Loading...
08 August 16, 2010 Technical Advisory CommitteeTIME: DATE: LOCATION:` V1SORY COM/1TUE AGENDA* , 2010 City Hall rrference Room #2 0 East Sixlh Street CA 92223 *By regtt , be available in alternative fttrrnat• Le, 1 (COMMITTEE MEMBERS Don Allison, City of Mend= dive Barakian, City of Palm *jugs 1 Bayne, City of Catheduateity Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Duane Burk, City of Greg Butler, City of Temecula Bo Chen, City of Pahn Desert Kip Field, City of Corgi Paul Goble, City of Indian 'We Mike Gow, City of Hit Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Atha. ge Tim Jonasson, City of La Quints Michael Kashiwagi, City of Wildettatr Savat Khamphou, Cahn= District i0 Habib Motlagh, Cities .Cf , fteis San Jacinto RECORDS Juan Pam„ County of Riverside Kishen Prathivadi, City of Beaurnont Brenda Rah, &use Transit Agency Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe K Seumilo, City °flake Elsie Jinn Smith, City of Indio Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency Ruthann Taylor -Berger, WRCOG Patrick- Thomas, !City of Murrieta Bull Thompson, City of l meo Paul Toor,'City of Coachella Chris Vogt, City of Moreno Valley Allyn Waggle, C iAG Tim Wassil, City of Desert Hot Spri .gs Carlos Zamano, City of Calitnesa Commission Staff toyer :Executive Director and PI 89774 11.36.02 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: August 16, 2010 LOCATION: Beaumont City Hall Conference Room #2 550 East Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.Z if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Self -Introductions 3. Approval of June 21, 2010 Minutes 4. Public Comments (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. STIP Update (Attachment) 6. Temecula CETAP Funding Requests (Attachment) 7. Toll Credits (Attachment) 8. CMAQ Match Requirements (Attachment) 9. 2008 RTP-FTIP Update (Attachment) 10. 2011 FTIP Report (Attachment) 11. FFY 09/10 OA Delivery Update (Attachment) 12. Caltrans Local Assistance Report (Verbal Presentation) 13. July Commission Meeting Highlights (Verbal Presentation) 14. Other Business 15. Adjournment (The next meeting will be September 20, 10:00 a.m., in Riverside.) • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 21, 2010 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 a.m. at Beaumont City Hall, Conference Room #2, 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, CA 92223. 2_ Self -Introductions Members Present: Others Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Greg Butler, City of Temecula Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert Kip Field, City of Corona Mike Gow, City of Hemet Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Amir Modarressi, City of Desert Hot Springs Diane Nguyen, City of Wildomar Kahono Oei, City of Banning Tom Rafferty, City of Indio Patty Romo, County of Riverside Mike Shoberg, CVAG Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Paul Toor, City of Coachella Grace Alvarez, RCTC Ernest Figueroa, Parsons Group Shirley Gooding, RCTC Kevin Hughes, City of Beaumont Robert Lemon, City of Moreno Valley Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Shirley Medina, RCTC Harish Rastogi, Caltrans Alex Serena, WRCOG Chris Sunde, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris, San Jacinto Linda Wilson, City of Moreno Valley Andrea Zureick, RCTC 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Harry/Bayne) to approve the minutes of April 19, 2010 as submitted. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 21, 2010 Page 2 5. 2009 MEASURE A MOE GUIDELINES Shirley Medina, RCTC, stated that staff worked with the TAC Subcommittee to develop the Maintenance of Effort Guidelines. The guidelines are a departure from the 1989 MOE guidelines in that the state controller's report will not be used for reporting expenditures, and that expenditures reported are those that are transportation general fund expenses. She indicated that the MOE exercise that local agencies were asked to complete in April 2010 worked very well for developing the 2009 MOE base year levels. She further indicated that a recommendation will be made at the July 14 Commission meeting to extend use of the 1989 Measure A MOE base year for the FY 2010/11 reporting cycle. M/S/C (Barakian/Thomas) to approve the Draft 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Maintenance of Effort (MOE) guidelines. 6. 2009 OP SUBMITTALS Andrea Zureick, RCTC, stated that this month the 5-year CIPs and MOE certifications will go to the Budget and Implementation Committee for approval June 28, then to the Commission July 14. Once approved, FY 2011 Measure A local streets and roads disbursements will be available in September 2010. 7. 2010 STIP ADOPTION Shirley Medina said that in February, the 2010 STIP was presented to the California Transportation Commission and subsequently adopted on May 19. The STEP proposal changed due to less funding available than what was programmed in the 2008 STIP. Consequently, in order to add new projects, some projects had to be deleted and some had to be moved out. RCTC projects impacted included the deletion of the $4.6 million of STIP RIP funds previously programmed for theSR-91/71 interchange and the $8.1 million of state cash -RIP for the 60/215 East Junction. The combined funding of $11.7 million was reprogrammed to the I-15 French Valley IC in FY 2014/15. SR-91/71 interchange funds will be replaced with federal funds. 8. 2008 RTP/FTIP UPDATE Andrea Zureick reported that RTP Amendment No. 3 was approved by FHWA. FTIP Amendment No. 34 was approved by FHWA/FTA on May 6, 2010, as well as Amendments No. 41 and 42. Emergency Amendment No. 44 was submitted to SCAG last week and should be approved in August. 9. 2011 FTIP UPDATE Ms. Zureick stated that SCAG is taking the 2011 FTIP to its committee in July. In October, the regional council will adopt the 2011 FTIP, forward it to Caltrans for review, and finally to FHWA.and FTA for approval. Approval is expected in December. She suggested that the jurisdictions review what they submitted to be sure it is all on the same schedule to avoid project delays following adoption of the 2011 FTIP. 10. 2009/10 STP AND CMAQ PROJECT OBLIGATIONS Ms. Medina reported that each state is responsible for obligating 100% of the federal funds that they receive each fiscal year. California usually obligates 100% of its share and at the end of the federal fiscal year if other states have unobligated balances, then California has an opportunity to use balances from other states. This year will be difficult for California to obligate 100% of its share. • • • • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 21, 2010 Page 3 She explained that Riverside County's FFY 2009/10 delivery -obligation plan indicated that Requests for Authorization (RFA) are needed by July 15 for the projects listed. She further indicated that next year will be a heavy delivery year and if projects cannot be obligated this year, there is no guarantee that they can be obligated next federal fiscal year. 11. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT Harish Rastogi, Caltrans Local Assistance Engineer, updated the TAC regarding the Quality Assurance Program (QAP), and reminded the group that no request for authorizations will be approved starting October 1, 2010, for local agencies that have not submitted their QAP to Local Assistance. Mike Gow commented that an e-mail went out mid -June 2010 from Caltrans Local Assistance regarding ADA certification, Exhibit 9-C. 12. JUNE COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Shirley Medina reported that RCTC's budget was the highlight of the meeting and it was approved. The budget indicates that. at the end of the year the balance of the TUMF program will be $111,000. She further indicated that management may request an inventory of projects that will be coming up in the next two -three years so that when and if funding becomes available, funds could be lined up for the next federal transportation authorization act. She also reported that Short Range Transit Plans and SB 821 recommendations were approved. The Metrolink operating capital budget was adopted. It included $8 million contributions for operations and maintenance as well as $1.2 million for capital projects in the coming year. In August or September, there will be a future Commission item regarding positive train control by the Metrolink Executive Director. 13. OTHER BUSINESS A question was raised regarding the gas tax swap. Ms. Medina stated that she will research and Chair Mike Gow, city of Hemet, suggested that jurisdictions review the californiacityfinance.com website. Linda Wilson, city of Moreno Valley, inquired regarding the gas tax swap impacts to cities, regulations for the use of funds and associated state reporting. Dave Barakian, city of Palm Springs, requested a future update of TIGER II. Ms. Medina said she will request that Aaron Hake, RCTC's Government Relations Manager, provide an update in writing. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, i vShirley Medina Programming and Planning Manager • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 16, 2010 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: Funding for Interstate 215 (Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road) Widening Project BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached agenda item will be presented at the Budget and Implementation Committee meeting on August 23, 2010. • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2010 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: Funding for Interstate 215, (Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road) Widening Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the use of $6,300,000 in Measure A Western County Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Program (CETAP) funds and $2,700,000 of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) CETAP funds for the 1-215 Widening project until reimbursement of state funds are authorized and allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC); 2) Approve a Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) for Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) Funds; 3) Approve a SB 184 Request for State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 1-215 widening project from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road was approved for Proposition 1 B CMIA funds in 2007. The CMIA funds were approved for the construction phase in the amount of $38.57 million. Additionally, $16.53 million of STIP Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds have been programmed for the construction phase. The 1-215 CMIA project is ready to list and the allocation request for both CMIA and STIP-RIP funding was submitted for allocation at the August 10-11, 2010 CTC meeting. However, due to the state budget impasse, the CTC does not have the authority to allocate STIP funds, and Proposition 1 B bonds cannot be issued without an adopted state budget. CMIA baseline agreements were executed between the Commission and the CTC. These agreements identify project schedules and milestones and are monitored quarterly by CTC staff to ensure that the projects meet the specified milestones and delivery dates. Given that the CTC could not allocate the CMIA and STIP-RIP funds for the 215 widening project at its August meeting, the project will not meet its December 2010 construction award milestone unless alternative funding can be identified. Staff has explored reimbursement arrangements that would maintain the project's award milestone and provide the much needed jobs and mobility improvements sooner than later. Staff recommends that the Commission approve using Measure A CETAP and TUMF CETAP funds to initiate the project, and approve reimbursement mechanisms allowed under AB 672 and SB 184 for the CMIA and STIP funds, respectively. • AB 672 — Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) allows the project sponsor to expend its own local funds and be eligible for reimbursement when the CMIA funds are available. Staff anticipates that a bond sale that would include CMIA projects would be issued within the fiscal year. The LONP will be submitted for approval at the September 22-23, 2010 CTC meeting. • SB 184 — STIP-RIP funds can be reimbursed under SB 184, which allows the project sponsor to expend its own funds prior to the CTC's approval of the STIP allocation. Although there is no guarantee on the timing of the reimbursement, staff has been informed that it will be tied to future Prop 1 B bond sales. CTC approval of the SB 184 letter request will coincide with the AB 672 LONP approval Another course of action the Commission may consider is to wait until the state budget is adopted and the sale of the Proposition 1 B bond that includes CMIA projects. However, this would delay the project schedule by six to twelve months, or longer. There is sufficient Measure A CETAP funding that can sustain the construction contract until reimbursements are received. Staff is confident that this temporary use of CETAP funds will not impact future CETAP projects. As previously noted, the total programmed amount is $55.1 million ($38.57 M of CMIA and $16.53 M of STIP). Recently the estimate was revised to reflect market conditions and the current construction estimate is now $39.2 million. 1-215, Add Mixed Flow lanes (1-15/Murrieta Hot Springs to Scott Road) Construction Expenditure Plan $ (000's) Funds FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Total CMIA/LONP $6,300 $ 9,800 $ 9,800 $1,540 $27,440 STIP-RIP $2,700 $ 4,200 $ 4,200 $ 660 $11,760 Total $9,000 $14,000 $14,000 $2,200 $39,200 Any savings resulting from the award of the construction contract will be returned to the originating program. For example, the STIP savings will be returned to Riverside County's share, and CMIA savings will return to the CMIA program. CMIA savings can be proposed for reprogramming and staff will work with the Southern California Consensus group on the appropriate use for reprogramming savings from the 1-215 widening project. • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2010/11 Amount: $9,000,000 Source of Funds: CETAP Measure A - $6,300,000 CETAP TUMF - $2,700,000 Budget Adjustment: Yes 003022 97001 00000 0000 210 73 97001 GUProject Accounting No.: 003022 97001 00000 0000 261 31 97001 003022 59001 00000 0000 262 31 59001 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 16, 2010 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: City of Temecula Request for Funds for Interstate 15/French Valley Parkway Phase 1 and Interstate 15/State Route 79 South Interchange BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached agenda item will be presented at the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting on August 23, 2010. • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 23, 2010 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: City of Temecula Request for Funds for Interstate 15/French Valley Parkway Phase 1 and Interstate 15/State Route 79 South Interchange Improvement Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve up $20,000,000 of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Community and Environmental Transportation Accountability Program (CETAP) funds in place of TUMF Regional Arterial funds currently programmed for the 1-15 French Valley Parkway Phase 1 interchange improvement project; 2) Approve up to $5,400,000 of Measure A Western County CETAP funds in place of TUMF Regional Arterial funds for the I-15/SR-79 South interchange improvement project; 3) Remove the I-15/French Valley Parkway and I-15/SR-79 interchange improvements from the TUMF Regional Arterial program as they will be funded under the CETAP Winchester to Temecula Corridor; 4) Authorize the Commission Chair to execute agreements with the city of Temecula to reflect above funding commitments; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The city of Temecula is requesting $20 million in funding for the I-15/French Valley Parkway Phase 1 interchange improvements and $5.4 million for the I-15/SR-79 South interchange improvement projects. These projects will be ready for construction in fiscal year 2011/12. I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange Improvements, Phase 1 — The I-15/French Valley Parkway project was originally approved for TUMF Regional Arterial funds by the Commission in September 2004. TUMF construction funding was identified at $20 million and was intended to fund a portion of the I-15/french Valley Parkway Ultimate . interchange improvement project (Phase 2). At the Commission's January 2010 retreat, the Commission committed to working with the city to explore funding options for Phase 1. The estimated total construction cost for Phase 1 is $24.1 million, which primarily consists of safety improvements including: • Construction of a new southbound off -ramp from 1-15 to French Valley Parkway • Construction of the western segment of French Valley Parkway from the off - ramp to Jefferson Avenue • Widening the 1-15 southbound off -ramp to Winchester Road (SR-79 North) The city of Temecula can fund $4.1 million with local sources and is requesting programming the $20 million of TUMF Regional Arterial funds to cover the balance. The TUMF Regional Arterial program does not have sufficient funding to program $20 million for this project. In fact, no new project programming can be approved this fiscal year as there have been insufficient funds generated from the TUMF program to support programming additional project phases. Staff has reviewed other fund sources and has identified TUMF CETAP funds as a possible source to fund Phase 1. The CETAP Winchester to Temecula Corridor segment extends from the I-15/SR-79 South interchange northward to the 1-15/1-215 split and on to 1-215 terminating at Newport Road. The I-15/French Valley Parkway project is within these limits. Therefore, staff recommends programming $20 million of TUMF CETAP funds as a replacement fund source for the TUMF Regional Arterial funds, and the I-15/French Valley Interchange will be removed from the TUMF Regional Arterial program. I-15/SR-79 South Interchange Improvements — The 1-15/SR-79 South interchange improvement project was also approved for TUMF Regional Arterial funds in the amount of $9.91 million. $5.9 million of the TUMF funds were identified for construction. As previously stated, the TUMF Regional Arterial funds cannot sustain additional project phases. Therefore, the city is requesting replacement funds in the amount of $5.4 million. The total construction cost of the project is estimated at $24.3 million. The improvements will improve circulation, freeway access, and service levels. Federal, state and local funds have been committed in the amount of $8.9 million along with a $10 million contribution from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. This project is eligible for Measure A CETAP funds since it is located at the southern terminus of the Winchester to Temecula Corridor. Staff recommends programming Measure A CETAP funds in the amount of $5.4 million and removing the I-15/SR-79 South project from the TUMF Regional Arterial program. • • • • • • Funding the above projects with Measure A CETAP and TUMF CETAP funds will not impact the delivery of other CETAP improvements. Staff is supportive of funding construction activities that are eligible for CETAP funds and meet the intention of providing mobility improvements within the Winchester to Temecula corridor. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $ 25,400,000 Source of Funds: Measure A CETAP $5,400,000 TUMF CETAP $20,000,000 Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 16, 2010 TO: Technical Advisory Committee . FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: Use of Toll Credits on Federal -Aid Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The statutory authority for the use of toll credits was first introduced in ISTEA and was later modified by TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU. This provision allows certain toll revenue expenditures to be used as credit toward the non-federal match requirements of the federal participating cost. States can apply to FHWA to receive these credits by demonstrating that toll revenues collected in the state have been reinvested into Title 23 highway capital improvement projects (except for emergency relief program projects) or Title 49, Chapter 53 transit projects. The "toll credits" do not provide more funding for projects, i.e., they are not a fund source, but they essentially waive the local match requirement, or provide a "soft match", and allow projects to be authorized with 100% federal funds programmed for the project. Caltrans has recently received approval from FHWA of $5.7B in toll credits to be used throughout the state to "match" federal aid highway fund sources. These toll credits do not expire and their use is only limited by the amount of federal funding available to the state for obligation. FTA has agreed to allow the use of toll credits on transit projects, but the methodology is still under development. It is anticipated a methodology will be in place in FFY 2010/11. To use toll credits the following must apply: 1) There must be enough federal funding programmed on the project to fully fund the phase that is being authorized. Any phase of a project is eligible for toll credits as long as they are included in the initial authorization of that phase. 2) The use of toll credits must be reflected in the project description in the FTIP and in the Request for Authorization (RFA). The various RFA forms have been updated to include checkboxes for the use of toll credits. 3) The non-federal funds that were originally to be used to match the federal funds must continue to be used for transportation purposes, i.e., there is a maintenance of effort requirement with the use of toll credits. Item 1 above limits the applicability of toll credits for projects that have already been programmed if there are no additional federal funds available to the project to replace the non- federal match funds. However, the current bidding environment, where bids are coming in 15-20% below original construction estimates, may provide opportunities to apply toll credits. Ill There may be some projects, particularly those programmed with minimum match (11.47% for CMAQ and STPL or 20% for earmarks, for example) where the updated construction estimate would be lower than the federal funds available for the project. In this case, the toll credits could be added to the FTIP description and the project could be authorized with 100% federal funding. The following example is from the Caltrans Local Assistance Office Bulletin on the use of toll credits and illustrates how toll credit funding differs from the traditional federal/non-federal match funding. This Bulletin can be found on the Caltrans Local Assistance website. Scenario A: Additional Federal Funding Available for Allocation For a project with a total cost of $120,000 including $20,000 of federally non -participating costs ($100,000 federally participating) using a federal reimbursement rate of 88.53%: Scenario A — Table 1 — Traditional Proiect Funding with Match (No toll credit) Prog Code Total Cost Participating Cost Federal Funds Non -Federal Funds L240 $120,000 $100,000 $88,530 $31,470 The Federal Fund amount required in this scenario is 88.53% of the participating cost and the non-federal funding amount is equal to the non -participating amount plus the required 11.47% non-federal match ($20,000 + $11,470). Scenario A — Table 2 — Toll Credit Funding (Additional federal funds available) Prog Code Total Cost Participating Cost Federal Funds Non -Federal Funds Toll Credit L240 $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $20,000 $11,470 When toll credit is being applied to the project, it will be used as a credit toward the non-federal match, or $11,470. Since toll credits are not real money, the federal share must be increased to accommodate the reduction of non-federal funds. The federal fund amount required is changed from $88,530 to $100,000, the total participating cost, and the non-federal funding amount is equal to the non -participating amount. FHWA deducts $11,470 from the $5.7B in toll credits available to California. Scenario B: Reduced Project Costs As discussed previously, the most likely application of toll credits for currently programmed projects is where there has been a cost estimate reduction because of the current low -bid environment. Assume the same project cost estimate has reduced by 20% so that the total i •project cost is now $96,000, including $16,000 of federally non -participating costs ($80,000 federally participating). Scenario B — Table 1 — Traditional Project Funding with Match (No toll credit) • • Prog Code Total Cost Participating Cost Federal Funds Non -Federal Funds L240 $96,000 $80,000 $70,824 $25,176 The federal fund amount required in this scenario is 88.53% of the participating cost and the non-federal funding amount is equal to the non -participating amount plus the required 11.47% non-federal match ($16,000 + $9,176). Both the federal and local funds making up the participating costs are still needed to fully fund the project, but they are both reduced by 20% from the original project cost. Scenario B — Table 2 — Toll Credit Funding (Using federal funds already programmed) Prog Code Total Cost Participating Cost Federal Funds Non -Federal Funds Toll Credit L240 $96,000 $80,000 $80,000 $16,000 $9,176 Because the project was originally allocated $88,530 of federal funds, there are sufficient federal funds for 100% of the federally participating costs ($80,000). When toll credit is being applied to the project, it will be used as a credit toward the non-federal match or 11.47% of the federal funds ($9,176). The non-federal funding amount is equal to the non -participating amount. FHWA deducts $9,176 from the $5.7B in toll credits available to California. Because the use of toll credits requires the availability of more federal funding for a project than would be required under the traditional match scenarios, the choice of which projects are eligible to use toll credits is a policy decision to be made by the agency that originally allocated the funds. FHWA has given authorization for the use of toll credits with earmark funds such as, but not limited to, Demonstration/High Priority/PNRS. In addition, Caltrans has already programmed toll credits on Off -system Highway Bridge Program projects and has allocated federal STIP and SHOPP funds using toll credits as the match. The only Caltrans programs that are currently ineligible for toll credits are projects in the Emergency Relief, Local Safety, and Local On -system Highway Bridge Programs. The Local Safety and On -System Bridge Programs are excluded because there are no federal funds available to replace the current non- federal match funding. CVAG will be presenting an item to their Executive Committee on August 30th to discuss the CMAQ projects that have been allocated funding and whether or not they will allow the use of toll credits on those projects. RCTC staff has been working with Western County agencies to examine the potential projects that can use toll credits for the current STPL and CMAQ-funded projects. • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 16, 2010 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Fund Match Requirements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File BACKGROUND INFORMATION; The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 permitted increasing the federal share of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funded projects up to 100% of the project cost. FHWA has advised Caltrans that these provisions have been extended through the life of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010, which extended SAFETEA-LU until December 31, 2010 (see attached memo from Caltrans). This provision does not increase the amount of CMAQ funding to the State, so there are no additional CMAQ funds available for allocation to projects that are currently programmed. However, the current bidding environment, where bids are coming in 15-20% below original construction estimates, may provide opportunities to reduce or delete the non-federal match funds that were originally programmed for the project and fund the project solely with CMAQ. All project phases are eligible to use 100% CMAQ as long as it is the initial authorization (E- 76) of that phase and the funds are obligated by FHWA by December 31, 2010. However, the choice of which projects are eligible to drop the non-federal match and use 100% CMAQ to fund the project costs is a policy decision to be made by the agency that originally allocated the funds. CVAG will be presenting an item to their Executive Committee on August 30th to discuss the CMAQ projects that have been allocated funding and whether or not they will allow the use of 100% federal funds on those projects. RCTC staff has been working with Western County agencies to examine the potential projects that could take advantage of this short-term opportunity. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HUSINESS,IRANSPORTATION ANDHOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMMING P.O. Box 942873, MS-82 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 PHONE (916) 654-2983 FAX (916) 654-2738 TTY 711 www.dot.cagov July 8, 2010 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCIES Dear Executive Directors: ARNOLD SCHWA RZENEGGER Govemor Flex your power! Be energy efficient! This letter is intended for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies that receive Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program funds. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the California Department of Transportation has received guidance from the Federal Highway Administration that the provisions regarding CMAQ funding in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140, is effective through the life of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010 (STEA 2010). STEA 2010 extended SAFETEA-LU until the end of the 2010 calendar year (December 31, 2010). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 permitted the increase of the federal share of CMAQ funds on projects up to 100%. MPOs may process administrative modifications or amendments to their 2009 Federal Transportation Improvements Programs to increase the federal share on CMAQ funded projects up to 100% and/or program new projects using 100% CMAQ funds, if adequate CMAQ apportionments are available to those MPOs. These projects must be obligated prior to December 31, 2010 to be eligible for 100% federal reimbursement. This is a good opportunity to increase usage of CMAQ funds in you regions. If you have any questions, please call me at (916) 654-2983. Sincerely, VAAVIAkti MUHANED ALJABIRY, Chief Office of Federal Transportation Management Program "Callrans improves mobility across California" • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 16, 2010 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Grace Alvarez, Staff Analyst Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2008 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The following is a quick recap on reportable actions in the 2008 FTIP since the June 21stth TAC meeting, including Riverside County projects: • Formal Amendment No. 44 was submitted to SCAG on June 21, 2010 — the public review comment period ended on August 4th. The anticipated approval of Amendment No. 44 by the federal agencies is August 23, 2010. Project changes in this amendment included 2010 STIP adoption, utilization of toll credits, 2010 SRTP Amendments for the transit agencies, and other minor project changes. • Administrative Modification No. 47 was submitted to SCAG on July 1, 2010 and subsequently approved by Caltrans on August 8, 2010. Project changes in this administrative modification included the utilization of toll credits and other minor project changes. • Administrative Modification No. 48 was submitted to SCAG on July 21, 2010 and subsequently approved by Caltrans on July 23, 2010. Project changes in this administrative modification included the utilization of toll credits and other minor project changes. • Administrative Modification No. 49 was submitted to SCAG on August 9, 2010. The anticipated approval date by Caltrans is August 20, 2010. Project changes in this administrative modification included RTA's funding adjustments, removal of the local advance construction from the I-10/Monterey Ave. IC for Palm Desert, and a technical change to Moreno Valley's SR60/Mason St IC. The next formal amendment (Amendment No. 50) is scheduled for submittal to SCAG on September 7, 2010. Project changes that need to be reflected in the current 2008 FTIP, for federal obligations in FFY 2009/2010 and/or first quarter of FFY 2010/2011 should be forwarded to Andrea and/or me, for inclusion in amendment No. 50. Please note that the obligation of the federal funds programmed for FFY 2009/2010 will be extended until the new 2011 FTIP is approved, which is anticipated to be in December 2010. • • Rivarcida County Transportation Commission 2008 FTIP - Formal Amendment No. 44 Approval Date: Agency Desert Hot Springs Riverside County Riverside County Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans RTA RCTC RCTC RCTC SCRRA Project ID Title Palm Dr. & Camino Campanero TS Install and RIV071237 Interconnect system RIV100103 Pigeon Pass Rd. Corridor RIV990701 SR-60Nalley Way Interchange RIV100605 1-10 Corridor Master Plan development (TE) RIV100606 1-215 Corridor Master Plan development (TE) RIV090902 Extend #4 lane on 1-215 from Blaine St to University Ave RIVLS01 SHOPP - Collision Reduction RIVLS02 SHOPP - Roadway Preservation RIVLS06 SHOPP - Bridge Preservation RIVLSOB Exempt Minor Program RIVLS10 SHOPP - Mobility RIVLS13 State Highway Maintenance RIV090603 2009/2010 SRTP Operating Assistance: Fixed Route and Dial -A -Ride RIV090601 SCRRA Rehabilitation and Renovation of track and rolling stock RIV100602 Grouped project listings for FTA 5310 FY 2008/2009, for purchase of office, shop, and operating equipment for existing facilities. RIV100604 Grouped project listings for FTA 5310 FY 2008/2009, for purchase of new buses and replacement of existing vehicles or for minor expansion of the fleet. RIV100601 SCRRA rail car procurement Change Requested Cost increase New Project (RTP changes approved as part of the 2008 RTP A-3) Funding adjustments for final project costs New ITIP-TE project per CTC approval of 2010 STIP New ITIP-TE project per CTC approval of 2010 STIP Funding adjustments per FY 2010/11 Minor Program Incorporate 2010 SHOPP Incorporate 2010 SHOPP Incorporate 2010 SHOPP Incorporate FY 2010/11 projects Incorporate 2010 SHOPP Incorporate FY 2010/11 projects Funding adjustments - 2009/2010 SRTP for Operating Assistance Cost decrease per RCTC's Commuter Rail, 2009/2010 SRTP A-1. New project per CTC approval of April 7- 8, 2010 New project per CTC approval of April 7- 8, 2010 New project per RCTC's Commuter Rail 2009/2010 SRTP A-1. • Riverside County Transportation Commission 2008 FTIP -Administrative Modification No. 47 Approval Date: 07/08/2010 Agency Murrieta Coachella RCTC RCTC RIV010204 I-15/California Oaks Rd/Kalmia St IC RIV071246 Ave. 52 Grade Separation RIV050555 1-215 East Junction RIV520109 Perris Valley Line Project ID Title Change Requested Project description to reference the use of toll credits Partial reprogramming of CMAQ construction funds to CMAQ engineering funds Lead agency changed to Caltrans Reprogramming of funds • • Riverside County Transportation Commission 2008 FTIP - Administrative Modification No. 48 Aaaroval Date: Agency Riverside County Riverside Riverside County Moreno Valley RCTC RCTC 07/23/2010 Project ID RIV090903 RIV071272 45590 32300 RIV050501 RIV050555 Title Cajalco Rd. Widening - Temescai Cyn to 1-215 Riverside Avenue Grade Separation 1-10 at Date Palm Dr. IC - IC Improvements SR60/Nason St. IC - IC improvements 1-215 AT SR74/G St IC - OC replacement/widening 1-215 & SR60 - Reconstruct Jct to provide HOV direct connector Change Requested Fund source change & use of toll credits for local match Fund source change & use of toll credits for local match Fund source change & use of toll credits for local match Fund source change & use of toll credits for local match Funding adjustments to decrease local match and increase STPL Fund source change & use of toll credits for local match Riverside County Transportation Commission 2008 FTIP - Administrative Modification No. 49 Approval Date: Agency Moreno Valley Palm Desert RTA RTA RTA Project ID RIV090117 RIV031208 RIV090105 RIV090106 RIV091211 Title SR60/Nason St. IC - Widening of Nason ST. OC 1-10/Monterey Ave. IC JARC & NF Lump Sum for Non -Profits (FY's 07 & 08) JARC - Extended Service Program and purchase of APC software (FY's 07 & 08) Purchase of three 40-foot CNG replacement buses Change Requested Technical Change - PM limits modified slightly to be consistent with final design Removal of Local AC - sufficient CMAQ capacity exists to fully fund the estimated construction cost Cost decrease Cost increase Description change to eliminate the purchase of the trolley replacement • 2008 Federal Transportation Improvement Pr*m Amendment Submittals & Approval Dates • 2008 FTIP Purpose Due to RCTC Due to SCAG Approved by SCAG Approved by CT/FHWA Final 7/14/2008 1 1 /17/2008 Amendment 1 Consistency with 2008 RTP Amendment 1 - 50 projects submitted 7/18/2008 7/30/2008 12/8/2008 1 /14/2009 Amendment 2 Formal Amendment - 90 projects submitted 9/23/2008 10/22/2008 12/30/2008 2/2/2009 Amendment 3 Did not include Riverside County projects Amendment 4 Administrative Modification - 2 projects submitted 12/8/2008 1 /12/2009 1 /28/2009 1 /29/2009 Amendment 5 Economic Stimulus Revenue Amendment - Did not include projects Amendment 6 Formal Amendment - 15 projects submitted 01 /26/2009 02/02/2009 02/24/2009 03/25/2009 Amendment 7 Did not include Riverside Co projects Amendment 8 Did not include Riverside Co projects Amendment 9 Formal Amendment - 43 projects submitted 02/23/2009 03/04/2009 04/03/2009 04/23/2009 Amendment 10. Administrative Modification - 7 ARRA projects submitted 03/11/2009 03/13/2009 03/18/2009 03/18/2009 Amendment 11 Did not include Riverside Co projects Amendment 12 Formal Amendment - 14 ARRA projects 03/1 1 /2009 03/20/2009 04/20/2009 04/30/2009 2008 Federal Transportation Improvement Program — Amendment Submittals & Approval Dates 2008 FTIP Purpose Due to RCTC Due to SCAG Approved by SCAG Approved by CT/FHWA Amendment 13 Administrative Modification — 1 project 04/01 /2009 04/03/2009 04/08/2009 04/08/2009 Amendment 14 Administrative Modification — 6 ARRA projects 04/14/2009 04/15/2009 04/22/2009 4/22/2009 Amendment 15 Did not include Riverside Co projects Amendment 16 Formal Amendment — 53 projects 04/28/2009 05/11 /2009 06/15/2009 6/30/2009 Amendment 17 Administrative Modification — 13 projects 04/28/2009 05/22/2009 06/04/2009 06/08/2009 Amendment 18 Did not include Riverside Co Projects Amendment 19 Administrative Modification - 16 projects 06/30/2009 07/10/2009 07/29/2009 08/1 1 /2009 Amendment 20 Formal Amendment — 29 projects 07/13/2009 08/07/2009 09/09/2009 10/08/2009 Amendment 21 Did not include Riverside Co Projects Amendment 22 Administrative Modification — 1 project 08/20/2009 08/20/2009 08/20/2009 08/20/2009 Amendment 23 Formal Amendment - 5 projects 8/17/2009 08/31 /2009 09/25/2009 10/20/2009 Amendment 24 Formal Amendment — 27 projects 07/10/2009 09/09/2009 12/7/2009 01 /22/2010 Amendment 25 Administrative Modification — 3 projects 09/03/2009 09/10/2009 09/18/2009 09/24/2009 • • 2008 Federal Transportation Improvement Pr41bm — Amendment Submittals & Approval Dates , 2008 FTIP Purpose Due to RCTC Due to SCAG Approved by SCAG Approved by CT/FHWA Amendment 26 Formal Amendment — 13 projects 10/01 /2009 10/22/2009 1 1 /24/2009 12/17/2009 Amendment 27 Administrative Modification — 4 projects 1 1 /02/2009 1 1 /12/2009 1 1 /18/2009 1 1 /19/2009 Amendment 28 Formal Amendment — 9 projects 11 /24/2009 12/1 /2009 12/24/2009 01 /27/2010 Amendment 29 Administrative Modification — 3 projects (ARRA funded) 12/02/2009 12/02/2009 12/02/2009 12/02/2009 Amendment 30 Did not include Riverside County projects Amendment 31 Formal Amendment — 6 projects 12/4/2009 12/1 1 /2009 12/31 /2009 01 /28/2010 Amendment 32 Administrative Modification — 6 projects 1 /4/2010 1 /1 1 /2010 01 /28/2010 02/01 /2010 Amendment 33 Formal Amendment — 8 projects 1 /4/2010 1 /1.1 /2010 2/19/2010 03/17/2010 Amendment 34 Formal Amendment — 4 projects (consistency amendment — 2008 RTP A-3) 01 /05/2010 01 /21 /2010 April 5, 2010 05/06/2010 Amendment 35 Did not include Riverside Co projects Amendment 36 Did not include Riverside Co projects Amendment 37 Did not include Riverside Co projects 2008 Federal Transportation Improvement Program - Amendment Submittals & Approval Dates 2008 FTIP Purpose Due to RCTC Due to SCAG Approved by SCAG Approved by CT/FHWA Amendment 38 Administrative Modification projects 4 2/16/2010 2/16/2010 2/16/2010 2/17/2010 Amendment 39 Amendment 40 Amendment 41 Amendment 42 Amendment 43 Administrative Modification - SCAG's HSIP Lump Sum Listing Administrative Modification - 7 projects Formal Amendment - 1 0 projects Administrative Modification - 27 projects N/A 03/01 /2010 03/01 /2010 05/03/2010 N/A 03/19/2010 03/19/2010 05/13/2010 Did not include Riverside Co oroiects 03/19/2010 04/06/2010 04/06/2010 05/26/2010 04/07/2010 05/03/2010 05/28/2010 Amendment 44 Formal Amendment - 06/14/2010 06/21 /2010 17 projects Amendment 45 Did not include Riverside Co projects Amendment 46 Amendment 47 Amendment 48 Administrative Modification - 4 projects Administrative Modification - 6 projects Did not include Riverside Co projects 06/30/2010 07/21 /2010 07/01/2010 07/21 /2010 07/06/2010 07/22/2010 07/08/2010 07/23/2010 • 0 LOZ/60/80 0 LOZ/ZO/80 sloafoad g - uoReompolN anllea}smwpy Et, waiupuawy VAAHA/10 Aq penoaddy DVOS Aq panoaddy DV3S of ma 3l3I:1 o; and asodand dlld 800Z • sa;ea lenoaddy slemwgns ;uawpuawy - �aad tuawanoadwl uogniodsueal leaapad 800Z • • AG =�A ITEM IO • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 16, 2010 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Grace Alvarez, Staff Analyst Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Update — 2010/2011 through 2015/2016 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As previously reported, the 2011 FTIP submittal was completed on January 29, 2010, which included 404 projects for Riverside County. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is on schedule for the approval of the 2011 FTIP in December 2010. As of today, SCAG has completed the analyses of the project submittals by the various Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs), modeled the projects included in the FTIP, secured the approval of the draft FTIP by SCAG's Transportation Committee and Energy and Environmental Committee, and just ended the public review period on July 31st. The following steps in the approval of the 2011 FTIP include responding to the public review comments, approval of the final FTIP by the Transportation Committee, and the Regional Council, and transmittal of the final document to the state and federal agencies. The final approval by the federal agencies (conformity determination) is on target for December 2010. i • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 16, 2010 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: FFY 2009/10 Obligational Authority (OA) Delivery Plan Status STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each year, states are allocated federal STP and CMAQ funds, which are suballocated to the regions (or counties) based on the specific funding distributions for each fund source. The expectation is for each state to obligate 100% of its STP and CMAQ allocations or Obligation Authority (OA). If not, then the unobligated balance will return to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for redistribution to other states that have obligated 100% of its OA. This is an opportunity that allows states to obligate more federal funding then they receive. This is referred to as "August Redistribution". California as a whole typically obligates 100% of its OA and qualifies for August Redistribution. However, not every region or county in California obligates 100% of its OA. Caltrans manages the obligations by keeping track of each region's delivery. If a region does not deliver/obligate 100% of its STP and CMAQ OA, regions that can obligate more than they receive are allowed to use the OA from regions that left OA balances. Caltrans will then credit and debit the regions that under delivered or over delivered for the following federal fiscal year to ensure that the regions receive their fair share. Consequently, if the state as a whole does not obligate 100% of its allocation, those regions that did not use all of their OA, will not get the balance credited or carried over into the next federal fiscal year. In order to monitor the rate of obligations, Caltrans requires each region to submit its obligation plan by April rt. The obligation plan identifies each project that is scheduled for obligation. Caltrans also requires the regions to update its obligation plan to monitor the OA balance. Riverside County's OA Delivery/Obligation plan (attached) identifies approximately $54 million that will be obligated by the end of federal fiscal year 2009/10. Riverside County's OA balance is $44 million. It appears that all of the OA balance will be obligated as the agencies have submitted the RFA's to Caltrans Local Assistance with the majority of the RFAs moving on to Caltrans HQ. $ 10,677 FFY 09/10 Deli Obligation Plan Status as of July 15, 2010 per CT ase and RCTC Milestone Reports STP Delivery • Agency Project Remaining FFY 09/10 Date Dist 8 rcvd RFA Date RFA sent to HQ Date RFA sent to FHWA Comments Moreno Valley SR 60/Nason IC e: 0 08-06-10 revised finance Itr to incr STPL revis$,d .finance Itr to incr STPI- .RFA being reviewed by CT R/W revisedlinance'itr'to inCr STPL r�vised;frnanGe�ltrto incr'STPE Expected STP Obligations: $ 33,456 CMAQ Delivery Agency Project Remaining FFY 09/10 Date Dist 8 rcvd RFA Date RFA sent to HQ Date RFA sent to FHWA Comments County of Riv *" 5 0£ Valley Way - Suppl. PS&E, R/W k IuiS't4o 4Rf irconnect� 600 wit 05-22-10 4' .4? Supplemental obligation Supplemental obligation '- La Quinta Adams/Miles/Dune synch. 354 08-11-10 CE issued La Quinta Eisenhower synchronization 310 08-11-10 CE issued og:09.3Qic AM iespandinB to HQ comments Expected CMAQ Obligations: $ 20,580 OA BALANCE as of July 20: $ 44,353 Expected Obligations $ 54,036 OA BALANCE end of 09/10: $ (9,683) Expected Deobligation: $ 702 $ (8,981) RFA's at HQ or FHWA = 8 RFA at Dist 8 = 4 68Z1ZT $ OTOZ'T AInf-uef :suogallQO lelol Z901 $ d1Sle3o1 OTOZ `T Alnr - uer :suol anc10 diS an, $ 'woo lelol OTOZ `T Ain f - uer :suope811Q0 btIW0 svoday auo;sal!W D10a pue asege}ea Jed OTOZ `ST Alnr;o se sn3elg ueld uol anc10-/uanllaa 01/60 AJJ ►;n will be made but th F: y attachment to the for stern 12. • will be nlade but attachment o the for item 132 s • • • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE August 16, 2010 AGENCY TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME SIGNATURE BANNING DUANE BURK Kahono Oei Director of Public Works i / ' f < I KISHEN PRATHIVADI I Dee Mootjani ~· 0, V" or-t" BEAUMONT Assistant Director of Public k\l\lA..~~5 Works , Ke J \Ii\ ~ J,d .!> 1_~--. ~~-~ _ _ · {t.e, s~h<:¥ei , -~ -~-+.:-;-~~~---9f t1111' f-1./A M f l/otl eht's ~ C£L \311 LL 8/11/2010 ~ • • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENCY TAC MEMBER HEMET MIKE GOW INDIAN WELLS I PAUL GOBLE j Public Works Director I INDIO JIM SMITH Director of Public Works ALTERNATE Victor Monz Principal Engineer Bondie Baker Assistant Engineer II Tom Rafferty Principal Civil Engineer LA QUINTA TIMOTHY JONASSON I Nick Nickerson I Public Works Director/City LAKE ELSINORE MENIFEE MORENO VALLEY MURRIETA NORCO Engineer KEN SEUMALO City Engineer DON ALLISON Public Works Director/ City Engineer ICHRISVOGT Public Works Director/City Engineer I PATRICK THOMAS Director of Public Works/City Engineer BILL THOMPSON Director of Public Works PALM DESERT I BO CHEN Matt Simonetti Prem Kumar Deputy Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer Bob Moehling Engineering Manager Lori Askew Sr. Engineer ~cia MA~"<. D1e-~&-~s PALM SPRINGS DAVE BARAKIAN I Marcus Fuller Director of Public Works/City Engineer August16,2010 PRINT NAME SIGNATURE M~~~ow ~ Tl"'-~~~.s~ g__:_ ((\l..e;"" Kvtf"\/\:~ ~~tk iiu~J ~ 1VJ~kD1~5 • . 8/11/2010 • • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENCY PVVTA PERRIS RTA RANCHO MIRAGE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TAC MEMBER HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer ALTERNATE CJ.t,.;5S~ MARK ST AN LEY I Scott Richardson Director of Planning Planning and Program Manager BRUCE HARRY I Randy Viegas Director of Public Works Project Manager TOM BOYD I Siobhan Foster Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer JUAN PEREZ I Patty Romo Director of Transportation Deputy Director of Transportation August 16, 2010 PRINT NAME CJM,'> s~ /y1,p_1k., ~~'~ f;tz.lil I OW'-B Cl<-/~ <:"'""----::; . ~~"" ~IV'-0 SAN JACINTO I HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer ()ttn~ S'**k I ~~ 5~~ SUNLINE BRENDA RAMIREZ Assistant Transit Planner TEMECULA I GREG BUTLER Director of Public Works WILDOMAR I MICHAEL KASHIWAGI Director of Public Works WRCOG RUTHANNE TAYLOR-BERGER Deputy Executive Director Diane Nguyen Transportation Programs Manager SIGNATURE C4_ ~~ ~"iL'E:R-• 8/11/2010 • AGENCY 2_~vev.:;,:dr,_ Ct:iu;,1-l-f lv•<-i·1:sp~c< f-10?-1 'Dit")/ Mop.i:.rlo i1Au.£Y. ~· I TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE August16,2010 NAME I TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL 'Koz( ;V « I/ r rJ t-1! /( ~: V' c:. t-I 1vr ~t • CS'//'? ·---~-e.rz1 c 1-EWI;, I t'..[UC.i...C..@..Mo/AL .o(l-6' I I • -----·-·--8/11/2010