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