Loading...
11 November 1, 2010 Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects90062 RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EASTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 10:30 a.m. DATE: Monday, November 1, 2010 LOCATION: CVAG Office 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Video Conference Site Blythe City Hall 235 N. Broadway, Room A Blythe, CA 92225 sP• COMMITTEE MEMBERS -et Scott Matas, Chair / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Joseph DeConinck / To Be Appointed, City of Blythe Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Eduardo Garcia / Steven Hernandez, City of Coachella Patrick Mullany / Larry Spicer, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Ben Godfrey, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Jim Ferguson / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Scott Hines / Gordon Moller, City of Rancho Mirage John J. Benoit, County of Riverside, District IV Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V 4P. STAFF .ed Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director 4I. AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY .ed Air Quality, Capital Projects, Communications and Outreach Programs, Congestion Management Program (CMP), Intermodal Programs, Motorist Services (ie. SAFE), New Corridors, Regional Agencies/Regional Planning, Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) related to the Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys, and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.55 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION EASTERN RiVERS/DE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 10:30 a.m. Monday, November 1, 2010 CVAG Office 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 119 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Video Conference Site -Blythe City Hall 235 N. Broadway, Room A Blythe, CA 92225 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 you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three (3) minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Agenda November 1, 2010 Page 2 Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 5, 2010 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. if there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7. EASTERN COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND FISCAL YEAR 2010/11 BUDGET Page 1 Overview This item is for the Committee to receive and file a report on the unaudited financial results for the year ended June 30, 2010, related to the Eastern County's share of funds accounted for by the Commission and on the Fiscal Year 2010/11 Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue projections. 8. 2011 SPECIALIZED TRANSIT CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR COACHELLA VALLEY Overview This item is for the Committee to receive and file a report on the status of the 201 1 Specialized Transit Call for Projects. Page 12 Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Agenda November 1, 2010 Page 3 9. COMMISSION ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF ADDITIONAL SUNSET LIMITED SERVICE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 15 1) Reaffirm the Commission's formal support for implementation and expansion of intercity Amtrak rail service to the Coachella Valley; 2) Direct staff to work closely and coordinate with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) local communities to advocate for intercity Amtrak rail service to the Coachella Valley; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 11. ADJOURNMENT The next Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:30 a.m., Monday, January 3, 2011, CVAG Office, 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 119, Palm Desert, CA 92260. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EASTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE ROLL CALL C l 0 t o o 3S 0 oci1 November 1, 2010 Prese t Absent County of Riverside, District IV O County Of -Riverside, istrict City of Blythe v�o., v�deocbcc'ekonce— City of Coachella ity trf'iee` City of Indian Wells Cit City of La Quinta C. City of Palm Springs City of Ranch' rage �S 11 -o6 ck-n,• AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EASTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE Monday, April 5, 2010 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was called to order by Chair Pro Tem Scott Matas at 10:50 a.m., at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200, Palm Desert, California, 92260. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Eduardo Garcia led the Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent John J. Benoit Joseph DeConinck Eduardo Garcia Terry Henderson Dick Kelly Scott Matas Glenn Miller Ron Meepos Patrick Mullany Greg Pettis Marion Ashley Steve Pougnet 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to this agenda. RCTC ERC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 5, 2010 Page 2 6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS At this time, Chair Pro Tem Matas opened nominations for the slate of officers. Commissioner Dick Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Patrick Mullany, nominated Chair Pro Tem Scott Mates for the Chair position. No other nominations were received. Chair Pro Tem Matas closed the nominations and was unanimously elected as the Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee's Chair. Commissioner John Benoit, seconded by Commissioner Mullany, nominated Commissioner Ron Meepos for the Vice Chair position. No other nominations were received. Chair Matas closed the nominations. Commissioner Meepos was unanimously elected as the Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee's Vice Chair. 7. UPDATE ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, updated the Committee on state and federal legislative issues including the gas tax swap, Colton Crossing discussions, and design -build legislation. At Commissioner Terry Henderson's request, John Standiford provided a detailed explanation of the gas tax swap and its impact on transportation. 8. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT There were no comments from Commissioners or staff. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:21 a.m. The next meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee is scheduled for May 3, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 1, 2010 TO: Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Eastern County Fiscal Year 2009/10 Financial Information and Fiscal Year 2010/11 Budget STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to receive and file a report on the unaudited financial results for the year ended June 30, 2010, related to the Eastern County's share of funds accounted for by the Commission and on the Fiscal Year 2010/11 Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue projections. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission's annual fiscal audit for the year ended June 30, 2010, is expected to be completed by October 29, 2010. Attached are various unaudited financial schedules and footnote excerpts related to Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley (Eastern County) balances maintained by the Commission. Separate special revenue funds are maintained for the Measure A Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley programs. Attachment 1 presents the assets, liabilities, and fund balances for each of these funds at June 30, 2010. Attachment 2 presents the operating results for each of these funds for the year ended June 30, 2010. Attachment 3 provides details of the Measure A local streets and roads expenditures by jurisdiction for the year ended June 30, 2010. The Commission also maintains two special revenue funds for LTF and State Transit Assistance (STA); however, separate funds for the Eastern County areas are not maintained for these funds. Accordingly, certain information related to expenditures and reserves related to the Eastern County areas has been extracted for purposes of this report. Attachment 4 is a summary of transit and specialized transportation expenditures by geographic area and source of funds (i.e., Measure A, LTF, and STA) for the year ended June 30, 2010. Attachment 5 is a listing of the FY 2009/10 bicycle and pedestrian project expenditures, which were funded by LTF. Attachment 6 is a summary of the LTF and STA reserves for the Eastern County areas accounted for in each of these funds. Agenda Item 7 1 In 2005 and 2006, the Commission approved advance funding agreements with the cities of Blythe and Indio and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) for the cities' specified local streets and roads projects and for CVAG's specified highway and regional arterial projects. Attachment 7 is an excerpt from the Commission's notes to the financial statements regarding the balances for these advances receivable as of June 30, 2010. In January 2010, the Commission approved the FY 2010/11 Measure A and LTF revenue projections, which are included as Attachments 8 and 9. These revenue projections include amounts for the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley areas. Attachments: 1) 2010 Balance Sheet Schedule —Eastern County Special Revenue Funds (unaudited) 2) 2010 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances — Eastern County Special Revenue Funds (unaudited) 3) 2010 Schedule of Measure A Expenditures for Local Streets and Roads by Geographic Area —Eastern County Special Revenue Funds (unaudited) 4) 2010 Schedule of Expenditures for Transit and Specialized Transportation by Geographic Area and Source —Eastern County Special Revenue Funds (unaudited) 5) 2010 Schedule of LTF Expenditures for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects by Geographic Area —Eastern County Special Revenue Funds (unaudited) 6) 2010 Schedule of LTF and STA Reserves —Eastern County Special Revenue Funds (unaudited) 7) 2010 Notes to Financial Statements (unaudited excerpt related to Advances Receivable) 8) FY 2010/11 Measure A Revenue Projection 9) FY 2010/11 Local Transportation Fund Revenue Projection Agenda Item 7 2 ATTACHMENT Riverside County Transportation Commission Balance Sheet Schedule - Eastern County Special Revenue Funds (Unaudited) June 30, 2010 Measure A Measure A Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total Assets Cash and investments $ 5,457,059 $ 556 $ 5,457,615 Receivables: Accounts 4,781,248 312,317 5,093,565 Advances - Interest 10,547 1 10,548 Total assets $ 10,248,854 $ 312,874 $ 10,561,728 Liabilities and Fund Balances (Deficit) Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 3,917,612 $ - $ 3,917,612 Due to other funds 575,797 575,797 Other liabilities 1,725,748 272,948 1,998,696 Total liabilities 6,219,157 272,948 6,492,105 Fund balances Restricted for: Highways Local streets and roads Transit and specialized transportation Total fund balances Total liabilities and fund balances 3,551,179 113,762 364,756 3,551,179 39,926 153,688 364,756 4,029,697 39,926 4,069,623 $ 10,248,854 $ 312,874 $ 10,561,728 ATTACHMENT 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Eastem County Special Revenue Funds (Unaudited) Year Ended June 30, 2010 Measure A Measure A Coachella Palo Verde Valley Valley Total Revenues Sales taxes $ 27,229,393 $ 811,428 $ 28,040,821 Interest 46,001 301 46,302 Total revenues 27,275,394 811,729 28,087,123 Expenditures Current: Highways 3,269,874 3,269,874 Local streets and roads 9,502,752 840,050 10,342,802 Regional arterials 11,920,309 - 11,920,309 Transit and specialized transportation 3,713,988 3,713,988 Total programs 28,406,923 840,050 29,246,973 Total expenditures 28,406,923 840,050 29,246,973 Net change in fund balances (1,131,529) (28,321) (1,159,850) Fund balances at beginning of year 5,161,226 68,247 5,229,473 Fund balances at end of year $ 4,029,697 $ 39,926 $ 4,069,623 4 ATTACHMENT 3 Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Measure A Expenditures for Local Streets and Roads by Geographic Area - Eastern County Special Revenue Funds (Unaudited) Year Ended June 30, 2010 Coachella Valley: City of Cathedral City $ 1,023,305 City of Coachella 460,612 City of Desert Hot Springs 307,875 City of Indian Wells 182,363 City of Indio 1,087,009 City of Palm Desert 1,959,635 City of Palm Springs 1,411,549 City of Rancho Mirage 693,810 Riverside County 1,275,290 Coachella Valley Association of Governments 1,101,241 Other 63 Palo Verde Valley: City of Blythe Riverside County 9,502,752 670,061 169,989 840,050 Total local streets and roads expenditures - Eastem County $ 10,342,802 ATTACHMENT 4 Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of Expenditures for Transit and Specialized Transportation by Geographic Area and Source - Eastem County Special Revenue Funds (Unaudited) Year Ended June 30, 2010 Local State Transportation Transit MeasureA Fund Assistance Total Coachella Valley: SunLine Transit Agency $ 3,710,358 $ 10,421,578 $ 422,758 $ 14,554,694 Other 3,630 3,630 Palo Verde Valley. Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 3,713,988 10,421,578 422,758 14,558,324 717,179 167,500 884,679 717,179 167,500 884,679 Total transit and specialized transportation expenditures - Eastern County $ 3,713,988 $ 11,138,757 $ 590,258 $ 15,443,003 Note 1: Local Transportation Fund and Stale Transit Assitance Fund information was obtained from Local Transportation Fund and Stale Transit Assistance Special Revenue Funds, which are accounted for on a county -wide basis. 6 ATTACHMENT 5 Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of LTF Expenditures for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects by Geographic Area - Eastem County Special Revenue Funds (Unaudited) Year Ended June 30, 2010 Coachella Valley: City of Palm Springs Total bicycle and pedestrian expenditures - Eastern County $ 124,445 $ 124,445 Note 1: Information was obtained from Local Transportation Fund Special Revenue Fund, which is accounted for on a county -wide basis. ATTACHMENT 6 Riverside County Transportation Commission Schedule of LTF and STA Reserves - Eastem County Special Revenue Funds (Unaudited) June 30, 2010 Local Transportation State Transit Fund Assitance Total Rail and Bus Transit and Local Streets and Roads Apportionments: Coachella Valley apportioned and unallocated Allocated and unclaimed - SunLine Transit Agency $ 1,113,905 $ 1,095,606 $ 2,209,511 Apportioned and unallocated 1,037,413 2,930,752 3,968,165 Total bus transit - Coachella Valley 2,151,318 4,026,358 6,177,676 Palo Verde Valley: Allocated and unclaimed - Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 369,061 197,555 566,616 Apportioned and unallocated for transit and local streets and roads 263,709 175,228 438,937 Total bus transit and local streets and roads - Palo Verde Valley 632,770 372,783 1,005,553 Total for rail and bus transit and local streets and roads apportionments $ 2,784,088 $ 4,399,141 $ 7,183,229 Note 1: Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assitance Fund information was obtained from Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assistance Special Revenue Funds, which are accounted for on a county -wide basis. 8 ATTACHMENT 7 Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements (Unaudited Excerpt) June 30, 2010 Note 3. Advances Receivable The Commission has approved advance loans, which are to be funded by commercial paper note proceeds, to the cities of Indio and Blythe and the Coachella Valley Association of Govemments (CVAG) in the amounts of $4,000,000, $1,500,000, and $43,300,000, respectively. The cities have pledged their share of 2009 Measure A local streets and roads revenues, and CVAG has pledged its share of 2009 Measure A highway and regional road revenue allocations in accordance with repayment terms specified in each agreement for actual advances. These city of Blythe and Indio loans are due on or before September 1, 2019, and the CVAG loans are due on or before September 1, 2029. The outstanding advances, including capitalized interest of $2,470,848, as of June 30, 2010 were as follows: City of Blythe $ 1,700,382 City of Indio 4,847,395 Coachella Valley Associated Govemments 22,928,835 Total loans receivable $ 29,476,612 9 ATTACHMENT 8 FY 2010/11 Projection MEASURE A PROJECTOR 5106,000,000 LESS: ADMINISTRATION 2,700,000 TOTAL PROJECTION 5103,300,000 WESTERN COUNTY PORTION RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A DISTRIBUTION PROJECTOR FY 2010/11 Local Streets & Regional Economic Roads Highway Arterials Development New Corridors Public Transit Bond Financing 28.87% 30.36% 8.93% 1.18% 11.01% 11.61% 8.04% $77,397,000 522.343,000 523,498,000 $6,912,000 5913,000 58,522,000 $8,986,000 $6,223,000 BANNING 5351,000 BEAUMONT 0 CALIMESA 93,000 CANYON LAKE 117,000 CORONA Z468,000 HEMET 1,022,000 LAKE ELSINORE 717,000 MENIFEE 691,000 MORENO VALLEY 2,270,000 MURRIETA 1,339,000 NORCO 416,000 PERRIS 729,000 RIVERSIDE 4,366,000 SAN JACINTO 434,000 TEM ECULA 1,768,000 WILDOMAR 326,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4,820,000 RCTC 416,000 AREA TOTAL $22,343,000 COACHELLA VALLEY PORTION Highway & Local Streets S Regional Roads Arterials Public Transit 35.00% 50.00% 15.00% $25,153,000 $8,803,000 $12,577,000 $3,773,000 CATHEDRAL CITY 5936,000 COACHELLA 422,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 282,000 INDIAN WELLS 167,000 INDIO 1,098,000 LA QUINTA 0 PALM SPRINGS 1,288,000 PALM DESERT 1,800,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 635,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1,165,000 CVAG 1,009,000 AREA TOTAL 58,802,000 PALO VERDE VALLEY PORTON Local Streets & Roads 100.00% 5750,000 5750,000 BLYTHE $606,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 144,000 AREA TOTAL $750,000 NOTES: Estimate Tor Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences 10 ATTACHMENT 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND FY 2010111 APPORTIONMENT (revised 2/8/10) Budget FY 2010/11 Projection Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $0 Est. Receipts 52,500,000 TOTAL 52,500,000 Less: Auditor 12,000 Less: RCTC Administration 700,000 Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) 1,575,000 Less: SCAG Planning 109,800 BALANCE 50,103,200 Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) 1,002,064 BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES 49,101,136 Less: 10% Transit Reserves 4,910,114 BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT $44 191 022 APPORTIONMENT Budget Population FY 2010/11 Rail Transit Population % of Total Apportionment 22% 78% Western 1,641,652 77.89% $34,420,410 $7,572,490 $26,847,920 Coachella Valley 438,289 20.80% 9,189,577 Palo Verde Valley 27,712 1.31% 581,036 2,107,653 100.00% $44,191,022 ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT RESERVES (in accordance with Reserve Policy adopted January 12, 2005): Western: Rail $841,388 Transit: RTA $2,408,141 Banning 98,515 Beaumont 89,693 Corona 145,946 Riverside 240,807 Subtotal Transit $2,983,102 2,983,102 Subtotal Western 3,824,490 Coachella Valley 1,021,064 Palo Verde Valley 64,560 Total Reserves $4 910,114 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences Population Source' Califomia Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2009 Allocation of Reserves: FY 2008/09 SRTP Funding Allocations Approved 7/9/08 11 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 1, 2010 TO: Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: 2011 Specialized Transit Call for Projects for Coachella Valley STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to receive and file a report on the status of the 2011 Specialized Transit Call for Projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its October 13 meeting, the Commission directed staff to proceed with a Call for Projects for Specialized Transit Service designed primarily for low income persons, the disabled, and senior citizens. This action consisted of the approval of the fund estimate ($6,872,914 for the FYs 2011 /12 — 2012/13), direction to staff to develop the application and scoring criteria to support the 2011 Call for Projects, approval for staff to advertise the availability of funding and to solicit project/service proposals from interested parties, agencies, and operators. Funding for these projects is generated primarily through a combination of Measure A and two relatively new federal programs known as the Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program and the New Freedom program. As is the case with most federal funding programs, these sources of money come with significant and sometimes onerous and costly restrictions. DISCUSSION: Any discussion about the 2011 Call for Projects must first deal with the approval of a fund estimate. Simply stated, there has been no movement on the federal level for a reauthorization or replacement of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, which impacts both the JARC and New Freedom funding sources. The 2009 Call for Projects allocated the JARC and New Freedom funds from FFYs 2006/07 - 2007/08. Accordingly, the JARC and New Freedom funds currently allocated to Riverside County, but programmed for FYs 2008/09-2009/10, are the last that can be applied toward the 2011 Call for Projects by the Commission, unless federal funding is extended through a future federal transportation authorization bill. Agenda Item 8 12 Based on this analysis, the following table is a summary of the fund estimate developed by staff and recommended to be made available for programming through FY 2012/13. POTENTIAL REVENUES TO OPERATORS FOR THE 2011 CALL OF PROJECTS Available Funding Source: Fiscal Year Western Coachella Riverside Valley TOTAL JARC 2009 $ 746,493 $ 204,916 $ 951,409 JARC 2010 713,735 1.95,923 909,658 New Freedom 2009 329,289 101,475 430,764 New Freedom 2010 323,178 99,592 422,770 1989 Measure A Reserve 4,158,313 0 4,158,313 TOTAL $6,271,008 $601,906 $6,872,914 With respect to the table, there are a few items that need to be pointed out. First, staff recommended that the Commission take its prescribed share of the administrative fee of 3% available from JARC and New Freedom. Staff recommended this action due to the significant administrative cost incurred by the Commission in the processing of the federal funds for the 2009 Call for Projects. The fund estimate shown in the summary table is the net amount available for programming, taking these fees into account. Secondly, in the Coachella Valley, the available funding for this call for projects is limited to the FFY 2008/09 - 2009/10 JARC and New Freedom funds as previously mentioned as well as to any unprogrammed funds that SunLine Transit Agency (Sunline) may wish to designate towards the required match to the JARC and New Freedom funds. Unprogrammed funds would be any Measure A that might be freed up by SunLine via a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) amendment, unprogrammed Local Transportation Fund (LTF) reserves or unprogrammed State Transit Assistance (STA) reserves or any combination thereof. As the table illustrates, there is no specifically designated Measure A reserve fund for specialized transit in the Coachella Valley such as that for Western County. Decisions on the allocation of Measure A transit funding in the Coachella Valley are locally determined and not dictated by the Commission. The voter -approved Measure A Expenditure Plan for the Coachella Valley provides that 15 percent of Measure A revenues in the Coachella Valley go to public transit priorities that include: Agenda Item 8 13 a) Discount Fares and Expanded Transportation Services for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities; b) Specialized Transportation Services; and c) Bus Replacement and More Frequent Service Lastly, SunLine Transit Agency may either apply for projects on its own using its reserves as match or partner with another agency in order to leverage additional match from one or more of these agencies into transit services for the Coachella Valley and preserve its reserves for its own use. NEXT STEPS: All projects originally awarded under the 2009 Call for Projects were two-year term projects. These projects all expire on June 30, 2011 and in order to meet a new service start date of July 1, 2011, staff recommended and received approval for the following process and schedule. • Authorization to proceed — October 13, 2010; • CAC/SSTAC Advisory meeting — October 28, 2010; • Release of application — November 1, 2010; • Technical workshop for applicants — November 18, 2010; • Project proposals due — January 4, 2011; • Application evaluation — January 5 to March 4, 2011; and • Commission approval of projects — April 13, 2011. It should be noted that staff did not seek authority to approve or award projects. Staff plans to evaluate the proposals and then provide a recommendation to the Commission for ratification early spring of 2011, thus providing sufficient time for agreement development and service implementation on July 1, 2011. A budget action was not needed nor requested at this time as there is no financial impact on the current budget. Funds for projects approved by the Commission will be programmed for FYs 201 1 /12 - 2012/13 through the regular budget process. Agenda Item 8 14 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 1, 2010 TO: Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT Commission Advocacy on Behalf of Additional Sunset Limited Service STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Reaffirm the Commission's formal support for implementation and expansion of intercity Amtrak rail service to the Coachella Valley; 2) Direct staff to work closely and coordinate with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) local communities to advocate for intercity Amtrak rail service to the Coachella Valley; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Providing some form of passenger rail service to the Coachella Valley has been a long-standing priority for the area for more than two decades. In order to advance that priority, CVAG recently completed a rail study update. The work effort was completed in April 2010, prepared in coordination with the Commission and Schiermeyer Consulting Services and adopted by the CVAG Executive Committee on October 25. Completing the study is yet another demonstration of the importance of rail service for the Coachella Valley. Given the geographical distance of the Coachella Valley from other major employment and population centers in Southern California, commuter rail service involving the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) would be too expensive and unwieldy to implement, however intercity rail service as provided by Amtrak is not only feasible but a realistic short-term goal for the area. Agenda Item 9 15 Findings of the Coachella Valley Rail Study Update 1. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) determined that a rail service linking the Coachella Valley and Los Angeles is feasible; 2. Caltrans included a Coachella Valley rail service in its current State Rail Plan as a state -sponsored rail project, though no funding for that service is proposed; 3. An Amtrak intercity service enjoys legal rights to operate over all freight railroads in the United States, including the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) in the Coachella Valley; 4. Land has been acquired at both a prospective east -valley location in Indio and a prospective mid -valley location in Rancho Mirage; 5. An Amtrak west -valley station has been built and in operation in Palm Springs for the tri-weekly Sunset Limited service between New Orleans and Los Angeles; and 6. While no state or Amtrak funding has yet been directed towards the implementation of rail service to the Coachella Valley, some state funds have been directed toward another proposed rail service, similar to that envisioned for the Coachella Valley, as the result of continuing local agency activity in that part of the state. The conclusion of the report is to move forward with efforts to ensure that rail feasibility can result in actual implementation. The report states: "It is not sufficient to determine that a rail service is feasible. The step from that finding to actual implementation requires substantial local government support and continuing legislative effort. In addition, given the current economic environment, it is more important than ever to identify other sources of funding. Furthermore, local agencies must develop and strengthen a partnership with Amtrak; the intercity provider, since Amtrak will ultimately be a principal determinant in bringing this service forward and in negotiating with the freight railroads for its implementation... " CVAG's action to adopt the study included action to encourage establishment of daily intercity rail service as an intermediate goal in providing intercity rail service into the Coachella Valley. Another recommendation would be to operate a part of the service along Burlington Northern Santa Fe's tracks from Los Angeles to ensure service to Fullerton and Colton. DISCUSS/ON: The Commission has long -supported the inclusion of intercity rail service to the Coachella Valley in the state's rail plan and can play an important role in working closely with CVAG in advocating for funding. As is the case with most Amtrak Agenda Item 9 16 service in California including the Pacific Surfliner service between Santa Barbara and San Diego, state funding plays an important role in ensuring the operation of the line. The Amtrak line of interest for the Coachella Valley is the Sunset Limited that travels between Los Angeles and New Orleans on a thrice -weekly basis. Moreover, the actual time -of -day for the line's operations takes away from its viability to serve those seeking shorter trips between the Coachella Valley and the rest of Southern California. Keeping such a marginalized schedule also degrades the service's time adherence and dependability. Amtrak has expressed an interest in expanding the service to a daily round-trip train. That would include the establishment of a crew base in Indio to support the service and would be a key factor in developing service that is more attuned to this region's needs. Expanding to daily service in the near -term could also provide the foundation necessary to add additional trains in the future. One major challenge in implementing daily service has been raised by the owner of the rail facility that serves the area, UP. The UP has identifies over $750 million in needed capital improvements that would be required in order to create the capacity needed for daily Amtrak service. This amount far exceeds conventional wisdom and the expectations of most rail experts and there will be a need to develop an effective working relationship with UP to develop realistic cost parameters. Working with UP on this topic has been elevated to an issue of statewide importance given the allocation of Proposition 1 B Trade Corridor Improvement Fund dollars for the Colton Crossing project. The Colton Crossing project was sponsored by the State of California and UP and received reluctant support from transportation agencies in Southern California and the Commission only after a memorandum of understanding was reached to include items of public benefit as part of the project. Passenger rail service considerations to the Coachella Valley should be an important consideration prior to the allocation of state funding for the Colton Crossing project. The purpose of this staff item is to formally communicate the Commission's overall support for efforts to bring intercity rail service to the Coachella Valley. This would enable Commissioners and staff to communicate an official position of support from the Commission with representatives in Sacramento and Washington D.C. and to support efforts in communicating with federal agencies, UP and other stakeholders. The Commission would also participate as a member of an envisioned coordinating council of stakeholders that has been established in other areas of the state. Support for intercity rail service to the Coachella Valley would also be included in the Commission state and federal legislative platforms. Agenda Item 9 17 CONCLUSION: The establishment of reliable intercity rail service to the Coachella Valley is a worthwhile and important transportation and economic priority for the entire county. The Commission is in a unique position to assist communities in the Coachella Valley and CVAG in pursing rail service and approval of the staff recommendations will provide the Commission with needed direction to advocate for this service. Agenda Item 9 18 LATE BREAKING ITEM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 1, 2010 TO: Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Trade Corridor Improvement Fund Projects — Avenue 52 Grade Separation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Direct staff to work with Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and city of Coachella (Coachella) to substitute the grade separation project at Avenue 66 for Avenue 52; 2) Submit Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) project application and supporting documentation to the California Transportation Commission requesting deobligation of $10 million in TCIF funding on Avenue 66 and reprogramming to Avenue 52; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In November 2006, voters passed Proposition 1 B, a $19.9 billion transportation bond initiative. Proposition 1 B authorized $2 billion to TCIF, which targeted funding for goods movement infrastructure projects. The Commission, on behalf of the sponsoring agencies, submitted 13 applications to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) resulting in $162.7 million in TCIF funding allocated for projects located in Riverside County. Of that amount, $20 million was allocated for two projects in Coachella Valley: $10 million for Avenue 56 (Airport Boulevard) and $10 million for Avenue 66. Both Avenue 56 and Avenue 66 at -grade crossings are on the Union Pacific Railroad and are included in CVAG's Transportation Project Prioritization Study to receive CVAG regional funds. Avenue 56 is currently in the environmental/engineering phase, which is anticipated to be completed by January 2011 with project construction scheduled to begin late 2012. Due to funding constraints, CVAG is requesting the $10 million allocated to Avenue 66 be reprogrammed for Coachella's grade separation at Avenue 52. This project is currently proceeding with the preliminary engineering phase and is anticipated to begin construction in September 2012. The total project cost of Avenue 52 is estimated at $22.2 million. Approximately $10.2 million in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds was previously allocated to Avenue 52. Together with $2 million in local funds, the $10 million in TCIF, if approved, will complete the funding requirement. Additionally, the project substitution will potentially improve CVAG's cash flow as it will no longer need to provide an additional $10 million in match funds for the Avenue 66 grade crossing. Overview of TCIF Program Requirements: • TCIF funding is available for the construction phase of a project and requires a 50% non -state match; • To be eligible for TCIF funding, projects must commence construction by December 31, 2013; and • The TCIF program of projects is oversubscribed; there is no guarantee any project will be funded; however, the CTC is operating on a "first-come/first served basis." Process for Substituting TCIF Projects: The Commission, in partnership with the sponsoring agency (Coachella and/or CVAG) will request a project substitution by developing and submitting the following information to the CTC: • Project application including screening and evaluation criteria consisting of project eligibility, local match, project deliverability, air quality, economic and jobs growth, throughput, velocity, reliability, and safety. It should be noted that the project requested for substitution must have equal to or better screening and evaluation criteria; • Railroad coordination plan; • Project programming request form detailing project funding amounts and sources; and • Consensus/support letter from the Southern California Working Group. Avenue 66 remains an important project for CVAG, however, due to the current economy, the project will be delayed until alternative funding is obtained.