The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About03 March 20, 2017 Technical AdvisoryTECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Commission Staff Anne Mayer, Executive Director Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director TIME: 10:30 A.M. DATE: March 20, 2017 LOCATION: Coachella Valley Association of Governments Board Room 73710 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 COMMITTEE MEMBERS Ahmad Ansari, City of Moreno Valley Bob Moehling, City of Murrieta Armando Baldizzone, City of Blythe Farshid Mohammadi, City of Riverside – VICE CHAIR Chad Blais, City of Norco Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris and Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert San Jacinto - CHAIR K. George Colangeli, PVVTA Nelson Nelson, City of Corona John Corella, City of Cathedral City Aaron Palmer, City of Canyon Lake Brad Fagrell, City of Lake Elsinore Daniel Porras, City of Desert Hot Springs Marcus Fuller, City of Palm Springs Patricia Romo, County of Riverside Christopher Gray, WRCOG Mark Sambito, City of Rancho Mirage Jonathan Hoy, City of Coachella Ken Seumalo, City of Indian Wells – CHAIR Joe Indrawan, City of Eastvale Jonathan Smith, City of Menifee Amer Jakher, City of Beaumont Patrick Thomas, City of Temecula Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Michael Thornton, City of Calimesa Rohan Kuruppu, Riverside Transit Agency Art Vela, City of Banning Vacant, City of Hemet Timothy T. Wassil, City of Indio Steve Loriso, City of Jurupa Valley Sean Yeung, Caltrans District 8 Martin Magana, CVAG Dan York, City of Wildomar COMM-TAC-00055 .. AGENCY TAC MEMBER BANNING ART VELA Director of Public Works TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 20, 2017 PLEASE SIGN IN ALTERNATE PRINT NAME Acting I Holly Stuart Public Works Analyst BEAUMONT JAMERJAKHER Public Works Director/City Engineer 1----------------Elizabeth M. Gibbs-Urtiaga Interim City Manager BLYTHE 1 ARMANDO BALDIZZONE I CALIMESA Director of Public Works [ [ CVAG ----I MARTIN MAGA~---+-i;;~t.l ¥\AMNA Director ofTransportatlon I [ ·-•• · -1MICHAEL THORNTON ____ --fsob-Fren~ ---1 -------City Engineer 'Public Works Director 1 -Local As-sis-ta-nc~ En-gin_e~r -i (1/o "}1!!d_ /flCt_n_~ i e <I_,, __ CANYON LAKE 1 I Ye v11i SIGNATURE and EMAIL +~~ 1--------------i {-j;;y-_ --+-----CATHEDRAL CITY tOHN CORELLA -f------·+------City jBill Simons Engineer 1 Senior Engineer L ____ _l_ -----COACHELLA !JONATHAN HOY Maritza Martinez City Engineer Interim Public Works Director 1coR~-----I NELSON NELSON _ [ Linda Bazmi L _ _i~lic Works Director/~ty Engin~e~ ~enior Engineer DESERT HOT I DANIEL PORRAS Public I Richard Kopecky SPRINGS Works Manager I Contract City Engineer ~,ff 51~-,7 -'-------------i I __ I~ ! --I I I I ! --------------------~--DA-~i\-unit~-~ -l...1t\JOA ,(Sf\'Z/Y\~<? GA ·~~ .. <!ft .OS -------------1------~------I AGENCY TAC MEMBER EASTVALE JOE INDRAWAN HEMET ------+----------INDIAN WELLS INDIO ---JURUPA VALLEY KEN SEUMALO -CHAIR Public Works Director TIMOTHYT. WASSIL Public Works Director I STEVE LORISO Deputy TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 20, 2017 PLEASE SIGN IN ALTERNATE Craig Bradshaw !Bc>nciie Baker Assistant Engineer II Eric Weck Principal Civil Engineer ,Jim Smith PRINT NAME i(.€..1 ~~Al~ C1111v w ii-5 s. L Public Works Director/ City Engineer I Director of Public Works/ ! City Engineer ~:>~~ ~~l I I --[TIMOTHY JONASSON LA QUINTA Works Director/City Engineer LAKE ELSINORE I BRAD FAGRELL Engineer ---I JONATHAN SMITH MENIFEE Public Works Director/City Engineer Public City I Edward Wimmer I Principal Engineer I !Jason-Simpson I !Assistant City Manager I I Steve Glynn --l \ Vv\. J crvu:>-<; s ~ --MORENO VALLEY I AHMAD ANSARI Public I Eric Lewis ---------------+-------tquc /.-fMJI !::> MURRIETA NORCO Works Director/City Engineer BOB MOEHLING Engineer !CHAD BLAIS I Works Director Transportation Division Manager/City Traffic Engineer City I Jeff Hitch Public Works Construction Manager Public I Bill Thompson Water and Sewer Utilities SIGNATURE ~ --------------AGENCY TAC MEMBER PALM DESERT BO CHEN City Engineer .. ---PALM SPRINGS MARCUS FULLER Assistant City Manager/City Engineer -·· PVVTA K. GEORGE COLANGELI Transit General Manager -----PERRIS HABIB MOTLAGH City IE . 1 ngmeer i -----· ----RTA ROHAN KURUPPU RANCHO MIRAGE MARK SAMBITO Director of Public Works ------·-RIVERSIDE FARSHID MOHAMMAD! -VICE CHAIR i •• 1-.... RIVERSIDE COUNTY PATRICIA ROMO Assistant Director of Transportation I ~--··-----+ ---· ---SAN JACINTO HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer --· ---·--SUNLINE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 20, 2017 PLEASE SIGN IN ALTERNATE PRINT NAME Mark Diercks Transportation Engineer SIGNATURE and EMAIL ·--·+--·· --~-·-··---Savat Khamphou i I ·-· --· Dale Reynolds ---·· ---------------------------------------------------------·-~~ Br~ ~h"t 0n.A !Sc-.. ~y ~~-@.hi:ke~"-~ ·····------------Kristin Warsinski Planning and Programming i Specialist ! u~~ ·--· Bill Enos I vUA~K 54-M'°rm City Engineer I i I -+ --Kris Martinez I Public Works Director ! Mojahed Salama 1 V7 ----------I~~ br-.J.~.AnJeikuMs()I· J ~r~ ~'ophf ___ lSr~ ~r1it1~ co I I IAnita M. Petke 1Transit Planning Manager ~ \"'\ \ \-c..... ~ -:-v,Q.~ _ ;j~ , o..~.v\--..e.,Qsu. I I ft f~A ,A--/77PL. t ---!Amer Attar -·· ~ ·--~ ·-----------·--·-TEMECULA PATRICT THOMAS ~ ~.::/ ·-·,..-=:..... -c:::: Interim Public Works Director I -;/ ~ ·-----+-------.. -··-I . ·-·------·---·-----·----~-------------L.i. ........ s. (lt/P ~ AGENCY WRCOG TAC MEMBER TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 20, 2017 PLEASE SIGN IN ALTERNATE PRINT NAME CHRISTOPHER GRAY Chris Tzeng SIGNATURE and EMAIL Director of Transportation/ , Program Manager 'wiLDoMAR -loAN YORK ~ H -• 1Matt Ben0ett [ ~~:,istant City Manager/Director of Pub .. I ic ~R0fG l"~,,of,,_ ---1 ~ ~r .. 1-~~ I I ~unLl"4 1~sy11t¥tf __ . __ __ · AN flj ~~ J:;};:± e,r";"ist'::'. ~iv'·Go' T~~ Rv~sel/ u/i' f /,~.5 I :u.wilf,'4/! rivco.? ~CTD _____,_,.1 ~ s "-{ .,_,,,,_ _ j M ~CL ht. 2:. s.._ l~~ I IJ,\, ~ ~ \""-.....,,. ~ rwc"' . ~ I J..so,_, fae-/e: !4fJ~~ J;..{~q:7:~· a-, ~ __ J_ ---·--1-? ------l:PAVl ~P-t ..... E.~ I 'V'A\1\ ~ ~1-i' -~ ~hy-f 1«~ ---·--+ K V\J"\ 5, -/Yj yq ~ I ~_,,i' "'.Jf'~"@ d-,,+ .,.-q "" v I C"'-~57 - -\:)'; )tfll\: _<b RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:30 A.M. (PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE) DATE: March 20, 2017 LOCATION: Coachella Valley Association of Governments Board Room 73710 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787‐7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Self-Introductions 3. Approval of January 23, 2017 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. RIVTAM Model Presentation by Chris Gray, WRCOG (Attachment) 6. Regional Truck Study and Development and Implementation of a Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee (Attachment) 7. SB-821 Announcement (Verbal Presentation) 8. 2013 Multi-Funding Call for Projects Update Savings (Attachment) 9. Caltrans Local Assistance Update (Verbal Presentation) 10. Southern California Local Assistance Management Meeting (SCLAMM) Announcement (Attachment) 11. Measure A CIP FY 2017/18 – FY 2021/22 (Attachment) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 20, 2017 Page 2 12. Other Business 13. March Commission Highlights 14. Other Announcements 15. Adjournment (The next meeting will be May 15 in Riverside AT 10:00 a.m.) MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 23, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order by Chair Ken Seumalo at 10:05 a.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501. 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS Members Present: Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert John Corella, City of Cathedral City Jeff Hitch, City of Murrieta Jonathan Hoy, City of Coachella Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Martin Magana, CVAG Farshid Mohammadi, City of Riverside Nelson Nelson, City of Corona Anita Petke, SunLine Transit Agency Patricia Romo, County of Riverside Ken Seumalo, City of Indian Wells Chris Tzeng, WRCOG Art Vela, City of Banning Kristin Warsinski, Riverside Transit Agency Timothy T. Wassil, City of Indio Ed Wimmer, City of La Quinta Sean Yeung, Caltrans Others Present: Grace Alvarez, RCTC Ati Askandari, City of Lake Elsinore Brad Brophy, Tri-Lake Consultants Jenny Chan, Caltrans Martha Durbin, RCTC Shirley Gooding, RCTC Mike Heath, City of Calimesa Gil Hernandez, City of Riverside Darla Matthews, Caltrans Shirley Medina, RCTC Lorelle Moe -Luna, RCTC Monica Morales, RCTC 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The November 21, 2016 minutes were approved as submitted. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 23, 2017 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 5. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP) FINAL STATEWIDE PROJECTS AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) RECOMMENDATION Lorelle Moe -Luna, RCTC, said that two weeks ago, staff took recommendations to the Commission. $6.6 million was approved for three projects. They were: • County Public Health Safe Routes to School Program for Banning and Cabazon • City of Jurupa Valley's Pacific Avenue Safe Routes to School • CVAG CV Link 6. SCAG SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING GRANT (SPG) RECOMMENDATIONS UPDATE Ms. Moe -Luna stated that SCAG's sustainable planning grants program call for projects ended in November for which there was about $9 Million available. Of that amount, $2.8 Million was coming from the ATP. RCTC staff assisted SCAG in evaluating the Riverside County applications. The projects that were planning or non -infrastructure were eligible to be automatically considered for SCAG's SPG program. In total, there were the three that came from ATP and eight additional projects that were submitted for a total of 11. As of today, SCAG has not released its final recommendations. It is anticipated that the recommendations will be available in the next couple of weeks. The draft recommendations for just the ATP portion are being recommended to go towards the county's safe routes to school project for eastern Coachella Valley for a total of $348,000. 7. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Jenny Chan, Caltrans, provided a presentation of the Active Transportation Program Reporting Requirements and responded to various questions. 8. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SALT CREEK MULTI -MODAL TRAIL SCOPE MODIFICATION As part of the 2013 Multi -Funding Call for projects, the Commission approved $5,090,000 for the construction phase of a 7.2-mile multi -modal urban trail along the Salt Creek Flood Control Channel connecting the communities of Hemet, Menifee, and Canyon Lake. The proposed project would build a 16 ft. hard surface Class I bikeway to allow for use by alternate energy vehicles, flanked by 10-12 ft. wide soft surface decomposed granite pedestrian trail - refer to Exhibit C included in your staff report. Through the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) submittal, it was determined that the project would impact sensitive habitat, cultural resources, and jurisdictional waters, resulting in considerable cost increases to cover environmental mitigation costs associated with the cultural impacts, additional floodplain analysis, right-of-way acquisition, and installation of pedestrian -activated traffic signals at three street crossings, in addition to major project delays. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 23, 2017 Page 3 In order to move forward with the project implementation, the County is proposing to reduce the original scope of the project from 7.2-miles to 5.2-miles, reducing the 2-mile length at the easterly most limits of the project at a location where Domenigoni Parkway in Hemet has sufficient shoulder width to accommodate bicyclist and pedestrians to allow for continuity and a connection to the proposed trail along the Salt Creek Channel — refer to Exhibit B included in your staff report. The western segment between Menifee and Canyon Lake remains the same. Additionally, the 16 ft. hard surface Class I bikeway will be reduced to 14 ft., and the pedestrian/equestrian trail would be reduced from 10 ft. to 5 ft.; shoulder will remain at 2 ft. on each side. M/S/C (Corella/Mohammadi) to approve Riverside County's request to reduce the scope of work for the Salt Creek Trail. 9. CITY OF RIVERSIDE CMAQ REPROGRAMMING REQUEST FOR THE MAGNOLIA AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT SYSTEM Ms. Alvarez reported that this agenda item is a request by the city of Riverside to reprogram $637,500 of Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding from the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the State Route 91 for preliminary engineering only to the Magnolia Avenue traffic signal interconnect system. The Magnolia Avenue Traffic Signal Interconnect is another of the 18 CMAQfunded projects from the 2013 Multi -Funding Call for Projects. The funding requested and approved was $1,387,500 (combination of CMAQ $1,012,500 and MSRC $375,000) for the upgrades of the Magnolia Avenue traffic signal interconnect system that replaces the outdated copper interconnect with new fiber optic cable to improve signal synchronization and communications between Buchanan and First Streets encompassing 49 signalized intersections and spanning approximately 10.4 miles. The Magnolia Avenue traffic signal interconnect system received federal authorization to proceed with construction on September 20, 2016. Subsequent to federal funding approval in September 2016, the City proceeded to advertise for construction bids. The bids received exceeded the funding available to implement the traffic signal interconnect by $826,000. Therefore, the City is requesting the reprogramming of $637,500 of federal CMAQ funds from the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over SR- 91 to the Magnolia Avenue traffic signal interconnect system to offset the contract increase; the remaining $188,500 funding shortfall will be covered by the City through a combination of local funds and Air Quality apportionments. The pedestrian/bicycle bridge over SR-91 is another CMAQfunded project from the 2013 Multi - Funding Call for Projects; funding approval was for preliminary engineering in the amount of $637,500. The preliminary engineering for the pedestrian and bicycle bridge is on hold mainly due to the Marketplace Specific Plan underway by the city of Riverside. The Marketplace Specific Plan will determine the feasibility of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over SR-91. Additional CMAQ funds can be approved by Caltrans through the contract award package, provided RCTC approves the obligation of additional funding as a result of high bids. Staff supports the requested reprogramming request. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 23, 2017 Page 4 M/S/C (Wassil/Romo) to reprogram $637,500 of Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding from the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the State Route 91 for preliminary engineering only to the Magnolia Avenue traffic signal interconnect system. 10. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE Sean Yeung, Caltrans, reported there are only four projects listed as inactive and of those four, only one needs to submit an invoice to Caltrans no later than February 20. The next due date for inactive projects would be May 19. 11. FEDERAL OBLIGATION PLAN FFY 2016/17 Martha Durbin, RCTC, stated that it is the Commission's goal to help obligate 100 percent of its federal apportionment every year. She further stated that RCTC and Caltrans meet every month to review and discuss the status of CMAQ and STP projects awarded through various call for projects that are part of the FFY 2016/17 obligation plan. If 100 percent of the obligation authority is not utilized, apportionments/funds may be loaned to other counties per AB 1012. Additionally, if our region obligates 100 percent or more, Riverside County can also benefit from the State's August Re - Distribution of OA from FHWA. Staff encourages you to start your federal aid process early in the year. Sean Yeung added that on the listing attached to the agenda there is a due date to local assistance and stated it is acceptable to submit before the due date. 12. 2017 FTIP UPDATE Ms. Alvarez reported that the 2017 FTIP officially replaced the 2015 FTIP on December 16, 2016, the date of adoption. She provided SCAG's website http://ftip.scag.ca.gov/Pages/2017/approved.aspx to view the listing. 13. MEASURE A CIP FY 2017/18 — FY 2021/22 ANNOUNCEMENT Lorelle Moe -Luna announced that staff will send out the Measure A CIP notice letters on February 6. 14. SB 821 CALL FOR PROJECTS Ms. Durbin stated that each year two percent of the Local Transportation Fund revenue is set aside for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB 821 Program. This discretionary program is administered by the Commission. A formal call for projects will be released on February 6 on Planet Bids. Staff will host a technical workshop at RCTC February 16, 1:30, Conference Room C. Proposals will be due April 27. There is approximately $3.4 million available. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 23, 2017 Page 5 15. OTHER BUSINESS • ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR Farshid Mohammadi, City of Riverside, was nominated and unanimously elected Vice Chair of the Technical Advisory Committee. • TAC MEETING LOCATION Shirley Medina, RCTC, announced that the TAC meetings will alternate between Riverside and The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) instead of Beaumont City Hall, commencing March 20. 16. JANUARY COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS • FY 17 MID -YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS Ms. Medina reported that the Commission approved FY 2016/17 revenue projections outlined in the January 11 staff report. • FY 18 REVENUE PROJECTIONS Ms. Medina reported that the Commission approved FY 2017/18 revenue projections for Measure A, LTF, and TUMF as outlined in the January 11 staff report provided. She further reported that there was discussion regarding the MPO/ATP recommendations. There were advocates who provided testimony to disqualify CV Link from the MPO recommendations. The Commission recommended and supports the project. SCAG is expected to present a final recommendation on February 2 and finally approved at the CTC meeting of March 15-16. 17. OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS The Commission meeting and workshop will be held in Palm Springs this Thursday and Friday, January 26 and 27. The Commission meeting will start at 1:30 followed by the workshop. At the January 18 CTC meeting, there was discussion regarding the 2018 STIP. It is hoped there will not be another negative STIP and that there will be funds to make whole the projects that were reduced or deleted from the last STIP cycle. We had to remove over $30 million from the I-15/French Valley Interchange and it is hoped those funds will be restored. RCTC has been working with the legislators on increasing revenue for transportation. She encouraged the TAC members to meet with their representatives to at least get funding for rehabilitation -type projects. The next priority is to increase funding for the STIP. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 23, 2017 Page 6 At the January CTC meeting, there was an ATP project from the city of Laguna Hills funded in Cycle 1 in which a scope change was requested. The CTC denied the request. In response to a question regarding CMAQ, Ms. Medina stated staff can provide an update on projections; however, currently most of the CMAQ funds have been committed. Over $100 million is expected to be obligated this year for the 1-15 Express Lanes. RCTC is expecting guidance from the long-range transportation planning efforts that will be started this year. Martha Durbin said she has a list of the projects that were awarded SB821 in 2015/16. She recommended looking at her list to see if extensions are needed, etc. 18. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Medina Planning and Programming Director AGENDA ITEM 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 20, 2017 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Senior Management Analyst, Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Riverside County Travel Demand Model (RIVTAM) Update by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide input on the RIVTAM Update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The initial development of RIVTAM began in 2009 and was a collaborative effort involving six agencies: County of Riverside, RCTC, WRCOG, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the California Department of Transportations (Caltrans). The primary goal of developing RIVTAM was to provide a greater level of detail for land use and transportation forecasting in Riverside County, while maintaining consistency with the SCAG Regional Transportation Model (RTM). At the time the model was finalized, it used the most recent data from the SCAG Regional Transportation Model (RTM), which was Existing Year Data for 2008 and Forecast Year Data for 2035. These forecasts are used in a wide range of studies including General Plans, Specific Plans, corridor studies, interchange studies, environmental documents, the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Programs in Western Riverside and the Coachella Valley, and for locally implemented Development Impact Fees (DIF). Since the initial model was developed a comprehensive update to RIVTAM has not occurred. WRCOG has reached out to partner agencies, agency staff from its member jurisdictions, and conducted a needs assessment survey, and the feedback received supports the need to undergo a RIVTAM update. WRCOG has a vested interest in committing financial resources and staff time to support the RIVTAM update because future TUMF Nexus Studies rely heavily on updated regional travel demand models and member agencies have expressed a strong desire to use RIVTAM for a variety of planning and infrastructure projects. WRCOG has had initial discussions with the partner agencies regarding their interest in participating in an update of RIVTAM and would like to finalize those discussions so the RIVTAM update process can begin. Some key issues that need to be fina lized are as follows:  Are jurisdictions in the Coachella Valley interested in a RIVTAM update?  Which agencies are available to contribute financially to an update?  Which agencies would like to participate in the update process?  Does the existing RIVTAM MOU require restructuring?  Is there concurrence on the model elements to be updated? 1 WRCOG RCTC TAC March 20, 2017 5.C.Riverside County Traffic Analysis (RIVTAM) Update Public Works Committee 2 WRCOG RCTC TAC March 20, 2017 Transportation Director Report RIVTAM Background •Development of the RIVTAM was completed in May 2009 •Agencies that participated: -TLMA, Caltrans, CVAG, RCTC, SCAG, and WRCOG •Data utilized in RIVTAM is from the SCAG Regional Transportation Model available in 2009: Base Year Data –2008 and Forecast Year Data –2035 •Goal of developing RIVTAM was to provide a greater level of detail in Riverside County •Initially, TLMA, WRCOG, and RCTC each contributed $250,000 for RIVTAM development 3 WRCOG RCTC TAC March 20, 2017 Transportation Director Report RIVTAM Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) •MOU was executed with the participating agencies •MOU identified key elements needed: -RIVTAM maintenance -How RIVTAM would be utilized by the MOU signatories -Updates to RIVTAM -Use of RIVTAM by other governmental jurisdictions and by private entities -Technical guidelines 4 WRCOG RCTC TAC March 20, 2017 Transportation Director Report Why does RIVTAM need to be updated? •Significant challenge facing agencies is the need to develop long-terms forecasts of future travel behavior using socio-economic and transportation data -Since 2008 was beginning of the Great Recession, many assumptions incorporated into the model may be considered aggressive related to land use assumptions •Utilized to ensure transportation projects are planned, designed, and constructed based on best forecasts available •Models require regular updates to remain relevant and reflect the current state of infrastructure -RCTC and CVAG continue to build projects that expand the transportation network 5 WRCOG RCTC TAC March 20, 2017 RIVTAM Needs Assessment –Survey Results •3 different groups identified to offer insights from their utilization of RIVTAM –1. RIVTAM users, 2. RIVTAM data users, and 3. Riverside County jurisdictions •Preliminary survey questions developed and shared with PWC, PDC, and MOU signatories •Survey questions were revised and placed on Survey Monkey, and sent out in late August and early September for feedback •Feedback was received for the following: -RIVTAM users –7 respondents -RIVTAM data users –6 respondents -Riverside County jurisdictions –9 respondents 6 WRCOG RCTC TAC March 20, 2017 RIVTAM Needs Assessment –Survey Results •Survey respondents indicate several features of RIVTAM should be kept –model is user-friendly •Feedback on a possible RIVTAM update, responses had overarching themes: 1.Update is needed for consistency –SCAG TDM, RTP/SCS, CEQA challenges 2.Updates are needed to update network and SED 3.When an update is developed, transparency is needed (in the form of documentation and make source files available to all users) 4.Update should reflect emerging transportation trends –multi-modal transportation planning, ride-sourcing, automated vehicles 7 WRCOG RCTC TAC March 20, 2017 Conclusion •Based on feedback from MOU signatories, discussions with agency staff in Western Riverside County, and the surveys, there is a strong desire to undergo a RIVTAM update. •RIVTAM Update Work Plan has been drafted and shared with MOU signatories for review and comment. •Work Plan is to further define how an update might occur and contains two elements: 1.Series of model specifications which the RIVTAM will have to meet. 2.Scope of Work for RIVTAM update. •Two advantages to approach in Work Plan: 1.Encourages technical experts to recommend innovative approaches and identify best practices that have been implemented 2.Allows a more expansive discussion of tradeoffs when evaluating a proposed cost 8 WRCOG RCTC TAC March 20, 2017 WRCOG’s Commitment •WRCOG is willing to commit financial resources and staff time to support RIVTAM update based on two main factors: 1.WRCOG anticipates preparing future TUMF Nexus Studies 2.WRCOG member agencies have expressed a strong desire to use RIVTAM for planning and infrastructure projects •WRCOG has had initial discussions with the other MOU signatories regarding their interest in participating in an update 9 WRCOG RCTC TAC March 20, 2017 Key Issues to be Finalized •WRCOG would like to finalize the discussions with MOU signatories ASAP so update process can commence •Some key issues to be finalized: -Are jurisdictions in the Coachella Valley interested in a RIVTAM update? -Which agencies are available to contribute financially to an update? -Which agencies would like to participate in the update process? -Does the existing RIVTAM MOU require restructuring? -Is there concurrence on the model elements to be updated? AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 20, 2017 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Regional Truck Study and Development and Implementation of a Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In July 2016, the Commission, the county of Riverside (County), city of Moreno Valley (Moreno Valley), and Highland Fairview entities came to a settlement agreement in response to litigation involving the World Logistics Center (WLC). The Commission and the County had filed suit challenging the environmental impact report in order to ensure adequate mitigation to address added impacts created by the WLC project. Additional lawsuits were f iled by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and a number of environmental organizations. The eventual settlement agreement was finalized to provide needed funding for infrastructure efforts that would help mitigate the impacts of this kind of development throughout the County and to do so in a way that would encourage ongoing economic development and job creation for County residents. A key provision of the settlement requires the Commission, the County, Moreno Valley, and Highland Fairview to conduct a regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics-related regional fee. A result of the study could be a new a program that the County and cities in the County could adopt. Such a program would, for example, set a fee on new distribution ce nter warehouses, based on facility size, to help pay for road improvements. If the County or at least 75 percent of the Commission’s member cities adopt a regional warehouse fee within two years after a final court judgment is issued, Highland Fairview will pay 65 cents per square foot for each operating warehouse within the WLC. If no regional fee is adopted, the fee would be 50 cents per square foot. Proceeds would be used for projects identified as part of the regional truck study. The County, Moreno Valley, and Highland Fairview are each required to pay $250,000 to the Commission to conduct the regional transportation study and evaluate the potential for a regional, logistics-related fee on distribution centers and warehouses. The Commission is als o required to contribute $250,000 to the effort. As per the terms of the agreement, Moreno Valley and Highland Fairview’s payment toward the regional study is required to be made no more than 60 days after a final judgment determines that the WLC’s EIR fully complies with state environmental law and that the WLC may legally proceed. A final judgment has not been reached since litigation between Moreno Valley, Highland Fairview, and a number of environmental groups has not been resolved. Moreno Valley and Highland Fairview also must pay $100,000 each for logistics-related studies. Of that, $100,000 will pay for truck and logistics-related studies by the Center for Environmental Research and Technology. The Community Translational Research Institute will use the other $100,000 for public health research and programs. The settlement agreement also requires another $3 million to be paid to the Commission, $2 million of which would be used for engineering studies and project development work for expanding State Route 60 between the Interstate 215 and Gilman Springs Road. The other $1 million would go toward the same work for the Theodore Street interchange at SR -60. Those amounts will be paid within 10 days after a certificate of occupancy is issued for the 4 million square foot of warehouse space within the WLC. All told, the overall settlement between the Commission, the County, Moreno Valley, and Highland Fairview has the potential of generating as much as $26.4 million for regional transportation improvements from this single development. Approval of a regional fee would then have the potential of generating additional revenue on similar developments in the future. Implementing the Study Long before a fee program can ever be instituted is the need for a stud y that quantifies the magnitude of future, similar developments throughout Riverside County, and the anticipated truck traffic impacts of these developments on major highway facilities. While the study effort will involve extensive evaluation of the impacts of logistics-related development on the highway network in Riverside County, the study's core focus will be establishing a nexus for an impact fee program to mitigate the anticipated truck traffic impacts. The parameters of what needs to be studied are stipulated in the California Mitigation Fee Act and have been strengthened by subsequent decisions in state and federal courts. The standard for determining a fee requires the nexus demonstrate rough proportionality between the impact being created and the level of mitigation to resolve the impact. This means the process for determining the fee is not intended to be an exact science, but rather a fair and balanced estimation. Only impacts attributable to new warehousing and logistics development within Riverside County will be assessed by the fee. The California Mitigation Fee Act explicitly requires that existing needs must be accounted for and cannot be the responsibility of new development for mitigation. Similarly, the impacts created by new development outside of the County and resulting in trips that pass through the County cannot be made the responsibility of new development in Riverside County to mitigate (unless a portion of the trip is accessing new development within the County). Differentiating the impacts of new Riverside County logistics developments from all other traffic effects will be the primary technical challenge of this study. Fee programs must be established using a fair, sound, and rational methodology, and must not be determined arbitrarily and capriciously. In practice, this means that fees must be evidence -based or risk being thrown out by the courts. The California Mitigation Fee Act specifies that revenues generated by an impact fee program must be expended within five years. Recognizing projects on the region's freeways to accommodate additional truck trips can be very costly; a considerable portion of the need for these improvements may be determined to be attributable to existing needs, other unrelated development activi ty, and/or pass through trips; and that the revenues from warehouse and logistics uses may be limited by the rate of development activity, it will be necessary to consider a full range of project types as well as the potential cash flows associated with a fee, along with other established funding programs, to ensure a program of projects can be delivered in a time frame that satisfies the requirements for revenue expenditures. Moreover, Riverside County is home to two other regional transportation mitigation fee programs – the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and the Coachella Valley TUMF – which are often referred to as the TUMF programs. A regional logistics fee as established in the settlement agreement is intended to be separate and apart from the existing TUMF programs and special care will be needed to ensure that a new program will not impact nor harm either program. Once these formidable technical challenges are addressed, the Commission and cities throughout th e County will then be faced with the question of whether or not to implement a regional truck fee program. As previously stated, if the County or 75 percent of the incorporated cities approve a regional program, there is a significant difference in the mitigation fee that would be paid by Highland Fairview. Next Steps On January 26, 2017, the Commission approved the award of the study to Parsons Brinkerhoff, Inc. for a two-year term, in a total amount not to exceed $975,000. The WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. proposal and subsequent scope of work include s five tasks: 1) Existing and Future Conditions Analysis; 2) Funding Cost Analysis; 3) Preparation of the Nexus Study; 4) Developing a Fee Allocation Structure and Implementing Mechanism; and 5) Study Recommendations. The study is anticipated to be completed June 2018. As the study moves forward, staff will return to the TAC for feedback and regular updates, and may request volunteers to participate in the Study Advisory Team. Regional Truck Study and Mitigation Fee March 20, 2017 World Logistics Center •2,600 Acre Development in Moreno Valley by Highland Fairview •40.6 million square feet of building space •Expected to draw as many as 14,000 truck trips per day at build out Challenging the EIR •RCTC filed suit in Sept. 2015 •Additional suits filed by the County and SCQAMD •Additional CEQA lawsuits filed by environmental organizations •Highland Fairview launched initiatives to supplant city approval of the project •RCTC filed suit challenging the initiatives in Feb. 2016 Reaching a Settlement •HF and Moreno Valley must contribute $100,000 each for air quality studies •HF to receive TUMF credit for widening Gilman Springs •HF to contribute $3 million for Gilman Springs safety improvements •HF to contribute $2 million for widening the 60 and $1 million for improving the Theodore Interchange •HF, Moreno Valley, the County and RCTC must contribute $250,000 each for a study to evaluate a regional logistics fee Truck Study and a Regional Fee •HF will pay 65 cents per square foot in- lieu fee if there is an established regional logistics fee program •A regional fee would need approval of the county or 75 percent of the cities •Approval must take place within 24 months of the HF and Moreno Valley $250,000 contribution for the study •Should no regional fee be approved, the fee is reduced to 50 cents per foot Implementing a Truck Study •Key is to establish nexus for a fee program to mitigate project impacts •Can only assess fees and mitigate for new projects •Pass through trips and existing development cannot be borne by this kind of fee program •Logistics fee should be separate and apart from existing TUMF programs Next Steps •Early implementation has significant benefits •Consultant Contract Awarded in late January •Award to WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff •Effort will require outreach with local jurisdictions •Will seek TAC input and involvement as study progresses. 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 20, 2017 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Grace Alvarez, Planning and Programming Manager Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director SUBJECT: Multi-Funding Call for Projects Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On January 8, 2014, the Commission approved the TAC’s recommendations for the Multi -Funding Call for Projects Awards for federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Surface Transportation Program (STP), 2009 Western Riverside County Measure A Regional Arterials (MARA), and Mobile Source Reduction Committee (MSRC) funds that became available to the Commission in May 2014. There were 33 projects awarded for a combined funding of $148 million. Agreements with the awarded agencies were subsequently executed. The agreements included project descriptions, project milestones for project implementation, funding breakdown, and a clause about utilization of funds , Section 3.2.C stating: C. Cost Savings. In the event that bids for the Project are lower than anticipat ed, or there are cost savings for any other reason, the Funding Plan shall be revised to apply such cost savings proportionately to each funding source listed in the Funding Plan. Agency shall inform RCTC of any cost savings and the parties shall amend this Agreement to reflect the revisions to the Funding Plan. RCTC’s Executive Director and the Agency Manager shall be authorized to execute any such amendment. The project savings needed to be captured as the Commission approved funding exceeding the tota l available STP and MARA funds by approximately $12.3 million. Four projects have followed the executed agreement terms providing a funding adjustment at contract award and/or project closeout, resulting in savings of $3.15 million. As the agencies continue to move forward with the project implementation, staff reminds you to notify the Planning and Programming staff of any cost savings at contract award. Currently, there are fourteen projects remaining to be obligated utilizing federal CMAQ and STP. We look forward to assist you with your agencies project implementation process under the Multi-Funding Call for Projects. Attachment: Multi-Funding Call for Projects – Approved January 2014 Multi-Funding Call for Projects - Approved January 2014 STP Funds Agency Project Project Phase Fund Amt Delay? Y/N Reason for Delay Deoblig due to savings Total Utilization Beaumont SR 60/Portero IC Ph 1 Cons $8,929,000 6/1/2014 Y Coachella Ave 48 Widening/Bike & Ped.Cons $2,278,250 1/1/2015 Y Delivery delays associated with NEPA cultural studies. Disclosure: NEPA Reassignment needed by CT (currently expired). Indio Hwy 111 improvements Cons $4,680,000 11/1/2015 Y NEPA approval secured on 12/29/2016; Obligation in FFY 16/17 Riverside Magnolia Av Widening Cons $2,620,000 3/1/2016 Y Extensive NEPA technical studies underway. Obligation in FFY 17/18 Riverside SR 91/Adams IC PA&ED only $935,000 5/1/2014 Y In PSR phase - obligation likely in FFY 17/18 To Be Obligated:$19,442,250 Obligated:Deoblig due to savings Total Utilization Indio I-10/Jefferson IC Cons $14,499,925 5/1/2014 -Obligated Sept 2014 - Project under construction.$2,247,752 $12,252,173 Moreno Valley SR 60/Theodore IC PA&ED only $964,000 5/1/2014 -Obligated July 2014 - PA&ED underway. Riverside County I-215/Newport IC Cons $14,625,000 1/1/2015 -Obligated Sept 2014 - Project under construction. Temecula I 15/SR 79 IC Cons $12,976,100 12/1/2014 -Obligated Sept 2016 - Contract Award in Spring 2017. Riverside County Cajalco Rd widening PA&ED only (Supp Oblig)$6,000,000 1/1/2011 -Supplemental Obligation underway (Dec 2016) Total STP Oblig.$49,065,025 $2,247,752 $12,252,173 CMAQ Funds Calimesa I 10/Cherry Valley IC PA&ED only $443,000 1/1/2015 Y In PSR phase - Obligation likely in FFY 17/18.Deoblig due to savings Total Utilization RCTC/Caltrans SR60 Truck Climbing Lane Cons $26,800,000 N/A Obligation planned for FY 17/18 Moreno Valley Dynamic Traveler Alert Msg Cons $340,500 5/1/2015 Y Delays associated to NEPA cultural studies and tribal consultation. Moreno Valley Transp Mgmt Center Cons $1,542,500 5/1/2015 Y Delays associated to NEPA cultural studies and tribal consultation. Riverside Riv Metrolink Bike/Ped Xing PA&ED only $637,500 5/1/2014 Y Agreement terminated; funding reprogrammed to Magnolia TS intercon. Riverside Santa Ana River Trail Ped.Path Cons $2,376,000 12/1/2015 Y No project activity. Riverside Santa Ana River Bicycle Tr Cons $141,450 12/1/2015 Infeasible to build - funding rescinded at the city's request Riverside County Salt Creek Parkway Cons $5,090,000 12/1/2015 Y Scope of Work Reduced Approved by Comm. On 3/8/2017. NEPA underway. Wildomar Grand & Clint Keith Bike Path Cons $613,800 3/1/2015 Y NEPA approval secured Feb. 2017. Obligation likely in FFY 2016/17. Wildomar Gran Av Bike Paths Cons $746,640 3/1/2015 Y NEPA approval secured Feb. 2017. Obligation likely in FFY 2016/17. To Be Obligated:$38,589,940 Obligated: Eastvale Hamner Av Signal Synch Cons $141,500 3/1/2015 -Obligated Aug 2015; Project Complete. Federal closeout underway.Deoblig due to savings Total Utilization Moreno Valley Aqueduct Trail PA&ED $340,000 5/1/2014 -Obligated Aug 2014. PA&ED status needed. RTA ITS - Transit System wide Cons $4,125,000 6/1/2014 -Obligated (Flex Transfer to FTA) June 2014. RTA RapidLink Magnolia-University Cons $9,211,800 7/1/2014 -Obligated (Flex Transfer to FTA) July 2014. Temecula Temecula Park n Ride Cons $1,300,750 1/1/2015 -Obligated Dec 2015. Riverside Bicycle Share program Cons $240,000 4/1/2015 Y Obligated Sep 2016 Riverside Bruce St Sidewalk Improve.Cons $195,000 9/1/2015 Y Obligated Sep 2016 Riverside Magnolia Ave Signal Synch.Cons $1,575,375 9/1/2015 Y Obligated Sep 2016; CMAQ funds increased thru report of SR91 Ped Bridge. Total CM Oblig.$17,129,425 MARA Funds Deoblig due to savings Total Utilization San Jacinto Ramona Exp Widening Ph II Cons $2,675,000 4/1/2014 N Project Complete; project close out received.$646,620 $2,028,380 Riverside Co Clinton Keith Ext Phases II & IV Cons $16,500,000 9/1/2014 Y Ph II under construction (May 2016)$214,047 $16,285,953 Perris I-215 at Nuevo IC Ramp Imp Cons $1,600,000 11/1/2014 N Project under construction; completion by June 2017. Jurupa Valley Limonite Ave. Widening Cons $1,882,000 2/1/2015 Y Project under construction. Moreno Valley Cactus Ave Widening / Synch Cons $1,527,500 2/1/2015 N Project Complete; project close out received.$40,542 $1,486,958 Total MARA funded $24,184,500 $901,209 $19,801,291 City Reorganization. Current Project Status: Revalidation secured Dec 2016. R/W in process; design complete. RTL Fall 2017. Agreement Start Date 3/15/2017 AGENDA ITEM 9 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 9. AGENDA ITEM 10 c*. a/trans CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7 Los Angeles ITv*11111 San Diego SAVE THE DATE for SCLAMM Southern California Local Assistance Management Meeting Hosted by District 8 464 West 4th Street, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. 8th Floor, Room 805 If you have any questions please contact: David Lee at david.lee@dot.ca.gov (909) 806-4759. More information will provided as we approach the SCLAMM meeting date. SCLAMM, Presented by Caltrans Staff for Local Public Agencies. Who is invited: Southern California Local Agencies; Districts 7, 8, 11, and 12; FHWA AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 20, 2017 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Senior Management Analyst, Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Measure A CIP FY 2017/18 – 2021/22 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Five-Year Measure A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) submittal is an annual requirement that is due this year on Monday, May 8, 2017. A letter was mailed on February 6, 2017 addressed to City Managers, Finance Directors, and Public Works Directors/City Engineers outlining the requirements for approval. An additional follow-up email was also sent on February 6, 2017 to the Public Works Directors/City Engineers and other staff that we are aware of who provided Measu re A CIP information in the past. Upon submittal, please be sure to include the following: 1. Submittal letter/memo on Agency letterhead – Attn: Lorelle Moe-Luna 2. 5-year CIP for FYs 2018-2022 and Project Status Report for FY 2017 (Return in Excel. Excel template was emailed.) 3. MOE certification statement (Return signed in PDF. Word template was emailed.) Measure A disbursements cannot be made for the fiscal year until the Commission has received and approved a Five-Year CIP, MOE certification, and confirmed participation in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Attachment: Measure A CIP FY 2017/18 – 2021/22 Notification Letter to Local Agencies dated February 6, 2017 DATE: February 6, 2017 TO: All Measure A Local Streets and Roads Fund Recipients City Managers, Finance Directors, and Public Works Directors /City Engineers FROM: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Senior Management Analyst, Planning and Programming Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS REVENUE PROJECTIONS, MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION, and FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (FYs 2017/18 – 2021/22) The requirements for receipt of Measure A Local Streets and Roads funding are: 1) Submittal of the local agency Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); 2) Project Status Report for FY 2016/17 CIP projects; 3) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Certification; and 4) Participation in the MSHCP and TUMF programs, as applicable. The Five-Year CIP should be developed using the Measure A revenue projections (Attachment A). The MOE certification is based on the 2009 Measure A MOE base year amount, which is identified in the MOE certification statement included in this packet (Attachment C). Commission staff will contact WRCOG, CVAG, and RCA for verification of local agency participation in the applicable MSHCP and TUMF programs. FY 2017/18– 2021/22 Measure A Five-Year CIP  The Five-Year CIP is a list of proposed uses for the Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds and must be based on the attached revenue projections (Attachment A). The CIP projects must be listed per fiscal year using the format provided in Attachment B.  The project descriptions should be specific enough to ensure that recipients are properly planning capital expenditures and reporting such plans to the Commission. Accordingly, some projects will require more specific descriptions (e.g. Main Street and 1st Street intersection improvements, drainage improvements, or new traffic signal) while other projects may only require general descriptions (e.g. City-wide Street Slurry Seal/Crack Program).  If overhead or indirect costs, not attributable to a specific CIP, are expected to be charged to Measure A, the indirect costs must be included as a separate CIP item to be an eligible cost. RCTC’s policy is that such costs are limited to the lower of the jurisdiction’s Page 2 of 3 Measure A CIP/MOE Notification FY 2017/18 – 2021/22 calculated rate or 8% of annual Measure A revenues. Additionally, such overhead costs must be based on actual costs for that fiscal year and are subject to specific audit review.  Any projects listed on prior year plans, which are active (not completed - Measure A not fully expended), should be included in the current five-year plan (carried over), along with the associated funding anticipated to be expended in the current five-year plan. FY 2017/18 MOE Certification Statement The Measure A Ordinance requires annual certification that discretionary General Fund expenditures for transportation-related construction and maintenance activities for Fiscal Year 2017/18 will meet or exceed the MOE Base Year amount. Funds withheld from a local agency for failure to meet its MOE Base Year requirement will be redistributed in accordance with Ordinance No. 02-001 within the Measure A area in which the agency is located (Western County, Coachella Valley, or Palo Verde Valley). However, if an agency has excess MOE balance from exceeding prior years MOE, some of the excess MOE balance can be utilized to make up the deficiency in the current year MOE (refer to your city’s FY 2015/16 Independent Accountant’s Report for MOE balance). The MOE Certification Statement is part of the MOE process. The Commission’s auditor will perform agreed-upon procedures related to Measure A following the end of the fiscal year. At that time, the fiscal year’s actual MOE expenditures will be compared to the MOE base year, and the local agency will be required to provide a summary of that fiscal year’s MOE expenditures in a format consistent with the MOE base year format. Project Status Report The Commission must also receive a Project Status Report (sample included in Attachment B) on the FY 2016/17 CIP projects. The purpose of this report is to document progress to date on engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction; problems encountered (if any); and completion date and/or anticipated completion date. Projects that are not completed as previously anticipated in FY 2016/17 should be carried over to the following fiscal year(s) Measure A CIPs, if Measure A funds will continue to be utilized to complete the project. Submittal Deadlines The timeline for approval of the Five-Year CIP is as follows: • Monday, May 8, 2017 – Submit the following by email to Lorelle Moe-Luna, lmoe- luna@rctc.org: 1. Submittal Letter on Agency Letterhead, Attention: Lorelle Moe-Luna 2. Five-Year CIP for FY 2017/18 – 2021/22 and Project Status Report for FY 2016/17 (Excel file) 3. MOE Certification Statement (signed PDF) • June/July 2016 – Committee/Commission review and approval of Five-Year CIPs Page 3 of 3 Measure A CIP/MOE Notification FY 2017/18 – 2021/22 • September 2016 – First disbursement of FY 2017/18 Measure A funds to eligible local agencies. No Measure A disbursements can be made for the fiscal year until the Commission has received and approved a Five-Year CIP, MOE certification, and confirmation of TUMF and MSHCP participation. If you need assistance or have any questions, please feel free to contact Theresia Trevino regarding Measure A revenue projections at (951) 787-7141, or myself regarding the MOE/CIP submittal at (951) 787-7934. Copies of the Five-Year CIP, Project Status Report, and MOE will be made available in Word and Excel in a separate email to the person listed as the contact for the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee. Enclosures: Attachment A - 2017/18 – 2021/22 Measure A Revenue Projections Attachment B - Sample Measure A Five-Year CIP Format and Project Status Report Format Attachment C - Sample FY 2017/18 MOE Certification Statement FY 2016/17 (revised) FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 Western County BANNING 544,000$ 552,000$ 563,000$ 574,000$ 585,000$ 597,000$ BEAUMONT¹ - - - - - - CALIMESA 156,000 155,000 158,000 161,000 164,000 167,000 CANYON LAKE 174,000 174,000 177,000 181,000 185,000 189,000 CORONA 3,837,000 3,950,000 4,029,000 4,110,000 4,192,000 4,276,000 EASTVALE 1,183,000 1,255,000 1,280,000 1,306,000 1,332,000 1,359,000 HEMET 1,677,000 1,656,000 1,689,000 1,723,000 1,757,000 1,792,000 JURUPA VALLEY 1,874,000 1,896,000 1,934,000 1,973,000 2,012,000 2,052,000 LAKE ELSINORE 1,205,000 1,280,000 1,306,000 1,332,000 1,359,000 1,386,000 MENIFEE 1,528,000 1,624,000 1,656,000 1,689,000 1,723,000 1,757,000 MORENO VALLEY 3,703,000 3,829,000 3,906,000 3,984,000 4,064,000 4,145,000 MURRIETA 2,176,000 2,299,000 2,345,000 2,392,000 2,440,000 2,489,000 NORCO 611,000 643,000 656,000 669,000 682,000 696,000 PERRIS 1,446,000 1,476,000 1,506,000 1,536,000 1,567,000 1,598,000 RIVERSIDE 7,006,000 7,280,000 7,426,000 7,575,000 7,727,000 7,882,000 SAN JACINTO 797,000 836,000 853,000 870,000 887,000 905,000 TEMECULA 2,834,000 2,929,000 2,988,000 3,048,000 3,109,000 3,171,000 WILDOMAR 584,000 604,000 616,000 628,000 641,000 654,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 5,429,000 5,211,000 5,315,000 5,421,000 5,529,000 5,640,000 RCTC Regional Arterial¹ 805,000 866,000 883,000 901,000 919,000 937,000 SUBTOTAL-Western County 37,569,000 38,515,000 39,286,000 40,073,000 40,874,000 41,692,000 Coachella Valley CATHEDRAL CITY 1,409,000 1,461,000 1,490,000 1,520,000 1,550,000 1,581,000 COACHELLA 612,000 602,000 614,000 626,000 639,000 652,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 472,000 466,000 475,000 485,000 495,000 505,000 INDIAN WELLS 267,000 232,000 237,000 242,000 247,000 252,000 INDIO 1,809,000 1,866,000 1,903,000 1,941,000 1,980,000 2,020,000 LA QUINTA² 1,470,000 1,449,000 1,478,000 1,508,000 1,538,000 1,569,000 PALM DESERT 2,666,000 2,660,000 2,713,000 2,767,000 2,822,000 2,878,000 PALM SPRINGS 2,006,000 2,007,000 2,047,000 2,088,000 2,130,000 2,173,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 870,000 874,000 891,000 909,000 927,000 946,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1,881,000 1,743,000 1,778,000 1,814,000 1,850,000 1,887,000 CVAG² - - - - - - SUBTOTAL-Coachella Valley 13,462,000 13,360,000 13,626,000 13,900,000 14,178,000 14,463,000 Palo Verde Valley BLYTHE 921,000 826,000 843,000 860,000 877,000 895,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 231,000 189,000 193,000 197,000 201,000 205,000 SUBTOTAL-Palo Verde Valley 1,152,000 1,015,000 1,036,000 1,057,000 1,078,000 1,100,000 TOTAL 52,183,000$ 52,890,000$ 53,948,000$ 55,030,000$ 56,130,000$ 57,255,000$ ¹ ² Note: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences. Under an agreement between CVAG and La Quinta, CVAG receives 50% of La Quinta's allocation and La Quinta the remaining 50% until such time La Quinta has reimbursed CVAG for TUMF fees CVAG would have received from La Quinta if La Quinta had joined the TUMF program when the TUMF was established. Beaumont is not eligible for Measure A local streets and roads funds and its share is allocated to the Western County Measure A Regional Arterial fund. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A PROGRAM ALLOCATION (PROJECTION) LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: FY 2015-16 Audited Measure A Balance: Date: FY 2016-17 Measure A Revenue: FY 2016-17 Project Status report expenses: Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:$0 Estimated FY 2017-2018 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2017-2018 Projects:$0 Item No.Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2017-2018 TOTALS 0 FY 2017 - 2018 SAMPLE FY 2017-18 Page 1 of 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:0 Estimated FY 2018 - 2019 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2018 - 2019 Projects:0 Item No.Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2018 - 2019 TOTALS 0 FY 2018 - 2019 SAMPLE FY 2018-19 Page 2 of 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:0 Estimated FY 2019-2020 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2019-2020 Projects:0 Item No.Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2019-2020 TOTALS 0 FY 2019 - 2020 SAMPLE FY 2019-20 Page 3 of 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:0 Estimated FY 2020-2021 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2020-2021 Projects:0 Item No.Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2020-2021 TOTALS 0 FY 2020 - 2021 SAMPLE FY 2020-21 Page 4 of 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:0 Estimated FY 2021-2022 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2021-2022 Projects:0 Item No.Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2021-2022 TOTALS 0 FY 2021 - 2022 SAMPLE FY 2021-22 Page 5 of 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: Item No.Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended ($000's, 6/30/2017) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status TOTALS 0 0 PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2016-2017 SAMPLE Project Status Report FY16-17 Page 6 of 6 FY 2017/18 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of xxx (the “Agency”) that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (“Measure A”) shall be used in compliance with the Commission’s Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $xxx approved by the Commission at its xxx meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: ________________, 2016 _________________________________ CITY MANAGER ATTEST: _________________________________ SECRETARY