Loading...
04 April 8, 2009 Commission86927 RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chair: Bob Magee 1" Vice Chair: Bob Buster 2nd Vice Chair: Dick Kelly Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Robert Crain, City of Blythe Ray Quinto / Jim Hyatt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Jordan Echrenkranz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Eduardo Garcia / Steven Hernandez, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Steve Nolan, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Eric McBride, City of Hemet Patrick J. Mullany / Larry Spicer, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Ben Godfrey, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee 1 Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi / Scott Mann, City of Menifee Jesse Molina / Bonnie Flickinger, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Malcolm Miller, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Gordon Moller / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside James Potts / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Scott Farnam / Bridgette Moore, City of Wildomar Raymond Wolfe, Governor's Appointee Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. if you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.00 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item fisted on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, April8,, 2009 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. /n addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2009 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 11, 2009 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS - The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2008. 78. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND• PLANNING ALLOCATION TO COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 Page 3 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve an allocation of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) planning funds totaling $315,000 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work program. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2009 Page 3 7C. AMENDMENT WITH ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR DESIGN OF THE LA SIERRA STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 9 1) Approve Agreement No. 02-33-029-07, Amendment No. 7, to Agreement No. 02-33-029, with Engineering Resources of Southern California (ERSC) to perform station design services for an increase of $12,362 for a total not -to -exceed amount of $909,603; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Approve a budget adjustment to increase preliminary engineering expenditures by $ 108,300. 7D. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview Page 16 This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. 7E. PROPOSITION 1B FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 CALIFORNIA TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM - CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND AND SUPPORTING RESOLUTIONS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 24 1) Adopt Resolution No. 09-005, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Approving the Allocation of FY 2008/09 Proposition 1 B-6161-0002 California Transit Security Grant Program - California Transit Assistance Funds (CTSGP-CTAF) Population Funds"; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-006, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Appointing Individuals to Act on Behalf of the Commission for the Purpose of Applying and/or Accepting Grants Awarded to the Commission's Rail Program."; and 3) Allocate the CTSGP-CTAF discretionary funds totaling $1,553,822 for the lead project sponsors per Attachment 3. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2009 Page 4 7F. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECT REPROGRAMMING • Page 31 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request - to reprogram federal and local funds remaining on completed and yet -to -be started capital projects from FY 2004/05 — 2007/08 grant years to cover immediate FY 2008/09 capital needs originally programmed primarily with State Transit Assistance (STA) funds; 2) Approve the $783,382 excess and unassigned STA funds resulting from the reprogramming structure be retained by RTA to be utilized for other capital projects that will be identified in later years; and 3) Amend RTA's FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. 7G. DISBANDMENT OF THE PROPERTY COMMITTEE Overview Page 34 • This item is for the Commission to disband the Property Committee and direct property acquisition issues to the appropriate policy committee. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH STUDY Page 36 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive the Environmental Justice (EJ) toolkit entitled Healthy Communities and Healthy Economies - A Toolkit for Goods Movement. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2009 Page 5 • 9. • AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT FORMULA 5307/5311 TRANSIT FUNDING ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 40 1) Approve the project list recommendations for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) formula 5307 funding allocation for Riverside County transit projects; and 2) Approve amendment of the FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) for the city of Corona, city of Riverside, Commission/Metrolink, Riverside Transit Agency, and SunLine Transit Agency to reflect the inclusion of the ARRA projects. 10. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS AND AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 44 1) Receive and file an update on the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009; 2) Adopt Perris Valley Line and Alameda Corridor East grade separations in Riverside County as the priorities for the FY 2010 federal appropriations cycle; 3) Review and discuss the status of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) highway funding; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute a certification statement under Section 1511 of ARRA that the Commission's investment of ARRA funds is in compliance with federal law. 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2009 Page 6 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 13, 2009, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL APRIL 8, 2009 Present County f`I scda, District L County of Riverside, District II County of. l-r S� District: ftl County of Riverside, District IV Co »trict City of Banning CCfy=o City of Blythe City of Calirra City of Canyon City tit- City of Coachella City of --= City of Desert Hot Springs City bif City of Indian Wells City of Iny. F.. _-- City of La Quinta City of l City of Menifee City of City of City of City of City of City of City Q City of Riverside Ct�r ,a _ City of Temecula_ City �tT Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 P�I`ri Perris Palm Desert itt Absent 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET APRIL 8, 2009 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS 4 6 -0-„,,,, 6 &mu& (1 /k-t4;1\--letiLta As' hLt...-.7-7 =,t.--- ccpc-0.1-7 -Act ritr- /=,e4vK f 71riLi.-' Aber Rf c K G70,e _S- /Y ax_ r--c ,-_ 7 � at 5n4 PERK) s l-�y� .� o6Gc; S / 4frn 4-GvL9 w1. ?nTT S SiN c�i4C! ,4-)7-0 -„J-A-.-4.-42-,k- 'k----,--„�.� " '1--LA-A Cdt y GU o �. � SAL �S ,. EGG_ n (�� / /s 4 S A�11) f 76?"e �.D.gku-e ,vcc g-i-=/e � if re,(ii.( J77s2/ 7,., M kwcf- C�V =,.., a , 0 a.•a er V n-- S;, --ya- . �i{wl Vth /4/tet01 ..t t aRG%A 6fi<e6 PAS eA-17.1 11-4[Zfc� '`p/./ /77 ��2T ! ra i S�/�/s✓�C vc_o-rT i �Aia-NP Vv\ C/;,1 ('/0'r" W/L00Ow179/Q. `��` 03if '�� t/ 7 A, (C/1 U iii° 3003 dIZ AllO 133H1S .2. S 06 _3A a,y- fi-9 .1 S � ��Jv �/7, s :ss3Haad ss3Nlsna df10110 / NOIIVZINVOHO / AON3OV AO 3WtlN D.zcjjst.4 'ON 3N0Hd 0L/ ` V cf.-) J/JY/1 w Jj4o-y—y /:0N11N3S311d32i 7 3003dIZ-7 ?UN'1 P'� ���'A110 133H1S /_94°?1���H �y/�� 1�-tiSoW �r L� :Ss3aaad 7 �2"7171-1 �6' ON 3N0Hd 1� ��9 /219 hAq4 0f, V j :31/11'dN :W311 VON30V d0 103f8ns IVON3OV 3H1 NO 031SI1 SAY/ ='ON W311 `d0N39V jyQjijzS V/1//'7Oy-taz.. f1 QvH5 / y :S1N31AIINO0 0118nd I 14 :S1N31AIW00 mend d0 103f8nS o Al H03H0 b� (� `0 7 t y d "i =31VG 011V08 3H1 d0 118313 3H11 O111N8ns aNH H3V13a4 2009 General Assembly Preliminary Schedule Thursday, May 7, 2009 10:00-1 1:00 am Check -In & Continental Breakfast • Planning & Policy Technical Advisory Committee (PPTAC) Special Meeting • Executive/Administration Committee 11:00 am- 12 Noon Regional Council Speaker — State Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (invited) 12 Noon-2:00 pm Luncheon Master of Ceremonies — Rick Bishop, Executive Director, WRCOG • Tribute to Toni Young • President Dixon's Year in Review Speaker — (TBA) • Service Recognition 2:00-4:00 pm General Assembly • Business Session • Presentation to Outgoing President • Passing the Gavel • Adjourn 4:30-6:30 pm Legislative Reception Meet & Mingle with the Region's Legislative Delegation 7:00-8:30 pm Awards Dinner Keynote Speaker — Senator Denise Ducheny • Service Recognitions • Regional Champions Friday, May 8, 2009 9:00 -10:00 am Continental Breakfast 10:00-11:30 am Joint Policy Committee Workshop on SB 375 SCAG's Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) Conceptual Land -Use Scenario will be unveiled. You don't want miss this! • Adjourn 12:30-3:30 pm Golf at The Dunes Please respond to Linda Jones by April 20th to be assigned to a foursome. (Green fees are available at a discounted rate of $100 for all General Assembly attendees). For more information and registration, please contact Linda Jones at (213) 236-1912 or by email, at jonesl@scag.ca.gov. To register online visit: www.scag.ca.gov/ga09 La Quinta Resort & Club: 49-499 Eisenhower Drive, La Quinta, California 92253 ASSOCIATION OI 6OYEEYMS NTS COUNTY REGIONAL OFFICES:Imperial I Los Angeles I Orange I Riverside I San Bernardino !Ventura MAIN OFFICE: 8 18 West 7t'' Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 900 17 ( www.scag.ca.gov ?229 3.09 AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Bob Magee at 9:32 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Darcy Kuenzi led the Commission in a flag salute 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Roger Berg Bob Botts Daryl Busch Bob Buster Mary Craton Joseph DeConinck Scott Farnam Ginny Foat Eduardo Garcia Rick Gibbs Terry Henderson Frank Hall Richard Kelly Darcy Kuenzi Robin Lowe Bob Magee Andy Melendrez 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Glenn Miller Scott Matas Jesse Molina Gordon Moller Patrick J. Mullany Steve Nolan James Potts Ron Roberts Raymond Wolfe Marion Ashley Ray Quinto Gregory Pettis Jeff Stone John F. Tavaglione Roy Wilson Chair Magee recognized Steve Nolan, alternate for the city of Corona, and Andy Melendrez, alternate for the city of Riverside, for attending the Commission meeting. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2009 Page 2 Anne Mayer, Executive Director, presented a 20-year service award to Jerry Rivera, Motorist Assistant Manager. She congratulated him on his retirement and commended him for all of his hard work. Jerry Rivera expressed his gratitude to the Commission and staff for all its support. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 14 AND FEBRUARY 11, 2009 M/S/C (Lowe/Buster) to approve the minutes of January 14 and February 11, 2009. Abstain: Foat 6. PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF FEE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTINTERESTS IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 256-140-006 AND 291-020-019 (CALTRANS PARCEL NUMBERS 21016-1, 21016-2 AND 21019), FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE STATE ROUTE 60 EAST JUNCTION TO THE INTERSTATE 215 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES CONNECTOR, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Chair Magee opened the public hearing and requested legal counsel to explain the nature and scope of the hearing. Steve DeBaun, legal counsel, explained the purpose of this hearing is for the Board to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity (RON) to acquire by eminent domain certain real property in the city of Riverside for the construction and maintenance of improvements related to the East Junction project. He stated at the conclusion of this hearing the Board will be asked to adopt a RON and provided the findings. Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board, verified the proof of mailing that certifies on February 23, 2009, the notice was sent to the property owners of said parcel numbers. Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager, explained Ca[trans and the Commission entered into a cooperative agreement to construct the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on the I-215/SR-60 interchange 'East Junction. • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2009 Page 3 He stated the Commission is requested to determine and find that the full requirements for the adoption of a RON has been met and satisfied, and highlighted the following areas: • Commission is requested to make the following findings; • The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; • The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury, • The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; • The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners; • East Junction project location map; • Parcel acquisitions; • Ataii property; • King property; and • Staff recommendation that the Commission adopt the RON based on the findings. Jennifer Harmon stated there is a request to speak from the owner of Ataii property. Payam Ataii, a family member representing Soliemon Ataii, concurred the Commission has served the greatest public good, but expressed concern due to the economic downturn, he does not believe the offer from the Commission includes just compensation. He read a letter from Rudy Mendez, a concerned tenant from Apartment No. 14. Payam Ataii stated the Ataii family prefers to move forward expeditiously. In response to Commissioner Bob Buster's question about the option for the Commission to take a portion of the Ataii property, Payam Ataii replied that a partial take will eliminate Mr. Ataii's source of income and leave an unusable piece of property. In response to Commissioner Roger Berg's request for clarification as to when the Ataii property was converted from a motel to apartments, Payam Ataii replied the property is approximately 30 years old and was purchased as an apartment complex by Soliemon Ataii. In response to Commissioner Berg's question about the utilities, Payam Ataii stated the Ataii family is requesting 15% above the Commission's offer. Chair Magee called upon any other persons who wish to be heard on this matter. There were no requests to speak. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2009 Page 4 At this time, Chair Magee closed the hearing. Steve DeBaun stated the Commission will now consider the adoption of the RON. He explained there were issues that were brought up regarding the Commission's offer and it will be discussed during closed session. M/S/C (Busch/Hall) to: 1) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; c) The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; d) The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-004, "RON for the Acquisition of Fee and Temporary Construction Easement Interests in Certain Real Property, Located in Riverside County, California, by Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 256-140-006 and 291-020-019 (Ca!trans Parcel Numbers 21016-1, 27016-2 and 21019), is Necessary for the Construction and Maintenance of Improvements from the State Route 60 East Junction to the Interstate 215 HOV Lanes Connector, in Riverside County, California". 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There was additional information provided for Agenda Item 8F, "State Route 60 East Junction to Interstate 215 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Connector Project Relocation Plan", per Commissioner Ginny Foat's request; revised Agenda Item 10, "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - Riverside County Highway Proposer; and a revision to Agenda Item 13 — Closed Session. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Ginny Foat requested the Chair provide extra time to review revised Agenda Item 10. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2009 Page 5 Commissioner Buster requested to pull Agenda Item 81, "Local Match Contribution for Signal Synchronization Project Applications to the Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee Call for Projects" for further discussion. M/S/C (Henderson/Craton) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 8A. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2008. 8B. REVISIONS TO THE DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY 1) Approve the revisions to the Debt Management Policy; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-003, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Debt Management Policy." 8C. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT APPLICATION REVISION FOR THE STATE STREET MULTI -USE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PATH PROJECT FOR THE CITY OF HEMET Approve the Transportation Enhancement (TE) application revision for the State Street multi -use bicycle and pedestrian path project. 8D. OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT STUDY FOR THE ORTEGA HIGHWAY / STATE ROUTE 74 Receive and file the Operational Improvement Study for the Ortega Highway / State Route 74. 8E. AGREEMENT WITH KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED IRVINE TO CORONA EXPRESSWAY PROJECT 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-65-105-05, Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 07-65-105-00, with Kleinfelder West, Inc. based on the negotiated project scope, schedule, and cost to provide additional technical studies to more thoroughly evaluate the feasibility of the proposed Irvine to Corona Expressway project for a not to exceed amount of $451,227; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2009 Page 6 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work of optional tasks as may be required for the project; and 4) Approve a budget adjustment to increase ^, revenues and expenditures of $451,200 for FY 2008/09. 8F. STATE ROUTE 60 EAST JUNCTION TO INTERSTATE 215 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES CONNECTOR PROJECT RELOCATION PLAN Adopt the State Route 60 East Junction to Interstate 215 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes Connector Project (Relocation Plan (Relocation Plan). 8G. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. 8H. SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN BUDGET AND REVENUE ESTIMATE Receive and file the preliminary revenue estimate for the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) budget process. 9. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCALYEAR 2009/10 BUDGET Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, provided an overview on the Commission's budget process and establishing the policy goals and objectives for FY 2009/10, highlighting the following areas: • Goals and objectives; • Changes; • Mobility; • Goods Movement; • System efficiencies; • Environmental stewardship; • Transportation choices; • Communications; and • Next steps. • Commissioner Robin Lowe requested staff present the outreach efforts on toll planning and specific project development at the next Plans and Programs Committee meeting. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2009 Page 7 Commissioner Buster expressed his appreciation for the efforts to increase coordination and provide public access to commuter information and tools. He requested staff present to the Commission at a future meeting where the Commission is now, where the Commission is headed, and what is in place in other areas of the country that could be useful to the Commission in respect to these efforts. Anne Mayer replied to Commissioner Buster that this is a very important issue and staff is evaluating the current technologies in order to utilize the best ways to send real time information. M/S/C (Gibbs/Henderson) to approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2009/10 Budget. At this time, Chair Magee called for a recess in order for the Commissioners. to review revised Agenda Item 10, "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — Riverside County Highway Proposal". 10. AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT — RIVERSIDE COUNTY HIGHWAY PROPOSAL Anne Mayer provided an update on the potential obligation scenarios of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds for the state and Riverside County. Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager, provided an update on the following areas related to ARRA: • Riverside County Proposal for ARRA Highway Funds • ARRA Transportation Enhancement Funds • Commission Local Stimulus • Support for Use of State Discretionary Funds • ARRA Transit Funding • FTIP Programming Commissioner Scott Matas referred to Table A, Scenario 1, Agenda Item 10 on the Proposed Projects for ARRA Highway Funds and expressed opposition to the removal of Interstate 10/Palm Drive interchange project because the project is ready for construction. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2009 Page 8 Anne Mayer replied it is understood that 1-10/Palm Drive interchange project is further ahead than I-10/Bob Hope Drive interchange project. She referred to the note under Table A — "Funding distribution to the 1 10 interchange projects are subject to change by action taken by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). " She stated staff 'understands the concerns and will work with CVAG. Commissioner Ginny Foat concurred with Commissioner Matas' concern regarding the 1-10/Palm Drive interchange project and requested clarification on the funding scenarios. Shirley Medina replied that the greater allocation is dependent on the California Transportation Commission (CTC) approval on the distribution of State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds and to follow the STIP allocation formula. Anne Mayer clarified that to implement the stimulus bill as it was federally designated does not require legislation. The authority that is needed for the CTC to take action is already in place and fully compliant with existing law. At Commissioner James Potts' request, Anne Mayer explained how the recommendation for proposed projects for ARRA highway funding was determined, including the proposed local stimulus program. Commissioner Berg concurred with staff's recommendations and expressed the Commission needs to allow staff the flexibility in programming and allocating funds as necessary. Commissioner Dick Kelly assured his colleagues from the Coachella Valley that the staff recommendation will allow the projects to move forward. M/S/C (Busch/Kuenzi) to: 1) Support legislation to distribute ARRA funds through the RSTP. In the absence of authorizing legislation, support a distribution by the CTC through the STIP that ensures maximum allocation of funding to Riverside County and provides the most flexibility in programming and allocating funds; 2) ARRA highway funding included in Table A depending on the funding level for Riverside County; • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2009 Page 9 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/I-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-74/1-215 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; and 6) Provide letters of support for state discretionary allocations to SANBAG for the Interstate 215 Corridor Project. No: Potts Abstain: Foat 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION 81. LOCAL MATCH CONTRIBUTION FOR SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT APPLICATIONS TO THE MOBILE SOURCE REDUCTION REVIEW COMMITTEE CALL FOR PROJECTS Commissioner Buster concurred with staff's recommendation and asked staff to provide a status report on the signal synchronization project. He suggested developing strategies in conjunction with the local cities and the county to establish incentives and standards so that local agencies can rely on regional standards for signal synchronization. Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director, provided an update on the signal synchronization project applications and confirmed staff will look into Commissioner Buster's suggestion for regional standards. M/S/C (Buster/Foat) to approve a contribution in the amount of $50,000 of 1989 Measure A Commuter Assistance reserves for a joint project application by the cities of Corona, Moreno Valley, and Riverside for signal synchronization. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2009 Page 10 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 12A. Commissioner Rick Gibbs updated the Commission on the 1-215 sink hole that occurred in the city of Murrieta on Wednesday, February 18, and commended Raymond Wolfe, Caltrans District 8 Director, and his staff for all their hard work. Raymond Wolfe expressed his gratitude to the city of Murrieta for working cooperatively with Caltrans to resolve the issue. 12B. Commissioner —Frank Hall provided a status report from his trip to Washington, D.C., regarding the federal stimulus funds. 12C. Anne Mayer: • Provided an update on the Mobility 21 trip to Washington, D.C.; • Expressed her gratitude to the Commissioners for their input and approval on the federal stimulus bill; and • On March 12-13, 2009, she will attend a working group conference to discuss the implementation of legislation passed as part of SB 4. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee City of Riverside Negotiator — City Manager or Designee Under Negotiations — Price and Terms of Payment Item APN Property 00mer(s) 234-250-009 1 234-250-010 234-250-012 Riverside County Transportation Commission 234-250-026 Agency Negotiator: Under Negotiations RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owner Negotiator: See List of Property Owners — Price and Terms of Payment • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2009 Page 11 Item APN Property Owner(s) 2 291-020-019 Robert M. King and M. Christine King, Trustees of the Robert M. King and M. Christine King Revocable Trust of 1990 3 256-140-006 Patrick Hennessey for Solieman Parviz and Goli Attaii, Trustees of the 2003 Family Trust There were no announcements from Closed Session items. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 8, 2009, in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, C)u^-4•."-4._ Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7A • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cheryl Johns, Procurement and Assets Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2008. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the second quarter ended December 31, 2008, under the single signature authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at December 31, 2008 is $415,875. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of December 31, 2008 Agenda Item 7A 1 • • CONSULTANT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2008 Keyser Marston, Assoc. SA Associates SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF December 31,2008 ORIGINAL CONTRACT REMAINING DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT Consulting services related to the potential commercial development at the La Sierra station. Environmental mitigation study In supportof the SR.' 74 widening ROW work. 5500,000.00 30,000.00 3,366.69 16,000.00 CAG RCTC's share of funding for Green Tech Consulting 8,125.00 0.00r Services associated with the Trade Corridor Working.. - Corridor Working Group. 58125. _ 8,125.001: 22,267.31 15,465.00. aladin Investigative Services Collection services for call box knock -downs. 27,314.58 AMOUNT USED 84,125.00 Less return of remaining contract value due to expiration: AMOUNT USED, net of adjustments AMOUNT REMAINING through December 31, 2008 Cheryl mhos Theresia Trevino - Prepared by Reviewed by Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed In the second quarter. 0.00 84,125.00 $415,875.00 AGENDA ITEM 7B • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Annual Local Transportation Fund Planning Allocation to Coachella Valley Association of Governments for Fiscal Year 2008/09 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve an allocation of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) planning funds totaling $315,000 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 99233.2 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Code of Regulations, up to three percent of the annual TDA revenues shall be allocated for transportation planning and programming purposes. The TDA also requires one-half of these funds to be allocated for planning activities within the Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley areas as determined by the Commission. The CVAG has submitted its FY 2008/09 LTF Program Objectives/Work Plan (Work Plan). The Work Plan identifies work efforts necessary to address the following key program areas: • Transportation Department Operations; • Project Management and Contract Administration; • Riverside County Transportation Commission Programs; • Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program; • Miscellaneous Programs; • Congestion Management/Air Quality Programs; • Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program; and • Governmental and Special Projects. Staff has reviewed the Work Plan and finds it consistent with the Commission's overall transportation program and planning objectives. The amount of TDA funding available to CVAG is $315,000, which is included in the Commission's FY 2008/09 adopted budget. Agenda item 7B 3 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $315,000 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Fund Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 106 65 86205 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date:l, 03/24/2009 Attachment: CVAG FY 2008/09 LTF Program Objectives/Work Plan Agenda Item 7B 4 CVAG • COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Blythe • Cathedral City - Coachella • Desert Hoc Springs • Worm -Wells + Biala •• La .Quints • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage Counof of Riverside • Ague Caliente Band of Canaille Indians - Cabatm Band of Mission Indians - Torres Martinet Desert Cahudle Indians • • February 25, 2009 Ms. Theresia Trevino Chief Financial Officer Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor Riverside, CA 92502 Dear Theresia, Invoice: C1/7097-09 Re: 2008/09 Local Transportation Funding (LTF) The allocation to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments` (CVAG) Local Transportation Funding (LTF) for fiscal year 2008/09 is $3151000. Attached is an overview of CVAG's LTF Work Plan objectives utilizing this funding. Please consider this letter as an invoice for the funds. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, COACHE VLLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ministrative Services attachment c.c. Allyn Waggle Stephanie Wiggins, RCTC Regional Programs Director 73-71 D Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 • Palm Desert, CA 92260 • [760) 346-1127 • FAX [760) 340-5949 • • TRANSPORTATION FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The Work Plan for 2008/09 is separated into eight main program areas: Transportation Department Operations Transportation Program Administration Monitor Implementation of Transportation Project Prioritisation Study (TPPS) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Update Other Transportation Planning Operations Management and Administration This program area performs primarily administrative functions which consist of general transportation program administrative activities and various transportation planning duties in support of the Transportation Department. (Funded from Measure A and TUMF) Project Management and Contract Administration Financial Cash Flow Project Status Tracking Preparation and Monitoring Ageements Includes staff time to conduct project oversight (design, environmental, construction and close-out), preparation ofreimbursement agreements for regional arterial proj ects, review and approval of project billings in accordance with project scope of work and participation in project development team meetings and associated staff reports. (Funded from pleasure A, TUMF and TEA-L U) Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) Programs State Highway Routes in the Coachella Valley Congestion Management Program/System (CMP/CMS) ROTC Technical Advisory Committee State Highway Measure A Discussions Includes staff time to support the Riverside County Congestion Management Program through building permit analysis of the one non-TUMF jurisdiction and analysis of traffic patterns through the traffic count program, to provide ROTC staff regional transportation project information for the State Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and to support the ItCTC Technical Advisory Committee. (Funded from CMAQ, TUMF and State Highway Measure. A) Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program Regional Transportation Improvement Program/State Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP/STIP) This area includes staff time in support of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), support in implementation and updating of the CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS), coordination of updates to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and monitoring and examining impacts of implementing SB 45_ TPPS activities support the regional project construction program which includes staff time to develop an annual prioritized list of construction projects and required financial resources. (Funded from TEA-LU, PP&M, LTF and Measure A) Miscellaneous Programs GIS Information Services Maintain Transportation Model Regional Arterial Traffic Count Program This area involves support to multiple programs with a focus on key project areas. These areas include staff time and project management to maintain and provide input for GIS Information Services, the regional transportation model (CVATS), the regional arterial traffic count program, and transportation legislation review and analysis. GIS Information Services includes staff time to provide regional land use information to CVAG jurisdictions, developers, SCAG and Caltrans. iThe Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study (CVATS) regional transportation model involves support to the current transportation model for forecasting projected, transportation system needs to the year 2030. (Funded from Measure A, TUMF, CMAQ and Special Program Funds) Congestion Management /Air Onalitv Programs SB 821 Program Conformance with SIP requirements Involves Transportation Department staff support to CMAQ program areas, with focus on the SB 821 program. Also includes implementation of State Implementation Plan (SIP) conformance to CVAG regional projects. (Funded from TEA-LU, Measure A and SB 821) 7 • Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMM Program TUMF Program Administration TUMF/GIS Interface Includes staff time in support of the TUMF program and TUMF/GIS Interface program. TUMF program activities include staff time to monitor the implementation of the TUMF program in member jurisdictions, to perform annual fiscal reviews of building permits and TUMF collections, to research, analyze and prepare reports for TUMF appeals, to enter TUMF collections in the TUMF data base, to meet with developers on request to review potential TUMF assessments, and to perform special TUMF analysis on request. The TUMF/GIS interface program requires support for continuing the development of integrating the TUMF collection process with electronic transmission of new development information for land use coverages. (Funded from TUMF) Governmental and Special Projects Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Overall Work Program The SCAG OWP progratn includes staff time to coordinate the CVAG sub -region SLAG Overall Work Program needs, develop annual growth projections, collect annual Highway Performance Monitoring System data, provide input to the Federal Regional Transportation Plan, and assist SLAG with transportation modeling refinements. Additionally, staff performs specific transportation project work for SCAG through their Overall Work Program. SLAG OWP projects for I-10 Closures - Disaster Preparedness Project, Transportation Corridors &. Land Use Data Center, and Coachella Valley Transit Plans and Services Project will be part of the 2008/09 fiscal year program. (Funded from St I G OWP funds) Special Projects Some proposed projects may involve general fund money or special grants. Any project not already a part of the regular work programs, will be brought through the committee process for approval of the proposed work. A two-year Caltrans funded project is currently in place to coordinate communication with the Coachella Valley School Districts, cities and local utilities, for improved and safe routes to school, shared use, and an MOU to continue collaboration_ (Funded from Special Grant funds) • AGENDA ITEM 7C • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Bill Biehl, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment with Engineering Resources of Southern California for PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 02-33-029-07, Amendment No. 7, to Agreement No. 02-33-029, with Engineering Resources of Southern California (ERSC) to perform station design services for an increase of $12,362 for a total not -to -exceed amount of $909,603; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Approve a budget adjustment to increase preliminary engineering expenditures by $108,300. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Project Information The Commission owns approximately 4.6 acres of undeveloped property next to the La Sierra Metrolink station. There is an opportunity to expand the parking facility on this vacant property and dramatically improve the multimodal benefits of the station. The Commission's Commuter Assistance Program has identified a significant need for a dedicated park and ride facility for carpools and vanpools in Riverside along State Route 91. This expanded facility would also support a transfer location for the Orange County Transportation Authority / Riverside Transit Agency commuter route to Orange County. The proposal is to expand the station parking facility and add approximately 500 parking spaces. In addition, a new street entrance will be provided along Indiana Avenue and the facility will have dedicated bus stops and passenger loading area. Initial construction estimates for the parking expansion are at $2 million. Funding for the construction is proposed Agenda Item 7C 9 as Proposition 18 Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) and Commuter Assistance 1989 Measure A funds. To initiate this project, staff will require an amendment of an agreement with ERSC to prepare the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for the construction of the La Sierra Metrolink station parking expansion. This team is uniquely qualified to perform this work since it has been involved in previous parking lot expansions at Downtown Riverside and La Sierra. Engineering Resources Contract History In November 2001, the Commission entered into Agreement No. 02-33-029 with ERSC to provide engineering and design services for the Downtown Riverside and La Sierra Metrolink stations. The original not -to -exceed amount of the agreement was $196,295. Over the years, the agreement has been amended six times by the Commission. Although Amendment No. 4 for design of a temporary parking lot at the Downtown Riverside station was approved by the Commission in an amount of $52,638, the amendment itself was never executed. However, the agreement increase was included in Amendment No. 5, which was also approved by the Commission and carried forward for a current not -to exceed total contract value of $897,241. Under Amendment No. 7, ERSC will prepare the PS&E for the construction of the new La Sierra Metrolink station parking lot expansion. The ERSC proposal is attached to this report. The engineering scope of services is estimated at $108,254, which will exceed the currently adjusted contract balance, by $12,362. Staff recommends that the Commission approve Amendment No.' 7 to add the La Sierra Parking Lot expansion engineering scope and $12,362 to this agreement. This will increase the total not -to -exceed amount of this agreement to $909,603. Staff intends for this to be the final modification of this contract and will solicit statements of qualifications for future work. The funding to covet the PS&E for this project will come from Measure A Commuter Assistance funds. Agenda Item 7C • 10 • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $108,300 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: Yes 221 33 81101 P3809 $108,300 GLA No.: 226 41 97002 P3809 $108,300 Transfer from Commuter Assistance to Rail Capital 221 33 54001 P3809 $108,300 Transfer to Rail Capital from Commuter Assistance Fiscal Procedures Approved: \}1",v4uvjui, Date: 3/13/09 Attachment: Agreement No. 02-33-029-07 Agenda Item 7C 11 • • Agreement No. 02-33-029-07 AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO AGREEMENT No. 02-33-029 FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WITH ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement for preliminary engineering and environmental services is made and entered into as of this day of 2008, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Commission") and ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Consultant"). Both Commission and Consultant may also be referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as "Parties." 2. RECITALS 2.1 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Agreement dated November 14, 2001 (Agreement No. 02-33-029) for the purpose of providing preliminary engineering and environmental services (the "Master Agreement"). 2.2 On or about July 10, 2002, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 1 (Agreement No. 03-33-003) to amend the Master Agreement to provide for the final PS&E design for Phase II of the expansion of the existing Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink station and other miscellaneous services including preparing and/or performing solar panel final design, ALTA Survey, Biological Survey and RCC Import Borrow Plan. 2.3 On or about November 26, 2002, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 2 (Agreement No. 03-33-020) to amend the Master Agreement to provide for additional final design services, to reimburse the cost for required City of Riverside Permit Fees, and to provide Design Construction Support Services for Phase I and Phase II expansion of the Riverside -La Sierra Parking Lot and for the expansion of the Downtown Riverside Station Parking Lot. Engineering Resources - Amendment No. 7 Page 1 12 2.4 On or about October 22, 2003, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 3 (Agreement No. RO-03-33-062) to amend the Master Agreement to provide preliminary design and environmental services, including preliminary site expansion design and property acquisition assistance, for a new parking lot on the east side of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. 2.5 On or about November 12, 2003, the Commision authorized the Parties to enter into Amendment No. 4 (Agreement No. 04-33-038) to amend the Master Agreement to provide for final design and construction support services, including project management, development of preliminary plans and estimates, completion of final plans for upgrade and bid support services, for the conversion of the westerly temporary Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station main parking areal, to a permanent facility. The authorized amount was Fifty two thousand, six hundred thirty eight dollars ($52,638). Amendment 4 was not executed. 2.6 On or about August 26, 2005, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 5 (Agreement No. 06-33-504) to amend the Master Agreement to provide final design and construction support services for the new Riverside - Downtown Metrolink Station East Side Parking Lot 2.7 On or about August 11, 2008, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 6 (Agreement No. 02-33-029) to amend the Master Agreement to provide for the completion of engineering as -built drawings and preparation of design and specifications for walkways and parking lots surfaces, as assigned, for the Riverside -Downtown and La Sierra Metrolink Stations consistent with the Master Agreement 2.8 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement to provide for final design and construction support services, including project management, development of preliminary plans and'estimates and completion of final plans for the conversion of the RCTC property adjacent to the La Sierra Metrolink Station main parking area to a permanent parking facility consistent with the Master Agreement, as heretofore amended. 3. TERMS 3.1 The term of the Master Agreement is hereby extended for an additional term (the "First Extended Term") until December 31, 2009, unless earlier terminated as provided in the Master Agreement. Engineering Resources - Amendment No. 7 Page 2 • • 13 • • The Scope of Work for the Agreement shall be amended to include Services, as that term is defined in Section 3.1 of the Agreement, to provide for final design and construction support services, including project management, development of preliminary plans and estimates, completion of final plans for conversion of the RCTC property adjacent to the La Sierra Metrolink Station main parking area to a permanent parking facility Services to be provided pursuant to this Amendment include, but are not limited to, project management and preparation of construction drawings and project specifications. 3.2 The services described in this Amendment shall be compensated in the same manner as set forth in the Agreement and shall not exceed a base value of One Hundred Eight Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty Four Dollars 0108,254). The current authorized total compensation for this Agreement is Eight Hundred Ninety Seven Thousand Two Hundred Forty One Dollars ($897,241). However, Amendment Number 4 was not executed (in the amount of Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Eight Dollars ($52,638)). As such, the current authorized total compensation should be Eight Hundred Forty Four Thousand Six Hundred Three Dollars ($844,603) after adjustment for Amendment No. 4. The maximum compensation provided under the Master Agreement, as heretofore amended, is changed by this Amendment in the amount of Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000). The total compensation for the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4 (not executed), Amendment No. 5, Amendment No. 6 and this Amendment No.7 shall not exceed Nine Hundred Nine Thousand Six Hundred Three Dollars ($909,603). 3.3 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master Agreement, as previously amended by Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4(not executed), Amendment No. 5 and Amendment 6, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. Engineering Resources - Amendment No. 7 Page 3 14 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 02-33-029-07 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. Anne Mayer, Executive Director Signature APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Name Title Engineering Resources - Amendment No. 7 Page 4 15 • AGENDA ITEM 7D • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Inland Empire -Orange County Weekend Service Performance 2000 1600 1200 800 400 0 Q3 FY 08/09 IEOC Weekend Passenger Trips Last Year —O—Current Year c5 Aej )ate )�cA )a o°j )� o fie° e� �e�o 1•p( �A• gyp• y^• 1. ��• >• Daily passenger trips on the year-round Inland Empire -Orange County 11E0C) Metrolink weekend service have continued to grow into the third quarter, providing 41,302 passenger trips quarter to date. This is an increase of over 22.87% over the 33,615 trips provided at this point last year, attributed to increased gasoline prices and continued promotion. The success of this service is due in large part to the coordinated marketing efforts among the Commission, Orange County Transportation Authority, and San Bernardino Associated Governments. Most all responsibilities for marketing of the service have transitioned to Metrolink, including revised seat drops, branding, and consolidation of the various weekend services under a single promotional umbrella. Agenda Item 7D 16 Riverside Line S. .i F- w O 6,000 5,600 5,200 4,800 4,400 4,000 5 eoo� 4$' 4\f ,J(o Passenger Trips Riverside Line oe o �5 `� o�AO a o°j a Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the mbnth of February averaged 5,111, a decrease of 255, 5% less than the month of January. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily increase of 103 1passenger trips. This is nearly 2% more than a year ago. On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line too d 95 R 90 y 85 a)80 a 75 70 - o93 32) 6:2' 323 cp o`� o�' 62) o� Ab o� oo o0 (<0 4,ac PQ� �aa ��c �J\ Q t5 �eQ Oes �o, p�G lac Fed Month February on -time performance averaged 95% inbound (4% less than January) and 91 % outbound (6% less than January). There were nine delays greater than five minutes during the month of February. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Agenda Item 7D 17 • Inland Empire -Orange County Line 6,000 5,600 N a 5,200 F c 4,800 4t 4,400 4,000 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line 4-33 o`b Q0 A� d) A0 o$ o0 00 A A0 A0 o9 Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's IEOC Line for the month of February averaged 4,422, an increase of 17, no change from the month of January. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily decrease of 399 passenger trips. This is nearly 8% less than a year ago. 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line O`b O� 00 O'b 00 AO O0 O`b Oq' 00 03 O0 O0 Qe� fat PQc �ya� •JJa �J• Q O gad O& �°° Qe° �a0 <,(,yr Month February on -time performance averaged 95% inbound (1 % more than January) and 94% outbound (1 % less than January). There were nine delays greater than five minutes during the month of February. The following are primary causes: Agenda Item 7D Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 18 91 Line Passenger Trips 91 Line 2,800 2,600 N °' 2,400 H "o 2,200 x 2,000 1,800 n°" A� o� ow o� A� pw QcH �� o0 <<e' 4'ai PQc 4a3 )J NO �eQ Oe.r. . )�O 0d Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of February averaged 2,275, a decrease of 15, 1 % less than the month of January. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily decrease of 120 passenger trips. This is nearly 5% less than a year ago. 100 d 95 90 d 85 L 80 d a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line OO 09' OO Atb O`b Ob O� Ob SP SP O°j PQ� �e� )Jc )J� PJ� 6e9 O°� °,Q3 pec' )as Fe Month February on -time performance averaged 98% inbound (3% more than January) and 96% outbound (1 % less than January). There were nine delays greater than five minutes during the month of February. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Agenda Item 7D 19 • Connecting Transit Service Performance The Commission's role facilitating interconnectivity between Metrolink and connecting transit services is essential to ongoing system viability. Such services address the needs of transit dependent riders as well as help mitigate congestion and the necessity for expensive parking capacity at the Commission stations. The Commission is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transit connections. In order to meet these requirements, the Commission has worked with Metrolink and local transit operators to offer connecting services to and from Riverside County Metrolink stations at no cost for those with valid Metrolink tickets. Within Riverside County, services include free transfers to routes operated by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), RTA's Commuter Link service and Corona Cruiser. The following graphs show total monthly Metrolink transfer passenger trips on each of the three services. Passenger Trips RTA Fixed Route m a .t7 F O 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 j)% O$ O°j 543 v) PJ�i c." oec; sad deb Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's 29, and 38) totaled 2,240 for the month -10.40% less than the month of January. over the year. Agenda Item 7D connecting fixed routes (1, 3, 15, 16, 21, of February, a decrease of 260 trips, and Monthly trips decreased by 193 or -7.93% 20 a 0 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 NO 1 Passenger Trips RTA Commuter Link 0 0 0 4 0 O PJ� ��� a� O� )aglo Fe�� coo/ Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's Commuter Link routes (202, 204, 206, 208, and 210) totaled 5,777 for the month of February, a decrease of 497 trips, and 7.92% less than the month of January. Monthly trips have decreased by 773 or 11.80% over the year. 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0) 0 Q6�O4`' PQ�� 40 )S Passenger Trips Corona Cruiser 0 % 0 � di s x Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on the Corona Cruiser totaled 644 for the month of February, an increase of 40, +6.62% from the month of January. Monthly trips have decreased by 31 or -4.59% over the year. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Average Weekday Passenger Trips 2) Metrolink Schedule Adherence Summary - Weekday Service Agenda Item 7D 21 44e10 sun +Ai1InW W e Mei soma any %0 %9- %8' %b %Z %9 %b %8- %Z 80 clad SA 60 gad a6ue40 % %Z- %0 %£- %9- %Z. %0 %Z- %0 60 LW SA 60 clad e6uego % %Z- £L£'£4 91Z'Z 7417 69VL LLL`9 £8L 1.9V£L £0V9 66Z'4 60 clod %£ 996`£4 06eZ 90b'4 98£'L 99£'9 96L 89l'£1. 1.9Z`9 LO£'4 60 uef %9- 179L'Z4 04n 94Z14 9/6'9 40V9 L£L 1.84'ZL Z9E9 9ZZ'17 90 aaa %0 4£4`94 ZO9'Z Lin. 09L'L L04'9 66L L9L'£L OZO'L Z9tr'4 90AoN %Z- 999`94 9417`Z 6Z0'9 L49'L ZZ9'9 96L L9L'£l 9LL'L 9LZ'4 90 PO %l =L4 Z9b'Z 491.'9 LEIVL Z4£'9 96L Z99'£L LZ9'L 09Z'4 so des %Z- 14.1.'1.4 £Ob'Z £6V9 499'L L££'9 99L 9£9'£l LL9'L I.L9'tr 90BM/ %L 69Z`94 1.44'Z L9V9 4£0'8 90'9 909 LLL'£I. Zb6'L 999'4 901nf %9 0£6`L4 LOtr`Z ZZ£'9 998`L 91.9'9 176L Zl6'£1• Z4L'L L8£'17 s0 unf %I. £44`64 99Z'Z 01614 lll'L 69£'9 991 ££9'£I• L9Z'L 691.'4 go Any %L 161`417 69£'Z 800'9 £9L'L 9I.V9 LLL 98Z'£L ££8'9 1.4Z'b go Ale %£ 064`44 004'Z 496'4 £61.'L 091.'9 09L 966'ZI. 9LL'9 ££Z'tr BO JeIN %0 85£`£4 96£'Z Lmt. 9L8'9 800'9 64L 4Z9'Zl L99'9 94Z'4 90 clad ". i�. '-.,,}d.• v dw, ,.I` w /�� _ �A.. .,o t ..?a >✓vvv l":4 r p ,� J �. ���Fk�uf C i ' _ .. y. �_ , �l,�(y. '%.. fv Tr,,,:. i ie(.,. r t{r ° 9� rr� uii i� 1�(`� AT�, , .1 i i 4jn �'o Snip r U, ._U( c a}-. .+r r fi < . i. �� tqj yty9r a" h"i .�� i� v k ' `c >� p�E `C 0 t ,�G" �.3 �., �< � a :a O J'vp r a 1'�i } ar n`.- v M s; ` t�1 &cn �d •Fa .�� �i �1SR n .� P( t F"� p��ia K ,111,,,y,, . , r �"gia.^ �AV. . �.� .�`%WI C:. , ._ a i .,t • ' u., R4 r% _. +�. nv�� . rJR• ;z. �.� ?t.ad f� 2f"ti .�r o o �i'5:✓ � .. to + [..h..� :.v ��y is Y1v��t'itJ. r r . � ♦2 w. ..'�. ��f��v .... i t` a .•. _:_. , 1f1tk1 ...... . �........• • caLsnfav AVOI1OH • MOaNIM H1NOW N331211H1 Sd12112130N3SSVd AHam33M 30V213AV NN110N13W • • %£6 %LB %96 %£6 %COL �Z •uogainolea ewg-uo eLg pepnioul sou WE sup; peruuy .uolieulwal to lulod Le awg-uo 019M lay; gip pegeplsuoo ale suleg peleuiuual dsAelap elgemmal.1o) spew wag aney s)uawlsn[pe ON %06 %1.6 I%EB %96 I%£6 %76 %96 %00l %76 %86 %6L %G6 %l6 %L6 swell poued Bead 60 004 awll Pain9905 do swum 5 1.11431M 6ulnpiv polJed deed %£6 %E6 %76 %96 %86 %96 %96 %£6 %96 %Le %GO %86 %66 %96 %96 %79 %98 %Z6 %E6 60 dad %76 %S6 %76 %98 %96 %1.6 %96 %76 %76 %S6 %86 %86 %66 %86 %76 %98 %98 %96 %Z6 60 der %76 506 %76 %96 %96 %L6 %96 %76 %76 %96 %96 %86 %66 %96 %76 %99 %98 %66 %96 90 000 %96 %E6 %96 %98 %L6 %1.6 %Z6 %L6 %26 %96 %66 %96 %LB %S6 %46 %S9 %76 %S6 %96 90 nON %96 %96 %96 %LB %LB %Z6 %96 %96 %LB %66 %96 %a %OOL %L6 %LS %06 %96 %96 %96 80 Po %76 %76 %96 %L6 %66 %ZS %96 %76 %96 %86 %66 %96 %L6 %76 %96 %98 %98 %96 %£6 80 deg %96 %76 %96 %Z6 %96 %£6 %96 %56 %56 %56 %86 %66 %66 %56 %96 %98 %98 %L6 %96 80 6ny %96 %96 %96 %96 %76 %1.6 %76 %96 %76 %96 %86 %96 %86 %96 %96 %1.6 %£6 5'096 %L6 go Of %Se %S6 %96 %96 %96 %Pe %Be %L6 %76 %96 %86 3'066 %OOL %76 %96 %06 %Z6 %LB %86 80 unf %S6 9/056 %96 %76 %96 %Se %96 %Z6 %76 %66 %86 %OOL %OOl %96 %86 %l6 %Z6 %L6 %96 80Aepy %96 %96 %L6 %L6 %LB %76 %56 %E6 %96 %Z6 %96 %66 %66 %LB %86 %E6 %E6 %86 %OOL 90idy %L6 %LB %96 %66 %66 %Z6 %LB %L6 %LB %86 %96 %96 %66 %66 %86 %96 %E6 %96 %96 80JeW %L6 %a %LB %96 %96 %96 %86 %96 %E6 %96 %96 %66 %OOG %96 %86 %96 %L6 %OOL %66 90 de.d ..1Y IBC' • :: n.. .... YPP W. b M r 1 .,4M!�RTK,SD. � . M k� v ..., :; Yat � u . es Y aM.�r.7' r �, . �. . , _:,..�flPg. � �' :� $x `'`..�t�.��.�„�; ± ' . • S�'," .��-�1�?�:: Fi- •�� � � , . P��fJ u[ 5s�Epx�iig.��S.�.�?�J.t�al$��+'.�?�?uiro��m}t��h xia}rtob .: . MIAOW El'MIN I mu. pan:Imps;o swum g umm Buinprif aequawed 301A2l3S Ab0>I33M - A21dWWf1S 30N3213HOV 31f103H0S NN1'102113W • • AGENDA ITEM 7E • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Martha Durbin, Staff Analyst Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposition 1 B Fiscal Year 2008/09 California Transit Security Grant Program — California Transit Assistance Fund and Supporting Resolutions PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 09-005, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Approving the Allocation of FY 2008/09 Proposition 1B-6161-0002 California Transit Security Grant Program — California Transit Assistance Funds (CTSGP--CTAF) Population Funds"; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-006, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Appointing Individuals to Act on Behalf of the Commission for the Purpose of Applying and/or Accepting Grants Awarded to the Commission's Rail Program.'; and 3) Allocate the CTSGP-CTAF discretionary funds totaling $1,553,822 for the lead project sponsors per Attachment 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1 B in November 2006, includes a program of funding in the amount of $1 billion to be deposited in the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA). The FY 2008/09 appropriation in the Budget Act of 2008 includes $60 million for the TSSSDRA. Sixty percent of those funds are being made available for eligible transit system safety and security projects under the CTSGP-CTAF. The CTAF is administered by the Governor's Office of Homeland Security (OHS). Of these funds, fifty percent shall be allocated by the State Controller to eligible transit agencies using the formula in Section 99314 of the Public Utilities Code (operator allocation), and fifty percent shall be allocated by the State Controller to Agenda Item 7E 24 regional transportation agencies such as the Commission using the formula in Section 99313 of the Public Utilities Code (population allocation), subject to the provisions governing funds allocated under those sections. For the current fiscal year, the Commission expects to receive $1,553,822 in population funds per Section 99313. The Commission is responsible, for calculating eligible amounts for each project sponsor under its authority. The transit agencies within Riverside County will receive the CTAF non -discretionary operator funds totaling $231,221, as identified in Attachment 3, directly from the State Controller per Section 99314. These funds are designated to be used for transit capital projects that provide increased protection against a security or safety threat including, but not limited to, the following: • Construction or renovation projects that enhance security of public transit stations or other transit facilities; • Explosive devise mitigation and remediation equipment; • Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear explosives search, rescue or response equipment; • Interoperable communications equipment; • Physical security enhancement equipment; • Installation of fencing, barriers, etc. to improve security at transit stations or other transit facilities; • Capital expenditures to increase the capacity of transit operators to develop disaster response transportation systems that can move people, equipment, etc. in the aftermath of a disaster; or • Other security related projects approved by the Office of Homeland Security. Funds will be allocated directly to the project sponsors upon receipt '.of Commission approval. Project sponsors have three years to complete all eligible projects. The OHS is requiring a resolution from the Commission regarding population funds per Section 99313 and a resolution regarding appointing individuals to act on behalf of the Commission's Commuter Rail Program. These resolutions are necessary in order to successfully complete the grant submittal process. Attachment 1 is a resolution to approve and authorize the project sponsors to apply for the CTSGP-CTAF population funds through the OHS. Attachment 2 is a resolution to appoint the Executive Director and/or Rail Manager to act on behalf of the Commission for the purpose of applying and/or accepting grants awarded to the Commission's Rail Program. Agenda Item 7E 25 • • • Financial Impact Since the funds are directly allocated to the project sponsor, the only Commission financial impact is for the allocation of funds to the Commuter Rail Program, estimated at $347,600, which is comprised of $263,580 of population funds per Section 99313 and $84,020 of operator funds per Section 99314. These funds have been included in the FY 2009/10 Commission budget. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2009/10+ Amount: $ 347,600 Source of Funds: Prop 1 B CTSGP-CTAF Population Funds Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: 221 33 41510 Prop 1 B Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14/4,,�,,1,„,0„ Date: 3/13/09 Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 09-005 2) Resolution No. 09-006 3) Recommended Prop 1 B-Security Fund Distribution By Operator Agenda Item 7E 26 • • • ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 09-005 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF FY 08-09 PROPOSITION 1B-6161-0002 CALIFORNIA TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM- CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS — POPULATION FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the designated regional transportation planning agency for Riverside County, and is therefore, eligible to receive and allocate funds under Government Code 8879.58(a)(2) based upon population; and WHEREAS, RCTC has been identified as the recipient of Proposition 16 CTSGP-CTAF Population Funds in the amount of $1,553,822; and WHEREAS, RCTC approves the allocation of the Population Funds to eight local transit agencies for the purpose of enhancing safety and security on public transit systems throughout Riverside County; NOW, THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby finds that: RCTC approves the allocation of $1,553,822 in Proposition 1 B CTSGP-CTAF Population Funds to the following entities and following amounts: Western Riverside County — • City of Banning $ 48,818 • City of Beaumont $ 27,783 • City of Corona $ 32,423 • City of Riverside $ 27,673 • Riverside Transit Agency $797,813 • RCTC Commuter Rail $263,580 Coachella Valley - • SunLine Transit Agency $331,800 Palo Verde Valley — • Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency $ 23,932 27 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8`h day of April, 2009. Robert E. Magee, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 28 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 09-006 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APPOINTING INDIVIDUALS TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING AND/OR ACCEPTING GRANTS AWARDED TO THE COMMISSION'S RAIL PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Governor's Office of Homeland Security requires a resolution regarding appointing individuals to act on behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Commuter Rail Program related to the FY 2008/09 Proposition 1B-6161-0002 California Transit Assistance Security Grant Program Funds — Commuter Rail Program. NOW, THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby finds that the Executive Director and/or Rail Manager are hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining FY 2008/09 Proposition 1 B California Transit Security Grant Program -California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP- CTAF) Grant Funds provided by the Governor's Office of Homeland Security. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 2009. Robert E. Magee, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 29 • • FY 2008/09 Prop 1B (6161-0002) Funding Allocation Governors Office of Homeland Security FY 2008/09 Transit Security Grant Program / California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP•CTAF) Prop 1 B - Transit Security Application Submitted: January 21, 2009 Western Riverside Western Riverside Coachella Valley Coachella Valley (Actual. Palo Verde Valley Palo Verde Valley Total Total (Amount (Available) Available (Actual Applied for) (Available) Applied for) (Available) (Actual Applied for) (Available) Applied for) 1,198,090 1,198,090 331,800 331,800 23,932 23,932 1,553,822 1,553,822 Bus Services: 78% Rail Services: 22% 934,510 934,510 263,580 263,580 City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona City of Riverside Riverside Transit Agency 48,818 27,783 32,423 27,673 797,813 48,818 27,783 32,423 27,673 797,813 158,475 City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona City of Riverside Riverside Transit Agency RCTC's Commuter Rail 1,182 717 2,577 2,327 67,652 84,020 1,356,565 158,475 71,808 71,808 938 938 231,221 231,221 1,182 717 2,577 2,327 67,652 84,020< 1,356,565 403,608 403J608s' 24,870 24,870 1,785,043 1,785,043 Population Source: California Area Western Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit (1/1/07) Population 1,566,504 433,830 31,291 77.11% 21,35% 1.54% 30 • ATTACHMENT 3 AGENDA ITEM 7F • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency Capital Project Reprogramming PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request to reprogram federal and local funds remaining on completed and yet -to -be started capital projects from FY 2004/05 — 2007/08 grant years to cover immediate FY 2008/09 capital needs originally programmed primarily with State Transit Assistance (STA) funds; 2) Approve the $783,382 excess and unassigned STA funds resulting from the reprogramming structure be retained by RTA to be utilized for other capital projects that will be identified in later years; and 3) Amend RTA's FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 9, 2008 meeting, the Commission approved the FY 2008/09 operating and capital funding allocation for Riverside County transit services. For RTA, its capital budget for FY 2008/09 was heavily funded with STA compared to prior years. The agency's capital budget is historically funded primarily with Federal 5307 funds utilizing STA or Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds as local match, but due to declining LTF for operational needs, its operating budget was supplanted with Federal 5307 funds, which is typically used for capital funding. With this year's funding constraints, RTA's FY 2008/09 capital budget was reduced to minimal levels and heavily funded with STA. After the Commission's approval of FY 2008/09 funding, the state's financial crisis worsened. In October 2008, Riverside County's STA fund allocation was reduced by 57% and consequently, in March 2009, the STA allocation was again reduced by one-half of the October funding levels. To alleviate this significant shortfall in STA, RTA staff prepared a capital restructuring plan that reallocates funding from Agenda Item 7F 31 several existing projects and sources from prior years to ensure that critical capital needs currently programmed in FY 2008/09 are met. The attachment details RTA's proposed reprogramming plan. A shift of $6,114,997 of existing funds from several RTA projects that have been completed or soon -to -be started projects from FYs 2005 - 08 grant years will be used to cover $5,331,613 of FY 2009 capital needs that were originally funded heavily with STA funds. The reprogramming plan yielded a balance of $783,382 of excess and unassigned STA monies, and RTA is requesting that this amount be retained by the agency to cover other capital projects planned for later years. Unfortunately, in the wake of the recent state budget agreement, the provision for STA funding was completely eliminated for public transit operators'; however, the carryover or excess funds are still retained and can be made available to RTA for this purpose. Commission staff is in support of RTA's request to reprogram the funds and recommends approval of its capital modification plan contingent upon FTA's approval to reprogram the federal portion of the funding. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $783,400 (STA only) Source of Funds: Transportation Development Act LTF & STA — Western County; Section 5307 and Prop 1 B funds Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 241 62 86102 P2201 ($783,400) ll' Fiscal Procedures Approved: ;ay iku Date: 3/13/09 Attachment: RTA Capital Project Restructure Summary Table Agenda Item 7F • 32 • RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FY 2008/09 COVERAGE OF STA SHORTFALL CAPITAL PROJECT RESTRUCTURE SUMMARY March 13, 2009 Reprogramming Funding Source (FROM) Grant Project Description Year Federal Slate LTF MV Settlement Prop 1B TUMF Total Revenue Vehicles FY07-08 $ 6,911 $ 939,975 2,891,058 $ 3,837,944 Revenue Vehicle Equipment FY07-08 79,219 79,219 Non -Revenue Vehicles FY05-06 3,562 949 4,511 Bus Stop Amenities FY04-08 315,467 94,709 410,176 Fare Revenue Collection Equipment FY0607 529,450 132,362 661,812 BRT Transit Enhancements FY05-06 134,600 325,400 87,250 547250 Maintenance FY07-08 15,067 3,768 18,834 Communications & Info Systems FY07-08 51,993 12,883 116 64,992 General & Administrative FY05-06 47 807 177 1,031 ADA/DAR Projects FY05-06 489,228 489,228 Total $ 1,053,535 $ 1,592,684 $ 88,492 $ 489,228 $ 2,891,058 $ $ 6,114,997 Reprogrammed Funding (TO) Grant Project Description Year Federal Stale LTF MV Settlement Prop 1B TUMF Total Revenue Vehicles FY08-09 $ 47 $ 27,603 $ 22,718 $ 2,891,058 $ 2,941,425 COP Debt Service FY08-09 406,471 406,471 Non -Revenue Vehicles FY08-09 4,511 6,264 10,775 Trolley Refurbish FY08-09 170,620 111,426 22,954 305,000 Maintenance Spare Parts FY08-09 634,235 163,234 5,250 428,294 1,231,013 Capitalized Tire Lease FY08-09 187,229 49,740 38,217 275,186 Maintenance - FY08-09 9,411 22,626 53,907 85,944 Communications & Info Systems FY08-09 51,993 23,691 116 75,800 Total $ 1,053,535 $ 809,302 $ 88,492 $ 489,228 $ 2,891,058 $ - $ 5,331,615 Unassigned Funds (FY08 STA) $ 783,382 Note: Amounts are subject to rounding differences 33 AGENDA ITEM 7G • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Disbandment of the Property Committee STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to disband the Property Committee and direct property acquisition issues to the appropriate policy committee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1995, the Commission established the formation of an ad hoc committee for property development. In 2001, the Commission took action to change the ad hoc committee into a policy committee to "...oversee acquisition, management and disposition of the Commission's property matters and any other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission." Since its inception, the Property Committee has met sporadically and has provided input on actions involving Commission -owned property or regarding the acquisition of property for various projects. Since property matters are often related to core Commission activities, staff proposes the disbandment of the Property Committee. In its stead, items involving property matters will come before one of the Commission's other policy committees depending on the issue. For example, property matters involving transit issues such as Metrolink stations could come before the Plans and Programs Committee, while land issues involving a highway capital project could go before the Budget and Implementation Committee. Moreover, as is currently the case, final action on any land acquisition or contractual issue regarding property would still come before the full Commission. Attachment: Ordinance No. 09-001 Agenda Item 7G 34 • ORDINANCE NO. 09-001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that it is now necessary to amend its Administrative Code to reflect the disbandment of the Property Committee; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby ordains as follows: Section1. Article III, Section H.1.(c) of the Administrative Code is hereby removed. Section2. This Ordinance shall be effective on April 8, 2009. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 2009. ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board Robert E. Magee, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission 35 AGENDA ITEM 8 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Environmental Justice Analysis and Community Outreach Study PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive the Environmental Justice (EJ) toolkit entitled Healthy Communities and Healthy Economies - A Too/kit for Goods Movement. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In January 2007, the Commission entered into an agreement with Ca!trans for $200,000 in grant funds from the EJ Context -Sensitive Transportation Planning Grant program to supplement the work of the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP). In addition to committing $6,000 in local funds, the Commission entered into funding agreements with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for the local funding match of $24,000 in support of the EJ grant ($6,000 from each agency). Since that time, OCTA opted out of the EJ community outreach study and as a result, the Commission provided an additional $2,000 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to pay its proportionate share of the $24,000 match requirement. Metro and SANBAG also provided additional match funding of $2,000. Through a competitive selection process, the Commission retained the consulting firm of Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) to conduct the three -county environmental justice study. Consultant staff will provide an overview of the study at the Commission meeting. The purpose of the study was to: • Expand the region's understanding of goods movement impacts on communities of concern; and • Identify strategies for the region, and case study communities, to address these impacts and maintain or enhance quality -of -life, all while supporting the expansion of goods movement. The toolkit was designed to focus solely on goods movement related issues and was not designed to discourage the development of alternative commute strategies and/or other congestion reduction strategies such as commuter or light rail. Agenda Item 8 36 The Healthy Communities and Healthy Economies - A Toolkit for Goods Movement is attached. The document has been reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the community feedback group (CFG) members, and the Plans and Programs Committee and their input has been incorporated into the final document. Impacts of Goods Movement As the nation's two largest ports, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handled $221 billion in imports and $35 billion in exports in 2005. Despite the late 2008 downturn in the economy, the amount of goods shipped is expected to triple by 2030. Participants in the EJ study recognize that the region's goods movement system has both positive and negative effects. It influences the area's local economy, environment, and quality of life. It is also an economic driver for the region, creating jobs and money for the local economy. However, l,activities from goods movement can negatively impact local communities, creating air pollution, noise, traffic, and blight. There are also health risks associated with goods movement particularly among low-income and minority populations. Study Approach The EJ study integrated technical analysis from developed transportation plans such as the MCGMAP and best practices and solutions for environmental justice issues. This effort was coordinated with a broad -based community outreach approach involving technical staff from the railroads, ports, and warehousing industry together with representatives of EJ communities. The TAC, consisting of industry staff and community representatives, as well as CFG members from each of the participating counties, guided the study team in developing the toolkit. A total of four communities participated in the EJ study: County Geographic Area Los Angeles South Gate Riverside Mira Loma and Coachella Valley San Bernardino South Colton A series of CFG meetings were held to solicit feedback from areas ,most impacted by goods movement. Representatives from the impacted communities, local city and county planning departments, public works departments and staff from various industries attended the TAC and community meetings. Whenever possible, feedback provided on local issues and impacts related to goods movement activities were incorporated into the toolkit. Agenda Item 8 • 37 • To provide a balanced and fair perspective, the toolkit acknowledges the major contributions that the logistics industry contributes to the economy. Information gleaned from the TAC and CFGs were incorporated into the Healthy Communities and Healthy Economies: A Toolkit for Goods Movement. While the focus of the study was on EJ communities, the principles and practices developed through the study can be applied to any community that is potentially impacted by the movement of freight. Why Was The Toolkit Developed? The toolkit was developed to provide potential strategies to assist community members as well as public and private agencies in resolving goods movement - related problems. It provides a starting point and source of ideas for how Southern California's goods movement system and the communities that experience the negative impacts can co -exist. The toolkit is not a policy document and does not offer a set of requirements or minimum standards to address impacts. While many communities may experience similar impacts each setting will have a unique combination of conditions and people involved; the toolkit provides an opportunity to create tailored solutions to fit each situation. How Will The Toolkit Be Utilized? The toolkit is a starting point for addressing specific goods movement related projects. Depending on the information needed, the toolkit offers: • Basic information about how the goods movement system works; • Its benefits to communities and the region; • Its impacts on communities and the region; • The roles of organizations that regulates the goods movement system and operations; and • Experiences from communities that have been affected by goods movement related issues. The Commission will use the toolkit at the May 28, 2009 workshop entitled Advancing Goods Movement through the Inland Empire. The workshop is currently being developed in partnership with the Southern California Association of Governments and the Western Riverside Council of Governments. The focus of the workshop will be to provide an overview of the latest developments in the goods movement system in Southern California, with a special emphasis on the Inland Empire's role, opportunities and impacts. It is anticipated that workshop attendees will contribute to the dialogue about how the Inland Empire should position itself to ensure that the area benefits from goods movement developments and initiatives. Congressman Ken Calvert will serve as the keynote speaker providing perspective from the federal level about the effect of future transportation bills on local goods movement. Agenda Item 8 38 Additionally, the toolkit can be used as a source of information at the state and federal level to further demonstrate the Commission's efforts in partnering with local jurisdictions and communities related to goods movement issues. Attachment: Available on the Commission's Website Agenda Item 8 39 • • 6000 '6' Pciti uo!ss!tinuoo uorle odsu al AlurioD ep!si A! Apmrs yoeanno pue s!sAieuv aoRsnr !ewe se!wouoD3 kilfeaki pug se!ijunwwoD ALpieeki w saiouoyea} { pue sa��unuruac� ity�eaN s4uawwanoD palepossd oupiewag ues uoiss!wwo-D uoi e4Jodsuaal 4.unop apsaan!� .44.potAind uop.el.aodsuaa1 uelvdoilaW Alunop saia6ud soi siaui.Je 8 pug suegiej :sepua6d peal saau4.a�d �Cpn�s aina.n1 aigelepdn s sirsaa Su Ise! pue algeansaaua seonpoad = u! papunal spaau paz!lepoi pue Ceuo!Saa sassappv seap! „nuaua;, e sap!naad :i.eLp.'Alpo; e s s leu le.o!utpal. Liw\A Itp!su! Al!unwwoo auiquuoD uo��.�u.aao�.ui luawanow spoo6 pue inj6u!ueau sanpafg0 pue sieoD Apn4s (Al u nop vie ale J AID . (Aiuno3 ouipaeuaag ues,) uoiloj Alo . A'911E/\ ellaLipeo0 . ewoi aim! • (17) sdnaiD >IDE:Pgpaad Allunu wok aa1.4!wwoj Aaosinpv leo!uLiDei dool loecipealsnonuquaD e eleli pep aan1.0114s AJOSI.ApV s�aod puelui sl.aodeas saaluao uoljngiaq.sip pug asnoL{aae, spaeA pea 1H61.944. aofeN . sauanion 11.{fiiaa} AneaLl 1..111.nn sauii oi}}eat >pnal Aneal{ Hwy\ s/CesnnyGiH sailijped -4.uauaanoW spoo f ski}auaq pue s4.Deduai —, 3fU.lOU0D3 s sawgp.eduaoj ash puei • lens!A AlajeS pue asioN . y}�eaH pue suoissiva3 aib sdiL{saaulaed ski}auaq pue slsoj — suoilipuoD AijunuauaooD :uo paseq Aiiunuauaoo yea ao} suoi}nos ani}oa}}a pue aigispal isoua Ap}uap Alrunuauao speduai pue adAl. off1 palopei sappoead 4.saq uo paseg suoilnioS pug sai6ale4s saiEaleAs pue sanssi :Dupeds-A.!unuuuao s3woolno pue ssapoad :facade 4a uauunC seamosaa feu-bnppd se!pm.s as sai a�Q-Als • svj0L i.. :sapow luauuanow spoo6 off.- ogp.pdS sa!seq pue pu-noa6>p- 9 — luewenoW spoog „pi.- 4.!1I.Q0- Ileaanp--so uaoDinp 4p04s suaalled uoileinDap lepoi 6uiA}ipoua aapisuoj si_uauaanoaduai uaua4ui aapisuo suopasaalui Alquapi suopeaedas apea6 pn4suo3 :sAennpeoa pu2 sauu u2i uaannlaq suoipauuoD pug spii}uop aonpa; sai6ale•als--AaIIesn eIlaLpp4p saauaeq punos' auanion pue ADuanbaa} uaoH -, s}uiod ssappe >pnal :suon_eaado pieA pal aol sear)! nnau A}ipuap) s6uissoo yaInn suop.oasaalui Hsu -fie ssaappe pue Apluapi sa4noa nnau aDao}ua pue luauaaiduai sai6alesaus--euaoi aaiAI 101 saiwouoD9 AulleaH pue saw.unwwoo tilieet4 --s Jo4.4.p d!LisJaul.,ted s,uo!ssiwwoj :s13At3I 1 adlepal pug edi (60.0Z • d o tsi s>p OAA atidug.pueitil aye yfinoay� jueuienoyv spoof suoileziue6Jo sepue6e ieobi sdelS 1--xeN uoilepuauauaoDa8}1.e4s WOU... 600J /8 HAG' uo!ss!wwoo uon.q.Jodsueii Al.unoD apsien% peali.no pue s!si(ieuy ao!lsnr isquewuoivw3 se!wouoya pug seplunwwoj ALpleaH „t, Wu, 41.6,444,191,-.P.,...4^, PPAcwit 4.0,4w1M44-ak,,QBV:, '40; aw Op. AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Formula Transit Funding Allocation and Distribution 5307/5311 PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the project list recommendations for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) formula 5307 funding allocation for Riverside County transit projects; and 2) Approve amendment of the FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) for the city of Corona, city of Riverside, Commission/Metrolink, Riverside Transit Agency, and SunLine Transit Agency to reflect the inclusion of the ARRA projects. DISCUSSION: 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 ARRA funds. ARRA has many funding categories and the transit formula 5307/5311 funds provided under ARRA are the subject of this report. ARRA Capital Transit Assistance Program (CTAP) funding for Riverside County totals $30,695,039. These ARRA CTAP funds allow 180 days to get the projects obligated and 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, it will be subject to redistribution. Attachment 1 represents ARRA formula allocations by urbanized area (UZA) for the urbanized zone 5307 funds and by apportionment area (Riverside County) for the rural 5311 funds. It should be noted that these formulas are for capital projects only and do not allow for the inclusion of transit operations. For clarification, while Agenda Item 9 40 the Commission can approve projects and allow for the allocation of the 5307 ARRA funds directly to its operator partners, the 5311 rural funds are under the administration of Caltrans, via a project application process. Accordingly, the recommended project list contained in Attachment 2 is for the urbanized 5307 fund only. Applications for the 5311 funds are due to Caltrans on April 17, 2009. Staff will continue to work with the Commission's operator partners on the application and grant approval process for the 5311 funds and will provide an update on the distribution and identify the projects at a later date. Staff has reviewed numerous projects that were submitted by the Commission's operator partners over the course of the past two weeks. Attachment 2 represents the list of recommended projects by operator and the distribution of funds recommended for those projects. In developing this recommendation, staff has relied on historical precedent in the determination of the funding apportionment amongst the operators. The apportionments contained herein closely match those previously made for 5307 funds using revenue miles, passenger miles, and operating costs as the evaluation criteria. As previously mentioned, ARRA funds are subject to stringent obligation requirements. Staff will continue to work with the Commission's operator partners in structuring the approved projects in Transportation Electronic Award and Management System, which will ensure the timely obligation and result in Riverside County making full use of all ARRA funds allocated. Each operator shall also submit to the Commission for staff approval, a revised SRTP (table 4) so that these funds are formally reflected in the budgetary process for the current fiscal year. Attachments: 1) ARRA 5307 and 5311 Funding Allocation Summary 2) ARRA 5307 Recommended Project List by Operator Agenda Item 9 • 41 ATTACHMENT 1 ARRA 5307 and 5311 Funding Allocation Capital Transit Assistance Program Federal Stimulus Funding for Sec 5307 & 5311 Riverside County: ARRA - Federal Reclister 3/5/09 Fund Source Urbanized Area Population Area ARRA FY 09 Apportionment FTA 5307 1,000,000 or more Riverside* $19,408,768 Bus (62.8229%) $12,193,156 Rail (37.1771 %) $7,215,612 200,000-999,999 Indio -Cathedral -Palm Springs $4,714,391 Murrieta/Temecula $4,066,829 50,000 - 199,999 Hemet $2,505,051 Total 5307 $30,695,039 FTA 5311 Riverside County Total $1,181,974 7 Western Co. (RTA) 61.70% $729,278 Coachella (SunLine) 38.30% $452,696 *Note: 2009 FTA 5307 RIV/SAN UZA ARRA Total Apportionment = $36,415,543. Riverside = $19,408,768 Riv/Sbdno % split based on FY 09 Inter -County Apportionment: 53.17% (Riverside); 46.64% (San-Bdno); .19% (LA) FY 2009 5307 ARRA Apportionment by Mode Mode Area Agen RAIL Western Riverside RCTC-Rail $7,215,612 BUS Western Riverside RTA/Corona/Riverside $18,765,036 Coachella Valley SunLine $4,714,391 Riverside County TOTAL $30,695,039 Revised: 4/1 /09 42 • ATTACHMENT 2 ARRA 5307 Staff Recommended Project List by Operator City of Corona $ 360,000 Purchase of (4) paratransit Type II CNG vehicles $ 240,000 Bus stop amenities $ 600,000 Total ARRA funds recommended for City of Corona City of Riverside $ 530,000 Purchase of a new farebox system $ 170,000 Equipment to support the CNG maintenance facility operation $ 700,000 Total ARRA funds recommended for City of Riverside RCTC/Metrolink Staff recommends that the Commission direct RCTC's share of ARRA 5307 rail funds to Metrolink to further fund expanded safety efforts. These are projects identified by Metrolink that will meet the obligation requirements of ARRA and can be delivered within the required timeframes. $ 4,785,612 $ 1,670,000 $ 760,000 $ 7,215,612 Positive Train Control (PTC) Rehabilitation and maintenance of signal and communication system Security upgrades Total ARRA funds recommended for RCTC/Metrolink Riverside Transit Agency $ 8,639,192 $ 1,746,504 $ 5,735,351 $ 1,169,339 $ 174,650 $17,465,036 Preventive Maintenance ADA Operating Assistance Capital Cost of Contracting COP Debt Service Transit Enhancements Total ARRA funds recommended for Riverside Transit Agency SunLine Transit Agency $ 3,250,000 $ 500,000 $ 964,391 $ 4,714,391 Maintenance Building Expansion Bus stop shelters Intelligent Transportation Systems project implementation Total ARRA funds recommended for SunLine Transit Agency 43 600Z18 IPA' suolleouiisnr paraid i!sueJi DHqnd Mid saDinaas lepowninki •6uiig6H Alpnoes paiemod Rios gijm salod u6p snq pue sped snq aiaaouoo `sagoueq snq `6uRi46i! Alpnoes palemod aelos wm saailags snq epnioui sweweouegup •spunj. yaay age 6uizi!i1n uaea6oad luewenoadw! sai}iuewe do}s snq a lueweidw! 6upodoad si S100 ag1 `iisueal opgnd ow° pue saioNen-al6up Aeme saalnwwoo paw pue e6eanooue of 000`017Z$ :13a(oad AlpeLuv doss sne }updiool uogaeo s,Aoue6e age eonpaa seui6ue (0N0) se6 �ean�eu pessaadwoo peJemod eq pesodoad 9AB saioNen esagl queweinowd sigh aol spunl yaay !awed esn 6uNees si S1O9 9U1 lueweoeidaa aploaa pue aiiI Injasn _gags pepaaoxe eneg sesnq !! eciA1 epp-e-pp anon 000`09£$ :saioNeA wawaaeidaa usueajend (ti) jo esego.ind RCTC/Metrolink The Commission's Commuter Rail Department portion of the ARRA funds are recommended to be dedicated to three projects at Metrolink in order to expand safety efforts. These are projects identified by Metrolink that will meet the requirements for the ARRA funding and can be obligated and delivered within the available timeframes. Positive Train Control (PTC): $4,785,612 PTC is a crash avoidance system that will be in compliance with the new federal safety regulations. The ARRA funds committed towards this project will be pro- rated against future PTC work requiring a Commission contribution. Maintenance and Rehab of Metrolink's Signal and Communication System: $1,670,000 These upgrades will also support PTC development directly in the Riverside area. Security Upgrades: $760,000 This project includes a guard gate and improved access at Metrolink's Central Maintenance and Keller Yard Facilities. City of Riverside Automated Farebox System: $530,000 The City of Riverside requested the funds to purchase an automated farebox system for its 26 vehicles. This system is proposed to enhance the security of farebox funds and improve financial reporting, present a more technologically advanced fare system to allow for better customer service, and allow for a direct interface with Transtrack leading to better performance monitoring. CNG Maintenance Facility: $170,000 The city on two previous occasions via their Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) has requested and been provided with Section 5307 funds ($2,030,000 total commitment) for the construction of a maintenance facility specifically designed to support CNG vehicles. Currently, their vehicles are maintained in the City's maintenance building which is not ideally suited to maintain CNG vehicles such as the vehicles that RSS operates and utilizes. With the new facility, they intend to meet NFPA's (National Fire Protection Agency) safety standards and codes regarding the maintenance of CNG vehicles. Capitalized Preventive Maintenance (PM): $8,639,192 While considered capital in the vernacular of the FTA, PM costs are accounted for as an operating expense of the Agency. These funds will be applied towards vehicle maintenance, RTA Facility Maintenance and Transit Center Maintenance. ADA Operating Assistance: $1,746,504 10% of the ARRA funds received can be used for ADA operating expenses. With declining Local transportation Fund (LTF) revenues and reserves, RTA is seeking to preserve LTF through the use of this element of ARRA in operating its ADA services. Capital Cost of Contracting (CCOC): $5,735,351 CCOC represents a significant portion of the Agency's purchased transportation/contracted transit service expenses. The Agency utilizes two contractors — including taxis - for 100% of its DAR service and one contractor for approximately 33% of its fixed route service. COP Debt Service: $1,169,339 The amount requested for the COP Debt Service provides a substantial portion of the remaining obligation for the past purchase of 55 forty -foot CNG buses. If approved, the Agency will have secured approximately $6.4M of funding toward the remaining obligation of just over $10.0M. Transit Enhancements: $174,650 These funds will be used for transit center development once construction commences. .saolelounuue pue saaunoo aa6uessed palewome `SdO se Lions luauadlnbe pomp uoRelleisul pue esegoand an se Mann se sesnq lle uo (—my) saowool eloluan paewomy }o uogelleisu! sepnloul Toafoad siLil loa(oad paleoolle spun} g doad 6uRslxa o spunl ya>dy 6ulppe Aq loafoad egi luew6ne eununs algeue pepualul aye spun} esegi L6C1796$ :uoge}uawaidwi paload Sll A/00 alaLi1 ul pepuewwooaa se saallaus leuo!Ilppe pue esegoand eununs 6ulnnolle Aq uaea6oad aallegs snq 6unslxe egi }uewbffe pasodoad aae spuni esaul 000`009$ weload lumens:Wm aa41014S sng 'uompuoo palempa ep s,6ulpilnq 6u!Iwo ail 6umnsaa slsoo eoueua>luleua 6ulpllnq uaaal 6uol eonpaa Hp LiolLinn Amloel aoueuemew 6uRslxe Tuauaaoueuue pue uoReilllgegaa spaennoi pesn eq pasodoad are spun' esegi 000`09Z`E$ :uolsuedx3 Aiji gedeo Buil, eoueualumAi AGENDA ITEM 10 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Legislative Update: Federal Appropriations and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file an update on the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009; 2) Adopt Perris Valley Line and Alameda Corridor East grade separations in Riverside County as the priorities for the FY 2010 federal appropriations cycle; 3) Review and discuss the status of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) highway funding; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute a certification statement under Section 1511 of ARRA that the Commission's investment of ARRA funds is in compliance with federal law. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: FY 2009 and FY 2010 Federal Appropriations Congress approved the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, and was signed by the President in early March. The bill included "congressionally directed spending" (typically known as earmarks) for surface transportation infrastructure projects in Riverside County as follows: Agenda Item 10 44 PROJECT FUNDING SPONSORS Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension $45 million Sen. Feinstein Sen. Boxer The President Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations $950,000 Sen. Feinstein Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations Riverside County, CA $570,000 Rep. Calvert Rep. Bono Mack Avenue 52 Grade Separation Coachella, CA $380,000 Rep. Bono Mack I-10/Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road Interchange Coachella Valley, CA $475,000 Rep. Bono Mack I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange ROW Acquisition Lake Elsinore, CA $237,000 Rep. Issa SR-60/Portrero Boulevard Interchange Beaumont, CA $855,000 Rep. Lewis SR-91 Improvements Orange and Riverside Counties, CA $475,000 Rep. Calvert Multimodal Transit Centers Riverside and Corona, CA $950,000 Rep. Calvert Sen. Boxer SunLine Bus and Bus Facilities Thousand Palms, CA $475,000 Rep. Bono Mack This appropriations cycle yielded one of the largest dollar figures, and number of worthy projects funded in recent history, even without calculating the large sum of money for the Perris Valley Line. The Commission is grateful to all of the members of the Riverside County congressional delegation, and Senators Boxer and Feinstein for their support of transportation infrastructure in Riverside County.', In 2008, the Commission adopted the Perris Valley Line and Alameda Corridor East grade separations as its top priorities for federal appropriations for all members of the House delegation and both California Senators. Given an increasing scrutiny of congressionally directed spending and the emphasis on regional projects, staff recommends that the Commission go forward with the same two priorities across all congressional districts and Senate offices for the FY 2010 appropriations cycle. Perris Valley Line still requires $30 million more in FY 2010 to maximize its eligible share of Small Starts funding from FTA, and there remains more than a half -billion dollars of need for the high -priority grade separations identified by the Commission's adopted Grade Separation Funding Strategy. The Commission has also been historically supportive of transit operators in the county (R verside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency) in their appropriations requests, as well as recent efforts by Metrolink to secure funding to fully implement positive train control technology as mandated by the federal Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. • Agenda Item 10 45 • It is important to note that funding requests for the annual appropriations cycle is different than funding requests for the next authorization bill, which will be introduced later this year. Recommendations for funding requests from the Commission for authorization will be forthcoming upon review by the . Federal Authorization Legislative Ad Hoc Committee. Update — American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Highway) At its March 11 meeting, the Commission adopted highway priorities for funding from the ARRA, also commonly referred to as the stimulus bill. The Commission's action contemplated two scenarios, depending on the structure of state legislation that would allocate California's ARRA funds. One scenario relied on a minimum share of $34 million of highway ARRA funds; the other scenario envisioned a sub -allocation of the state's share of ARRA funds to regional governments. The later scenario would increase the Commission's share of ARRA highway funds to approximately $73 million and allow the Commission to implement a local stimulus program using Measure A dollars for every city and the county. On March 27, Governor Schwarzenegger signed ABX3 20 (Bass), which sub -allocated the state's highway ARRA funds to regional governments in a fashion that will allow the Commission to implement the later scenario resulting in approximately $73 million to the Commission and a Measure A stimulus program. The legislation was passed as an urgency item and takes effect immediately in order to comply with federally mandated use -it -or -lose -it provisions. The state will retain 37.5% of all ARRA highway funds received by California per formulas in existing law, which the state will use for projects in the State Highway Operations and Preservation Program (SHOPP). These maintenance projects throughout California will be funded by Caltrans on a "shovel -ready" basis. The passage of this legislation came after months of negotiations between the state and transportation stakeholders, including the Commission and bodies such as the Self -Help Counties Coalition and Mobility 21. Ultimately, the final language of the bill was as close to consensus as one could get among the diverse interests of the transportation community in California. The table below details the five interchange projects and two Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects identified by the Commission in its March action for ARRA highway funding: Agenda Item 10 46 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ARRA $ (000'S) *ANTICIPATED OBLIGATION DATE COMMENTS SR-91Nan Buren IC $ 16,101 Late April STIP project', 1-10/Palm Drive IC $ 5,080 Late May STIP/TCR project 1-215/Clinton Keith Road IC $ 10,000 Mid May Measure A regional arterial project SR-60Nalley Way IC $ 4,982 Late May Measure A interchange I-10/Bob Hope Drive IC $ 34,912 Late June STIP highway project Gene Autry Trail median landscaping $ 1,800 Early May STIP TE project Alessandro Boulevard Median landscaping $ 400 Early May STIP TE project TOTAL $ 73,275 * FHWA approval for Notice to Proceed. Note: Dollar amounts may change slightly as Caltrans finalizes the amounts available. Further, the SR-74/I-215 interchange project will receive $18 million in ARRA funds in order to use an equal amount of Measure A funding to implement the Commission's local stimulus program. Details on this local stimulus will be forthcoming as Commission staff works with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on guidelines for this program. The distribution of the $18 million to each city and county is attached. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Congress continue to emphasize that all recipients of ARRA funds will be subjectto new and heightened transparency and accountability requirements. The federal website www.recovery.gov and the state website www.recovery.ca.gov will be used to post detailed information on the progress of every project that receives ARRA funds. The greater public visibility of project details and more extensive reporting and certification requirements is intended to foster greater public trust in government stewardship of tax dollars. Administration officials have made it very clear to Commission staff that there is no tolerance for error in reporting or in the delivery of the projects. The local agencies receiving the Commission's share of ARRA funds will be responsible for meeting these reporting requirements. Caltrans will use 0.5% of ARRA funds off -the -top to cover the costs of stewardship of the ARRA highway program. Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration have been holding workshops and seminars to educate local public works staff on the demands of the ARRA legislation. Commission staff has also been attending these workshops to assist the local agencies in meeting the requirements. Agenda Item 10 47 • Attached to this staff report is a draft statement to be signed by the Executive Director, certifying that the Commission has reviewed all investments of ARRA funds according to the law and that the requisite public information is being provided pursuant to the ARRA legislation. In conclusion, the timely passage of ABX3 20 (Bass) provides the best -case funding scenario weighed by the Commission, and provides the Commission with an opportunity to deliver regional projects on the federal -aid highway system that would have otherwise waited for additional funding. Construction of these projects will create jobs while providing long term economic benefit to the communities near these projects. The Commission and local agencies receiving ARRA funds will be required to report regularly on their progress as part of transparency and accountability requirements of the ARRA legislation. The U.S. Department of Transportation and Ca!trans will take these matters seriously. Attachments: 1) ARRA Certification 2) $18 Million Local Stimulus Distribution 3) State Distribution of ARRA Funds Agenda Item 10 48 CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 1511 OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT: Pursuant to Title XV, Subtitle A, section 1511 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Pub. L. 111-5 (Feb. 17, 2009) ("ARRA"), I, Anne Mayer, Executive Director of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereby certify that the infrastructure investment funded by ARRA has received the full review and vetting required by law with each investment applicant and that based on information provided by each investment applicant and the due diligence investigation conducted by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, I believe that such investment is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars and that each investment applicant has accepted responsibility that such investment is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. I further certify that the specific information required by section 1511 concerning each such investment (a description of the investment, the estimated total cost, and the amount of ARRA funds to be used) is attached. I understand that my represented agencies may not receive ARRA infrastructure investment funding unless this certification is made and posted. Anne Mayer Executive Director 49 ATTACHMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Measure A Distribution related to Economic Stimulus Trades MEASURE A PROJECTION LESS: ADMINISTRATION TOTAL PROJECTION $18,000,000 0 $18,000,000 Local Streets & Roads 100.00% WESTERN COUNTY PORTION $13,549,000 $13,549,000 BANNING $219,000 BEAUMONT 243,000 CALIM ESA 56,000 CANYON LAKE 72,000 CORONA 1,532,000 HEMET 632,000 LAKE ELSINORE 437,000 MENIFEE 488,000 MORENO VALLEY 1,376,000 MURRIETA 823,000 NORCO 260,000 PERRIS 437,000 RIVERSIDE - 2,684,000 SAN JACINTO 255,000 TEMECULA 1,077,000 WILDOMAR 210,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2,748,000 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 QUINTA 480,000 PALM SPRINGS 599,000 PALM DESERT 881,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 312,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 581,000 AREA TOTAL $4,31— 000 PALO VERDE VALLEY PORTION Local Streets 100.00% $137,000 $137,000 BLYTHE $126,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 11,000 AREA TOTAL $137,000 Total County $3,340,000 NOTE (1): Allocations are based on Measure A allocation formula for local streets and roads program NOTE j2): Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences 50 69 suaueyu3 uol4e4aodsueal ieW4 :uo!lllW 6Z$ . uoi�lsodo�d�ddOHS £ 1N3WH0VLLd k' A NM 04 uo1Il!W 7.96$ spiewaoueyu3 uogepodsueu leuolBeN uOIIIIIN SDI suo!Bau O� uo!II!8 909'1.$ OZ Exev uogngp)sip wewisenui ampruisealui Aemg6N quaople0 �y luauITSGAUia?zi pue A.I8A008H ueope v • • 600Z `8 I!adb' esupelAi uoissivauaoo allepdn angels16a, ewpdn «sninu gs„ ao (nnly) }off/ WOLUIsanu10/ /Caan030H ue311aauId • sepA3 suo13.81adoaddd leaapad 040Z Ad pue 600Z Aid • FY 2009 Appropriation. Project Funding Sponsors Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension $45,000,000 Sen. Feinstein, Sen. Boxer, the President Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations* $950,000 Sen. Feinstein Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations, Riverside County $570,000 Rep. Calvert, Rep. Bono Mack Avenue 52 Grade Separation $380,000 Rep. Bono Mack I-10/Bob Hope/Ramon Road Interchange $475,000 Rep. Bono Mack I-15/Railroad Canyon Rd Interchange (ROW) $237,000 Rep. Issa SR-60/Portrero Blvd Interchange $855,000 Rep. Lewis SR-91 Improvements, Orange & Riverside Counties $475,000 Rep. Calvert Multi -Modal Transit Centers, Corona and Riverside $950,000 Rep. Calvert Sen. Boxer SunLine Bus and Bus Facilities, Thousand Palms $475,000 Rep. Bono Mack swanbaa uogenun ind ;ou aae asagl . leuoi6as . sisanbaa 600Z Ad IOW wa}sisuo3 . Awnoo apisaaniti u! suonemdas apea0 4se3 aopgio3 epatuenf - aun Aairen swed - :sa��iao�ad papuatumooas . uoneiadoaddd ioz Ad “snimunS, (VIIIIV) 43y waunsenulem is LiaA030111 ue314.1auId pnl8 a puessaly — 6uideospuel ue paua king aua° — :sioaload weweoueuu3 uogepodsueal . a6ueyoaawl /SpM Aalpn/09-bIS • a6ueyoaawl uaan8 ueA/L6-biS • a6ueyoaawl aniaa waled/OH • a6ueyoaawl peobl uoweEvadoH ao8/0 H • a6ueyoaam qp>i uoiui10/5 2-1 • :Bu!pew uoissliuwoo Li. tom/4 �.e 01aeu03s a01 panwdde sioafoad . 91.31:1 01 u01111w Cc$ F oz Exad • Nepdn Aennl6114 - 4311 wauaisanumi pue Llan03011 ue31.lauad paiieaao sgor ‘}oaaia Suppea', - saanipuadxa 'spaeme ‘spiq 6uHueGaa uoneuuo}ui aulluo ;uauUIsanui ao/ aieuogea pue s}oe foad sisn paliewa / miciewn000d Aouaaedsuea1 • aliepdn /ennui - 43d wauuisanuiall pue LIGAOOGH ue3plauid saaap,/ painlea3 nod•dS10e100011 of auxoataty Ioaucopaen.rna Fd cq saiyl."ipn )o abu:-F pte+]e iaoddrs i=_sDI pu= setEls s7.40I1--Lu bald Oy(^u,l, i 3B0Vd N8H3I 1.',ta31,;gms SONfIj 30 NC]Ilrl91`J1SIG 1N3WNc3iA O'717301'SA 3IYIS 03i°: L'V 3 GF' sn 1.3v1NO3 ava •SL1Bd5Ji5 r 1iisnl ra l_1iw.n c041 en.a.:l lui pup aillin ;0u71_10i of -41V 7ua1.1a T=anuiP%d put Aua::rpag urP3 a:iui;, m-{s ui O.34 •Turq uo a u, ef$ 3u uuiieoupapl_muuua aepich pueeuiag0 ivapisaa.d'600Z '9 t{P.I?U.I `Aepi13 up ti'I L�I.LS:1,1I s1113x j ravawi I znoav I 3I110H A0r)MIHAOD3 Inob• ancoBA'MMMii;C]d4C I3.0,ppvi 1.v9,0 damicht lawaluI vosonq„ - nofi d�aao�aa - wpdn Aemg6iH - watulisanuiau pue LIGAO3GH LICOpeuid !iV.:J ytlJ. 01 D Iaajeuazlem „quail llnopp 0H1I FuunFi ouazil!o inn drag pue dfoaua oy yi"d 0 Uu uolyeu aLh !nr{' 0.10000a Jno azgelln.al 01 !E.alfarelra dolaAap a} eiilegl'7 1'.1Bplsalr-{ ldlur. OulvinPp al papuatJo0 sl uo4ensII.11UJpe 1:v.1„ wq5 � eq�{tlno.r� IIaApN II0WJ-no6,,fAaA 381 nue] earoonJ}se4ui uoiye3np3 sa,J!•ues uewoH..,g, 4lIEaH.. OZ$ 56$ 06$ 5$ 0$ s00008 (Ise) riwOA100 ui 81.11pued5 Alanoaaa 6ulualde3 pasup 08pp, peal l IJR SNP"I -1)1 �7fe'Rti�v�^f do `E711- a.hc it Pd iaV .(.`,F�l 1a �a-W4P "d SAy- I-111 ii lln UJI-. sn laeluoo l[auendsueal saamosa'd lnogv swot.' games seem e oo ue uo o d 111,10d Lr13AJOfiH ;; I140?4,0 3 l:''FI 40:111V�� dial{ IA06'eykiancoaA'MMM'r:dj]y sPti', OAaj r s5aAppy ma!h 4P3 avd aaaordxii iiLp josoaarW - 600z 10 ]oV auawasanwati pup APAolov ue4Pwv alp 01 pappv uogpuPolul PNAopre310 aaels aiepdn Aemti61H - wauu}senulati pue LIOA03811 11831a8uUd Isuonseno •no/t wiegi, URGENCY ITEM RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Federal Authorization Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Priority Projects for the New Authorization Bill FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATIVE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt High Priority Projects for Federal Authorization: a) Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations in Riverside County; b) Interstate 215 Corridor Improvements; and c) Interstate 10 Corridor Improvements; 2) Direct staff to work cooperatively with Coachella Valley Association of Governments and San Bernardino Associated Governments on High Priority Project requests; and 3) Direct staff to work cooperatively to support Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency on those agencies' project requests. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee is in the midst of writing language for the next federal transportation authorization bill. The Committee's chairman, Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), has stated that he intends to introduce the bill by May 15. He has further stated that he intends to markup the bill in the T&I Committee in late May and consider the bill on the House floor in June. This timeline began to emerge in early March, shortly following the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) or "stimulus" bill. Until then, many in Washington, DC, questioned whether ARRA's infrastructure investment would lessen political pressure to pass a new transportation authorization bill in 2009. Instead, it seems to have emboldened Chairs Oberstar and Boxer to move forward with legislation quickly (due to their perceived inadequate infrastructure investment in ARRA). Additionally, mixed - messages regarding the role of earmarks (now dubbed "congressionally directed priorities") in the authorization bill have been sent by Congress and the Administration. However, it is now apparent that Congress intends to include Member priority projects in the bill from the outset. 1 Given that the details of the House bill are now being constructed, the T&I Committee has officially asked Members of Congress to submit High Priority Project requests from their respective districts to the T&I Committee. Members have been given until May 8 to submit High Priority Projects. The Commission should soon be receiving calls for projects from the four Members who represent Riverside County. In anticipation of this call, staff has prepared al recommendation to the Federal Authorization Legislative Ad Hoc Committee for the Commission to sponsor a strategic suite of projects for the authorization bill. Vetting Commission Priority Projects At its August 2008 meeting, this ad hoc committee received recommendations from Commission federal lobbyists and staff regarding criteria for authorization projects. Having received no alternative suggestions from the ad hoc committee at that time, staff continues to recommend that projects sought by the Commission in the next reauthorization shall: • Have a clear federal nexus; • Be regional in nature; and • Be deliverable within the timeframe of the bill (before 2015-16) Furthermore, the ad hoc committee discussed its desire to support corridors for improvement rather than individual projects. A regional corridor approach is consistent with recent policies by Senate and House Appropriations Committees and Senator Feinstein. As the Commission discussed at its 2008 workshop in La Quinta with its three federal lobbyists, staff believes the Commission will benefit from maintaining a strategy that focuses on the highest regional priorities, despite the many requests that will be made by cities for smaller projects.' Competition will be fierce for limited dollars; diluting the Commission's support for the multitudinous local projects nominated by cities will detract from a regional message that can set Riverside County apart from others in California and the nation. Congressional Criteria In a letter dated April 2, 2009, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and key committee members outlined their standards for High Priority Project requests. The letter is an attachment to this item. The basic points are outlined below: • For road projects, is the project on the national highway or interstate system? • Can 80% of the total cost of the phase or segment of the project be identified through local, state, or federal sources? (Sources and amounts must be named). • How likely is construction of the project to begin during the term of the Act? Urgency Item 2 • Is the project explicitly supported by the state or local government agency? • Is the project of national or regional significance? • What are the safety, economic development, mobility, and environmental benefits associated with the completion of the project? • What opportunity will the public have to comment on the project? • Is the project in the region's long range state and/or federal transportation improvement plan? • Members must certify that neither the Member nor his/her spouse has any financial interest in the project. • Members are required to post requests for projects on the Member's website. Projects included in the bill will be posted on the Committee website, with all certifications and justifications provided to the Committee. Given these detailed principles set by the T&I Committee, staff recommends the Commission adopt three major corridors of national and regional significance as High Priority Projects: Alameda Corridor East and Interstates 215 and 10. Within each of these corridors are projects that are currently under development that increase their likelihood of being "shovel ready" within the term of the new authorization bill. Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations in Riverside County Congressional Districts: 41-Lewis, 44-Calvert, 45-Bono Mack The Commission has twice adopted a Grade Separation Funding Strategy, a one -of - a -kind document in Southern California that provides a blueprint for delivering the 20 highest -priority grade separations in Riverside County. There are 13 grade separations in this funding strategy that could be deliverable by 2016. The blueprint easily achieves the standards set by the T&I Committee for project justification. The blueprint demonstrates significant local funding commitments to all 13 projects. Grade separations have been a consistent congressional priority dating back to SAFETEA-LU, where Alameda Corridor East was identified as a Project of National and Regional Significance. Sponsoring this corridor as a High Priority Project also follows precedent set by the allocation of the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) from Proposition 1 B, which was supported by the entire Southern California region. The Commission has been consistently supportive of grade separations on Alameda Corridor East as a countywide priority. Further, the Commission will continue to seek the creation of a national goods movement funding program that will address the local impacts of international trade. Urgency Item 3 Projects in the Commission's Grade Separation Funding Strategy that are deliverable within the timeframe of the new authorization bill are: Project Lead Agency Total Cost (million) TCIF SAFETEA-LU Auto Center Drive/BNSF Corona $ 32.0 Yes Yes Avenue 52/UP Coachella $ 17.3 Avenue56/Airport Boulevard/UP County $ 60.0 Yes Avenue 66/UP County $ 33.5 Yes Iowa Avenue/BNSF & UP Riverside $ 32.0 Yes Yes Magnolia Avenue/UP Riverside $ 51.2 Yes Sunset Avenue/UP Banning $ 36.5 Yes Yes 3`d Street/BNSF & UP Riverside $ 40.2 Yes Clay Street/UP County $ 37.4 Yes Yes Magnolia Avenue/BNSF County $ 81.8 Yes Riverside Avenue/UP Riverside $ 30.3 Yes Streeter Avenue/UP Riverside $ 36.8 Yes Jurupa Road/UP County $ 108.4 TOTAL $ 597.4 The Commission would seek a federal share of approximately $365 million for these Alameda Corridor East projects. If approved by the ad hoc committee, staff would further refine the details of this request to make a competitive application to our Member offices and the T&1 Committee. Interstate 215 Corridor Improvements Congressional Districts: 41-Lewis, 44-Calvert, 45-Bono Mack, 49-Issa Interstate 215 is a key corridor in the 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plan and is prioritized by the Commission in the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) has also recognized 1-215 as a priority with a $38 million investment from the Proposition 1 B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA). The Commission is investing in transit along the corridor as well with the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension, a project that has received significant federal investment. This highway is regionally significant in its role as a link between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Last week, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution declaring 1-215 a bi-county regional priority. The San Bernardino Board of Supervisors will soon adopt the same resolution. The 1-215 corridor presents an opportunity to demonstrate regional unity and address significant congestionand air quality challenges. Staff proposes that 1-215 corridor improvements, consisting of three critical projects, be considered for a High Priority Project request to Congress. Urgency Item 4 French Valley Parkway This new facility will play a critical role in improving infrastructure in southwest Riverside County and traffic flow near the Riverside/San Diego County border. This $122 million project received High Priority Project designation in SAFETEA-LU from Rep. Darrell Issa. State funds totaling $31.5 million have been placed on the project, designating French Valley Parkway as a regional priority. The authorization request would be approximately $55.2 million. Anticipated construction start is in FY 2010/1 1. Central 1-215 Project: Scott Road to Nuevo Road This project will add one mixed flow lane addition in both the north and south bound directions of 1-215 between Scott and Nuevo Road, approximately 12.9 miles. The project will include the widening of four existing bridges and the replacement of two bridges. The project will involve extensive drainage modifications/improvements. This project will address some existing drainage problems and account for all new run off. Most work will be within the existing state right of way. The project is in the preliminary engineering and environmental clearance stage, with a projected construction start date in 2013. A total of $170 million is needed for construction. This segment of 1-215 will be a continuation of the widening to be done on from Scott Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. That segment is being funded by state Proposition 1 B funds. 1-215 Bi-County HOV Gap Closure Project The Commission added this project to the 10-Year Measure A Delivery Plan in February 2009. This action will expedite a deliverable portion of the larger bi-county 1-215 project that will cost upwards of $1.4 billion. The interim project includes the addition of one HOV lane between the newly completed 60/91/215 interchange and Orange Show Road in San Bernardino. The total project cost is expected to be $167.46 million. The Commission will be responsible for $35.72 million with SANBAG responsible for the balance. Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration have given conceptual approval to deliver this project separately from the larger 1-215 bi-county project with the understanding that it will be given funding priority and delivered by 2014. Advocating for this project will require cooperation and coordination with SANBAG in Washington, DC. If staff's recommendation is approved, staff will proactively outreach to SANBAG to advance this project's standing in Washington, DC. Urgency Item 5 As with Alameda Corridor East, staff recommends that 1-215 be presented as a dynamic package of investments that are regional in nature with direct federal interest, emphasizing air quality improvement, mobility choices, and goods movement benefits. Perris Valley Line Remains a Priority for Annual Appropriations Cycle Staff is not recommending that Perris Valley Line be included in the 1-215 Corridor proposal for authorization. This project has been receiving federal funds from the annual appropriations bills passed by Congress. Perris Valley Line is eligible to receive a Project Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA) from the Federal Transit Administration, which would create an obligation for the federal government to fund the project up to $75 million. Annual appropriations from'the Small Starts program sponsored by Senator Feinstein have set aside approximately $47 million for the project in the last two fiscal years. The Commission will continue to request appropriations for Perris Valley Line until the project has received its maximum federal share of $75 million. 1-10 Corridor Improvements 41-Lewis, 45-Bono Mack The Coachella Valley Association of Governments and their local agency partners in the desert have spent many years developing a series of five important interchange reconstructions on 1-10. These interchanges have serious economic development, air quality, and congestion relief implications for the Coachella Valley. The free flow of people and commerce off of 1-10 is critical to the future of the valley. A major obstacle to delivering these five interchanges has been securing funding in an environment where construction costs escalated globally and budget problems plagued the state and federal governments. The ARRA presented an opportunity for a breakthrough. At its March meeting, the Commissiondesignated the Palm Drive/I-10 and Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road/1-10 interchanges as priorities for investment using the Commission's anticipated ARRA funds. Once these two "stimulus" projects go to construction, there will be three remaining 1-10 interchanges to build: Indian Avenue/I-10, Jefferson Street/I-10, and Date Palm Drive/1-10. Assuming timely enactment of the new authorization bill, all three projects could stand to benefit from new federal funding. While local and state commitments have been made to fully fund the projects once they are ready to go to construction, downturns in state and local revenue present potential future obstacles. Staff recommends that the Commission maintain a corridor approach on 1-10 and request at least $110 million for all five' interchanges to guarantee delivery of these projects once pre -construction work is completed. Urgency Item 6 Staff has been in communication with CVAG regarding these interchanges and their potential for federal authorization funding. If this priority designation is approved by the ad hoc committee, staff will continue to work with CVAG in preparing a strong and detailed application to our Member offices. Transit Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency will also be asked to prepare requests for High Priority Projects. Staff recommends that the Commission work cooperatively with these operators to develop strong requests for their priority projects. Based on the structure of previous authorization bills, transit projects should not compete with the Commission's highway and grade separation priorities. It is not yet known what priorities the two operators will endorse, however the Commission can work cooperatively to ensure that the transportation community in Riverside County presents a strong package to Congress. Next Steps At the direction of the ad hoc committee, staff will begin preparing documentation to support each High Priority Project request. Staff requests approval of this three - corridor concept and the projects within those corridors, as well as direction to work with regional partner agencies in the development of a coordinated advocacy strategy. Due to the deadlines provided by the T&I Committee, time will be of the essence. The May 8 deadline for Members to submit project requests to T&I likely means that Members will ask the Commission to submit its projects for review one or two weeks ahead of the May 8 deadline. Given that these instructions were given last week, it does not provide for a normal course for full Commission consideration before the May 8 deadline. The ad hoc committee's recommendation will be taken to the full Commission. Commission staff and lobbyists are prepared to move quickly at the direction of the ad hoc committee. As the introductory paragraph to this staff report indicates, the timing of authorization activities has been a constant question since federal economic stimulus legislation began to be contemplated late last year. Despite Chairman Oberstar's assertions that the House will move quickly to pass a new bill, it is not yet known what Speaker Pelosi's disposition is and few details about the Senate's calendar (other than Senator Boxer's pledge to do a bill on -time) are known. Urgency Item 7 Ultimately, the goal of approving a Commission -sponsored suite of projects and including them in the House bill is to establish a precedent in the public record that Riverside County infrastructure is a national and regional priority. While the timing of the legislation may change several times, staff recommends ,that Commission projects be part of the initial draft. Attachments: 1) Letter from Chairman Oberstar 2) T&I Committee Project Questionnaire Urgency Item 8 �o $nmeex lE. Oktratar �ipi(tittnn Dt101 AtiId, Chief t,c8tft tPnx�t t4: Mt-Carrngher, fFi dConwtd Dear e n iae#re gpnrttttion anti 3infrta t • I jinflton, De 20515 April 2, 2009 t Jmnev 1Y.Ciro tt i6 H nru+L,.11 t 1 t, ftit visdI I7te Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is crafting new surface transportation authorization legislation to replace the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFEl`EA-LU) (PL. 109-59), which expires on September 30, 2009. This legislation will transform our surface transportation programs by strengthening the current Federal -state -local partnership, ensuring that programs meet specific performance -based metrics, and providing for greater transparency and accountability for Federal, state, and local decision=makuig. Under current law, the U.S. Department of Transportation, States, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and public transit agencies are responsible for the vast majority of surface transportation investment decisions. Although the current Federal -state -local partnership has served highway and transit systems well, not all communities are treated equally in the decision -making process. To complement the work done by these agencies, and to ensure that the needs of the communities that we represent are full partners in these important programs, a small percentage of the overall invesunent of the authorization bill will be available for Member -designated, High Priority Projects ("HPPs"). As elected Members of Congress, we are uniquely responsible and accountable to our constituents; as such, we must be responsive to them by investing in worthwhile projects critical to our districts that may otherwise not be funded. The Committee will accept requests from Members of Congress to designate fimding for High Priority Projects to ensure that the diverse transportation needs of our districts — urban, suburban, and rural -- are addressed with the investment provided in this legislation. The new authorization legislation will include a strong focus on performance and accountability, and these same high standards will be applied throughout the High Priority Project submission and selection process. To address concerns that have been raised with the Member - designated High Priority Project program authorized in SAFE t FA-LU and prior surface transportation legislation, and to ensure that projects drat receive funding in this surface April 2, 2009 Page 2 transportation authorization act result in tangible transportation and safety benefits, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure leas adopted the following principles for Metnber-designated High Priority Projects: ➢ The Committee requires all projects to meet eligibility criteria under Title 23= (I-lighways) or Chapter 53 of Title 49 (Public Transit) of the United States Code to ensure that HPPs comply with highway and transit program objectives. In addition, the Committee specifically prohibits HPP funding for non -surface transportation projects, such as funding of transportation museums, horse trails, historic battlefields, and other non -transportation projects. ➢ The Committee requires Members to provide specific information on the type, location, total cost, percentage of total cost that the request would finance, and benefits of the project, in order for the Committee to effectively analyze the merits of the project request. The Committee requires Members to specifically identify funding to finance at least 80 percent of the total cost of the phase or segment of the project requested by either (1) the amount requested by the Member; or (2) the amount requested by the Member and other specifically designated Federal, state, local, or private funding sources. The intent of this provision is to increase the likelihood that construction of the project will be underway during the term of the act. To ensure that HPPs have significant state or local support, the Committee requires Members to provide at least one letter of support for the project from the state Department of Transportation or affected local government or governmental agency. The Committee requires such government or agency to specify the process that will be followed to provide an opportunity for public comment (such as the Environmental Impact Statement or other permitting process that requires public review) on the project. The Committee also requires such government or agency to identify other Federal, state, local, or private funding sources that may be used to advance the project. ➢ To ensure greater transparency and accountability for HPPs, the Committee establishes the following transparency and accountability principles: Members are required to certify that neither the Member nor his or her spouse has any financial interest in a project requested; • Members are requited to post requests for projects on the _Member's website; April 2, 2009 Page 3 ▪ The Committee win afford the U.S. Department of Transportation at least 20 days to review all project requests to ensure that the projects meet program eligibility criteria; ' A list of all Member -designated High Priority Projects that are ineluded in the bill will be posted on the Committee website; and A copy of all Member financial interest certifications for HPPs that are included in the bill will be posted on the Committee website. The Committee intends to repeal prior 1STEA and TEA 21 project designations tha have not proceeded to constniction or have remaining unused funds to ensure the effective use of highway and transit funds. The Committee will accept HPP requests that adhere to these specific principles beginning on April 27, 2009, and ending on May 8, 2009. Members will have the opportunity to submit project requests through the Committee's online database, which will be located at bttp://hpp.transportation.house.gov. Members will be required to submit both electronic and hard' copies of all High Priority Project requests. Online answers to the enclosed questionnaire will be required for each project submission. We strongly recommend that Members immediately begin to compile the information and letters of support necessary to complete their project requests. To assist Members in this process, the Committee will hold a series of staff briefings and question -and -answer sessions for Congressional staff, as follows: Date Time Location April 8, 2009 2:00 p.m. 2167 Rayburn HOB April 15, 2009 2:00 p.m. 2167 Rayburn IIOB Apnl 24, 2009 10:00 a.m. 21.67 Rayburn HOB May 1, 2009 2:00 p.m. 2167 Rayburn HOB In addition, on April 28, 2009, in room 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building, the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will hold a hearing to receive testimony from Members of Congress regarding project requests. Although participating in the hearing will not impact the inclusion of a requested project in this legislation, the hearing will provide an opportunity for Members to publicly discuss the needs of their district and the merits of their project requests. If you are interested in participating in this hearing, please contact the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit staff at (202) 225-9989. April 2, 2009 Page 4 r£ you have any questions about the High Priority Project submission process, please have your staff contact Jackie Schmitz of the Majority staff of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit at jackie.Schinitz@mail.house.gov mail.house.gov or (202) 225-9989, or Dan Veoni of the Republican staff of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit at Dan.Veoni@mail.house.gov or (202) 225-6715. We believe that Member -designated projects can play an appropriate role in the upcoming surface transportation authorization act, and that the High Priority Project reform principles will ensure that projects that receive funding will result in tangible transportation and safety benefits. We appreciate your willingness to work with us to ensure that this process meets the lushest standards of transparency and accountability, nes L. Oberstat, hairman Peter A. PleFazio, M.C. Chairman Subcommittee on Highways Enclosure Transit Sincerely, 3n J can, M.C. banking Iember Subcommittee on Highways & Transit COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE MEMBER -DESIGNATED HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE The database will allow you to: (1) submit requests; or (2) save drafts which can be submitted on a later date. 1. General Information. ■ Member of Congress (Drop -down menu of Members of Congress with Congressional district') ■ Staff Contact ■ Staff Phone Number ■ Staff E-mail Address 2. Who is the primary Member of Congress sponsoring the project? ■ Member of Congress (Drop -down menu of Members of Congress; only 1 Member may be selected) 3. Is this project located in your Congressional District? ■ Yes ■ No ■ The project is located in the following Congressional District(s): (Drop -down menu of Members of Congress; more than one Member of Congress may be selected) 4. Will other Members of Congress be submitting project requests supporting the project? ■ Yes The other Members submitting requests supporting the project are: (Drop -down menu of Members of Congress; more than one Member of Congress may be selected) ■ No 5. What type of eligible project under Title 23 (Highways) or Chapter 53 of Title 49 (Public Transit) of the U.S. Code is the project request? Note: The Committee will not accept requests for non - surface transportation projects, such as transportation museums, horse trails, or historic battlefields, as part of the High Priority Projects program. ■ Federal -aid Highway • Highway/road ■ Located on a Federal -aid highway? • Yes ■ Located on the National Highway System? ■ Yes ■ Located on the Interstate System? ■ Yes ■ No ' All references to "Members of Congress" include Delegates and Resident Commissioner. ■ No ■ No ■ Bridge ■ Located on a Federal -aid highway? ■ Yes ■ Located on the National Highway System? ■ Yes ■ Located on the Interstate System? ■ Yes ■ No ■ No ■ No ■ Tunnel ■ Located on a Federal -aid highway? ■ Yes ■ Located on the National Highway System? ■ Yes • Located on the Interstate System? ■ Yes ■ No ■ No ■ No ■ Bicycle/Pedestrian project ■ Located on a Federal -aid highway? ■ Yes ■ Located on the National Highway System? ■ Yes ■ Located on the Interstate System? ■ Yes ■ No ■ No ■ No ■ Intelligent Transportation System (Technology) project ■ Located on a Federal -aid highway? ■ Yes ■ Located on the National Highway System? ■ Yes ■ Located on the Interstate System? ■ Yes ■ No ■ No ■ No ■ Ferry Boats or Ferry Boat Facilities ■ Located on a Federal -aid highway? ■ Yes ■ Located on the National Highway System? ■ Yes ■ Located on the Interstate System? ■ Yes ■ No ■ No ■ No ■ Intermodal Freight Facility ■ Located on a Federal -aid highway? ■ Yes ■ Located on the National Highway System? ■ Yes ■ Located on the Interstate System? ■ Yes ■ No ■ No ■ No ■ Other ■ Located on a Federal -aid highway? ■ Yes ■ Located on the National Highway System? ■ Yes ■ Located on the Interstate System? ■ Yes ■ No ■ No ■ No ■ Public Transit (Public transit refers to transportation services provided to the general public via a variety of vehicle modes, including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, monorail, passenger ferry boats, transit van pools, streetcars, inclined railways, and paratransit vehicles. Public transit does not include school bus or charter bus services, nor intercity passenger rail (such as Amtrak), high-speed rail, or private rail operations. For these types of rail projects, please proceed to the Rail section of the form.) ■ Passenger Vehicles ■ Transit Bus or Van ■ Transit Rail Car or Locomotive, including Streetcars ■ Transit Ferry ■ Transit Facilities ■ Vehicle Maintenance or Administration Facility ■ Passenger Facility, including Intermodal Facilities, stations, and terminals ■ Transit Rights -of -Way ■ Property Acquisition ■ Corridor Development ■ Rail Track Construction or Maintenance ■ Bus -only Lane Construction or Maintenance ■ Transit Equipment 3 ■ Vehicle -related Equipment ■ System -related Equipment ■ New Start Project (A New Start project is a major new fixed guideway capital project seeking more than $75 million in Federal funds.) ■ Small Start Project (A Small Start project is a new fixed guideway capital project seeking less than $75 million in Federal funds and with a total estimated net capital cost of less than $250 million.) ■ Rail ■ Intercity Passenger Rail (Intercity rail passenger transportation means rail passenger transportation, except commuter rail passenger transportation. Commuter rail passenger transportation means short -haul rail passenger transportation in metropolitan and suburban areas usually having reduced fare, multiple -ride, and commuter tickets and morning and evening peak period operations. Intercity rail passenger transportation projects are not commuter rail projects. Funds for commuter rail projects should be requested under public transit, not under intercity passenger rail.) ■ Located within a corridor previously designated by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 104(d)(2) of Title 23, United States Code, or the Northeast Corridor? ■ Yes (drop -down menu) ■ California Corridor ■ Chicago Hub Network ■ Empire Corridor ■ Florida Corridor ■ Gulf Coast Corridor ■ Keystone Corridor ■ Northeast Corridor ■ Northern New England Corridor ■ Pacific Northwest Corridor ■ South Central Corridor ■ Southeast Corridor ■ No ■ Freight Rail ■ Class I Freight Rail ■ Class II or Class III Freight Rail ■ Research ■ University Transportation Center ■ Other 4 6. Did the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, or State Department of Transportation,' or public transit agency confirm that the project is eligible under Title 23 (Highways) or Chapter 53 of Title 49 (Public Transit) of the United States Code? ■ Yes • Which entity confirmed the project eligibility? ■ Federal Highway Administration ■ Federal Transit Administration ■ State Department of Transportation ■ Public Transit Agency Contact (Name, Position, Phone) Contact (Name, Position, Phone) Contact (Name, Position, Phone) Contact (Name, Position, Phone) ■ According to the entity, is the project eligible under Title 23, Title 49, or both Titles 23 and title 49? ■ Title 23 (Highways) ■ Chapter 53 of Title 49 (Public Transit) ■ Both Title 23 and Chapter 53 of Title 49 ■ No 7. Please identify the state, regional, or local governmental entity that is an eligible recipient of the funds. ■ Highways (Drop -down menu of State Departments of Transportation (DOTs); only 1 State DOT may be selected) (Note: If a project is a multi -state project, please select the State Department of Transportation which will serve as the lead agency for the project.) ■ Public Transit ■ State DOT (Drop -down menu of State Departments of Transportation (DOTS); only 1 State DOT may be selected) ■ Local Government (Drop -down menu of the following; only one entity may be selected) ■ Metropolitan Planning Organization "MPO" (write in name and address) ■ Transit Agency (write in name and address) ■ City (write in name and address) ■ County (write in name and address) ■ Federally -recognized tribe (write in name and address) ■ Other (write in name and address) (Note: If a project is a multi -state project, please select the state, regional, or local governmental entity which will serve as the lead agency for the project.) ■ Rail (Drop -down menu of Amtrak and State DOTS; only 1 State may be selected) (Note: If a project is a multi -state project, please select the State Department of Transportation which will serve as the lead agency for the project.) 2 All references to "State Departments of Transportation" include Washington, DC, and Territories. 5 8. Please identify the specific segment or activity for which project funding is requested. The request must finance at least 80 percent of the total estimated cost of the specific segment or activity by either (1) the amount requested by the Member; or (2) the amount requested by the Member and other specifically designated Federal, state, local, or private funding sources. ■ Project description (include the specific terminus points of the project or activity, as appropriate; include drop -down menu of activity choices; may select more than 1 activity; activities include: construct, plan, design, engineer, conduct environmental review, acquire right- of-way, conduct alternatives analysis, research, develop, demonstrate, deploy, reconstruct, rehabilitate, replace, retrofit, install, mitigate, implement, realign) ■ Total estimated cost (please write out in numeral form (e.g., $2,000,000, not $2 million)) ■ Request amount (please write out in numeral form (e.g., $1,600,000, not $1.6 million)) ■ Percentage of total estimated cost (If the percentage is less than 80 percent, the Member must identify other specifically designated Federal, state, local, or private funding sources that, combined with the Member request, equal at least 80 percent.) ■ Source Amount of Funding 9. If you are requesting funding for a specific segment or activity, please describe the overall project of which this segment/activity is a part. ■ Project description (please limit your response to 3-4 sentences; up to 500 characters) ■ Total estimated cost 10. Is the project included in the State's Long -Range Transportation Plan? ■ Yes ■ Please provide the date of approval of the most recent version of the plan and the title of the plan. ■ Date of approval (MM/YYYY) ■ Title of the plan ■ No 11. Is the project included in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and/or State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)? ■ Yes ■ Please provide the date of approval of the most recent version of the program(s), and the title of the program(s). ■ Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) ■ Date of approval (1M1VI/YYYY) ■ Title of the Program ■ State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ■ Date of approval (IVIM/YYYY) ■ Title of the Program ■ No 12. If the project is an intercity passenger rail project, is it included in the State Rail Plan? ■ Yes 6 ■ Please provide the date on which the Governor approved the most recent version of the plan, and the title of the plan. • Date of approval (MM/YYYY) ■ Title of the plan ■ No ■ Not Applicable 13. Please describe the current status of the project and the expected schedule for its completion. ■ Current status ■ Federal -aid Highway projects (drop -down menu): ■ In Planning ■ In Environmental Review ■ In Final Design ■ In Right -of -Way Acquisition ■ Under Construction ■ Public Transit projects (drop -down menu) ■ In Planning ■ In Alternatives Analysis ■ In Preliminary Engineering ■ In Final Design ■ Under Construction or Procurement ■ Rail projects (drop -down menu) • In Planning ■ In Environmental Review ■ In Preliminary Engineering ■ In Design ■ Under Construction ■ Research ■ Under Research ■ Under Development ■ Under Demonstration ■ Under Deployment ■ What is the expected date of completion of the project for which you are requesting funding? (Drop -down menu of choices fiscal year 2010 through 2020) 14. Please provide a letter of support from a state, regional, or local governmental official specifically supporting the project request. This letter should discuss the merits of the project; specify the process to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the project; and identify the other sources of Federal, state, or private funding that will be used to complete this project or project phase. This letter must contain an explicit statement of support for the project. In addition, if the Member is requestine less than 80 percent of the total estimated cost of the specific segment or activity, the letter must identify other specifically designated Federal, state, local, or private funding sources that, combined with the Member request, equal at least 80 percent of the total estimated cost. Please use boldface font to highlight these statements in the letter. 7 ■ Attached letter (Please note that you will not be able to submit the finalized request unless a letter is attached.) 15. Does the project have regional or national significance? (A project of regional and national significance is typically a high -cost transportation infrastructure facility that often includes multiple levels of government, agencies, modes of transportation, and transportation goals and planning processes that are not easily addressed or funded within existing surface transportation program categories. These projects have national and/or regional benefits, including improving economic productivity by facilitating international trade, relieving congestion, and improving transportation safety by facilitating passenger and freight movement.) ■ Yes ■ Please describe the regional or national significance of the project. Please limit your response to 3-4 sentences (up to 500 characters). ■ No 16. Describe the safety, economic development, mobility, and environmental benefits associated with completion of the project. ■ Safety Benefits ■ Please describe the safety benefits. Please limit your response to 2-3 sentences (500 characters). ■ Economic Development Benefits ■ Please describe the economic development benefits. Please limit your response to 2-3 sentences (500 characters). ■ Mobility Benefits ■ Please describe the mobility benefits. Please limit your response to 2-3 sentences (500 characters). ■ Environmental Benefits ■ Please describe the environmental benefits. Please limit your response to 2-3 sentences (500 characters). 17. Has the project previously received any Federal funding? ■ Yes ■ surface transportation authorization act(s) ■ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L.109-59) ■ Section Project Number ■ Amount of Funding Amount Obligated ■ Transportation Equity Act for the 21' Century (TEA 21) (P.L. 105-178) ■ Section Project Number ■ Amount of Funding Amount Obligated ■ National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHS Act) (P.L. 104-59) ■ Section Project Number ■ Amount of Funding Amount Obligated ■ Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240) ■ Section Project Number ■ Amount of Funding Amount Obligated 8 ■ appropriations act(s) ■ Public Law Name ■ Public Law Number ■ Section ■ Amount of Funding • other legislation ■ Public Law Name ■ Public Law Number ■ Section ■ Amount of Funding ■ No Project Number Amount Obligated Project Number Amount Obligated 18. Has the project received any prior funding from a State, local, or private source? ■ Yes ■ Source Amount of Funding Amount Obligated ■ No 19. Please provide the proposed legislative text (in no more than 250 characters) of the project as you would like it to appear in the bill. (Please note that project line items carry the force of law, and can only be amended through subsequent public laws. If Congressional intent (as established through answers listed on this form, or in letters to the Committee) is different from the legislative text, the entity administering the project is required to adhere to the statutory language.) (Drop -down menu provides action verbs to begin description: construct, plan, design, engineer, conduct environmental review, acquire right-of-way, conduct alternatives analysis, research, develop, demonstrate, deploy, reconstruct, rehabilitate, replace, retrofit, install, mitigate, implement, realign; Members can choose multiple verbs) Please finalize the first 19 questions before completing the certification page; after moving onto the certification page, Members will not be able to amend their answers to the first 19 questions. 20. Each project request must include a Member certification or it will not be considered by the Committee. The Member certification must be attached to the electronic request. In addition, two original copies of the attached certification must be submitted to the Committee pursuant to clause 17 of Rule XXIII and clause 9 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (Sample certification is derived from database) The certification letter must be printed on letterhead, signed by the Member, and attached as a PDF document to this request. ■ Attached letter Click here to submit your finalized project request to the Committee. 9