Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 20, 2008 Technical advisory commitee85649 • TIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMIT MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. October 20, 2008 Banning City Hall Civic Center Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, CA Records *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS "'Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Duane Burk, City of Banning Ron Carr, City of Perris Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Patrick Nally, Caltrans District 8 Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Jonathan Hoy, City of Desert Hot Springs Bill Hughes, City of Temecula Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake & San Jacinto Les Nelson, PVVTA • Juan Perez, County of Riverside Amad Qattan, City of Corona Tom Rafferty, City of Indio Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Anne Schneider, City of Calimesa Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Bill Thompson, City of Norco Paul Toor, City of Coachella Chris Vogt, City of Moreno Valley Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells John Wilder, City of Beaumont Commission Staff Anne Mayer, Executive Director Shirley Medina, Program Manager REVISED TO ADD MCP UPDATE #5 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: October 20, 2008 LOCATION: Banning City Hall Civic Center Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, CA 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. MCP UPDATE (Verbal Presentation) 6. RCTC REQUEST TO AMEND TE APPPLICATION FOR PVL GREENWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT (Attachment) 7. CTC STATE AND LOCAL PARTNERSHIP GUIDELINES (Attachment) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 2 8. RTP/RTIP UPDATE (Attachment) • MODEL YEARS AND AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ISSUES 9. FY 2008/09 OBLIGATION DELIVERY PLAN (Attachment) 10. LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT (Verbal Presentation) 11. OCTOBER 8 COMMISSION ITEMS (Verbal Presentation) 12. OTHER BUSINESS 13. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be November 17, 2008, 10:00 A.M. in Riverside.) • • • " MINUTES " " TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, September 15, 2008 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:05 A.M. at Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Greg Butler, City of Temecula Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Patrick Hally, Caltrans District 8 Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Alfonso Hernandez, SunLine Jonathan Hoy, City of Desert Hot Springs Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Juan Perez, County of Riverside Tom Rafferty, City of Indio Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Eric Skaugset, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris & San Jacinto Bret Teebken, RTA Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Others Present: Fred Alamolhoda, LAE Assoc. Grace Alvarez, RCTC Patti Castillo, RCTC Lisa DaSilva, RCTC Viggen Davidian, Reds Martha Durbin, RCTC Eliza Echevarria, RCTC Grant Eklund, City of Indio Shirley Gooding, RCTC Brian Guillot, City of Banning Michael Kashiwagi, City of Wildomar Farah Khorashadi, County of Riverside Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 15, 2008 Page 2 Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Shirley Medina, RCTC Robert Morin, City of Corona Mila Nelson, RTA Patty Romo, County of Riverside Edda Rosso, RCTC Alex Serena, WRCOG Andrea Zureick, RCTC 3. Approval of Minutes M/S/C (Perez/Harry) to approve the minutes of June 16, 2008 as submitted. 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. DRAFT COUNTY TRANSPORTATION MODEL PRESENTATION Viggen Davidian, Vice President, Transportation Systems, Reds, gave a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the development of a new countywide model for Riverside County. He provided background, history, current issues and problems, features of the new model, project status and intended uses and responded to various questions. Shirley Medina, RCTC, stated that a subcommittee that she is on is seeking suggestions for a name for the model. She also asked that Mr. Davidian e-mail the presentation to her and she would e-mail it to the TAC committee. 6. MSHCP STATUS This item was continued to a future meeting. 7. 2008 STATE BUDGET — POTENTIAL IMPACT TO 2008 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) Ms. Medina indicated that she believes a state budget will be submitted today but she does not know what impact to transportation the budget will have. There may be an impact on borrowing from the public transportation account which funds much of the transit programs and projects. The shortfall is still about $5. million. The next California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting is scheduled for September 24/25 and there should be more to update on the impact the budget will have to the current State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and staff will have a report at the October TAC meeting. • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 15, 2008 Page 3 • 8. LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT • 9. • Patrick Nally, Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance, provided a master project list to each agency and asked that each agency review the list and let him know of any changes or inaccuracies. In response to a question regarding the frequency of updating the information, Mr. Nally stated that the Local Assistance engineers are supposed to update it whenever new information is received. Shirley Medina indicated that the lists that were distributed will be provided to RCTC and they will be updated on a monthly basis. The TAC will be notified when the list is available online. In the meantime, RCTC staff will review the status of projects and RFAs. She suggested that the agencies examine the projects to keep the list as up to date as possible. The 2008 Federal Aid Series Overview is scheduled between September 30th and October 10`h. Shirley asked if there are any new procedures in place about which the agencies should be aware and Mr. Hally indicated that they are pending. Mr. Nally also suggested that project applications that were submitted for FY 2008/09 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funds should be resubmitted for FY 2009/10 BTA funds. Decisions will not be made on FY 2008/09 funding until the new budget is passed. The deadline is December 1, 2008. 2008 RTP AND RTIP AMENDMENT STATUS Andrea Zureick, RCTC, said that there is a lot of activity on the 2008 RTP and RTIP Amendments that may require the TAC's assistance in the next several months. She provided background information regarding the 2008 RTP and stated that SCAG initiated the first amendment in July 2008. She outlined Riverside County's submittal for Amendment #1 and said that the most common amendment request was to move the project completion date. Ms. Zureick also reviewed the schedule for Amendment #1 from development of the amendment to conformity determination approval by federal agencies. She further indicated that in her staff report, "2008 RTIP — Amendment #1" is now "2008 RTIP — Amendment #2." Ms. Medina responded to various questions regarding amendments. 10. PROJECT MILESTONE REPORT Ms. Zureick reminded the committee that Project Milestone Reports are due today. She provided details relating to the reports and the role they play in developing the obligation delivery plan. The FY 2008/09 obligation delivery plan will be presented at the October TAC meeting after the Project Milestone Reports have been received. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 15, 2008 Page 4 11. SEPTEMBER 10 COMMISSION ITEMS Shirley Medina said that the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program (TUMF) Memorandum of Understanding Amendment (MOU) would provide $400 million to the Commission to equally fund the TUMF regional arterial system and the Community Environmental Transportation Approval Process (CETAP) corridors that are on the regional arterial system. This was approved at WRCOG's August 2008 meeting and RCTC's September 10, 2008 meeting. She stated that the CVAG Highway 111 Redesignation was approved in concept in June 2008 and the agreement was formalized to include additional segments on Highway 111 in Coachella Valley in the Measure A program. That will entail having Notice of Exemption for CEQA as well as the Resolution approving amendment to the TIP to include the new segments be approved by each city and county. The Resolution and Notice of Exemption will be sent by RCTC's Clerk of the Board to the City Clerk and the County Board. - An update of the Measure A Regional Arterial (MARA) Program was presented to the Commission and indicated that the outcome of the state budget would determine the impact on MARA. 12. OTHER BUSINESS Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs, asked if there is an update on the Caltrans Coop Agreement. Juan Perez, County of Riverside, indicated that there was a meeting of the subcommittee recently. His understanding is that there will be a meeting with Will Kempton and Caltrans Headquarters staff to get final direction on the utility issue. Ms. Medina said she talked to Headquarters Right of Way and there will be a follow up. Shirley Medina will call to find out the status and will give an update at the October TAC meeting. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:10 A.M. The next meeting is scheduled for October 20, 2008, 10:00 A.M., Banning City Hall Civic Center, Large Conference Room, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA. Respectfully submitted,_ Shirley Medina Program Manager • • " AGENDA ITEM 5 " A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 5. " " AGENDA ITEM 6 " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 20, 2008 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: RCTC Request to Amend TE Application for the Perris Valley Line Greenway Corridor Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the RCTC TE amendment for the Perris Valley Line Greenway Corridor Project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2005, the RCTC Commuter Rail Department proposed the Perris Valley Line (PVL) Greenway Corridor Project as an effort to improve the surrounding areas around the future commuter rail stations of the Perris Valley Line and make them more pedestrian friendly. The original proposal included landscaping, sidewalks, and fencing along three separate sections of the future Perris Valley Line. The three locations included Watkins Drive near the UCR Station, Moreno Valley March Field Station, and at the Downtown Perris Station. Now that the project has initiated preliminary engineering with the start of the station design plans, there is a greater need to improve the pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities at the stations as opposed to the right of way. In addition, it has been identified that the right of way improvements at both Moreno Valley March Field and Perris Downtown stations will be more complicated than previously envisioned. Therefore, RCTC is proposing modifying the existing PVL Greenway Corridor Project to reduce the right of way improvements from the three locations to only the UCR Watkins Drive section and to use the TE grant to expand the pedestrian facilities and amenities at all five of the rail stations, which include Palymrita, UC Riverside, Moreno Valley/March Field, Perris and South Perris. The new proposal would retain the right of way improvements along 3,000 ft of Watkins Drive near UCR with landscaping, a pedestrian/bike path, and fencing. In addition, benefits would be added to all five of the Perris Valley Line stations with enhanced pedestrian shelters, benches, drinking fountains, information kiosks, pathways, scenic enhancements, bike lockers, landscaping, and signage. These efforts would be above and beyond the basic station concepts that are proposed in the current FTA approved project cost estimates. These scope changes are consistent with the requirements of the TE Grant program. Also there will be no financial impact since the TE grant request and local match will not change. The project will now be more closely aligned with the development of the Perris Valley Line and it is anticipated that the project will be ready for construction in FY 2009/10. Should the TAC approve the revised application, RCTC will forward it to the Commission for approval and Ca!trans HQ for the required eligibility determination. " AGENDA ITEM 7 " October 1, 2008 State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines General Program Policy 1. Authority and purpose of guidelines. The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1 B on November 7, 2006, authorized $1 billion to be deposited in the State -Local Partnership Program (SLPP) Account to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for allocation by the Califomia Transportation Commission over a five-year period to eligible transportation projects nominated by an applicant transportation agency. The Bond Act required a dollar for dollar match of local funds for an applicant agency to receive state funds under the program. In 2008, the Legislature enacted implementing legislation (AB 268) to add Article 11 (commencing with Section 8879.66) to Chapter 12.491 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Article 11 defines the purpose and intent of the program, defines the eligibility of applicants, projects, and matching funds, and provides that 95% of program funds will be distributed by formula to match voter -approved transportation taxes and fees and that the remaining 5% will be available for a competitive grant application program to match uniform developer fees. Section 8879.74 requires the Commission to adopt an annual program of projects for the program and to develop and adopt guidelines to implement the program, consistent with Article 11. Initial project allocations are to be made by April 2009. Earlier legislation to implement the Bond Act (SB 88, 2007) designated the Commission as the administrative agency for the SLPP and mandated that various administrative and reporting requirements be incorporated in the guidelines for all programs established by Proposition 1B. 2. Program of Projects. The Commission will adopt an annual program of projects for the SLPP, by April 2009 for 2008-09 and by October for each fiscal year thereafter. The program will consist of projects nominated by eligible applicants for the formula program and projects selected by the Commission under the competitive grant program to match uniform developer fees. The program of projects for each fiscal year will include, for each project, the amount to be funded from the SLPP, the source of the dollar -for -dollar match of SLPP funding, and the estimated total cost including any additional supplementary funding. The Commission will program and allocate funding to projects in whole thousands of dollars and will include a project only if it is fully funded. Draft State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines October 1, 2008 Page 2 Formula Program for Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees 3. Annual Funding Shares. The Commission will adopt the annual funding share for each eligible applicant for the Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees Subaccount with the adoption of these guidelines for 2008-09 and prior to the beginning of each subsequent fiscal year. These shares will be determined in accordance with Government Code Section 8879.72 and rounded to the nearest whole thousand dollars. In establishing funding shares, the Commission will use the following: • For toll revenues, the most recent annual toll revenue data for the voter -approved tolls (Regional Measures 1 and 2) reported in audited financial statements from the Bay Area Toll Authority. • For parcel and property tax revenues, the annual revenue data included in the most recent State Controller's report of financial transactions for special districts. • For local sales tax revenues, the sum of gross revenues for the most recent four quarters as reported for each local tax by the Board of Equalization. • For population, the annual population estimate for cities and counties issued by the Department of Finance in May prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. The Commission will determine a funding share for each eligible applicant with a voter - approved tax or fee in effect as of July 1, the first day of the fiscal year. Where a city has a voter -approved local sales tax and is located within a county without a countywide sales tax, the Commission will adopt a funding share for the city based on the city's population. Where there are multiple eligible applicants with a voter -approved local sales tax within the same county, the Commission will adopt a single countywide funding share based on the population for the county. The Commission will set aside up to 2 percent of the total amount appropriated each year for the program as a reserve for bond administrative expenses. In the absence of an enacted state budget, the Commission may establish the funding shares based on its best estimate of the amount that the Legislature will appropriate to the SLPP Account, subject to adjustment based on the final appropriation in the Budget Act. 4. Project nominations. The Commission will include in the annual program of projects each project nominated by an eligible applicant for a formula funding share provided that the Commission finds that the nomination meets the requirements of statute and that the project has a commitment of the required match and any supplementary funding needed for full funding. Each applicant should submit its nomination by February 17, 2009 for 2008-09 and by August 15 for each fiscal year thereafter. The Commission's program of projects will not include a project nomination that exceeds the applicant's formula funding share. For each nominated project, the applicant should submit project information using the Project Programming Request form in use for STIP projects. The nomination should " " " Draft State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 3 October I, 2008 identify the implementing agency, which may be different from the applicant agency. As specified in statute, the nomination shall include: " A description of the nominated project, including its cost and scope and the specific improvements and benefits it is anticipated to serve. The description should identify the project's useful life. " A description of the project's current status, including the current phase of delivery, and the schedule for the completion of construction or acquisition. " A description of how the project would support transportation and land use planning goals within the region. " The amount and source of matching funds. " The amount of SLPP funds requested. 5. Balance of funding share. If the program of projects adopted by the Commission does not program the full amount of an applicant's formula funding share, the balance will remain available for later program amendments supported by eligible project nominations. A balance not programmed in one fiscal year will carry over and be available in the following fiscal year. Competitive Grant Program to Match Uniform Developer Fees 6. Project selection. The Commission will select projects from among eligible project nominations for the competitive grant program from the Uniform Developer Fees Subaccount pursuant to Government Code Section 8879.73. No single competitive grant for the SLPP may exceed $1 million: The Commission will consider approval of a competitive grant only when it finds that the grant request meets the requirements of statute and that the project has a commitment of the required match and any supplementary funding needed for full funding. The selected projects will be included in the Commission's annual program of projects for the SLPP. Each applicant should submit its nomination by February 17, 2009 for 2008-09 and by August 15 for each fiscal year thereafter. 7. Project applications. For each project nominated for the competitive grant program, the applicant should submit project information using the Project Programming Request form in use for STIP projects. The nomination should identify the implementing agency, which may be different from the applicant agency. As specified in statute, the nomination shall include: " A description of the nominated project, including its cost and scope and the specific improvements and benefits it is anticipated to serve. The description should identify the project's useful life. " A description of the project's current status, including the current phase of delivery, and the schedule for the completion of construction or acquisition. Draft State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 4 October 1, 2008 • A description of how the project would support transportation and land use planning goals within the region. • The amount and source of matching funds. • The amount of SLPP funds requested. In addition, the grant request should include a copy of the ordinance or resolution adopted by a city, county or city and county that establishes the uniform developer fee to be matched by the grant. 8. Project selection criteria. In approving grants for inclusion in the program of projects, the Commission will give consideration to geographic balance and to demonstrated project cost-effectiveness. The Commission will give higher priority to projects that are more cost-effective, that can commence construction or implementation earlier, that leverage more uniform developer fees per program dollar, and that can demonstrate quantifiable air quality improvements, including a significant reduction in vehicle -miles traveled. 9. Balance of grant program funds. If the program of projects adopted by the Commission does not program the full amount of the share for the competitive grant program, the balance will remain available for later program amendments supported by eligible project grant requests. A balance not programmed in one fiscal year will carry over and be available for the competitive grant program in the following fiscal year. Proiect Allocations and Delivery 10. Amendments to program of projects. The Commission may approve an amendment of the SLPP program of projects at any time. An amendment need only appear on the agenda published 10 days in advance of the Commission meeting. It does not require the 30-day notice that applies to a STIP amendment. 11. Allocations from the SLPP Account. The Commission will consider the allocation of funds from the SLPP Account for a project when it receives an allocation request and recommendation from the Department of Transportation, in the same manner as for the STIP. The recommendation will include a determination of the availability of appropriated funding from the SLPP Account and the availability of all identified and committed matching and supplementary funding. The Commission will approve the allocation if the funds are available, the allocation is necessary to implement the project as included in the adopted SLPP program, and the project has the required environmental clearance. 12. Semiannual delivery reports: As a condition of the project allocation, the Commission will require the implementing agency to submit quarterly reports on the activities and progress made toward implementation of the project. As mandated by Government Code Section 8879.50, the Commission shall forward these reports to the Department of Finance. The purpose of the reports is to ensure that the • • " " " Draft State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 5 October 1, 2008 project is being executed in a timely fashion and is within the scope and budget identified when the decision was made to fund the project. If it is anticipated that project costs will exceed the approved project budget, the implementing agency shall provide a plan to the Commission for achieving the benefits of the project by either downscoping the project to remain within budget or by identifying an alternative funding source to meet the cost increase. The Commission may either approve the corrective plan or direct the implementing agency to modify its plan. 13. Final delivery report. Within six months of the project becoming operable, the implementing agency shall provide a final delivery report to the Commission on the scope of the completed project, its final costs as compared to the approved project budget, its duration as compared to the project schedule in the project baseline agreement, and performance outcomes derived from the project as compared to those described in the project baseline agreement. The Commission shall forward this report to the Department of Finance as required by Government Code Section 8879.50. For the purpose of this section, a project becomes operable when the construction contract is accepted or acquired equipment is received. 14. Audit of project expenditures and outcomes. The Department of Transportation will ensure that project expenditures and outcomes are audited. For each SLPP project, the Commission expects the Department to provide a semi-final audit report within 6 months after the final delivery report and a final audit report within 12 months after the final delivery report. The Commission may also require interim audits at any time during the performance of the project. Audits will be performed in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards promulgated by the United States Government Accountability Office. Audits will provide a finding on the following: " Whether project costs incurred and reimbursed are in compliance with the executed project baseline agreement or approved amendments thereof; state and federal laws and regulations; contract provisions; and Commission guidelines. " Whether project deliverables (outputs) and outcomes are consistent with the project scope, schedule and benefits described in the executed project baseline agreement or approved amendments thereof. STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM DRAFT TAX/TOLL REVENUES USED TO DETERMINE FUNDING SHARES FOR 2008-09 Voter -Approved Togs, ParcellProperty Taxes Annual Revenue Source Bay Area Transportation Authority (BATA) 248,140,901 FY 2004-05, BATA Annual Report (last year identified voter -approved separate!) Alameda -Contra Costa Transit District 58,425,730 FY 2005-06, Stale Controller's Office Report Bay Area Rapid Transit District 42,762,398 FY 2005-06, State Controllers Office Report Total toll/parcel/property tax - 349,329,029 NIS BOE Code Voter -Approved Transportation Sales Taxes Yr end 2nd q 08 Quarterly Gross Receipts (resorted by Bd of Equalization) 4th O, 2007 3rd q, 2007 2nd O, 2008 1st O, 2008 N 002 San Mateo County Transit District 69,347,120.51 17,908,657.86 15,739,977.76 18,414,546.60 17,283,738.29 N 003 Santa Clara County Transit District 164,712,594.15 - 41,384,693.65 38,836,073.70 43,403,343.55 41,088,483.25 N 004 Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District 16,976,900.68 4,297,705.06 3,852,902.67 4,378,776.36 4,449,516.59 S 005 Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 693,475,595.99 175,157,001.49 164.891.342.97 1130,432,115.20 172,995,136.33 N 006 Santa Clara County Traffic Authority 20,537.27 493.76 1,169.85 249.36 18,624.30 N 010 Alameda County Transportation Authority 590,532.47 2,971,52 1,192.30 48.237.37 538,131.28 N 012 Fresno County Transportation Authority 59,321,804.17 15,295,821.74 13,678523.14 15,170,173.28 15,178,086.01 S 013 San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission 244,778704.26 61,285,587.42 57,429,819.63 63,305,985.66 62,753,311.55 N 018 San Mateo County Transit Authority 69 350,003.54 17,909,825.27 15,740,47727 18,415,703.72 17283,997.28 N 023 Sacramento Transportation Authority 101 604,763.78 25,949,786.44 23,255,875.19 26,060,097.55 - 26,339,004.60 N 024 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 74,198,200.14 18,348,390.01 17,168,037.72 19,796,679.07 18,883,093.34 S 026 Riverside Coumy Transportation Commission 143,958,648.08 35,493,852.29 34,595,479.66 37,658,721,88 36,210,594.06 N 027 San Francisco County Transportation Authtoriy 80,348,317.27 20,059,657.20 18,998,404.24 21,446,588.49 19,841,667.34 S 029 Imperial County Local Transportation Authority 12,545,802.60 3,182,519.28 2,858,234.71 3,448,225.91 3,056,822.70 5 030 Santa Barbara County Local Transportation Authority 32,603,609.13 8,272,920.31 7,481,811.95 8,393,103.07 8,455,773.80 S 031 San Bernardino County Transportalion Aulhorty 139 914,132.98 34,847,717.82 32,727,462.12 35,627,920.67 36,711,032.37 N 034 Madera County Transportation Authority 28,439.14 7,199.80 12,477.53 8,304.64 457.17 S 035 Las Angeles County Transportation Commission 693886,139.54 ,175,159,366.55 164,981,938.78 180.466.449.15 172,978,385.06 S 037 Orange County Transportation Authority 265,253,490.68 65,412,729.49 61,343,576.21 69,673,299.90 68,823,885.08 N 038 San Joaquin Transportation Authority 45231,715.20 11,838,750.27 10,496,880.47 11,573,876.16 11,822,208.30 N 068 Town of Truckee Road Maintenance Tax 1,927,723.47 452.324.33 394,054.97 483.184.08 598,160.09 N 079 Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority 116 589 912.89 29,335,583.77 27,070,662.90 30,356,471.52 29,827,194.70 N 084 City of Willits Road System Tax 801.857.94 210,344.44 184,185.17 201,753.77 205,574.56 N 085 City of Point Arena 44,631.04 12,589.85 9,071.09 10,575.85 12,394.25 N 094 City of Fort Bragg Maintain City Streets 843,081.30 215,786.47 189,290.44 204,570.72 - 233,433W N 102 Transportation Authority Marin County 22,356,530.85 5,553,796.09 5,155,986.82 8958080.68 . 5888667.26 N 115 Sonoma County Transportation Authority 19,039,151.73 4,800,018.84 4,257,637.62 5,040,804.65 4,940,690.62 N 123 Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority 162.024.603.89 41,030,036.31 37890,301.75 42,498,458.02 40,505,807.81 N 144 Madera County Transportation Authority, 2006 7,819,931.70 2,078,213.97 1,755,362.27 1,997,507.40 1,988,8.18.06 N 146 Nevada City Street Improvements Tax 639,129.84 158,439.50 121,428.33 192,087.96 167,174.05 S 162 Tulare County Transportation Authority 25,603,004.03 6,835,852.47 5,981,871.54 6833,152.49 6,252,127.53 N 174 City of El Cenito Streets Improvements Tax (eft 7-1-08) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Voter -Approved Sales Tax 3 266 028 610.26 822 498 033.26 767 201 510.97 851,197,044.73 825,132,021.30 Voter -Approved Sales Tax North 1,014 313 482.97 256,850,486.15 234 909,973.20 265,658,070.80 256,894,952.82 Voter -Approved Sales Tax, South 2,251 715127.29 565,647,547.11 532,291,537.77 585,538,973.93 568,237,068.48 - Distribution Factor _ Percentage 100.00000% Total, voter -approved tolls • taxes 3,615,367,639.26 Tolls a parcel/property tax 349,329,029.00 9.66236% North sates tax 1,014,313,48297 28.05569% South sales tax 2,251,715,127.29 62.28195% California Transportation Commission 10/1/2008 STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FUNDING SHARES, 2008-09 (Funding Shares in $1,000's) Funding Distribution of Appropriation Program Categories Amount Total Annual Program Appropriation 200,000 Take -off for Bond administration (2%) 4,000 Subtotal 196,000 Discretionary grant program (5%) 9,800 Formula share program (95%) 100.00000% 186,200 Tolls + parcel/property tax 9.66236% 17,991 North sales tax 28.05569% 52,240 South sales tax 62.28195% 115,969 Funding Shares Based on Voter -Approved Tolls & Parcel Property Taxes Applicant Agency Revenue Factor Funding Share Bay Area Transportation Authority 248,140,901 12,780 Alameda -Contra Costa Transit District 58,425,730 3,009 Bay Area Rapid Transit District 42,762,398 2,202 • Total 349,329,029 17,991 Funding Shares Based on Voter -Approved Sales Taxes - North County/City Population Factor Funding Share Alameda 1,543,000 7,565 Contra Costa 1,051,674 5,156 Fresno 931,098 4,565 Madera 150,887 740 Marin 257,406 1,262 Mendocino - Fort Bragg 6,890 34 Mendocino - Point Arena 493 3 Mendocino - Willits 5,032 25 Nevada - Nevada City 3,074 15 Nevada - Truckee 16,165 79 Sacramento 1,424,415 6,984 San Francisco 824,525 4,043 San Joaquin 685,660 3,362 San Mateo 739,469 3,626 Santa Clara 1,837,075 9,007 Santa Cruz 266,519 1,307 Solano 426,757 2,092 Sonoma 484,470 2,375 Total 10,654,609 52,240 Funding Shares Based on Voter -Approved Sales Taxes - South County Population Factor Funding Share Imperial 176,158 937 Los Angeles 10,363,850 55,093 Orange 3,121,251 16,592 Riverside 2,088,322 11,101 San Bemardino 2,055,766 10,928 San Diego 3,146,274 16,725 Santa Barbara 428,655 2,279 Tulare 435,254 2,314 Total 21,815,530 115,969 DRAFT Califomia Transportation Commission 10/1/2008 STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM ACCOUNT STATUTES Article 2. Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Fund of 2006 and Program Allocation of Bond Proceeds to Programs Added: Proposition IB (2006) 8879.23. The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Fund of 2006 is hereby created in the State Treasury. The Legislature intends that the proceeds of bonds deposited in the fund shall be used to fund the mobility, safety, and air quality improvements described in this article over the course of the next decade. The proceeds of bonds issued and sold pursuant to this chapter for the purposes specified in this chapter shall be allocated in the following manner: (g) One billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) shall be deposited in the State -Local Partnership Program Account, which is hereby created in the fund. The funds shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature and subject to such conditions and criteria as the Legislature may provide by statute, for allocation by the California Transportation Commission over a five-year period to eligible transportation projects nominated by an applicant transportation agency. A dollar for dollar match of local funds shall be required for art applicant transportation agency to receive state funds under this program. CHAPTER 12.491 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY, TRAFFIC REDUCTION, AIR QUALITY, AND PORT SECURITY BOND ACT OF 2006 Article 1. General Provisions Definitions Added: Chapter 181, Statutes of 2007 (SB 88); amended Chapter 313, Statutes of 2007 (AB 193) 8879.50 (a) As used in this chapter and in Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 8879.20),•the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "Commission' means the California Transportation Commission. (2) "Department" means the Department of Transportation. (3) "Administrative agency" means the state agency responsible for programming bond funds made available by Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 8879.20), as specified in subdivision (c). (4) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, "project' includes equipment purchase, construction, right-of-way acquisition, and project delivery costs. (5) "Recipient agency" means the recipient of bond funds made available by Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 8879.20) that is responsible for implementation of an approved project. (6) "Fund" shall have the meaning as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 8879.20. " " (b) Administrative costs, including audit and program oversight costs for agencies, commissions, or departments administering programs funded pursuant to this chapter, recoverable by bond funds shall not exceed 3 percent of the program's cost. (c) The administrative agency for each bond account is as follows: (1) The commission is the administrative agency for the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account; the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund; the State Route 99 Account; the State and Local Partnership Program Account; the Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Account; the Highway -Railroad Crossing Safety Account; and the Highway Safety, Rehabilitation and Preservation Account. (2) The Office of Homeland Security and the Office of Emergency Services are the administrative agencies for the Port and Maritime Security Account and the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account. (3) The department is the administrative agency for the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account. (d) The administrative agency may not approve project fund allocations for any project until the recipient agency. provides a project funding plan that demonstrates that the funds are expected to be reasonably available and sufficient to complete the project. The administrative agency may approve funding for useable project segments only if the benefits associated with each individual segment are sufficient to meet the objectives of the program from which the individual segment is funded. (e) Guidelines adopted by the administrative agency pursuant to this chapter and Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 879.20) are intended to provide internal guidance for the agency and shall be exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3), and shall do all of the following: (1) Provide for the audit of project expenditures and outcomes. (2) Require that the useful life of the project be identified as part of the project nomination process. (3) Require that project nominations have project delivery milestones, including, but not limited to, start and completion dates for environmental clearance, land acquisition, design, construction bid award, construction completion, and project closeout, as applicable. (f)(1) As a condition for allocation of funds to a specific project under Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 8879.20), the administrative agency shall require the recipient agency to report, on a semiannual basis, on the activities and progress made toward implementation of the project. The administrative agency shall forward the report to the Department of Finance by means approved by the Department of Finance. The purpose of the report is to ensure that the project is being executed in a timely fashion, and is within the scope and budget identified when the decision was made to fund the project. If it is anticipated that project costs will exceed the approved project budget, the recipient agency shall provide a plan to the administrative agency for achieving the benefits of the project by either downscoping the project to remain within budget or by identifying an alternative funding source to meet the cost increase. The administrative agency may either approve the corrective plan or direct the recipient agency to modify its plan. (2) Within six months of the project becoming operable, the recipient agency shall provide a report to the administrative agency on the final costs of the project as compared to the approved project budget, the project duration as compared to the original project schedule as of the date of allocation, and performance outcomes derived from the project compared to those described in the original application for funding. The administrative agency shall forward the report to the Department of Finance by means approved by the Department of Finance. Article 11. State -Local Partnership Program Legislative Intent Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.66. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature, pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 8879.23, to establish criteria and conditions for use of the fund in the State -Local Partnership Program Account in the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Fund of 2006. These criteria and conditions shall include, but need not be limited to, eligibility of applicants, eligibility of projects, timely use of funds, and relationship of funds in the account to other funds for transportation purposes. (b) The purpose of the State -Local Partnership Program is to do both of the following: (1) Reward "self-help" counties, cities, districts, and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees or taxes solely dedicated to transportation improvements. (2) Provide funds for a wide variety of capital projects that are typically funded in local or regional voter -approved expenditure plans and that provide mobility, accessibility, system connectivity, safety, or air quality benefits. (c) It is further the intent of the Legislature that all funds available in the account, pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 8879.23, shall be made available for allocation by the commission over a period of five years. Definitions Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.67. For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "Program" means the State -Local Partnership Program established in this article and funded pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 8879.23. (b) "Uniform developer fees" means developer fees imposed pursuant to existing statutory authority, including, but not limited to, Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) of Division 1 of Title 7 and Article 5 (commencing with Section 66483) of Chapter 4 of Division 2 of Title 7. The developer fees must be imposed by a local ordinance or resolution adopted by a city, county, or city and county and must be dedicated to transportation purposes to address cumulative transportation impacts. The developer fees must be uniformly applied to new development within a defined area or jurisdiction, except in cases in which fees are waived, such as for affordable housing development. Developer fees imposed to mitigate onsite impacts related to a specific development project do not qualify as uniform developer fees under this subdivision. 3 " Eligible Applicant Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.68. An eligible applicant under the program shall be a local or regional transportation agency that has responsibility for funding, procuring, or constructing transportation improvements within its jurisdiction, and that does either of the following: (a) Has sought and received voter approval for the imposition of taxes or fees solely dedicated to transportation improvements and administers those taxes or fees. (b) Has imposed uniform developer fees. Eligible Matching Funds Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.69. Eligible local matching funds required to obtain funding under the program shall be obtained from revenues from any voter -approved local or regional tax or fee solely dedicated to transportation improvements, or from uniform developer fees. Tax or fee, for purposes of this section, means a countywide or citywide sales tax, a property or parcel tax in a county or counties or district, and voter -approved bridge tolls or voter - approved fees dedicated to specific transportation improvements. Eligible Projects Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.70. (a) Eligible projects shall include all of the following: (1) Improvements to the state highway system, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (A) Major rehabilitation of an existing segment that extends the useful life of the segment by at least 15 years. (B) New construction to increase capacity of a highway segment that improves mobility or reduces congestion on that segment. (C) Safety or operational improvements on a highway segment that are intended to reduce accidents and fatalities or improve traffic flow on that segment. (2) Improvements to transit facilities, including guideways, that expand transit services, increase transit ridership, improve transit safety, enhance access or convenience of the traveling public, or otherwise provide or facilitate a viable alternative to driving. (3) The acquisition, retrofit, or rehabilitation of rolling stock, buses, or other transit equipment, including, but not limited to, maintenance facilities, transit stations, transit guideways, passenger shelters, and fare collection equipment with a useful life of at least 10 years. The acquisition of vans, buses, and other equipment necessary for the provision of transit services for seniors and people with disabilities by transit and other local agencies is an eligible project under this paragraph. (4) Improvements to the local road system, including, but not limited to, both of the following: (A) Major roadway rehabilitation, resurfacing, or reconstruction that extends its useful life by at least 15 years. (B) New construction and facilities to increase capacity, improve mobility, or enhance safety. (5) Improvements to bicycle or pedestrian safety or mobility with a useful life of at least 15 years. (6) Improvements to mitigate the environmental impacts of new transportation infrastructure on a locality's or region's air quality or water quality, commonly known as "urban runoff," including, but not limited to, the installation of catch basin screens, filters, and inserts, or other best management practices for capturing or treating urban runoff. (b) For purposes of the program, a separate phase or stage of construction for an eligible project may include mitigation of the project's environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, soundwalls, landscaping, wetlands or habitat restoration or creation, replacement plantings, and drainage facilities. Two Subaccounts: Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees, Uniform Developer Fees Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.71. (a) For purposes of distributing funds annually appropriated by the Legislature to the State -Local Partnership Program Account, the commission shall segregate the funds into two separate subaccounts, which are hereby created in the account, as follows: (1) Ninety-five percent of the funds shall be deposited into the Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees Subaccount and shall be made available to eligible applicants as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 8879.68 for expenditure on eligible projects, as approved by the commission. Funds in this subaccount shall be distributed by formula, pursuant to Section 8879.72. (2) Five percent of the funds shall be deposited into the Uniform Developer Fees Subaccount and shall be made available to eligible applicants as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 8879.68 for expenditure on eligible projects, as approved by the commission. Funds in this subaccount shall be distributed through a competitive grant application process to be administered by the commission pursuant to Section 8879.73. (b) Notwithstanding Section 13340, the money in the subaccounts described in subdivision (a) are hereby appropriated, without regard to fiscal year, to the commission for the purposes described in subdivision (a). Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees: Funding Shares Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.72. (a) To establish the funding shares for each eligible applicant described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 8879.71, the commission shall do the following prior to the commencement of a funding cycle: (1) Determine the total amount of annual revenue generated from voter -approved sales taxes, voter -approved parcel or property taxes, and voter -approved bridge tolls dedicated to transportation improvements according to the most recent available data reported to the State Board of Equalization, the Controller, or the Bay Area Toll Authority. (2) Establish a northern California and southern Califomia share by attributing the proportional share of revenues from voter -approved sales taxes, voter -approved parcel or property taxes, and voter -approved bridge tolls dedicated to transportation improvements and imposed in counties in northern California to the northern share, and by attributing the proportional share of revenues from voter -approved sales taxes imposed in counties located in southern California to the southern share. The determination of whether a 5 " " county is located in northern or southern California shall be based on the definitions set forth in Section 187 of the Streets and Highways Code. (3) Program funds made available to the southern share, based on the determination in paragraph (2), shall be distributed to the entity responsible for programming and allocating revenues from the sales tax in proportion to the population of the county in which the entity is located compared to the total population of southern California counties with voter -approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements. For the purpose of calculating population, the commission shall use the most recent information available from the Department of Finance. (4) Program funds made available to the northern share, based on the determination in paragraph (2), shall be distributed as follows: (A) Program funds generated by voter -approved bridge tolls and voter -approved parcel or property taxes dedicated to transportation improvements shall be distributed to the entity responsible for programming and allocating revenues from the toll or tax based on the proportional share of revenues generated by the toll or tax by that entity in comparison to the total revenues generated by voter -approved sales taxes, voter -approved parcel or property taxes, and voter -approved bridge tolls dedicated to transportation improvements in northern California. (13) Program funds generated by voter -approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements shall be distributed to the entity responsible for programming and allocating revenues from the sales tax in proportion to the population of the county in which the entity is located compared to the total population of the northern California counties with voter -approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements: For the purposes of calculating population, the commission shall use the most recent information available for the Department of Finance. (b) Under this section, each fiscal year in which funds are appropriated for the program shall constitute a funding cycle. (c) Each eligible applicant desiring to participate in the program in any funding cycle under this section shall submit to the commission all of the following: (1) A description of the eligible project nominated for funding, including a description of the project's cost, scope, and specific improvements and benefits it is anticipated to achieve. (2) A description of the project's current status, including the phase of delivery the project is in at the time it is nominated for funding and a schedule for the project's completion. (3) A description of how the project would support transportation and land use planning goals within the region. (4) The amount of eligible local matching funds the applicant is committing to the project. (5) The amount of program funds the applicant seeks from the program for the project. (d) The commission shall review nominated projects under this section and their accompanying documentation to ensure that each nominated project meets the requirements of this article and to confirm that each project has a commitment of the requisite amount of eligible local matching funds as required in this article. Upon conducting the review of the requirements and determining the proposed projects to be in compliance with this article, the projects shall be deemed eligible. (e) An eligible applicant that is identified to receive an allocation of funds under this section, but that does not submit a project for funding in a funding cycle, may utilize its funding share in a subsequent funding cycle. Uniform Developer Fees: Competitive Grant Program Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.73. (a) To distribute funds from the Uniform Developer Fees Subaccount to eligible applicants, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 8879.71, the commission shall administer a competitive grant application program pursuant to this section. (b) Under this section, each fiscal year in which funds are appropriated for the program shall constitute a funding cycle. To ensure that as many eligible applicants as possible may benefit from the competitive portion of the program, no single project shall receive more than one million dollars ($1,000,000) in a single funding cycle in which program funds are allocated by the commission. (c) Each eligible applicant desiring to participate in the program in any funding cycle under this section shall submit to the commission all of the following: (1) A description of the eligible project nominated for funding, including a description of the project's cost, scope, and specific improvements and benefits it is anticipated to achieve. (2) A description of the project's current status, including the phase of delivery the project is in at the time it is nominated for funding and a schedule for the project's completion. (3) A description of how the project would support transportation and land use planning goals within the region. (4) The amount of eligible local matching funds the applicant is committing to the project. (5) The amount of program funds the applicant seeks from the program for the project. (d) The commission shall review nominated projects under this section and their accompanying documentation to ensure that each nominated project meets the requirements of this article and to confirm that each project has a commitment of the requisite amount of eligible local matching funds as required in this article. Upon conducting the review of the requirements and determining the proposed projects to be in compliance with this article, the projects shall be deemed eligible. (e) The commission shall adopt a program of projects under this section that is geographically balanced and provides cost-effective and multimodal, safety, reliability, and environmental benefits. In allocating funds to specific projects, the commission shall give priority to projects that do any of the following: (1) Can commence construction or implementation of the project in a manner to provide the public benefit at the earliest possible date. (2) Can enhance the leveragability of bond funds, by utilizing a higher proportion of nonbond funds toward a project's total cost than is otherwise required by this article. 7 " (3) Can demonstrate quantifiable air quality improvements, including, but not limited to, a demonstration that the project can result in a significant reduction in vehicle - miles traveled. Annual Program Cycle, Allocations, Guidelines Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.74. (a) The commission shall adopt a program of projects to receive allocations under this article for each funding cycle, with allocations to projects to be initially made at the commission's meeting in April 2009, and to be made no later than the commission's October meeting for subsequent years. (b) Projects receiving an allocation under the program shall encumber funds no later than two years after the end of the fiscal year in which an allocation is made by the commission. The commission shall rescind an allocation to a project that fails to comply with these requirements. Rescinded allocations of funds shall, in the case of the program established pursuant to Section 8879.72, be made available for another eligible project proposed by the agency that nominated the original project for funding, and, in the case of the program established in Section 8879.73, be reallocated to other projects during the fiscal year following the year in which the applicable timely use of funds requirement was not met. (c) The commission shall develop and adopt guidelines to implement this article, and to establish the process for allocating funds to eligible projects under the program, consistent with this article. Prior to adopting the guidelines, the commission shall hold one public hearing in northern California and one public hearing in southern California to review and provide an opportunity for public comment on the proposed guidelines. The commission may incorporate the hearings into its regular meeting schedule. Required Match Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.75. Pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 8879.23, an eligible project funded pursuant to this article shall require a match of one dollar ($1) of eligible local matching funds for each dollar of program funds applied for under this article. An applicant may propose to use other funds for the same project, including local, federal, or other state funds, however, those other funds shall not be counted toward the match required by this article. Summary in Annual Report Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.76. The commission shall include in its annual report to the Legislature, required pursuant to Section 14535, a summary of its activities related to the administration of the program. The summary, at a minimum, shall include the description, location, and total cost of each project contained in the program, the amount of bond funds allocated to each project, the status of each project, and a description of the system improvements each project is achieving. " AGENDA ITEM 8 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 20, 2008 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst Grace Alvarez, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) Amendment Status 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. The Commission submitted 63 projects for inclusion in Amendment 1 to the 2008 RTP in July. In addition, the projects that were included in Amendment 1 to the 2008 RTP were submitted for Amendment 1 to the 2008 RTIP for consistency purposes. The draft amendments can be accessed on SCAG's website at www.scaq.ca.gov. SCAG's Transportation Committee (TC) authorized the release of the Draft 2008 RTP Amendment #1 and Draft 2008 RTIP Amendment #08-01 for public review and comment on October 2, 2008. The comment period extends through November 7, 2008. One public hearing will be held at SCAG's Los Angeles office on October 23 at 10:00am. SCAG is also providing access to this public hearing through video conference at the SCAG Riverside office. The amendments are scheduled for consideration of approval by SCAG's Regional Council on December 4, 2008. State and federal approval of the amendments is anticipated in February 2009. 2008 RTIP 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 Ca!trans, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on July 17, 2008. The anticipated 2008 RTIP approval date by FTA and FHWA is beginning of November 2008. 2008 RTIP — AMENDMENT #2 RCTC is currently processing_ projects for the 2008 RTIP Amendment #2, which is due to SCAG on October 22, 2008. RCTC staff will be working with the local agencies over the next couple of weeks to verify the proposed project changes for their respective jurisdictions for inclusion in the amendment submittal. Projects that were included in the 2006 RTIP Amendments #11 through #19 will be included in this amendment, as well as any other projects that require programming changes. Amendment 2 is anticipated to be approved by state and federal agencies in February 2009. • • " AGENDA ITEM 9 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 20, 2008 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: FY 2008/09 Obligation Delivery Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached FY 2008/09 obligation delivery plan is based on the Project Milestone Reports that were submitted to RCTC in September. This report provides critical information to RCTC on the need to develop contingency plans, such as loans between regions or project substitution, based on the target amount of federal funds that needs to be obligated during the fiscal year (also referred to as 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. Based on the Delivery Plan, this fiscal year is oversubscribed for STPL funds, but if project sponsors request obligation before June 2009, it is likely that all projects in the plan will receive obligation. Agencies are encouraged to notify RCTC when projects that are contained in the delivery plan begin to experience delay. This will allow staff the time necessary to develop contingency plans that ensure federal funds are not lost to the region. Attachment: FY2008/09 Obligation Delivery Plan " " Local Assistance Obligation Plan Obligation Authority Needs for Remainder of FFY 2008 and AB 1012 Requirements Local Aga y Agency Project Number ;aa M' STe'MRS% IMpro Far MWle s+mworn..rem Project Location RoweeraMxernam une.lideN.awwesrl. 4 i g '' & 1'{ tSH "1 ht Sh.y 5 2R.Y i ;ttF' Y 1vst.��,-z`i Rs L u 1 'M��y " I,YIv����.h-��1 Lit ��s4?v` �sj'r��}'8 St -' ����',''!1""r1Ti ii T ify,,��rl" Sit ,f f 1x��st. y S ��"`y��'."': ������yyy anal e. mat " ��f Remarks ��o"" ' Calada7Cyy RA1011212 Ramon ��Rd East WiWning 4 to Roadway widening 8/12009 1,365000 61,396000 r,e,d,.w.,.awa..nw��oo Sabre construction RFA 62009 Ca9edral Cey R1V050509 Dale Palm VWndfences lmlallvmdlenras 1122008 115,000 3115,000 Construction RFA 82006 Cathedral City RIV071245 N 8 S sides of Varner Rd. d E b W of Varner Rd. - PM 10 Stabilization PM10 stabilization 122009 9,000 $9,000 submitted Submit PSE RFA Cathedral City RIV071247 TS Synchronization along E. Palm Canyon Signal synchronization 1R52009 32.000 $32,000 112000 Submit PSE RFA 112008 Desert Hot Springs RIV071236 Western AveScedc Dr Paving Roadway Paving 1/152009 00,000 340,000 Submit PSE RFA 112008 Dosed Hot Spbgs RN071237 Palm Dr Signal B SYndoonizaton Signal synchronization 1252009 27,000 $27,000 Submit PSE RFA 112008 Hemet RIV031223 Rehab Slate St A Devonshire Rehabilitation 1N2009 562,000 $562,000 Submit construction RFA 11200E Hemel RN041007 Stab St MW6{he Bicycle and Pedestrian Path Bikelped path 4/152009 520,000 $520.000 Submit construction RFA and CTC Allocation Request 1/09 Indian Wens RN52061 Cook St Pavement Rehab RehablRetion 11/15/2008 92,000 692,000 Submit construction RFA 92008 Indo RIV071239 Ave 48 TS Interconnect & TS Install Signal synchronization 8/152009 790,000 $790,000 Subunit construction RFA 6,2009 Indio RIV071239 Clean Vehicle Acquisition Vehicle acquisition - 4/152009 239000 -- $233.OW construction conson RFA 22009 La Dukes RIV07f266 Hwy 111 Signal ddercmrrmd 8ry5/2009 177000 $177;O00 Su6rnil construction RFA 671009 Signal syn..la,AFA1/q-r Morena Valley 32300 SR6044ason Sit IC Interchange amprovemenis 9/02009 1.646,000 - $1,646,000 Subm8 construction RFA 72009 Monster Valley R/V011210 Roche Vusta/Cyn Rea0grareN Roadatm realgmend 9/12009 1 967 000 $1,967,000 Submit construc0on RFA 82009 Norco RIV031223 Rehab Second St Rehab0itabon 6/152009 234,000 3234,000 Submit construction RFA 4/2009 Palen Desert R/V031208 LidMamareYAve IC RecmfiWuatbn Interchange improvements 62152009 1,366,000 $1,566.000 Steve construction RFA 62009 Patin Desert RN041007 Monterey Ave/DinahSubmitted Snare DI Landscepinp Project Landscape Improvements 1/152009 567,000 6567,000 construction RFA and CTC Allxe6on Request 822N8 for December CTC Agenda Palm Desert RIV071243 Free RL Turn Ln- WB Fred Waring Dr. to NB Hwy tin Chanmf�alion improvements 1252009 44,000 $09.000 Submit PSE RFA II/2008 Patin Desert RIV071249 Fred Watmg Or02 San Pascual-TS MailrcaOons Signal modi(watFms 8ryy2009 202,000 $202000 Submit canal-m*0n RFA 62009 Palm Desert RN071256 Spit stabilization -Iwo locations Soil slabllzation 6/152009 301.000 3301.000 Submit construction RFA 42009 Palm Desert RN071257 Interconnect System Signal syhhchronization 3ry52009 753,000 $753.000 Submit construction RFA 32009 Palm Desert RN071262 yb0' 111 knpovemerds Roadway improvements 522009 620,000 5620,000 Submit cansbuction RFA 32009 Palm Springs W010213 Gene Autry Tr RR Bridge 2 to 6lns Roadway widening 322009 4.038 000 $4.039000 Submit construction RFA 12009 Pads Springs RN041047 Gene Auby Tr Gateway Landscaping Improvements Landscape Improvements 4252009 1,375.000 61.375.000 Submit construction RFA and CTC Allocation Request 1/09 Palm Springs RN070306 Sam Lorenzo Rd shoulder Paving Roadway Paving 5/1/2009 161,000 $161,000 Submit constructon RFA 32009 Palm Springs RIV071258 Traffic Management Center 1252009 199,000 $198,000 Submit PSE RFA 112008 Palm Springs RIV990727 Indian Canyon- UPRR to Garnet Roadway videning 4N2009 146.000 6146,000 Suhmit construction RFA 22009 Penh Rp/00104] Perris Gateway Project landscope knmorements 12/152008 429000 $429,000 CTC Allocation on October CTC Agenda ROTC 96360 SR 60 from RT 215 fa Redlands Blvd Construct HOY lanes 12252008 9100.000 $3,100,000 construction supplemental obligation request RCTC RIV010212 SR 91 -Adams to ��/=12151C-Add HOV b Au; Lon, bridge void. b rep. Construct HOY lanes 3112009 10,000,000 310,000,000 Submit ROW RFA 12009 Riverside RN0084 SR 91Nan Buren St IC Interchange improvements 322009 1681,000 $1p81p00 Submit construction RFA 12009 Riverside RN0084 Van finnan ghat IC Interchange Improvements 322000 500.000 S500,000 Submit constructon RFA 12009 Riverside RIV031223 Rehab Orange Tvmca Pkwy Rehabilitation 11/12008 663 000 $663,000 Construction RFA submitted 82005 Riversde 101/041047 Alessandro Blvd Median Consbucton Landscaping Project Landscape Improvements - 3252009 849,000 $944,000 Submit construction RFA and CTC Allocation Request 12/08 Riverside RIV070703 !oven Avo.Grntle Separation-OC Construct grade separation 1A2009 400,000 $000.000 Submit ROW RFA 112009 Riverside RA/071272 Riverside Ave Grade Sep Construct grade separation eisraoot 4000,000 84,000,000 Submit consbuclior RFA 62009 Riverside RP/990703 (Supplemental Jumpa Ave UC oblpathlnl Construct grade separation 11/12009 317000 3317.000 Construction supplemental obligation request 'whinnied 620N8 Riverside County RIV071260 oiderse,niod" 1 Don Ave. 66 8 Mattison - TS dntatl Chanmfizafion improvements 7/152009 73,000 f73,000 Submit ROW RFA 52009 " slim MP Obligation Delivery Plan Local Assistance Obligation Plan . Obligation Authority Needs for Remainder of FEY 2008 and AB 1012 Requirements Local Agency Project Number ..= m Eran..w+a•w.eary-mM�,l.,h WpdM flP may) Projeett Location 3 . ..- d'-µ r i.f '�'r"] f 'Q 7'; +- y W' L . a O I.". Remarks [IYvbpma�ip,�.eYmVrYeerWwlPeNmnul4yw Riverside County RN990701 SRBONaIlay WaY IC IMrchargeimprowmenis 2l152808 2,000,000 12.00Q000 Submkwnebuction RFA 122009 San Jacinto RN031223 Ramps E:O Rehab - Stale isLPD Rehabilitation I1O2009 364,000 $384,000 CoriWuctiw RFA subnMlad 82000 San Jacinto RN000801 FrtstrIntlOIo Heritage Park Landscape Improvements12/12008 072,000 14tt,Ot10 SubN construction RFA 102000 Suntfne RN071283 Fred War'eg Comdp Waring Express Bus route FTA transits 310.000 $310.000 FTA Transfer Temecula RN031218 Pay Rehab -Rancho CaRurnfa Rd Rehabkkauon 11/12008 2,958.000 82,958,000 Consbuclion RFA submitted 82008 UCR CE-CERT RN081182 Intelkshare System e Lowdown Ris Metaled Ste -2 designated parking spaces 11/120011 48,000 $48.000 Canshuction RFA submitted 82009 TOTALS: 5206011,000121,617,000 53,935.000 888,060,900 Nola: Projecls listed In Italia are at higher tick for obligation delay because of lack of OA a1 Calbarw. After May 1 200Ek ' uc...0 County sill no bgts have OA reserved for Rhwside County agencies to Obligation Delivery Plan • • AGENDA ITEM 10 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 10. AGENDA ITEM 11 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 11.