Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 27, 2008 Budget & Implementation85650 RECORDS • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Monday, October 27, 2008 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside • ***COMMITTEE MEMBERS*** Steve Adams, Chair / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Roger Berg, Vice -Chair / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Robert Crain, City of Blythe John Chlebnik / Ray Quinto, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Eduardo Garcia / Steven Hernandez, City of Coachella Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore To Be Appointed, City of Menifee Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Gordon Moller / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside, District II ***STAFF*** Anne Mayer, Executive Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer ***AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY*** Annual Budget Development and Oversight Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Measure A Implementation and Capital Programs Public Communications and Outreach Programs Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement and SB 821-Bicycle & Pedestrian SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol TUMF Program Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.06 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ROLL CALL OCTOBER 27, 2008 Presen Absent County of Riverside, District II City of City of Blythe CI City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City. of Desert Hot Springs City of La Quinta City of Lal lore City of Menifee -Co ° cLivoLnisui, City of Murr-ieta City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of Temecula BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET OCTOBER 27, 2008 AG EMAIL ADDRESS /NAME �r ,c ` O N 03 VC %-. \ IAWI f G U LA ..;4A--e--,4 u k-Z-C c ,�--�� f,' R- c, 1<j: , 4 Af wr li � � - �-A �A%-�— � �i���-- / c` S 1 P H " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Monday, October 27, 2008 BOARD ROOM County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.orq. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS  Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Budget and Implementation Committee October 27, 2008 Page 2 Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. if there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - AJl matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page' 1 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2008; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. SALES TAX REVENUES UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 3 1) Receive and file the report on Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues; 2) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 2, 2008; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. " " " Budget and Implementation Committee October 27, 2008 Page 3 9- AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ON -CALL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ADVISOR SERVICES Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 17 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-66-026-06, Amendment No. 5 to Agreement 06-66-026-00, for On -Call Strategic Partnership Advisor Services with KPMG Corporate Finance, LLC (KPMG) to provide continuing on -call financial advisory services for the proposed State Route 91 and Interstate 15 corridor improvement projects for the amount of $250,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 19 1) Receive and file an update on the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE INTERSTATE 215/STATE ROUTE 60 EAST JUNCTION PROJECT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 25 1) Adopt Resolution No. 08-026, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Electing to Hear Future Resolutions of Necessity for the High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Project for the I-215/SR-60 East Junction and Designation of Commission General Counsel to Process Resolution of Necessity Packages for the Project"; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee October 27, 2008 Page 4 12. RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74/G STREET TO • INTERSTATE 215 INTERCHANGE PROJECT Page 28 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 08-027, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Electing to Hear Future Resolutions of Necessity for the SR-74/1215 Project and Designation of Commission General Counsel to Process Resolution of Necessity Packages for the Project"; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE I — PERRIS MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IN THE CITY OF PERRIS Page 31 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Direct staff to present its award recommendations to the Commission for Agreement No. 09-33-046-00 for the construction of Phase I — Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility adjacent to C Street, between State Route 74 and San Jacinto Avenue in the city of Perris (Perris); 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute utility relocation and undergrounding agreements with Southern California Edison (SCE) and Verizon for a total not to exceed amount of $190,000 and $175,000 respectively; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 15. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. • • " " Budget and Implementation Committee October 27, 2008 Page 5 16. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Monday, November 24, 2008, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES " " " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, September 22, 2008 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Adams called the meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee to order at 9:31 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Roger Berg led the Budget and Implementation Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Steve Adams Roger Berg Joseph DeConinck John Chlebnik Mary Craton Eduardo Garcia Scott Matas Terry Henderson Bob Magee 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Gregory Pettis Rick Gibbs Gordon Moller Ron Roberts John Tavaglione There were no requests to speak from the public. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes September 22, 2008 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- APRIL 28, 2008 AND AUGUST 25, 2008 M/S/C (Henderson/Craton) to approve the minutes of April 28, 2008 and August 25, 2008, as submitted. 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, requested that the Budget and Implementation Committee add 'Approval of the Rail Collision Prevention Act (S.3493)" to the agenda as an urgency item. This item arose after the agenda was posted and mailed, and there is a need for this item be addressed by the Committee at this time. M/S/C (Henderson/Craton) to add "Approval of the Rail Collision Prevention Act (S.3493)" as Agenda Item 13. 7. ON -CALL LIST FOR ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director, provided an overview of the on -call list for engineering and environmental services for Measure A highway projects. M/S/C (Henderson/Craton) to: 1) Approve the ranked list of consultant firms for placement on the on -call list for engineering and environmental services for Measure A highway projects. The list will be valid for a one- year duration; 2) Authorize staff to enter into negotiations with the firms on the list as new consultant services are required. Final contracts will be individually returned to the Commission for approval; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. " " " Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes September 22, 2008 Page 3 8. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH STV INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE PLANNING AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE GREENWAY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager, provided an overview of the amendment to the agreement with STV Incorporated (STV) to provide planning and preliminary engineering services for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) Greenway Corridor Transportation Enhancement (TE) project. Commissioner Terry Henderson recognized Sheldon Peterson for attending the RaiIPAC meeting that was held on September 20, 2008, to discuss rail service to Coachella Valley. M/S/C (Henderson/Berg) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-33-123-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 07-33-123-00, with STV for conception planning and preliminary engineering services for the PVL Greenway Corridor TE project in the amount of $231,007, plus a contingency amount of $23,993 for a not to exceed amount of $255,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve the use of the contingency as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. WESTERN COUNTY UNIVERSAL CALL FOR PROJECTS JOBS ACCESS REVERSE COMMUTE, NEW FREEDOM AND MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT GRANT AWARDS Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director, provided a brief overview of the Western County universal call for projects Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC), New Freedom and Measure A Specialized Transit grant awards. Commissioner Bob Magee expressed his gratitude for staff's recommendation to the Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes September 22, 2008 Page 4 In response to Commissioner Mary Craton's question regarding the number of trips and people served by the " projects being funded by this recommendation, Robert Yates replied that there will be approximately 700,000 trips and 35,000 - 40,000 people served. M/S/C (Henderson/Magee) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-022-00 with the Partnership for Independent Living for the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) program in the amount of $1,147,218 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds; 2) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-025-00 with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for the extended late night service project in the amount of $890,024 in JARC funds and $838,750 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 3) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-026-00 with Care -A -Van Services, Inc. for the Care -A -Van Services, Inc. in the amount of $695,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 4) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-023-00 with Care Connexxus, Inc. for the Specialized Shuttle project in the amount of $70,000 in New Freedom grant funds and $455,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 5) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-024-00 with Operation Safe House for the Main Street Transitional Living program in the amount of $38,700 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 6) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-027-00 with the Volunteer Center of Riverside County for the Transportation Access program in the amount of $406,146 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 7) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-028-00 to Blindness Support Services for the Travel Training program in the amount of $187,997 in New Freedom grant funds and $112,797 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 8) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-029-00 with the Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center for the Mo-Van transit service in the amount of $123,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 9) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-030-00 with RTA for the CommuterLink service, routes 212, 214 in the amount of $272,828 in JARC grant funds and $829,078 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; • • • " " Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes September 22, 2008 Page 5 _10) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-031-00 with Court Appointed Special Advocates for Riverside County, Inc. (C.A.S.A.) for Riverside County for the Specialized Transportation Service for Abused Children program in the amount of $98,078 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 11) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-032-00 with Beaumont Adult School for the Low Income Adult Student Transportation project in the amount of $37,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 12) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-033-00 with Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County for the Before and After School Transportation program in the amount of $113,468 in JARC grant funds and $348,673 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 13) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-034-00 with Jefferson Transitional Programs (JTP) for the Jefferson Shuttle project in the amount of $69,620 in New Freedom grant funds and $44,044 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 14) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-035-00 with city of Norco Parks Department for the Norco Senior Shuttle Service program in the amount of $153,443 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 15) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-036-00 with Inland Aids Project for the Inland Aids Project Transportation program in the amount of $306,500 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 16) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-037-00 with Wildomar Senior Community for the Senior Community Transportation program in the amount of $25,692 in New Freedom grant funds; 17) Approve Agreement No. 09-26-038-00n with the Riverside County Regional Medical Center for the Specialized Non Emergency Medical Transportation program in the amount of $220,267 in New Freedom grant funds and $366,573 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 18�% Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 19) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes September 22, 2008 Page 6 10. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AND AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2008/2009 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Robert Yates presented Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request for an advance of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) funds and amendment to the -FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). Commissioner Henderson expressed concern that the federal funds may not become available and asked how typical it is to have these funds delayed. Robert Yates replied that Section 5307 funds typically arrive in late spring. Additionally, the Commission has not been notified that these funds are not available. In response to Commissioner Henderson's concern regarding the timing of the allocation and shortfall, Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, replied that the amount of federal funds the Commission allocated to RTA this year is higher than in the past so RTA's operations is expecting additional federal funding. Therefore, with the funds being delayed, it creates the cash operating deficit that RTA has projected. Commissioner John Chlebnik requested RTA continue to operate route 36 until June 30, 2009, as the route was recently changed and ridership has significantly increased. Also, the school year has just started, which the city of Calimesa believes will result in additional ridership. Commissioner Henderson expressed that the Budget and Implementation Committee can convey the sentiments of the Committee to RTA. Commissioner Mary Craton concurred. Commissioner Bob Magee suggested staff convey Commissioner Chlebnik's concern to RTA and he will do the same with Mayor Daryl Hickman of Lake Elsinore, who serves on the RTA Board. • • • " " " Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes September 22, 2008 Page 7 M/S/C (Magee/Berg) to: 1) Approve RTA request to accommodate the advance of LTF funds in the amount of $10,783,778; 2) Approve an additional LTF allocation for FY 2008/09 for $53,289 and amend RTA"s FY 2008/09 SRTP to accommodate the proposal to restructure routes 32 and 42; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11.. FISCAL YEAR 2009-13 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF MURRIETA Jerry Rivera, Motorist Assistance Manager, provided a brief overview of the FY 2009-13 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Murrieta. M/S/C (Henderson/Craton) to: 1) Approve the FY 2009-13 Measure A Five -Year CIP for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Murrieta as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, provided an overview of the state and federal legislation, highlighting the following areas: " Proposition 1 A; " State budget approval; " H.R. 6532; and " Discussion of preparing an economic stimulus package. Chair Adams expressed opposition to Proposition 1 A as it does not benefit this region. He expressed the Commission needs to understand the implications of this bond because he believes it could be devastating. Aaron Hake replied that one of the issues raised is if the state can take on more bonding capacity. Also, it has been determined that the high-speed rail for the Los Angeles to San Francisco route takes priority. It is estimated that the cost for the entire high-speed rail system is $40 - $50 billion. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes September 22, 2008 Page 8 Commissioner Henderson recommended that the Commission remain neutral on Proposition 'IA and continue the discussion of rail investment after the election. John Standiford explained that as part of the $9.95 billion bond, there is approximately $850 million available for non high-speed related projects, such as grade separations, that the Commission may be eligible for. Chair Adams concurred with John Standiford's comment and reiterated that the Commission needs to understand the implications of this bond. He stated that he is uncertain that the benefits outweigh the negatives. M/S/C (Berg/Craton)to: 1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. RAIL COLLISION PREVENTION ACT (S. 3493) Aaron Hake provided an overview of the Rail Collision Prevention Act (S.3493). Commissioner Chlebnik expressed support for the concept of positive train control (PTC). He stated that Metrolink's concern is interoperability between Metrolink, Amtrak, Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe on a nationwide level. Additionally, Metrolink took a support position on S. 3493. Commissioner Berg concurred with Commissioner Chlebnik's comments and expressed concern that this bill is an unfunded mandate and there is uncertainty as to how it will work. He suggested a study to evaluate what type of system will provide nationwide interoperability and that costs should be shared. Commissioner Magee concurred with Commissioner Berg's comments. He stated it was a tragic occurrence and applauded Senators Feinstein and Boxer's quick action. However, the Commission cannot make a decision without knowing the fiscal impact. He discussed his concerns regarding the this bill, related insurance issues, and suggested staff address the potential fiscal impacts of this bill and bring an update to the BNSF Negotiations Ad Hoc Committee for discussion. Commissioner Chlebnik suggested adopting a support in concept position pending funding availability from the federal government. • • • " " " Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes September 22, 2008 Page 9 Commissioner Henderson noted that the deadline for adopting a position is Friday, September 26, therefore, the pending statement will not comply. She suggested adopting a neutral position. She expressed concern regarding the Commission adopting a support position because it is uncertain as to how this bill will get through. Commissioner Chlebnik suggested the Commission adopt a support in concept position and look forward to funding availability as he believes it sends a message to the federal government. John Standiford suggested to the Committee take a position similar to Commissioner Chlebnik's suggestion, which is to support in concept of better rail safety through PTC with the understanding that it come with congressional funding support and implementation considerations to deal with the interoperability issues. Commissioners Henderson and Craton expressed support for John Standiford's suggestion. Chair Adams suggested a support in concept position with full funding from the federal government. Commissioner Henderson stated that the Commission will have the opportunity to review the language and to possibly oppose what has been written. Commissioner Chlebnik made a motion to amend the staff recommendation to adopt a support in concept position with full funding from the federal government. Commissioner Henderson expressed that there needs to be a system and time to evaluate such a system. The Commission is in support of creating, developing, inventing, and bringing forth the system that will provide nationwide interoperability. Funding will be an issue that cannot be resolved immediately. She reiterated her support for the language suggested by John Standiford. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes September 22, 2008 Page 10 M/S/C (Chlebnik/Berg) to: 1) Adopt a SUPPORTIN CONCEPT position on the Rail Collision Prevention Act (S. 3493) with full funding from the federal government; 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. No: Craton and Henderson 14. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 15. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF 15A. John Standiford reminded the Commissioners that there will be a special Commission meeting at 11:00 a.m. in Conference Room A. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 a.m. The next meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee is scheduled for October 27, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, 1Ac mom Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 27, 2008 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2008; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the first quarter ended September 30, 2008, under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at September 30, 2008 is $470,000. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of September 30, 2008 Agenda Item 7A 1 CONSULTANT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2008 Keyser Marston, Assoc. AMOUNT USED Towa Reabroi•DeMors Prepared by SINGLANATURE AUTHORITY AS OF September 30, 2008 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Consulting services related to the potential commercial development at the La Sierra station. Single signature due consultant having started the project on an expired contract. N•T•E $30K No federal money Michale Cisneros Reviewed by .Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the first quarter. 2 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT $500,000.00 • 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 $470,000.00 REMAINING 0.00 -( 30,000.00 " AGENDA ITEM 8 " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 27, 2008 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Sales Tax Revenues Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the report on Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues; 2) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 2, 2008; and 3�% Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Measure A and LTF revenues represent the two largest revenue sources for the Commission. Accordingly, regular monitoring of these revenues is important to determine the available funding for the Commission's programs, projects, and services. Since FY 1998/99, staff has internally monitored Measure A and LTF sales tax receipts on a monthly basis for trend indications as well as for budgeting and forecasting purposes. This report is included as Attachment 1. At its December 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement to MuniServices, LLC for quarterly sales tax reporting services plus additional fees contingent on additional sales tax revenue generated from the transactions and use tax (sales tax) audit services. The services performed under this agreement pertain to only the Measure A sales taxes, not including the LTF, and represent an external monitoring mechanism. The sales tax reporting services provided by MuniServices relate to the Measure A sales taxes reported and remitted to the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) for the most recently completed quarter. There is an approximate two -month lag before the Measure A sales taxes, as well as the LTF sales taxes, are received by the Commission. Estimated payments are made to the Commission the first two months in a quarter, and an adjusted clean-up payment for actual amounts in the Agenda item 8 3 previous quarter plus an estimated payment are made in the last month of each quarter. Accordingly, there is about a one -quarter lag in the actual sales tax results as reported by MuniServices. Internal Monitoring of Sales Tax Revenues During the second half of FY 2006/07, ;staff began to notice signs of a slowing economy with the receipt of the last payment for each quarter. These payments included the clean-up portion and were lower than the corresponding month in the prior year. This trend has continued through September 2008. FY 2006/07, however, had the highest level of receipts in Commission history. The subprime mortgage crisis during mid-2007 started to affect housing and related consumer spending on auto sales and construction. By December 2007, the impact of the crisis on sales tax receipts and the Inland Empire economy was noticeable. Accordingly, staff recommended the following mid -year reductions to the original Measure A and LTF revenue estimates for FY 2007/08. The Commission approved these revenue adjustments at the February 2008 meeting. FY 2007/08 Revenue Projections Measure A LTF Original (January 2007) $ 167,100,000 77,840,000 FY 2007/08 Budget $165,600,000 77,840,000 Revised for Mid -Year Adjustment $ 135,000,000 67,000,000 Decrease from Budget $30,600,000 10,840,000 Actual Revenues $ 142,537,500 69,313,400 During the first half of calendar year 2008, the trend in sales tax receipts did not appear to be as severe as the revised mid -year projection of $135 million for Measure A and $67 million for LTF; however, due to the uncertainty in the economy, staff did not adjust the revenue projections again. Actual Measure A and LTF revenues for FY 2007/08 were above these projections at $142.5 million and $69.3 million, respectively. From March 2008 through October 2008, monthly sales tax receipts have continued to decline from the same period in the prior year, which has been unprecedented in the last decade. During this period, the subprime mortgage crisis has evolved into a national, and even global, credit crisis that reached epic proportions in September and early October 2008. The extent of this latest crisis on sales tax receipts is difficult to predict. External Sales Tax Audit and Reporting Services In its first nine months, MuniServices has generated and submitted approximately 60 sales tax audit findings to the SBOE for review and determination of errors in sales tax reporting. During Quarter 3 (Q3) 2008 (July through September 2008), Agenda item 8 • 4 " " the SBOE has approved 20 of these claims, which were discovered in Quarter 1 2008 (January through March 2008), for a total sales tax revenue recovery of $140,825. If the SBOE concurs with the errors) for the remaining claims, the Commission would receive additional revenues; however, the magnitude of the value of the remaining findings was not available. It is important to note that while the recoveries of additional revenues will be tangible, it will not be sufficient to alter the overall trend of sales tax revenues. Additionally, MuniServices has provided the Commission with the quarterly sales tax report for the second quarter (Q2) of calendar 2008 (April through June 2008). Most of the Q2 2008 Measure A sales taxes were received by the Commission in Q3 2008 due to the lag noted earlier. This report includes an analysis of regional performance by economic categories and the three largest economic segments as well as an analysis of the quarter's cash receipts and the top 25 sales tax contributors. The executive summary section of the Q2 2008 report is included as Attachment 2 to the staff report. Additionally, Attachment 3 presents the same information on page 2 of the executive summary with specific results for Riverside County (RCTC column). The following observations were noted in the Q2 2008 report: " Areas such as the Inland Empire and Sacramento Valley that had experienced high growth in the past few years related to housing impacts are continuing to experience the lowest, and actually negative, growth at -7.2% and -6.6%, respectively. " In almost every region, the most significant declines continue to be in the construction and transportation categories. General retail declines have increased but are less severe than those for construction and transportation. Food products is the only economic category that has any growth in all regions; however, for Riverside County, there was a decline of -.8% in Q2 2008. " The Inland Empire experienced the worst decline in sales taxes at -7.2% with Riverside County's decline of -8.8% higher than that of San Bernardino County. " The three largest economic segments in the Inland Empire are new auto sales, service stations, and department stores. Declines have continued for new auto sales and department stores at -18.4% and -2.4%, respectively, while service stations continue to increase at 9% primarily due to the increasing fuel costs. " Over the last two-year period, the Q2 2008 sales tax levels were at the low points for all but the food products and miscellaneous categories. In terms of the ten largest economic segments, which comprise about 76% of the total sales taxes for Riverside County, service stations were at the high point and new auto sales, wholesale building materials, miscellaneous retail, light industry, and retail building materials were at the low point. Agenda item 8 5 The negative effects of the housing market troubles on the construction and transportation categories continued during Q2 2008. Additionally, a decline in consumer spending continued to have a more significant impact on the general retail category. The rising fuel costs that continued through Q2 2008 had a positive impact with increased sales taxes from service stations. Current decreases in fuel prices in the fourth quarter (Q4) 2008 related to the overall economic slowdown can be expected to impact sales tax receipts from service stations. Next Steps The MuniServices reports include a Measure A sales tax forecast based on pessimistic, most likely, and optimistic considerations. The Q2 2008 report forecast for FY 2008/09 ranges from $131 million to $141 million, with $134 million as most likely; however, this is subject to change as more quarterly data related to FY 2008/09 will be received in subsequent months. The FY 2008/09 budget for Measure A revenues is $135 million. While sales tax receipts through October 2008 for Measure A and LTF are about 11.4% and 9.8%, respectively, below the prior year's four -month period, staff believes that the six-month period through December 2008 will provide a better snapshot of the impacts of these crises on sales tax receipts. As a result, any adjustments to the FY 2008/09 budget as well as FY 2009/10 projections will be presented at the January or February 2009 Commission meetings. Attachments: 1) Measure A and LTF Monthly Comparison 2► Quarter 2, 2008 Executive Summary 3) Quarter 2, 2008 Economic Category and Segments Analysis with focus on RCTC (Excerpt from Full Report) Agenda item 8 6 %40'9 %00'001 %09'L %ZZ'SZ %8Z9 %LL'9Z %LP'L %091,Z %96'Z %09'EZ 9L91,2£'94$ 999'L69' 4 L 49Z'9£t'Zt 609'ZOV44 946'9£014$ %WSW. 9L0.004'Z$ lunowy papalad °WI:Q8'm %b0'9 %00'00L 9LB''PL9917$ 1V101 %Z9'9Z %99'E- %On' %96'B L %9Z'9' %90'4 %BY4 %ZZ1 %MB4 %l6'E4- %09"4L %09'44 %L 434 980'094'9 3Nnf %MI? OOL'6LL'£ AVW %E0'9 OOCB6L'Z 'HdV °kW44 49S'G6Z'S 'HVW %GOV 00L'ZCL'E '93A %0C9 000.904.E 'NVf %94'04 60S'E4L'4 'OM %401B 00V94L'E 'AON %E99 004'ELO'E '100 %ZZ'B 94 VZ49'E 'd3S %06'9 00eLZ 4'4 '01-1V %999 006'960'E$ 'lnr Ad w0ij e$eu0u1 1V101 AO 1NnOWV 141NOW % ZOlLO Ad All %Z9'01 %00'00l 9Z6•ZEL'£9$ %08'9 %89'4Z 400'Z89bL %9L'9 %ZL'9Z 94Z.3V44 %99'94 1669'9Z L9S'60e0L %LCEL %49'4Z OLCOZL'O4$ %£4'ZOL LunowV peloafad 9ZS'8E0'L$ 004'469'Z9$ L %Z9"04 %00'004 9Z6'Z£Z£4$ 1V101 %Z£'£- %GZ'A %LZ'ZL %66'9- %ZB'8L %MG4 %SL'OZ %99' L L %98' L L % 402 4 %O6'El %O6t1. %£9'6 409'EZL'b 3Nnf %£9'8 000'Z98'£ AVW %Z99 009'969.Z 'Lldtt %134'04 PO V£94'4 'LIVW %01.9 009.496.E '93A %E99 00£'996'Z 'NV" %2904 L9Z'449'9 '030 %E61 006.994'E 'AON %46'9 004.665'Z 100 %Z141. 0L8'L24.4 'd3S %ZZ'9 009'969'C 'Ontl %L 4'9 00L'969Z$ 'lnf Ad WaA esea/0u1 1tl101 dO 1NnOWV HAM °h L0/00 Ad All %9C91 %98'EZ %Z8' L l %E9'S4 %00'00/. %ZO'9Z %L9'9Z %49'EZ %L6'EZ 94 l'££9'6E$ 990'99Z'04 9Z4Z09'O l 8 LE'99Z'6 O LE'LL9.6$ %991l4 94 '££0'9$ lunowy palOeImd 000'009'9E$ %9L'9L %00'00L 914'EES'6E$ 1V101 %L9'4 %99'LL %NIL %99'0S %9V9 %9Z'8 %LL'6 %LE'£4 %L£'£t %N.a %LV9 %91'9 %6L'04 890'99VP 3Nnf %OCS 000'044'E AVW %E9'9 000b89'Z 'Hdtl %98'11 9Z0'L99'9 "HtlA %I.V9 OOL'EZE'E '93d %0£'9 00£'Z69'Z .Ntlr %£L.6 8LE'999'E '030 %491 00£'9604E "AON %WS 00L'EZE'Z '100 %00•01. 01.64Z9VE 'd3S %661. 009.994.E .env %66'9 009L9£'Z$ nrir Ad Waj eseanul 1V101 AO 1NnOWV H.LNOW 00/66 AA All %00'001 %06'9Z %E9 4Z %LZ 4Z %00'9Z 91,9' 341,£$ 8LL'L9L'6 994'6/9'9 9£9'99Z'9 ZOL'964.9$ %6Z.601. 999'l06'Z$ lunowy pa60e10Jd 000'09Z'l£$ 4 ,PO £ 4,0 Z 6,0 ,PO %00"001. 999'49l'9C$ 1y101 VoL611. 918'990'8 3N1lf %/S'9 00Z'9Z6'Z AVW %E4'9 00L'464'2 'HdV %0V6 89990l'£ •HVW %66'9 006'690'C .93A %4G'9 004'ZOE'Z "NVf %Gni 8E6'903'E "030 %OO'8 000'EEL'Z 'AON %009 00L'61,0'Z '100 %40.6 ZOL'990.0 'd3S %9913 009'946'Z '0OV %449 006499 VZ$ '111f 1V101 AO 1NnoWV H1NOW 66/86 Ad All NOSINVd1A100 AlH1NOW S1d13032I XV1 S3lVS All %ZS'S %00'004 069'004'46$ %4L'6 %OM)/ 4£9.494.619$ %E9'31 %00'004 ZEZen' L9$ %00"001 8Z9'96E'OL$ 94Z9'9 %6S'3Z LZS'Z91'9Z 9.1110 %94'9 %981/Z 069•33Z'ZZ 41110 %E6'0L %96'9Z 99V992'LZ 911/0 %L l'LZ 6LE'E90'64 4JP0 %9£1, %46'SZ Z4E'L943,Z E.114b %£8'G %Ern 699'L94'EZ £APb %901Z %L99Z 9E9'E4L'3 £lP0 %4C4Z L09'04 L'LL £4PO %68'£ %Z1.1/Z 941'99L'ZZ ZAPO %94'E4 %091/Z 094.916'1Z Z1Pb %8Z'El %69'£Z 96L'94£464 ZNO %£Z'9Z 469'£90'L4 ZiPb %SE'S %9£1,Z 9L9166'ZZ$ L-Pb %40.C4 %04'6Z 946'4Z9'4ZS 440 909Zl %89'CZ 040.E3463 44,0 %9E'4Z 946'941'LL$ L.1VO %LL'SOL 069.0SVS$ lunowy PePoicud 000'03Z'68$ %Z9'9 %00141. 068'004'46$ 1V101 %£L'0£ %SB'4- %L9'4 %90'9 L °AWL- %9 L'E %WO %499 %LS'9 %OZ'8- %9L'4L %89'4L %LS'LI. 29'9Z6'0I. 3Nnf %00'9 000'949'L AVW %40.9 000'8L9'9 2ldV %96'04 Z44.14904 'HVW %WI? 009'90L'L 133A %49'S 00VEE1/1 'NVr %96'6 981/1L4'6 '030 %90'8 00411Z9'L 'AON %90'9 00E'4ZL'S '100 %CL'9 9L4'L£Z'9 'd3S %E8'9 004'LZ4.9 'env %0L'9 000'9Z£•9$ 'lnr Ad wad eseeL0u1 1V101 AO 1NnOWV 111NOW Y. Z0/40 AA V emseaW • 6 1N3WHOVII ' %9Z'Z04 4£9'496'4$ 10000JV POP6f0.1d 000'009'L9$ %LL'6 %00'004 4E9'099'69$ 1V101 %0£'9- %94'£l %94'£ 1. %99't %MIR %94'0Z %L 9'EL %EE'£4 %£E'EL %90'El %96'Z4 %96'ZL %4£'6 060'99£'9 3801f %8B'9 003'1.464L AVW %99'9 004'996'9 'HdV %L6'6 69e9L6'9 'HVW 51,6Z'6 000.94E•9 '93A %L99 00£•9£Z'9 'Ntlr %64'04 096t9C6 '030 %We 000'Z9CL 'AON %00'9 OW LLE'S '100 %E0'0L 94 L'ELB'e '1d3S %/ZS 006'£4E'L 'Ontl %949 006'LOS'9$ 'lnf Ad WaA aeeei0U1 1V101 AO 181L10WV 1-1NOW °k 40/00 AA V einseeW %96'0Lt ZEL'990.9$ 106046v popowd 000'L84£L$ %EB SL %00'00L Z£L'EPS'1.9$ 1V101 %LZ'OL %9£'B %4L'9L %69'99 %L9'9 %EL'9 %WEL %6L'2l 48'Zl %04'9 L %ZL'OL %Z4'O4 %96'04 999'646V 361nf %99'9 00Z'666'9 AVW %99'9 004'66Z'5 'Hdtl %98'11 8L5'459'6 'HVW %99'8 009'LL6'9 '93d %9E.9 09Z'LLL'S 'Ntlf %£COL 86 L'69Z49 '030 %SCL 009'63'9 'AON %19.9 009'6£L9 '100 %EL'6 09E41E6'L 'd3S %C6'L 004'009'9 'env %96'9 00£'9L9'4$ -lnr Ad we'll aseaoui 1V101 AO 1NnOWV 81NOW % 00/66 AA V e.nsem %LZ'LOL BZ9'1.LL'17$ lunowy pal0efaid 000'3Z9'99 $ %00"004 8Z8'96£'OL$ 1V101 8.68" LL 6/9'890'8 3Nnf %91"6 00Z'6949 AVW %49'9 009'9E9'9 'HdV %EZ'8 LOL'Z6L'9 'HVW %64'6 002.'L94'9 '93A %69'9 009'099'4 •NVr %OM. 460'64Z'L '030 %961 00£'C099 'AON %L6'S OOS'ton '100 9'069'6 91/Z91.8'9 'd3S %6£'9 000'E06'9 'Drib' %6Z'9 00V/Z4'4$ 'lM 1V101 AO 1NnOWV 1-11N0141 66/86 AA y amsem NOSI8VdW00 AlH1NOW S1d130321 XVl S31VS V 32111SV3W NOISSIWW00 N011V1210dSNVM1 A1Nf100 301S213A111 • " 9699'41 %00100L OLL'Z6L112$ %LS'EL %Z9'4Z 000'114'9L %26'9 "/oZZ'SZ 066'LOL'91. %LS'OZ %ZL'SZ 49S'Z80'6L %BOLL 16SZ'6Z 999'L66'2L$ %LO'LLL OLZZ00'LL$ lunowy paloelad 000'061'�9$ 4MO E LUD Z LUD L Lu0 %891,L %4Z'61. %�9'6 %Me %6�'0- %LZ'SL %LZ'SL %Z9'6Z %6�'EL %BEVEL %9E'9Z %99'EL %94'9 %00'001. 0LL'Z6L'1,2$ 1V101 %SVCL %LZ'9 %0Z'9 VATOL %69'9 %Z9'9 %OnL %�L'L %en %9L'0L %0LY %LL'S 009'9L9'L 009'Z�V9 009'669'4 062'EZIeL 004'91,4'9 00�'9�8'1, 49L'L90'6 009'LEL'S 009'96Z1, 99L'666'L 009'60L'S 004'Z9Z'b$ 3Nnr AVW 'Adtl INN 'S3d 'NVr '090 'AON '100 'AS 'env 'lnr Ad wad eseeLoul 1tl101 d0 % 1NnOWV 90IS0 Ad NINON dll %L8'ZL %Lb'L %89'9L %66'EL %�bill %00.00L %0 VSZ %LL'9Z %ZS'bZ %L9'EZ ZLL'LE9'49$ Sbb' L Le9l O99'942'LL 82b'b�8'Sl L96'992'SL$ %6Z"901. ZIe LZS'E$ lunowy paloelad 000'09L'09S " %CBSL %00'00L 91.0'61,Z'L9$ 1,410 %461 L. %9�'9Z 99�'Z60'SL e LYD %LEVEL 1/41.4'9Z 6EL'b4S'4L Z iuD . %��'9 %9Z1,Z 144'1.69'EL LAID %CULL %L6'�Z 9LVOZL'EL$ %ITU %001004 ZLL'1.99'49$ Td101 %EL' L- %96'9L %ZZ'LL %LL'6Z %LZ' L t %LZ' L L %LO'LL %99 L L %99' L L %9S'9 %OttL %S9'9t %L6'6 S44'6�4'9 3Nnr 909'9 0001,BS'S AtlW %94'9 000'99 C4 "Ady %bSLL OSZ'Z94'L 'HVW 91,L9'9 006'969'S 193d %On 00L'L6Cb 'NVr %Z9'01 6ZSS96'9 '030 %EU 0091,90'S 'AON %L96 00 L. L6VE '100 %096 LEb'OE�'9 'd3S %9LL OOCC LO'S 'env %L1'9 009'446'ES -or Ad wad eseeooul lV101 AO 1NnOWtl 141NOW �h 909,0 Ad All %9L'OLL 91.0'ZLS'S$ lunowy pi/4710 d 000'LL9'49$ %EWEL %00'001 9L0'66Z'L9$ 1V101 %99.12 %L9'Zl %�4'8L %OS'9Z %Z8'9 1129.9 %99'Ol %LS'S %LZ"�Z %LL"9L %En %S4'LL 98CZS9'9 3Nnr %KT 00Z'6LL'6 AVW %89'9 006'99L'E 1:1dV %EOOL 6�6'Z6L'9 'MVW %6L'8 006'6Z0'S '934 %69'9 00VZLLS 'NYE %E4" OL 10g696'9 030 %L61 008'9ZS'b "AON %�6.9 001'96CE '100 %BLOL 9L0'0�8'9 'd3S %%11 009'008'6 '0ny %LB'S 009'L8�'E$ "lnr Ad wad 95eeJ0Ul 1tl101 AO 1NnOWtl H1NOW % POLO Ad All %S4'S %BE'S %an %SS'�L %09'9 %00'00L %04"SZ %L4'SZ �/96SZ �ALL EZ E0966Z'0S$ LZESEL'ZL 94S'6LL'Z L �Z9'490'E L 944'499'1LS 115LZ'90L �49'9LS'Z$ Lunowy paioa(ad OOESLL'LbS %Sb 9 9 00'00L �48'46Z'OS$ 1y101 %LSE %LBEL %E9' E l %LE'bL- %bL'9Z %E9'EL %9942 %80'0L %LS 0 %�L'4Z %661- %Z6"0 %STEIL at'LLE'S 3Nnr %eve 004'6�Z'17 AWN %ZE'9 00S'6LL'E 'HdV %COS 944'6�9'4 'WM %HS 009'90L'6 '93d %MI 00S'L�S'E 'NVr %0L'LL E2 ON'S '030 %�L'9 009060'4 'AON %17L'9 006'090'� '130 %11,6 91,8'LEdb 'd39 %992 00Z'B62'E '9nV %In 0041,ZL'E$ la Ad w0Ld e9eeJ7U1 1V101 AO 1NnOWV H1NOW E020 Ad dll NOSINVM00 AlH1NOW S1d1303M XVI S31VS dll %8�'SL %00'001 6Z0'90Z'S9 LS %99'44 9600'00L 996'91.91,�LS %WVL 5600'OOL ZZL'ZE9'LL L$ %Z619 %00'00L LOb'Ll8'ZOL$ %WM. %461,Z EE9'EOL'BE 1,NO %L9'6 %EL'SZ Z90'909'E� PALO %PE'6L %ZZ'9Z L99. L1,9'09 1,11,0 %00'2 %�l'SZ SL9'Z49'9Z 1,Ju0 %Z L'9 %E0'SZ 909'999'9C E463 %MI. %ZLSZ 6L6'LE6'9� EMO %LEVEL %LL'SZ Ebb'21,Z'0� ELuO %�91 %99'SZ L69'9L9'9Z ELuO %9Z'ZZ %66'SZ OOL'SbE'04 ZLNO %L9'SL %E9'1,Z 91S1366'Z� ZLIK) %00'L %12VZ 496'�1,9'9Z ZLuO %LULL %96'SZ 1,LL'LL9'9Z ZNO %6E'LL %COW 999'LO�'LE$ LLILO %WEL %Z9'EZ 9Z0'SLL'LES LauO %00'9L %08'EZ 696'666'2ZS LiuO MOUE %LO'CZ LLVOZL'EZ$ lNO %9L'9LL 6Z019eZZ$ 1000111V paloelad 000'0Z6'ZELS %WSL %9L'LZ %En 96E916 %MO- %091,1. %0941 %46'Le %6�1.1. %6E'bl %en!. %999L %9L'ZL %00901 6Z0'90Z'SSL$ 1y101 %SL'OL %ILI %999 %6L'6 %LC'S %E9'9 - %6S'2L %99'L %SL'S %LE'OL %till %9B'S EE9'Z99'91 001,SEITZL 009'LEb'6 909'46 L'9L 009'0Z9'�1. 00b'04COL 001.1,�03L. 000'Z69'LL 000'6161 991,'L00'9L 00Z'99L1L 00Z'9ZC6S.. 3Nnr AM 'AdV 'AVW '93d 'NVr '030 'AON 4100 4d3S 'env 'lnr Ad wad 7910110 1NnOWV HANOW e9e6i0ul V. 90/90 Ad y alnseeW %LZ'LOL MALC6$ LunoLuy. peldeltud 000'004'9Z L$ %S�'bL %0900L 906'9LS$E L$ 1tl101 %L9't %91'01 Z94'669SL 3Nnr %Met;L %OS'B 006'eBb'I.L AtlW %SS'ZL %WS OOLSL9S 'Ady' %26'BZ %Pe'LL 619'CLZ'SL 'AVW %0�'ZL %PC'S ooVeo9'LL '93d %OE'ZL %9S'S OO V9S913 'NVr %6VOZ %La LL ELE10914 '030 %EL'ZL %EL'L 00C96�'OL 'AON %EL'ZL 1%09'9 00 L'16L'L '100 %PCSL %0901 9ZE'ZSVEL 'd3S %69'01 %09'L 006%Ze01 "env %9L'91. %30'9 00VE60'9$ 'lnr Ad wad 117101 d0 1NnOWtl. H1NOW eseeldul % SOIbO Ad y e.InseeW 0646'90L ZZCb�9'L$ lunowy peLOEOLd 000'966'603 %Lb'bL %00'00L ZZL'Z�9'LLL$ lV101 %6L'ZZ %0 L'SL %Ll'6L %LCLZ %9b'6 %Z9'6 %9Z'Z %60" L L %09'OL %OZ'4Z %�9'9L %9L'9 %94'LL LSCZ94'EL 3N1-10 %9Z'8 00Z'E0L'6 AVW %L9'9 000'999'2 'AdV %20'0l �60'L48'LL "AVW %06'9 009'6LWOL '83d %0C9 006'9RWL 'NYE %LO"Ol 494'9L�'ZL '030 %982 00L'LLe6 "AON %L6'S 009'996'9 '100 %S0'01 69 CLZ8'LL 'd39 %981 009'L4Z'6 'env %En 0oZ'LE6'9$ 'lnr Ad woad eseeioul -rdl01 dO 1NnOWtl H1NOW 40/C0 Ad y eLnaeew %�0'90L Z8Z'L09'9$ unowy paLoalad SZCOLd96$ %Me %00'00L LOVLLS'ZO L$ 1V101 %�901 %99 OL 9L9'696'0L 3Nnr %69 LL %0Z'8 004'0E4'9 AVW %LZ'�L %9Z"9 009'LZb'9 'Hdy %L95' %L96 L1,6'922'6 HVW %494Z %4E'6 000'909'6 '83d %ZStt %001 006'�6l'L NVr %LB'LZ %LULL 4LL'E40'ZL '030 %04'6 VeZLB 00E494E'9 'AON %OE'S %ZL 9 009'L9Z'9 '100 %09 SL %9Z 6 LLb'ZZS'6 'd3S %99'L' %89'L 00 V062'2 'env %9Z'l %�Z'9 000'90e9$ 'lnr Ad w0ud 1V101 d0 1Nnowv H1NOW eseenul % E020 Ad y el115e91+J NOSI8Vd1N00 AlHINOW S1d130321 Xtll 931VS V 3Nf1SV3W WM911141(400 NOI1V1210d9N'd211 A1N1100 3OIS213ARI tl 3 3 tl 3 3 tl 3 woe 3 %£9'68 V %SEEN 3 %S9'96 3 909119d1100 pewfpV • tl 01A IMAM • 3 V 3 3 V 3 3 V 3 %9SS8 3 %6L'98 V %Z8'S6 3 %Z8'S6 3 6661.166.663 p6160fpV • V 01A eletells3.3 %L9'0L• 8 L8£1.9'GZ$ %6 V8- %0000t LVV698`OL$ %LLO %00001 8Z409L14L$ 0 VIVO %l£'8- %4188 06b'9881 94U0 %880- TAT 4Z l4E8388L bIUO 0 EIUO %6E'P %60'88 EZ6'88L'LL E410 %LS'E- %Et'4Z 18E0608L E�UO 60E'L t8b ZIUO %088- %lL'4Z 00 L'E t8Lt ZAUO %608 %9898 E0866661. ZIUO 81.886L'9119 LIDO %L98• %94'98 4L0'6SL8 t$ tIVO %E L'L %8L'EZ LSZ4LZ'6 LE LIDO lunowy petoefad 006'000:29$ %44'L- %64'LZ• %S£' L B L£'EL9'LZ$ 1tl101 0 3Nnr 0 AV'W 0 'WV 0 'HWY 0 83A 0 NVr 0 '030 0 •AON 009'L LB'4 100 9 L£'SbL'9 'd3S 000'999'9 'OnV 00S11,91:SS 'lnf Ad wad aseeJoul 1V101 AO 1NnONV H1NOW Ye 60/80 AA %LE U- All %L8'80l Lasve'£$ lunowy p%oelad 000'000'L9$ %61.3• %4L'OZ• MO't- %SO' l- %E8 9- %£4'0 %SOS %4£'64 %WS- %£0'Z %48'Zt- %ZB'£ %Z8'E %00.001 LbS'688'OL$ 1V101 %LT1. Osb'L98S 3Nnr %4ZS 0001848'9 AVW %E6'9 00OL1.61b 1AdV %ZL'L £ZCEL9'S 'HVW %ENG 009'LEO'L '83A YoGYL COME'S 'NVf %89'L 000'1,L£'S '030 %6L'6 008'6E6'9 'AON %bE'L 00940Z'S '100 %EEN 62.04,49'9 'd3S %We 000'086'9 'OnV %88L 000'SEVS$ 'lnr Ad e+ad eseenul lY101 AO 1NnOWtl H1NOW % 90/L0 Ad All lunouy paloafad 000'0S8'4L$ %LLO %t81t- %OBZ %06Z Y084'ZZ- %L98 %606 %6838- %90'8Z %99'8L %4C9- %EL/ %SLLt %00'00t ZZ4'99L'bL$ 1V101 %986 1.40'8LL9 3Nnr %sin OOEYl9'9 AVW %489 000'E96'4 IldV %0L'L LEVEISL'S •UVW %L86 008L00'4. '03A %901 00WELeS 'NVE %L6.8 EOL8S89 '030 %236 OOL'ObE'L 'AON %288 00800 t'S '100 %608L t88809'L 'd3S %663 004882:9 '0nV %Vf9 0088408$ 'lnr Ad wwA eseenul 1V101 d0 114001AIV H1NOW Yo L0/90 Ad All NOS121Vd1N00 AlH1NOW S1d130321 XVl S31VS ill ZS£'96V94$ %LO'L- %00'00l £89'E80'9414 %ZZ'L %00'001. L08'Z60'LS L$ 0 41110 %BS'L• %L9'EZ 089'SLLPC PVO %EL'Z- %S6'£Z £6866Z9'L£ 4ALO 0 E1110 %8£'E• %96'bZ ZZ6'L94'9£ £AM %98'Z- %£0'4Z 994'Z4L'LE EeUO 004'L066 Z410 9426S'l L• %L9'11Z 46L'L96'9£ Z910 %08'0 %68'SZ 81.9'699'04 ZALO Z96'98Z'4E$ LNO %la S• %Z9'9Z L9n191 8E$ LALO %SO'OL %El'9Z LLL'OSO'1.4$ L/UO lunowy penefad 000'000'SE1$ .. %Zl'OL- %4S'LZ- %8L'b ZSE'96l'448 1V101 0 3Nnr 0 AVW 0 }JdV 0 HVW 0 '83d 0 'NVf 0 '090 0 'AON 004'L06'6 '100 Z94'0 LZ'6 'd3S 009'0EE'44 'OnV 0067.4L`0 L$ 'lnr Ad weJA esee.1oul 1V101 AO 1NnOWV H1NOW Yo 60/80 Ad V einseely %1Z80L £99'£90'l L$ lunowy peloelad 000'000'S£L$ LO'L- %EL'9L• °AWL• %S9' L- %06'0l- %ZZ'0 %9V0- eAOL'6Z- %86'4- %Z9'£ %£0'£Z- %99'9 %99'9 %00'00L 989'89'0'96LS lV101 %£9'G 08£'OS9'0L 3Nnr %9V6 009'UWEL AVW %ZO'L OOL'£SZ'OL 'NdV °AEZ'L ZZ6'4SS'OL '1LVW %9l'Ol 004'LOBbI '834 Yo09'L 009'SOl'LL 'NVf %LO'L 46SSEVOL '090 %90.0L 00L'969'4I 'AON %9S'L 009'ZZO'lt '100 %0L8 LB£'OLLZL 'd3S %4Z'01 004'9$6'4l 'env 6989'L 00S'91.Z'L L$ lnr Ad wo.1A eseenul 96 1V101 AO 1NnOWV 1-11NOW BO/LO Ad tl eenseew %LL96 SE61.'LSO'Z5.' lunowy paloafad 000'0SL'633 %ZZ' L %L6'6l YoSZ'0l %SZ'OL %9ozE- %936 %896 %94 SZ- %LO'OE 49a6l Vo9l'£ %£Z S L %£Z'S L %00'00L L08'Z60'L$L$ 1V101 %09'8 E6S'LSVEl 3Nnr %£ff8 00£'ELS'£l AVW %Z9•9 000'80VOL 'i1dV %4S'L 999'09'Ll 'NVW %L4'6 OO L'SLL'41. '83d MO OOL'la' R 'NVf %LZ6 8L0'495'41. '030 %88'6 00L'L99'SL 'AON %LL'9 006'LE9'Ol '100 %LS'0l LL4'ZLS'91. 'd3S %E618 006'20'41. 'env %69'9 004'9LS'OL$ 'lnt Ad woiA aseenui 1V101 AO 1NnOWV H1NOW L0/90 AA V ainsealy NOS121VdIN00 AlH1NOW S1d1303N XV1 S31VS V 32111SV3W NOISSIWW00 NOLLV12JOdSNV211 A1Nf100 301S213A121 • • • RCTC Sales Tax Digest Summary THIRD Quarter Collection of SECOND Quarter Sales Quarter 2, 2008 ATTACHMENT INTRODUCTION Every geographic region of California continues to experience declines in sales tax revenue during the year ended 2nd Quarter 2008. Major contractions in more than one economic sector has cooled the California economy to face the same headwinds of flat to negative grovvth in 2008, and to a lesser extent into the year 2009. The purpose of this summary is to provide Riverside Co RCTC with an overview of economic trends and pressures affecting the economy. The percent change in cash receipts over the prior year was (-2.0%) statewide, (-1.2%) in Northern California and (-2.6%) in Southern California. The period's cash receipts include tax from business activity during the period, payments for prior periods and other cash adjustments. When we adjust out non -period related payments, we determine the business activity performance for the period. Overall business activity declined for the year ended 2"d Quarter 2008 by (-3.4%) statewide, (-3.0%) in Northern California, and (-3.6%) in Southern California. KEY FACTORS Several key factors influenced the sales tax revenue during the year ended 2nd Quarter 2008. The following table outlines the major influences on sales tax. Economic Influences on Sales Tax Fuel Costs Housing Market Troubles Auto Sales General Retail • Increased sales tax from Service Stations. • Decreased revenue from Building Materials as building, remodeling and cash -out refinancing continue to decline. • Significantly decreased revenue from New Auto Sales. • Declining consumer spending. Information prepared by MuniServices,, LLC 10 1 RCTC REGIONAL PERFORMANCE Diversity in California's economy necessitates analyzing the state by regions. The following table looks at business activity by economic category and three largest segments. The number on the left represents the proportion of the whole region's sales tax. The number on the right is the percent change from the prior year. ECONOMIC CATEGORIES General Retail 96 of Total 96 Ch• Analysis 29.0/-28 of year ended 2nd 29.2/-1.3 Quarter 2008 28.7/-4.1 29.8/ 38 29.7/-29 26.5/-4.8 30.3/4.4 34.0/-4.9 Food Products �ofTotal %Ch• 173/ 17 17.6/3.1 15.6/-1.0 16.2/2.1 17.7/ 1.6 15..3/0.1 16.2/ 1.8 26.4/0.0 Construction 98 of Total 96 Ch• 9 9/-13.4 9.4/-8.2 126/-16.7 128/-18.6 8.8/-1 L6 12.8/ 22.3 15.6/-16.6 10.5/-18.0 Transportation % of Total 96 Ch• 24.3/-46 20.8/-2.1 26.5/-7.8 26.1/-7.1 24.6/-4.0 28.6/-8.1 28.0/-6.9 20.5/-8.3 Business to Business 96 of Total 96 C 18.3/-1.3 21.8/0.0 15.5/-4.5 14.3/21 18..5/-1.9 14.9/-1.7 9.2/-4.0 Z4/6.3 Miscellaneous 96 of Total 96 Ch I2/-10 1.2/ 1.8 11/-11.0 08/-77 1.2/-0.5 L8/-0.9 0.8/-4.2 1.3/35.6 Total 100.0 -3.4 100.0 -1.1 100.0 -6.6 100.0 -5.2 100.0 30 100.0 -7.2 100.0 -6.3 100.0 Three Largest Economic Segments: Analysis of year ended 2nd Quarter 2008 Largest Segment 46 of Total 96 Ch ii Restaurants 11.7 1.1 Restaurants 12.1 29 Department Stores 11.5 -1.7 „, Department Stores 14.6 -3.1 Restaurants 125 1.2 Auto Sales - New 11.8 -16.4 Department Stores 14.1 -4.4 Restaurants 18.3 0.6 2nd Largest % of Total 96 Ch Department Stores 10.5 -1.8 Department Stores 9.6 -1.3 Auto Sales - New 10.8 -15.2 3rd Largest 96 of Total 96 Ch Auto Sales - New 100 -14.2 Auto Sales - New 8.9 -125 Restaurants 96 -1.7 Service Stations 9.9 126 Auto Sales - New 9 9/-19 / Auto Sales - New 101 -13.5 Department Stores /0.0 -1.4 Service Stations 11.1 7..8 Department Stores 11.0/-3.3 Service Stations 10.6 12.8 Departmen t Stores 108 -8.7 BIdg.Matls- Retail 92 -156 Miscellaneo us Retail 10.2 -2.8 General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, Florist/Nursery, and Misc. Retail Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment. Construction: Building Materials Wholesale and Building Materials Retail Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, New Auto Sales, Used Auto Sales, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales Business to Business: Office Equipment, Electronic Equipment, Business Services, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry, Light Industry, and Leasing Miscellaneous: Health/Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments Information prepared byMun/Services, LLC 2 11 RCTC PERFORMANCE REVIEW The following tables review the net cash receipts and the business activity performance for 2nd Quarter 2008. Net Cash Receipts Analysis Local Collections Share of County Pool 0.0% Share of State Pool 0.0% SBE Net Collections Less: Amount Due County 0.0% Less: Cost of Administration Net 202008 Receipts Net 202007 Receipts Actual Percentage Change 535,493,852 0 0 35,493,852 .00 (407,400) 35,086,452 39,076,287 -10.2% Business Activi Performance Anal sis Local Collections Less: Payments for Prior Periods Preliminary 202008 Collections Projected 202008 Late Payments Projected 202008 Final Results Actual 202007 Results Projected Percentage Change 535,493,852 (2,829,427) 32,664,425 1,853,480 34,517,905 38,647,506 -10.7% HISTORICAL CASH COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS BY QUARTER a 1 z $42,000 S40,000 $38,000 $36,000 S34,000 $32,000 (in thousands of S) $30,000 I A SO 1Q2006 2Q2006 3Q2006 4Q2006 1Q2007 2Q2007 3Q2007 4Q2007 1Q2008 2Q2008 - -]�Nel Rcc____ -•.-$BOE Admin Fees Due $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 Information prepared by MuniServices, LLC 2 3 RCTC TOP 25 SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS The following list identifies Riverside Co RCTC's Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order and represents the year ended 2nd Quarter 2008. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate 21.7% of Riverside Co RCTC's total sales and use tax revenue. ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS BEST BUY STORES CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS CIRCLE K FOOD STORES COSTCO WHOLESALE DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES HOME DEPOT J C PENNEY COMPANY JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANTS JOHNSON MACHINERY COMPANY K MART STORES KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE MOBIL SERVICE STATIONS RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY RITE AID DRUG STORES ROBERTSONS READY MIX ROSS STORES SAM'S CLUB SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY SHELL SERVICE STATIONS STATER BROS MARKETS TARGET STORES WAL MART STORES HISTORICAL SALES TAX AMOUNTS The following chart shows the sales tax level for the year ended 2nd Quarter 2008 and the highs and the lows for each segment over the last two years. S25,000 S 20,000 $15,0 00 $10,000 S5,000 SO ct c� ♦se ♦tCe �♦oe S° 9ef1 0 P (in thousands of$) 4e'" 'e eo c -etss s os♦tA s•Q'• a ¢ ♦: q�♦`' tt* Vic°r ♦ei 4+ 102Q2000 •High mg Low y"-°• tee D °ic 40° QC P Information preparedbyMuniServices, L L C 13 4 RCTC ANNUAL SALES TAX BY BUSINESS CATEGORY 2Q 2008 1Q 2008 4Q 2007 3Q 2007 2Q 2007 1Q 2007 4Q 2006 3Q 2006 2Q 2006 IQ 2006 $0 (in thousands of $) 520,000 S40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 5120,000 5140,000 $160,000 S180,000 ®G IRetail ood Predacts Tranap on EEC nosing etign ®B tininess 7 o B us in esa lane 11 FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC TREND: Business To Business S7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 52,1100 $1,000 (in thousands of $) $0 - e 0 a i 1111111 11111111I 8 0 O O O.' a ri 0 l7 a O a c g " r O O O S g O a a a a a a N 0 e a ao co O O 46,4 o Information prepared by MuniServices, LLC 14 5 RCTC 1n QUARTER 2008 FINAL RESULTS • $34,256,580 Local net cash collections • $-338,900 Less pool amounts • $3,162,365 Less prior quarter payments • $2,296,530Add late payments • $33,729,644 Local net economic collections after adjustments • DOWN BY 12.5%compared to 1st Quarter 2007. MUNISERVICES' AUDIT RESULTS MuniServices, LLC performs an on -going audit for the District of Riverside Co RCTC. This quarter, Riverside Co RCTC received $140,825 in sales tax from MuniServices' audit efforts, bringing the total sales tax revenue produced by MuniServices to $140,825. Information prepared by MuniServices LLC 5 6 " " RCTC BENCHMARK YEAR 2008Q2 COMPARED TO BENCHMARK YEAR 2007Q2 Munlirs, LLC ATTACHMENT 3 v; h 3,a ^N General Retail % of Total / % Change ECONOMIC n. I ��Z"yhN ��x�� t'4��3" i .S'4 _i-ips-Y, 28.7/-5.7 29.0/-2.8 29.2/ 1.3 CATEGORY kG{r etc 28.7/-4.1 ANALYSIS CPiC f� 4t1 29.8/-3.8 i 29.1 /-2.9 L G I 26.5/-4.8 V, 30.3/-4.4 34.0/-4.9 Food Products % of Total / % Change 14.9/-0.8 17.3/1.7 17.6/3,1 15.6/-1.0 16.2/2.1 17.7/1.6 15.3/0.1 16.2/1.8 26.4/0.0 Construction % of Total / % Chan" e 13.1 /-23.4 9.9/-13.4 9.4/-8.2 12.6/-16.7 12.8/-18.6 8.8/-11,6 12.8/-22.3 15.6/-16.6 10.5/-18.0 Transportation % of Total / % Chan. e 26.3/-8.9 24.3/-4.6 20.8/-2.1 26.5/-7.8 26.1/-7.1 24.6/-4.0 28.6/-8.1 28.0/-6.9 20.5/-8.3 Business to Business % of Total / % Change 15.8/-7.0 18.3/-1.3 21.8/0.0 15.5/-4.5 14.3/2.1 18.5/-1.9 14.9/-1.7 9.2/-4.0 7.4/6.3 Miscellaneous % of Total / % Chan.e 1.1 /-8.6 1.2/-1.0 1.2/1.8 1.1 /-11.0 0.8/-7.7 1.2/-0.5 1.8/-0.9 0.8/-4.2 1.3/35.6 Total /00.0 / -8.8 100.0 / -3.4 100.0 / -1.1 100.0 / -6.6 100.0 /-5.2 100.0 / -3.0 100.0 / -7.2 100.0 / -6.3 100.0 / -4.9 General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, Florist/Nursery, and Misc. Retail Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment Construction: Building Materials Retail and Building Materials Wholesale Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, Auto Sales - New, Auto Sales - Used, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales Business to Business: Office Equip., Electronic Equip., Business Services, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry, Light Industry, and Leasing Miscellaneous: Health & Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments Y Largest Segment %ofTotal /%Chan.e 1 Tk` ��w F Department Stores 11.2/-2.4 ECONOMIC 9n C4 j} y}��," SEGMENTS f W ��-ir " .�� 5 Department Stores 11.5/-1.7 ANALYSIS aL1i r{ig>k I 4 1 9 t R Restaurants Restaurant 11.7/1.1 12.1/2.9 Department Stores 14.6/-3.1 Restaurants 12.5/1.2 Auto Sales - New 11.8/-16.4 Department Stores 14.1/-4.4 Restaurants 18.3/0.6 2nd Largest Segment %ofTotal /%Change Service Stations 10.6/9.0 Department Department Stores Stores 10.5/-1.8 9.6/-1.3 Auto Sales New 10.8/-15.2 Service Stations 9.9/12.6 Auto Sales - New 10.2/-13.5 Service Stations 11.1/7.8 Services Stations 10.6/12.8 Department Stores 10.8/-8.7 3rd Largest Segment %ofTotal /%Chan.e Auto Sales - New 10.6/-18.4 Auto Sales Auto Sales New New 10.0/-14.2 8.9/-12,5 Restaurants 9.6/-1.7 Auto Sales New 9.9/-19.1 Department Stores 10.0/-1.4 Department Stores 11.0/-3.3 Bldg. Matls- Retail 9.2/-15.6 Misc. Retail 10.2/-2.8 16 800Z `LZ Jagop0 aapwwoo uNewawaidwi'8 ia0pn8 aye o� uo ewesaad alepdn sanuanaxpl saleS aay1O 0 seal uogea}s!Baa GPI -PA ■ V1S ■ Awn' ■ lewawwenoBaam 0 ;sagawi 0 d11 ■ y aanseen ■ %8Z Jll %Lb y aanseeW %L aay}O %£ sae; uoge4s0ea V1S aloiyan senuenaa 31321 800Z %8 1saaa1.u1 %L iewauawanoBiem %5 y a mseaw aoj. 6upoda yspAieue xei saws Apepenb pue seovues pne sepina d seovuesiunw — siseq Algi.uow uo paaopow si.dpoaa yse0 — saoanos enuanaa �sa6ae� aul ale sexel saws pue d aansaaw . seams anuana� �1�� aaqutaWas' snEnv Ainf gogs oa'option Jig 4tpuoui pa1-1-iu of saxPi sags Jauxopuu aopuon uoompq suogoesusal xn saps Dun f [tidy (£a) £ aainnb npuoirD (Za) Z . aaasn6 naA mpuomp (iupd yseo) olmj aouemwaa pue Oupd anuanaa) uopesueal xei saes uaanniaq 6ei ynuow-ong ai.ewixoaddy . aepualeo xel saes seugoep 6uinupoo jo 6u!wR pue weixe ppaad oulno!Jia — dn suogels aoyues inq 6uppep mou sales nelaa pause . aeai( Ise! poped awes of paiedwoo uegm 800Z yoaew coup 6uiunoep uaaq eney sid!aoaa xel sales — `!egol6 oi.u! penlone say g00Z Agee u! s!spo !e!oueu!A • uogoefoad pesinei enoge 446ils 80/LOOZ AA lenloy — senuenai pala6pnq u! suoRonpaa ui pallnsaa suopafoad enuenaa sales aeeA-p!W — LOOZ JeClWeoaa Aci a!geaoneu Auaouooa !Boo! uo s!spo i.o i.oedw! en!.e6eN • uo!ionalsuoo pue sales o ne uo 6uipueds Jewnsuoo pue 6uisnoy spel y - LOOZ-p!w sl!y s!spo e6e6pow ewpdgnS • Awouooe 6u!mo!s Jo sap pemoys LO/900Z Ad • spuaal xel saes i.ueoe� Q2 2008 Sales Tax Report: Economic Categories • High growth regions in prior years related to housing experiencing high declines - Inland Empire has highest decline in sales taxes • Most significant declines in construction and transportation categories BENCHMARK YEAR 2008Q2 COMPARED TO BENCHMARK YEAR 2007Q2 General Retail % of Total / % Chan. e Food Products % of Total / % Chan. e Construction % of Total / % Change Transportation % of Total / % Chan. e Business to Business % of Total / % Chan. e Miscellaneous % of Total / % Change Total 28.7/-5.7' 14.9 /-0.;8 13.1 /-23.4 26.3/-8.9 15.8/-7.0 tit -as 100.0 /-88 29.0 /-2.8 17.3/ 1.7 9.9/-13.4 24.3 /-4.6 18.3/-1.3 1.2 /-1.0 100.0 / -3.4 ECONOMIC CATEGORY ANALYSIS 29.2/-1.3 17.6/3.1 9.4 /-8.2 20.8 /-2.1 21.8/0.0 1.2/ 1.8 100.0/-1.1 28.7/-4.1 15.6/-1.0 12.6/-16.7 26.5/-7.8 15.5/-4.5 1.1 /-11.0 100.0 / -6.6 29.8/-3.8 16.2/2.1 12.8/-18.6 26.1 /-7.1 14.3/2.1 0.8 /-7.7 100.0 /-5.2 29.1 /-2.9 17.7/ 1.6 8.8/-11.6 24.6 / -4.0 18.5/-1.9 1.2/-0.5 30.3 /-4.4 16.2 / 1.8 15.6/-16.6 28.0 /-6.9 100.0 /-3.0 9.2 /-4.0 0.8/-4.2 100.0 / -6.3 34.0/-4.9 26.4 / 0.0 10.5/-18.0 20.5 /-8.3 7.4 / 6.3 1.3/35.6 100.0 / -4.9 General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, Florist/Nursery, and Misc. Retail Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment Construction: Building Materials Retail and Building Materials Wholesale Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, Auto Sales - New, Auto Sales - Used, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales Business to Business: Office Equip., Electronic Equip., Business Services, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry, Light Industry, and Leasing Miscellaneous: Health & Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments Q2 2008 Sales Tax Report: Economic Segments • Largest economic segments in Inland Empire - Department stores and new auto sales continue to decline - Service stations increased due to higher fuel prices • Sales tax levels for last two-year period - Service stations at high point in Q2 2008 - New auto sales, wholesale and retail building materials, misc retail, and light industry at low point in Q2 2008 BENCHMARK YEAR 2008Q2 COMPARED TO BENCHMARK YEAR 2007Q2 Largest Segment % of Total / % Chan, e 2nd Largest Segment % of Total / % Chan.e 3rd Largest Segment % of Total / % Chan • e Department, Stores 112/-2.4 Service Stations,.;. 10.6 /9;0 Auto Sales` New 10.6 /-18.4 Restaurants 11.7 / 1.1 Department Stores 10.5/-1.8 Auto Sales New 10.0/-14.2 ECONOMIC SEGMENTS ANALYSIS Restaurant 12.1 /2.9 Department Stores 9.6 /-1.3 Auto Sales New 8.9 /-12.5 Department Stores 11.5 /-1.7 Auto Sales New 10.8 /-15.2 Restaurants 9.6/-1.7 Department Stores 14.6 /-3.1 Service Stations 9.9 / 12.6 Auto Sales New 9.9 /49.1 Restaurants 12.5 / 1.2 Auto Sales - New 10.2 /-13.5 Department Stores 10.0 /-1.4 Department Stores 14.1 /-4.4 Services Stations 10.6 / 12.8 Bldg. Matls- Retail 9.2 /-15.6 Restaurants 18.3 / 0.6 Department Stores 10.8 /-8.7 Misc. Retail 10.2 /-2.8 Measure A Sales Taxes • FY 2006/07 projection of $159 million — Actual receipts of $157.1 million — Actual revenues of $154.5 million • FY 2007/08 mid -year revenue adjustment of ($31) million to $135 million — Actual receipts of $146.1 million — Actual revenues at $142.5 million MEASURE A $180, 000, 000 $160, 000, 000 $140, 000, 000 $120, 000, 000 $100, 000, 000 $80, 000, 000 $60, 000, 000 $40, 000, 000 $20, 000, 000 $0 Projected Actual LTF Sales Taxes • FY 2006/07 projection of $75 million — Actual receipts of $74.8 million — Actual revenues of $74.1 million • FY 2007/08 mid -year revenue adjustment of ($11) million to $67 million — Actual receipts of $70.9 million — Actual revenues at $69.3 million LT F $80,000,000 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 Projected Actual 6upopow panuRuoo . sexel sales uo pedw! Awouooe pool of se uowituolu! Japed ap!noad pinoys 800Z aagweoea Onoau. sld!aoa�l — 600Z AP° anp suol e[ad 01/600Z Ad pue suopefoad aeeA-p!W . aeeA Ise! poped ewes molag %8'6 am syTuow anon. Tsig aoj sid!eoa• uolll!w L9$ :Jii — aeeA aopd ui poped awes /mpg %i7' [1, aae 800Z aagopo u6noaui sld!aoa l • uongu 5e l,$ :y ainseaw — sanuanaa pala6pnq 60/800Z Ad • AGENDA ITEM 9 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 27, 2008 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director Karl Sauer, Bechtel, Project Coordinator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement for On -Call Strategic Advisor Services Partnership STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-66-026-06, Amendment No. 5 to Agreement 06-66-026-00, for On -Call Strategic Partnership Advisor Services with KPMG Corporate Finance, LLC (KPMG) to provide continuing on -call financial advisory services for the proposed State Route 91 and Interstate 15 corridor improvement projects for the amount of $250,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In February 2006, the Commission entered into an agreement for the purpose of providing Strategic Partnership Advisor Services with KPMG for innovative project financing and evaluation of potential toll road corridors in Riverside County. The project approval and environmental document (PA/ED) work phase completion for the SR-91 and 1-15 corridor improvement projects is scheduled for 2011 and 2012, respectively, under separate agreements with engineering firms. The continued services of KPMG is desirable for support of the PA/ED work and to assist the Commission in successfully moving these projects forward into the design, construction, and operation phases. The major tasks that KMPG will provide are as follows: al Provide financial analysis as it relates to assessing project feasibility and subsequent transaction structuring. Agenda Item 9 17 b) Periodic update of financial analyses to confirm viability of the SR-91 and 1-15 corridor improvement projects as cost and project scope are further developed. This analysis may include review of revenue, cost, and schedule inputs from the technical team, modifications to the financing strategy, and changes to the project phasing or scope and sensitivity runs to determine the impact of variances in demand, construction costs, and general inflation. c) Provide input to the milestone schedules, detailed time lines and work plans for the SR-91 and 1-15 corridor improvement projects, taking into account project status (environmental, design, etc.), funding priorities and constraints, project feasibility, internal and external resources, and market resources. d) Provide research and analysis relating to policy development, procurement process design, proposal evaluation, and tolling framework. e) Review and provide input to project documents, including for example, applications for environmental approval, funding programs, and project description. f) Review and provide input to resolution of key programmatic and project - specific issues and decisions. g) During this "pre -launch" phase, develop and structure a procurement and contract strategy suited to the specific project, including the procurement process, evaluation criteria, risk allocation, contract terms, public -private partnership suitable technical provisions and a long-term contract/project administrative approach. The financial advisory services outlined above would be provided by KPMG for $250,000, which is anticipated to be used as follows: FY 2008/09 - $100,000; FY 2009/10 - $75,000; and FY 2010/11 - $75,000. The FY 2008/09 amount has been included in the current year's fiscal budget. This will bring the total contract amount to $895,000. Staff recommends amending Agreement No. 06-66-026-00 for additional compensation of $250,000. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10+ Amount: $100,000 $150,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Budget Ad ustment: No N/A GLA No.: 303 31 65302 P3026 $ 50,000 303 31 65302 P3027 $ 50,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Pu jtibu i Date: 10/15/2008 Agenda Item 9 • 18 AGENDA ITEM 10 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 27, 2008 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterial Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file an update on the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2004, the Commission approved 24 projects for the Western County TUMF Regional Arterial program. The total amount of the requested funding was $185 million. To date, $73 million has been programmed. A summary of the TUMF programming is as follows: Project Phase Amount (in millions) PA&ED (Prelim. Engineering) $ 9.809 PS&E (Design) $12.355 Right -of -Way $30.769 Construction $20.736 Total $73.669 Project sponsors are required to enter into formal agreements with the Commission for each individual project outlining the work to be performed by phase and funding amount. To date, 22 agreements have been executed. Two project agreements are scheduled to be initiated in FY 2008/09. Attachment 1 illustrates the status of the project agreements. Agenda Item 10 19 Construction of TUMF regional arterial projects is progressing. Two projects have completed construction, which are the Ramona Expressway project in the city of San Jacinto, and the Van Buren Boulevard widening project from Andrew Street to Garfield Avenue, in the city of Riverside. City of Corona's El Cerrito Avenue project is under construction and scheduled to be complete soon. The construction schedule for all of the TUMF regional arterial projects is included in Attachment 2. TUMF expenditures for FY 2007/08 were $9.6 million and FY 2008/09 expenditures to date are $181,000. Commission staff is actively monitoring the status of each project and will continue to report on the progress of the TUMF Regional Arterial program on a quarterly basis. Attachments: 1) Commission TUMF Regional Arterial Funds Programmed 2) TUMF Regional Arterials Construction Schedule Agenda Item 10 • 20 " 5 6 7 8 " Riverside County Transportation Commission TUMF Regional Arterial Funds Programmed ATTACHMENT 1 " r ` 'egiono era s -un" s Programmed By RCTC -Arterials Project Phases: - tfWerri_a0 J740.0!. reaepnrfalroe coevr4e4M' Arterial Project Details Project Schedule and Funding Programmed( $'s In millions) Note: Amounts In Grey have been requested but not programmed Date Programme Lead Agency Project TiBe Project Limits Phase FY 2005 FY 2006. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Phase Total AGREEMENT STATUS d by RCTC PA&ED $ 0.200 $ 0900 SIGNED 1 9/14/2006 Corona Green River Rood Dominguez Ranch Road to PS&E $ 0.600 --- $ 0b00 Amendment 1 Signed R/W- project SR 91 Cons - $ 3.442 _ _ u_. _" , i $ 3 44. Year Told $ - $ 4.242 I. - $ - $0.000 $ 4.242 Foothill PA&ED $ SIGNED PS&E $ 2.000 ��- $ 2000 Parkway - Poseo Grande R/W $ 12.000 9/8/2004 Corona Westerly to Lincoln ', ? $ 2.000 -. Cons Extension Avenue ww_ q $ 7,282 Year Tot $ - $ 14000 $ - $ - $7.2.2 $ 21.282 El Cerrito Rd/ Bedford PPS&E $ - SIGNED 1- I -IS Canyon Rood P$&E --- $ - i 9/14/2006 Corona Interchange to the 1.15 R/W Copecity Northbound .Cons $ 1.000 , - ,; $ 1_000 Improvements Romps Year Told $ - $ - $ 1.000 $ - $0.000 $- '1.000 Railroad PA&ED $ - Canyon Road/ Interstate 15 to PS&E $ 0.300 -_ $ 0.3U0 9/8/2004 Lake Elsinore I-15 Canyon Hills R/W Interchange Rood Cans j, 200 Improvements Year Total $ - $ - $ 6.300 $ 72r. $0.000 $.-13.500 PA&ED $ 0.303" $ 0.303 SIGNED Penis Cactus PS&E $ 0.677 -- $ 0.877 Amendment 1 Signed 9/8/2004 Moreno Valley Boulevard Avenue to R/W _ ', $ 1,521 Widening PVSD Lateral"8" Cons __ __ :; $ 5997 ��$ YearTotal $ - $ 0.303 $ 0.677 1.521 $5.977 ,$ 8.498 PA&ED $ 0.086 b 0.888 IN PROCESS Perris Romona PS&E_______ $ 0.194 $ 0.194 11/14/2007 Penis Boulevard Expressway to __ R/W $_ 0.43.1 Widening PVSD Lateral "B" Cons _ _ -j $ 1.713 "$ YearTot al $ - $ 0.086 $ 0.194 0.434 $1.713 $ Z427 Ironwood PA&ED $ 0.134 --- $ 0. 134 SIGNED PS&E Perris Avenue to $ 0.336 -- $ 0 335 9/8/2004 Moreno Volley Boulevard Manzonita R/W $_ _1025 Cons widening Avenue ' .z ._ a $ 1.342 Year Total $ - $ 0.134 $ 1.361 $ - $1.342 $ 2.837 Riverside PAGED $ 0.409 0A09 SIGNED 12/8/2004 County Transportation Reche Cyn/ Reche Vista Heocock St to SB Co. Line PS&E R/W _-�$ $ $ -__ _ _ _ - Cons Deportment YearTotal $ 0,409 $ - $ - $ - $0000 $ "0.409 P $ SIGNED Van Buren Andrew to PS&E PS&E ��� $ Amendment 1 Signed R/W 11/9/2005 Riverside Widening Garfield j-$- Cons - $ 2329 _m.2.329 ... Jy$0.000 Year fetal $ - $ 2.329-$ $ 2.329 Pa e i o13 21 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 1 1 1 • Arterial Project Details Project Schedule. and Funding Programmed ( 5's in millions) Note: Amounh In Grey have been requested but pg.( programmed Date Programme Lead Agency Project Title Project Limih Phase FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Phase Total AGREEMENT STATUS d by RCTC ----_.$....... _.. SIGNED Van Buren Santa Ana PS&E ----- $ 4/12/2006 Riverside Widening River to R/W $ - - Jockson St Con s $.. 0.845 ,_ __,x _� _ ,-, $ 0 845 w Year loin! $ - $ 0.845 $ - $ - $O500 $ 0.845 PA&ED ----- $ - SIGNED Van Buren Blvd van Buren Blvd at the 91 PS&E ----- $ _ Amendment 1 Signed g 9/8/2004 Riverside - 91 Freeway Freeway R/W $ 2.000 $ 6.000 $ 0 000 Interchange g InlerChnage Cons ® „, .... ... .. .. .. .. 2. Eno Year Total $ - $ 2.000 $ $ 6.000 $2 WO $ 10.000 Riverside Bundy Canyon Bundy Canyon KETEiliMiin-MiO11=111111111 $ 0.712 SIGNED 9/8/2004 County Road/Scott Road Road from 1-15 D4umeno PS&E R/W ---- 5 - $ - Transportation Improvement Road,Scott Cons Department Project Rood Yecr Total $ G772 $ $ - $ $O GJG $ 0:712. Widen State ELME. 1.000 -®1.11111111111111® $ 1 D00 SIGNED Riverside State Route 79 Route 79 to fou PS&E $ 1.000 -®-- $ _ 1.000 Amendment 1 Signed 7/11/2004" County Improvement (4) lanes from R/W - $ - Trpnsportp}ian Project Thompson to Cons ® ;$. d.000 _:,$ 13 000 Deportment Doemeni oni g YearTotal $ 2.000 $ - _ru _ ,- - $ $ 4.000 $9.000 $ "15.000 --®....M- $ SIGNED Riverside Van Buren On Van Buren PS&E --_-- $ - 9/8/2004 County Transportation Department Boulevard Widening and Bridge Blvd from Clay Street (north limits) R/W -- $ R $ ... - $ - $0 WO $ r 5.220 Cons Year Total $ - $ 5 220 Riverside On Van Buren �E�-_-- $ _ 0.275 SIGNED 5 0.688 -- $ 0,683 Amendment 1 Signed $ - 9/8/2004 County Van Buren Boulevard Blvd behveen Washington PS&E R/W -- -- Transportation Widening Street and Cons _ $ - Department Wood Rd Year Total $ 0.275 $ - _ $ LI Gdf $ - $G)000 $. 0.963 L a 1.000 1.000 1.000 MINN 3.OJ0 SIGNED Riverside Eastern Bypass Eastern Bypass 9/8/2004 County TransPortotion Department Project Development from Auld Rood tot -IS ---PS&E_ R/W $ 1.000 *- -. - - ------ $ 1.030 $ $ i CT:0 ..$. 3.000 .Cons Year Total ® $ 1.000 Riverside Potrero Potrero Blvd from San EMIR PS&E -iMill.,-- $ 2.000 $ - IN PROCESS 2.000 9/8/2004 County Boulevard Timoteo R/W $ _ - Transportation Development Canyon Road/ Cons. ® ..____. ... ___ _ . Department Oak Glen Rd YealTold $ - $ 2.0G0 if, - $ - $0 000 $ :-2.000. New - - PA&ED $ 0.750 --- $ 0.7.5J SIGNED. Riverside Interchange 15 between --- S 2.000 $ 200'J PS&E 9/8/2004 County Transportation on 1-15 at the existing Limonite Ave IC R/W 4 , $ 250 Department Schleisman and Sixth St IC COOS ® _ _ -,. ,. _ $ 20.000 Road - --_ - lc al Yarn $ $ li750 $ - $ 2000 b2425U $ 27.000 Riverside Clinks Keith Rd/ PA&ED ----- $ PS&E ® ®® -D County I-151C Clinton Keith/I- R/W Transportation Improvement 15 Interchange �p - Department Project YearTotal $ - $ - $ - ,. - 513.500 $ 13.500 Page 2 of 3 • " " 1 2 21 22 23 24 " Arterial Project Details Project Schedule and Funding Programmed ( $'s n millions) Note: Amounts In Gre have been requested but no programmed Date Programme d by RCTC Lead Agency Project Title Project Limns Phase FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Phase Total AGREEMENT STATUS Riverside PA&ED $ 0300 $ 0.750 $ 0.750 )Do SIGNED County New IC of the Eastern PS&E-_- -------- ------- $ 9/8/2004 Transportation Deportment s Eoiern Bypass/ BYPossll-I5 Cons $ - Ycai Total $ 0.500 $ 0.750 $ 0.750 $ - $0.000 $ 2.000 Sanderson PA&ED $ 0.040 --- $ 0.040 SIGNED PS&E $ 0.160 Ramona Avenue (Hwy --- $ 0.160 Amendment 1 Signed 9/8/2004 Son Jacinto Expressway 79) to R/W --  $ Amendment 2 Signed Widening westerly city limits Cons $ 3.900 - - - $ 3.v00 YearTafal $ 0.040 $ 4.060 $ - $ - $1.000 $ 4.100 Extension of PA&ED $ 0.200 ---- $ 0200 SIGNED PS&E $ 0.300 ---- g 0.303 Ramona Seventh Street 9/8/2004 San Jacinto to Cedar R/W $ 0.900 i $ 0900 Expressway ;Gap Closure) Avenue Cons - - - _ _ _ - j $ 4.500 Year Total $ 0.500 $ 0.900 $ 450D $ - soLoo $ 5.900 Western B Bypass Approximately PA&ED $ 0.700 S-- $ 0.700 $ SIGNED p5&E 9/8/2004 Temecula Corridor Alignment from 1-15/SR 79 South , ` $ - R/W Study Interchange Cons .��j;_ - $ - Yeor Total $ - $ 0.700 $ - $ - $0.000 $ 0.700 PA&ED --- $ - SIGNED French Valley Pkwy/1-15 0.98 km north o Winchester Rd PS&E -- _ -- $ 2.000 --- $ 2.000 .k 9/8/2004 Temecula Overcrossing (SR79) IC and R/W $ 5.517 .r $ .517 - " 5 Cons and IC 2.43 km s/o the ,ii ; - i,-. $ 20.000 Year Total $ - $ 7.517 $ - $ - $20.000 $ 27.517 PA&ED ----- $ SIGNED I.15/SR79 South Intersection of I- PS&E $ 0.100 ��$ 0.100 9/8/2004 Temecula Ultimate 15 and SR79 R/W $ 4.352 -.. ?_$_ 4.352 Interchange South Cons _- r�.au.'..Jx  $ 5.900 Year Total $ 4.352 $ 0.100 $ 5.900 $ - $0.003 $ 10.352 PROJECT AGREEMENTS SIGNED TOTAL TUMF REGIONAL FUNDS PROGRAMMED pbb 10/14/08 PA&ED $ 4.136 $ 3.923 15.736 Year Total $ 9.788 $ 44.936 $ 4.645 $ 12.000 $0.000 PA&ED PS&E - R/W Cons $ 4.136 $ $ 4.352 3.923 $ 1.750 $ - $ 2.195 20.417 15.736 $ 1.000 $ 4.000 $ - Year Total $ 9.788 $ 46.936 $ 4.945 $ 12.000 $0.000 Page 3 of 3 23 $ 9.809 $ 10055. $ 30./69 $ 20./36 $ 71.369 $ 9.809 _ _ _ 12.355 $ 30.769 $ 20.726 $ 73.669 " A" en San Jacinto Riverside Corona County of Riverside Riverside San Jacinto Corona Moreno Valley Corona Riverside County of Riverside County of Riverside County of Riverside Count of Riverside Temecula Moreno Valle County of Riverside Lake Elsinore County of Riverside County of Riverside Temecula County of Riverside " TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIALS CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Pro ect Ramona Expressway Van Buren Blvd El Cerrito Van Buren Blvd Van Buren Blvd Ramona Expressway Green River Road Perris Blvd Foothill Parkway Van Buren Blvd Bundy Cyn/ Scott Rd SR 79 Van Buren Blvd Potrero Blvd French Valley Pkwy Perris Blvd Schleisman Rd Railroad C n Rd Eastern Bypass Eastern Bypass Western Bypass Align. Reche Cyn/Reche Vista Limits Sanderson to Wly City Limits Andrew to Garfield Bedford Cyn Rd to 1.15 N.B. Washington to Wood Santa Ana River to Jackson Seventh to Cedar Domin" uez Ranch Rd to SR 91 Ironwood to Manzanita Lincoln to Green River I.C. @SR 91 1.15 to 1.1215 Thompson to Domenigoni Clay to 1200' S. of Santa Ana River San Timoteo C n Rd to Sr 79 LC @ 1.15 Ramona Ex " resswa to Cactus I.0 @ 1-15 I.0 I.15 Auld Rd to 1.15 I.C. @ 1.15 1-15 to SR 79 South I.C. Heacock to S.B Co Line Project Number * TBD - Date cannot be determined until significant environmental impacts have been addressed. ** Completion dates are shown for projects currently under construction. pb 10/14/08 24 ATTACHMENT 2 " CONSTRUCTION START FISCAL YR. 5117 2007 CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE* 7/07 5122 2007 5101 2007 5116 5125 5118 5103 5105 5102 5108 5109 5114 5115 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 5112 2010 5119 5106 5113 2011 2011 2012 5104 2012 5110 TBD* 5111 TBD* 5121 TBD* 5107 TBD* 2/08 4/08 " AGENDA ITEM 11 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 27, 2008 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director SUBJECT: Resolution of Necessity for the Interstate 215/State Route 60 East Junction Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 08-026, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Electing to Hear Future Resolutions of Necessity for the High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Project for the I-215/SR-60 East Junction and Designation of Commission General Counsel to Process Resolution of Necessity Packages for the Project"; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Commission and Caltrans District 8, Right -of -Way Department decided to partner on acquiring the right-of-way required for construction of the High Occupancy Vehicle Lane project for the I-215/SR-60 East Junction project. It was further agreed that one of the Commission's responsibilities in the right-of-way acquisition process is to hear future resolutions of necessity (RONs) and designate Commission's general counsel to process and approve the resolution package(s). By adopting Resolution No. 08-026, the Commission agrees to follow all procedures for the RON process as outlined in the Caltrans Right -of -Way Manual, which requires first and second level reviews prior to seeking RONs. Caltrans' policies and procedures also require a four -fifths vote to pass a RON. Attachment: Resolution No. 08-026 Agenda Item 11 25 " " RESOLUTION NO.08-026 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ELECTING TO HEAR FUTURE RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE PROJECT FOR THE I-215/SR-60 EAST JUNCTION AND DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION GENERAL COUNSEL TO PROCESS RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY PACKAGES FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") is empowered to acquire by eminent domain any property to carry out its powers or functions pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 130220.5; WHEREAS, property may properly be acquired by eminent domain for the State Highway System pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 102; WHEREAS, RCTC has approved the construction of high occupancy vehicle ("HOV") lane connectors from southbound I-215 to eastbound SR-60 and from westbound SR-60 to 1-215 at the junction in and near the City of Moreno Valley, a project on the State of California Highway System, and has concurrently with this resolution approved a cooperative agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) providing that RCTC will perform right of way activities as set forth in the cooperative agreement for said project; WHEREAS, all local public agency projects on the State of California Highway System, within the existing or proposed State of California rights of way are subject to the requirements of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Right of Way Manual, and recent provisions to the Caltrans Right of Way Manual now require a local public agency to pass a resolution, by a four -fifths vote, making an election to hear all the Resolutions of Necessity for the project; and WHEREAS, RCTC will follow state statute requirements and the Caltrans Right of Way Manual processes in the issuance of the Notice of Intent to adopt a Resolution of Necessity and in the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity, and the RCTC General Counsel is designated to process and approve the resolution packages(s); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Riverside County Transportation Commission, by a four -fifths vote, will hear the Resolutions of Necessity associated with the construction of High Occupancy Vehicle lane connectors from southbound I-215 to eastbound SR-60 and from westbound SR-60 to I-215 at the junction in and near the City of Moreno Valley. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that RCTC designates its General Counsel to prepare, review, process, and approve the Resolutions of Necessity packages for this project. R V PU B\ZKATOR\754007.1 1 26 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2008. By: Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board RVPUBIZKATOR1754007.1 2 • 27 AGENDA ITEM 12 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 27, 2008 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director SUBJECT: Resolution of Necessity for the State Interstate 215 Interchange Project Route 74/G Street to STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 08-027, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Electing to Hear Future Resolutions of Necessity for the SR-74/1215 Project and Designation of Commission General Counsel to Process Resolution of Necessity Packages for the Project"; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Commission and Caltrans District 8, Right -of -Way Department decided to partner on acquiring the right-of-way required for construction of the SR-74/G Street to Interstate 215 Interchange. It was further agreed that one of the Commission's responsibilities in the right-of-way acquisition process is to hear future resolutions of necessity (RONs) and designate Commission's general counsel to process and approve the resolution package(s). By adopting Resolution No. 08-027, the Commission agrees to follow all procedures for the RON process as outlined in the Caltrans Right -of -Way Manual, which requires first and second level reviews prior to seeking RONs. Caltrans' policies and procedures also require a four -fifths vote to pass a RON. Attachment: Resolution No. 08-027 Agenda Item 12 28 RESOLUTION NO.08-027 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ELECTING TO HEAR FUTURE RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE SR-74/I-215 PROJECT AND DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION GENERAL COUNSEL TO PROCESS RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY PACKAGES FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") is empowered to acquire by eminent domain any property to carry out its powers or functions pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 130220.5; WHEREAS, property may properly be acquired by eminent domain for the State Highway System pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 102; WHEREAS, RCTC has approved interchange improvements, ramp improvements, intersection reconfigurations, bridge replacement and widening of SR-74 between G Street and the interchange with the I-215 and Redlands Avenue between the interchange with the I-215 and San Jacinto Avenue in the City of Perris, a project on the State of California Highway System, and has concurrently with this resolution approved a cooperative agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) providing that RCTC will perform right of way activities as set forth in the cooperative agreement for said project; WHEREAS, all local public agency projects on the State of California Highway System, within the existing or proposed State of California rights of way are subject to the requirements of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Right of Way Manual, and recent provisions to the Caltrans Right of Way Manual now require a local public agency to pass a resolution, by a four -fifths vote, making an election to hear all the Resolutions of Necessity for the project; and WHEREAS, RCTC will follow state statute requirements and the Caltrans Right of Way Manual processes in the issuance of the Notice of Intent to adopt a Resolution of Necessity and in the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity, and the RCTC General Counsel is designated to process and approve the resolution packages(s); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Riverside County Transportation Commission, by a four -fifths vote, will hear the Resolutions of Necessity associated with the construction of interchange improvements, ramp improvements, intersection reconfigurations, bridge replacement and widening of SR-74 between G Street and the interchange with the I-215 and Redlands Avenue between the interchange with the 1-215 and San Jacinto Avenue in the City of Perris. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that RCTC designates its General Counsel to prepare, review, process, and approve the Resolutions of Necessity packages for this project. RV PUBIZKATOR\754010.1 1 29 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2008. By: Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: By: CIerk of the Board RV PUBIZKATOR\754010.1 2 • 30 AGENDA ITEM 13 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 27, 2008 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Edda Rosso, Capital Projects Manager Erik Galloway, Bechtel Project Coordinator Richard Bryan, Bechtel Manager of Rail Projects THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: Agreement for the Construction of Phase I - Transportation Facility in the City of Perris Perris Multimodal STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Direct staff to present its award recommendations to the Commission for Agreement No. 09-33-046-00 for the construction of Phase I Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility adjacent to C Street, between State Route 74 and San Jacinto Avenue in the city of Perris (Perris); 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute utility relocation and undergrounding agreements with Southern California Edison (SCE) and Verizon for a total not to exceed amount of $190,000 and $175,000 respectively; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its September 12, 2007 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise to receive construction bids for the construction of Phase I - Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility adjacent to C Street, between SR-74 and San Jacinto Avenue in the Perris. Because the multimodal facility will serve as a future Metrolink Perris Valley Line commuter rail station, the Commission is the project lead for development, design, and construction of the multimodal facility in coordination with Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). The Phase I work will include the construction of a multimodal facility with a 141-space park and ride lot, a bus plaza with eight loading bays, closed circuit television system (CCTS), and a transit platform for future Metrolink access. Along with the main facility improvements there will be street improvements along C Street, and at the intersection of C Street and SR-74, Rule 20 utilities undergrounding, and landscaping. Agenda Item 13 31 The engineer's estimate for the project is $5 million, not including the utility. relocation and undergrounding work to be performed by SCE and Verizon. The Commission has retained Owen Group, Inc. to provide construction management services for the North Main Corona parking structure project and the multimodal facility. Owen Group, Inc. has reviewed and provided comments on the design drawings and construction bid package for the multimodal facility. At its July 9, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved the selection process and awarded Agreement No. 04-33-007 to Psomas, formerly known as Pountney Consulting Group, Inc., for the development of the master plan, environmental clearance, and final design of the Phase I. The final design of the project commenced in March 2007, after receiving environmental clearance and completion of the master plan. Phase I is a key component of the downtown Perris revitalization efforts and staff has been working closely with the Perris planning and engineering departments during the final design of the Phase I. Perris has reviewed and approved the final design and is ready to issue the necessary permits for construction. The funding for the project required California Transportation Commission action and the subsequent obligation and transfer of the RTA funds by Caltrans, which resulted in a delay in the advertisement for construction of the project. The project was advertised starting on October 1, 2008 with the bid opening scheduled for October 30, 2008. The sealed bids will be immediately opened after the submittal deadline and openly recorded. The scheduled bid opening will not provide an opportunity to present the bid results and staff recommendation to the Committee. Therefore staff, along with legal counsel, will review the submitted bids for compliance with the bid document requirements and make a recommendation to award the contract to the lowest price, responsive, responsible bidder as defined in the bid documents. The bid results and staff recommendation will be presented directly to the Commission during the meeting on November 12, 2008. It is anticipated that the notice to proceed for construction will be issued on December 11, 2008, with the start of construction on December 18, 2008. The construction should be completed by July 29, 2009, if no contract allowable time extensions, right-of-way delays, or utility relocation delays occur. As part of the project, the overhead utilities within the project limits will be removed and relocated underground. This work will be performed jointly by the successful bidder, SCE and Verizon. The work will require the Commission to enter into utility relocation and undergrounding agreements with SCE and Verizon. These agreements require the Commission to reimburse SCE and Verizon to perform the removal and undergrounding of its facilities. The agreements are currently being negotiated and will be executed, pursuant to legal counsel review, upon completion Agenda Item 13 32 " of the negotiations. The estimated not to exceed costs for these agreements are $190,000 for SCE and $175,000 for Verizon. Budget This project is jointly funded by RTA and the Commission. complete design and construction of Phase I is as follows: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5309 Passed-Thru From RTA FTA Transportation Enhancement ITE) Passed-Thru From RTA Transportation/Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Passed-Thru From RTA Commuter Assistance Measure A Rail Proposition 1 B Rail Measure A Funding for the $2,317,133 $1,352,472 $1,050,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $579.250 Total Budget: $7,298,855 This total budget amount includes the overall design costs, construction costs, utility relocation, street improvements, project oversight, permits, etc. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $5,000,000 Source of Funds: Federal FTA and TE Grant Funds, TUMF, and Measure A Funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 221 33 81301 P3816 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ji?e4j440,14.., Date: 10/15/2008 Agenda Item 13 33 WHO ARE THE PARTICIPATING AGENCIES EVALUATING THE PROJECT AND WHAT ARE THEIR ROLES? A project like the Mid County Parkway must be evaluated by transportation agencies at all levels of government: local, state, and federal. At the local level, RCTC is the lead agency. RCTC is Riverside County's primary transportation planning agency and administers the voter -approved Measure I /2 cent sales tax for transportation, regional projects funded by theTransportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF),and state and federal transportation allocations to the region. Projects include roadways, major transportation corridors, transit, commuter assistance, and commuter rail. The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are the state and federal transportation agencies, respectively. Each agency has different responsibilities in preparing the Draft EIR/EIS. FHWA is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act, RCTC is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, and Caltrans is providing oversight for the National Environmental Policy Act process. All agencies have responsibilities in the development of the studies and re- ports that contributed to the Draft EIR/EIS. In addition, through the agency partnership agreement for the project, Federal and State resource agencies have been involved in the development of the alternatives and review of the environmental studies.This cooperative effort meets the spirit of the Environmental Streamlining Executive Order. RCTC I• — Riverside County Transportation Commission 2ilfrc ? s RESOURCESAGEMCY CALIFORNIA 141 DEPARTMENT FISH @ GAME ftwpi' U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration JC4 STgTFS 2)' dr% yt, c ��r Z I, W O �,<,1.T44 PFOt- C'�O2 U.S. FISH & WILMA SERVICE US Army Corps of Engineers. WHERE CAN I REVIEW THE DRAFT EIR/EIS? RCTC 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Caltrans District 8 464 West 4th Street, 6th floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 Federal Highway Administration 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100 Sacramento, CA 95814-4708 City of Corona Public Works Department 400 S.Vicentia Ave., 2nd Floor, Suite 2 I 0 Corona, CA 92882-2187 Corona Public Library 650 S. Main St. Corona, CA 92882 Hemet Public Library 300 E. Latham Ave. Hemet, CA 92543 Perris Public Library 163 E. San Jacinto Ave. Perris, CA 92570 San Jacinto Public Library 500 Idyllwild Dr. San Jacinto, CA 92583 Woodcrest Public Library 17024 Van Buren Blvd. Riverside, CA 92504 The Draft EIR/EIS is also available for review on the internet at: www.midcountyparkway.org To better accommodate the public, a copy of the available for purchase at: OCB Reprographics 4295 Main Street Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 686-0530 Draft EIR/EIS is For individuals with sensory disabilities, please contact us to discuss availability of the Draft EIR/EIS in alternate formats. Please call or write to: Ms. Cathy Bechtel, RCTC P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 or use the California Relay Service (800) 735 -2929 (TTD/TTY), (800) 735 -2922 (voice). �lTY p sy �-1c/NTO— PUBLIC INVITED TO REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES The studies for the Mid County Parkway are now ready for review. The Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIR/EIS) describes the project. It describes alternatives for the project, the existing environment that could be affected by the project, the impacts from each of the alternatives, and the proposed avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures for these impacts. The studies are available on-line at www.midcountyparkway.org. It is also available at a number of public libraries and government offices (see page 8). MID COUNTY PARKWAY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS: Three Open House style public meetings will be held this month to discuss your questions.The consultants and staff who prepared the studies and the Draft EIR/EIS will be available to discuss your questions, one-on-one, about the project and the document. Drop in anytime between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.There will be no formal presentation. Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Eagle Glen Golf Course 1800 Eagle Glen Parkway Corona, CA 92883 Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m. Perris Senior Center 100 North D Street Perris, CA 92570 Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m. Valley Wide Recreation & Park District —Sports Center Meeting Room 901 West Esplanade Ave. San Jacinto, CA 92581 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Two Public Hearings on the Draft EIR/EIS are scheduled for November 6th and 12th before the RCTC Commissioners. The public is invited to make oral comments at these meetings. Written comments on the Draft EIR/EIS will be accepted through December 8, 2008. RCTC Commissioners will not be taking action on the project at these hearings. The comments received at these hearings will become part of the public record and will be addressed in the Final EIR/EIS. Thursday, November 6, 2008 6:00 p.m. City of Perris City Council Chambers 101 North D Street Perris, CA 92570 Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9: 30 a.m. Riverside County Administrative Center —Board Room 4080 Lemon Street, Main Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Riverside County Tronsportation Commission Volume 6: October 2008 WHAT ISTHE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT? The Mid County Parkway Project is a proposed 32-mile transportation corridor designed to relieve local and regional traffic congestion in the San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona areas, and surrounding Riverside County communities. The corridor was identi- fied as part of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) (see page 2), a regionwide plan- ning effort to ensure mobility and protect the environment and quality of life as our area continues to grow. WHY ISTHE MID COUNTY PARKWAY NEEDED? By 2030, Riverside County's population is expected to reach 3.5 million.All of the major transportation routes in the region are already experiencing significant congestion. While projects for each major roadway are being designed now to ease congestion and ensure future mobility, traffic in the area of the proposed Mid County Parkway is projected to double in some segments and increase as much as five times in others. Today, east -west traffic in our region is carried on 1-10, SR-60, SR-91 and SR-74.These major roadways provide links to the major north - south corridors: SR-79, I-215, and I- 15. Another east -west transportation link such as the Mid County Parkway, is essential to reduce congestion and maintain and enhance the quality of life in western Riverside County.The Mid County Parkway will provide logical connections with north -south corridors including the SR-79,the 1-215,and the 1-15. It will also serve multimodal bus and rail facilities planned as a part of the Perris Valley Line, Metrolink service that will connect Perris to Riverside. Without the Mid County Parkway, travel times from SR-79 to 1-15 will be more than an hour and a half (90 minutes) in 2035.With the Mid County Parkway, those travel times will be reduced to about 30 minutes. 7 HOWWERE THE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPED The Mid County Parkway project formally began in January 2004 when the need and purpose for the project were accepted by the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The need for the Mid County Parkway project was identified almost five years earlier, when RCTC and the County of Riverside launched the Riverside County Integrated Project —a multi -year process of evaluating future transportation needs, land use, and environmental protection measures to protect the region's quality of 7 life and environment. In 2000, RCTC identified four broad transportation corridors to meet future demands, including a corridor connecting the Hemet -San Jacinto area with the Lake Elsinore -Corona area. In 2002, in acknowledgement of the Coun- ty's innovative planning effort to integrate land use, environmental conservation and transportation needs, the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) was one of seven projects in the nation that received federal recogni- tion for environmental streamlining under an Executive Order from the White House. In June 2003, RCTC started project level studies for the Mid County Parkway. All studies and documents were completed in cooperation with participating local, state and federal agencies under a partnership agreement for environmental stewardship. Since January 2004, public meetings have been held at each phase of the project: to identify preliminary project alternative align- ments: to gather more public input on the preliminary alignment alternatives and to get input on refinements to the alternatives. These seven outreach meetings formed the basis for the alternatives that have been studied over the past three years. cn en w T Riverside County launches the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), an ambitious planning effort that integrates planning for: • Land use — a new County General Plan • Conservation — Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) • Transportation — Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) October 2000—August 2001 Seven public meetings on county wide transportation issues are held to gather community input, in addi- tion to 21 public meetings that are part of the larger RCIP process. c Draft Environmental N Studies for CETAP a identified a broad east- -I west transportation corridor now known as the Mid County Parkway. December 2002—January 2003 Five public meetings are held to hear public testimony about potential alternative alignments for the east -west CETAP corridor now known as the Mid County Parkway. M 0 0 N m _ 0 0 N �a RCTC approves the start of project -level environmental studies for Mid County Parkway. Official documents identify- ing the need and purpose of the project are accepted by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. v 0 N m a E m n n 0 RCTC launches a compre- hensive effort to provide the public information about Mid County Parkway, including a periodic news- letter and an informational web site. RCTC holds three public meetings to gather citizen and agency input to help develop preliminary project alternative alignments. c U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers and U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency a concur with preliminary m project alignments to o be studied. z RCTC and the project team begin engineering and environmental studies for the Draft EIR EIS. RCTC distributes a public newsletter identifying the alternatives to be studied and providing project back- ground and information. 199• 2002 I W November 2000 RCTC recommends that several broad transportation corridors undergo federal and state environmental analysis and documentation, including the corridor now known as Mid County Parkway. October2002 CETAP receives national recognition for environ- mental streamlining under White House Executive Order 13274. one of the first seven projects in the nation so recognized. October2003 The Riverside County Board of Supervisors votes to adopt RCIP, identifying Mid County Parkway as one of four top priority transportation corridors. Participating agencies, including RCTC, County of Riverside, Caltrans, and Federal Highway Adminis- tration sign a partnership agreement to expedite the environmental review process for Mid County Parkway. September 2004—April 2005 Metropolitan Water District and State Department of Water Resources express concerns about alignments near water facilities at Lake Mathews and Lake Perris. Caltrans conducts Value Analysis studies on the Mid County Parkway. WHAT HAPPENS NOW? Public information Open Houses and Public Hearings are scheduled in October and November 2008 to collect comments on the Draft EIRIEIS. There will be no forum for oral comments at the public information Open Houses. However, written comments will be accepted.These Open Houses will be an opportunity to talk one- on-one with staff, review the document, and learn more about the project. The Public Hearings will provide those who wish to speak an opportunity to comment before the RCTC Commissioners. Comment cards for written comments will be available at all meetings and members of the public may also comment by letter or email. Send Us Your Comments There is no difference between a written comment and an oral comment made at the public hearings. All are treated equally. Write to: Ms. Cathy Bechtel, RCTC, P.O. Box I2008, Riverside, CA 92502-2208 OR Mr.Tay Dam, Federal Highway Administration, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4- 100, Sacramento, CA 958I4-4708. Make your comments online at: www.midcountyparkway.org/comment The deadline for public comments on the Draft EIRIEIS is December 8, 2008. ABOUT THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY: • Isn't the Mid County Parkway a truck route? No. Although RCTC cannot designate who can use the Mid County Parkway, the overall purpose of the route is to provide a transportation parkway that will effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east -west mobility between and through Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto. The Mid County Parkway will provide increased capacity and relieve regional traffic congestion. In areas with steep grades, an additional lane is planned for trucks or other slow moving vehicles. • What are you doing to avoid wildlife reserves? The Mid County Parkway is designed to avoid reserves and protected lands as much as possible.The design also includes numerous wildlife crossings that will either span or pass under the Mid County Parkway to allow wildlife to safely move from one side of the parkway to the other. • How and when will RCTC acquire the property needed to build the Mid County Parkway? Right of way will be acquired close to the time of construction. RCTC must follow public laws and processes to purchase the property needed for the Mid County Parkway. Appraisals will be done near the time of needed acquisition and fair market value for the land will be offered. RCTC will work with the property owner to reach a fair price. If a price cannot be agreed upon, RCTC may adopt a Resolution of Necessity to invoke eminent domain, a process outlined in the U.S. Constitution and governed by state and federal law which allows government agencies to buy private property for a public purpose such as new roads, parks, schools, hospitals and police or fire stations. Through eminent domain, property owners are paid an amount deemed fair by the court, based on opinions of independent appraisers. • How will my comments be addressed? Will I get a personal, written response? All comments or questions received during the public comment period on the Draft EIR/EIS will be responded to in the Final EIRIEIS. We expect the preparation of the Final EIRIEIS will take several months. • What is a parkway? A divided highway with full or partial access control and with grade separations at local interchanges with major local arteri- als.The "facility" is designed to freeway/expressway standards as defined in Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM). • What will the Mid County Parkway look like? The photo below shows an example of what the parkway may look like. The number of lanes varies from two in each direction to four in each direction, depending upon the area, and includes a wide open median. Parkway " How can I submit my comments or questions about the Draft EIR/EIS? The public comment period runs from October 10  Decem- ber 8, 2008, Written comments may be submitted during this period. In addition,the public is encouraged to attend one of the three Open House public information meetings on the project scheduled for the last week of October (see page I ). Staff will be available to discuss your questions on the project,and accept written comments. Members of the public are also invited to make comments on the document in writing or orally at a Public Hearing. Each type of comment is treated equally in the evaluation process. " Why don't you just widen existing facilities (Cajalco Road and Ramona Expressway)? Why build a new road? In order to accommodate projected traffic in the area, the County's planned improvements to widen existing Cajalco Road and Ramona Expressway, as well as new lanes with limited access like the Mid County Parkway are needed. The technical studies revealed that there are actually greater impacts to homes and existing environmental reserves associated with the Mid County Parkway Alterna- tives located along the Cajalco and Ramona roadways due to required curve realignments and frontage roads for local access. " When will construction of the Mid County Parkway begin and where? Depending on the timing of RCTC Commission action,con- struction of the Mid County Parkway could begin in 2012. Decisions have not yet been made on whether construction would start on the east end, the west end, or the middle of the project. " How will the project be funded? The initial phase of the project has been funded mainly by Western Riverside County's Transportation Uniform Mitiga- tion Fees (TUMF).The project design, right-of-way acquisition and construction costs are anticipated to be funded by a com- bination of local Measure "A" % cent sales tax, local TUMF fees, state and federal funds. (2� NTY p��4,er  74 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS " What happens after a Final EIR/EIS is approved? If the Mid County Parkway is approved, three major tasks will need to be completed to build the project: final engi- neering, buying property where the road will be built, and constructing the project. The final engineering phase will produce construction level plans that can be used to build the Mid County Parkway. The engineering phase will also more clearly identify the right-of-way required for the project. " Where is the proposed route for the Mid County Parkway? A final route for the project has not yet been approved. In September 2007, the Riverside County Transportation Commission selected Alternative 9 (TWS DV) as its preferred route for the parkway from among five "build" alternatives within a large study area. A map of the routes is shown on pages 4 and 5. Studies show Alternative 9 (TWS DV) is least environmen- tally damaging compared to the other build alternatives in virtually every key criteria category, including cost, impacts to the environment and impacts to the community. However, a final route will not be selected until after certification of the Final EIR/EIS and project approval by the Commission. " Did RCTC's identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative mark the final approval of the project? No. The final alternative will be approved after review and comment by the public, resource agencies and local governments. RCTC will consider taking an action on a final alternative for the project next year. " What is the purpose of the Draft EIRJEIS? The Draft EIR/EIS examines the Mid County Parkway's environmental impacts including air quality; biological resources such as plant life, wildlife and their habitat; community impacts such as existing land uses, housing, employment and population conditions; cultural resources; floodplains; geology and soils; hazardous waste sites; noise; public services and utilities; parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges; local traffic conditions; the visual character of the project area; and water resources. " Where can I review Draft EIR/EIS? You can review the Draft EIR/EIS at the offices of participating government agencies, numerous area public libraries, at public meetings, and on the internet at www.midcountyparkway.org. For complete list of options, see page 8. HOW WERE THE ALTERNATIVES STUDIED? From September 2004 through April 2005, Caltrans conducted "value analysis" studies on the project. Metropolitan Water District and the State Department of Water Resources commented on alternatives close to the Lake Mathews and Lake Perris dams. The Value Analysis process included representatives from our transportation partners with the objective to offer engineering and operational improvements.These studies led to the addition of an alternative south of those previously considered, the removal of the alternative north of Lake Mathews and relocation of the alternative near Lake Perris.These changes were presented to the public in a newsletter and at a public meeting in August 2005. The participating agencies agreed this set of refined alternatives would undergo 1 c RCTC distributes a public N newsletter with information a about progress on the project and informing them of an upcoming public meeting. 1 c RCTC receives preliminary N agreement from participating agencies E on the revised project alternatives to undergo c environmental study. c RCTC holds a public N meeting to seek public y input on refinements to the o, project alternatives that a came from value analysis. c RCTC holds three scoping N meetings to seek public d input on the preliminary project alternatives, and at environmental issues to a be addressed in the Draft EIR/EIS. (4D RCTC distributes a public N newsletter giving updates a on the alternatives under o study and providing other c project information. September 2007 Participating agencies c agree that RCTC may N move forward in choosing R a locally preferred E alternative. RCTC requests and receives final agreement from participating agencies on the list of project alternatives to be carried forward in the environmental study process. study in the Draft EIR/EIS. From 2005 to date, all aspects of the Mid County Parkway alternatives have been subject to careful scrutiny. An important part of the studies were social and economic impacts including effects on communities, in particular the displacement of homes and businesses. Additional studies evaluated the impacts each alternative would have on biological resources including plants, animals and their habitats. Other studies evaluated impacts to water resources, habitat reserves, parks, cultural resources, and land use. Noise,air quality, geology and other environmental factors were also evaluated for each alternative. During the course of the work, cost was also evaluated as were engineering considerations. RCTC votes to select Alternative 9 TWS DV as the Locally Preferred Alternative for Mid County Parkway based on the find- ings of the draft technical studies. RCTC distributes a public newsletter with information and background on RCTC's decision. 0 O N N d n a w r` 0 0 N m Final completion of Q technical studies for cn the Draft EIR/EIS. HAT HAPPENS NEXT? After comments on the Draft EIR/ EIS are received from the public and reviewing agencies, FHWA, Caltrans, and RCTC will prepare a Final EIR/EIS. The Final EIR/EIS will include responses to comments received on the Draft EIR/EIS. The approval of the Final EIR/EIS follows different processes under CEQA and NEPA. Under CEQA, after the Final EIR is complete, the RCTC Commissioners will consider two separate actions: I) to certify the Final EIR, and, 2) to approve the project. This will likely occur in mid to late 2009. Following RCTC's action, FHWA will then make the Final EIS available for a 30 day public review period. Following this 30 day public review period, FHWA will prepare and may approve a Record of Decision, which is the final step in the NEPA process. o Public information N Open Houses. (6' M 1 November 6,12, 2008 Public Hearings on the Draft EIR/EIS. No RCTC Commission action. a) 0 O N Release of Final EIRIEIS, including responses to com- ments on the Draft EIR/EIS and RCTC Commission action on project approval. c Final engineering a design and right of way m acquisition. a c 0 N Possible start of construction c depending on c funding. N 6 Obtain other environmental N approvals and permits. Draft EIR/EIS released; public hearings, and comment period. RCTC distributes a newsletter inviting public comment and summarizing process to date. �% a N O - a N CO CD .11 Public Meetings RCTC Actions ISTHERE A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FORTHE PRO ECT? Yes. In September 2007, RCTC identified Alternative 9 with the Temescal Wash (TWS) Design Variation (DV) as its locally preferred alternative. RCTC made this decision because the studies revealed that Alternative 9 (TWS DV) had the least overall project impacts. In addition, Alternative 9 (TWS DV) required fewer property acquisitions and displaced fewer occupants and employees.The preferred alternative is also the least expensive for right of way acquisition and construction. t MID COUNTY PARKWAY SOUTH LAKE MATHEWS (ALTERNATIVES 4, 5) GENERAL PLAN (ALTERNATIVES 6,7) Lake Mathews HOW DO THE ALTERNATIVES COMPARE? For a description of how the studies arrived at the options below, see pages 2 and 3. ALTERNATIVE 9 AND RCTC LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 9(TVVS DV)* COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES 4, 5, 6,7 ORANGE PERRIS VALLEY STORM DRAIN (ALTERNATIVES 4, 6) PERRIS SOUTH (ALTERNATIVES 5, 7) 114 Lake Perris COMMON TO ALL Proposed Connections CRITERIA ALTERNATIVE 4 ALTERNATIVE 5 ALTERNATIVE 13 ALTERNATIVE 7 ALTERNATIVE 9 LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATNE 9 (TWS DV)' O Cost -Construction and Right of Way Socioeconomic/ Community Threatened and Endangered Species Existing Habitat Reserves Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Parks Cultural Resources Land Use Water Resources, Aquatic Ecosystem $ 3.64 billion 351 estimated residential units relocated • 6.1 acres of least Bell's vireo habitat impacted • 33.5 acres of Coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat impacted • 157.6 acres of Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat impacted • 2.9 acres of San Bernardino kangaroo rat critical habitat impacted Impacts 449 total acres, including: • 263.2 acres impacted within Lake Mathews Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan • 22.4 acres impacted within El Sobrante Landfill Habitat Conservation Plan • 163.4 additional acres impacted within Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan 381.4 acres of impacts to Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Criteria Area Reduction of 2.36 acres of El Cerrito Sports Park Impacts 2 Native American sacred sites 2,786.2 total acres impacted 966.8 acres of farmland impacted 24.8 total acres of aquatic resources $ 3.40 billion 305 estimated residential units relocated • 6.1 acres of least Bell's vireo habitat impacted • 33.5 acres of Coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat impacted • 157.6 acres of Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat impacted • 2.9 acres of San Bernardino kangaroo rat critical habitat impacted Impacts 449 total acres including: • 263.2 acres impacted within Lake Mathews Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan • 22.4 acres impacted within El Sobrante Landfill Habitat Conservation Plan • 163.4 additional acres impacted within Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan 406.8 acres of impacts to Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Criteria Area Reduction of 2.36 acres of El Cerrito Sports Park Impacts 2 Native American sacred sites 2,704.1 total acres impacted 915.3 acres of farmland impacted 22.9 total acres of aquatic resources $ 3.76 billion 336 estimated residential units relocate( • 8.5 acres of least Bell's vireo habitat i • 0 acres of Coastal California gnatcatc critical habitat impacted • 140.0 acres of Quino checkerspot but habitat impacted • 2.9 acres of San Bernardino kangaroo critical habitat impacted npacted ier terfly critical rat Impacts 546.8 total acres, including: • 469.8 acres impacted within Lake Mathews Multiple Species Habitat Conservation: Plan • 0.0 acres impacted within El Sobrante Landfill Habitat Conservation Plan • 77 additional acres impacted within 31;1phens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan 638.0 acres of impacts to Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Criteria Area Reduction of 2.36 acres of El Cerrito Sports Park Impacts 2 Native American sacred sites 3,289.1 total acres impacted 1,052.2 acres of farmland impacted 27.5 total acres of aquatic resources $ 3.51 billion 290 estimated residential units relocated • 8.5 acres of least Bell's vireo habitat impacted • 0 acres of Coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat impacted •140.0 acres of Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat impacted • 2.9 acres of San Bernardino kangaroo rat critical habitat impacted Impacts 546.8 total acres, including: • 469.8 acres impacted within Lake Mathews Mul- tiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan • 0.0 acres impacted within El Sobrante Landfill Habitat Conservation Plan • 77 additional acres impacted within Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan 663.4 acres of impacts to Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Criteria Area Reduction of 2.36 acres of El Cerrito Sports Park Impacts 2 Native American sacred sites 3,206.9 total acres impacted 1,000.6 acres of farmland impacted 25.8 total acres of aquatic resources $ 3.18 billion 268 estimated residential units relocated • 2.2 acres of least Bell's vireo habitat impacted • 40.1 acres of Coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat impacted • 327.6 acres of Quin° checkerspot butterfly critical habitat impacted • 2.9 acres of San Bernardino kangaroo rat critical habitat impacted Impacts 193.6 total acres, including: • 0 acres impacted within Lake Mathews Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan • 22.1 acres impacted within El Sobrante Landfill Habitat Conservation Plan • 171.5 additional acres impacted within Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan 634.5 acres of impacts to Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Criteria Area • Reduction of 2.36 acres of El Cerrito Sports Park • Net increase of 1.57 acres of Paragon Park Impacts 1 Native American sacred site 2,636.9 total acres impacted 822.2 acres of farmland impacted 19.0 total acres of aquatic resources $ 2.98 billion 200 estimated residential units relocated • 2.2 acres of least Bell's vireo habitat • 40.1 acres of final Coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat • 327.6 acres of final Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat • 2.9 acres of final San Bernardino kangaroo rat critical habitat Impacts 193.6 total acres, including: • 0 acres impacted within Lake Mathews Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan • 22.1 acres impacted within El Sobrante Landfill Habitat Conservation Plan • 171.5 additional acres impacted within Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan 634.5 acres of impacts to Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Criteria Area Net increase of 1.57 acres of Paragon Park Impacts 1 Native American sacred site 2,592.7 total acres impacted 822.2 acres of farmland impacted 18.6 total acres of aquatic resources The difference between Alternative 9 and Alternative 9 (TWS DV) is a design variation at 1-15. Alternative 9 includes a more substantial collector -distributor (CD) road system, therefore greater right of way is needed. Least Impacts Alternative 9 (TWS DV) has a modification at El Cerrito/I-15 Interchange which reduces the need for the CD road system and less right of way.