Loading...
03 March 16, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee86649 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: March 16, 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. AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA) — RIVERSIDE COUNTY HIGHWAY PROPOSAL (Attachment) • CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ACTIONS 6. COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS (Verbal Presentation) 7. LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE (Verbal Presentation) 8. OTHER BUSINESS 11.36.02 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 16, 2009 Page 2 • 9. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be April 20, 2009, 10:00 A.M., in Beaumont.) • • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, February 9, 2009 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 A.M. at Beaumont City Hall, 550 East Sixth Street, Conference Room #2. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Ed Basubas, City of Lake Elsinore Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Greg Butler, City of Temecula Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Patrick Nally, Caltrans District 8 Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Alfonso Hernandez, SunLine Transit Agency Jonathan Hoy, City of Desert Hot Springs Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Michael Kashiwagi, City of Wildomar Prem Kumar, City of Moreno Valley Bob Morin, City of Corona Kahono Oei, City of Banning Juan Perez, County of Riverside Tom Rafferty, City of Indio Scott Richardson, Riverside Transit Agency Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Patty Romo, County of Riverside Eric Skaugset, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris and San Jacinto Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Paul Toor, City of Coachella • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting February 9, 2009 Page 2 Others Present: Grace Alvarez, RCTC Wally Baker, Green Tech Coast, LLC Shirley Gooding, RCTC Sam Emmersen, Better World Group Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Tanya Love, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Alex Serena, WRCOG John Standiford, RCTC Andrea Zureick, RCTC 3. Approval of Minutes Approved as submitted. 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION REVIEW COMMITTEE'S FY 2008/09 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MATCH PROGRAM Tanya Love, RCTC, introduced Sam Emmersen, Better World Group, who provided a power point presentation and outlined the MSRC's Local Government Match Program — FY 2008/2009, including each of the six eligible categories. This year, $3 million has been allocated for the program. This program helps to co -fund clean air projects implemented by city and counties within the South Coast air district. Communities that make use of their local funding can receive matching funds for qualifying projects. Many of the projects are based on a dollar -for -dollar match. The timeline for the RFP is as follows: February 6, 2009 RFP was released . March 4, 2009 voluntary applicant workshop at AQMD in Diamond Bar from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. March 24, 2009 earliest date to submit applications May 29, 2009 deadline to submit applications is 5:00 p.m. Funding is distributed on a first -come, first -served basis. The RFP is available on MSRC's website www.CleanTransportationFundina.orq. • • • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting February 9, 2009 Page 3 6. FEDERAL ECONOMIC STIMULUS Shirley Medina, RCTC, referred to Aaron Hake's agenda item that was taken to the Budget and Implementation Committee on January 26, 2009 entitled, "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," as well as a letter to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi that was signed by Robert Magee, RCTC's Chairman, regarding that subject. The Senate is expected to finalize its bill by February 10 which will be followed by conferences in the House and Senate, followed by a proposal to the President by the 16th. Lobbyists stated that if it does not make it to the President by then, there will be serious concerns regarding getting something passed in the near term. A draft list of projects was provided identifying projects that are already federalized and have NEPA clearance. One of the proposals in the bill is that we would have to obligate the federal money within 90 days and if we don't obligate half of the money, the rest of the money will be gone. We do know that a major project, the I-10 Bob Hope/Ramona Interchange, is wrapping up the right of way and should be able to go out to bid soon. In Murrieta, Clinton Keith Interchange, is being advertised does not have any federal money on it at this time but it does have a NEPA document and the bid package should go out as a federal project. There may be some funds that are allocated to the TE program. There are local federal projects that are ready to go. There may be projects added or removed from the list. Ms. Medina indicated that she expects to reconvene the TAC project delivery subcommittee next week to further evaluate projects for economic stimulus. John Standiford, ROTC, added that on the transit side bus replacement purchases are eligible. On the highway side, the numbers are about the same (approximately $30 billion nationally) on the Senate and House versions. The Senate version includes a competitive funding pot for freight, rail, port -related projects and possibly new start money for transit which could affect the Perris Valley Line. His experience with the Congressional side, if there is disparity between the House and Senate Bills, they will just add them together and cut it in half. He said that there should be a bill on Monday. He also stated that next Thursday and Friday, the House Transportation Public Works Committee will have a hearing in Los Angeles on port related projects. When this passes, reauthorization will be viewed. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting February 9, 2009 Page 4 7. RTIP UPDATE Andrea Zureick, RCTC, reported that SCAG has received federal approval of amendments 1, 2 and 4. Staff is working on amendment 9 with a due date for changes January 30, 2009 and a due date to get it to SCAG is February 20. SCAG's plans are to have 2 amendments for each county to incorporate federal stimulus money. One amendment would be the administrative modifications for projects that are already in the RTIP where fund types are just being swapped. Any new projects or projects with significant price increases would require formal amendment in the RTIP as SCAG will process those concurrently for us. For the RTP, SCAG had planned to initiate amendment 2 in the spring. Ms. Zureick stressed that the local agencies should inform RCTC if they run into any schedule changes with projects that may result in the need for an RTP amendment. Shirley Medina added that it is possible for SCAG to renumber an amendment after it is submitted. LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE Patrick Nally, Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance, said that statewide only 17% of the funds obligated on projects so far this year. It seems that everybody is waiting for stimulus money, which may create a problem. If everyone waits for the stimulus money and they do not get it Caltrans and FHWA will have double the work. He urged the local agencies that if they have projects that are ready to submit, they should submit them so that Caltrans may get them obligated. 9. RivTAM MODEL USER GROUP This item was deferred to the March 16, 2009 TAC meeting. 10. TRADE CORRIDORS IMPROVEMENT FUNDS — UTILITY RELOCATION Tanya Love introduced Wally Baker, Green Tech Coast, LLC, who provided a power point presentation entitled, "TCIF Utility Relocations Project/Regional Update and Strategy." If you have any questions, contact Mr. Baker at (213) 447-2269 or by E-mail wallyC�wallybaker.com. • • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting February 9, 2009 Page 5 The purpose of his project is to improve the coordination between utilities and the TCIF projects; reduce the cost, risk and liability, and develop a master agreement process that can be used by agencies. He expects that this phase will be completed by April 2009. He further explained the background, principles, issues and next steps as outlined in the presentation that he provided and responded to questions. In response to a question, Tanya Love stated that several months ago the concept came up that services could be used to get the letters from California Air Resources Board (CARE). All the TCIF projects require a letter of support from CARB on the projects. That is one effort Mr. Baker is working. Another effort that has been getting a lot of editorials in the newspaper is when staff was trying to get the projects approved for bond funding. That effort has been satisfied. The last effort has been a master utilities agreement for which some agencies believe there is a need. Other agencies do not believe that. It would be purely voluntary, which is why it is a good idea having Wally Baker here to get feedback. 11. COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS John Standiford indicated that the Commission Workshop last week was a review for the new Commissioners as well as a means of focusing on some of the priorities for the coming year, such as toll program and the 91 AND 215 freeway projects. On Wednesday, February 11, there will be a Commission meeting at which there will be a Perris Valley Line public hearing. In response to a question concerning the Commission Connection's piece on "Revenue Declining but Delivering Projects Continues to be Commission's Priority, Mr. Standiford stated that revenue is declining by approximately 10% from fiscal year to fiscal year. More details are in a staff report from the January 14, 2009 Commission meeting, which is available on RCTC's website. 12. OTHER BUSINESS John Standiford announced that the High Speed Rail Commission continues its planning effort and the working group will meet February 10, 2009, 10:OO A.M. at RCTC offices. It is especially of important to the cities on the proposed I-215 alignment or the newly emerging I-15 alignment and he urged the local agencies to attend the meeting. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting February 9, 2009 Page 6 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30. The next meeting is scheduled for March 16, 2009, 10:00 A.M., Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA, Conference Room A, 3nd Floor. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Medina Programming and Planning Manager The agenda item regarding the Riverside County Proposal for ARRA highway funds was approved at the March 11 RCTC Board meeting. A slight modification was made to recommendation #2. Under Scenario 1, the I-10 Palm Drive IC will be included for $5.080M. Also, under Scenario 1, the I-10.Bob Hope IC will be reduced from $20M to $14.92M. The total under Scenario #1 remains the same. The modification was recommended by our Commissioner from Palm Springs. • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 11, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission . FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) — Riverside County Highway Proposal STAFF AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Support legislation to distribute ARRA funds through the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP). In the absence of authorizing legislation, support a distribution by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that ensures maximum allocation of funding to Riverside County and provides the most flexibility in programming and allocating funds; 2) Approve ARRA highway funding included in Table A depending on the funding level for Riverside County; 3) If the Riverside County ARRA highway funding level is $71 million or above, approve a Local Stimulus program using $18 million of 1989 Measure A funds from the SR-74/1-215 interchange project, distributing the funds per the 1989 Measure A Streets and Roads formula; 4) If a Local Stimulus program is implemented, replace the $18 million from the SR-74/I-215 interchange project with STIP funds or other funds as necessary to ensure the Commission's funding commitment to the project; 5) Support expenditures of State discretionary ARRA funds on projects located in economically distressed areas; 6) Provide letters of support for State discretionary allocations to San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for the Interstate 215 Corridor Project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Riverside County, the Commission is designated as the authorizing agency to make funding and programming decisions for state and federal funds, which includes the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, or formerly known as "Economic Stimulus". The ARRA has many funding categories and the highway funding is the subject of this report. Additionally, this report covers the fluidity and uncertainty of how California will distribute the ARRA funds. It should be noted that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) will be meeting on March 11-12, 2009 to discuss the distribution of ARRA funds. Existing State Law California's ARRA highway apportionment is $2.57 billion. ARRA specifies the suballocation of 30% of the ARRA highway funds to the regions through the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) formula, and the remaining 70% would be allocated to the State. Under existing state law, the funding distribution would result in $771 million (30%) distributed to the regions, and $1.799 billion (70%) to the State. Regional Share (30%) — The regional share that would be distributed per the RSTP formula would result in Riverside County receiving approximately $35 million. State Share (70%) — Existing law allocates the State share to the State Highway Operations Protection Program (SHOPP), which primarily funds rehabilitation and safety work, and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Caltrans has proposed various levels of SHOPP ARRA funding ranging from $500 to $900 million. The remaining ARRA funds are proposed to be distributed to the regions per the STIP formula. Therefore, the amount of funds Riverside County would receive through the STIP formula depends largely upon how much funding the CTC and Caltrans designate for the SHOPP. The estimated range of the State's share that Riverside County can anticipate is $30 to $44 million. On March 6, 2009, the CTC released its "Guidance on Incorporating Stimulus Funds into the STIP", which includes regional targets for the 70% State ARRA share. Based on this new information, Riverside County can possibly receive $79 million. However, the guidelines indicate that the STIP regional targets are "not a minimum, guarantee, or limit on project nominations or on project selection in any county or region. The Commission may program over the target in some regions and under the targets in others". Additionally, the guidelines identify the following project selection criteria: • Priority will be given to projects that can be obligated by June 17, 2009. • Priority will be given to projects that will be completed by February 17, 2012. • Priority will be given to projects located in economically distressed areas (includes Riverside County). • Priority will be given to projects that maximize job creation and economic benefit. • To the extent practicable, the Commission intends to give priority to TE projects associated with a highway or transit project and are not stand alone projects. Based on the above, it is uncertain whether or not Riverside County's proposed regional targets will be approved by the CTC. Staff maintains a conservative estimate of $35 million and an optimal estimate of $71 million until the CTC approves the programming of Riverside County ARRA highway projects. • • • • • • Proposed State Legislation Proposed state legislation has been drafted that would direct all the ARRA funds through a modified RSTP process (62.5% to regions based on population; 37.5% to the state). The proposed legislation would result in Riverside County receiving approximately $71 million of ARRA highway funds and $2.2 million of ARRA TE funds. The proposed legislation is supported by the transportation community including the Self -Help Coalition, CSAC, CALCOG, and Caltrans. Although most regions throughout the state would benefit from the RSTP formula distribution, some regions would not. These would be regions that have bond projects ready to proceed with construction that Caltrans and the CTC have indicated they would consider for ARRA funding. Timing is of the essence for the passage of the proposed legislation. The ARRA requires that states obligate 50% of their share within 120 days, or June 30, 2009. If the legislation is not passed soon, the State will need to proceed allocating ARRA funds under the existing legislation to meet the 120-day fund obligation deadline. If states obligate 50% of their share, the remaining funds must be obligated by March 2, 2010. States that do not obligate 50% of their shares by June 30, 2009, will lose their funds and the funds will be redistributed to other states that met the 50% obligation deadline. It is likely that the CTC will take action at its meeting this week to implement the STIP allocation process in the absence of legislation. It is also possible that the CTC could take action tomorrow and the legislature could still change the distribution in the coming weeks. The lack of a cohesive, coordinated effort at the State level in California is leading to significant uncertainty and confusion. Regardless, we are poised to respond quickly and will work closely with project sponsors and Caltrans to ensure that stimulus/ARRA funds are expended as quickly as possible. Staff is recommending some flexibility in support of a mechanism to ensure that we maximize funds coming to Riverside County. Riverside County Proposal for ARRA Highway Funds Staff has reviewed numerous projects that were submitted to Caltrans as part of an effort to inventory the state's highway and roadway needs. Additionally, staff requested local agencies to submit projects that were federalized and could be delivered within the next few months. At the time of these project requests, it was not known if the ARRA funds would be eligible for non -federalized projects. Once the first draft of the bill was released, we learned that the ARRA funds were eligible only for federalized projects and that no federal requirements would be waived. We also learned about the timelines required for obligating funds. Over the past month, staff focused on only those projects that had federally cleared environmental documents and would be in a position to obligate the ARRA funds within the 120 day deadline. In addition, staff developed the following goals for selecting projects: • Obligate Construction and Maximize Job Creation within 120 days • Consider Regional, Federal Projects currently programmed in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) • Maintain Existing Project Commitments (STIP/Prop 1 B, and Measure A) • Maintain Ability to Reprogram STIP or Other Funds to Other Regional Projects • Minimize Impact to Ca!trans (project reviews and approvals) • Minimize Number of Projects to Report to FHWNCaltrans/Congress Given the lack of certainty on the funding level that Riverside County will receive, staff has prepared two scenarios (low and high): Scenario 1: Riverside County receives only a 30% suballocation of $35 million; and Scenario 2: Riverside County receives 30% suballocation plus additional RSTP or STIP regional funds of $71 million or higher. Table A: Proposed Projects for ARRA Hiphwav Funds: Description Scenario 1: $35 M Scenario 2: $71 M Obligation Submittal Comments $ (000's) $ (000's) I-215/Clinton Keith $ 10,000 $ 10,000 March 30 Meas A Regional IC Arterial project 1-10/Palm Dr IC -- $ 5,080 April 15 STIP/TCR project SR 60Nalley Wy IC $ 4,982 $ 4,982 April 15 Meas A Interchange SR 91Nan Buren IC - $ 16,101 April 15 STIP project I-10/Bob Hope IC $ 20,000 $ 34,912 Ma 1 STIP •ro'ect Total $ 34,982 $ 71,075 Note: Funding amounts for the above projects will be adjusted according to final ARRA funding levels and delivery constraints. Funding distribution to the 1-10 interchange projects are subject to change by action taken by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The ARRA funds will replace STIP, 1989 Measure A, and Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) funds, and the STIP, 1989 Measure A, and TCR funds will be reprogrammed on other regional projects in the 2010 STIP cycle. The I-215/Clinton Keith Interchange project has completed all pre -construction work. The remaining interchange projects included in Table A are in the right-of-way certification stage. We will follow the progress of the projects to ensure they can be delivered within 120 days. If any of the projects have significant delays, we will need to ensure that the ARRA funds can be obligated by reallocating the ARRA funds to one or more of the above interchange projects. We will review the funding plans of these projects and allocate additional ARRA funds with the intention of replacing local funds on the projects that can then be programmed on other regional projects. For example, we would reprogram ARRA funds from a delayed project and put it on another interchange project that is moving forward. If TUMF or 1989 Measure A funds are being replaced, we would reprogram these funds to another regional project at the Commission's discretion. The intent is to cycle funding back in to our regional project/program commitments. • • • • • • ARRA Transportation Enhancement (TE) Funds Included in the highway ARRA apportionment is a 3% off -the -top for TE projects. The current estimate of TE funds that Riverside County would receive is between $2.2 and $2.8 million. In October 2005, the Commission approved TE projects that were programmed in the STIP covering fiscal years 2006/07 through 2010/11. There are two TE projects that are ready for construction, which are the Gene Autry Trail Gateway landscaping project in the city of Palm Springs ($1.513 million), and the Alessandro Boulevard median construction and landscaping project in the city of Riverside ($944,000). The STIP TE allocation request for the Palm Springs project was deferred in January 2009 due to the State budget impasse. Riverside's project is scheduled for allocation next month; however, it is unknown when the CTC will allocate TE projects again. Other TE projects that are ready to proceed with construction will be reviewed to fund any remaining balance of ARRA and/or STIP TE funding. RCTC Local Stimulus As a result of expectations on receiving "stimulus" funds at the local level, staff has reviewed the option of distributing local Measure A funds to the cities and county. Due to decreased revenues, the Commission does not have a reserve that is available for new programming. Therefore, staff identified $18 million of 1989 Measure A funds that are programmed on the SR-74/I-215 interchange project that can be 'loaned" to the cities and county. In order to pay back this loan, staff is proposing that the SR-74/1-215 interchange project be programmed in the STIP, using the capacity made available from ARRA funding that is replacing STIP funding. In the event STIP funding is not available at the time the project is ready for construction, staff will review other fund sources to ensure the project is fully funded. Staff is proposing to distribute the $18 million of local Measure A funds to the cities and county per the 1989 Measure A Local Streets and Roads subvention formula (Attachment A). The funds would be required to be spent (or construction contracts awarded) within a year of the Commission approval and notification, and projects would be required to be included in the respective local agencies Measure A Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Projects may be amended into the CIP as long as they are eligible for 1989 Measure funds. Funds would be provided on a reimbursement basis for eligible projects. The main benefit of distributing local Measure funds instead of federal ARRA funds is that the local agencies would have funds with the least amount of restrictions. The ARRA funds will require reporting to Caltrans, CTC, FHWA, and eventually Congress. Federal funds already involve many restrictions and convoluted processes to follow, and the ARRA funds have additional reporting requirements we haven't had to adhere to before, which will be subject to national scrutiny. Therefore, the option to provide a local stimulus program gives local agencies the advantage of delivering projects quickly and easily with the ultimate benefit of stimulating the local economy. SUPPORT FOR USE OF STATE DISCRETIONARY FUNDS Under either ARRA funding distribution scenario, there will be Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) funds for discretionary allocation by Caltrans. Staff recommends that the Commission support expenditure of these funds in economically distressed areas as defined by federal law. Riverside and San Bernardino counties are designated areas. The Commission does not have an ITIP eligible project to compete for those discretionary funds. The SANBAG 1-215 Corridor Project in downtown San Bernardino is ready to go to construction and would provide much needed jobs in the Inland Empire. This project is currently at risk due to the State's inability to sell Proposition 1 B bonds. Staff recommends providing letters of support for SANBAG's 1-215 Corridor project to administration and legislative leaders. ARRA Transit funding On the transit side, the ARRA Capital Transit .Assistance Program funding for FTA Section 5307 and Section 5311 totals $31,844,955. The ARRA transit capital assistance program funds have 180-days (September 1, 2009) to get the projects obligated (grants awarded). ARRA transit funds are subject to redistribution if 50% of the funds are not awarded by the September 1, 2009 deadline. The remaining 50% must be obligated no later than March 5, 2010. If funds are not fully obligated by the March 5, 2010 deadline, they will be subject to redistribution. The transit operators are currently working on the submittal of their candidate projects to the Commission for review and approval. The ARRA candidate projects will be presented at the March 23, 2009 Budget and Implementation Committee and forwarded to the April 8, 2009 Commission meeting. The breakdown of the ARRA transit funding is included in Attachment B. FTIP Programming All ARRA funding must be included in the FTIP. Staff is currently coordinating project amendments with SCAG so that the funds can be included in the FTIP as soon as possible. SCAG has scheduled several amendments to respond to ongoing changes that may occur at the state level throughout the next few months. Financial Information No FY 2008/09 $ 5,000,000 In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $13,000,000 Source of Funds: 1989 Measure A WC Highway Budget Adjustment: Yes 222-31 81301 P2312 $3,700,000 GLA No.: 253-31 81301 P2312 $1,250,000 233-31 81301 P2312 $ 50,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: Attachment A: Attachment B: $18 million Local Stimulus Distribution ARRA Transit Funding • • • • • ATTACHMENT A DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Measure A Distribution related to Economic Stimulus Trades MEASURE A PROJECTION LESS: ADMINISTRATION TOTAL PROJECTION WESTERN COUNTY PORTION $18,000,000 0 $18,000,000 Local Streets & Roads 100.00% $13.549,000 $13,549,000 BANNING $219,000 2 BEAUMONT 43,000 CALIMESA 56 CANYON LAKE ,000 72,000 ,000 HEMET 1,632,000 832,000 LAKE ELSINORE 437,000 MENIFEE 488,000 MORENO VALLEY 1,376,000 MURRIETA 623,000 NORCO 260,000 PERRIS 437,000 RIVERSIDE 2,684,000 SAN JACINTO 255,000 TEMECULA ,000 W210 ILDOMAR 1,10,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY tart277,40OM AREA TOTAL $13,549,000 Local Streets & Roads 100.00% COACHELLA VALLEY PORTION $4,314,000 $4,314,000 CATHEDRAL CITY $492,000 COACHELLA 201,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 137,000 INDIAN WELLS 81,000 INDIO 550,000 LA OUINTA 480,000 PALM SPRINGS 599,000 PALM DESERT 881,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 312,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA TOTAL $4,314,000 PALO VERDE VALLEY PORTION $137,000 Local Streets & Roads 100.00% $137,000 BLYTHE $126,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY s a'U:0021i AREA TOTAL $137,000 NOTE (1): Allocations are based on Measure A allocation formula for local streets and roads program NOTE (2): Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences $3,340,000` ATTACHMENT B Capital Transit Assistance Program Federal Stimulus Funding for Sec 5307 & 5311 Riverside County: ARRA - Federal Register 3/5/09 Fund Source Urbanized Area Population Area ARRA FY 09 Apportionment FTA 5307 1,000,000 or more Riverside* $19,376,710 Bus (62.73%) $12,155,010 Rail (37.27%) $7,221,700 200,000-999,999 Indio -Cathedral -Palm Springs $4,714,391 Murrieta/Temecula $4,066,829 50,000-199,999 Hemet $2,505,051 _,ai V, _J, 1i.V 4ikUlaSd1 Total 5307 t&l l3biiE..£flee.kt.'..;IS.tC;crash?12uxx^a:..,xiw.M.wa,xw-emaswv....w�,. e, tea ............. ,.,.a—._--.. $30,662,981 .. _. -. likTA 5311 Riverside County Total Western Co. (RTA) Coachella (SunLine) 61.70% 38.30% $1,181,974 $729,278 $452,696 *Note: 2009 FTA 5307 RIV/SAN UZA ARRA Total Apportionment = $36,415,543. Riverside = $19,376,710 Riv/Sbdno % split based on FY 09 Inter -County Apportionment: 53.21 % (Riverside); 46.68% (San-Bdno); .11% (LA) FY 2009 5307 ARRA Apportionment by Mode Mode Area RAIL Westem Riverside RCTC-Rail ..--- $7,221,700 BUS Western Riverside RTA/Corona/Riverside $18,726,890 Coachella Valley SunLine $4,714,391 Riverside County TOTAL $30,662,981 • s;uawaouequ3 uo!;epodsueJl (%E) uo!II!W LL$ dI1S - UO11111111 L60'1$ ddOHS - uo!II!W 09$ dllS/ddOHS Ma/ uoIII1W ZZL'6$ a;e;S o; u011118 66L-b$ 9781 OHS y6nonyl papuedx3 uolll!W 6LL$ lol(e)(v)(E)(Plec i osn CZ suo!6ab o; pa;uengns uo!II!W 611$ Me-7 6unspx3 ifq uognq js a wewisanui aani.on4sagui Aemg6iH epopieo pv luewlsenup pue Aa9n0091 ueope a 010Z `Z 43ae1A1Aq pe;e6!lgo eq;snug spund 6ulu!eweN IIH s;ueweoueyu3 uogepodsueal Nem uolll!W 6Z$ 81, uogisodoadrddOHS UO111!W 9E6$ 94e4S o; uo!II!W V96$ swewe3ueyu3 uogepodsueal leuo!Bem uo1111W 8V$ suolBeN o; u011118 909' 4$ %9 Z9 uoyers 5e7 ajejs pesodoad ifq uorinctujs a wewisenui amprui.sagui Aenny6iH epople0 'Toy luauijsenu!ej pue AJOA0091 ueopew Revised Table for ARRA Highway Funds approved at the March 11, 2009 Commission meeting: Given the lack of certainty on the funding level that Riverside County will receive, staff has prepared two scenarios (low and high): Scenario 1: Riverside County receives only a 30% suballocation of $35 million; and Scenario 2: Riverside County receives 30% suballocation plus additional RSTP or STIP regional funds of $71 million or higher. Table A: Proposed Projects for ARRA Highway Funds: Description Scenario 1: $35 M Scenario 2: $71 M Obligation Submittal Comments $ (000's) $ (000's) I-215/Clinton Keith $ 10,000 $ 10,000 March 30 Meas A Regional IC Arterial project 1-10/Palm Dr IC $ 5,080 $ 5,080 April 15 STIP/I-CR project SR 60Nalley Wy IC $ 4,982 $ 4,982 April 15 Meas A Interchange SR 91Nan Buren IC --- $ 16,101 April 15 STIP project I-10/Bob Hope IC 1_14,920 $ 34,912 Ma 1 STIP project Total $ 34,982 $ 71,075 Note: Funding amounts for the above projects will be adjusted according to final ARRA funding levels and delivery constraints. Funding distribution to the 1-10 interchange projects are subject to change by action taken by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The ARRA funds will replace STIP, 1989 Measure A, and Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) funds, and the STIP, 1989 Measure A, and TCR funds will be reprogrammed on other regional projects in the 2010 STIP cycle. I TECHNICAL AD.&.Y COMMITTEE • -Mar-c~009 AGENCY TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME I SIGNATURE BANNING I DUANE BURK Kahono Oei Director of Public Works i I • : I I BEAUMONT. · :KISHEN PRATHIVADI Dee Moorjani ·····--l(';,;, ,J ''"' k' ---~----" i --~--------------T---I .• 1 Assistant Director of Public ! ~~ I BLYTHE JIM RODKEY Chad Aaby ~,.., R,,Jk; t/11; Public Works Director City Engineer ------·· CVAG ALLYN WAGGLE Mike Shoberg " v 72,Jtc:L c;;± CALIMESA CARLOSZAMANO Bob French R6 " E ~ ~ o-.L"" City Engineer I Public Works Director CAL TRANS PATRICK HALLY Bill Mosby CANYON LAKE 1 HABIB MOTLAGH Eric Skaugset I I City Engineer Assistant Engineer I CATHEDRAL IBILL BAYNE iPavel Horn I CITY ' COACHELLA PAUL TOOR Tony Lucero Public Works Director ... CORONA IKIP FIELD Bob Morin (cting Public Works Director Principal Civil Engineer i I I /} DESERT HOT I JONA THAN HOY :fotJAntkN f-ht{ {~_LL/J,/lY SPRINGS j Public Works Director /City !Engineer 7v,.-v 3/16/2009 -• AGENCY I TAC MEMBER I ALTERNATE HEMET IMIKEGOW Victor Monz I Principal Engineer I I I ----· ----INDIAN WELLS TIM WASSIL Bondie Baker Public Works Director/City Assistant Engineer II Engineer INDIO JIM SMITH Tom Rafferty Director of Public Works Principal Civil Engineer LA QUINTA TIMOTHY JONASSON Nick Nickerson , Public Works Director/City I Engineer LAKE I KEN SEU MALO Ed Basubas ELSINORE I City Engineer City Traffic Engineer MORENO CHRIS VOGT Prem Kumar VALLEY Public Works Director/City Deputy Public Works Engineer Director/Assistant City Engineer MURRIETA PATRICK THOMAS Russ Napier Director of Public Works/City Capital Improvement ,Engineer Program Manager NORCO BILL THOMPSON Lori Askew Director of Public Works Associate Engineer PALM DESERT MARK GREENWOOD Alana Townsend Director of Public works PALM SPRINGS DAVE BARAKIAN Marcus Fuller Director of Public Works/City Engineer PVVTA LES NELSON City Manager i i i I i I I I TECHNICAL AD.'"'Y COMMITTEE Marc~009 PRINT NAME rv\~~· Go~J I ---~----~-------·------· ~J /'iV\A. 0tt:v$S CV--aIJ~~~ ~~Lil~ ! J ~M<-'f-6~w }Ave fj4,~fCcJ/l • SIGNATURE ~ -----d . (Hri ,1/. J '---/'i ~A~• .J --~v-/"-(!/;:ff~ --v I AJjj_! I L_.P """""" ., u:;t1 3/16/2009 ... • AGENCY I TAC MEMBER i ALTERNATE I PERRIS RON CARR J~:::rh Public Works Director RTA MARK STANLEY , Scott Richardson I Director of Planning Planning and Program Manager RANCHO BRUCE HARRY Randy Viegas MIRAGE Director of Public Works Project Manager RIVERSIDE TOM BOYD Siobhan Foster I Deputy Public Works I Director/City Engineer RIVERSIDE 'JUAN PEREZ Patty Romo COUNTY Director of Transportation Deputy Director of 1 Transportation --SAN JACINTO HABIB MOTLAGH Eric Skaugset City Engineer Assistant Engineer SUN LINE EUNICE LOVI Alfonso Hernandez Director of Planning Assistant Planner TEMECULA GREG BUTLER Dan York Director of Public Works City Engineer WILD OMAR MICHAEL KASHIWAGI Diane Nguyen Director of Public Works Transportation Programs Manager WR COG RUTHANNE TAYLOR· BERGER Deputy Executive Director crf11 of tlt&~trf:wt r I I ! TECHNICAL AD.AnY COMMITTEE Marc~009 PRINT NAME I ~,L -:fa4fa y __ J_ I ~\:l-V<''.zt.., \4A/)., ;v--'] r/W'-~I I • SIGNATURE ------------·----------;((#__~ "') ~ ,,,¢2 .~ ~ ~ ~4/ ~~ /Jr;JJr->L-, ~~ -..I\'\.'<.,.~ ~";:)~-..-L ~ \j £{24C /-lA) 15 L,---fa·~ 3/16/2009 • w w I- I- :?! :?! 0 (.) ~ >-0 0::: N -~ 0 0 <( ~ ..J :?! <( (.) z I (.) w I- • • ..J <( :?! I w 0::: 0 w z 0 I a.. w _J w I- - w :?! <( z >-(.) z w (!) <( I - I fl ;ti b' 7 a ,.5' r .{ ~ ~ r ~ \ I I -- ' I I I I I I --- m 0 0 N --(!) ~ --Cf)