HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 11, 2020 CommissionRIVERSIDE
COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, March 11, 2020
LOCATION: BOARD ROOM
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside
COMMISSIONERS
Chair — Ben J. Benoit
Vice Chair — Jan Harnik
Second Vice Chair — V. Manuel Perez
Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District 1
Karen Spiegel, County of Riverside, District 2
Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District 3
V. Manuel Perez, County of Riverside, District 4
Jeff Hewitt, County of Riverside, District 5
Art Welch / Daniela Andrade, City of Banning
Lloyd White / Julio Martinez, City of Beaumont
Joseph DeConinck / Johnny Rodriguez, City of Blythe
Larry Smith / Linda Molina, City of Calimesa
Randall Bonner / Jeremy Smith, City of Canyon Lake
Raymond Gregory / Mark Carnevale, City of Cathedral City
Steven Hernandez / Megan Beaman Jacinto, City of Coachella
Wes Speake / Jim Steiner, City of Corona
Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs
Clint Lorimore / Todd Rigby, City of Eastvale
Linda Krupa / Russ Brown, City of Hemet
Dana Reed / Kimberly Muzik, City of Indian Wells
Waymond Fermon / Oscar Ortiz, City of Indio
Brian Berkson / Chris Barajas, City ofJurupa Valley
Kathleen Fitzpatrick / Robert Radi, City of La Quinta
Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore
Bill Zimmerman / Dean Deines, City of Menifee
Yxstain Gutierrez / Carla Thornton, City of Moreno Valley
Scott Vinton / Christi White, City of Murrieta
Berwin Hanna / Ted Hoffman, City of Norco
Jan Harnik / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert
Lisa Middleton / Dennis Woods, City of Palm Springs
Michael M. Vargas / Rita Rogers, City of Perris
Ted Weill / Charles Townsend, City of Rancho Mirage
Rusty Bailey / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside
Andrew Kotyuk / Russ Utz, City of San Jacinto
Michael 5. Naggar / Maryann Edwards, City of Temecula
Ben J. Benoit / Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar
Mike Beauchamp, Governor's Appointee Caltrans District 8
Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission,
please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
www.rctc.org
MEETING AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
9:30 a.m.
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
BOARD ROOM
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours
prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for
inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third
Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org.
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. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less.
The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive
this three -minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of
speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous
minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30)
minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious.
Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to
be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy
applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items.
Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public
comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such
matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration.
5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS — The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a
finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the
attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
March 11, 2020
Page 2
to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission
members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will
be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 8 AND 31 AND JANUARY 30-31, 2020 WORKSHOP
7. CONSENT CALENDAR —All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion
unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the
Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
7A. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS
Page 1
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for
Quarter 2, 2019.
7B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
Page 10
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority report
for the second quarter ended December 31, 2019.
7C. AGREEMENT WITH EIDE BAILLY FOR AUDIT SERVICES
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
Page 12
1) Award Agreement No. 20-19-021-00 to Eide Bailly LLP (Fide Bailly) for audit
services for a three-year term, with three one-year options to extend the
agreement, for $1,461,198, plus a contingency in the amount of $138,802, for
a total amount not to exceed $1.6 million;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
finalize and execute the agreement, including options years, on behalf of the
Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up
to the total not to exceed amount as required for these audit services.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
March 11, 2020
Page 3
7D. FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
Page 44
Overview
This item is for the Commission to approve Fiscal Year 2019/20 mid -year budget
adjustments for a net increase of $22,041,000 and $21,506,000 in revenues and
expenditures/expenses, respectively.
7E. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 BUDGET
Page 47
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Review and approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for
the Fiscal Year 2020/21 Budget; and
2) Review and approve the Fiscal Accountability Policies for the FY 2020/21
Budget.
7F. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Page 54
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on state and federal
legislation.
7G. RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2020 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FINANCIAL RESOLUTION
Page 58
Overview
This item is for the Commission to approve Resolution No. 20-002, "Resolution of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Riverside County Has Resources
to Fund Projects in the Federal Fiscal Years 2020/21 Through 2025/26 Transportation
Improvement Program and Affirming Commitment to Implement All Projects in the
Program".
7H. 91 EXPRESS LANES MONTHLY STATUS REPORTS
Page 65
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the 91 Express Lanes Monthly
Reports for the six months from July to December 2019.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
March 11, 2020
Page 4
71. CALTRANS MAINTENANCE AMENDMENT FOR RCTC 91 EXPRESS LANES AND 15
EXPRESS LANES
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
Page 66
1) Approve Agreement No. 17-31-021-03, Amendment to No. 3 to Agreement
No. 17-31-021-00, with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
for roadway maintenance of the RCTC 91 Express lanes and 15 Express Lanes in
an amount not to exceed $400,000 for FY 2020/21; and
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
finalize and execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
7J. AGREEMENT WITH SELECTED CONSULTANTS FOR ON -CALL TRAFFIC AND REVENUE
STUDY SERVICES
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
Page 76
1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call traffic and revenue study
services for a five-year term in the amount of $3.9 million, plus a contingency
amount of $195,000, for a total amount not to exceed $4,095,000:
a) Agreement No. 20-31-019-00 to C&M Associates, Inc. (C&M Associates);
b) Agreement No. 20-31-051-00 to CDM Smith, Inc. (CDM Smith); and
c) Agreement No. 20-31-052-00 to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
(Stantec);
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
finalize and execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to execute task orders awarded to
the consultants under the terms of agreements; and
4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the
contingency amount as may be required for the task order services.
7K. QUARTERLY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT METRICS REPORT, OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2019
Page 192
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Public Engagement
Metrics Report for October — December 2019.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
March 11, 2020
Page 5
7L. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL FOR FINAL DESIGN
SERVICES RELATED TO THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY INTERSTATE 215/PLACENTIA
AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND AGREEMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTION ZONE ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM SERVICES FOR THE
PROJECT
Page 198
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 16-31-066-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement
No. 16-31-066-00, with T.Y. Lin International (T.Y. Lin) to complete final design
services and prepare the Interstate 215/Placentia Avenue interchange
improvement (I-215/Placentia Avenue) project for advertising and award, in the
amount of $386,663, plus a contingency amount of $38,666, for an additional
amount of $425,329, and a total amount not to exceed $5,171,185;
2) Approve Agreement No. 20-31-051-00 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP)
for Construction Zone Enforcement Enhancement Program (COZEEP) services
in an amount not to exceed $279,900;
3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
finalize and execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and
4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the
contingency amount as may be required for the project.
7M. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL CONSTRUCTION
ZONE ENHANCEMENT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM SERVICES DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK LANES PROJECT
Page 218
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 19-31-038-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement
No. 19-31-038-00, with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for Construction
Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) services during the
construction of the State Route 60 Truck Lanes project (Project) in the amount
of $350,000, plus a contingency amount of $100,000, for an additional amount
of $450,000, and a total amount not to exceed $1,490,070;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work as
may be required for the agreement.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
March 11, 2020
Page 6
8. REFINANCING OF 91 EXPRESS LANES TOLL DEBT
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
Page 223
1) Receive and file the presentation regarding the refinancing of the Commission's Toll
Revenue Senior Lien Bonds, 2013 Series A (2013A Bonds) and 2013 Transportation
Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Loan (2013 TIFIA Loan) related to
the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) with the issuance of
taxable and tax-exempt senior lien and second lien toll revenue refunding bonds (2020
Refunding Toll Bonds);
2) Approve the refinancing plan to refund all or a portion of the 2013A Bonds, currently
outstanding in the amount of $123.8 million, and prepay all or a portion of the 2013
TIFIA Loan, currently outstanding in the amount of approximately $481 million;
3) Adopt Resolution No. 20-001, "Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not to
Exceed $725,000,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of Riverside County Transportation
Commission Toll Revenue Refunding Bonds in One or More Series, the Refunding of
Outstanding Bonds, the Execution and Delivery of One or More Supplemental
Indentures, One or More Purchase Contracts, One or More Official Statements, One or
More Continuing Disclosure Agreements and One or More Escrow Agreements, the
Adoption of a Restated Debt Management Policy, and the Taking of All Other Actions
Necessary in Connection Therewith";
4) Approve the proposed form of the Preliminary Official Statement for the issuance of
not to exceed $725 million in 2020 Refunding Toll Bonds and authorize the Executive
Director to approve and execute the printing and distribution of the final form of the
Official Statement;
5) Approve the proposed form of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement related to the
2020 Refunding Toll Bonds, by and between the Riverside County Transportation
Commission and Digital Assurance Certification, L.L.C., as dissemination agent, and
authorize the Executive Director to approve and execute the final form of the
Continuing Disclosure Agreement;
6) Approve the proposed forms of the Third Supplemental Indenture and Fourth
Supplemental Indenture for the 2020 Refunding Toll Bonds, each by and between the
Riverside County Transportation Commission and U.S. Bank National Association
(US Bank), as Trustee, and authorize the Executive Director to approve and execute the
final forms of the Third Supplemental Indenture and Fourth Supplemental Indenture;
7) Approve the proposed form of the Bond Purchase Agreement(s), also referred to as
Purchase Contract(s), between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and
Bank of America Securities, Inc. (BofA), as Underwriter Representative acting on behalf
of itself and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (Goldman), Wells Fargo Securities (Wells Fargo),
J.P. Morgan (JPM), and Siebert Cisneros Shank & Co., LLC (Siebert), (collectively the
Underwriters), for the 2020 Refunding Toll Bonds and authorize the Chief Financial
Officer to approve and execute the final form of the Bond Purchase Agreement;
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
March 11, 2020
Page 7
8) Approve the proposed form of the Escrow Agreement, by and between the
Commission and US Bank, as Escrow Agent, and authorize the Executive Director to
approve and execute the final Escrow Agreement;
9) Approve the estimated costs of issuance, including estimated underwriter's discount,
of $3,723,592 to be paid from the proceeds of the 2020 Refunding Toll Bonds;
10) Approve Agreement No. 05-19-510-17, Amendment No. 17 to Agreement
No. 05-19-510-00, with Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP (Orrick) for bond counsel
services related to the issuance of the 2020 Refunding Toll Bonds for an additional
amount of $325,000 and a total amount not to exceed $3,330,000;
11) Approve Agreement No. 09-19-072-15, Amendment No. 15 to Agreement
No. 09-19-072-00, with Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (Norton Rose) for disclosure
counsel services related to the issuance of the 2020 Refunding Toll Bonds for an
additional amount of $155,000 and a total amount not to exceed $1,022,600; and
12) Approve adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2019/20 budget in the amounts of
$665,392,399 to increase sources related to the issuance of the 2020 Refunding Toll
Bonds and $631,270,196 to increase uses related to the use of the proceeds of the 2020
Refunding Toll Bonds.
9. AWARD OF INTERSTATE 15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT TO RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
Page 234
1) Award Agreement No. 20-31-034-00 to Riverside Construction Company to construct
the Interstate 15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project (Project), in the amount
of $27,698,589, plus a contingency amount of $2,769,859, for potential change orders
and supplemental work in the amount of $910,000 during construction, for a total
amount not to exceed $31,378,448;
2) Approve Agreement No. 20-31-046-00 with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
(Pechanga) for an amount not to exceed $100,000 for Native American monitoring
services during construction of the Project;
3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize
and execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and
4) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work as may be
required for the Project.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
March 11, 2020
Page 8
10. AWARD OF: (1) DESIGN -BUILD CONTRACT; AND (2) AMENDMENT TO PROJECT AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE INTERSTATE 15/STATE
ROUTE 91 EXPRESS LANES CONNECTOR PROJECT
Page 259
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Award Agreement No. 19-31-074-00 to Myers -Rados, a Joint Venture (Myers -Rados JV)
as the design -build contractor to design and construct the Interstate 15/State Route 91
Express Lanes Connector project (15/91 ELC) in the amount of $164,840,000, plus a
contingency amount of $10,487,000, for a total amount not to exceed $175,327,000;
2) Approve Agreement No. 15-31-001-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement
No. 15-31-001-00, with Parsons Transportation Group (Parsons) to provide project and
construction management services for the proposed 15/91 ELC in the amount of
$14,825,000, plus a contingency amount of $1,482,000, for a total amount not to
exceed $16,307,000, and extend the term to June 30, 2024;
3) Authorize the Chair or the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
finalize and execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and
4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the
total amounts as required for the project.
11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report
on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities.
13. CLOSED SESSION
13A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee
Item
APN(s)
Property Owner
Buyer(s)
1
229-082-010 and 229-082-003
RCTC
JJ Realty 401K Trust and
DH Realty Investments
2
117-122-001 and 117-112-002
RCTC
AD Heavy Equipment
Rental
3
117-121-003, 117-121-008,
and 117-112-009
RCTC
AD Heavy Equipment
Rental
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
March 11, 2020
Page 9
14. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday,
April 8, 2020, Board Room, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street,
Riverside.
AGENDA ITEM 6
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by
Chair Ben J. Benoit at 9:33 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside
Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners/Alternates Present
Rusty Bailey
Ben J. Benoit
Randall Bonner
Joseph DeConinck
Jamal Elsaleh
Waymond Fermon
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Raymond Gregory
Berwin Hanna
Jan Harnik
Steven Hernandez
Jeff Hewitt
Kevin Jeffries
Andrew Kotyuk
Clint Lorimore*
Bob Magee
Scott Matas
Lisa Middleton
Kimberly Muzik
Michael Naggar
V. Manuel Perez
Wes Speake
Karen Spiegel
Larry Smith
Carla Thornton
Michael M. Vargas
Scott Vinton
Chuck Washington
Ted Weill
Lloyd White
Art Welch
Bill Zimmerman
Commissioners Absent
Brian Berkson
Linda Krupa
*Arrived after the meeting was called to order.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Rusty Bailey led the Commission in a flag salute.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 2
5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — DECEMBER 11, 2019
M/S/C (Vargas/Gregory) to approve the December 11, 2019 minutes as
submitted.
Abstain: Thornton
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S/C (Gregory/Vargas) to approve the following Consent Calendar items.
7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the three months ended
September 30, 2019.
7B. FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 MID -YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS
1) Approve the mid -year Fiscal Year 2019/20 revenue projections of
$202 million for Measure A revenues, $103 million for Local Transportation
Fund (LTF) revenues, and $27 million for Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues;
2) Approve the budget increase adjustments to Measure A revenues of
$9 million and expenditures of $3,717,000 to reflect the revised
Measure A projection;
3) Approve the budget increase adjustments to LTF revenues of $6 million,
transfers in of $719,000, and expenditures and transfers out of $898,000
to reflect the revised LTF projection; and
4) Approve the budget increase adjustments to TUMF revenues of $2 million
to reflect the revised TUMF projection.
7C. FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 REVENUE PROJECTIONS
1) Approve the projection for Measure A revenues of $207 million for
Fiscal Year 2020/21;
2) Approve the projection for Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment
of $106 million for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and
Palo Verde Valley areas for FY 2020/21; and
3) Approve the projection for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
revenues of $28 million for FY 2020/21.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 3
7D. AGREEMENT FOR RISK MANAGEMENT AND BROKER SERVICES
1) Award Agreement No. 20-19-010-00 to Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. for
risk management and broker services for a three-year term, plus two two-
year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $260,000, plus a
contingency amount of $26,000, for a total amount not to exceed of
$286,000;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to finalize and execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of
the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the
contingency amount as may be required for these services.
7E. 2020 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND PREVIEW
1) Adopt the Commission's 2020 State and Federal Legislative Platform; and
2) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation.
7F. UTILITY AGREEMENTS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR OPERATIONS
PROJECT
1) Approve the following utility agreements required for the State Route 91
(SR-91) Corridor Operations Project (COP) in the aggregate amount of
$449,000, plus a contingency amount of $45,000, for a total amount not
to exceed $494,000;
a) Agreement No. 20-31-028-00 to American Telephone and
Telegraph Company (AT&T);
b) Agreement No. 20-31-036-00 to city of Corona Department of
Water and Power (DWP);
c) Agreement No. 20-31-027-00 to Southern California Edison (SCE);
and
d) Agreement No. 20-31-026-00 to Southern California Gas Company
(SoCalGas);
2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
finalize and execute the utility agreements for an amount not to exceed
$494,000; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work
up to the total amount not to exceed as required for the project.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 4
7G. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 20-33-023-00 WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FOR ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE MORENO VALLEY MARCH FIELD METROLINK
STATION TRACK AND PLATFORM EXPANSION PROJECT
1) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 20-33-023-00 between the
Commission and Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) for
engineering and environmental support services for the Moreno
Valley/March Field Metrolink Station Track and Platform Expansion Project
(Project) in the amount of $354,000, plus a contingency amount of
$70,800, for a total amount not to exceed $424,800;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to finalize and execute the cooperative agreement on behalf of the
Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of a
contingency, as may be required for these services.
7H. AMENDMENT TO COMMISSION'S COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR
2019/20 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
1) Amend the Commission's Commuter Rail Program's Fiscal Year 2019/20
Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to allocate $4 million of Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Section 5337 funds and reduce $4 million of Local
Transportation Funds (LTF) operating assistance for the Southern
California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) subsidy;
2) Allocate $4 million of FTA Section 5337 funds for the FY 2020/21 SRTP for
Commuter Rail's operating assistance subsidy for SCRRA service;
3) Allocate $10,701,750 of FTA Section 5337 funds for the FY 2020/21 SRTP
for Commuter Rail's capital subsidy for SCRRA rehabilitation projects; and
4) Authorize staff to program FTA Section 5337 grant funds into the Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP).
71. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION FREEWAY
SERVICE PATROL SERVICES ON CALTRANS PROJECTS
1) Approve Agreement No. 20-45-037-00 with the State of California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the funding of Freeway
Service Patrol (FSP) service on various construction areas in Riverside
County; and
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to finalize and execute the cooperative agreement on behalf of the
Commission.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 5
7J. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH STEVE'S TOWING FOR 15 EXPRESS LANES
FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICE
1) Approve Agreement No. 16-45-103-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
No. 16-45-103-00 with Steve's Towing (Steve's) to include Freeway Service
Patrol (FSP) service for the 15 Express Lanes through December 31, 2021,
in the amount of $780,179, plus a contingency amount of $78,018, for an
additional amount of $858,197, and a total amount not to exceed
$2,063,197;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to finalize and execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work
up to the total amount not to exceed as required for the project.
At this time, Commissioner Clint Lorimore joined the meeting.
8. BLYTHE WELLNESS EXPRESS PILOT PROGRAM FINAL REPORT
Lorelle Moe -Luna, Multimodal Services Director presented the Blythe Wellness Express
(BWE) Pilot Program final report, highlighting the following areas:
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rides to wellness program — Ride to Wellness
Goals:
o Increase access to care
o Improve health outcomes
o Reduce healthcare costs
• In 2016, RCTC was awarded on behalf of PVVTA to operate BWE for an 18-month
period
o Total award = $185,753 and Total Operating = $305,254
• FTA media attention for this project due to highlighting the health care needs in
rural communities
• Supporting Partners
• Service Profile and BWE route map:
o 265 miles roundtrip
o Deviated fixed -route
o Riders register and reserve trip
o 3 days per week
o $15 roundtrip
o Major destinations — Desert Regional Medical Center, Eisenhower Medical
Center, J.F. Kennedy Memorial, and Kaiser Indio
• Rider profile — By age and percentage; about 60 percent of riders indicated they
do not have access to a vehicle; and about 81 percent have health insurance
• Final report findings:
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 6
o 85 percent of the trips were for health -related purposes
o Over 2/3 were for specialist appointments
o 42 percent indicated that they were unable to go to the doctors in the last
six months due to lack of transportation
o Self -reported health status: 45 percent indicated an improvement; 43
percent maintained their health status; and 11 percent stated that their
health status declined
At this time, Ms. Moe -Luna welcomed and introduced George Colangeli, General
Manager, PVVTA to present what this has meant to the community and how the service
has sustained itself.
Mr. Colangeli expressed appreciation to represent those people in the Palo Verde Valley
and the city of Blythe, and highlighted the following:
• Customer feedback
• Antique Adams a rider that benefited from the BWE Program; Sandra Carter
featured in the Desert Sun in the Coachella Valley stated that if it was not for the
BWE Program she would not have that link for her life due to declining health care;
Robert Goldstein was in a wheelchair in a low income area and after going through
the BWE Program he no longer needed a wheelchair and is employed; and Lincoln
Edmond was a founding board member of the PVVTA and wanted the BWE
Program to emerge and then fell into bad health and needed help for
transportation and rode this bus for dialysis and has since passed away
He expressed gratitude to Anne Mayer and the Commission for all the resources given to
the Palo Verde Valley and the city of Blythe. He then presented the following:
• Moving forward:
o Funding from AB 2766 and FTA Section 5311
o Service modifications:
2-days a week (Monday & Friday)
15t & 5rd Friday of each month
Increase roundtrip to $20
- More general public trips
• Expanded marketing and branding
Commissioner Joey DeConinck expressed gratitude to Anne Mayer as this began at its
January Commission Workshop when Ms. Mayer met with him to discuss the issues in the
city of Blythe. He stated staff met with him at the city of Blythe City Hall, which is how
this program evolved. He then expressed gratitude to George Colangeli for all of his hard
work and stated he actually drives the bus too. He discussed how they made a trip to
Imperial Valley, Brawley, and El Centro as they already had a program going to San Diego
and used some of their ideas. Commissioner DeConinck expressed appreciation to the
Cancer Society and the hospital for all their help. He stated Lincoln Edmond was one of
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 7
the first members on the PVVTA and stayed there until he retired. He expressed
appreciation to Commissioner V. Manuel Perez for helping with some more funding for
this program and stated he served on the Mojave Desert Air Quality Board and was able
to work some deals there too.
Commissioner Waymond Fermon expressed appreciation to Commission staff, the city of
Blythe, and Commissioner Perez for this service. He expressed this service is personal to
his family since Mr. Adams that was depicted in the presentation is his uncle and he knows
personally this program saved his life. He explained it just demonstrates for all the people
that it is a quality of life issue and also for some of those people that Mr. Colangeli spoke
about it is extending these people's lives.
Commissioner Perez expressed appreciation when the Commission is able to bring equity,
quality, and resources to people that sometimes are forgotten, or do not have a voice,
the people of the city of Blythe are hardworking, compassionate, and loving.
Commissioner Perez expressed appreciation to George Colangeli and his staff for an
outstanding job and to Commissioner DeConinck and his city council for continuing to
push. Commissioner Perez expressed appreciation for the individuals in the presentation
that has used this program it is heartwarming and real as this program is very important.
He expressed gratitude to the Commission for their efforts and the leadership, and stated
this needs to continue and there is a need for more funds and to make it more flexible to
allow families to visit each other.
Commissioner Michael Vargas concurred with the Commissioners' comments and stated
it was a great presentation and this is what the Commission and the local jurisdictions
does and it is great to hear all these success stories.
Anne Mayer expressed this is a program of which staff is proud as the Commission does
big dollar projects, but this is one that fills staff with pride as it has made a big difference.
She expressed gratitude to George Colangeli and his team for all the hard work on the
Federal Grant, the administrative requirements, and ensuring they were serving the
people they were intending on serving. She suggested if the Commission pushes through
a Federal Grant to make it work they can find ways to make it work in the future.
Receive and file a presentation on the final report of the Blythe Wellness Express
(BWE) Pilot Program.
9. COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN DRAFT
Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director, presented the draft Traffic Relief Plan and
highlighted the following areas:
• Working towards solutions:
o 2016 — Strategic Assessment
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 8
o 2017 — AB 1189 (Garcia) Public opinion survey stakeholder engagement
o 2019 — Long range planning status quo evaluation #RebootMyCommute
public opinion survey Traffic Relief Plan formation
o 2020 — Draft Traffic Relief Plan Public review and outreach (January -June)
Commission decision (June)
• Draft Traffic Relief Plan
o Responsive
o Aspirational
o Comprehensive
o Trust and accountability
o Equity and balance
o Major investments
• Your guide to the Traffic Relief Plan — Better roads, faster highways, easier
highway access, more train service, frequent bus service, help with my commute,
longer trails, new technology, and flood and dust control
• Coachella Valley:
o Local prioritization
o Regional approach to roads
o Flood and dust control
o Tech and signal synch
o Rail investments
• Palo Verde Valley:
o Local prioritization
o Road safety, maintenance, and capacity
o Public transit: access to healthcare, education, and employment
• Western Riverside County:
o Traffic bottleneck relief
o Internal county connectivity
o Metrolink and express bus
o Specialized transit
o Regional trail backbone
o Rethinking transportation
• Additional staff request for consideration — Authorize staff to correct any non -
substantive typos, error, or omissions
Commissioner Jeff Hewitt stated if this was simply a list of priorities, which there has been
a great deal of work done the last several years over which projects are most important,
it is a big county and expressed appreciation for the direction that it has gone. He
explained it is difficult when there are different entities on the Commission and each
Commissioner has their own desires. Commissioner Hewitt expressed if this were only
that he would vote yes on it, but because it is tied to the upcoming half -cent sales tax not
only is he against the sales tax there is a tax worry population. He suggested the chance
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 9
of this sales tax passing is much less than the Commissioners consider it is and that is why
he will be voting no.
Commissioner Bill Zimmerman stated this is important to him and expressed gratitude to
the team and the Traffic Relief Strategy (TRS) Committee for putting together the list of
projects. He explained as Commissioner Hewitt mentioned this is going to be tied to the
half -cent sales tax request if this Commission votes to put it on the ballot. He stated being
an advocate but there are no projects in the city of Menifee (Menifee) and there is one
that is really needed. It is an interchange added to Garbani Road at Interstate 215, which
is on the cities capital improvement budget for this year to begin environmental and right
of way acquisition and it is one of their local plans identified for Menifee. He referred to
Page 16 of the draft Traffic Relief Plan and the list of projects under 1-215 Corridor and
respectfully asked the Commission to support his request to add another bullet point to
construct an interchange at Garbani Road in Menifee. He stated if there is a motion to
approve he would appreciate the Commission consider approving an amended plan with
that addition.
Commission Lloyd White stated he commented at its December Commission meeting he
does not support the priority as the Commission is allowing the 1-10 Corridor to be the
next Corona and Temecula problem by not addressing it. He concurred with
Commissioner Hewitt's comments and explained this is not a building block and there
were a number of Commissioners that voted to approve using the Commissions funds to
campaign against Proposition 6. He discussed how the Commissioners spoke out the
Commission is not necessarily approving a tax and these building blocks the Commission
has been voting on this last year, which many of them made sense but needed studies
and to understand the Commission's position. He expressed today is not a vote on the
building block it is a vote on a tax and he will vote against it as well.
In response to Commissioner Spiegel's inquiry when the Commission was originally
formed how the Commissioners determined the priority of projects and since then how
has the Commission continued to develop the priorities, Anne Mayer replied her
understanding in the first Measure A that was passed in 1988 and then in 2002 was when
the last Measure A was passed is that the list of projects were developed based on the
decisions of the Commission at the time. At that time there were only seven members
on the Commission and referred to legal counsel to clarify.
Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, replied in 1988 it was seven members by 2002 it was a full
Commission.
Anne Mayer explained the 1988 Measure A the plan was developed in conjunction with
the original seven representatives throughout the County and then in 2002 it would have
been a membership such as this current body.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 10
Commissioner Spiegel explained fundamentally she cannot differ from Commissioners
Hewitt and White but this is clearly set that this is a plan that can be utilized afterwards
and this is not a vote for the tax as that is clear that is on at its June 10 Commission
meeting.
Anne Mayer replied at its June 10 Commission meeting would be the decision point for
the Commission to decide to put it on the ballot for the voters to decide in November.
In response to Commissioner Spiegel's clarification that this is just for the plan that can
be utilized anytime whether at the June Commission meeting is a positive or negative for
this Commission so this is confirming the work of the Commission over the last two years,
Anne Mayer replied correct.
Commissioner Steven Hernandez expressed gratitude to staff for putting this effort
together and he understands a tax is difficult for many of the Commissioners. He stated
without a tax the future looks a lot different in terms of projects moving forward. In 1988
there were leaders that looked at how they wanted to shape this county, and how it
wanted to progress and look at transportation corridors as a whole. He suggested this
Commission is at that point where it is looking at what the next 30 years is going look like
for the county of Riverside. Commissioner Hernandez stated the plan is not perfect but
it is a plan and is something down the road that can be amended to include other projects.
He expressed appreciation for staff doing a great job in working with the cities to
accommodate their needs. He supports this measure and without this and without the
revenue that is projected he suggested the residents need to be told as well as to what to
expect if it does not pass.
Commissioner Jan Harnik expressed appreciation for the Commissioners' comments and
stated it is understood there is a considerable funding gap if the Commission is going to
address the needs of Riverside County. She explained in 1988 there were Commissioners
that recognized there were issues, took some bold steps, and this Commission needs
those bold steps today. There may be people that are tax weary, traffic weary, they are
lack of quality of life weary, and transportation is about quality of life. Commissioner
Harnik expressed after hearing about the success of the Blythe Wellness Express Program
the Commissioners cannot ignore the needs of the County. She referred to 1-10 and the
housing developments and stated the Commission will have to accommodate the needs
of those people who are moving into those areas and in the rural areas. She explained in
the big picture and looking out at the future of the County and the future of the
community members this is necessary and for that reason she will support this vigorously.
Commissioner Magee referred to Page 193, which depicts the entire Traffic Relief Plan.
Aaron Hake requested to display the Western Riverside County map.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 11
Commissioner Magee referred to the map and the overpass at Nichols Road and 1-15 in
Lake Elsinore where Temescal Canyon High School and the outlet center is located, which
are clearly two traffic generators. He stated that the plan currently does not include any
additional work at that section of the freeway and referred to the area between Weirick
and SR-74 shown in grey. This Commission voted to approve $29 million to provide
environmental services to look at the dirt median between Corona and Lake Elsinore and
provide for environmental clearance. He expressed appreciation although he does not
concur with spending funds that way, but understands it has to be done. Commissioner
Magee referred to the TRS Committee and stated the rest of 1-15 is in green on the map
and inquired about the plan for getting the concrete and steel as this area cannot be
bypassed again. He referred to the 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) Ad Hoc
Committee as the Commission's mission was additional lanes from Cajalco to the County
Line south, which this omits this very critical section. He suggested to add it back in and
requested the Chair to consider forming a committee that is an expansion of the
Commission's 1-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee that includes District 1 and the city of Corona
and the rest of the 1-15 CIP Ad Hoc members.
Commissioner Lisa Middleton expressed gratitude to all the individuals involved in
producing this draft plan. She referred to the slide in the Coachella Valley with the
flooded Indian Canyon Road in the city of Palm Springs and stated on the opposite side of
that road on either side is the city of Desert Hot Springs and Desert Regional Medical
Center and when trying to get to the hospital from Desert Hot Springs or from other
locations in the Coachella Valley that is what is in the way. She discussed going through
many parts of Coachella and places in the eastern Coachella Valley every rainstorm brings
flooding of their streets. Commissioner Middleton expressed being honest with the
people and if the Commission is going to create the transportation network that is needed
for the 21St Century and respond to the future it is going to cost more money. She
explained the belief that the Commission could fix all of the problems that plague this
county from Southwestern Riverside, to Corona, to Riverside, to the Coachella Valley, and
to the Palo Verde Valley without additional resources will not occur and she supports this
measure.
Commissioner Andrew Kotyuk concurred with some of the Commissioners' comments as
he is against taxes. He expressed he is for democracy and for communities to determine
what their priorities are whether it is public safety, schools, or in this case transportation
corridors. Commissioner Kotyuk stated the Commissioners have been driven to be self-
help cities and communities, which is along that same path and it has built many
successful corridors that would not occur if the Commission relied on the state or federal
government. Commissioner Kotyuk explained he does approve the projects on the list
and many are in his region that they have been waiting decades for and have hurt many
of the local residents and businesses as well. He expressed this is not approving a sales
tax it is approving the right for democracy to work and for the constituents to vote on
what is their priority. Commissioner Kotyuk stated this voting is on the priorities and
potentially to allow the people to vote for what they choose.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 12
In response to Commissioner Kevin Jeffries' clarification when the current Measure A
sales tax expires, Anne Mayer replied 2039.
Commissioner Jeffries expressed concern convincing the voters to approve this sales tax
measure especially with the state's tax increases and fee increases for transportation. He
stated Riverside County is adding one small city a year somewhere between 20,000 and
30,000 and referred to Page 181 the second block of items listed on the left. He read the
sales tax in Riverside County will go up by one-half cents until ended by the voters, and
stated this implies there is no end in this tax. He expressed that is unusual for government
to not have an end date and clarified the voters would have to petition and do their own
initiative to stop the tax. He discussed getting the signatures that would need to be
collected throughout the County and notifying the voters how to stop the tax 20 to 50
years from now. He suggested the voters need to know there is no end ever to this sales
tax even after the projects are built.
In response to Commissioner Michael Vargas' clarification as part of the plan was to
establish a carpool lane from Nuevo up to the SR-60 on 1-215, Anne Mayer replied that
section is actually in this plan.
At this time, Commissioner Hewitt left the meeting.
In response to Commissioner Vargas' inquiry in the plan is to add an extra lane on both
sides from Van Buren to SR-60 what happened to the rest of it from Nuevo to SR-60, Anne
Mayer replied there is a portion of that project that is being built as a part of one of the
first segments of the Mid County Parkway project and staff will check on that.
Commissioner Vargas clarified that is just the interchange for Placentia. Anne Mayer
replied there are improvements that have to be done on 1-215 and she will follow up on
that and check on the limits.
Commissioner Scott Matas expressed not supporting taxes such as SB 1, but this is a state
where it is difficult to get funding for these major projects. He stated the reason why he
chose to be on the TRS Committee is to see what will need to be done in the future.
Commissioner Matas expressed supporting this sales tax and stated the Commission has
to find funding and the question is does the Commission allow the voters to choose to tax
themselves or not and if not how much will be spent in interest on bonds the Commission
will have to pay for in the future. He suggested to not throw the plan out due to not
supporting the tax being put on the ballot for the voters to make the choice. Regarding
the plan itself he stated staff would sit down with each city and or county district and
discuss their issues and noted this is a draft plan. He stated over the next six months with
public input and the input from the cities he is certain staff will be able to implement the
needs of their area.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 13
Commissioner Scott Vinton expressed appreciation for the presentation and concurred
with some of the Commissioners as he is tired of taxes. As a civil engineer that does
transportation projects his company pushed hard to ensure SB 1 stayed although he voted
against it. Commissioner Vinton stated this needs to go to the voters as there is a serious
problem with the County's transportation system. He concurred with Commissioner
Jeffries' comment as this should not be made a tax forever and requested to change it.
As a member of the TRS Committee the committee tried to find many projects that could
be covered with a great deal of the funding obviously as Mr. Hake noted it is not enough
to cover all those projects. He explained the list is not meant to be exclusive, that will
come later if it passes and the Commission determines how to prioritize projects.
Commissioner Vinton stated having said that he is in support of giving it to the voters to
make the decision.
Commissioner Wes Speake stated as a member of the TRS Committee he is appreciative
of the hard work on this list as it was exhaustive. This is the Commission's second view of
this and expressed gratitude to staff for putting it together for their colleagues at their
cities and the residents to review. He concurred with Commissioners Jeffries and Vinton
that a never ending tax could be levied against this tax or these projects going forward.
Commissioner Speake stated as Commissioner Kotyuk noted this is a self-help county and
in speaking with people from other counties that proudly proclaim that suggested the
Commissioners speak out with some venom to their state representatives. He expressed
the Commissioners need to push the state representatives to fund transportation as they
cannot allow the state and the federal government to absolve themselves of the issues
occurring in this County as Riverside County has about $10 billion worth of needs.
Commissioner Kathleen Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation for the follow up work the
staff has done and for meeting with her colleagues in the Coachella Valley after its
November Commission meeting to have some serious discussions about how to make it
work for Coachella Valley. She concurred it is imperative for the Commission to allow the
public to evaluate this plan and see what the values are going forward as far as the
transportation needs of the Coachella Valley. She discussed the lack of planning or
insufficient planning that created bottle necks in Western Riverside. Commissioner
Fitzpatrick expressed the Commission owes the citizens an opportunity to take a look at
the plan and using CVAG to develop a model to move projects forward in the Valley
together as a valuable tool to establish priorities and change priorities moving forward.
She supports this plan and supports educating the Coachella Valley citizens about what
the needs are and allow the voters to make that decision on whether there should be an
additional tax or not.
Commissioner Michael Naggar stated the city of Temecula's position about this 30-year
plan although it can be updated and a criteria has not been laid out is the following: What
the criteria is going to be based on, quality of life, economic development, health safety
and welfare, or will decisions be made to do infrastructure based on matching funds that
are available. He clarified if the Commission will make decisions on the ability to generate
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 14
more funds to do projects that have potential to create more road improvement funds.
He suggested the Commissioners in their cities begin partnerships, grant writing, look for
matching funds, and what is the highest and best need. He discussed how Temecula
sought a federal grant and obtained $50 million and being heavily invested in SB 1 funds
of $82 million and bid on the French Valley Parkway Phase II it turned out to be $140
million due to the escalation of costs as this 30-year time limit goes by. He stated through
the Interstate 15 Lane Expansion Task Force Caltrans agreed to give matching SHOP funds
to put acceleration and deceleration lanes on the 1-15, which Temecula is putting up $8
million. He suggested a semi-annual report on grant funds that are available and
applications being made by every city showing forth an effort that the Commissioners are
making. In the polling done by the Commission the citizens said they had no problem the
sales tax did not expire as the Commission understands that this tax over 30 years will not
pay for the current project list. Commissioner Naggar concurred with Commissioner
Magee's comments and is curious how that section dropped off as it is a critical section
from Cajalco to the southern corridor. He expressed concern there are so many people
in the southwest Riverside County who have contributed to causing a $1 billion a year
economic development effort and that area is a critical regional economic development
creator and exponentially starts to affect quality of life if traffic does not move through
that area. He suggested all Commissioners need to start looking out over the years, first
to get this passed and if it is being put on the ballot and putting forth this list he will
presume the Commissioners want this to pass as this is the only way to solve it.
Commissioner Naggar referred to Commissioner Zimmerman's interchange project he
suggested to put on the list, and he has no problem putting that on the list, but these
funds must come from somewhere else and to start those partnerships now.
Commissioner Perez suggested to bring back the 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project Ad
Hoc Committee to discuss Bundy Canyon Road and put it on the table and continue the
advocacy efforts at the federal and state level. This is a draft plan so that is the purpose
behind this conversation and the Commissioners need to bring up their points of concern,
the challenges and list them and move forward. He supports this and expressed working
together to make this happen.
At this time, Commissioner Vargas left the meeting.
Commissioner Kimberly Muzik stated this is her first Commission meeting since
Commission Reed was not able to attend and expressed concern about the open ended
tax. She suggested it will confuse the residents when they go to the ballot and suggested
it would be better to say it will be a forever tax rather than stating it is open ended. She
stated to put it as it is the half percent it will take care of Riverside County's roads and
leave it at that.
Commissioner Jan Harnik expressed hearing two important things, which is to educate
the voters and to be honest with the people the Commissioners represent. She explained
the Commissioners are here to entertain the thought of adopting a draft plan, this is not
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 15
saying the Commissioners are voting for a tax they are voting to adopt a draft plan. There
has been a lot of work put into it and the Commission has always shown themselves to
be nimble and respond to what the needs are as they change, which will happen as they
go forward. She moved staff's recommendation along with the wording that Mr. Hake
provided.
Chair Benoit clarified if this motion would include Garbani and the 1-15 corridor items that
were brought up.
Commissioner Harnik replied the two projects yes and clarified if they could entertain the
sunset, but when the two focus groups were conducted it was found with all the outreach
that there was not opposition to having it written that the voters can repeal this at some
point. If the Commissioners need to entertain that thought they can however, they need
to take into consideration the lessons learned.
Anne Mayer explained the Commissioners are raising a question about the term that they
expect to be a hot topic of conversation over the next five months of public review and
comment. She suggested the instinct would have been there should be a term on the tax
as it shows that it will end. As Commissioner Harnik mentioned in all the focus group
conversations and the feedback received that answer the Commission has gotten from
the members of the public is no they want to be in control. If they do not think the money
is being spent correctly they want the power to be able say the tax ends. Anne Mayer
stated that is why it is the way it is in the draft; that being said she expects this to be an
area where there will be many public comments on multiple fronts. She would expect
that no matter whether the Commission puts it in as 30 years or as indefinite now this will
be a topic of conversation for the Commissioners in June about which way to go.
Commissioner Washington expressed not being certain where he stood and leading up to
this point he has voted against the tax. As he reads the staff report and read that the final
plan will be presented to the Commission on June 10 for consideration to be placed on
the November ballot. He continued to read as the Commission previously stated there is
independent public value to creating a Traffic Relief Plan to set a blue print for future
Riverside County regardless of whether the plan is put to a vote of the people there is no
fiscal impact to the approval of the draft plan for public circulation. Commissioner
Washington explained as a County Supervisor and his colleagues on the Commission will
understand his comments as they all have cities within their districts and listening to the
comments from at least three of the four cities in his district that are represented and
one is not here. He stated they are asking for support of the plan and he expressed
supporting the plan due to the information he just read and does not feel that is
inconsistent with his previous vote about the tax and will reevaluate in June. He
suggested the Commission needs a plan whether they vote to submit it to the voters or
not.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 16
Commissioner Bailey expressed having a great discussion and summarized there is an
information gap not just a funding gap with the public and this gives the Commissioners
an opportunity for them who probably understand it from his prospective and the public
feedback received they have an elementary education on the transportation systems not
just of today but of tomorrow. This is an opportunity for the Commission to not just fill
the funding gap but the information gap and to take the elementary education to a college
degree in transportation moving forward transportation of the future. As representatives
they are going to educate their constituents and as problem solvers as the problem was
discovered a Level of Service (LOS) "F" in the transportation system and coming soon what
will be done. He explained the decision making they are not the ultimate decision makers
it will be the voters, and the Commission's job is to receive public input over the next five
months and make a decision later to put the tax on the ballot and he is supportive of that.
Commissioner Naggar clarified the motion as it supports staff's language and that was his
second for discussion and that also includes the list that was presented.
Anne Mayer replied if the Commissioners approve staff's recommendation and this plan
it includes all the projects included in this, which all of the projects that were included in
the investment list in December is in this plan. She also heard in this motion that Garbani
1-215 and 1-15 southern extension from Cajalco to SR-74 would be included.
In response to Commissioner Naggar's clarification with Commissioner Harnik that is part
of her motion, Commissioner Harnik replied that is accurate.
Commissioner Naggar stated his second will reflect that as well. He asked Anne Mayer
when talking about "the plan" is the plan the list or is the plan a plan of priorities, funding,
inflation, etc.
Anne Mayer referred to Legal Counsel Steve DeBaun to respond.
Steve DeBaun replied the plan is the Traffic Relief Plan that is attached to the staff report.
That is the technical plan that is referred to in state law as the expenditure plan that is
required to be attached to the ordinance when adopted so that is the plan.
Commissioner Naggar concurred and stated he does not want to necessarily get into
semantics and understands the legality so it is the list. There is no functional plan and
clarified that this plan is the one that is being proposed to be used in the ballot measure.
Anne Mayer replied yes and stated whatever final version of this plan would be attached
and if it goes forward this would be the expenditure plan.
Commissioner Naggar asked if it is reasonable to assume this Commission at some point
will have an actual plan a plan that puts things in a matter of priority based on some
criteria the Commission establishes and when would it occur.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 17
Anne Mayer replied implementation of an expenditure plan approved by the voters
would be handled the same way it has been done with the two other sales tax measures,
which is the expenditure plan and the ordinance are the parameters under which this
Commission would have to create implementation criteria. If this were to pass by the
voters the Commission would decide how to implement the plan as approved by the
voters. She stated the expenditure plan is not just a list, it also has intent built in. If the
voters approve a plan that talks about what the objectives are this Commission would
have to adhere to what those objectives are in addition to the list of projects.
Commissioner Naggar inquired understanding there is a list that cannot be implemented
yet and so some people were selling something that may not get delivered absent a true
plan.
Chair Benoit stated the motion was verbally made by Harnik and seconded by Naggar.
M/S/C (Harnik/Hanna) to:
1) Discuss and provide input on the draft Countywide Traffic Relief Plan
(Plan);
2) Approve the draft Plan for public circulation and comment through
June 10, 2020;
3) Authorize staff to correct any non -substantive typos, error, or omissions;
and
4) Support draft language all projects included with the addition of Garbani
1-215 and 1-15 southern extension from Cajalco to SR-74.
No: Jeffries, Lorimore, Welch, and White
In response to Chair Benoit's clarification to Commissioner Magee if the project added
was enough or if he wanted to discuss the 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project Ad Hoc
Committee, Commissioner Magee suggested this be discussed at its Commission
Workshop.
10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION
There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar.
11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
11.A Anne Mayer wished the Commissioners a Happy New Year. She reminded the
Commissioners about the Annual Commission Workshop on Thursday and Friday,
January 30-31, 2020, at the Hilton Palm Springs. Please RSVP regarding their
attendance if they have not yet done so.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2020
Page 18
• Reminder there are no Committee meetings in January due to the
Commission Workshop.
12. CLOSED SESSION
12A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee
Item
APN(s)
Property Owner
Buyer(s)
1
102-091-006
RCTC
Dr. Gulabrai B. Ukani
There were no announcements from the Closed Session Items.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 11:13 a.m. The next
Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Thursday and Friday,
January 30-31, 2020, at the Hilton Palm Springs, Palm Springs.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Mobley
Clerk of the Board
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Friday, January 31, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by
Chair Ben J. Benoit at 8:33 a.m. at the Hilton Palm Springs Hotel, 400 E Tahquitz Canyon
Way, Palm Springs, California.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Lisa Middleton led the Commission in a flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent
Mike Beauchamp
Ben J. Benoit
Brian Berkson
Randall Bonner
Joseph DeConinck
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Raymond Gregory
Yxstain Gutierrez
Berwin Hanna
Jan Harnik
Steven Hernandez
Jeff Hewitt
Kevin Jeffries
Linda Krupa
Clint Lorimore
Scott Matas
Lisa Middleton
V. Manuel Perez
Dana Reed
Larry Smith
Wes Speake
Karen Spiegel
Chuck Washington
Art Welch
Lloyd White
Michael Vargas
Scott Vinton
Bill Zimmerman
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
Rusty Bailey
Waymond Fermon
Andrew Kotyuk
Bob Magee
Michael Naggar
Ted Weill
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 31, 2020
Page 2
6. ADDITIONAL AWARDS FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Jenny Chan, Management Analyst, presented the additional awards for Fiscal Year
2019/20 SB 821 Program, highlighting the following areas:
• SB 821 — 2 percent of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue; Bicycle and
pedestrian projects; and bike and pedestrian Master Plans
• Past Commission actions: June 2019 Commission meeting — Four awarded
projects in the Coachella Valley and eight awarded projects in Western Riverside
County
• A list of the awarded projects
• Staff recommendation: Additional award projects
• A map of the FY 2019/20 additional awards, which project locations are
approximate
M/S/C (Jeffries/Gregory) to:
1) Approve additional project awards for the Fiscal Year 2019/20 SB 821
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (SB 821) program for an additional
amount of $1,611,395 and a total amount of $5,513,310;
2) Direct staff to prepare memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with the
project sponsors to outline the project schedules and local funding
commitments; and
3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director to execute the MOUs with the
project sponsors, pursuant to legal counsel review.
7. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REQUEST FOR A LOAN ON HAMNER BRIDGE PROJECT
Lorelle Moe -Luna, Multimodal Services Director, presented the County of Riverside
request for a loan on Hamner Bridge Project, highlighting the following:
• A map that depicts the project location in Western Riverside County
• Cash flow to contractor, cash flow from FHWA, and Loan request
Anne Mayer stated that per the federal legislative panel discussion the next
transportation act would include the bridge program again. She discussed the last act
and the federal government trying to streamline their funding programs in that they
eliminated the highway bridge program that had been funding deficient bridges across
the country.
Commissioner Spiegel expressed this is an extremely important project as the Hamner
Bridge has been long term there were many issues that needed to be addressed, and it is
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 31, 2020
Page 3
a vital connection between the cities on the other side of 1-215 and with that she made
the motion to approve.
Commissioner Berwin Hanna discussed the flooding at the north end of the freeway
bridge in Norco and how the city manager and the engineer went to Congressman Ken
Calvert's office and former Supervisor John Tavaglione and discussed the situation. At
that point, the city of Norco started working on it along with the Commission,
Congressman Calvert, and WRCOG getting involved. He expressed appreciation for the
Commission's support on this two-lane bridge, as it is 74 years old, and the traffic caused
from the residents coming south to get to the 1-15.
Commissioner Lorimore expressed appreciation for the comments, as this bridge is vitally
important as traffic conditions are getting worse throughout the area. The bridge has
been on the verge of going down before and getting to a point with the increased traffic
and with having access to 1-15 at Limonite there needs to be an alternate access point.
He expressed appreciation for the Commissioner's support on this.
MAX (Spiegel/Lorimore) to:
1) Approve a loan to the County of Riverside (County) of 2009 Measure A
Western County Regional Arterial (MARA) and/or Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program funds in the
amount of $33,463,000 for construction of the Hamner Bridge
Replacement and Widening Project (Hamner Bridge Project) with the
County's repayment of the loan anticipated from federal Highway Bridge
Program (HBP) funds;
2) Authorize the Executive Director to develop, finalize and execute
Agreement
No. 18-31-074-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 18-31-074-00,
with the County and cities of Eastvale and Norco for the construction of
the Hamner Bridge Project to include terms of a loan agreement,
pursuant to legal counsel review;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
develop, finalize, and execute a new or amend an existing agreement
with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) related to
the Commission's loan on the Hamner Bridge Project; and
4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
develop, finalize, and execute agreements with the County, city of
Eastvale, city of Norco, and/or Caltrans related to the loan for the
Hamner Bridge Project.
Abstain: Speake
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 31, 2020
Page 4
8. REMEDIAL WORK CONTRACT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, provided an overview for the remedial work contract
for the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project.
In response to Commissioner Scott Vinton's inquiry about reimbursement, David Thomas
replied the Commission would invoice them as part of the settlement agreement.
In response to Commissioner Vinton's question about the additional work that is listed in
Exhibit A, David Thomas discussed the details of the additional work.
M/S/C (Vargas/Spiegel) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 20-31-043-00 with Atkinson/Walsh a Joint Venture
(AWJV) to perform remedial work for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement
Project (SR-91 CIP) in an amount not to exceed $500,000; and
2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize
and execute the agreement.
10. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
10A. Commissioner Jan Harnik referred to the January 30 CTC meeting and requested
Tom Kirk, CVAG Executive Director, to provide details from the meeting.
Tom Kirk announced CVAG was allocated $29.5 million for CV Link and looks
forward to working with Caltrans on the rest of the project.
10B. Anne Mayer announced:
• There is no February Commission meeting due to the County holiday.
• Recruitment for the new Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Council
(CSTAC) and if there are any constituents who might be interested to share
the application information.
11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
January 31, 2020
Page 5
Lisa Mobley
Clerk of the Board
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
Thursday and Friday, January 30-31, 2020
The Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop was called to order by
Chair Ben J. Benoit at 1:00 p.m., at the Hilton Palm Springs Hotel, 440 E Tahquitz Canyon Way,
Palm Springs, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Dana Reed led the Commission in a flag salute.
COMMISSION ROUNDTABLE — 2020 WHAT NEEDS OUR ATTENTION?
Chair Ben Benoit explained there is no action being taken on this item as this is an opportunity
to discuss transportation, where are the concerns, where do you see the Commission going, and
where the Commission is at.
The Commissioners provided the following recommendations:
• Create an 1-15 Corridor Task Force Committee and the 1-10 corridor impacts the 1-15 so
the 1-10 Corridor should have official representation in this task force committee for that
area
• Related to State Route 79, create a task force with the surrounding cities such as the cities
of Murrieta, Temecula, and the Pass Area to partner; use the city of Temecula that
received state and federal funds as a model; and the key points of economic development
so infrastructure supports that
• With the addition of SR-79 and the Mid County Parkway Project enable economic growth
manufacturing in that area to keep the systems in the city of Hemet as 80 percent of the
city of Hemet's residents works outside the city
At this time, Commissioner Kevin Jeffries joined the meeting.
• Continue to focus on rail service to the Coachella Valley
• Continue to focus on the county connectivity discussions and the next chapter to enter
into is to be a team and focus to make an investment in Riverside County and their regions
and tie one side to the other
• Put more pressure on the state and federal representatives to attract grant funds; have a
single voice along with smaller voices to encourage the residents to put pressure on the
state and federal representatives that Riverside County needs more capacity; and push
for the representatives and Caltrans to help fund their own projects as well
• Do more advocating for the Commission and getting more editorials that mention the
cities or entities they are representing and advocating RCTC was involved; and work
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 2
within the districts to have the cities work more cohesively as a county and putting their
voices forward even when issues are going on
At this time, Commissioner Jeff Hewitt joined the meeting.
• Receive information on development and the impact on transportation with successful
land planning and zoning and the nexus of successful or failing transportation come
together. This will be beneficial information to work together in their communities to
resolve better economic development and quality of life
PREVIEW OF DEBT REFINANCING OPPORTUNITIES
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, presented a preview of 91 Express Lanes debt
refinancing opportunities, highlighting the following areas:
• No leveraging of surplus toll revenues: Desire to preserve future financings involving
surplus toll revenues from RCTC toll facilities; may return in future with innovative
financing ideas; and existing surplus toll revenues still available to fund 91 corridor
projects
• Current 91 Express Lanes Toll debt
• Why consider a refinancing — Debt management tool and criteria
• Proposed plan of refinance — Debt today and debt after refinancing
At this time, Commissioners Clint Lorimore, V. Manuel Perez, and Yxstain Gutierrez joined the
meeting.
• 2020 refinancing objectives — Burdensome covenants and future debt service
• Historical Basis for tax-exempt rates
• Summary: Option 1— Maintain existing debt structure
• Summary: Option 2 — Refinance debt
The Commissioners had a thorough discussion regarding Options 1 and 2, including the following
areas:
• Suggested waiting 90 days from the March schedule to pursue refinancing
• They discussed the difference if the Commission went with Option 2 vs. Option 1
• There was support for staff's and B of A's recommendation
• There was concern there were no handouts for this item
Theresia Trevino discussed the following:
• Based on the current schedule is to sell the bonds late March and closing the transaction
in the last week of March.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 3
• What triggers a financing if the Commission goes past the 60 days the internal costs to be
incurred that would be associated with that such as the financial team has to be paid,
legal counsel is involved, the bankers are contingent on the deal being done.
• The difference with Option 2, which is a cash flow available within the time frame the
Commission needs them for projects the toll team can start working on the necessary
procurements in the next few months for fund the following three projects: 15/91 ELC,
91 Corridor Operations and the 71/91 Interchange Projects.
• The numbers are still being worked on the financial analysis that has been changing daily
this week as they continue to engineer the analysis and at the Committee/Commission
cycle there will be numbers available. Currently she has the amount of debt that would
be refunded, which is $683 million, which is the Commissions' largest refunding to date.
At this time, Anne Mayer clarified staff is not asking for the Commissioners' approval of this deal
today; that will come at a future meeting. She explained they did not want to get too far down
the road conceptually, so the question is does the Commission want staff to continue to gather
the data and detailed information and bring it back through the committee process or do they
want staff to discontinue.
The Commissioners then discussed the following:
• For Option 1 there was discussion on the tolling authority.
• Asked staff to continue to do what they are doing and bring it back as soon as possible.
• If the Commission went forward with this and did the refinancing at the end of March
could it be redone again in the summer or sometime later in the year if the rates did dive
down and the Commission could potentially save more.
Theresia Trevino stated the tolling authority is 50 years from when the lanes open, which was
2017 so the term of the authority is still the same. Theresia Trevino's assumption would be no
the refinancing could not be done again at least on a tax exempt basis, which has slightly lower
rates because the TIFIA would be refunded primarily with tax exempt debt.
At this time Commissioner Steven Hernandez joined the meeting.
The Commissioners continued to discuss the options, highlighting the following:
• For the 15/91 ELC Project the funding for that was SB 132 and needed more information
on the funding for that. Also to be cautious as markets can tumble and things can happen
really quickly.
• As part of the conversation this allows the Commission to go forward with some of the
projects and as part of the analysis that staff brings back to look at what the costs are of
not moving forward and increased costs that may be associated with doing this at a later
date as opposed to doing this now.
• Option 2 was supported.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 4
Anne Mayer stated for the 15/91 Northbound Connector Project $180 million came from SB 132
and the projects costs are greater than that so the Commission will use surplus toll revenue for
the rest.
Anne Mayer explained this item will be coming back to the February Budget and Implementation
Committee and forwarded to the March Commission with all the proposals, detailed staff report
and official statements for discussion. She clarified with Theresia Trevino about the process the
Commission goes through to create all of the official legal documents the Commission would
need to approve and how long would that process take for an offering of this size.
Theresia Trevino replied this is a refunding so it is a lot easier than doing a new financing with a
new security such as the toll revenues or the sales tax so a couple of months to get the documents
in good shape, which is what the team has been working on at this point. There are agency rating
meetings and at that time there will be better numbers to present.
Anne Mayer stated in order to put a deal together it takes approximately two months to bring to
the Commission for approval. She explained if the market changes in July it would take two to
three months to catch that and all the details will be brought to the Budget and Implementation
Committee in February for discussion.
At this time, Commissioner Michael Vargas joined the meeting.
At this time, Chair Benoit presented Past Chair Chuck Washington with an award to
commemorate his tenure as Chair for 2019.
RCTC AT WORK: PANEL DISCUSSION
Cheryl Donahue, Public Affairs Manager, moderated a panel discussion with the following staff:
Stephanie Blanco, Capital Projects Manager, Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager, Mark
Lancaster, Capital Projects Manager, David Lewis, Capital Projects Manager,
Bryce Johnston, Capital Projects Manager, and David Thomas, Toll Projects Manager. She
focused on existing projects in Western Riverside County, the Pass Area, and the Coachella Valley.
The panel then discussed the toll projects going on due to the public interests and discussion
about the significance of these projects, updates, the challenges, and questions related to these
projects in Western Riverside County, the Pass Area and in the Coachella Valley and also women
in transportation.
At this time, Commissioners Andrew Kotyuk and Lisa Middleton left the meeting.
Cheryl Donahue opened it up for discussion. The Commissioners and the panel discussed the
following: The connector bridge on to SR-71 as part of the future expansion of SR-71, turning
over the tolling statements, the 40 signs that will be put up, the anticipated ribbon cutting, the
Army Corps of Engineers challenges, 1-15 from Corona to Lake Elsinore and going down to San
Diego County, about being on target and moving forward for the 1-15 Railroad Canyon project, 1-
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 5
10 major project that is going from Pennsylvania Street in Beaumont to Highway 111 and the
coordination with the SR-60 lane closures, improvements for the 71/91, lessons learned after the
successful 55-hour closure in Corona, the Riverside Downtown Station improvements and the
study that was done through Metrolink of similar stations and issues related to safety and
security, why the existing switchable transponders no longer beep, the 1-15 toll lane on the
Eastvale side right before the south side on SR-60, which is a mile from San Bernardino County
Line and what coordination is being done, request to have Caltrans update the Commission on
the swarm projects on SR-60, 1-10, and 1-215, and solving the problem of moving these
environmental documents related to CEQA projects more quicker.
Anne Mayer explained for the 1-15 Corridor there is one currently under construction and the
next phase that goes to the city of Lake Elsinore is underway, and the stretch from Lake Elsinore
to the Los Angeles County Line there is no funding to keep that moving forward and
Commissioner Magee had requested to bring back the 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project Ad Hoc
Committee and Chair Benoit has authorized that so at the first meeting it will be discussed what
is next and the French Valley Parkway project will be included.
At this time Commissioners Ferman, Matas, Spiegel, and White left the meeting.
Chair Benoit also left the meeting, therefore Vice -Chair Jan Harnik assumed the position as Chair.
LEGISLATIVE PANEL — WHAT'S HAPPENING IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND SACRAMENTO?
David Knudsen, Legislative Affairs Manager, moderated a panel discussion with the Commission's
Sacramento and Washington D.C. lobbyists Mark Watts, Kathy Ruffalo, and Cliff Madison, to
update and provide information on what is going on in the nation and the state capitol related
to State and Federal Legislation, and predictions for 2020.
Anne Mayer started off the discussion about the SAFE rule and the fact the Commission will not
be in conformity at the SCAG Region, and what does that mean.
Mark Watts stated it means if the project needs a minor tweak done to it that cannot be done.
Anything that needs to be added to the project through FTIP it cannot conform to that.
Anne Mayer stated if that cannot be done that is why Highway Administration cannot make any
decisions, which means Federal Highway Administration cannot give any rules on any federal
document they cannot approve any federal obligations of any funds, which is a significant issue.
There was discussion about how CEQA is much longer and much more complicated and it slows
down projects, and the water quality at the state level, and if there is any legislative push to
challenge that in Riverside County as the Governor said he does not want to fund any kind of
passing. Mark Watts expressed concern in the Governor's budget that refers to the STIP as a
source of funding for sustainable uses and the RTIP is for SCS, which can be interrupted as positive
or extremely negative on making progress on making projects. He then discussed the congested
corridor grant programs.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 6
Anne Mayer discussed the effort that is underway a few years ago to modify the State
Transportation Improvement Program where it was decided that 75 percent of state funding of
the County and what the priorities are. She discussed the California Transportation Commission
(CTC) and how this region has been represented by Commissioner Joe Tavaglione for several
years and how the next several weeks will tell the Commission a great deal.
There was discussion about the framework being done in Washington about the Fix It First
prioritization, which is a way of stating not to add funds to capacity to fixing what you have now,
which is uncertain what that means and it could mandate not just at the federal level but at the
state level.
WRAP UP AND NEXT STEPS
At this time, Anne Mayer announced the workshop is done for the day and that dinner will be
served at 6:00 p.m. Lauren Skiver, GM/CEO from SunLine will have a presentation about
technology at the dinner. Breakfast will be served from 7:30 a.m. — 8:30 a.m. and from 8:30 a.m.
— 9:00 a.m. there will be a Commission meeting, and then the Workshop will commence at
9:00 a.m.
At 5:05 p.m., Chair Harnik called for a recess until 6:00 p.m.
PRESENTATIONS ON SUNLINE AND NEW TECHNOLOGY
Lauren Skiver, GM/CEO presented an overview of Today's Transit for Tomorrow's World — How
SunLine Transit Agency is Revolutionizing Transit, highlighting the following areas:
• Routes - 14 local fixed -routes, one express line, one Riverside commuter link, and ADA
paratransit; Fleet-61 CNG, 16 Electric Hydrogen Fuel Cell, 4 Electric Battery BYD, 39 CNG
paratransit vehicles; and Revenue Miles vs. Passenger Trips — 4.3 million revenue miles
and 4.5 million passenger trips
• Transit and System improvements
• Hydrogen basics, benefits, safety, and cost/benefit
• SunLine's Technology Contribution
• CARB Innovative Clean Transportation (ICT) Regulations and Transit Requirements
• CARB Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) Regulations/Medium & Heavy Duty Requirements
• SunLine's Hydrogen Program
• Powering a Clean Tomorrow —Today: Potential Funding Sources; and How can we do it
• Completed Training Modules — Advanced Technology Technician Training; Planning and
executing ZEB's in service; Procurement Insights for ZEB purchases; and Leadership,
mission, value creation for a successful ZEB program
• Looking for Partners — Local Academic Institutions, Manufactures, Private Business; and
Coachella Valley Leaders
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 7
There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, the workshop adjourned at 7:15 p.m. The Commission Workshop will reconvene
Friday, January 31 at 9:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Mobley
Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 8
MINUTES
Friday, January 31, 2020
The second day of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop was called to
order by Chair Ben J. Benoit at 9:00 a.m., at the Hilton Palm Springs Hotel, 440 E Tahquitz Canyon
Way, Palm Springs, California.
SB 743 — VMT — THE FUTURE IN CALIFORNIA IS CHANGING
At this time, Commissioner V. Manuel Perez left the meeting.
Anne Mayer welcomed and introduced Charity Schiller, Best Best and Krieger, LLP, to provide a
presentation on the implementation of SB 743. She explained hearing Mark Watts at the
legislative panel discussion from yesterday talking about a lot of conversation that is occurring in
Sacramento about the fact that while there may not be any new legislation that's a big ticket for
conversation implementation of law using policy and procedures this is going to be a very weak
year. She then discussed the conversations in Sacramento about all the different priorities and
there are really good goals and objectives but many of those policies are bumping up against
each other. She expressed a lot of the conflict is going to come in under the SB 743, which is why
Ms. Schiller is here to discuss the implementation of SB 743.
Charity Schiller presented the details of SB 743, highlighting the following areas:
• Background:
o CEQA requires agencies to consider transportation and traffic impacts prior to
approving projects
o Historically, a delay -based metric has been used
o Level of Service(LOS) measures how efficiently traffic flows through roadways and
intersections on an A through F scale
o LOS impacts are often mitigated through roadway efficiency improvements
(widening, restriping, signalization, interchange improvements, connectivity
between communities, and fair -share fees)
o Separate from CEQA, LOS standards are also reflected in most city/county general
plans
• The state steps in:
o By the early 2000s, there were growing concerns regarding greenhouse gases
(GHG) and global warming: AB 32: Legislature recognizes global warming and
establishes state-wide GHG reduction targets
o State focues on the transportation -sector, sought to encourage infill, and tried to
limit "sprawl": SB 375: Each Metropolitan Planning Organization must develop a
Regional Transportation Plan that "caps" through a "Sustainable Communities
Strategy"
• The state's next step: SB 743:
o SB 743 amended CEQA to require that transportation impacts in certain areas be
analyzed using something other than LOS
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 9
o Legislature focused on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the new metric
o CEQA Guidelines 15064.3 confirmed that VMT is generally the most appropriate
metric going forward
• Is SB 743 a step forward or step back:
o Extensive debate on whether VMT is "better" than LOS. (If your trip is only
ten miles, but it takes you two hours to make that trip because of
congestion, are you really reducing GHGs?)
o Although intended to facilitate residential infill, does SB 743
unintentionally worsenthe housing crisis by making it harder/more
expensive for less urbanized areas to build affordablehousing?
o Doesn't the switch to VMT disproportionately affect development in areas
that are not yet fully developed (like much of the Inland Empire)?
• The bottom line requirement
o Regardless of the uncertainty and arguments, agencies must change their
method of analyzing traffic impacts in CEQA documents no later than July
1st.LOS/delay will no longer be considered a "impact"
o VMT analysis is "generally" required
o Caveat per Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of
Sacramento (cert. 12/2019). Argument that LOS is no longer a CEQA impact
now
• Why is the July 15t deadline important?
o It flips traditional traffic impact analysis and mitigation on its head
o Things that we once viewed as traffic mitigation because they reduced vehicle
delay (i.e., new, wider, better roads), might now be viewed as causing a traffic
impact because they arguably facilitate VMT in some circumstances
• Why is the July 15t deadline important (continued)?
o Issues re Cost/Timing:"If the [CEQA] document meets the content requirements
in effect when the document is sent out for public review," it need not be updated
(CEQA Guideline 15007)
o But some real uncertainties with regard to documents that are in mid -preparation
• Issues re how much VMT is "significant"?
o Do agencies want a jurisdiction -wide threshold; a regional threshold; or attempt
to address on a project -by -project basis
o If VMT threshold is too low, an EIR will be required for virtually every project
(Discourages development?)
o If VMT threshold is too high, an EIR may never be required. (Illusory?)
o OPR recommends a threshold of reducing VMT to a level of "15% below that of
existing development"
o What happens when thresholds conflict?
o Any threshold must be supported by substantial evidence and be adopted through
a public process
• Issues re Caltrans and RTPs:
o Caltrans working on a proposed VMT threshold
o How will it apply when local sponsor (RCTC or others) are CEQA lead agency, but
Caltrans review is required?
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 10
o Will RTPs re -focus on reducing VMTs, rather than facilitating vehicular circulation?
• Issues re technical analysis:
o CEQA process still fundamentally the same: describe project; calculate VMT
impact; compare to threshold; mitigate if significant
• However, technically complex:
o How "far out" from Project site must VMT be calculated? When does it become
speculative?
o Particularly for transportation projects, how do we calculate the existing
"baseline" VMT for purposes of evaluating the impact
• Issues re mitigation:
o CEQA requires all "feasible" mitigation for significant impacts
o Greater emphasis on measures that reduce VMT (bicycles, pedestrian, train,
busing, carpool)
o But can we "feasibly" mitigate to a level of less -than -significant for large projects?
o Large-scale mitigation comes with large-scale price tags. A regional mitigation
approach may be an option
• More issues re mitigation:
o How to show that "mitigation" is additive (over and above what would normally
happen)?
o More pressure to "bundle" projects that reduce VMT with projects that increase
VMT? A new way of looking at project planning?
o If LOS is no longer an "impact," what does this mean for current "mitigation"
schemes?
• Litigation issues:
o CEQA continues to be a cudgel for many groups
o Every uncertainty is an opportunity for legal challenge
o Litigation costs are especially tough on public projects without private sponsors —
including nearly all transportation projects
• With all the uncertainties around VMT, can agencies at least scratch LOS off their list?
o Probably not.
o LOS still used in many planning documents (e.g., general plans)
o Land use consistency, land use adjacency, public health, and quality of life issues
are tied to LOS in some jurisdictions
o LOS goals might still be an important factor for decision -makers to weigh before
acting on a proposed project
At this time in the presentation of "Where do we go from here?" Charity Schiller turned it over
to Anne Mayer to discuss.
Anne Mayer explained wanting to bring this to the Commissioners' attention not only to ensure
they are aware for their jurisdictions but also the practical implications for the Commission. She
used the 1-15 Southern Extension as an example, as the Commission is starting the 1-15 Southern
Extension environmental document, there have been public scoping meetings, issued a notice of
preparation to the public, and it is likely going to be the Commission's first project that will have
to analyze VMT as part of its traffic analysis. She expressed there is no guidance yet, the guidance
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 11
is being developed and collectively the transportation stakeholders are not actively engaged in
that effort. She explained in order to reduce GHG emissions one of the most effective things that
can be done is toll lanes and congestion pricing, which is the most effective way to reduce GHG
emissions, however the 1-15 Express Lanes will reduce GHG but it will increase VMT and how does
that get mitigated. She then discussed the Commission's options in working with other agencies
in Southern California about six months ago and requested the Caltrans team in Headquarters
putting this plan together to meet with them about the plan and the implications on project
delivery. Anne Mayer stated this is being shared with the Commissioners in order to get input
and direction.
The Commissioners then discussed the following areas:
Suggested to track VMT by businesses that open or businesses that have expanded and keeping
track of how many people and coming up with VMT to link those two things together; have a
program mitigation fee that goes to WRCOG to help fund this bill; suggested if the VMT is the
next step to start having the tie to the individual consumers and having to do the travel paid
through the VMT process; while focusing on exporting 400,000 people per day out of the County
if they continue to focus inward instead of outward to get credit for that while trying to reduce
the exportation of workers by virtue of investing in infrastructure that serves the County
internally; suggested this is a dangerous law and that it favors urbanization; asked about the
benefits of this law and encouraging more urban form as its important they balance the change
with some positives that benefit here with this law; what is the incentive of San Francisco; who
grades the A-F LOS; concurred there needs to be more housing when there are jobs, but the
problem is there that there is no differentiation between Coast Mesa, Irvine, San Jacinto, and
Coachella; and there needs to be a sliding scale on what's important because where they make
the most money is going to dictate. It was requested to keep the Commissioners informed as
this program progresses.
Charity Schiller explained with the VMT and tying it to the individual consumers it could be and
she then used San Francisco as an example, and discussed their incentive program to help drive
less miles. Ms. Schiller concurred about getting credit for trying to reduce the exportation of
workers by virtue of investing in infrastructure that serves the County internally. She stated from
an analyst prospective they would want to look at a project if they are required to look at projects
in terms of where everyone is driving they should also be able to claim credit or adjust the
housing affects because that does reduce VMT on a regional basis that specific project appears
to create VMT. Ms. Schiller explained the focus of transportation today was the challenges that
came up with this law because of the risk of litigation, but the benefits they are urban with the
legislative history and the guidelines, which are: responsibility of downtowns, prioritizing
expenditure of funding on trails and bicycle projects, industrial improvements on railway
expansions, basically given direction to put more effort towards those projects. The other benefit
is hopefully in the long term it will reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Charity
Schiller stated not being familiar with San Francisco's program as San Francisco has a government
based incentive program also private sector programs and the tracker used is on the privacy side
of things. She stated the A-F LOS of standards are set in the local general plans for each
jurisdiction.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 12
Anne Mayer explained in addition to the technical aspects it is staff's recommendation like the
ideas currently being shared that the Commission does everything it can in partnership with
CVAG, WRCOG, and other partners to create their own mitigation programs as the state is in the
process of creating mitigation programs. It is better to be proactive and create programs that
work here based on what the Commissioners want staff to focus on than be told what to do.
Anne Mayer stated this could be an opportunity to incentivize communities to have integrated
planning. She expressed the problem is in the implementation the way it appears to be headed
from an implementation standpoint is punitive not incentivizing.
At this time, Commissioners Berkson, Gutierrez, Jeffries, Lorimore, and White left the meeting.
ZERO FATALITIES TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Commissioner Lisa Middleton welcomed the Commissioners to the city of Palm Springs. She then
presented a review of the draft of the final report for the Zero Fatalities Task Force, which could
have some changes before this gets to final form. It is now resting with the Secretary of the
California State Department of Transportation for his final approval before moving on to the
Legislature. Commissioner Middleton presented the findings, highlighting the following areas:
• 85th Percentile Rule
• The Task Force Members included 40 people — Police Chiefs, Traffic Engineers, Academics
in the Transportation Area, two Elected Officials, the city of Culver City Mayor, and
Commissioner Middleton
• The Task Force made 17 findings and 26 recommendations, which she then highlighted
some of the findings
• There are a set of changes being recommended and provided a basic idea behind how
speed limits will be set in the future if the recommendations were approved by looking at
a matrix
• The matrix would include the following:
o What type of roadway are we talking about
o How many lanes of traffic are there
o Is there or is there not a physical division of traffic
o What type of division of traffic is there
o What is the environment: rural, industrial, commercial, mixed, urban, or suburban
and each of these would be a factor
o What is the presence in the number of pedestrians and cyclists on the roadway
and are pedestrians and cyclists even permit some maximum speeds are going to
be on rural freeways with physical barriers between ongoing traffic, multiple lanes
of traffic, no ability for pedestrians or cyclists to enter that roadway and there are
a number of miles between the points of entry and points of exit on that freeway
• Cities could establish a central business district this could be used to set the limits that
were specific to their business district
• Revise accordingly how the state of California sets the guidelines to make the guidelines
easier to follow for municipalities all of which to reduce the average speed the people
follow
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 13
• California allow automated speed control by the cameras to identify speeds and that each
municipality could be allowed to set up cameras to watch speeds; There are provisions
that this cannot be used to simply be an income generator for the municipalities
The Commissioners then discussed the following areas:
In 1970 the speed limit was 55 MPH and several years later it went up to 70 MPH - were there
any problems with that and how did that affect the way of thinking here; local jurisdictions are
going to have the ability to change their speed limits based off those matrix and jurisdictions have
speed traps, how do they avoid that from a driver consumer prospective; and what is the timeline
on this.
Commissioner Middleton explained certainly the traffic engineers will say if you artificially take a
speed down to below what is realistic for people to drive that driving 55 MPH in a middle of an
open freeway found it is an unrealistic speed, and the goal is to not get down to unrealistic
speeds. She stated one of the conversations over the course of being on this Task Force is the
85th Percentile Rule that is extremely efficient but there is no application of local knowledge in a
setting of speed limits. In talking to people from San Francisco to rural parts of Northern
California to Los Angeles and this region it is clear that everyone knows from driving and living in
their communities where traffic issues are the worst, and not being given an opportunity to apply
that knowledge when it comes to setting speed limits is a local control issue she wants to get
back. Commissioner Middleton suggested the matrix as she has seen it laid out is one that is not
going to give the municipality the ability to take in a rapid change of what a speed limit is going
to be. Every city is going to be applying that matrix and there will be some differences from one
city to another. Commissioner Middleton stated the timeline on this is about a little over two
weeks past due to be released from the Secretary's office, it will then go out into the public and
what they are expecting is that Assembly Member Laura Friedman is going to take those
recommendations and turn them into a piece of legislation, which will probably be a 2021
introduction.
Anne Mayer expressed appreciation and commended Commissioner Middleton for her
participation on this Task Force as this Task Force is an example of how everyone can work well.
She discussed how she had the opportunity to sit in briefly on one of the meetings and they are
an impressive group of people throughout the state really committed to this idea of solving a
problem that has been around for a long time and to do so in the name of safety. The Task Force
has done a tremendous job and she looks forward to supporting from a staff perspective of the
legislation that comes out.
HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGY UPDATE
Anne Mayer welcomed and introduced Darren Henderson, WSP to present Highway Technology
and noted the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee received a brief presentation on this a couple of
months ago. She explained Mr. Henderson has a great deal of expertise related to operations;
he is going to discuss since we can't build our way out of it there are some potential solutions to
make the system we have work better.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 14
Darren Henderson introduced Daniel Suter, Transmax and Adam Myers, Transmax and then
presented the Highway Technology Update: Smart Freeways the most important transportation
strategy you've probably never heard of, highlighting the following areas:
• Smart Freeways provides a new approach to fully control freeway operations:
o Refines the way we use familiar highway traffic management technologies
o Provides a comprehensive package of strategies to better manage freeway
operations and optimize traffic flows
• Smart Freeways uses technology to optimize freeway operations in real time:
o Works by synchronizing the flow of vehicles entering and exiting the freeway to
those already on the freeway
o Provides real time demand management to control traffic and optimize overall
freeway efficiency
• Precise data and advanced system management technology are key to smart freeways
o Can Include:
o Frequent highly precise vehicle detection
o Coordinated dynamic ramp metering
o Land -use management systems: Variable speed limits; Variable lane control; and
Shouldering running
o Incident detection and CCTV surveillance
o Traveler information
o Comprehensive and coordinated ITS control system running advanced traffic
algorithms
• Strategic design considerations are integral to Smart Freeways effectiveness:
o Can include:
o Addressing mainline bottlenecks
o On ramp queue storage and discharge
o Merge lanes and weave areas
o Off ramp discharge
o Priority vehicle lanes and ramp queue bypass
• Managed freeways is not a trivial matter:
o Requires embracing a new holistic approach to freeway traffic operations
✓ Systems approach to freeway planning, design and operations
✓ Necessitates appropriate organizational and managerial support
✓ Must be implemented with a robust partnership with Caltrans
• Smart Freeways are operating on multiple freeway corridors in Australia:
o Initially developed by VicRoads
o Melbourne's Managed Motorway system now extends over more than 100 miles
of freeways
o Also in operation in Brisbane
• Smart Freeways is the only proven strategy to reliably control freeway operations:
o Melbourne's throughput on Smart Freeways increased by up to 25% during the
peak periods
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 15
o The economic benefits of the initial Smart Freeway made the business case for
completing the entire network
At this time, Daniel Suter presented the Smart Freeways case study: Bruce Highway, Brisbane,
Australia, highlighting the following:
• An image of the Bruce Highway in 2014—The challenge
• Smart Freeways case study: Bruce Highway, Brisbane, Australia before managed freeways
during AM peak period
At this time, Darren Henderson presented the Smart Freeways case study in 2019, highlighting
the following:
• Smart Freeways case study in 2019: Bruce Highway, Brisbane, Australia after managed
freeways during AM peak period
• Smart Freeways is seeing increasing interest across North America:
o Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, Utah and Ontario are doing
or have done initial feasibility assessments
✓ Smart Freeways have been identified as a viable strategy for various
freeway corridors
• Smart Freeways is seeing increasing interest across North America:
o CDOT is proceeding with a demonstration of Smart Freeways on NB 1-25 in Denver
o Smart 25 includes:
✓ Strategic ramp modifications including freeway to freeway connectors
✓ Upgraded vehicle detection capabilities
o SMART 25 elements include:
✓ Enhanced ITS control system using Transmax STREAMS
✓ Cloud based operations using VicRoads existing control algorithms
o Construction is ongoing with operations scheduled to commence by fall 2020
• Smart Freeways in Riverside County
o High level screening of freeways across the county to identify candidate locations
o Evaluate existing traffic to develop conceptual design and cost for a potential pilot
project
• A graphic of moving rapid of flows before and after with site measures, speed, volume,
and occupancy during 4:30 AM
The Commissioners and the consultant team discussed the following: What is needed for the
feasibility studies; the metering on ramps on the mainline; tweaking ramps and looking at the
actual fees; Caltrans focus is on the mainline moving efficiently but with that comes a sacrifice to
look at areas outside; if this technology works during concerts and holiday weekends in the
Coachella Valley; and if the system is designed to be used in urban centers where there are
municipal streets.
At this time, Commissioner Hewitt left the meeting.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
January 30-31, 2020
Page 16
Anne Mayer expressed appreciation to the team for a great presentation and noted she
authorized under her single signature authority this screening of the feasibility study and they
are taking a look at locations throughout the County. They will come back with some high level
recommendations and results as soon as it is received staff will be come back to the Commission
with a presentation.
Received and discussed information on the use of technology for traffic relief strategies.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE FOR DRAFT TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN
Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director, presented the public engagement update for the Draft
Traffic Relief Plan, highlighting the following:
• Early qualitative results: January 9-23, 2020, for the roads, freeways, interchanges, trains,
buses, help with My Commute, trails and technology
• Our communication tools: Social Media, email notices; digital radio; presentations to city
councils, service clubs, industry groups; earned media; member agencies; billboards; mail
(English/Spanish); Tele-town hall meetings; and community events
• Traffic Relief Plan new coverage
Aaron Hake discussed the various comments being received.
Received information regarding recent and upcoming public engagement for the Draft Traffic
Relief Plan.
RECAP AND FINAL THOUGHTS
Chair Benoit expressed appreciation to everyone that attended the workshop and for a great job.
Anne Mayer expressed staffs' appreciation for the Commissioners attendance as the Chair
mentioned this has been the most significant attendance from Commissioners. She expressed
gratitude for the Commissioners' feedback and input and received a lot of good policy direction
so staff will be implementing the Commissioners' direction in the coming months.
There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, the workshop adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Mobley
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 7A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 11, 2020
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance
THROUGH:
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Sales Tax Analysis
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 2, 2019.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its December 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement with MuniServices, LLC
(MuniServices), an Avenu Company, for quarterly sales tax reporting services plus additional
fees contingent on additional sales tax revenues generated from the transactions and use tax
(sales tax) audit services. As part of the recurring contracts process in June 2018, the
Commission approved a five-year extension through June 30, 2023. The services performed
under this agreement pertain to only the Measure A sales tax revenues.
Since the commencement of these services, MuniServices submitted audits, which reported
findings and submitted to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), for
review and determination of errors in sales tax reporting related to 1,077 businesses. Through
2Q 2019, the CDTFA approved 615 of these accounts for a cumulative sales tax recovery of
$10,258,416. If CDTFA concurs with the error(s) for the remaining claims, the Commission will
receive additional revenues; however, the magnitude of the value of the remaining findings was
not available. It is important to note that while the recoveries of additional revenues will be
tangible, it will not be sufficient to alter the overall trend of sales tax revenues.
MuniServices provided the Commission with the Quarterly Sales Tax Digest Summary report for
2Q 2019. Most of the 2Q 2019 Measure A sales tax revenues were received in the third quarter
of calendar year 2019, during July 2019 through September 2019, due to a lag in the sales tax
calendar. The summary section of the 2Q 2019 report is attached and includes an overview of
California's economic outlook, local results, historical cash collections analysis by quarter, top
25 sales/use tax contributors, historical sales tax amounts, annual sales tax by business
category, and five-year economic trend for significant business category (general retail).
Taxable transactions for the top 25 contributors in Riverside County generated 24.4 percent of
taxable sales for the benchmark year ended 2Q 2019, slightly higher than the 23.1 percent for
Agenda Item 7A
1
the benchmark year ended 2Q 2018. The top 100 tax contributors generated 39.1 percent for
the benchmark year ended 2Q 2019, slightly higher than the 37.7 percent for the benchmark
year ended 2Q 2018.
In the Economic Category Analysis below, five of the six categories experienced new highs in
the 2Q 2019 benchmark year compared to the prior eight benchmark years. The Business to
Business category is slightly below the 2Q 2018 benchmark year due to the closure of medical
equipment companies in the 2Q 2019 benchmark year.
ECONOMIC
CATEGORY
ANALYSIS
%of Total / %Change
RCTC
State Wide
Orange
County
San
Bernardino
County
S.F. Bay Area
Sacramento
Valley
Central
Valley
South Coast
North Coast
Central
Coast
General Retail
28.2/5.9
28.6/3.5
30.4/5.0
26.9/1
25.5/2.5
27/5.1
28.4/0.3
28.6/4
30.1/3.8
28.0/1.4
Food Products
17.9/2.5
22.8/6.5
22.1/8.2
17.7/6.5
24.6/6.9
18.1/4.5
17.5/7.0
24.7/6.3
16.8/-12.8
35.8/14.6
Transportation
24.5/3.3
25.3/6.8
25.4/11.7
29.5/1.9
23.7/9.6
29.5/5.7
27.6/6.8
24.7/7.5
27.9/-16.7
23.0/2.3
Construction
11.0/6.4
9.9/2.7
8.8/-1.2
9.9/8.6
10.4/1.8
12.8/-0.7
12.6/3.2
9.2/4.5
16.6/-4.7
9.1/14.0
Business to Business
15.9/-0.3
12.5/-10.7
12.2/-10.5
14.2/-2.8
14.9/-11.3
11.7/-4.3
13.2/9.0
11.9/-11.8
8.2/-7.8
3.5/-26.8
Miscellaneous
2.5/4.5
0.9/-21.7
1.1/13.7
1.8/-3.0
0.9/-19.8
0.9/-17.2
0.8/-39.6
0.9/-21.6
0.4/-40.6
0.6/-29.1
Total
100.0/3.6
100.0/2.5
100.0/4.6
100.0/2.3
100.0/2.4
100.0/3.0
100.0/4.1
100.0/2.9
100.0/-8.1
100.0/5.3
General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, Florist/Nursery, and Misc. Retail
Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment
Construction: Building Materials Retail and Building Materials Wholesale
Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, Auto Sales - New, Auto Sales - Used, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales
Business to Business: Office Equip., Electronic Equip., Business Services, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry, Light Industry, Leasing,
Biotechnology, I.T. Infrastructure, and Green Energy
Miscellaneous: Health & Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments
An analysis of sales tax performance through 2Q 2019 is attached and illustrates fairly
consistent cycles for sales tax performance for most of the economic categories since 2Q 2014.
For 9 of the top 10 segments (restaurants, auto sales -new, department stores, miscellaneous
retail, building materials -wholesale, food markets, apparel stores, building materials -retail, and
heavy industry) during the eight benchmark year quarters, sales tax receipts reached a new
high point. The segments represent 62 percent of the total sales tax receipts. Service stations
representing 7.2 percent was higher than the last five benchmark year quarters since 2Q 2014.
The top 10 segments represent 69.2 percent of the total sales tax receipts. For the other 21
segments representing 30.8 percent of the total sales tax receipts, 11 segments representing
14.7 percent of the total sales tax receipts reached new high points in the benchmark year
2Q 2019. In the Economic Segments Analysis below, auto sales -new and department stores
have been in the top three economic segments. Restaurants replaced service stations in the
top three economic segments beginning in 4Q 2014. The service stations segments high
occurred in 4Q 2012 and declined through 1Q 2017 due to lower fuel prices; the 2Q 2019
benchmark year quarter for service stations reflects an increase over the last five benchmark
year quarters since 2Q 2014 due to higher fuel prices.
Agenda Item 7A
2
ECONOMIC SEGMENT
ANALYSIS
RCTC
State Wide
Orange
County
San
Bernardino
County
S.F. Bay Area
Sacramento
Valley
Central
Valley
South Coast
North Coast
Central
Coast
Largest Segment
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
Department
Stores
Restaurants
Department
Stores
Restaurants
% of Total / % Change
11.6/4.2
16.7/8.8
16.4/9.8
12.0/5.4
18.3/9.4
12.6/7.3
12.9/7.8
18.6/8.6
12.2/15.2
25.9/17.6
2nd Largest Segment
Auto Sales -
New
Auto Sales -
New
Auto Sales -
New
Service
Stations
Auto Sales -
New
Auto Sales -
New
Restaurants
Auto Sales -
New
Auto Sales -
New
Auto Sales -
New
ofTotal /%Change
11.0/0.8
12.1/9.5
13.9/20.6
11.0/2.7
12.0/12.6
11.9/3.0
11.8/11.1
12.0/11.3
11.2/-13.1
11.9/2.6
3rd Largest Segment
Department
Stores
Department
Stores
Department
Stores
Department
Stores
Department
Stores
Department
Stores
Auto Sales -
New
Department
Stores
Restaurants
Misc Retail
% of Total / % Change
9.9/7.2
9.7/5.1
9.6/7.0
10.7/11.2
7.4/3.6
10.9/6.8
10.9/6.4
9.0/5.0
10.1/15.4
10.1/6.7
As reported in the 3Q 2018 Sales Tax Analysis Report, staff notified the Commission of a
reporting error by one of the top 25 sales/use tax contributors related to a misallocation of the
district tax to the Commission during 2Q 2018 through 4Q 2018, resulting in an overpayment to
the Commission estimated in the amount of $2.5 million. Staff is not certain in which period
the misallocation correction will be completed; however, the Fiscal Year 2019/20 sales tax
revenues after the correction are expected to continue to reflect an increase over the
FY 2018/19 revenues.
Information regarding sales tax comparison by city and change in economic segments (two
highest gains and two highest losses) from 2Q 2018 to 2Q 2019 is attached.
Staff continues to monitor sales tax receipts and other available economic data to determine
the need for any adjustments to the revenue projections. Staff will utilize the forecast
scenarios with the complete report and receipt trends in assessing such projections.
Attachments:
1) Sales Tax Digest Summary 2Q 2019
2) Sales Tax Performance Analysis by Quarter 2Q 2019
3) Quarterly Sales Tax Comparison by City for 2Q 2018 to 2Q 2019
Approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee on February 24, 2020
In Favor: 9 Abstain: 0 No: 0
Agenda Item 7A
3
ATTACHMENT 1
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Sales Tax Digest Summary
Collections through September 2019
Sales through June 2019 (2019Q2)
CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
California sales tax receipts increased by 16.2% over the same quarter from the previous year, with
Northern California reporting a 16.5% increase compared to 16.0% for Southern California. Receipts for
the RCTC increased by 20.8% over the same periods. Unprecedented increases were due to the
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration implementation of a new reporting system and
delay in the processing of many sales tax returns filed for the same quarter from the previous year.
• California GDP: in 2019Q2 was 1.9% change from 2018Q2. From 2019Q1 to 2018Q1 was 2.7%;
previous quarter results for 2018Q4 to 2017Q4 was 2.2%. (BEA, November 7, 2019)
• California's Sales and Use Tax: For July to September 2019 (first three months of the fiscal year)
were $77 million below forecast. Receipts for September were $52 million above the month's forecast
of $2.098 billion. Personal Income Tax: $420 million below forecast. Revenues for September were $401
million below the month's forecast of $8.65 billion. Corporation Tax: July to September 2019 were $682
million above forecast. (DOE, October 2019)
• Statewide Sales Tax Receipts: changed by 2.0% as compared to the same quarter from prior year.
LOCAL RESULTS
Net Cash Receipts Analysis
Local Collections
Share of County Pool 0.0%
Share of State Pool 0.0%
SBE Net Collections
Less: Amount Due County 0.0%
Less: Cost of Administration
Net 2Q2019 Receipts
Net 2Q2018 Receipts
Actual Percentage Change
49,801,343
0
0
49,801,343
.00
(548,970)
49,252,373
40,788,679
20.8%
Business Activity Performance Analysis
Local Collections — Economic Basis 2Q2019
Local Collections — Economic Basis 2Q2018
Quarter over Quarter Change
Quarter over Quarter Percentage Change
$50,233,521
$47,919,063
2,314,458
4.8.%
Avenu Insights & Analytics' On -Going Audit Results
Total Recovered Year to Date
$10,791,025
www.avenuinsights.com
(806) 800-8181 Page 1
RCTC
HISTORICAL CASH COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS BY QUARTER
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10, 000
$-
(in thousands of $)
■
1Q2017 2Q2017 3Q2017 4Q2017 1Q2018 2Q2018 3Q2018 4Q2018 1Q2019 2Q2019
Net Receipts }CDTFAAdmin Fees Due
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
5-
TOP 25 SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS
The following list identifies RCTC's Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order
and represents sales from June 2018 to May 2019. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate
24.4% of RCTC's total sales and use tax revenue.
AMAZON.COM
ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS
BEST BUY STORES
CARMAX THE AUTO SUPERSTORE
CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS
CIRCLE K FOOD STORES
CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS
COSTCO WHOLESALE
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES
FOOD 4 LESS
HOME DEPOT
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS
MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS
RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY
ROSS STORES
SAM'S CLUB
SHELL SERVICE STATIONS
STATER BROS MARKETS
TARGET STORES
TESLA
VERIZON WIRELESS
WAL MART STORES
www.avenuinsights.com (800) 800-8181 Page 2
5
RCTC
HISTORICAL SALES TAX AMOUNTS
The following chart shows the sales tax level from annual sales through June 2019, the highs, and
the lows for each segment over the last two years in thousands of $.
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
1
1
I•
•
•
2Q2019
• High
• Low
I
��a� �e 5�0� Qe� `o �r▪ 5 ale 5�0� mew a�y�
5�a �e' �� 0�5 e�w ��5 �` tee ��s \o
�e ova �e aye ��c 4a ooa 9a �a �J
het 0�a� F QQ a% �e
O �y
ANNUAL SALES TAX BY BUSINESS CATEGORY
2Q2019
1Q2019
402018
3Q2018
2Q2018
1Q2018
4Q2017
3Q2017
2Q2017
1Q2017
(in thousands of $)
54,108
34,335
47,158
21,120 30,266 4,870
30,775 4,845
54,151
34,242
46,782
20,672
54,899
33,783
46,783
20,524 30,908 3,048
53,010
32,719
47,586
20,600
31,229 3,425
51,487
30,465
45,832
18,871 29,260 3,494
49,916
32,358
45,302
20,733 29,748 4,602
50,062
31,821
44,312
18,908 29,826 4,140
49,772
30,277
45,032
18,356 29,299 4,020
49,595
29,172
J
43,561
17,786 27,822 3,284
48,419
30,88
43,466
19,004 28,542 4,189
$ 0 $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 $ 100,000 $ 120,000 $ 140,000 $ 160,000 $ 180,000 $ 200,000
• General Retail • Food Products • Transportation • Construction • Business To Business • Miscellaneous
www.avenuinsights.com
(806
0) 800-8181 Page 3
RCTC
FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC TREND: General Retail
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
(in thousands of $)
v ul lfl lfl l.fl lD l0 lD lD N N N N. 00 00 00 00 01 Dl
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N Es} N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
a Pi P f a a
www.avenuinsights.com (800) 800-8181 Page 4
7
RCTC: Sales Tax Performance Analysis by Quarter
ATTACHMENT 2
TOTAL
TOTAL
$60,000,000 -
$50, 000, 000 -
$40, 000, 000
$30, 000, 000
$20, 000, 000
$10,000,000
$0
O- O- O- O- 0- Crr 0- O- O- O- O-
'V 'V '1/ ry '1, '1, ,y0 'V 'V 'V 'V
Q3
Q4 Q1 Q2
Economic
CATEGORY TOTAL
$18,000,000 2019Q2 QoQ %A QoQ $� YoY %0 YoY $A
$50,233,521 4.8% $2,314,458 4.1% $7,572,058
$16, 000, 000
GENERAL RETAIL
$13
,271,893
2019Q2 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A
$14,000,000 7.5% $921,818 5.9% $3,025,769
% of 2019Q2 Total: 26.4%
$12,000,000 FOOD PRODUCTS
2019Q2888,
QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A
$10,000,000 $8,ofTota6 2.6% $224,925 2.5% $842,816
of Total: 17.7%
$8,000,000 TRANSPORTATION
2019Q2 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $�
$12,386,774 3.2% $384,701 3.3% $1,486,802
$6,000,000 % of Total: 24.7%
I CONSTRUCTION
$4,000,000 2019Q2 QoQ %A QoQ $.6 YoY %A YoY $�
$2, 000, 000
$5,644,961 4.9% $264,523 6.4% $1,269,148
% of Total: 11.2%
BUSINESS TO BUSINESS
2019Q2 QoQ %A
$7,896,899 1.3%
% of Total: 15.7%
QoQ $.6 YoY %A YoY $A
$98,587
-0.3%-$78,380
QoQ = 19Q2 / 18Q2 YoY = YE 19Q2 / YE 18Q2
8
Avenu Insights & Analytics
RCTC: Quarterly Comparison of 2018Q2 and 2019Q2 (April through June Sales)
w
m
H
m
General Retail
Food Products
0
O
CO
O
Construction
N
A
?; Apr - Jun 2019 Apr - Jun 2018
(2019Q2) (201802)
% Chg
Gain
Gain
ATTACHMENT 3
Decline
Decline
RIVERSIDE COUNTY .
■
BANNING
5.8%
-0.2%
-6.0%
2.0%
9.5%
15.3%
606,286
614,339
-1.3%
MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL
DRUG STORES
AUTO SALES - NEW
MISC. VEHICLE SALES
BEAUMONT
-1.5%
9.3%
7.4%
3.9%
0.5%
37.1%
1,178,800
1,134,736
3.9%
SERVICE STATIONS
RESTAURANTS
FURNITURE/APPLIANCE
MISC. VEHICLE SALES
BLYTHE
-4.0%
5.5%
-14.5%
15.4%
-28.5%
223.3%
338,681
369,182
-8.3%
RESTAURANTS
BLDG.MATLS-RETAIL
AUTO SALES- NEW
SERVICE STATIONS
CALIMESA
8.4%
5.1%
3.7%
-11.8%
-9.4%
32.4%
216,885
208,164
4.2%
SERVICE STATIONS
FOOD MARKETS
AUTO SALES - USED
CHEMICAL PRODUCTS
CANYON LAKE
-9.5%
1.4%
-0.4%
-2.5%
247.5%
52.4%
76,187
65,428
16.4%
FOOD MARKETS
MISC. VEHICLE SALES
RESTAURANTS
SERVICE STATIONS
CATHEDRAL CITY
-4.7%
0.3%
4.2%
-17.2%
6.2%
-16.2%
2,204,186
2,164,584
1.8%
SERVICE STATIONS
AUTO SALES - NEW
BLDG.MATLS-WHSLE
FOOD MARKETS
COACHELLA
32.3%
7.6%
0.6%
32.8%
4.8%
78.9%
882,060
822,162
7.3%
DRUG STORES
FOOD MARKETS
AUTO SALES - USED
LIGHT INDUSTRY
CORONA
5.2%
1.9%
-5.7%
11.5%
-1.2%
-60.4%
10,233,615
10,062,118
1.7%
BLDG.MATLS-WHSLE
MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL
HEAVY INDUSTRY
AUTO SALES - NEW
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
-3.5%
4.2%
-6.7%
-7.9%
1.1%
-69.4%
7,321,690
7,576,936
-3.4%
FOOD MARKETS
MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL
APPAREL STORES
BLDG.MATLS-WHSLE
DESERT HOT SPRINGS
-2.3%
5.0%
6.3%
1.6%
1.7%
6.4%
403,226
388,587
3.8%
SERVICE STATIONS
RESTAURANTS
HEAVY INDUSTRY
DEPARTMENT STORES
EASTVALE
39.0%
-11.1%
-12.2%
-9.7%
1.4%
127.0%
2,024,555
1,928,520
5.0%
DEPARTMENT STORES
RESTAURANTS
MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL
FOOD PROCESSING EQP
HEMET
2.5%
-0.9%
9.3%
0.2%
12.1%
-13.0%
2,820,233
2,677,807
5.3%
AUTO SALES - NEW
SERVICE STATIONS
FURNITURE/APPLIANCE
AUTO SALES - USED
INDIAN WELLS
4.1%
18.5%
100.0%
169.8%
-14.1%
-33.2%
266,636
235,846
13.1%
RESTAURANTS
MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL
RECREATION PRODUCTS
APPAREL STORES
INDIO
13.8%
0.6%
-4.9%
7.8%
17.5%
40.8%
2,931,375
2,823,361
3.8%
DEPARTMENT STORES
BLDG.MATLS-WHSLE
SERVICE STATIONS
AUTO SALES - USED
JURUPA VALLEY
-17.8%
5.6%
-9.0%
16.7%
56.0%
-41.3%
3,246,585
2,797,985
16.0%
HEAVY INDUSTRY
DEPARTMENT STORES
MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL
LEASING
LA QUINTA
-0.9%
10.3%
0.5%
15.4%
-1.0%
19.9%
2,050,387
1,973,411
3.9%
RESTAURANTS
BLDG.MATLS-RETAIL
MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL
SERVICE STATIONS
LAKE ELSINORE
5.6%
3.5%
1.0%
0.2%
11.9%
-24.1%
2,352,003
2,262,701
3.9%
RESTAURANTS
AUTO SALES - NEW
FOOD MARKETS
AUTO PARTS/REPAIR
MENIFEE
3.7%
17.2%
-5.6%
24.8%
-7.1%
-79.0%
1,988,167
1,883,659
5.5%
FOOD MARKETS
RESTAURANTS
MISC. VEHICLE SALES
ENERGY SALES
MORENO VALLEY
-1.8%
7.4%
-1.7%
6.4%
-13.6%
17.7%
4,606,430
4,583,687
0.5%
DEPARTMENT STORES
FOOD MARKETS
SERVICE STATIONS
FURNITURE/APPLIANCE
MURRIETA
6.4%
5.2%
5.7%
-0.5%
-12.8%
-2.2%
4,220,341
4,106,912
2.8%
DEPARTMENT STORES
MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL
SERVICE STATIONS
BUSINESS SERVICES
NORCO
2.1%
7.5%
4.8%
4.5%
0.2%
-26.7%
1,688,661
1,623,489
4.0%
AUTO SALES - USED
RESTAURANTS
AUTO SALES - NEW
MISC. VEHICLE SALES
PALM DESERT
4.5%
7.2%
-20.8%
7.8%
-1.5%
234.8%
4,342,766
4,168,734
4.2%
DEPARTMENT STORES
MISCELLANEOUS OTHER
AUTO SALES - NEW
LEASING
PALM SPRINGS
3.7%
5.2%
14.6%
8.1%
4.9%
-35.5%
3,355,107
3,161,465
6.1%
AUTO SALES - NEW
RESTAURANTS
HEALTH & GOVERNMENT
AUTO SALES - USED
PERRIS
37.1%
8.4%
-21.0%
282.9%
-15.4%
48.8%
5,526,998
4,195,423
31.7%
BLDG.MATLS-RETAIL
FURNITURE/APPLIANCE
SERVICE STATIONS
HEAVY INDUSTRY
RANCHO MIRAGE
-1.9%
-2.0%
4.8%
5.1%
26.4%
20.8%
1,335,391
1,269,579
5.2%
AUTO SALES - NEW
MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL
RESTAURANTS
FURNITURE/APPLIANCE
RIVERSIDE
-3.3%
6.4%
0.1%
-5.0%
5.2%
-6.8%
14,856,610
14,734,502
0.8%
FOOD MARKETS
AUTO SALES - NEW
BLDG.MATLS-WHSLE
MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL
SAN JACINTO
3.8%
4.5%
2.6%
-25.9%
-8.1%
-59.3%
726,843
721,178
0.8%
DEPARTMENT STORES
RESTAURANTS
HEALTH & GOVERNMENT
BLDG.MATLS-WHSLE
TEMECULA
2.0%
7.3%
-0.3%
-8.7%
5.1%
-36.9%
8,274,636
8,121,407
1.9%
LIGHT INDUSTRY
DEPARTMENT STORES
SERVICE STATIONS
BLDG.MATLS-WHSLE
WILDOMAR
-9.1%
19.7%
-9.5%
-10.8%
-14.2%
-94.7%
457,420
529,079
-13.5%
FOOD MARKETS
RESTAURANTS
HEALTH & GOVERNMENT
SERVICE STATIONS
Non -Confidential
9
Avenu Insights & Analytics
AGENDA ITEM 7B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 11, 2020
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Jose Mendoza, Senior Procurement Analyst
Matt Wallace, Procurement Manager
THROUGH:
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Single Signature Authority Report
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the
second quarter ended December 31, 2019.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Certain contracts are executed under single signature authority as permitted in the Commission's
Procurement Policy Manual adopted in September 2019. The Executive Director is authorized to
sign services contracts that are less than $250,000 individually and in an aggregate amount not
to exceed $1.5 million in any given fiscal year. Additionally, in accordance with Public Utilities
Code Section 130323(c), the Executive Director is authorized to sign contracts for supplies,
equipment, materials, and construction of all facilities and works under $50,000 individually.
The attached report details all contracts that have been executed for the second quarter ended
December 31, 2019, under the single signature authority granted to the Executive Director. The
unused capacity of single signature authority for services at December 31, 2019 is
$1,200,036.
Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of December 31, 2019
Approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee on February 24, 2020
In Favor: 9 Abstain: 0 No: 0
Agenda item 7B
10
CONTRACT#
20-31-020-00
20-31-024-00
SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY
AS OF December 31, 2019
CONSULTANT DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES ORIGINAL CONTRACT PAID AMOUNT REMAINING
AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT
AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2019 $1,500,000.00
WSP USA, Inc. Managed Freeways - Pre -design report and conceptual design plans 249,983.00 0.00 249,983.00
California Highway Patrol Construction Zone Enhancement Program (COZEEP) for SR-91 Pachappa
Project
49,981.00
0.00 49,981.00
AMOUNT USED
AMOUNT USED
AMOUNT REMAINING through December 31, 2019
299,964.00
299,964.00
$1,200,036.00
None
Agreements that fall under Public Utilities Code 130323 (C)
N/A $- $- $-
Jose Mendoza
Prepared by
Theresia Trevino
Reviewed by
Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the second quarter.
11
AGENDA ITEM 7C
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 11, 2020
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance
THROUGH:
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Agreement with Eide Bailly for Audit Services
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Award Agreement No. 20-19-021-00 to Eide Bailly LLP (Eide Bailly) for audit services for a
three-year term, with three one-year options to extend the agreement, for $1,461,198,
plus a contingency in the amount of $138,802, for a total amount not to exceed
$1.6 million;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and
execute the agreement, including options years, on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total
not to exceed amount as required for these audit services.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In accordance with state law and various debt indentures and agreements, the Commission is
required annually to publish its financial statements with a report from independent certified
public accountants providing an opinion that such financial statements are presented in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and were audited in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards. The Commission's current auditor, Macias Gini &
O'Connell LLP (MGO), was awarded a five-year agreement in April 2015; this agreement has been
amended periodically by the Commission in connection with additional audit reports required for
express lanes operations and new federal and state funding source reporting and is expiring.
Accordingly, staff commenced a competitive procurement for audit services related to the
Commission's financial statements. The following table summarizes the scope of audit services
required for term of the new audit services agreement:
Agenda Item 7C
12
Task
Task Description
1
Annual Audit of Commission (CAFR), including Required Communications to the
Board of Commissioners and Management Letter, as applicable
2
Local Transportation Fund Audit
3
State Transit Assistance Fund Audit
4
State of Good Repair Audit
5
Proposition 1 B Rehabilitation, Safety, and Security Accounts Audit
6
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Accounts Audit
7
91 Express Lanes Audit
8
15 Express Lanes Audit
9
Single Audit, including Draft of Data Collection Form
10
Compliance with Covenants and Provisions of the Reimbursement Agreement
11
Appropriations Limit Calculation Agreed -Upon Procedures
12
Measure A Commuter Assistance Agreed -Upon Procedures
13
NTD Vanpool Program Agreed -Upon Procedures
14
Pension Accounting
15
OPEB Accounting
Procurement Process
Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for
this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal with
price and other factors considered. Non -price factors include elements such as qualifications of
firm and personnel and understanding and approach for audit services as set forth under the
terms of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 20-19-021-00.
RFP No. 20-19-021-00 for audit services was released by staff on November 26, 2019. A public
notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFP was posted on the Commission's
PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Utilizing PlanetBids,
emails were sent to 289 firms, 40 of which are located in Riverside County. Through the
PlanetBids site, 18 firms downloaded the RFP, and 3 of these firms are located in Riverside
County. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the
December 11 clarification deadline date. Seven firms — Brown Armstrong Accountancy
Corporation (Bakersfield), Eadie + Payne LLP (Riverside), Eide Bailly LLP (Riverside), MGO
(Newport Beach), Sotomayor & Associates, LLP (Pasadena), The Pun Group LLP (Santa Ana),
Vasquez & Company LLP (Glendale) — submitted responsive proposals prior to the 2:00 p.m.
submittal deadline on January 8. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, all firms
were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff.
Based on the evaluation committee's assessment of the written proposals and pursuant to the
terms of the RFP, the evaluation committee short listed and invited 3 firms to the interview phase
of the evaluation and selection process. Interviews of the shortlisted firms — Eide Bailly, MGO
and The Pun Group LLP — were conducted on February 3, 2020.
Agenda Item 7C
13
As a result of the completion of the evaluation process, the evaluation committee recommends
contract award to Eide Bailly to perform the Commission's audits for a three-year term, with
three one-year options to extend the agreement, as this firm earned the highest total evaluation
score. Eide Bailly's proposed cost for the audit services also ranked first among the three
short-listed proposers; cost represented 15 percent of the total written evaluation score. A
summary of the proposed costs submitted with the written proposals and the total evaluation
score rankings following the final evaluation are summarized below:
Audit Firm
Eide Bailly
MGO
Proposed Cost
First 3 Years 3 Option Years Total
Total
Evaluation
Score Rank
$ 692,191
$ 769,007
$ 1,461,198
1
The Pun Group LLP
798,799
723,000
933,341
799,132
1,732,140
1,522,132
2
3
Proposing firms submitted proposed fees for an audit report on the 15 Express Lanes and agreed -
upon procedures related to the National Transit Database (NTD) Vanpool Program beginning with
the Fiscal Year 2020/21 audit. Staff also recommends a $138,802 contingency for other potential
scope changes such as, but not limited to, the following:
• The NTD Vanpool Program reaching the threshold of 100 vehicles operated in maximum
service for the FY 2019/20 audit;
• Additional audits required by new funding sources and laws and regulations;
• Additional audit services and consultation regarding complex transactions or matters
such as the implementation of new financial system software and accounting standards,
including Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 87 related to leases
required to be implemented in the FY 2020/21 audit; and
• Procedures and/or reporting related to new debt issues.
Accordingly, staff recommends the award of an agreement for audit services for a three-year
period and three additional one-year options to Eide Bailly for a total amount of $1.6 million. The
Commission's standard form professional services agreement will be entered into with Eide Bailly
subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review.
Staff also recommends authorization for the Chair or Executive Director to execute the
agreement, including option years, and for the Executive Director or designee to approve
contingency work as required for these audit services.
Agenda Item 7C
14
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
Yes
Year:
FY 2019/20
Amount:
$30,000
N/A
FY 2020/21+
$1,570,000
2009 Measure A, Transportation
Source of Funds:
Development Act, Transportation
Budget Adjustment:
No
Uniform Mitigation Fee, Motorist
N/A
Assistance funds, and Toll revenues
GL/Project Accounting No.:
001001 65401 00000 0001 101 19 65401
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
\I"-e4.idzeat
Date:
02/10/2020
Attachment: Draft Agreement No. 20-19-021-00 with Eide Bailly
Approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee on February 24, 2020
In Favor: 10 Abstain: 0 No: 0
Agenda Item 7C
15
Agreement No. 20-19-021-00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR AUDIT SERVICES
WITH EIDE BAILLY LLP
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 2020, by and
between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Co-
mmission") and EIDE BAILLY LLP ("Consultant"), a Limited Liability Partnership.
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Consultant desires to perfo and ass responsibility for the
provision of certain professional consulting sery s re ed by C mission on the terms
and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Con epresents that it is a professional
consultant, experienced in providing audit servic o public clients, is licensed in the
State of California, and is familiar with tof ission.
2.2 Commission • -sires enga�'je Consultant to render certain
consulting services for the au'�ti 'ces the Commission ("Project") as set forth
herein.
3.1 • eral Sv pe of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to
furnish to Commission . .b' aterials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and
customary work necesso fully and adequately provide professional consulting
services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding
the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred
to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and
performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules
and regulations.
3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first
specified above to June 30, 2023, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The
Commission, at its sole discretion, may extend this Agreement for three (3) additional
single year terms through June 30, 2026. Consultant shall complete the Services within
17336.00000\8752982.1
16
the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and
deadlines.
3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services
expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Audit
Schedule set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to
perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate
Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to
Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission, Consultant
shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Audit
Schedule.
3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and P. ent of Subordinates. The
Services shall be performed by Consultant under its dpervision. Consultant will
determine the means, method and details of perfor e Services subject to the
requirements of this Agreement. Commission ret Co Itant on an independent
contractor basis and Consultant is not an emplo of Comm .n. Consultant retains
the right to perform similar or different ser ' s fo thers • ring the term of this
Agreement. Any additional personnel performs ervices under this Agreement on
behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Co ssion and shall at all times be under
Consultant's exclusive direction and con . •nsul shall pay all wages, salaries, and
other amounts due such personnel in con ctio h it performance of Services under
this Agreement and as required • .w. Itan shall be responsible for all reports
and obligations respecting suc ,.. naI . sonnel, including, but not limited to: social
security taxes, income t. with sing, employment insurance, and workers'
compensation insurance.
3.5 for e A••Iicable Re•uirements. All work prepared by
Consultant shall b
royal of Commission.
3.6 Su • to ' of Ke Personnel. Consultant has represented to
Commission that certain personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under
this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant
may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written
approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as
to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this
Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key
personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: Roger Alfaro, David
Showalter, Ahmad Gharaibeh, Kinnaly Soukhaseum, David Sundstrom, Chad Birdsong,
Erika Partida.
3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates the
Chief Financial Officer, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the
performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's
representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under
17336.00000\8752982.1 2
17
this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than
Commission's Representative or his or her designee.
3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Roger
Alfaro, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this
Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full
authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this
Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services,
using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods,
techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all
portions of the Services under this Agreement.
3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with
Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall available to Commission's
staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times.
3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Culta all perform the Services
under this Agreement in a skillful and competen anner, co tent with the standard
generally recognized as being employed by p -ssioIs in the ame discipline in the
State of California. Consultant represents : intains that it is skilled in the
professional calling necessary to perform the ces. Consultant warrants that all
employees and subcontractors shall ha 'cient . I and experience to perform the
Services assigned to them. Finally, Co • r- ents that it, its employees and
subcontractors have all licenses, . - its, . catio s and approvals of whatever nature
that are legally required to pe - Se ces and that such licenses and approvals
shall be maintained through. the t- of Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at
its own cost and expense a i _ ursement from Commission, any Services
necessary to correct er - - ur o sions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to
comply with the stan► : o - p 'ded for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the
Commission for a :amages d • her liabilities provided for in the indemnification
provisions of this Ag . ent ar ng from the Consultant's errors and omissions.
3.11 Laws . Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of
and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any
manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA
requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all
violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant
performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and
without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all
costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its
officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any
failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.
17336.00000\8752982.1 3
18
3.12 Insurance.
3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work
under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that
it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance
companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any
subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance
required under this section.
3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense,
procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the
performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees
or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its s 'contractors to procure and
maintain the same insurance for the duration of the A• ment. Such insurance shall
meet at least the following minimum levels of coverag
(A) Minimum Sco
least as broad as the latest version of the f
Services Office Commercial General Liability
exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insu
Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (an
Compensation and Employer's Liability:
by the State of California and Em. - er's
maintain limits no less than:
injury, personal injury
or other form with ge
apply separately t
the required occurre
injury and property
Compensation and Emplo
Coverage shall be at
1) Gen- al Liability: Insurance
e (occurrence form CG 0001 or
Services Office Business Auto
t equivalent); and (3) Workers'
ensation insurance as required
rance.
of Insurance. Consultant shall
ility: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily
damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance
mit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall
nt/I.cation or the general aggregate limit shall be twice
Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily
and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers'
s Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the
Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000
per accident.
3.12.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain,
and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years
following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to
their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per
claim. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this
Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect
against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. "Covered Professional Services" as
designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement.
The policy must "pay on behalf of" the insured and must include a provision establishing
the insurer's duty to defend.
17336.00000\8752982.1 4
19
3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall
contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms
approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies:
(A) General Liability.
(i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must
include coverage for (1) bodily injury and property damage; (2) personal Injury/Advertising
injury; (3) premises/operations liability; (4) products/completed operations liability; (5)
aggregate limits that apply per project; (6) explosion, collapse and underground (UCX)
exclusion deleted; (7) contractual liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) broad form
property damage; and (9) independent consultants coverage.
(ii) The policy shal .ntain no endorsements or
provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liabili cross liability exclusion for
claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3 tan . other exclusion contrary
to this Agreement.
(iii) The
directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents
forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or e
policy shall be "primary and
Commission's insurance or
13, or endorsements providin
shall be endorse
employees and age
ownership, operation,
hired or borrowed by the
all give the Commission, its
ured status using ISO endorsement
viding the exact same coverage.
dditi• al insured coverage under the
and will not seek contribution from the
shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04
e coverage.
mobile Liabilit The automobile liability policy
the Commission, its directors, officials, officers,
covered as additional insureds with respect to the
ce, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased,
sultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2)
the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its
directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an
unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage.
Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials,
officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall
not be called upon to contribute with it in any way.
(C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability
Coverage.
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the
provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer
to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in
17336.00000\8752982.1 5
20
accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions
before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of
subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and
agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work
performed by the Consultant.
limits set forth hereunder.
(D) All Coverages.
(i) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the
(ii) Requirements of
contained in this section are not intended as a limitatio
requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally pro
a requirement under this Agreement that any availa
or in excess of the specified minimum insurance
forth herein shall be available to the Com
employees and agents as additional insured
requirements for coverage and limits shall be
specified in this Agreement; or (2) the br, . over
of any insurance policy or proceeds avail
Agreement may be satisfi
insurance. Any umbrella or
provision that such cov
the benefit of the Co
Commission's ow
named insured. The
with coverage at least
ecific coverage or limits
coverage, limits, or other
any insurance. It shall be
insu . e proceeds broader than
erage req ents and/or limits set
sion 'ts direc •rs, officials, officers,
said policies. Furthermore, the
e minimum coverage and limits
and maximum limits of coverage
ed insured; whichever is greater.
limits of insurance required in this
on of primary and umbrella or excess
shall contain or be endorsed to contain a
Is() apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for
d to in a written contract or agreement) before the
se -insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a
ess policy shall be provided on a "following form" basis
s provided on the underlying policy(ies).
(iv) Consultant shall provide the Commission at
least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this
Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written
notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the
required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the
Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional
Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date
of cancellation or expiration.
(v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to
be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such
coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work
under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting
17336.00000\8752982.1 6
21
period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B)
if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims -
made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
(vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and
limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said
insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or
qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to
this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement,
any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these
specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty
to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premiu ► •aid by Commission will be
promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will wi .Id amounts sufficient to pay
premium from Consultant payments. In the alternati mmission may cancel this
Agreement. The Commission may require the Con ant t• ovide complete copies of
all insurance policies in effect for the duration of tt roject.
(viii) Neithe
officials, officers, employees or agents shall be
arising under or by virtue of this Agree
be endorsed to state that:
3.12.5 D
or self -insured retentio
Commission does n
Consultant shall g
shall reduce or ell
Commission, its directo
shall procure a bond gu
mmission nor any of its directors,
onally responsible for any liability
e po cy required by this Agreement shall
elf -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles
eclared to and approved by the Commission. If the
ductibles or self -insured retentions as presented,
t t option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer
eductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the
s, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant
eeing payment of losses and related investigation costs,
claims and administrative and defense expenses.
3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with
insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in
California, and satisfactory to the Commission.
3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish
Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage
required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and
endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that
insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received
and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves
17336.00000\8752982.1 7
22
the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
3.12.8 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not
allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until
they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have secured all
insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance
provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the
Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement
providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the Commission may
approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or
subconsultants.
3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and m ' tain its work so as to avoid
injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying ► its Services, the Consultant
shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable I► - tate and federal laws, rules
and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary pr- . tion the safety of employees
appropriate to the nature of the work and the coions und- hich the work is to be
performed. Safety precautions as applicable sr Incl -, but shnot be limited to: (A)
adequate life protection and life saving equip .t d procedures; (B) instructions in
accident prevention for all employees and sub tractors, such as safe walkways,
scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bride - - g p . s, confined space procedures,
trenching and shoring, equipment and •evices, equipment and wearing
apparel as are necessary or Iawf req _ o pr-vent accidents or injuries; and (C)
adequate facilities for the prop: tion d maintenance of all safety measures.
tion. Consultant shall receive compensation,
including authorize eimburse -nts, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at
the rates set forth in ' bit "B" ached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed
One Million Four Hun. -d ty-One Thousand One Hundred Ninety -Eight Dollars
($1,461,198) without wr approval of Commission's Executive Director ("Total
Compensation"). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized,
will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to
Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services
rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and
supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the
subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement.
Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and
pay all approved charges thereon.
3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be
reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission.
17336.00000\8752982.1 8
23
3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement,
Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra
Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the
proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would
be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be
compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive
Director.
3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and
accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under
this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a
representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make
transcripts or copies of such records and any other docum is created pursuant to this
Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, a, documents, proceedings,
and activities related to the Agreement for a period of t years from the date of final
payment under this Agreement.
3.16 Termination of A
3.16.1 Grounds for Terminati
to Consultant, terminate the whole or a
cause by giving written notice to Cons
effective date thereof. Upon termi
services which have been full
effective date of the ter
compensation. Consultant
provided herein, C
Documents and Dat
Consultant in connec
Consultant shall be requir
(15) days of the request.
Commission may, by written notice
reement at any time and without
h termination, and specifying the
all be compensated only for those
ely rendered to Commission through the
sultant shall be entitled to no further
this Agreement except for cause.
ermination. If this Agreement is terminated as
uire Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished
below, and other information of any kind prepared by
the performance of Services under this Agreement.
provide such document and other information within fifteen
3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated
in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in
such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated.
3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such
other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
17336.00000\8752982.1 9
24
CONSULTANT:
Eide Bailly LLP
19340 Jesse Ln., Ste. 260
Riverside, CA 92508
Attn: Roger Alfaro
COMMISSION:
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Executive Director
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when
mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid
and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed
adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality.
3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agre ent creates an exclusive and
perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify , or sub -license any and all
copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specific t ns, es, drawings, estimates,
materials, data and other documents or works of . orship fix any tangible medium
of expression, including but not limited to, pr . cal ..wings data magnetically or
otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, whi -r: epared or caused to be prepared
by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents ata").
Consultant shall req
o tractors to agree in writing that
Commission is granted an exclusi - .nd al li -nse for any Documents & Data the
subcontractor prepares under
Consulta
right to grant the exc
Consultant makes n
which were prep
Consultant by the C
d warrants that Consultant has the legal
erpetual license for all such Documents & Data.
tion and warranty in regard to Documents & Data
pr.fessionals other than Consultant or provided to
Com on shall not be limited in any way in its use of the
Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes
intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk.
All programs, working papers, files and other materials of the
Consultant made pursuant to this Agreement shall remain the property of the Consultant.
The Commission will have access to this material at any time. All reports delivered by the
Consultant and its subcontractors pursuant to the Agreement shall become the property
of the Commission without restriction or limitation on their use and shall be made available
upon request, to the Commission at any time. Original copies of the deliverable reports
shall be delivered to the Commission upon completion of the Services or termination of
the Services. The Consultant shall be permitted to retain copies of such items for the
furtherance of its technical proficiency; however, publication of this material is subject to
the written approval of the Commission.
17336.00000\8752982.1
10
25
3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and
retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other
proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials,
data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and
any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but
not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on
computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of
Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared
or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement.
The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in
Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for
wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed i • njunction with Consultant,
and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultar ill execute separate written
assignments of any and all rights to the above refe Intellectual Property upon
request of Commission.
Consultant shall also be
written assignments from any subcontractors o
to the above referenced Intellectual Property.
following termination of this Agreeme
Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain th
All materi
the Consultant for general u
the copyright of any other pa
shall continue to be the
and stated prior to e
it has the right to gr
as provided herein.
e to ob in in writing separate
of Consultant of any and all right
ould Consultant, either during or
e any of the above -referenced
val of the Commission.
nts which were developed or prepared by
ution of this Agreement and which are not
ilable and any other computer applications,
the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified
reement, Consultant represents and warrants that
e a d perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property
Com .ion further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and
perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property
otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative,
collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement.
3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans,
procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written
information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant
in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by
Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be
used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor
shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the
performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is
otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the
17336.00000\8752982.1
11
26
related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's
name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services
or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or
other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission.
3.18.4 Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend,
indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees,
volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of
this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade
name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence of
the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any method,
process, product, or concept specified or depicted.
3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties - •all fully cooperate with one
another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any a• ional documents as may be
necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the pur. .f this Agreement.
3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either p. commen an action against the
other party, either legal, administrative or othe' e, . ' ing out or in connection with
this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litig. .II be entitled to have and recover
from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees a osts of such actions.
3.21 Indemnification. Coy .I defend, indemnify and hold the
Commission, its directors, offic'- of , ag ts, consultants, employees and
volunteers free and harmless fr' a and claims, demands, causes of action, costs,
expenses, liabilities, losses ma• or i ries, in law or in equity, to property or
persons, including wrongful .. ner arising out of or incident to any alleged
negligent acts, omissio' - - w misconduct of the Consultant, its officials, officers,
employees, agents, ► sul . a contractors arising out of or in connection with the
performance of the ervices, Pr. ect or this Agreement, including without limitation,
the payment of all c equent' damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and
expenses. Consultant 1 . ' nd, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and
all such aforesaid suits, . .ns or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be
brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents,
consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment,
award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials,
officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other
legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials,
officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses
and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection
therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to
indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the
Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and
volunteers. This Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this
Agreement.
17336.00000\8752982.1
12
27
3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement
of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior
negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be
supplemented, amended, or modified by a writing signed by both parties.
3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County.
3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every
provision of this Agreement.
3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission
reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project.
3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agr ent shall be binding on the
successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not ned by Consultant without
the prior written consent of Commission.
3.27 Prohibited Interests and C► icts.
3.27.1 Solicitation. Consulta . intains and warrants that it has not
employed nor retained any company or othe . n a bona fide employee working
solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure ' e t. Further, Consultant warrants
that it has not paid nor has it agr- - • to p. co pany or person, other than a bona
fide employee working solely fo . taut, y fee, commission, percentage, brokerage
fee, gift or other considerate. onti -nt up or resulting from the award or making of
this Agreement. For breach • o _ warranty, Commission shall have the right
to rescind this Agreem- - ho► . bility.
member, officer or e
Commission, shall hav
anticipated material bene
Co t • Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no
ommission, during the term of his or her service with
ect interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or
sing therefrom.
3.27.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of
personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the
performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the
employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further,
the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission
payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this
employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related
Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited.
3.27.4 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall
notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written consent, prior to
17336.00000\8752982.1
13
28
accepting work to assist with or participate in a third -party lawsuit or other legal or
administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement.
3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an
equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex
or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related
to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions
of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or
other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter
enacted.
3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not s
work or Services required by this Agreement, except as
prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontrac
making them subject to all provisions stipulated in tgre
3.30 Reserved.
3.31 Em.Io ment of A.. renti
employment of properly indentured app
Code, and no employer or labor unio
employees as indentured appren ' -s on
ground of race, creed, national . i : nce
shall be paid the standard w - pai. . app
trade in which he or she is e
which he or she is regi
3.32
upon strict complian
deemed a waiver of
relinquishment of any rig
contract any portion of the
essly stated herein, without
y, shall contain a provision
nt.
ces.'s Agreement shall not prevent the
dance with the California Labor
sto accept otherwise qualified
ork .erformed hereunder solely on the
, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice
tices under the regulations of the craft or
II be employed only in the craft or trade to
Fai re of Commission to insist on any one occasion
f the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be
m, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or
or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be
deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times.
3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor
Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of
any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any
one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for
overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in
excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are
not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty,
$50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any
sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required
or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one
calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the
17336.00000\8752982.1
14
29
California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -
Hour Law.
3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena
or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall
immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission.
Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the
Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in
responding to the subpoena or court order.
3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are
to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited
to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related to receipt
of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expira ' or termination.
3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. T► -re no intended third party
beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by ta
3.37 Labor Certification. By its • natu
that it is aware of the provisions of Section
require every employer to be insured a•ainst lia
undertake self-insurance in accordance •e pro
comply with such provisions before com
hereun. -r, Consultant certifies
e California Labor Code which
for Workers' Compensation or to
ons of that Code, and agrees to
ormance of the Services.
3.38 Counter.. � . Ag -ment may be signed in counterparts, each
of which shall constitute an
3.39 Inc. - .ti. •f Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and
correct and are incor' ate. . t greement as though fully set forth herein.
3.40 :.lidity; ' verability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared
invalid, illegal, or othe a enforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining provisions sha tinue in full force and effect.
3.41 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached
exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language,
terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations
of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the
performance of the Services.
3.42 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or
marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have
no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein.
3.43 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate,
or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein,
17336.00000\8752982.1
15
30
without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null
and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest
by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and
authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement.
Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal
power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party.
17336.00000\8752982.1
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
16
31
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR AUDIT SERVICES
WITH EIDE BAILLY LLP
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first
written above.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONSULTANT
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EIDE BAILLY LLP
By: By:
Anne Mayer S' ture
Executive Director
Name
Title
Approved as to Form: Attest:
By:
Best Best &
General Counse
By:
Its: Secretary
* A corporation requires the signatures of two corporate officers.
One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the
second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the
chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation.
If the above persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be
provided to the Commission.
17336.00000\8752982.1
17
32
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
[INSERTED BEHIND THIS PAGE]
17336.00000\8752982.1
33
A. General
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) is issuing this Request for
Proposal (RFP) in order to secure services from a certified public accounting firm (Auditor) to
audit its financial statements for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2020, 2021, and 2022, with
the options to audit its financial statements for three (3) additional one-year terms. The cost
proposal shall present all-inclusive audit fees for each year of the contract terms and the three
one-year options.
The selected Auditor will be responsible for the Commission's audits and report directly to the
audit oversight committee designated by the Commission. The Deputy Director of Finance is
designated as the coordinator of the audit and may appoint the Accounting Supervisor to
coordinate the day to day work; the Chief Financial Officer will serve as the liaison to the
Commission's audit oversight committee.
The audits are to be performed by the Auditor in accordance
standards (GAAS), including use of the most current versi
and guidelines:
generally accepted auditing
each of the following standards
• The standards set forth for financial audits in U.S. Gove nt Accountability Office
(GAO) Government Auditing Standards so r rred to s Generally Accepted
Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS);
• The provisions of the federal Single dit Act
Act) and the U.S. Office of Mana
Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Grant Guidance);
• OMB Circular A-133 Com► ce ppl -nt;
• State of California Tra • rtatio - elo. ent Act (TDA);
• Title 21 of the California 'e... ons;
• Ordinance No. i Ri ide County Transportation Commission Transportation
Expenditure P and R- Tr. .ction and Use Tax Ordinance;
• National Tran latabase TD) Reporting;
• Special District porting -quirements, as specified by the California State Controller;
and
• Article XIIIB, Section of the California Constitution.
as amended in 1996, (Single Audit
et (OMB) Uniform Administrative
ents for Federal Awards (Uniform
B. Scope of Services to be Performed
The Commission desires to provide the public and its constituents with financial reports that
provides complete, accurate, and understandable information about the Commission's
financial condition. Accordingly, the Commission desires the Auditor to:
• Express an opinion on the fair presentation of the Commission's basic financial statements
in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP).
The basic financial statements are part of the financial section of the Commission's
comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR).
o The Auditor shall also be responsible to perform certain limited procedures involving
required supplementary information (RSI) required by the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) and included in the financial section of the CAFR.
17336.00000\8752982.1
34
o The Auditor is not required to audit other supplementary information that is part of the
financial section of the CAFR, including the combining and individual fund nonmajor
fund financial statements, budgetary comparison schedules, schedules of
expenditures, and schedule of uses of debt proceeds and fund balances; however, the
Auditor is to provide an "in relation to" report on the other supplementary information
based on the auditing procedures applied during the audit of the basic financial
statements.
o The Auditor is not required to audit the introductory or statistical sections of the CAFR.
• Express an opinion on the fair presentation of the fund financial statements for the
Riverside County Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and report on compliance and internal
control over financial reporting in accordance with California Code of Regulations Section
6661.
• Express an opinion on the fair presentation of the fu financial statements for the
Riverside County State Transit Assistance Fund (ST and report on compliance and
internal control over financial reporting in accordanc alifornia Code of Regulations
Section 6751.
• Express an opinion on the fair presentati f th fund fin' ial statements for the
Riverside County State of Good Repair ( ) report on compliance and internal
control over financial reporting in accordance Senate Bill 1, Chapter 5, Statutes of
2017.
• Express an opinion on the fair presen on ancial statements for the Proposition
1B Rehabilitation, Safety an • ' urity ect Accounts (Proposition 1B) and report on
compliance and internal rol . -r fin. ial reporting in accordance with requirements
established by the CaliTransportation and the California Department
of Emergency Managem
• Express an opi on ai -sentation of the financial statements for the Low Carbon
Transit Oper .ns Progr. Ac aunts (LCTOP) and report on compliance and internal
control over fi ial repo g in accordance with the Transit, Affordable Housing, and
Sustainable Com q itie ogram.
• Express an opinion o e fund financial statements for the 91 Express Lanes.
o The Auditor shall also be responsible to perform certain limited procedures involving
RSI required by the GASB.
• Beginning for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021, express an opinion on the fund
financial statements for the 15 Express Lanes.
o The Auditor shall also be responsible to perform certain limited procedures involving
RSI required by the GASB.
• Express an opinion on the Commission's compliance with the requirements of its major
federal programs.
o The Auditor is to provide an "in relation to" report on the schedule of expenditures of
federal awards based on the auditing procedures applied during the audit of the basic
financial statements.
17336.00000\8752982.1
35
" P e r f o r m c e r t a i n a g r e e d - u p o n p r o c e d u r e s r e l a t e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n '