Loading...
06 June 27, 2011 Budget & implementationRECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Monday, June 27, 2011 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside SP. COMMITTEE MEMBERS rs, Scott Matas, Chair / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Ron Roberts, Vice Chair / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Ella Zanowic / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Larry Smith / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson / Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Bob Magee / Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Scott Hines / Gordon Moller, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside, District II Jeff Stone, County of Riverside, District III 49. STAFF 'V Anne Mayer, Executive Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer 4P. AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY aoe Annual Budget Development and Oversight Competitive Federal and State Grant Programs Countywide Communications and Outreach Programs Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Public Communications and Outreach Programs Short Range Transit Plans 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. 11.36.06 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:00 PM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Agenda - !Pad Users Importance: High Good Afternoon Budget and Implementation Committee Members: The June Budget and Implementation Committee Agenda for IPad User is available. Please copy the link below: http://www.rctc.org/downloads/BIC/ipad _budgetandimplementation.pdf Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Monday, June 27, 2011 BOARD ROOM County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside, California 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.orq. 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 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. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. 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. Budget and Implementation Committee June 27, 2011 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 - MAY 23, 2011 6. 7. 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.) AMENDMENT TO STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS RELATED TO THE 2009 BONDS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 1 1) Receive and file a report on the proposed amendments, including the Fee Letter, to each of the three Standby Bond Purchase Agreements (SBPAs) between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (JPMorgan), as liquidity facility provider; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 1 1-010, "Resolution Authorizing the Release of All or a Portion of the Debt Service Reserve Fund Related to the Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series A, B, and C, the Execution and Delivery of a Fourth Supplemental Indenture, an Offering Memorandum, and the Taking of All Other Actions Necessary in Connection Therewith"; 3) Approve the estimated costs to be incurred in connection with the amendments to be paid from 2009 Measure A Bond Financing Program funds and the execution of related agreements, as required; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee June 27, 2011 Page 3 8. FISCAL YEARS 2012-16 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 21 1) Approve the FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. 2009 MEASURE A PROGRAM MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 23 1) Approve the 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year levels for each local agency; 2) Approve the city of Riverside's (Riverside) request for special consideration regarding its 2009 MOE base year level; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 30 1) Conduct a public hearing at the July Commission meeting on the proposed Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP); 2) Approve the FY 2011/12 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 531 1 POP for Riverside County; 3) Approve the FY 2011/12 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit; 4) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); 5) Adopt Resolution No. 11-01 1, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds"; and 6) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee June 27, 2011 Page 4 11. FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 48 1) Receive and file the transit operators' compliance status report for the FY 2009/10 Productivity Improvement Program (PIP); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 59 1) Grant the city of Temecula (Temecula) an extension to June 30, 2012, for SB 821 program funds approved for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing project; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following bill positions: a) SB 446 (Dutton) - Support; b) HR 1825 (Blumenauer) - Support; c) S. 1034 (Schumer) - Support; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview Page 67 This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee June 27, 2011 Page 5 • 15. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Monday, July 25, 2011, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE SIGN -IN SHEET JUNE 27, 2011 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS .-14y, -S1911C114 g,rUvyr____„„7, 7�,v`Qi/�' �� t-v e�x.�r 1 v ee s ► A.c' At WItrt ! 1.44' cal-4 `/�R, J ('n'7 G L. /-1 G-.Fl.w eft.,...,,..:�- -2 r .L.-�S,el E-1-L.4... 4 t'e /a-ni_. 4s.4, a(X674 0A—,ti-C-0 ILAlC417 R„ IS IZ,7..-t. 667d,.1., d3 s,b vrn �Crs..1 �cn>zS: \ten fT 1�1vn6� �nS�nca cam, �n�rc.n V V r��1 )s RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ROLL CALL JUNE 27, 2011 County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III City of Beaumont City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Desert Hot Springs Present a Absent a a a a a a City of Hemet a City of Indian Wells City of Lake Elsinore City of Murrieta City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of Temecula • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, May 23, 2011 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Vice Chair Ron Roberts at 9:35 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Rick Gibbs led the Budget and Implementation Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Steve Adams Roger Berg Mary Craton Rick Gibbs Douglas Hanson Steven Hernandez Bob Magee Ron Roberts Larry Smith Ella Zanowic Scott Hines Scott Matas Greg Pettis Jeff Stone John Tavaglione 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2011 M/S/C (Craton/Smith) to approve the minutes as submitted. Abstain: Hernandez RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes May 23, 2011 Page 2 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions/revisions to the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. M/S/C (Craton/Zanowic) to approve the following Consent Calendar item(s): 7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 201 1; 2) Approve a budget adjustment to decrease debt proceeds by $15 million, decrease debt service interest expenditures by $1 million, and increase debt service principal expenditures by $17,284,000 for a net increase in FY 2010/11 expenditures of $1,284,000; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7B. APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 /12 1) Approve Resolution No. 1 1-009, Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2011/12"; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7C. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS 1) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4 (Q4) 2010; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7D. FUND BALANCE POLICY 1) Adopt Resolution No. 1 -1-007, !Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Fund Balance Policy'; and 2) Adopt the Fund Balance Policy; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes May 23, 2011 Page 3 7E. FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 1) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required fare box recovery ratio; 2) Approve the FY 2011 /12 minimum fare revenue to operating cost ratio of 17.04% for the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and 17.80% for the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine); and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager, presented the proposed Budget for FY 2011 /12, and discussed the following areas: • Budget adjustments; • Budget summary; • Funding sources and comparison; • Summary of uses; • Management services; • Regional programs; • Capital program uses; • Capital projects and operations expenditures; • Capital project and expenditure highlights; • Functional uses breakdown; • Measure A management services; and • Next steps. Commissioner Steve Adams asked if the California Transportation Commission (CTC) does not approve the funding allocation for the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane project and the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan is not received for the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP), will existing funds be redirected to other projects or be maintained. Anne Mayer stated that while the CTC deferred allocating funds, the majority of the funding for the SR-91 HOV lane project comes from the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account. As for the SR-91 CIP, the funds being expended are related to preliminary engineering, completing the environmental document, and setting up the procurement process. The TIFIA loan will trigger the release of the request for proposal to select a design -build firm. Therefore, existing funds will be maintained. • RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes May 23, 2011 Page 4 Theresia Trevino stated the expenditures in the budget for the SR-91 HOV lanes are primarily for the right of way acquisition. Commissioner Ron Roberts requested an update for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project. Anne Mayer stated for the PVL project the largest single source of funding is $75 million from the federal Small Starts program. She explained environmental approval of the PVL project is required, and then there is a several month process with the Federal Transit Administration before receiving authorization to use the funds. Additionally, there is $56 million in the State Transportation Improvement Program funds with the balance of the funding comprised of grant funds and other federal funds. M/S/C (Gibbs2anowic) to: 1) Receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2011 /12; 2) Close the public hearing to receive input . on the proposed Budget for FY 2011 /12 at the June 8 Commission meeting; 3) Adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2011/12; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 2009/10 - 2010/11 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5310 CAPITAL GRANT APPLICATIONS Fina Clemente, Transit Manager, provided an overview for the FFYs 2009/10 - 2010/1 1 FTA's Section 5310 Capital grant applications. M/S/C (Adams2anowic) to: 1) Adopt the FFYs 2009/10 - 2010/11 federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the local review committee (LRC); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 11-008, 'Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan'; certifying that the projects are derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human services transportation plan; 3) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes May 23, 2011 Page 5 10. FISCAL YEAR 2011 /12 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager, presented the FY 201 1 /12 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program funding recommendations. Commissioner Bob Magee expressed the importance of this program as it brings funding to communities and creates significant improvements. He encouraged the Commissioners to have their public works professionals annually participate in this program and seek guidance from Commission staff regarding the SB 821 evaluation criteria. He congratulated the city of Wildomar for receiving SB 821 funding for the first time. Commissioner Roger Berg expressed his concern that bicycle projects should receive an equalshare of SB 821 funding. He suggested reevaluating the criteria to ensure bicycle lane projects are fairly weighted. M/S/C (Magee/Adams) to: 1) Approve the FY 2011 /12 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program recommended funding of $1,094,143; 2) Authorize staff to fund unfunded projects in rank order through the 70' percentile using project savings and retumed allocations; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. GRAPHIC DESIGN AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager, provided an overview of the procurement process and scope of services for the graphic design and communication services agreement. M/S/C (Adams/Gibbs) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 11-15-067-00 to Geographics for the provision of graphic design and communications services on an as -needed, time and expense basis, pursuant to its proposed fixed unit rates, for a two-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $1 million; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes May 23, 2011 Page 6 12. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, provided an overview of federal and state legislative activities and presented five bills and the recommended bill positions. Anne Mayer requested the Committee approve an additional staff recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to modify or communicate changes, as necessary, to a bill position on pending legislation consistent with the Commission's approved legislative platform and explained the necessity for this flexibility. M/S/C (Magee/Smith) to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following state bill positions: • AB 1229 (Feuer) - Support; • SB 545 (Anderson) - Monitor; • SB 862 (Lowenthal) - Monitor; • SB 867 (Padilla) - Monitor; 3) Adopt the following federal bill positions: • S. 826 (Feinstein) - Support; 4► Authorize the Executive Director to modify or communicate changes, as necessary, to a bill position on pending legislation consistent with the Commission's approved legislative platform; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 14. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF There were no comments by Commissioners or staff. RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes May 23, 2011 Page 7 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m. The next meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee is scheduled for June 27, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, u~ . Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 27, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Standby Bond Purchase Agreements Related to the 2009 Bonds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file a report on the proposed amendments, including the Fee Letter, to each of the three Standby Bond Purchase Agreements (SBPAs) between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (JPMorgan), as liquidity facility provider; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 1 1-010, Resolution Authorizing the Release of All or a Portion of the Debt Service Reserve Fund Related to the Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series A, B, and C, the Execution and Delivery of a Fourth Supplemental Indenture, an Offering Memorandum, and the Taking of All Other Actions Necessary in Connection Therewith"; 3) Approve the estimated costs to be incurred in connection with the amendments to be paid from 2009 Measure A Bond Financing Program funds and the execution of related agreements, as required; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its August 2009 meeting, the Commission authorized the issuance of $185 million in sales tax revenue bonds. The bonds were issued in October 2009 as variable rate bonds in three series - A, B, and C - which require liquidity support, with a final maturity in June 2029. As a variable rate debt issue, the 2009 Bonds were integrated with the interest rate swaps executed in 2006 and 2008 that became effective in October 2009. Interest rates on the bonds are reset weekly by the remarketing agents - Barclays Capital Inc.; De La Rosa & Co. Inc.; and Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co. LLC. - with such rates determined, in part, based on the market performance of similar, tax-exempt bonds with similar liquidity Agenda Item 7 1 support. To support each series of the 2009 Bonds, the Commission executed three SBPAs with JPMorgan for a two-year liquidity facility, which expires on September 29, 2011, at 125 basis points. At staff's request, the Commission's financial advisor, Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates (Fieldman) contacted JPMorgan regarding its interest in an extension of the liquidity facility and changes in certain terms. JPMorgan and Fieldman have substantially completed negotiations related to an extension for an additional three year period and acceptable changes in certain terms, including a reduction in the cost of the liquidity facility and the possible release of all or a portion of the approximately $14.4 million debt service reserve. Fieldman contacted each of the rating agencies to identify and resolve any concerns regarding the partial release of the debt service reserve, and these discussions are still in process. The release of all or part of the reserve fund allows the Commission to fund the same amount of additional project costs without a separate financing. The effective cost of capital for obtaining the additional reserve amount, considering liquidity fees, reduced investment earnings and estimated costs of the amendments, is approximately 4% per year. This compares favorablywiththe Commission's overall cost of capital. Should the potential release of all or a portion of the debt service reserve result in a potential downgrade of the Commission's underlying long-term debt ratings by any of the rating agencies, the Commission will not include this change in the amendments and will not develop an offering memorandum. As a result of the proposed extension, the transaction costs for the amendments are likely to be considerably less than the costs to enter into a liquidity facility with a new bank under possibly different terms. The estimated costs for this transaction are estimated to not exceed $200,000 and may consist of fees to be paid to the following: • Financial Advisor - Fieldman; • Bond Counsel - Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; • Disclosure Counsel - Fulbright & Jaworski LLP; • General Counsel - Best, Best & Krieger LLP; • Liquidity Provider Counsel - Nixon Peabody; and • Rating Agencies - Moody's, S&P, and Fitch. The extension of the JPMorgan liquidity facility does not increase the amount of debt issued and outstanding and' therefore does not affect the Measure A debt limit. In fact, the cost for liquidity under the amended terms is significantly lower than the original cost. Agenda Item 7 • • • • • In connection with the issuance of the 2009 Bonds by Resolution No. 09-017 adopted in August 2009, the Commission authorized the execution and delivery by the Commission of any agreement that amended and/or extended the terms of any of the financing agreements relating to the 2009 Bonds. Staff, Fieldman, and legal counsel have reviewed the amendments to the SBPAs, including the accompanying Fee Letter, and believe it to be advantageous to the Commission to enter into the amendments to the SBPAs. In accordance with the authority to enter into the extensions provided by Section 11 of Resolution No. 09-017, it is proposed that the Executive Director execute the attached amendments, including the Fee Letter, to the SBPAs on behalf of the Commission. Significant changes to these documents are not anticipated and will be executed pursuant to general counsel and bond counsel reviews. As a result of the potential release of the debt service reserve fund, it has been recently determined that a fourth supplemental indenture and an offering memorandum are required and a related resolution approving these two documents. Disclosure counsel and bond counsel are in the process of preparing these documents to be presented at the July 13 Commission meeting. At the meeting, the Commission vvill be requested to approve the following: • Resolution No. 11-010 authorizing the release of all or a portion of the debt service reserve fund; the execution and delivery of a fourth supplemental indenture and offering memorandum; and the taking of all other actions necessary in connection with this transaction; • Fourth supplemental indenture (draft) between the Commission and the trustee (draft) regarding an amendment to the terms and conditions of the 2009 Bonds; and • Offering memorandum (draft). As part of the action to authorize the release of the debt service reserve fund related to the 2009 Bonds, the Commission will approve the form of the Offering Memorandum and authorize its distribution in connection with the amendment to the terms of the liquidity facility for the 2009 Bonds. The Offering Memorandum is required under state and federal securities laws prohibiting the offer and sale of securities such as the 2009 Bonds, unless all matters that would be material to an investor in the 2009 Bonds have been adequately disclosed and that there is no omission of material facts. Furthermore, under applicable securities laws and regulations, if the reserve fund is reduced or eliminated, the remarketing agents (underwriting firms) cannot continue to market the 2009 Bonds without a revised Offering Memorandum. The Commissioners serving on the Board as the governing body of the issuer of the 2009 Bonds will be expected to read and be familiar with the information described Agenda Item 7 3 in the draft Offering Memorandum included with the staff report to be presented at the Commission meeting. The Commissioners may employ the services of experts to take the lead in the drafting and review of the Offering Memorandum; however, the Commissioners have the duty to review the information and bring to the attention of those responsible for the preparation of the offering document any misstatements or omissions in the draft and to ask questions if they are unclear about the information or their role. The financing team will be available at the Commission meeting to respond to the identification of any misstatements or omissions or to such questions. The current SBPAs expire on October 1, 2011. Due to the timing provisions relating to mandatory purchase of the 2009 Bonds, it is important for the Commission to be able to complete the extension of the SBPAs and other related amendments before September 1, 2011. Staff recommends approval of the estimated costs of issuance and execution of related professional services agreement amendments, as required. Additionally, the FY 2011/12 budget includes amounts for the liquidity facility fees and approximately $120,000 for professional services costs. Should the professional services costs related to this transaction exceed this amount and be less than the $200,000 not to exceed estimate, staff will return to the Commission at mid -year for a potential budget adjustment. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 201 1 /12 FY 2012/13+ Amount: $1,120,100 $2,816,500 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 264-19 65XXX 101-19-65XXX Fiscal Procedures Approved: \A,L,464,1Lcu ur Date: 06/15/11 Attachment: Draft First Amendment Including Fee Letter Agenda Item 7 • 4 NIXON DRAFT DATED 6/20/11 134471474 FIRST AMENDMENT TO STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT by and between RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Dated as of September I, 201 I relating to $85,000,000 Riverside County Transportation Commission 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series A 5 • • • NIXON DRAFT DATED 6/20/11 FIRST AMENDMENT TO STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT This FIRST AMENDMENT TO STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this "First Amendment'), dated as of September 1, 2011, is by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (including any successors and assigns, the "Commission") and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (including any successors and assigns, the "Bank"). Capitalized terms used but not defined in this First Amendment shall have the respective meanings assigned thereto in the Original Agreement (as defined below). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Commission and the Bank entered into the Standby Bond Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2009 (the "Original Agreement'), pursuant to which the Bank agreed to provide liquidity in support of $85,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), 2009 Series A (the "2009 Series A Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the Commission and the Bank now desire, among other things, to: (i) extend the Expiration Date; and (ii) make certain additional amendments to the Original Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I INTENTION OF PARTIES, AGREEMENT PROVISIONS The Bank and the Commission have entered into this First Amendment pursuant to Sections 10.7 and 10.10(b) of the Original Agreement to amend their rights and obligations set forth in the Original Agreement. The terms of the Original Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment and the Fee Letter (as so amended, the "Agreement'), shall govern the rights and obligations of the Commission and the Bank in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Agreement. The amendments herein and in the Fee Letter (as defined herein) shall be effective on the First Amendment Effective Date. ARTICLE II AMENDMENTS Section 2.01 Table of Contents and Schedules. (a) -The Table of Contents is hereby amended by deleting the heading "Section 2.7 Commitment Fees and Other Fees" and replacing it with "Section 2.7 Fees". 13447147.4 6 (b) The Table of Contents is hereby amended by deleting the reference to "Schedule I" therein. (c) Schedule 1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 2.02 Amendment to Section 1.1. (a) The definition of "Amendment Fee" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety. (b) The definition of "Bank Bond Amortization Period" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: " `Bank Bond Amortization Period" means, subject to satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Section 6.2 hereof, the period commencing on the Bank Bond Amortization Start Date and ending on the first to occur of (i) the fifth (5`h) anniversary of the Bank Bond Amortization Start Date, (ii) the date on which the related Bank Bond is redeemed, defeased, accelerated or otherwise paid in accordance with its terms, (iii) the date of the remarketing of such Bank Bond, (iv) the date on which such Bank Bond matures in accordance with its terms, (v) the Substitution Date, (vi) the Conversion Date, and (vii) the date on which the Available Commitment has been reduced to zero or terminated in its entirety pursuant to Section 8.4 hereof." (c) The definition of "Base Rate" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: " `Base Rate' means, for any day, the higher of (a) the Bank's U.S. prime commercial lending rate in effect for such day (as such U.S. prime commercial lending rate is announced from time to time by the Bank at its principal New York office) plus 1.50% per annum, (b) the Federal Funds Rate plus 2.00% per annum and (c) 7.50% per annum. Each change in the Base Rate shall take effect at the time of such change in such U.S. prime commercial lending rate or the Federal Funds Rate, as the case may be. Each determination of the Base Rate by the Bank will be conclusive and binding on the Commission, absent manifest error. (d) The definition of "Commitment Fee" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: " `Commitment Fee' has the meaning assigned to such term in the Fee Letter." (e) The definition of "Expiration Date" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: " `Expiration Date' means the later of (a) 5:O0 p.m., New York time, on September 30, 2014 or, if such day is not a Business Day, the Business Day next preceding such day and (b) 5:00 p.m., New York time, on the last day of any 13447147.4 - 3 - • 7 • • extension of such date pursuant to Section 10.10(b) hereof or, if such last day is not a Business Day, the Business Day next preceding such day." (f) The definition of "Related Documents" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: " `Related Documents' means this Agreement, the Fee Letter, the 2009 Series A Bonds, the 2009 Series B Bonds, the 2009 Series C Bonds, the Other Liquidity Facilities and the Indenture." (g) The definition of "Termination Fee" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety. (h) There is hereby added to Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement each of the following definitions, each of which is to be situated alphabetically: " `Cut -Off -Date' has the meaning assigned to such term in Section 2.9(g) hereof." " `Dodd -Frank Act' means the Dodd -Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, as enacted by the United States Congress, and signed into law on July 21, 2010, and all statutes, rules, guidelines or directives promulgated thereunder." " `Fee Letter' means the letter dated the First Amendment Effective Date from the Bank to the Commission regarding fees and expenses or any amendment thereto or substitute therefore agreed to by the Bank and the Commission." " `First Amendment' means that certain amendment to the Original Agreement, dated the First Amendment Effective Date, by and between the Commission and the Bank." " `First Amendment Effective Date' means September 30, 2011." Section 2.03 Amendment to Section 2.4(d). Section 2.4(d) of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "(d) Subject to satisfaction of the requirements of the Fee Letter, the Commission may terminate this Agreement at any time following no less than five (5) Business Days' prior written notice to the Bank and the Trustee." Section 2.04 Amendment to Section 2.7. Section 2.7 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 13447147.4 "Section 2.7. Fees. (a) The Commission shall pay to the Bank the fees, expenses and other amounts described in the Fee Letter at the times specified in the Fee Letter. - 4 - (b) Any references to the Commitment Fee, other fees or payments owed to the Bank hereunder without specific reference to the Fee Letter shall be read so as to include the Fee Letter, which is hereby incorporated by reference." Section 2.05 Amendment to Section 2.9. Section 2.9 of the Original Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following subparagraphs (f) and (g): "(f) Dodd Frank Act; Basel Committee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of this Agreement (i) all requests, rules, guidelines or directives in connection with the Dodd -Frank Act shall be deemed to be a Change of Law under this Section 2.9, regardless of the date enacted, adopted or issued, and (ii) all requests, rules, guidelines or directives promulgated by the Bank for international Settlements, the Basel Committee on Banking Regulations and Supervisory Practices (or any successor or similar authority) or any Governmental Authority with proper jurisdiction over the Bank shall be deemed to be a Change of Law under this Section 2.9 regardless of the date enacted, adopted or issued. (g) Increased Costs Cut-off Date. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this Section 2.9, the Commission shall have no liability to the Bank for any increased costs to the extent incurred by or imposed on the Bank more than nine months prior to the date the certificate is given to the Commission with respect thereto (the "Cut -Off - Date"), except where (A) the Bank had no actual knowledge of the action resulting in such increased costs as of the Cut -Off -Date or (B) such increased costs apply to the Bank retroactively to a date prior to the Cut -Off -Date." ******************************************** Unless otherwise specifically set forth herein, references hereinafter to the Original Agreement shall be deemed to be references to the Original Agreement as amended hereby and by the Fee Letter, and terms defined in the Original Agreement shall, unless otherwise modified in this First Amendment or the Fee Letter, be used herein as defined therein. ARTICLE III CONDITIONS TO EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS FIRST AMENDMENT This First Amendment shall become effective as of the First Amendment Effective Date; provided that the Bank shall have first received, on or prior to the date hereof, all of the following (which shall be conclusively evidenced by the Bank's execution and delivery of this First Amendment): (a) (i) executed counterparts of this First Amendment and the Fee Letter from the Commission; and (ii) all other legal- matters . pertaining to the execution and delivery of this First Amendment and the Fee Letter shall be satisfactory to the Bank and the execution and delivery hereof and thereof by the Bank shall constitute conclusive evidence that all such legal matters have been completed to the satisfaction of the Bank; 13447147.4 - 5 - • 9 • • • (b) A certificate, dated the First Amendment Effective Date, to the effect that (i) each of the representations and warranties of the Commission contained in Article V of the Original Agreement and herein, is true and correct in all material respects on and as of the date of such certificate as though made on and as of such date (excluding such representations or warranties that, by virtue of the passage of time only, are no longer true and/or accurate); and (ii) on such date, no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing; (c) All fees set forth in the Fee Letter shall be paid in full in the amounts and to the entities required thereby; (d) Executed amendments to the Other Liquidity Facilities; and (e) Such other documents, instruments, approvals (and, if requested by the Bank, certified duplicates of executed copies thereof) or opinions as the Bank may reasonably request of the Commission. In addition, the Commission shall have received all of the following: (i) Counterparts of this First Amendment and the Fee Letter, duly executed by the Bank; and (ii) Such other documents, instruments, approvals (and, if requested by the Commission or the Trustee, certified duplicates of executed copies thereof) or opinions as the Commission or the Trustee may reasonably request of the Bank. In addition, on or prior to the date hereof: (x) there shall not have occurred any material adverse change in the financial condition or operations of the Commission since the date of the most recent financial information provided to the Bank, (y) no change shall have occurred in any law, rule or regulation or in any interpretation thereof that, in the opinion of counsel for the Bank, would make it illegal for the Bank to execute and deliver this First Amendment and the Fee Letter or the Commission to execute and deliver this First Amendment and the Fee Letter, and (z) no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing under the Original Agreement. ARTICLE IV REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE COMMISSION The Commission hereby represents and warrants as follows: (a) the execution, delivery and performance by the Commission of this First Amendment and the Fee Letter are within its powers, have been duly authorized by all necessary action and do not contravene any law or any contractual restriction binding on or affecting the Commission; 13447147.4 -6- 10 (b) the Commission has performed, and is in compliance with, all agreements and conditions set forth in the Original Agreement and the other Related Documents it is required to satisfy in connection with the execution, delivery and performance of the First Amendment and the Fee Letter on and prior to the First Amendment Effective Date and the Original Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment and the Fee Letter, constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of the Commission and are enforceable against the Commission in accordance with their respective terns except as such enforceability may be limited by applicable reorganization, insolvency, liquidation, readjustment of debt, moratorium or other similar laws affecting the enforcement of the rights of creditors generally and by general principles of equity (regardless of whether such enforceability is considered in a proceeding in equity or at law); the exercise of judicial discretion and the limitations on remedies against transportation commissions in the State; and (c) no further authorization, approval or other action by, and no notice to or filing with, any Governmental Authority with proper jurisdiction over the Commission is required for the due execution, delivery and performance by the Commission of this First Amendment and the Fee Letter, and the Commission has provided, or will cause to have provided, written notice of this First Amendment to the Remarketing Agent, Fitch, Moody's and S&P. ARTICLE V FULL FORCE AND EFFECT The Original Agreement is hereby amended to the extent provided in this First Amendment and the Fee Letter and, except as specifically provided herein, the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. ARTICLE VI GOVERNING LAW THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES UNDER THIS FIRST AMENDMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10.6 OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. ARTICLE VII HEADINGS Section headings in this First Amendment are included herein for convenience of reference only and shall not have any effect for purposes of interpretation or construction of the terms of this First Amendment. ARTICLE VIII COUNTERPARTS This First Amendment may be signed in any number of counterpart copies, but all such copies shall constitute one and the same instrument. 13447147.4 - 7 - • • 11 • ARTICLE IX SEVERABILITY In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein should be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not in any way be affected or impaired hereby. [Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank.] 13447147 4 - 8 - 1 2 • • • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this First Amendment to be duly executed and delivered by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized as of the date first above written. 13447147.4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Name: Title: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By: S-1 Name: Title: 13 NIXON DRAFT DATED 6/17/11 J P. Morgan As of September 1, 2011 Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 Ladies and Gentlemen: Reference is made to the Standby Bond Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2009 (the "Original Agreement"), as amended by the First Amendment to the Standby Bond Purchase Agreement, of even date herewith (the "First Amendment', and, the Original Agreement as amended by the First Amendment and this Fee Letter, the "Agreement') between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (the "Bank"). Any capitalized term below that is defined in the Agreement shall have the same meaning when used herein. This letter is the Fee Letter described in the Agreement. In order to induce the Bank to enter into the First Amendment and to continue to provide liquidity support for the 2009 Series A Bonds pursuant to the Agreement, the Commission agrees to make the following payments at the following times: (A) Commitment Fee. B447162.4 (1) The Commission hereby agrees to pay to the Bank a commitment fee (the "Commitment Fee") with respect to the commitment of the Bank at a per annum rate (the "Commitment Fee Rate") multiplied by the Available Commitment. The Commission and the Bank agree that as of First Amendment Effective Date the Commitment Fee Rate will be [0.7651%. The Commitment Fee Rate may be adjusted from time to time pursuant to the table below: 14 13447162.4 Level Commission Bond Rating} Commitment Fee Rate Moody's Fitch/S&P I Aal or better AA+or better [76.5] bppa II Aa2 AA [76.5] bppa III Aa3 AA- [96.5] bppa IV Al A+ [116.5] bppa V A2 A [136.5] bppa VI A3 A- [156.5] bppa VII Baal BBB+ [176.5] bppa VIII Baa2 BBB [196.5] bppa IX Baa3 BBB- [216.5] bppa X Below Baa3 Below BBB- [236.5] bppa (2) Improvements/Downgrades of Commission Bond Rating. If the Commission Bond Ratings assigned by all of the Rating Agencies, or by two of the three Rating Agencies, are at the same level, the Commitment Fee Rate will be based on the level at which all of the Rating Agencies, or two of the three Rating Agencies, if applicable, have assigned their respective Commission Bond Rating(s). For example, if Fitch assigns an "AA" rating, Moody's assigns an "Aa2" rating and S&P assigns an "AA+" rating, the Commitment Fee Rate will be determined in accordance with level II. If the Commission Bond Ratings assigned by each of the Rating Agencies is at a different level, the Commitment Fee Rate will be based on the rating assigned to the level in the middle of the three rating levels. For example, if Fitch assigns an "AA" rating, Moody's assigns an "Aa3" rating and S&P assigns an "AA+" rating, the Commitment Fee Rate will be determined in accordance with level II. However, if Fitch assigns an "AA-" rating, Moody's assigns an "A2" rating and S&P assigns an "AA" rating, the Commitment Fee Rate will be determined in accordance with level III. The change in the Commitment Fee Rate will be increased or reduced, as applicable, on such date that the Rating Agency or Rating Agencies in question shall have publicly announced its/their improvement/downgrade of its/their Commission Bond Rating(s) which improvement/downgrade affects the level or levels described above. (3) The Commitment Fee shall be payable in immediately available funds quarterly in arrears commencing on the first Business Day of December, 2011; provided, however, that in connection with the payment due on the first Business Day of 2 • 15 (1) On or before the First Amendment Effective Date, the Commission shall pay the fees and expenses of Nixon Peabody LLP, counsel to the Bank, in an amount not to exceed $ ; and (2) In connection with the written request by the Commission or the Trustee for (i) any amendment, supplement, waiver, consent or other modification of the Agreement, the Indenture or any other Related Document requiring any action on the part of the Bank, or (ii) any transfer of the rights and obligations under the Agreement by the Commission or the Trustee, the Commission shall pay or cause to be paid to the Bank a fee of $5,000 (the "Amendment Fee"), plus reasonable fees and expenses of counsel to the Bank, for each amendment, supplement, waiver, consent or other modification hereof; provided however, an amendment of the Agreement at the request of the Bank or that entails nothing more than an extension of the term or adjustment to the Commitment Fee shall not require the payment of the Amendment Fee. Said Amendment Fees will be payable as set forth in paragraph (E) hereof. (C) Purchase Fee. The Commission shall pay to the Bank a purchase fee (the "Purchase Fee") in an amount equal to $500 for each purchase of 2009 Series A Bonds by the Bank, which amount shall be payable as set forth in paragraph (E) hereof. (D) Termination Fee. In the event the Commission replaces ,or terminates the Agreement prior to the Expiration Date, then the Commission shall pay to the Bank, in addition to all other Obligations that may be due and payable at such time, a termination fee equal to the Commitment Fee for the Commitment Period, less any Commitment Fees paid during such period pursuant to paragraph (A) hereof (the "Termination Fee"). Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this paragraph (D), no Termination Fee will be required to be paid by the Commission if (i) the 2009 Series A Bonds are then rated by Moody's, Moody's shall have lowered or withdrawn the short-term rating on the 2009 Series A Bonds below "P-1," as a result of the reduction by Moody's of the senior, unsecured short-term rating of the Bank; or (ii) the 2009 Series A Bonds are then rated by Standard & Poor's, Standard & Poor's shall have lowered or withdrawn the short-term rating on the 2009 Series A Bonds below "A-1," as a result of the reduction by Standard Poor's of the senior, unsecured short-term rating of the Bank; or (iii) the 2009 Series A Bonds are then rated by Fitch, Fitch shall have lowered or withdrawn the short- term rating on the 2009 Series A Bonds below "F-1," as a result of the reduction by Fitch of the senior, unsecured short-term rating of the Bank; or (iv) the Bank seeks to impose a fee increase pursuant to Section 2.9 of the Agreement; or (v) the Commission elects to prepay, defease, refinance or refund the 2009 Series A Bonds in full from a source of funds which does not involve the issuance by a bank or other financial institution of a letter of credit, liquidity facility, or credit facility or does not involve a bank direct purchase; provided, however, all Obligations including, without limitation, all principal and interest evidenced by Bank Bonds and all amounts payable under the Agreement and hereunder, shall be paid to the Bank at or prior to the time of termination. Payment of the Termination Fee will be subject to compliance with the provisions of paragraph (E) hereof. In addition, the Commission shall comply with the requirements of the Indenture with respect to terminating the Agreement. 13447162 4 4 • • • 17 (E) Fees and Payments. The Commission hereby agrees to pay (i) Commitment Fees and Amendments Fees to the Bank on or before thirty (30) days following the delivery by the Bank to the Commission and the Trustee of an invoice for such amount, and (ii) the Purchase Fees within five (5) Business Days upon delivery by the Bank to the Commission and the Trustee of an invoice for such amount (collectively, the "Fee Payment Due Date"); provided that any Termination Fee payable by the Commission to the Bank shall be payable on or prior to the date of termination regardless of the date of delivery of the invoice therefor. Any fee not paid by the Commission by the third (3rd) Business Days next following the Fee Payment Due Date shall bear interest at the Default Rate from such third (3rd) Business Day until the day such fee is received by the Bank. Failure by the Bank to deliver any such invoice shall not modify the liability of the Commission for any such fees; provided that such fees shall not become due and payable and interest shall not accrue thereon except as set forth in the preceding sentence. All amounts paid pursuant to this Fee Letter shall be non-refundable. The obligation of the Commission to pay the Commitment Fee and all other amounts set forth herein and in the Agreement as fees (including, but not limited to, the fees herein and the fees described in Sections 2.9 and 10.3 of the Agreement) shall be payable from the Fee and Expense Fund of the Revenue Fund, pursuant to Section 5.02(A)(5) of the Indenture, if and to the extent that such amounts are not paid by the Commission from other moneys. Interest, fees and other amounts payable to the Bank under the Agreement and this Fee Letter shall be computed on the basis of a 365-day year and actual days elapsed; provided, however, computations of the Commitment Fee and the Termination Fee shall be made on the basis of a 360-day year and actual days elapsed. All amounts paid pursuant to this Fee Letter shall be paid in the manner set forth in the Agreement. This Fee Letter may not be amended or waived except by an instrument in writing signed by the Bank and the Commission. This Fee Letter may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one agreement. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Fee Letter by electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof. This Fee Letter is delivered to the Commission on the understanding that, except as customarily submitted to Commission members or as required by law, regulation or a court of competent jurisdiction or in connection with a dispute, including but not limited to legal proceedings, between the Commission and the Bank, the Commission will use its best efforts, without liability, to ensure that neither this Fee Letter nor any of its terms shall be disclosed directly by the Commission to any other financial institution nor posted to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's Electronic Municipal Market Access system. The Bank acknowledges that this Fee Letter is subject to open records requests received by the Commission and will be submitted to Commission members and discussed in open meetings as is customary practice and procedure for the Commission. Should this Fee Letter be disclosed pursuant to such a request or procedures, the Commission shall have no responsibility or liability for the further dissemination of this Fee Letter or any of the information contained therein to other persons. 13447162.4 5 18 13447162.4 [Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank.] 6 19 • Please confirm that the foregoing is our mutual understanding by signing and returning to the Bank an executed counterpart of this Fee Letter. This Fee Letter shall become effective as of the date first above referenced upon our receipt of an executed counterpart of this Fee Letter from the Commission. Very truly yours, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By: Accepted and agreed to as of the date first written above by: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Name: Title: 13447162.4 7 Name: Title: 20 IRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 27, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Measure A imposes several requirements on local agencies in order to receive local streets and roads funds. First, the Coachella Valley and Western County cities and the county must be participating in either the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. Western County agencies must also participate in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan managed by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). The cities of Beaumont and La Quinta are not TUMF participants, and Commission staff is in the process of obtaining confirmation from CVAG, WRCOG, and RCA regarding the current participation in their programs. Additionally, agencies are required to annually provide to the Commission a CIP detailing how those funds are to be expended and an annual certification of maintenance of effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On February 28, 2011, Commission staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist in preparation of the required CIP. The required CIP and supporting documentation have been received from all of the local agencies except the county of Riverside and the city of Cathedral City, which have informed Commission staff that they will submit the respective CIPs within a few weeks. Late submittals will be presented to the Agenda Item 8 21 Commission for approval at subsequent meetings. The FY 2011 /12 Measure A Local Streets and Roads disbursements to local agencies with Commission approved CIPs are expected to begin in September 2011. The CIPs received are posted on the Commission's website and are on file at the Commission. Attachment: FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year CIPs — Posted on Commission Website 22 • Agenda Item 8 Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure A Local Funds Program FY 2011 to 2012 Agency: City of Calimesa Page __1__of __1__: Prepared by: Carlos Zamano Phone Number: (909) 795-9804 Date: June 13, 2011 Item No. Project Names/ Limits Project Type Total Costs Measure A Funds 1 Various streets city wide Street overlay & slurry seal projects on an annual basis—Prop 1B Funding $43,000 $30,000 2 Pavement reconstruction on Avenue “L” between Fourth Street and Douglas Street Rehabilitate Pavement on Avenue “L” after the completion of the storm drainage project Phase II— STP local monies $100,000 $10,000 3 Calimesa Boulevard Landscape Project from Avenue “L” to Sandalwood Avenue Landscape Calimesa Boulevard with additional planters, trees, decorative lighting, and gazebo shades as required---Seek Transportation Enhancement Grant monies $385,000 $33,000 4 Calimesa Boulevard and County Line Road Intersection improvements, west to the Interstate 10 Freeway Work with pre-planning conceptual design, water agency legal requirements, etc. prior to widening intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard, re-establish potable water well— DEMOSTL grant monies $180,000 $160,000 5 Third Street Pedestrian Enhancement Project from County Line Road to Avenue “L” Construct sidewalk and related incidental storm drainage facilities to facilitate to-and-from school pedestrian safety---TCSP- CALTRANS grant $200,000 $40,000 6 2nd Street (Avenue L to Avenue H) and Avenue L (2nd Street to 3rd Street) Street and Sidewalk Improvements Construct infill paving, curbs, gutters and sidewalk on both sides of Second Street. Construct missing sidewalk on Avenue L --- SR2S grant. $994,000 $99,000 7 Singleton Road/Bryant Street Gap Closure (Lariat Road to 640’ s/o Avenue L) Complete PS&E to construct two-lane road to connect Singleton Road and Bryant Street. City will seek grant funding to construct improvements. $40,000 $40,000 Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure A Local Funds Program FY 2012 to 2013 Agency: City of Calimesa Page __1__of __1__: Prepared by: Carlos Zamano Phone Number: (909) 795-9804 Date: June 13, 2011 Item No. Project Names/ Limits Project Type Total Costs Measure A Funds 1 Various streets city wide Street overlay, slurry seal, & reconstruction projects on an annual basis— $65,000 $40,000 2 Pavement reconstruction on Avenue “L” between Fourth Street and Douglas Street Observe rehabilitated pavement on Avenue “L” after the completion of the storm drainage project— STP local monies $65,000 $15,000 3 Calimesa Boulevard Landscape Project from Avenue “L” to Sandalwood Avenue Re-slurry or fog-seal street, maintain all electrically decorated trees and gazebo shades as required $65,000 $31,000 4 Calimesa Boulevard and County Line Road Intersection improvements, west to the Interstate 10 Freeway Complete PA&ED and PS&E—DEMOSTL grant monies $100,000 $100,000 Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure A Local Funds Program FY 2013 to 2014 Agency: City of Calimesa Page __1__of __1__: Prepared by: Carlos Zamano Phone Number: (909) 795-9804 Date: June 13, 2011 Item No. Project Names/ Limits Project Type Total Costs Measure A Funds 1 Various streets city wide Street overlay, slurry seal, & reconstruction projects on an annual basis. Study construction needed to improve traffic flows. $152,000 $112,000 2 Pavement reconstruction on Avenue “L” between Fourth Street and Douglas Street Fog seal rehabilitated pavement on Avenue “L” after the completion of the storm drainage project $42,000 $20,000 3 Calimesa Boulevard Landscape Project from Avenue “L” to Sandalwood Avenue Observe and note deficiencies in the landscaping and lighting on Calimesa Boulevard. Remove graffiti as req’d. $13,000 $8,000 4 Calimesa Boulevard and County Line Road Intersection improvements, west to the Interstate 10 Freeway Work with South Mesa Water Company to relocate an existing well in conflict with proposed improvements —DEMOSTL grant monies $765,000 $153,000 Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure A Local Funds Program FY 2014 to 2015 Agency: City of Calimesa Page __1__of __1__: Prepared by: Carlos Zamano Phone Number: (909) 795-9804 Date: May 28, 2010 Item No. Project Names/ Limits Project Type Total Costs Measure A Funds 1 Various streets city wide Street overlay, slurry seal, & reconstruction projects on an annual basis—Prop 1B Funding $100,000 $44,000 2 Pavement reconstruction on Avenue “L” between Fourth Street and Douglas Street Observe previous pavement protection measures on Avenue “L” after the completion of the storm drainage project. $10,000 $5,000 3 Calimesa Boulevard Landscape Project from Avenue “L” to Sandalwood Avenue Observation and graffiti removal on landscaping, lighting, and gazebos on Calimesa Boulevard $15,000 $15,000 4 Calimesa Boulevard and County Line Road Intersection improvements, west to the Interstate 10 Freeway Continue work with South Mesa Water Company to relocate an existing well in conflict with proposed improvements- DEMOSTL grant monies $720,000 $144,000 Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure A Local Funds Program FY 2015 to 2016 Agency: City of Calimesa Page __1__of __1__: Prepared by: Carlos Zamano Phone Number: (909) 795-9804 Date: June 13, 2011 Item No. Project Names/ Limits Project Type Total Costs Measure A Funds 1 Various streets city wide Street overlay & slurry seal projects on an annual basis—Prop 1B Funding $45,000 $36,000 2 Calimesa Boulevard Landscape Project from Avenue “L” to Sandalwood Avenue Re-slurry seal and re-stripe Calimesa Boulevard. Repair planter irrigation and lighting systems as required. $75,000 $50,000 3 Calimesa Boulevard and County Line Road Intersection improvements, west to the Interstate 10 Freeway Acquire right-of-way to widen intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard. $100,000 $45,000 4 Reconstruct and Widen Singleton Road Interchange Complete PSR for interchange – Developer Funded project $200,000 $10,000 Agency: City of Canyon LakePage 1 of 1Prepared by: Habib MotlaghPhone #:(951) 943-6504Date: 4/18/2011Item Total Cost Measure A EstimatedNo.Project Name / Limits Project Type($000's)Funds ($000's)Completion Status1 Widening 9,000 1,200 2011Final Design 90%, Advertisement for June 2011Total 9,000 1,200 Railroad Canyon RoadRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONMEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAMPROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2010 - 2011 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONMEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAMFY 2011 - 2016Agency: City of Canyon LakePage 1 of 1Prepared by: Habib MotlaghPhone #:(951) 943-6504Date: 4/18/2011ItemTotal Cost Measure ANo.Project Name / Limits Project Type($000's)Funds ($000's)19,000 600 * RCTC will advance $600,000 to complete the project.Total 9,000 600 Rehabilitation and Widening of Railroad Canyon RoadPavement Replacement, Widening, Signal Modification, Striping, Utility Relocation, Median Improvements RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM PROJECT STATUS REPORT COMPLETED PROJECTS FY 2010 - 2011 Agency: City of Coachella Page 1 of 3 Prepared by: Hoy Phone #: 760.398.3502 Date: 5/24/11 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000’s) Measure A Funds ($000’s) 1 2 3 4 Van Buren Street South of Avenue 48 Frederick Street South of Avenue 49 Dillon Road South of Avenue 44 Enterprise Way South of Avenue 52 Reconstruct Reconstruct Overlay Reconstruct $200 $180 $50 $180 $157 $125 $50 $125 TOTALS $610 $457 \MeasACFP.20010.11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2012 - 2016 Agency: City of Coachella Page 2 of 3 Prepared by: Hoy Phone #: 760.398.3502 Date: 5/24/11 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000’s) Measure A Funds ($000’s) FY 2011-12 1 Tyler Street Avenue 53 South to Avenue 54 Reconstruct $430 $430 FY 2012-13 2 3 4 5 Naomi Court From La Ponderosa to East End Perez Street From Naomi Ct. to La Hernandez Romaulda Court Perez Street to La Hernandez East End Ortiz Street From Perez St. to La Hernandez Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct $147 $160 $68 $68 $147 $160 $68 $68 FY 2013-14 6 7 8 Via Conchilla From Avenida De Plata to Avenida De Platina Avenida De Oro From Ave. 50 to Guitron Street Avenida Cortez From Avenue 50 to Calle Leon Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct $43 $240 $173 $43 $240 $173 FY 20014-15 9 10 11 12 Calle Vega From Calle Leon to Paseo Laredo Paseo De Laredo From Frederick to Avenida Cortez Via Durango From Avenida Coez to End Avenue 48 From Van Buren West ¼ mile Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct $59 $88 $59 $264 $59 $88 $59 $264 FY 20015-16 12 14 15 16 Via Hermosa From Avenida Cortez to End Vera Cruz From Avenida Cortez to End Frederick Street From Avenue 50 to Avenue 49 Avenue 49 From Harrison to Van Buren Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct Slurry $59 $59 $260 $200 $59 $59 $260 $106 ACFP.2010.14 MeasACFP.2007.11 TOTALS $2377 $2283 CITY OF EASTVALE MEASURE A EXPENDITURE PLAN Fiscal Year 2011/12 – 2015/16 Submitted May 2011 City of Eastvale 6080 Hamner Ave., Ste 103 Eastvale, CA 91752 City of Eastvale - Measure A Expenditure Plan FY 2011/12- FY 15/16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2011 - 2012 Agency: City of Eastvale Page 1 of 5 Prepared by: Michael Kashiwagi, City Engineer Phone #: 951-361-0900 Date: May 15, 2011 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 1 Street Improvements (various project locations citywide) Widen, repair or reconstruct roadways as needed $390,000 $390,000 2 Roadway Safety and Traffic Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Remove, replace, install signs, pavement markings, related roadway safety improvements $150,000 $150,000 3 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance and repair to include but not limited to: striping, stenciling; repairs to streets and culvert/drainage facilities; storm damage/flood control projects; widening streets $500,000 $300,000 4 Accessibility Improvements Accessibility Improvements including sidewalk repairs and replacements, new sidewalk construction, pedestrian/ADA improvements $100,000 $100,000 5 8% Overhead / Admin Line- Item Administration $82,000 $82,000 TOTAL Measure A Funds: $1,022,000 (see note below) Please note: City of Eastvale did not expend its FY 10/11 Measure A allocation of $430,500 (but the City does have an RCTC approved 5-year Expenditure Plan). The FY 10/11 have been reprogrammed and included with FY 11/12 allocation of $579,000. With $12,915 in interest earnings, this makes a total funding of $1,022,000 (rounded) available for expenditure in FY 11/12 (shown above). City of Eastvale - Measure A Expenditure Plan FY 2011/12- FY 15/16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2012 - 2013 Agency: City of Eastvale Page 2 of 5 Prepared by: Michael Kashiwagi, City Engineer Phone #: 951-361-0900 Date: May 15, 2011 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 1 Street Improvements (various project locations citywide) Widen, repair or reconstruct roadways as needed $200,000 $200,000 2 Roadway Safety and Traffic Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Remove, replace, install signs, pavement markings, related roadway safety improvements $75,000 $75,000 3 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance and repair to include but not limited to: striping, stenciling; repairs to streets and culvert/drainage facilities; storm damage/flood control projects; widening streets $1,284,000 $223,000 4 Accessibility Improvements Accessibility Improvements including sidewalk repairs and replacements, new sidewalk construction, pedestrian/ADA improvements $50,000 $50,000 5 8% Overhead / Admin Line- Item Administration $48,000 $48,000 TOTAL Measure A Funds: $596,000 City of Eastvale - Measure A Expenditure Plan FY 2011/12- FY 15/16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2013 - 2014 Agency: City of Eastvale Page 3 of 5 Prepared by: Michael Kashiwagi, City Engineer Phone #: 951-361-0900 Date: May 15, 2011 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 1 Street Improvements (various project locations citywide) Widen, repair or reconstruct roadways as needed $0 $0 2 Roadway Safety and Traffic Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Remove, replace, install signs, pavement markings, related roadway safety improvements $75,000 $75,000 3 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance and repair to include but not limited to: striping, stenciling; repairs to streets and culvert/drainage facilities; storm damage/flood control projects; widening streets $1,366,000 $440,000 4 Accessibility Improvements Accessibility Improvements including sidewalk repairs and replacements, new sidewalk construction, pedestrian/ADA improvements $50,000 $50,000 5 8% Overhead / Admin Line- Item Inter-fund Transfer $49,000 $49,000 TOTAL Measure A Funds: $614,000 City of Eastvale - Measure A Expenditure Plan FY 2011/12- FY 15/16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2014 - 2015 Agency: City of Eastvale Page 4 of 5 Prepared by: Michael Kashiwagi, City Engineer Phone #: 951-361-0900 Date: May 15, 2011 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 1 Street Improvements (various project locations citywide) Widen, repair or reconstruct roadways as needed $0 $0 2 Roadway Safety and Traffic Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Remove, replace, install signs, pavement markings, related roadway safety improvements $75,000 $75,000 3 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance and repair to include but not limited to: striping, stenciling; repairs to streets and culvert/drainage facilities; storm damage/flood control projects; widening streets $1,248,000 $456,000 4 Accessibility Improvements Accessibility Improvements including sidewalk repairs and replacements, new sidewalk construction, pedestrian/ADA improvements $50,000 $50,000 5 8% Overhead / Admin Line- Item Administration $51,000 $51,000 TOTAL Measure A Funds: $632,000 City of Eastvale - Measure A Expenditure Plan FY 2011/12- FY 15/16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2015 - 2016 Agency: City of Eastvale Page 5 of 5 Prepared by: Michael Kashiwagi, City Engineer Phone #: 951-361-0900 Date: May 15, 2011 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 1 Street Improvements (various project locations citywide) Widen, repair or reconstruct roadways as needed $0 $0 2 Roadway Safety and Traffic Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Remove, replace, install signs, pavement markings, related roadway safety improvements $75,000 $75,000 3 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance and repair to include but not limited to: striping, stenciling; repairs to streets and culvert/drainage facilities; storm damage/flood control projects; widening streets $1,131,000 $474,000 4 Accessibility Improvements Accessibility Improvements including sidewalk repairs and replacements, new sidewalk construction, pedestrian/ADA improvements $50,000 $50,000 5 8% Overhead / Admin Line- Item Administration $52,000 $52,000 TOTAL Measure A Funds: $651,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONMEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAMFY 2012-2016Agency: City of HemetPage 1 of 1Prepared by: Victor Monz, Principal EngineerPhone #: (951) 765-3847Date: May 13, 2011Item No.Project Name/LimitsProject TypeTotal CostMeasure A Funds($000's) ($000's)2011-2012 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Grind/Overlay 4,596 2,229Curb/gutterAccess Ramps2013-2014 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Grind/Overlay 4,710 2,343Curb/gutterAccess Ramps2015-2016 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Grind/Overlay 4,854 2,487Curb/gutterAccess RampsTOTALS 14,160 7,059This scenario would require approximately 1,000,000 SF of Pavement Rehabiliationevery 2 years and is calculated to be performed on an every 2 Fiscal Years schedule RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONMEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAMFY 2012-2016Agency: City of HemetPage 1 of 1Prepared by: Victor Monz, Principal EngineerPhone #: (951) 765-3847Date: May 13, 2011Item No.Project Name/LimitsProject TypeTotal CostMeasure A FundsStatus($000's) ($000's)2010-2011 Sewer Replacement/Street Rehabilitation Street Reconstruct 1,114 581 50% compl.Curb/gutterAccess Ramps2011-2012 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Grind/Overlay 4,596 2,229 in designCurb/gutterAccess Ramps2013-2014 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Grind/Overlay 4,710 2,343 conceptualCurb/gutterAccess Ramps2015-2016 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Grind/Overlay 4,854 2,487 conceptualCurb/gutterAccess RampsTOTALS 14,160 7,059This scenaio would require approximately $6,441,000 in MOE ExpendituresCIP plan is based on a 2 year cycleEstimated Completion30-Jun-1230-Jun-1430-Jun-1630-May-11 Prepared by: Don Allison, City Engineer/Director of Public WorksItemNo.Project Name / LimitsProject TypeTotal Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's)Estimated CompletionStatus$1,4442010-2011$809BALANCE$2,2531Newport Rd - Haun Rd South Median ModificationStreet Improvements $200 $0 n/a Caltrans withheld permit2Bradley Rd - Newport Rd to Potomac Rd AC OverlayStreet Maintenance $300 $2006/30/11Bids due 5/23/113Encanto Rd - Shadel Rd to Ethanac Rd AC OverlayStreet Maintenance $400 $2006/30/11Bids due 5/23/114Bradley/Enconto DesignStreet Maintenance $24 $2402/01/11Plans and Specs5Newport Rd - Antelope Rd North Median ModificationStreet Improvements $120 $0 n/a Caltrans withheld permit6Residential Slurry ProgramStreet Maintenance $500 $0 n/aHeld over7 County of Riverside,Signal Main.Staff Assistance $100 $5106/30/11 Ongoing8 CIP Program AnalysisStaff Assistance $10 $1005/03/119 Consultants Traffic/MS4/etc$200 $10506/30/11 OngoingTOTAL$1,854 $230CARRY OVER$2,023RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISIONMEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAMPROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2010 - 2011Phone #: 951-672-6777Date: May 5, 20112009-2010 CarryoverAgency: City of MenifeePage 1 of 1 Prepared by: Don Allison, City Engineer/Director of Public WorksItemNo.Project Name / Limits Project TypeTotal Cost Measure A Funds $2,0232011-2012$892BALANCE$2,9151 Newport Road, Haun to Menifee Design$150 $1502 Newport Road, Haun to Menifee Construction$1,000 $1,0003 Slurry Seal Program Preparation Street Maintenance $60 $604Bradley Rd - Newport Rd to Potomac Rd AC OverlayStreet Maintenance $300 $3005Encanto Rd - Shadel Rd to Ethanac Rd AC OverlayStreet Maintenance $400 $4006Newport Signal Connection Street Maintenance$200 $2007 Slurry Seal Street Maintenance$800 $7008Garbani Rd, Bradley Rd at Craig Ave to Kurt StStreet Maintenance $4009 Street Stripping and Pvmt Markers Street Maintenance$100 $100TOTAL$3,410 $2,910CARRY OVER$5RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISIONMEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAMFY 20122010-2011 CarryoverPhone #: 951-672-6777Date: May 5, 2011Agency: City of MenifeePage 1 of 5 Prepared by: Don Allison, City Engineer/Director of Public WorksItemNo.Project Name / Limits Project TypeTotal Cost($000's)Measure A Funds ($000's)2011-2012 Carryover$5 2012-2013$919BALANCE$9241 Newport Road, Haun to Murietta Street Maintenance $700 $700TOTAL$700 $700CARRY OVER$224RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPhone #: 951-672-6777Date: May 5, 2011Agency: City of MenifeePage 2 of 5 MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAMFY 2013 Prepared by: Don Allison, City Engineer/Director of Public WorksItemNo.Project Name / Limits Project TypeTotal Cost($000's)Measure A Funds ($000's)$224$947$1,1711Murietta Road, Newport to McCall Street Maintenance $500 $5002Slurry Seal Program Street Maintenance $500 $500TOTALS$1,000$1,000CARRYOVER$171BALANCEDate: May 5, 2011Page 3 of 5 Phone #: 951-672-6777RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONMEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAMAgency: City of MenifeeFY 20142012-2013 Carryover2013-2014 Prepared by: Don Allison, City Engineer/Director of Public WorksItemNo.Project Name / Limits Project TypeTotal Cost($000's)Measure A Funds ($000's)$1712014-2015$975$1,1461Slurry Seal Program, Homeland/Romoland AreaStreet Maintenance $900 $900TOTALS$900 $900CARRY OVER$2462013-2014 Carry overBALANCEDate: May 5, 2011Page 4 of 5 Phone #: 951-672-6777RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONMEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAMAgency: City of MenifeeFY 2015 Prepared by: Don Allison, City Engineer/Director of Public WorksItemNo.Project Name / Limits Project TypeTotal Cost($000's)Measure A Funds ($000's)$2462015-2016$1,004$1,2501Slurry Seal Program, Area South of NewportStreet Maintenance $900 $9002 Briggs Road Paving New Pavement $300 $300TOTALS$1,200 $1,200CARRY OVER$50Date: May 5, 20112014-2015 Carry overBALANCERIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONMEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAMFY 2016Agency: City of MenifeePage 5 of 5 Phone #: 951-672-6777 .9 CITY OF PERRIS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 101 North ‘D’Street,Perris,CA 92570-2200 TEL:951-943-4610 FAX:951-943-5065 May 24,2011. Theresia Trevino Chief Financial Officer Riverside County of Transportation Commission P.O.Box 12008 Riverside,CA 92502-2208 Attn:Shirley Medina Re:FY 2011-2016 Measure”A”Improvement Plan Enclosed,please find City of Penis proposed 5-year capital improvement plan.Also enclosed, please find an exhibit depicting the status of the currently adopted 5-year plan and the MOE prepared by the Finance Department and signed by the City Mmager. Please call if you have any qLlestions or require additional information. Sincerely, Habib Moag1 City Engineer Cc:Ron Carr,Assistant City Manager James Fructuoso,Assistant Finance Director Agency:CityofPerrisPage1of5Preparedby:HabibMotlaghPhone#:(951)943-6504Date:4/18/2011RIVERSIDECOUNTYTRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSIONMEASURE‘A”LOCALSTREETSANDROADSPROGRAMFY2OJ1-2012ItemTotalCostMeasureANoProjectName/LimitsProjectType($000’s)Funds($000’s)1AnnualSlurrySeal&OverlayPavementRehabilitation1,0005002RamonaExpresswayMedianMedian/Landscaping1,200203PerrisBlvd.@1-215PavementRehabilitation1501504MetzRoadImprovementsNewPavement200150ITotal.2,550820 RIVERSIDECOUNTYTRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSIONMEASUREIA”LOCALSTREETSANDROADSPROGRAMFY2012-2013Agency:CityofPerrisPage2of5Preparedby:HabibMotlaghPhone#:(951)943-6504Date:4/18/2011ItemTotalCostMeasureANoProjectName/LimitsProjectType($000’s)Funds($000s)’1CityWideSlurrySeal&OverlayPavementRehabilitation1,0006002MurrietaRoadImprovementsoverSunsetStormDrain&NewPavement150150Total1,150750 RIVERSIDECOUNTYTRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSIONMEASURE‘A”LOCALSTREETSANDROADSPROGRAMFY2013-2014Agency:CityofPerrisPage3of5Preparedby:HabibMotlaghPhone#:(951)943-6504Date:4/18/2011ItemTotalCostMeasureANoProjectName/LimitsProjectType($000’s)Funds($000’s)PlacentiaAvenueImprovements(1-215toIndian)NewPavement600500GoetzRoadImprovementsIntersectionImprovements&Widening200100MiscellaneousPaving&Widening(CityWide)500300Total1,300900 RiVERSIDECOUNTYTRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSIONMEASURE‘A’LOCALSTREETSANDROADSPROGRAMFY2014-2015Agency:Page4of5Preparedby:Phone#:Date:CityofPerrisHabibMotlagh(951)943-65044/18/2011ItemTotalCostMeasureANoProjectName/LimitsProjectType($000’s)Funds($000’s)1SlurrySeal&Overlay(CityWide)PavementRehabilitation1,2006002Murrietaroad&MapesRoadPavingNewPavement1,0002001ITotal2,200800 RIVERSIDECOUNTYTRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSIONMEASURE‘A”LOCALSTREETSANDROADSPROGRAMFY2015-2016Agency:Page5of5Preparedby:Phone#:Date:CityofPerrisHabibMotlagh(951)943-65044/18/2011ItemTotalCostMeasureANoProjectName/LimitsProjectType($000’s)Funds($000’s)1SlurrySeal&Overlay(CityWide)PavementRehabiltiation1,2009002)ITotal1,200900 Agency: City of San JacintoPage 1 of 1Prepared by: Habib MotlaghPhone #:(951) 943-6504Date: 4/18/2011Item Total Cost Measure A EstimatedNo. Project Name / Limits Project Type($000's)Funds ($000's)Completion Status1 2,500 500 2011 Partially Completed. Balance in Design, Expect Const. 20112 400 160 2011 / 2012 Preliminary Design UnderwayTotal 2,900 660 Esplanade Avenue from Warren Road to Mountain AvenuePavement RehabiltiationStreet ImprovementsDeAnza Avenue Pavement RehabilitationRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONMEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAMPROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2010-2011 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONMEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAMFY 2011 - 2012Agency: City of San JacintoPage 1 of 3Prepared by: Habib MotlaghPhone #: (951) 943-6504Date: 4/18/2011ItemTotal Cost Measure ANo.Project Name / Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)1620 500 2850 850 Total 1,470 1,350 Esplanade Avenue (Between Cawston & Sanderson)Ramona Expressway (Between Lake Park to Esplanade)Pavement RehabilitationPavement Rehabilitation RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONMEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAMFY 2012 - 2014 *Agency: City of San JacintoPage 2 of 3Prepared by: Habib MotlaghPhone #:(951) 943-6504Date: 4/18/2011ItemTotal Cost Measure ANo.Project Name / Limits Project Type($000's)Funds ($000's)1800 700 21,500 900 3 Miscellaneous Pavement Rehabilitation 300 100 Total 2,600 1,700 * Multi Year ProjectLyon Avenue / Ramona Blvd. (Adjacent to Lyon Basin)Warren Road Between Ramona Expressway and CottonwoodPavement RehabilitationPavement RehabilitationWidening, Curb, Sidewalk RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONMEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAMFY 2014 - 2016Agency: City of San JacintoPage 3 of 3Prepared by: Habib MotlaghPhone #:(951) 943-6504Date: 4/18/2011ItemTotal Cost Measure ANo.Project Name / Limits Project Type($000's)Funds ($000's)1 Miscellaneous Pavement Rehabilitation (City Wide) Pavement Rehabilitation 800 500 Total 800 500 Marsha Swanson, Mayor 23873 Clinton Keith Rd, Ste 201 Ben Benoit, Mayor Pro Tem Wildomar, CA 92595 Bob Cashman, Council Member 951.677.7751 Phone Bridgette Moore, Council Member 951.698.1463 Fax Timothy Walker, Council Member Memorandum To: Shirley Medina, RCTC Fr: Diane Nguyen, Transportation Programs Manager Re: Measure A Expenditure Plan _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Please find attached the City of Wildomar’s 5-year Expenditure Plan. For questions, I can be reached below. Diane Nguyen Transportation Programs Manager City of Wildomar 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Suite 201 Wildomar, CA 92595 Cell. 951-970-9741 City of Wildomar Measure A Expenditure Plan Fiscal Year 2011/12 – 2015/16 City of Wildomar - Measure A Expenditure Plan FY 2012-16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2011 - 2012 Agency: City of Wildomar Page: 1 of 6 Prepared by: Tim D’Zmura, Public Works Director Phone #: 951-677-7751 Date: May 19, 2011 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 1 2 3 4 5 6 Accessibility Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Roadway Safety Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Slurry Seal Program (various project locations citywide) Unpaved Roadway Enhancements Program (various project locations citywide) Citywide Maintenance Program 8% Overhead / Admin Line Item Sidewalk, ramps, repairs, pedestrian and ADA improvements Remove, replace, install signs, pavement markings, related roadway safety improvements Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal as needed Repair or reconstruct unpaved roadways Right-of-way maintenance and repair to include but not limited to: striping, stenciling; repairs to streets and culvert/drainage facilities; storm damage/flood control projects; widening streets Inter Transfer Funds $20,000 $50,000 $155,000 $33,000 $127,000 $34,000 $20,000 $50,000 $155,000 $33,000 $127,000 $34,000 TOTAL Measure A Funds: $419,000 Note: The City of Wildomar’s FY 10/11 projected allocation is $29,000 higher than what was programmed in the adopted FY 10/11 Measure A Expenditure Plan. This amount is included in the above figures with the FY 11/12 M easure A allocation of $390,000, resulting in a programming total of $419,000. City of Wildomar - Measure A Expenditure Plan FY 2012-16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2012 - 2013 Agency: City of Wildomar Page: 2 of 6 Prepared by: Tim D’Zmura, Public Works Director Phone #: 951-677-7751 Date: May 19, 2011 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 1 2 3 4 5 6 Accessibility Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Roadway Safety Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Slurry Seal Program (various project locations citywide) Unpaved Roadway Enhancements Program (various project locations citywide) Citywide Maintenance Program 8% Overhead / Admin Line Item Sidewalk, ramps, repairs, pedestrian and ADA improvements Remove, replace, install signs, pavement markings, related roadway safety improvements Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal as needed Repair or reconstruct unpaved roadways Right-of-way maintenance and repair to include but not limited to: striping, stenciling; repairs to streets and culvert/drainage facilities; storm damage/flood control projects; widening streets Inter Transfer Funds $20,000 $50,000 $155,000 $50,000 $112,000 $32,000 $20,000 $50,000 $155,000 $33,000 $112,000 $32,000 TOTAL Measure A Funds: $402,000 City of Wildomar - Measure A Expenditure Plan FY 2012-16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2013 - 2014 Agency: City of Wildomar Page: 3 of 6 Prepared by: Tim D’Zmura, Public Works Director Phone #: 951-677-7751 Date: May 19, 2011 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 1 2 3 4 5 6 Accessibility Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Roadway Safety Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Slurry Seal Program (various project locations citywide) Unpaved Roadway Enhancements Program (various project locations citywide) Citywide Maintenance Program 8% Overhead / Admin Line Item Sidewalk, ramps, repairs, pedestrian and ADA improvements Remove, replace, install signs, pavement markings, related roadway safety improvements Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal as needed Repair or reconstruct unpaved roadways Right-of-way maintenance and repair to include but not limited to: striping, stenciling; repairs to streets and culvert/drainage facilities; storm damage/flood control projects; widening streets Inter Transfer Funds $20,000 $50,000 $155,000 $50,000 $123,000 $33,000 $20,000 $50,000 $155,000 $33,000 $123,000 $33,000 TOTAL Measure A Funds: $414,000 City of Wildomar - Measure A Expenditure Plan FY 2012-16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2014 - 2015 Agency: City of Wildomar Page: 4 of 6 Prepared by: Tim D’Zmura, Public Works Director Phone #: 951-677-7751 Date: May 19, 2011 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 1 2 3 4 5 6 Accessibility Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Roadway Safety Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Slurry Seal Program (various project locations citywide) Unpaved Roadway Enhancements Program (various project locations citywide) Citywide Maintenance Program 8% Overhead / Admin Line Item Sidewalk, ramps, repairs, pedestrian and ADA improvements Remove, replace, install signs, pavement markings, related roadway safety improvements Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal as needed Repair or reconstruct unpaved roadways Right-of-way maintenance and repair to include but not limited to: striping, stenciling; repairs to streets and culvert/drainage facilities; storm damage/flood control projects; widening streets Inter Transfer Funds $20,000 $50,000 $155,000 $50,000 $134,000 $34,000 $20,000 $50,000 $155,000 $33,000 $134,000 $34,000 TOTAL Measure A Funds: $426,000 City of Wildomar - Measure A Expenditure Plan FY 2012-16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2015 - 2016 Agency: City of Wildomar Page: 5 of 6 Prepared by: Tim D’Zmura, Public Works Director Phone #: 951-677-7751 Date: May 19, 2011 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 1 2 3 4 5 6 Accessibility Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Roadway Safety Improvements Program (various project locations citywide) Slurry Seal Program (various project locations citywide) Unpaved Roadway Enhancements Program (various project locations citywide) Citywide Maintenance Program 8% Overhead / Admin Line Item Sidewalk, ramps, repairs, pedestrian and ADA improvements Remove, replace, install signs, pavement markings, related roadway safety improvements Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal as needed Repair or reconstruct unpaved roadways Right-of-way maintenance and repair to include but not limited to: striping, stenciling; repairs to streets and culvert/drainage facilities; storm damage/flood control projects; widening streets Inter Transfer Funds $20,000 $50,000 $155,000 $50,000 $146,000 $35,000 $20,000 $50,000 $155,000 $33,000 $146,000 $35,000 TOTAL Measure A Funds: $439,000 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 27, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2009 Measure A Program Maintenance of Effort STAFF RECOMMENDATION_ This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year levels for each local agency; 2) Approve the city of Riverside's (Riverside) request for special consideration regarding its 2009 MOE base year level; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Measure A imposes several requirements on local agencies in order to receive local streets and roads funds. The 2009 Measure A ordinance continued the requirement for local agencies to maintain the current commitment of local discretionary expenditures toward transportation construction and maintenance activities. This requirement is to ensure that Measure A funds supplement current expenditures, not supplant. In accordance with the 2009 Measure A ordinance, if local agencies do not meet their respective MOE base year level in a given year, Measure A Local Streets and Roads disbursements will be withheld the following year. At its July 2010 meeting, the Commission approved the MOE guidelines developed by staff and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The guidelines also indicated that the implementation of the 2009 MOE base year levels would be applicable to FY 2011/12. For the first two years of the 2009 Measure A program (i.e., FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/1 1), the Commission approved the use of the 1989 Measure A MOE base year amounts, or the Proposition 42 MOE amount for cities incorporated in or after 1989. Agenda Item 9 23 The 2009 Measure A MOE annual certification process is as follows: • Local agencies complete the MOE report template to include discretionary general fund expenditures for construction and maintenance activities for the reporting year. • General ledger documentation/forms must be submitted as an attachment to the MOE report template. • MOE reports will be submitted to the Commission's auditor. • Commission staff will report to the TAC and Commission regarding the outcome of the auditor's findings regarding agencies meeting the MOE base year levels. • Local agencies that do not meet the MOE base year may submit a request for special consideration, which will be presented to the Commission. The newly incorporated cities of Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar are eligible to receive Measure A Local Streets and Roads funding upon notice of participation in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program. These cities will be required to determine their respective MOE base year levels to meet the MOE certification requirement after the third year of incorporation. After reviewing the MOE base year submittals, staff has accepted the methodologies for some of the local agencies, as indicated in the attachment. For the remaining local agencies, staff will continue to work with them to resolve any inconsistencies or questions pertaining to their proposed base year level and supporting documentation. Special Consideration Request Upon submitting the 2009 MOE base year level, Riverside requested special consideration, allowed under the MOE guidelines, for approval to establish its MOE requirement at the 1989 Measure A MOE base year level of $12,449,203 in lieu of the 2009 MOE base year level calculated as $16,997,233. The calculation method for determining the 2009 Measure A base year level is based on general fund expenditures for construction and maintenance activities during FY 2009/10. Riverside stated that because of the Riverside Renaissance program, a five-year infrastructure investment, expenditures used to calculate the 2009 MOE base year created a high MOE base year level that cannot be maintained since the Riverside Renaissance program was not intended to continue beyond the five-year investment period. Riverside also referenced that it .exceeded the MOE base year requirement under the 1989 Measure A by more than $46 million, and that the $12.45 million amount more accurately reflects Riverside's historic level of discretionary expenditures. Agenda Item 9 • 24 • 2009 Measure A MOE Base Years 2009 MOE Base Years Recommended for • • ATTACHMENT Western County - 1989 MOE -. -- - Proposed 2009 MOE ----.._._...__....„ ROTC Adjustments Recommended 2009 MOE Comments Banning 164,325 316,181 316,181 geat+m it' ,i r... I. ,, x' b.742 r+, , :NIA h.-.,,: NIAy. ,. i. NyA i'° ties iiA1G�YAr �/I�asA(LSRfuird`(> Canyon Lake 6,063 28,573 - 28,873 .ti Corona 1,784,399 2,207,944 256 2,208,200 ^ 47. 1 }i1d",{ `✓v/X� { l ftT ^ �() i� L (Ni 9: G-` f Iyy t F3 s q2 t II; A_t P IY$�vcirn laY-• �' P �I srya -c, �i ( t „I i T t' f ,��±5 2:+.'..�} Lake Elsinore 503,339 960,771 960,771 o��l`,A�... ;1 11,saN1%+4,, 1 . i!f/,� � � ;i., ' "1."1, 7,: 4 Moreno Valley 943,143 1,459,153 - 1,459,153 Murrleta 52,625 595,702 595,702 Norco 1,259 22,536 - 22,536 Perris 399,945 1,172,571 45,899 1,218,470 Riverside 12,449,203 16,997,233 (4,548,030) 12,449,203 Requesting Special Consideration Temecula 2,785 034 1,431,799 - 1,431,799 V irSidltt�n` ��,+ ,'11 u,`�i' ii A' a�,l-�,r N A �'' LEI.7 8'.� / A �- a .P�[A ;�; �j' 'i1�7{f};!i`. �i`S''A , i( r.tiiVe t ,.w.�ai Eastern County Desert Hot Springs 57,586 75,147 - 75,147 Indian Wells 55,962 963,640 - 963,640 Indio 465,763 2,048,564 - 2,048,564 04,44a ¢ „ N A 'i N/A si . ,+' N Aa tifV,dtie d' gtt�iS9r'5,,iL5i£unjs ,4 Palo Verde Valley !Blythe Unincorporated. I 475,677 I 520,192 520,192 1fii 0:. I€ 1004100:::011- ditures'�!, 7 ; 2009 MOE Base Years - Recommended for Approval at futu Western County 1989 MOE Proposed 2009 MOE RCTC o Adjustments Recommended 2009 MOE. Comments :Calm7eSa...,.. 294P -FollOWUP X City„ $3)605 "`i ', , � ' , > 61t0 igi MAP iffl ' -1 r . $an Jac+nGo ° „ '._ 347. ; -�'r,y i'?' ` i' :r ., . R4Il4Cur c Eastern County Woof l" I,�alj5 26 • s '4 f ,p ly i V dr ma j Nl ' f 3 p, '; 'Yi 7t a8e liar , e i�r9�1d1 11��� lid'' kt�STsi ���, di s �� d) 1 S fib&"C �� ^� WTS r 8u S 1( m. � (IV I il� r 8 {.s`X` (1�tm'7'S�a ,i i �fi ��i :6id � � ids _ +*9 '�" °,, m'�' aii�i � w.. ., i"?'. ��&�'i dki Md C rI'l ('� �iiii! i. i.m ' ATTACHMENT Office of the City Manager May 11, 2011 Ms. Anne Mayer Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, CA 92501 IN, MAY 7 2011 U RTIANSPOAION COMMISSION Re: Request for Special Consideration for 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort Requirements The City of Riverside is requesting the Riverside County Transportation Commission grant the City of Riverside special consideration and establish the City's 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement at the 1989 level of $12,449,203 in lieu of the proposed $16,997,223. As you know, renewal of Measure A in 2009 required resetting the MOE baseline which unfortunately occurred in the middle of the City of Riverside's Renaissance Program, which was a five year investment in the City's infrastructure. Consequently, the City's level of discretionary spending on street maintenance was at an unsustainable level during the years proposed by RCTC to be used to establish the MOE base year. The Renaissance program is now coming to an end and the City's discretionary expenditures for all programs including street maintenance, will be returning to historic levels. Unfortunately, the historic levels are below the Commission proposed 2009 MOE for the City. Since the original MOE in 1988, the City has exceeded the MOE requirement for discretionary street maintenance expenditures. Over the life of the original Measure, street maintenance expenditures totaled $295 million, or more than $46 million over the $249 million MOE requirement (see attached). The requested MOE amount more accurately reflects the City's historic level of discretionary expenditures for street maintenance and would still be more than five times greater than the next highest Agency's requirement, the City of Corona at $2,207,944. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 951-826-5552 or Tom Boyd at 951-826-5575. Sincerely, Deanna Lorson Assistant City Manager Attachment, Historic MOE vs expenditures cc Siobhan Foster, Public Works Director 3900 Main Street • Riverside, CA 92522 • 951.826.5553 • vwwsiversideca.yov X.29.18 28 1 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 27, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Riverside County Transit Services Funding Allocation for Fiscal Year 2011/12 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Conduct a public hearing at the July Commission meeting on the proposed Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP); 2) Approve the FY 2011/12 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 5311 POP for Riverside County; 3) Approve the FY 2011/12 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit; 4) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); 5) Adopt Resolution No. 1 1-01 1, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds"; and 6) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Through the annual Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) process, transit operating and capital subsidies consisting of federal, state, and local revenues are allocated to eight transit operators providing public transportation in Riverside County. At its June 8 meeting, the Commission approved the FY 2011/12 - FY 2013/14 SRTPs in concept for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, the Commission's Commuter Rail Program, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). The SRTPs identify each agency's operating and capital needs, funding sources, consolidated financial plan, and provide the framework required to comply with federal regulations, the Transportation Development Act (TDA), state law, and Commission -adopted guidelines and policies. The annual SRTP updates provide a three-year outlook for service improvements, planning activities, and capital programs. As the transportation planning agency, the Commission is responsible for allocation of transit funds, performance monitoring, and operator oversight. The approved SRTPs provide the basis for the Commission's oversight activities to Agenda Item 10 30 help establish system policy, determine appropriate service goals, and provide management with the necessary information to efficiently operate bus and rail services in the county. Primary guidance for the Commission is to use capital and operating funds in a manner that balances the need to be effective and efficient with the need to provide high quality service. In January 2011, the Commission received information on the FY 2011/12 revenue projections, which indicated an increase of approximately 8% in both LTF and in Measure A funding compared to the FY 2010/11 original estimates. Additionally, in June 2010, the county received $12.8 million through the fuel tax swap relief package to cover the lost STA funding in FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/1 1. In January 2011, the California State Controller's office also released the STA preliminary allocation estimates for the region for FY 2011/12 signifying the return of STA funding for transit. These recent increases in transit revenues provided a substantial capital revenue stream allowing the public operators to start implementing the planned capital procurements that have been limited or placed on hold for the last two years. SRTP Financial and Ridership Overview Based on submitted SRTPs for FY 2011/12, it is estimated that $212 million in total funding is required to support the operating and capital requests for the provision of Riverside County transit services. The following table provides an overview of the total operating and capital costs together with projected ridership levels by apportionment area. Table 1 - FY 2011/12 Operating, Capital and Ridership Projections E Expense Type Western Riverside Coachella Valle Y Palo Verde ValleyTotal Bus Rail Operating Capital $ 61,910,350 26,714,305 $ 16,789,900 35,556,255 $ 22,177,354 14,351,473 $ 960,322 665,297 $ 101,837,926 77,287,330 Total (Operating & Capital) $ 88,624,655 $ 52,346,155 $ 36,528,827 $1,625,619 $179,125,256 Leverage of Commuter Rail Funds" $ 32 703100 $ 32,703,100 GRAND TOTAL $ 88,624,655 $ 85,049,255 $ 36,528,827 $1,625,619 $ 211,828,356 FY 2011/12 Projected Ridership 8,763,487 3,046,910 4,108,203 42,812 15,961,412 ' LA Metro, OCTA & SANBAG's share and passenger fare revenues for Commuter Rail expenses Agenda Item 10 • 31 • The overall economic climate remained constrained, consequently impacting continued growth in ridership. Attachment 4 shows the funding plan for FY 201 1 /12, which is projected to generate approximately 16 million in ridership, slightly 2% higher than the FY 2010/1 1 estimated ridership. Funding levels for next year's transit operations reflect a systemwide increase of 12% in total operating expenses and a significant jump of 122% in capital expenditures due to the implementation of major vehicle purchases funded with a combination of state, local and federal sources as well as with available fund reserves. FY 2011 /12 Operating and Capital Costs To implement the SRTPs for FY 201 1 /12, the request is to utilize approximately $102 million for operating and $77 million for capital in addition to the $32.7 million share from Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to leverage the Commuter Rail Program. The chart below provides an overview of the operating and capital costs by funding source required to provide transit services in Riverside County. RIVERSIDE COUNTY: FY 2011/12 OPERATING and CAPITAL COSTS TDA (LTF &STA Funds); $73,038,658 , 34% Carry Over Funds (STA/5309/TUMF/Prop 1B/LTF/Sec 5316), $6,567,754, 3% Add'tl Rail Operating Subsidy paid by:SANBAG; OCTA & LA Metro, $18,027,800; 8% Other Revenues, $3,562,274, 2% Agenda Item 10 Passenger Fares, $34,502,771 , 16% Sec 5316 & 5317, $1,194,717, 1% Measure A, $11,757,370 , 6%' Federal Formula Funds (Sec 5307 & 5311), ,$24,384,042 , 12% Federal -Discretionary Funds (Sec 5309), c$25,208,000, 12% Prop 113 (Cap+Security), $13,584,970 , 6% 32 Of the $212 million operating and capital costs identified in the chart, approximately $63 million (30%) is derived from:' • Passenger fares ($34.5 million); • Commuter rail member agencies' revenue share ($18 million); • Carryover funds — LTF/STA/Proposition 1 B/5307/5309/5316/TUMF ($6.6 million); and • Miscellaneous other revenues — bus shelter advertising, general fund contributions, Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) revenue, alternate fuel rebates, Metrolink transfer fares, SCRRA pass - through funds for security guards, passthrough funds from Commuter Assistance for the Perris Station Transit Center, CNG sales, CaIPERS reimbursement, federal excise tax credit, and interest income ($3.6 million). The remaining balance of approximately $149 million (70%) consists of federal, state, and local funds (including Proposition 1 B funding) that are allocated through Commission action. Transportation Development Act Funding The TDA provides two funding sources: LTF and STA for transit capital, operations, and planning. The LTF funds are derived from quarter cent of the state retail sales tax collected in each county. The State Board of Equalization returns the sales tax revenues to the county of Riverside where it is held until the Commission provides written allocation instructions for disbursement. It is estimated that LTF revenue for transit services for FY 2011/12 will be $52,784,515, reflecting an 8% increase compared to the original projected amount for FY 2010/11, and is consistent with the revenue projection provided at the January 2011 Commission meeting. The STA funds are a portion of gasoline sales tax revenues that are appropriated by the state legislature to the state public transportation account for transit purposes. These funds are allocated to the region based on share of population and share of fare revenues generated in each area during the prior fiscal year. In March 2009, the STA funding for transit was completely eliminated by the state; however, through the fuel tax swap legislation signed into law by the Governor in March 2010, Riverside County received about $12.8 million of the $400 million allocation for FYs 2009/10 and 2010/11. The legislative agreement is also expected to dedicate the diesel sales tax revenue stream to the Public Transportation Account on an ongoing basis, allowing the establishment of an estimated $350 million annual STA program for the state. There is approximately $18 million in STA unallocated reserve funds projected at the end of FY 2010/11. Additional revenues of $9.5 million are anticipated in FY 2011/12 for a total available amount of $27.5 million. About $8 million of this fund balance will be utilized by Riverside County operators for various capital projects in FY 2011/12. Prior to approving the STA Agenda Item 10 • 33 • allocations, the Commission must adopt the attached resolution as specified in the TDA statutes and California Code of Regulations. To ensure efficient use of existing capital funds, the Commission also adopted revised policies in March 2010, requiring all operators to spend down existing capital balances prior to requesting additional funds. In order for the public transit operators to claim LTF and/or STA funds, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the FY 201 1 /12 SRTPs. The requested allocations are consistent with the approved SRTPs, and the funds are explicitly for the projects stated in the approved plans. The TDA allocations for FY 2011/12 requested by each operator are outlined in Attachment 3. Proposition 1 B Funding Approved by California voters in November 2006, Proposition 1 B authorizes the sale of $20 billion in state general obligation bonds for transportation purposes: Sale of the bonds is subject to annual appropriations in the state budget and is expected to be spread across several fiscal years. Bond proceeds are to fund various transportation programs, including the Proposition 1 B Public Transportation, Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement (Capital) program administered by Ca!trans and the California Transit Security Grant Program managed by the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA). For FY 2010/11, Riverside County was appropriated approximately $1.8 million in Proposition 1 B Security funds and about $44.6 million in Proposition 1 B Capital funds to cover a three-year spending plan for FY 2010/11 — FY 2012/13. Although each region is guaranteed a share of Proposition 1 B funds by formula, these funds will be distributed as bonds are sold. It is unknown when these funds will be available and what the exact amount available will be from year to year. Because of the uncertainty when the funds are distributed, not all transit operators programmed their share of the funds for this coming fiscal year. Outlined below are amounts of Prop 1 B funds programmed by agencies for FY 201 1 / 12: Proposition 1 B Agency Capital Security City of Corona $ — $ 38,448 City of Riverside 475,000 Commuter Rail 1,900,000 350,280 SunLine 9,870,868 394,927 PVVTA 534,079 21,368 Total $ 12,779,947 $ 805,023 Agenda Item 10 34 The Proposition 1 B program does not require agencies to provide matching funds. The city of Riverside and PVVTA programmed their Proposition 1 B FY 2010/1 1 capital allocation to purchase replacement vehicles. The Commission's Commuter Rail will use $1.9 million toward the engineering and construction of the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project, and SunLine will use all its Proposition 1 B Capital allocation for three years toward the construction of its administrative building. Approximately $805,000 in Proposition 1 B Security funds are programmed by the city of Corona, Commission's Commuter Rail, SunLine, and PVVTA for various transit security projects. FY 2011/12 Federal Funds: Sections 5307, 5309, 5311, 5316 and 5317 Section 5307 Formula Funds FTA's Section 5307 funds are allocated by formulas to each of the four urbanized areas (UZA) in Riverside County, namely: • Riverside/San Bernardino; • Hemet/San Jacinto; • Temecula/Murrieta; and • Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs. Attachment 2 is the proposed Section 5307 POP for Riverside County. The Commission must develop and approve a POP for each UZA and conduct a public hearing prior to an operator submitting its Section 5307 grant application to FTA. If the draft POP is not amended through the public hearing process, the POP will become final as presented and will be included in an approved RTIP, which is subsequently forwarded to the Southern California Association of Governments for review and processing. The Section 5307 requested funds by operator are shown below: FY 2011/12 Section 5307 Requested Funds Agency Amount City of Riverside 674,250 RTA 18, 298, 628 Commuter Rail 1,256,000 SunLine 3,464,390 Total $ 23,693,268 After a series of short-term continuing resolutions,.. the FTA released the final apportionment notice in May 2011, announcing the availability of federal funding for FY 2010/11. The actual Section 5307 apportionments for FY 2011/12 will not be known until later this calendar year when final appropriations are made by Agenda Item 10 35 • Congress. The POP was developed at the highest anticipated funding amount to allow the operators to proceed with their grant applications and to avoid delays associated with program amendments should the actual apportionments come in lower than estimated. Any excess funds will be carried over to the subsequent fiscal year and will be made available to cover future projects. Section 5309 Discretionary Funds — Bus and Small Starts FTA Section 5309 Bus funds are earmarked by Congress and are designated for public transit operators for capital projects such as replacement or expansion of buses or improvement of bus facilities. FTA Section 5309 Small Starts are used for building new rail, bus rapid transit or extensions to existing systems. For FY 201 1 /12, the Commission's Commuter Rail and the city of Corona will be programming Section 5309 funds that were previously awarded last year. The Commission's Commuter Rail's Section 5309 earmark will be used toward engineering and construction of the PVL project while the city of Corona will be using its Section 5309 funds for procurement of fixed route buses. The projects must be included in an approved RTIP before the operators can access these funds. FY 2010/11 Section 5309 Earmarks Agency City of Corona Commission's Commuter Rail Total Section 5311 Funds Amount 208,000 25, 000, 000 $ 25,208,000 The FTA Section 5311 program administered by Caltrans is designed to provide financial assistance to eligible local public transportation providers in rural areas and communities with a population of less than 50,000. The majority of funds are passed through to counties based on a population formula. Any remaining funds are awarded in a statewide discretionary program by Caltrans for rural capital projects and intercity bus programs. The financial plan for this year's program assumes the same funding level as FY 2010/11 for transit operations since the actual apportionments will not be known until the final appropriations are released. By programming the same level of funding, the operators will be able to apply for maximum funding and avoid delays to amend their programs. The program allocates $690,774 in formula funds for Riverside County, of which 61.7% will be allocated to RTA and 38.3%, for SunLine. As in previous years, both RTA and SunLine identified the use of Section 5311 formula funds for operating. The 61.7%/38.3% formula was approved by the Commission in 1987, Agenda Item 10 36 and was based on the level of service each agency operated in the non-UZA of the county. The Commission must develop and approve a Section 5311 POP before grants are approved. FY 2011 /12 Section 5311 Requested Funds Agency Amount % Allocation RTA $ 426,208 61.7% SunLine 264,566 38.3% Total $ 690,774 100.0% Section 5316 & 5317 Formula Funds Authorized under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), two recent federal programs, namely Section 5316 - Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and Section 5317 New Freedom (NF), were established to meet the transportation needs of the low- income population, welfare recipients, and persons with disabilities. All projects funded under this program must be derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human -services transportation planning process. RTA, SunLine, and PVVTA were awarded federal FY 2008/09 and 2009/10 JARC and NF funding in April 2011. These agencies are programming these funds for specialized transit operations for FY 201 1 /12 and FY 2012/13. Funding allotments for FY 2011 /12 are as follows: Agency Section 5316(JARC) Section 5317(NF) RTA $ 815,065 $ 103,290 SunLine 119,057 101,475 PVVTA 38,620 17,210 Total $ 972,742 $ 221,975 These funds will be used to cover expenses for RTA's Commuter Link 212 and 217, extended fixed route services and travel training; SunLine's commuter service to Banning and taxi voucher program; and PVVTA's mobility management program. Summary Staff recommendation is to approve the TDA and FTA funds as presented. Any modifications in farebox revenues, federal grants, Measure A funding or carryover funds may require operators to revise their services to operate within the available funding. Agenda Item 10 • 37 • • Fiscal Impact The funding allocations are based on the revenue estimates developed for the FY 201 1 /12 Commission budget. The budget adopted at the June 8 Commission meeting included $54.83 million in LTF transit operating expenditures, $10.375 million in LTF transit capital expenditures, and $20.3 million in STA capital expenditures. These budgeted expenditures, which include use of prior year capital allocations, are expected to be funded by FY 2011 /12 revenues, as well as available fund balances. Based on these recommended allocations, no budget adjustments are required. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $65,053,515 (LTF) $7,985,143 (STA) Source of Funds: TDA: LTF and STA Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE Western County Bus Western County Bus 601 62 86101 P2210 $ 33,172,582 601 62 86102 P2210 $ 10,229,520 Western County Rail 241 62 86102 P2201 $5,096,158 Coachella Valley 241 62 86102 P2202 $2,779,135 Palo Verde Valley 601 62 86101 P2213 $ 10,584,500 Coachella Valley 241 62 86102 P2203 $ 109,850 601 62 86101 P2211 $ 10,258,596 Palo Verde Valley 601 6286101 P2212 $ 808,317 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1441Ade ,3 ,24,75, Date: 06/15/11 Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 1 1-01 1 2) Section 5307 Program of Projects 3) TDA Spreadsheets (LTF and STA) 4) FY 201 1 /12 and FY 2010/1 1 Operating and Capital Requests and Ridership Projections Agenda Item 10 38 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 11-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has examined the Short Range Transit Plans and Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for claimants to meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268.9, as applicable; and WHEREAS, the claimant is making full use of federal funds available under the Federal Transit Act; and WHEREAS, the sum of the claimant's allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority regional, countywide, or area -wide public transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 99244; and WHEREAS, the claimant is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979, from employing part-time drivers or contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license; and WHEREAS, operators are in full compliance with Section 18081.1 of the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code Section 99251. 39 ATTACHMENT 1 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allocate State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 2011/12 as detailed in Attachment 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13`" day of July, 2011. Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • 40 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2011/12 URBANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO Total Apportionment (Projection eased an FY1e-11Fed Register a InterCounty aloeanoa) Bus Rail Total Apportionment (al based onFyranFunds released 5n01n) $ 10,500,595 $ 4,774,122 $ 15,274,717 Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover 5,962,253 1,809,635 7,771,888 Total Funds Available 16,462,848 6,583,757 23,046,605 Less Current Requests 11,122,878 1,256,000 12.378,878 Balance (Projected) $ 5,339,970 $ 5,327,757 $ 10,667,727 Sub Area Allocation Riverside, City of - $ 674,250 Riverside Transit Agency 10,448,628 RCTC's Commuter Rail 1,256.000 TOTAL $ 12,378,878 NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS ATTACHMENT Page 1 of 4 FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED TOTAL AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT Riverside, City of 1) Preventive Maintenance $ 350,000 $ 280,000 CapitauOperalino SCAG 2) 4 Vehicle Replacement 475,000 394,250 Capital SCAG. TOTAL: City or Riverside $ 825,000 $ 674,250 Riverside Transit Agency 3) Capitalized Preventive Maintenance $ 9,187,500 $ 4,350,000 Capital/Operating SCAG 4) Capital Cost of Contracting 5,312,500 1,250,000 Capital SCAG 5) Revenue Vehicles - (3) Commutedink E-Lo's 524,794 419,835 Capital SCAG 6) Revenue Vehicles - (6) COFR E-Lo's 1,052,000 841,600 Capital SCAG 7) Revenue Vehicles - (17) DAR Type II's 1,318,451 1,094,314 Capital SCAG 8) Non -Revenue Vehicles - (9) Support Vehicles 135,791 108,633 Capital SCAG 9) Non -Revenue Vehicles - (3) S&Z Trucks 161,625 129,300 Capital SCAG 10) Capital Maintenance Spares 1,678,372 1,342,698 Capital SCAG 11) Capitalized Tire Lease 243,034 194,427 Capital SCAG 12) Facility Maintenance 897,276 717,821 Capital SCAG TOTAL: Riverside Transit Agency $ 20,511,343 $ 10,448,628 RCTC's Commuter Rail 13) SCRRA Rehab/Renovation - FY 12 RCTC's share $ 1,256,000 $ 1,256,000 Capital SCAG TOTAL: RCTC Rail $ 1,256,000'- $ 1,256,000 Approved: 7/13/2011 (Pending) GRAND TOTAL $ 22,592,343 $ 12,378,878 VAJCIemenlel53gTPOP1Riv-San Bemardino1112SCAG.xIs 41 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 of 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2011/12 URBANIZED AREA: HEMET/SAN JACINTO RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment $ 1,889,958 Carryover (estimate) 1,312,049 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available 3,202,007 Less Current Requests 1,850,000 Balance (Projected) $ 1,352,007 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1) Operating Assistance $ 26,385,883 $ 1,850,000 Operating Caltrans TOTAL: $ 26,385,883 $ 1,850,000 Approved: 7/13/11 (pending) V:1JCIemente153071P0P1Hemet - San Jacinto UZA11-12.x1s 42 • • • ATTACHMENT Page 3 of 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2011/12 URBANIZED AREA: INDIO/CATHEDRAL CITY/PALM SPRINGS RECIPIENT: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover (Estimate) Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available Less Current Requests Balance (Projected) NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) TOTAL: Operating Assistance Preventive Maintenance Bus Rehabilitation 7 Replacement Paratransit Buses Transit Enhancement Facility Improvement Administrative Building Office Furniture ITS Project Transit Planning & Feasibility Studies Maintenance Tools & Equipment Approved:7/13/2011 (Pending) TOTAL AMOUNT $ 20,210,153 1,967,201 160,000 665,000 65,678 550,000 10,770,868 120,000 500,000 450,000 100,000 $ 35,558,900 $ 3,740,863 1,826,842 5,567,705 3,464,390 $ 2,103,315 FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT $ 924,804 1,250,000 128,000 100,000 35,586 100,000 400,000 96,000 200,000 150,000 80,000 $ 3,464,390 Operating Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital SLAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG V:WClemente153071P0P11ndio-Coachella-P Springs 11-12.xls 43 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2011/12 URBANIZED AREA: TEMECULAlMURRIETA RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment $ 3,187,804 Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover 3,165,793 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available 6,353,597 Less Current Requests 6,000,000 Balance (Projected) $ 353,597 NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS ATTACHMENT Page 4 of 4 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1) Capitalized Preventive Maintenance $ 9,187,500 $ 3,000,000 Capital/Operating SCAG 2) Capital Cost of Contracting 5,312,500 3,000,000 Operating SCAG TOTAL: $ 14,500,000 $ 6,000,000 Approved: 7/13/11 (pending) V:IJClemente153071P0 P1Temecula-M urrieta 11-12.xls 44 ATTACHMENT Page 2 of 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING FY 2011/12 TRANSIT ALLOCATIONS STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS RECOMMENDED ESTIMATED STA STA TRANSIT ESTIMATED STA ESTIMATED STA CARRY OVER ALLOCATIONS FOR AGENCY/APPORTIONMENT AREA OPERATING COSTS CAPITAL COSTS FUNDS FY 2011/12 City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona Riverside Special Services Riverside Transit Agency TOTAL: WESTERN RIVERSIDE - BUS $ $ 50,000 752,000 80,750 7,597,029 8,479,779 $ 3,383,621 3,383,621 50,000 752,000 80,750 4,213,408 5,096,158 RCTC's Commuter Rail (Metrolink) TOTAL: WESTERN RIVERSIDE - COMMUTER RAIL SunLine Transit Agency TOTAL: COACHELLA VALLEY 2,779,135 2,779,135 2,779,135 2,779,135 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency TOTAL: PALO VERDE VALLEY 109,850 109,850 109,850 109,850 COUNTY WIDE TOTAL $ - $ 11,368,764 $ 3,383,621 $ 7,985,143 STA Operating Funds FY 2011/12 STA Capital Funds FY 2011/12 - $ - 50,000 - 752,000 - 80,750 - 4,213,408 - 5,096,158 - 2,779,135 - 2,779,135 - 109,850 - 109,850 $ - $ 7,985,143 FY 2011-12 LTF STA AllocationsALL.xlsx 6/15/2011 • L-17 weA snolneud way spun/ iaeokueo dWnl/8L de/d/94C5/60CS/d11/V1S ul 4SeL9V9$ sapnpul;soo le;o; ZL/LIOZ Ad Z eloN '(OOC'SL9'b1.$) enueAai /foga/el ilea pue (009'LZ0140 saloua6e leu0ed wo;l Aplsgns Buge;ado leuoplppe ul uo110w CZ£$ Ala/ewpzoudde snld uomu g•914 Ameuesoldde to welts s,01Da apnloul woo s,llea aainwwop. %96'17E 4CL'Z96'991 $ 9S£`on 1.4Z $ le;ol %06E 009'SL4'L£ $ 004'COL'Z£ $ i°e0paal % It/at Ad Z lit t AA .spun] HEN mrwwo0 to o6eJanai %LL 4 66V£69'S4 Z40 496'91 %9L'Zb b£Z'LLV9Z4 $ 99Z`SZl'614 $ °AU ZZ4 1799'£9L'PE $ OCE'L9eLL $ %9Z'ZL OL9`CLL'06 $ 9Z6`LE8'404 $ 5V3L1V 11V :1V101 r g4 Y46,1 s% i "zm) "-� %99'84 £80'9£ Z48 ZP %64'4P PLE�494 1 649 SZ9 4 %49'90l SOO ZZE L6V999� L 94 69E` Z8 .a� �ZZE'096 ...,. .wa-,1 V101 :A311VA 30213A O1Vd %S9'Sl °�is�°w r £90'9C v ZL9'Zb %1344P ,. PLC'l9L'L ,. 6499Z94 %L9'904 900'ZZ£ L6Z'999 %6L'9L 69E'6Z9 ZZ£'096 Aoua6y psue;l AapPA ap;an oled `' Lm .�, � 14�1" 1��itili�?%Lf'O 946Z604 £OZ904P %Z8'OZ ' S6LE£Z'0£ ' LZ88ZS9£ /80'49 94P'606'8 ' LyLSEbl %00� £�bSC al Z V.1.0.1. VA Vll3HDV0 %LE'a %C t'Z 91.6'Z60'4 OOP 499' 44 £OZ'804'b 28£ 049'44 %Z8'OZ VoZ9'64 96L'ECZ'OE 990 Z60'46 LZ9'8Z9'9E 048'0L6 004 %8019 %Kt EbL 9LP 6069 £PL'Z£S 9Z ELP'LSE'bL 099 °Len %00'b 6L£'bZE'LZ b9£'LLVZZ Aoua6ypSue.l aunung %6L'Pl ZZ6'699 99 OSZ 00e8L 11ea g 589 11f101 :A.LN1100 0483193M %LE9 909'469'Z 046'940'E %49'PL ZL4'4L6'6Z 994'9PCZ9 %E I'C6 ZLZ'OL4'el 99Z'999'9C %6L'94 006'E99'44 006'69L'9L Ilea.; Aluno3 tualsem %S0'L 96L'ZL9'8 L8P'89L'8 %ZZ'9C CH L44'49 9994Z9'99 5$04'9LZ 4L8'4Z4'L 90E'PLL'9Z %.29'8 ZZO'966'99 09E'046'49 sn9 :AaunoO walsaM AouabvLisue;lapls/aAl l %£8'0 80L'01.0'9 'L94 8469L0'8 °Ate'PP 446'9L949 046'6L9'8L %BZ'LS4 490'Z99'4 L98'94L'PZ %9Z'9 LLE'996'64 £80'40L'49 %4E'Z ;Lb 044'494 %6L'Z- 4LE'LPVI, LLO'BZL'b VoL9'9E- 000009'4 000'096 %LL'SL LLE'LPL'Z L1.0'6LL'E saoln/as!mods apis/anla %OSL LL0'60Z LOZ'ZLZ %9Z'6Z 68Z'Z6Z'Z 444'E96'Z %8Z'L94 Z99 Lb£ 8b17'966 VaZ0'4 LCL'446'l E99'496'l euaoOlo 40 %46'9 CZ9'994 844L94 %LO'E Z99'6017 L 000'Z94L %Sb'L9- Z99'69Z 000'0S %86'ZZ 000'0171.'t 000'Z041. Luowneeslo40 %aL 1090p3u1 999'6ZL b£8'LEl %89'8I- OEV099'L $ L99'09Z'L $ %00'00L- E69'ZSE $ - $ %9Z9 LES'L64'1. $ L9909Z'4 $ 6uluue9 to 43 (a;ewpa3) 44/OIAd (uol;oaloid) ELM A3 »a0paul % LL/OLAd ZL/LLAd ;oa0poul% LL/OLA3 2L/L LAd ne0poul W LL/OIAA ZL/L4Ad V3aV1N3WNOLUIOddV/AON3Vi dIHS21301a 19001V101 1V11dV0 ONI1V83d0 P1N3WHOVJAV • suol;aaload dlysaapl2l pue s;so0 lellde0 buneaad0 44/040Z Ad'8 Z4/440Z Ad ;o uoslaedulo0 • 6/27/2011 Budget and Implementation Committee FY 2011/12 Funding Allocation for Riverside County Transit Services Tune 27, 2011 Short Range Transit Plans FY 2011/12 — FY 2013/14 RCTC SRTPs Approved in concept: 6/9/11 City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona City of Riverside Riverside Transit Agency SunLine Transit Agency Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency RCTC Rail Commuter Program 1 6/27/2011 Comparison: LTF, Transit Measure A and STA RCTC FY 2010/11 & 2011/12 Revenues -_- LTF Measure A (Transit) FY 2010/11 $49,101,135 $10,138,083 FY 2011/12 $52,784,515 $10,940,000 $23,398,642 Change +$ 3,683,380 +$ 801,017 + $23,398,642* *Includes: $12,801,951 = Gas Tax Swap Funds (to cover FY 10 & FY 11 lost funds) $10,596,691 = STA estimate for FY 11/12 piRIVERSIDE COUNTY FY 2011/12 TRANSIT FUNDING REQUEST RCTC FY 2011/12 Funding Request by 8 County Transit Operators Commuter Rail Program share from Metrolink Partners FY 2011/12 TOTAL FUNDING SUPPORT FOR RIVERSIDE CO. TRANSIT SERVICES $179.1 million + 32.7 million $211.8 million 2 6/27/2011 bole • r mp•I• RIVERSIDE COUNTY: FY 2011/12 OPERATING and CAPITAL EXPENDITURES TDA (LTF & SIA Funds), — 573,038,658 , 34% Carry Over Funds 15TA/5309/TUMF/Prop 1B/LTF/Sec 5316), $6,567,754, 3% Addll Rall Operating Subsidy paid by SANBAG, OCTA & LA Metro, $18,027,800, 8% Other Revenues, 5%562,274, 2% Passenger Fares, J Sec 5316SS 5317, $34,502,771, 16% 51,194,717, I% Measure A, $11,757,370, 6% Federal Formula Funds (Sec S307 & S311), $24,384,042 ,12% Federal -Discretionary Funds (Sec 6309), $25,208,000, 12% Prop 1B (Cap.Securlty), 513,584,970 , 6% , 10 `;. - Operating and Capital i Expenditures : FY 08/09 — 11/12 ."RCTc te....t.. Operating Capital Total Cost .,c., 180 1: 71 9 N_ 150 144 z, s% r - _ 120 a.sx :]s% * a 125 S.102 •xs s.:i • g E Q 60 77 30 • . a 35 • e A 4. 0 e t+ P P P P 4+ 3 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 27, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009/10 Productivity Improvement Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the transit operators' compliance status report for the FY 2009/10 Productivity Improvement Program (PIP); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Transportation Development Act requires that the Commission annually identify and analyze operating trends for each operator and recommend potential productivity improvements, which could lower the operating costs as per the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99244. The Commission meets this requirement through the adoption and approval of the Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP), which detail the operating and capital costs for planned transit services for both bus and commuter rail. The PIP was designed to assist in the SRTP process and meet state PUC requirements by establishing objective criteria for assessing productivity improvement opportunities. The program is part of the Commission's comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to improve system efficiency, provide better service and manage costs. To accomplish this, the PIP establishes both mandatory and discretionary performance targets that are evaluated against the operator's actual performance. The PIP requires all operators to meet a single mandatory target and seven discretionary targets. The performance targets are evaluated through the PIP process as follows: Mandatory Target • Fare box recovery ratio (between 10 percent for services provided in non - urbanized areas and 20 percent for services in urbanized areas). Agenda Item 11 48 Discretionary Targets • Operating cost per revenue hour (CPI annual increase); • Subsidy per passenger (+/- 15% variance); • Subsidy per passenger mile (+/- 15% variance); • Subsidy per revenue hour (+/- 15% variance); • Subsidy per revenue mile (+/- 15% variance); • Passengers per revenue hour (+/- 15% variance); and • Passengers per revenue mile (+/- 15% variance). Additional Discretionary Targets for Commuter Rail Program • Ridership growth - goal of 2%; and • Passenger miles per revenue car - goal of 30 passengers per revenue car mile. To be in compliance with the PIP, a bus operator needs to meet or exceed the required fare box recovery ratio and meet or exceed four of seven discretionary targets. The Commuter Rail Program must meet or exceed the required fare box recovery ratio as well as five out of nine discretionary standards. Based on the FY 2009/10 data the attached PIP Compliance Summary report indicates that all transit operators have either met or exceeded the PIP targets. The cities of Banning, Corona, Riverside, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency have met the required fare box recovery target and all seven discretionary targets. The city of Beaumont met the mandatory fare box target as well as six out of seven discretionary targets, while the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency met four of seven discretionary targets in addition to the mandatory fare box target. The Commission's Commuter Rail Program has met its fare box requirement and five out of nine discretionary targets. To ensure that transit services in the county are provided effectively and efficiently, staff in cooperation with transit providers will continue to monitor quarterly performance to track progress against each agency's own goals, performance measures and service standards. Staff also intends to implement a comprehensive review of the PIP to ensure that policy, criteria, and targets are both fair and achievable by the operators in light of the current economic conditions. Attachments: 1) FY 2009/10 PIP Compliance Summary — Fourth Quarter Status 2) Service Provider Performance Target Reports Agenda Item 11 49 • • FY 2009/10 PIP COMPLIANCE SUMMARY - FOURTH QUARTER STATUS July 2009 - June 2010 • ATTACHMENT 1 PIP indicators Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside RCTC Rail RTA SunLine PVVTA Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio J J I J I J I J I J I J I J Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour J m J J O J J 0 2. Subsidy Per Passenger J J J -4 O J J 0 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile J J J J J J d J 4. Subsidy Per Hour J J J J 0 J J J 5. Subsidy Per Mile J d J J Q J J J 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour J J J J J J J O 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile J J_ J J J J J J Unlinked Passenger Trips (Rail) �r 1 �� ; r e_ r J ,. r t a Passenger Miles per Rev. Car Miles (Rail) i�, ks } «z 4'zr";# J ' �. T a P 4 sTi Mandatory Scorecard (Farebox Ratio, Discretionary Scorecard Met Farebox met 7 of 7 Met Farebox met 6 of 7 Met Farebox met 7 of 7 Met Farebox met 7 of 7 Met Farebox met 5 of 9 Met Farebox met 7 of 7 Met Farebox met 7 of 7 Met Farebox met 4 of 7 PIP Compliance* J J J J J J J J *Legend: J = In Compliance; 0 = Not in Compliance; N/A = not available To meet RCTC PIP Program, operators need to meet: • Required Farebox recovery ratio: (10% for municipal operators; 20% for Corona, 40% for Rail, 16.85% for RTA and 18.18% for SunLine) • At least 4 of the 7 discretionary targets (Bus); at least 5 of the 9 discretionary targets (Rail) Fourth Quarter FY 09/ 10 PIP Compliance (as of June/ 10): • All Operators met Farebox ratio requirement. • All Operators are in compliance with Discretionary Indicator requirement to meet at least 4 of 7 discretionary targets lC/o-r-ii 50 Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan Review City of Banning Data Elements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Through 4th Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 151,457 Passenger Miles 369,270 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 15,393.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 241,393.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 259,564.0 Total Operating Expenses $1,274,851 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $129,850 Net Operating Expenses $1,145,001 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery. Ratio I 10.18% ( >= 10.00% ( 10.93% IMeets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $82.82 <= $84.89 $84.33 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $7.56 >= $6.44 and <= $8.72 $8.49 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $3.10 >= $2.48 and <= $3.36 $3.18 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $74.38 >= $61.84 and <= $83.66 $75.11 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $4.74 >= $3.77 and <= $5.11 $4.65 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 9.80 >= 8.16 and <= 11.04 8.80 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.63 >= 0.50 and <= 0.68 0.55 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: Trans ck Manager'"' 6/9/2D4 Patiof 8 • Ta t 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan Review City of Beaumont Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles FY 2009/10 Plan Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue 114,100 226,400 16,200.0 235,580.0 244,180.0 $1,198,500 Net Operating Expenses $119,850 $1,078,650 FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Through 4th Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Subsidy Per Passenger 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 4. Subsidy Per Hour 5. Subsidy Per Mile 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 10.00% $73.98 $9.45 $4.76 $66.58 $4.58 >= 10.00%' <= $74.25 >= $9.09 and <= $12.29 >= $4.19 and <= $5.67 >= $55.11 and <= $74.55 >= $3.99 and <= $5.39 19.26%'Meets Target $79.35 $7.62 $3.67 $64.07 Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators 7.00 0.48 >=5.19and <=7.02 >= 0.37 and <= 0.51 $4.58 8.40 0.60 Fails to Meet Target Better Than Target Better Than Target Meets Target Meets Target Better Than Target Better Than Target Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 6 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets ROTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager'" 6/9/2011 Page 2 of 52 Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan Review City of Corona Data Elements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Through 4th Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 231,382 Passenger Miles 979,656 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 34,205.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 437,556.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 465,896.0 Total Operating Expenses $2,106,454 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $421,291 Net Operating, Expenses $1,685,163 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio 1 20,00% I >= 20.00% 1 20.82%'Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $61.58 <_ $59.39 $59.09 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $7.28 >_ $5.81 and <_ $7.85 $7.00 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $1.72 >_ $1.37 and <_ $1.85 $1.65 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $49.27 >_ $39.02 and <_ $52,79 $46.79 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $3.85 > _ $3.05 and <_ $4.13 $3.63 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6.80 > = 5.70 and <= 7.71 6.70 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile _ 0.53 >= 0.45 and <= 0.61 0.52 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Parebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager"" 619120 Page 3 of 8 • Table • 7 -- Service Provider Performance Tar ets Report 9 p FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan Review City of Riverside Data Elements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Through 4th Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 164,562 Passenger Miles 590,981 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 39,977.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 590,981.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 722,889.0 Total Operating Expenses $2,978,496 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $331,000 Net Operating Expenses $2,647,496 _ Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio 11.11% I >= 10.00% I 13.47% I Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $74.51 <= $74.48 $70.86 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $16.09 >= $13.80 and <= $18.66 $16.89 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $4.48 >= $3.56 and <= $4.82 $4.33 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $66.23 >= $54.08 and <= $73.16 $61.31 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $4.48 >= $3.84 and <= $5.20 $4.21 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 4.10 >= 3.32 and <= 4.49 3.60 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.28 >= 0.24 and <= 0.32 0.25 Meets Target Note: Must meet at !PAO 4 nie of 7 rlierratinnanr Derfnernwn T...U,,«..... Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets ROTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager' 6/9/2011 Page 4 of 54 Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan Review Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Data Elements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Through 4th Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 58,085 Passenger Miles 369,137 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 12,475.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 216,020.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 254,643.0 Total Operating Expenses $925,069 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $107,775 Net Operating Expenses $817,294 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1, Farebox Recovery Ratio I 11.65% 1 >= 10.00% I 12.43% Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $74.15 <= $83.88 $89.88 Fails to Meet Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $14.07 >= $12.72 and <= $17.22 $19.76 Fails to Meet Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $2.21 >= $2.06 and <= $2.78 $1.83 Better Than Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $65.51 >= $61.99 and <= $83.87 $78.70 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $3.78 >= $3.68 and <= $4.98 $4.46 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 4.70 >= 4.08 and <= 5.52 4.00 Fails to Meet Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.27 >= 0.23 and <= 0.32 0.23 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 4 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Did not meet RCM PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager"" 6/9/200 Pa. of8 • • Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan Review RCTC Commuter Rail Data Elements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Through 4th Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,279,966 Passenger Miles 114,937,184 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Train Hours 73,285.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Car Miles 2,965,391.0 Total Actual Vehicle Train Miles Total Operating Expenses $42,533,000 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $20,010,100 Net Operating Expenses $22,522,900 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio I 47.040/0 I >= 40.00% I 40.720/0'Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $580.38 <= $2,876.40 $2,906.34 Fails to Meet Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $6.87 >= $6.11 and <= $8.27 $8.50 Fails to Meet Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.20 >= $0.18 and <= $0.24 $0.24 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $307.33 •,= $1,612.88 and <= $1,708.18 $1,722.70 Fails to Meet Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $7.60 >= $6.42 and <= $8.68 $9.12 Fails to Meet Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 44.80 >= 191.91 and <= 205.29 202.60 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 1.11 >= 0.89 and <= 1.21 1.07 Meets Target 8. Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,279,966 >= 3,206,139 2,939,587 Meets Target 9. Passenger Miles per Rev. Car Miles 38.76 >= 30.52 and <= 41.30 37.81 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 5 out f 9 Disrretinnary PArfnrmanro rnriirafn.c Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 5 of 9 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager " 6/9/2011 Page 6 of 8 56 Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan Review Riverside Transit Agency Data Elements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Through 4th Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 7,818,232 52,895,475 Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 678,357,0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 11,942,606.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 13,848,422.0 Total Operating Expenses $52,998,175 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $10,820,349 Net Operating Expenses $42,177,826 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio I 20.410/0 I_ >= 16.850/o 1 24.760/0 (Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $78.13 <= $79.95 $75.81 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $5.39 >= $4.20 and <= $5.68 $4.49 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.80 >= $0.64 and <= $0.86 $0.68 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $62.18 >= $51,20 and <= $69.26 $57.04 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $3.53 >= $3.07 and <= $4.15 $3.35 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 11.50 >= 10.37 and <= 14.03 12.70 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.65 >= 0.62 and <= 0.84 0.75 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: Trans•ck Manager' 6/9/2 P4,7of8 Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan Review SunLine Transit Agency Data Elements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Through 4th Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,853,176 Passenger Miles 22,271,866 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 243,159.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 3,097,836.0 Total Actual Vehide Miles 3,381,145.0 Total Operating Expenses $22,735,270 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $4,145,078 Net Operating Expenses $18,590,192 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio 18.230/0 I >= 18.180/0 1 18.180/0 1 Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $93,50 <= $94.25 $91.72 Meets Target 2, Subsidy Per Passenger $4.82 >= $3.90 and <= $5.28 $4.68 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.83 >= $0.68 and <= $0.92 $0.81 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $76.45 >= $63.04 and <= $85.28 $75.04 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $6.00 >= $4.94 and <= $6.68 $5.54 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 15.80 >= 13.69 and <= 18.52 16.00 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 1.24 >= 1.07 and <= 1.45 1,18 Meets Target NnYa• MiicY meet �r Icxr a nt �f � n«.er.,.,,.., e.s,...,.. �...... ._a:__._� Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager". 6/9/2011 Page 8 of 8 58 6/27/2011 toDB Budget and Implementation Committee Fiscal Year 2009/10 Productivity Improvement Program June 27, 2011 Mandatory Target Farebox Recovery Ratio —10% for Non -Urbanized Areas 20% for Urbanized Areas Discretionary Targets 1. Operating Cost per Revenue Hour (CPI annual increase) 2. Subsidy per Passenger (+/- 15% variance) 3. Subsidy per Passenger Mile (+/- 15% variance) 4. Subsidy per Revenue Hour (+/- 15%variance) 5. Subsidy per Revenue Mile (+/-15% variance) 6. Passengers per Revenue Hour (+/- 15% variance) 7. Passengers per Revenue Mile (+/- 15% variance) Ade Discretionary Targets for Commuter Rail Program Ridership growth goal of 2%and Passenger Miles per Revenue Car Miles goal of 30 1 6/27/2011 ➢To meet RCTC PIP Program, Operators need to meet: Required Farebox Recovery Ratio(10%-20% Bus) (40% Rail) and At least 4 of the 7 Discretionary Targets (Bus) At least 5 of the 9 Discretionary Targets (Rail) MIL 111•06(•••••••••11•4•Yelo 0;21110111111 �„ _ M - ➢FY 09/10 PIP Compliance Summary Report Mandatory: Farebox Recovery Target: All Operators met FR Discretionary Targets: 1. Met all 7 - Cities of Banning, Corona, Riverside RTA and SunLine 2. Met 6 out of 7 - City of Beaumont 3. Met 4 out of 7 — Palo Verde Valley 4. Met 5 out of 9 — Commission's Rail Program AIL Y..Lhalo imp la llarotl. 2 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 27, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Extension for the City of Temecula STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Grant the city of Temecula (Temecula) an extension to June 30, 2012, for SB 821 program funds approved for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing project; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each year, 2% of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB 821 program. This is a discretionary program administered by the Commission. There are three steps to carry out the program: 1. All cities and the county are notified of the SB 821 program estimate of available funding and are requested to submit project proposals. The Commission's SB 821 program policies, project application, and selection criteria are also provided with the notification. 2. SB 821 evaluation committee, comprised of members of the Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees (three each), meets to review and rank the project applications using the evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission and recommends projects and funding amounts to the Commission for approval. 3. The Commission reviews the Committee's recommendations and approves a program of bicycle and pedestrian projects for funding. The agencies then have 24 months to complete the projects. Any projects not completed using local sources or awarded a construction contract within the Agenda Item 12 59 24-months are deleted from the program and the funds are reprogrammed in the next fiscal year. There are to be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of -a larger, federally funded project or a project requiring coordination with another public agency that has been delayed beyond the city/county's control. DISCUSSION: At its July 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded $1,591,765 to fund 16 projects as part of its SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program. The agencies had until June 30, 2009, to complete the projects within this funding cycle. Temecula was allocated $132,000 for construction of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing project. In May 2009, Temecula requested a 12-month extension, which was approved by the Commission in June 2009. In May 2010, Temecula asked for a second extension, which was approved by the Commission in June 2010. Per Temecula's extension request letter, the project was also awarded federal funds as part of the Safe Routes to School program and therefore had to comply with National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental Clearance was obtained in May 2010. Temecula then submitted its request for approval to proceed with construction to Ca!trans Local Assistance. Due to additional federal requirements, Temecula is requesting a third and final 12-month extension. The 12-month extension gives Temecula until June 30, 2012, to complete the project and claim the allocated SB 821 funds. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $132,000 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 601 62 86106 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \144,4,„v., Date: 06/13/11 Attachment: 1) Letter from City of Temecula 2) City of Temecula Project Timeline 3) SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Commission Adopted Policies Agenda Item 12 • 60 ATTACHMENT 1 • {'a n jDepartment of Public Works 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 ■ Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Phone 1951) 694-6411 ■ Fax 19511694-6475 e www.cityoRemecula.org June 7, 2011 City of Temecula Ms. Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing -- Request for Extension FY2007/2008 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Dear Ms. Edmiston; The City of Temecula requests an extension of time beyond the June 30, 2011 deadline to claim approved SB821 program funds for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing project. In addition to the SB821 program funds, the City of Temecula was successful in obtaining additional grant funding through the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program. Due to the economic downturn the State SR2S program funds were replaced with federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. As a result, the City was tasked with administering the federal environmental processes to acquire NEPA clearance. The City of Temecula has diligently pursued environmental approval, and in May 2010, obtained environmental clearance from Caltrans. Immediately following environmental approval, we submitted our Request for Authorization (RFA) to Proceed with Construction to Caltrans, Local Assistance. Many requests from Caltrans followed, including the submittal of additional documents, revisions and permitting requirements not previously outlined as a requirement of the RFA review and approval process. The on -going delay in processes has resulted in reaching the critical deadline associated with our SB821 program funds. (Summary of Milestone Tasks — attached for your reference) Along with the SB821 deadline, we were notified by Caltrans that our project was dropped from the FI'IP - Grouped Projects for HSIP programmed funds. Upon receipt of this information, we immediately pursued actions to remedy the issue. We have since coordinated with RCTC and SCAG to ensure our project is included in the Administrative Amendment No. 9 to amend the FTIP, so that the obligation of federal funding can occur. Once the amendment is approved, Caltrans Headquarters can approve our RFA package and the City of Temecula can advertise, bid and award the project for the construction phase of work. Pr Iowa on Recycled Paper R:1C1P\PROJECTSIPWON'WOS-11 SG Creek Ped Bridge\Letters\RCTC-S13821-ExtensionRgstJune 201 L}cd.doc 61 Many events have impeded our progress in implementing this project, but the City is committed to fulfilling our obligation and we support the goals and objectives of the SB821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program and the Safe Routes to School program. This project is significant and extremely beneficial to the community and it provides a vital link between schools and residential neighborhoods and promotes separation of trail commuters and motorists, thereby enhancing safety. This project is fully funded and will be ready for contract bid and award immediately following reinstatement in the FTIP. We respectfully request an extension beyond the June 30, 2011 timeframe to continue our efforts to project implementation and completion. We anticipate the FTIP amendment to be approved within the next three weeks and subsequent approval from Caltrans of our RFA package to follow shortly thereafter. We are planning to award a construction contract within 90 days of approval and subsequently satisfy our claim for SB821 programs funds. Your serious consideration of our request to extend the time for a period of twelve months to claim approved funds will allow us to move forward with the construction of this much needed pedestrian facility. Sincerely, Greg Bfitl+ Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: Jon Salazar - Associate Engineer — Capital Projects Rudy Graciano — Revenue Manager, Finance Julie Dauer — Sr. CII' Specialist, Department of Public Works Project File RAC IP\PROJECTS1PW051PW05-11 SG Creek Ped HridgeTetters\RCTC-SB821-ExtensionRgst-lune2011.jed,doc 62 ATTACHMENT 2 PW05-11— Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek Project Timeline Date Milestone Remarks September 2008 Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Submitted seven (7) copies to Caltrans Local Assistance November 2008 Received comments from Caltrans regarding PES submittal Various comments received from Local Assistance, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Cultural Studies, and Biological Studies and Permits November 2008 Response to comments completed by City All items requested by Caltrans to be addressed either by form or action to be completed by City consultant 12/2/08 Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form Approved by Caltrans, required studies identified Caltrans approved the PES, with required studies including NES(MI), Noise, Hazardous Material, Section 106, HPSR, detailed APE Map, ASR, etc. May 2009 First submittal of cultural & biological reports to Caltrans June -July 2009 Review of APE, ASR, and Cultural Studies performed by Caltrans on first submittal Extensive comments from Caltrans to further address ASR to SER guidelines, specific elements to be included on APE map, Native American consultation, and in-depth paleontological study is required; PIR & PER should be prepared. City consultant to further review comments and complete additional studies. October 2009 Second submittal to Caltrans January 2010 Response from Caltrans on second submittal Biological reports now appear to require extensive revision; cultural reports also again require extensive revision. More comments regarding HPSR, APE, NES(MI), etc. Note that there was a key personnel change at Caltrans between the first and second submittals March 2010 Third submittal to Caltrans April 2010 Caltrans response received (note that an expedited review was requested) Additional revisions required to cultural reports: HPSR, ASR, and Native American consultation & correspondence to be further addressed. Requires additional submittal and considerable review time. 63 4/20/10 Meeting held with Caltrans for final approval/sign-off on cultural reports Prior to this meeting, extensive phone coordination had taken place between Caltrans and the City's environmental consultant to work out all required revisions to cultural reports. It was thus anticipated that at the meeting, it would simply be verified that the reports reflected the results of the Caltrans-consultant coordination. In the meeting, Caltrans identified that formal government -to -government consultation would be required for two Native American tribes, a fact that had been previously unidentified. Caltrans provided their first notification to the tribes on 4/20/10; they have 30 days to respond. 5/20/10 Received signed CE Received notification & final signed CE from Caltrans for environmental clearance. June 2010 Submitted RFA package to Caltrans Mailed 6/18/10 RFA for Construction to Caltrans. Package included all documents required per Exhibit 3D checklist, including 3 sets of plans & specifications. July 2010 Received request from Caltrans to revise certain forms within RFA package Prepared revised originals per Caltrans request & returned 7/13/10 - Exhibit3D — insert ROW Cert #1—Pending & add signature on page 3-3 July 2010 Received request from Caltrans to include Exhibit 12A Prepared Exhibit 12A & submitted via e-mail 7/29/10 August 2010 Received request from Caltrans to submit revised Finance Letter Prepared revised Finance Letter to exclude PE & CE items of work — Returned revised Finance Letter 8/3/10 August 2010 Although previously advised that a USACE 404 permit would not be required for this project, Corps has determined that, as currently designed, a 404 permit will be required To avoid this requirement, a redesign of the east bridge abutment is initiated September 2010 Although never previously required, word received from Caltrans that all resource agency permits will need to be in place before processing of RFA can be completed Pursuit of resource agency permits accelerated to urgent level November 2010 Streambed Alteration Agreement (notification of none required) received from DFG January 2011 Permit waivers received from USACE and RWQCB All resource agency permitting and environrifental clearances now in place 64 • • • March 2011 Notification received from Caltrans that RFA processing cannot continue until RCFCD Encroachment Permit is issued Pursuit of RCFCD Encroachment Permit accelerated to urgent level April 2011 RCFCD Encroachment Permit issued April 2011 RFA resubmitted to Caltrans Local Assistance May 2011 RFA transmitted to Caltrans Headquarters for final approval May 2011 Word received from Caltrans Headquarters that project had been dropped from FTIP Efforts underway to reinstate project to FTIP June 2011 Reinstatement of project in FTIP Coordinated efforts with RCTC, Caltrans Headquarters & SCAG to incorporate project in Amendment #9 for FTIP July 2011 RFA Approval After FTIP update, we should receive immediate approval of our RFA package from Caltrans to proceed with advertisement & award August 2011 Bid Opening In July— place advertisement for project, 2-3 weeks & record bid opening September 2011 Award Contract Award Contract at City Council meeting to lowest responsible bidder. Implement construction phase of work. December 2011 Project Completion ® Based on the projected timeline, it is anticipated that the project will be complete by the end of the calendar year. 65 ATTACHMENT 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES • The Commission will not allocate funds to a project in its approved SB 821 Program until the sponsoring agency awards a contract for the construction of the project or until local agency forces begin construction of the project. (12/18/86) • If funds for a project are not claimed prior to the end of the fiscal year, the project will be deleted from the program and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program. (12/18/86) • A project sponsor may request an extension of time beyond June 30th if substantial progress has been made on the project which, at minimum, would mean completion of preliminary engineering. (12/18/86) • Funds allocated for projects in FY 86/87 and prior years must be spent or encumbered (construction contract awarded) by December 31, 1987, or the funds and interest eamed on the funds shall be returned to the SB 821 Account. (12/18/86) ***Following four policies pertain to multi -year projects*** • Cities and the County may submit applications for projects to be funded over a 2-3 year period with engineering in year 1 and construction in years 2 and 3. (9/2/87) • Multi -year projects approved in the Commission's program shall be given priority for funding in years 2-3 over new projects submitted and approved. (9/2/87) • When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are not more than 15% over the initial application cost estimate, the increase will be funded by SB 821 funds, if requested by the applicant, during the development of the annual program by the Commission. (9/2/87) • When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are more than 15% above the initial application estimate, the applicant may either fund costs in excess of 15% with local funds or resubmit the project as a new project for consideration by the Commission. (9/2/87) • Any unused SB 821 Program funds must be returned to the Commission unless that agency can a) demonstrate why the costs were substantially lower than the estimate; and b) utilize the unused funds to complete approved but unfunded projects. (12/11/91) • No agency will be allowed to carryover unused funds for projects not previously included in an application (annual project proposals) submitted to the Commission for consideration. (12/11/91) • The Commission will not award funds for projects that do not meet physical accessibility standards (i.e. California Government Code 4450, Civil Code 51 Et. Seq., Title 24 of the California Building Code, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). (4/12/95) • An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project using local forces or award a construction contract. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of a larger, federally funded project, which has been delayed beyond the agency's control. Also, projects requiring coordination with another public agency that has been delayed beyond the agency's control may receive one twelve-month extension, if necessary. Projects not completed or awarded within the twenty-four months will be deleted from the program, and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SR 821 Program. (3/12/03) RCTC: 3/20/03 66 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 27, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following bill positions: a) SB 446 (Dutton) - Support; b) HR 1825 (Blumenauer) Support; c) S. 1034 (Schumer) - Support; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update Budget Picture Remains Murky At the time this staff report was written, Republicans and Democrats in the State Senate had failed to come to an agreement on a state budget over the weekend of June 11. The main sticking point regards the issue of extending the current sales and income tax rates along with sustaining an increase in vehicle registration fees. The Governor was seeking an extension of the current rates as a precursor to an election. In response, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg introduced a bill to expand the taxing authority for local governments. Most observers believe that Senator Steinberg's legislation was being used as a tool to force negotiations and would be impractical to implement if approved. In spite of the wrangling regarding taxes, there appears to be a general consensus on the treatment of transportation issues, which would include the appropriation of $1 billion in Proposition 1 B bond funding in anticipation of a bond sale. There also seems to be general consensus on the need for improved oversight and changes regarding the administration of the state's high-speed rail effort. Agenda Item 13 67 Legislature Approves AJR 4 Assembly Joint Resolution 4, authored by Assembly Member Jeff Miller (R-Corona), which expresses the California Legislature's support for a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) grant for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project was approved by the Senate on June 14, and will be sent to President Obama and Secretary LaHood. In many instances, TIFIA funding is often supported by state interests. The approval of the resolution adds a level of state support making the Commission's TIFIA application even more compelling to evaluators in Washington, D.C. SB 446 Creation of Ontario International Airport Authority While officials in Los Angeles have often stated their support for "regionalizing" passenger air traffic in Southern California, the recent experience of Ontario International Airport paints a far different picture regarding air travel in Southern California. Passenger travel through Ontario International Airport has declined by more than a third since 2007. While a significant portion of the decline can be attributed to the economy, an opposing argument can be made that a lack of support for the Ontario International Airport is hindering a local economic recovery. SB 446 by Senate Minority Leader Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) seeks to bring Ontario International Airport under local control through the creation of a new joint powers authority comprised of seven members appointed by the Ontario City Council and the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. The language allows for a specified number of members to be appointed who are, "...representatives of the primary air service market served by Ontario International Airport and need not be persons residing in the City of Ontario or the County of San Bernardino," thus allowing for representation from the larger Inland Empire area. The Commission's legal jurisdiction regarding air traffic is essentially non-existent. The Commission is strictly a surface transportation agency; however the area's economy depends on access to air travel and the Commission recognizes the need to fully utilize assets such as the airports in Ontario and Palm Springs, as well as the extensive network of general aviation and freight facilities. Senator Dutton's bill seeks to realize the value of the asset through local input and control while requiring close cooperation among local agencies including the city of Los Angeles, which currently operates the facility. Agenda Item 13 • • • 68 • • • Federal Update For a number of years, the Commission has been on record in supporting efforts to provide more latitude for employers to offer commuting incentives on a pre-tax basis. This allows employers to provide benefits that include transit passes, subsidies for vanpool costs and other commuting expenses that are exempt up to a certain level from taxation. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) — commonly known as the stimulus bill — raised the limit on what can be excluded from personal income taxes from $120 per month to $230 per month. The raise in the limit was temporary and is set to expire at the end of this year. HR 1825 by Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) and S. 1034 by Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) will extend the current programs until 2014. This is consistent with the Commission's legislative platform adopted in December 2010 which states: "Congress should approve tax benefits and/or incentives for transportation demand management programs and alternative fuel programs to promote the use of alternate modes of transportation." Both of the federal bills were recently introduced and no committee hearings are scheduled in the immediate future. Agenda Item 13 69