Loading...
07 July 20, 2009 Technical Advisory CommitteeTIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. July 20, 2009 Beaumont City Hall, Room 5, Council Chamber 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, CA *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Duane Burk, City of Banning Greg Butler, City of Temecula Kip Field, City of Corona Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Patrick Hally, Caltrans District 8 Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Jonathan Hoy, City of Desert Hot Springs Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Michael Kashiwagi, City of Wildomar Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris and San Jacinto Juan Perez, County of Riverside Kishen Prathivadi, City of Beaumont Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Jim Smith, City of Indio Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Bill Thompson, City of Norco Paul Toor, City of Coachella Chris Vogt, City of Moreno Valley Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Carlos Zamano, City of Calimesa Commission Staff Anne Mayer, Executive Director Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: July 20, 2009 LOCATION: Beaumont City Hall, Room 5, Council Chamber, 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, CA 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 Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM UPDATE (Verbal Presentation) 6. AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMANET ACT (ARRA) UPDATE (Verbal Presentation) 7. STIP UPDATE • SB 286 — TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM CHANGE (Attachment) 8. STATE LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SLLP) (Attachment) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting July 20, 2009 Page 2 9. RTP/RTIP UPDATE (Attachment) 10. STATUS OF MOE CERTIFICATIONS (Verbal Presentation) 11. LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE (Verbal Presentation) 12. COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS (Verbal Presentation) 13. OTHER BUSINESS 14. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be August 17, 2009, 10:00 A.M., in Riverside.) MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 151 2009 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 A.M., RCTC, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Greg Butler, City of Temecula Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Patrick Nally, Caltrans District 8 Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Alfonso Hernandez, SunLine Transit Agency Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Michael Kashiwagi, City of Wildomar Prem Kumar, City of Moreno Valley Bob Morin, City of Corona Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Patty Romo, County of Riverside Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Michael Shoberg, CVAG Jim Smith, City of Indio Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency Chris Sunde, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris, San Jacinto Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Paul Toor, City of Coachella Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Carlos Zamano, City of Calimesa Others Present: Herman Basmaciyan, County of Riverside Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Dug Begley, Press Enterprise Patti Castillo, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 15, 2009 Page 2 Martha Durbin, RCTC Eliza Echevarria, RCTC Marlin Feenstra, RCTC Ernie Figueroa, Parsons Shirley Gooding, RCTC Brian Guillot, City of Banning Aaron Hake, RCTC Kevin Hughes, City of Beaumont Abunnasr Husain, RCTC Farah Khorashadi, County of Riverside Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Anne Mayer, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Jim Mitsch, Willdan Amir Modarressi, City of Desert Hot Springs Anne Schneider, Willdan Alex Serena, WRCOG Andrea Zureick, RCTC 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approved as submitted Abstained: Tim Wassil 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 5. MAINTENANCE AND USAGE OF RIVTAM MODEL Farah Khorashadi, County of Riverside, introduced Herman Basmaciyan, County of Riverside, who provided a document detailing the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) and said that it has been validated to base year 2007, and that the validation results were favorable. The 2035 forecast for the model was developed based on the data that was developed jointly by the cities, the county and SCAG, and are consistent with SCAG's adopted 2035 forecast. He further stated that an electronic version of the document is available upon request. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 15, 2009 Page 3 A draft Memorandum of Understanding was provided and she said that CVAG, WRCOG and RCTC would be asked to participate by sharing the cost for maintaining the model. She asked that the local agencies review the documents and provide input within the next two weeks. In response to a question regarding cost, Ms. Khorashadi stated that the cities would not be asked to participate in the cost of these efforts, that only the agencies are being asked. Anne Mayer, RCTC, said that there will be follow up meetings with the other agencies to talk about how to go forward with this effort. 6. STIP/ARRA UPDATES Shirley Medina reminded the committee that the STIP is updated every two years and that the 2010 STIP is due next year. With the uncertainty of the current state budget and the impact on the STIP and the assumptions, a fund estimate has not been prepared. She said that staff will provide that information just as soon as possible. Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, provided a one -page document, "Raiding Prop 42 Jeopardizes $746 million in Riverside County transportation Projects" and stated that last week the legislature budget conference committee voted unanimously to reject suspension of Prop 42. Negotiations still have a long way to go. Shirley Medina summarized by stating that as far as the STIP is concerned, in FY 2009/10 there are quite a few projects that are slated for allocation, including the SR-91 Van Buren project and some of the interchanges in Coachella Valley, the I-10/Indian and the I-10/Date Palm. Staff is keeping close watch on the ability to get those STIP allocations. Ms. Mayer stated that although Prop 42 seems to be preserved on the STIP side for now, she strongly cautioned that if state funding is lost, there will be a hole so significant the Commission will not be able to backfill. In the next two years, it is expected that $443 million of state money will be coming to this county. If we start losing state funds, that would mean projects sitting on the shelf waiting for money. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 15, 2009 Page 4 Ms. Medina indicated that regarding ARRA, stimulus funds on the federal level, five of our projects have been certified: • I-10/Bob Hope Interchange • I-10/Palm Drive Interchange • SR-60 Valley Way Interchange TE Projects: • Palm Springs/Gene Autry Trail project • Riverside/Alessandro project The Palm Springs Gene Autry Trail TE project has been obligated by FHWA. The RFAs for the other projects are at headquarters or federal highways. Regarding the $1.5 billion discretionary, Aaron Hake stated that the stimulus bill contains $1.5 billion in discretionary money. States can receive only $300 million so it is very competitive and the Department of Transportation (DOT) is expecting California to submit one application. Staff is working regionally with other Southern California transportation agencies to submit a unified application to DOT. Ms. Mayer stated that we have until the end of July to turn in 'applications to the state for them to come up with a California application. We will participate in that process and we will put forward our recommendations to our Commissioners, primarily Alameda Corridor East grade separations. It has already received a designation of national significance and received significant money in SAFETEA-LU. Other states could be coming in with one project and there may be some states that are teaming together to come up with a corridor of projects. Chances are slim that non -regional projects are going to be included or receive funding. 7. 2009 MEASURE A MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT BASE YEAR Ms. Medina indicated that the Special TAC Committee recommended for the FY 2009/10 year continuing with the 1989 MOE level because of the economic situation we are in. For the cities that did not have an MOE for 1989, the committee looked at the Prop 42 MOE levels and the years that were averaged are 1996/97 — 1998/1999. That information was included for Murrieta, Temecula, Calimesa, and Canyon Lake. That is what we are recommending that Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 15, 2009 Page 5 they use for their FY 2009/10 levels. Staff will continue to work with the TAC to determine a MOE base year method for FY 2010/11-2019/20. M/S/C to approve the committee's recommendation. 8. MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FIVE-YEAR CIP Andrea Zureick, RCTC, said that staff has been working with the cities to get CIPs in order for FY 2009/10-2013/14. After the May meeting, a notice was sent to the cities requesting that CIPs and project status reports be sent to RCTC by the May 26 deadline. The requirement for the MOE certification was waived until the MOE baseline issue was worked out. After approval of the MOE base year amounts at the July Commission meeting, staff will check with the cities to see if the certifications have been submitted that will be adequate for FY 2009/10 or if we still need more information. If staff has to go back to the Commission verifying that the cities have submitted certifications, that will be done for the July committee meetings and September Commission meeting. That will still allow enough time for the cities to receive the first disbursements of the local streets and roads funds in September. We have received most of the CIPs. There are four cities that we are waiting for and we feel comfortable that they will be received in time for the September Commission meeting. Ms. Zureick stated that staff will e-mail the TAC after dates for receiving certifications have been established. 9. PROGRAMMING DATABASE Andrea Zureick provided an on-line demonstration of RCTC's programming database. It is ready and will be used for the July quarterly milestone reporting. She further stated that information will be sent to the TAC showing what needs to be done to get to individual quarterly reports and complete them. RCTC staff has the ability to print reports for the cities, e.g., Excel spreadsheet of each city's STP projects or CMAQ projects, by fund source or just a list of each city's projects. Staff will update the database using input from the cities as well as other information. Ms. Medina will e-mail user names, etc. to the individual cities and each city will be able to create its password. Ms. Zureick recommended having one point of contact per city since staff will need one e-mail address to be Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 15, 2009 Page 6 associated with each city. Detailed instructions on how to navigate the database and how to submit reports will be e-mailed to the TAC. 10. RTIP/RTP UPDATES Ms. Zureick pointed out the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program — Amendment Submittals and Approval Dates document attached to her staff report. She stated that Amendment 17 has been approved. Staff is still awaiting approval of Amendment 16, a formal amendment that has 53 projects. It is expected that SCAG will approve it this week. It should be approved by Caltrans and FHWA within a month. SCAG has announced plans to initiate Amendment 2 to the RTP. Staff is asking the cities to review their projects and submit changes to RCTC by June 26. She further stated that if SCAG allows more time, staff will advise the TAC. Pay particular attention to projects needing federal approval, either in the environmental phase or projects that are getting ready to go to construction. She asked that the cities look at the completion dates because that is an important date for RTP. If the cities need printouts of projects, they should e- mail Andrea and she will send them. An e-mail will be sent to the TAC which will include deadlines and instructions. It typically takes six to eight months for the review through federal approval. Shirley Medina stated that there are already several projects to be included in the RTP amendment. Ms. Zureick said there are about 26 projects that either were not able to get into Amendment 1 or have been submitted for RTIP amendments but changes required an RTP amendment. The RTP is posted on SCAG's website and when the notice is sent to the TAC about the upcoming amendment, staff will send a pdf of the RTP or a link to that information. 11. LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE Regarding the DBE Plan, Patrick Hally, Caltrans, said that if anyone has a project that should get out, they should submit a Form 9A DBE Implementation Agreement. In response to Shirley Medina's question regarding how long an RFA would wait for review, once it gets to federal highways, until it is obligated he stated that it would be about three to four weeks. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 15, 2009 Page 7 Ms. Medina stated that if an RFA has been at federal highways for three weeks or longer, the cities should contact Pat Hally or Shirley Medina and she can talk to the federal highways representative when she is in Sacramento. Sue Kiser, FHWA, stated recently that RFAs should be obligated within a two week timeframe. 12. COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Anne Mayer, RCTC, reported that there was significant discussion regarding the Mid County Parkway (MCP) and what will be done with it in the future. Staff and the MCP Ad Hoc Committee made a recommendation that the project be refocused to concentrate on the San Jacinto to I-215 section as opposed to the entire corridor. Comments received on the draft environmental document raised numerous concerns about environmental and community issues on the segment west of I-215. As of last Wednesday, a decision has not been made; it has been carried over until the July 8th Commission meeting. She encouraged the TAC to review the staff report and to refer any questions to Cathy Bechtel. The elected officials, RCTC representatives, will vote in July as to the course of action to take. This is the kind of significant discussion RCTC Commissioners will have over the next year as we grapple with the lack of funding. She encouraged the TAC to engage in discussions at the local level about what the priorities are and to let RCTC staff know the priorities. There was also an update on the SR-91 carpool lane project, and the money for that is uncertain. Since it is a Prop 1B CMIA project, funding for the project will be dependent on the state's ability to sell bonds. She also announced that Greg Pettis is the new second chair of the Commission due to the resignation of Mr. Dick Kelly from the Commission. 13. OTHER BUSINESS In response to a question regarding the change in this TAC meeting's location from Beaumont to Riverside, Shirley Medina said that it was more convenient to have the database presentation at RCTC offices since the database presentation required an internet connection. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 15, 2009 Page 8 In response to a question regarding the amounts in item #1 on the Proposition 42 handout, Aaron Hake said that he has modified it and staff will send out an updated sheet to the TAC. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:20 A.M. Although the next meeting is scheduled for July 20, 2009, 10:00 A.M, at RCTC offices, staff will contact Beaumont City Hall to have the July meeting there. Respectfully submitted, s---"gritt--Q-4-4-d--tY-1- J-...k_ Medina Programming and Planning Manager AGENDA ITEM 5 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 5. AGENDA ITEM 6 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 6. AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 20, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: SB 286 Implementation — Impact to Transportation Enhancement Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SB 286 was passed by the Legislature in September 2008. The intent of the bill is to: "Encourage the allocation of funds for transportation enhancement projects to community conservation corps and the California Conservation Corps as partners with applicants that commit to employ the services of corps members in the construction of those projects." Attached is a copy of SB 286 and a letter from Caltrans indicating the criteria to be used by regional transportation planning agencies for the selection of TE projects including a revised TE application. The first criterion requires all projects that involve the CCCs to be funded regardless of other evaluation criteria that the RTPAs have used in past evaluation and selection processes. The second criterion essentially is applied once all TE project proposals that utilize the CCCs have been funded. This new criteria will apply to projects that have not yet been included in an adopted FTIP. All of the TE projects that RCTC has approved to date are included in an adopted FTIP through the lump sum TE listing. Therefore, these projects are exempt or grandfathered from the new criteria. However, in future calls for TE projects RCTC will need to apply the new criteria. Federal requirements only allow sole sourcing when the contracted work is specialized, an emergency, or inadequate competition after solicitation has been determined. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires a "Request for Approval of Cost Effectiveness/Public Interest Finding" form to be submitted with the TE application in order to approve Sole Source agreements. It is unclear if FHWA will approve the requests upon submission, or if they will approve these requests based on their review and concurrence that the sole source contract is indeed cost effective. RTPAs will be monitoring the implementation of the new criteria and presenting a report to Caltrans and the CTC later this year on the pros and cons of implementing the new criteria. Senate Bill No. 286 CHAPTER 373 An act to add Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 2370) to Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation. [Approved by Governor September 27, 2008. Filed with Secretary of State September 27, 2008.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 286, Lowenthal. Transportation enhancement funds: conservation corps. Existing federal law, as part of the comprehensive surface transportation program, allocates transportation funds to each state for transportation enhancement projects. This bill, with respect to federal funds made available to the state for transportation enhancement projects, would require the department to develop and transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions or authorities, and congestion management agencies to utilize criteria that give priority in the selection of these projects to the sponsors of eligible projects that partner with, or commit to employ the services of, a community conservation corps, as defined, or the California Conservation Corps to construct or undertake the project. The bill would authorize these agencies and the Department of Transportation to enter into cooperative agreements, grant agreements, or procurement contracts with community conservation corps pursuant to certain simplified contract requirements. The bill would require the California Transportation Commission, when developing guidelines for the state transportation improvement program and the state highway operations and protection program, to include guidance to encourage the allocation of funds for transportation enhancement projects to community conservation corps and the California Conservation Corps as partners with applicants that commit to employ the services of corps members in the construction of those projects. The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) According to several studies dating back many years, integrating underprivileged young adults between the ages of 14 and 24 into the mainstream of social and economic life produces numerous social benefits, including the reduction of criminal activity, alcohol and drug abuse, teen pregnancy, and welfare dependency. 90 Ch. 373 — 2 — (b) These studies have found that among the most productive strategies for assisting young people to develop civic consciousness and become productive members of society are programs that link employment training, jobs, education, and public service through community -based programs, such as California's community conservation corps. (c) The federal Transportation Equity Act of 1998 and subsequent acts direct the United States Secretary of Transportation to encourage states to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with qualified youth conservation or service corps using federal transportation enhancement funds to perform appropriate transportation enhancement activities, including the construction of bicycle lanes, development of landscaping and scenic beautification, environmental mitigation, and other similar activities consistent with federal law. Federal Highway Administration guidance to states on use of transportation enhancement funds declares that "where states and local officials are able to identify opportunities to enter into partnership with these service organizations, they should fully consider the benefits to their own efforts and the benefits to the youth involved." (d) Cities and counties, which are the recipients of transportation enhancement funds, and regional transportation planning agencies that prioritize projects nominated to use those funds, have not taken advantage of the provision in federal law authorizing and encouraging the involvement of qualified community conservation corps agencies in eligible transportation enhancement activities and projects. SEC. 2. Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 2370) is added to Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, to read: CHAPTER 7.5. FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS 2370. As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Community conservation corps" shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 14507.5 of the Public Resources Code. (b) "Transportation enhancement project" means a project constructed or undertaken with funds made available to the state pursuant to Section 133(b)(8) of Title 23 of the United States Code. 2371. (a) The department, in consultation with community conservation corps, the California Conservation Corps, the commission, regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions or authorities, and congestion management agencies, shall develop criteria that give priority in the selection of projects to the sponsors of eligible projects that partner with, or commit to employ the services of, a community conservation corps or the California Conservation Corp to construct or undertake the project (b) Regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions or authorities, and congestion management agencies, when selecting candidates for transportation enhancement projects, shall utilize 90 — 3 — Ch. 373 the criteria in subdivision (a) that give priority in the selection of projects to the sponsors of eligible projects that partner with, or commit to employ the services of, a community conservation corps or the California Conservation Corps to construct or undertake the project. 2372. The department, regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions or authorities, or congestion management agencies shall be authorized to enter into cooperative agreements, grant agreements, or procurement contracts with community conservation corps pursuant to the simplified contract requirements authorized by Section 18.36(j) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order to enable community conservation corps to utilize transportation enhancement project funds. 2373. The commission, when developing guidelines for the state transportation improvement program and the state highway operations and protection program, shall include guidance to encourage the allocation of funds for transportation enhancement projects to qualified community conservation corps and the California Conservation Corps as partners with applicants that commit to employ the services of corps members in the construction of those projects. 2374. The criteria prepared pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 2373 and the guidelines prepared pursuant to Section 2371 relative to the allocation of funds for transportation enhancement projects to qualified community conservation corps and the California Conservation Corps shall further the purposes of this chapter. O 90 STATE OF CAL,IFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGF.R. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DrviS ION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE - M.S. 1 1 120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 PHONE (916) 653-1776 FAX (916) 654-2409 TTY 711 July 6, 2009 All Regional Transportation Planning Agencies: Dear Executive Director: Nes your power! Be energy efficient Senate Bill (SB) 286 requires that the California Department of Transportation (Department), in consultation with Community Conservation Corps and the California Conservation Corps (collectively referred to as corps), the California Transportation Commission (CTC), Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA), county transportation commissions or authorities, and congestion management agencies, shall develop criteria that give priority in the selection of projects to the sponsors of eligible projects that partner with, or commit to employ, the services of a corps to construct or undertake the project. Furthermore, Section 1108(g) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 S` Century (TEA-21) states that "the Secretary shall encourage the States to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with qualified youth conservation or service corps to perform appropriate transportation enhancement activities under Chapter 1 of Title 23, United States Code." The Department, in consultation with the other entities as required by SB 286, has developed Transportation Enhancement (TE) project selection criteria to implement SB 286. RTPAs are required to use the following criteria in prioritizing and selecting TE projects for programming in the Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIP): (1) TE eligible projects whose sponsor is partnering with or has agreed to employ the services of a corps, shall be selected first for funding (the scope of the work performed by the corps will be identified in page 6 of the enclosed revised TE application); (2) After all TE eligible projects described in paragraph (1) have been selected for funding, the remaining eligible TE projects may be selected. TE project candidates that meet the following specific categories are exempt from the above selection criteria and may compete on an equal basis with all project candidates in category (1) above: "Callrans improves mobility across California" All. Regional Transportation Planning Agencies July 6, 2009 Page 2 (a) Projects that have been selected and programmed in an RTIP prior to June 25, 2009. (b) Projects for which no corps will partner with the sponsor or agree to provide services. A project sponsor can request this exemption only by certifying on the TE application with the concurrence of the California Conservation Corps and the California Association of Local Conservation Corps. The application must indicate that the sponsor notified both organizations about the available project, but that no corps in the state was prepared to serve as a partner or provide services. Projects that have been selected and programmed in an RTIP prior to June 25, 2009 shall be evaluated by the RTPA to determine if the project sponsor can partner with or agree to obtain the services of a corps. The Department will work with the CTC to update the State Transportation Improvement Program guidelines to be consistent with the requirements of SB 286 and its criteria. SB 286 specifies that "Community Conservation Corps" shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 14507.5 of the Public Resources Code. Information regarding these organizations is available on the internet at: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dor/grants/Pages/lccc.aspx http://www.ccc.ca.gov/partner/partners.htm www.calcc.org The Depaitnient is committed to revisit the requirements set forth in this letter at a later date and will consider future suggested improvements to the implementation of SB 286. Please note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has indicated that for projects within the roadway right of way, a project specific cost effectiveness analysis has to be submitted by project sponsors and approved by FHWA prior to utilizing the corps on TE projects. Projects sponsors are directed to use the enclosed Request for Approval of Cost- Effectiveness/Public Interest Finding to submit this analysis. If you have any questions please contact our TE Program Coordinator John Haynes at: (916) 653-8077 or his email at: john_haynes@dot.ca.gov. Sincere DEN ANBIAH Chief Division of Local Assistance "Caltrans improves mobility across California" All Regional Transportation Planning Agencies July 6, 2009 Page 3 Enclosures: Revised TE Project Application Request for Approval of Cost Effectiveness Analysis/Public Interest Finding c: SB 286 Committee Members John Haynes TE Program Coordinator Martin Tuttle, Deputy Director, Planning and Model Programs Richard Harmon, Assistant Deputy Director, Division of Legislative Affairs Rachel Falsetti, Chief, Division of Transportation Programming Denix Anbiah, Chief, Division of Local Assistance Fardad Falakfarsa Chief, Office of Federal Resources, Division of Budgets Division of Local Assistance Office Chiefs District Local Assistance Engrineers Kevin Pokrajac, Chief, Office of Special and Discretionary Programs HQ Local Assistance Area Engineers "Caltrans improves mobility across Califrnwia" Transportation Enhancement (TE) Application (PSR Equivalent) TE funds are federal funds and must follow federal funding guidelines and environmental (NEPA) processes. All projects must have an approved eligible application prior to programming in the RTIP. PART ONE: GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION RTIP TE ITIP TE Is the project within Ca!trans Right of Way Yes❑ No❑. Does this project partner with or commit to employ the services of a Community Conservation Corps or the Califomia Conservation Corps? Yes❑ No❑. If you answered yes to the above question please list the contact information for the corps. Corps Name: Contact Name: Phone number: PROJECT TITLE: IMPLEMENTING AGENCY Administrator/person with day- to-day responsibility for implementing project (Name, title, agency, address, phone, fax, email) (Round dollars to nearest thousands) TE FUNDS REQUESTED $ State Match (11.47%) $ Local Match (if Required) $ TOTAL TE PROJECT COST $ ❑ TE is a stand-alone project. ❑ TE is part of a larger project. Person who can answer questions about this application (Name, title, phone, fax, email) PARTNER(S) (Name, title, agency, address, phone, fax) IF TE IS AN ENHANCEMENT TO A LARGER PROJECT, DESCRIBE LARGER PROJECT (if larger project is programmed, provide PPNo, EA, Project Title; if not currently programmed, describe the project) Total Project Cost $ PROJECT SCOPE OF PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (Describe the project's location, limits of work, size, etc. Not the justification or benefits). TE Application May 2009 Page 1 NEED AND PURPOSE (Describe how is project above and beyond a standard transportation project) RELATIONSHIP (TE projects must have a relationship to surface transportation; describe relation to surface transportation) CONFORMANCE (Describe conformance with Route Concept Report or Transportation Corridor Report and District System Management Plan - ITIP projects only) CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS (Describe how project reflects Director's policy - ITIP projects only) TE Application May 2009 Page 2 TE A ppliraUon May 2009 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED WHICH OF THE 12 TE CATEGORIES DOES THE PROJECT ENCOMPASS? (May be more than one.) http://www.dot.ca.qov/hq/TransEnhAct/TransEnact.htm 1. ❑ Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles 2. ❑ Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists. 3. ❑ Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites (including historic battlefields). 4. ❑ Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities). 5. ❑ Landscaping and other scenic beautification. 6. ❑ Historic preservation. 7. ❑ Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals). 8. ❑ Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use of the corridors for pedestrian or bicycle trails). 9. ❑ Inventory, control, and removal of outdoor advertising. 10. ❑ Archaeological planning and research. 11. ❑ Environmental mitigation (i) To address water pollution due to highway runoff; or (ii) Reduce vehicle -caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity. 12. ❑ Establishment of transportation museums. PROJECT LOCATION MAPS (Provide Location Map of project in State/Region and Area Specific Map) Page 3 PART TWO: FUNDING Prepared by Title Agency Phone FAX PROJECT COMPONENT COSTS (round to nearest $1,000s) RTIP ITIP OTHER • E&P (PA&ED) $ $ $ • PS&E $ $ $ • Right of Way Capital $ $ $ • Right of Way Support* $ $ $ • Construction Support* $ $ $ Construction Capital $ $ $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ *Right of way and construction support are for Caltrans implemented projects only PRELIMINARY ITEM ESTIMATE - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ITEMS Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount CONTINGENCY (%) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ITEMS MAINTENANCE ("The enhancement must be maintained in a functional and operational manner as its intended purpose for the expected life cycle for the type of project. If it is not maintained in such a manner, reimbursement of all or a portion of the enhancement funds may be required). Who will maintain? What is the source of maintenance funds? If project is within Caltrans right of way, must be signed by Deputy District Director, Maintenance DDD Maintenance: Date: TE Application May 2009 Page 4 PART THREE: INFORMATION AND ASSURANCES Please note the application must be signed by the TE project sponsor below for the project to be considered for funding. The information below is provided to notify all project sponsors of the criteria that shall be used in the selection of eligible TE projects. For TE projects proposed for funding from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Assembly Bill X3-20 added Sections 2420-2423 to the Streets and Highways Code which requires that transportation projects proposed for transportation enhancement activities using federal funds provided specifically by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 be programmed and allocated based on the following priorities: (1) In programming and allocating these funds, the department and the metropolitan planning organizations, county transportation commissions, and regional transportation agencies shall give priority to the sponsors of eligible projects that partner with, or commit to employ the services of, a Community Conservation Corps or the California Conservation Corps to construct or undertake the project, provided those projects meet the requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (2) After all eligible projects have been selected pursuant to paragraph (1), the department and the metropolitan planning organizations, county transportation commissions, and regional transportation agencies shall next give priority to projects that provide facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, provided those projects meet the requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (3) After all eligible projects have been selected pursuant to paragraph (2), the department and the metropolitan planning organizations, county transportation commissions, and regional transportation agencies may fund any project eligible in accordance with paragraph (35) of subdivision (a) of Section 101 of Title 23 of the United States Code. For projects proposed for funding with all federal TE funds Senate Bill 286 (Chapter 373, Statutes of 2008) added Sections 2370-2374 to the Streets and Highways Code which requires the selection of all TE projects to be based on projects which partner with, or commit to employ the services of a Community Conservation Corps or the California Conservation Corps. The department, in consultation with Community Conservation Corps, the California Conservation Corps, the commission, regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions or authorities, and congestion management agencies, developed the following criteria that give priority in the selection of TE projects. The information below is provided to project sponsors to assist them in understanding how projects will be selected. Regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions or authorities, and congestion management agencies, when selecting candidates for transportation enhancement projects, shall utilize the selection criteria below. TE Application May 2009 The RTPAs are required to use the following criteria in prioritizing and selecting TE projects for programming in the Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIP): (1) TE eligible projects whose sponsor is partnering with, or has agreed to employ the services of a Community Conservation Corps or the California Conservation Corps (collectively referred to as corps), shall be selected first for funding (the scope of the work performed by the corps will be identified in page 6 of the TE application); (2) After all TE eligible projects described in paragraph (1) have been selected for funding; the remaining eligible TE projects may be selected. TE Project candidates that meet the following specific categories are exempt from the above selection criteria and may compete on an equal basis with all project candidates in category (1) above: (a) Projects that have been selected and programmed in a RTIP prior to June 25, 2009. (b) Projects for which no corps will partner with the sponsor or agree to provide services. A project sponsor can request this exemption only by certifying on the TE Application, with the concurrence of the California Conservation Corps and the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, which the sponsor notified both organizations about the available project, but that no corps in the state was prepared to serve as a partner or provide services. Page 5 The department, regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions or authorities, or congestion management agencies shall be authorized to enter into cooperative agreements, grant agreements, or procurement contracts with Community Conservation Corps pursuant to the simplified contract requirements authorized by Section 18.36(j) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order to enable community conservation corps to utilize transportation enhancement project funds. Section 2370(a) of the Streets and Highways Code is specific as to which organizations can be considered as a Community Conservation Corps or the California Conservation Corps. "Community Conservation Corps" shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 14507.5 of the Public Resources Code. Information regarding these organizations is available on the internet at: http://www. consrv. ca. gov/dor/grants/Pages/lccc.asox http://www.ccc. ca. gov/PARTNER/PARTNERS.HTM www.calcc.org For the RTPA: Conservation Corps Partner Contact use only: ❑ A corps can participate on the following items of work: Name of corps: and the contact for the corps is: (Name) (Phone number) ❑ This project is exempt under category (b) above. This exemption allows the project to compete on an equal basis with all other project candidates in the region. Concurred in by: California Conservation Corps contact (Print Name) (Signature) California Association of Local Conservation Corps contact (Print Name) Date (Signature) Date RTPA Conservation Corps Partner Contacts For Transportation Enhancement Projects � ,, x 3'„ :, fir , AGENCY .. .. �dM CCC4.0$44. 7, and fr h � . .. , IN:f3 ame•, P ,' s_ y wPboi. fJumben z _ mat -Address:-. California Conservation Corps Chief of Field Operations Mark Rathswohl 916-341-3139 Mark_Rathswohl@ccc.ca.gov California Association of Local Conservation Corps (representing the Community Conservation Corps) Association Manager Scott Dosick 916-285-8743 manager@calcc.org Project Implementing Agency possesses legal authority to nominate this transportation enhancement and to finance, acquire, and construct the proposed project; and by formal action (e.g., a resolution) the Implementing Agency's governing body authorizes the nomination of the transportation enhancement, including all understanding and assurances contained therein, and authorizes the person identified as the official representative of the Implementing Agency to act in connection with the nomination and to provide such additional information as may be required. Project Implementing Agency will maintain and operate the property acquired, developed, rehabilitated, or restored for the life of the resultant facility (ies) or activity. With the approval of the California Department of Transportation, the Implementing Agency or its successors in interest in the property may transfer the responsibility to maintain and operate the property. Project Implementing Agency will give the Califomia Department of Transportation's representative access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the transportation enhancement activity. Project Implementing Agency will comply where applicable with provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, CTC Guidelines, FHWA Transportation Enhancement Guidance and any other federal, state, and/or local laws, rules and/or regulations. TE Application May 2009 Page 6 If TE funds or projects are used for other than the intended enhancement purposes as defined by federal or state regulations or guidelines, the implementing agency may be required to remit all state and federal enhancement funds back to the state. I certify that the information contained in this transportation enhancement activity application, including required attachments, is accurate and that T have read and understand the important information and agree to the assurances on this form. Signed Date (TEA Administering Agency Representative) Printed (Name and Title) Administering Agency For State Projects: Upon receiving an eligibility determination, a Project Nomination Sheet must be submitted to the District for programming. TE Application May 2009 Page 7 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .REQUEST FOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION LOCAL AGENCY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FINDING APPROVAL OF COST EFFECTIVENESS/PUBLIC INTEREST DETERMININATION REQUIRED PLEL.IC INTEREST DETERMININATION REQUIRED COST EFFECTIVENESS Experimental Contracting methods (23 CFR 635204) ❑ Informal Bid (Less than three week advertisem ent) (23 CFR 635204) ❑ Use of force account (day tabor) (23 CFR 635204) ❑ Use of publicly owned equipment (23 CFR 635:06) © Other. Use of Youth Conservation Corps ❑ Use of State-fumished materials ❑ htarrdatoryuse ofbonooiddispo 0 Use of patented and proprietary ❑ Waiver to B uyAmerica Requirements (23 CFR 635.407) sal sites (23CFR 635.407) materials (23 CFR 635.4tt) (23 CFR 635.4U) ■ other FEDERAL -AID PROJECT NO CLASS OF FEDERAL FUNDS ❑ IM © NH ❑ STP ® OTHER: TE STEWARDSHIP: ❑ DELEGATED ❑ HIGH PROFILE EA DIST-CO-RTE-PM ESTIMATED COST FEDERAL FUNDS GENERAL LOCATION GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK: REASONS THAT THE REQUESTED APPROVAL IS CONSIDERED TO BE COST EFFECTIVE OR IN THE PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST (LOCAL AGENCY): SUBMITTED BY LOCAL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE LOCAL AGENCY REP. NAME AND TITLE: DATE: REVIEWED BY CT LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPRESENTATIVE LOCAL ASSISTANCE REP. NAME AND TITLE: DATE: REMARKS (FHWA): [APPROVED BY FHWA'S REP. (HIGH PROFILE PROJECTS) REPRESENTATIVE NAME AND TITLE: DATE: NOTE: FHWA'S SIGNATURE REQUIRED FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED TE PROJECTS UTILIZING THE SERVICES OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS OR COMMUNITY CONSERVATION CORPS. AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 20, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: California Transportation Commission — State Local Partnership STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the TAC receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State and Local Partnership Program funding is made available from the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security bond Act of 2006, commonly referred to as Proposition 1 B. The Act authorized $1 billion for the SLPP over a five year period. The SLPP consists of two sub -programs. The first program is a Formula Program for Voter - Approved Taxes and Fees. Riverside County has a countywide sales tax for transportation, Measure A, and RCTC will determine the projects for nomination of SLPP funds. RCTC will program fiscal years 2008/09 and 2090/10 SLPP funding in the amount of $21.965 million. The second sub -program is a Competitive Grant Program. This program is open to agencies that have adopted uniform developer fees. An agency may apply for funding of up to $1 million per project. $9.8 million is available for this program statewide. In order to be eligible for programming, projects must be: • Ready for construction in fiscal year 2009/10 • Have a dollar for dollar match (sales tax must match SLPP funding amount for construction phase) • Fully funded Projects must be submitted to the CTC by August 15, 2009. Attached is the SLPP guidelines and funding levels. RCTC will be proposing projects for SLPP funding and forwarding the recommendations to the August 12, 2009 RCTC meeting. Attachment 1 CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION State -Local Partnership Program 2009-10 Guidelines July 2009 General Program Policy 1. Authority and purpose of guidelines. The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, authorized $1 billion to be deposited in the State -Local Partnership Program (SLPP) Account to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for allocation by the California Transportation Commission over a five-year period to eligible transportation projects nominated by an applicant transportation agency. The Bond Act required a dollar for dollar match of local funds for an applicant agency to receive state funds under the program. In 2008, the Legislature enacted implementing legislation (AB 268) to add Article 11 (commencing with Section 8879.66) to Chapter 12.491 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Article 11 defines the purpose and intent of the program, defines the eligibility of applicants, projects, and matching funds, and provides that 95% of program funds will be distributed by formula to match voter -approved transportation taxes and fees and that the remaining 5% will be available for a competitive grant application program to match uniform developer fees. Section 8879.74 requires the Commission to adopt an annual program of projects for the program and to develop and adopt guidelines to implement the program, consistent with Article 11. Project allocations are to be made beginnink no later than October of each year. Earlier legislation to implement the Bond Act (SB 88, Chapter 181, Statutes of 2007) designated the Commission as the administrative agency for the SLPP and mandated that various administrative and reporting requirements be incorporated in the guidelines for all programs established by Proposition 1B. 2. Program of Projects. The Commission will adopt an annual program of projects for the SLPP, by October of each fiscal year. The program will consist of projects nominated by eligible applicants for the formula program and projects selected by the Commission under the competitive grant program to match uniform developer fees. SLPP project funding will match eligible local funding for project construction or equipment acquisition, consistent with Section 8879.70. The Commission will not program or allocate SLPP funding to match local funding for preconstruction work. The program of projects for each fiscal year will include, for each project, the amount to be funded from the SLPP, the source of the dollar -for -dollar match of SLPP funding, and the estimated total cost of project construction or equipment acquisition, including any additional supplementary funding. The source of the dollar -for -dollar match will include only revenues from the transportation tax or fee that qualifies the applicant for SLPP funding and only funds to be expended after the Commission allocation of SLPP funds. 2009-10 State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 2 The Commission will program and allocate funding to projects in whole thousands of dollars and will include a project only if it is fully funded from a combination of SLPP and other committed funding. The Commission will regard funds as committed when they are programmed by the Commission or when the agency with discretionary authority over the funds has made its commitment to the project by ordinance or resolution. For federal formula funds, including RSTP, CMAQ, and federal formula transit funds, the commitment may be by federal TIP adoption. For federal discretionary funds, the commitment may be by federal approval of a full funding grant agreement or by grant approval. The Commission's annual SLPP program of projects will also include multiyear programs of projects for SLPP funding that eligible applicants may elect to adopt and submit to the Commission. The Commission will include these multiyear programs for informational purposes, acknowledging the future plans and intent of the eligible applicants. The inclusion of an applicant multiyear program, however, will not constitute a programming commitment by the Commission for future year funding. Formula Program for Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees 3. Annual Funding Shares. The Commission will adopt the annual funding share for each eligible applicant for the Voter -Approved Taxes and Fees Subaccount with the adoption of these guidelines and at the beginning of each subsequent fiscal year. These shares will be determined in accordance with Government Code Section 8879.72 and rounded to the nearest whole thousand dollars. In establishing funding shares, the Commission will use the most current data available through June 30 of each year, as follows: • For toll revenues, the sum of revenues from Regional Measures 1 and 2 for the most recent fiscal year, as reported in audited financial statements from the Bay Area Toll Authority. • For parcel and property tax revenues, the revenues for the most recent fiscal year, as reported to the State Controller pursuant to Government Code Section 53891. • For local sales tax revenues, the sum of gross revenues for the most recent four quarters as reported for each local tax by the Board of Equalization. • For population, the annual population estimate for cities and counties issued by the Department of Finance in May prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. The Commission will determine a funding share for each eligible applicant with a voter - approved tax or toll that was approved prior to the adoption of the funding shares and will be collected during the fiscal year. Where a city has a voter -approved local sales tax and is located within a county without a countywide sales tax, the Commission will adopt a funding share for the city based on the city's population. Where there are multiple eligible applicants with a voter -approved local sales tax within a county with a countywide sales tax, the Commission will adopt a single countywide funding share based on the population for the county. 2009-10 State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 3 The Commission will set aside up to 2 percent of the total amount appropriated each year for the program as a reserve for bond administrative expenses. In the absence of an enacted state budget, the Commission may establish the funding shares based on its best estimate of the amount that the Legislature will appropriate to the SLPP Account, subject to adjustment based on the final appropriation in the Budget Act. 4. Project nominations. The Commission will include in the annual program of projects each project nominated by an eligible applicant for a formula funding share provided that the Commission finds that the nomination meets the requirements of statute and that the project has a commitment of the required match and any supplementary funding needed for full funding. Each applicant should submit its nomination by August 15. The Commission's program of projects shall not include a project nomination that exceeds the applicant's formula funding share. A nomination shall include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the applicant's governing board. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the applicant, the nomination shall also include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the implementing agency. Applicants for funding from a formula share should submit three hard copies of each nomination. The nominations should be addressed or delivered to: Bimla G. Rhinehart, Executive Director California Transportation Commission Mail Station 52, Room 2231 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 A project nomination may be for supplemental funding of a project that was allocated SLPP funding in a prior year, provided that the supplemental SLPP funding and the match for that supplemental funding will not be expended until after the allocation of the supplemental funding. The supplemental SLPP funding may be to replace local funding already committed to the project, subject to the required one-to-one match. For each nominated project, the applicant should submit project information using the Project Programming Request form in use for STIP projects. The nomination should identify the implementing agency, which may be different from the applicant agency. As specified in statute, the nomination shall include: • A description of the nominated project, including its cost and scope and the specific improvements and benefits it is anticipated to serve. The description should identify the project's useful life. • A description of the project's current status, including the current phase of delivery, and the schedule for the completion of construction or acquisition. • A description of how the project would support transportation and land use planning goals within the region. • The amount and source of matching funds. 2009-10 State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 4 • The amount of SLPP funds requested. An eligible applicant may adopt and submit a multiyear program for SLPP funding, either in addition to or in lieu of project nominations for the program year. As described in section 2, the Commission's acknowledgement of an applicant's multiyear program will not constitute a Commission programming commitment of future year SLPP funding. 5. Balance of funding share. If the program of projects adopted by the Commission does not program the full amount of an applicant's formula funding share, the balance will remain available for later program amendments supported by eligible project nominations. A balance not programmed in one fiscal year will carry over and be available in the following fiscal year. Competitive Grant Program to Match Uniform Developer Fees 6. Project selection. The Commission will select projects from among eligible project nominations for the competitive grant program from the Uniform Developer Fees Subaccount pursuant to Government Code Section 8879.73. No single competitive grant for the SLPP may exceed $1 million. The Commission will consider approval of a competitive grant only when it finds that the grant request meets the requirements of statute and that the project has a commitment of the required match and any supplementary funding needed for full funding. The selected projects will be included in the Commission's annual program of projects for the SLPP. The Commission will consider only projects for which five hard copies of a complete nomination are received in the Commission office by August 15. A nomination shall include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the applicant's governing board. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the applicant, the nomination shall also include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the implementing agency. The nominations should be addressed or delivered to: Bimla G. Rhinehart, Executive Director California Transportation Commission Mail Station 52, Room 2231 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 7. Project applications. For each project nominated for the competitive grant program, the applicant should submit project information using the Project Programming Request form in use for STIP projects. The nomination should identify the implementing agency, which may be different from the applicant agency. As specified in statute, the nomination shall include: • A description of the nominated project, including its cost and scope and the specific improvements and benefits it is anticipated to serve. The description should identify the project's useful life. • A description of the project's current status, including the current phase of delivery, and the schedule for the completion of construction or acquisition. 2009-10 State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 5 • A description of how the project would support transportation and land use planning goals within the region. • The amount and source of matching funds. • The amount of SLPP funds requested. In addition, the grant request should include a copy of the ordinance or resolution adopted by a city, county or city and county that establishes the uniform developer fee to be matched by the grant. An agency may apply for supplemental funding of up to $1 million for a project that was allocated SLPP funding in a prior year or years, provided that the supplemental SLPP funding and the match for that supplemental funding will not be expended until after the allocation of the supplemental funding. The supplemental SLPP funding may be to replace local funding already committed to the project, subject to the required one-to-one match. Prior year funding of a project under the SLPP discretionary grant program is not a selection criterion for funding in a subsequent year. The Commission will evaluate applications competitively in each year. 8. Project selection criteria. In approving grants for inclusion in the program of projects, the Commission will give consideration to geographic balance and to demonstrated project cost-effectiveness. The Commission will give higher priority to projects that are more cost-effective, that can commence construction or implementation earlier, that leverage more uniform developer fees and other funds per program dollar, and that can demonstrate quantifiable air quality improvements, including a significant reduction in vehicle -miles traveled. In addition, the Commission intends to give higher priority to projects nominated by agencies that are located in areas without formula funding shares. 9. Balance of grant program funds. If the program of projects adopted by the Commission does not program the full amount of the share for the competitive grant program, the balance will remain available for later program amendments supported by eligible project grant requests. A balance not programmed in one fiscal year will carry over and be available for the competitive grant program in the following fiscal year. Project Allocations and Delivery 10. Amendments to program of projects. The Commission may approve an amendment of the SLPP program of projects at any time. An amendment need only appear on the agenda published 10 days in advance of the Commission meeting. It does not require the 30-day notice that applies to a STIP amendment. 11. Allocations from the SLPP Account. The Commission will consider the allocation of funds from the SLPP Account for a project when it receives an allocation request and recommendation from the Department of Transportation, in the same manner as for the STIP (see section 64 of the STIP guidelines). The recommendation will include a determination of the availability of appropriated funding from the SLPP Account and the 2009-10 State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 6 availability of all identified and committed matching and supplementary funding. The Commission will approve the allocation if the funds are available, the allocation is necessary to implement the project as included in the adopted SLPP program, and the project has the required environmental clearance. 12. Timely Use of Funds. Under statute, projects receiving an SLPP allocation shall encumber the funds no later than two years after the end of the fiscal year in which the Commission makes the allocation. Commission policy, however, is that SLPP allocations are requested in the fiscal year of project programming, and are valid for award for six months from the date of approval unless the Commission approves an extension. Applicants may submit and the Commission will evaluate extension requests in the same manner as for STIP projects (see section 66 of the STIP guidelines). 13. Semiannual delivery reports: As a condition of the project allocation, the Commission will require the implementing agency to submit semiannual reports on the activities and progress made toward implementation of the project. As mandated by Government Code Section 8879.50, the Commission shall forward these reports to the Department of Finance. The purpose of the reports is to ensure that the project is being executed in a timely fashion and is within the scope and budget identified when the decision was made to fund the project. If it is anticipated that project costs will exceed the approved project budget, the implementing agency shall provide a plan to the Commission for achieving the benefits of the project by either downscoping the project to remain within budget or by identifying an alternative funding source to meet the cost increase. The Commission may either approve the corrective plan or direct the implementing agency to modify its plan. 14. Final delivery report. Within six months of the project becoming operable, the implementing agency shall provide a final delivery report to the Commission on the scope of the completed project, its final costs as compared to the approved project budget, its duration as compared to the project schedule in the project agreement, and performance outcomes derived from the project as compared to those described in the project agreement. The Commission shall forward this report to the Department of Finance as required by Government Code Section 8879.50. For the purpose of this section, a project becomes operable when the construction contract is accepted or acquired equipment is received. 15. Audit of project expenditures and outcomes. The Department of Transportation will ensure that project expenditures and outcomes are audited. For each SLPP project, the Commission expects the Department to provide a semi-final audit report within 6 months after the final delivery report and a final audit report within 12 months after the final delivery report. The Commission may also require interim audits at any time during the performance of the project. 2009-10 State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines Page 7 Audits will be performed in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards promulgated by the United States Government Accountability Office. Audits will provide a finding on the following: • Whether project costs incurred and reimbursed are in compliance with the executed project agreement or approved amendments thereof; state and federal laws and regulations; contract provisions; and Commission guidelines. • Whether project deliverables (outputs) and outcomes are consistent with the project scope, schedule and benefits described in the executed project agreement or approved amendments thereof. Attachment 2 STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM July 8-9,2009 TAX/TOLL REVENUES USED TO DETERMINE FUNDING SHARES FOR 2009-10 Voter -Approved Tolls, Parcel/Property Taxes Annual Revenue Bay Area Transportation Authority (BATA) 248,310,707 Alameda -Contra Costa Transit District 77,524,530 Bay Area Rapid Transit District 50,188,155 Total toll/parcel/property tax 376,023,392 N/S BOE Code Voter -Approved Transportation Sales Taxes Total Quarterly Gross Receipts (resorted 4th Q,2008 by Bd of Equalization) 3rd Q,2008 2nd Q,2008 1st Q,2009 N 002 San Mateo County Transit District 64,630,218.55 13,115,660.09 16,163,382.02 17,442,318.58 17,908,857.86 N 003 Santa Clara County Transit District 148,373,566.18 30,772,132.46 36,648,642.26 39,568,097.81 41,384,693.65 N 004 Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District 15,773,841.71 3,191,241.84 3,898,403.45 4,386,491.36 4,297,705.06 S 005 Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 642,981,547.96 137,038,837.94 159,719,526.94 171,066,181.59 175,157,001.49 N 006 Santa Clara County Traffic Authority 10,118.72 1,525.73 -1,224.10 9,323.33 493.76 N 010 Alameda County Transportation Authority (89,492.83) -63,658.06 -30,984.71 2,178.42 2,971.52 N 012 Fresno County Transportation Authority 56,296,955.60 11,841,856.52 14,382,709.09 14,777,368.25 15,295,021.74 S 013 San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission 227,747,860.57 48,738,677.38 57,186,474.53 60,537,121.24 61,285,587.42 N 018 San Mateo County Transit Authority 64,637,801.64 13,121,006.00 16,164,534.48 17,442,435.89 17,909,825.27 N 023 Sacramento Transportation Authority 95,003,863.62 19,990,171.12 23,564,952.88 25,498,953.18 25,949,786.44 N 024 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 68,578,068.32 14,572,671.71 17,596,504.86 18,060,501.74 18,348,390.01 S 026 Riverside County Transportation Commission 128,722,531.99 28,221,104.51 32,169,244.84 32,838,330.36 35,493,852.28 N 027 San Francisco County Transportation Authority 75,784,926.21 15,833,156.05 19,792,660.88 20,099,452.08 20,059,657.20 S 029 Imperial County Local Transportation Authority 11,797,027.43 2,642,383.30 3,039,261.77 2,932,863.08 3,182,519.28 S 030 Santa Barbara County Local Transportation Authority 30,520,549.84 6,351,790.05 7,479,573.99 8,416,265.49 8,272,920.31 S 031 San Bemardino County Transportation Authority 124,739,552.68 26,279,873.82 30,569,211.85 33,042,749.19 34,847,717.82 N 034 Madera County Transportation Authority 5,325.30 3,399.27 -4,441.62 -832.15 7,199.80 S 035 Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 643,092,439.92 137,056,376.10 159,746,491.49 171,130,205.78 175,159,366.55 S 037 Orange County Transportation Authority 242,633,412.01 51,758,886.61 60,753,890.11 64,707,905.80 65,412,729.49 N 038 San Joaquin Transportation Authority 42,024,371.81 8,353,317.75 10,404,729.15 11,427,574.64 11,838,750.27 N 068 Town of Truckee Road Maintenance Tax 1,727,937.94 297,642.95 425,257.39 552,713.27 452,324.33 N 079 Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority 107,729,861.32 22,404,739.33 27,398,157.23 28,591,380.99 29,335,583.77 N 084 City of Willits Road System Tax 773,713.72 178,143.17 184,983.63 200,242.48 210,344.44 N 085 City of Point Arena 45,770.03 9,229.18 10,799.82 13,151.18 12,589.85 N 094 City of Fort Bragg Maintain City Streets 821,022.02 164,106.22 192,139.98 248,989.35 215,786.47 N 102 Transportation Authority Marin County 20,604,195.95 4,161,969.28 5,347,992.28 5,540,438.30 5,553,796.09 N 115 Sonoma County Transportation Authority 17,713,617.97 3,569,095.78 4,530,452.30 4,814,051.05 4,800,018.84 N 123 Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority 149,640,481.07 30,230,866.01 38,577,017.00 39,802,561.75 41,030,036.31 N 144 Madera County Transportation Authority, 2006 7,414,624.91 1,493,649.62 1,778,013.49 2,064,747.83 2,078,213.97 N 146 Nevada City Street Improvements Tax 592,573.37 122,432.06 146,901.40 164,800.41 158,439.50 S 162 Tulare County Transportation Authority 24,218,997.13 5,136,609.52 5,875,123.13 6,371,412.01 6,835,852.47 N 174 City of El Cerrito Streets Improvements Tax (eff 7-1-08) 994,505.46 320,080.74 366,233.46 308,191.26 0.00 N 193 Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District (eff 4-1-09) 4,486.91 4,486.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total, Voter -Approved Sales Tax 3,015,546,275.03 636,913,460.96 754,076,615.27 802,058,165.54 822,498,033.26 Voter -Approved Sales Tax, North 939,092,355.50 193,688,921.73 237,537,816.62 251,015,131.00 256,850,486.15 Voter -Approved Sales Tax, South 2,076,453,919.53 443,224,539.23 516,538,798.65 551,043,034.54 565,647,547.11 Distribution Factor Percentage Total, voter -approved tolls + taxes 3,391,569,667.03 100.00000 Tolls + parcel/property tax 376,023,392.00 11.08700 North sales tax 939,092,355.50 27.68902% South sales tax 2,076,453,919.53 61.22398% California Transportation Commission updated 6/22/09 STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FUNDING SHARES, 2009-10 (Funding Shares in $1,000's) July 8-9, 201 Pro • ram Cate • ories Fundin. Distribution of Appropriation Total Annual Pro ram Appropriation Take -off for Bond administration (2%) Subtotal Discretiona • rant pro. ram (5%) Formula share pro. ram (95%) Tolls + parcel/propert tax North sales tax South sales tax 100.00000% 11.08700% 27.68902% 61.22398% Amount 200,000 4,000 196,000 9,800 186,200 20,644 51,557 113,999 08-09 Tot. Share Balance Available 186 9,986 Funding Shares Based on Voter -Approved Tolls & Parcel/Property Taxes Applicant Agency Revenue Factor Bay Area Transportation Authority Alameda -Contra Costa Transit District Bay Area Rapid Transit District Total 248, 310, 707 77,524,530 50,188,155 376, 023, 392 Funding Share Funding Shares Based on Voter -Approved Sales Taxes - North County/City Alameda Contra Costa Fresno Madera Marin Mendocino - Fort Bragg Mendocino - Point Arena Mendocino - Willits Nevada - Nevada City Nevada - Truckee Sacramento San Francisco San Joaquin San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Cruz Sonoma Total County Imperial Population Factor 1,556, 657 1,060,435 942,298 152,331 258,618 6,868 492 5,080 3,043 16,241 1,433,187 845,559 689,480 745,858 1,857,621 268,637 486,630 10,329,035 13,632 4,256 2,755 20,644 Funding Share Funding Shares Based on Voter -Approved Sales Taxes - South Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino San Diego Santa Barbara Tulare Total California Transportation Commission Population Factor 179,254 10, 393,185 3,139, 017 2,107,653 2,060,950 3,173,407 431,312 441,481 21, 926, 259 7,770 5,293 4,703 760 1,291 34 2 25 15 81 7,154 4,221 3,442 3,723 9,272 1,341 2,429 51,557 Funding Share 932 54,036 16,320 10,958 10,715 16,499 2,242 2,295 113,999 08-09 Balance 0 3959 0 08-09 Balance 0 0 4715 0 261 35 2 25 16 0 7214 4176 3472 3745 1303 1350 1253 08-09 Balance 929 14625 4287 11007 10836 16583 2259 0 Tot. Share Available 13,632 8,215 2,755 24,602 Tot. Share Available 7,770 5,293 9,418 760 1,552 69 4 50 31 81 14,368 8,397 6,914 7,468 10,575 2,691 3,682 79,123 Tot. Share Available 1,861 68,661 20,607 21,965 21,551 33,082 4,501 2,295 174,523 updated 6/22/09 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 20, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Grace Alvarez, Staff Analyst Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2008 RTIP Since approval of the 2008 RTIP (short-range transportation program) in November 2008, SCAG has processed nineteen amendments. The attached table reflects the status of the 2008 RTIP Amendments. Also included is a listing of projects submitted to SCAG for inclusion in the 2008 RTIP Amendment No's 1-19. Amendment No. 20 (formal amendment) will be due to SCAG on August 7, 2009. 2008 RTP SCAG has initiated Amendment 2 to the 2008 RTP (long-range transportation plan). Refer to the attached table for a list of amendment requests that RCTC has received from the local agencies for inclusion in Amendment 2. Amendment 2 is due to SCAG on July 31, 2009. SCAG expects the amendment process to be complete in approximately six to eight months. 2010 RTIP UPDATE The 2010 RTIP process will start in early fall 2009. In the next couple of months, RCTC will notify the local agencies of the requirements and timelines for the 2010 RTIP. The RTIP Update allows for the addition/deletion of projects and/or significant changes to existing projects that are not normally allowed through an RTIP amendment or administrative modification. 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program — Amendment Submittals & Approval Dates 2008 RTIP Document Purpose Due to RCTC Due to SCAG Approved by SCAG Approved by CT/FHWA Final 7/14/2008 1 1 /17/2008 Amendment 1 Consistency with 2008 RTP Amendment 1 — 50 projects submitted 7/18/2008 7/30/2008 12/8/2008 1 /14/2009 Amendment 2 Formal Amendment — 90 projects submitted 9/23/2008 10/22/2008 12/30/2008 2/2/2009 Amendment 3 -- Did not include Riverside County projects -- Amendment 4 Administrative Modification — 2 projects submitted 12/8/2008 1 /12/2009 1 /28/2009 1 /29/2009 Amendment 5 -- Economic Stimulus Revenue Amendment — Did not include projects -- Amendment 6 Formal Amendment — 15 projects submitted 01 /26/2009 02/02/2009 02/24/2009 03/25/2009 Amendment 7 -- Did not include Riverside County projects -- Amendment 8 -- Did not include Riverside County projects -- Amendment 9 Formal Amendment — 43 projects submitted 02/23/2009 03/04/2009 04/03/2009 04/23/2009 Amendment 10 Administrative Modification — 7 ARRA projects submitted 03/1 1 /2009 03/13/2009 03/18/2009 03/18/2009 Amendment 11 -- Did not include Riverside County projects -- Amendment 12 Formal Amendment — 14 ARRA transit 03/1 1 /2009 03/20/2009 04/20/2009 04/30/2009 2008 RTIP Document Purpose Due to RCTC Due to SCAG Approved by SCAG Approved by CT/FHWA projects Amendment 13 Administrative Modification - 1 project 04/01 /2009 04/03/2009 04/08/2009 04/08/2009 Amendment 14 Administrative Modification - 6 ARRA projects 04/14/2009 04/15/2009 04/22/2009 4/22/2009 Amendment 15 Formal Amendment - ARRA adjustments -- Did not include Riverside County projects -- Amendment 16 Formal Amendment - 53 projects 04/28/2009 05/1 1 /2009 06/15/2009 6/30/2009 Amendment 17 Administrative Modification - 13 projects 04/28/2009 05/22/2009 06/04/2009 06/08/2009 Amendment 18 Formal Amendment -- Did not include Riverside County Projects -- Amendment 19 Administrative Modification - 16 projects 06/30/2009 07/10/2009 Amendment 20 Formal Amendment - 07/13/2009 08/07/2009 Agency Banning Calimesa Cathedral City Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Palm Desert Calimesa Calimesa Beaumont Caltrans Riverside County Riverside County Caltrans Palm Desert Coachella RCTC Murrieta Lake Elsinore Lake Elsinore 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO. 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Project ID RIV060124 RIV060102 RIV011212 RIV041044 RIV041045 RIV071240 RIV080905 RIV080906 RIV080907 RIV080908 RIV080909 RIV080910 RIV080911 RIV080912 RIV080913 RIV080914 RIV080915 RIV080916 RIV080917 RIV080918 RIV071248 RIV060117 RIV060116 RIV060115 RIV010210 45580 45590 45600 RIV031209 RIV030901 RIV071267 RIV080901 RIV010206 RIV060109 Title Riverside County Trumpetslion Commission Approval Date: 1/14/09 Sunset Ave Grade Separation County Line Widening Ramon Rd. Widening (Date Palm Dr. to Da Vali) Perris Blvd. Widening (PVSD Lat. B to Cactus) Perris Blvd. Widening (Ironwood to Manzanita) EB Cactus Ave. Widening (Veterans Way to Heacock) Alessandro Blvd. Widening (Old 215 to Frederick) Alessandro Blvd. Widening (500' E & W of Kitching) Alessandro Blvd.. (Nason to Gilman Springs Rd.) Gilman Springs Widening (SR60 to Alessandro) Gilman Springs Widening (Alessandro to Bridge) Heacock St. Widening (Cactus to San Michele Rd.) Heacock St. Widening (San Michele Rd. to Oleander) Box Springs Rd. Widening (500' W/Clark & Day St.) Ironwood Widening (Day to Barclay) Ironwood Ave. Widening (Heacock St. to Perris Blvd) Ironwood Ave. Widening (Perris Blvd. to Nason St.) Laselle St. Widening - JFK to Alessandro Blvd) Moreno Beach Dr. Widening (Cactus to Auto Mall) Redlands Blvd. Widening (SR60 to Cactus Ave) Monterey Ave. & Fred Waring Dr. Channelization Improvements 1-10/Singleton Rd. IC I-10/Cherry Valley Blvd. IC I-10/Oak Valley Parkway IC I-10/Morongo Parkway IC I-10/Gene Autry Tr/Palm Dr. IC 1-10 at Date Palm Dr. IC I-10/Bob Hope Dr. IC I-10/Portola Ave. IC I-10/McNaughton Pkwy IC 1-15 - SBD Co Line to Jct I-15/1-215 - HOT Lns I-15/Murrieta Hot Springs Rd IC I-15/Railroad Canyon Rd. IC & I-15/Franklin St. 1-15/SR74 IC Agency Corona Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Riverside County Caltrans Coachella RCTC RCTC RCTC Riverside County RCTC Riverside County Moreno Valley 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO. 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Project ID RIV010208 RIV041052 32300 RIV080902 RIV080904 RIV080903 46460 RIV060101 RIV061159 RIV071250 RIV070308 RIV070309 RIV050534 RIV071276 RIV060120 RIV050533 Title Riverside County Transportation Commission Approval Date: 1/14/09 I-15/Cajalco Rd. IC SR60/Nason St. IC + Moreno Beach Dr. IC SR60/Nason St. IC SR60/Redlands Blvd. IC SR60/Theodore St. IC SR60/Gilman Springs Rd. IC SR79 Widening (2-4) - Thompson to Domenigoni Pkwy SR86/Airport Blvd. IC SR86/Avenue 50 IC SR91/115 Improvements SR91/71 Jct - Replace EB 91 to NB 71 connector W/Flyover connector 1-215 Widening - Scott to Nuevo Rd. IC (2-3 lanes ea. Dir) I-215/Newport Rd. IC 1-215 Nuevo Rd to Box Springs Rd. - Construct 2 HOV lanes I-215/Van Buren Blvd. IC Widening (2-4 lanes) I-215/Cactus Ave. IC Widening (3-6 lanes) Agency Beaumont Cities & County Cities & County Cities & County Corona Corona Indio La Quinta Moreno Valley Palm Desert Palm Desert Riverside County Riverside County Riverside County Riverside County Riverside County Riverside County RCTC RCTC Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Temecula Palm Springs Palm Desert Indio Temecula Temecula Murrieta RCTC Project ID RIV070301 RIV031223 RIV070710 RIV52001 RIV010209 RIV011241 RIV071238 RIV071268 RIV011210 RIV071255 RIV071262 RIV031226 RIV060123 RIV071259 RIV071278 RIV071285 RIV071288 RIV041047 RIV061162 RIV070703 RIV071269 RIV071271 RIV071272 RIV071280 RIV071281 RIV071282 RIV990703 RIV080601 RIV031216 RIV62036 RIV031208 47520 RIV62031 RIV031215 RIV010204 46360 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO. 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission Title Oak Valley Park @ Noble Creek - Bridge Replacement STPL Lump Sum Listing for Riverside County HSIP - Riverside County Lump Sum Projects STPL Lump Sum Listing for Riverside County Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Auto Center Dr. Grade Separation Ave. 48 Traffic Signal Interconnect & Traffic Signal Installation Hwy 111 Signal Interconnect Reche Vista Dr. Realignment Mid Valley Bike Path Hwy 111 Improvements (Northern CL to Larkspur Ln) De Frain Blvd. Reconstruction & Channelization Improvements Clay St. Grade Separation Mecca Community Roundabout Magnolia Ave. Grade Separation Ave. 56 Grade Separation Ave. 66 Grade Separation STIP-TE Riverside County Lump Sum Projects UCR Intellishare System Iowa Ave. Grade Separation Third Street Grade Separation Streeter Ave. Grade Separation Riverside Ave. Grade Separation Mary Street Grade Separation Magnolia Ave. Grade Separation Columbia Ave. Grade Separation Jurupa Ave. Grade Separation Estudillo Mansion Heritage Park Rancho California Rd. Pavement Rehab 1-10/Indian Cyn Dr. IC I-10/Monterey Ave. IC I-10/Jefferson St. IC I-15/SR 79 So. IC French Valley Pkwy IC/Arterial Phases I-15/California Oaks Rd/Kalmia St. IC SR60 from Rt. 215 to Redlands Blvd - Add 2 HOV Lns _. Riverside County Transportation Commission Approval Date: 2/2/09 Agency Moreno Valley Beaumont RCTC Riverside County Caltrans RCTC Murrieta Murrieta RCTC RCTC Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans RCTC RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA Project ID RIV071242 RIV050535 RIV62024 RIV071279 RIV050102 RIV010212 RIV071277 RIV010203 RIV050501 RIV050555 RIVLS01 RIVLS08 RIVLS10 RIVLS02 RIVLS06 R1V520109 RIV031207 RIV041029 RIV050553 RIV061124 RIV071201 RIV071202 RIV071206 RIV071211 RIV071219 RIV071233 RIV071284 RIV071286 RIV071287 RIV080602 RIV080603 RIV080604 RIV080927 RIV080928 RIV080929 RIV990902 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO. 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Transportation Commission Title Approval Date: 2/2/09 Indian St. X-ing Reconstruction SR60/1-10 - Potrero Blvd. IC SR79 Realignment (Domenigoni Pkwy to Gilman Springs Rd) SR86/SR195 (66th Ave) - New IC Green River Rd. Landscape Enhancements SR91 - Adams to 60/215 IC - Add HOV Lns 1-215 @ Los Alamos Rd. IC - Landscape Improvements I-215/Clinton Keith Rd. IC 1-215 @ SR74/G St. IC 1-215 & SR60 - Jct Reconstruction to provide 2 HOV Direct connector Lns. SHOPP - Collision Reduction Projects Lump Sum Minor Projects Lump Sum SHOPP - Mobility Projects Lump Sum SHOPP - Roadway Preservation Projects Lump Sum SHOPP - Bridge Preservation Projects Lump Sum San Jacinto Branch Line for Rail Passenger Service Corona Transit Center @ 31 E. Grand Blvd. Riverside Transit Center - Downtown Metrolink Station Temecula Transit Center @ 27199 Jefferson Ave. Operating Assistance - FY 07/08 Operating Assistance - FY 08/09 Capitalized Preventative Maintenance - FY 2008/2009 Replacement Support Vehicles Capitalized Cost of Tire Lease - FY 2008/2009 Debt Financing - FY 2008/2009 Purchase one replacement full size bus for the City of Calexico Operating Assistance - FY 2005/2007 (Carry over into the 2008 RTIP) Operating Assistance for the Hemet Opportunity Project Express Capitalized cost of Mobility Management for the Hemet Opportunity Project Express Purchase 8 Type VII, 26 passenger mid -size vehicles for Routes 212 & 214 Purchase 6 40-ft. CNG replacement buses for the Express/BRT Service Purchase 10 - 40 ft. CNG Expansion buses to implement Express and/or BRT Svc Maintenance Facility Upgrades - Hemet & Riverside Upgrade and replace Oracle Servers & Implement data center server virtualization syst Purchase 9 - 40 Ft. CNG Expansion buses to implement express and/or BRT service Perris Multi -Modal Transit Facility Agency Riverside Riverside Riverside Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Project ID RIV080922 RIV080925 RIV080926 RIV061154 RIV071225 RIV071226 RIV071227 RIV071228 IRV071229 RIV071230 RIV071232 RIV071264 RIV071265 RIV071283 RIV080919 RIV080920 RIV080921 RIV080923 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.2 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Tramportafiun Commission Title Purchase replacement office & misc. equipment Purchase communication equipment for drivers and dispatchers Construct fleet bay for paratransit vehicles Operating Assistance - FY 2007/2008 Purchase 11 expansion buses Purchase 7 replacement Alt -Fuel, CNG, Non -revenue support vehicles Purchase 3 expansion Alt -Fuel, CNG, Non -revenue support vehicles Purchase 7 Expansion paratransit DAR buses Purchase transit enhancement bus stop amenities Purchase computer & office equipment Facility Improvements CNG buses for the Fred Waring Express Bus Service Low floor CNG buses for new service from Mecca to Indio Operating Assistance to provide community based flex route in Desert Hot Springs Fuel Cell bus research & demonstration project to develop Zero Emission bus Purchase 1-CNG 40 FT. bus Purchase of ITS Equipment Operating Assistance - Fixed route & DAR - FY 2008/2009 Approval Date: 2/2/09 4 uoneaedas opals .any enrol EOLOLO/al uoneiedes epeao �o �awao o;ny 13-Z660Al2:1 600Z/6Z/60 :Nea lenoiddy 014l1 al paroid uagsiwwa) uoimodsuoJl iono) wpm uolsgwwoo uogepodsueil Aunoo amsianw VON 1N3WaNBWV - d112! 800Z appanN euoloo Aouebv Agency Project ID CVAG RIV090102 Desert Hot Spring: RIV050304 Desert Hot Spring: RIV061161 Riverside Riverside Banning Banning Ca!trans RTA RTA RTA Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit RIV090101 RIV090110 RIV060112 RIV060124 RIV031225 RIV090104 RIV090105 RIV090106 RIV090103 RIV090107 RIV090108 RIV090109 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.6 Riverside County Transportation Commission Title �<��: r Riverside County Transportation Commission Approval Date: 03/25/2009 Clean Vehicle - Alternative fuel sweepers for regional street sweeping program Essential Road Improvement - Ph 1 Essential Road Improvement - Ph III Victoria Ave. Utility Undergrounding (Washington Ave. to Maude St.) Victoria Ave. Parkway Restoration (Harrison to Adams/Auto Center Dr.) I-10/Sunset Ave. UC Sunset Ave. S/O 1-10 IC - Construct new 4 Ln UC GS @ UPRR & minor widening SR71 & SR91 - Conduct wildlife movement study for mitigation commitment JARC Operating Assistance - Commuter Link - Routes 212 & 214 JARC & NF Projects Lump sum for Non -Profit Organizations JARC - Extended late night service program (FY 2008/2009) JARC Operating Assistance - Extended night/guaranteed service program (FY 2008/2009) JARC & NF Projects Lump sum for Non -Profit Organizations NF - Operating Assistance to fund TRIP Program (FY 2008/2009) JARC - Rideshare Program (FY 2008/2009) Agency 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.9 Riverside County Transportation Commission Project ID Cathedral City RIV011212 FLH RIV090118 Moreno Valley RIV080905 Moreno Valley RIV080907 Moreno Valley RIV080908 Moreno Valley RIV080909 Moreno Valley RIV080914 Moreno Valley RIV080916 Moreno Valley RIV080918 Palm Desert RIV071248 Palm Springs RIV060110 Palm Springs RIV070306 Riverside County RIV071259 Riverside County RIV071260 Riverside Riverside Corona Corona RCTC RCTC RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RIV071269 RIV071272 RIV061103 RIV061104 RIV090111 RIV090112 RIV041014 RIV041030 RIV061112 RIV061119 RIV061123 RIV061124 RIV061125 RIV061126 Riverside County Transportation Commission Title Approval Date: 04/23/2009 Ramon Rd. - Date Palm Dr. to Davall Widening (4 - 6 lanes) In Joshua Tree National Park on Park Rte 11 (Gold Pt to Sand Hill) Widening & Realig. Alessandro Blvd. Widening (Old 215 to Frederick St.) Alessandro Blvd. Widening (Nason St. to Gilman Springs Rd) Gilman Springs Rd. Widening (SR60 to Alessandro) Gilman Springs Rd. (Alessandro to Bridge) Ironwood Ave. Widening (Heacock St. to Perris Blvd) Lasselle St. Widening (JFK to Alessandro) Redlands Blvd. Widening (SR to Cactus Ave.) Monterey Ave. & Fred Waring Dr. - Channelization Improvements S. Palm Canon Dr. Widening (Murray Canyon Rd. to Bogert Tr.) San Lorenzo Rd. Shoulder Paving Mecca Community Roundabout Ave. 66 and Harrison Ave. Traffic sitnal installation Third Street Grade Separation Riverside Ave Grade Separation Capitalized Preventative Maintenance - FY 2008/2009 Purchase 5 replacement DAR gas/diesel buses Purchase 1 replacement modified van for Peppermint Ridge Purchase two expansion vehicles for Mt. Shadows Purchase route scheduling/runcutting system & software Hemet Transit Center Capital maintenance spares - 5307 FY 2006/2007 Lease cost of automatic passenger counter (5307 - FY 2006/2007) Upgrade rural area bus stops Operating Assistance - 5307 FY 2007/2008 Capitalized Preventative maintenance - 5307 FY 2007/2008 Purchase one replacement full-sized bus for the City of Calexico Agency RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA Sunline Transit Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Blythe RCTC Caltrans Caltrans 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.9 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Transportation Commission Project ID Title Approval Date: 04/23/2009 RIV061128 Purchase one replacement full-sized bus for the City of Calexico RIV061132 Capital Maintenance Spares - 5307 - FY 2004/2005 RIV061134 Purchase new coin counting machine for Riverside facility - 5307 FY 2007/2008 RIV071201 Operating Assistance - 5307 FY 2008/2009 RIV071202 Capitalized Preventative Maintenance - 5307 - FY 2008/2009 RIV080923 Operating Assistance - 5311 FY 2008/2009 RIV060109 I-15/SR74 IC Jct Improvements RIV090117 Sr60/Nason St. IC Improvements 32300 SR60/Nason St. IC Reconstruction . RIV041052 SR60/Nason St. IC + Moreno Beach Dr. IC Improvements RIV080904 SR60lTheodore St. IC Imrpovements RIV031222 U.S. 95/Intake Blvd. Widening (Hobson Way to 14th St.) RIV050555 1-215 & SR 60 Reconstruction of Jct to provide 2 HOV direct connector lanes RIVLS08 Minor Projects Lump Sum listing RIVLS01 SHOPP - Collission Reduction Projets Lump Sum Listing Agency Riverside Co. Riverside Co. Riverside Co. Riverside Murrieta Ca!trans Sunline Transit 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.10 Riverside County Transportation Commission Project ID 45580 45600 RIV990701 RIV0084 RIV010203 RIVLS02 RIV080921 Riverside County Transportation Commission Title Approval Date: 03/18/2009 I-10/Gene Autry Tr./Palm Dr. IC I-10/Bob Hope Dr. Extension SR60Nalley Way IC SR91 @ Van Buren Blvd. IC I-215/Clinton Keith IC SHOPP - Roadway Preservation Projects Lump Sum Purchase of ITS Equipment LO£9 b'2:1ad - s;uawanadwl I(;!i!oed LO£9 b?l21t/ - sa!;!uewe do;s snq s;uawaouequa;!sue.; asegand LO£9 `;(8 1t! - aoueua;Mein! ONO ay; poddns o;;uawd!nbe eseyand LO£9 b2l21y - wa;sAs xogaJe; aseyomd 1459 b1:12:IV 8 LOSS VMV - san!uawy do;s sng LO£9 VW:IV -100Z u! paseyomd sasnq U-017;uaweoe!detd 91\10 gg Jo; 6u!oueu!d;qaQ LOE9 `dalV - 6ulpei;uoo;o;soo le;!de0 11£9 tRRJy "9 LOE9 WAD/ - aoue;s!ssy 6ugeJadp yQy 11£9 Vt:WV'8 LO£9 y2Rly - aoueua;u!en an!;e;uanaid pez!le;!deg A;!!!oed aoueua;welnl p.le,k ';s Jellay! 38 !aped aoueua;weW !aqua° ymos peu mu!la en! uo!;enou3b'8 gegeu tudos la;uo0 u!au empsod Numeinj sa!;!uawe dots snq +g spa;lays dots snq aseyomd sasnq 21y0 ONO II aciAj. weweoe!dai eseyand uonsiwwo) umwuodsuoil Nuno) eppams ':• •.11.111;=11.1111 600Z/OE/V0 :oleo leno.iddy ala!1 Z£Z 4LOAI2:1 6ZZ LLOARI ZZ 1060AI21 1Z 1060AR! LZ4060A1U 9Z I. 060AI21 9Z4060AIi1 17Z 4060Al2! EZ 1060AI21 £0£060A1?:1 ZO£060AIN 40£060A1U OZ 1.060AI21 61. 4060A121 al ;amid uo!ss!wwoO uonepodsueil IilunoO ap!sianm Z6'ON 1N3WaN3WH - d1121 800Z ;!sued au!luns ;!sued eu!luns ep!sianN ep!saan!u VD:1 VD:1 VD:1 VD:1 y121 �lg2i g1�21 euaoo euaog Aoua6y 600Z/80/P0 :a;ea ienoiddd uoissiwwo) uopindsuosl lono) apisiva uopiedas apeio •ia Jawao oiny MI. LOAN euoioa MILL aI;aaroid RouaBd uoisquwwoo uogepodsuau Itiunoo apisiania MON 1N3WaN3INV - Mill 800Z Agency RCTC Riverside Co. Riverside Co. Riverside Co. Riverside Murrieta Ca[trans 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.14 Riverside County Transportation Commission Project ID RIV041047 45580 45600 RIV990701 RIV0084 RIV010203 RIVLS06 Title STIP-TE Project Lump Sum I-10/Gene Autry Tr./Palm Dr. IC I-10/Bob Hope Dr. Extension SR60Nalley Way IC SR91 @ Van Buren Blvd. IC I-215/Clinton Keith IC SHOPP - Bridge Preservation Projects LS 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Approval Date: April 22, 2009 Agency Corona Corona Corona Corona Palm Springs Palm Springs Palm Springs Palm Springs Palm Springs RCTC Riverside Lake Elsinore Lake Elsinore Corona Beaumont Coachella Caltrans Caltrans RCTC RCTC RCTC RCTC Project ID RIV010209 RIV010227 RIV011240 RIV060108 RIV031206 RIV090401 RIV090402 RIV090405 RIV090406 RIV050301 RIV071270 RIV010206 RIV060109 RIV010208 RIV050535 RIV071246 RIVLS10 RIVLS12 RIV090113 RIV090114 RIV090115 RIV090115 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.16 Riverside County Transportation Commission Title Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension ATMS McKinley St. GS N. Main St. - Add NB dedicated Rt. Turn Lane S. Palm Canyon Dr. over Arenas Cyn So. Drainage Channel Agua Caliente Cultural Museum Roadway Imp. Road and Signage Improvement (PE) Vista Chino at Whitewater River bridge replacement Ramon Rd. widening (4 to 6 lens) from Landau Blvd. to San Luis Rey Dr. CETAP - Riverside to Orange County Corridor Mary Street GS I-15/Railroad Cyn Rd. IC & I-15/Franklin St. IC I-15/SR-74 (Central Ave) IC Jct. modification -15/Cajalco Rd. IC Construction of new 6 through lane Potrero Blvd IC Ave. 52 GS SHOPP - Mobility Projects LS SHOPP - Emergency Response Project LS Purchase one replacement bus for Desert Arc Purchase one replacement small bus for Care -A - Van Transit, Inc. Purchase computer hardware for GPS system for Angel View Crippled Children's Foundation Purchase one replacement large bus for Care Connexxus, Inc. 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Approval Date: 6/30/09 Change Requested Schedule delay Cost increase Minor cost decrease & schedule delay Schedule delay due to funding availability Project description changed to correctly reflect the planned improvements New Project New Project New Project New Project Cost decrease and schedule delay Project Deletion - Duplicate Project Cost increase Funding redistribution town phases Schedule delay Reprogramming of funding years Cost increase Cost increase New Project New project funded by FTA 5310 New project funded by FTA 5310 New project funded by FTA 5310 New project funded by FTA 5310 RCTC RIV520109 SunLine Transit Ag. 62126 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV010502 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV041037 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV041040 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV041048 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV050546 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV050547 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV050548 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV050550 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV060201 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV061148 SunLine Transit Ag, RIV061151 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV061152 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV070711 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV071225 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV071226 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV071227 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV071228 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV071230 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV071231 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV080920 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV090403 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV090404 SunLine Transit Ag, RIV090407 SunLine Transit Ag. RIV32254 SunLine Transit Ag, RIV32255 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.16 Riverside County Transportation Commission Perris Valley Line Replacement of seven CNG 40" buses Property acquisition of approx. 2.27 acres for bus parking/maintenance facility expansion Debt financing (FY 04/05) Purchase of vehicle maintenance equipment Purchase ten replacement buses Purchase sixteen replacement buses Purchase transit enhancements Purchase nine replacement DAR vans Capitalized preventative maintenance Upgrade & modernize hydrogen fuel reformer Purchase one replacement medium bus Purchase ten replacement buses Purchase transit enhancements Purchase two expansion DAR buses Purchase eleven expansion buses Purchase seven non -revenue support vehicles Purchase three expansion non -revenue support vehicles Purchase two expansion DAR buses Purchase computer & office equipment Purchase replacement maintenance tools Purchase one expansion bus CNG Fueling Station Improvements Rehabilitation of SunLine's Fleet older buses Purchase one bus for fixed route Facility improvements Purchase computer & office equipment Cost increase Project completion Project completion Project completion Project completion Project completion Project completion Project completion Project completion Project completion Project completion Project completion Project completion Project completion Project completion Cost decrease Project deletion Project deletion Description change Project deletion Project deletion Description change New project New project New project Project completion Project completion SunLine Transit Ag. RIV32257 Purchase nine replacement non -revenue vehicles Project completion 2 uopidwoo loefaid uopidwoo paroid 60/0E/9 :ajea leAcmcldv uops!wwo) uogopodsuoil Aluno) appi.ams '''' • ''''' sepLian 1pueijaied luewaoeidai z I. esepind OZPZEA12:1 .6v lisuaii aufluns 170/£00Z ZIA7ZCAN .6v pumi aununs - £0/ZOOZ AA) sepeop Jolow asegamdieseei uolss!wwo9 uollepodsumil kiunoo oppiennd 9 VON 11•13IN4NMAIV - dI121 800Z Agency Cities & Counties Corona Corona Palm Desert RCTC Riverside Riverside CALTRANS RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA SunLine Project ID RIV031223 RIV011241 RIV031203 RIV071255 RIV041047 RIV071282 RIV0084 RIVLS02 RIV090106 RIV090124 RIV090125 RIV090126 RIV090127 RIV080923 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.17 Riverside County Transportation Commission Title STPL LS - Pavement Rehab Auto Center Dr. GS Magnolia Ave. Corridor Mid Valley Bike Path Transportation Enhancement - LS Columbia Ave. GS SR91 @ Van Buren Blvd. IC SHOPP - Roadway Preservation LS JARC - Extended Service Program ADA Operating Assistance - FY 10 Capital Cost of Contracting Debt Financing - FY 10 Bus Stop Amenities - FY 10 Fixed Route & DAR Operating Assistance. 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Approval Date: Change Requested Cost/funding increase Reprogramming of funding yrs for the construction phase Reprogramming of funding yrs for all project phases Reprogramming of funding yrs for engineering Cost/funding increase to include the ARRA-State TE Reprogramming of funds STPL funding reduced to match fed. Fund availability ARRA-SH & TPC funding adjustments Project description change ARRA-FTA 5307 funding decrease ARRA-FTA 5307 funding increase ARRA-FTA 5307 funding increase ARRA-FTA 5307 funding increase Funding Decrease 6/8/2009 Agency Desert Hot Springs Moreno Valley Palm Springs Palm Springs Riverside Indio Caltrans Riverside Caltrans Caltrans RCTC RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA Project ID RIV061160 RIV011210 RIV071258 RIV090402 RIV090101 47520 45661 RIV0084 RIVLS08 RIVLS12 RIV520109 RIV050553 RIV090105 RIV090106 RIV090123 RIV090127 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.19 (Adm. Modification) Riverside County Transportation Commission Title Essential Rd. Imp. - Phase II Reche Vista Dr. Realignment Traffic Management Center Signage Improvements - PE Victoria Ave. Undergrounding of Utilities I-10/Jefferson St. IC SR91from Green River Dr. Icy to Rte. 71/91 SR91 @ Van Buren Blvd. IC Caltrans Minors Projects Lump Sum Emergency Response Projects Lump Sum San Jacinto Branch Line for Rail Passenger Temecula Transit Center JARC & NF Lump Sum for Non -Profits JARC - Extended Late Night Service Program Preventative Maintenance (FY 10) Bus stop amenities 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Approval Date: Change Requested Funding adjustment to reflect the max. OA for SAFETEA-LU. Correction to project description Schedule delay Funding adjustment to reflect the max. OA for SAFETEA-LU. Funding adjustment to reflect the max. OA for SAFETEA-LU Project Schedule - advance within 2014 model timeframe Funding adjustment to reflect the max. OA for SAFETEA-LU Cost decrease & reprogramming of funds Cost decrease Cost increase Re -programming of funds per CTC approval Annual FTA 5309(c ) appropriation & local match Cost increase Cost decrease per approved 2009/2010 SRTP Cost increase per approved 2009/2010 SRTP Addition of Illuminated stops to project description 2008 RTP Amendment 2 Draft Project List RTIP/RTP # Agency Description Reason RIV060115 Beaumont I-10/Oak Valley Pkwy IC Completion Date RIV060102 Calimesa County Line Rd Completion Date New Ca!trans Minor A 1-215 Lane Addition New project 3A07060 Cathedral City Date Palm Dr Widening Typographical Correction RIV011237 Corona Green River Rd Widening Completion Date RIV010208 Corona 1-15 Cajalco Rd IC Completion Date RIV010207 Corona 1-15 Ontario Ave IC Completion Date RIV031203 Corona Magnolia Ave Widening Completion Date RIV060107 Corona Main St Widening Completion Date New County/Murrietta 1-215 Keller Rd IC New project - Need project details RIV060121 March JPA Van Buren Blvd Widening Completion Date RIV080905 Moreno Valley Alessandro Blvd Limits/Completion Date RIV050533 Moreno Valley 1-215 Cactus Ave IC Completion Date/description RIV041045 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd Widening Completion Date 32300 Moreno Valley SR-60 Nason IC Completion Date New Moreno Valley Kitching St Widening New project - verify if necessary RIV031204 Murrieta Guava St Bridge Completion Date 3A07300 Palm Desert Cook St Widening Complete 3A07301 Palm Desert Cook St Widening Completion Date 3A07311 Palm Desert Cook St Widening Completion Date 3A07136 Palm Desert Cook St Widening Completion Date 3A01 CV032 Palm Desert Country Club Dr Delete duplicate 3A01 CV046 Palm Desert Gerald Ford Dr Complete 3A07121 Palm Desert Gerald Ford Dr Complete 3A07090 Palm Desert Monterey - Country Club to Frank Sinatr Delete duplicate 3A07229 Palm Desert Monterey - Country Club to Frank Sinatr Delete duplicate 3A07303 Palm Desert Monterey - Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore Delete duplicate 3A07307 Palm Desert Monterey - Frank Sinatra to Gerald Ford Delete duplicate 3A07308 Palm Desert Monterey - Clancy to Country Club Delete duplicate 3A07313 Palm Desert Monterey - Fred Waring to Clancy Delete duplicate RIV011203 Palm Springs Indian Canyon Dr Widening Completion Date RIV031205 Palm Springs Ramon Rd Widening Completion Date RIV011205 Perris Perris Blvd Widening Completion Date New RCTC 91Corridor Improvements Delete/Combine RIV031218 RCTC MCP split RIV010212 RCTC 91 HOV New limits New Riverside SR-91 Aux Lane La Sierra to Tyler New project 3A04WT137/138 Riverside County Cajalco Rd Widening Verify Phasing RIV011236 Riverside County Clinton Keith Rd Extension Completion Date RIV62034 Riverside County I-15/Clinton Kieth IC Reconstruction Completion Date RIV011232 Riverside County I-215/Scott Rd IC Reconstruction Completion Date RIV031202 Riverside County Ramsey St Extension New alignment/schedule - verify RIV010205 Riverside County Scott Rd Widening Phase project - Need project details AGENDA ITEM 10 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 10. FY2009/10 MOE Certification Submittal Status as of 7/16/09 Agency MOE Certification Date Received Ordinance # Notes Westem Riverside Co.: Banning X 5/29 88-1 Need updated Certification Beaumont X 5/27 02-001 Calimesa Need final Certification Canyon Lake N/A N/A N/A Corona Need final Certification Hemet X 1/9 02-001 Lake Elsinore X 4/16 02-001 Menifee N/A N/A N/A Moreno Valley Need final Certification Murrieta X 6/25 88-1 Need updated Certification Norco X 6/10 88-1 Need updated Certification Perris X 6/1 88-1 Need updated Certification Riverside Need final Certification Riverside Co. N/A N/A N/A San Jacinto X 5/7 02-001 Temecula Need final Certification Wildomar N/A N/A N/A Coachella Valley: Cathedral City X 5/29 88-1 Need updated Certification Coachella X 7/10 88-1 Need updated Certification Desert Hot Springs X 6/15 02-001 Indian Wells Need final Certification Indio X 5/4 88-1 Need updated Certification La Quinta N/A N/A N/A Palm Desert Need final Certification Palm Springs X 5/29 88-1 Need updated Certification Rancho Mirage Need final Cerfification Palo Verde Valley: Blythe X 6/15 88-1 Need updated Certification AGENDA ITEM 11 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 11. • AGENCY TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE BANNING DUANE BURK Kahono Oei Director of Public Works BEAUMONT KISHEN PRATHIVADI Dee Moorjani Assistant Director of Public Works BLYTHE JIM RODKEY Kevin Nelson Public Works Director Assistant Public Works Director CVAG ALLYN WAGGLE Mike Shoberg CALIMESA CARLOS ZAMANO Bob French City Engineer Public Works Director CAL TRANS PATRICK HALLY Bill Mosby CANYON LAKE HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer CATHEDRAL BILL BAYNE Pavel Hom CITY COACHELLA PAUL TOOR Tony Lucero Public Works Director CORONA KIP FIELD Bob Morin Acting Public Works Directo r Principal Civil Engineer DESERT HOT JONATHAN HOY SPRINGS Public Works Director /City Engineer TECHNICAL AD'ARY COMMITTEE JulyY,2009 PRINT NAME Kc.J,,otJo o.-'L.-t· tL\~~N 1--flJ&«l~ J1#1 Rod/<'t.~ --·-fi.k.u s kJ,,z,y-l Car(oJ Zama110 f1+rt.1c.~ VJAZl . ./Y '\? J Ll, \31~ ~ H\'!!. M /f(Zll c If It PP ELL • I SIGNATURE Ck-~ -.. .., A 7 "--' p . j;;, /·-_ r ,r:. -.. r /. (/~ lv1' A l --'-t!J-~, -~ P~1~'-' ,, ~~~ ~ ~V<tj/'d 7/1/2009 • AGENCY I TAC MEMBER I ALTERNATE HEMET MIKE GOW Victor Monz Principal Engineer INDIAN WELLS TIM WASSIL Bondie Baker Public Works Director/City Assistant Engineer II Engineer INDIO JIM SMITH Tom Rafferty Director of Public Works Principal Civil Engineer LA QUINTA TIMOTHY JONASSON Nick Nickerson Public Works Director/City Engineer LAKE KEN SEUMALO Ed Basubas ELSINORE City Engineer City Traffic Engineer MORENO CHRIS VOGT Prem Kumar VALLEY 1 Public Works Director/City Deputy Public Works Engineer Director/Assistant City Engineer MURRIETA PATRICK THOMAS Russ Napier Director of Public Works/City Capital Improvement Engineer Program Manager NORCO BILL THOMPSON Lori Askew Director of Public Works Associate Engineer PALM DESERT MARK GREENWOOD Alana Townsend Director of Public works PALM SPRINGS DAVE BARAKIAN Marcus Fuller Director of Public Works/City Engineer PVVTA ./ TECHNICAL AD'ARY COMMITTEE July 'Y,2009 PRINT NAME -------------~ c I;~ w~ 'J ey/-----~ SJtvff~ N'c.-k N ic..ke y6ol'\ D '\·t\~ \('-i•\N\•L ~+(";d:... \~)¥\~ AiA-NIT TOw/\f:5€"11J '{)tve. Ba m/(,4 n • SIGNATURE ) ~-··~ --~.-. " < :::::::::::::::'.-:;·--~-( [ __ .,, ... r·~ <• ..---.-~ -J~ L,L__-D~ \\~\J .. ~ ::-.-~ /;2_/(_ ~-(7~1~ v ~~ j)#-_Ii r 7/1/2009 AGENCY PERRIS RTA RANCHO MIRAGE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY • TAC MEMBER HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer MARK STANLEY Director of Planning BRUCE HARRY Director of Public Works TOM BOYD Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer JUAN PEREZ Director of Transportation SAN JACINTO I HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer SUNLINE EUNICE LOVI Director of Planning TEMECULA !GREG BUTLER Director of Public Works WILDOMAR I MICHAEL KASHIWAGI Director of Public Works WR COG RUTHANNE TAYLOR· BERGER Deputy Executive Director ALTERNATE TECHNICAL AD'A>RY COMMITTEE JulyY,2009 PRINT NAME /) / 5 c,n~nJ. {fl) Scott R~ason Pia~ a~d f rogram ~nager ~ f..ti (l)e,{t;r, Randy Viegas Project Manager Siobhan Foster Patty Romo Deputy Director of Transportation Alfonso Hernandez Assistant Planner Dan York City Engineer Diane Nguyen Transportation Programs Manager fl!l I LA ?J UGo. b~0c£ )-\Ar-'2--j \ cJY\I'.___ \5 uy ~~ • IGNATURE <M~· ~· J~ 7/1/2009 • w w I- I- ::!: ::!: 0 0 O') >-0 ~ c~ <C ::s ..J ., <C 0 z ::c 0 w I- • . ..J <C ::!: I w 0:: 0 w z 0 ::c a. w , ..J w I- w ::!: <C z >-0 z w (.!) <C ~ 0 'I\ ? ...... .) "' ~ ~ -~ ...... V) . )\; ~ ~ ..... -d 1J ~ "" ~ 0 .L£ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ["~ , ~ () <I' <I' ~~ (" .O'\J I~ • \ c!- l~ V\ \t) If\ \J' '9 ~ \) "()' ~ -J\ ~ ~ ~ l> ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ..J ':5 -j. ~ ~ --... \f ~ -??- __. ~ "\\ \e)-""$ ~ ..... il ~ c:r:: .JS \/) --~~ CJ ""\' -.J • h. Sl ~~ -~;j ~ Y.':i ~ ~ CJ ' 'J ~ ~ -4.._ • ~ 0 ':::t:: ,.. r-<il... t1 k-0?-: <r 4 __. ~ <2 ~ ~ LJ ~ ~ J uJ ~ \:::)_ i I O> 0 0 ~ ..... --1"-