Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 10, 1999 Amended CommissionCOMM-COMM-00100 RCTC Agenda March 10, 1999 Page 2 5C. CONSENT CALENDAR - BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ITEMS. 5C1. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORTS Page 15 Overview Presented are Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (Unaudited) and the Highway and Rail Projects quarterly budget report for the Quarter ending December 31, 1998. 5C2. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-9847 FOR CONSTRUCTION AND SOUND WALLS ON SR 91 BETWEEN VAN BUREN BOULEVARD AND MARY STREET IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE Page 21 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize the increase of the project construction contingency by $40,000 for Construction Contract No. RO-9847 from $113,514 to $153,514. The new not to exceed value of the contract will be $2,840.000. 5C3. RAIL STATION SECURITY Page 24 Overview This item is for the Commission to contract directly for security services at its four rail station sites and authorize staff to develop the necessary procurement documents including an appropriate scope of work. 5C4. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE Page 26 Overview For receive and file, the quarterly call box update is presented. 6. FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS LIST. Page 36 Overview 10 Minutes Commission action is requested to direct staff to work with RCTC's federal advocate to obtain funding for the projects listed in the report. 7. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Page 38 5 Minutes Overview It is recommended the Commission adopt the bill positions, and receive and file the State and Legislative Updates. RCTC Agenda March 10, 1999 Page 3 8. REPORT ON PROJECTION OF MEASURE A EARNED SALES TAX REVENUES. Page 57 8 Minutes Overview This is an agreed -upon procedure, as enumerated in the attached report, with respect to the projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues for the Commission for the years ending June 30, 1998 through 2009, as presented in Exhibit A. 9. SB 45 2% PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES PLAN AMENDMENT. Page 68 5 Minutes Overview This item relates to the SB 45 2% activities plan amendment. Commission approval is requested that: 1) $244,471 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to support the SB 45 staff position for fiscal year2003 and 2004; 2) $253,782 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to support CVAG Project Monitoring Activities for FY 1999-2004; 3) $70,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to conduct a Project Master Plan in the Coachella Valley; 4) $175,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to support an 1-10 lane addition Project Study Report in the Coachella Valley; and, 5) Reserving the balance of planning funds available in the Coachella Valley and the Palo Verde Valley for future Transportation Project Prioritization uses and authorize staff to proceed with the necessary administrative requirements to process a STIP amendment to program PPM funds consistent with current and prior Commission actions. 10. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO PRODUCE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FUTURE NORTH SOUTH CORRIDORS BETWEEN I-10 AND SR 60 BETWEEN 1-15 AND 1-215. Page 71 2 Minutes Overview Subject to SANBAG approval of their participation, Commission action is requested to direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposal to Produce a Feasibility Study for Future North South Arterial Corridors between 1-10 and SR-60 between 1-15 and 1-215. Staff will evaluate the proposals received and bring back a recommendation for contract award to the selected firm that produces the proposal favored by the selection process. The selection team will be composed of members representing RCTC, SANBAG, County of Riverside, City of Fontana and others as deemed appropriate by RCTC staff. 11. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. Page 75 5 Minutes Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to: 1) develop and issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Measure A CommuterAssistance Program Evaluation Survey; 2) rate the RFP's by a committee comprised of two RCTC Commissioners, two RCTC staff members, two SANBAG staff members and possibly two SANBAG Board members; and 3) present a recommendation on selecting a firm to conduct the work at a future Commission meeting. RCTC Agenda March 10, 1999 Page 4 12. PRESENTATION -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SCIA) SYSTEM. 30 Minutes Page 77 Overview At the written request of County of San Bernardino District 1 Supervisor Kathy A. Davis, a presentation regarding the Southem California International Airport System will be made by Jon Roberts, SCIA Director, and Richard M. Jannise of RMJ and Associates. 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR. 14. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS. Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Executive Director and Commissioners to report on transportation related meetings, conferences/workshops, etc. 15. CLOSED SESSION. A. Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Pursuant to Section 54957. Title of Position: Executive Director 16. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, April 14, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. at the University of California Chancellor's Conference Room. NAME: PUBLIC MEETING IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY AT THIS MEETING, PLEASE FILL OUT THIS CARD AND PRESENT IT TO A RCTC STAFF MEMBER DATE: �'�l a� SUBJECT: I C'% Ili >^ S I,a' R VdtA NAME . C"" C-", R. ,1)mil-1- ADDRESS: � '7 0 (, h n f).%) IS T _ PHONE: 9'b9 4. 2' -93 IF YOU ARE REPRESENTING AN ORGANIZATION PLEASE LIST: 4ONE. ADDRESS: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 University Ave., Ste. 100 o Riverside, CA 92501 o (714)787-71741 PUBLIC MEETING IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY AT THIS MEETING, PLEASE FILL OUT THIS CARD AND PRESENT IT TO A RCTC STAFF MEMBER DATE: 0(110 17 SUBJECT: NAME : o J C_ .ifor25-4 ADDRESS: PHONE: IF YOU ARE REPRESENTING AN ORGANIZATION PLEASE LIST: `� Lc) NAME: V PHONE: ;% ADDRESS: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 University Ave., Ste. 100 o Riverside, CA 92501 o (714)787-71741 PUBLIC MEETING IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY AT THIS MEETING, PLEASE FILL OUT THIS CARD AND PRESENT IT TO A RCTC STAFF MEMBER DATE: 31,0hc SUBJECT: NAME: C LA--pbc ADDRESS: PHONE: IF YOU ARE RE jENTING AN ORGANIZATION PLEASE LIST: NAME: 1 PHONE: ADDRESS: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 University Ave., Ste. 100 o Riverside, CA 92501 o (714)787-71741 DATE: 3 PUBLIC MEETING IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY AT THIS MEETING, PLEASE FILL OUT THIS CARD AND PRESENT IT TO A RCTC STAFF MEMBER to Vic\ NAME : 7C �Q� j2 S o SUBJECT: --1---T- c&'"A ADDRESS: PHONE: k IF YOU ARE REPRESENTING AN ORGANIZATION PLEASE LIST: NAME: &(14 /\ PHONE: Q ADDRESS: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 University Ave., Ste. 100 o Riverside, CA p25cp o (714)787-717 1 ciT-7- A 71) Fp o Gewk, .N vezi (Le V(-69&,21 vLtuf 00_44a l� � RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Jack van Haaster called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to order at 9:00 a.m. at the Coachella Valley Association of Govemments Conference Room, 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, Califomia 92260. Self introductions followed (see attached attendance sheet). COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Bob Buster Eugene Bourbonnais Percy Byrd Robert Crain John Chlebnik Jan Leja Alex Clifford Juan DeLara Frank Hall John Hunt Dick Kelly William Kleindienst* Al Landers Stan Lisiewicz Tom Mullen Kevin Pape* John Pena Gregory Pettis* Andrea Puga Robin Reeser Lowe Ron Roberts Doug Sherman* Chris Silva Jim Smedley* John Tavaglione Jack van Haaster Jim Venable Frank West Roy Wilson Don Yokaitis *Arrived after start of meeting 2. SELF INTRODUCTIONS OF COMMISSIONERS. 3. WELCOME REMARKS BY PALM DESERT MAYOR BOB SPIEGEL. Mayor Spiegel welcomed the Commission to the City of Palm Desert and noted use of transportation funds from the 1-10 to Cook or Washington Streets. RCTC Minutes February 10, 1999 Page 2 Following the welcome remarks, Chairman Jack van Haaster presented a plaque, on behalf of the Commission, to Commissioner Bob Buster and recognized him for all of his efforts towards the accomplishments and challenges before the Commission in the last two years during his term as the Commission Chairman. At this time, Commissioner Buster requested to add the Route 91 Tol!road (NewTrak) item on the agenda as a latebreaking item and to reconsider its action based on the following:1) First, he has heard that it was CPTC (Califomia Private Transportation Company) that approached and precipitated formation of NewTrak and he was concemed that the agency could get caught up in a situation of self dealing; 2) There is no assurance that there will continue to be a Riverside County resident on the NewTrak Board, even though a majority of tollroad users are from Riverside County; and, 3) He was informed that any new non-profit without a track record and tries to issue bonds is going to pay a high interest rate so there will not be much left over to fund improvements along the tollroad. Eric Haley, Executive Director, stated that the Ad Hoc Committee, at their meeting on Monday, February 8th, voted 5 to 2, with Commissioners Clifford and Buster dissenting, to communicate to OCTA and NewTrak, to support NewTrak of their status as a non-profit entity. Commissioner Clifford commented that the new information makes it important for the Commission to add this item and discuss it. When the NewTrak representatives was before Commission, one of the items discussed was that out of NewTrak five votes, Riverside County would have two votes. But with the new information, that is not necessarily the case. The way their bylaws are structured, Riverside is guaranteed no representation. At any time, on a majority vote of the NewTrak Board, a determination could be made on its structure, representation and removal of membership. This is new and important information that seems to be very contrary to the information received last month. Eric Haley stated that the Ad Hoc Committee achieved the seven points requested. NewTrak has agreed: 1)To establish a county committee that would include at least two commissioners each from OCTA and RCTC, and two NewTrak Board representatives; 2) Defined what excess revenues are. They will open up their audit process and track their expenditures. Upon the disposition of assets the sale or transfer of the franchise, all monies of the sale or transfer that are construed as profit will go to the California Department of Transportation for reinvestment in that corridor; 3) To allow RCTC to participate in their board meetings of where there is an agendized capital improvement program item; 4) To eliminate all tolls to the 3+ HOV upon the approval of the transaction; 5) To give RCTC pre -notice of any pending sale or transfer of the franchise so it can contest it at the state level; 6) That the 5`" board member will be a Riverside County resident. However, there is nothing in the Bylaws which requires that any member be a resident of Orange, Riverside or any other county. The uncomfortable fact was that the argument against having a pure county designation was made by the current NewTrak member who is a Riverside County resident; 7) To engage in negotiation in addressing the question of irregular usage of the toll facility. M/S (Buster/Hunt) that the Commission add the Route 91 Toll Road on the agenda as a late breaking item based on the Route 91 Toll Road Committee meeting held on Monday, February 8,1999. By a vote of 18 nays and 8 ayes, the motion did not pass. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Corky Larson, Executive Director of the Coachella Valley Association of Govemments (CVAG), expressed that it is with great pleasure to host the Commission in their Conference Room. RCTC Minutes February 10, 1999 Page 3 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. M/S/C (Kleindienst/Pettis) approve the minutes of the January 13, 1999 meeting as submitted. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR. M/S/C (Kleindienst/Clifford) approve the Consent Calendar as follows: 6A. CONSENT CALENDAR - EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ITEMS. 6A1. PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING TIME FROM 3:00 P.M. TO 2:30 P.M. Approve the time change and adopt the change in the Administrative Code, Ordinance No. 99-02, Ordinance of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending the Administrative Code. 6A2. PROPOSAL NOT TO SCHEDULE AN RCTC MEETING IN AUGUST Cancel Committee meetings scheduled on July 26 and the Commission meeting on August 11. 6A3. AUTHORITY FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO BUDGET $10,000 FOR CASUAL EMPLOYEES FOR FY 1998/99 Authorize the Executive Directorto budget $10,000 to hire casual employees to assist with staff workload. 6B. CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE ITEMS. 6B1. PRIORITY RAIL PROJECTS FOR CALIFORNIA STIP AND FEDERAL PROGRAM 1) Endorse the priority project lists developed by Metrolink and the Southern California Intercity Rail Group and actively advocate for STIP funding of the particular rail capital projects listed above; and, 2) Endorse Metrolink's federal funding request as listed in Attachment III. 6B2. CMAG1 SET ASIDE FOR LNG LOCOMOTIVE Commit to set aside up to $300,000 of CMAQ funds to cover RCTC's share of costs for manufacturing a prototype LNG fueled locomotive. 6B3. MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ALLOCATION TO FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Approve operating support for two vehicles to Family Service Association until such time that the Specialized Transit Analysis is complete and recommendations are provided regarding the future service levels for the Jurupa area, and amend the funding agreement with Family Service Association to include additional Measure A Specialized. Transit funds RCTC Minutes February 10, 1999 Page 4 6134. METROLINK AND RAIL PROGRAM MONTHLY REPORT Receive and file the Metrolink and Rail Program Monthly Report. 6C. CONSENT CALENDAR - BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ITEMS. 6C1. FORMATION OF AUDIT SUBCOMMITTEE Receive and file the report, and the Budget and Implementation Committee appointing Commissioners John Tavaglione, Alex Clifford, Jim Smedley, and Gregory S. Pettis to the Audit Subcommittee of the Budget and Implementation Committee to review Commission audits and to advise on intemal controls. 6C2. FRIENDS OF JEFFERSON HOUSE Approve the proposed Increase to the Friends of Jefferson House maintenance contract for the Commission's commuter rail stations. 6C3. SELECTION OF INVESTMENT ADVISOR Select Public Financial Management, Inc., as the Commission's Investment Advisor. 6C4. INVESTMENT REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31,1998 Receive and file the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. 6C5. MONTHLY COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS Receive and file the monthly cost and schedule report. 6C6. PROGRESS REPORT ON INTERNAL OPERATIONS REVIEW Receive and file the progress report on RCTC's intemal operations review. 6C7. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (LTF) PROJECTION Approve the apportionments, as noted in the memorandum in the agenda packet, as Annual Local Transportation Fund apportionment for Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley, and Westem Riverside County. 7. 1998 STIP AMENDMENT $15 MILLION EL NINO, REHABILITATION & ARTERIAL PROGRAM M/S/C (Wilson/Roberts) to: 1) Eliminate the El Nino storm damage category from the $15 million call for projects. 2) Approve the recommended list of arterial and rehabilitation projects for STIP funding finding that the two proposed actions make it possible to establish a reasonable level of geographic equity by funding the Pass Area project which received the highest score in the evaluation process and funding the City of Riverside's project. The action establishes RCTC Minutes February 10, 1999 Page 5 a reserve of formula STIP funds for the Palo Verde Valley Area, consistent with the adopted Intra-County Formula for allocating STIP Regional Improvement Program funds: • The City of Hemet has increased its local share for the State Street arterial widening and rehabilitation project by $400,000. The Washington Street widening and rehabilitation project STIP request is reduced by $1,000,000. 8. 1998 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director, presented minor changes to the recommendation. M/S/C (Mullen/Byrd) to: 1) Program the entire amount of discretionary 1998 STIP amendment funds and the entire Westem County formula share of 1998 STIP Amendment funds to the following Measure A projects in the following amounts: Route 91 - Mary Street to r Street $ 1.0M for Environmental $ 9.278M for PS&E Project Subtotal= $10.278M (To be programmed at a later date) Route 79 - Newport Road to Keller Road Project Subtotal $ 0.5M for Environmental $ 1.012M for PS&E $ 1.976M for R/W and Utilities $10.034M for Construction $13.522M Route 91 Phase II Sound Walls & Auxiliary lanes 3.345M Construction (Part of $15M) Total Westem County= $27.145M 2) Consider any programming recommendations coming from the January 25, 1998 CVAG Executive Committee meeting for the Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys' formula share of 1998 STIP Amendment funds. 3) Reserve the respective Coachella and Palo Verde Valley's formula shares of 1998 STIP Amendment funds for their future programming recommendations. 4) Combine the $1.007M of 1998 STIP Amendment Planning, Programming & Monitoring funds with the $1.376M of previously programmed 1998 STIP funds to make programming recommendations for these planning funds consistent with the Commission's direction to allocate the funds in accordance with the adopted Intra-County Formula for allocating shares of STIP funds. (Commission action October 14, 1998). • RCTC Minutes February 10, 1999 Page 6 9. CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS FOR CETAP Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director -Planning and Programming, noted one clarification under Recommendation No. 1 to include WRCOG as the signatory to that agreement and to show the cooperation between the agencies. Commissioner Robin Reeser Lowe questioned whether the contracts/agreements would be reviewed by the Committee as she did not feel that it was appropriate that the entire responsibility rest on the Executive Director and Hideo Sugita explained that the recommendations would be authorization to move forward. Even though there has been interviews, no selection has been determined. Discussion followed on the process to execute contracts/agreements. M/S/C (Kelly/Kleindienst) that the Plans and Programs Committee, at their February 22 meeting, review this Item and authorize the Chairman to: 1) Execute a contract/agreement with the Southem Califomia Association of Govemments (SCAG) to facilitate the flow of SCAG planning funds to support the Commission's CETAP planning project, subject to Legal Counsel review, and include WRCOG as a signatory for that agreement and show cooperation between the agencies. 2) Execute a contract/agreement with the County of Riverside which secures the County's obligation to pay up front or reimburse RCTC in a timely fashion for work performed by the selected CETAP consultant to develop and complete the update to the County of Riverside's General Plan Circulation Element, subject to Legal Counsel review and subject to the amount of funds previously allocated by the Commission to support the CETAP planning project, and 3) Provide for the possible selection of a recommended CETAP consultant and authorization for staff to negotiate a contract with the selected CETAP consultant (if a selection is made) and authorize the Chairman to execute a contract with the selected CETAP consultant subject to the level of previously allocated funds, including SCAG planning funds and County funds, subject to Legal Counsel review. 10. 1998 AUDIT RESULTS Eric Haley stated that with regard to the "going concem" section of this audit, the City of Lake Elsinore has expressed concems regarding their being listed in the "going concem" category using as part of the determination news coverage as it relates to the baseball diamond. Commissioner Kevin Pape indicated that they had a problem with the statement that the conclusion be drawn from newspaper articles as opposed to coming review of the City's financial statements. There are no problems with their financial statements as they have over $2 million in reserve. The baseball diamond has been tumed over to a private company for operation and maintenance. Theresia Trevino, Emst 8 Young, explained that this was a follow-up to an issue that arose several years ago. Some of it came from the press coverage and probably the reference was not totally correct. It was an issue that they have been watching as it relates to the transportation funds and listed under the cash flow concern section. With the information that was brought up at that meeting, they understand Lake Elsinore's concem. RCTC Minutes February 10, 1999 Page 7 Commissioner Tom Mullen indicated that he is hopeful that Emst & Young will not rely on press coverage in the future to make the determination of "going concem". It was determined by the Commission that Emst and Young send a letter of clarification to the City of Lake Elsinore with regards to their "going concem" category and the use of news stories as a basis for its audit findings. M/S/C (Mullen/Puga) to:1) Receive and file the report and the management letter from the auditors; and, 2) Have staff provide quarterly reports to the Board on any jurisdictions indicated by the auditors as going concerns (i.e., questionable financial condition). 11. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-9932 TO CONSTRUCT A PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING STRUCTURE AND SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS AT THE EXISTING LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS Copies of an amended staff report were distributed to the Commission. M/S/C (Kleindienst/Tavaglione) that the:1) Single bid received from Malicraft, that exceeded the Engineer's estimate by 32%, be rejected; 2) Project to construct a pedestrian over crossing and security system at both the La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink stations be re -advertised for a period of twenty days; and, 3) Project be re -packaged so that prospective bidders be allowed to bid on construction of the pedestrian over crossing and electronic security system at either one or both of the stations. 12. LOCAL SALES TAX MEASURE RENEWAL OPTIONS Commissioner Buster noted that Riverside County passed its Measure "A" by well over 2/3 vote and congestion issues still rank among the high concems to resident. He then asked why there is fear in going to a 2/3 vote. Eric Haley stated that five county entities around the State failed to pass their measure this last year and four counties achieved majority vote status. All eighteen of the county sales taxes in the state passed with majority vote status. He appreciated the position of the Commission thus far in exploring these alternates. He then reported on press coverage of some coalition actions that were taken yesterday in support of a large transportation package. After consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman, he joined a coalition yesterday which included the State Chamber of Commerce, the League, and others. He was the sole Commission representative within that group and as a byproduct of discussions have been put on the working group for this transportation package, he provided a copy of the Los Angeles Times article which demonstrated the breath of the business support for this and the package that Burton is pushing forward. He does not think that bonds are the best way to go as they are short term and carry heavy interest costs. A better way is through fuel or sales tax. The second item provided to the Commission is the legislative language. The Press Enterprise article indicated that there would not be dollars flowing to Riverside County because a committee had been established outside of the usual process to divvy the money up and was asserted in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas. The only committee that has been established is solely for the purpose of offering the issuance and sale of "bonds" pursuant to the state general obligation bond law, the controller, the treasurer and the head of the department of finance have to approve the issuance of bond measures relative to the credit rating and capacity for repayment. There is no new committee goveming the distribution of funds. The working group includes the Chair of the Califomia Transportation Commission and so the normal funding process are going to be adhered to with regards to new funds. If that is the case, Riverside County will receive about 4.8% of the total package, which is approximately $800 million of the $16 billion if all the measures were to pass. The committee is a fiduciary RCTC Minutes February 10, 1999 Page 8 committee which is limited to approving the bond measures. The fourcategories of spending include funds rehabilitation of the state highway system, rehabilitation and repair of local streets and roads, transit capital assistance, and statewide high priority capital projects such as major rail hubs, new corridors, etc. There are no changes to the current formulas, there is no prejudice against Riverside County and there is every indication from the group that looking at this that the existing rules will be adhered to. Commissioner Lowe stated that she did not feel that the voting process is being circumvented by requesting a majority vote. It is still going to take a majority of expression from the voters and by getting the voters to the ballot box. This county has exhibited great support for transportation dollars, it is the overall general apathy of the voters. Commissioner Wilson stated that the basic issue of majority rule, versus minority rule. M/S/C (Wilson/Lowe) to support pursuit of a reduction in the current vote requirement for passage of local transportation sales tax measures from two-thirds to 50%. 13. DRAFT WORK PLAN FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN M/S/C (Clifford/Tavaglione) to adopt the draft work plan for completion of the Commission's comprehensive and countywide Strategic Plan. 14. REGIONAL AIRPORT EXPANSION ISSUES AND OPTIONS M/S/C (Wilson/Roberts) to adopt Resolution No. 99-01, Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Calling For a Regional Airport Plan For Southern Califomia. 15. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR. None. 16. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONERS REPORTS 17. ADJOURNMENT There being no other items before the Commission, the meeting was adjoumed at 10:24 a.m. The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, March 10, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. at the University of Califomia Chancellor's Conference Room. espectfully submitted, atzN K nhav Clerk of the Board aAMA_ RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS CONFERENCE ROOM 73-710 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT NAME f� C21,Le. WEDNESDAY,. FEBRUARY 10, 1999 9:00 A.M. SIGN -IN SHEET AGENCY 64( 69 "44-ritee it .9 gt/erj,.,GC OF /%/, ,peia Oft) ihroofA._ 7-( P i 125,0-1— T%07- /4171-- CA4.2V ktli GI 61 Al 034 '47 i JL'Nt.I e-mL68AJ I K- C/CAL m-fEsA 1 1 A1/4.0 Ofor- �c� ti` d� 1RJ 2r (s Erri 5 f Signing is not required et-ry 161i-444/c" TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER � 303 �t P 39a - G�o�,,l .3 -- yd99 93S-9-l9c.)l `// - 4°/tr --)C4 z3� -7f<2 -S"- / l 7Y2 -S Yy0 G 9y - 6 4/ y 0 / 673 0 9s C 160-777 7o-0a t) 9 0--1 1%Jv/ 9G' 9/�0 408: (42, 797--7/ , PP9 95—C-7 o r / 7 1.39-0-/e/ r9 •'rS.(l 107 QS-s=i ct l09- aZ =3%) 909-79Y--P993 / 909-79S-.2sVY c'w9-9s5=t�901- 55�-a36 %tao-833 s'a�(o /-764• 3-i-►-0R8-7 STR'n i • 1.e Lc) 1-1-1--a 11 S Signing is not required vaA RO-C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1999 SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2) NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER ill/eV M. 6, Lafa. ait enozLcA,e4 (ibe.))30P-3s-o2.I(-7a).392-,//7 &RYA 9o7 757 02. 7 3 / 901' 7 3.7 JL Q 76.65.319.E j j / 7�a13o3 / 76.-�98s" o CJ, 15 Wc).re-l- 7c0 c3g1.1 60 � c3 -Q9cv --i -e/� .l _ , 57,_D [ : /7( Z,(T4/ek . a, c 7/e) 3 x 6, 2 Vk-5 I ‘ 0 3 V 4 o Sao% <g(Xi') 383- yo5- - r9v ) 387 - 4a .?9 I I I I / / I I / / / / / I / �\� RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Executive Committee Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 1999 Ralph M. Brown Act During the 1998 Legislative Session, a number of substantive changes were enacted as it relates to the Brown Act. The substantive changes are as follows: • Subject to certain exceptions, the Act provides that the meeting of the legislative body of a local agency must be open and public. In conducting these public meetings, the members of the legislative body may participate by teleconference under specific conditions. Teleconference means a "meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations connected by electronic means, through either audio or video or both". Section 54953 now provides that at least a quorum of the legislative body must participate from locations within the agency's jurisdiction, and, thus, makes it clear that the others may participate from outside the jurisdiction. SB 139 further specifies that local agencies are not prohibited from providing additional teleconference locations to the public. (SB 139 (Chapter 260 of the 19980. Each legislative body must provide, by whatever rule is required for the conduct of business, the time and place for holding regular meetings. In 1997, advisory or standing committees were specifically exempted from this provision. Section 54954 now has been revised to provide that when agendas for meetings of these committees are posted at least 72 hours in advance of the meetings, the meetings are treated as "regular" meetings under the Brown Act. Thus, if agendas are not posted 72 hours in advance, the meetings must be regarded as "special" meetings which require delivery of notice at least 24 hours in advance to committee members and to those requested notice in writing. If agendas are posted at least 72 hours in advance, and therefore are 000001. "regular" meetings, formal action must be taken to determine the time and place of the meetings. (SB 139 (Chapter 260 of the Statutes of 1998)). • Closed meetings of the legislative body are permitted under the Act when addressing very specific items, including meetings with its negotiator on real property transactions and meetings with designated representatives regarding salary negotiations. (Sections 54956.8 and 54957.6, respectively.) Section 54956.8 has been revised to make it clear that before going into closed session to discuss real property negotiations, the legislative body must identify in open session its own negotiator and the negotiator for the other party. Section 54957.6 has been revised to similarly require identification of the agency's designated representatives, in open session, before going into closed session to discuss salary negotiations. (SB 139 (Chapter 260 of the Statutes of 1998)). Further, the required agenda descriptions for closed sessions held pursuant to Sections 54956.8 and 54957.6 must now disclose the names of the agency negotiators and the agency designated representatives attending these closed sessions. When a specified negotiator or designated representative is necessarily absent from the meeting, Section 54954.5 allows a designee to participate in these closed sessions instead. However, the name of the designee must be announced in open session prior to the closed session. (SB 139 (Chapter 260 of the Statutes of 1998 ) and SB 1649 (Chapter 876 of the Statutes of 1998)). Enclosed is a copy of the 1999 Brown Act showing the new language shaded and the repealed language lined out. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the 1999 Ralph M. Brown Act. do o'0 U'S RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transfer of Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) function from SunLine Transit Agency to Community Partnerships of the Desert The Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires the Commission to designate one or more consolidated transportation service agencies (CTSA) to promote the coordination of social service transportation in the county. The Commission designated the Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency as the CTSA in their respective region of the County. The CTSA may coordinate the transportation service by either providing the service directly or entering into a contract for the service, as well as provide other technical assistance. SunLine has always fulfilled its responsibilities as the CTSA. However, a consultant's report on the review of SunLine's role with Coachella Valley social service organization recommended the transfer of the CTSA function to its non-profit arm, Community Partnerships of the Desert (CPD). This would enable the CPD to take a more pro -active role in the coordination of transportation services in the community and avail the program of funding only accessible to non-profit organizations. At their January meeting, SunLine's ACCESS Advisory Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the Board that the CTSA responsibilities be shifted from SunLine to CPD. SunLine's Board approved the transfer at their January 27, 1999 meeting. PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the transfer of the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) designation in the Coachella Valley from SunLine Transit Agency to Community Partnerships of the Desert as requested. 000003 045056 MEMBERS Desert Hot Sprtngs Poncho M roae rna Palm Somas Porn.) Deser' Ceoz-neco Corneae; Qn inacn we+is Z,e see u Le Quoro A Public Agency February 8, 1999 Jerry Rivera Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Jerry: At their January 27 meeting, the SunLine Board of Directors approved the transfer of the CTSA function to our non profit organization, Community Partnerships of the Desert, Inc. Attached is the staff report which provides background and rationale for the action. We are submitting this RCTC for consideration and approval. Please let me know if you need any further information. Sincerely, SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Tracy A. Daly Assistant General Manger cc: Richard Cromwell III, General Manager Dennis Gilman, Director of Administrative Services - 600004 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 9 276 Phone 760-343-3456 fax 760-343-3845 SunLine Transit Agency DATE: January 27,1999 ACTION TO: Board of Directors FROM: Assistant General Manager and Senior Long Range Transportation Analyst RE: Transfer of Consolidated Transportation Services Agency function to Community Partnerships of the Desert Recommendation Recommend that the Board of Directors approve the transfer of the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) function from SunLine Transit Agency to Community Partnerships of the Desert (CPD). Backaround The primary purpose of a CTSA is to promote the coordination of social service transportation in a given service area, as mandated by the State of Califomia. CTSAs serve a variety of roles ranging from direct service provision, to brokering services, to technical assistance. SunLine has always been a very proactive CTSA within the limits of staff time available for CTSA activities. In June 1998 a report entitled "Creating the Social Service Transportation Resource Center" was presented to the Board, the result of consultants' review of SunLine's role with Coachella Valley social service organizations. One of the many recommendations of the report was to move the CTSA function to our non profit arm enabling us to take a more proactive role in the coordination of transportation services for the community, and avail the program of funding only accessible to non profit organizations. After a careful review, the ACCESS Advisory Committee at their January meeting voted unanimously to recommend to the Board that CTSA responsibilities be shifted from SunLine to CPD. Staffing the CTSA function would be Ronnie Williams, CPD's Transportation Coordinator. Fiscal Implications None, although CPD can tap a variety of funding sources that are not available to SunLine as a govemment agency. Leslie Grosjea f 1pctranlbrdagenduan99'1CTSA.doc Page 2'' -0 0005 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 10, 1998 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Reports Attached are Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (Unaudited) and the Highway and rail projects quarterly budget report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 1998. BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. Attachments 0u0000 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES -GENERAL, SPECIAL REVENUE, AND CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS BUDGET VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS FOR SIX MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31,1998 REVENUE Federal. Local. State. & Other Government This category covers revenue sources that are on a reimbursement basis(i.e., not billable until the expenditure is incurred). These reimbursements include state rail bonds set aside for construction and engineering costs for the southside platform, S3.7 million in federal funding for improvements at Pedley, La Sierra and West Corona, and the historic Santa Fe Depot. The improvements to La Sierra and West Corona will now occur in FY2000. _ Total revenue will be adjusted downward to S7.1 million in the Revised Budget for 98/99. Other Other revenue includes reimbursement from the Coachella Valley for TUMF participation in debt service for the 93 bonds which will be billed to CVAG no later than May 99. SAFE fees are paid by the state two months in arrears. STA revenues, budgeted at S2.4 million, are paid quarterly three months in arrears by the state. Interest Income The County of Riverside pays interest quarterly, subsequent to the end of the quarter. The interest earnings on certain bond reserve funds is paid semi-annually. EXPENDITURES Professional Services The variance is due to audit fees, most of which are paid in the first half of the year when audit field work occurs at the Commission and its funding recipients. Due to increase in unexpected audit fees, the mid -year budget will be revised upward. Highway ROW It was assumed that S4.1 million would be spent for right of way acquisition. Much of that will now be moved to fiscal year 2000 and will be split between engineering, right of way, and construction. `1)v00'07 Highway Construction A number of projects in the Coachella Valley(e.g., Monroe to Rubidoux) will now be constructed in FY2000. The revised budget has been lowered to reflect these changes. Otherwise, third quarter should see increased expenditures for construction projects. Highway/Rail Special Studies The budget is for CETAP activities which are not expected to commence until mid March. Regional Arterial Desert cities are expected to bill very heavily in the second half of the year. STA Distributions Claims from Beaumom and Corona have been approved but not allocated as of December 31, 1998. Amount of S835,000 is on reserve for RTA until allocation is needed. Sunline is claiming less than allocated amount. General Note: The first quarter of the year is primarily directed toward completing end of the year activities. Most vendors do not even began to bill us for current year activities until the month of September. Therefore, first half of the year numbers typically are considerably under budget. Most of the categories will begin to reflect more accurately in relation to the budget by third quarter of the fiscal year. j)48 Description operating Transfers In Operating Transfers out Debt Service Issuance Costs Total Other Financing Sources Uses Tess(Dlficiency)of Revenues And other Financing Sources over(Under)Expenditures And Other Financing Uses FUND BALANCE July 1, 1998 FUND BALANCE December 31, 1998 BUDGET 688,715.00 31, 067, 628.00 0.00 30,378,913.00 (16,342,527.93) asaaasaaa=asaa== 95,642,832.55 aaaasaaasa 79,300,304.62 ACTUALS 819,873.00 16,762,845.81 0.00 15,942,972.81 3,377,108.13 aea=asaa== 95,642,832.55 saaaa=saasassa=s 99,019,940.68 a===asasas==sasa Riverside County Transportation Commission BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-2nd Qtr. For Period Ending: 12/31/98 02/17/99 REMAINING BALANCE (131,158.00) 14,304,782.19 0.00 14,435,940.19 (19,719,636.06) 0.00 as (19,719,636.06) asaa PERCENT UTILIZATION 119.04 53.95 0.00 52.48 (20.66) 100.00 • a=mama=aaasaaz=a 124.86 sea=as=asaa=asaa QTRAF UU0010 Riverside County Transportation► Commission BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-2nd Otr. For Period Ending: 12/31/98 02/17/99 REMAINING PERCENT Description BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION REVENUES Sales Tax Revenues Measure A 65,624.999.00 34,202,842.26 31,422,156.74 52.11 Other Sales Tax Revenues 5,644,500.00 3,582,417.00 2,062,083.00 63.46 Fed State Local 8 Other Govern 10,086,920.00 3,576,277.12 6,510,642.88 35.45 Interest Income 2,937,875.00 1,503,130.74 1,434,744.26 51.16 Other Revenues 6,394,450.00 2,341,035.29 4,053,414.71 36.61 TOTAL REVENUES . 90,688,744.00 45,205,702.41 45,483,041.59 49.84 EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATION Salaries 1 Benefits 657,544.00 316,934.86 340,609.14 48.19 General Legal Services 97,500.00 37,569.94 59,930.06 38.53 Prof Services (Excludes Legal) 483,020.00 452,489.73 30,530.27 93.67 Office Lease 220,000.00 98,594.30 121,405.70 44.81 General Adsin Expenses 677,895.00 352,424.85 325,470.15 51.98 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 2,135,959.00 1,258,013.68 877,945.32 58.89 PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Salaries II Benefits 1,203,565.00 512,688.01 690,876.99 42.59 General Legal Services 227,500.00 118,598.82 108,901.18 52.13 Prof Services (Excludes Legal) 586,400.00 65,086.60 521,313.40 11.09 General Projects 1,833,900.00 585,947.08 1,247,952.92 31.95 Highway Engineering 2,120,719.00 129,251.81 1,991,467.19 •6.09 Highway Construction 8,317,225.00 1,719,044.64 6,598,180.36 20.66 Highways Roll 4,483,000.00 44.601.14 4,438,398.86 0.99 Special Studies 235,000.00 1,148.61 233,851.39 0.48 Rail Engineering 238,170.93 79,563.66 158,607.27 33.40 Rail Construction 8,046,300.00 2,783,915.73 5,262,384.27 34.59 Rail ROW 85,656.00 9,313.75 76,342.25 10.87 SCRRA Capital Contribution 1,150,000.00 36,984.00 1,113,016.00 3.21 Commuter Assistance 1,391,920.00 552,859.32 839,060.68 39.71 Regional Arterial 7,895,150.00 700,037.58 7,195,112.42 8.86 Streets IL Roads 25,163,695.00 13,184,739.96 11,978,955.04 52.39 Special Transportion\Transit 5,915,461.00 2,829,407.00 3,086,054.00 47.83 Project Maintenance 597,294.00 201,416.97 395,877.03 33.72 Project Operations 1,106,127.00 193,012.15 913,114.85 17.44 Project Towing 679,628.00 240,366.96 439,261.04 35.36 STA Distributions 2,746,194.00 496,858.00 2,249,336.00 18.09 TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS 74,022,904.93 24,484,841.79 49,538,063.14 33.07 Intergovern Distribution 327,295.00 127,295.00 200,000.00 38.89 Capital Outlay 166,200.00 15,471.00 150,729.00 9.30 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 76,652,358.93 25,885,621.47 50,766,737.46 33.77 other Financing Sources(Uses) OTRAF Description GENERAL FUND FSP/SAFE Riverside County Transportation Comeission miRBF 02l17/99 ACTUALS OF FUND 6/30/98 For Period Ending: 12/31/98 02/17/99 STATE WESTERN WESTERN COUNTY WESTERN EASTERN TRANSIT CVAG COUNTY COMMERCIAL COMBINING COUNTY COUNTY ASSISTANCE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION PAPER TOTAL REVENUES Sales Tex Revenues N A 1,250,000.00 0.00 23,903,265.18 9,049,557.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,202,642.26 Other Sales lax Revenues 3,562,417.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,562,417.00 Fed State local 1 other Govern 7,924.16 171.10 3,567,794.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 387.20 0.00 3,576,277.12 Int Income 107.702.62 44,907.08 336.542.63 136,898.10 41,297.12 277,504.91 S14,467.65 41,810.43 1,503,130.74 Other Revenues 174.271.51 593,379.46 0.00 0.00 1,197,833.00 0.00 375,551.10 0.00 2,341,035.29 TOTAL REVENUES 5,122,315.31 636,437.66 27,009,622.65 9,1116,453.16 1,239,130.12 277.304.91 890,406.15 41,810.43 45,205,702.41 EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATION Salaries S Sensfits 297,080.51 19,846.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 316,934.66 Genteel legal Services 36,408.97 1,160.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37,569.94 Prof Services (Excludes legal) 442.271.35 10,216.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 452,489.73 Office lease 92,678.64 3,915.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90,594.30 General Adain Expenses 332,926.48 19.498.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 152,424.65 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 1,201,374.15 56,639.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,258,013.68 PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Salaries 1 Benefits 283,663.90 45,466.38 181,555.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 312,686.01 General Legal Services 23,001.85 74.00 92,210.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,312.48 0.00 118,598.62 Prof Services (Excludes legal) 36,779.92 24,325.43 3,961.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6% 006.60 General Projects 0.00 0.00 546,228.26 37,718.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 585,947.08 Highway Engineering 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.404.79 0.00 0.00 22.952.08 103,664.94 129,251.61 Highway Construction 15.04 0.00 (34.562.65) 730.924.92 0.00 0.00 933,987.33 86.700.00 1,719.044.64 Highways RON 0.00 0.00 40,710.00 0.00 0.00 1.506.00 203.54 2.099.60 44.601.14 Special Studies 880.00 0.00 260.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,148.61 Sail Engineering 0.00 0.00 79,361.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79,563.66 Roll Construction 0.00 0.00 2,783,915.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.763,913.73 Rail ROW 0.00 0.00 9,313.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,313.75 SCRIM Capital Contribution 36,964.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36,984.00 Commuter Assistance 119.31 640.19 531,691.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 552,659.32 Regional Arterial 0.00 0.00 0.00 (84,092.11) 0.00 784,929.69 0.00 0.00 700,037.58 Strette 8 Roads 0.00 0.00 9,739,732.76 3.424,987.20 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 13,184,739.96 Spacial Transportlon\Tranalt 1,431,450.00 0.00 319,035.00 878,922.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,829,407.00 Project Maintenance 69,347.42 129,203.83 2,602.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 161.19 0.00 201.416.97 Project Operations 130,622.54 62,389.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 193,012.15 Project Towing 0.00 240,366.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 240,366.96 STA Distributions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 496,650.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 496,850.00 IOTAI PROGRANSJPROJECTS 2,015,064.06 502,758.40 14,540,246.86 4,990,065.62 496,656.00 766,437.69 960,746.62 194,664.54 24,484,841.79 Intergovern Distribution 127,293.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 127,295.00 Capital Outlay 14,542.76 928.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,471.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,356,275.97 560,326.17 14,540,246.86 4,990,065.62 496,858.00 706,437.69 960,746.62 194,664.54 25,805,621.47 qhtr Financing Sources(Uses) Riverside County Transportation Commission ACTUALf NY FIND 6/30/90 For Period Ending: 17/31/98 02/17/99 WAIF 02/17/99 Description GENERAL WESTERN EASTERN STATE WESTERN ' WESTERN COUNTY FUND FSP/SAFE COUNTY COUNTY ASSISTANCE CONSTRUCTION CONfSTRSIT CVAG RUUCCTION COMMERCIAL COMBINING Operating Transfers In 0.00 PAPER TOIAI 00 Operating Transfers Out 159,075.00 660,790.00 0.00 0.00 Debt Service Issuance Costs 0.00 159,075.00 11,325,039.50 3,948,914.04 0.00 0.39 0.00 762,845.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45,640.00 1,203,360.00 0.00 16,762,040.00 foul Other financing Sources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,665,041.58 3,940,914.04 0.00 2.00 uses 0.00 43,648.80 1,253,360.39 acesseeficiency)of Revenues 0.00 15,942,972.81 And Other financing Sources Over(Under)Espe ditures And Other Mancini Uses 1,766,039.34 70,131.49 2,604,334.21 247,479.52 742,272.12 3,377,100.13 FUND BALANCE duly 1, 1998 3,859,266.24 2,459,243.12 20,611,011.33 12,569,41/.21 2,604,573.32 9`067,747. 9) 39,716,130.07) 3`655,442.77) 95, 2,832.55 FUND BALANCE December 31, 1990 5,625,305.50 2,537,374.61 23,21% 345.54 13,116,092./3 3,346,045.44 9,313,166.11 38,362,422.01 3,502,388.66 99,019,940.60 LSQ'OLL'Z a SW 6E9'ZOT$ t66'tOL'6$ LL8'ELT‘9$ 8EE'T99'ET$ VS,'PEZ'OT$ 06E'LTZ'o6$ E8S'ZEE'VT$ 1,0819T918$ 8Z8'T9S'8T$ S901906'SE$ 69E'LSS'L$ tTL'E88'Z$ 8TS'90Z$ L08'T6Ift £LL'EEZ$ SL8'LZT$ ES6'98T$ 0091SEO'T$ T99'LZT'T$ 6SE'9698 0$ TP0' 6EZ$ Min 0$ Z8T'6614 L9E'gbb$ 0$ 0$ os 06'86 %S'66 %0'OOT $0'OOT %0'66 %9'66 86'L6 %S'86 %0'OOT 8L'E6 $8'66 %0'OOT 80'68 80'OOT 80'OOT $0'OOT %0'OOT 80'OOT %0'OOT T69 L66 ZW 0691,0T$ 86L1L9T'ZT$ 068'809'88 6S6'8Setat 800'98S'OT$ TOS'96E'Ott L08158b18T$ 606'EE6'ST$ tSS'ZS8'8T$ 866'S9E'9E$ 9T6'E8Z'ZT$ TP9'TS3'E$ L9016ET'a Lt0'960'S$ 000'009'T$ 005'nE'T$ 6T9'9£6'T$ EZ9'ZTZ'S$ 1 nwana 1lo.a caw s8OI0ANI ao 1i minx 1181.11 (10 1IoaI asSS8OO1id S+IOIOANI 30 1I88IwnN i8t{T8Z'LT6$ ZT6106T'SOT$ 86L'L9T'ZT$ 068'80t'8$ 6561T0611T$ 8001Z£9'OT$ ZE8'tn'Tti$ 8S8'L9L'8T$ 6061EE6'ST$ 8L0'STT'OZ$ 866'811/19 0 9T61E8t'ZT$ Z66'8L8'E$ L90'6ET'Z$ LZO' 1,60' S$ 000'0091T$ 00V VW T$ 6T9'9£6'T$ EZ9'ZTZ'S$ s? 0140 4IY1I 1 nnwPIDa ' OO1Id * MMIONI 9 8oll1I-N-Wita 'sans 4 NY'Id NY1i0OVd SZOIAdaS SNPE+II0YNMK 1080O8d NMNMO1Id'AOWN7 8ONYH3d1LINI nomeoud STZ-I T6 nnOu nozrOad TTT nno1i 98 nn01I 6L 8SnOu tiL 8mnOu 09 zln01I (111,07) - O080N MHO XLIa (ueoZ) - NIWIDEMdb do min (ueo'I) - 8cf'I NOENYO AO XX= Mew') - OI II3VD NYS ao ni0 own) - SI111i8d SO ]LLIO (m207) - WOU00 ao min 866T' T£ 1iMNIOWI 866T' T£ 1I88148383 NOISY3077 i ZING OS NOISYa077Y NOI AINDSZa n1IFLt nva OS unim ONIONB 1InulinO 'HMV SSNIYOY SIN WIENHOo aniuOaInY WarOli! maHrid/S811nLLIaman 1IoaI aanZiamaxz 1018MENWO0 % 7‘111313Y1LLNO3 NOISSMNNOO 9661 1£ 213811303a ONIGN3 0012:13d 1210d321 amine A1213121V110 S1o3P021d ilV2l/AVMH9IH V atinsV3W 31321 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Additional Construction Contingency for Construction Contract No. RO-9847 for Construction of Sound Walls on SR 91 Between Van Buren Boulevard and Mary Street in the City of Riverside In 1994, RCTC designed the Route 91 HOV Median Widening Project, from Magnolia to Mary St. This project added 1 - 11 ft. HOV lane, with no buffer, in the median of Route 91. Because of the limited median width the project required the re -stripping of the existing 3 - 12 ft. mixed flow lanes to 3 - 11 ft. mixed flow lanes to make room for the new HOV lane. Without this reduction in travel lane and buffer width, outside widening of the freeway would have been required, and the necessary environmental clearance would have delayed construction of the project. Caltrans agreed to move forward with the construction of the Route 91 HOV Median Widening Project, with the stipulation that RCTC restore the travel lane and buffer width in the future to full standards widths when additional construction was undertaken. The Measure "A" improvements to State Route 91 between Magnolia and Mary Streets are as follows: 1. Construction of the HOV lanes using reduced standard lane widths, reduced standard median, and reduced standard buffer. ( This project is completed) 2. Construction of Phase I Sound Walls to mitigate for the HOV lane installation. (This project is nearing completion) 3. Construction of Phase II Sound Walls and auxiliary lanes to both mitigate for the HOV lane project, and to provide operational improvements. (This project is currently under design and is funded) 4. Widening of lanes to restore the standard 12 foot lane widths and HOV buffer. The first portion of this effort will be included with the Auxiliary Lane project. In June of 1998, the Commission awarded a PS&E Design Contract to URS Greiner for the Route 91 Phase II Sound Wall and Auxiliary lane Project. This Phase II Project will incorporate into its design the restoration of the travel lanes and HOV buffer width at the locations of the proposed auxiliary lanes. As part of the project scoping efforts associated with completing this design, RCTC Staff and Caltrans agreed to a reduced future cross section that would not require a full standard median and HOV buffer. This agreement on project scoping will significantly reduce the cost of the future lane restoration project to put all of the lanes back to 12 foot lane widths. 000014 f �• �„ At the June 1998 meeting, the Commission also awarded Construction Contract No. RO- 9847, to R. Fox Construction, Inc., for construction of the Phase I Sound Walls on Route 91, from Van Buren Blvd. to Mary St., in the City of Riverside, in the amount of $2,486,486, and a contingency amount of $113,514 (5%) to cover potential change orders encountered during construction. One of the Sound Walls, Sound Wall #183A, was positioned at a- location that was consistent with providing only enough room to allow for the proposed auxiliary lane. At the time this design was performed, Caltrans had not agreed to a reduced cross section that would allow for the reduced median to remain as a permanent feature. Therefore, Sound Wall #183A was thought to be a throw -a -wall and was designedat a location that would minimize the cost of constructing the wall. With the new direction from Caltrans that the future median did not have to be widened to full standard, the wall could be moved back and would not have to be torn down to provide for the future lane widening improvements to restore standard lane width to SR 91. The portion of the R. Fox bid related to construction of Sound Wall #183A is $430,000. Staff initiated discussions with R. Fox prior to the start of any construction activities to relocate Sound Wall #183A to a location that would allow for the restoration of the travel lane and buffer width. Sound Wall #183A is to be constructed on top of a new retaining wall. Relocating the wall further back from the existing freeway will require a taller retaining wall and more excavation and backfill work. Staff gave R. Fox advance approval to proceed with the Change Order to construct Sound Wall #183A in its relocated position to prevent delay of the Contractor's construction schedule. It is estimated that the total cost of the Change Order will be approximately $70,000, based on the increased quantities of bid items. The R. Fox Construction Contract No. RO-9847 is approximately 75% complete. This major Change Order of $70,000 combined with the other change orders for the Phase I work will completely deplete the construction contingency for the project and leave no contingency to cover any additional change order's that may arise during the final 25% of construction. Staff is requesting that the project contingency of $113,514 be increased by an additional $40,000 to $153,514 (6%). This will assure enough remaining project contingency to complete construction of the project. Financial Assessment Project Cost Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Included in Program Budget Approved Allocation Bud et Ad'ustment Re uired current project cost $2,486,486 + $113,514 = $2,600,000 additional contingency = $40,000 new revised not to exceed cost = $2,640,000 Measure "A" Y Y NA Y Year Programmed Year of Allocation M: Year For Additional $40,000 •j00015 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize the increase of the project construction contingency by $40,000 for Construction Contract No. RO-9847 from $113,514 to $153,514. The new not to exceed value of the contract will be $2,640,000. 000016 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Claudia Chase, Property Agent Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Rail Station Security Security services at RCTC's four rail stations are currently provided as an add -on to Metrolink's contract for security guards at the system's outlying lay -over sites and central maintenance facility (CMF). A single vendor contracts to guard the CMF in Los Angeles and layover points at Moorpark, Lancaster, San Bernardino and Riverside. Owners of a few stations in the system, including RCTC, have elected to have Metrolink contract for additional station guards on an incremental basis. RCTC reimburses Metrolink for the direct hourly costs of station security. Though a certain economy of scale is realized, companies which bid on such a contract tend to be large providers headquartered far from our sites. Consequently, RCTC staff has not had the ability to interact as closely as we would have liked with the guard company. Also, some of RCTC's unique needs were outside the parameters of the existing contract. Since the Metrolink security contract is being readied for re -bid, RCTC staff and board members had proposed that Metrolink consider multiple, regional contracts in procuring security services, thereby allowing local firms to bid on a smaller piece of the whole. Metrolink's staff analysis indicated that such a solution would not be cost effective on a system -wide basis, and instead proposed an alternative which was sanctioned by the Metrolink Board of Directors on February 12. The proposed alternative is to have RCTC directly contract for not only its own station security services, but also for the equipment lay -over guards at downtown Riverside. This would allow for a locally- managed contract, serving all RCTC station sites, and designed to meet certain unique requirements (such as electronic surveillance). Such a contract would also avoid the potential conflicts of having two security firms providing service at the same site (Riverside -Downtown station and lay- over). RCTC would invoice Metrolink for the direct costs associated with guarding Metrolink equipment. UUOQ17 . F Financial Implications for FY 1999/00: Other than the staff time required for a separate procurement process, no additional costs are anticipated in the current fiscal year. Station security is already an integral part of RCTC's rail operating budget, and next year's budget will _probably reflect additional costs for a higher level of service. Staff will be working before the Commission meeting to better define RCTC's projected costs. BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission contract directly for security guard services at its four rail station sites and authorize staff to develop the necessary procurement documents including an appropriate scope of work. Ir RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Call Box Update Attached are the operational statistics for the call box system for the quarter ending December 31, 1998. There were a total of 15,788 calls during the quarter; 9,944 to Inland CHP and 5,844 to Indio CHP dispatch offices. This represents a decrease of 5,310 calls or 25.1 % in call box activity over the quarter ending September 30, 1998. Although this may seem unusual, the number of calls typically decrease during the second quarter. In the last three years, the call box calls decreased 20.9%, 18.7%, and 18.4% during the same period. The average calls per day were 172 for the current quarter versus 229 for the previous quarter. In comparing the quarter ending December, 1998 to December, 1997 call volumes, there has been a decrease of 2,194 calls (-12.2%) from last year to this year. Unfortunately, all call box programs throughout the state have been experiencing a similar decrease in usage which may be attributed to less older vehicles on the highway due to strict insurance requirements. Financial Assessment Project Cost N/A Source of Funds N/A y,``.•:..2 V±:Askt. \k\:.. &$;.**e :AA*4 * ..` `Ck•ti. Y...zs ".:,\}: k."Y`; 'iY:ik �:k'��,EY`'k� i.. . }\`k � k �` s0. k�.`Zt1:.t`'Ck"•• JY�k; �'r `2s :� �`�.k:Vg `kfikkk%iCaltakk `�`'...ki �� '`�v Zk:`3C , � & �k ��.ttY•�c� •` : �tYa 4 : 4 �i�iY•: .�':",4,. „;:�k'.:� x Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. 000019 Riverside Summary of Calls to CHP Calls to CHP ALL TIME - 625,647 (Begin. May'90) 1997 Oct Nov Dec 4th QTR '97 Val Cis to CHF Active Call Boxes 1,118 Calls to CHP 17,982 1998 Calls/Box 16.1 4th QTR '98 1,126 15,788 14.0 Dec Totals Od - Dec Totals Inland Rim* CHI' Espattli C Calls to 4th QTR '97 Call Boxes Calls to CHP Calls/Box 37% CHP Inland 592 11,304 19.1 Indio 526 6,678 12.7 Riverside 1,118 17,982 16.1 63% 4th QTR '98 Call Boxes Calls to CHP Calls/Box Inland 597 9,944 16.7 Indio 529 5,844 11.0 Riverside 1,126 15,788 14.0 37% Calls to CHP 63% e F op io A.Jiowwns apisienii cn -13 866l aai-11:00 1-141 Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 1 Data Source: LA Cellular 000020 Riverside Cellular Analysis 1997 4th Quarter 1998 Average Call Lengths Average Call Lengths 4th Quarter 3:37 Active Call Oct Nov Dec 3:43 3:32 3:38 Boxes X 35 minutes per call 4th Quarter Oct Nov Dec 3:51 3:54 3:48 3:52 box* = Total Cellular Time Authorized 'The Amount of time each call box is authorized to use in one month without an additional charge from LA Cellular 1,118 Call boxes 117,390 Call Box Cellular Minutes Allocated 117,390 minutes Used to call... CHP 65,188 O 56% ... Maintenance 10,141 • 9% ... Other Numbers 139 O 0% Total Used 75,468 • 64% Minutes 1,126 Call boxes 118,230 Call Box Cellular Minutes Allocated 118,230 minutes used to call... CHP 60,884 Q 51 % ... Maintenance 12,016 • 10% ... Other Numbers 441 O 0% Total Used 73,341 • 62% Minutes Remaining 41,922 • 36% Total Used Remaining 44,889 • 38% i a Total Used Cellular 36% Time Used 0 63 /o 1997 CHP Close-up Maint Ottr.r (4th QTR) 85% 11% 096 Cellular 38% Time Used 0 63 /o 1998 CHP Close-up Mamt other (4th QTR) E 52% 1096 O'Xi a Call Length Number of calls Percent Call Length Number of calls Percent 0 to 1 min 3,313 NM 18% 0 to 1 min 2,904 18% 1 to 3 min 5,998 � '' -a , 33% 1 to 3 min 4,826 -'-' 31 % 3 to 5 min 4,070 WM 23% 3 to 5 min 3,491 L-z;, = 22% 5 to 7 min 2,361 13% t 5 to 7 min 2,141 L 14% 7 to 9 min 1,1650 6% 7 to 9 min 1,167 El 7% over 9 min 1,075 El 6% E over 9 min 1,259 0 8% Total 17,982 calls 100% 1997 Maintenance Calls (4th QTR) Total 15,788 calls 100% 1998 Maintenance Calls (4th QTR) Calls Calls Expected* • 33,540 Actual 41,129 Expected* • 33,780 Actual 38,777 vir Too Many • 7,589 18%� *Call boxes are scheduled to Call Maintenance Too Many • 4,997 13% I I every 3 days (10 times/month) I OD apisaaniI 866 L aaPnn0 4417 Produced by: TeleTron Tek Services Page: 2 Obit, tr r+qe: LA Cellular 25 Riverside Call Box Statistics MAS by Highway 20 I Y m a 15an m Q 10 I Y1 � a 5 f x0 Highway OO N 4th Quarter 1997 Call Calls to Boxes CHP O aO O Avg Calls/Box WyNlc< L VV IT J .b. 4th Quarter 199$ Call Calls to Highway Boxes CHP < id a P ' Avg Calls/Box ` RV-010 396 5,284 13.3 RV-010 396 4,574 11.6 ° RV-015 201 4,513 22.5 RV-015 204 4,168 20.4 i RV-031 6 42 7.0 RV-031 6 36 6.0' RV-033 2 11 5.5 RV-033 2 12 6.0 k RV-060 75 1,321 17.6 RV-060 75 1,146 15.3 RV-062 16 267 16.7 RV-062 20 269 13.5 RV-071 0 0 0.0 RV-071 0 0 0.0 RV-074 30 291 9.7 RV-074 30 277 9.2 RV-078 7 21 3.0 RV-078 7 17 2.4 i RV-079 30 269 9.0 RV-079 30 223 7.4 RV-086 11 66 6.0 RV-086 11 66 6.0 RV-091 161 3,208 19.9 RV-091 161 2,835 17.6 RV-095 7 10 1.4 RV-095 7 14 2.0 RV-111 12 131 10.9 RV-111 12 91 7.6, RV-177 26 122 4.7 RV-177 26 28 1.1 RV-215 98 2,183 22.3 RV-215 94 1,804 19.2 RV-243 14 97 6.9 RV-243 14 76 5.4 RV-371 12 69 5.8 RV-371 12 66 5.5 ` RV-865 14 77 5.5 RV-865 14 86 6.1 unassigned 0 0 0.0 unassigned 5 0 0.0 TOTALS 1,118 17,982 16.1 TOTALS 1,126 15,788 14.0' OD apis.ianili ADAitti6N Aq sp!4s!iats xos 8661 aal-gn0 N41 Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 3 Data Source: LA Cellular 000022 'olnlleD Yl :e»nos hind y :eBnd se3Fues ilel uruielel :Aq pe3npoJd Jnoq Aq spa }o iegl.unu e6nleny o'St o'ot o'S CYO J r 961 "'ono ,„, o� —6 Y/. 004 W. oa. WI Vfil00. I W. 005 W. 00. W.00. W.00[ M OWI t-W.00I1 r WV OcII 1 WV 001 WV 00i r•WV 000 WV.Of �WV00. WV.a[ 01111.11.1`WV 00L wr OO[I W.0011 W.0001 t''178 L'88 Aop/spa Bny LOLL L60'8 sooD In;Ol 0'Z9 . 9'8L Ar p/s1 op BAy L59'S 69 L'L spa In;ol 0'£L l 116 L 88L'S l Z86'L l 0£Z LSZ l'9 8'9 LSS L19 Z 9 Wd 00:0 L Wd 00:6 1 Z'8 91 OSL Z69 Ll E Wd 00'6 Wd 00:8 /6 9'8 L88 Z8L trl El Wd 00:8 Wd 001 L' l l 8'01. tf'ZL 6'ZL Z'EL l'PL ILO' l 986 6Zl'l 6Ll'l LOZ' l L8Z' l lZ OZ OZ qZ t'E L£ Wd 001 Wd 00:9 Wd 00:9 Wd OO:S Wd 00:S Wd 00:tr 611 &EL 880' t OLZ't 61 ZZ Z' l L l't+ L 1t7Z0' L ;Mr L 46 ZZ Z 0l 0 ZL EE6 L60' l LZ bl Wd 00:tr Wd 00:£ Wd 00:£ Wd OO:Z Wd 00'Z Wd 00: L 1 S'6 S'ZL 998 11,111 9l Ll Wd 00:1 Wd 00:Z1. 6L t''tt ZZL LPO' l 8 Sl Wd00:Z1 WV00.LL Z 8 S'6 0'8 0 6 ZSL 998 8ZL EZ8 S Ol L S WV0011 WV0001 WV0001 WV006 6 8 9.8 808 V8L ZL EL WV 00:6 WV 00:8 L S L'8 17ZS Z6L Z L WV 00:8 WV00L 19 E 8'9 ItiZE SZ9 It L 1WV 001. WV 00 9 9.9Z 8'6Z Aopisilo7 BAy 9'Z E', t'EZ Z6E 1 Z WV 00:9 WV 00:5 1 8 l E'Z Z9l 90Z E 0 WV OO.S WV OO•q 8' l S'Z L9 L 6ZZ l 0 WV OO:b WV 00.E 17 Z b'Z lZZ LZZ t' Z WV 00:E WV 00'Z 0E171Z 9111Z slln* 1°1°1 9'Z 8'Z 8EZ 09Z £ L WV 00:Z WV 00: L 1 'V It LLE SLE S 0 WV 00:1 WV 00:Z1 l'S Z'S L9t' ELP S £ WV OO•Zl Wd 00: l l Z'9 L'9 179S 095 9 8 Wd 00' t l Wd 00:01 J Da SHOD eBnJeA`/ dHD 01 epib sllnD N'I'nd Mull woad anoH dHa of slloD fo tiauauanS apisaanii Riverside - Preventive Maintenance January 98 - June 98 150 100 Goal PerFomiartc Jan-98 Feb-98 Mr-98 Apr-98 May-98 Jul-98 Previous PM Cycle Previous PM Cycle Preventive Maintenance Visits Percent of System Visited Jan-98 51 5% Feb-98 136 12% Mar-98 400 36% Apr-98 185 16% May-98 208 19% Jun-98 95 8% Total 1,075 96% Summary PM visits needed to be on schedule 187 / Month (17%) AVG Number of Active Call Boxes 1,123 PM visits in the last 6 months 179 / Month (16%) b`o q July 98 - December 98 150 100 I Jul-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 F Most Recent PM Cycle Most Recent PM Cycle Preventive Maintenance Visits erce System Visited f Jul-98 183 16% Aug-98 202 18% Sep-98 302 27% Oct-98 77 7% Nov-98 279 25% Dec-98 83 7% Total 1,126 100% Summary PM visits needed to be on schedule 187 / Month (17%) AVG Number of Active Call Boxes 1,123 PM visits in the last 6 months 187 / Month (17%) r Preventive Maintenance visits are required every 6 months. eDUDUa4uiDW ani}uanaad apisaan!N 866 L aalJnn0 Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 5 Data Source: GTE (4)0024 CALSAFE CALL BOX ACTIVITY REPORT rrrc Santa Ow CalSAFE December 1998 Counties developing call box programs Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services CalSAFE Members Call Ilexes Dec Collate CHP Dec Year to Dale Calls, 8ax Dec YTD San Diego 1,636 20% 9,761 2896 137,742 2956 6.0 84.2 Riverside 1,126 14% 5,360 15% 71,962 1596 4.8 63.9 MTC 3,134 3996 13,998 4096 181,412 3896 4.5 57.9 Ventura 521 696 1,922 s96 25,173 5% 3.7 48.3 CURS 1,274 16% 3,479 io% 46,999 to% 2.7 36.9 Salta Barbara 333 4% 747 2% 8,806 2% 2.2 26.4 Told 8,024 10016 35,267 10096 472,094 1 o0% 4.4 58.8 s — 0 Page: 6 Data Source: Cellular tapes 000025 RIVERSIDE LOST CALL ANALYSIS THIS REPORT COVERS THE INLAND DISPATCH CENTER ONLY EXPLANATION OF A LOST CALL A "lost call' occurs when a call box caller hangs up or "redials" before reaching a CHP operator. Note: "redialing", or pressing the call button a second time, disconnects the caller and reconnects them at the end of the queue (calls are answered by CHP in the order they are received.) PERCENT OF LOST CALLS - THE LAST 2 YEARS sile0 1s01 10 ;u90-19d 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% a m t t t s a s 1 t F t MONTH Percent Lost Jan-97 3% Feb-97 3% Mar-97 3% Apr-97 4% May-97 4% Jun-97 Jul-97 5°k 5% Aug-97 5% Sep-97 Oct-97 4% Nov-97 4% Dec-97 5% Jan-98 3% Feb-98 5% Mar-98 5% Apr-98 4% May-98 4% Jun-98 4% Jul-98 5°k Aug-98 8°k Sep-98 7% Oct-98 7% Nov-98 6% Dec-98 9% HOW LONG CALLS LASTED BEFORE THEY WERE "LOST" The length of time (in minutes) a motorist waited before hanging up or "redialing" CHP. On hold Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 AVG 1 minute or less 1-2 minutes 15 sec 10% 11% 12% 11% 30 sec 9% 11 % 11 % 10% 41 % 29% 17% 13% - 45 sec 18% 22% 19% 20% 1 min 14% 13% 17% 15% 1.5 min 13% 15% 13% 14% 2:min , .: .. =9% .8% 7% :.... `8% 2.5 min 5% 5% 496 < . :. 5% 3 min 4% 4% 5% 4% 3.5 min 2% 2% 2% 2% 4.5 min 4% 3% 4% 4% 5.5 min 2% 2% 2% 2% 3+ minutes :2• minutes , 6.5 min 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % +6.5 min 6% 2% 3% 4% -z cn Q fD r 0 cn 0 D _N 8661. -Wen° Lot Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 7 Data Source: CHP ACD 000026 RIVERSIDE DELAYED CALL THIS REPORT COVERS THE INLAND DISPATCH EXPLANATION OF A DELAYED CALL ANALYSIS CENTER MONTH ONLY Percent Delayed i Average Delay CHP considers a call to be "delayed" if the Jan-97 70% 38 call is not answered within 10 seconds. Feb-97 71% 36 Mar-97 72% 38 A call must be answered for it to be Apr-97 72% 38 a delayed call, otherwise it is a lost call. May-97 72% 43 Jun-97 74% 49 PERCENT DELAYED Jul-97 77% 55 9096 Aug-97 79% 60 Sep-97 76% 50 eo% - � Oct-97 75% 44 Nov-97 76% 43 43 Dec-97 78% 51 - Jan-98 76% d d m T f f ° m d T f f Feb-98 76% 48 Mar-98 77% 47 AVERAGE DELAY Apr-98 77% 42 May-98 77% 42 so seconds _ Jun-98 77% 44 so - -- —, Jul-98 79% 54 __ — — — ------ _ Aug-98 84% 78 30 Sep-98 82% 72 Oct-98 83% 66 o d m . , c , �, ,Z a , .y F. Nov-98 80% 56 m � - � g g i 1 T 8 k Dec-98 84 /0 77 DETAILED 4TH QUARTER ANALYSIS r C 0 m ON TIME 18% DELAYED 31% 18% 20% r G) � Im 6% 8% _ Answered in < 10 Secs < 30 Secs < 60 Secs < 90 Secs < 120 Secs > 120 Secs Oct-98 17% 31% 18% 6% 9% 20% Nov-98 20% 34% 17% 5% 7% 17% Dec-98 16% 29% 19% 6% 8% 23% AVERAGE 18% 31% 18% 6% 8% 20% D cn 8661. aalien0 y�� Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 8 Data Source: CHP ACD 000027 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Appropriations List In 1998, Congress passed and the President signed the Transportation Equity Act of the 21 st Century (TEA21), a six -year multi -billion dollar expenditure plan and policy priority plan for transportation projects and policies. Included in TEA21 was nearly $58 million in authorizations for "demonstration projects" in Riverside County. Unlike most authorizations for appropriation, these projects need not be revisited annually. Thus, each year, the appropriation levels are already considered to be authorized. Nevertheless, some of these project authorization levels leave the project underfunded. This year, as Congress begins its appropriations process, an opportunity to fully fund or augment the existing funding levels of the underfunded projects exists. Further, the opportunity to seek funding for new projects is available. As this is an annual process and the likelihood for full project funding is not high, the maximum request for each project will be $5 million. A review of the demonstration projects authorized, and additional project funding needs led to staff development of the following list of projects recommended for which to seek federal funding: Highwav/Road Proiects: Improve State Route 91 /Green River Interchange/Add Auxiliary Lanes - Total Project cost is $22.6 million, $4.5 million authorized in 1998, needs additional $5 million. Design and Land Acquisition for Portrero Interchange on Route 60 - Not authorized in 1998, needs $5 million. Route 79 Realignment Project - Total Project Cost is $70 million, $4.5 million authorized in 1998, needs additional $5 million. Interchange Improvements on Interstate 10 and State Route 86- $2.25 million authorized in 1998, needs additional $5 million. UU002`8 Rail Grade Separation Proiects (None authorized): City of Riverside - several projects totaling $164 million, request $5 million. Center Street - total cost is $20 million, request $5 million. Magnolia Avenue (combine with Buchanan) in Corona - total cost is $22 million, request $5 million San Timoteo Canyon Road in Calimesa - total cost is $7 million, request $2 million. Dillon Road in Indio - total cost is $11 million, request $3 million. PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission direct staff to work with RCTC's federal advocate to obtain funding for the projects listed in this report and provide input/suggestions to include any additional projects. 000,023 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The 1999/2000 State Legislative Session commenced January 4', 1999. San Bernardino County has two new representatives in the Assembly: John Longville, and Nell Soto. Both were appointed to the Assembly Transportation Committee. Former Assemblyman Joe Baca was elected to the Senate and appointed to the prestigious Senate Rules Committee. In Riverside County, Assemblyman Rod Pacheco was elected to the leadership post of Assembly Minority Leader. While policy committee meetings have not yet begun, legislative proposals have been submitted to Legislative Counsel and some bills have already been introduced. Policy committee will begin reviewing legislation in March. Staff has analyzed and recommends the following bill positions: AB 38 (Carl Washington, D - Los Angeles) - Extends South Coast Air Quality Management District Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee until 2004. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. AB 44 (Tom McClintock, R-Simi Valley) - Would require Ca!trans and local authorities to re -designate all existing high occupancy vehicle lanes as mixed flow. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis is attached. AB 74 (Virginia Strom -Martin, D-Eureka) - Would permit a private freight rail operation to compete for State Intercity Rail funding. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis is attached. AB 102 (Scot Wildman, D-Los Angeles, and Wally Hertzberg, D-Los Angeles) - Would fund the 1989 Priorirty Soundwall Retrofit list of projects off -the -top of the State Highway Account. Staff recommends: SEEK AMENDMENT. The staff analysis is attached. t}`040 03 b SB 14 (Richard Rainey, R-Walnut Creek) - Would require extensive study prior to construction of future high occupancy vehicle lanes. Staff recommends: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED. The staff analysis is attached. SB 17 (Liz Figueroa, D-Fremont) - Would permit employers to receive a tax credit for purchasing transit passes for their employers. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. SB 63 (Hilda Solis, D-EI Monte) - Would reduce the minimum occupancy for the El Monte Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis is attached. SB 98 (Richard Alarcon, D-Los Angeles) - Extends South Coast Air Quality Management District Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee until 2004. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. SB 117 (Kevin Murray, D-Los Angeles) - Would make permanent the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Fund. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. SB 10 (Rainey) which would allocate $300 million from the State Highway Account (SHA) for local street and road rehabilitation is not being forwarded with a staff recommendation. In a letter to the California Transportation Commission (CTC), the County Supervisors Association of California (CSAC) stated that given the effort of the CTC and others to resolve the need for local road rehabilitation funding, it is no longer requesting the $300 million allocation in the Rainey bill. Should the current situation change, staff will forward a recommendation. Finally, Assemblyman Torlakson has agreed to author legislation affecting a number of transportation project delivery issues, including the concept of a loan program to expedite reducing the SHA cash balance. Legislative Counsel is still drafting thebill language. Once introduced, staff will forward a recommendation. Federal Update In Washington, D.C. no major committee or legislative activity, with the exception of House committee membership announcements (attached) and the release of the President's budget, has occurred yet. Looking forward, the re -authorization of the Airport Improvement Program promises to be a contentious issue; areas of disagreement include the length of the re -authorization and passenger facility charges. ,(.►:t1, p 31. The President's Fiscal Year (FU) 2000 budget includes $6.1 billion for transit - $291 million more than the "guarantee" outlined it the Transportation Equity Act of the 21' Century (TEA21) and $2.2 billion to support local projects designed to ease traffic congestion. Summary The State Legislature has begun introducing legislation and policy committees will soon be acting on proposals. Aside from House committee assignments and the release of the President's FY 2000 Budget, Washington legislative activity has been limited. Financial Assessment Project Cost Source of Funds ............. ........... .. ...-::::::..::: »v..v :{••- ..rr '•::` ::;::,:t:;'{.iii`:viii:i:i::::•Yr +vR �2 ${� .l�{ ...:: : •. .:: ...,...v:; .. :,. :}F: �..{,. yam+-'. •.:•}... .ti' ;..:. ::: :: ..av j:5:i::: i::'vi:i:i::ii:. :n:......:...............v::::. v: :v:::.:.vYiii. .n....:r{. .. {; s.....::•:.v:nv:.v?:;...}.:.::Iiv.:n:}..::: rF......a..:..w::1}...... :}: � . .. .. ;r ...: .. .z v.:$':�::n�i�'•:i^.,J.. .. fit "' �o-�.t..:Y. •:. 5 • .1.: ti...:.v vv:•:-i}'.iyi:3:{.}}::�.:Yi+?;}:l r t is v . •:�riy: r. � .x yy .. }C:>.{>:i:;vin?+Y.M1: :: }.. •'�S{•}}' :: v .:: v.:.v.:�•:.y::• :.::r. i::$:i��}}:•}:',{v:?: ..:.::•:.............:.:..v........•.r..:.........:........................:...x.'�::};.:•<:::»>:<:;}:?:;>::s:;::<:: - :.i; {:y;'•: ti� Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable Various gains or losses depending on legislative outcomes BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the recommended bill positions, and receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Updates. 000032 Date of Analysis: January 28, 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 38 (Carl Washington, D-Los Angeles) Introduced December 7, 1998 Subject: Vehicle License Fees for Air Pollution Status: Assigned To The Assembly Transportation Committee — No Hearing Date Yet. Summary: Existing law provides the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) the authority to impose a $1 fee on vehicle registrations. The revenues generated from the fee support a program, administered by the SCAQMD's Technical Advancement Office (TAO), which encourages participation in projects to increase the proliferation and use of clean -burning fuels. In August 1999, the SCAQMD's authority to impose this fee will expire. AB 38, an urgency measure that is identical to SB 98 (Alarcon), proposes to extend the SCAQMD's exiting authority to impose the $1 fee until August 1, 2004. Staff Comments: The TAO primarily funds projects related to assisting, through research or purchases, heavy-duty vehicle fleet conversions from diesel fueled to clean fueled engines. Many of the fleets benefiting from the TAO work reside in Riverside or San Bernardino County. The work of the TAO and the Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee (MSRC), of which both the Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments are members, frequently lead to healthy partnerships in their efforts to maximize the use of vehicle license fees intended to facilitate cleaner air. Staff Recommendation: Seeing the past and potential future receipt of funds for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, staff recommends: SUPPORT. -000033 Date of Analysis: February 4. 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 44 (Tom McClintock. R-Simi Valley) Introduced December 7, 1998 Subject: High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Status: Assigned To The Assembly Transportation Committee — No Hearing Date Yet. Summary: Under existing law, prior to establishing a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. both the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the local agency in whose jurisdiction the highway rests, must make competent engineering estimates of the effect of the lanes on safety, and highway capacity. AB 44 would require Caltrans and local authorities, with respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, to re -designate all existing HOV lanes as mixed -flow lanes and may not construct or designate any new HOV lanes unless all of the following requirements have been met: (1) Caltrans or local authority has conducted the traffic model study (described below) and analysis required by AB 44. (2) Caltrans or local authority has obtained the certification of the study and analysis. (3) The result of the analysis conducted is that establishing an HOV lane is the most efficient alternative in accordance with the cost -benefit estimates. (4) Six months have elapsed from the date the analysis of the study was submitted to the Governor and the Legislature. AB 44 would add to the current requirement for competent engineering estimates the requirement for a traffic model study of not less than six months' duration that compares the alternatives of establishing HOV lanes, establishing a high -occupancy toll lane (HOT lane alternative), establishing a mixed -flow lane (mixed -flow lane alternative), or not establishing additional lanes (no -build alternative). Per AB 44, the traffic model study required shall cover an analysis segment consisting of at least the entire affected freeway section, or the corridor of which that freeway is a part, and shall include, but need not be limited to, all of the following: (1) A modal choice sub -model showing the fraction of travelers that will choose a opp o3 4 HOV mode, such as car pools. vans. or buses. instead of driving alone. dependent upon. but not limited to, the number of passengers required to qualify a vehicle as a HOV and the HOV lane timesavings. (2) Distribution of the total freeway volume between the HOV lane and the mixed -flow lanes, dependent upon modal choice fraction. (3) A congestion sub -model showing travel speeds and time, dependent on the vehicular volume in the various lanes. (4) Calibration to confirm that the model yields results are consistent with observed pre -build traffic volumes, speeds, and number of car pools. The observed total pre -build person trips (over all modes) within the analysis segment. which shall be referred to as the "person -trips base," shall be held constant and used as the basis for subsequent benefit calculations. (5) iterating the model as necessary to ensure that the travel times are consistent with those used in estimating the fraction choosing HOV modes. (6) Total travel time, emissions, and fuel consumption shall be computed by summing over the same "person -trips base" for each build alternative, and expressed as change relative to the no -build alternative. (7) Emissions estimates shall include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Emissions and fuel consumption shall be computed using methods of the State Air Resources Board and shall be dependent upon vehicle miles traveled, vehicle trips, and average speeds in the various lanes. (8) Capital costs, annual operating costs, and annualized capital and operating cost, shall be estimated for each alternative, incremental to the no -build alternative. Costs unusual to each alternative, including any special lane width, buffer lanes, additional shoulders, enforcement zones, merging regions, and enforcement operation, shall be separately identified and estimated. (9) Cost -benefit ratios shall be estimated for each alternative and may be expressed as dollars of total annualized cost per unit of benefit for each of the various benefit measures. (10) The study shall provide data sufficient to determine whether the use of high -occupancy vehicle lanes improve air quality to the extent included in the state implementation plan filed under the federal Clean Air Act. (11) The study shall compare the number of traffic violations, accidents, injuries, and fatalities that occur on portions of highways that have HOV lanes to portions of highways that do not have those lanes. 000035 AB 44 would also require Ca!trans or local authorities to analyze the results of the traffic model study to determine the most efficient choice among the HOB' lane alternative. the HOT lane alternative, the mixed -flow lane alternative. and the no - build altemative in terms of total person -delay, emissions. and cost. Subsequently, the performance results and comparative analysis conducted for a HOV lane project would be required to be distributed as follows: (1) As part of any oral presentations at hearings and part of any visual presentations in handouts and workshops for the project. (2) In any literature or visual displays prepared for the public or for public officials in relation to the project. (3) In any environrnental impact report prepared for the project. Finally, AB 44 would require Caltrans or the local authority to submit a copy of the documentation required to the Governor and the Legislature for review within six months of completion. Staff Comments: Both the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) have made and have plans for substantial investment in HOV lane infrastructure. Additionally, both agencies continue to invest in an extensive outreach program designed to promote ridesharing (via HOV lanes) as an alternative to driving alone. Many of the HOV lane criticisms rely on anecdotal information, such as visual representations showing free -flow lanes gridlocked and HOV lanes essentially empty. Often forgotten when confronted with these visual representations is the purpose of freeways, and transportation infrastructure in general, to move people, not vehicles, from their point of origin to their destinations. With that purpose in mind, consideration of the following data supports the continuation of HOV lanes in their present status and future construction of such lanes: Each freeway lane capacity, at posted speeds approximates 2,200 vehicles per hour with spacings of 141 feet. Southern California's average vehicle occupancy (AVO) is almost 1.1, thus, a 2+ HOV lane will have twice the person -throughput capacity of a mixed flow lane if both are operating at maximum vehicle capacity. The strongest contrast becomes most clear under congested flow conditions. Stop -and -go traffic, averaging 10 miles per hour (MPH) reduces the per -lane capacity to 1,173 vehicles per hours and spacing to 30 feet. With Southern California's AVO of 1.1, the person throughput of such a mixed flow lane is only 1,291 vehicles per hour. 0000136 However. a 2+ HOV lane operating at 65 MPH. equals or surpasses the person throughput of the congested mixed flow lane with spacings as great as 570 feet. A 3-- HOV lane could equal this throughput with spacings of 915 feet. or less than 6 vehicles per lane -mile. Operating at maximum vehicle capacity, a 3+ HOV lane would have a throughput of 7,7000 vehicles per hour or six times more the person throughput capacity of the mixed flow lane. Clearly, HOV lanes offer both higher levels of person throughput and personal safety (due to greater spacings) that is easily quantifiable. They also are considered by the Federal Government, as a useful tool in the effort to improve air quality conditions. In response to a request opinion of the impacts of AB 44 from Caltrans Director Medina. the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has stated that both Interstate Maintenance Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds may not "be provided for a project which will result in the construction of new capacity available to single occupant vehicles unless the project consists of a high occupancy vehicle facility available to single occupant vehicles only at other than peak travel times." Further, the FHWA stated that "the State (California) may not unilaterally decide to end the operation of HOV lanes, even by paying back the funds it received." Therefore, many issues remain uutresolved before all existing HOV lanes can or should be redesignated as mixed flow lanes — which AB 44 intends to implement. Given the effects on air quality, mobility, safety, financial (Federal funds) impacts that would result, converting existing HOV lanes to mixed flow is not justifiable. Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE. �,Q 0 0.3'7a Date of Analysis: February 4, 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 74 (Virginia Strom -Martin, D-Eureka) Introduced December 7, 1998 Subject: State Intercity Rail Funding Eligibility Status: Assigned To The Assembly Transportation Committee — No Hearing Date Yet. Summary: Existing law specifies what types of projects are eligible for State and Federal transportation funding. AB 74 would render a specific rail freight operation (North Coast Railroad Authority) eligible for State Intercity Rail funding. This bill is identical to AB 96 (1998, Strom -Martin) which at the request of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the San Bernardino Associated Governments, and a number of other interested parties, was vetoed by then Governor Wilson. Staff Comments: Currently, State Intercity Rail funds are allocated through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Passenger commuter rail systems such as Metrolink rely heavily on these funds to support their operations. Permitting freight operations to apply for these funds will unnecessarily cause taxpaying rail passengers to compete with non -passenger service for funding to support their daily commute. Metrolink service to both Riverside and San Bernardino County continue to experience ridership increases. With these increases are additional service need which translate to the need for additional funding. Having to compete with a private freight operation located in Northern California is not in the best interest of the Riverside and San Bernardino County residents. Further, there a possibility that opening State Intercity Rail funding for private freight operations in Northern Califomia might be seen as an opportunity for the major railroad freight operators in Riverside and San Bernardino County Burlington Northem Santa Fe and Union Pacific and other short line freight carriers within the state to also begin seeking state capital assistance. Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE. U00038 Date of Analysis: January 28, 1999 Bill Number/Author: Subject: Status: Summary: AB 102 (Scott Wildman. D-Los Angeles and Wally Hertzberg, D — Los Angeles) Introduced December 21, 1998 Funding For Soundwall Retrofit Projects No Committee Assignment Yet. In 1989, the Legislature put together the Transportation Blueprint for the 21 S` Century, which was funded by a nine cents per gallon tax increase authorized by the passage of Proposition 111. The Blueprint authorized $150 million for constructing a list of 219 soundwalls. Due to cost escalation resulting from delays in project delivery, an estimated $200 million of work remains for the 1989 priority list; $134 million of it in Los Angeles County. None of the remaining soundwalls on the 1989 list are in Riverside or San Bernardino County. AB 102 proposes to fund the remaining soundwall project "off -the -top" of the State Highway Account (SHA). In other words, should AB 102 pass in its current form, funding the remaining soundwall projects must occur prior to programming SHA funds for any other program/project. Impacts on Riverside and San Bernardino County: Background Last year, AB 1686 (Wildman) attempted to resolve this issue.. Both RCTC and SANBAG agreed to a compromise that proposed funding with the projects 50% off -the - top and a 50% contribution from the regional choice funds. However, late in the Legislatative Session, the approach of AB 1686 was reconfigured to split the funding for the soundwalls with a 50% contribution from the regional shares of those counties with projects and 50% from the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (subject to the North/South split). Both the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the San Bernardino Associated Governments successfully advocated for the Governor's veto of AB 1686. The veto request was based upon the policy that, much like the agreement for funding the seismic retrofit of the State's bridges, the seismic retrofit of soundwalls on the State's highways should be a responsibility shared equally by all parts of the State that includes a local contribution. In it's current form, AB 102 represents a definite cost to both Riverside and San Bernardino County. The costs to each county are $673,000 and $9.9 million respectively. Were the projects to be funded under the scenario to which RCTC and SANBAG agreed last year (50% off -top. 50% regional share), the costs to each county would be $337.000 and $4.9 million respectively. Given the significant difference in costs to both Riverside and San Bernardino County. staff recommends seeking to amend AB 102 to require that the soundwall projects are funded in a manner that provides the least costly impact to both Riverside and San Bernardino County. Staff Recommendation: SEEK AMENDMENT c,0d040 Date of Analysis: February 4, 1999 Bill Number/Author: SB 14 (Richard Rainey. R-Walnut Creek ) Introduced December 7. 1998 Subject: High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Status: Assigned To The Senate Transportation Committee — No Hearing Date Yet Summary: Under existing law, prior to establishing a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. both the Caltrans of Transportation (Caltrans) and the local agency in whose jurisdiction the highway rests. must make competent engineering estimates of the effect of the lanes on safety. and highway capacity. If passed into law, SB 14 would require Caltrans to complete a study to create a set of criteria for measuring the effectiveness of state highway lanes proposed to be designated or constructed as HOV lanes. The results of the study shall include, but not be limited to, a projection for the estimated level of use of the HOV lanes during peak traffic hours. SB 14 would prevent Caltrans from designating or constructing any new HOV lanes until after completing the required study. Further, the criteria developed under the study shall be applied to any HOV lane that is designated or constructed on or after SB 14 becomes law. as follows: (1) On or before 18 months have elapsed from the date that the lane became operational, Caltrans shall review the use statistics and pattems to determine whether the lane is being used in a manner that is consistent with the criteria developed by the Caltrans. (2) If the result of the review is that the lane is not being used at or above the estimated level of use, Caltrans, in consultation with the local transportation authority, shall propose a strategy to increase the level of use to meet that estimate. (3) On or before 12 months have elapsed from the date of the proposed strategy's implementation, Caltrans shall review the use statistics and patterns for the lane. (4) If the result of the review conducted is that the lane is not being used at or above the estimated level of use, Caltrans immediately shall initiate a process to convert the lane to mixed -flow use. Lastly, SB 14 would require Caltrans to review the usage patterns of HOV lanes that were made operational before January '1, 1999, to determine whether traffic congestion relief has been achieved as a direct result of the operation of those lanes. If the result of U0-0041 the review is that traffic congestion relief has not been achieved. Caltrans shall propose strategies to achieve that relief. The strategies proposed by Caltrans ma). include converting any HOV lane to a mixed -flow lane, if Caimans deems that strategy to be appropriate for that lane. Staff Comments: Both the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) have made and have plans for substantial investment in HOV lane infrastructure. Additionally, both agencies continue to invest in an extensive outreach program designed to promote ridesharing (via HOV lanes) as an alternative to driving alone. Many of the HOV lane criticisms rely on anecdotal information, such as visual representations showing free -flow lanes gridlocked and HOV lanes essentially empty. Often forgotten when confronted with these visual representations is the purpose of freeways, and transportation infrastructure in general, to move people, not vehicles, from their point of origin to their destinations. With that purpose in mind, consideration of the following data supports the continuation of HOV lanes in their present status and future construction of such lanes: Each freeway lane capacity, at posted speeds approximates 2,200 vehicles per hour with spacings of 141 feet. Southern California's average vehicle occupancy (AVO) is almost 1.1. thus, a 2+ HOV lane will have twice the person -throughput capacity of a mixed flow . lane if both are operating at maximum vehicle capacity. The strongest contrast becomes most clear under congested flow conditions. Stop -and -go traffic, averaging 10 miles per hour (MPH) reduces the per -lane capacity to 1,173 vehicles per hours and spacing to 30 feet. With Southern California's AVO of 1.1, the person throughput of such a mixed flow lane is only 1,291 vehicles per hour. However, a 2+ HOV lane operating at 65 MPH, equals or surpasses the person throughput of the congested mixed flow lane with spacings as great as 570 feet. A 3+ HOV lane could equal this throughput with spacings of 915 feet, or less than 6 vehicles per lane -mile. Operating at maximum vehicle capacity, a 3+ HOV lane would have a throughput of 7,7000 vehicles per hour or six times more the person throughput capacity of the mixed flow lane. Clearly, HOV lanes offer both higher levels of person throughput and personal safety (due to greater spacings) that is easily quantifiable. They also are considered by the Federal Government, as a useful tool in the effort to improve air quality conditions. In response to a request for its opinion of the impacts of AB 44 (McClintock) from Caltrans Director Medina, the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has stated that both Interstate Maintenance Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds may not "be U00042 provided for a project which will result in the construction of new capacity available to single occupant vehicles unless the project consists of a high occupancy vehicle facility available to single occupant vehicles only at other than peal: travel times." Many issues remain unresolved before a determination to prevent further HOV lane construction, as SB 14 intends, should be made. SB 14 applies different standards for measuring the effectiveness of future and present HOV lanes. The only specified standard for future study is a projection of level of use during peak traffic hours. The stated standard for a decision to convert existing HOV lanes to general use is whether traffic congestion relief has been achieved as a direct result. The bill should be amended to make the two the same. Either congestion relief as a direct result should be defined in the study or the test for current lanes should be based upon standards to be determined by the study. Level of use probably is a better measure of effectiveness than such blurry' data as number of carpools created. Further, air quality impacts SB 14 states that Caltrans, in consultation with the local transportation authority, shall propose a strategy to increase the level of use of future HOV lanes. However. at all other decision points imposed by the bill. Caltrans alone makes the determination. The bill should be amended to adopt existing law language requiring approval of the County transportation planning agency in deciding to authorize HOV lanes. If SB 14 were to pass in its current form, Caltrans could unilaterally repeal existing HOV lanes that were jointly approved under the provisions of the bill. SB 14 should be amended to require joint decision making with regard to HOVs. Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED UOQ_043 Date of Analysis: January 28, 1999 Bill Number/Author: SB 17 (Liz Figueroa, D- Fremont) Introduced December 7, 1998 Subject: Transit Pass Tax Credits Status: Assigned to The Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee No Hearing Date Yet. Summary: SB 17 would permit employers who provide their employees a subsidized transit pass to claim a tax credit for up to 40 percent of the cost of the transit pass. This tax credit would sunset on December 1, 2004. SB 17 would also require the California Research Bureau to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2003 on the cost of the tax credit, number of passes issued and the total public transit ridership in California for income years 1999 through 2001. Impacts on Riverside and San Bernardino County: Both the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) jointly contract for rideshare services that include incentives to both employers and employees that encourage rideshare activities such as riding public transit. Further, RCTC and SANBAG both contribute substantially to the contract with Southern California Rideshare to promote and implement a regional rideshare program. Additionally, both RCTC and SANBAG have made substantial investments in high occupancy vehicle lane infrastructure. These programs have been tremendously successful in reducing the number of single occupant vehicles on the road in the area. Additional incentives such as would be offered by SB 17 will certainly assist the effort to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, provide cleaner air and ultimately lead to a better quality of life for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT. 0OQf)44 Date of Analysis: February 5. 1999 Bill Number/Author: SB 63 (Hilda Solis, D-El Monte) Introduced December 7, 1998 Subject: High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Status: Assigned To The Senate Transportation Committee — No Hearing Date Yet. Summary: SB 63 would require the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to reduce the current High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) minimum occupancy requirement for the 11-mile portion of the San Bemardino Freeway (I-10) known as the El Monte Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus. The present requirement of 3 plus has existed since 1976. Staff Comments: Requiring Caltrans to convert the El Monte Busway to 2 plus conflicts with the existing Caltrans District 7 agreement with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). The agreement, is designed to protect express bus route headways by keeping free flow in the busway. The agreement was necessary because the facility was built as an exclusive busway in 1973 and made available to 3 plus carpools later. Since a federal transit grant was used in constructing the busway, SB 63 also could open the door to Federal Transit Administration involvement. In response to a request opinion of the impacts of AB 44 (McCIintock) from Caltrans Director Medina, the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has stated that both Interstate Maintenance Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds may not "be provided for a project which will result in the construction of new capacity available to single occupant vehicles unless the project consists of a high occupancy vehicle facility available to single occupant vehicles only at other than peak travel times." Further, the FHWA stated that "the State (California) may not unilaterally decide to end the operation of HOV lanes, even by paying back the funds it received." A similar issue may arise, should SB 63 be passed into law. While SB 63 exclusively addresses an issue in Los Angeles County, the precedent setting nature of the legislation merits consideration by others. Disturbing is the fact that SB 63 would nullify a nearly 25 year old operating agreement between Caltrans and LACMTA. Should the Riverside County Transportation Commission or San Bernardino Associated Governments ever enter into similar agreements with Caltrans, feeling secure in their continuation would be essential. The bill should be amended to require consultation with the local transportation agency and an exhaustive review of the impacts of changing the minimum occupancy of the lane in question prior to mandating such a change. Based on 000-041 ,.:, the precedent setting nature of SB 63. staff recommends an oppose unless amended position on SB 63. Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE. 00 4'6'" t Date of Analysis: January 28, 1999 Bill Number/Author: SB 98 (Richard Alarcon D-Los Angeles) Introduced December 8, 1998 Subject: Vehicle License Fees for Air Pollution Status: Assigned To The Senate Transportation Committee — No Hearing Date Yet. Summary: Existing law provides the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) the authority to impose a $1 fee on vehicle registrations. The revenues generated from the fee support a program, administered by the SCAQMD's Technical Advancement Office (TAO), which encourages participation in projects to increase the proliferation and use of clean -burning fuels. In August 1999, the SCAQMD's authority to impose this fee will expire. SB 98, an urgency measure that is identical to AB 38 (Washington), proposes to extend the SCAQMD's exiting authority to impose the $1 fee until August 1, 2004. Staff Comments: The TAO primarily funds projects related to assisting, through research or purchases, heavy-duty vehicle fleet conversions from diesel fueled to clean fueled engines. Many of the fleets benefiting from the TAO work reside in Riverside or San Bemardino County. The work of the TAO and the Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee (MSRC), of which both the Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments are members, frequently lead to healthy partnerships in their efforts to maximize the use of vehicle license fees intended to facilitate cleaner air. Staff Recommendation: Seeing the past and potential future receipt of funds for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, staff recommends: SUPPORT. 000-047 Date of Analysis: January 28, 1999 Bill Number/Author: SB 117 (Kevin Murray, D-Los Angeles) Introduced December 18, 1998 Subject: Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program Fund Status: Assigned To The Senate Transportation Committee — No Hearing Date Yet. Summary: Part of the 1989 Transportation Blueprint was the addition of the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Demonstration Program Fund (EEM). Beginning in 1991, existing law mandated an annual allocation to the EEM of $10 million for ten years. The fund was created to support a grant program for local, state, federal and nonprofit agencies to apply for and receive grants funding environmental mitigation projects. Projects awarded grants from the EEM fund must related to environmental mitigation of modifying existing transportation facilities or the design, construction or expansion of new transportation facilities. SB 117 proposes to make permanent the existence of the EEM fund and to remove its status as a "demonstration program." In addition to making the EEM an annual program SB 117 maintains the annual $10 million allocation to the fund. Staff Comments: The EEM program has been highlighted as part of the CTC's overall strategy in creating both a regional (local) Transportration Enhancement Activity (TEA) program and a state level TEA program. The issue was the uncertainty of whether there would be a bill which would extend the program beyond 2000. SB 117 is the vehicle to effectuate the necessary extension. Both Riverside and San Bernardino County are areas of non -attainment of Federal Clean Air Standards. The EEM program offers an opportunity to receive funding which may assist the effort to alleviate any potential negative impacts of transportation projects. Additionally, the program creates the opportunity to receive funding for innovative transportation projects/facilities that may lead to cleaner air quality or more efficient planning such as the Community Environmental Transportation Planning process (CETAP) being initiated in Riverside County. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT. 00-0048 c CY: Ct ris ca 1 c; RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Staff's Recommended Position Board Adopted Position/ Date of Adoption AB 38 (Washington) Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee for air quality programs. Awaiting hearing date in the Assembly Transportation Committee. SUPPORT AB 44 (McClintock) Would require Caltrans and local authorities to redesignate all existing 110V lanes as mixed flow. Awaiting hearing date in the Assembly Transportation Committee. OPPOSE AB 74 (Strom -Martin) Would permit private rail freight operation to compete for State Intercity Rail funding. Awaiting hearing date in the Assembly Transportation Committee. OPPOSE . AB 102 (Wildman and Hertzberg) Would fund the 1989 Priority Soundwall Retrofit list off -the -top of the State Highway Account. N o Commit tee Assignment yet. SEEK AMENDMENT SB 14 (Rainey) Would require extensive study prior to construction of future HOV lanes. Awaiting hearing date in the Senate Transportation Committee. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED SB 17(Figueroa) Would permit employers to receive a tax credit for purchasing transit passes for their employers. Awaiting hearing date in the Senate Revenue a n d Taxation Committee. SUPPORT , • SB 63 (Solis) Would reduce the minimum occupancy for the El Monte Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus. Awaiting hearing date in the Senate Transportation Committee. OPPOSE S13 98 (Alarcon) Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $ l vehicle license fee for air quality programs. Awaiting hearing date in the Senate Transportation Committee. SUPPORT SD 117 (Murray) Makes the State Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation fund permanent. Awaiting hearing date ih the Senate Transportation Committee. SUPPORT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Don Young, AK Tom Petri, WI, Vice -Chair Sherry Boehlert, NY Herb Bateman, VA Howard Coble, NC John Duncan, Jr., TN Tom Ewing, IL Wayne Gilchrest, MD Stephen Horn, CA Bob Franks, NJ John Mica, FL Jack Quinn, NY Tillie Fowler, FL Vernon Ehlers, MI Spencer Bachus, AL Steve LaTourette, OH Sue Kelly, NY Ray LaHood, IL Richard Baker, LA Charles Bass, NH Bob Ney, OH Jack Metcalf, WA Ed Pease, IN Asa Hutchinson, AR Merrill Cook, UT John Cooksey, LA John Thune, SD Frank LoBiondo, NJ J.C. Watts, Jr., OK Jerry Moran, KS John Doolittle, CA Lee Terry, NE Donald Sherwood, PA Gary Millet, CA John Sweeney, NY Jim DeMint, SC Vacancy Vacancy Vacancy Vacancy 41R134D BUD SHUSTER. PA, CHAIRMAN James Oberstar, ASV Nick Rahall, a WY ' Robert Borski, PA William Lipinski, IL Robert Wise, Jr., WY James Traficant, Jr.. OH Peter DeFaslo, OR Bob Clement, TN Jerry Castello. IL Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC Jerrold Nadler. NY Pat Danner, MO Robert Menendez, NJ Corrine Brown. FL James Basch; AD Bob Filner, G Eddie Bernice Johnson, TX Frank Mascara, PA Gene Taylor, MT Juanita Millender McDonald Cd Elijah Cummings, AID Earl Blumenauer, OR Max Sandhi:, TX Ellen Tauseher, r4 Bill Pascrell, Jr., NJ Leonard Bagwell, Lt Jun McGovern. MA Tim Holden, PA Nick Lampson, TX John Baldacck ME Marion Berry. AR Ronnie Shows, MS Brian Baird WA Shelley Berkley, NY I i I SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT 20R / 16D 4 SHERWOOD L BOEHLERT, CHAIRMAN Donald Sherwood, PA, Vice -Chair Don Young, AK Herb Bateman, VA Wayne Oilchrest, MD Stephen Horn, CA Bob Franks, NJ Jack Quinn, NY Vernon Ehlers, MI Steve LaTourette, OH Sue Kelly, NY Richard Baker, LA Bob Ney, OH . Asa Hutchinson, AR Funk LoBiondo, NJ John Doolinle, CA Vacancy Vacancy Vacancy Bud Shuster, PA (ex officio) • Robert forski, PA Gene Ticvlor, MS Earl Bhanenauer, OR Brian Baird W.4 Bob Clement, TN Jerry Costello, IL Robert Menendez, NJ James Barcia, MJ Frank Mascara, PA Eden Touscher, Cd Bill P elL Jr., NJ LeonarclBoswell, IA Jun McGovern, MA Nick Lawson, TX John Boldccci, ME Janes pberstar, MN (ex ogcio) SUBCOMMITTEE ON GROUND TRANSPORTATION Don Young, AK Tom Petri, WI, Vice -Chair Sherry Boehlert, NY Herb Bateman, VA Howard Coble, NC John Duncan, Jr., TN Tom.Ewing, IL Wayne Gilchrest, MD Stephen Horn, CA Bob Franks, NJ John Mica, FL Jack Quinn, NY Tillie Fowler, FL Vernon Ehlers, MI Spencer Bachus, AL Steve L.aTourette, OH Sue Kelly, NY Ray LaHood, IL Richard Baker, LA Charles Bass, NH Bob Ney, OH Jack Metcalf, WA Ed Pease, IN Asa Hutchinson, AR Merrill Cook,1JT John Cooksey, LA John Thune, SD Frank LoBiondo, NJ J.C. Watts, Jr., OK Jerry Moran, KS John Doolittle, CA Lee Terry, NE Donald Sherwood, PA Gary Miller, CA John Sweeney, NY Jim DeMint, SC Vacancy Vacancy Vacancy Vacancy U.S. House of Representatives 106r Congress, First Session THOMAS E. PETRI, CHAIRMAN James Oberstar, Nick Rahall. A, WV Robert Borski, PA William Lipinski. IL Robert Wire, -Jr., WY James TrOcant, Jr., OH Peter Dr,Fasio, OR Bob Clement, TN Jerry Costello, IL Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC Jerrold Nadler; NY Pat Danner, MO Robert Menendez, NJ Corrine Brown, FL James Bareia. AO Bob Filner, CA Eddie Bernice Johnson, TX Frank Mascara, PA Crane Taylor, MS Juanita Millender-McDonald, CA Elijah Cummings, MD Earl Blumenaua. OR Mar Sandlin, TX Ellen Tmucher. CA Bill Pascrell, Jr.; XI Leonard Boswell IA Jim McGovern, MA Tim Holden, PA Nick Lampson, TX Joist Balritw , ME Marion Berry, AR Ronnk Shows, MS Brian Baird WA Shelley Berkley, NV 00;0053 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SRMD WAYNE T. GILCHREST, CHAIRMAN Frank LoBiondo, NJ, Via -Chair Don Young, AK Howard Coble,NC Bud Shuster, PA (ex ofcio) 000(054 Peter DeFazio, OR Gene Taylord& . Brian Bois; WA Jana Oberstar, ACV (ex �icio) i CLIFF MADISON GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INC 254-A Maryland Ave., N.E. Washington. D.C. 20002 (202) 54?-9395 Facsimile (202) 54?-4297 TO: Dave Shepherd FROM: Cliff Madison DATE: January 19, 1999 SUBJECT: House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee The membership of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee is as follows: itEPUBLI CANS Frank wolf, Chair (Va.) Tom DeLay (Tex.) Ralph Regula (Ohio) Hal Rogers (Ky.) Ron Packard (Calif.) Sonny Callahan (Ala.) Todd Tiahrt (Kansas) Robert Aderholt (Ala.) Kay Granger (Tex.) DEMOCRATS Martin Sabo (Minn.) John Olver (Mass.) Ed Pastor (Ariz.) James Clyburn (S. C.) Carolyn Kilpatrick (Mich.) Jose Serrano (N.Y.) ttO0055 � T 0 • d .t.non Nos z aesw a.w_ no T T: 4 T mn-L 66-6 2 —Ne51n CLIFF MADISON GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INC. 044:110 TO: Paul Blackwelder - Dave Shepherd FROM: Cliff Madison DATE: January 30, 1999 SUBJECT: January 1999 Federal Affairs Report• f Zia -A Maryland Ave., N.E Wachinstm D.C. 20002 (202) 543-9395 Facsimile (2(12) 543-4297 Generally, during January, the Committee's of the 106th Congress organized, made assignments, and determined the schedule of events for 2999. On Wednesday, January 6, I met with Ken House, and Jim 2oia, staff of the House Surface Transportation Subc ttee to determine the impact of the "Livingston amendment" whic is contained in the FY 99 Transportation Appropriations Act, on the "high priority projects" which are contained in TEA-21. On Friday, January 8, I faxed to Mr. She erd the membership of the house Transportation and Infrastruct a Committee for the 106th Congress. And I faxed the Republican Me rship on the house Appropriations Committee. On Tuesday, January 12, I faxed the schedule of recesses of the House of Representatives to Mr. Shepherd. • On Tuesday, January 19, I faxed membership assignments of the Subcommittees of the House Appropriations Committee. On Wednesday, January 20, I the Senate Aviation Subcommittee ,Improvement Program which expires I faxed a copy of the House Subcommittee schedule of hearings • attended a hearing conducted by on the extension of the Airport on March 301;1999.- In addition, Transportation Appropriations and dead -limes to Mr. Shepherd. On Tuesday, January 26, I attended ai luncheon at which Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Bud Shuster outlined the priorities of his Committee for 1999. i On Monday, February 1, the President will present his Budget requests for FY 2000. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Measure A Sales Tax Projections In preparation for the Strategic Plan, the Commission authorized staff to contract with Ernst & Young to update the Measure A sales tax revenue projection through the year 2009. Attached is the completed projection prepared by E & Y. Staff will use this projection as the basis for Phase I of the Strategic Plan. The econometrics model developed by Ernst & Young LLP uses personal income and the unemployment rate for the Riverside -San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Ernst & Young, LLP obtained projections on these two variables from Regional Financial Associates (RFA) a consulting firm specializing in the development of comprehensive regional economic models for all MSA's in the United States. RFA's forecasts utilizes a number of factors including demographic, employment, and financial. The average annual compounded growth rate is 7.65%. The following additional assumptions were also used in the development of the Commission's revenue forecast: * The state does not change mix of items subject to the sales tax from what has been included historically. * The relative sales and property tax rates of Riverside and surrounding counties does not change from historical levels. * Inflation for the period of the forecast is assumed to be 3.17%. * The State Board of Equalization's administrative fee is assumed to be 1.5% for the life of the Measure. Forecast results show Measure A revenues to be $1,122 million in nominal dollars from 1999 thru 2009. The difference is an increase of $17 million from the 1996 projection. To put that in perspective, for the Western County highway/rail program that would amount to a difference of $6.5 million. 000057 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file 000058 =� ERNST & YOUNG L L P • Suite 200 1403 Tenth Street P.O. Boa 1270. 92502 Riverside. CA 92501 Independent Accountant's Report on Applying Agreed -Upon Procedures • Phone: 9011 -i, '200 Fd‘. 900 -8- 81; .: Report on Projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues Assuming Nominal Income, Implicit Price Deflator, and Unemployment Rate Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission At your request, we have performed certain agreed -upon procedures, as enumerated below, with respect to the projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues for the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Conunission) for the years ending June 30, 1998 through 2009, as presented in Exhibit A. These procedures, which were agreed to by the Commission, were performed solely to assist the Commission in its transportation planning process. This agreed -upon procedures engagement was performed in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of the specified users of the report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. Our procedures were as follows: 1. We assisted the Commission in developing an electronic econometric model for Riverside County Taxable Sales and for Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues, which is presented in Exhibit A. 2. We assisted the Commission in identifying key factors related to the projection methodology and assumptions that the Commission used to prepare the projection of Sales Tax Revenues based on Regional Financial Associates' variables, as described in the Notes to Exhibit A. 3. We entered data into the model for the Riverside County Taxable Sales and the related projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues for the years ending June 30, 1998 through 2009. Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd. 000059 J ERNST & YOUNG LLP 4. We performed mathematical calculations and other clerical functions with respect to information provided by the Commission and tested the projection for mathematical accuracy. We found no exceptions as a result of these procedures. We were not engaged to, and did not, perform an examination, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the accompanying projection of Measure A Sales Tax Revenues. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on whether the prospective Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues are presented in conformity with AICPA presentation guidelines or on whether the underlying assumptions provide a reasonable basis for the presentation. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. Furthermore, there will usually be differences between the projected and actual results, because. events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material. We have no responsibility to update this report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report. This report is intended solely for the use of Commission management and the Board of Commissioners and should not be used by those who have not agreed to the procedures and taken responsibility for the sufficiency of the procedures for their purposes. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. September 30, 1998 U00060 i 2 0•014440t. it rueful -Lai Exhibit A Projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues Years Ending June 30 Year Projected Measure A Projected Measure A Revenue Revenue, Net of SBOE expense (S in thousands) (S in thousands) 1998 64,145 63,183 1999 69,219 68,181 2000 74,606 73,487 2001 80,981 79,767 2002 87,700 86,385 2003 94,470 93,053 2004 101,502 99,979 2005 108,996 107,361 2006 117,031 115,275 2007 125,521 123,638 2008 134,479 132,462 2009 144,273 142,109 *The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) charges an administrative fee of 1.5% of Measure A Revenue Collected. 1 3 _000061 Notes to Exhibit A - Projection of Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues Introduction and Overview A 1/2% Measure A Sales Tax over 20 years for transportation purposes was approved by the electors of the County of Riverside in November 1988, and was first collected in July 1989. The first collections were remitted by the state of California to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) in September 1989. The projection presents, to the best. of management's knowledge and belief, the expected sales tax revenues to be derived from the 1/2% sales tax imposed during the projection period for the years ending June 30, 1998 through 2009. Accordingly, the projection reflects the judgment of the expected conditions of the management of the Commission as of September 30, 1998, the date of this projection. The projected Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues include only the expected sales tax to be derived during the projection period and do not include any operations of the Commission. Accordingly, the projected Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues are not intended to be a projection of financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Commission. The assumptions disclosed herein are those that management believes are significant to the projection. Some assumptions will not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur subsequent to the date of this projection. Therefore, actual earned sales tax revenues may deviate materially from the projected revenues. Should amending legislation be enacted during the projection period, projection results may be materially affected. The Commission will use this projection information to develop its Short Range Financial Plan for the transportation sales tax program. The projection of taxable sales for Riverside County and the related Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues and Measure • A .Earned Sales Tax Revenues, net of State Board of Equalization (SBOE) expense, 0Qfi2 4 available to the Commission for the years ending June 30, 1998 through 2009, is presented in Table 1 `: Table 1 Projected Nominal Taxable Sales and Nominal Measure A Revenue Years Ending June 30 Projected Nominal Projected Measure A Projected Measure A Year Taxable Sales Revenue Revenue, Net of SBOE expense % Change (S in thousands) (S in thousands) (S in thousands) 1998 12,829,080 64,145 63,183 N/A 1999 13,843,799 69,219 68,181 7.9% 2000 14,921?58 74,606 73,487 7.8% 2001 16,196,267 80,981 79,767 8.5% 2002 17,540,062 87,700 86,385 8.3% 2003 18,893,953 94,470 93,053 7.7% 2004 20,300,392 101,502 99,979 7.4% 2005 21,799,123 108,996 107,361 7.4% 2006 23,406,104 117,031 115,275 7.4% 2007 25,104,187 125,521 I23,638 73% 2008 26,895,895 134,479 132,462 7.1% 2009 28,854,604 144,273 142,109 73% Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues are projected by the Commission based upon an econometric model which relates annual taxable sales figures to total personal income and the unemployment rate in Riverside County.' Projections of these variables (total personal income and the unemployment rate) were obtained from Regional Financial Associates (RFA), a specialty consulting firm which has developed comprehensive regional economic models for all counties in the United States. The methodology employed in the development of the econometric model is described in Appendix 1. RFA specializes in the collection of regional economic data and in providing regional . economic projections that are consistent with both local conditions and overall growth in the national economy. As is the common practice, RFA's models are based on inflation adjusted (real) data. The average annual compounded growth rate of taxable sales in The State Board of Equalization(SBOE) reports annual taxable sales on a calendar year basis. To derive amounts for the year ended June 30, the mean value for two successive year end values was used. For instance, the mean of December 1995 and December 1996 was used as an estimate of the June 1996 fiscal year value. ' The inverse of the unemployment rate was used, since mathematical calculations indicated that it is more closely correlated to taxable sales than the unemployment rate itself. Mathematical calculations indicated a slight non -linearity in the taxable sales: unemployment rate relationship. 5 u Op63 Riverside County and related Measure A revenues, as presented in Table 1, was calculated to be 7..65 percent over the projection period. Assumptions There are several important assumptions which underly the taxable sales projection. In particular, the accuracy of the projection is directly tied to the accuracy of the RFA projection for the explanatory variables and annual inflation rates. RFA's projections of. the model's explanatory variables (total personal income and the unemployment rate) and price level (implicit price deflator) are described in Table 2. Table 2 Projection Data for Riverside County Years Ending December 31 (Source: Regional Financial Associates, September 1998) Year Nominal Total Implicit Price Unemployment Personal Income Deflator(IPD) Rate (S in Millions) (1992 Dollars) (%) 1998 32,776 112.8 6.6 1999 35,413 115.1 6.6 2000 38,608 118.2 6.5 2001 42,321 121.7 6.5 2002 46,113 1255 6.6 2003 49,991 129.4 6.7 2004 53,950 133.6 6.7 2005 58,089 137.9 6.6 2006 62,509 142.5 6.5 2007 67,123 147.3 6.4 2008 72,034 152.3 6.3 2009 77,390 157.4 6.1 RFA's projections are derived from an econometric model which links together the major components (including demographic, employment, financial, and other factors) of the Riverside County economy. The model is dynamic in that the results for a particular year are linked to and partially determined by conditions in prior years. The model is also simultaneous in the sense that it allows feedback effects among/between related variables. For instance, the effect of higher interest rates would impact, among other things, banking industry profits and consumer borrowing (and, of course, spending), thereby slowing 006d 4 6 employment growth and lowering economic activity. The impacts over time of such a change would be captured by the model. Other assumptions upon which the projection implicitly relies include the following: • The list of products/items which are subject to sales tax in Riverside County during the projection period (1998 through 2009) is the same as for the historical period; • Relative sales and property tax rates in Riverside and neighboring counties remain at levels observed during the historical period; and • An administrative fee of 1.5% of sales taxes received by the Commission is allocated during the projection period for administrative expenses paid to the SBOE. 0000E5 • Appendix 1 Summary of Econometric Model Development 000066' 8 Methodology The projection methodology employed the standard econometric approach whereby: • Explanatory variables correlated with taxable sales are identified; • Correlations between these (explanatory) variables and taxable sales are measured via statistical methods; and • Estimated correlations between explanatory variables and taxable sales are used to project future taxable sales given projections for the explanatory variables. Estimation of Relationship Between Taxable Sales and Explanatory Variables In order to develop the model for projecting taxable sales in Riverside County, the correlations between taxable sales and a number of potential independent (explanatory) variables were measured. The variables which were considered and rejected included the working age population and interest rates. A very high percentage of the variation in taxable sales over time were found to be correlated with changes in total personal income and the unemployment rate. The following model (Equation 1) yielded the best results based on data for the years 1980 through 1996: (1) Real Taxable Sales( in thousands}_-465,641 + 345.98 • Real Total Personal Income { in millions} + 16,333,357• (1/Unemployment Rate) Real (inflation -adjusted) taxable sales data for Riverside County were obtained from the California State Board of Equalization (SBOE). RFA provided the personal income and the unemployment rate figures. The theoretical justification for including each of these variables is as follows: • Total personal income includes wages, salaries, and benefits earned from all sources. The positive correlation between taxable sales and the income level of local customers is due to the fact that spending rises with the level of income. • The relationship, from a theoretical point of view, between the unemployment rate and taxable sales is perhaps less clear. Of course, as the unemployment rate rises, total personal income would be expected to decline to some extent since unemployment benefits are likely to be lower than the wages, salaries, and benefits 0OOO67 9 earned by an employed worker. Thus, these explanatory variables are somewhat correlated with one another'. Ideally, explanatory variables that are not correlated are preferred; however, given the importance of employment trends on the perceptions of workers regarding the stability/security of their own employment status, the unemployment rate was included. In effect, the unemployment rate serves as an indicator of consumer confidence, with rising (falling) rates of unemployment leading to sentiments of decreasing (increasing) job security. Because consumer spending, and hence taxable sales, is largely driven by consumer confidence, the independent effect of the unemployment rate on taxable sales was deemed to be important and, therefore, was built into the model. The finding that the coefficient on the inverse of the unemployment rate in Equation 1 is positive and statistically significant supports this view. Statistical analysis showed that inclusion of each of these explanatory variables (total personal income and the unemployment rate) adds significantly to the accuracy of the model in projecting taxable sales. Alternative functional forms of Equation 1 were tested, such as using the logarithms of these variables in order to capture underlying non- linearities among the variables or allowing the impact of each variable to be spread over time (i.e., to determine whether changes in the explanatory variables in one period impact taxable sales in later periods). The results of this testing indicated that the model described above is strongly supported on statistical grounds and is likely to yield the most accurate projections of taxable sales levels. ssessment of the Model's Proiection Ability The goodness of fit of the model can be assessed in a number of ways. One means of measuring this fit is by examination of a variety of statistical resUlts associated with the estimated equation. For instance, the squared correlation coefficient (commonly referred to as the R2 statistic) represents the percentage of the variation in taxable sales that is explained by the independent variables in the equation. For the years 1980 through 1996, this R2 statistic reveals that over 99 percent of changes in taxable sales in Riverside County were correlated with changes in personal income and the unemployment rate. ' This correlation was measured and did not result in any serious consequence. �00068 10 Another measure of the model's goodness of fit is the "t-statistic" associated with each estimated coefficient. These t-statistics are used to measure the probability that the estimated coefficients are different than zero. i.e.. that a significant relationship exists between the variable in question and taxable sales. The larger the t-statistic, the higher the probability that the estimated coefficient is non-zerot For the coefficients in Equation I, the calculated t-statistics on total personal' income and the unemployment rate (38.5 and 8.7. respectively) indicate that the results are statistically significant. In fact. the probability that either coefficient is actually zero is less than one percent. The model's ability to project real taxable sales is presented in Figure I by comparing the actual taxable sales for Riverside County versus projected (predicted) values: Heal Taxable Sates (S in thousands) S25.000,000 S20.000.000 S15.000.000 S10.000.000 55.000.000 SO cr,QN�i o CO CO O�Of 01 rn Of C7)i 00 0 o �5 0 NNNNN Figure 1: Real Taxable Sales (1997$) Projected vs. Actual (Years Ended December 31) j i I I I i I I rof i ow'; ' i 'Actual Real Sales —"Projected Real Sales ! ; ill i' i! !I Year As described in Table 3 below, for the years 1980 through 1996. the model's prediction error ranged from -3.8 percent to 3.8 percent. ' This is sometiines referred to as the coefficient being "statistically significant" —that is. being significantly different from zero. - 11 tqW 9 Table 3 Real Taxable Sales (1997S): Predicted vs. Actual Years Ended December 31 Actual Real Projected Real Projected Projected Year Taxable Sales Taxable Saks Less Actual Less Actual (S in thousands) (S in thousands) (%) 1980 6,257,010 6,261,413 4,403 0.1 % 1981 6,224,243 6,327,222 102,979 1.6% 1982 5,935,003 5,931,842 -3,161 , -0.1% 1983 6,483,647 6,278,946-204,701 -33% 1984 7,454,270 7,356,917-97,353 -1.3% 1985 7,968,399 7,966,357 -2,042 0.0% 1986 8,541,070 8,785,241 244,171 2.8% 1987 9,303,997 9,535,105 231,108 2.4% 1988 10,012,772 10,078,874 66,102 0.7"/a 1989 11,124,807 10,717,159-407,648 -3.8% 1990 11,459,959 11,168,423-291,536 -2.6% 1991 10,291,977 10,320,280 28,303 0.3% 1992 10,316,270 10,161,330-154,940 -1.5% 1993 10,097,136 10,205,303 108,167 1.1 % 1994 10,440,198 10,510,5% 70,398 0.7% 1995 10,722,994 10,903,233 180,239 1.7% 19% 11,352,094 11,477,605 125,511 1.1% Using Estimated Coefficients to Project Tax Revenue In order to project real (1997S) taxable sales, the estimated coefficients described above were applied to projected values of the explanatory variables. In other words, the coefficients in Equation 1 above have been multiplied by annual projected values for each of the explanatory variables for the years 1998 through 2009, as provided by RFA. To determine nominal taxable sales, the real taxable sales figure was multiplied by a factor that takes into account the rate of inflation.' In order to estimate. associated sales tax revenue (net of SBOE charges), the projected taxable sales figure was multiplied by 0.4925 percent 6 s This Factor is simply the value of the implicit price deflator for that year divided by the implicit price deflator value in 1997 6 This multiplier assumes that the Measure A sales tax revenue is 0.5 percent of sales and that the SBOE retains 1.5 percent of Measure A revenue collected. [0.004925 0.005 (1-0.015)] obOb 12 Sensitivity Analysis The projection depends on a number of critical assumptions. As a result, the impacts on projected Measure A revenues of small differences in projected personal income growth and the inflation rate (versus the RFA forecast shown in Table 2) have been calculated. Figures 2 and 3, respectively, summarize the impact on projected taxable sales in Riverside County of the following scenarios: • Total real personal income growth is one percent higher or lower than what RFA predicts for 1997-2009. • Average inflation rate is one percentage point higher or lower than what RFA predicts for 1997-2009. The data underlying Figures 2 and 3 are presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively, which are included in Appendix 2. uogo7i 13 Figure 2: Projected Measure A Revenue, Net of SBOE Expense -- Total Personal Income Sensitivity (Years Ending June 30) ($ In thousands) $160,000-. $150,000 . $140,o00 . $130,000 . $120.000 $110.000 $100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $70 000 360,000 $50,000 oi _ . Wtth real income growth 1 percent below ! . RFA estnate With RFA real moons growth estinate ...�. _. With real income growth 1 percent above RFA estimate I • 010) 0 8 Ns s I s g � � N N N N N N N Year S N 8 N Figure 3: Projected Measure A Revenue, Net of SBOE Expense — Inflation Rate Sensitivity (Years Ending June 30) ;160,000 ....e... 5750,000 . ;140,000 . ;130,000 , ;120 000 - Wth Winton beta* RFA estimate With RFA inflation rate one percentage point estimate rate one percentage point' . ...A... With inflation above RFA estinete . - . 1 t' . ;110,000 _ -• 100,000. $90,000 �" . , '�• - - . w .' S80,000 ,. . • _ $70 000 ' . $60.000 _ S50,000 • 8 8 Year 14 Conclusions Projections of Riverside County taxable sales are not available directly from any known sources. In order to develop such projections, an econometric model was developed to estimate the relationship between taxable sales in Riverside County and other variables — the County's unemployment rate and total personal income — for which independent projections have been made. Specifically, this model has been used, in conjunction with forecasts of related variables made by Regional Financial Associates, to project Riverside County Taxable Sales and Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The model's statistical properties indicate that the estimated relationships between taxable sales and the explanatory variables have been approximately determined. The RFA projection is the best available estimate of the variables that were found to be highly correlated with taxable sales. As with any (especially long-term) projection, there is the risk that actual results will differ from the projection, and the differences could be material. 15 000lit3. Appendix 2 Summary Tables of Projected Measure A Revenue 04074. Under Different Scenarios 16 Table 4 Projected Nominal Measure A Revenue (Net of SBOE Expense) Under Different Real Personal Income Growth Rates Years Ending June 30 a in thousands) With Real Income With RFA Income With Real Income Year Growth Rate 1 % Lower than Growth Rate Growth Rate 1 % Higher than RFA Estimate Estimate RFA Estimate 1998 62,415 63,183 63,956 1999 66,813 68,181 69,569 2000 71,420 73,487 75.605 2001 76,879 79,767 82,753 2002 82,549 86,385 90389 2003 88,148 93,053 98,221 2004 93,882 99,979 106,466 2005 99,937 107,361 115,334 2006 106,375 115,275 124,925 2007 113,102 123,638 135,172 2008 120,120 132,462 146,105 2009 127,758 142,109 158.125 Table 5 Projected Nominal Measure A Revenue (Net of SBOE Expense) Under Different Inflation Rates Years Ending June 30 a in thousands) Year With RFA With RFA With RFA Inflation Rate Inflation Rate Inflation Rate Minus 1 Percentage Point Estimate Plus 1 Percentage Point 1998 62,240 63,183 64,133 1999 66,504 68,181 69,885 2000 70,978 73,487 76,062 2001 76,293 79,767 83,364 2002 81,822 86,385 91,156 2003 87,284 93,053 99,143 2004 92,873 99,979 107,555 2005 98,763 107,361 116,615 2006 105,017 115,275 126,423 2007 111,547 123,638 136,907 2008 118,352 132,462 148,097 2009 125,742 142,109 160,420 I7 ti 0f0 0'7 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee . Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring Activities Plan As allowed under SB 45, RCTC previously approved an "off the top" set aside of 2% of the 1998 State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP)/Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds to support planning, programming and monitoring (PP&M) activities. A total of $3,758,660 is available to RCTC to support these efforts in the County through FY 2004. At our October 14, 1998 meeting the Commission approved a total of $447,648 to support RCTC staff monitoring activities for the first four years of the STIP. This was done with the understanding that staff support costs are provided on an "off the top" basis and the costs for FYs 2003 and 2004 would be programmed with funds available under the 1998 STIP Augmentation. Staff is now requesting that the Commission program the staff support costs for the last two years of the STIP, an amount totaling $244,471. The Commission directed that the balance of the planning funds, $3,066,540, be programmed using the approved intra-county formula. To date, all the available western county funds have been programmed: $425,000 to support a Project Study Report (PSR) for Route 79 and $1,500,000 for the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). We have recently received the Planning, Programming and Activities Plan for the Coachella Valley from CVAG. They are requesting that the Commission program a total of $498,782 for PP&M activities in the Coachella Valley: $253,782 to support their project monitoring costs over the six year STIP cycle, $70,000 to conduct a Project Master Plan in the Palo Verde Valley and $175,000 to support an 1-10 lane addition Project Study Report. CVAG requests that the balance of planning funds available in the Coachella Valley 0114,637) and the Palo Verde Valley ($32,077) be reserved for future Transportation Project Prioritization Study uses. Staff is supportive of the Activities Plan presented by CVAG and would recommend approval and incorporation in the Commission's Activities Plan. The RCTC Planning, Programming and Monitoring Activities Plan is attached for your reference. The proposed additions are shown in italics. In addition, staff will return with an, agreement between the Commission and CVAG for the use of the PP&M funds because the Commission retains fiduciary responsibility for the funds through its agreement with the State of California. 000076 Lastly, staff requests authorization to proceed with the necessary administrative requirements to process a STIP amendment to program PPM funds consistent with current and prior Commission actions. This amendment needs to be processed by June 1999. SB 45 Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds Plans and Programs Committee and Staff Recommendation: That the Commission approve: 1) $244,471 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to support the SB 45 staff position for fiscal year 2003 and 2004; 2) $253,782 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to support CVAG Project Monitoring Activities for FY1999-2004; 3) $70,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to conduct a Project Master Plan in the Palo Verde Valley; 4) $175,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to support an 1-10 lane addition Project Study Report in the Coachella Valley; and 5) Reserve the balance of planning funds available in the Coachella Valley and the Palo Verde Valley for future Transportation Project Prioritization uses. 6) Authorize staff to proceed with the necessary administrative requirements to process a STIP amendment to program PPM funds consistent with current and prior Commission actions. C Q O GO RCTC STAFF ACTIVITIES . ..V V..A Review Project Study Reports Al .V ersV1l11 VA11rV M61IV111tJ PLAN STIP Development/Amendmentts)/Monitorin_g Local Agency Coordination CTC/Caltrans Coordination Development and Processing RTIP Amendment is) Including: local Agency Coordin. SCAG Caltrans Coordin Project Monitoring and Implementation Planning Funds_Nesluested-Collate Transportation Corridor Planning Request Route 79 Project Study Report_ Request CVAG-Project Monitoring CVAG-Project Master Plan for Palo Verde Valley CVAG-I-10 Project Study Report TIME FRAME FY 1998-99 FY1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 7/01/98 to 6/30/02 $17,120 $17,634 $18,163 7/01/98 to 6/30/02 7/01/98 to 6/30/02 7/01/98 to 6/30/02 $17,120 $17,634 $18,163 $17,120 $17,634 $18,163 $8,560 $8,817 $9,081 $18,707 $19,269 519,8-47 $18,707 $19,269 $19,847 $18,707 $19,269 $19,847 59,354 $9,634 7/01/98 to 6/30/02 S21,400 $22,042 $22,703 7/01/98 to 6/30/02 'Staff CostS 7/01/98 to 6/30/01 7/01/98 to 6/30/00 7/01/98 to 6/30/04 7/01/98 to 6✓30/99 7/01/98 to 6/30/99 $9,923 $23,384 $24,086 $24, 808 $25,680 $26,450 $27,244 $107,000 $110,210 $500,000 S212,500 $42,297 $70, 000 S175,000 $500,000 $212,500 $42,297 $28,061 $28,903 $113,5181 $118,922, $120,429 $500,000 S42,297 $42,297 $29,770 TOTAL $124,042 $42,297 $42,297 1Total $1,108,7971 $885,0071 $855,8131 $159,2191 $182,7281 $188,339 FUNDING AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT PPM ACTIVITIES $3,758,660 STAFF COSTS FOR SIX YEARS ($692,120) BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMMING 53,066,540 DISCRETIONARY FUNDS 124.2%1 $742,103 BALANCE OF CETAP AND RT. 79 PROJECTS I$246,059) BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMMING $496,044 FORMULA FUNDS: $2,324,437 WESTERN COUNTY (72.23%) 51,678,941 Transportation Corridor Planning (CETAP) ($1,500,0001 Rt. 79 Project Study Report (S425,000) BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMMING IN W.C. $0 COACHELLA VALLEY (26.39%) $613,419 CVAG Project Monitoring (S253,782) Master Plan for P.V.V. ($70,0001 1-10 Project Study Report (5175,000) BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMMING IN C.V. $114,837 PALO VERDE VALLEY (1.38%) 532,077 No Projects Programmed to Date SO BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMMING IN P.Y.Y. $32,077 $892,120 $1,500,000 $425,000 $253,782 $70,000 $175,000 $3,115,902 FAWSERSPREPRINT TER2%VUWSA WKA RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation -Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Proposal to Produce Feasibility Study for Future North South Corridors Between 1-10 and SR-60 Between 1-15 and 1-215 At the January RCTC meeting, the Commission authorized a $100,000 study to access the feasibility of providing future regional arterial improvements to provide better north/south connectivity between the I-10 and State Route 60 corridors between 1-15 and 1-215. The City of Fontana in conjunction with the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) are also in favor of such a study and are each considering funding allocations that would share in the cost of the study. The current proposal is that the funding be split between SANBAG and RCTC on a 50/50 basis and that the SANBAG 50% share be further split between SANBAG and the City of Fontana. It is currently envisioned that RCTC Staff will be the lead agency for the project with agency participation from both the City of Fontana and SANBAG. Development team members will also include planners from the County of Riverside, Caltrans and adjacent cities. In order to move this study forward, Staff recommends that RCTC issue a request for proposals that would provide the necessary information to explore the possible alignments and disclose any fatal flaws that would prevent a proposed alignment from being pursued in the future as either a new arterial corridor, an expansion of an existing arterial corridor or a combination of both approaches. The current thoughts on potential alignment opportunities are outlined in a letter received from the City of Fontana that is attached for your information and are summarized below: 1. Sierra Avenue to Valley Way 2. Mulberry to Country Village 3. Cedar to Rubidoux 4. Poplar to Pyrite 5. Alder Avenue to Market or Armstrong During the public comment portion of this item, Craig Neustaedter, representing the City of Moreno Valley, expressed support for the study and requested that another 000079 study be initiated to cover possible north/south connection between State Route 60 and 1-10 in the Moreno Valley area. The Committee was in support of this suggestion and directed Staff to explore the possibility and bring back to the Committee for possible action in the near future. $50,000 (SANBAG/City of Fontana) $50,000 RCTC PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE and STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1. Subject to SANBAG approval of their participation, that the Commission direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposal to Produce a Feasibility Study for Future North South Arterial Corridors between 1-10 and SR-60 between 1-15 and 1- 215. Staff will evaluate the proposals received and bring back a recommendation for contract award to the selected firm that produces the proposal favored by the selection process. The selection team will be composed of members representing RCTC, SANBAG, County of Riverside, City of Fontana and others as deemed appropriate by RCTC staff. 2. Staff will explore the possibility of funding and support for a similar corridor study in the Moreno Valley Area connecting 1-10 with State Route 60 and bring a new item back to the Plans and Programs Committee for review and possible action. 0(MS 0' 04384E City of Fontana CALIFORNIA September 24, 1998 Mr. Norm King, Executive Director San Bernardino Associated Governments 472 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92401 Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 SUBJECT: North -South Corridors linking San Bernardino County to Riverside County Dear Messrs. Haley and King: This letter is a follow-up to discussions our staff had as well as meetings between Mayor Eshleman and Supervisors Tavaglione and Eaves on North -South Corridor issues between the two counties. As you know, there are few arterial street connections linking San Bernardino County to Riverside County between the I-15 and 1-215 freeways. In the Fontana area, for instance, we have Sierra Avenue linking to Valley Way, which connects to the 1-60 freeway. There is a three mile gap to the Cedar -Market connector on the east, and a four mile gap to the Mulberry -Country Village connector to the west. The lack of adequate north/south connectors linking the two counties from the I-10 freeway to the Rt. 60 freeway, places extraordinary demands on the existing ones, resulting in traffic diversion to the I-15 and the 1-215 freeways. The lack of adequate north -south corridors is mostly due to the topography of the area. The Jurupa Hills run east -west mid point between the I-10 freeway and the Rt. 60 freeway. Given this limitation, few corridors cross the Jurupa Hills, linking the I-10 to Rt. 60. !RAILING ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 518 8353 SIERRA AVENUE • FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 92394.0518 • (909) 350-7800 PAINTED ON neereizo PARR 000081 Messrs. Haley and King September 24, 1998 Page 2 This is to request that San Bernardino County Associated Governments (SANBAG) and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) jointly conduct north/south corridor studies in order to identify solutions to our mobility needs. Based on staff discussion, the following corridors have been identified for studies: Sierra -Valley Way This roadway connection is indirect via Armstrong. The Valley Way interchange with RT 60 is congested, and there are a number of operational problems. Improvements to this corridor, particularly the Valley Way connection to Rt. 60 arc of the highest priority. The Mission Boulevard, Valley Way and Jurupa Rd alignments need to be analyzed as well. Mulberry -Country Village This connector serves as an industrial corridor, but lacks a connection and or grade separation at I-10. Cedar— Rubidonz The traffic flow currently if on the Cedar -Market connector, which is indirect. This corridor needs to be evaluated. Poplar -Pyrite Pyrite Rd interchanges with Rt. 60 about two miles west of Valley Way. Pyrite is the natural extension of Poplar Avenue in Fontana. Poplar is master planned as a four lane roadway with a grade separation at I-10. Poplar Avenue connects to Beech Avenue which has a proposed interchange with I-10 freeway and Citrus Avenue, with an existing interchange at I-10. This connector would break a four mile stretch between Mulberry - Country Village corridor and Sierra Valley Way corridor. Alder -Market or Armstrong Alder Avenue is proposed to interchange with I-10 with a potential connector to Market or Armstrong. 1000;08? Messrs. Haley and King September 24, I998 Page 3 Sierra -Pacific The natural extension of Sierra Avenue is Pacific Avenue, which has an underpass at the Rt. 60 freeway. There is a 1,000 foot gap in this corridor through an open field. This corridor needs to be looked 'at to evaluate benefits versus impacts, including the potential for a new freeway interchange with Rt. 60. The study should, at a minimum look at the traffic demand for the planning horizon year, be it 2015 or 2020. A traffic modeling effort utilizing a focused Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) model will be necessary. There may be corridors or combinations other than those listed above which can be identified in the initial phase of a north -south corridor study. An initial environmental study should review each alternative for potential impacts. We suggest that the study be managed by RCTC and SA_NBAG with the participation of staff from affected agencies. North -South corridors are needed to link our communities for congestion relief for air quality improvement by shortening trips lengths for traffic safety and motorist convenience. The corridor study should create a matrix comparing alternatives based on need, benefit, impact and cost. The project team may outline specific goals and objectives for the study, including an implementation program. As you know, we stand ready to participate in the studies and look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully, Frank A. Schuma City Manager FAS:pb:jh C: City Council Supervisor Tavaglione, Riverside County Supervisor Eaves, San Bernardino County 000083 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Survey The Measure A Commuter Assistance Program provides multiple incentive and education services to support both employers and commuters in Western Riverside County. The Advantage Rideshare Local and Freeway Programs each have an eight year history. Based on unsolicited comments, these two incentive programs, along with Club Ride, are considered to be among the most proactive and respected transportation demand management efforts in the South Coast Air Basin. The Commission's success in serving commuters and employers within Riverside County continues to be replicated in adjoining San Bernardino County. The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) has contracted with the Commission since 1993 to provide a sister commuter assistance program for its residents. In addition, the program has served as a model for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Voluntary Rideshare Program. While qualitative input is important, it must be balanced against quantitative information. Staff is requesting that a consultant be hired to evaluate the effectiveness of the incentive programs in changing travel behavior through short term incentives. In FY 94/95, an effectiveness study was completed. The study looked at: 1) the length of time an incentive participant continued to rideshare after the initial three month period; 2) the importance the incentive was in motivating the participant to begin ridesharing; 3) the number of days per week the participant continued to rideshare; 4) if no longer ridesharing, what factors caused the participant to stop; 5) the types of improvements, if any, participants and employers suggest; 6) the reasons employers chose and/or chose not to participate in the programs; 7) the impact the programs have had on an employer's trip reduction plan; and 8) a rating of the performance of the consultant program staff. Staff is recommending that staff develop and send out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a similar evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs over the past four years. Preliminary discussion with SANBAG staff indicates they are also interested in having their commuter assistance program, administered by RCTC, evaluated. U00084 Funding for the consultant evaluation survey is available in the FY 98/99 Measure A Commuter Assistance Program budget. Based on similar types of program evaluation surveys, we estimate the cost for the survey will range between $15,000 to $25,000. Financial Assessment Project Cost S 15,000 to $25,000 Source of Funds Measure A C: Included C. :, '� in Fiscal Year Budget /.� �• Y �' ..n , i F4- b0 KVOPOC .�.. 33. Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 98/99 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation 98/99 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS AND PROGRAMS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize staff to: 1) develop and issue a Request for Proposal for a Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Survey; 2) rate the RFP's by a committee comprised of two RCTC Commissioners, two RCTC staff members, two SANBAG staff members and possibly two SANBAG Board members; and 3) present a recommendation on selecting a firm to conduct the work at a future Commission meeting. (i00085 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SL i A - SUBJECT: Southern California International Airport (Wens-r7esentation In response to a written request by San Bernardino County Supervisor Kathy Davis, a presentation has been scheduled to highlight current plans for the Southern California International Airport (SCIA), formerly known as George Air Force Base. Having a personal interest in aviation and its breath of issues, Supervisor Davis believes in the importance of educating a broad spectrum of players regarding aviation development in her jurisdiction and any regional implications associated to that development. The presentation will be made by Jon Roberts, SCIA Director and Richard Janisse of RMJ and Associates who has completed an analysis of airport capacity and growth forecasts in the Southern California region. Additionally, Supervisor Davis has taken a leadership role in initiating a bi-county effort to discuss the benefits of forging a bi-county strategy regarding the development of a Regional Aviation Plan that supports and promotes development of aviation facilities and related economic growth in the Inland Empire. Based on discussions from her newly created Inland Aviation Interest Group, a joint resolution was drafted and submitted to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for consideration at its up -coming General Assembly. The joint resolution was patterned after a resolution first offered by a consortium of South Bay cities concerned over the unconstrained growth of the LAX Master Plan. The Commission adopted the South Bay Cities resolution at its February meeting which calls for the preparation of a Regional Airport Plan that constrains LAX to operate within the capacity of its existing facility and develops the capacity of the existing Southern California airports. Towards accomplishing that end, the joint resolution seeks to ensure that SCAG and its Aviation Task Force are required to prepare a Regional Airport Plan that, "...includes one or more fully -developed alternatives that distribute the growth in airline passenger and cargo operations among the region's commercial aviation facilities...". The proposed General Assembly joint resolution is critical to requiring that SCAG fund modeling options which assume constrained LAX scenarios for consideration in the Regional Airport Plan development process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file this staff report. 000086 :::{i:i{�'?{t:>i;•`:::ii:•+siiFS:�N:!:i:;:Si::Lti:{}::}:i:iS:}:i:'h::2'�Fv�::Y::ti::}�: :t:iii:::tit:::i:;v;: �aodaid leuogewa}ui eiumplea weinnos 866 t. aaquaaoaa :VINI1103I'IV3 NalaHEIOS ,� ....:.,,.. ,. t DZZ 'salepossy 1g ftvli suopupuaunnooaN 2g suoTsnlouoD . XlpedeD uodipd •sn 2suoalod camp JTH OZOZ • Xi edeD liodipd •sn lseoaao3 papiuog Ja2uassud OZOZ • spuau auatuXoidtug TuoT2oN . lsuoaio4 Rimoi9 sy uiomp untpnoS . maieaanp - uluaonieD uaamnos tuaisXs podaw utuaopiva uaailnos z 311 'salepossy ag full •uzalsi(s uoimodsuau lupouz-pinuz `anipajja uu aijnbat spool puu ajdoad . •1.12nnoi2 lupuuasgns aoj st asuoaloj ounouooa ozoz • •spool muopuuniui jo JaHddns puu iaumsuoo 2uipual . •sauuouooa iuuogemalui puu iuuopuu ui Japual . Xtuouoag s‘utuaomua uaagnnos utaisSs podaw uivaoillED uaatmos DTI `sa;epossv a8 ry�lg uuld aul luauzalduij Sumunj alp amok' paijnbai luauudolanap oinlonmagut alp ueld • lseoaloj oituouooa leuo!5ai alp uo aziluwIED . uomsod iavutu lego12 uielumAl . a/413*o uuaisiCs podaiy Eivao3Tlna uaaqilnos DZZ `saleiaossIf ag Mal uejd uopupodsumi juuo!SgS 8661 DUDS :aa.inog L'96i 6'S 6'8 0'£ Z16 9'LL VLSI 8'6L 9'09 0't 9'0i 9'9 L'Zt C9 t'ZZ CST a� Tim 'SI!Ni 'SIN o� ;unou[y peaaiod jsmay aainweA OZOZ L66I lseaaao3 uintoao ieuoi�ag utaisiCs iaodaiy etuaopieD uaatilnos suoy - amp aid pap. eos saaSuassed sgof uopuindod Population: Southern California Airport System Growth Forecast Implications Highest Growth Forecast: North LA County 169% Riverside County 110% Imperial County 102% San Bernardino County 82% Vehicular Congestion: Transit times to LA & LAX will double. Manufacturing: Highest Growth Rate: Inland Empire. Source: SCAG 1998 Regional Transportation Plan RMJ & Associates, LLC 5 9 DTI ‘salepossv a8 full lsruuouoog aijciwg puriui - Suisni-i •1Q :aaanos £171- I'981- �'ZII`I S'86Z`I SOZ- Z. I L I - 17' £99 9'17£8 I'6- Z'ZZ- 8'IZZ O'ttZ 6'8- 0'ZI- I'ZZI I'b£I S'ZZ £'6I I'SOI 8'S8 as u y )unoury isn;ay loopy aauepBA L66I 0661 spun g, waudolduia NupnpujnueN eltuoniuD uaaginos uialsSs pocilw uivaomup uuauinos Ie�os Alunop Xlunoo aguaip Alunoo o2aiQ ues aijcIwg puulul sgof Nulinpuinuew L 311 `saleiaossV 78 fLN?I lsnuouoog aliduG puului - 2utsnH 'IQ :aaanos 017- Z' £- 81L 0' 18 S'SI- i'8- £1717 VZS 6'- I'- 8'01 6'0T 8'6 9' L'9 1'9 61£ .1717 0'91 9' I I a� mummy ignpv iun;av o� aaugmeA L661 0661 Ieloi Xlunop Xiunop aualo XaunoD aam ues arOuzg puejuI sqo j guisnogaaem pug 21g3pnii spuaaZ luainitoidula Nuisnotiaaem 2uppnaZ muaogieD uaagonos tualsiCs podaw eivaoniea uaaiilnos 8 DZZ ‘salepossd ag fwa isiuuouoa3 aijclwa punruI - Su►snH •ia :a3Jnos Z. t'SI I'I0£`L L'S8Z`L S'9- 6'L9Z- Z' L6 8 £ i'L�i 6't £'LS Z'9£Z` I 6'8L i ` i t'S £' £I b'09Z I 'Li7Z S'8 L78 I'090`1 VLL6 L'LI 0'0£I Z'S98 Z'S£L as uD ;unowv funpv Imlay % aauggiu L661 0661 spuaaZ luatuAojdiug muaogiuD uaaiilnos uualsics podaw uivaoniva uaaylnos te�os Xaunop XlunoD a tm() Xiunoo mum Xaunoo oSam ues anduig puuiuI juatukoiduia 6 DTI `saletaossV ag MIN �suaato� tilmo S alp uo azgel!dua puu uuld Xilunaioddo aqa suq alp:hug puuluI . •puuwap alp uoddns patmbai aq !lion sivawanotdurt ampnilsatju! uoputiodsuali . •alut isuj u au nnoi2 anupuoa !lino uotincllils!a puu Suppujntrew . •uopsaSuoa asuaaioj s.jo isua Xpua!ouja pauomsod st a.ttduzg puuluI aqi . •algnop isuoatoj st XV I VI Jo lno puu u! uopsaSuoD . •°loos i of mg luau mo S isuoaio3 azu sgof puu uopulndod aridwg puulu! . spuaai tomoaD utuaoiiiup uaagonos tualsgs podaw quaoplua uaaginos 01 prn `sappossd a8 flAni •aanpnalsuajui Xaussaaau alp apieoad of si IuoD •uiugo zip ui Au!' lsaxuom auk su mamma su 'quo si puu uodn saiiai !pug ssaooV liodipi puu Xi!ouduD liodipi . ssaoou xonii puu !rex lioduas . uo!2ai atp ut Xatouduo iupotuniuI puu puoilluN . •uoi2a.i alp ui Xiiouduo SumpuoN puu amaak4 . aaniana)suagui uoptliodsuuai tualsiCs podaw uivaopieD uaayinos ii 311 `saleiaossd a8 MIN uEid uogruodsutu, iuucOaN 8661 gyps .aaanos S9'Z 8'09£`Z 8'6L Ielo1 00' LItZ I' QYNd-2IX0-'IdI 00' 9' 68 Z' I d Sd £0' S'OSt 9' £191 917' E.-VS 1 £'9 INO fi0' 6'6LI L'b Sf18 ZOE £' £917 L'L VNS OI'Z S'I8L Z'6S XV I suoZ •slit s4000 suoli m uopdpasaa aaeO at/ uoileaadp papaeog laodaw ljeaaanir saa2uassed saumioA uodmv L661 tuapSs podaw muaoiqup uaayinos ZI 311 `saleiaossd 0'00 i S'Z9I VLSI I'8fii uuid uoRtwodsup,j, ieuo!Sai 8661 VDs :aaanoS iCi edep u2iH wmpow MO'1 :1seaaI0.4 OZOZ 8'6L Ienlad L66i •sig v - papieog saa2uassed isnaaao3 aaguassed OZOZ uuaisiCs uodaw nivaojgn3 uaauinos £1 DZZ `salspossd a8 MIN uuld uo[ptllodsup.ii Ieuotga21 8661 DUDS :aaanoS VLSI 8.6L Ieios 8' I 0' anw auIod Z'ZZ 0' oloi Ig I ' 0' °fePmium Z' I' pieuxp I 0' dlAII I 0' SIDS 8 I 0' HIS L' I Z' I dSd 8Z 9 SDI £'S I £'9 INO Z 6 L't 2If1S 0 L L'L VNS Z'176 Z.6S XV I suotjliN suomtimi uondpasaa ;seaaJod papieog liodald aa2uassed saasuassed tummy IenPV L66I Iseaaao3 aauassed OZOZ - Lualsgs laodapir uualsifs laodaw eivaoille3 uaaylnos 171 DZZ'saleiaossV a8 f uopsa2uoD puu ssaaay .tujnoman . siututisuoD ssaaad aauds iid . shirelsuoD iuluauluoi!Aug . siuununi 78 sXunnunN Jo3 aaulsg . :si(um Amu' ui painsuam si XliauduD podgy amianalsuajuI puu ivaudup pod uv uialsSs podaw uivaogiva uaayinos SI `salupossd a8 j'y�g BIDS juuoputuatui outpiuung uuS asug aoao3 aid view awl Ig anyi lupd juuadLui pluux0 aiuPutud 11•10 MIS XV I :slioditur Iuuo!2aN alp az!mn :stiodpy Supsixg puudxg Amaudup majsAs podapir iuuomppv tuaisSs podaw uivaoniuD uaagonos 91 DTI 'sa;epossv a8 j'yAig treu uo9E iodsuuil iuuo►RoN 8661 JvDs saaanos •umouxun Xl eduD * S'Z9I tb'LSI 8 ' 6 L ielos S.Z 8' i 0' anw mod 0'£Z Z'ZZ 0' omod_ ig * I. 0' aiuPtuiud * Z. I. R euxO * I. O. teuadwi * I. 0' BIDS 0' £ 6' 0 • ITOJEJ A I' I 8.1 0' IEES * L. I Z. i d Sd 0' £ 8' Z 9' E J'I 0.0Z £•SI £•9 INO 0'SI Z*6 L'17 2Iflg 01 0'L L.L VNS 0'86 Z't6 Z'6S XV I suoili N suomiLlI suoull TAT uondpasaa ffmauceD ;seaa iod papIeog podaw aaSuassed aaSuassed slauassed Jseaa.iod uinwami L66I kvaudup •se lsuaaao3 umfflayi - aauassud OZOZ uialsSs Iaodapir n uaoninD uaaglnos L[ DZZ 'salupossd a8 mill %mai( .tad suoa tiro 6'8 01597 :isuaaJoj amp .ti)/ uiuuojilup uiamnos . •.maX .tad %8 °!09 :OZOZ Onoaga aauN tpAnoto isuaato3 . Tog'8 L6-5'8 %L'L 58-08 % I '6 08-5L SL-OL mAtoi9 -max lenuud oSlop .rid •Xutouoaa apinnplionn age jo am! age aatnna unno 2 sal camp .tip •paliodsuu.q asipuuga.taut s‘plionn age jo anlun age jo oksz st amp kw •pauodsuan asmumpiaw s‘pponn aga jo °!oi si anD tip SaisnpuI (Amp ate uuaisgs podaiy t,tuaomp uaaginos 81 DTI ‘salepossv 28 Li d uontwodsurai truo!Sall 8661 JVDS :aaanog 06'8 06'8 59'Z 8Z' £ - 00`BIDS 09' 00' ilamAT 0t' - 00' IHS SL' - 00' 0.101, Ig * - 00' dSd I I ' £0' E J'I 89' - 9fi• ,. N° 90' - 170' 2I1 E1 ZO' - ZO' VNS 00' £ - O I'Z X`v''I suoi 'i!h11 ifjpedup o2aeD suoi •i w puma(' o2aup 1se33.10,3 OZOZ suoi VAT paipum suoi Am3BdED 'SA Isuaaam camp - OZOZ malsif s laod.nw n[uaopinD uaat lnos uoncipasaQ podmv 61 311 `salePossV ag 111111 IlIouduo BIDS Puu tio.tuIAI `IEIS satmbat lsuoaj camp itd • ipeduo atodriu sisnutva 2utpauoq Jauassud :tuals/CS podaw •asuaioui sivauzaimbai ainiannsuip! uopuliodsuul i, •asuaiout uopeliodsuan puu SuunaoujnuulAI •aignop sgof puu uog indod •sa.toduas ssaaau itEa puu Nonluatouja paaN •suzaigoid ssaoou sampaauxa Xiiouduo wow 2uguao •aiquuosuaJun amooaq Baum listran puu uopsa2uoD suoisnpuoa maisSs podaly quaomp uaayilnos apitioaD amdula puquI :XV I Pun VI OZ DTI `salu[aossd a8 P1/1111 'YIDS Puu 110IBIAI `ISS �o� 2wpunj vv4 •saamos 2wpunj iopos alunud puu oilgnd •uuld amp .lid puu luum2ox d •sasuamw Xijoudup ireN puu Nona' ssud uofup •swowonoiduzi aanjormsuijul puu Nona' aijdwg puulul •spoduaS ssaoou HEN puu Norm atidwg puulul •uuld rod Stu puu o2Juo ire luuo!2at ampalla 2s03 u dolanaQ •sisXIuuu 0010.13Isu1 uopuinu alp aiipadxg •uuld sivauuanoidw! amion.iaswjw uu dolanaQ •1:32.wo .itu puu suodiiu Joj uuld luuo!2ai oupads u dolanaQ lsuoatoj alupoLuw000u uuld °wads u dolanaQ :Saf1SSI :DUDS :DVEI VS •Xijurwoddo alp uo aziluiiduo uuld °woods u dolanap oa aAnumuI uu ilsmulsg uogepuatutuoaaH tualsiiS podaw quaoplup uaagnnoS