any other requests that are deemed administrative in nature by the Director. All administrative adjustments will be submitted to the WRCOG Executive Committee as part of the next Annual Review Report for final adoption_ D. Obligating Programmed Funds The TUMF Program has established the policy that construction projects take priority and therefore WRCOG limits the obfigation of TUMF dollars_ WRCOG has two options by which to obligate TUMF_ In both options, steps 1, 2 and 3 (Option A) or 6 (Opfion B) must be completed by the local jurisdiction to ensure TUMF funding can be made available for use on an eligible project. Since TUMF project funds are generally obligated on a first come first served basis, failure to follow the prescribed steps for either option may preclude a project sponsor from receiving TUMF payments for completed work until sufficient funds are available to be obligated. F4_'IShwed`j_upe'ARCOG TUMFAd x istrazve Ftar jAdcpted; S-K408.COC 22 • 86 • Option A: Funding for a project programmed on Zone 5-YearTlPs is not considered obligated by WRCOG until certain steps outlined below have been accomplished by the local jurisdiction. 1. Ensure that funding for the project phase is programmed in the current year of an adopted 5-Year TIP. 2.. Ensure that there is a signed (executed) reimbursement agreement that matches the funding amount with the funding amount of the project phase in the adopted TIP. 3. Submit an invoice for TUMF eligible work prior to the end of the fiscal year to obligate the project phase funding. At the time of submitting the first invoice, the project sponsor will be required to submit all necessary supporting documentation (not previously submitted) in accordance with the provisions of the reimbursement agreement_ 4. WRCOG will obligate the entire phase of the project if there is available revenue at the time the invoice is submitted. Option B: Funding for a project programmed on Zone 5-Year Ws is not considered obligated by WRCOG. until the steps outlined below have been accomplished by the local jurisdiction_ 1. Ensure that funding for the project phase is programmed in the current year of an adopted 5-Year TIP. 2. Ensure that there is a signed (executed) reimbursement agreement that matches the funding amount with the funding amount of the project phase in the adopted TIP. -3_ Send WRCOG a letter of notice of intent to issue RFP, solicit bids, make offer to purchase ROW or other similar action to verify that sufficient funding is available and that funds are obligated and reserved exclusively for the particular project phase. 4. Receive a notice of obligation from WRCOG within fourteen working days of receipt of the notice of intent confirming the amount of funding that is obligated and reserved exclusively for the particular project phase_ Alternatively, the project sponsor will, receive a notice of deferred obligation if WRCOG determines that insufficient funds are currently available for the project phase to be obligated. 5. Award the project and execute a contract within four months of receipt of the notice of obligation from WRCOG and send a letter of confirmation of award to WRCOG including evidence of a Board/Council action relating to the project award and contract execution_ 6. Commence project work and submit the first invoice for payment within nine months of receipt of letter of obligation by WRCOG to preserve find obligation_ At the time of submitting the first invoice, the project sponsor will be required to submit all necessary supporting documentation (not previously submitted) in accordance with the provisions of the reimbursement agreement_ If a contract has not been executed within four months of receipt of the notice of obligation from WRCOG (step 5), there will be a review of the project status. Based on the review of project status, WRCOG will either i) extend the fund obligation for up to a total of nine months from the notice of obligation if the project sponsor can demonstrate a realistic expectation that the project will be awarded and a confirmation of award can be provided to WRCOG within that time frame, or ii) de -obligate the funds. liftShaethLu ett` RCOC T MF-Atiministra lve Plan: (Adopted) 080408-DOt; 23 87 Similarly, if the first invoice has not been submitted to WRGOG within nine months af. receipt of the letter of obligation (step 6), there will be a review of the project status_ Based on the review of project Status, WRCOG will either i) extend the fund obligation for up to an additional nine months if the project sponsor can demonstrate a realistic expectation that the project work will commence and a first invoice is submitted within that time frame; or a) de-obfigate the funds_ 1 `ftSharellop WI RCOG WNW AO;ninistra"cve plan (Adopted) 080408.00C 88 24 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 10, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee of the Whole" Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Coachella Valley Association of Governments Request for a Measure A Transportation improvement Program Amendment for Use of Measure A State Highway and Major Regional Road Project Funds in the Coachella Valley BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 08-023, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Initiating an Amendment to the Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance (Ordinance No. 88-1) and Making Findings of Necessity for Such Amendment', therefore initiating an amendment to the MeasureA Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)_ BACKGROUND INFORMATION. At its June 11, 2008 meeting, the Commission approved a request from the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to amend the Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan/TIP to add the following highway and roadway segments to the TIP, so that such segments will be eligible for the Measure A Coachella Valley highway funds: 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 195 (Avenue 66)_ Agenda Item 10 154 According to legal counsel, the process to amend the TIP for inclusion of the new segments (as outlined in Section 240302-of the Public Utilities Code) • involves initiation of an amendment to the TIP by the Commission, reciting the findings of necessity for the amendment. in this case, an amendment to the TIP is necessary;, because the TIP is no longer current as it applies to Highway 111 due to changes in the alignment of this highway. in order for funds to be effectively expended in carrying out the voter intent for state highway and major regional road project improvements in the Coachella Valley, the adoption of an amendment to the TIP is necessary. The attached resolution includes the required findings for initiation of an amendment to the TIP. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) staff, with advice of legal counsel, has determined that the proposed TIP amendment is not a project subject to environmental review because the amendment merely creates a government funding mechanism and does not commit the Commission to any specific project. Therefore, a Notice of Exemption has been prepared for adoption in conjunction with the adoption of the resolution_ Projects on Highway 111 will comply with CEQA individually. Additionally, for the amendment to the TIP to become effective, it will have to be approved by a majority of the cities constituting a majority of the incorporated population in Riverside County and by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. - A model resolution approving the amendment to the TiP and a model Notice of Exemption have been prepared for use by the local jurisdictions, which will need to be adopted at their respective council. meetings. Legal counsel has also prepared the following templates: Model City/County Cover Letter (Attachments 3 and 4) Model City/County Resolution (Attachments 5 and 6); and Model City/County. Notice of Exemption (Attachments 7 and 8). Staff will present the TIP amendment information at each respective council and board meeting_ Attachmerts: 1) Resolution No. 08-023 2) Commission Notice of Exemption 3) Model Cover Letter to Cities 4) Moder Cover Letter to the County 5) Model City Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Measure A TIP 6) Model County Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Measure A TIP 7) Model City Notice of Exemption 8) Model County Notice of Exemption 9) Highway 111 Alignment Recommendation Agenda Item 10 155 ATTACHMENT t RESOLUTION NO.68-023 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION INITIATING AN . AMENDMENT TO THE . RIVERSIDE COUNTY. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN AND RETAIL TRANSACTION AND USE TAX ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO_ 88-1') AND MAKING FINDINGS OF NECESSITY FOR SUCH AMENDMENT WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance, Ordinance No. 88-1 ("Measure A") was approved by 78.9 percent of the voters in Riverside County in November of 1988. - WHEREAS, the purpose of Measure A is to help relieve traffic congestion, increase safety, improve air quality, provide funds to match developers' fees and State and local moneys for transportation and plan adequately for traffic by providing essential countywide transportation improvements_ WHEREAS, the Transportation Expenditure Plan, also referred to as the Transportation Improvement Plan CTIP"), was attached as Exhibit B to Measure A and was incorporated therein by reference. WHEREAS, the TIP identifies State Highway 111 from Ramon. Road to Indio Boulevard as one of the projects in the Coachella Valley for which Measure A State highway and majorregional road project funds are to be appropriated and expended ("Measure A Highway Funds").. A map depicting the then -current Highway I11 designation between Ramon Road to Indio Boulevard (the "Original Alignment') was part of the TIP_ WHEREAS, since the passage of Measure A, the designation of Highway 111 has been changed as portions of the Original Alignment have been relinquished by the State and are now maintained by local jurisdictions. Additionally; Highway I I I was realigned in the city of Palm Springs and now is located .on Vista Chino Drive between Indian Canyon Drive and Gene Autry Trail, as well as the segment of Gene Autry Trail from Vista Chino Drive to South Palm Canyon Drive. WHEREAS, changes to the alignment of Highway 111 have raised questions regarding the eligibility of segments relinquished by the State to local agencies for Measure A Highway Funds_ Furthermore, additional segments of Highway 111 not included in the Original Alignment have been requested to be eligible for receipt of Measure A Highway Funds. WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 290302(d); the TIP may only be amended by the following process: (1) Initiation of amendment by the commission, reciting findings of necessity_ (2) Approval by the board of supervisors_ t 156 (3) Approval by a raajority of the cities constituting a majority of the incorporated population_ WHEREAS, the changes to the designation of Highway 111 have created the necessity for the adoption of this amendment to the TIP, as the TIP is no longer current as applies to Highway 111._ Furthermore, in order for Measure A Highway Funds to be effectively expended to carry out the voter intent for highway and roadway improvements an amendment to the TIP is necessary_ WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code section 240302, under which Measure A and the TIP were adopted, states that generated tax revenues may be expended "for the planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right-of-way acquisition" WHEREAS, the TIP states that the "scope of highway and commuter rail projects to be implemented is to be determined through required environmental analysis and full consideration of alternatives" including "public participation during the environmental analysis process." WHEREAS, the amendment to the TIP does not approve construction of any transportation improvements but amends the TIP to reflect current conditions in the Coachella Valley. WHEREAS,. under California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15378(b)(4), the amendment of the TIP is not a "project" subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the amendment merely creates a government funding mechanism and does not commit RCTC to a specific project_ WHEREAS, under California Code of Regulations, title I4, section 15004, the amendment of the TIP is not subject to CEQA because RCTC lacks enough information about the transportation improvements to conduct meaningful environmental review at this time. • WHEREAS, pursuant to the TIP, all appropriate environmental review will be completed prior to any future approval of a specific transportation improvement NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: A. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as though filly set forth herein. B. inclusion of Segments to Coachella Valley Portion of TIP. The Commission hereby initiates an amendment to that portion of the TIP entitled. "Coachella Valley". Section I, entitled "State Highways and Major- Regional Road Project"; of the aforementioned portion of the TIP, located on page 183-07 of Measure A, shaH be amended to include the segments of highway, and/or roadway described below and as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. The total amount of funding allocated to the Coachella Valley shall not be changed. -2- 157 1. hi 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 III alignment to Interstate 10; 1 In Indio, from the crossing of Golf Center Parkway over Indio Boulevard, northerly on Golf Center Parkway to Interstate 10; and 3. 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 195 (Avenue 66)_ C. Revision to Map Included as Part of TIP. The map attached as part of the TIP shall be amended to include those segments of highway and/or roadway as shown in the map attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A"_ Findings of Necessity. The Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commissioners") hereby find that changes to the designation of Highway 111 have created the necessity for the adoption of an amendment to the TIP, as the TIP is no longer current as applies to Highway I I I. Furthermore, in order for funds to be effectively expended to carry out the voter intent for highway and roadway improvement the adoption of the TIP amendment is necessary_ E. Effective Date. This .Resolution shall be effective on the date of its adoption_ Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amendment to the TIP set forth herein shall not be effective unless and until approved by the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County, and a majority of the Cities within Riverside County. F_ Notice of Exemption. The Commissioners hereby finds that the amendment of the TIP is not subject to CEQA and authorizes and directs RCTC staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County CIerk of Riverside County and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) days following adoption of this Resolution_ This Resolution is PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of , 2008. — • Jeff Stone, Chairman of the Riverside County Transportation Commission -3- 158 AIIEST: Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: BEST BEST & K IEGER LLP General Counsel -4- 359 Exhibit A Map depicting new segments of highway and/or roadway to be included in the TIP RVPUB\750633.3 • [attached behind this page] Exhibit A 160 Notice of Exemption (California Environmental Quality Act) To: Office of Planning and Research, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 222 P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Attn: State Clearinghouse Riverside County Clerk's Office P.O. Box 751 2720 Gateway Drive Riverside, CA 92502-0751 Kn ACHMENT2 From Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Phone: (951) 787-714I Fax: (951)7487-7920 Title: Adoption of Resolution Initiating an Amendment :to Coachella Valley Portion of Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance No. 88-1 Location — Specific: In Palm Springs, along Gene Autry Trail, Vista Chino Drive, and Highway 111_ In Indio, along Golf Center Parkway, Indio Boulevard, and Highway 111. Location - City: Cities of Palm Springs and Indio_ Location— County:- Riverside County_ Description of Nature Purposes and Beneficiaries: The Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation ("RCM") Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance, Ordinance No. 88.1 (the. "Plan") was approved by '78_9 percent of the voters in Riverside County in 1988_ The purpose of this Plan is to relieve traffic congestion, increase safety, improve air quality, and provide funding for essential countywide transportation improvements_ The Plan listed the locations of anticipated improvements in Riverside County, including the Coachella Valley area. Due to unanticipated realignments in roadways and the relinquishment of State control over other roadways and highways in. Coachella Malley, the Plan must now be amended to reflect current conditions and specify the current roadway segrnents which are eligible for funding. The amendment to the Plan initiated by RCTC on , 2008 does not approve the construction of any transportation improvement, but instead makes funding available for the planning and environmental review of future transportation improvements_ The beneficiaries of these improvements include the residents of Riverside County, particularly those of the Coachella Valley area. Name of Public Agency Approving: Riverside County Transportation Commission Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out: Riverside County Transportation Commission 1 of 2 161 Exempt Status: (check one) Ministerial (Sec_ 21080(bX1);15268); — Declared Emergency (Sec_ 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Sec_ 21080(b)(4); 15269(bxc)); Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Statutory Exemptions. State code number_ X Other_ Not a "Project" (State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15378(b)(4); 15004) Reasons why exempt: The proposed amendment of the Plant does not approve the construction of any transportation improvements. Instead, the amendment revises the Plan to accurately state current conditions and specify the transportation system 'improvements which are eligible for funding under the Plan. Only those improvements specified in the Plan are eligible for funding_ The Plan states that "the scope of highway and commuter rail projects to be implemented is to be determined through required environmental analysis and full consideration of alternatives_ Public participation during the environmental analysis is required" Likewise, Public Utilities Code section 240302 states that the .tax revenues available under the Plan are to be expended for the purposes of "planning, environmental reviews, engineering and .design costs, and related right-of-way acquisition," Accordingly, the Plan must be amended before available tax revenues can be expended on the planning and environmental review of anticipated future transportation improvements. As such, amendment of the Plan is merely "the creation of [a] government funding mechanism or other government fiscal activity] which do[es] not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment_" (State CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(4).) Additionally, the scope, nature, and construction schedule of the improvements listed in the amended Plan are currently unlmown and initial technical and engineering studies for the improvements have not yet been completed. Thus, there is not yet "enough meaningful information for environmental ass-ssment" of anticipated transportation improvements, and the amendment of the Plan is merely the "designat[ion] of a preferred site for CEQA review_" (State CEQA Guidelines § 15004.) Accordingly, the amendment of the Plan is not a "project" and is exempt from environmental review under CEQA. Any future approval of specific transportation improvements would be subject to all required environmental review. Lead Agency Contact Person: Shirley Medina Phone: (951) 787-7141 Signature: Date: Title_ R V PUB\C.SCHILLERt742219.2 2of2 162 ATTACHMENT3 [TO BE PLACED ON RCTC LEI'1'ERHEAD] [insert date] [Insert City address ] Attn: City Clerk RE: Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance (Ordinance No. 88-1) ("Measure A") To the City Clerk of the City of The Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") recently adopted a resolution initiating an amendment to the Measure A Transportation Improvement PIan (the "TIP"). In order for the amendment to the TIP to become effective, the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County and a majority of the cities within Riverside County constituting a majority of the incorporated population must approve the proposed amendment. ROTC is therefore asking for your City to support the amendment to the TIP by adopting the enclosed resolution. For your convenience, we have also enclosed a Notice of Exemption which, pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), State CEQA Guidelines; should be filed within five (5) business days of the adoption of the enclosed resolution. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Shirley Medina at (951) 787-7141. Sincerely, Shirley Medina 1 163 4-7 • ATTACHMENT 4 [TO BE PLACED ON RCTC LETTERHEAD] [insert date] Nancy Romero Riverside County Clerk of the Board 4080 Lemon St., 1st Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Resolution Approving an .Amendment to the Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance (Ordinance No. 88-1) ("Measure A') Dear Nancy Romero: The Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC') recently adopted a resolution initiating an amendment to the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan (the "TIP'). In order for the amendment to the TIP to become effective, the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County and a majority of the cities within Riverside County constituting a majority of the incorporated population must approve the proposed amendment. RCTC is therefore asking for the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to support the amendment to the TIP by adopting the enclosed resolution. For your convenience, we have also enclosed a Notice of Exemption which, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), State CEQA Guidelines, should be filed within five (5) business days of the adoption of the enclosed resolution. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Shirley Medina at (951) 787-7141. Sincerely, Shirley Medina 164 ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN AND RETAIL TRANSACTION AND USE TAX ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO: 88-I) WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance, Ordinance No. 88-1 ("Measnre A") was approved by 78.9 percent of the voters in Riverside County in November of 1988. WHEREAS, the purpose of Measure A is to help relieve traffic congestion, increase safety, improve air quality, provide funds to match developers' fees and State and local moneys for transportation and plan adequately for traffic by providing essential countywide transportation improvements. WHEREAS, the Transportation Expenditure Plan, also referred tows the Transportation Improvement Plan ("TIP"), was attached as Exhibit B to Measure A and was incorporated therein by reference. WHEREAS, the TIP identifies State Highway 111 from Ramon Road to Indio Boulevard as one of the projects in the • Coachella Valley for which Measure A State highway and major regional road project funds are to be appropriated and expended ("Measure A Highway Funds"). A map depicting the then -current Highway 1 I I designation between Ramon Road_ to Indio Boulevard (the "Original Alignment") was part of the TIP. WHEREAS, since the passage of Measure A, the designation of Highway 1,11 has been - changed as portions of the Original Alignment have been relinquished by the State and are now maintained by local jurisdictions_ Additionally, Highway I I I was realigned in the city" of Palm Springs and now is located on Vista Chino Drive between Indian Canyon Drive and Gene Autry Trail, as well as the segment of Gene Autry Trail from Vista Chino Drive to South Palm Canyon Drive. WHEREAS, changes to the alignment of Highway 11 I have raised questions regarding the eligibility of segments relinquished by the State to local agencies for Measure A Highway Funds_ Furthermore, additional segments of Highway I I I not included in the Original Alignment have been requested to be eligible for receipt of Measure A Highway Funds_ WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 240302(d), the TIP may only be amended by the following process: (1) Initiation of amendment by the commission, reciting findings of necessity for the amendment. (2) Approval by the board of supervisors_ (3) Approval by a majority of the cities constituting a majority of the incorporated population_. 2 165 WHEREAS, the changes to the designation of Highway 11I have created the necessity for the adoption of an amendment to the TIP, as the TIP is no longer current as applies to Highway 111_ Furthermore, in order for Measure A Highway Funds to be effectively expended to carry out the voter intent for highway and roadway improvements, an amendment to the TIP is necessary_ WHEREAS, at its meeting on the Board of Directors of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission Board") adopted a resolution initiating an amendment to the TIP, including the required findings of necessity for the amendment_ WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of ("City Council") has considered the proposed amendment, and approves said amendment to the TIP. WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code section 240302, under which Measure A and the TIP were adopted, states that generated tax revenues may be expended "for the planning; environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right-of-way acquisition_" WHEREAS, the TIP states that the "scope of highway and commuter rail projects to be implemented is to be determined through required environmental analysis and full consideration of alternatives" including "public participation during the environmental analysis process." WHEREAS, the amendment to the TIP does not approve construction of any transportation improvements but amends the TIP to reflect current conditions in the Coachella Valley_ WHEREAS, under California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15378(b)(4), the amendment of the TIP is not a "project" subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the amendment merely creates a government funding mechanism and is not a commitment to any specific project_ WHEREAS, under California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15004, the amendment of the TIP_ is not subject to CEQA because there is insufficient information about the transportation improvements to conduct meaningful environmental review at this time_ WHEREAS, pursuant to the TIP, all appropriate environmental review will be completed prior to any future approval of a specific transportation improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Incorporation of Recitals_ The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as though fully set forth herein_ Section 2_. Approval of Amendment to the TIP. The City Council hereby approves the following amendment to the TIP, as initiated by the Commission Board: A_ Inclusion of Segments to Coachella Valley Portion of TIP. That portion of the TIP entitled "Coachella Valley"_ Section I, entitled "State Highways and Major Regional Road Project", of the 3 166 afore'. itioned portion of the TIP, located on page 183-07 of Measure A, shall be amended to include the segments of highway,. and/or roadway described below and as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference_ The total amount of fimding allocated to the Coachella Valley shall not be changed. I. 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; 2. In Indio, from the crossing of Golf Center Parkway over Indio Boulevard, northerly on Golf Center Parkway to Interstate 10; and 3. In Indio, from the intersection of Highway l 11 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 195 (Avenue 66). B. Revision to Map Included as Part of TIP. The map attached as part of the TIP shall be amended to include those segments of highway and/or roadway as shown in the map attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A". Section 3. Approval of Findings. The City Council hereby approves the findings of the Commission Board related to adoption of the amendment to the TIP_ Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective on the date of its adoption. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amendment to the TIP set forth herein shall not be effective unless and until approved by the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County, and a majority of the Cities within Riverside County_ Section 5. Notice of Exemption. The City Council hereby finds that adoption of this Resolution is not subject to CFQA and authorizes and directs City staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk of Riverside County and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) days following adoption of this Resolution_ This Resolution is PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of , 2008 by the following vote: 4 167. Vote: Ayes: Mays: Abstain: A 1'1'BST: , City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney City of by , Mayor S 168 • • Exhibit A Map depicting new segments of highway and/or roadway to be included in the TIP [attached behind this page] Exhibit A 169 RESOLUTION NO. ATTACHMENT 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN AND RETAIL TRANSACTION AND USE TAX ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO.88-1) WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and. Use Tax Ordinance, Ordinance No_ 88-1 ("Measure A") was approved by 78.9 percent of the voters in Riverside County in November of 1988. WHEREAS, the purpose of Measure A is to help relieve traffic congestion, increase safety, improve air quality, provide funds to match developers' fees and State and local moneys for transportation and plan adequately fortraffic by providing essential countywide transportation improvements. WHEREAS, the Transportation Expenditure Plan, also referred to as the Transportation Improvement Plan ("TIP"), was attached as Exhibit B to Measure A and was incorporated therein by reference_ WHEREAS, the TIP identifies State Highway 111 from Ramon Road to Indio Boulevard as one of the projects in the Coachella Valley for which Measure A State highway and major regional road project funds are to be appropriated and expended ("Measure A Highway Funds"). A map depicting the then -current Highway 111 designation between Ramon Road to Indio Boulevard (the "Original Alignment") was part of the TIP_ WHEREAS, since the passage. of Measure A, the designation of Highway I I I has been changed as portions of the Original Alignment have been relinquished by the State and are now maintained by local jurisdictions. Additionally, Highway 111 was realigned in the city of Palm Springs and now is located on Vista Chino Drive between Indian Canyon Drive and Gene Autry Trail, as well as the segment of Gene Autry Trail from Vista Chino Drive to South Palm Canyon Drive. WHEREAS, changes to the alignment of Highway 111 have raised questions regarding the eligibility of segments relinquished by the State to local agencies for Measure A Highway Funds. Furthermore, additional segments of Highway 111 not included in the Original Alignment have been requested to be eligible for receipt of Measure A Highway Funds_ WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 240302(d), the TIP may only be amended by the following process: (I) Initiation of amendment by the commission, reciting findings of necessity for the amendment_ (2) Approval by the board of supervisors. (3) Approval by -a majority of the cities constituting a majority of the incorporated population_ 2 170 WHEREAS, the changes to the designation of Highway 111 have created the necessity for the adoption of an amendment to the TIP, as the TIP is no longer current as applies to Highway 111. Furthermore, in order for Measure A Highway Funds to be effectively expended to carry out the voter intent for Highway and roadway improvements, an amendment to the TIP is necessary. WHEREAS, at its meeting on the Board of Directors of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission Board") adopted a resolution initiating an amendment to the TTP, including the required findings of necessity for the amendment. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County (the "Board of Supervisors") has considered the proposed amendment, and approves said amendment to the TIP, WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code section 240302, under which Measure A and the TIP were adopted, states that generated tax revenues may be expended "for the planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right -of --way acquisition." WHEREAS, the TIP states that the "scope of highway and commuter rail projects to be implemented is to be determined through required environmental analysis and full consideration of alternatives" including "public participation during the environmental analysis process." WHEREAS, the amendment to the TIP does not approve construction of any transportation improvements but amends the TIP to reflect current conditions in the Coachella Valley. WHEREAS, under California Code of Regulations; title 14, section 35378(b)(4), the. amendment of the TIP is not a "project" subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because theamendment merely creates a government funding mechanism and is not a commitment to any specific project. WHEREAS, under California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15004, the amendment of the TIP is not subject to CEQA because there is insufficient information about the transportation improvements to conduct meaningful environmental review at this time. WHEREAS, pursuant to the TIP, all appropriate environmental review will be completed_ by the appropriate agencies prior to any future approval of a specific transportation improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as though fully set forth herein. Section 2. Approval of Amendment to the TIP_ The Board of Supervisors hereby approves the following amendment to the TIP, as initiated by the Commission Board: A. Inclusion of Segments to Coachella Valley Portion of TIP: That portion of the TIP entitled "Coachella Valley". Section 1, entitled 3 171 Section 3. "State Highways and Major Regional Road Project", of the aforementioned portion of the TIP, located on page 183-07 of Measure A, shall be amended to include the segments of highway, and/or roadway describedbelow and as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. The total amount of funding allocated to the Coachella Valley shall not be changed. 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; 2_ In Indio, from the crossing of Golf Center Parkway over Indio Boulevard, northerly on Golf Center Parkway to Interstate 10; and 3_ In Indio, from the intersection of Highway 111 and Indio Boulevard, southeasterly on Indio Boulevard and Grapefruit. Boulevard, the existing and former Highway I 1 1 alignment, through the city of Coachella and Riverside County to the intersection of State Route 195 (Avenue 66)_ B. Revision to Map Included as Part of TIP. The map attached as part of the TIP shall be amended to include those segments of highway and/or roadway as shown in the map attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A". Approval of Findings. The Board of Supervisors hereby approves the findings of the Commission Board related to adoption of the amendment to the TIP. Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective on the date of its adoption. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amendment to the TIP set forth herein shall not be effective unless and until approved a majority of the Cities within Riverside County. Section 5. Notice of Exemption. The Board of Supervisors hereby finds that adoption of this Resolution is not subject to CEQA and authorizes and directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk of Riverside County and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) days following adoption of this Resolution. This Resolution is PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of , 2008 by the following vote: 4 172 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Nancy Romero, Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Counsel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RIVERSIDE COUNTY Chairperson 5 173 Exhibit A Map depicting new segments of highway and/or roadway to be included in the TIP [attached behind this page] Exhibit A 174 Notice of Exemption (California Environmental Quality A To: Office of Planning and Research:, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 222 P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Attn: State Clearinghouse ATTACHMENT 7 From: The City of (the "City") Phone:(951) Riverside County Clerk's Office Fax: (951) P.O_ Box 751 2720 Gateway Drive Riverside, CA 92502-0751 Title: Adoption of Resolution Approving an Amendment to Coachella Valley Portion of Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance No. 88-1 Location — Specific: In Patin Springs, along Gene Autry Trail, Vista Chino Drive, and Highway 111 _ In Indio, along Golf Center Parkway, Indio Boulevard, and Highway 111. Location - City: Cities of Palm Springs and Indio. Location — County: Riverside County_ Description of Nature, Purposes, and Beneficiaries: The Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation ("RCTC") Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance, Ordinance No_ 88-1 (the "Plan") was approved by 78.9 percent of the voters in Riverside County in 1988. The purpose of this Plan is to relieve traffic congestion, increase safety, improve air quality; and provide funding for essential countywide transportation improvements. The Plan listed the locations of anticipated improvements in Riverside County, including the Coachella Valley area. Due to unanticipated realignments in roadways and the relinquishment of State control over other roadways and highways in Coachella Valley, the Plan must now be amended to reflect current conditions and specify the current roadway segments which are eligible for funding. The resolution approving an amendment to the Plan adopted by the City on 2008 does not approve the construction of transportation improvement, but instead approves an amendment to the Plan in order to make funding available for the planning and environmental review of future transportation improvements_ The beneficiaries of these improvements include the residents of Riverside County, particularly those of the Coachella Valley area_ Name of Public Agency Approving Resolution: The City of Name of Person or Agencry Carrying Out: Riverside County Transportation Commission 1 of 2 175 Exempt Status: (check one)' Ministerial (Sec. 21080(6)(1); 15268); Declared Emergency (Sec_ 21080(3)(3); 15249(a)); Emergency Project (Sec. 21 080(bX4); 15269(bXc)); Categorical Exemption_ State type and section number Statutory Exemptions_ State code number: X Other: Not a "Project' (State CEQA Guidelines §§ 1537803)(4); 15004) Reasons why exempt: Approval of the proposed amendment to the Plan does not approve the construction of any transportation improvements. The proposed amendment revises the Plan to accurately state current conditions and specify the transportation system improvements which are eligible for funding under the Plan. Only those improvements specified in the Plan are eligible for fimding. The Plan states that "the scope of highway and commuter rail projects to be implemented is to be determined through required' environmental analysis and full consideration of alternatives_ Public participation during the environmental analysis is required." Likewise, Public Utilities Code section 240302 states that the tax revenues available under the Plan are to be expended for the purposes of "planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right-of- way acquisition." Accordingly, the Plan must be amended before available tax revenues can be expended on the planning and," environmental review of anticipated fixture transportation improvements_ As such, amendment of the Plan is merely "the creation of ja] government funding mechanism or other government fiscal activit[y]`which doles] not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(4)_) Additionally, the scope, nature, and construction schedule of the improvements listed in the amended Plan are currently unknown and initial technj cal and engineering studies for the improvements have not yet been completed_ "Thus, there is not yet "enough meaningful information for environmental assessment' of anticipated transportation improvements, and the amendment of the Plan is merely the "designat[ion} of a preferred site for CEQA review." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15004.) Accordingly, the amendment of the Plan is not a "project" and is exempt from environmental review under CEQA. Any future approval of specific transportation, improvements would be subject to all required environmental review by the appropriate agencies. Lead Agency Contact Person: Shirley Medina Phone: (951) 787-7141. Signature: Date: Title: 2 of 2 17F Notice of Exemption (California Environmental Quality Act) To: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 222 P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento; CA 95812-3044 Attn: State Clearinghouse Riverside County Clerk's Office P.O. Box 751 2720 Gateway Drive Riverside, CA 92502-0751 ATTACHMENT From: The Board of Supervisors of Riverside County c% Riverside County . . Clerk of the Board 4080 Lemon St_, .1st Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: (951) 955-1060 Fax: (95 1) 955-1071 Title: Adoption of Resolution Approving an Amendment to Coachella Valley Portion of Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance No. 88-1 Location — Specific: In Palm Springs, along Gene Autry Trail, Vista Chino Drive, and Highway Ill. In Indio, along Golf Center Parkway, Indio Boulevard, and Highway 111. Location — City: Cities of Palm Springs and Indio. Location — County: Riverside County. Description of Nature, Purposes, and Beneficiaries: The Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation ("RCTC") Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance, Ordinance No: 88-1 (the `"Plan") was approved by 78.9 percent of the voters in Riverside County in 1988_The purpose of this Plan is to relieve traffic congestion, increase safety, improve air quality, and .provide funding for essential countywide transportation improvements. The Plan listed the locations of anticipated improvements in Riverside County, including the Coachella Valley area. Due to unanticipated realignments in roadways and the relinquishment of State control over other roadways and highways in Coachella Valley, the Plan must now be amended to reflect current conditions and specify the current roadway segments which are eligible for funding_ The resolution approving an amendment to the Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County on ..'_ , - . , 2008 does not approve the construction of any transportation improvement, but instead approves an amendment to the Plan in order to make funding available for the planning and environmental review of future transportation improvements. . The beneficiaries of these improvements include the residents of Riverside County, particularly those of the Coachella Valley area. Name of Public Agency Approving Resolution: The City of Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out: Riverside County Transportation Commission 1 of 2 177 Exempt Status: (check one) _ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(bx1); 15268); _ Declared Emergency (Sec_ 21080(bX3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); Categorical Exemption: State type and section number. Statutory Exemptions. State code number: X Other Not a "Project" (State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15378(bx4); 15004) Reasons why exempt: Approval of the proposed amendment to the Plan does not approve the construction of any transportation improvements. The proposed amendment revises the Plan to accurately state current conditions and specify the transportation system improvements which are eligible for funding under the Plan. Only those improvements specified in the Plan are eligible for funding. The Plan states that "the scope of highway and commuter rail projects to be implemented is to be determined through required environmental analysis and full consideration of alternatives. Public participation during the environmental analysis is required" Likewise, Public Utilities Code section 240302 states that the tax revenues available under the Plan are to be expended for the purposes of "planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right-of- way acquisition." Accordingly, the Plan must be amended before available tax revenues can be expended on the planning and environmental review of anticipated future transportation improvements. As such, amendment of the Plan is merely "the creation of [a] government funding mechanism or other government fiscal.actrvitly) which do[es] not involve any commitment to any specific project which tnay result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(4)_) Additionally, the scope, nature, and construction schedule of the improvements listed in the amended Plan are currently unknown and initial technical and engineering studies for the improvements have not yet been completed. Thus, there is not yet "enough meaningful information for environmental assessment' of anticipated transportation improvements, and the amendment of the Plan is merely the "designat[ionj. of a preferred site for CEQA review." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15004.) Accordingly, the amendment of the Plan is not a "project" and is exempt from environmental review under CEQA. Any futureapproval of specific transportation improvements would be subject to all required environmental review by the appropriate agencies. Lead Agency Contact Person: Shirley Medina Phone: (951) 787-7141 Signature: Date: Title: 2 of 2 178 WW1111110 41101e410MM 0104 CP p Ilt4e Y01910N0 put 42100000 01,0tam upon p spool spa pa yen Fuv'dew tlYl u0 0etee1u00 YOIIeYu01u1001101 41111019u0d4eJ Irk 0u ES Wp9ta pug'pepgntud map eu110 Fue 10 e9euele10W0010'0I9419010 '40110009'(A4ed p11Y1 map 01 e911109 6111i luolupt Kg pi tP 91jYPJPOp JO AIYP116M OV pP'FeW oYAa .eplPpYele dVpeeYl6ue l0 SUIROune 014 4l000t Alutellnau Mu 91e An •eiguaxoJpGe 91e te11119e1 dopy 'Flue 6990d111d e'JVtlel9J !01 049110A PI 104 6lep pVe 0d0P1000 I4000 spoLuwenoo la uopehossy ARM BIIB4oe00 'Mod sel040lN Rq dew apeoy.lojeyq — gemaa,tem461W ---- 961. 413m46IH 81e1S Al PAIS olPul amir 1.14 /,BM4IH WI of Pnl9 opul pa uowea oLOL LsoorammEd LLL ReM4BIH pn19 (s pul m Pa uoulea LLL Aem461H 8891 • Wel=611Vargo LLL lem4611-I IeulOPO pue6ei ZL 6 9 £ 9'6 0 selRw uopepuetuumoed uetuuBilty 611\131A1HOVIIV iNILIBIH • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 10, 2008 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee of the Whole" Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Regional Arterial Program Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE- AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Measure: A Regional Arterial (MARA) program. 8,4CKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff has been working with the Western Riverside County Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members in reviewing and evaluating projects submitted for 2009 MARA program funds. Staff anticipated presenting programming recommendations to the Commission at the September 2008 meeting. However, the outcome of the 2008 state budget negotiations could have a significant impact on transportation funding if Proposition 42 funds are redirected or borrowed to resolve budget issues. If this occurs, currently funded projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) could be at risk of losing' funds or delayed. Therefore, staff recommends waiting for the passage of the state budget to analyze the impacts before proceeding on committing additional funds to projects. The Commission anticipates presenting a recommendation for the MARA program of projects in December 2008. Regardless of the outcome of the state budget on transportation funding, staff is supportive of funding projects that are ready for construction_ At its July 9, 2008 meeting, the Commission approved $2 million for the city of Lake Elsinore's State Route 74/Interstate 15 interchange project, which was ready for construction. The project was advertised on July 16, 2008. Staff has informed local agencies that submitted projects for MARA funds to notify the Commission if their project(s) advances to the construction stage prior to approval of the MARA program of projects for funding consideration. Agenda Item 71 89 Following is an overview of the MARA call for projects: October 2007 Commission approved guidelines and released call for projects for $300 million. December 2007 35 projects were submitted, totaling .$660 million_ March 2008 Staff revised Measure A revenue projections as a result of the downturn in the economy and informed Commission that TUMF RegionalArterial program revenues, project costs, and schedules were being re-evaluated. April - June 2008 Commission/WRCOG staff collected updated project costs and schedules of TUMF projects to ensure the viability and deliverability of the TUMF program. Staff also worked with Western County TAC members to complete MARA project rankings based on evaluation criteria and updated schedules. July 2008 Commission approved $2 million MARA funding for Lake Elsinore s SR-74/I-15 interchange improvement project. Staff presented updated project schedules/ranking to Western County TAC members for discussionfinput purposes. December 2008 Estimated date of MARA program recommendations. Agenda Item 71 • 90 • AGENCY TAC MEMBER BANNING DUANE BURK Director of Public Works BEAUMONT~IJOHN WILDER BLYTHE CVAG CALIMESA CAL TRANS Assistant Director of Public Works IJIM RODKEY Public Works Director ALLYN WAGGLE iANNE SCHNEIDER I SEAN YEUNG ALTERNATE Kahana Oei Chad Aaby City Engineer Carol Clapper Bill Mosby TECHNICAL AD'6RY COMMITTEE SeptemmJll'1 s, 2008 PRINT NAME ~n_ \r.ii-..> 6',w \LL.o\ ::r, ~ Rod/A!-'! CANYON LAKE I HABIB MOTLAGH Eric Skaugset -, / . City Engineer Assistant Engineer ~ (... J--' ~, L-+..1 BILL BAYNE Pavel Horn ~~ • NATURE CITY I I "01LL ~~q;1-1~ ~ lcoACHELLA IPAUL TOOR ITonyLucero ·-------------·------1 Public Works Director 1 CORONA AMADQATTAN Public Works Director Kip Field ? ~ .(/o. 1,.j Assistant Public Works {\t. '£,. I-. Director ~Nb)t kr_, t:f ~L/ ~~ 1-~ r 'i/ I DESERT HOT I JONATHAN HOY I Steven Mendoza , / f./ SPRINGS !Public Works Director /City !Community Development ,:} o..; AT'~tf nO I Engineer I Director 9/11/2008 • AGENCY TAC MEMBER HEMET MIKE GOW INDIAN WELLS TIM WASSIL Public Works Director/City Engineer INDIO rincipal Civil Engineer LA QUINTA TIMOTHY JONASSON Public Works Director/City Engineer LAKE KEN SEUMALO ELSINORE City Engineer MORENO CHRIS VOGT VALLEY Public Works Director/City Engineer MURRIETA PATRICK THOMAS Director of Public Works/City Engineer NORCO BILL THOMPSON I Director of Public Works PALM DESERT MARK GREENWOOD Director of Public works PALM SPRINGS DAVE BARAKIAN Director of Public Works/City Engineer -----PVVTA LES NELSON City Manager ALTERNATE Victor Monz Principal Engineer Bondie Baker Assistant Engineer II Jim Smith Director of Public Works Nick Nickerson Ed Basuba City Traffic Engineer Russ Napier Capital Improvement Program Manager Lori Askew Associate Engineer Alana Townsend Marcus Fuller TECHNICAL AD'6RY COMMITTEE Septem-15, 2008 PRINT NAME ---loµ ~} ro ',,[c -rk., rYI ";; tAtw.-\'-~~vl ro .D P1rt1, v qpn_1J..1<r /)# • I NATURE ------9/1112008 • AGENCY TAC MEMBER PERRIS I RON CARR RTA RANCHO MIRAGE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN JACINTO SUN LINE Public Works Director MARK STANLEY Director of Planning BRUCE HARRY Director of Public Works TOM BOYD Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer IJUAN PEREZ Director of Tt:fvti!r TVZ..Aw S r"OZ,T -6'11 HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer EUNICE LOVI Director of Planning ALTERNATE Habib Motlagh City Engineer Bret T eebken Planning Analyst Randy Viegas Project Manager Siobhan Foster Patty Romo Deputy Director of ransportation Eric Skaugset Assistant Engineer Alfonso Hernandez Assistant Planner TEMECULA I BILL HUGHES Greg Butler WR COG I( 1 'v v.s/J>-cn <J.IA .Ytf Director of Public Works Deputy Public Works Public Works Department Director RUTHANNE TAYLOR· BERGER r<J."eJ."1 ltAor<AS"h (1. J. · 't!oate;; I freJ lf~mol~odlA -1-~~'-~\.<\..~ ~......a.~\ ~~~ ~'"""'~ 1>-.L ~'~""-TECHNICAL AD'6RY COMMITTEE Septem'Fr15, 2008 PRINT NAME /!Fucc /-?nc-r; /P-16j,! ~c. ~~un-A-/)f.For-/5C 't'Z ~~ ~-n_t::-(2_ __,..,~~ ~'-~~' • SIGNATURE l v-~ JC A o rv-.rtt_ ot-vC-1 .JJ~ 9/11/2008 • • AGENCY (2G-rc__, Q~-rc ~e:ru W'i·LO~ fl-rp, ~~ C1 .. r'f o(' /ND10 TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE September 15, 2008 NAME TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL w~~~V') )'1,r\d.wv\o~r1@ r~n ~o'<j ·-p alk' ~t( l lo Pc.ayh'\\D GJ rc-tc,, ~ 909-39 3-'-/IJ3'J P11 r/f1l/.f /1ALL-Y I f,4TAIC./1_f-IAL'-Y€2do+. eA.JCIV eros:,o Q rrc;k., c/;Jru-c -e--/-J-l'va.-re ~ q/v~e-e., e-r-~+-c-/ ~ t-(.;UL<f! w '{ c 0 0. ' (. 0 ~ , c ff . v 5 "-• f'vtl l-A-tJ ~ u~ ~~~ l'J,rt-tl ~ m e tU c,,WV<,; (J,lf_ {vv>11. w_._· Gd_'lt\ _____ ---1 l~v,i~irct-G · ~ G~lfN;-EKLUND ~ ek f vn J, @ 1\,,, J '"· or~ """-'-'' '' 1 , ,. vrv , "'~m 1l ' Y\\.o µ 0 ~ \ l'"'f\o,__ "~ \L~ c 8"-'\ t~ E~~\h~CV\;\f\ I t~V\4.t,J'MJ\.Af\. ~ (\/~C ~ G ~ ' T TR"({ 1..S VI G-~el\J '"DAvl d. ~AtJ \I J d ~ i re~ ~ s . e o m 9/11/2008