Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
03 March 19, 2012 Technical Advisory
TIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 a.m. March 19, 2012 Beaumont City Hall Conference Room #2 550 East Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Don Allison, City of Menifee George Alvarez, City of Eastvale Ahmad Ansari, City of Moreno Valley Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Jorge Biagioni, City of Hemet Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Duane Burk, City of Banning Greg Butler, City of Temecula Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert Tim D'Zmura, City of Wildomar Grant Eklund, City of Indio Kip Field, City of Corona Joe Forgiarini, SunLine Transit Agency Paul Goble, City of Indian Wells Hal Goldenberg, City of Desert Hot Springs Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Jonathan Hoy, City of Coachella Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta - Chair Savat Khamphou, Caltrans District 8 Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris and San Jacinto Juan Perez, County of Riverside Kishen Prathivadi, City of Beaumont Gordon Robinson, Riverside Transit Agency Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Michael Shoberg, CVAG Bill Simons, City of Cathedral City Jim Smith, City of Calimesa Ruthanne Taylor -Berger, WRCOG Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta — Vice Chair Bill Thompson, City of Norco , City of Jurupa Valley Commission Staff Anne Mayer, Executive Director Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* TIME: DATE: LOCATION: *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. 10:00 a.m. March 19, 2012 Beaumont City Hall Conference Room #2 550 East Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Self -Introductions 3. Approval of January 30, 2012 Minutes 4. Public Comments (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization Update (Attachment) 6. Draft 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program — (Attachment) 7. Proposition 1B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account — Savings (Verbal Presentation) 8. RCTC Proposed Programming for Proposition 1B State formula Funds (Attachment) 9. Caltrans Local Assistance Report (Verbal Presentation) • New Labor Compliance Laws, SBX2 9 and AB 436 • New Checklist for Request for Authorization • Cycle 10 for State Safe Routes to Schools Program CTC Staff Recommendations CTC Programming of Project Local Partnership Program — Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 19, 2012 Page 2 10. Draft FFY 11/12 Obligational Authority Delivery Plan (Attachment) 11. SB 821 — Volunteers for Evaluation Panel (Verbal Presentation) 12. March Commission Meeting Highlights (Verbal Presentation) 13. Other Business 14. Adjournment (The next meeting will be May 21 in Riverside.) ... • AGENCY BANNING TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE March 19, 2012 I DUANE!~; ME_~BE~--~ah-on-o ~; T~~~ATE_+ ___ PRINT NAME _ -i-• i Director of Public Works I ) µf(oN tJ 0&7' .___ KISHEN PRATHIVADI IKevinHughes -----a---------------l-+--~~--1 Assistant Director of Public Works BEAUMONT BLYTHE JIM RODKEY I Public Works Director Kevin Nelson Assistant Public Works Director '1/P 'X~J/<f 1----------------+-------11 / J U A A' CVAG MIKE SHOBERG IAllyn Waggle Transportation Program Manager Deputy Director i M~llu ?MP.t.¥""1 I" ,'---' /', L1..-"\ "'\. \.,.,\.J'~\'"'----+----CALIMESA Bob French JIM SMITH City Engineer Public Works Director \!NA .lrv I 1W-CALTRANS ISAVAT KHAMPHOU I Bill Mosby I ~-I ~ ~strict Local Assistance Engineel .. CANYON LAKE !HABIB MOTLAGH 1Chris Sunde __ r=~~~.5-_s-0--1 __ c_ __ & City Engineer CATHEDRAL CITY j BILL SIMONS Interim City Engineer I I COACHELLA JONATHAN HOY I Maritza Martinez City Engineer Interim Public Works Director r1 1--' . ------··------------------------CORONA I KIP FIELD Robert Morin ~--DESERT HOT SPRINGS I Acting Public Works Director Principal Civil Engineer e~_ar-Mou:.J HAL GOLDENBERG Tim Wassil Sr. Project Manager " E A S T V A L E G E O R G E A L V A R E Z C i t y E n g i n e e r H E M E T J O R G E B I A G I O N I E n g i n e e r i n g D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r I N D I A N W E L L S P A U L G O B L E P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r - - - - - - - - � I N D I O G R A N T E K L U N D P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r J U R U P A V A L L E Y L A Q U I N T A T I M O T H Y J O N A S S O N P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r L A K E E L S I N O R E K E N S E U M A L O C i t y E n g i n e e r M E N I F E E D O N A L L I S O N P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r M O R E N O V A L L E Y A H M A D A N S A R I P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r � - � M U R R I E T A P A T R I C K T H O M A S D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s / C i t y E n g i n e e r N O R C O B I L L T H O M P S O N D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s T E C H N I C A L A D . R Y C O M M I T T E E M a r c h 1 9 , 2 0 1 2 D I A N E N G U Y E N T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P r o g r a m m a n a g e r � - - V i c t o r M o n z P r i n c i p a l E n g i n e e r \ j l C T O I ~ ( Y l 0 1 ' 1 ' - - B o n d i e B a k e r A s s i s t a n t E n g i n e e r I I T o m R a f f e r t y P r i n c i p a l C i v i l E n g i n e e r r ; ; _ l ! N � r ~ } < L v / I J . P N i c k N i c k e r s o n M a t t S i m o n e t t i . E r i c L e w i s , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n . ) e p A v \ L f . W ( . S D i v i s i o n M a n a g e r / C i t y T r a f f i c ' , � ' R i . _ ; " ' ' \ \ E n g i n e e r A N D P r e m K u m a r , " " " t ~ . ~ r ' - D e p u t y P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r B o b M o e h l i n g ~ W . . . \ k , , , . ( ' . , E n g i n e e r i n g M a n a g e r L o r i A s k e w S r . E n g i n e e r " - - - - - ~ - - ~ . - v - - 7 - - a J p < r � � � � f t ( - - A ~ � : / ) . ' - - - . , / " ' � ' - - ( _ \ . . . - - - _ . , . - - I / _ _ . . . - [ \ . - - - ' 1 ~ ~ � - .... • PALM DESERT BO CHEN City Engineer PALM SPRINGS DAVE BARAKIAN Director of Public Works/ City Engineer PERRIS HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer RTA GORDON ROBINSON Director of Planning RANCHO MIRAGE BRUCE HARRY Director of Public Works RIVERSIDE TOM BOYD Deputy Public Works Director/ City Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY JUAN PEREZ Director of Transportation SAN JACINTO HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer SUN LINE JOE FORGIARINI Director of Transit Planning TEMECULA GREG BUTLER Director of Public Works WILDOMAR TIM D'ZMURA Director of Public Works and City Engineer WR COG RUTHANNE TAYLOR-BERGER Deputy Executive Director TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE March 19, 2012 Mark Diercks I Transportation Engineer 170 CAl~ Marcus Fuller 9~F:J~ Chris Sunde c__ S~c{ --Lorelle Moe-Luna (_-~~~ ~\\~'\ Senior Planner ~ ~-r]y {/--0---Randy Viegas Project Manager -Patty Romo ~\~co Deputy Director of Transportation Chris Sunde c S.___"~ --~ ~~ Amer Attar Principal Engineer /tfo---Diane Nguyen Transportation Program Manager • ~1(~12 __ --_-_-~----'~ f)lfi/e 8;1-t2!1-K ! /1Al ----. ~ 4-Th::~ /<hY1~ v, 0~5 ~~<-\ ~/h_~ (} Lu 6~ 8(.)1(_~ ----------- " " A G E N C Y f > A 1 < = . S o ; J s ~ C , f ; L ~ J C J ; , ' , ; 1 ~ ~ , , , e _ C - - ; c ~ t { C T C ~ G T c _ - - - - - - - ~ - - � T E C H N I C A L A D . R Y C O M M I T T E E M a r c h 1 9 , 2 0 1 2 " N A M E T E L E P H O N E O R E - M A I L e ~ i e _ . F ~ u ~ t > 4 ~ t r z . . ' f ! q U f t - ~ 1 ' \ p - : : P A Z . . . S . b J - - . . i . . . 5 ; . . U r t . . 4 - A l - . . i > i - - r - I - � y 1 0 0 7 c . / t : l / ~ e r f . e . . : : > , . P / " J r . " ; t . c ~ ( ~ � � C ' ! 1 1 " c o l ' - ' - : > . t . " c � e 1 . I A ~ I I G Y ' a c - e ? 4 - f u ~ t P ~ j a / r J ! L v ? Z , . e r - e - . . / - c , 7 0 \ \ \ \ 0 J A w f f i \ s T h f \ ~ t d . r n \ < ; \ D D e \ G t u . o r ~ � A . v t d r f D . z . u r u � J : _ c r L \ 4 Y " ' l L c l ' . - , C i ) r G + c . o ~ - � - � - - - - - - MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 30, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:02 a.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA. 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS Members Present: Others Present: Don Allison, City of Menifee Ahmad Ansari, City of Moreno Valley Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Greg Butler, City of Temecula Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert Tim D'Zmura, City of Wildomar Grant Eklund, City of Indio Kip Field, City of Corona Joe Forgiarini, SunLine Transit Agency Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Kevin Hughes, City of Beaumont Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Savat Khamphou, Caltrans Prem Kumar, City of Moreno Valley Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Diana Nguyen, Cities of Eastvale and Wildomar Kahono Oei, City of Banning Gordon Robinson, Riverside Transit Agency Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Patty Romo, County of Riverside Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Chris Sunde, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris, and San Jacinto Mike Shoberg, CVAG Bill Simons, City of Cathedral City Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta George Alvarez, City of Eastvale Grace Alvarez, RCTC Jorge Biagioni, City of Hemet Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Paul Blackwelder, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 30, 2012 Page 2 J. D. Douglas, InfraConsult Jillian Edmiston, RCTC Ernie Figueroa, Parsons Johnny Ghazal, City of Calimesa Larry Gonzales, City of Moreno Valley Shirley Gooding, RCTC Mitali Gupta, InfraConsult Aaron Hake, RCTC Tanya Love, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Roy Null, County of Riverside Evita Premdas, Caltrans Eric Weck, City of Indio Andrea Zureick, RCTC 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Harry/Boyd) to approve the minutes as submitted. Abstain: Barakian, Field, Harry, Jonasson 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 5. UPCOMING RCTC WORKSHOP Cathy Bechtel, RCTC, provided the Commission workshop agenda for Feb 2-3 in La Quinta and gave a brief description of each of the agenda items. She informed the TAC that at the February 2 dinner, Supervisor Benoit and Tom Kirk would present Coachella Valley's Multi -Use plan effort for golf carts, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian walkways. She invited the TAC to attend the workshop in La Quinta. 6. MSHCP FUNDING Ms. Bechtel said that RCTC had a commitment to provide $153 million to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) towards the assembly of the reserve lands for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. RCTC provided $128.65 million to purchase conservation land. There was an outstanding balance of about $24.35 million. RCA recently asked RCTC to commit to giving RCA $3 million annually over the next eight years, which would fulfill RCTC's commitment towards the reserve. The Commission approved RCA's request. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 30, 2012 Page 3 7. 2012 FUNDING STRATEGY: A BLUEPRINT FOR ADVANCING GOODS MOVEMENT PROJECTS Tanya Love, RCTC, provided a Grade Separation Priority Update Study, and introduced J. D. Douglas, InfraConsult, who presented a project status map and priority ranking results along with a comparison of priority groupings results with 2006 priority ranking. Mr. Douglas then responded to various questions. Ms. Love requested the TAC's support of Option II. M/S/C (Harry/Boyd) to recommend Option II. 8. 2012 STIP UPDATE Shirley Medina, RCTC, presented the Riverside County 2012 STIP program of projects that had been proposed to the California Transportation Commission (CTC). She stated that she has not heard how the CTC is going to approach RCTC's STIP submittal; however, the CTC did indicate that as a whole the regions have over - programmed the first few years of the STIP. For example, the first year is about $100 million over -programmed and the CTC will have to look at a way to move projects to the last two years. Ms. Medina responded to various questions. 9. 2012 RTP UPDATE Andrea Zureick, RCTC, indicated that SCAG has the draft Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) on its website for public review and comment. SCAG will accept public comments until February 14. RCTC staff is reviewing the project list and will provide formal comments to SCAG on any inconsistencies. Ms. Zureick encouraged the TAC to review the project lists to make sure they are correct in SCAG's database. She requested that RCTC staff be contacted first if there are any inconsistencies so that staff can ensure consistent comments. She further stated that there may have already been changes to the project list that have not yet been reflected. SCAG plans to adopt the 2012 RTP on April 4, and forward it to the state and federal agencies for approval in early June. Ms. Medina stated that once RCTC's comments are ready, staff will share the comments with the TAC. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 30, 2012 Page 4 10. FTIP Grace Alvarez, RCTC, said there is not much to report on the 2011 FTIP since the TAC update of November. This is mainly due to the efforts focused on the preparation of the 2013 FTIP and the review of the draft 2012 RTP. She provided a quick recap on the 2011 FTIP amendment activity, which includes 19 amendments since the adoption of the FTIP in December 2010. The latest amendment was administrative modification No 19, approved on December 19. All amendments submitted to SCAG have been approved with the exception of the Consistency Amendment No. 16, recently renumbered as 24, which anticipated approval is June 2012, concurrently with the 2012 RTP. Ms. Alvarez included with the staff report the listing of the 2011 FTIP amendments with their corresponding submittal and approval dates as well as the listing of the projects included in our latest amendment, Amendment No. 19. She further reported that SCAG staff is focusing on the review of the 2013 FTIP and 2012 RTP and from now until June SCAG will be processing alternating formal amendments and administrative modifications every other month instead of the regular monthly amendments. Projects to be included in these amendments are projects that need changes for obligation in FY 11/12 and/or environmental approval. Moving on to the 2013 FTIP, on January 4 RCTC submitted the 2013 FTIP to SCAG; the submittal consisted of 348 projects. The breakdown of the projects is as follows: 111 local highway projects, 88 state highway projects, and 149 transit projects. She thanked the TAC for the assistance provided with this effort, allowing RCTC to meet the submittal deadline of Jan. 4. The ultimate approval of the 2013 FTIP, which is the conformity determination by the federal agencies, is mid December 2012. The staff report includes the timelines for review and approval of the 2013 FTIP. Ms. Alvarez answered questions relating to the FTIP. 11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORMS AND REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE Aaron Hake, RCTC, reported that the Governor released his budget and there are not a lot of negative impacts on the transportation side. RCTC is watching to make sure that Proposition 1B bond appropriations are included in the state budget. He further reported that RCTC is also interested in what will happen with High Speed Rail. Whenever the state budget is late, Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) payments are delayed. Last year Assemblyman Jeff Miller ran a bill to make sure HUTA continue to local governments even if the state budget is late. That was rejected by the Legislature last year, but the administration appears to be open to budget language that Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 30, 2012 Page 5 guarantees that HUTA payments will continue regardless of what happens with the budget. The Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization process is moving forward. This week the House Republicans will release their legislation. The current program expires in March; therefore, Congress will have to enact a multi -year transportation bill or do another short term extension. The House Republicans are proposing to pay for transportation for five years by allowing drilling and off shore oil drilling. Senator Boxer's bill is a shorter (two-year) term bill. A major provision of the House bill will be the ability for states to substitute their own environmental laws for NEPA where the state's environmental laws are more stringent, such as California. Senator Boxer's bill also includes a $2 billion goods movement program across the country. 12. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT Savat Khamphou, Caltrans Local Assistance, reported that e-mails have been sent to request surveys for storm damages from those agencies that had wind damages so Caltrans can program funding for any project damages related to the storm. There is a call for projects for cycle 10 safe routes to schools funds. Applications should be sent to Caltrans by March 30. Postmarks will be accepted. Criteria are available on Caltrans' website. Mr. Khamphou indicated he is going to Sacramento this week for an annual local assistance council meeting. He also indicated that there will be less webinars and less of the training he has been planning. He requested that request for authorizations for projects programmed for FFY 11/12 be submitted to Local Assistance as soon as possible. 13. JANUARY COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Tanya Love reported that discussions included mid -year budget adjustments, next year's revenue projections, completed projects, and legislative platform. She further stated that Commission meeting highlights are in the monthly newsletter that the TAC receives. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 30, 2012 Page 6 Cathy Bechtel said there would be a ribbon cutting ceremony for the I-215/74 IC improvements, which construction completion is ahead of schedule. 14. OTHER BUSINESS Jillian Edmiston, RCTC, announced that there will be an SB 821 call for projects about February or March, estimated at $1.1 million. She requested four volunteers from agencies not applying for funding to sit on the evaluation committee. She needs three members and one would be a back-up. She will attend the March TAC meeting to obtain the names of the volunteers. Funds that were allocated in the FY 2010/11 fund cycle will expire June 30. She requested any jurisdictions that are unable to claim the funds to contact her quickly to discuss whether or not an extension is possible. Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs, announced that CVAG's joint ribbon cutting for the I-10 Indian and I-10 Gene Autry is March 9, 9:00 a.m. Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage, announced that the March 19 TAC meeting is the same time as the League of California Cities meeting in San Jose. Although the league dates are March 20 through March 23, some people may leave on Monday, March 19. Greg Butler from the City of Temecula announced that Temecula received Caltrans' authorization to go forward with their bid for Phase I of the French Valley Parkway. Bids are due March 1 and a groundbreaking will be scheduled shortly after that. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:08 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Medi Programming and Planning Manager AGENDA ITEM 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 14, 2012 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on federal surface transportation reauthorization. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Over the last several weeks, Congress has made significant strides towards enacting a new multi -year surface transportation authorization bill. With a March 31 deadline looming for the expiration of the nation's current transportation programs and the federal excise tax on gasoline, Washington's attention to transportation infrastructure investment has spiked in recent days. Several key committees moved their pieces of the legislation forward in early February. However, as both the House and Senate versions of the transportation bill neared consideration on their respective floors prior to the President's Day holiday recess, Beltway politics began to cloud the prospects for passage. Despite major differences in the House and Senate versions of the bill and pundits' skepticism about the prospects of a final bill making it to the President's desk, the Commission remains optimistic that the process will continue. Commission staff is encouraged by the progress made thus far by Committee Chairs Barbara Boxer and John Mica in their respective chambers. Staff recommends that the Commission continue a posture that encourages Congress to move all of the pieces of a transportation bill to a Conference Committee as quickly as possible so that negotiations on a final bill can begin in order to avoid further short-term extensions of the nation's transportation program. Here is a brief update of where the bills stand at this time and how the Commission has been engaged on the national stage. Commission staffs oral presentation on this item will contain more up-to-date information as developments in Washington, D.C. evolve quickly. House of Representatives — H.R. 7 Agenda Item Consideration of the core transportation bill in the House has been delayed by Speaker John Boehner until after the President's Day recess. Speaker Boehner has decided to allow an open rule, allowing Members to offer amendments to the bill. More than 240 amendments have been offered in House Rules Committee, meaning that a lengthy process is ahead to consider all of these policy ideas. The Commission has reviewed all of the amendments and is prepared to advocate in support and opposition to key amendments that impact Commission priorities, as adopted in the Commission's legislative platform. The Commission is also working closely with allied transportation agencies throughout California. The Commission authored an amendment, sponsored by Representatives Ken Calvert and Mary Bono Mack, which would eliminate bureaucratic red tape that can delay certain projects by three to six months. Such streamlining policies have long been a priority of the Commission. A copy of the amendment is attached to this staff report. The Commission is grateful to Mr. Calvert and Ms. Bono Mack for bringing this policy item for consideration by the House. First, the amendment must be approved by the House Rules Committee, and then ordered to the House floor for debate and a vote. In general, the House bill contains many favorable provisions that will streamline environmental approvals for projects and increase local control. The bill also includes a robust Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, funding for State Infrastructure Banks, and reduces restrictions on tolling and innovative financing. However, the Commission remains concerned about the House's approach to removing public transportation funding from the Highway Trust Fund and reversing three decades of precedent by moving transit to the General Fund and removing long- term funding certainty. Senate — MAP-21 The Senate process continues to be bi-partisan. Senator Boxer and Majority Leader Harry Reid continue to navigate the bill forward. Many amendments are also being offered to the Senate bill; however, more than 80 Senators voted to begin debate on the bill. The Commission is working with the staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on policy recommendations to Chair Boxer's bill. MAP-21 contains key provisions helpful to the Commission on TIFIA and expanding the amount of formula dollars that get sent to the Commission for projects. MAP-21 also contains the most robust goods movement program of any proposal at this time; a key priority to the Commission. Senator Boxer's visit to the Magnolia Avenue Grade Separation project in Riverside in January underscores the Senate's emphasis on freight and the need for federal funding for goods movement projects. While MAP-21 revamps our planning processes in many ways, the bill does a number of things that increase flexibility for the Commission and ensures performance and accountability for the federal transportation program. However, there is one provision that is of concern to the Commission that would send some of the Commission's Agenda Item formula funds for congestion mitigation and air quality projects to private construction companies to purchase clean construction equipment. While this provision is well- intentioned, it will have a negative impact on the Commission's ability to fund key projects, create jobs in Riverside County, and reduce congestion. The Commission and allied transportation groups are communicating with Senate staff and other stakeholders on this issue. Agenda Item AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 19, 2012 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program — California STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; The 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is scheduled for adoption by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) at its March 28-29, 2012 meeting. Last week, the CTC's staff recommendations were released. The majority of the recommendations for each region included moving projects one or two years beyond the year that the regions proposed for programming. This was due to the lack of programming capacity available in the first three years of the STIP, and since most of the capacity is in the last two years of the STIP projects had to be pushed back in order for the STIP to meet financial constraint requirements for each year of the STIP. The recommendations for Riverside County STIP projects included the following changes to three projects: Project Change 1-215, Scott to Nuevo Reduced funding from $62.6 M to $56 M I-15/French Valley IC Moved fiscal year from 2014/15 to 2015/16 I-10/Jefferson IC Moved fiscal year from 2013/14 to 2015/16 RCTC will continue to monitor the schedules for the I-15/French Valley and I-10/Jefferson interchanges. Based on our latest review of the project schedules the projects could be delivered earlier then what the CTC is proposing for programming in the 2012 STIP. RCTC staff will continue to follow the schedules for these projects and work with the project sponsors to deliver the projects when they are ready for construction such as requesting advance allocations, AB 3090 reimbursement option, or any other method available so that the projects are not delayed. AGENDA ITEM 7 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 7. AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 14, 2012 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposition 1 B State -Local Partnership Program — Formula Program Project Recommendations BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve programming State -Local Partnership Program (SLPP) formula funds on the following projects: Perris Valley Line, State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP), Interstate 215 Central widening (Scott Road to Nuevo Road), and Foothill Parkway; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director to determine the appropriate programming amount for each project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1 B on November 7, 2006, authorized $1 billion to be deposited in the SLPP account. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) is responsible for administering and allocating these funds over a five-year period between 2009 and 2013. The funds are divided among two programs — competitive and formula. The competitive grant program is a discretionary program, and projects are submitted by local agencies directly to the CTC for selection. For the formula program, the CTC determines a funding share for each eligible applicant with a voter -approved tax or toll that was approved prior to the adoption of the funding. Therefore, the Commission is the eligible applicant for programming SLPP formula funding share in Riverside County. SLPP guidelines require formula funds to be matched on 50-50 basis (match must be Measure A funds) and used for the construction phase only. The Commission previously programmed SLPP funding for the 74/215 interchange project, but subsequently replaced the SLPP funds with federal stimulus funds since bonds were not being sold due to unfavorable market conditions. Over the last couple of years, Proposition 1 B bond sales continued to be infrequent and unreliable. Therefore, staff programmed other reliable fund sources, such as federal fund sources, so that projects were not delayed due to the uncertainty of bond sales. Agenda Item CTC guidelines also allowed regions to carryover unprogrammed balances from year to year until the fifth or last year of the program, which is FY 2012/13. To date, the Commission's SLPP programming balance is $42,294,000. In following the Commission's direction to fund construction ready projects that the Commission previously committed to, such as projects identified in the Measure A 10- year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan (Delivery Plan), Grade Separation program, or Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program, staff is recommending the following projects for SLPP formula programming: • Perris Valley Line (Measure A); • SR-91 CIP (Measure A); • 1-215 Central widening from Scott to Nuevo (Measure A); and • Foothill Parkway (TUMF Regional Arterial). The first three projects have sufficient Measure A funds programmed to meet the match requirements and also meet the project readiness criteria based on the ability to request the construction allocation by the CTC's June 2013 meeting. Foothill Parkway in the city of Corona is a TUMF Regional Arterial project. There are insufficient funds available to fund the project with TUMF Regional Arterial funds; however, the project also qualifies for Western County Measure A Regional Arterial funds. In order to program SLPP funding on the Foothill Parkway project, Measure A funds would be used as match and would replace TUMF funds. Measure A programming for the Foothill Parkway will be brought back to the Commission for approval at a future meeting. Staff will also be meeting with the county of Riverside and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments to review eligible projects for SLPP funds located in the Coachella Valley. In addition, staff will be monitoring other fund sources and programs as they may have an impact on current funding plans, such as the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Proposition 1 B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds. Therefore, staff is requesting that the Commission approve the above projects for programming and authorize the Executive Director to determine the appropriate programming amount for each project within the next few months as more information becomes available regarding the 2012 STIP adoption estimated to occur by April, and the next cycle of CMIA programming anticipated in June 2012. Staff will report on the SLPP project programming amounts at a future meeting as well as the resulting financial impact regarding the receipt of any SLPP funds. Agenda Item AGENDA ITEM 9 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 9. Labor Compliance Information www.dir.ca.gov http1AtiM/W.thelaborcOMpliandenianagercom/indek.html http://www:thelaborcompliancemanagers.com/LCP-Program-Description.pdf http://www.leginfo.ca.govicalaw.html Below is the federal Davis Bacon website for federal wages. http://www.wdol.gov/usrguide/index.aspx .CALIFORNIA CODES LABOR CODE SECTION 1720--1743 1.720. (a) As used in this chapter, "public works" means: (1) Construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for in whole or .inpart out of public funds, except work done directly by any public utility company pursuant to order of the Public Utilities Commission or other public authority. For purposes of this paragraph, "construction" includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction including, but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work. Comment: Inspection, design, and land surveying are subject to CA prevailing wages (2) Work done for irrigation, utility, reclamation, and improvement districts, and other districts of this type. "Public work" does not include the operation of the irrigation or drainage system of any irrigation or reclamation district, except as used in Section 1778 relating to retaining wages. (3) Street, sewer, or other improvement work done under the direction and supervision or by the authority of any officer cr public body of the state, or of any political subdivision or district thereof, whether the political subdivision or district operates under a freeholder's charter or not. (4) The laying of carpet done under a building lease -maintenance contract and paid for out of public funds. (5) The laying of carpet in a public building done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. 1813. The contractor or subcontractor shall, as a penalty to the state or political subdivision on whose behalf the contract is made or awarded, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the execution of the contract by the respective contractor or subcontractor for each calendar day during which the worker is required or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in .any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of this article. In awarding any contract for public 'work, the awarding body shall cause to be inserted in the contract a stipulation to this effect. The awarding body shall take cognizance of all violations of this article committed in the course of the execution of the contract, and shall report them to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement 1815. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 1810 to 1814,inclusive, of this code, and notwithstanding any stipulation inserted in any contract pursuant to the requirements of said sections, work performed by employees of contractors in excess of 8 hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week, shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than 1 1/2 times the basic rate of pay. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement - COMPLIANCE MUNITUKINU UNIT (CMU) rage 1 of z kkre400rnis to tile Californ4 . e! r 4.5 Division, of Labor Standards 'Enforcement Compik,nce Monitoring Unit (CMU) The Compliance Monitoring Unit or "CMU" is a new component within the DLSE that was created to monitor and enforce prevailing wage requirements on public works projects that receive state bond funding and on other projects that are legally required to use the CMU. The CMU began operations on January 1, 2012, following the recentadoption of AB 436 and approval of revisions to program regulations. By actively monitoring compliance on an ongoing basis while work is being performed, the CMU will play a special role in ensuring that public works construction workers are promptly paid the proper prevailing wage rates and in helping maintain a level playing field for contractors who comply with the law. . Effective Date and Applicability: The laws and regulations that govern the new program are effective January 1, 2012. Only projects for which the public works contract is awarded on or after January 1, 2012 are subject to the CMU requirements. Contracts awarded prior to January 1, 2012 will remain subject. to the prior monitoring and enforcement rules (labor compliance programs for some bond -funded or design -build projects or no specific monitoring requirement) for the life of those projects. PWC 100 Form — Awarding Bodies: Completion of this form puts you in compliance with the requirement to notify both the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Compliance Monitoring Unit of a public works awarded contract. Please complete and submit the electronic PWC 100 form. Definition of Awarding Body: An awarding body or body awarding the contract means department, board, authority, officer or agent awarding a contract for public work. In most cases the awarding body is a unit of state or local government; such as a city, county, school district, water district, special district, or a state agency. However, in some cases the body awarding the contract may be a private entity that uses public funds for a public works construction project. CMU requirements apply to: .» Any public works project paid for in whole or part out of public funds that are derived from bonds issued by the state, except Proposition 84 (2006 Water project bond initiative) Public entities that utilize design — build contracts as a project delivery method that has a CMU requirement within the authorizing statute %> Projects undertaken by an awarding body that elects to use the CMU on all of its projects. Exceptions (Le., projects not covered by CMU): Construction projects under the control of an awarding body that has been previously approved by the Department of Industrial Relations to operate its own in-house labor compliance program (LCP) for all projects. A list of approved in-house LCP programs is listed at www.dir.ca.gov/Icp.aso. >> Neither CMU nor LCP are required on projects covered by qualified project labor agreements (i.e. collective bargaining agreements that bind all contractors on the project and contain mechanisms for resolving wage disputes). Proposition 84-funded projects require LCP — no alternatives or exceptions. Any project that does not fall within the CMU requirements or one of the three exception categories listed above are not covered by CMU requirements. Such a project may include: -» A locally or federally funded project that does not receive any state bond funding or » Design -build projects that do not have a CMU requirement within the authorizing statute (including CSU design -build projects). Awarding Bodies Contractors Public meetings: Wednesday, filar. 14 — San Diego (click here to register) 1 PM-3PM San Diego Central Library Auditorium 820 E Street San Diego, CA Thursday, Mar. 15 — Los Angeles (click here to register) 1 PM-3PM http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/cmu/cmu.html 3/19/2012 Division of Labor Standards Enforcement _ COMPLIANCE A NCH' MON I' URINCi UN11 1 UMU 1 rage L oT G Serra State Building Auditorium 320 V11 4th Street Los Angeles, CA Webinar Materials >% Wr,•tr;h the General information-webinar recording - Jan. 5 and 6, 2012 51ide>s Questions and Answers log .,2- Watch the Awarding Bodies webinar recording Jan. 12 Siides 8 • Jan. 12 Questions and Answers log & Jan. 18 Slides Jan. 18 Questions and Answers log � » Watch the Contractors webinar recording Jan. 12 Slides Jan. 18 Slides Jan. 12 Questions and Answers log Jan. 18 Questions and Answers log Forms, Publications and Resources How do I file electronic payroll reports — My LCM? Notice regarding applications for approval of LCP to operate after January 1, 2012 startup of DIR/DLSE's new. Compliance Monitoring Unit Public works enforcement at D1R What the CMU adds to DLSE's traditional public works enforcement Job opportunities with CMU Contact us What's New .» Job opportunities with CMU >> Frequently asked questions January 2012 Conditions of Use I Privacy Policy Copyright © 2012 State of California http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/cmu/cmu.html 3/19/2012 EhLocal Assistance Guideline ailbruzs kequest for Federal Project Number District 8 October 2012 REQUEST FOR FEDERAL. PROJECT NUMBER A Federal Project Number (FPN) and Advantage ID Number are required for all projects that will be processed through the Local Assistance Unit. These numbers are required to track and identify all documentation processed through the Local Assistance Office. These numbers need to be on all documentation submitted to the Local Assistance Office. DOCUMENTATION / TASK* RESPONSIBILITY Initials or N/A Copies Local/PM DLAE/Staff Request for Federal Project Number Letter V ss 0 - U d .4 G 4 .Z O Local Assistance Project Prefixes_( Exhibit 3-1-) - V _ Current Project FTIP Sheet Showing Programmed Amount (if Lump Sum, attach backup sheet) ✓ Field Review Form ( Exhibit 7-B) ✓ Signature Page of Project Study Report (PSR) or Project Report (PR) [On State Highway] ✓ Executed Cooperative Agreement (as amended) [On State Highway] ✓ Confirm:&project does; not:: already exist in LP2000.. `/ Create FPN and Advantage ID No. Re -use an:FPN, :if possible: (For Projects on; State: Highway, use Capital; Advantage ID :from PM) Create a new project in D8 Local Assistance; Database V ' Print out project summary fromLP2000. V Create file folder and notify agency via. e-mail. V Note: (*)Additional information may be requested by the DLAE/Staff /HQ/FHWA at any time throughout the project. Things to Consider: • Although some projects have no federal funds, an FPN is still required for tracking purposes. • The Advantage ID number is a 10-digit number and requires any zeros in front be identified (i.e. 0800000123) • In determining project Prefixes with multiple funding, use the major source of funding (i.e. RSTPCML). • Confirm if Quality Assurance Plan for the agency is on file. • Confirm is Annual DBE is on file. District 8 Local Assistance Guidelines does not supersede the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) as/trans Local Assistance Guideline Right of Way Certification District 8 l9 October 2012 RIGHT OF WAS' CERTIFICATION The light' of. Way (ON) Certification is a document that is a required attachment for the Request for Authorization° (RFA) to Proceed with. Construction (Exhibit 3-D).. The document is submitted to the District Local Assistance Engineer and then forwarded for review and approval by the District Right of Way Local Program Coordinator. Short Form Right of Way Certification Project (Exhibit 13-A): This form is intended for projects that do not require R/W acquisition, relocation assistance, have no railroad involvement, and the only utility relocation involvement is limited to utility cover adjustments. * DOCUMENTATION / SUBMITTAL Initials or N/A Copies Short Form Right of Way Certification Project (Exhibit 13-A) - -c) 3co an .7.n O c" ' o Project map identifying where the work will take place Copy of the Resolution or Meeting Minutes that state who has the Authority to sign the Certification (Unless already on file with District R/W Unit) OR Right of Way Certification Local Assistance Project (Off State Highway System) [Exhibit 13-B]: This form is intended for projects Off the State Highway System that do not meet the Short Form criteria. (Note: keep only statements that pertain and delete others when separated by "OR') DOCUMENTATION / SUBMITTAL* Initials or N/A copies Right of Way Certification Local Assistance Project (Off State Highway System) [Exhibit 13-B] to v 0 0o 3 0 O Project map identifying any Railroads and all impacted parcels required. Map should include: ✓ Total square footage of each parcel being impacted ✓0 Type of interest for each parcel being acquired (i.e. TCE, P/T, F/T) ✓ Amount being acquired and what the remainder will be (in square footage) Ccpy of the Resolution or Meeting Minutes that state who has the Authority to sign the Certification (Unless already on file with District R/W Unit) Copy of Right of Entry or Possession & Use Agreements Copy of Order of Possession granted by the court Copies of Permits required for the project Note: (*) Additional information may be requested by the DLAE/Staff /HQ/FHWA on a project by project basis. Things to Consider: • Utilities (including cover adjustments) that are non -participating and participating need to be identified in the Right of Way Certification. These items need to be segregated in the RFA for Construction. • Utilities are non -participating unless a RFA to Proceed with Utility Relocation (Exhibit 3-C) is approved. • Utility cover adjustments, raising manhole covers and utility valves are non -participating items. District 8 Local Assistance Guidelines does not supersede the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) Local Assistance Guideline Request for Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering District 8 October 2012 REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING A Request for Authorization (RFA) to. Proceed with Preliminary Engineering (PE) is required in order to begin federally reimbursable PE work. DOCUMENTATION / SUBMITTAL* Initials or N/A Copies RFA to Proceed with PE (Exhibit 3-A) a> bll � cd ¢' -o >, �n o a � o Ln � 0 a o 0 � Executed Cooperative Agreement (as amended) Request for Capital Subvention Reimbursement Allocation (Exhibit 3-H) [if Caltrans will perform the work] b Notes: (*) Additional information may be requested by the DLAE/Staff /HQ/FHWA on a project by project asis. (2) For High -Risk, "Major" ITS Projects, a FHWA approved Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) is also required. What to Look for: • Annual DBE information is not in the correct federal fiscal year or not approved in Exhibit 3-E. • Project cost between Data Sheet (Exhibit 3-E), Finance Letter (Exhibit 3-0), and Field Review Form (Exhibit 7-B) need to be consistent. Things to Consider: • In Local Assistance, the Preliminary Engineering (PE) phase includes the Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED) and the Final Design (PS&E) phases. The "preliminary engineering phase," in project development context, is considered the PA&ED or Environmental phase in Local Assistance. This is imporl.ant to note if two separate RFAs to Proceed with PE will be submitted. It is not uncommon for an RFA to Proceed with PE to come in for two consecutive requests if the work clearly distinguishes the separation of work in the submitted documentation. The date of the approved environmental document is when Final Design or PS&E RFA can be submitted. • Therefore, an approved NEPA document will also be required in the above checklist if an RFA to Proceed with PE will be submitted for Final Design (PS&E). • Federal requirements do not allow the same contract consultant to bid for the PA&ED and PS&E phase work if the contracts or RFA to Proceed with PE are separate. District 8 Local Assistance Guidelines does not supersede the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) etLocal Assistance Guideline atm. Request for Authorization to Proceed with Construction 9 District 8 €;\), October 2012 REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION A project„ may not advertise, award, or begin construction until the Request for Authorization (RFA) to Proceed with Construction (CON) is approved. The authorizing document is the E-76. ,• -DOCUMENTATION / SUBMITTAL luitials or N/A i:opics RFA to Proceed with Construction (Exhibit 3-D) REA to Proceed Data Sheets (Exhibit 3-E) Current Project. (TIP Sheet. Showing Programmed Amount (if Lump Sum, attach backup sheet) Completed Finance Letter (Exhibit 3-0) 'Field Review Form (Exhibit 7-B) [Requires update if change in federal phase, i.e. PE-RW-CON] Applicable Attachments: - ❑ Collision Diagra:ir ❑ Field Review Attendance Roster ❑ Signal Warrants C 1! Vicinity Map ❑ ADA Deficiencies - ❑ Typical Roadway Geometric Section(s) ❑ Major Structure Data Sheet ❑ Roadway Data Sheets ❑ Railroad Crossing Data Sheet Approved NEPA. Document, and :<eValidation pit chance in fedora! p<<asc: i.c. , fA:\N-CON)` Approved Right of Way Certification (Exhibit 13-A or B) . PS&E Certification, Checklist, & Cost Estimate (Exhibits 1.2-C, 12-D, & 12-A) n . Local Agency Construction Contract Administration Checklist (Exhibit I5-A) 0 Emission:; :i-enefi ` alculation;/Study/Analysis•[fot CMAQ funds] Systems Engineering Review Form -(SERF) (Exhibit 7-I) [for ITS Projects]` n V: - AdditiondWocumentation Required [see spec f c cases] - 3 Transportation Enhancement (TE) Application Document [for TE funds] o FHWA Allocation Notification [for discretionary funds, i.e. PNRS, IMD] V) .°�° Ti California Transportation Commission (CTC) Allocation [State funds] o Public Interest Finding (PIF)/Cost Effectiveness (Exhibit 12-F) [if sole sourcing, contain proprietary items, or use of force account (work done by local agency staff)] .--, a 0 Final Value Analysis Report on file [roadway project >$25 million or bridge project >$20 million] Financial Plan [for project costs $100 million or more, but less than $500 million]3 5fdr'"4 '� �T- � �^' 4 3 F'Lia `'"y 3w,�.g �� h�? PAP.Odd'. - i'.s'�. r ., ; - l 1 ional, e tm�''''' `a�13�e, §PA or, P`ro dd'. �if `State rg�Cway j � �� �, � ��.,, Z.'�;Sw `�.tx'4 ,- s�rW,,, .., ,� '�::r'�=. _L,.._ .,-.:`xx. .".'i..._r,k 'x. i'A. :, A'4,-t,?.ti6 t.+ ...- Y„�.',',4 � .- 1 J 'e , �� - Authorizing Local Federal Funds for Locally -Administered Projects — Attachment C (DLA-OB 11-13)' Signature Page of Project Study Report (PSR) or Project Report (PR) Executed Cooperative Agreement (as amended) Encroachment Permit (not required if AAA by Caltrans) Ready To List (RTL) Certification Modified or New Access Report (if interchange modification on Interstate) Request for Capital Subvention Reimbursement Allocation (Exhibit 3-H) [if AAA by Caltrans] Notes: (*) Additional information may be requested by the DLAE/Staff/HQ/FHWA on a project by project basis. . (I) Re -Validation is also required for change in scope, settings, effects, or mitigation measure;, or beyond 3-years timeline (EIS only). (2) For High -Risk, "Major" ITS Projects, a FHWA approved Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) is also required. (3) An annual Financial Plan and Project Management Plan is required for project costs of $500 million or more. District 8 Local Assistance Guidelines does not supersede the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) Local Assistance Guideline r�s` Request for Authorization to Proceed with Construction District October 2012 What to Look for: • • RFA Data Sheets (Exhibit 3-E) - Annual DBE information is not in current federal fiscal year. • Cost Estimate (Exhibit 12-A) - Traffic Control must be a line item per CFR 23. • PS&E Checklist (Exhibit 12-D): X. — Project Plans and Specifications: Check all applicable boxes. XII, B., 1. — If Q An unmodified copy of FI-WA Form 1273, then section XII, B., 2, Modification of FHWA Form 127, should be left blank. XII; E. — DBE goals need to be filled out and will be used to compare with Award Package submittal XII, F. — `Buy America" waiver is required for purchase of Hybrid & Alternate Fuel Vehicles. Waiver process will take a minimum of 6 months to process. • Project costs between Data Sheet (Exhibit 3-E), Finance Letter (Exhibit 3-0), Field Review Form (Exhibit 7- B) and cost estimate (Exhibit-12A)need to be consistent. Things to Consider: • A Formal Field Review (LAPM, Chapter 7) is required for projects >$10 million, unusual structures, or complex projects. • For all Federal -aid projects, a minimum of three weeks for project advertisemeni. is required. • Confirm if Quality Assurance Plan for the agency is on file. • Confirm if annual DBE is on file. District 8 Local Assistance Guidelines does not supersede the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 19, 2012 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: Draft Federal Fiscal Year 2011/12 Obligation Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each year, states are allocated federal STP and CMAQ funds that are suballocated to the regions (or counties) based on the specific funding distributions for each fund source. Caltrans requires each region to prepare an obligation plan that identifies each project that is scheduled for obligation in the current fiscal year. This plan provides critical information to RCTC on the need to develop contingency plans, such as loans between regions or project substitution, based on the target amount of federal funds that needs to be obligated during the fiscal year. Likewise, the plan allows Caltrans to monitor the rate of obligations and develop contingency plans for use of any funds that may not be obligated at a statewide level. The expectation is for each region to obligate 100% of its STP and CMAQ allocations or Obligation Authority (OA). Regions have until May 1st of each year to obligate their annual OA target, after which the OA becomes available for use by other regions within the state. If the state as a whole does not use all of the OA, then the unobligated balance will return to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for redistribution to other states that have obligated 100% of the OA. This is an opportunity that allows states to obligate more federal funding than initially received. This is referred to as "August Redistribution". Therefore, while some projects simply can not obligate earlier than the schedule allows because of issues such as environmental or right of way certification requirements, staff encourages agencies to obligate as early as possible. This increases the likelihood that there will be OA available for the project in the current fiscal year and may even bring more OA for Riverside County agencies than originally anticipated. The FFY 2011/12 obligation plan will be submitted to Caltrans by the April 1, 2012, deadline. Based on the draft plan (attached), it is possible that more OA is required than is expected to be available. If projects stay on the schedules shown in the plan, RCTC will work with other regions to arrange OA loans so that project obligations are not delayed. However, because there are several large projects that will be submitted late in the fiscal year, it is unlikely this will be required. If some of the planned obligations are delayed, there is a risk of losing any unobligated balances because of August Redistribution going to other states or even FHWA rescissions of unobligated balances. There have been a couple of fiscal years that Riverside County did not obligate 100% of its OA. In these instances, RCTC "loaned" OA to regions that could obligate above their OA levels. Per Ca!trans' OA Management policy, OA that is loaned is protected from being lost to the county as long as the state obligates 100% of the OA. Agencies are encouraged to notify RCTC when projects that are contained in the delivery plan begin to experience delay. This will allow staff the time necessary to develop contingency plans that ensure federal funds are not lost to the region. Agencies should contact RCTC staff by March 28, 2012, if projects are missing from the plan or if project information contained in the plan has changed. Attachment: Draft FFY2011/12 Obligation Plan Local Assistance Obligation Plan Obligation Authority needs for remainder pfFFY2D12 AB1012 Requirements Due: April 1,2012 (Should include all obligations from April t, 2012 and later) Please do not change, alter O[modify this temp ate Lnxu Agency Project Number (enter as: mp ,234(m7);xnot known please provide the pw.m FnP°pPNunumber) axvnoyatm�� Remarks Enter any comments or additional information and provide " contact, with " name xphone number. forv"=o"", u Riverside County mv990701 anoowanevWay /omNVTransfer 6/1/2012 sonoou $500,000 Initially submitted cost adjustment o/2o10 ' eligibility concerns Cathedral City mvu 1u47 East Palm Canyon Signal Synch 4/1/2012 »nnoo *c*r.00u Submitted Cons nrA 10/2011 Riverside mvo moo Iowa Ave Grade Separation 4/1/2012 0000000 $3,550,000 Submitted Cons nn^1uzo11 Riverside County mvo 1osn Mecca Community Roundabout 4/15m012 c000000 $2,000,000 Submitted Cons nFA 1/2012 onmno mv01 1241 Auto Center Grade Separation 4/1/2012 *r*aon '16000000 (m1s.sr4.soo) Submitted cost adjustment uoo10 Riverside County mv060123 Clay mua 6/1m012 0000000 $6,000,000 Submit nxwnn^muu1u mn/o mv091208 Jackson msignal synch 8/1/2012 xououu $332,000 Submit Cons mn^muo1u Coachella nm0712*6 Ave. ouoo 9/1m012 u000000 $2,500,000 Submit RAN npAoon1u Palm Desert mv031208 |'1oatMonterey Ave IC 8/1/2012 xrxono 0000uoo $u.**r.000 Submit Cons mn^smn1u Palm Desert mvo 1owo Free u'Fred mmnng/1 11 8/1/2012 531000 $531.000 Submit Cons npAee 12 ncro mve20109 Perris Valley Line 9/15m01e a000000 su*000uo ysx.*yo.000 Submit transfer request muo1u nuru mv120201 oR-6oTruck Climbing Lane 9/1m012 os00000 *o.sou.00u Submit pxuEonpxmuo1u Riverside County mvu 1oro Magnolia Ave oa 9/15m012 16400000 u16.*00.000 Submit Cons npAnmo1u Cathedral City mv01 1212 Ramon nuWidening 4/15/2012 1624000 y1.524.000 Submitted Cons npA 12/2011 Cathedral City mvo oo1 Ramon Road Improvements 7/1/2012 408000 $408.000 Submit Cons nFAwuo1u Riverside County ***oo un-7oWidening ph 1 4/15/2012 *310000 <m5.310.000> Submitted cost adjustment 11om11 Riverside County *6460 oR-7oWidening p»u 4/15/2012 7310000 u7.310.000 Submitted Cons npxumu1u Moreno Valley mv090117 un*mwauunoo 7/1m012 wouoou $4.100.000 Submit Cons mFAwuu1u noro n|v00000u |-210Blaine mmLx 9/15m012 uuu0000 $2,000,000 Submit Cons npAneo1u ncro mvu 0000 /-210Central Widening 9/1/2012 n0000000 $56,000,000 ornallocation aohouu/eum,Ju|y AGENDA ITEM 11 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 11. AGENDA ITEM 12 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 12.