HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 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.