Loading...
01 January 12, 2009 Technical Advisory86319 TIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTE MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. January 12, 2009 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA Conference Room A, 3rd Floor Records *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS *aye Barakian, City of Palm Springs ill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Duane Burk, City of Banning Ron Carr, City of Perris Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Patrick Hally, Caltrans District 8 Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Jonathan Hoy, City of Desert Hot Springs Bill Hughes, City of Temecula Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake & San Jacinto Les Nelson, PVVTA Juan Perez, County of Riverside Amad Qattan, City of Corona Tom Rafferty, City of Indio Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Anne Schneider, City of Calimesa Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Bill Thompson, City of Norco PaulToor, City of Coachella Chris Vogt, City of Moreno Valley Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells John Wilder, City of Beauimont Commission Staff Anne Mayer, Executive Director Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager 11.36.02 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: January 12, 2009 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA Conference Room A, 3'd Floor In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. SB 375 COORDINATION (Verbal Presentation) 6. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (Attachment) • FEDERAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY (STIMULUS) • STATE BUDGET • 7. STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM GUIDELINES (Attachment) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 12, 2009 Page 2 8. CALTRANS UTILITIES UPDATE (Attachment) 9. LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE (Verbal Presentation) 10. ONLINE MILESTONE REPORTING (Attachment) 11. RTIP UPDATE (Attachment) 12. COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS (Verbal Presentation) 13. OTHER BUSINESS 14. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be February 9, 2009, 10:00 A.M., at Beaumont City Hall, Conference Room #2, 550 East Sixth Street.) MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 17, 2008 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside. County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:05 A.M. at Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Ed Basubas, City of Lake Elsinore Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Greg Butler, City of Temecula Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Patrick Nally, Caltrans District 8 Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Michael Kashiwagi, City of Wildomar Prem Kumar, City of Moreno Valley Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris & San Jacinto Kahono Oei, City of Banning Juan Perez, County of Riverside Tom Rafferty, City of Indio Anne Schneider, City of Calimesa Bret Teebken, RTA Paul Toor, City of Coachella Others Present: • Grace Alvarez, RCTC Patricia Castillo, RCTC Eliza Echevarria, RCTC Jillian Edmiston, RCTC Shirley Gooding, RCTC Brian Guillot, City of Banning Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Tanya Love, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Sheldon Peterson, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 17, 2008 Page 2 3. Approval of Minutes October 20, 2008 Minutes were approved as submitted. 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. PROP 1A HIGH SPEED RAIL UPDATE Sheldon Peterson, ROTC, reported that the High Speed Rail bond measure passed and the California High -Speed Rail Authority will develop a service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. It does provide some funding for alternative routes. The California High -Speed Rail Authority has been working with SLAG, RCTC, SANBAG and SANDAG as well as the San Diego Airport Authority to explore developing an extension of the high speed rail connection from Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire. A series of. Riverside County Technical Working Groups (TWG) will commence on Wednesday, November 19, 1:00-4:30 p.m. at RCTC. The High -Speed Rail Authority sent information to the cities in the western area of Riverside and invited city staff to attend the meetings. Mr. Peterson provided a set of maps of the proposed alignment for the TAC members to view. The purpose of the TWG is to solicit input for alignment and station options, review concept alignment and station options at critical locations, and review and provide input on the final concept study. 6. GRADE SEPARATION FUNDING PLAN Tanya Love, RCTC, provided a brochure, "2008 Funding Strategy for Grade Separation in Riverside County." She stated that the Blueprint for Advancing Projects would be used as part of RCTC's legislative platform to get further funding for goods movement. Ms. Love reviewed the highlights of the brochure and reported that Senator Boxer is pleased with the information and requested that staff develop a tri-fold booklet that will show the impact of goods movement as it leaves California and the economic impact goods movement has across the country. Staff intends to update the brochure every two years. In response to a question regarding the final priority ranking in Appendix A, page 23, Ms. Love indicated that additional crossings have been added. She further • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 17, 2008 Page 3 responded that $97 million of Prop 1B TCIF funds had been allocated by the California Transportation Commission for the Colton Crossing project. BNSF and UP had milestones to meet by entering into an agreement by certain dates. They have missed those key dates and the CTC is currently discussing whether the $97 million should be reallocated. Tanya Love called attention to the priority listing on page 3 and summarized the groups shown and stated that any project that has TCIF funding must be shown as fully supported, fully funded. The California Transportation Commission has stated that any project that shows container fees or PUC funds must also identify the use of local funds in the event these fund types are not realized. 7. SUNLINEJCVAG AUDIT RESOLUTION Shirley Medina, RCTC, provided her staff report that will go to the November 24, 2008 Budget and Implementation Committee followed by the December Commission meeting. There was an audit done by Caltrans Federal Highway and the results were included in a February report. They looked at PM 10 program obligations that were done on behalf of SunLine through CVAG. Some of the processes were not followed correctly; therefore, CVAG was required to repay over $5 million. Rather than CVAG repaying it outright, Federal Highways took some of the obligational authority from Caltrans. In order for CVAG to repay Caltrans, Caltrans took obligational authority that would have gone to Riverside County and it will be kept for state highway projects. The way the repayment is being accomplished is through the deobligation of some projects that CVAG recently approved in their latest CMAQ call for projects. Two of the projects are SunLine's and one is Palm Desert's Mid -Valley Bike Path. In addition to the $2.6 million, the balance is $2.5 million and it was agreed to take that from CVAG's next apportionment from the next transportation act. Palm Desert will review other funding for the Mid -Valley Bike Path. The projects will not be delayed and should remain on track. This was a collaborative effort with Federal Highways, CVAG, Caltrans and SunLine to resolve the issue. M/S/C (Perez/Barakian) to approve CVAG's request to deprogram three projects previously approved for Congestion Mitigation and air Quality (CMAQ) funds in the amount of $2,636,997; Reduce the Salton Sea Air Basis (SSAB) CMAQ funding by $2,552,971 in the next federal transportation authorization; Authorize the Executive Director to enter into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 09-66-51-00 with Caltrans Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 17, 2008 Page 4 regarding payment of disallowable CMAQ funds, pursuant to legal counsel review. 8. PROGRAMMING UPDATE (STIP, RTIP, ETC.) Shirley Medina provided a document entitled, "Required Emissions Modeling for Transportation Conformity" and stated that there are some issues with modeling years and if the model years, the actual open traffic year, are changed and it crosses over a model year, an amendment will have to be done not only to the RTIP but to the RTP. This process could delay the environmental document by six to nine months. The environmental document traffic date and the model date in the TIP must be the same. She drew attention to the second page of the document regarding the model years for the 2008 RTP as well as Project Delay Examples. Regarding the STIP and the updates to it, it is unknown what will go on with the current STIP. The state budget is still in jeopardy and more cuts are expected. With the budget cuts still looming, Prop 42 may still be impacted. Over the next couple of years, there is $200 million programmed for projects, including the Bob Hope project and the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Extension project. CVAG is reviewing prioritization of some of the interchanges for which it has included STIP funding. Bob Hope should go to construction in January or February of 2009, followed closely by Date Palm and I-10 at Indian as well as the Palm Drive Interchange. The 91 HOV lanes and the SR 91/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange will be coming up in the next couple of years; meetings will have to be scheduled with the City of Riverside to determine how funding will impact their projects. The construction of the French Valley Interchange will follow the 91 HOV and SR 91/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange. Grace Alvarez, RCTC, indicated that the 2008 RTIP is scheduled for approval today. The 2008 RTP Amendment No. Land the 2008 RTIP Amendment No. 1, also known as the consistency amendment completed the 30-day review comment period on November 7th. SCAG's Regional Council will consider the RTP Amendment No. 1 approval at its December 4t' meeting. Subsequent to the Regional Council approval, SCAG will forward the 2008 RTIP to Ca!trans for review and approval. Final approval by FHWA is anticipated for mid -January 2009. • • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 17, 2008 Page 5 The 2008 RTIP Amendment No. 2 is currently under review by SCAG and the public review comment will start on December 8th and end on December 23rd. SCAG will address any comments received and will forward to Caltrans for review and approval and subsequent submittal to FHWA for approval. Amendment No. 4, which most likely will be an administrative amendment, will be due to SCAG by mid -January 2009. Project changes from the local agencies need to be submitted to RCTC by December 8th. Official notification with the final dates for submittal will be sent to the TAC sometime next month. 9. OTHER BUSINESS Dave Barakian reported that at last week's CVAG TAC meeting there was considerable discussion about the interchanges in the Coachella Valley. The City Managers came down rather hard on CVAG's executive director and consultant. In summary, if there is plenty of Measure A money for the interchanges, even at the current cost estimate, as long as there is some STIP money available the projects can be implemented. If not, the interchanges are basically competing for the Measure A money because they cannot all be built if STIP gets taken away. A special joint meeting with the TAC and CVAG executive committee on the interchanges is being convened. Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris and San Jacinto asked if a list of projects for the federal economic stimulus package had been prepared. Shirley Medina responded that staff is still gathering the information on the projects that were submitted. The project has taken a little bit of a back seat because of the ongoing auto industry bailout that is currently high on Congress's mind. The actual economic stimulus package could go out in a bill format which most likely will be finalized by February 2009. The federal government wants to see major national type projects, e.g., goods movement, interstate projects and major infrastructure projects. Some of the projects that the local agencies have submitted and some of the projects that RCTC included may not meet their criteria. At this point, RCTC will wait to hear from congressional leaders on the types of projects that should be submitted for economic stimulus funds. Ms. Medina indicated that the Caltrans master agreement for utility relocation will be discussed regarding the conflict with the agreement overriding the local agencies agreement with the utility companies on non -state right of way. Caltrans Headquarters has prepared an issue statement and a resolution that it believes will be accepted. District 8 has met with the county transportation department on their projects and headquarters is updating its policies that should help resolve issues dealing with right of way utilities. It is hoped that Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 17, 2008 Page 6 within the next month or two District 8 will send a representative to share information with the TAC. Ms. Medina reported that the large conference room in Banning City Hall will no longer be available for TAC meeting usage in 2009 because Banning will be using the room for its Monday morning staff meetings. The room would be available from 1:00 to 3:00; however the consensus of the TAC members is that the meetings should continue to be held on Monday mornings. Shirley Medina stated that a survey would be taken for meeting location suggestions from the TAC. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:45 A.M. The next meeting is scheduled for January 12, 2009, 10:00 A.M., Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA. Respectfully submitted, The Shirley Medi Programming and Planning Manager • AGENDA ITEM 5 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 5. AGENDA ITEM 6 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Economic Recovery (Stimulus) Legislation Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to receive and file a report on Federal Economic Recovery Legislation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Shortly after the General Election, widespread discussion began on Capitol Hill about creating a federal economic stimulus ("recovery") package that would fund infrastructure. The intent of such a package would be to create construction -related jobs by spending new federal money on infrastructure projects that are ready to go to construction in a short time frame and use the money as an incentive to build the projects sooner. Since November, the discussion has evolved considerably, and it now appears likely that major federal legislation containing infrastructure spending will be signed by President-elect Obama shortly after he is sworn into office. Commission staff has undertaken proactive measures to outreach to cities and the County, as well as transit agencies, to identify projects of all types that can begin construction quickly under various different scenarios rumored to be under consideration by Congress. Several different project lists have been created locally, statewide, and nationally with varying parameters; the significance of these lists is mostly to determine the need for stimulus funding. The details of a federal stimulus bill continue to be a moving target. Initially it appeared that a bill would be on the President's desk by Inauguration Day, while now that seems less likely and a more realistic date may be sometime in February. Commission staff is engaged heavily in many venues where this subject is being discussed locally, in Sacramento, and in Washington. The House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee as well as the House Appropriations Committee are in the midst of drafting language. Chairman Jim Oberstar of the House T&I Committee has released a conceptual outline for the stimulus bill; however the Obama Transition Team, including Secretary of State Nominee Ray LaHood, have yet to publically weigh- in on specifics they expect to see in the bill. 1 In this report, staff will outline what is known, as well as informed speculation about the direction that things appear to be headed. Formula Program, No Earmarks From the beginning, it has been clear that there is no appetite for an Economic Recovery bill riddled with earmarks. Given that the President-elect campaigned on a mantra of changing the way. Washington "does business", it is difficult to envision a scenario where the first bill he signs contains billions of dollars of earmarks for specific projects. Therefore, it is expected that transportation funds will be allocated on a formula basis. It is likely that the formula will, at the very least, allocate the money to the states on a "use it or lose it" basis. Stimulus Legislation Requires Action in Both Washington and Sacramento While it appears that Washington will send money directly to states for spending on "shelf -ready" projects, it is less clear whether Congress will require the states to sub- allocate the money to regions, or if a separate set of funds will be appropriated specifically for local use. This lack of clarity has generated significant activity in Sacramento over what to do with potentially tens of billions of dollars that could be headed to California, with little time to deliberate once the funds are received (potentially as early as February). In Sacramento, staff has been advocating that the lion's share of any discretionary formula funds from the stimulus be sub -allocated to regions for use by transportation commissions and authorities such as RCTC. A portion of these funds could be set - aside by the regions for discretionary use by cities and counties. Staff believes that the State deserves an off--the-top portion of the monies to use on the large backlog of highway rehabilitation and maintenance projects, while allowing county transportation agencies to use a majority of the funds to add capacity to the system on large job - creating projects. With the dire state budget situation and the Treasurer's inability to sell infrastructure bonds, there is a potential for stimulus funds to: "backfill" previous state commitments that can no longer be funded. Staff advises that the Commission take the position that the State must resolve its budget problems and fulfill its commitments to transportation and use federal stimulus dollars to add new money to the system, rather than use it to relieve the state of its obligations. Moreover Chairman Oberstar has expressed his belief that federal dollars should have an additive funding impact instead of replacing funding that has already been committed by states or other government agencies. Further, staff has been advocating alongside regional partners that stimulus funding should be accompanied by policy measures to accelerate project delivery through streamlining approval processes and waiving administrative rules that can add months to a project. Mobility 21, a coalition of business and governments in Southern California, has been a leading voice through which RCTC has been providing input to Congress and the Schwarzenegger Administration. • 2 • • Summary The Commission will continue to remain deeply involved in federal and state legislative discussions on economic stimulus funding for infrastructure. This is clearly a changing environment where it is difficult to predict what is going to happen on any given day. Decisions with tremendous consequences will be made at very high levels in rapid succession. The Commission seeks to have as much influence as possible to ensure that stimulus funds are spent on job -creating projects in Riverside County, and ideally on projects that are regionally significant and have an impact on congestion and air quality. This is also an opportunity to push reforms to federal and state transportation programs while there is a sense of urgency among policymakers to accelerate public works and create construction -related jobs. A delegation of Commissioners is preparing to travel to Washington, DC in early February to discuss economic recovery legislation with key members of Congress — and will report back on their findings at the Commission's Workshop in February. Commission staff, lobbyists, and board members will remain on standby 24-7 throughout the next several weeks as the final legislation develops. Attachments: 1) T&I Committee Proposal for Allocating Economic Recovery funds 3 • • PROCESS FOR ENSURING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN USE OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS ➢ Within one week of enactment, Federal agency allocates formula funds. ➢ Within 10 days of receipt of allocations, each State submits to DOT its "90- Day Program of Projects" demonstrating how it intends to meet the requirement that 50 percent of funds be obligated (with contracts awarded) within 90 days of the date of allocation. ➢ Together with the 90-Day Program of Projects, each State submits a one- time certification, signed by the Governor, that the State will maintain its effort with regard to State funding for the types of infrastructure projects that received funding in the economic recovery supplemental appropriation. ➢ In addition, each State submits a certification, signed by the Governor, that the 90-Day Program of Projects represents an equitable distribution of funds within the State. ➢ The Programs of Projects and the State certifications will be made publicly available. ➢ Within 30 days of enactment, DDT's first periodic report is due to Congress. This is the first of six reports, at the following intervals: 30 days, 60 days, 120 days, 180 days, one year, and three years after the date of enactment. This first report will focus on the 90-Day Program of Projects, and begin the process of tracking the use of funds. This report, and each subsequent report, will track the following: • the amount of funds apportioned, allocated, obligated, and outlayed; • the number of projects that have been put out to bid and the amount of funds associated with such projects; • the number of projects for which contracts have been awarded and the amount of funds associated with such projects; • the number of projects on which work has begun under such contracts; • the number of such contracts that have been completed; • the number of jobs created or sustained by the Federal funds provided, including information on job sector and pay levels; and • maintenance of effort, as measured by comparing planned State spending levels as of the date of enactment of economic recovery act to actual State spending levels that have occurred since enactment. ➢ Use It Or Lose It: Any funds in the 90-Day Programs of Projects that are not obligated (based on awarded contracts) within 90 days of receipt of allocation will be redistributed by DOT to other States using a process similar to the August redistribution process currently used by FHWA. ➢ Within 180 days of receipt of allocations, each State submits to DOT a Program of Projects demonstrating how they intend to meet the requirement that the remaining 50 percent of funds be obligated within one year of the date of enactment. In addition, each State submits a certification, signed by the Governor, that such Program of Projects represents an equitable distribution of funds within the State. The Programs of Projects and the State certifications will be made publicly available. • • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the State -Local Partnership Program (SLPP) Guidelines that were adopted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) at its December 11, 2008 meeting. The SLPP guidelines were developed for the implementation of the Prop 1 B SLPP that sets aside $1 billion to match funds that are generated by counties, cities, districts, and regional agencies that have voter approved fees or taxes solely dedicated to transportation improvements. Funding for this program is on a formula basis, Riverside County will receive approximately $11 million for fiscal year 2008/09. The funding distribution will be allocated and prepared on an annual basis with the initial allocation occurring at the CTC's April 2009 meeting. There are two programs established under the SLPP: 1) the Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees Subaccount (95%) and; 2) the Uniform Developer Fees Subaccount (5%). The SLPP requires a dollar for dollar match and for these funds to be used for construction or equipment acquisition. The Uniform Developer Fees Subaccount has a maximum limit of $1 million per project and is a competitive grant program that will be evaluated and approved by CTC. RCTC will be reviewing projects that would be eligible for the 95% Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees Subaccount and will not be making any recommendations until there is a better understanding of the federal economic stimulus bill and state budget actions. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Adoption of State -Local Partnership Program (SLPP) Guidelines December 11, 2008 RESOLUTION SLPIB-G-0809-01 1.1 WHEREAS the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, authorized $1 billion to be deposited in the State -Local Partnership Program (SLPP) Account, and 1.2 WHEREAS the Bond Act provides that funds in the SLPP Account shall be available to the California Transportation Commission, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for allocation over a five-year period to eligible transportation projects nominated by an applicant transportation agency, and 1.3 WHEREAS implementation legislation for the Bond Act enacted in 2007 (SB 88 and AB 193) designated the Commission as the administrative agency for the State -Local Partnership Program Account and mandated that program guidelines provide for audits of expenditures and outcomes, require that project nominations identify a project's useful life and delivery milestones, and require recipient agencies to report on progress made toward project implementation, and 1.4 WHEREAS implementing legislation . specific to the SLPP was enacted as AB 268 (2008), which mandates that the Commission develop and adopt guidelines for the program, adopt the initial program of projects and make initial allocations to projects at the Commission's meeting in April 2009, and 1.5 WHEREAS a draft of proposed SLPP guidelines prepared by Commission staff was made available to the Department and regional agencies on October I, 2008 and the Commission held its first hearing on the guidelines at its October 29, 2008 meeting in Riverside, and 1.6 WHEREAS Commission staff has prepared a revised draft dated November 25, 2008 that responds to questions and comments received at the first hearing and in other communications, including a teleconference with the regional transportation planning agencies on November 13, 2008, and 1.7 WHEREAS the Commission held its second hearing on the guidelines at its December 10, 2008 in Oakland, and 1.8 WHEREAS several regional agencies have asked that prior expenditures qualify for match or reimbursement for allocations made over multiple years, and 1.9 WHEREAS Government Code Section 8879.71 requires the Commission to distribute the funds from each annual appropriation to the SLPP Account between the Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees Subaccount (95%) and the Uniform Developer Fees Subaccount (5%), and 1.10 WHEREAS Government Code Section 8879.72 requires the Commission to establish funding shares for each eligible applicant for funding from the Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees Subaccount prior to the commencement of each annual funding cycle, and • 1.11 WHEREAS Commission staff, in accordance with Sections- 8879.71 and 8879.72, has prepared a calculation of 2008-09 SLPP funding shares and distributed it for review with the draft guidelines, 2.1 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission adopts the SLPP. guidelines, as presented by staff on December 11, 2008, and 2.2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the purpose of these guidelines is to identify the Commission's policy and expectations for the SLPP and thus to provide guidance to eligible applicants and implementing agencies in carrying out their responsibilities under the program, and 2.3 BE IT. FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission intends to approve letters of no prejudice as part of its annual program of projects if it has received legislative authority to do so, and that the Commission intends that approval of a letter of no prejudice would authorize an eligible applicant for formula funding shares to expend its own funds in advance of a supplemental allocation and to have those funds qualify for reimbursement and the required local match, and 2.4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these guidelines do not preclude any project nomination or any project selection that is consistent with the Bond Act and the implementing legislation in Chapter 12.491 (commencing with Section 8879.50) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, and 2.5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission approves the distribution of funds and the establishment of SLPP formula funding shares for 2008-09 as presented by staff on December 11, 2008, and 2.6 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission directs staff to post these guidelines and the 2008-09 funding distribution and formula funding shares on the Commission's website and requests that the Department assist Commission staff in making copies available to eligible applicants and implementing agencies. • • CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Adopted December 11, 2008 General Program Policy 1. Authority and purpose of guidelines. The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, .authorized $1 billion to be deposited in the State -Local Partnership Program (SLPP) Account to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for allocation by the California Transportation Commission over.a five-year period to eligible transportation projects nominated by an applicant transportation agency. The Bond Act required a dollar for dollar match of local funds for an applicant agency to receive state funds under the program. In 2008, the Legislature enacted implementing legislation (AB 268) to add Article 11 (commencing with Section 8879.66) to Chapter 12.491 of Division l of Title 2 of the Government Code. Article 11 defines the purpose and intent of the program, defines the eligibility of applicants, projects, and matching funds, and provides that 95% of program funds will be distributed by formula to match voter -approved transportation taxes and fees and that the remaining 5% will be available for a competitive grant application program to match uniform developer fees. Section 8879.74 requires the Commission to adopt an annual program of projects for the program and to develop and adopt guidelines to implement the program, consistent with Article 11. Initial project allocations are to be made by April 2009. Earlier legislation to implement the Bond Act (SB 88, 2007) designated the Commission as the administrative agency for the SLPP and mandated that various administrative and reporting requirements be incorporated in the guidelines for all programs established by Proposition 1B. 2. Program of Projects. The Commission will adopt an annual program of projects for the SLPP, by April 2009 for 2008-09 and by October for each fiscal year thereafter. The program will consist of projects nominated by eligible applicants for the formula program and projects selected by the Commission under the competitive grant program to match uniform developer fees. SLPP project funding will match eligible local funding for project construction or equipment acquisition, consistent with Section 8879.70. The Commission will not program or allocate SLPP funding to match local funding for preconstruction work. The program of projects for each fiscal year will include, for each project, the amount to be funded from the SLPP, the source of the dollar -for -dollar match of SLPP funding, and the estimated total cost of project construction or equipment acquisition, including any additional supplementary funding. The source of the dollar -for -dollar match will include only revenues from the transportation tax or fee that qualifies the applicant for SLPP funding and only funds to be expended after the Commission allocation of SLPP funds. State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 2 Adopted December 11, 2008 The Commission will program and allocate funding to projects in whole thousands of dollars and will include a project only if it is fully funded from a combination of SLPP and other committed funding. The Commission will regard funds as committed when they are programmed by the Commission or when the agency with discretionary authority over the funds has made its commitment to the project by ordinance or resolution. For federal formula funds, including RSTP, CMAQ, and federal- formula transit funds, the commitment may be by federal TIP adoption. For federal discretionary funds, the commitment may be by federal approval of a full funding grant agreement or by grant approval. The Commission's annual SLPP program of projects will also include multiyear programs of projects for SLPP funding that eligible applicants may elect to adopt and submit to the Commission. The Commission will include these multiyear programs for informational purposes, acknowledging the future plans and intent of the eligible applicants. The inclusion of an applicant multiyear program, however, will not constitute a programming commitment by the Commission for future year funding. Formula Program for Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees 3. Annual Funding Shares. The Commission will adopt the annual funding share for each eligible applicant for the Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees Subaccount with the adoption of these guidelines for 2008-09 and prior to the beginning of each subsequent fiscal year. These shares will be determined in accordance with Govemment Code Section 8879.72 and rounded to the nearest whole thousand dollars. In establishing funding shares, the Commission will use the following: • For toll revenues, the sum of revenues from Regional Measures 1 and 2 for the second prior fiscal year (e.g., 2006-07 data for 2008-09 funding shares), as reported in audited financial statements from the Bay Area Toll Authority. • For parcel and property tax revenues, the revenues for the second prior fiscal year (e.g., 2006-07 data for 2008-09 funding shares), as reported to the State Controller pursuant to Government Code Section 53891. • For local sales tax revenues, the sum of gross revenues for the most recent four quarters as reported for each local tax by the Board of Equalization. • For population, the annual population estimate for cities and counties issued by the Department of Finance in May prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. The Commission will determine a funding share for each eligible applicant with a voter - approved tax or toll that was approved prior to the adoption of the funding shares and will be collected during the fiscal year. Where a city has a voter -approved local sales tax and is located within a county without a countywide sales tax, the Commission will adopt a funding share for the city based on the city's population. Where there are multiple eligible applicants with a voter -approved local sales tax within a county with a countywide sales tax, the Commission will adopt a single countywide funding share based on the population for the county. • State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 3 Adopted December 11, 2008 The Commission will set aside up to 2 percent of the total amount appropriated each year for the program as a reserve for bond administrative expenses. In the absence of an enacted state budget, the Commission may establish the funding shares based on its best estimate of the amount that the Legislature will appropriate to the SLPP Account, subject to adjustment based on the final appropriation in the Budget Act. 4. Project nominations. The Commission will include in .the annual program of projects each project nominated by an eligible applicant for a formula funding share provided that the Commission finds that the nomination meets the requirements of statute and that the project has a commitment of the required match and any supplementary funding needed for full funding. Each applicant should submit its nomination by February 17, 2009 for 2008-09 and by August 15 for each fiscal year thereafter. The Commission's program of projects will not include a project nomination that exceeds the applicant's formula funding share. A nomination will include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the applicant's governing board. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the applicant, the nomination will also include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the implementing agency. The Commission requests that applicants for funding from a formula share submit three hard copies of each nomination. The nominations should be addressed or delivered to: John Barna, Executive Director California Transportation Commission Mail Station 52, Room 2231 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 A project nomination may be for supplemental funding of a project that was allocated SLPP funding in a prior year, provided that the supplemental SLPP funding and the match for that supplemental funding will not be expended until after the allocation of the supplemental funding. The supplemental SLPP funding may be to replace local funding already committed to the project, subject to the required one-to-one match. For each nominated project, the applicant should submit project information using the Project Programming Request form in use for STIP projects. The nomination should identify the implementing agency, which may be different from the applicant agency. As specified in statute, the nomination shall include: • A description of the nominated project, including its cost and scope and the specific improvements and benefits it is anticipated to serve. The description should identify the project's useful life. • A description of the project's current status, including the current phase of delivery, and the schedule for the completion of construction or acquisition. • A description of how the project would support transportation and land use planning goals within the region. • State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 4 Adopted December 11, 2008 • The amount and source of matching funds. • The amount of SLPP funds requested. An eligible applicant may adopt and submit a multiyear program for SLPP funding, either in addition to or in lieu of project nominations for the program year. As described in section 2, the Commission's acknowledgement of an applicant's multiyear program will not constitute a Commission programming commitment of future year SLPP funding. 5. Balance of funding share. If the program of projects adopted by the Commission does not program the full amount of an applicant's formula funding share, the balance will remain available for later program amendments supported by eligible project nominations. A balance not programmed in one fiscal year will carry over and be available in the following fiscal year. Competitive Grant Program to Match Uniform Developer Fees 6. Project selection. The Commission will select projects from among eligible project nominations for the competitive grant program from the Uniform Developer Fees Subaccount pursuant to Government Code Section 8879.73. No single competitive grant for the SLPP may exceed $1 million. The Commission will consider approval of a competitive grant only when it finds that the grant request meets the requirements of statute and that the project has a commitment of the required match and any supplementary funding needed for full funding. The selected projects will be included in the Commission's annual program of projects for the SLPP. The Commission will consider only projects for which five hard copies of a complete nomination are received in the Commission office by February 17, 2009 for 2008-09 and by August 15 for each fiscal year thereafter. A nomination will include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the applicant's governing board. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the applicant, the nomination will also include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the implementing agency. The nominations should be addressed or delivered to: John Barna, Executive Director California Transportation Commission Mail Station 52, Room 2231 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 7. Project applications. For each project nominated for the competitive grant program, the applicant should submit project information using the Project Programming Request form in use for STIP projects. The nomination should identify the implementing agency, which may be different from the applicant agency. As specified in statute, the nomination shall include: State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 5 Adopted December 11, 2008 • A description of the nominated project, including its cost and scope and the specific improvements and benefits it is anticipated to serve. The description should identify the project's useful life. • A description of the project's current status, including the current phase of delivery, and the schedule for the completion of construction or acquisition. • A description of how the project would support transportation and land use planning goals within the region. • The amount and source of matching funds. • The amount of SLPP funds requested. In addition, the grant request should include a copy of the ordinance or resolution adopted by a city, county or city and county that establishes the uniform developer fee to be matched by the grant. An agency may apply for supplemental funding of up to $1 million for a project that was allocated SLPP funding in a prior year or years, provided that the supplemental SLPP funding and the match for that supplemental funding will not be expended until after the allocation of the supplemental funding. The supplemental SLPP funding may be to replace local funding already committed to the project, subject to the required one-to-one match. Prior year funding of a project under the SLPP discretionary grant program is not a selection criterion for funding in a subsequent year. The Commission will evaluate applications competitively in each funding cycle. 8. Project selection criteria. In approving grants for inclusion in the program of projects, the Commission will give consideration to geographic balance and to demonstrated project cost-effectiveness. The Commission will give higher priority to projects that are more cost-effective, that can commence construction or implementation earlier, that leverage more uniform developer fees per program dollar, and that can demonstrate quantifiable air quality improvements, including a significant reduction in vehicle -miles traveled. 9. Balance of grant program funds. If the program of projects adopted by the Commission does not program the full amount of the share for the competitive grant program, the balance will remain available for later program amendments supported by eligible project grant requests. A balance not programmed in one fiscal year will carry over and be available for the competitive grant program in the following fiscal year. Proiect Allocations and Delivery 10. Amendments to program of proiects. The Commission may approve an amendment of the SLPP program of projects at any time. An amendment need only appear on the agenda published 10 days in advance of the Commission meeting. It does not require the 30-day notice that applies to a STIP amendment. • State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 6 Adopted December 11, 2008 11. Allocations from the SLPP Account. The Commission will consider the allocation of funds from the SLPP Account for a project when it receives an allocation request and recommendation from the Department of Transportation, in the same manner as for the STIP (see section 64 of the STIP guidelines). The recommendation will include a determination of the availability of appropriated funding from the SLPP Account and the availability of all identified and committed matching and supplementary funding. The Commission will approve the allocation if the funds are available, the allocation is necessary to implement the project as included in the adopted SLPP program, and the project has the required environmental clearance. 12. Timely Use of Funds. Under statute, projects receiving an SLPP allocation shall encumber the funds no later than two years after the end of the fiscal year in which the Commission makes the allocation. Commission policy, however, is that SLPP allocations are valid for encumbrance for six months from the date of approval unless the Commission approves an extension. Applicants may submit and the Commission will evaluate extension requests in the same manner as for STIP projects (see section 66 of the STIP guidelines). 13. Semiannual delivery reports: As a condition of the project allocation, the Commission will require the implementing agency to submit semiannual reports on the activities and progress made toward implementation of the project. As mandated by Government Code Section 8879.50, the Commission shall forward these reports to the Department of Finance. The purpose of the reports is to ensure that the project is being executed in a timely fashion and is within the scope and budget identified when the decision was made to fund the project. If it is anticipated that project costs will exceed the approved project budget, the implementing agency shall provide a'plan to the Commission for achieving the benefits of the project by either downscoping the project to remain within budget or by identifying an alternative funding source to meet the cost increase. The Commission may either approve the corrective plan or direct the implementing agency to modify its plan. 14. Final delivery report. Within six months of the project becoming operable, the implementing agency shall provide a final delivery report to the Commission on the scope of the completed project, its final costs as compared to the approved project budget, its duration as compared to the project schedule in the project baseline agreement, and performance outcomes derived from the project as compared to those described in the project baseline agreement. The Commission shall forward this report to the Department of Finance as required by Government Code Section 8879.50. For the purpose of this section, a project becomes operable when the construction contract is accepted or acquired equipment is received. 15. Audit of project expenditures and outcomes. The Department of Transportation will ensure that project expenditures and outcomes are audited. For each SLPP project, the Commission expects the Department to provide a semi-final audit report within 6 months • • • State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 7 Adopted December 11, 2008 after the final delivery report and a final audit report within 12 months after the final delivery report. The Commission may also require interim audits at any time during the performance of the project. Audits will be performed in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards promulgated by the United States Government Accountability Office. Audits will provide a finding on the following: • Whether project costs incurred and reimbursed are in compliance with the executed project baseline agreement or approved amendments thereof; state and federal laws and regulations; contract provisions; and Commission guidelines. • Whether project deliverables (outputs) and outcomes are consistent with the project scope, schedule and benefits described in the executed project baseline agreement or approved amendments thereof. • STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM TAX/TOLL REVENUES USED TO DETERMINE FUNDING SHARES FOR 2008-09 Voter -Approved Tolls, Parcel/Property Taxes Annual Revenue Source - Bay Area Transportation Authority (BATA) 252,594,949 FY 2006-07, BATA Annual Report Alameda -Contra Costa Transit Distrio 77,524,530 FY 2006-07, Report to Stale Controller's Office Bay Area Rapid Transit District 50,188,155 FY 2006-07, Report to Stale Controllers Office Total toll/parcel/property tax - 380,307,634 NIS BOE Code Voter -Approved Transportation Sales Taxes _ Yr end2nd Q 08 Quarterly Gross Receipts (reported by Bd of Equalization) 2nd Q, 2008 1st 0, 2008 4th 0, 2007 3rd 0, 2007 N 002 San Mateo County Transit District 69,347,120.51 17,908,857.86 15,739,977.76 18,414,546.60 17.283.738.29 N 003 Santa Clara County Trans4 District 164,712,594.15 41,384,693.65 38,836,073.70 43,403,343.55 41,088,483.25 N 004 Santa Cmz Metropolitan Transit District 16,976,900.68 4,297,705.06 3,852,902.67 4,376,776.36 4,449,516.59 S 005 Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 693,475,595.99 175,157,001.49 164,891,342.97 180,432,11520 172,995,136.33 N 006 Santa Clara County Traffic Authority 20,537.27 493.76 1,169.85 249.36 18,624.30 N 010 Alameda County Transportation Authority 590,532.47 2,971.52 1,192.30 48,237.37 538,13128 N 012 Fresno County Transportation Authority - 59,321,804.17 15,295,021.74 13678,523.14 15,170,17328 15.178486.01 S 013 San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission 244,774,704.26 61,285,587.42 57,429,819.63 63,305,985.66 62,753,311.55 N 018 San Mateo County Transit Authority 69,350,003.54 17,909,825.27 15,740,477.27 18,415,703.72 17,283,997.28 N 023 Sacramento Transportation Authority 101,604,763.78 25,949,786.44 23,255,875.19 26,060,097.55 26,339,004.60 N 024 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 74,196,200.14 18,348,390.01 17,168,037.72 19,796,679.07 18,883,093.34 S 026 Riverside County Transportation Commission 143,958,648.08 35,493,852.28 34,595,479.86 37,658,721.88 36,210,594.06 N 027 San Francisco County Transportation Authority 80,346,317.27 20,059,657.20 18,998,404.24 21,446,588.49 19,841,667.34 S. 029 Imperial County Local Transportation Authority 12,545,802.60 3,182,519.28 2,858,234.71 3,448,225.91 3,056,822.70 S 030 Santa Barbara County Local Transportation Authority 32,603,649.13 8,272,920.31 7,481,811.95 8,393,103.07 8,455,773.80 S 031 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority 139,914,132.98 34847,717.82 32,727,462.12 35,627,920.67 36,711,032.37 N 034 Madera County Transportation Authonty 28,439.14 7,199.80 • 12,477.53 8,304.64 457.17 S 035 Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 693,586,139,54 175,159,366.55 164,981,938.78 180,466,449.15 172,978,385.M S 037 Orange County Transportation Authority 265,253,490.6a 65,412,729.49 61,343,576.21 69,673,299.90 68,823,885.08 N 038 San Joaquin Transportation Authority 45,731,715.20 11,838,750.27 10,496,880.47 11,573,876.16 11,822,208.30 N 068 Town of Truckee. Road Maintenance Tax 1,927,723.47 452,324.33 394.054.97 483,184.08 598,160.09 N 079 Alameda County Transportation knprovement Authority 116,589,912.89 29,335,583.77 27,070,662.90 30,356,471.52 29,827,194.70 N 084 Cty of Wails Road System Tax 801,857.94 210,344.44 184,185.17 201.753.77 205,574.56 N 085 City of Point Arena 44,631.04 12,589.85 9.071.09 10,575.85 12,394.25 N 094 City of Fort Bragg Maintain City Streets 843,081.30 215,786.47 189,290.44 204,570.72 233,433.67 N 102 Transportation Authority Marin County 22,356,530.85 5,553,796.09 5,155,986.82 5,958,080.68 5,68E1,667.26 N 115 Sonoma County Transportation Authority 19,039,151.73 4800,018.84 4,257,637.62 5,040,804.65 4,940,690.62 N 123 Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority 162,024,603.89 41,030,036.31 37990,301.75 42,498,458.02 40,505,807.81 N 144 Madera County Transportation Authority, 2006 7,619,931.70 2,078,213.97 1755,362.27 1,997,507.40 1,988,848.06 •N 146 Nevada City Street Improvements Tax 639,129.84 158,439.50 121,428.33 192,087.96 167,174.05 S 162 Tulare County Transportation Authority 25,603,004.03 6,835,852.47 5,981,871.54 6,533,152.49 6,252,127.53 N 174 City of El Cerrito Streets Improvements Tax (eft 7-1-08) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Total, Voter -Approved Sales Tax 3,266,028,610.26 822,498,033.26 767,201,510.97 851,197,044.73 825,132,021.30 V Voter -Approved Sales Tax, North 1,014,313,482.97 256,850,486.15 234,909,973.20 265,658,070.80 256,894 952.82 Voter -Approved Sales Tax, South 2,251,715,127.29 565,647,547.11 532,291,537.77 585,538,973.93 568,237,068.48 Distribution Factor - Percentage Total, voter -approved tolls +taxes 3,646,336,244.26 100.00000% Tolls + parcel/property tax 380,307,634.00 10.42986% North sales tax 1,014,313,482.97 27.81733% South sales tax Z251,715,127.29 61.75281% California Transportation Commission 12/11/2008 STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FUNDING SHARES, 2008-09 (Funding Shares in $1,000's) Funding Distribution of Appropriation Program Categories Amount Total Annual Program Appropriation 200,000 Take -off for Bond administration (2%) 4,000 Subtotal 196,000 Discretionary grant program (5%) 9,800 Formula share program (95%) 100.00000% 186,200 Tolls + parcel/property tax 10.42986% 19,420 North sales tax 27.81733% 51,796 South sales lax 61.75281% 114,984 Funding Shares Based on Voter -Approved Tolls & Parcel Property Taxes Applicant Agency Revenue Factor Funding Share Bay Area Transportation Authority 252,594,949 12,898 Alameda -Contra Costa Transit District 77,524,530 3,959 Bay Area Rapid Transit District 50,188,155 2,563 Total 380,307,634 19,420 Funding Shares Based on Voter -Approved Sales Taxes - North County/City Population Factor Funding Share Alameda 1,543,000 7,814 Contra Costa 1,051,674 5,326 Fresno 931,098 4,715 Madera 150,887 764 Marin 257,406 1,304 Mendocino - Fort Bragg 6,890 35 Mendocino - Point Arena 493 2 Mendocino - Willits 5,032 25 Nevada - Nevada City 3,074 16 Nevada -Truckee 16,165 82 Sacramento 1,424,415 7,214 San Francisco 824,525 4,176 San Joaquin 685,660 3,472 San Mateo 739,469 3,745 Santa Clara 1,837,075 9,303 Santa Cruz 266,519 1,350 Sonoma 484,470 2,453 Total 10,227,852 51,796 Funding Shares Based on Voter -Approved Sales Taxes - South County Population Factor Funding Share Imperial 176,158 929 Los Angeles 10,363,850 54,625 Orange 3,121,251 16,451 Riverside 2,088,322 11,007 San Bernardino 2,055,766 10,836 San Diego 3,146,274 16,583 Santa Barbara 428,655 2,259 Tulare 435,254 2,294 Total 21,815,530 114,984 Califomia Transportation Commission 12/11/2008 • • • STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM ACCOUNT STATUTES GOVERNMENT CODE, TITLE 2, DIVISION 1 CHAPTER 12.49 THE HIGHWAY SAFETY, TRAFFIC REDUCTION, AIR QUALITY, AND PORT SECURITY BOND ACT OF 2006 Article 2. Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Fund of 2006 and Program Allocation of Bond Proceeds to Programs Added: Proposition IB (2006) 8879.23. The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Fund of 2006 is hereby created in the State Treasury. The Legislature intends that the proceeds of bonds deposited in the fund shall be used to fund the mobility, safety, and air quality improvements described in this article over the course of the next decade. The proceeds of bonds issued and sold pursuant to this chapter for the purposes specified in this chapter shall be allocated in the following manner: (g) One billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) shall be deposited in the State -Local Partnership Program Account, which is hereby created in the fund. The funds shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature and subject to such conditions and criteria as the Legislature may provide by statute, for allocation by the California Transportation Commission over a five-year period to eligible transportation projects nominated by an applicant transportation agency. A dollar for dollar match of local funds shall be required for an applicant transportation agency to receive state funds under this program. CHAPTER 12.491 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY, TRAFFIC REDUCTION, AIR QUALITY, AND PORT SECURITY BOND ACT OF 2006 Article 1. General Provisions Definitions Amended: Chapter 179, Statutes of 2008 (SB 1498) 8879.50 (a) As used in this chapter and in Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 8879.20), the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "Commission' means the California Transportation Commission. (2) "Department' means the Department of Transportation. (3) "Administrative agency" means the state agency responsible for programming bond funds made available by Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 8879.20), as specified in subdivision (c). (4) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, "project' includes equipment purchase, construction, right-of-way acquisition, and project delivery costs. (5) "Recipient agency" means the recipient of bond funds made available by Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 8879.20) that is responsible for implementation of an approved project. (6) "Fund" shall have the same meaning as in subdivision (c) of Section 8879.20. (b) Administrative costs, including audit and program oversight costs for agencies, commissions, or departments administering programs funded pursuant to this chapter, recoverable by bond funds shall not exceed 3 percent of the program's cost. (c) The administrative agency for each bond account is as follows: (1) The commission is the administrative agency for the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account; the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund; the State Route 99 Account; the State -Local Partnership Program Account; the Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Account; the Highway -Railroad Crossing Safety Account; and the Highway Safety, Rehabilitation and Preservation Account. (2) The Office of Homeland Security and the Office of Emergency Services are the administrative agencies for the Port and Maritime Security Account and the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account. (3) The department is the administrative agency for the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account. (d) The administrative agency shall not approve project fund allocations for a project until the recipient agency provides a project funding plan that demonstrates that the funds are expected to be reasonably available and sufficient to complete the project. The administrative agency may approve funding for usable project segmentsonly if the benefits associated with each individual segment are sufficient to meet the objectives of the program from which the individual segment is funded. (e) Guidelines adopted by the administrative agency pursuant to this chapter and Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 879.20) are intended to provide internal guidance for the agency and shall be exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3), and shall do all of the following: (1) Provide for the audit of project expenditures and outcomes. (2) Require that the useful life of the project be identified as part of the project nomination process. (3) Require that project nominations have project delivery milestones, including, but not limited to, start and completion dates for environmental clearance, land acquisition, design, construction bid award, construction completion, and project closeout, as applicable. (f)(1) As a condition for allocation of funds to a specific project under Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 8879.20), the administrative agency shall require the recipient agency to report, on a semiannual basis, on the activities and progress made toward implementation of the project. The administrative agency shall forward the report to the Department of Finance by means approved by the Department of Finance. The purpose of the report is to ensure that the project is being executed in a timely fashion, and is within the scope and budget identified when the decision was made to fund the project. If it is anticipated that project costs will exceed the approved project budget, the recipient agency shall provide a plan to the administrative agency for achieving the benefits of the project by either downscoping the project to remain within budget or by identifying an alternative funding source to meet the cost increase. The administrative agency may either approve the corrective plan or direct the recipient agency to modify its plan. 2 (2) Within six months of the project becoming operable, the recipient agency shall provide a report to the administrative agency on the final costs of the project as compared to the approved project budget, the project duration as compared to the original project schedule as of the date of allocation, and performance outcomes derived from the project compared to those described in the original application for funding. The administrative" agency shall forward the report to the Department of Finance by means approved by the Department of Finance. Article 11. State -Local Partnership Program Legislative Intent Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.66. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature, pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 8879.23, to establish criteria and conditions for use of the fund in the State -Local Partnership Program Account in the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Fund of 2006. These criteria and conditions shall include, but need not be limited to, eligibility of applicants, eligibility of projects, timely use of funds, and relationship of funds in the account to other funds for transportation purposes. (b) The purpose of the State -Local Partnership Program is to do both of the following: (1) Reward "self-help" counties, cities, districts, and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees or taxes solely dedicated to transportation improvements. (2) Provide funds for a wide variety of capital projects that are typically funded in local or regional voter -approved expenditure plans and that provide mobility, accessibility, system connectivity, safety, or air quality benefits. (c) It is further the intent of the Legislature that all funds available in the account, pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 8879.23, shall be made available for allocation by the commission over a period of five years. Definitions Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.67. For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply: (a) 'Program" means the State -Local Partnership Program established in this article and funded pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 8879.23. (b) "Uniform developer fees" means developer fees imposed pursuant to existing statutory authority, including, but not limited to, Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) of Division 1 of Title 7 and Article 5 (commencing with Section 66483) of Chapter 4 of Division 2 of Title 7. The developer fees must be imposed by a local ordinance or resolution adopted by a city, county, or city and county and must be dedicated to transportation purposes to address cumulative transportation impacts. The developer fees must be uniformly applied to new development within a defined area or jurisdiction, except in cases in which fees are waived, such as for affordable housing development. Developer fees imposed to mitigate onsite impacts related to a specific development project do not qualify as uniform developer fees under this subdivision. 3 Eligible Applicant Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.68. An eligible applicant under the program shall be a local or regional transportation agency that has responsibility for funding, procuring, or constructing transportation improvements within its jurisdiction, and that does either of the following: (a) Has sought and received voter approval for the imposition of taxes or fees solely dedicated to transportation improvements and administers those taxes or fees. (b) Has imposed uniform developer fees. Eligible Matching Funds Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.69. Eligible local matching funds required to obtain funding under the program shall be obtained from revenues from any voter -approved local or regional tax or fee solely dedicated to transportation improvements, or from uniform developer fees. Tax or fee, for purposes of this section, means a countywide or citywide sales tax, a property or parcel tax in a county or counties or district, and voter -approved bridge tolls or voter - approved fees dedicated to specific transportation improvements. Eligible Projects Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.70. (a) Eligible projects shall include all of the following: (1) Improvements to the state highway system, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (A) Major rehabilitation of an existing segment that extends the useful life of the segment by at least 15 years. (B) New construction to increase capacity of a highway segment that improves mobility or reduces congestion on that segment. (C) Safety or operational improvements on a highway segment that are intended to reduce accidents and fatalities or improve traffic flow on that segment. (2) Improvements to transit facilities, including guideways, that expand transit services, increase transit ridership, improve transit safety, enhance access or convenience of the traveling public, or otherwise provide or facilitate a viable alternative to driving. (3) The acquisition, retrofit, or rehabilitation of rolling stock, buses, or other transit equipment, including, but not limited to, maintenance facilities, transit stations, transit guideways, passenger shelters, and fare collection equipment with a useful life of at least 10 years. The acquisition of vans, buses, and other equipment necessary for the provision of transit services for seniors and people with disabilities by transit and other local agencies is an eligible project under this paragraph. (4) Improvements to the local road system, including, but not limited to, both of the following: (A) Major roadway rehabilitation, resurfacing, or reconstruction that extends its useful life by at least 15 years. (B) New construction and facilities to increase capacity, improve mobility, or enhance safety. (5) Improvements to bicycle or pedestrian safety or mobility with a useful life of at least 15 years. 4 • • • (6) Improvements to mitigate the environmental impacts of new transportation infrastructure on a locality's or region's air quality or water quality, commonly known as "urban runoff," including, but not limited to, the installation of catch basin screens, filters, and inserts, or other best management practices for capturing or treating urban runoff. (b) For purposes of the program, a separate phase or stage of construction for an eligible project may include mitigation of the project's environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, soundwalls, landscaping, wetlands or habitat restoration or creation, replacement plantings, and drainage facilities. Two Subaccounts: Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees, Uniform Developer Fees Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.71. (a) For purposes of distributing funds annually appropriated by the Legislature to the State -Local Partnership Program Account, the commission shall segregate the funds into two separate subaccounts, which are hereby created in the account, as follows: (1) Ninety-five percent of the funds shall be deposited into the Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees Subaccount and shall be made available to eligible applicants as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 8879.68 for expenditure on eligible projects, as approved by the commission. Funds in this subaccount shall be distributed by formula, pursuant to Section 8879.72. (2) Five percent of the funds shall be deposited into the Uniform Developer Fees Subaccount and shall be made available to eligible applicants as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 8879.68 for expenditure on eligible projects, as approved -by the commission. Funds in this subaccount shall be distributed through a competitive grant application process to be administered by the commission pursuant to Section 8879.73. (b) Notwithstanding Section 13340, the money in the subaccounts described in subdivision (a) are hereby appropriated, without regard to fiscal year, to the commission for the purposes described in subdivision (a). Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees: Funding Shares Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.72. (a) To establish the funding shares for each eligible applicant described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 8879.71, the commission shall do the following prior to the commencement of a funding cycle: (1) Determine the total amount of annual revenue generated from voter -approved sales taxes, voter -approved parcel or property taxes, and voter -approved bridge tolls dedicated to transportation improvements according to the most recent available data reported to the State Board of Equalization, the Controller, or the Bay Area Toll Authority. (2) Establish a northern California and southern California share by attributing the proportional share of revenues from voter -approved sales taxes, voter -approved parcel or property taxes, and voter -approved bridge tolls dedicated to transportation improvements and imposed in counties in northern California to the northern share, and by attributing the proportional share of revenues from voter -approved sales taxes imposed in counties located in southem California to the southern share. The determination of whether a county is located in northern or southern California shall be based on the definitions set forth in Section 187 of the Streets and Highways Code. (3) Program funds made available to the southern share, based on the determination in paragraph (2), shall be distributed to the entity responsible for programming and allocating revenues from the sales tax in proportion to the population of the county in which the entity is located compared to the total population of southern California counties with voter -approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements. For the purpose of calculating population, the commission shall use the most recent information available from the Department of Finance. (4) Program funds made available to the northern share, based on the determination in paragraph (2), shall be distributed as follows: (A) Program funds generated by voter -approved bridge tolls and voter -approved parcel or property taxes dedicated to transportation improvements shall be distributed to the entity responsible for programming and allocating revenues from the toll or tax based on the proportional share of revenues generated by the toll or tax by that entity in comparison to the total revenues generated by voter -approved sales taxes, voter -approved parcel or property taxes, and voter -approved bridge tolls dedicated to transportation improvements in northern California. (B) Program funds generated by voter -approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements shall be distributed to the entity responsible for programming and allocating revenues from the sales tax in proportion to the population of the county in which the entity is located compared to the total population of the northern California counties with voter -approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements. For the purposes of calculating population, the commission shall use the most recent information available for the Department of Finance. (b) Under this section, each fiscal year in which funds are appropriated for the program shall constitute a funding cycle. (c) Each eligible applicant desiring to participate in the program in any funding cycle under this section shall submit to the commission all of the following: (1) A description of the eligible project nominated for funding, including a description of the project's cost, scope, and specific improvements and benefits it is anticipated to achieve. (2) A description of the project's current status, including the phase of delivery the project is in at the time it is nominated for funding and a schedule for the project's completion. (3) A description of how the project would support transportation and land use planning goals within the region. (4) The amount of eligible local matching funds the applicant is committing to the project. (5) The amount of program funds the applicant seeks from the program for the project. (d) The commission shall review nominated projects under this section and their accompanying documentation to ensure that each nominated project meets the requirements of this article and to confirm that each project has a commitment of the requisite amount of eligible local matching funds as required in this article. Upon 6 conducting the review of the requirements and determining the proposed projects to be in compliance with this article, the projects shall be deemed eligible. (e) An eligible applicant that is identified to receive an allocation of funds under this section, but that does not submit a project for funding in a funding cycle, may utilize its funding share in a subsequent funding cycle. Uniform Developer Fees: Competitive Grant Program Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.73. (a) To distribute funds from the Uniform Developer Fees Subaccount to eligible applicants, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 8879.71, the commission shall administer a competitive grant application program pursuant to this section. (b) Under this section, each fiscal year in which funds are appropriated for the program shall constitute a funding cycle. To ensure that as many eligible applicants as possible may benefit from the competitive portion of the program, no single project shall receive more than one million dollars ($1,000,000) in a single funding cycle in which program funds are allocated by the commission. (c) Each eligible applicant desiring to participate in the program in any funding cycle under this section shall submit to the commission all of the following: (1) A description of the eligible project nominated for funding, including a description of the project's cost, scope, and specific improvements and benefits it is anticipated to achieve. (2) A description of the project's current status, including the phase of delivery the project is in at the time it is nominated for funding and a schedule for the project's completion. (3) A description of how the project would support transportation and land use planning goals within the region. (4) The amount of eligible local matching funds the applicant is committing to the project. (5) The amount of program funds the applicant seeks from the program for the project. (d) The commission shall review nominated projects under this section and their accompanying documentation to ensure that each nominated project meets the requirements of this article and to confirm that each project has a commitment of the requisite amount of eligible local matching funds as required in this article. Upon conducting the review of the requirements and determining the proposed projects to be in compliance with this article, the projects shall be deemed eligible. (e) The commission shall adopt a program of projects under this section that is geographically balanced and provides cost-effective and multimodal, safety, reliability, and environmental benefits. In allocating funds to specific projects, the commission shall give priority to projects that do any of the following: (1) Can commence construction or implementation of the project in a manner to provide the public benefit at the earliest possible date. (2) Can enhance the leveragability of bond funds, by utilizing a higher proportion of nonbond funds toward a project's total cost than is otherwise required by this article. • (3) Can demonstrate quantifiable air quality improvements, including, but not limited to, a demonstration that the project can result in a significant reduction in vehicle - miles traveled. Annual Program Cycle, Allocations, Guidelines Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.74. (a) The commission shall adopt a program of projects to receive allocations under this article for each funding cycle, with allocations to projects to be initially made at the commission's meeting in April 2009, and to be made no later than the commission's October meeting for subsequent years. (b) Projects receiving an allocation under the program shall encumber funds no later than two years after the end of the fiscal year in which an allocation is made by the commission. The commission shall rescind an allocation to a project that fails to comply with these requirements. Rescinded allocations of funds shall, in the case of the program established pursuant to Section 8879.72, be made available for another eligible project proposed by the agency that nominated the original project for funding, and, in the case of the program established in Section 8879.73, be reallocated to other projects during the fiscal year following the year in which the applicable timely use of funds requirement was not met. (c) The commission shall develop and adopt guidelines to implement this article, and to establish the process for allocating funds to eligible projects under the program, consistent with this article. Prior to adopting the guidelines, the commission shall hold one public hearing in northern California and one public hearing in southern California to review and provide an opportunity for public comment on the proposed guidelines. The commission may incorporate the hearings into its regular meeting schedule. Required Match Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.75. Pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 8879.23, an eligible project funded pursuant to this article shall require a match of one dollar ($1) of eligible local matching funds for each dollar of program funds applied for under this article. An applicant may propose to use other funds for the same project, including local, federal, or other state funds, however, those other funds shall not be counted toward the match required by this article. Summary in Annual Report Added: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268) 8879.76. The commission shall include in its annual report to the Legislature, required pursuant to Section 14535, a summary of its activities related to the administration of the program. The summary, at a minimum, shall include the description, location, and total cost of each project contained in the program, the amount of bond funds allocated to each project, the status of each project, and a description of the system improvements each project is achieving. 8 • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: Caltrans Utilities Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Over the past year, the TAC Project Delivery Subcommittee has worked with Caltrans to resolve issues with contacting utility companies prior to the approval of environmental documents. The County of Riverside provided Caltrans specific examples of the problems they were experiencing and how these problems were impacting project delivery. Caltrans Headquarters and District 8 have developed an acceleration strategy (attached) that allows agencies to conduct certain pre -utility relocation activities prior to approval of the environmental document. This new strategy is a result of a collaborative effort between County of Riverside, RCTC TAC, Caltrans District 8, and Headquarters staff including Director Kempton. • State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Memorandum Flex your power! Be energy efficient! To: REGION/DISTRICI' DIVISION CHIEFS Date: December 24, 2008 Right of Way File: UTILITIES General ,,�AiReplaces URF 02-01 ,pi°'" From: LORRIE L. WILSON Aphis?* GA • Dated July 24, 2002 Chief Office of -Utilities and Organizational Development Subject. Preliminary Engineering Prior to Approval of the Environmental Document Early project delivery may sometimes be aided by commencement of preliminary engineering for utility activities prior to approval of the environmental document. As an available acceleration strategy, preliminary engineering for utility activities prior to approval of the environmental document can be implemented by districts to help resolve complex utility conflicts in early stages of Project Delivery. To be a candidate for this alternative process, the project must meet the following criteria: • The Project Initiation Document (PID) is approved and the project is programmed. • The Project's final alternative has. been selected. This process allows the Project Engineer (PE) or district Utility Engineering (UE) to identify the potential utility conflict in the Permits and Studies (PA&ED) phase, and also allows the Right of Way (R/W) Utility Coordinator to issue a Notice To Owner to commence preliminary engineering. It is imperative that the PE or UE provide the R/W Utility Coordinator with the most up-to-date project design plans for the Utility Owner's use to avoid wasted work claims. One or more working meetings at this time with the PE, UE, R/W Utility Coordinator and Utility Owner representatives will benefit this process. The Utility Owner's preliminary engineering can be reviewed and used to enhance studies. During the Final Design (PS&E) phase, it may be finalized for review and approval as the utility relocation plan. However, there must be no physical relocation prior to the approval of the Environmental Document. Expenditures for such preliminary engineering shall be encumbered under Phase 9 R/W Capital Funds in those cases where the State is liable for any portion of the engineering costs. "Caltrans improves mobility across California " REGION/DISTRICT DIVISION CHIEFS December 24, 2008 Page 2 Each Utility Agreement for preliminary engineering prior to approval of the environmental document during PA&ED shall only cover the Utility Owner's engineering costs. Once the PS&E phase has been reached, a separate and subsequent Utility Agreement shall cover costs for physical relocation. Department Project Because no specific Departmental allocation currently exists, the. earliest a Utility Agreement for Preliminary Engineering can be encumbered for a Department project is July 1, 2009, providing that a one-time, advanced estimate for the project has been submitted prior to December 31, 2008. For subsequent programming years, the funding for this Preliminary Engineering will be captured from the Right of Way Data Sheet. Local Public Agency (LPA) Project As a business decision for a Local "On -System" project, this preliminary engineering process can be implemented immediately if the sponsor agency will fund 100% of this activity with no State dollars involved. For other R/W Utility activities, the Local project may be funded with any combination of Local, State or Federal funds. Local Agencies should be cautioned that such a business decision carries an element of risk due to the possibility of wasted work and its potential effect on stakeholder commitment to the accelerated schedule. c: Office Chiefs District Utility Coordinators "Caitrans improves mobility across Cahfornia" • AGENDA ITEM 9 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 9. AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: Online Milestone Reporting Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June 2006, RCTC began working with Civic Resource Group (CRG) to develop a web -based project management database. The database was developed to provide a central system for storing programming and project information contained in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and Project Milestone Reports. The database also allows for access to information including links to programming resources and documents, interactive maps, tracking of project related documents, and expanded funding classifications to facilitate better analysis of project funding. The database will be accessible by Commission programming and project delivery staff and local agency staff. One component of the database that will be particularly useful for local agency staff is the project milestone reporting. Local agencies will have the ability to update project status online, which will greatly reduce the time it takes to send out and receive the reports. The database architecture is fully complete and operating including navigation among the various project screens and tabs. Staff is working with CRG to fine-tune the appearance and function of the database. CRG will be conducting a training workshop for local agency staff on use of the database in the coming months so that the milestone reports for the first quarter of 2009 can be entered directly into the database. AGENDA ITEM 11 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst Grace Alvarez, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) Amendment Status STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2008 RTP — Amendment #1 The 2008 RTP (long-range transportation plan) — Amendment No. 1 was approved by SCAG's Regional Council on December 4, 2008. In addition, the 63 projects that were included in Amendment 1 to the 2008 RTP were submitted for Amendment 1 to the 2008 RTIP for consistency purposes. State and federal approval of the amendments is anticipated in February 2009. 2008 RTP — Amendment #2 Based on the need to incorporate additional project changes to the 2008 RTP, SCAG may be opening up a second 2008 RTP Amendment in spring 2009. We suggest that you carefully review your agency's projects and identify any scope of work changes, cost changes, and/or completion date changes for inclusion in this upcoming Amendment No. 2 to the 2008 RTP. 2008 RTIP The 2008 RTIP (short-term transportation program) was adopted by SCAG Regional Council on July 14, 2008 and subsequently ratified by Caltrans, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on November 17, 2008. 2008 RTIP — AMENDMENT #2 On October 22, 2008, RCTC submitted to SCAG the 2008 RTIP Amendment #2. SCAG recently approved the 2008 RTIP Amendment #2 . and forwarded the document to Caltrans, FHWA, and FTA for approval. The anticipated approval by Caltrans and the federal agencies is February 2009. 2008 RTIP — AMENDMENT #3 Amendment #3 to the 2008 RTIP was a special submittal by another RTPA, for the approval of an urgency project. 2008 RTIP — AMENDMENT #4 Amendment #4 to the 2008 RTIP is an administrative amendment, containing two Riverside County projects. The submittal deadline to SCAG is January 12, 2009. Anticipated approval by Caltrans is also February 2009. 2008 RTIP — AMENDMENT #5 Amendment #5 to the 2008 RTIP will be a formal amendment due to SCAG on February 20, 2009. RCTC has received approximately 60 projects for inclusion in Amendment #5 that meet the criteria for a formal amendment and/or that RCTC was not able to include in previous amendments as other project changes had been included in amendments under review. Under SCAG's current guidelines, project changes must be officially approved by the funding agencies prior to inclusion in new amendments in the 2008 RTIP. Submittal of project changes by the local agencies will be received by RCTC up to January 30, 2009, for inclusion in Amendment #5. • • • TECHNICAL AD RY COMMITTEE • 2,2009 • ~ AGENCY I TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE I PRINT NAME I SIGNATURE I I BANNING DUANE BURK I Kahono Oei I -(7-b_ e Director of Public Works : Ku 110110 (9:.e,/ JOHNWILDER -----------------------+-----------·--·-~ --------------------------BEAUMONT Assistant Director of Public Works ------------·----~--BLYTHE JIM RODKEY Chad Aaby J ltv, Rtdk1 (],~A Public Works Director City Engineer /Jr-// CVAG ALLYN WAGGLE Carol Clapper r v CALIMESA ANNE SCHNEIDER Bob French Public Works Director I CAL TRANS PATRICK HALLY Bill Mosby I CANYON LAKE HABIB MOTLAGH Eric Skaugset ·City Engineer l~~sistant Engineer CATHEDRAL BILL BAYNE ,Pavel Horn ~~!r,_O~ CITY I ~>t..'-~A~t4~ I I ---COACHELLA PAUL TOOR Tony Lucero fv~ v Public Works Director ~ --CORONA AMADQATTAN Kip Field Public Works Director 1 Assistant Public Works ~ Director . I / ----DESERT HOT 1 JONA THAN HOY ~~ ~r ~~lr1/ SPRINGS I Public Works Director /City , . btA. J_'v, ! -1Engineer I I I I J 1/6/2009 PEI --RT. RAI MIF RIV RIV COi SAi SUt TE~ -WIL WRI ~I' ~ -AGENCY HEMET TAC MEMBER 'MIKE GOW ALTERNATE Victor Monz Principal Engineer INDIAN WELLS j TIM WASSIL Bondie Baker Assistant Engineer II . ;p> llNDIO LA QUINTA LAKE ELSINORE MORENO VALLEY MURRIETA NORCO Public Works Director/City Engineer TOM RAFFERTY I Jim Smith Principal Civil Engineer i Director of Public Works TTIMOTHY JONASSON I Nick Nickerson Public Works Director/City Engineer KEN SEUMALO City Engineer Ed Basuba City Traffic Engineer CHRIS VOGT Prem Kumar Public Works Director/City Deputy Public Works Engineer Director/Assistant City Engineer PATRICK THOMAS I Russ Napier Director of Public Works/City 1· Capital Improvement Engineer Program Manager BILL THOMPSON I Lori Askew Director of Public Works I Associate Engineer PALM DESERT !MARK GREENWOOD Director of Public works Alana Townsend PALM SPRINGS!DAVE BARAKIAN !Marcus Fuller Director of Public Works/City Engineer PVVTA ILES NELSON City Manager TECHNICAL AD~Y C1RY COMMITTEE January"i2, 2009 PRINT NAME -I __ rn___ "'SIGNATURE fV\~kG0~J, -~ M??/~ "!Ont ;fa/fr~ ·-------1 \; ""'-.j ~ "'-s ( (} v.. ,,f fZ ~""-t "''""'('---Mit-&roivf<lQ? '[)I' v ,· c!, {3 v.;-r.t k'14 "1 1/6/2009 .--TE~HNICAL AD • Y COMMITTEE • Janua~ 2009 AGENCY I TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME PERRIS I RON CARR Habib Motlagh I Public Works Director City Engineer I RTA I MARK sr AN LEY I Br<it T09Bken ,,, • " a .. "'"'" I Director of Planning I E?.l•u:u:iir:i9 ARalyst Sec..++ k?l'c GL(;1 ~ c\) ... ··1 RANCHO MIRAGE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY , I I I Pl"""·"':i c.u-,1 f· :i"'-.... ~ .. I BRUC-E HARRY Director of Public Works TOM BOYD Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Randy Viegas Project Manager Siobhan Foster JUAN PEREZ I Patty Romo Director of Transportation Deputy Director of Transportation SAN JACINTO I HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer Eric Skaugset Assistant Engineer SUN LINE TEMECULA EUNICE LOVI Director of Planning BILL HUGHES Director of Public Works Public Works Department WILDOMAR I MICHAEL KASHIWAGI WR COG ~ 1\JG.(L~1PE'. f:.Ai,tJJd Director of Public Works RUTHANNE TAYLOR-BERGER Deputy Executive Director ~UIJJ.1 Ht GA (bl '11: JJUI< wa, 0LrllS1&1#4 mA-1'.I~ Alfonso Hernandez Assistant Planner Greg Butler Deputy Public Works Director Diane Nguyen Transportation Programs Manager l"·'\ 1l.4 .. o ; 1,,., :-, _,,,... v .. ~-~ /-/A /Z./2. -/ ~~·~J 1 lfOfil?O !/c1Z/Vl1fl/Or;;z, G~~ t:;u'\1£L--• SIGNATURE ') Jf--v-· 0 ~Uoei-J c t?Crl.!:J ____...;---------·-·-·~ 1/6/2009 ; TECHNICAL AD"RY COMMITTEE January 12, 2009 • AGENCY NAME I TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL r ,,~ g· 'h ---->~ D.::-127-~----, > Drf.JL 'L @ /le TL h A _ /J-/2 /!_ (q f?) <! rr-01-fZS--'.,/;// t (d / l.Ll.JZ.f> ' I . \ / ,, C ,{ i ef }'Y'l~r, :~J.., ~ ;~ tLk. 'lt: ;"Y\Q, ~ ' r+J.""m~~~ftvV•r,J.. i 90-f(F~flt? -~----·" t:'.'1 T\ er (2-.::;,.,.._.r-l ~J I ,_:,.(_, L~\ r::,,.v (::::{_,) l ~~ -[ ~u, 1~kac;. "'~.""'.us I -(Jo9 ).383-· ~ 3o7 CqL n4-J5 I Srcuc //,.,. -r Sfepke..,A_ L~c.A-+Q /of. cc.., ~..s<> J vbcch+d-G v<>+c, ~ ~·G_h~ ~\~~--I r/ -·---~ (:; ; ' I ; ' I/_ j / -, , ,• f ( '. , '~ .-")'Si) -"{(3 3 I 4-'1 :~\-... ·r~:,.--,f--It ' · /{'<' .,_...., -~r-,.~ ; .'. j -: r-I {' --i. _ -, I _,-/ -. \ ·'""',,,,. •' j _ _,,-------------wfJ *4vt i,WA'~··!.~ Of S\-ti S)..-tf; ~ v,., A\~ ~UAfl-f Oi.Jvu_ '\ af !1~ "55r---" ,v" @w\l--t'bl,. n;n--.. t~. v).. r<cr-c.--Ab UV'\Y\O. ~y t+vW,~ o~u~t'v\@ V'e.-k.e>v(' -~--1-'frr-.\. $'---"' :S--&..c.'~+o ~ y iJ •'\ I I C0ri's-S..,,~k ch. I I> e. -fv : I A.4 C..e.>'> t-,__(-/-A.. ts <Cu ·"I L .. k --I I 1/6/2009