Loading...
01 January 14, 2015 Commission,....----------------------------------------- • • • TIME/DATE: LOCATION: Rivenide County Transportation Commission MEETING AGENDA 9:30 a.m. /Wednesday, January 14, 2015 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside &a COMMISSIONERS ._,. Chair -Daryl Busch Vice Chair -Scott Matas Second Vice Chair -John F. Tavaglione Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside To Be Appointed, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Deborah Franklin I Art Welch, City of Banning Brenda Knight I Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck I Tim Wade, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic I Jim Hyatt, City of Calimesa Dawn Haggerty/ Jordan Ehrenkranz, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis/ To Be Appointed, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez I To Be Appointed, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel/ Eugene Montanez, City of Corona Scott Matas/ Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush I Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Linda Krupa I Robert Youssef, City of Hemet To Be Appointed/ Ted Mertens, City of Indian Wells Troy Strange/ Glenn Miller, City of Indio Frank Johnston/ To Be Appointed, City of Jurupa Valley To Be Appointed I To Be Appointed, City of La Quinta Bob Magee/ Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Scott Mann I Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Jesse Molina/ George E. Price, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs I Jonathan Ingram, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna/ Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Jan Harnik I Susan Marie Weber, City of Palm Desert Ginny Foat/ Paul Lewin, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch I To Be Appointed, City of Perris Ted Weill I To Be Appointed, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams/ Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk I Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto To Be Appointed I Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Ben Benoit I Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Basem Muallem, Governor's Appointee RECORDS Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. COMM-COMM-00043 Tara Byerly From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Tara Byerly Monday, January 12, 2015 9:34 AM Tara Byerly Jennifer Harmon RCTC: January Commission 01.14.2015 -Additional Information for Agenda Item 11 11.A4. Coachella and Imperial Region.calenviroscreen2.0results.pdf High Good morning Commissioners, Attached please find additional information for Agenda Item 11. Please print this one page attachment and attach it to the end of Agenda item 11. Also, there will be copies at the Dias. Thank you. Respectfully, Tara Byerly RCTC Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: 11.A4. Coachella and Imperial Region.calenviroscreen2.0results.pdf Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Riverside County Transportation Commission Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager January 6, 2015 Possible Conflicts of Interest -Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda of January 14, 2015 The January 14, 2015 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items that may raise possible conflicts of interest. A Commissioner may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 14A -Closed Session -Conference with Legal Counsel: Existing Litigation Property Owner(s): Imperial Stations, Inc.; and Berri Foods, Inc., aka Subway. Property Owner(s) Charlie R. Webb and Rosina G. Webb Property Owner(s): Owner/Principal(s): Corona Dynasty Suites, Inc. Pete Patel, aka Prakash Patel dba Hotel Paseo by DiVita; Pete Patel, aka Prakash Shula Patel; Hema P. Patel; Dharmesh Pruful/ Patel, dba Simple Guest Solutions; and Prakash Shula Patel, dba DiVita Hotel Management. E&S Towing Enterprises, Inc. DBA Steve's Towing 5527 28th Street Riverside, CA 92509 Elisha Shashoua, President Miguel Levya, Vice President Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: To: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 4:09 PM Tara Byerly Cc: Jennifer Harmon Subject: RCTC: January Commission Agenda -01.14.2015 Importance: High Good afternoon Commissioners: The January Commission Agenda for the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 14, 2015 @ 9:30 a.m. is available. Please copy the link: http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/januarv-14-2015.original.pdf In addition, for your review is the attached conflict of interest memo and the form related to the Closed Session. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. ~ ~ Conflict of Conflict of Interest Memo.pdf Interest Form.pdf Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant RCTC 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: To: Thursday, January 08, 2015 6:48 AM Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC: January Commission Agenda -01.14.2015 Importance: High Good morning Commission Alternates: The January Commission agenda for the meeting being held on January 14@ 9:30 a.m. is now posted: http://www.rctc.org/ uploads/media items/ja n ua ry-14-2015 .o rigi na I. pdf Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant RCTC 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30a.m. Wednesday, January 14, 2015 BOARDROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951} 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS -Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30} minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. 5. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-DECEMBER 10, 2014 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 14, 2015 Page 2 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS -The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR -All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 2012/13 AND 2013/14 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5310 ENHANCED MOBILITY FOR SENIORS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES PROGRAM Pagel Overview This item is for the Commission to: • 1) Approve the Federal Fiscal Years 2012/13 and 2013/14 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 Riverside County project funding • recommendations by the local review committee (LRC); 2) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 15-001, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan", certifying the projects are derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan (Coordinated Plan); and Include the projects in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). 7B. 2015 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND PREVIEW Page6 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the Commission's 2015 State and Federal Legislative Platform; and 2) Receive and file a report on state and federal legislation for 2015. • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 14, 2015 Page 3 7C. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH NINYO AND MOORE TO MANAGE AND IMPLEMENT PROPERTY REMEDIATION FOR THE FORMER LISTON ALUMINUM BRICK COMPANY SITE Page17 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Approve Agreement No. 12-73-110-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 12-73-110-00, with Ninyo and Moore to continue to manage and implement the approved Department of Toxic Substances Control Remedial Action Plan for the Liston Aluminum Brick Company (Liston Brick) property in an additional amount of $750,000 plus a contingency amount of $112,500 for a total additional amount of $862,500, resulting in a total amount not to exceed $1,698,095; Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute non-funding related agreements for the completion of the remediation clearance of the project; and Approve an increase of $862,500 in FY 2014/15 budgeted expenditures for the additional remediation costs related to the Liston Brick property. 8. FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 MID-YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS Page21 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the mid-year FY 2014/15 revenue projections of $167 million for Measure A revenues, $81.5 million for Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues, and $12 million for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues; 2) Approve the budget increase adjustments to LTF transfers in of $276,400, and expenditures and transfers out of $345,500 to reflect the revised LTF projections; and 3) Approve the budget increase adjustments to TUMF revenues of $4 million to reflect the revised TUMF projections . Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 14, 2015 Page4 9. FISCAL YEAR 2015/16 REVENUE PROJECTIONS Page26 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the projections for Measure A revenues of $170 million for FY 2015/16; 2) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment of $83 million for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas for FY 2015/16; and 3) Approve the projections for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues of $12 million for FY 2015/16. 10. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM REVISIONS 11. Page42 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt the revised SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program evaluation criteria and policies. STATE CAP AND TRADE FUNDING AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES Page51 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file a report on state policies regarding State Cap and Trade (CAT) funding and Disadvantaged Communities policies. 12. ITEM(S} PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. COMMISSIONERS/ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 14. CLOSED SESSION 14A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(l) Case No(s). RIC 10013330, RIC 1309727, RIC 1309887, and RIC 1405643 • • • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 14, 2015 Page 5 15. ADJOURNMENT The Commission Workshop is scheduled to be held on Thursday-Friday, January 29-30, 2015, Hyatt Palm Springs, 285 North Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside . RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL January 14, 2015 County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District Ill County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 Absent LJ LJ % LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ 2f % LJ ;zf LJ f!f % LJ LJ LJ D q·.S-3 ~.m. ;:r D LJ d LJ LJ LJ D LJ ;zf LJ LJ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN-IN SHEET JANUARY 14, 2015 NAME AGENCY E_MAIL ADDRESS • • • AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Marion Ashley at 9:37 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Ashley led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/ Alternates Present Marion Ashley Ben Benoit John J. Benoit Daryl Busch Joseph DeConinck Wallace Edgerton Deborah Franklin Rick Gibbs Berwin Hanna Jan Harnik Steven Hernandez Kevin Jeffries Frank Johnston Brenda Knight Linda Krupa Andrew Kotyuk Bob Magee Scott Matas Ted Mertens Jesse Molina Basem Muallem Greg Pettis Karen Spiegel Troy Strange John F. Tavaglione Ted Weill Ella Zanowic Commissioners Absent Steve Adams Ginny Foat Adam Rush City of Canyon Lake City of La Quinta City of Temecula County of Riverside -District 3 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS 5. There were no requests to speak from the public. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-NOVEMBER 12, 2014 M/S/C (Gibbs/Johnston) to approve the November 12, 2014 minutes as submitted . Abstain: Knight, Mertens, and Strange Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 2 At this time, Chair Ashley welcomed and introduced the new Commissioners Brenda Knight representing the city of Beaumont; Linda Krupa representing the city of Hemet; Alternate Ted Mertens representing the city of Indian Wells; and Troy Strange representing the city of Indio. Commissioner Knight expressed appreciation for having the opportunity to represent the city of Beaumont. Commissioner Krupa expressed appreciation for having the opportunity to represent the city of Hemet and announced being appointed Mayor at the December 9 City Council meeting. Commissioner Mertens expressed appreciation for having the opportunity to represent the city of Indian Wells and stated the city of Indian Wells will appoint its Commission representative in January or February 2015. Commissioner Strange expressed appreciation for having the opportunity to represent the city of Indio. He stated this is his first time as an elected official and was formerly an employee of the city of Indio as well as an educator. • Chair Ashley noted Alternate Wallace Edgerton is in attendance and although he has • attended Commission meetings before, Chair Ashley asked for Commissioner Edgerton to introduce himself. Commissioner Edgerton expressed appreciation for the opportunity to represent the city of Menifee, stating Commissioner Scott Mann will return in 2015. Chair Ashley noted there are vacant seats on the Commission for the county of Riverside District 3, and the cities of Canyon Lake, Indian Wells, La Quinta, and Temecula. Chair Ashley congratulated the Commissioners who won their elections and were reappointed to the Commission. 6. PUBLIC HEARING -ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A BUILDING ACCESS EASEMENT, BUILDING DEMOLITION EASEMENT, PERMANENT FIRE SERVICE CONNECTION EASEMENT, TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT, AND TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL EASEMENT INTERESTS IN PORTIONS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 118- 330-017; 118-160-071; 118-330-009; AND LOCATED IN CORONA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BETWEEN PIERCE STREET ON THE EAST TO THE COUNTY LINE ON THE WEST, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA • ----------------------------------------------------- • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 3 Chair Ashley opened the public hearing and called upon legal counsel to explain the nature and scope of this hearing. Steve DeBaun, legal counsel, explained the purpose of this hearing is for the Board to consider the adoption of Amended Resolution of Necessity Nos. 13-060; 14-002; and 14-017, for the acquisition of real property for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP). He stated at the conclusion of this hearing, the Board will be asked to adopt the resolutions of necessity and he listed the findings. He explained the purpose of this hearing is to consider the need for acquisition of the property and not to consider the value of the property. Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board, verified the proofs of mailing that certify the notices were sent to the property owners of said parcel numbers are on file with the Commission. Ms. Harmon stated there was a written objection from Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP representing El Corona, Assessor Parcel No. (APN) 118-330-017. The letter was sent to the Commissioners on December 8 via electronic mail, and distributed at the dais. No. APNs CPNs Owner Amended Request to be RON No . Heard 1 118-330-017 22176-9 IE Corona 13-060 No 2 118-160-071 22178-6, Z Corona 14-002 No 22178-7, Properties, LLC, 22178-8, 22178-9, 22178-10, and 22178-11 3 118-330-009 22175-9 Dvorak & Payne, 14-017 No Ltd Mark Lancaster, Right of Way Manager, presented the amended resolutions of necessity for the SR-91 CIP and discussed the following areas: • Four findings required by the Board; • Project Map -Parcel location in the project area; • Parcel list; • Offers of just compensation and contact summary for the parcels; • Aerial view of parcels; and • Staff recommendation . Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 4 Chair Ashley called on any persons who wish to be heard that have an interest in a property. There were no requests to speak. Chair Ashley then called on any other persons who wish to be heard. There were no requests to speak. At this time, Chair Ashley closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Jan Harnik's request for clarification regarding the correspondence received by Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, specifically Finding~ 1 and 2, Mark Lancaster replied the property owner's legal counsel is referring to a temporary access easement and temporary erosion control easement as those two easements were originally contemplated to be added to the project for mitigation work. He explained staff asked the owner to stipulate to additional area for the contractor to work as well as placing sandbags around the existing drainage and property. Mr. Lancaster stated the property owner did not agree, therefore, staff stayed within the existing rights identified by the Resolution of Necessity No. 13-060 and ordered the contractor to place sandbags at the edge of those easement rights. He stated the request for those additional easements were dropped and an offer was not made. • Steve DeBaun stated when the correspondence was received, legal counsel confirmed • with the property owner's legal counsel no longer objected given the resolution going forward did not include those easements. M/S/C (Gibbs/B. Benoit) to: 1) Conduct a hearing to consider the adoption of amendments to resolutions of necessity, including providing all parties interested in the affected property and their attorneys, or their representatives, an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the resolutions of necessity; 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: 3) a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; c) The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and d) The offer of just compensation was not made in this circumstance. Instead, the property owner has stipulated to an additional deposit based on an appraisal for Fair Market Value. Adopt Amendments to Resolution of Necessity Nos. 13-060; 14-002; 14-017, and "Resolutions of Necessity for the Acquisition of Property Interests in Certain Real Property1 by Eminent Domain1 More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel Nos. 118-330-017; • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 5 118-160-071; 118-330-009, and located in Corona, Riverside County, California", for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP}, Between Pierce Street on the East to the Riverside/Orange County Line on the West, in Riverside County, California. At this time, Commissioner John Benoit left the meeting. 7. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There was a revision to Agenda Item 8C, "Upgrade of Records Management Software". 8. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Molina/Matas) to approve the following Consent Calendar items. SA. RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE APPENDIX OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE SB. Adopt Resolution No. 14-033, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending the Appendix of the Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974" . PROPOSED 2015 COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Adopt its 2015 Commission/Committee Meeting Calendar. SC. UPGRADE OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SD. Approve the upgrade of the Commission's records management software from LibertyNET to Hyland OnBase in the amount of $121,340, plus a $12,160 contingency, for a total amount not to exceed $133,500. FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 COMMISSION AUDIT RESULTS Receive and file the Fiscal Year 2013/14: a) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR); b) Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Financial and Compliance Report; c) State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund Financial and Compliance Report; d) Proposition 1B Rehabilitation and Security Project Accounts Financial and Compliance Report; e) Compliance Report for Single Audit; f) Commercial Paper Compliance Report; g) Auditor Required Communications Report; h) Agreed-Upon Procedures Report related to the Appropriations Limit Calculation; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 6 9. i) Agreed-Upon Procedures Report related to the Commuter Assistance Program incentives; and j) Management certifications. SE. FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 SINGLE AUDIT REPORT Receive and file the revised Fiscal Year 2012/13 Compliance Report for Single Audit. SF. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 14-032 FOR COMMISSION ELECTION TO HEAR FUTURE RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE STATE ROUTES 71/91 INTERCHANGE PROJECT AND DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION'S GENERAL COUNSEL Adopt Resolution No. 14-032, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Electing to Ht!ar Future Resolutions of Necessity for the State Routes 71/91 Interchange Project and Designation of Commission's General Counsel to Process Resolution of Necessity Packages for the Project." CLAY STREET GRADE SEPARATION John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, provided an overview for funding the Clay Street grade separation project. M/S/C (Zanowic/Harnik) to: 1) Deobligate $1,021,000 in 2009 Measure A Western County Economic Development Funds previously allocated to the county of Riverside (County) for the Interstate 215/Van Buren interchange project; 2) Reprogram $1,021,000 in 2009 Measure A Western County Economic Development Funds to the County for the Clay Street grade separation project; 3) Approve Agreement No. 08-31-124-01 Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. OS-31-124-00, with the County for the 1-215/Van Buren interchange project and the Clay Street grade separation project; and 4) Approve an increase of $1,021,000 in FY 2014/15 budgeted 2009 Measure A Western County Economic Development expenditures. • • • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 7 10. ELECTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OFFICERS AND APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTIVE COMMITIEE MEMBERS Commissioner Karen Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Andrew Kotyuk, nominated Commissioner Daryl Busch for Chair, Commissioner Scott Matas for Vice Chair, and Commissioner John Tavaglione for Second Vice Chair. No other nominations were received. Daryl Busch was elected as the Commission's Chair, Scott Matas as Vice Chair, and John Tavaglione Second Vice Chair for 2015. At this time, Commissioner J. Benoit rejoined the meeting. Appointment of Executive Committee Representatives At this time, Chair Ashley called for a recess for the representatives of the following groups to meet and determine their respective representatives to the Executive Committee as follows: 1) the cities of Corona, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Riverside, and Temecula to appoint two representatives; 2) the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Eastvale, Hemet, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Wildomar to appoint one representative; and 3) the cities of Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage to appoint one representative to the Executive Committee. The Commission reconvened and Chair Ashley called for the groups to announce their representatives to the Executive Committee. Commissioner Rick Gibbs announced the appointment of Commissioner Spiegel and reappointment of himself to the Executive Committee to represent the cities of Corona, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Riverside, and Temecula. Commissioner Deborah Franklin announced the reappointment of Commissioner Ben Benoit to the Executive Committee to represent the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Eastvale, Hemet, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Wildomar. Commissioner Greg Pettis announced the appointment of Commissioner Steven Hernandez to the Executive Committee to represent the cities of Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage . Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 8 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 12A. Commissioner Gibbs announced the opening of the Los Alamos Bridge in November 2014, and expressed gratitude to Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director, for the $3 million the Commission committed to this project. 128. Anne Mayer announced: • The California Transportation Commission (CTC) will hold its December meeting in the Board Room; • A reception for the CTC will be held 5:30 p.m. on the first floor of the County Administrative Center building honoring the CTC and its retiring Executive Director Andre Boutros; and • The Commission's Annual Report -On the Move brochures were distributed to the Commissioners. At this time, Commissioners Gibbs and Basem Muallem left the meeting. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Item APN(s) Property Purchaser(s) 234-250-009 234-250-010 234-250-011 234-250-012 AHD, LP 1 234-250-013 Ed Haddad, Principal 234-250-032 234-250-034 234-250-036 234-250-038 There were no announcements from closed session item(s). • • • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 9 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, adjourned the meeting at 10:52 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 14, 2015, in the Board Room, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 7A • • • • • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 14, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Martha Durbin, Staff Analyst Josefina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director Federal Fiscal Years 2012/13 and 2013/14 Federal Transit Administration's SUBJECT: Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1} 2} Approve the Federal Fiscal Years 2012/13 and 2013/14 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 Riverside County project funding recommendations by the local review committee (LRC); Adopt Resolution No. 15-001, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan", certifying the projects are derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan (Coordinated Plan); and 3} Include the projects in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP}. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: FTA Section 5310 grant program was established in 1975 and administered by Caltrans since its inception. The 5310 program provides annual grants to purchase transit capital equipment to meet the specialized needs of elderly and/or disabled persons for whom mass transportation services are unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate. In 2012, the federal authorization Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21} repealed the New Freedom program (formerly FTA Section 5317) and merged it with the expanded Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program. On June 6, 2014, the final FTA Circular C9070.1G was published, incorporating eligible projects, from the repealed New Freedom program into the new Section 5310 program. The vehicle projects and related equipment under the previous Section 5310 program are now called Traditional 5310 Projects and comprise at least 55 percent of the available funding. The former New Freedom projects (such as projects that exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and mobility management} are now classified under Expanded 5310 Projects and comprise up to 45 percent of available funding . Agenda Item 7A 1 On October 1, 2014, Caltrans issued a call for projects for the FFYs 2012/13 and 2013/2014 FTA Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program. This program provides capital, mobility management, and operating assistance for projects that meet the transportation needs of older adults and individuals with disabilities. Eligible applicants include private non-profit organizations, public agencies where no private non- profits are readily available to provide the proposed services, public agencies that have been approved by the state to coordinate services, and public agencies and any operator of public transportation that received a Section 5310 grant indirectly through a recipient. Program funds are used to provide up to 80 percent federal share of capital costs and require at least 20 percent in local match. For operating costs, federal funds can be awarded up to 50 percent. However, for this FFYs 2012/13 and 2013/14 funding cycle, as in the two previous funding cycles, agencies will receive up to 100 percent in federal funds with the usage of toll credits as local matching funds. Toll credits are a funding tool that can be utilized by states as a means of meeting local and state matching requirements for federal funding. State credits are accrued when capital investments are made in federally-approved tolled facilities including toll roads and bridges. For large urbanized areas in Riverside County, as seen in Table 1.1 below, approximately $2.6 million is available for programming for the FFYs 2012/13 and 2013/14 grant cycle. Table 1.2 shows the small urban area funds recommended for award through Caltrans' statewide com petition. Table 1.1-Large Urbanized Areas LARGE URBANIZED AREA Available Funding by Western Coachella Murrieta-TOTAL FUNDS UZA and Project Riverside -San Valley -Indio -Temecula-Menifee AVAILABLE FOR Category Bernardino UZA Cathedral City UZA RIVERSIDE UZA COUNTY FY 2013 $672,516 $341,058 $229,392 $1,242,966 FY 2014 702,351 385,535 274,854 1,362,740 Two-Year Total $1,374,868 $726,592 $504,246 $2,605,706 Available Funding Table 1.2 -Small Urban Area SMALL URBAN AREA HEMET/SAN JACINTO Two-Year Total Available Funding $287,006 $287,006 The LRC in each county quantitatively evaluate and score all applications submitted for each • • apportionment area using Caltrans' criteria and submit the selected projects. The • Commission's LRC for this cycle was comprised of one member of the Citizens Advisory Agenda Item 7A 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- • • • Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, one non-public agency representative, one staff member from the on call transit consultant, and one Commission staff. The scoring criteria used to evaluate Section 5310 project proposals are as follows: CALTRANS' EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR TRADITIONAL APPLICATIONS Points Ability of the Applicant 32 Coordination Requirement 18 Transportation Services (Replacement, Expansion or Other Equipment) 20 Service Effectiveness 30 Total Points Available For FTA Sec 5310 Traditional Project Applications 100 CALTRANS' EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR EXPANDED APPLICATIONS Points Program Goals and Objectives 20 Project Implementation Plan 30 Program Performance Indicators 20 Communication and Outreach 20 Emergency Planning Preparedness 10 Total Points Available For FTA Sec 5310 Expanded Project Applications 100 A total of 10 agencies located in Riverside County submitted grant applications requesting $3,912,162 for 29 projects that include 4 replacement vehicles, 11 expansion vehicles, 5 mobile radios, 7 operating projects, and 2 mobility management projects. Following a preliminary scoring during the application process, staff worked with each applicant agency to clarify and improve its score for the competitive process. Attachment 2 summarizes the LRC's scores of the projects. This list will become final pending Commission approval and Southern California Association of Governments approval. All applicants have been notified of the LRC project scores and were given the opportunity to appeal. Caltrans is due to release the results in June 2015, and it is anticipated the California Transportation Commission (CTC) will adopt the final list of funded projects in September 2015. Upon final grant awards by the CTC, the Commission will include the FTA funded projects in the FY 2015/16 FTIP. The Commission is also required to certify by Resolution No. 15-001 that the projects are included in the Coordinated Plan. The Commission approved and published the Coordinated Plan in April 2008 and the 2012 Coordinated Plan Update in July 2012, for use as a resource for Section 5310 program applicants. There is no financial impact to the Commission, as Caltrans disburses the Section 5310 funds directly to the recipients. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 15-001 2) FFYs 2012/13 and 2013/14 Section 5310 Funding Recommendations Agenda Item 7 A 3 • • • ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 15-001 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Local Review Committee of Riverside County ("Committee") is charged with reviewing applications for Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 funding for transportation services to meet the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities for whom public transportation services are otherwise unavailable, insufficient or inappropriate; and WHEREAS, the Committee received requests for 29 projects from 10 agencies in Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Committee has scored each such request; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission"), as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency ("RTPA"), adopted the scores and ranking of the applications as determined by the Committee; and WHEREAS, the Section 5310 process, as interpreted in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.lF, Section 4, requires the RTPA to include in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program each request awarded Section 5310 funding by Caltrans and to certify by resolution that the evaluated projects are derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission does hereby certify and resolve as follows: Section 1. Section 2. The Commission has determined that the locally evaluated projects approved by the Committee for Section 5310 funding are derived from the Riverside County Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Coordinated Plan and 2012 Update (adopted by the Commission on April 9, 2008 and July 11, 2012). Each of the projects awarded Section 5310 funding by Caltrans will be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program adopted for Riverside County. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January, 2015. Daryl Busch, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 4 ------------------- • • • • • ATTACHMENT 2 • FFY 2012/13 and 2013/14 Section 5310 Funding Recommendations Project Type I Agency Score Brief Project Description federal Funding Agency Score Brief Project Description Federal Funding Aqel\ey Score Brief Project Description Fedwal Funding Recommendation R~mmendatlon Recornmertdation . RTATravel 100 Continue Travel Training $ 661,441 Arlge!Vlew 96 Expansion Service -1 Larger RTA Travel 100 Continue Travel Training $ 291,932 Training Program Bus $ 1os.ooo Training Program Peppermint 87 Replace 1 Mobile Radio $ 1,127 Expansion Service - 1 larger Ridge Desert Ate 85 Bus $ tOS,000 Peppermint 82 Replace 1 small Bus -VIN $ 60,000 Expansion Service - 1 Larger TRADITIONAL Ridge 67702 Desert Arc 82 Bus $ 105.000 PROJECTS .. AbilltyCounls 66 Replace 1 Minivan -VIN 33340 $ 46,000 Expansion Service - 1 Medium 82 Bus $ 93,000 AbUityCount• 66 Replace 1 Minivan -VlN 51452 $ •s,ooo I Expansion Service - 1 Mobile 61 Radio $ 408 50 Expansion Service -1 Minivan Afsi>Clalli>ii Independent ln~p<i!l<limj LMng 97 Continue TR1P Program $ 560,300 uvtna~:·: 97 Continue TRIP Program $ 110.000 IUvlnii 97 Continue TRIP Program $ 212.314 Partnership Partile,~P Provide door to door 96 transportation to clients Wth $ 58,000 developmental and physical EXPANDED I I disabilities. PROJECTS Sqnune, 79 Continue Taxi Voucher $ 56,000, Program OeertSllndand Provide operating for door to Handleapp~il 55 door transportation to clients $ 48,1!6 Assoclatl<ln 'Mth disabilities. TOTAL RECOMMENDED $ 1,374,868 $ 726,592 $ 504,2.46 AMOUNT TOTAL UZA AVAILABLE $ 1,374,868 $ 72.6,592 s 504,246 Prolect Tvoe I Agency Brief Project Description Federat Funding Recotnrnetid;;ttlon Care A Van 94 Replace 1 Large Bus s 73,000 TRADITIONAL I care A Van 84 PROJECTS Replace 1 small Bus $ 60,000 Exceed 74 Service Expansion - 1 Larger $ 105,000 Bus EXPANDED Operations for the Supported PROJECTS Exceed 57 Employment Program for adults $ •9,006 Vvith disabilities. TOTAL RECOMMENDED s 287,006 AMOUNT TOTAL LIZA AVAILABLE $ 287,006 5 • AGENDA ITEM 78 •• • • • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 14, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2015 Legislative Platform and Preview STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the Commission's 2015 State and Federal Legislative Platform; and 2) Receive and file a report on state and federal legislation for 2015. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2015 Legislative Platform At the beginning of every year, the Commission adopts a legislative platform that outlines the positions the Commission will take on various pieces of legislation, administrative policies, and regulations. The platform addresses broad themes that are critical in both Washington, D.C. and Sacramento. These platform points allow staff, Commissioners, and Commission lobbyists to communicate in a timely, effective manner with state and federal actors as issues arise. This year's proposed legislative platform follows closely with what the Commission adopted in previous years and includes several items have been added or adjusted to reflect policy issues that have arisen in the last year and anticipated to be on the horizon for 2015. The proposed 2015 legislative platform is attached. 2015 State and Federal Legislative Preview The New Year will feature new faces, however there are familiar issues for the transportation industry. The 2014 midterm elections brought a large freshman class of legislators to Sacramento and Washington, D.C. as well as new policy committee chairs, and shifting balances of political power. Yet, both capitols still face a sensitive but increasingly urgent political challenge of addressing long-term funding for transportation infrastructure. Revenues for transportation continue to decline overall. Uncertainty continues to hover over both the state and federal transportation programs as maintenance backlogs continue to pile up, mandates for emissions reductions draw nearer, and economic recovery generates more freight traffic on highways and rails . Agenda Item 7B 6 The Commission's advocacy team is preparing for 2015, which could shape up to be a defining year in terms of knowing what the long-term future could be for transportation in California and the nation. The Commission's legislative advocacy program is coordinated by the Government Relations Manager with the support and guidance of the Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director. The Commission contracts with legislative advocates in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. to represent the Commission in policy and funding discussions. This is a . common practice by nearly every transportation commission in California. The Commission's legislative advocates are policy experts who work closely with committee staff and Members, as well as with the Riverside County legislative delegation, trade associations, and stakeholder groups, to help the Commission's interests be reflected in state and federal policy as much as possible. This representation served the Commission well over the years, resulting in successes such as: • Passage of several state bills sponsored by the Commission; • Language in multiple federal bills addressing Commission priorities; • Securing a TIFIA loan for State Route 91, a $75 million grant for Perris Valley Line; • Special appropriations for Commission-sponsored projects; and • High-level meetings with administration and legislative officials. In preparation for the year ahead, the Commission's advocates have prepared the following brief reports on what to expect in Washington and Sacramento: Federal Legislative Preview By Commission Legislative Advocates Kathy Ruffalo and Cliff Madison likely Transportation Topics in Washington D.C. There are two major pieces of transportation legislation that Congress will need to address in some manner in 2015 -expiration of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and expiration of the Federal Aviation Administration {FAA) reauthorization. The ability to extend MAP-21 programs -either again in the short-term or with passage of a multi- year bill -will depend largely upon finding the resources necessary to bolster the Highway Trust Fund {HTF), which is projected to have a negative balance sometime in May. Leaders of both the House and Senate transportation committees have publicly stated they want a five or six year authorization bill -however the ability to successfully achieve that outcome will require a stable funding source, which includes an increase in the fuel taxes. There are a multitude of ideas on how to pay for surface transportation programs -but no consensus around any of them. There will be two key legislative opportunities in the spring that could present themselves as vehicles for addressing transportation revenue: a budget resolution/reconciliation process and the upcoming need to address the federal debt ceiling . Agenda Item 7B 7 • • • • In addition, should Congress actually attempt to address comprehensive tax reform -either corporate, personal or both -that becomes another potential method to address transportation funding needs. • • In addition, there continues to be interest in moving legislation to address passenger rail and rail safety issues. What Are The Big Picture Politics That Will Shape The Legislative Year? With Republicans in control of both the House and Senate, it is possible that more legislation can pass Congress and be sent to the President (with the caveat that 60 votes are still needed in the Senate to pass legislation). It is also possible the Commission could see more vetoes of such legislation by the President. Transportation issues remain one of the few areas of bipartisan consensus; that is not expected to change. However, the larger politics surrounding events in Washington D.C. -immigration, nominations, climate change, etc -could impact the ability to move forward with any transportation bill. During a Presidential election cycle, the first year is the "best" time to advance legislation -i.e., 2015. Once the Presidential election gets closer, the more difficult it can become. Who Are The Key Players in Transportation Legislation in 2015? More than ever, legislation is crafted with the input of Congressional leadership -both in the House and Senate and within the Republican and Democrat caucuses. Therefore, in addition to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate transportation and tax committees, leadership members will be critical to any successful effort to advance transportation legislation. Key Members include: • House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) • House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) -Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) • House Ways and Means Committee -Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), Ranking Member Sander Levin • House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee -Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA), Ranking Member Peter DeFazio (D-OR) • Senate Environment and Public Works Committee -Chairman Jim lnhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) • Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee -Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL), Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-OH) • Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee -Chairman John Thune (R-SD), Ranking Member Bill Nelson (D-FL) • Senate Finance Committee -Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) Agenda Item 78 8 How Will The Obama Administration Engage Transportation This Year? Transportation and overall infrastructure issues continue to be discussed by the President. The Administration released its surface transportation bill in 2014, and it is not expected that there will be a new version of the legislation in 2015. The Administration's legislation proposed to pay for transportation programs through revenue generated in any corporate tax reform. With the change in control of the Senate and the larger number of Republican House Members -if the Administration wants to play a role in the legislative process, the Administration will need to be flexible on its requests and work closely with the committees. Failure to do that will leave the Administration on the sidelines. It is unclear how or if the Administration will choose to engage with the 114th Congress. State Legislative Preview By Commission Legislative Advocate Mark Watts The present Fiscal Year 2014/15 witnessed the establishment of emerging and important new programs in the form of the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and the Cap and Trade (CAT) auction revenue allocations for the budget year and for the longer term. Moreover, through the leadership of the Administration, the state's core transportation revenues also were supplemented with much needed one-time resources through the early restoration of $337 million in loan repayments from the General Fund (GF) to the Highway Users Tax Account • (HUTA). Within this backdrop, it is timely to look ahead at 2015. • Transportation Policy Shapers for 2015 Legislature The legislative leadership through 2014 included Assembly Transportation Chair, Bonnie Lowenthal, who has retired under term limits, and the Senate Transportation Committee Chair, Mark DeSaulnier, who was recently elected to Congress. Also, playing the role as strong advocates for transportation programs have been the two Budget Subcommittee Chairs, Senator Jim Beall and Assembly Member Richard Bloom. While the Speaker of the Assembly initially appointed new committee chairs in early December, the Senate Pro Tern released the Rules Committee selection of chairs this week. In the Assembly, Richard Bloom will continue to be active as the Budget Subcommittee #2 (Transportation & Resources) Chair and will provide oversight of the state's transportation budgets, as well as CAT revenues. The new Assembly Transportation Committee Chair will be Assembly Member Jim Frazier. Mr. Frazier brings a strong familiarity with transportation programs as he previously spent a number of years on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), a Self-Help County such as Riverside. He also has a strong interest in highway safety and will be a leader in the coming year in seeking solutions to the state's transportation funding challenge. Agenda Item 7B 9 • • The Senate Pro Tern announced the new Senate Transportation & Housing Chair will be Senator Jim Beall. Senator Beall brings a long history and familiarity with transportation programs; he served on the Santa Clara VTA board and was a designee to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC}. Most recently, he served as the Senate Budget #2 (Transportation & Resources) Chair in 2013 and 2014. Replacing Senator Beall on the Budget Subcommittee #2 will be Senator Lois Wolk from the Yolo County region. Her history of service in the Assembly and Senate has seen a focus on water policy, related agricultural and resource issues, and more recently local government finance. • • Brown Administration In the Administration, California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) Secretary Brian Kelly continues to drive state transportation policy. In the past year, the Secretary's office was extremely instrumental in bringing the ATP to a conclusion in the budget process, lead the California Transportation Infrastructure Priorities (CTIP) Work Group in defining the challenges confronting the state transportation program, was deeply involved in framing the CAT auction revenue allocation process and was instrumental in pursuit of the recently activated Road User Charge (RUC} pilot program established to examine the challenges and opportunities that may come from a new approach to transportation finance. In a more recent development, Will Kempton's appointment to the California Transportation Commission as Executive Director marks the willingness and commitment of the Commissioners to take on and aid in addressing the states' transportation funding challenge. Mr. Kempton spent the past two years as the leader of a statewide transportation industry and labor coalition that has the goal of seeking adequate funding for the state and local systems. Major Statewide Issues State Budget Most likely, the most pressing new development that will frame the political environment will be the pressure to develop or expand state programs in the wake of several consecutive years of budget deficits. While the improving economic outlook for the state brings brightened prospects for the state budget, this perspective must be tempered with the reality of recent changes and improvements to the state budget process adopted by voters in November 2014 that will result in fewer state GF resources available to allocate to new or expanded programs. The Legislative Analyst's recent update of the annual budget outlook estimates for the present year, the state budget reserve will see an additional $4 billion; however, Proposition 2, approved in November, mandates $2 billion of this is to be deposited in the new "rainy day" fund and another $2 billion is to be dedicated to paying down state debt. As a consequence, there will be little in the way of new revenue resources available for program growth in FY 2015/16 outside of K-12 funding under Proposition 98 . Agenda Item 78 10 Emerging Transportation Issues The state's roadway infrastructure continues to see a widening gap between well-documented and growing maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction needs at local and state levels and stagnating or diminishing transportation revenues. Exacerbating this is the annual Fuel Tax Swap revenue neutral tax rate adjustment mandate that compels the State Board of Equalization to adjust the tax rate to reflect changes in the volume and price of motor fuels. Cap and Trade Even as state agencies near the release of guidelines that govern the allocation of CAT revenues for the year, one potentially contentious policy issue that emerged is represented by three bills introduced on the initial day of the FY 2015/16 legislative session. These measures would either delay or outright eliminate the extension of the CAT regulations to the fuel distribution network (a proxy for motorists). The CARB CAT trade regulation scheme is scheduled to impact the fuels network beginning on January 1, 2015; it is projected the pass-through cost to motorists could range from 9 cents to 50 cents, per gallon, at the gas pump. The funds thus raised have been dedicated statutorily to the CAT allocation process, with little of these revenues coming back to address much needed roadway and highway repairs. Similar bills were introduced in 2014, however failed, never having received a hearing. High-Speed Rail Proposition lA, a nearly $10 billion bond to fund the start of the state high-speed rail system, was approved by voters in 2008. Opposition at regional levels has since emerged and legislation has recently been introduced to bring an end to the development of the system. One version of this legislation would simply restrict any additional expenditure of these funds and apply the remaining bond proceeds to pay off the associated bond debt service. Another version goes further and would in addition, direct unsold bonds to be available to be spent on K-12 facilities. Similar legislation was introduced in 2014, but was unsuccessful. Fuel Tax Swap As highlighted above, the Fuel Tax Swap, enacted in 2011, eliminated the sales tax on fuel and replaced the revenues with a like amount of the excise tax; the bill required the State Board of Equalization to do an annual "true-up" in the tax rate to match the amount that Proposition 42 (sales tax on fuel) would raise. Last year, the continued, multi-year erosion of fuel sales resulted in a reduction in the Tax Swap tax gas tax rate of 3 cents per gallon and with the current fuel price environment, the Commission may be faced with a similar impact in the upcoming Board action. This would drive resources for the state preservation program further into deficit. Attachment: Draft 2015 State and Federal Legislative Platform Agenda Item 7B 11 • • • • • • 2015 State and Federal Legislative Platform Riverside County Transportation Commission OBJECTIVE: Advocate for state and federal policy decisions that enable RCTC to implement Measure A, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), its adopted plans and programs, comply with state and federal requirements, and provide for greater mobility, quality of life, and economic vitality in Riverside County. Equity and Fairness • Funding should be distributed equitably to Riverside County. • Governance structures should give equitable voting and decision-making authority to Riverside County. Regional Control • Project selection and planning authority for state/federal funds should be as local as possible, preferably in the hands of the Commission. • State/federal rulemakings, administrative processes, and policy development activities should include meaningful collaboration from regional transportation agencies. • Oppose efforts by non-transportation interests to assert control over transportation funding. • Policies should be sensitive to each region's unique needs and avoid "one size fits all" assumptions, especially regarding the balance among highways, transit, rail, and freight; and urban, suburban, and rural needs. • State/federal policies should align authority to select projects, manage performance, and implement programs with state/federal mandates and responsibilities placed upon regional and local governments. Protect Our Authority and Revenue • Existing statutory authorities for the Commission should be preserved and protected. • Oppose efforts to infringe on the Commission's discretion in collecting and administering its revenue sources including, but not limited to, Measure A, tolls, TUMF. Innovation • Support the availability of project delivery tools such as design-build, construction manager/general contractor, and public-private partnerships by the Commission, the State, federal agencies, and other infrastructure agencies. Oppose efforts to add barriers to effective implementation of such tools. • Support a collaborative approach for the California Transportation Secretary's "California Transportation Infrastructure Priorities (CTIP)" efforts to advance innovation and reform. • Support implementation and expansion of U.S. Department of Transportation's "Every Day Counts" initiative, the "Building America Transportation Investment Center" and other efforts to expedite advance innovation in transportation . 12 Project Delivery Streamlining • Support all efforts to reduce project delivery timelines while maintaining important environmental protections. • Support reciprocity of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). • Support implementation of MAP-21 reforms that create timelines and penalties for delayed reviews by federal agencies. Support further strengthening of timelines, penalties, and requirements for concurrent reviews. Support Council on Environmental Quality pilot programs for monitoring major projects. • Support creation of a low interest loan program to support habitat conservation plans that mitigate the impacts of transportation infrastructure and make project approvals more efficient. • Support efforts to modernize the CEQA, including but not limited to: o Reduce the Commission's exposure to litigation o Increase accountability and disclosure for plaintiffs in CEQA cases o Limit courts' ability to invalidate entire CEQA document when a writ of mandate can resolve discreet issues o Exempt illegal actions from CEQA review o Prohibit "document dumping" Accountability • • Revenue derived from transportation sources should be spent exclusively on transportation projects. Support measures to strengthen the relationship between transportation revenue and expenditures; oppose measures that weaken them. Support efforts to ensure that all projects in a voter-approved tax measure are delivered to the public. • Support efforts to prioritize state cap-and-trade revenues for greenhouse-gas-reducing transportation projects. • Encourage the adoption of on time, balanced state budgets, federal appropriations, and authorizations, to ensure transportation projects are delivered without delay or costly stoppages, and that adequate planning for future projects can take place. • Promote policies that ensure state and federal agencies are responsive and accountable to Commission concerns when working on Commission projects. • Oppose efforts by non-elected, regulatory bodies to dilute, reduce, or withhold transportation funds. • Support maximum transparency by funding agencies in revealing scoring offunding requests. Alignment of Responsibilities • Support policies that reflect and recognize self-help counties' supermajority funding contribution to transportation projects in California. Oppose policies that give outsized weight to minority funding partners. • Advocate that cap-and-trade revenues be expended in a manner that enables regions to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals in SB 375 and AB 32. 13 • • • • • • • Support policies that provide decision-making authority and flexibility to agencies bearing financial risk for projects. Oppose policies that place unfunded mandates and other undue burdens and restrictions on agencies that bear financial risk for projects. • Support strong collaborative partnerships with state and federal agencies . • Support efforts by the state and federal governments to improve maintenance and operations of the state highway and interstate systems. Oppose efforts to realign maintenance and operations costs and responsibilities to local or regional agencies. • Oppose efforts by the state legislature to deflect responsibility for voting on revenue for statewide transportation to local voters. • Oppose legislation to increase barriers to the use of contracting by local government. Alternatives to Driving Ridesharing • Support incentives to employers that enhance or create transit reimbursement or ridesharing programs. • Oppose new mandates on employers or transportation agencies to provide ridesharing programs, or any efforts that would result in disruption of the Commission's ridesharing program. • Support programs and policies that support investments in new technologies that promote ridesharing, traffic information, and commuter assistance . Active Transportation • Support the swift implementation of new Active Transportation Program. • Support maximum regional control of project selection for Active Transportation Projects. Transit and Rail • Support permanent parity in federal law between tax-exempt parking benefits and transit pass benefits offered by employers. • Support incentives for transit agencies that utilize alternative fuels. • Support inclusion and prioritization of Coachella Valley Rail service in the California State Rail Plan and other state planning and funding efforts. • Advocate for expeditious and certain reviews and approvals for greenhouse-gas-reducing rail and transit projects. • Support increases in funding for Capital Improvement Grants for new transit service (New and Small Starts 5309 program) in order to create funding capacity for future rail expansion projects and bus rapid transit service in Riverside County. • Support efforts to provide an equitable share of funding to west coast intercity rail systems as compared to the Northeast Corridor. • Support Metrolink's policy needs with regard to implementation of positive train control. • Support efforts to prioritize high-speed rail funding for connectivity improvements to existing transit systems in California's urban areas . 14 • Support implementation of SB 1225 (Padilla), which transfers operations of the Los Angeles - San Diego -San Luis Obispo Rail (LOSSAN) Corridor to the LOSSAN JPA, of which the Commission is a voting member. • Ensure that the Commission's rights and interests in passenger rail in Southern California are properly respected in state, federal, and regional plans and policies. • Support all transit operators in Riverside County with legislative concerns impacting the operators' funding and operations. • Support efforts to resolve conflict between the Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) and Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act to ensure that federal grant funds continue to flow to local transit agencies. • Support efforts to provide for streamlined project delivery for transit projects that fulfill the goals of AB 32 and SB 375, as well as other state and federal air quality mandates and mobility Tolling • • • • performance measures. Support legislation that enhances the full and accurate capture of toll revenues, in order to protect the Commission's debt and congestion management obligations. Monitor legislation modifying privacy laws to ensure an appropriate balance between customer privacy, public safety, and financial obligation is reasonably met. Monitor legislation significantly altering the type and/or number of vehicles subject to free or reduced toll rates, in order to protect the Commission's debt and congestion management obligations. Monitor legislation and Administrative policies relating to interoperability of tolled facilities statewide and nationally, in order to ensure technical feasibility, cost reasonableness, and customer satisfaction. Goods Movement • Support recommendations of the House Panel on 21'1 Century Freight Transportation • Support Congressional action to create a new dedicated funding source for goods movement projects, inasmuch as the funding source: o Has a nexus to the user; o Does not reduce funding to existing highway and transit programs; o Provides funding to California, and Southern California in particular, commensurate with this region and state's significance to interstate goods movement; and o Can be spent on grade separation projects. • Provide input to the National Freight Advisory Committee and California State Freight Advisory Committee. • Advocate for accurate representation of Riverside County in the Primary Freight Network or other national or statewide freight route designations. Projects • Support programs and policies that advantage transportation projects in Riverside County, including but not limited to: 15 • • • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Measure A-funded projects Grade separations Transit capital projects and operations by regional and municipal transit agencies Commuter rail capital projects and operations Intercity Rail Service to the Coachella Valley Local streets and road projects sponsored by the county and municipalities Active Transportation Projects Expansion and rehabilitation ofthe state highway system Interchanges Safety enhancements Mitigation of the impacts of goods movement Connectivity to high-speed rail Connectivity to commercial airports Tolled Express Lanes, tolled highways, and related infrastructure and technology • Oppose policies that inhibit the efficient, timely delivery of such projects. • Support implementation of projects in other counties that are contained in the Southern California Association of Governments RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategy when requested by other counties and not in conflict with the Commission's interests. Funding • Support robust testing and analysis of California's road user charging (RUC) pilot program as a potential replacement of the state motor fuels excise tax as the primary funding mechanism for transportation. • Encourage the federal government to authorize a program to test and analyze a pilot program to explore potential replacement mechanisms for the federal gasoline excise tax. • Support all efforts to maintain, at the very least, level state/federal funding for transportation programs. • Strongly support repayment of state general fund loans from transportation-related accounts. • Support re-dedication of California truck weight fees to transportation accounts. • Encourage Congress to adopt a long-term authorization bill that provides funding certainty, preferably protecting the nexus between transportation funding and the gas tax. • Monitor legislation relating to tax collection for impacts on Measure A revenues or administration fees . 16 • • • • AGENDA ITEM 7C • • • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 14, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Gina Gallagher, Senior Staff Analyst Mark Lancaster, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Ninyo and Moore to Manage and Implement Property Remediation for the Former Liston Aluminum Brick Company Site STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) 2) 3) Approve Agreement No. 12-73-110-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 12-73-110-00, with Ninyo and Moore to continue to manage and implement the approved Department of Toxic Substances Control Remedial Action Plan for the Liston Aluminum Brick Company (Liston Brick) property in an additional amount of $750,000 plus a contingency amount of $112,500 for a total additional amount of $862,500, resulting in a total amount not to exceed $1,698,095; Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute non- funding related agreements for the completion of the remediation clearance of the project; and 5) Approve an increase of $862,500 in FY 2014/15 budgeted expenditures for the additional remediation costs related to the Liston Brick property. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 11, 2012 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 12-73-110-00 with Ninyo and Moore for an authorized amount not to exceed $835,595 to remediate contamination on the Liston Brick property at 3710 Temescal Canyon Road in Corona. This property was identified as a core parcel for the original Mid County Parkway project and for sale on the open market. As part of the Commission's required due diligence for property purchase, the Commission conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and subsequently prepared a remedial action plan to address contamination that was found during these analyses. The amount of Agenda Item 7C 17 $1,632,000 amount was held in an Escrow Holdback account prior to close of escrow, making Liston Brick responsible for the estimated cleanup costs, which were expected to consist of consultant, legal, and staff costs. Once escrow closed in December 2013, staff authorized Ninyo and Moore to proceed with the remediation. Under the jurisdictional oversight of State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the remedial action plan was finalized, a public hearing was held, and the implementation of the remedial action plan began in March 2014. Since that time, Ninyo and Moore continues to uncover unexpected buried sumps/vaults with elevated areas of contamination. Most of the contaminated soil contains highly elevated levels of metals and total petroleum hydrocarbons. DTSC directed the Commission to continue to. remove the metal elevated soils to below industrial regional screening levels. Staff recommends approval of Agreement No. 12-73-110-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 12-73-110-00, with Ninyo and Moore to continue with the remedial action plan to satisfy the additional DTSC requirements for an additional amount of $750,000, plus a contingency amount of $112,500, for a total additional amount of $862,500, resulting in a total authorized amount not to exceed $1,698,095. Based on the nature of the work to be performed and prior costs, the Commission determined Ninyo and Moore's estimate is fair and reasonable. Since these additional costs were not included in the FY 2014/15 budget, a budget adjustment is required. As a result of the work to be performed based on the discovery of additional contaminated areas on the property, the total estimated cleanup costs are expected to exceed the escrow holdback amount of $1,632,000. Per the purchase and sale agreement for the Liston Brick property, the seller of the property remains liable for and is required to satisfy any additional expenses in order to fully implement the remedial action plan. If the actual costs exceed the escrow holdback amount, the Commission may need to take additional action to recover all cleanup costs as specified in the purchase and sale agreement. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: I No I Year: I FY 2014/15 Amount: I $862,500 Source of Funds: ITUMF CETAP Budget Adjustment: I Yes GL/Project Accounting No.: 005123 81401210 73 81401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~ I Date: I 01/07/15 Attachment: Ninyo and Moore Estimate Agenda Item 7C 18 • • • • • Mr. Gustavo Quintero Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92502 January 6, 2014 Project No. 207492007 Subject: Cost Estimate RCTC Agreement No. 12-73-110-00 Supplemental Services Liston Aluminum Brick Company 3 710 Temescal Canyon Road Corona, California Dear Mr. Quintero: As we have communicated the remediation activities at the subject site have continued to encounter unexpected materials and underground structures beneath pavement. At your request, Ninyo & Moore estimated the additional funds that will be needed to complete the scheduled remediation activities at the former Liston Aluminum Brick Company Site for additional California-hazardous soil, impacted non-hazardous soil, and concrete vaults that were not discovered during previous investigation. The additional funding that we estimate will be needed for authorization is $750,000. This brings the total budget for Agreement No. 12-73- 110-00 to $1,585,595.00. Our amendment estimate includes the following anticipated, and unbilled, services: • 5 days (January 5-9, 2015) needed to complete excavation and stockpiling • 10 days (January 12-23, 2015) of loading and minimal spot excavations (with a limited 3- man crew) • 15 days of having our technician in the field, including monitoring during loading • Dust monitoring and PID rental equipment for 3 weeks • 36 confirmation samples for removal of the greenish material -analyzed for T22 metals + Aluminum on a 24-hour turn-around time 4 75 Goodard. Suite 200 • Irvine, Ca!iforrna 91618 • 11i0ne i949) 7S3· 7070 • Fax {9491 753· 7071 ·--·-•-""''''"''" s.Kr.rnet1to 3 710 Temescal Canyon Road Corona, California January 6, 2015 Project No. 207492007 • 20 confirmation samples in the stained soil areas analyzed for Metals, PAHs, VOCs, and TPH, 24-hour turn-around time • 20 stockpile samples analyzed for Metals, PAHs, VOCs, and TPH, 24-hour turn-around time • 40 STLC or TCLP individual analyses performed among all samples, rapid tum-around available (based on method limitations). • Transportation and disposal of an estimated 4,500 tons of California-hazardous waste to Arizona -This item is the most significant cost driver at approximately $5 00, 000. • Transportation and disposal of an estimated 2, 100 tons of petroleum impacted non-hazardous soil • Transportation and disposal of concrete vault debris • Project coordination, data compilation, and reporting by Ninyo & Moore We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the Riverside County Transportation Commission. If you have any questions regarding this estimate, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, NINYO & MOORE ~~ T vis Coburn, PE, QSD Project Environmental Engineer Principal Environmental Scientist TMC/JJR/DLR/mlc Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail) 207492007 L3 Cost Estimate.doc 2 20 • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM 8 •• • • • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 14, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2014/15 Mid-Year Revenue Projections STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the mid-year FY 2014/15 revenue projections of $167 million for Measure A revenues, $81.5 million for Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues, and $12 million for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues; 2) Approve the budget increase adjustments to LTF transfers in of $276,400, and expenditures and transfers out of $345,500 to reflect the revised LTF projections; and 3) Approve the budget increase adjustments to TUMF revenues of $4 million to reflect the revised TUMF projections . BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Prior to the beginning of FY 2014/15, staff made projections regarding the revenues to be received from Measure A, LTF, and TUMF funds for budget purposes. Staff tracks the Measure A, LTF, and TUMF revenues on a monthly basis. Current trends indicate that Measure A and LTF receipts are about 5.7 percent and 7.8 percent higher, respectively, for the six months ended December 31, 2014, compared to the same period last year. The upward trend in receipts over the past six months reflects an improvement in sales tax revenues compared to the actual receipts during the same period in FY 2013/14. However, the trend for Measure A and LTF receipts through the five months ended November 30, 2014, reflected increases of only 1.3 percent and 4.0 percent, respectively. The December 2014 receipt provided renewed but cautious optimism regarding that the local economic recovery continues. For comparison purposes, the FY 2013/14 actual revenues reflected an increase of 4.6 percent and 6.5 percent in Measure A and LTF revenues, respectively, from the FY 2012/13 levels. FY 2014/15 TUMF receipts to date are significantly higher than FY 2013/14 trend; however, monthly TUMF receipts tend to fluctuate significantly-making it difficult to ascertain any trend. FY 2013/14 TUMF revenues were 6.6 percent lower than FY 2012/13 (highest level since FY 2007 /08) . Agenda Item 8 21 Recovery from the nationwide recession in the local economy continues. Sales tax revenues have rebounded from the economic downturn's low point in 2010. The unemployment rate has been decreasing and job growth indicators are somewhat encouraging. The housing market is showing improvement with price appreciation and increases in building permits - especially multi-family housing. Accordingly, staff took a conservative approach to this year's mid-year projection analysis based on the revenue trend noted through December 2014. Staff recommends the Commission maintain the current year revenue projections for Measure A and LTF revenues and increase the TUMF revenue projection, as follows: Revenue Revised for Increase Projections Original FY 2014/15 Budget Mid-Year (Decrease} (January 2014) Adjustment from Budget Measure A $ 167,000,000 $ 167,000,000 $ 167,000,000 $ LTF 81,500,000 81,500,000 81,500,000 TUMF 12,000,000 8,000,000 12,000,000 4,000,000 For reference purposes, audited revenues for FY 2013/14 were approximately $156,355,900 (Measure A), $77,544,200 (LTF), and $11,113,100 (TUMF). The Measure A and LTF revenue projections for FY 2014/15 are 6.4 percent and 5.1 percent higher than the FY 2013/14 actual revenues, respectively. The revised TUMF revenue projection reflects the average of the prior two fiscal years' actual revenues with a 4.3 percent increase. Any change in Measure A revenue projections has a direct effect on the distributions to the geographic areas and related local streets and roads (LSR) programs. Since there is no change in the Measure A revenue projections, no adjustments are required for LSR expenditures and Coachella Valley highways and regional arterials. Since there is no change in Measure A revenues, there is no change in the 1 percent statutory limitation on administrative salaries and benefits. Based on a preliminary analysis through December 31, 2014, it appears that this limitation will not be exceeded. Additionally, the original Measure A administrative allocation of $2.9 million is sufficient to cover FY 2014/15 administrative costs. This allocation does not exceed the 4 percent limitation on administration costs adopted by the Commission in a prior year. The LTF audit was completed and financial statements were issued in November 2014. Staff revised the original LTF projections to include the carryover that is available to the local governments and transit agencies amounting to approximately $9,214,400. Staff recommends the LTF administrative allocation remain unchanged at $850,000. Expenditure adjustments are required for Commission and Southern California Association of Governments planning of approximately $276,400 and $69,100, respectively. Since the Commission administrative and planning allocations may be transferred to the General Fund, similar adjustments to transfers in and out are also needed. The increase for SB 821 bicycle and pedestrian projects of approximately $177,400 does not require a budget adjustment as this amount will be included • • in the amount available for the next call for projects. The increase in the LTF balance available • Agenda Item 8 22 • • • for apportionments for transit operators of approximately $7,822,400 also does not require a budget adjustment as this amount will be available for any transit allocation adjustments based on amendments to transit operator Short Range Transit Plans. Upon Commission approval, staff will provide this updated information to the necessary local governments and transit operators. Additionally, staff will continue to monitor FY 2014/15 revenues to determine if any adjustments to the revenue projections or Measure A administration are necessary. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2014/15 Amount: $4,276,400 sources $345,500 uses Source of Funds: I LTF and TUMF I Budget Adjustment: I Yes $ 276,400 60162 97001 276,400 106 65 59001 GL/Project Accounting No.: 69,100 60162 86205 2,000,000 725000 416 41607 210 72 42110 2,000,000 735000 416 41607 210 73 42110 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~ I Date: I 12/18/14 Attachments: 1) Measure A Program Allocation FY 2014/15 2) Riverside County LTF FY 2014/15 Apportionment Agenda Item 8 23 ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A PROGRAM ALLOCATION (PROJECTION) FY 2014/15 • (Revised (1/14/15) Revenues $ 167,000,000 1 Less: Administration 2,900,000 APPORTIONMENT TO PROGRAMS $ 164,100,000 Western County Highway Improvements $ 37,613,000 New Corridors 13,644,000 Public Trans it Commuter Rail 7,523,000 Intercity Bus 1,881,000 Specialized Transit-Operations 2,351,000 Specialized Transit-CTSA 783,000 Commuter Services 1,844,000 Regional Arterial 11,063,000 Local Streets & Roads 35,769,000 BANNING $ 530,000 BEAUMONT CALIMESA 149,000 CANYON LAKE 169,000 CORONA 3,707,000 EASTVALE 1,088,000 HEMET 1,611,000 JURUPA VALLEY 1,802,000 LAKE ELSINORE 1, 137,000 MENIFEE 1,438,000 MORENO VALLEY 3,586,000 MURRIETA 2,065,000 NORCO 599,000 PERRIS 1,353,000 RIVERSIDE 6,655,000 SAN JACINTO 718,000 • TEMECULA 2,744,000 WILDOMAR 555,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 5,112,000 RCTC Regional Arterial 751,000 Bond Financing 9,956,000 Economic Development Projects 1,475,000 SUBTOTAL-Western County 123,902,000 Coachella Valley Highways & Regional Arterials 19,488,000 Local Street & Roads 13,642,000 CATHEDRAL CITY $ 1,401,000 COACHELLA 629,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 494,000 INDIAN WELLS 244,000 INDIO 1,716,000 LA QUINTA 1,509,000 PALM DESERT 2,718,000 PALM SPRINGS 2,048,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 876,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2,007,000 CVAG Specialized & Public Transit 5,846,000 SUBTOTAL-Coachella Valley 38,976,000 Palo Verde Valley Local Street & Roads 1,222,000 BLYTHE $ 973,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 249,000 SUBTOTAL-Palo Verde Valley 1,222,000 TOTAL $ 164,100,000 • 1 Mid-year revision reflects no change in revenue projection. Note: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences. N:\MEASURES\Meas A FY15\2015 Measure A Revenue Projection Mid Year Revision.xlsx 24 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND FY 2014/15 APPORTIONMENT (Revised) Revised Projection (01/14/15) Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $ 9,214,419 Est. Receipts 81 500 000 TOTAL 90,714,419 Less: County Auditor-Controller Administration 12,000 Less: RCTC Administration 850,000 Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) 2,721,433 Less: SCAG Planning (3/4 of 1 % of revenues) 680 358 BALANCE 86,450,628 Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) 1 729 013 BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES 84,721,616 Less: 10% Transit Reserves 8 472 162 BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT $ 76,249,454 APPORTIONMENT Revised Population FY 2014/15 Population "lo of Total Aeportionment Western: 1,791,727 79.45% $ 60 582 985 Rail 22% 13,328,257 Transit 78% 47,254,728 Coachella Valley 437,342 19.39% 14,787,679 Palo Verde Valley 25 990 1.15% 878 790 2,255,059 100.00% $ 76,249,454 ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT RESERVES (in accordance with Reserve Policy adopted January 12, 2005): Western: Rail Transit: RTA Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside Subtotal Transit Subtotal Western Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total Reserves $ $ $ 1,480,917 4,282,976 170,814 180,757 233,796 382 182 5,250,526 5,250,526 6,731,443 1,643,075 97 643 $ 8,472,162 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences Population Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2013 Allocation of Reserves: FY 2012/13 SRTP Funding Allocations Approved 7/11/12 N:\LTF\2014-2015 Apportionments Mid Year Revision.xlsx 25 ATTACHMENT 2 Original Projection (Decrease) (01/08/14) Increase $ $ 9,214,419 81,500,000 81,500,000 9,214,419 12,000 850,000 2,445,000 276,433 611 250 69108 77,581,750 8,868,878 1 551 635 177 378 76,030, 115 8,691,501 7 603 012 869 150 $ 68,427, 104 $ 7,822,350 Original FY 2014/15 (Decrease) Aeeortionment Increase $ 54,367 841 $ 6,215 144 11,960,925 1,367,332 42,406,916 4,847,812 13,270,627 1,517,052 788,636 90,154 $ 68,427,104 $ 7,822,350 12/17/201412:49 PM Revenue Projections Presentation to the Commission January 14, 2015 Annual ~evenue Projections ~l 1/14/2015 1 • Based on place of consumption •Based on point of sale Source: Beacon Economics • Rwei;side County grew 1.1 percent, marginally faster,rate: ' · · · to statewide groWtl:i of 0.9 percent : · ·· .. County growth over decades has been faster tba(l stat~ · .;; and !s eiq:>e9'.ed to continue· : ·• :~~;~!~~ing within County ~~btiunced back frorptfeces~f~n . •Taxable sales 5.8 percent aPl:lve pnHetession peak (2Q i006t '.;~;~peq~lng irltreases in everyC<)~egory except bµsioes~lihd~str;c · 1/14/2015 2 Food Products 16.S I 7.5 19.S/ 5.6 20.7/6.7 16.S/ 4.6 15.9 I 3.4 16.8/7.1 Transportation 26.9 I 5.4 25.1/ 4.2 22.1/ 4.1 28.9 I 4.8 27.1I4.3 28.9 I 6.1 Construction 11.8 I 4.5 9.1/ 4.4 9.1/ 5.5 10.8/ 5.5 11.3 I 6.3 10.9 I 4.5 Business to Business 14.5 I 3.1 16.8/ 4.4 19.4/ 5.9 14.0/2.1 14.2/ 3.0 16.9 I 3.9 15.7 /5.3 9.0/ 5.0 5.3 I o.6 Miscellaneous 1.9 I 6.5 1.1/ 2.3 11/ 0.1 1.7/1.4 12/ 0. 7 10/ 6.8 1.0/-8.1 1.0/ 6.0 1.1/-1.2 Total 100.0 I 5.1 100.0/ 4.0 100.0/ 4.6 100.0/ 3.3 100.0/ 4.0 100.0/3.5 100.0/ 5.2 100.0/2.0 100.0/18 General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, FlorisUNursery, and Misc. Retail Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment Construction: Building Materials Retail and Building Materials Wholesale Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, Auto Sales -New, Auto Sales -Used, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales Business to Business: Office Equip., Electronic Equip., Business Ser.4ces, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry, Light Industry, and Leasing Miscellaneous: Health & Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments Source: MuniServices $50,000,000 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 ------a • I • .... - ---------~:=::::=~i:::=~=~:::=:=:::=:==-:: -+-GENERALRETAIL ...-A : =:::::::;:::::t ~ ~ e ! : : :::;; --TRANSPORTATION -~ -~-l..,E------_,.ll!---llll( __ _,.)(<--.,i)I~( _ _,,;'. --FOOD PRODUCTS -.....;J;;.1~-.....;).,.'.( __ ,,..~--}i( -M-BUSINESSTO BUSINESS ~CONSTRUCTION _.,_MISCELLANEOUS $0 , ................... , .......... . Source: MuniServices, based on benchmark year (BMY) 1/14/2015 3 1/14/2015 Activit• II• Elcmrnmmic llegmernts ~c1c ~@~." Auto Sales-Auto Sales-Department Se Nice Service Largest Segment Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants New New Stores Stations Stations % of Total I% Chan e 10.8 I 9.3 13.5/6.7 14.5/7.8 11.9/7.7 13.8/ 1.3 14.7 I 6.4 12.1/ 2.1 13.7 I -1.2 21.5/ 3.4 2nd Largest Segment Service Auto Sales-Auto Sales-Department Service Auto Sales-Department Department Misc.Retail Stations New New Stores Stations New Stores Stores % of Total I% Change 10.7 I 0.2 10.5/ 8.5 10.1/7.2 11.4/0.6 11.1/ -1.0 10.7/8.3 11.0/ 1.8 11.2/ -0.8 9.9/ 3.8 Department Department Department Auto Sales-Department Auto Sales-Service 3rd Largest Segment Restaurants Restaurants Stores Stores Stores New Stores New Stations % of Total/% Change 10.5 I 2.4 10.0/0.9 8.4/ 1.2 10.6/ 5.8 10.1/ 11.4 9.7 /0.5 10.6/7.5 10.3/6.6 9.8/0.6 Source: MuniServices rr:eralds II• miHlrnmmic llegmerats ~ ' ' $20,000,000 $18,000,000 -+-AUTO SALES -NEW $16,000,000 _.,_SERVICE STATIONS $14,000,000 ..,,._..DEPARTMENT STORES $12,000,000 ~RESTAURANTS ~BLDG.MATLS- $10,000,000 WHSLE ........ MISCELLANEOUS $8,000,000 RETAIL ~APPARELSTORES $6,000,000 .,,......,,..fOQD MARKETS $4,000,000 "'"'"''''BLDG.MATLS- RETAIL -4-LIGHT INDUSTRY $2,000,000 $0 Source: MuniServices, based on benchmark year (BMY) 4 $180.0 $160.0 $140.0 $120.0 $100.0 $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $20.0 Measure A Revenues ~ -· .,,c:i··.,,c:i···,,()···.,,c:i···'),t;;J···'\-r;;y·.,,c:i··,,c:i··.,,c:i···,,()·',,c:i•·,,c:i··.,,c:i···.,,c:i··· $1,222,000 $2'9~'000 1% 2015 •Western County •Coachella Valley •Palo Verde Valley •Administration ...,.Actual -<'...,.Projection ""!@1-Budget Based on ,taxable sales by~rea $1,164,000 $3,~~,000 2016 1% •l.8percentincreasefrornfY 14/lSproiection •Western County •Coachella Valley •Palo Verde Valley •Administration 1/14/2015 5 Measwrse A Re'7erawe lmmmrsam Allm1a~imm ~~ ~3.Qif¥1roent Highways • ¥,~~-&Ji l~I st~e~tsand Roads ;@fotr~ht!9fot~-~fbt9:{Co9ry,ty/citte,s Arte.rials. , .·. H•. . .. ··.·· • :>s pef«ltit lOOi!Sfieetsan'd Roads .... , i · . -oasea oo'75 Percent · • Alio~atkln tlfC<iunty/citfes · ··· based 61. so.'percent dWelUng ' . population, 25 percent taxable !~J~;?J;~8Jd<Y>?';f'}<.;~.~,,. , · .\Units, 50 percent.taxable sates· Ji; ·H~ar:~: ::~~J::!:. • 15 ·percent Publi~ Triilnslt ;11s 7.9 percent above last year (seven months) FY 2014/15 revised projection: $81.5 million • No change in budget • 5.1 percent above FY 2013/14 revenues FY 2015/16 projection: $83 million • 1.8 percent increase from FY 2014/15 projection II> c: ~ ~ Local Transportation Fund Revenues $90.0 $80.0 $70.0 $60.0 $50.0 $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $- 1/14/2015 6 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenues $80.0 - -...Actual ....,Projection -..Budget $60.0 -------- $100.0~ $40.0 -~-------- $20.0 ~ $-~ ~ ! • 1/14/2015 7 • AGENDA ITEM 9 • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 14, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2015/16 Revenue Projections STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the projections for Measure A revenues of $170 million for FY 2015/16; 2) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment of $83 million for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas for FY 2015/16; and 3) Approve the projections for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues of $12 million for FY 2015/16. • BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • Prior to the commencement of the annual budget process, the Chief Financial Officer presents to the Commission the revenue projections for Measure A, LTF, and TUMF related to the next fiscal year. These revenue projections include consideration of historical and current trends of receipts and economic data collected from various sources. One source of data is the annual sales tax forecast of Measure A and LTF revenues prepared by Beacon Economics, LLC, which is attached. Measure A The Measure A projection consists of revenues generated from the local half-cent transactions and use tax approved by the voters in November 2002. These Measure A funds are principally used to fund highway, regional arterial, local streets and roads, new corridors, economic development, bond financing, bus transit, commuter rail, commuter assistance, and specialized transportation projects in the three geographic areas of Riverside County, as defined in the Measure A Expenditure Plan. The percentage of Measure A revenues allocated to each of these geographic areas is based on return to source of the sales tax revenues generated. FY 2015/16 represents the seventh year of the 30-year term of the 2009 Measure A. The Measure A projection for FY 2015/16 is $170 million. The estimate is based on the revised projection for FY 2014/15 and a 1.8 percent increase over the FY 2014/15 estimate. This Agenda Item 9 26 increase is conservative and represents cautious optimism based on current economic forecast information. This projection will become the basis for the preparation of the FY 2015/16 budget. The budget process typically commences in January of each year following the development of the Measure A revenue projections. Additionally, the amounts for the local streets and roads programs are usually provided to the local jurisdictions for planning purposes. After the deduction for administration of $3 million, which is approximately 1.8 percent of Measure A revenues, the amount available for distribution to the three geographic areas is $167 million, which is allocated as follows: Geographic Area Western Riverside County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total Local Transportation Fund $ $ Amount 126,514,000 39,322,000 1,164,000 167,000,000 The LTF projection consists of revenues generated from a quarter cent of the statewide sales tax. These LTF funds are principally used to fund transit requirements within the county of • Riverside (County). The Transportation Development Act (TDA) legislation that created LTF • requires the County Auditor Controller to annually estimate the amount of revenues expected to be generated from the sales tax. That estimate then becomes the basis for geographic apportionment and for claimant allocation through the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) process, which commences in January 2015 for the next fiscal year. While the County is the taxing authority and maintains custodial responsibility over the LTF revenues, the Commission by statute is charged with administration of the LTF funding process. Therefore, the practice has been for staff to develop the revenue estimate and then submit it to the County Auditor Controller for concurrence. Once the Commission and the County agree on a revenue amount, staff prepares the statutorily required apportionment. Apportionment is the process that assigns revenues to the three major geographic areas as defined by TDA law within the County: Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. The revenues are divided based on the respective populations for each area. The apportionment occurs after off-the-top allocations for administration to the County and Commission and set asides for Southern California Association of Governments planning (3/4 of 1 percent), local planning activities (3 percent), and bicycle and pedestrian projects (2 percent). Attached is the FY 2015/16 LTF apportionment based on a revenue estimate of $83 million. The estimate will be submitted to the County for its concurrence. The estimate is based on the revised projection for FY 2014/15 and assumes a 1.8 percent increase over the FY 2014/15 estimate. This increase is conservative and represents cautious optimism based on current economic forecast information. After the deductions for administration of $912,000 and Agenda Item 9 27 • • set-asides of approximately $4,692,000, the amount available for apportionment before reserves is approximately $77,396,000. The balance available for apportionment before reserves is as follows: • • Apportionment Area Western Riverside County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total $ $ Amount 61,525,200 15,029,800 841,000 77,396,000 In accordance with the Reserve Policy adopted by the Commission at its January 12, 2005 meeting, a reserve of 10 percent for each apportionment area will be established and set aside for FY 2015/16, for unforeseen cost increases or other emergency. For the Western Riverside County apportionment area, a portion of the reserve will be allocated to each of the transit operators. For public bus transit operators, the allocation of the reserve is based on each operator's proportionate share of FY 2013/14 LTF operating allocations. Operators may access reserve funds by amending their SRTPs through the established amendment process. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee The TUMF projection consists of revenues generated from fees charged to new development to ensure it pays for the new transportation facilities needed to accommodate growth. As a result of a memorandum of understanding executed in 2008 between the Commission and the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the administrator of the TUMF program, the Commission receives 48.7 percent of the TUMF revenues, after an administrative allocation for the Commission's regional arterial program. The revenue estimate for FY 2015/16 is $12 million. The estimate is based on the revised projection for FY 2014/15, and assumes no change due to the slow but encouraging recovery in the housing market. NEXT STEPS: Upon Commission approval, staff will provide this information to the necessary local jurisdictions and transit operators for planning purposes. Staff will continue to monitor FY 2014/15 revenues during the development of the FY 2015/16 budget to determine if any adjustments to the revenue projections are necessary . Agenda Item 9 28 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Vear: FY 2015/16 $83,000,000 LTF; Amount: $170,000,000 Measure A; $12,000,000 TUMF Source of Funds: I LTF, Measure A, and TUMF Budget Adjustment: I N/ A $ 83,000,000 60162 40102 3,000,000 001001 401 40101 101lX40101 38,406,000 623999 401 40101 262 3140101 13,932,000 613999 401 40101 2613140101 7,681,000 654199 401 40101 265 33 40101 1,920,000 269 62 40101 2,400,000 260 26 40101 800,000 270 26 40101 1,883,000 632199 401 40101 263 4140101 GL/Project Accounting No.: 11,296,000 266 72 40101 36,524,000 267 7140101 10,166,000 26419 40101 1,506,000 683999 401 40101 268 3140101 19,661,000 563999 401 40101 256 3140101 13,763,000 257 7140101 5,898,000 258 26 40101 1,164,000 234 7140101 6,000,000 725000 416 41607 210 72 42110 6,000,000 735000 416 41607 210 73 42110 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~ I Date: I 12/18/14 Attachments: 1) Measure A Program Allocation FY 2015/16 2) Riverside County LTF FY 2015/16 Apportionment Agenda Item 9 29 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, DECEMBER 2014 • ~ it\ 30 BEACON ECONOMICS This publication was prepared by: Beacon Economics, LLC Christopher Thornberg Founding Partner 310.571.3399 Chris@Beacon Econ. com And by: Brian Vanderplas Senior Research Associate 424.646.4654 Brian@BeaconEcon.com BEACON ECONOMICS Jordan G. Levine Economist & Director of Economic Research 424.646.4652 Jordan@BeaconEcon.com For further information about Beacon Economics, please contact: Victoria Pike Bond Director of Communications 415.457.6030 Victoria@BeaconEcon.com Or visit our website at www.BeaconEcon.com. Reproduction of this document or any portion therein is prohibited without the expressed written permission of Beacon Economics. Copyright ©2014 by Beacon Economics LLC. 31 • • • • • • Contents Report Overview National and State Economies Taxable Sales and Sales Tax Summary 32 • • • • • • BEACON ECONOMICS Report Overview Beacon Economics, LLC has undertaken a forecast of key revenue streams for the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) over the next thirty years. While our forecast uses standard time-series econometric techniques based on historical correlations and future trends, our method of forecasting follows a layered approach. National policy changes and external shocks are built into a U.S. model with a variety of indicators, including GDP, production, demographics, interest rates, government spending, taxes, savings, income growth, and real estate. A California model is then developed that incorporates macro trends at the national level with trends in the local labor market, including demographics, real estate, and business activity indicators. Taking into account these state and national factors, Beacon Economics has set up a regional model for Riverside County that uses the macro trends along with a variety of specific regional data -including figures on sales tax rev- enues that were provided by RCTC -to create a local forecast that provides a broad outlook for the region on em- ployment by industry, the unemployment rate, consumer spending and income trends, population and components of change, residential real estate and construction, and nonresidential real estate and construction. Thus, in our re- gional assessment, we highlight the major drivers on the national level, continue with developments in the State of California, and zoom in on Riverside County's economy to provide a forecast of the activity and revenues that can be expected by RCTC out to fiscal year 2042-43 . RCTC Revenue Forecast 1 33 103,101,863 ' !!:6 ;,1~:~0,6n 6.5 12,125;336 120,431,702 .8.11 1§41Jl8Mnt':·•k.+§~~sj;9t4. 6.0 6.1 . 76;444,236''' '~i;b18,4~2 December 2014 BEACON ECONOMICS National and State Economies In our most recent quarterly edition of Beaconomics, which can be accessed for free at www.BeaconEcon.com, we provide an in-depth analysis of the current national and state trends. Below is a brief summary of what we see hap- pening for the U.S. and California economies. The remainder of this report will explain the underlying drivers behind our forecast conclusions. United States Economy • During the third quarter of 2014, the U.S. economy grew at a 3.5% annual rate, down from the previous quarter's 4.6% growth, but still a solid increase -and higher than the post-recession average growth of 2.3%. • The global economy has exhibited weak growth as of late, with Europe having yet to pull out of its recession. China's growth has slowed and its real estate markets have showed signs of distress. But unlike the previous global downturn, the U.S. is no longer at the core of the problem and, rather, is a source of strength in the international economy. • Nearly every part of the U.S. economy is showing real signs of slow but steady improvement, from housing to pub- lic spending to credit. The only portion of the economy that is acting as a drain on the nation is the export sector, however, that is due to weakness in the global economy. • • Beacon Economics is forecasting that the U.S. economy will keep growing this year, but at slightly below 3%, a bit • slower than last year. Next year, expect the U.S. economy to grow at a pace modestly over 3%, with the following year improving even more. • As for major potential risks, they remain largely external -although, there is nothing currently on the international front that could seriously derail the nation's economy. Still, the global economy remains the swing item. Absent such improbable occurrences, though, the U.S. economy will continue to expand for the foreseeable future. California Economy • As the Great Recession fades from California's rear-view mirror, it is becoming increasingly imperative to focus on the structural challenges that the state faces over the long run. • Among the obstacles the state faces are improving educational attainment, funding the state's pension obliga- tions, infrastructure investments, reducing the cost of housing, and reforming our tax system to mitigate the effects of future economic downturns. • As of September 2014, nonfarm employment in the Golden State jumped ahead of its pre-recession peak by more than 80,000 positions. While some sectors have performed better than others, every major industry in the state's economy has shown progress since hitting bottom in 2010. • Jobs are being created across the spectrum of wage categories. California has enjoyed solid job growth in low- wage categories like Leisure and Hospitality, Administrative Support, and Retail Trade. However, the state's labor market has also created a sizeable number of new Healthcare, Professional, and Information jobs-which tend toward the higher end of the wage spectrum. RCTC Revenue Forecast 2 December 2014 34 • • • • BEACON ECONOMICS • Many leading indicators for future job growth remain in positive territory as well. Business and consumer spend- ing, as measured by taxable sales, are up by more than 4.5% through the first half of 2014. Business investment continues to move forward in California with more than $5.4 billion in new venture capital deployed so far this year. • Beacon Economics is currently forecasting that the California economy will continue to lead the national recov- ery, with growth picking up in 2015 and 2016 before settling into more "normal" growth rates thereafter. Taxable Sales and Sales Tax Beacon Economics' taxable sales forecast for Riverside County is based on the underlying fundamentals behind consumer and business spending in the area -namely, population and income trends in both the larger regional economy and in the County of Riverside itself. Based on the trends in the national, state, and local economies, our forecast projects taxable sales growth in the 6% to 8% range over the next five fiscal years. Thereafter, we expect taxable sales to return to trend growth of between 5% to 6% per year out to fiscal year 2042-43. We expect inflation to remain in line with historical trends and are currently projecting real growth in the 5% to 6% range over the next five fiscal years, and then cooling down to 3% to 4% for the remainder of the forecast. Taxable Sales Forecast 2.0e+OB- VJ c ~ (jj 1.5e+OB-· ~ ~ 1.0e+OB- Cii (J) "' ~ 50000000- x ~ o- -Actual -Forecast Source: Forecast by Beacon Economics Population in the County Continues to Expand ~ 20- .c '§: 10-e ('J "' "' o-Cii (J) "' Taxable Sales Growth Forecast Riverside County, FY 1972-73 to 2042-43 ~ -10-,. x ~ -20- 1 I I I I I I I 1973 1983 1993 2003 2013 2023 2033 2043 -Actual -Forecast Source: Forecast by Beacon Economics • Riverside County's population grew by 1.1% from 2013 to 2014, a marginally faster rate of increase compared to the statewide population growth of 0.9% over the same period. Having more residents live in the County will ultimately boost spending in the region, in turn supporting revenue growth over the next five fiscal years. • The population growth from 2013 to 2014 was a slight acceleration over the 1.0% growth rate seen from 2012 to 2013, but was under the 2.9% average annual growth rate over the last ten years. • The County of Riverside's population has, on average, grown faster than that of the State overall over the decades and we expect these trends to continue . RCTC Revenue Forecast 3 December 2014 35 BEACON ECONOMICS 1,260- ~1,240- ,,; g 1,220- 8 ~ 1,200- ~ %1,180- E w1,160- 1,140- Inland Empire Labor Market Oct-09 to Oct-14 1 I I I I I -16 ;;:- en -14 t Q) '" a: -12 c Q) E f;' -10 ~ -8 Q) c;: :::> Oct-09 Oct-10 Oct-11 Oct-12 Oct-13 Oct-14 -Nonfarm Employment --Unemployment Rate Source: California Employment Development Department Inland Empire Labor Markets Gain Traction 2,400- 2,200- Riverside County Population 1990 to 2014 ~ 2,000-!~;j1t'~'~.!.~J·f~1~£f~~l:li! ~ 1,800- 0 N 1,600- " a. /?. 1,400- 1,200- 1,000- I I 1990 1995 I 2000 I 2005 Source: California Department of Finance I 2010 • Total nonfarm employment in the Inland Empire increased by 2.2% from October 2013 to October 2014, slightly faster than the 2.1% annual increase in statewide nonfarm payrolls and ahead of the nation overall. The unem- ployment rate in the Inland Empire has fallen 1.8 percentage points over the last year to 8.0%, which is somewhat higher than the current statewide average of 7.3%. These improvements in the local labor market will help sup- port income growth and spending power in the years to come. • As of October 2014, the Inland Empire had recouped 126,400 of the 149,200 jobs lost from the peak in July of 2007 to the trough in February of 2010. Although nonfarm employment is currently at 1.8% below its pre- recession peak, the region has clearly come a long way since the Great Recession. • Job growth was spread across a broad range of sectors, with only the Construction and Financial Activities sec- tors experiencing declines over the last year. Leading the way was the Professional and Business Services sector, which increased payrolls by more than 7,200 over the last year. RCTC Revenue Forecast 4 December 2014 36 • • • • • • BEACON ECONOMICS Riverside County Spending Maintaining Momentum • With improving labor market conditions and a gradually improving local economy, spending within the County has already bounced back nicely from the recession. • According to information from the State Board of Equalization, taxable sales in the County of Riverside as of the second quarter of 2014 were already 5.8% above the pre-recession peak set in the second quarter of 2006. More over, in the first half of 2014, taxable sales in Riverside County have continued to move forward, having increased by 5.8% compared to the first half of 2013 spending levels. • As of the second quarter of 2014, the region has seen gains across virtually every category of spending from autos to restaurants to hotels. Only the business and Industry category saw year-over-year declines . Inflation Remains Tame • The personal consumption expenditure deflator, the Federal Reserve's primary indicator for inflation, rose by just 1.5% from the third quarter of 2013 to the third quarter of 2014. • Even though monetary policy remains accommodative in the short term, the risk of inflation remains low given the current slack in the national labor market. Our long term outlook assumes that inflation will be in the 1.5% to 2.0% range in the latter years of our forecast . RCTC Revenue Forecast 5 December 2014 37 BEACON ECONOMICS Summary Overall, the economy in Riverside County and throughout the Inland Empire continues to improve as the region's labor market maintains upward momentum, the population continues to grow, spending levels have bounced back from recession lows, and inflation is expected to remain low. Each of these factors should help to bolster taxable sales and subsequent RCTC revenues in the coming years as outlined in this report. With the worst definitely behind us, Riverside County has come a long way since the Great Recession and the local economy is poised for positive growth in the years to come. 76,375, 798 I 82,942,773 • 4.8 I 4.8 4.3 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.":. 4.8 I 4.4 4.7 6.0 6.5 6.0 6. RCTC Revenue Forecast 6 December 2014 • 38 • • • BEACON ECONOMICS About Beacon Economics About Beacon Economics Beacon Economics, LLC is a leading provider of economic research, forecasting, industry analysis, and data services. By delivering independent, rigorous analysis we give our clients the knowledge they need to make the right strategic decisions about investment, growth, revenue, and policy. Learn more at www.BeaconEcon.com. Services • Economic, Revenue, & Occupational Forecasting • Economic Impact Analysis • Regional Economic Analysis • Economic Policy Analysis • Real Estate Market Analysis • Industry and Market Analysis • EB-5 Economic Analysis • Public Speaking • Expert Testimony RCTC Revenue Forecast Contacts • Sherif Hanna Managing Partner (424) 646-4656 Sherif@BeaconEcon.com • Victoria Pike Bond Director of Communications (415) 457-6030 Victoria@BeaconEcon.com • Rick Smith 7 39 Director of Business Development (858) 997-1834 Rick@BeaconEcon.com December 2014 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 2 MEASURE A PROGRAM ALLOCATION (PROJECTION) • FY 2015/16 Revenues $ 170,000,000 Less: Administration 3,000,000 APPORTIONMENT TO PROGRAMS $ 167,000,000 Western County Highway Improvements $ 38,406,000 New Corridors 13,932,000 Public Transit Commuter Rail 7,681,000 Intercity Bus 1,920,000 Specialized Transit-Operations 2,400,000 Specialized Transit-CTSA 800,000 Commuter Services 1,883,000 Regional Arterial 11,296,000 Local Streets & Roads 36,524,000 BANNING $ 535,000 BEAUMONT CALIMESA 152,000 CANYON LAKE 172,000 CORONA 3,776,000 EASTVALE 1,141,000 HEMET 1,634,000 JURUPA VALLEY 1,830,000 LAKE ELSINORE 1,159,000 MENIFEE 1,476,000 MORENO VALLEY 3,611,000 MURRIETA 2,114,000 NORCO 607,000 PERRIS 1,416,000 RIVERSIDE 6,797,000 SAN JACINTO 782,000 • TEMECULA 2,747,000 WILDOMAR 565,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 5,238,000 RCTC Regional Arterial 772,000 Bond Financing 10, 166,000 Economic Development Projects 1,506,000 SUBTOTAL-Western County 126,514,000 Coachella Valley Highways & Regional Arterials 19,661,000 Local Street & Roads 13,763,000 CATHEDRAL CITY $ 1,427,000 COACHELLA 627,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 498,000 INDIAN WELLS 253,000 INDIO 1,796,000 LA QUINTA 1,499,000 PALM DESERT 2,686,000 PALM SPRINGS 2,035,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 871,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2,071,000 Specialized & Public Transit 5,898,000 SUBTOTAL-Coachella Valley 39,322,000 Palo Verde Valley Local Street & Roads 1,164,000 BLYTHE $ 928,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 236,000 SUBTOTAL-Palo Verde Valley 1,164,000 TOTAL $ 167,000,000 • Note: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences . N:IMEASURES\Meas A FY1612016 Measure A Revenue Projection.xlsx 40 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND FY 2015/16 APPORTIONMENT (Original) Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) Est. Receipts TOTAL Less: County Auditor-Controller Administration Less: RCTC Administration Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) Less: SCAG Planning (3/4 of 1 % of revenues) BALANCE Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES Less: 10% Transit Reserves BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT APPORTIONMENT Western: Rail Transit Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley 22% 78% Population 1,812,438 442,756 24,773 2,279,967 Population % of Total $ $ 83 000 000 83,000,000 12,000 900,000 2,490,000 622,500 78,975,500 1 579 510 77,395,990 7 739 599 69,656,391 FY 2015/16 Apportionment 79 .49% ~$z..__5::..:5:.i.3::..:7-=2oi.:,6:..;:8-=6~ 12,181,991 43,190,695 19.42% 13,526,850 1.09% 756 855 100. 00% =$~====6=9,;,;,6=5=6 ·=3=91== ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT RESERVES (in accordance with ReseNe Policy adopted January 12, 2005): Western: Rail $ 1,353,555 Transit: RTA Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside Subtotal Transit Subtotal Western Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total Reserves $ 3,950,010 132,713 205,502 195,981 314 761 $ 4,798,966 $ 4,798,966 6,152,521 1,502,983 84 095 7,739,599 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences Population Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2014 Allocation of ReseNes: FY 2013/14 SRTP Funding Allocations Approved 7/10/13 N:ILTF\2015-2016 Apportionments.xlsx 41 ATTACHMENT 3 12/17/20144:51 PM • AGENDA ITEM 10 • •• • • • .------------------------------------------------------ • • • DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION January 14, 2015 Riverside County Transportation Commission Technical Advisory Committee Jillian Guizado, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager Anne Mayer, Executive Director SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Revisions STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt the revised SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program evaluation criteria and policies. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each year, 2 percent of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB 821 program. This is a discretionary program administered by the Commission . At its June 2013 meeting, the Budget and Implementation Committee reviewed and forwarded to the Commission the Fiscal Year 2013/14 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program funding recommendations. Several committee members expressed concern about the existing SB 821 evaluation criteria, which was last revised in 1995. In September 2013, a TAC subcommittee was formed to accomplish the task of reviewing and updating the SB 821 program. Sixteen members of the TAC volunteered to participate on the subcommittee, with 38 percent of the members representing the Coachella Valley. The TAC Subcommittee met five times over the course of 10 months. The average attendance was eight members with 40 percent Coachella Valley participation. At its March 2014 meeting, the Commission approved the TAC subcommittee's recommendation to extend the SB 821 Call for Projects (SB 821 Call) from an annual basis to a biennial basis. It also set the SB 821 Call release date for the first Monday of every other February and the close date for the last Thursday of every other April, beginning February 2015 . Agenda Item 10 42 DISCUSSION: Following the March 2014 Commission meeting, the TAC Subcommittee continued to meet to review and discuss additional SB 821 policy and procedural practices, including evaluation criteria, evaluation committee composition, and allowable expenses. Evaluation Criteria The last revision to the evaluation criteria was done in 1995. Due to the evolving bicycle and pedestrian culture in Riverside County, it was necessary to review the evaluation criteria. Two key aspects of the criteria that were examined closely were the inequity toward bicycle projects and the possibility of incorporating environmental justice. With these topics in mind, the TAC Subcommittee set out to revise the evaluation criteria with a focus on quantitative measurement. Attachment 1 is a side-by-side comparison of the existing evaluation criteria to the proposed evaluation criteria. Key proposed changes are: • Replace "Use" with "Destinations Served"; reduce points from 25 to 15. • Reduce "Safety" points from 20 to 10. • • • Replace "Missing Link" and Bonus "Physical Accessibility Enhancement" with "Project Enhancement"; reduce points from 15 to 5. Maintain "Matching Funds" and add a requirement to include supporting documentation with application. Change "Population Equity" to an all-or-nothing basis; reduce points from 10 to 5 . • Replace "Importance as a Transportation Alternative" with "Multimodal Access"; reduce points from 20 to 5. • Total possible points change from 110 to 50. The revisions to the evaluation criteria add language and categories that apply to both pedestrian and bicycle projects. The TAC Subcommittee members were careful not to craft language that would apply to only one of the modes. The TAC Subcommittee had a lengthy discussion with regard to how to address environmental justice within the SB 821 program. Ultimately, it was determined the proposed evaluation criteria are the most equitable way to allocate funds to the cities and county interested in applying for SB 821 funds. Since the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 guidelines do not specifically call out environmental justice requirements, the TAC Subcommittee did not believe the SB 821 program should preclude any one agency from competing for funds if its proposed project does not have an environmental justice component. A concession for not including an environmental justice aspect in the evaluation criteria is to include a question in the application asking if the projects being submitted are within a disadvantaged community . Agenda Item 10 43 • • • • • • Staff will collect this information after each call to ensure the evaluation criteria does not have a natural bias toward projects not in disadvantaged communities. If a bias is discovered, staff will recommend adoption of a new policy to introduce an environmental justice component. Evaluation Committee In June 1977, the Commission adopted a policy to have the TAC and the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) review and prioritize the project list. The Chairs of CAC and TAC each appointed three members. In recent years, staff experienced difficulty securing committee members within the policy criteria, demonstrated in the following chart: SB 821 Evaluation Committee Historical Participation 2010 2011 2012 2013 3 CAC 2 CAC 2 CAC OCAC 3 TAC 3 TAC 3 TAC 3 TAC Furthermore, there is a recurring concern that evaluation committee members need to represent jurisdictions throughout the county to ensure unbiased scoring of project applications. The TAC Subcommittee's recommendation is to adopt a more flexible policy to ensure there is adequate participation and diverse representation for scoring. As such, the recommended evaluation committee policy composition recommendation is: "The SB 821 evaluation committee will be comprised of a minimum of five evaluators representing a wide range of interests such as: accessibility, bicycling, Coachella Valley, public transit, and the region. Staff, consultants, and other representatives from agencies submitting project proposals will not be eligible to participate on the evaluation committee that year." Allowable Expenses and SB 821 Policies TDA guidelines provide a broad list of allowed activities and guidelines for program administration, however give the remaining authority to the individual county transportation commission (CTC) administering each program. The Commission's adopted SB 821 policies have historically been incomplete as these policies do not restate the TDA Article 3 policies for local agencies to follow, nor do they state policies that have historically been applied to the program. Knowledge passed down by former long-time staff members has served as the Commission's only reference for allowable expenses. Staff is recommending the adoption of a revised adopted policy to be used as a guide for agencies submitting applications as well as claim forms . Agenda Item 10 44 A great deal of discussion in the TAC Subcommittee ensued over whether particular expenses should be allowable, namely curb and gutter. Historically, the Commission has not permitted curb and gutter to be an allowable expense. Staff provided the TAC Subcommittee with a list of allowable expenses as adopted by other CTCs in Southern California for its reference. Ultimately, the TAC Subcommittee members were divided in their opinion on whether or not to make curb and gutter eligible and did not make a unanimous recommendation. Staff then reviewed the concept and made a recommendation to the TAC to adopt a similar policy as the other CTCs to make curb and gutter an eligible expense. In the TAC's motion to approve staff's item, it was decided to require submitting agencies to provide justification for pavement costs included in their proposals. Since this motion did not create a policy so much as it made a suggestion for the SB 821 Call content, staff recommends adopting language from the San Diego Association of Governments Bicycle and Pedestrian Claim Guidelines regarding curb and gutter. Attachment 2 is a suggested replacement to the Commission's current adopted policies (Attachment 3}. The replacement document lists existing TDA policies and suggests Commission policies, which encompass existing Commission-adopted SB 821 policies and newly proposed policies. Newly proposed policies include: giving staff the ability to recommend a project for partial funding if the full amount of funds is unavailable; excluding temporary facilities and projects already under bid or construction from being funded; and staff monitoring of Coachella Valley versus Western Riverside County allocation equity. Attachment 4 is a matrix indicating the relationship of the suggested policies to the current policies. There is no financial impact related to the approval of the revised SB 821 evaluation criteria and policies. Attachments: 1} RCTC SB 821 Evaluation Criteria 2} Article 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Adopted Policies (Recommended} 3} SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Adopted Policies (Current} 4} SB 821 Adopted Policies Matrix Agenda Item 10 45 • • • Attachment 1 RCTC SB 821 Eva I uation Criteria Existing Criteria Proposed Criteria • \ MAXIMUM i MAXIMUM FACTOR ' FACTOR \ POINTS POINTS USE -The extent of potential use of a bicycle or DESTINATIONS SERVED -Three points will be pedestrian facility is the most important factor. awarded for each destination served by the proposed Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest project (e.g. employment center, school/college, benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB retail center, downtown area, park or recreation 821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from facility, library1 museum, government office, medical analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to 25 facility) up to a maximum of 15 points. *Map with 15 the project. numbered destinations served must be included. -For pedestrian projects, destinations served must be within a %-mile or less radius of the proposed project. -For bicycle projects, destinations served must be within a two-mile or less radius of the proposed project. SAFETY -Points are awarded on the basis of a SAFETY -The extent to which the proposed project project's potential to correct current safety problems. will increase safety for the non-motorized public. Points will be given for any combination of the following project characteristics: no existing shoulder within project limits, no existing/planned sidewalk or 20 bike route/lane/path adjacent to the project; and/or 10 by providing: documented pedestrian/bicycle collision history, most current and valid 85th percentile speed of motorized traffic in project limits, photos of existing safety hazards project will address, existing pedestrian/bicycle traffic counts, student attendance figures for school served by project. IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE PROJECT ENHANCEMENT -Up to five points will be -Points are awarded on the basis of a project's awarded based on the extent that the proposed potential to attract users who would otherwise use project will encourage people to use the proposed an automobile. I 20 facility; e.g. ADA ramps, bicycle lockers or other 5 bicycle amenities, or completing a missing link. Enhancements must exist or be part of the project proposal. MISSING LINK, EXTENSION, OR CONNECTIVITY -MULTI MODAL ACCESS-One point will be awarded Points are awarded to projects that link, are for each transit stop or park and ride facility served extensions of, or potentially connect to existing by the proposed project up to a maximum of five facilities . points. *Map with numbered transit stops or park 15 and rides served must be included. 5 -For pedestrian projects, transit stops served must be within a %-mile or less radius of the proposed project. • -For bicycle projects, transit stops served must be within a two-mile or less radius of the proposed project. MATCHING FUNDS-This factor is used to help MATCHING FUNDS-One point is awarded for each ensure that there is local funding participation in the 5% of match provided by the local agency, for a project -not just an application for "free" money. 10 maximum of 10 points at a 50% match. *Supporting 10 One point would be awarded for each 5% of total documentation of proposed match must be included. project cost that is financed by the local agency. POPULATION EQUITY -The purpose of this factor is POPULATION EQUITY -Calculated by multiplying the to help ensure that one agency does not receive all local agency's cumulative total allocation by the local the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10 agency's population percentage (population points if the amount of funds requested does not percentage calculated by dividing the local agency's exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds 10 population by the total population of Riverside 5 were allocated by population. Year to year totals are County). An applicant receives five points if the recorded so that an applicant could build up a cumulative amount of funds received does not "credit" (calculated by RCTC). exceed the total of what the applicant would receive [ if the funds were allocated by population (calculated by RCTC). PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENT -The ~~~~ purpose of this factor is to enhance the phys·1cal accessibility of existing pedestrian projects. Applicant 10 BONUS agencies may receive up to 10 "bonus" points for their project proposals which improve the physical access to existing facilities. 110 ' 50 • 46 • • • Attachment 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ARTICLE 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES (RECOMMENDED) Transportation Development Act Policies 1. Up to 5% of Article 3 apportionment can be used to supplement other funding sources used for bicycle and safety education programs; the allocation cannot be used to fully fund the salary of a person working on these programs. 2. Article 3 money shall be allocated for the construction, including related engineering expenses, of the facilities, or for bicycle safety education programs. 3. Money may be allocated for the maintenance of bicycling trails, which are closed to motorized traffic. 4. Facilities provided for the use of bicycles may include projects that serve the needs of commuting bicyclists, including, but not limited to, new trails serving major transportation corridors, secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots, and transit terminals where other funds are available. 5. Within 30 days after receiving a request for a review from any city or county, the transportation-planning agency shall review its allocations. 6. Up to 20 percent of the amount available each year to a city or county may be allocated to restripe Class II bicycle lanes. 7. A portion of each city's allocation may also be used to develop comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans. Plans must emphasize bike/pedestrian facilities that support utilitarian bike/pedestrian travel rather than solely recreational activities; a maximum of one entire allocation per five years may be used for plan development. 8. Allowable maintenance activities for the local funds are limited to maintenance and repairs of Class I off-street bicycle facilities only. RCTC Policies 1. The SB 821 Call for Projects will occur on a biennial basis, with a release date of the first Monday of every other February and a close date of the last Thursday of every other April, beginning in 2015. 2. If a project cannot be fully funded, RCTC may recommend partial funding for award. 3. Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns. 4. Agencies being awarded an allocation will be reimbursed in arrears only upon submitting adequate proof of satisfactory project completion, including but not limited to the claim form for the fiscal year in which the project was awarded, copies of paid invoices, and photographs of the completed project. 5. The allocated amount represents the maximum amount eligible for reimbursement. For projects completed under the allocated amount, the agency 47 Attachment 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ARTICLE 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES (RECOMMENDED) will be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection and approval. 6. An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project. There will be no time extensions granted unless the reason for the delay can be demonstrated. Where substantial progress or a compelling reason for delay can be shown, the agency may be granted administrative extensions in twelve-month increments at the discretion of the Executive Director. 7. Any programmed and unused Article 3 Program funds will be forfeited unless that agency can a) utilize the unused funds to complete projects that are the same or similar in scope and/or are contiguous to the approved project or b) apply the funds to a project previously submitted under an Article 3 call for projects and approved by the Commission, subject to Executive Director approval. 8. Design and construction of facilities must conform to the general design criteria for non-motorized facilities as outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. 9. Temporary facilities, projects in the bid process, or projects that are under construction will not be funded. 10. The SB 821 evaluation committee will be comprised of a minimum of five evaluators representing a wide range of interests; such as: accessibility, bicycling, Coachella Valley, public transit, and the region. Staff, consultants, and other representatives from agencies submitting project proposals will not be eligible to participate on the evaluation committee that year. 11. Following each call, staff will monitor the equity of allocations to Coachella Valley versus Western Riverside County; the allocation should be relative to what the Coachella Valley's share would have been if distributed on a per capita basis (the percentage of funds applied for should also be taken into consideration). If the allocation is often found to be inequitable to the Coachella Valley, staff will recommend adoption of a new policy to correct the imbalance. 12. Certain costs at times associated with bicycle/pedestrian projects are not eligible when the benefit provided is not the exclusive use of bicyclists/pedestrians, such as: curb and gutter as part of roadway drainage system, driveway ramps installed across sidewalks, and where roadway design standards require a roadway shoulder width that is at least as wide as a standard bike lane. 48 • • • • • • 1. 2. Attachment 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES (CURRENT) Agencies receiving an award shall be reimbursed in arrears only upon proof of satisfactory project completion, including but not limited to the RCTC claim form for the fiscal year in which the project was awarded, the RCTC supplemental claim form, and photographs of the completed project. (01112/11) If an agency provides a local match commitment on a project and the project is completed under budget, the agency will be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection and approval. (Example: If an agency commits to a 25% local match for a project estimated to cost $100,000, the amount of Article 3 funding awarded is $75,000. However, ifthe completed project costs only $80,000 instead of the estimated $100,000, the local agency will still contribute 25% of the project costs and will receive Article 3 funds totaling only $60,000). (01112/11) 3. Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns. (01112/11) 4. An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project using local forces or award a construction contract. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of a larger, federally funded project, which has been delayed beyond the agency's control. Also, projects that have been delayed beyond the agency's control, where substantial progress can be demonstrated, may receive one twelve-month extension, if necessary. Projects not completed or awarded within the twenty-four months will be deleted from the program, and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program. (3/12/03) 5. Any unused and programmed SB 821 Program funds must be returned to the Commission unless that agency can a) demonstrate why the costs were substantially lower than the estimate, and b) utilize the unused funds to complete projects that are the same or similar in scope and/or are contiguous to the approved project, subject to Executive Director approval. (12/11/91) 6. No agency will be allowed to carryover unused funds for projects not previously approved by the Commission based on an application (annual project proposals) submitted to the Commission for consideration, subject to Executive Director approval. (12/11191) 7. The Commission will not award funds for projects that do not meet physical accessibility standards (i.e. California Government Code 4450, Civil Code 51 Et. Seq., Title 24 of the California Building Code, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). (4/12/95) RCTC: 01112111 49 • • • Attachment 4 RCTC SB 821 Adopted Policies Matrix Existing Adopted Policies Adopted Policies -RCTC Policies (Recommended) 1. Agencies receiving an award shall be reimbursed in arrears only upon proof of satisfactory project NEW! 1. The SB 821 Call for Projects will occur on a biennial basis, with a release date of the first Monday of every completion, including but not limited to the RCTC claim form for the fiscal year in which the project was other February and a close date of the last Thursday of every other April, beginning in 2015. awarded, the RCTC supplemental claim form, and photographs of the completed project. 2. If an agency provides a local match commitment on a project and the project is completed under budget, NEW! 2. If a project cannot be fully funded, RCTC may recommend partial funding for award. the agency will be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection and approval. (Example: If an agency commits to a 25% local match for a project estimated to cost $100,000, the amount of Article 3 fund'1ng awarded is $75,000. However, ifthe completed project costs only $80,000 'instead of the estimated $100,000, the local agency will still contribute 25% of the project costs and will receive Article 3 funds totaling only $60,000). 3. Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns. OLD #3 3. Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns. 4. An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project using OLD #1 4. Agencies being awarded an allocation will be reimbursed in arrears only upon submitting adequate proof local forces or award a construction contract. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project of satisfactory project completion, including but not limited to the claim form for the fiscal year in which is part of a larger, federally funded project, which has been delayed beyond the agency's control. Also, the project was awarded, copies of paid invoices, and photographs of the completed project. projects that have been delayed beyond the agency's control, where substanf1al progress can be demonstrated, may receive one twelve-month extension, if necessary. Projects not completed or awarded within the twenty-four months will be deleted from the program, and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program. 5. Any unused and programmed SB 821 Program funds must be returned to the Commission unless that OLD #2 5. The allocated amount represents the maximum amount eligible for reimbursement. For projects agency can a) demonstrate why the costs were substantially lower than the estimate, and b) utilize the completed under the allocated amount, the agency will be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the unused funds to complete projects that are the same or similar in scope and/or are contiguous to the time of project selection and approval. approved project, subject to Executive Director approval. 6. No agency will be allowed to carryover unused funds for projects not previously approved by the OLD #4 6. An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project. Commission based on an application (annual project proposals) submitted to the Commission for There will be no time extensions granted unless the reason for the delay can be demonstrated. Where consideration, subject to Executive Director approval. substantial progress or a compelling reason for delay can be shown, the agency may be granted administrative extensions in twelve-month increments at the discretion of the Executive Director. 7. The Commission will not award funds for projects that do not meet physical accessibility standards (i.e. OLD #5, #6 7. Any programmed and unused Article 3 Program funds will be forfeited unless that agency can a) utilize the California Government Code 4450, Civil Code 51 Et. Seq., Title 24 of the California Building Code, Americans slightly unused funds to complete projects that are the same or similar in scope and/or are contiguous to the with Disabilities Act of 1990). revised approved project orb) apply the funds to a project previously submitted under an Article 3 call for projects and approved by the Commission, subject to Executive Director approval. OLD #7 8. Design and construction of facilities must conform to the general design criteria for non-motorized facilities as outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. NEW! 9. Temporary facilities, projects in the bid process, or projects that are under construction will not be funded. NEW! 10. The SB 821 evaluation committee will be comprised of a minimum of five evaluators representing a wide range of interests; such as: accessibility, bicycling, Coachella Valley, public transit, and the region. Staff, consultants, and other representatives from agencies submitting project proposals will not be eligible to participate on the evaluation committee that year. NEW! 11. Following each call, staff will monitor the equity of allocations to Coachella Valley versus Western Riverside County; the allocation should be relative to what the Coachella Valley's share would have been if distributed on a per capita basis (the percentage of funds applied for should also be taken into consideration). If the allocation is often found to be inequitable to the Coachella Valley, staff will recommend adoption of a new policy to correct the imbalance. NEW! 12. Certain costs at times associated with bicycle/pedestrian projects are not eligible when the benefit provided is not the exclusive use of bicycl"lsts/pedestr"1ans, such as: curb and gutter as part of roadway drainage system, driveway ramps installed across sidewalks, and where roadway design standards require a roadway shoulder width that is at least as wide as a standard bike lane. 50 • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 14, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Cap and Trade Funding and Disadvantaged Communities STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file a report on state policies regarding State Cap and Trade {CAT) funding and Disadvantaged Communities policies. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The twofold purpose of this report is to provide Commissioners with an understanding of new state funding programs that are being implemented to expend CAT auction revenues, and also understand those programs' relationship to an emerging state priority of focusing investments in disadvantaged communities. Both the CAT program and the focus on disadvantaged communities are new considerations for transportation agencies and local governments that are not yet widely understood, and in many ways are still under development. Commission staff hopes this report will encourage further conversation and collaboration among local government leaders in Riverside County to develop strategies to secure additional funding for projects. CAT General Background AB 32, by Senator Fran Pavley, the landmark legislation that set statewide objectives for reducing greenhouse gas {GHG) emissions, included authorization of a program that capped allowable carbon emissions by certain industries and created a market for carbon credits to be purchased above the cap. This program is administered by the California Air Resources Board {CARB). CARB holds regular auctions of carbon credits; the price of credits fluctuates based on the market's demand. These credit purchases create a revenue stream to fund projects that mitigate carbon emissions. SB 535, authored in 2012 by the new President Pro-Tempore of the State Senate, Kevin Deleon, required that 25 percent of all CAT funds be spent in a manner that benefits disadvantaged communities. Furthermore, 10 percent of all CAT funds must be spent on projects physically located within disadvantaged communities. This legislation necessitated the creation of a data driven tool to determine what a disadvantaged community is. The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) developed a tool known as CalEnviroScreen, which is discussed in this report . Agenda Item 11 51 CAT and AB 32 in general, generated controversy over its legality and impact on the business climate in California. Nonetheless, the program is moving forward and is expected to generate as much as $15 billion in revenue over its lifetime. The CAT program received media attention recently due to the fact that the fuels sector became subject to the carbon cap as of January 1, 2015. Capping the fuels sector and forcing petroleum producers to purchase credits led many to speculate the costs of CAT would be passed on to consumers at the gas pump to the order of anywhere between 9¢-50¢/gallon. Contrary to the innuendo suggested by the messaging of industry-led advocacy campaigns, such a price increase is not an increase in the state's motor fuels excise tax (the gas tax). The 2014/15 State Budget established how CAT revenues are to be allocated. Given the dearth of funding for any type of state programs during the recession, the prospect of billions of new state dollars created the government equivalent of a feeding frenzy in Sacramento. The Commission advocated heavily alongside regional governments and other transportation industry interests that significant shares of CAT revenues should be devoted to transportation projects that reduce GHG emissions. This position was justified by the fact that nearly one-third of all carbon emissions are generated from the transportation sector. Ultimately, this policy desire was fulfilled as 35 percent of ongoing revenues were devoted to transportation related programs and 25 percent was devoted to high-speed rail. However, the second and equally important policy point the Commission pressed alongside • many others was regarding who selected projects that would be funded by CAT revenue. The • Commission believes that regional governments should play a major role in determining what transportation projects are funded by CAT. The rationale for this request is the significant mandate placed upon regional governments by SB 375 (State Senate Pro Tern Darrell Steinberg) to reduce GHG's by specific amounts through their Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Despite persistent effort, the budget gave nearly total control of project selection to state agencies. The state agencies given responsibility for spending CAT funds are currently in the midst of finalizing guidelines to govern their new programs. In general, the agencies are under either legal mandates or directives from the Governor's office to begin expending funds quickly. CAT Programs of Immediate Interest Within less than one month, two major CAT programs will have published guidelines and calls for projects underway. While the draft guidelines for these two programs are extensive (15-81 pages), the summary table below provides highlights for local government leaders to make a high-level assessment as to whether their jurisdiction has any projects that are in a state of readiness to be competitive for the first cycle of funding for either of these programs: Agenda Item 11 52 • • • • Responsible Agency Affordable Housing/Sustainable Transit Capital and Intercity Rail Communities Strategic Growth Council (SGC) California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) Funds Available FY 2014/15: ~$120 million FY 2014/15: $25 million Status of Program Guidelines First Application Due Dates Eligible Projects (summary) Eligible Applicants (summary) Agenda Item 11 Plus 20 percent of ongoing revenue Plus 10 percent of ongoing revenue Applicants can only receive one Applicants limited to 1 application greater award. Depending on project type, than $3 million and 1 application under $3 award size ranges between $500,000 million and $15 million. "Small number" of "transformative" projects Likely only about a dozen projects will be selected. will be funded statewide Currently in Draft form. Anticipated adoption 1/20/15 Currently in Discussion Draft form. Anticipated adoption 2/6/15 Concept Applications Due: 2/19/15 4/10/15 (anticipated) (anticipated), followed by screening by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's) for RTP/SCS consistency. Full Application Invitations: 3/11/15 Full Applications Due: 4/16/15 Affordable housing, supporting infill development, Transit-Oriented Development, active transportation, transit capital (supporting increased ridership), complete streets Rail capital; intercity and commuter rail projects that enhance service, increase reliability, and increase ridership; rail integration projects (such as ticketing); Bus Rapid Transit and enhanced bus services; transit effectiveness studies JPA's, transit operators, "political Transit operators subdivisions of the state", and an extended listing of types of private sector entities 53 Disadvantaged 50 percent of funds must benefit 25 percent of funds must benefit Communities disadvantaged communities. disadvantaged communities. Criteria Benefit is defined as either: • 50 percent of project IS In a disadvantaged community and reduces VMT, or • Yi-mile walking distance from a disadvantaged community or job recruitment for the project and/or job training occurs in the disadvantaged community Additional considerations for interested applicants: • The first funding cycle is likely to be smallest and the quickest. The FY 2014/15 program assigned discrete amounts of funding to each program, with an emphasis on spending those first-year funds quickly. However, these programs were ascribed a total percentage of whatever the CAT auction revenues become year-over-year. Therefore, it is likely that the funding will grow for subsequent annual funding cycles. It is also possible that future funding cycles will be multi-year in nature. • The program guidelines could change after the first funding cycle. In many ways, the first year of CAT funding is an experiment. The Administration is clearly interested in getting projects on the street; that experience could shape future adjustments to the program. Interested applicants will need to stay engaged. • The Affordable Housing/Sustainable Communities application process will be laborious and specific. Applicants will need to have the resources to meet the level of specificity and undergo the layers of review required by the SGC. Several regional governments and coalitions such as the California Association of Councils of Governments have raised concerns about the complicated structure of the review process. A Low Carbon Transit Operations program was also created by the FY 2014/15 budget, which is more formula driven and is managed by the State Controller and Caltrans. Further information regarding this program will be forthcoming on future agendas. Disadvantaged Communities The notion that geographic areas disproportionately burdened by environmental impacts are deserving of increased governmental assistance is not new. In fact, the Commission spent many years working with state and local partners to document environmental justice concerns Agenda Item 11 54 • • • • • • throughout Riverside County, particularly with regard to freight movement. What is new, however, is the emergence of state laws that prioritize transportation-related funding for disadvantaged communities. Most recently, this topic emerged as the state sought to update the law to accommodate for the redesign of federal transportation programs after the passage of MAP-21 in 2012. Quotas for spending federal funds in a manner that benefits disadvantaged communities were applied to the new Active Transportation Program (ATP), a competitive program that superseded an old formula-driven program for Transportation Enhancements (TE). Riverside County fared remarkably well in the first round of ATP funding, led by the CV Link project sponsored by Coachella Valley Association of Governments. At the same time, SB S3S emerged as discussed earlier, placing requirements on new CAT revenue to be spent in disadvantaged communities. Work already underway at CalEPA on the CalEnviroScreen tool provided a scientific mechanism for the state to quantitatively and qualitatively measure cumulative environmental health impacts on specific communities and identifies those communities with the greatest "disadvantage." What is Ca/EnviroScreen? CalEnviroScreen is a compilation of data measuring over a dozen types of pollution and population factors to create an overall score that denotes a particular community's health vulnerability to pollution. Communities are measured by Census Tract. Scores are assigned relative to all other Census Tracts in the state (think of grading on a curve in school). The top 2S percent Census Tracts are then designated by CalEPA as disadvantaged communities. To make the information easiest to comprehend, the results of CalEnviroScreen are transformed into a map of the state, divided by its 8,000 Census Tracts. On the map, the public can view the degree of disadvantage of each Census Tract relative to the others, and also see which are officially designated as disadvantaged for the purposes of CAT funding. Since its initial rollout in 2012, CalEnviroScreen has already undergone an update that was finalized in October 2014; one of the significant additions to the tool relevant to the Inland Empire is the consideration of unemployment rates. How is Ca/EnviroScreen Applied to CAT Funding? As discussed, each CAT program is likely to have a different share of funds that need to be spent to the benefit of disadvantaged communities. Phraseology of state law and administrative guidelines matter significantly. How "benefit" is defined may not necessarily be scientific, and interpretation of even the most stringent administrative language may still remain subjective. In some cases, however, there is a clear mandate that some percentage of funding must be physically spent in a disadvantaged community. Applicants for CAT funding will need to closely scrutinize CalEnviroScreen data for the applicant's project area and understand the thrust of the guidelines under which the applicants are applying . Agenda Item 11 SS It is important to note that nowhere in state law or in any of the draft program guidelines is disadvantaged community benefit a prerequisite to receive funding. Projects outside of these Census Tracts can still be funded; however these projects will not count towards the quota. General wisdom is that in order to be most competitive for such a limited pot of funding, projects should benefit disadvantaged communities. Does Ca/EnviroScreen Help Riverside County? Major portions of Riverside County are designated by CalEPA as disadvantaged, according to CalEnviroScreen 2.0. Review of the map, which is attached, will find much of the urban northwestern county and large areas of the eastern Coachella Valley are covered. Theoretically, this means there is reasonable cause for Riverside County to look at CAT as a viable funding source for sustainable communities projects. Regions such as the Central Valley, central Los Angeles, and Imperial County also are home to large swaths of territory designated as disadvantaged. Other areas of the state are less enthusiastic about CalEnviroScreen. The Bay Area shows relatively few Census Tracts as disadvantaged, and Orange and Ventura Counties have only small, compact areas. Looking Forward • Staff is reaching out to partner agencies such as transit operators and councils of governments • to understand how Riverside County can best position itself for CAT funding and ensure that decision-makers at the state level understand the nature of the Commission's communities. Since CAT funding programs are new, there will be a trial period for applicants in learning how the process works and the type of projects that are successful in receiving funding awards. Workshops on the programs have been presented by SGC and CalSTA. Cities and transit operators interested in applying for the first cycle will need to quickly prepare the requisite material. Collaboration and partnering with other agencies to produce an integrated project may also be necessary. Although the Commission is not eligible to directly apply for CAT funds, projects that enhance commuter rail could be suitable for these fonds. A public workshop to discuss funds available under CAT programs will be held at the city of Riverside City Hall on January 30, 2015 from 3:00-5:00 p.m. This workshop is being hosted by State Senator Richard Roth and Assemblyman Jose Medina, in partnership with the city of Riverside and UC Riverside. It is expected that staff from CARB and SGC will be presenting information for interested applicants for CAT funds. It is highly recommended that any jurisdictions interested in these programs attend this workshop. A copy of the invitation from Senator Roth is attached to this item. Additionally, agencies interested in applying for either the first cycle or future cycles should contact Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director, to further discuss project proposals and how CalEnviroScreen applies to projects. Agenda Item 11 56 • • Attachments: 1) CalEnviroScreen presentation by OEHHA 2) CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Map of Riverside County 3) Invitation to Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds Workshop -January 30 • • Agenda Item 11 57 • • • • • • I • EEN Screening tool used to help identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and vulnerability Identifies 19 indicators of environmental and socioeconomic conditions Latest version August 2014 z w w a:: u .,, 0 a:: -> z LU .... <C u LL. 0 1-z w :? Q. 0 .... w > w c • • I IVE I CTS 11 Numerous studies have shown that multiple pollution sources are disproportionately concentrated in low-income communities with high-minority populations. • Studies have reported communities with certain socioeconomic factors (i.e., low-income, low-education) have increased sensitivity to pollution. 11 Combination of multiple pollutants and increased sensitivity in these communities can result in higher cumulative pollution impacts. 11 Issues reviewed in: lfl California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 11Cumulative Impacts: Building a Scientific Foundation", (2010) Sacramento, CA http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/pdf/CIRegort123110.pdf • FEATURES OF SCREENING TOOL • Relatively simple 11 Combines information from multiple media • Air, water, soil • Data represent multiple factors • Exposures, environmental conditions, population sensitivity, health conditions, and socioeconomic factors 11 Provides information at roughly community scale • Geography based 11 Allows for comparison between geographic areas • s:: 0 V) ·-........ u :::s ::::::: -0 t--Cl.. V) iS -er:: ·-• s w ........ t--u 0 u ........ s:: 8 - • CRITERIA FOR INDICATOR SELECTION • Provide a good measure of environmental or socioeconomic conditions • Pollution indicators should relate to issues that may be actionable by Cal EPA • Data qualities • Publicly available • Location-based information (e.g., address, latitude/longitude) • Statewide • Accurate • Current • concentratiqns OOzone concentrations. D Diesel PM emissio.11s • • INDICATORS USED ! :o/'A11:::'1:1;kf~1+r::.t'···l:.~~·~'··.,,.;',;l;rp~j·~~rj·1. I·;:; ·.· .. t '(f'+:~'.:rUl*~Jl~)E'; ·dq., .. ···t'. I ''· ·· ''\;i eanup s1 .es:, ;,, ,-..~~reva ence·10 . · · 1;.1 uca 1ona I 'i:':.' ,;{,!jj Ir, Ill i ·1 .•• ,· ii' ,; ;(''jr'.''01'···1 i ii I I I I I 1111,1 .. '·0:~·,,r~·· 1·; ;··d·· ,J"> .. ·.t' .··· · 'cffiitclren and elderly attainment Ii 'f,!l;~roun , wa er . . ~. ;: ·if.:5' ,:; ; ... . ,' 'f'thr~:Glt$ (Leaking q As~hma emerge,llG>t ,.0 Lioguistic isolation ·:uA.'tJerg''round tanks de,nartmenf~i~it,,<,JJ ',,0; P ': · t P t '·' . I •.... I . . . r-r . . . over y: e rce n and cleanups). rate ·d t b I 2 · ·. ·· · , · · · res1 en s e ow x te of low 0:irih,~1J ,i~ : '" ,, --,:/': m z:r :f::;, ~ ight birt1h~' lh,. 11'~:"4~, ~n~ttqnal Roverty level wH·e;mploym·ent EOGRAPHICAL UNIT: CENSUS TRACTS • 2010 Census Tracts • Relatively fine scale • tV8,000 census tracts in California .. tV4,000 people per tract (range 1,200 -8,000) • Commonly used • • • I I NDARDIZED T • Indicator datasets exist in different formats • Tabular, vector-based, spatial models 11 Each indicator is summarized at census tract • For example, each tract was assigned a PM2.5 concentration 11 Unique methods implemented for each indicator • Spatial modeling, averaging, intersection with census tracts, etc. • + + • SCORING • For each indicator, each census tracts is assigned a percentile value based on where it falls in the statewide distribution II) +' u ~ 0 "-QJ .c E ::::s Example indicator z t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <:)· <:)· <:)· <:)· <:)· <:)· <:)· <:)· <:)· <:)· 'Y' Magnitude of Indicator (i.e. percent poverty, ozone cone.) • • • • • I IDE USE Data source: 11 Pesticide Use Reporting {California Department of Pesticide Regulation) Indicator: 11 Pounds of selected* production agricultural-use active ingredients per square mile (averagea over 2009-2011) Raw data: 11 Subset more toxic and higher exposure potential pesticides were used 11 Pounds of pesticides applied in each lxl mile grid cell from the Public Land Survey System *For a complete listing of the pesticides used, see our report: http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces2.html I TOR EXAMPLE: PESTICIDE USE Analysis: • 1 sq. mile grid (Sections) overlaid on all census tracts across California • Area-apportionment method to associate each sections with multiple overlapping tracts • Allocated proportion of pesticide use pounds per tract • Total pesticides summed then averaged over 3 years by census tract PESTICIDE SE RESULTS Percentiles calculated· across census tracts based on pounds of agricultural pesticides, data was symbolized into deciles .. • www.epa.gov • • EXAMPLE: CLEANUP SITES Data source: • EnviroStor Cleanup Sites Database • California Department of Toxic Substances Control & US EPA National Priorities List Indicator: 111 Sum of weighted cleanup sites within each census tract. • Federal Superfund, State Response, etc. categories. • Weights adjusted weights based on the proximity to populations in census tract. Raw data: • Facility locations (points) and site boundaries (polygons) • • • LE: CLEANUP SITES ·~.······.·. L Analysis: • Sites weighted based on type and • Census tracts given score based status on overlap with buffer • Multi-ring buffer with proximity • Scores summed by tract adjustment factors CLE UP SITES RESULTS across census tracts based on buffered, weighted cleanup sites, data was symbolized into deciles. • I I • CalEnviroScreen Report 11 Maps for individual indicators 1m Description of each indicator • Mapping Application .. Online maps of results • Other data • ULTS • Excel spreadsheet of results by census tract • Google Earth results file 11 ArcGIS geodatabase www.oehha.ca.gov/ei/ces2.html • ...I 0 0 I- LU z -~ ...I 0 z :re ::J 0 !l J I e J -E +-' .c • N VJ GJ u • ta u • ta .c .c tJJ 0 • • +-' ta tJJ -..c ta -·-ta ~ • • -E +"' ..c • N V) QJ u • ta u • ta ...c ...c QJ 0 • • +"' ta QJ -.J:l ta -·-ta > <C • I • • • • JI I I I .I -I ti! I :I 0 I I ll ~· • • I I t I ' •~'~' :1 ' l ' ' ~' ; • • 111 t I ' • • I I • I • I ll • • I i • OW THE TOOL IS BEING USED 11 Aid in ongoing planning and decision-making within Cal EPA 11 Environmental Justice Small Grant program • Environmental Justice Compliance and Enforcement taskforce • Prioritize site-cl ea nu p activities • California Strategic Growth Council • Sustainable Communities Planning Grants 11 California Senate Bill 535 (De Leon, 2012) 111 Cal/EPA shall identify "disadvantaged communities" for investment opportunities based on geographic, socioeconomic, public health and environmental hazard criteria. • OEHHA: John Faust Laura August • Cal/EPA: Miriam Barcellona Ingenito Arsenio Mataka Gina Solomon • l~1~~tf1cking Program .·· ',~~~:p~ovided data ~~~participated in 'i ~: ,.,~.'::. • • • • • • ATTACHMENT 2 Maps of SB 53 5 Disadvantaged Communities in Riverside County according to CalEnviroScreen 2 .0 View interactive maps online at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/GHGlnvest/ Western Riverside County 86 Coachella Valley • • Blythe • 87 ATTACHMENT 3 COMM'TTLLf') :~;rA-TF. CAPJf>:)L R00\4 4034 • CoA~~;1::,r~~~:~i£!'4 EHJDGET SUBCOMMITTEE NCJ 4 STATE ADMINISTRATION & GENEHAL GOVERNJ\·1ENT • • December 23, 2014 Aaron Hake Government Relations Manager RCTC 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 SENATOR RICHARD D. ROTH THIRTYFIRST DISTRICT LE(;!SLATIVE ETHICS BANKING & FINANC!AL INSTITUTIONS EHJUGE"T a FISCJ),,\_ RE\nEW •NSURANCE JOINT L.ECISLATiVE. 8l.JD(;ET TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING VETERANS AFFA!RS RE: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds Workshop -January 30, 2015 Dear Mr. Hake: lt is our pleasure to invite you to join Senator Richard D. Roth, Assemblyrnember Jose Medina, the City of Riverside, and the University of California, Riverside Center for Sustainable Suburban Development for an informative workshop to discuss monies available as a result of SB 535/AB 1532: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. These laws authorize and provide the State a clear path to use cap-and-trade proceeds as part of a strategy that places a priority on investments that benefit disadvantaged communities. A panel of experts from the Air Resources Board, Strategic Growth Council and other agencies that are in charge of distributing the monies have also been invited. The workshop will take place on Friday, January 30, 2015, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Rive.rsjQ.J:. City Council Chambers at Riverside City Hall, 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522. For more information, please contact Violeta Aguilar-Wyrick at (951) 680-6750, ext. 102 or Rachel Gonzaga at (951) 369-6644. RSVP to Violeta Aguilar-Wyrick at Yiolcra.Aguilar-Wyrick(il),sen.ca.gov. We hope to see you there and look forward to meeting with you. Respectfully, RICHARD D. ROTH Senator, 31 '' Distxict J-· JOSE MEDINA J\ssemblymember, 61 '' District • • • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO AGENDA ITEM 11 CalEnviroScreen 2.0 CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Results Coachella & Imperial Region Basemap source: (c) ESRI and its data suppliers lowest scores 136 ··-highest scores Each color represents 10% of the scores 0 5 10 I I I I 20 Miles I I Cap and Trade Funding and Disadvantaged Communities January 14, 2015 • Providing information • No action is necessary • Not an obvious transportation issue • Reflects the statewide trend of linking transportation issues to other factors • Will remain dynamic and likely to undergo numerous changes and revisions 1/14/2015 1 Cap and Trade • Caps emissions by certain industries • Reductions in emissions below the cap can be sold on the market via GARB auctions • $832 million in revenue for FY 2014/15 1/14/2015 2 • State legislative actions include: -Creation of a greenhouse gas fund -Requirement that expenditures advance AB 32 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions -Requires that 25 percent of Cap and Trade revenue benefit disadvantaged communities • Comprised of: -Three political appointees -Seven state agency secretaries • Business, Consumer and Housing • Health and Human Services • Environmental Protection Agency • State Transportation Agency • Department of Food and Agriculture • Natural Resource Agency • Office of Planning and Budget 1/14/2015 3 Disadvantaged Communities 1/14/2015 4 • Numerous studies indicate: -Multiple pollution sources are located in low- income communities with high minority populations -Many low income communities have increased sensitivity to pollution -The combination of multiple pollution sources with increased sensitivity to pollution can result in higher cumulative impacts • CalEnviroScreen -Examines 8,000 census tracts -Ranks the tracts based on pollution burdens with population factors -Tracts above the 25th percentile, in terms of impact, are considered disadvantaged 1/14/2015 5 Disadvantaged Communities in Riverside County • Ozone • P.M. 2.s Th!8-mapsfllWll1l'l&dita~ CCMmllllll!H dt~f1•CtiEPAfottt'.tj)IJIJ'IO$t01SB53!i:, Tbnt 11rn1~~1 the ~5% tiQhtsl !Stflnng :::ensus~lnCfl!Em~ro&::«!1n2C. l~CfNl!t!Ulffl*lli$l8Vil!ltlllti:ll ~·flrm1ps$CllQMl,9av/SS$3i! • Diesel particulate matter • Drinking water contaminants • Pesticide use • Toxic releases from facilities • Traffic density • Cleanup sites • Groundwater threats • Hazardous waste generators and facilities • Impaired water bodies • Solid waste sites and facilities 1/14/2015 6 1/14/2015 • Children and the elderly • Asthma • Low birth weight infants • Educational attainment • Linguistic isolation • Poverty • Unemployment Putting it All Together 7 • Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities -$120 -$130 million available this year -Concept applications due sometime in February -Full applications due in April -Award in May • Kinds of Projects -Affordable housing and support of infill development -Transit Oriented Development -Active transportation projects -Complete streets • Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program -$25 million -Applications due in April -CTC to approve funding and allocations in August • Types of projects -Rail capital -Enhancement of existing transit services -Active transportation projects that encourage transit use -Rail integration -Bus Rapid Transit -Transit effectiveness studies 1/14/2015 8 • Funding opportunities will be focused around local governments and transit agencies • RCTC will provide info at January 26 TAC meeting • RCTC is hosting an executive level meeting with transit agencies and Councils of Governments Workshops • Caltrans hosting transit workshop on January 20 • Senator Roth and Assemblyman Medina hosting a workshop on January 30 • UCR's School of Public Policy and WRCOG hosting a workshop for cities on February 26 Looking at the Future 1/14/2015 9 • Cap and Trade funding exemplifies state direction to combine transportation with other policy goals • The amount of Cap and Trade funding will grow in future years • Riverside County could be uniquely positioned due to preferences for Disadvantaged Communities • Regional communication and collaboration will become increasingly important in order to compete 1/14/2015 10