HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 2, 1987 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00117
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting No. 10-87
July 29, 1987
Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Melba Dunlap at
2:05 P.M. on Wednesday, July 29, 1987, at the 14th Floor
Conference Room of the Riverside County Administrative
Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros
Susan Cornelison
Carmen Cox
Melba Dunlap
Alternates present:
Jean Mansfield
Roy Wilson
Norton Younglove
Jack Clarice Ray Tanner
Dick Deininger
Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
Local Sales Tax for Transportation - November Ballot
Copies of the expenditure plan, Ordinance No. 87-1 and
Resolution No. 87-1 were distributed to members of the
Commission.
Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director, stated that a
decision to place the local sales tax measure on the
November 1987 ballot would require Commission adoption of
Resolution No. 87-1, Ordinance No. 87-1, approval of the
expenditure plan and the submission of the material to the
County of Riverside for action by the Board of Supervisor at
their August 4th meeting.
Paul Blackwelder continued and said that the expenditure
plan was mailed to all the cities and the County for review
and comment. To date, only 3 of the 20 cities have
responded. Since the cities and the County will receive
approximately 50% of the sales tax revenues, it would be
valuable in the development of the Commission's educational
program for each of the cities and the County to provide a
statement indicating the need and the purposes for which
these funds would be used. He noted that there are
limitations for Commission staff to discuss the measure once
the Board of Supervisors is requested to place the measure
on the ballot. Staff would be able to conduct educational
Agenda Item No. 4A
September 2, 1987
RCTC Minutes
July 29, 1987
programs on the need for transportation improvements and
funding problems. He said that while the Commission may
technically be ready to proceed and place the measure on the
November 1987 ballot, it would be more practical to place
the measure on the June 1988 ballot. Unlike San Bernardino
County, there has not been sufficient time in Riverside
County to organize a private group to promote the measure.
Commissioner Younglove stated there is no doubt that there
is support from the business community if the measure was
placed on the June 1988 ballot but not in November 1987
because of time constraints. He suggested that
Recommendation No. 5 be amended to say "Direct staff to
prepare an educational program..."
Commissioner Ceniceros asked what the timeframe would be to
place the measure on the June 1988 ballot. She noted that
staff recommends approval of the expenditure plan. One
reason for recommending waiting until the June 1988 election
is to obtain additional feedback on the expenditure plan
from the cities and the County. She said that the
Commission needs to be able to modify the expenditure plan
in a reasonable way.
Paul Blackwelder replied that if the Commission intends to
place the sales tax measure on the June 1988 ballot, they
will be able to amend the expenditure plan to respond to
comments between now and February 1988. Action by the Board
of Supervisors to place the measure on the June 1988 ballot
would have to be taken on March 1, 1988 and all material
would have to be submitted to the Clerk of the Board by the
second week of March.
Ace Atkinson, Executive Director of Developmental
Disabilities Area Board No. 12, spoke and said that he
agrees with the statement on the expenditure plan to expand
transit services and lower fees for the elderly and
handicapped but the Commission's informal policy in the
Coachella Valley area that transportation services for the
elderly and handicapped will not be expanded when other
social service agencies are providing that service is not in
keeping with the Commission's statement on the expenditure
plan. He requested that a Commission statement be included
in the expenditure plan that is supportive of reasonable
expansion and planning of transportation services to the
elderly and handicapped.
Commissioner Younglove said that if a change would have to
be made on the expenditure plan, it should relate to the
argument that 5% for transit is too much or too little.
RCTC Minutes
July 29, 1987
M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/DUNLAP) that the Commission:
1. Support a local sales tax for transportation as a
necessary revenue source to provide the
transportation improvements system needed in the
immediate future for Riverside County.
2. Receive and file the resolution and ordinance for
the local sales tax measure.
3. Approve the Expenditure Plan, subject to
consideration of comments made by the cities and
the County.
4. Determine that the 1/2 cent local sales tax for
transportation measure will be placed before the
voters of Riverside County in .the June, 1988
election.
5. Direct staff to prepare an educational program for
the Commissioners, staff and others to educate
civic groups, social groups, and community leaders
throughout the County of the need for immediate
and future improvements to the transportation
system in Riverside County and the need for
additional funding for those improvements.
Commissioner Younglove questioned the statement on the staff
report that Commissioners are not allowed, except as
individuals on personal time, to campaign for the passage of
the ballot measure. He noted that there are no specific
required work hours for a County Supervisor and that,
therefore, all of his time is personal time.
Joe Rank, Legal Counsel, stated that this restriction
applies primarily to Commission staff during working hours.
Commissioners are not considered as part of staff and are
not limited by the same constraints.
Commissioner Ceniceros related that in her previous
experience as co—chairman of the County's Prop. 51 effort,
she was told that there were serious restrictions on elected
officials' activities.
Joe Rank stated that at this time, the Commission is simply
making a determination that their intent is to have the
measure ready for the June 1988 election. Neither a
resolution or an ordinance had been adopted. Once that
occurs, it will put a different light on what the
Commissioners or staff could do. At this point, there are
no restraints.
ROTC Minutes
July 29, 1987
Chairman Dunlap said that Commissioners should develop a
list of service organizations in their respective areas to
enable Commission staff to present its educational program
on the need for transportation improvements and funding
problems.
The Commission requested Joe Rank to present a report at the
next meeting on restrictions on Commissioners and staff
related to the promotion of a local sales tax measure.
Wes McDaniel, Executive Director of SanBAG, informed the
Commission that the San Bernardino County Transportation
Commission unanimously acted to place the local sales tax
measure on the November 1987 ballot this morning.
4. Adjournment.
Chairman Dunlap adjourned the meeting at 2:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
aul B ackwelder
Acting Executive Director
nk
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting No. 11-87
August 5, 1987
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Melba Dunlap at
1:05 p.m. on Wednesday, August 5, 1987, at the 14th Floor
Conference Room of the Riverside County Administrative
Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros
Susan Cornelison
Carmen Cox
Melba Dunlap
Bill Edmonds
Norton Younglove
Alternates present:
Don Baskett Jack Clarke
Russell Beirich Ray Tanner
2. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
3. Presentation of Plaque.
On behalf of the Commission, Chairman Dunlap presented a
plaque to Barry Beck in appreciation for his dedication and
outstanding work as the Commission's Executive Director from
August 1977 to May 1987.
4. Consent Calendar.
M/S/C (MURPHY/CORNELISON) to approve the following
consent calendar items:
A. Approval of Minutes.
Approve the minutes of the June 11, 1987, July 1,
1987 and July 17, 1987 Commission meetings.
B. Budget Adjustment.
Approve an adjustment of the FY 1987-88 Commission
budget to increase the Special Departmental
Expense Account by $2,500 and reduce the
Contingency Account by $2,500.
C. Quarterly Financial Report.
Receive and file the financial report of the
Commission's account for the quarter ending June
30, 1987.
Agenda Item No. 4A
September 2, 1987
RCTC Mi nii
August 5, 1987
5. Consultant Agreement - Contract Amendment.
Copies of the invoice from D.J. Smith Associates were
distributed to members of the Commission.
Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director, stated that the
Commission contracted with D.J. Smith Associates in May to
provide assistance in obtaining legislation to authorize a
local sales tax measure, develop a public opinion poll
questionnaire, and to interpret the poll results. The
agreement included an option to provide additional
assistance at the discretion of the Commission. Phases II
and III of the agreement included assistance in developing
the ordinance and expenditure plan, and the development of
action leading to serious consideration of a sales tax for
transportation by the voters. Because of the fast pace that
the Commission was proceeding, D.J. Smith had provided a
significant amount of assistance on Phase II and III during
the month even though he had not been formally requested by
the Commission as required in the agreement. He recommended
that the Commission approve payment of $3,363.86 to D.J.
Smith for services and expenses for the month of July. He
advised the Commission that he had requested D.J. Smith to
submit a proposal to the Commission for developing an
educational program and to assist in developing a strategy
for putting the sales tax measure on the June 1988 ballot.
M/S/C (MURPHY/DUNLAP) to approve the payment of
$3,363.86 to D.J. Smith Associates for services
and expenses rendered in July.
Commissioner Ceniceros asked if the Commission is required
to put the proposal for the consultant out for bid.
Paul Blackwelder said that he did not believe it is required
but would check and will report back to the Commission at
its next meeting.
Commissioner Beirich stated that the Commission, to expedite
the process, could authorize staff to proceed with an RFP
if it is necessary.
M/S/C (CORNELISON/CENICEROS) to authorize the Acting
Executive Director to proceed with obtaining consultant
assistance to develop an education program and on
strategy for the sales tax measure, and send out a
request for proposal if it is necessary.
2
1
RCTC Minutes
August 5, 1987
6. Commission Activities Regarding Promotion of Ballot
Measures.
Joe Rank, Legal Counsel, stated that there is a recognized
prohibition for a collective group, either in supporting or
opposing a proposal, to use their own personal funds or
funds of the respective agency that they represent. The
Commission, at its last meeting, asked whether there are
restrictions on commissioners speaking in favor of the sales
tax proposal. He said that as long as the commissioner is
not on "company payroll" when making the support statement,
he/she is entitled to any of the constitutional rights to
speak on the issue. Because of the difficulty in
determining when a commissioner is on the company payroll or
not, he suggested that each commissioner use their own
judgment. Since the sales tax measure is based on an
expenditure plan which is going to go before the electorate,
only a part of the funds would be discretionary at some
point because there is some flexibility included in the
expenditure plan. As to those monies, it is very difficult
to say that there won't be some discretion exercised by the
Commission. It is his opinion at this time, however, that
the Commission has taken enough discretion out of this
particular proposal that they are going to bring something
back to themselves that they have some vested interest in.
Since the Commission has not yet taken action to place the
measure on the ballot, there are no restrictions on them
speaking for the proposed sales tax measure.
Commissioner Murphy stated that during her involvement with
Prop. 51 for Riverside County for the League of Cities, she
was given a list of guidelines which included prohibiting
the use of any letterhead connected with being an elected
official, the use of city autos and telephones, and no
expense reimbursements to promote the measure.
Commissioner Cox said that some of the Commissioners are
elected officials appointed by the Mayors and Councilmen
Conference to represent the 20 cities on the Commmission.
She asked whether a commission member is prohibiting
speaking for the cities.
Joe Rank stated that the commission members could only speak
for herself or himself as an individual but could not speak
for the cities. He suggested that commission members who
are unclear of the restrictions should call him prior to
engaging in activities related to the local sales tax
measure.
3
RCTC Minutes
August 5, 1987
7. Personnel Matters - Closed Session.
At 3:19 p.m., the Commission recessed in a closed session to
interview applicants for the Executive Director position.
At 4:05 p.m., the Commission resumed open session. At this
time, the Commission determined to continue the meeting to
4:00 p.m. on Friday, August 7, 1987 to discuss personnel
matters. No other action was taken by the Commission.
8. Adjournment.
nk
At this time, Chairman Dunlap adjourned the meeting to 4:00
p.m., Friday, August 7, 1987 at the Riverside County
Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room,
Riverside.
Respectfully submitted,
aul Blackwelder
Acting Executive Director
4
nk
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting No. 12-87
August 7, 1987
Ca11 to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Melba Dunlap at
4:00 P.M. on Friday, August 7, 1987, at the 14th Floor
Conference Room of the Riverside County Administrative
Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
Members present:
Susan Cornelison Melba Dunlap
Carmen Cox
Alternates present:
Jack Clarke Pat Murphy
Personnel Matter.
At 4:02 p.m., the Commission recessed in a closed session.
Open session was resumed at 4:38 p.m. No action was taken.
Adjournment.
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Dunlap at 4:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
aul Blackwelder
Acting Executive Director
Agenda Item No. 4A
September 2, 1987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director
SUBJECT: City of Riverside State Transit Assistance Fund
Claim
The City of Riverside has filed a State Transit Assistance
(STA) fund claim for street and road improvements in the
amount of $540,055. This claim represents the balance of
funds for which the City of Riverside is eligible per the
Commission's distribution of STA funds received through a
trade of UMTA Section 9 funds last year. The three projects
and amount claimed for each project are listed below:
Alessandro/Arlington/Chicago
Tyler @ Riverside Canal
Kane Street Ramp @ 91 Freeway
Total
RECOMMENDATION
$340,000
90,000
110,055
$540,055
Adopt Resolution No. 88-1-RIV allocating $540,055 in State
Transit Assistance funds to the City of Riverside for three
street and road improvement projects as listed above.
PB : nk
Attachments
Agenda Item No. 4B1
September 2, 1987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PRSOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING ALLOCATION OF
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC) is designated as a "Regional Entity" by the State of
California and is, therefore, responsible for the adminis-
tration and allocation of funds from the State Transit
Assistance Fund,
WHEREAS, the City of Riverside has filed a claim with
RCTC for State Transit Assistance Funds,
WHEREAS, RCTC has reviewed and determined that the
claim conforms to the State law and regulations, and
WHEREAS, RCTC finds that priority consideration has
been given to claims to offset unanticipated increases in
the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation
services, to offset reductions in federal operating
assistance, and to meet high -priority regional, countywide,
or areawide public transportation needs.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the RCTC hereby
approves the allocations as shown on the attached Allocation
Instruction Number(s) 88-1-RIV.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director of
RCTC is hereby authorized to transmit allocation instruction.
to the County Auditor -Controller.
DATE: September 2, 1987 Riverside County
Transportation Commission
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at
a regular meeting thereof held this 2nd day of September,
1987.
Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS
ALLOCATION INSTRUCTIONS
CLAIMANT: CITY OF RIVERSIDE
ATTENTION: H.E. Brewer, Finance Director
PROJECT
Alessandro/Arlington/Chicago
Tyler @ Riverside Canal
Kane St. Ramp @ 91 Freeway
AMOUNT
T
$340,000
$ 90,000
$110,055
DATE:September 2, 1987 No: 88-1-RIV
ADDRESS-: 3900. Main St, Riverside, CA 92522
PROJECT AMOUNT
rX) This is an Original Allocation Instruction.
j This is a Revision to Allocation Instruction No.
to be voided.
/ Other.
PURPOSE:
6731(d) Streets & Roads - Disburse from Unallocated.
- Disburse from Reserves.
- Reserve from Unallocated..
$ 5402055
COMMISSION USE ONLY - Reserve Status
Project
Original
Amount
Increase
lDecrease,
Drawdown
New
Reserves
The above amount is to be
later than the last day of
MO MO
disbursed/reserved in
the month designated.
FY: 1988
installment as follows no
MO MO
10
1
4
8
11
2
540,055
D
5
9
12
3
6
R - Reserve
D - Disburse
Signed:
Date: September 2, 1987
Paul Blackwelder, Acting Exec. Director
CC:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director
SUBJECT: City of Norco State Transit Assistance Fund Claim
The City of Norco has filed a State Transit Assistance (STA)
fund claim for street and road improvements in the amount of
$95,823. This claim represents fund for which the city is
eligible per the Commission's distribution of STA funds
received through a trade of UMTA Section 9 funds last year.
These funds will be used to perform maintenance and repair
of various city streets.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 88-2-NOR allocating $95,823 in State
Transit Assistance funds to the City of Norco for street and
road improvements.
PB:nk
Attachments
Agenda Item No. 482
September 2, 1987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING ALLOCATION OF
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC) is designated as a "Regional Entity" by the State of
California and is, therefore, responsible for the adminis-
tration and allocation of funds from the State Transit
Assistance Fund,
WHEREAS, the City of Norco has filed a claim with RCTC
for State Transit Assistance Funds,
WHEREAS, RCTC has reviewed and determined that the
claim conforms to the State law and regulations, and
WHEREAS, RCTC finds that priority consideration has
been given to claims to offset unanticipated increases in
the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation
services, to offset reductions in federal operating
assistance, and to meet high -priority regional, countywide,
or areawide public transportation needs.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the RCTC hereby
approves the allocations as shown on the attached Allocation
Instruction Number(s) 88-2-NOR.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director of
RCTC is hereby authorized to transmit allocation instruction
to the County Auditor -Controller.
DATE: September 2, 1987 Riverside County
Transportation Commission
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at
a regular meeting thereof held this 2nd day of September,
1987.
Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION -
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS
ALLOCATION INSTRUCTIONS
CLAIMANT: CITY OF NORCO DATE: September 2, 1987 NO: 88-2-NOR
ATTENTION:Jim Ashcraft,_ City Manager
ADDRESS-:P.O.-Box 428, Norco, CA 91750
PROJECT AMOUNT
Maintenance & repair - Various $ 95,823
streets
PROJECT AMOUNT
XI This is an Original Allocation Instruction.
/ This is a Revision to Allocation Instruction No. to be voided.
Other.
PURPOSE:
6731(d) Streets & Roads - Disburse from Unallocated. $ 95,823
- Disburse from Reserves. $
- Reserve from Unallocated. $
COMMISSION USE ONLY - Reserve Status
Project
Original
Amount
Increase
(Decrease)
Drawdown
New
Reserves
The above amount is to be disbursed/reserved in installment as follows no
later than the last day of the month designated.
MO
7
MO
10
95,823
FY: 1988
D
MO MO
1
4
8
11
2
5
9
12
3
6
Signed:
R - Reserve D - Disburse
Date: September 2, 1987
cc:
Paul Blackwelder, Acting Exec. Director
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director
SUBJECT: City of Corona State Transit Assistance Fund Claim
The City of Corona has filed a State Transit Assistance
(STA) fund claim for street and road purposes in the amount
of $171,411. This claim represents the funds for which the
city is eligible per the Commission's distribution of STA
funds received through a trade of UMTA Section 9 funds last
year. These funds will be used to resurface various city
streets.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 88-3-COR allocating $171,411 in State
Transit Assistance funds in the City of Corona to resurface
various city streets.
PB:nk 112
Attachments
Agenda Item No. 4B3
September 2, 1987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING ALLOCATION OF
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC) is designated as a "Regional Entity" by the State of
California and is,- therefore, responsible for the adminis-
tration and allocation of funds from the State Transit
Assistance Fund,
WHEREAS, the City of Corona has filed a claim with RCTC
for State Transit Assistance Funds,
WHEREAS, RCTC has reviewed and determined that the
claim conforms to the State law and regulations, and
WHEREAS, RCTC finds that priority consideration has
been given to claims to offset unanticipated increases in
the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation
services, to offset reductions in federal operating
assistance, and to meet high -priority regional, countywide,
or areawide public transportation needs.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the RCTC hereby
approves the allocations as shown on the attached Allocation
Instruction Number(s) 88-3-COR.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director of
RCTC is hereby authorized to transmit allocation instruction
to the County Auditor -Controller.
DATE: September 2, 1987 Riverside County
Transportation Commission
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at
a regular meeting thereof held this 2nd day of September,
1987.
Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS
ALLOCATION INSTRUCTIONS
CLAIMANT: CITY OF CORONA DATE: September 2_2 1987 NO: 88-3-COR
ATTENTION:John B. Grindrod, Deputy City M_g_r.ADDREss`:815 W.. 6th Street, Corona, CA 91720
PROJECT AMOUNT
Resurface various streets $171,411
PROJECT AMOUNT
This is an Original Allocation Instruction.
This is a Revision to Allocation Instruction No. to be voided.
Other.
PURPOSE:
6731(d) Streets & Roads - Disburse from Unallocated. $ 171,411
- Disburse from Reserves. $
- Reserve from Unallocated. $
COMMISSION USE ONLY - Reserve Status
Project
Original
Amount
Increase
(Decrease'
Drawdown
New
Reserves
The above amount is to be disbursed/reserved in installment as follows no
later than the last day of the month designated.
MO
r
MO
FY: 1988
MO MO
10
171,411
D
4
8
11
2
5
9
12
3
6
R - Reserve D - Disburse
Signed: Date: September 2, 1987
Paul Blackwelder, Acting Exec. Director
cc:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director
SUBJECT: SB 821 Projects Evaluation Criteria
Last December, the Commission established policies to insure that
agencies allocated SB 821 funds for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities projects used the funds for construction within a
reasonable time. The policies requires the funds to be used
within the year allocated with an extension of six month granted
if requested by the agency. Bill Gardner of the City of
Riverside noted that there are legitimate reasons that can cause
delays making it difficult to comply with this time period. He
suggested that a criteria should be added to give priority to
continuing projects. Under this arrangement, an agency could
receive funds for engineering and right-of-way in one year and be
assured of receiving funds for construction in the next year.
The Commission requested a review of the SB 821 evaluation
criteria prior to allocating funds this year. A copy of the
current SB 821 evaluation criteria is attached.
The Commission's current evaluation criteria has worked well for
a number of years and staff does not recommend any changes.
Funding of a project over a 2-3 year period can be accomplished
without amending the selection criteria. The Commission could
accept and approve applications for multi -year funded projects as
part of its annual program. The initial project application
would provide total costs for engineering, right-of-way,
construction, etc. Staff has no problem with the concept of
approving multi -year projects since this is a continuing program.
The approved project would be assured of receiving total funding
approved over a 2-3 year period. While this would decrease
funding available for new projects in subsequent years, it would
allow funds to be allocated to additional "ready to go" projects
in the current year. Over the long haul, there would probably be
more construction accomplished as funds would not be tied up due
to project delays while inflation decreases buying power.
Staff's only concern is that construction costs could be
estimated low in the initial project application if the agency
expected to amend the application and receive additional funding
in the following year when construction funds were allocated. To
avoid this situation, staff recommends that the amount of SB 821
funding for a multi -year project should be established using the
original cost estimate and that actual costs in excess of the
estimated costs should be funded by the agency.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve multi -year projects for funding in the Commission's
SB 821 program with assurance that committed project would
be funded in programs for subsequent year prior to approving
funds for new projects.
Agenda Item No. 5
September 2, 1987
2. SB 821 allocations for multi -year projects should be
established using cost estimates in the initially approved
application and any additional funding required to fund
actual costs will be the responsibility of the local agency
receiving SB 821 funds for the project.
PB:nk "IY)
Attachment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA
FACTO$
USE
The extent of potential use of a bicycl0 or pedestrian
facility is the most important factor. Emphasis of
this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits
will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds.
Relative usage is to be derived from analysis of
number of trip generators and attractors adjacent to
the project.
SAFETY
MAXIMUM
POINTS
35
Points are awarded on the basis of a project's 20
potential to correct current safety problems.
IMPORTANCE AS TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE
Points are awarded on the basis of a project's
potential to attract users who would otherwise use an
automobile.
MISSING LINK OR EXTENSION
Points are awarded to projects that link existing
facilities or are extensions of existing facili-
ties.
HATCHING FUNDS
This factor is used to help ensure that there is local
funding for a project - not just an application for
"free" money. One point would be awarded for each
five percent of total project cost that is financed
by the local agency.
POPULATION EQUITY
The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one
agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant
receives the maximum ten points if the amount of funds
requested does not exceed what the applicant would
receive if the funds were allocated by population.
Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant
could build up a "credit".
15
10
18
10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director
SUBJECT: Consultant Services Agreement
Attached is a proposal from D.J. Smith Associates for
providing assistance to the Commission relative to the local
sales tax for transportation measure to be submitted to
Riverside County voters in June, 1988. The proposal
provides assistance in three areas: 1) refinement of the
expenditure plan; 2) development of a community outreach and
education program; and, 3) development of a strategic plan
to define the roles and responsibilities of the Commission
and the private sector from now until the June election.
The proposed cost for assistance is $15,000 plus out-of-
pocket expenses for travel, etc. Assistance would be
provided from September, 1987 through May, 1988.
Commission bylaws do not require that consultant services be
obtained through a request for proposal or competitive
bidding process. Staff did not seek other proposals and
recommends that the Commission retain D.J. Smith Associates
for several reasons: 1) the price is in line with the price
for similar assistance in San Bernardino County; 2) the
consultant was involved and is familiar with work
accomplished to date, including the poll, expenditure plan,
etc.; and, 3) the quality of work received from this
consultant has been excellent.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with D.J. Smith
for consultant service for the local sales tax for
transportation measure in an amount not to exceed $15,000
plus out-of-pocket expenses as outlined in the consultant's
proposal.
PB : nk $
Attachment
Agenda Item No. 6
September 2, 1987
J. SMITH ASSOCIATES
HOTEL SENATOR BUILDING •SUITE 510
1121 L STREfT *SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
TELEPHONE 1916) 446-5506
700 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD *SUITE 320
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596.3822
TELEPHONE (415) 947-1966
August 24, 1987
Mr. Paul Blackwelder
Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4075 Main Street, Suite 302
Riverside, California 92501
Dear Paul:
Per your request, I have developed the following proposed
work program that will prepare the Riverside County
Transportation Commission for a June 1988 transportation sales
tax ballot measure.
I, Expenditure Plan Refinement
Hopefully, the expenditure plan can be viewed now as a
starting point by the Riverside County Transportation Commission
for preparations for next year, and not as a document that is
chiseled in rock. If the private sector support group decides to
hire a campaign consultant in the next month or so, the
consultant should also have an opportunity to impact the
expenditure plan to make it as viable as possible with the
voters.
As you know, I believe you and others in local government in
Riverside County came a long way in the development of an
expenditure plan in a very short period of time. However, there
were some issues that could be explored further in the western
county area. We now have time to adequately deal with those
issues toward gaining more consensus, and therefore support for
the program.
Some of these issues were: whether or not mandatory
developer road fees should be tied to passage of the sales tax as
was proposed in the Coachella Valley; refinement of transit
improvements to be funded with the sales tax that we know will
have the support of our senior population; and there were several
major arterial/primary projects which needed further
clarification relative to Caltrans versus local elected officials
desires.
Mr. Paul Blackwelder
August 24, 1967
Page Two
I would also like to spend a good deal more time relating
our current expenditure plan to the poll results that were
recently summarized for the Commission by John Fairbank. As you
know, while most of the key projects were included, some
additional research may be required on a project -by -project,
voter area -by -area basis. The expenditure plan was pretty much
put to bed before John was able to give us his
conclusions/analyses on the poll. We should be involved in some
professionally organized focus groups that test the various
elements of the expenditure plan, ballot language, graphics, and
ballot pamphlet materials.
Finally, it is my feeling that given the short period of
time in which the current expenditure plan was developed, we did
not have the opportunity to test it in various community forums
and with various interest groups in the County. I would very
much like to help develop a systematic program of "public
education" relative to the expenditure plan that again would
allow us to present the basics of the plan, but still be in a
position to make changes based on input from the community. In
other words, we need to do some reality testing regarding some of
the specific projects as well as the general orientation of the
plan with some of the specific interest groups in the community
such as seniors, local chambers of commerce, no growth interests
and other interest groups.
II. Community Outreach Program
As described above, I recommend pursuing a systematic
process for communicating the need for various elements of our
program to the voters. In order to accomplish this we will need
to develop a speakers program by which you or members of the
Commission or other appropriate private individuals will be
trained in the questions and answers of the issue, and armed with
appropriate audio visuals (charts, graphs, slide shows, etc.).
In a grass roots sense, you will begin to communicate the need
for the program and the specifics of the program throughout the
county. It is important that respected private sector folks, as
well as elected officials, get involved in discussing the program
with their peers.
In order to accomplish this we should develop;
1. A limited but positive list of speakers available to
address various community groups;
2. A ten- to fifteen -page question and answer manual for the
speakers;
Mr. Paul Blackwelder
August 24, 1987
Page Three
3. A basic graphic that has been tested with some of the
focus groups for displaying the major projects in the expenditure
plan in the most positive light possible;
4. A one- or two -page handout that answers some of the key
questions, lists some of the key projects and has a copy of our
graphic display of the projects;
5. A slide show which documents the needs and displays the
key questions and answers and graphics;
6. Conduct an orientation for these key speakers that trains
them in the use of the above tools and generally prepares them
for any type of audience we can reasonably anticipate.
III. Development of a Strategic Plan
I recommend early development of a strategic plan that
factors in appropriate actions by the public sector so that there
is a sense of coordination between the appropriate roles and
responsibilities as we near the June 1988 election. This
strategic plan should be developed with the participation of key
commissioners and staff, key local government agencies, Caltrans
and transit operators. Obviously, if a campaign consultant has
been hired by the private sector they may also wish to be a
participant in the development of this strategic plan.
The plan would describe in detail roles and responsibilities
along with time lines or deadlines for the various activities to
be accomplished.
IV. Fees
I would anticipate that unlike the last couple of months
effort, that the work described above could be accomplished in a
much less intense manner. I therefore would expect that the
involvement would require less intensity in the next few months,
increasing during the months of December, January and February,
and lessening again when we get closer to the actual election in
June. Accordingly, my proposed fee would be $1,500 per month for
the months of October and November 1987; $2,500 per month for the
months of December 1987, January and February 1988, and $1,500
per month for March, April and May 1988, for a total of $15,000,
plus expenses.
Mr. Paul Blackwelder
August 24, 1987
Page Four
Since I have worked on sales tax programs for six other
counties, I believe this reflects quite well my anticipated
involvement in the effort. Given the potential benefits to the
County, I believe it is a very worthwhile investment in
purchasing the cumulative experience base from San Bernardino and
the other counties I have worked with.
As you know, I believe that the election is there to win,
but will require a serious pro -active campaign to sell it to
Riverside County voters. Given the time that we now have
available to us, and hopefully support from the private sector,
it appears that we have the opportunity to "do it right". I very
much look forward to working with you and the Commission to
present the best possible alternate to the voters in June of
1988.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns
about this proposal. I look forward to the Commission's
response.
Sincerely,
DJS/if
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director
SUBJECT: Route 91 Ramp Metering Project
Caltrans District 8 has completed a project report and is
proposing a project to install ramp meters on 4 westbound
on -ramps along Route 91 in Riverside County. The 4 ramps to
be metered are Green River Golf Course, Green River Road,
Serfas Club Drive, and Maple -Street. The estimated cost is
$150,000. Funding for the project will come from "Minor A"
funds available to the District. A contract for the project
should be awarded in the Spring of 1988. Caltrans District
8 requests the Commission to support this project. A copy
of the project report is attached.
Staff recommends that the Commission support the Route 91
ramp metering project as proposed by Caltrans District 8.
This project will help to alleviate the severe bottleneck
that occurs daily during the morning peak hours when
residents commute to Orange County. Ramp metering will make
the use of residential streets to bypass congested freeway
segments much less attractive. The use of residential
streets causes two problems. First, it create problems for
local residents accessing local roads and increases hazard
for school children walking or riding bicycles to and from
school. Second, it causes side friction at the point of
freeway access adding to the slowing of traffic. The
proposed project is expected to:
o Increase freeway throughput by 400 vehicles per hour.
o Reduce the attractiveness of residential streets as a
bypass of congested segments.
o Provide a better balance of user delay ratio between
the through traveler and locally generated freeway
user.
This project will be the initial phase leading towards the
eventual metering of all eastbound and westbound on --ramps on
Route 91 from Orange County line to Route 60/I-215.
RECOMMENDATION
Support the Route 91 ramp metering project proposed by
Caltrans District 8 for westbound on -ramps at Green River
Golf Course, Green River Road, Serfas Club Drive and Maple
Street.
PB : nk
Pb
Attachment
Agenda Item No. 7
September 2, 1987
Approved By:
z
W. F. ErDMONDS
District Director
To: W. F. EDMONDS
District Director
Approval Date -7
08-Riv-91-R0.0/4.2
Install WB Entrance
Ramp Meters
08--351-305500
PROJECT REPORT
From: S. LISIEWICZ
Deputy District Director
Planning Programming, and
Traffic Operations
INTRODUCTION
It is proposed to install detectors, signals, and signs for
metering the Route 91 westbound entrance ramps at the Green River
Golf Course (Orange County Line), Green River Road, Serfas Club
Drive and Maple Street. The project will optimize traffic flow.
Cost is estimated at $150,000 to be funded from the 20.20.030.200
(HB42) program. District "Minor A" funds will finance the
project in the 87/88 fiscal year.
PROJECT CATEGORY
This is a Category 5 project. It is of minimal economic, social,
or environmental significance.
BACKGROUND
Route 91 is the only east -west freeway that links San Bernardino
and Riverside, areas of more affordable housing, to employment
centers in Orange County. There are no parallel State routes or
local arterials which connect Riverside and Orange Counties. The
rapid population growth of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties
is resulting in the phenomenal growth of long distance commuters
using Route 91 to reach Orange County.
1
Following is a chronology of events which have led to the current
need for the project proposal:
1983
- Recurrent congestion (defined as average vehicle speeds less
than 35 MPH which continue at least fifteen minutes) begins
to occur during the AM peak on WB Route 91 between I-15 and
the Orange County Line.
1984
- As average speeds on Route 91 decline commuters begin to use
local residential streets to bypass freeway congestion and
enter the freeway at the head of the queue.
- In an attempt to respond to increasing complaints from local
residents affected by the continuous stream of high speed
commute traffic on the local street system, the Riverside
County Board of Supervisors requests Caltrans' assistance
in defining and resolving the problems.
1985
Caltrans participates in a three-month study which includes
temporary closures of local roads acid westbound 91 entrance
ramps.
Freeway congestion and the resulting diversion to
residential bypass routes rapidly continue to increase.
- The Riverside County Board of Supervisors formally request
the permanent closure of the WB on -ramp at Green River Golf
Course. The request was withdrawn when the Board was
informed of the lengthy process required for a permanent
ramp closure.
1986
- Delay per vehicle reaches thirty minutes and delay as high
as forty-five minutes is not uncommon.
- Riverside County reacts to the continuous complaints of
local residents by alternating the closure of various
bypass routes during the AM peak.
2
1987
- Assembly Concurrent Resolution Number 8 is introduced which
requires Caltrans to prepare a report identifying the
problem and possible solutions by December, 1987.
- Local political leaders form the "Route 91 Coalition".
group's goal is to accelerate development of a project
increase capacity on the Route 91 Corridor.
- Riverside County formally requests the temporary closure
of the Green River Golf Course ramp.
- The Green River Golf Course on -ramp is closed until it
is metered.
The
to
- Caltrans' Districts 7 and 8 begin preparation of a Project
Study Report addressing the feasibility of adding lanes to
Route 91 from Magnolia Avenue in Riverside to Route 55 in
Orange County.
EXISTING FACILITY
Within the 4.2 mile project area, Route 91 is a divided eight -
lane freeway. There is an isolated WB on -ramp at the Green River
Golf Course, full -diamond interchanges at Green River Road and
Serfas Club Drive, and a trumpet connection to northbound Route
71. The Maple Street Interchange is a spread -diamond with a
loop to westbound Route 91 in the northeast quadrant.
Proposed Control and Detection Equipment Locations
Location 1: Green River Golf Course is an isolated single
PM R0.0 lane on -ramp to westbound 91. The storage
capacity is 27 vehicles. (Figure 3)
Green River Road is a full -diamond interchange
with a single lane on -ramp to westbound Route
91.
Storage is available for 16 vehicles. (Figure 4)
Serfas Club Drive is a full -diamond interchange
with a single lane westbound on -ramp. The
storage capacity is 27 vehicles. (Figure 5)
The Maple Street westbound on -ramp is a single
lane loop located in the northeast quadrant of
the interchange. Storage is available for 19
cars. (Figure 6)
Location 2:
PM R1.1
Location 3:
PM R3.7
Location 4:
PM 4.2
3
TRAFFIC DATA
Average Daily Traffic
Route 91 at the Orange County Line
Year
1975
1980
1985
Average Annual
ADT Growth Rate
75,000
98,500 6.3%
146,000 9.6%
The average daily traffic (ADT) on Route 91 through Corona
doubled between 1975 and 1985. Traffic volumes on this
section of Route 91 are expected to increase at an average
annual rate of 4.6% during the next twenty years; however,
traffic volumes in the project area are currently increasing
at a much higher rate (1985 to 1986 = 7.6%)
WB On -Ramp Volumes
On -Ramp Location
PM R0.0
PM R1.1
PM R3.7
Green River Golf
Green River Road
Serfas Club Drive
PM 4.2 Maple Street
* Virtually all of this on -ramp traffic is bypass traffic
entering the freeway at the head of the queue.
**Sixty-six percent of the on -ramp traffic was generated by
commuters exiting and re-entering the freeway.
Accident Rates
The most recent three-year accident history identifies 94
accidents on this 4.2 mile WB section of Route 91 occurred
during the AM peak period from 0500-0800. Seventy-two
percent of the AM peak accidents were rear -enders which is
typical of stop -and -go congested traffic flow.
AM Peak (VPH)
1985 1987 % Growth
Course
846 1136*
58 238
548 1033**
1110 1658
34%
410%
88%
49%
DEFICIENCIES AND JUSTIFICATION
The primary problem is that peak period demand for Route 91
through Corona exceeds current capacity. The lack of any
4
alternate roads through the Santa Ana Canyon creates a true
"bottleneck" situation.
The immediate problem to be solved by the project proposal is the
excessive use of residential surface streets to bypass congestion
and enter the freeway at the head of the queue. The number of
residents affected by steady streams of high speed traffic
continues to grow as new residential bypass routes are
discovered.
The major concerns of local residents include (1) the difficulty
they have in accessing the local roads from their driveways due
to the continuous stream of traffic, and (2) the hazardous
conditions their children encounter when walking or riding their
bikes to school.
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors is under constant
political pressure to relieve the concerns of residents affected
by this growing bypass problem.
Metering the four WB on -ramps immediately upstream of the
bottleneck is expected to:
• Increase freeway throughput by approximately 400 VPH.
• Respond to local concerns by reducing the attractiveness
of residential streets as a bypass.
• Provide a more balanced user delay ratio between the
through -traveler and the locally generated freeway user.
This project is the initial step leading toward metering the WB
and EB entrance ramps on Route 91 between the Orange County Line
and Route 50.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposal includes installation of detection and
control devices at the noted Route 91 WB on -ramps and mainline
detectors at Green River Golf Course, Green River Road, Serfas
Club Drive, and Maple Street. HOV bypass lanes are not included
in the initial stage of metering the corridor; however, they will
be considered as part of subsequent ramp meter and lane addition
projects. The Project Study Report for the lane addition project
is currently being prepared.
The estimated construction cost of the project proposal is
$150,000. Traffic control and contingencies (5%) are included in
the cost estimate.
The project does not require acquisition of right of way, a route
adoption or freeway agreement.
5
F
PROPOSAL FUNDING
This project will be funded from the District's 1987/88 HB Minor
Program allocation and is included on the "1987/88 FY Minor
Program List" submitted to HQ on June 15, 1987.
State funds will be used per Mr. Martin Kiff's December 10, 1986
"Federal Aid Policy" memo.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
- Riverside County, the City of Corona, and CHP support the
project proposal.
- A portion of the WB entrance ramp at Green River Golf Course
is located within District 7. On July 10, 1987 Mr. Gary Bork,
Chief, District 7 Traffic Operations Branch, provided written
concurrence to meter the ramp.
PROJECT REVIEWS
The project proposal has been reviewed and approved by Lubin
Quinones, FHWA Area Engineer (7-15-87) and Norm Wingerd, HQ
Traffic Operations Reviewer (7-2-87).
ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION
The work herein is categorically exempt in accordance with Class
1 of the Department Environmental Regulations and is a
categorical exclusion under Federal Highway Guidelines.
�1**C.)
H. J. SAWY
Chief, Environmental Studies
Date:
RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION
I have reviewed the right-of-way data contained in the R/W Data
Sheet attached to this Project Report and find it to be complete,
current and accurate.
i
W lliam B. Day
Deputy District Director
Right of Way
6
Date:
9� 7
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the Project Report for 1987/88 fiscal year
construction is recommended.
ATTACHMENTS
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Attachment
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
- Vicinity
- Location
- Location
- Location
- Location
- Location
Map
Map
1
2
3
4
Categorical Exemption
Right of Way Data Sheet
RECOMMENDED BY:
-57
S. LISIEWICZ
Deputy District Di ctor
Planning Programming, and
Traffic Operations
7
Date: .S
f S%
T0:
FR
SU
In
Tr
Tr
th
an
bu
th
Th
fr
fa
ca
St
fr
as
Pr
in
in
in
le
th
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Riverside County Transportation Commission
M: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director
JECT: SunLine Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan
Amendment - FY 1988
May, the Commission approved the SunLine Transit Agency Short Range
nsit Plan (SRTP) as part of the Riverside County Short Range
nsit Plan for FY 1988-1992. Staff, at that time, pointed out that
proposed SunLine FY 1988 budget was higher than shown in the SRTP
that amendments would be necessary following approval of the
get by the SunLine Board. SunLine has requested an amendment to
SRTP to accommodate the approved FY 1987-1988 budget.
plan amendment requested increases proposed operating expenses
m $4.384 million to $4.682 million (+$298,000) decreases expected
e revenues from $907,000 to $879,800 (-$27,200), and decreases
ital projects from $728,000 to $717,400 (-$10,600).
ff had expressed concern over the increase in operating expenses
m FY 1987 to FY 1988 when the SRTP was adopted in May. The
imated cost for operations in FY 1987 were $3.845 million.
posed operating costs per the requested amendment represent a 22%
rease for FY 1988. SunLine's explanation for the increase are an
rease in service miles, expected increase in diesel fuel costs, and
reased wages resulting from negotiations last year. A copy of the
ter from SunLine explaining these increases and revised tables for
SRTP are attached.
Th= SunLine budget was approved by the SunLine Board on May 27, 1987.
St=ff was present at the meeting and full consideration was given to
ou comments prior to approval of the budget. The CVAG Technical
Ad isory Committee, comprised of city managers from all cities
re resented on the SunLine Board, requested the SunLine Board to
re iew its approved budget due to the increase in costs and the impact
on TDA funds available for street and road purposes in the Coachella
Valley area. The SunLine Board reviewed the budget and has reaffirmed
its approval.
TD funds available to Coachella Valley in FY 1987-88 are adequate to
fu d the operating costs and capital program proposed by SunLine in
its requested amendment. A revision to the TDA allocation for transit
pu poses will be required and presented next month when actual amounts
of federal transit assistance (UMTA Section 9) and State transit
assistance (STA) funds for FY 1988 should be available. A request by
qu Line to reserve $239,452 for future bus replacements will be
_ncluded in that report.
Agenda Item No. 8
September 2, 1987
RE OMMRNBATION
Approve the revisions to the Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan
fo FY 1988 requested by the SunLine Transit Agency.
At achment0
PB nk
unLine Transit
ME BER AGENCIES
thedral City
achella
Desert Hot Springs
I dio
Quinta
P:im Desert
Palm Springs
Rancho Mirage
R verside County
s
i
r. Paul Blackwelder
iverside County
ransportation Commission
075 Main Street.- Suite 302
iverside, CA 92501
ear Paul:
June 22, 1987
ua1 • F4000 ap!si
Crai '31411
unLine Transit is amending its Short Range Transit Plan for FY
988-1992 to reflect an increased operating budget for Fy 1988 and
dditional capital items. Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been modified and
re attached. The tables were approved at SunLine's Board of
irectors+ meeting on May 27, 1987. we ask that you schedule this
mendment for the next available Commission meeting.
lso, as you requested, are copies of pertinent overheads used at the
unLine Transit Agency Board of Directors meeting, May 27, 1987.
hese overheads were used to explain the difference between FY187
rojected expenditures and FY188 budget.
he leading causes of the increase of the FY188 budget over the FY'87
rojected expenditures are increased service miles, changes in the
emorandum of Understanding and projected cost of diesel fuel.
e changes in service miles were: 1) Line 19's service to Mecca was
erouted along Tyler Road; 2) supplemental mileage was budgeted on
ine 19 and Line 20 to compensate for higher traffic levels in the
-ak season; 3) a holiday shuttle was budgeted; 4) a small increase of
rvice to Thousand Palms on Line 2 and on the Special Services was
eluded; and 5) the Sun Special was projected to operate full season
ctober through May).
T e changes in the MOU resulted in a 5% increase in pay levels plus 3%
Aril through June 1988 for bargaining unit employees. This increase
aso entailed increases in fringe benefits.
32-505 Harry Oliver Trail • Thousand Palms, California 92276 • (619) 343-3456
r. Paul Blackwelder
une 22, 1987
age Two
he third item which impacts the budget level is the projected cost of
iesel fuel. Diesel fuel is one of the single largest line items. In
ddition, the cost of fuel impacts other petroleum -based products.
he difficulty is that SunLine must insure that enough money is
udgeted so that SunLine will not fall short. SunLine investigated
arket projections of the cost of diesel fuel and selected $.85 cents
er gallon as a reasonable estimate. This was not the highest
stimate nor was it the lowest. Last year SunLine's research showed
hat $.90 was a reasonable estimate. Last year, petroleum prices did
of rise as they were expected to. Therefore, SunLine did not require
11 of the budgeted cost of diesel fuel for FY'87. This may occur
gain in FY'88. However, SunLine's staff has researched the price of
iesel and has selected an estimate cost. The Board of Directors
greed with staff and approved the budget using these price figures.
egarding Item 5 of the TDA claim, as I understand the process, no
ustification statement is necessary as the increase of budgeted FY'88
ver FY'87 is less than 15%. For your own information, SunLine does
of prepare the budget using inflation figures. SunLine uses a form
f zero based budgeting and inflation is captured by obtaining current
nd projected item prices.
have included several tables showing the vehicle replacement
chedule, the amount•needing to be reserved and expected expenditures
er year. Also included is a table showing expected operating
xpenses, operating revenues, capital requirements and capital
evenues. I have assumed no STA funds, a stable UMTA funding level at
ast year's level and an increasing LTF at the rate of 5% per annum.
f you have questions on this matter, please call me.
ours very truly,
NLINE TRANS'T, AGENCY
ebra Astin
Senior Planner
e
/n
: file
cl:
SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FY 1988-1992
TABLE 3 SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
Transit System: SunLine Transit Agency
Prepared By: Debra Astin
FLEET CHARACTERISTICS:
FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Peak Hour Fleet 250 28 31 33 35 35 35
Spares 251 16 13 11 9 9` 9
Spare Ratio (251/250) 252 57% 42% 33% 26% 26% 26X
Energy Reserve 253 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
Vehicles Unavailable for service 254 10 10 10 10 10 10
Total Vehicles 255 54 54 54 54 54 54
EXPANSION Vehicles
to be deliverd 256 -0- -0- -0- -O- -0- -0-
REPLACEMENT Vehicles
to be delivered 257 -0- 1 2 18 1 1
FINANCIAL DATA://////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Fare Revenues (000's)
Operating Costs (000's)
266 740.60 880.00 924.00 970.20 1018.71 1069.65
267 3925.50 4682.30 4916.42 5162.24 5420.35 5691.36
M
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS:///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Revenue Bus Miles (000's) 258 1557.30 1608.70 1689.14 1773.59 1862.27 1955.38
Total Bus Miles (000's) 1681.88 1775.40 1858.05 1950.95 2048.50 2150.92
Revenue Bus Hours (000's) 260 85.90 87.70 92.09 96.69 101.52 106.60
Total Bus Hours (000's) 92.77 94.72 97.76 102.64 107.77 113.16
Linked Passengers (0001s) 1226 1451 1523 1600 1680 1764
Unlinked Passengers (000's) 263 1291 1527 1604 1684 1768 1856
Full Time Equivalent Employees 86 87 89 91 94 98
TRANSIT PROJECTS
TABLE 5
SCAG FY 1988-1992 SRTP/RTIP
Prepared by: Debra Astin County: Riverside
Date: 5-27-87 Agency: SunLine Transit Agency
Funds in $1,000's
PR EX UMTA UMTA UMTA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION YR YR TOTAL Sec 3 Sec 9 Sec 18 STA TDA FARES OTHER
Three Replacement Coaches 87 89 450 360 45 45
FY 88 Operating Assistance 88 88 4682 247 47 158 3310 880 40
Two Replacement Lift Equipped
Bus (25') 88 89 154 123 31
One Replacement Used Bus
(Double Deck) 88 88 30 30
Thirteen Replacement Fareboxes 88 88 35 35
_40 Non -Revenue Vehicles 88 88 16 16
Office Equipment 88 88 11 11
Bus Evap Cooler 88 88 8 8
Facility Improvement 88 89 7 7
General Maintenance Equipment 88 88 7 7
FY 89 Operating Assistance 89 89 4935 142 47 158 3550 998 40
Seven Replacement Buses
(Full Size) 89 90 1260 864 144 252
One Replacement Used Bus
(Double Deck) 89 89 30 30
Five Replacement Lift -Equipped
Vans 89 90 200 88 72 40
One Replacement Lift -Equipped
Buses (25') 89 90 77 62 15
90 Operating Assistance 90 90 5182 142 47 158 3699 1096 40
One Replacement Used Bus
(Double Deck) 90 90 30 30
TRANSIT PROJECTS
SCAG FY.1988-1992 SRTP/RTIP
Prepared by: Debra Astin County: Riverside
Date• 5-27-87 Agency: SunLine Transit Agency
Funds in $1,000's
PR EX UMTA UMTA UMTA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION YR YR TOTAL Sec 3 Sec 9 Sec 18 STA TDA FARES OTHER
FY 91 Operating Assistance
91 91 5441 142 47 158 3850 1204 40
One Replacement Used Bus
(Double Deck) 91 91 30 30
FY 92 Operating Assistance 92 92 5713 142 47 158 4122 1204 40
One Replacement Used Bus
(Double Deck) 92 92 30 30
Seven Expansion Buses
1�1111 Size, Lift Equipped) 92 93 1260 370 638 252
7Z'Z E'£ 76'Z 7L'E LZ'Z 08'1 SZ'£ S7'E 6E'Z H39N3SSVd/AQISOAS
6I' i' EI' Z1' OZ' 7Z' TT' ZI' 9T'
ES' OS' 79' I5' L5' LS' 17'
ISOO '83d0/'A38 38VJ
HRAN3SSVd/'A31I 3HV3 3AV
8Z'61 6'ST LL'SI 9S'ZI 08'81 LS'ZZ 8S'7I E9'£I 68'8I
'HH '113A/SH3ON3SSVd
LO'I Z'I 61'1 Z8' 90'I LT'T IO'I 6S' LZ'I
'IW 'H3A/S830N3SSVd
09'Z 6'£ ZS'E LO'E 17'Z OT'Z LZ'£ 50'Z 90'E
' IW ' H3A/,LSOO I3N•
86'Z 9'9 70'7 69'E ZO'E LL'Z 89'£ EE'Z 09'E
'IN ' H3A/IS00 'IVIOI
'T'E7 9'99 99'97 86'99 L9'Z7 Z5'09 T7'L7 86'99 LO'S7
'NH 'H3A/1S00 I3N'
W ES 9'ES 8£'ES 8E'ES 8E'ES 8E'ES 8E'ES 8E'ES 8E'ES
' HH ' H3A/ISOO 1VZOI
O'6ESE £'6 9'LZZ 6'ZE L'E6L 0'907I L'88£ Z'8£E 9'ZVE (S,000S) LS00 9NIIVH3d0 J3N
6'E78 7'I 0'9£ S'7 £'661 9'999 0'69 I'97 L'97 (S,000$) 3HN3A38 31IV3
6'Z8E7 L'OI 9'I9Z 9'LE O'E66 S'Z58T 8'L£7 9'98E L'507 (S,000$) IS00 ONIIVHad0
O'EL7I 9'Z L'79 L'OI I'6ZE 9'699 6'811 I'S9I L'ZIT (S,000) S31IW 3` ARA HAN3A3H
I'Z8 Z' 6'9 L' 9'81 L'7E Z'8 Z'L 9'L (S,000) SHAH 310IHHA 3HN3A3H
O'ESSI 8'Z £'LL 9'8 9'67E Z'E8L 9'6I1 I'86 9'E7I (S,000) SN39N3SSVd 43ANI'INH
S1VIOI 31IIAAS 7VIOUS 1VIO3dS OZ 3NI1 61 3NI1 S 3NI1 7 3NI'i Z 3NI7 30IAN3S
AVOI'IOH NAS dI
8961 Ad AONHOV IISNVHI 3NI1NHS :HOIVEd0
HUM ARIA :MAI 30IAUS
clIHS Z66I-8861 S3SASV314 30NVWHOD13d :9 318VI
67'Z Th'Z
70'S £0'L
9Z'7 E6'E 76'5 2130N3SSVd/AQISEHIS!
61' 61' 81' 91' SI' I£' 60' IS00 'H3d0/'A311 MAI
85' 9S' LO'T 7E'I EL' SL'I 6S' H30N3SSVd/'A3H 3HVd 3AV
ih'LT 00'8I
OL'8 SE'9
59'0I TZ'6
7Z'8 'HH 113A/SH39N3SSVd'
56' 00'T 9E' EZ' 8E' 8Z' LS' 'IW 113A/SH39N3SSVd
9E'Z T7'Z
Z8'I 6S'I
Z9' I OFT
LE'E 'IN 113A/I500 13N
I6'Z 96'Z TZ'Z 06'1
06'T 8S'T
'IW 143A/ISOO 'IVIO1
7E'Eh TUE/
E8'E7 99'77 W S7 91'9E
TO'67 'HH 'N3A/1503 IIN
LEES 8E'£S
LT'ES W ES LI ES 8Z'ZS
L8'ES 'HH 'N3A/IS00 11/10I
E'Z08E
S'SSSE 8'97Z 5'6Z
S'6E I'S9
L'ZIT (S,000$) IS00 9NIIVH3d0 I3N
O'088
7'LZ8 9'ZS 9'S
8'9 0'6Z
Z'IT (5,000$) 30N3A3H 3HV3
£'Z897
6'Z9E7 7'66Z I'SE
E'97 I'76
6'EZI (S,000$) ZS00 9NIIVH3d0
L'809I O'EL7T L'SEI S'81 7'7Z 7'6S
7'E£ (51000) MIN 3'IOIH3A 3I1N3A3H
L'L8
T'Z8 9'S L' 6' 8'T £'Z (5,000) SHOOH 310183A 311NHA3H
Z'LZST Z'8LVI
0'67 Z'h
E'6 9'91 0'6I (5,000) SH39NHSSVd Q3XNI'IN❑
S'IVIOI SIVIOI SIVIOI I213530 WIVd 00/Sd x3'PIVAH3INI SHQ 30IAH3S ;
OHM ad HQ
9861 Ad 0N39V ITSNVNI 3NI' OS :HOIVH3d0
3SNOdS3H ONVW3Q 30IAMS
&PIS Z661-8861 xd :S3HOSV3W 30NVWH04213d :9 318VI
Transit System: SunLine Transit Agency
Prepared by: Debra Astin
TABLE 4
CAPITAL PROJECT
DESCRIPTION AND
JUSTIFICATION
Proiect Detailed Description:
Purchase an Evaporative Bus Cooler
r
Project Justification:
SunLine is currently experimenting with a bus eva-
portive cooler which may provide more effective air
conditioning for the desert climate. Should the
experiment prove successful, SunLine will purchase
the cooler.
Project Utle! Description
Purchase Bus Evaporative Cooler
Primary Fund Source:
Sec. 3
Sec.3
fAU
LTF
8.0
STAF
State
local
. Prog. Exp. Total
Phase Year Year Fnst Fed.
m
c
v
c
a
8.0
8.0.
arr
over Fundin :
Recommendation:
Transit System: SunLine Transit Agency
Prepared by: Debra Astin
Prolect Detailed Descriotion•
TABLE 4
DESCRIPTION AND
JUSTIFICATION
Purchase and install radio modifications which will
allow the bus operators' a "talk around" capability
when needed.
r
Pro.lect Justification:
As part of Coachella Valley's Disaster Preparedness
Program, SunLine Transit is purchasing and'install-
ing a "talk around" capability for the current
radio network. This will allow drivers to communi-
cate directly with each other during times of emer-
gency eliminating the need of the Edom Hill repeater.
Proiect Title: Description
Facility Improvements
Primary Fund Source:
Sec.
Sec.3
FAU
LTF
6.5
STAF
State
local
. Prog. Exp. Total
Phase Year Year fast FPd .
cn
e
c
e
n
tl.
6.5
6.5
.
arr
over Fundtn:
Recommendation:
Transit System: Sunline Transit Agency
Prepared by: Debra Astin
Proiect Detailed Description:
TABLE 4
CAPITAL PROJECT
DESCRIPTION AND
JUSTIFICATION
Purchase general Maintenance equipment which
includes a forklift/backhoe and a post hole digger.
r
Project Justification.
The forklift/backhoe will enable SunLine to
accomplish relocation of shelters, benches, and
trash receptacles.
In,the past, SunLine rented the equipment and
work was forced to be deferred due to lack of
'available equipment.
The post hole digger will improve the installatio
and security of sign posts,.will enable install-
ation in cement and will reduce worker compen-
sation claims resulting from heavy manual labor.
Proiect_Title: Descrlption
General Maintenance Equipment
Primary Fund Source:
Sec.
Sec.3
FAU
LTF
6.5
STAF
State Local
. Prog. Exp. Total
Phase Year Year r'^st Fee.
rn
c
v
G
u..
6.5
: 6.5
arr
over Fundin :
Recommendation: .
Transit System. SunLine Transit Agency
Prepared by: Debra Astin
TABLE 4
CAPITAL PROJECT
DESCRIPTION AND
JUSTIFICATION
Protect Detailed Description:
Major items include an additional computer, soft-
ware and miscellaneous computer related items, and
a rebuilt coin sorter/counter.
Pro.lect Justification:
The additional computer equipment is for an addi-
tional staff member added in FY '87 and to provide
inhouse typesetting capability.
The coin sorter is over twelve years old and must be
rebuilt.
Pro_lect Title: Description
Purchase Office Equipment
Primary Fund Source:
Sec. 13
Sec.3
FAU
LTF
11.4
STAF
State
local
Prog. Exp. Total
Phase Year Year rmst Fed
11.4
°cal
Carr over Fundin:
Recommendation;
5_tate L
11.4
Trans 1
v
TABLE 4
Prepared by: Debra Astin
CAPITAL PROJECT
DESCRIPTION AND
JUSTIFICATION
Proiect Detailed Description'
Purchase two (2) replacement supervisor auto-
mobiles
Prolect Justification:
These two: vehicles will replace the two oldest
staff cars having over 90,000 miles by the replace-
ment date and which are no longer economical to main
tain.
Projecj Title: Description
Two Replacement Non -revenue Vehicles
Primary Fund Source:
Sec. 9
Sec.3
FAU
LTF
STAF
State
Local
16,0
111
Prog. Exp. Total
Phase Year Year imst Fed,
rn
c
.w
v
a
W
16.0
•
j16.0
arr
over Funding:
Recommendation:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director
SUBJECT: Acting Executive Director's Report
The Legislature is scheduled to recess on September llth.
Staff will overview various transportation -related bills and
may request Commission action in support or opposition.
Staff will provide an update on the Cajalco Parkway Study,
the formation of a coalition to support transportation
improvements in Western Riverside County and other items of
interest, as appropriate.
PB : nk
Agenda Item No. 9
September 2, 1987