HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 23, 2000 Budget & Implementation5/6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
•
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
RECORDS
TIME: 2:30 p.m.
DATE: Monday, October 23, 2000
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 - Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
1
•
...COMMITTEE MEMBERS...
Ron Roberts, Chairman / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
John Hunt, Vice Chair / Michael Bracken, City of Banning
Gregory S. Pettis / Sarah DeGrandi, City of Cathedral City
Juan DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella
Jeffrey Bennett / Andrea Puga, City of Corona
Mike Wilson / Marcos Lopez, City of Indio
John Pena / Ron Perkins, City of La Quinta
Kevin Pape / Robert Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore
Frank West / Bill Batey, City of Moreno Valley
Phil Stack / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage
Anneal Moore / City of Riverside
John Tavaglione / District Two / County of Riverside
Jim Venable / District Three / County of Riverside
Patrick Williams / Chris Carlson-Buydos / Jim Ayres City of San Jacinto
... STAFF ...
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
... AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY...
Annual Budget Development and Oversight
Countywide Strategic Plan
Legislation
Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs
Public Communications and Outreach Programs
Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement
and SB 821 -Bicycle & Pedestrian
Property Management
SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol
and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission
Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the
Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board.
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
http://www.rctc.org
3560 University Ave - Riverside, CA 92501 - Conference Room A
PARK IN THE PARKING GARAGE
ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET
MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2000- 2:30 -P.M.
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
City of La Quinta City Hall (Video Conference Location)
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253 - Session Room
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (September 25, 2000)
5. 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.
5A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT - P. 01
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule
Report for the month ending September 30, 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee
October 23, 2000
Page 2
6. ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF LAND FOR THE CORONA
MAIN STREET METROLINK STATION - P. 05
Overview
Any Property Ad Hoc Committee recommendations will be
presented to the Budget and Implementation Committee for its
review and possible action.
7. RCTC LICENSE AGREEMENTS POLICIES - P. 08
Overview
Any Property Ad Hoc Committee recommendations will be
presented to the Budget and Implementation Committee for its
review and possible action.
8. CITY OF HEMET PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT - P. 11
Overview
Any Property Ad Hoc Committee recommendations will be
presented to the Budget and Implementation Committee for its
review and possible action.
9. METROLINK STATION(S) ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT - P. 13
Overview
Any Property Ad Hoc Committee recommendations will be
presented to the Budget and Implementation Committee for its
review and possible action.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee
October 23, 2000
Page 3
10. CALL BOX UPGRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND COMARCO
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES - P. 16
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Enter into an agreement between the Riverside County
Transportation Commission and Comarco Wireless
Technologies to upgrade the call box system in Riverside
County;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review,
to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. CALL BOX CALL ANSWERING SERVICES - P. 21
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Direct staff to develop a joint Riverside County
Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated
Governments (SanBAG) Request for Proposal for call box
answering services; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee
October 23, 2000
Page 4
12. AMENDMENT TO CITY OF PALM DESERT'S FY 2001 MEASURE
'A' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND
ROADS - P. 36
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) The amendment to FY 2001 Measure 'A' Capital
Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the City
of Palm Desert, as submitted; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
13. ADJOURNMENT - The next meeting is scheduled to be held at
2:30 p.m. on Monday, November 27, 2000 at the RCTC offices.
•
•
•
MINUTES
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
September 25, 2000
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order at 2:38 p.m.,
by Chairman Ron Roberts at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission,
3560 University, Suite 100, Riverside, California, 92501 and at the video conference location
at the City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253.
2. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Members Absent:
Kevin Pape
John Pena *
Gregory S. Pettis *
Andrea Puga
Ron Roberts
Phil Stack
John Tavaglione
Jim Venable
Frank West
Patrick Williams *
**
* Attended meeting via video conference
* * Arrived late
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Juan DeLara
John Hunt
Ameal Moore
Mike Wilson
Michelle Cisneros, Accounting Supervisor, distributed the 2000-01 Budget, which was
approved and adopted by the Commission at the June 14, 2000, meeting.
URGENCY ITEM
Eric Haley, Executive Director requested that an item be added to the agenda, as a position on
Proposition 35 needs to be taken prior to the November elections. Mr. Haley further advised
the Committee that their permission and a two-thirds vote would be needed, with the
Committee's permission this item would be added to the agenda and forwarded to the full
Commission.
M/S/C (Pape/Puga) Approve this as an Urgency Item to be heard as Agenda Item 10.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S/C (Puga/Stack) to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2000 meeting as
presented.
Abstain: Tavaglione and Pena.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S/C (Tavaglione/Puga) to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
5A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT
Receive and file and Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending
August 31, 2000.
5B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report as of July 2000 and August
2000.
6. ADVANCE OF MEASURE A FUNDS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF HEMET
Eric Haley, Executive Director, advised the Committee that any needs for advancements would
be considered.
M/S/C (Puga/Tavaglione) recommend that the Commission: 1) Grant the City of Hemet
(City) an advance of 8730,000.00 from Measure "A", Local Streets and Roads funds;
2) Increase the Local Streets and Roads appropriation in Fund 222 — Measure "A"
Western budget by 8730,000; and 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal
Counsel review, to execute a Measure "A" advancement agreement between the
Commission and the City.
7. FY 2000-01 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATION FOR LOCAL STREETS AND
ROADS FOR THE PALO VERDE VALLEY APPORTIONMENT AREA
M/S/C (Tavaglione/Puga) recommend that the Commission: 1) Allocate the FY 2000-01
Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for streets and roads proposed in the Palo Verde
Valley, as shown on the attached table.
8. CMAQ CLEAN FUELS OPPORTUNITY FUND CATEGORY 2 & 3 PROJECT FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications, advised the Committee that
should this be approved, Category 4 would be the only category to remain under assessment
by the Committee's Technical Staff.
Marilyn Williams explained that RCTC has estimated a 14 -month implementation schedule for
the electrification project, with 3 -years of physical operation.
Commissioner John Tavaglione extended his thanks to Marilyn Williams for her hard work on
this project, and further added his support to this project.
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
September 25, 2000
Page 3
•
M/S/C (Tavaglione/Stack) recommend that the Commission: 1) Award $50,000 in
Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds to the County of Riverside for its electrification
project at Costco-Mira Loma under Category 2; and 2) Award $75, 000 each in CMAQ
funds to Riverside Community College and Mt. San Jacinto Community College for
their vocational training programs under Category 3.
CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK AGREEMENT WITH
PEPE'S TOWING SERVICE.
M/S/C (Tavaglione/Pape) recommend that the Commission: 1) Amend the Freeway
Service Patrol tow truck contract with Pepe's Towing Service; and 2) Authorize the
Chairman to execute the contract on behalf of the Commission, subject to Legal
Counsel review.
10. SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 35
Eric Haley, Executive Director, explained that there was hope that this would have been
resolved, as this has not happened Proposition 35 was proposed.
M/S/C (Pape/Tavaglione) recommend that the Commission adopt a support position for
Proposition 35.
• 11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation
Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be
held on Monday, October 23, 2000 at 2:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci R. McGinley
Deputy Clerk of the Board
•
AGENDA ITEM 5A
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 23, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager
Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Contracts Cost and Schedule Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month
ending September 30, 2000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts
reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the
Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value
approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and
the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending September 30,
2000.
Attachments
000001
•
PROJECT
DESCRIPTI ON
ROUTE 60 PROJECTS
Final Design HOV 60/215 to Redla nds Bl vd . (2042)
SUBTOTAL. ROUTE 60
ROUTE 74 PR OJECTS
Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966)
SUBTOTAL.RQUTE :74
RO UTE 79 PROJECTS
Engineering/Environ./ROW
(R09961) Realignme nt study, Right turn lanes
SUBTOTAL:ROUTE ::79
ROUTE 111 PRO JECTS
(R09219, 9227, 9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538)
9635,9743,9849-9851,9857
*.0.000(#0000
E 1
RO UTE 91 PROJECTS
Soundwa ll design and c onstruction
(R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043)
(2058)
Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Ho ok Ramp (R09535)
Sndwall Landscapin g (R09933,9946,9945)
SUBOT, R».: > 1
1-215 PRO JECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Env iro n. (R09008, 9018)
5UBTo7AL (41
5
R CTC MEASURE "A" HIWY/RAIL PR OJECTS
BUDGET REP ORT BY ROUTE
COM MISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR
% EXPENDITURES
AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO DATE AGAINST
.ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATI ON 09/30/00 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE
$2,229,000
$7,958,900
$7.958,9O0::
$ 740,000
•$ 74111!00;::
$15,933,909
515933 909:'
$10,632,800
S2,300,000
5883,450
3,816. 250
S6,726,504
.726,504
$ 2,006,100
S7,563,700
0:;6040.*:
$630,000
5630.000
$15,933,909
$15 933.909
59,872,324
$2,300,000
$798,291
;1Z S7Q,.615r
$ 5,878,173
x, 878173::
Page 1 of 3
90 .0%
95.0%
85 .1%
100 .0%
92 .8%
100 .0%
90.4%
87.4%
•
539,883
597
50
5104,570
04,57:
$39,984
$2,124,730
52 X24.730
S28,748
59,182,493
$6,169,291
$1,797,708
5616,125
),583,.1:24
55,704,897
5.704'897;:
2.0%
28 .1%
28.I%
4.6%
57.6%
62 .5%
78 .2%
77 .2%
97.1%
RCTC MEASURE " A" HIGHWAY PR OJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
INTERCHANGE IMPROV . PROGR AM
Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946►
SUBTOTAL. I NTERCF ANGE
PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV.
(RO 2100)
SUBTOTA L BECHTEL
PROGRA M PLA N & SERVICES
No rth/So uth Corridor study (R09936)
SUBTOTAL PROBR IV PLAlu a SVGS
PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM
(R0 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2046) (9917)
SUBTOTALPARK4143113E
COMMUTER RAIL
Studies/En gin eering
(RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956,2028)
R02031,2027,2120
Station/Site A cq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs
(0000,2020,2026,9929,9845,9953,9957,9932,9972)
SU T TA
fl'1fR14A l)1` EEC q'
CO MMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
AUTH ORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. M ONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 09/30/00 TO DATE COM MIT MNTS TO DATE
$440,000
$440,0OO
$1,750,000
$125,000
$2,293,911
52;293,911::::
$2,688,600
$13,150,502
$1:5 #39. 11.02;::
...... ... .. ... .......
. ...... ............ ..
,4224 578
78
$400,000
5400 ,000;:
$1,715,104
i1,115;164
$125,000
$ .„12$.:;000
$2,293,911
,2.293 911::
$2,645,600
e12,770,502
90.9%
9
98.0%
98 0':96:
100.0%
100 .0%
98 .4%
97 .1%
64416, 1°
... .. ... .. ... .. ..... . ...
..... ......... ... .......
12, 926 51.4
Page 2 of 3
•
$99,228
09-220."
562,302
62,32
57,575
5201,737
909,312'
7.5 ..1503::
$312,481
5312.481::
81,332,778
1,332.778
561,137
$1,328,824
S1,911,416
510,543,734
t3:E34/W . •
•
78.1%
96;
77.7%
48 .9%
57.9%
72.2%
82 .6%
.1541,
•
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & R OADS PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT
PR OJECT
DESCRIPTION
CITY OF CANYON L AKE
Railro ad Canyon Rd Improveme nts
SUBTOTAL CA NYON LAKE LOAN
CITY OF CORONA
Smith, Maple & Linco ln Interchanges & (1)
Storm drainage structure
APPROVED •
COMMITMENT
Si', 600,000
$1,600,000::
$5,212,623
SUBTOTALCITY OF:CORONA $5 212.623.::
CITY OF PERRIS
Local stree ts & ro ad improv ements
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Loca l streets & road improv ements
CITY OF TEMECULA
Local streets & road improv ements
CITY OF NORC O
Yu ma I/C & Loca l stre ets and road Imprmts
$1,936,419
$1,324,500
85,094,027
82,139,067
EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING
M ONTH ENDED MEASURE"A" LOAN
09/30/00 ADVANCES BALAN CE
So:
$1,600,000
$1.600.000
$5,212,623
61,936,419
$1,324,500
S5,094,027
$2,139,067
$1,192,632
$3,636,860
$1,505,860
$1,029,999
83,961,380
S1,663,450
$17;306630:;
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs.
All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
OUTSTANDING
COM MITMENT
SO
SO
SO
SO
$0
SO
% LOAN BALANCE
TO -DATE AGAINST
APPROVED CO MMIT.
74.5%
69 .8%
77 .8%
77 .8%
77 .8%
77.8%
Page 3 of 3
St atu s as of : 9/ 30/00
AGENDA ITEM 6
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 23, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Property Ad Hoc Committee
Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and. Programming -
SUBJECT:
Acquisition and Transfer of Land for the Corona Main Street
Metrolink Station
PROPERTY AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Any Committee recommendations will be presented to the Budget and Implementation
Committee for its review and possible action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In April 1999, the Commission approved the "Tier II Station Study" which
recommended the construction of additional commuter rail stations in western
Riverside County. The Commission action directed staff to proceed with initial
development of rail stations, including the identification and negotiation for necessary
real property at Van Buren Boulevard in Riverside and Main Street in Corona. Also
included in the Commission action was to "pursue funding partnerships with the cities
of Riverside and Corona, especially in the areas of improved vehicular access and
waiver of fees and assessments."
The City of Corona has partnered with the Commission in the construction of the new
commuter rail station near Main Street in Corona:
• The station is a part of the City's "North Main Street District Specific Plan" as
a transit/mixed use zone; and
• The City of Corona's Redevelopment Agency has purchased three parcels
totaling $1.5 million adjacent to the station - (see attachment). Two of the
parcels will create more than 357 parking spaces for the station. The
acquisition of these parcels for parking is an integral part in constructing the
station.
Staff will work with the City to develop an agreement outlining the transfer of property
to RCTC which will address issues including maintenance, security and parking.
Currently, the station is in the preliminary design and engineering phase. It is
anticipated that final design will begin next month and the station will be substantially
completed by February 2002.
000005
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
11 Authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with the City of Corona for the
transfer of land for the Corona Main Street Metrolink Station and;
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
000006
AGENDA ITEM 7
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 23, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Property Ad Hoc Committee
Claudia Chase, Property Agent
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
RCTC License Agreements Policies
PROPERTY AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Any Committee recommendations will be presented to the Budget and Implementation
Committee for its review and possible action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In 1993 with RCTC's acquisition of the San Jacinto Branch Line, the Commission
became responsible for examination and granting of license, lease, and occupancy
requests on the property. Legal Counsel prepared standard license agreements for
public agency agreements and a separate agreement for private entity licenses. RCTC
has entered into numerous agreements since that date. Additionally, the Commission
has acquired several properties for rail stations and to support Measure A highway
projects.
The policies for the processing of these applications and setting the fee structure for
these license agreements have not been reviewed since June of 1993. The current
policy of the Commission on licenses is:
PRIVATE APPLICANTS
Private entities requesting licenses are required to deposit processing fees
of $6,000 along with the request for a license. The $6,000 is used to
offset engineering, legal, appraisal, inspection, flagging, and
administrative costs. At the time of a grant of license, any unneeded
funds would be reimbursed to the private party within 30 days of
execution of the agreement. Should the costs to RCTC in processing the
license application be greater than $6,000, the requesting party will
reimburse RCTC for the additional costs within 30 days of license
execution. Should the license not be granted, the applicant would be
reimbursed any unused deposit funds within 30 days of the decision not
to grant the license.
An annual fee will be charged on the license equivalent to 10% of the fair
market value of the property impacted by the license. The annual fee
would be adjusted at the Commission's discretion based on the
Consumer Price Index (CPI).
00003
PUBL/C AGENCY APPLICANTS
Public entities requesting licenses are not required to make a deposit or
pay an annual fee. However, public agencies are required to reimburse
RCTC within 30 days of the execution of the license, or 30 days from a
decision not to grant the license, for any engineering, legal, inspection,
flagging or administrative costs.
DISCUSSION:
When the Commission purchased the San Jacinto Branch Line from the Atchison
Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company (AT&SF) in 1993, the purchase and sale agreement
required the AT&SF to provide out lease revenues to the Commission for a period of
10 years. The AT&SF out lease revenue (563,000/year) and the income from
Commission leases on the San Jacinto Branch Line is approximately $175,000 per
year. These funds have provided a revenue stream to support both maintenance
related property requirements as well as support appraisals and legal counsel fees
associated with owning properties. The AT&SF out lease revenue will expire in two
years. Therefore it is important to recognize the need to maintain license agreement
revenues to assist in defraying costs associated with the properties.
In working on current requests for licenses, staff has received complaints about our
license procedures. For example, private utilities object to our structure of requiring
payment of an annual licence fee. This may be due to the need to annually address
these agreements. Staff recommends that we continue to assess fees, but perhaps we
should structure our fees to provide an option to pre -pay licence fees on a 10 year or
longer basis. Staff does not suggest that we should discount such a payment but
factor in a fixed annual inflationary charge in the 10 year or longer term of the
agreement. This would be a benefit to the Commission by reducing administrative
costs associated with licence agreements and would provide the same benefit to
licensees.
Staff recommends that the fee structure of the standard public agreement should also
be reconsidered. Currently, the Commission does not charge annual licence fees to
public agencies, they are only responsible for the costs associated with establishing
the agreement. As an example, the Commission has paid substantial fees
(approximately $970,000) for the establishment of the Metrolink commuter rail
stations.
Given the pending expiration of the out lease revenues from the AT&SF purchase and
sale agreement, staff is requesting direction on how to maintain a revenue stream to
fund the maintenance and support of Commission owned properties.
•
•
•
000009
1
•
•
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee review and direction on:
1) Restructuring lease agreements and enhancing lease revenues to fund the
maintenance and support of Commission owned properties and;
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
000010
AGENDA ITEM 8
•
•
•
1
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 23, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Property Ad Hoc Committee
Claudia Chase, Property Agent
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
City of Hemet Purchase and Sale Agreement
PROPERTY AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Any Committee recommendations will be presented to the Budget and Implementation
Committee for its review and possible action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In May of 1999, staff brought forward a request from the City of Hemet to use a
portion of the railroad right-of-way in Hemet for a multi -modal transportation hub.
The Commission directed staff to support the City's request and enter into a process
to explore transitional options and pursue the City's eventual purchase of the property.
During all negotiations staff has maintained a total of 150 feet of right-of-way for
future passenger rail/freight service per Commission action.
In March of 2000, staff reported to the Budget and Implementation Committee the
results of an appraisal of both parcels. Our appraisal, having completed due diligence,
established the current market value of the two parcels, totaling 2.305 acres, at
$300,000. In April 2000, the Commission approved the sale of the property to the
City of Hemet.
City staff recently requested to purchase the property in two separate phases. The
City remains fully committed to purchase both properties. The first phase would
include the parcel located between Latham Street and Devonshire Avenue in the City
of Hemet. This parcel is 1.34 acres of commercially zoned land valued at $175,000.
The City of Hemet is using their AB2766 subvention funds which are now available.
In the second phase, if approved, the City of Hemet will purchase the remaining .965
acres, which is between State Street and Harvard Street, valued at $125,000. The
City intends to purchase this property with a portion of a CMAQ Grant for construction
of a Transit Center. The CMAQ process will involve federal funds which Caltrans has
advised will need to comply with a more intensive process of environmental review for
acquisition.
000011
Therefore, it is in the City's interest to divide the transaction into two phases, allowing
phase one to move at a faster pace. The second phase can then proceed on its own
schedule allowing more time for the complicated federal funding purchase. This
second phase will be completed before the end of Year 2001.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee review and approval of:
1) The transfer of title of 2.3 acres in downtown Hemet in two parts: Phase
I - 1 .34 acres, valued at $175,000 and Phase II - .965 acres, valued at
$125,000 and;
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
000012
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 23, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Property Ad Hoc Committee
Claudia Chase, Property Agent
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Metrolink Station(s) Elevator Maintenance Agreement
PROPERTY AD HOC RECOMMENDATION:
Any Committee recommendations will be presented to the Budget and Implementation
Committee for review and possible action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During the past two years, the Commission has been working towards compliance
with the agreement with the Atchison Tokepa & Santa Fe Railway Company (AT&SF)
which is now the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company for the establishment
of commuter rail service on the San Bernardino Subdivision. In this particular case
compliance is the construction of pedestrian over -crossings at each of the stations on
the Inland Empire -Orange County Metrolink line. The Commission completed the
pedestrian over -crossing at the Riverside -Downtown station and is currently
completing the over -crossings at the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona stations.
The pedestrian over -crossings require the installation of two elevators at each location
to eliminate at -grade pedestrian crossings of the tracks from platform to platform. The
over -crossings are equipped with elevators to comply with Americans With Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements. There are 12 month maintenance contracts established as
part of the initial construction contract. The Commission needs to establish regular
and dependable maintenance support for the elevators as the initial construction
contract requirements expire.
Staff has solicited 3 bids from elevator maintenance contractors, CEC Elevator
Corporation, Oliver & Williams and Otis Elevator Company. Based on price and
performance staff recommends that Otis Elevator Company be the selected
contractor. Following is a contract price proposal from Otis Elevator.
000013
Otis
Elevator Proposed Contract Price
No. of Stations
Otis Discount
Maintenance Price/Station
Base (1 station)
0%
$733.96
Base w/Low Usage
30%
$513.77
2 stations = 4 elevators
32.5%
$495.42
3 stations = 6 elevators
37.5%
$458.73
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Select Otis Elevator Company to maintain the elevators at the Riverside -
Downtown Metrolink Station and, once completed, the Riverside -La
Sierra and West Corona Stations for a 3 year period with two -one year
extension options at an amount not to exceed $18,000/year; and
2) Authorize RCTC's Chairman to execute the agreement on behalf of the
Commission, pursuant to Legal Counsel review and;
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2000-01
Source of Funds: Property lease revenue
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Amount: $18,000
Budget Adjustment: Y
� -�
Date: 10-18-00
•
•
•
000014
•
•
•
Otis Elevator Company
711 E. Ball Rd., Ste. 200
Anaheim, CA 92805
(714) 758 9593
October 13, 2000
Claudia Chase
R.C.T.0
3560 University Avenue, Ste:100
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Ms. Chase:
" -DE CO
i4tA;E\VEu
_( OCT 1 6 2000
OS22GS
Otis
A United Technologies Company
It was a pleasure meeting with you and Hideo yesterday. I would like to reiterate that:
1. The maintenance price is the contract price ($ 733.96) less the low usage
discount ($ 220.19) which amounts to $ 513.77 per month for both the elevators
at the station.
2. In order to be able to monitor your elevators remotely we would need to replace
your controllers with Otis controllers, which have a price tag of $ 18,000 each.
This would reduce the maintenance price to approximately $195.00 per elevator
per month.
3. You always have the option to upgrade your contract from the proposed standard
coverage to the expanded coverage which has guaranteed response times to call
backs. The price of the expanded coverage is 10% higher than the standard
coverage.
4. We will apply a discount of 2.5% to the agreed price with the addition of two
elevators, which we understand will be installed over the next two months. A
further discount of 5% shall be applied on the addition of two more elevators to
our portfolio, which we understand will be installed over the next six months.
(These discounts are applicable for elevators that do not exceed a capacity of
3500 lbs. and do not exceed a rise of 25'-0" over 2 landings).
We are also enclosing a fact sheet and proposal regarding:
1. LAMBDA® our door protection device
2. Hands off phone
Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ablok
)00015
AGENDA ITEM 10
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 23, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
SUBJECT:
CaII Box Upgrade Agreement between Riverside County.
Transportation Commission and Comarco Wireless Technologies
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Enter into an agreement between the Riverside County Transportation
Commission and Comarco Wireless Technologies to upgrade the call box
system in Riverside County;
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission and;
3) Forward to the Commission for final action,
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Riverside County Transportation Commission, through its capacity as the Service
Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), operates approximately 1,149 call boxes
on freeways and highways in Riverside County. The call box system allows motorists
to call for assistance in the event of an accident or mechanical problem. Each call box
is a battery powered, solar charged roadside terminal with a microprocessor and built-
in cellular telephone.
The Commission's maintenance provider, Comarco Wireless Technologies (CWT),
installs, repairs, and maintains the call boxes at a flat annual fee of $290 per call box.
The agreement was approved by the Commission at its April 12, 2000, meeting and
is in effect until June 30, 2005. Comarco provides such services as preventive
maintenance; knockdown and vandalism repair; system operation and performance
monitoring, site improvements and construction, and removals and reinstallations due
to freeway construction.
000010
Most of the current call boxes in the system are over ten years old, and at the time the
program was originally implemented in April 1990, it was estimated that the
equipment would last no longer than ten years. In fact, the original maintenance
agreement with Cellular Communications Corporation, a division of GTE MobilNet, was
for that specific ten year duration. At the time CWT began negotiations with RCTC
staff to renew the maintenance agreement, Comarco encouraged RCTC to upgrade its
current system (six other SAFEs have agreements with Comarco to upgrade their
systems). Comarco had indicated that certain components are no longer manufactured
or available, and they have, exhausted all of their remaining inventory.
However, since neither RCTC nor Comarco readily knew which or how many call
boxes would need to be upgraded, in April, 2000, it was agreed to enter into a five
year, flat -fee contract with the understanding that a further study would be done
regarding the issue of refurbishing the system. It was further agreed that over the
following twelve months, CWT and RCTC would analyze the system to determine its
useful life, and that based on the analysis, RCTC would work with CWT to either
upgrade the system, as deemed necessary, or renegotiate the contract to a time and
material basis.
Based upon Comarco's maintenance records, they have determined that 930 out of
the 1,149 call boxes are equipped with the obsolete, out -dated components, and they
are proposing to upgrade those boxes at $850 per box. Comarco would replace the
radio transceivers, controller boards, solar regulators, all worn harnesses, remove any
corrosion, replace all bulbs, replace all batteries, and paint all the housings and back
plates. The upgrade would extend the useful life of the call box equipment for an
additional ten years.
Commission staff met with Mr. Sebastian Gutierrez, Vice President of Comarco's Call
Box Systems, to discuss their proposal. Staff was concerned with the large, one-time
expenditure of funds, and whether it would be prudent to replace the components all
at once versus a piece -meal basis as they broke down. Comarco agreed to review our
maintenance records for the past three years to determine how many incidents
occurred which would require the replacement of transceivers, controller boards, or
regulators.
The attached schedule (Exhibit A) is a cost comparison on what the upgrade costs
would be if the work was performed only as required versus all at once. The total
estimated savings over a five year period is estimated at $465,200 based on
refurbishment of call boxes all at once. The cost comparison is based on the Universal
Price List (UPL) included in our maintenance contract. The UPL is a uniform, state-
wide price list used by Comarco to charge on a time and material basis for any work
performed on non -system call boxes (i.e. TTY, smart call box or other ITS device).
•
•
•
000017
•
•
•
The costs to replace the components on an annual basis would be $195,487, based
on $1,245 per unit and our average of 157 units per year over the last three years.
As a comparison, the total cost for a new call box is $3,341.74, plus. It would take
approximately six (6) years to upgrade the system if done on a piece -meal basis. The
total cost as proposed in Comarco's refurbishment agreement would be $790,500,
plus tax, and could be completed by July 31, 2001. Also, if the call boxes were
upgraded on a piece -meal basis, the boxes would not receive the additional services
of having any corrosion removed, all batteries replaced, and painting of all housings
and back plates. The upgraded equipment would also be compatible with digital
technology, so the call boxes could be readily converted when, and if, our cellular
provider, AT&T, goes completely digital.
Staff realizes that Comarco is the only provider of call box maintenance services in the
State. Therefore, staff requested TeleTran Tek Services, our call box consultant, to
independently review Comarco's maintenance data and assumptions used in their
proposal. As part of their consultant agreement with the Commission, TeleTran Tek
Services performs semi-annual audits of Comarco's billings for preventive and
corrective maintenance and for any above contract costs (i.e. repairs for knockdown,
vandalism, graffiti, etc.). It is their opinion that Comarco's statistics are accurate and
that their assumptions are reasonable, and they are forwarding a letter to Commission
staff to express their opinion in writing.
The Call Box program budget (including the matching funds for the Freeway Service
Patrol program but excluding the upgrade costs) for FY 2000-01 totals $1,218,000
and the estimated revenues are approximately $1,203,000, a difference of $15,000.
This appears to be the first fiscal year in which expenditures will exceed revenues, and
the program will begin using part of the reserve funds to finance program operations.
There is some concern about the program not generating sufficient revenues to pay for
itself, so staff is looking at various options (i.e. privatizing the call answering services)
to possibly reduce costs and will return to the Commission by the first of the calendar
year with a long term financial forecast for the call box program including future
system wide upgrades required to accommodate digital technology.
The call box program has a fund balance of $2,265,000 as of June 30, 2000, so there
are sufficient reserve funds to finance the equipment upgrade given that the all at once
approach over a five year period generates an estimated cost savings of $465,000.
000018
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: No
Source of Funds: SAFE Fees
GLA Account No.: 202-45-73301
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Year: FY 2000-01 Amount Requested: $865,214
Budget Adjustment: Yes
Date: 10-19-00
000019
Exhibit A
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALL BOX PROGRAM
SYSTEM UPGRADE PRICING SCENARIOS
Year 1
Corrective & Preventive Maint.
Above Contract Repairs
(knockdowns, vandalism, graffiti, etc.)
System Upgrade
Total Yr. 1 Costs
Year 2*
Year 3*
Year 4'
Year 5'
Total 5 Year Costs
Net Present Value @ 5%
Average Cost Per Year
Net Present Value Per Year
Altemative 1
Boxes Upgraded
As Needed
$ 241,290.00 1
$ 133,000.00 3
$ 195,437.00 4
$ 569,727.00
$ 586,819.00
$ 604,423.00
$ 622,556.00
$ 641,232.00
$ 3,024,757.00
$ 2,611,583.00
$ 604,951.40
$ 522,317.00
NOTES:
1 - $17.50 per box per month = $210 per yr. x 1,149 boxes.
2 - $290 per box per year x 1,149 boxes.
3 - Above contract costs based on 5 year history.
4 - Upgrade calculated as follows:
Transceiver $ 442.00
Controller Board $ 544.96
Solar Regulator $ 135.20
Sub -Total $ 1,122.16
Labor @ $61.43 x 2 hrs. $ 122.86
Total Upgrade Costs per Box $ 1,245.02
Boxes Upgraded Each Yr. x 157
Total Upgrade Costs per Yr. $ 195,465
5 - One-time Upgrade costs = $850 per box X 930 boxes.
Altemative 2
Boxes Upgraded
All at Once
$ 333,210.00 2
(incl. above)
$ 790,500.00 5
$ 1,123,710.00
$ 343,206.00
$ 353,502.00
$ 364,108.00
$ 375,031.00
$ 2,559,557.00
$ 2,280,266.00
$ 511,911.40
$ 456,053.00
Annual CPI increase of 3% per year.
Costs Do Not include applicable sales tax.
After 5 yrs., 785 boxes (157 x 5) would be upgraded leaving a balance of 145 boxes (930 - 785)
to be done in the 6th yr. @ $1,245, or an additional cost of $180,525 in 6th yr.
Variance
$ 553,983.00
$ (243,613.00)
$ (250,921.00)
$ (258,448.00)
$ (266,201.00)
$ (465,200.00)
$ (331,317.00)
$ (93,040.00)
$ (66,263.40)
000020
AGENDA ITEM 11
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 23, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
SUBJECT:
Call Box Call Answering Services
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Direct staff to develop a joint Riverside County Transportation
Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SanBAG)
Request for Proposal for call box answering services and;
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has been the provider of call answering and
dispatch services for the Commission's call box program since its implementation in
April, 1990. All call box calls are forwarded directly to one of two CHP dispatch centers
in either Indio or San Bernardino, and calls are then routed according to the type of
emergency. These services are the second greatest operational cost for the call box
program, and RCTC expends approximately $230,000 annually for these services.
The initial legislation only permitted SAFEs to forward calls directly to the CHP.
However, in the mid 1990's, legislation was enacted which allowed the SAFEs to
contract with private call answering centers, with the coordination and approval of the
CHP. Since that time, two private call answering centers have been established (the
San Diego SAFE and the Bay Area SAFE operated through MTC). As a result of
privatization these two SAFEs are realizing a 30% to 50% decrease in operational
costs. In addition, the Los Angeles SAFE is in the process of investigating the feasibility
of privatizing this function in LA County.
Approximately two years ago, RCTC and SanBAG began discussion with the LA SAFE
to study the creation of a regional call answering center, and LA agreed to take the lead
on this project. Due to many unforeseen issues, the LA privatization effort is taking
longer than expected, and, therefore, RCTC and SanBAG staff have proceeded to
investigate the feasibility of an Inland Empire call answering privatization effort.
000021
There are several reasons the Inland Empire SAFEs are moving towards a private call
center:
1. Cost - CHP dispatcher hourly rates, overhead and fringe benefits are not
negotiable and are established each year by the CHP. As these rates
increase from year to year, the costs are passed onto the SAFEs.
2. Overpayment of Services - The enabling call box legislation states that
"the CHP shall incur no costs" in providing service to the program. The
CHP and Caltrans also developed guidelinesto implement the call box
program. For fiscal year 2000-01, RCTC is paying approximately $58,000
for a fully -burdened person year (PY). The guidelines state that once a
CHP call answering center requires more than 0.1 of a PY to answer the
call box calls, then the SAFE must reimburse the CHP for a full PY
position. As the requirement goes above one PY, the SAFE must
reimburse the CHP for two PY positions, and so on. The CHP
implemented this guideline because they claim they cannot staff with
partial PYs, and even the smallest increase in their dispatch workload
would require a full position. Since RCTC call box calls are answered by
two separate CHP centers, each center rounds up the positions
separately, and, therefore, each year RCTC and SanBAG pay for more
staff than what is actually required. Even though this formula financially
impacts all the SAFEs, the formula has the greatest impact on those
SAFEs with multiply dispatch centers. The end result is that RCTC and
SanBAG combined, pay for two more CHP positions than what is actually
needed.
3. Quality - The level of service being provided by the CHP for the RCTC
and SanBAG call box programs has continued to decline over the last few
years. According to CHP-generated reports for Call Box Handling
Services for calendar year 1999, the average statewide delay time a caller
had to wait before their call goes into the CHP cue was 26.7 seconds.
However, the average delay for calls generated for Riverside and San
Bernardino call boxes was 65 seconds, or almost 2 1/2 times as long as the
statewide average. In contrast, San Diego'saverage delay time is about
15 seconds using their private call answering center. Even though the
average delay for the Inland Empire call box calls is 65 seconds,
approximately 32% of the calls go unanswered for 120 seconds or longer.
In addition to service quality issues, there also are problems with the lack
of flexibility and information from the CHP dispatching system. SAFEs are
unable to gather any data on the types of calls taken, when calls are
actually connected to a dispatcher, and other types of valuable
information.
Based on these issues, RCTC and SanBAG are investigating the feasibility of releasing
a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit bids which would ultimately privatize this
•
•
000022
•
•
function. Attached is an issue paper which defines the pros and cons of privatizing,
potential start up costs, institutional issues and contract considerations.
At this point in time, staff from both agencies recommends that an RFP be developed
and brought back to both Boards for consideration of its release. Staff proposed that
this RFP be released by SanBAG, and ultimately evaluated by RCTC, SanBAG, CHP
and Caltrans staff. The ultimate call answering center would be jointly managed by
RCTC and SanBAG, and the costs paid proportionally by each agency based on the
number of calls generated by each SAFE. Combined, RCTC and SanBAG pay the
CHP over $520,000 each year to respond to 162,000 calls generated from call boxes
from both agencies (67,000 for RCTC). If RCTC/SanBAG were to pay similar rates as
MTC and San Diego are currently paying their private centers, then those costs would
drop on an annual basis to just under $300,000. Should these activities be contracted
out, then not only will costs reduce, but staff also believes that the service provided to
the motoring public would also improve.
This item was reviewed and approved by SanBAG's Plans and Program Committee on
October 18, 2000.
000023
•
•
•
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties
Service Authority for Freeway
Emergencies (SAFE)
CALL BOX CALL CENTER
OUTSOURCING ISSUES
Prepared for:
San Bernardino Associated Governments SAFE
Prepared by:
Jill Kollmann
Bernard Arroyo
October 11, 2000
000024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview 1
1. Advantages of Privatizing 1
2. Disadvantages of Privatizing 3
3. Start-up Costs for Privatization 3
4. Technical Risks and Issues 4
5. Performance 5
6. Institutional 6
7. Implementation 7
8. Contract Considerations 9
000025
•
•
CALL BOX CALL CENTER OUTSOURCING ISSUES
OVERVIEW
Since the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) callbox program was
initiated, the calls have been routed to the Califomia Highway Patrol (CHP) call center.
It has been done this way for a variety of reasons, and it has worked well from the
standpoint of processing the calls and getting people the type of assistance they need.
However, the costs are very high under the current arrangements. San Bernardino
Associated Governments (SANBAG) and Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC) staff have been directed by their Boards to evaluate options that will provide the
same or better callbox call -answering service at a lower cost in order to free up program
funds to allocate for Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliance needs and call box
infrastructure maintenance. Current call box call center costs are based on CHP labor
rates and overhead. It is possible that if the call center is contracted out, the operating
costs can be 30% to 50% lower, based on the experience of other agencies that have
privatized this function.
In addition to the cost savings, call box calls can be given higher priority by a privatized
operation. This will improve answer and response times.
1. Advantages of Privatizing
•
•
1.a — CaII Prioritization
Privatizing the call -taking function gives call box calls top priority. Most calls that are
made from call boxes are for vehicle assistance rather than for a medical or other
emergency. It is in the interests of the SAFE program and call box users to ensure
that roadside assistance calls are handled in the most timely and efficient manner.
Currently calls that go into the CHP call center are prioritized, meaning that 911 calls
receive higher priority over call box calls. Therefore, call box callers may wait longer
to have their calls answered, especially during times when an emergency situation is
being reported by a dozen or more 911 callers. While no statistics are available, this
situation has been observed at the call center and it results in a delay in the caller
getting the assistance they need and getting their car moving or off the road.
1.b — Performance Standards
Privatizing the call -taking function will enable SAFE to establish and monitor
performance standards for call servicing. Under current arrangements, call box calls
are not tracked or reported separately from other calls going into the CHP call
center. SAFEs need to be able to track data such as how long callers are on hold
waiting for their calls to be answered, staffing levels versus call volumes, call
disposition, call processing times, and other measures of performance and service
000026 1
quality. While such data is sometimes collected, it is not currently broken out or
reported to make distinctions between agencies.
Perhaps the most critical performance standard is timeliness of call answering and
call response. When privatized, call box calls can be first priority, rather than the
current third priority status. Higher priority will result in more timely call answering
and response.
1.c — Cost Savings
Privatizing the call -taking function provides the opportunity to lower costs
significantly by going out to the marketplace and getting competitive pricing. Call
centers that have privatized in California, that being the San Diego SAFE in
Southern California and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) SAFE in
Northern California, have experienced a 40% to 50% reduction in overall costs of
taking and processing call box calls. These agencies pay their contractors on a per
call basis, ranging from $1.80 to $1.90 per call. The current arrangement with the
CHP is based on reimbursing the CHP for full time operators, which are
approximately $60,000 per year.
The CHP call center, since it is an emergency response center, is equipped and
staffed at a higher level than is necessary for handling roadside assistance calls. In
addition, as dispatcher salaries increase, these increases are negotiated statewide
and the increase in costs are passed onto the SAFE — these costs are not
negotiable with the SAFE. A privatized operation would not require the higher level
of staff capabilities for 911 or disaster responses, thereby lowering costs.
To put this into perspective, SANBAG and RCTC are currently paying the CHP
$520,000 to staff three dispatch centers and answer 162,000 calls per year. If this
function were privatized and based on current costs, the annual operating costs
would be around $300,000 per year, a $220,000 annual savings.
1.d — Resource Reallocation
Privatizing the call -taking function will free up program resources for other purposes.
There is a pressing need to bring local call box locations into compliance with ADA ,
and there is a need to maintain a reasonable number of call boxes in priority
locations. In addition, the Inland Empire continues to grow and this puts pressure on
the callbox system to expand geographically. Fixed costs are also rising at a greater
amount than Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) fees can produce in revenues.
1.e — Program Control
By privatizing the function, SAFEs retain contractual control over the call -taking
function of the callbox program. SAFEs currently have very little control over the
operations of the call -taking function. Many of the details of the current
000027
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
arrangements with the CHP are legislatively mandated, especially as it pertains to
cost pass-throughs to the SAFEs; it is not negotiable. With the call -taking function
being under the jurisdiction of another government agency, it is operated in
accordance with that agency's goals, objectives and priorities, rather than those of
the SAFE. Currently there isn't a contractual opportunity for SAFE to apply any
leverage with regards to how calls are received or processed.
2. Disadvantages of Privatizing
2.a — Disruption to Current Service
Quality of service issues exist with the current arrangement with the CHP; however,
because of the software and technology that the CHP utilizes, many of the quality
issues are not documented or tracked. The current arrangement is seamless to the
call box user, and in fact, many are unaware that the calls are being taken by the
CHP, or if there are issues, they are unaware as to who to file complaints with. In
the 1999 Inland Empire Survey, questions were asked relative to the call box
program. When asked of those who had used a call box, if their needs were
adequately met, 86% responded yes. Therefore, the existing arrangement seems to
be satisfactory to the end user. With any change to an operational program, there
will be minor disruptions as the transition occurs, and there may be an increase in
complaints until the new center is up and operating.
2.b — Lack of Qualified or Experienced Local Contractors
There are currently two known firms in California that have experience as contracted
SAFE call taking centers. Neither of the two firms is located in the Inland Empire.
The closest center is in San Diego, which is also part of the Southern California
Priority Corridor which includes the Inland Empire . Local firms most likely have
experience as call -taking or message centers for other businesses, such as medical
offices, but have not had experience with the particular needs of SAFE. Lack of
local contractors with sufficient experience to start the project and manage it within
the timeline and budget is a concern, as this introduces financial and other types of
risk that must be mitigated if SAFE is to obtain the necessary savings.
2.c — One Time Set Up Costs
Based on the type of contractor selected, there will be one time costs in order to
establish the new center and to transition the calls form the CHP. Based on the two
current private call taking centers, it is anticipated that when the one time costs are
amortized over time, the new center will operate more cost-effectively as compared
to the current arrangement, but this will not be known until proposals are in and
evaluated.
000028
3
3. Start-up Costs for Privatization
The experiences of the two California SAFEs that have privatized range in costs
because of different approaches used. In the case of MTC the start-up costs
approached $1,000,000 while in the case of San Diego, the capital start-up costs
were more in the $20,000 range for additional hardware and software. The
difference is due to the "ground zero" approach compared to the business -add-on
approach.
In the "ground zero" approach (MTC), a new physical call center is established. In
the business -add-on approach (San Diego), the call center is already established
and the SAFE program calls are an add-on to existing business operations.
There are basically three cost options that emerge, with varying levels of capital
costs up -front.
a. Start up an entirely new local operation from "ground zero"
b. Add to an existing local general-purpose messaging business
c. Add to a call center that already handles call box calls
a. Setting up a brand new call center is expensive. Starting from "ground zero" in
terms of equipment alone can easily cost upwards of $500,000 to $750,000 based
on the experience of other call answering centers, with capital expenses for
telephone and computer systems and customized software, call management
systems, call recording and storage systems, and telecommunications links.
Additional costs include about 45 days or more for pre -operational staff training, and
the contractor will also need to invest a significant effort in the establishment of new
institutional relationships and operating procedures that need to be incorporated into
software, user interfaces and procedures.
b. Start-up costs would be lower if the contractor already operates some sort of a
call -taking service or message center, because they already have a facility and basic
technology in place as well as staff that is partially trained. Incremental costs for
additional technology could be in the range of $100,00 to $150,000. The contractor
would still need to invest significant time in the planning of software customizations
that would support the need for interagency movement of data and information.
c. Start-up costs for a call center that is already taking call box calls are estimated to
be the lowest of all, requiring communications links such as T-1 lines and possibly
some capacity expansion.
4. Technical Risks and Issues
4.a — Technology
The technology systems that are needed to support the call box call center function
exist and are mature, and have been used for this purpose with success. There are
0000291
•
•
•
no risks in terms of developing something new, or needing significant modifications
to an existing technology as long as the selected contractor is familiar with the
technology and vendors chosen to support the operation. Telephone systems that
relay calls from the call boxes to the call center are in place, and sending the calls to
a different call center located in San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles or Orange
counties does not present any challenges, nor would it increase the fee SAFE pays
AT&T for cellular services.
4.b — Interagency Coordination
Interagency technical issues will center around:
Interfaces between the call center and CHP — procedural, policy, and data
Interagency coordination and cooperation — roles and responsibilities
While most of the call box calls are for roadside assistance, there are certain types
of calls that will still require CHP handling. It is important that CHP participate in the
development of the RFP Scope of Work in order to help identify those requirements
for potential bidders. In addition, CHP should take a very active role at a more
detailed level working with the selected contractor to define data that needs to be
moved from the call center to CHP, as well as user interfaces that will result in
smooth call transitioning and handling. In other call box call centers that have been
privatized, CHP has played a leadership role in establishing policies, procedures,
and user interfaces required for handling and relaying emergency calls or other calls
of which they want to be notified.
Once a contractor is selected there is still significant need for interagency
coordination. Roles and responsibilities for start-up need to be determined. For
example if the contractor needs a certain data set from CHP, it needs to be
understood that this is to be provided in a certain way and at a certain time in order
to stay on schedule and within budget. If more that one CHP center is involved, they
all need to have representation in order to ensure that nothing the contractor needs
is left out. All agencies that need access to data or reports need to specify their
needs at the RFP stage and then again inmoredetail once a contractor is selected,
as this input will likely be used by the contractor to customize some software and
user interfaces.
These types of project risk can be mitigated by establishing a project task
force that will include CHP and other partner agencies in the development of
the RFP, selection of the contractor, and coordination during implementation
start-up.
4.c — Vendor -provided Systems
Call box call taking is more specialized and is supported by computers and software
that may not be familiar to typical message -taking call centers. There is
considerable risk to SAFE if a selected contractor is not rock -solid on the project
0000305
requirements and knowledge of the higher level of hardware and software needs.
An inexperienced contractor can easily be led astray by computer and software
suppliers who promise the moon and deliver a product that falls seriously short of
meeting the needs. Aside from technical risk, this also introduces timeline and
financial risk. This implies that if there is a requirement that the selected contractor
be local, there will be additional project risk because neither of the two firms with call
box experience is local.
These risks can be mitigated by clearly defining project requirements in the
RFP Scope of Work, minimizing the requirement for a local contractor, and
establishing selection criteria that screen out less capable or less experienced
contractors. Consider evaluation criteria that award points to contractors who
can demonstrate familiarity and/or previous experience with their selected
suppliers.
5. Performance
Under a privatized arrangement, the contract should address performance standards
such as:
Compliance with call -handling protocol
Calls properly transferred to responding party or entity
Emergency calls transferred to correct agency in a timely manner
Proper safety advice offered to callers waiting roadside
Call -taker professionalism and courtesy
Tracking call center statistics such as
Speed of answer
Length of call
Call volume profiling and analysis for staffing purposes
Individual agent performance monitoring
Statistics by day, week, month, year and to -date
Call disposition/call forwarding tracking and reporting
Type of assistance requested
Technical Support (24/7)
Computer system fault isolation and resolution
System enhancements and upgrades
Telephone system fault isolation and resolution
Technical Support response time thresholds
Unplanned Events Responses
Disaster preparedness and recovery expectations
Back-up service expectations
Agent Training
•
•
•
00003j
•
•
•
Call management
Geography
Response agency familiarization
Use of equipment
Disaster preparedness/recovery/emergency response
The desired performance measures and targets should be included in the RFP,
as well as any specific requirements for management reports, reporting intervals,
billing methods and other day-to-day recording or tracking needs.
6. Institutional
6.a — Location of Call Center
From an institutional standpoint, the location of the call center could present an
issue. Intuitively, there may be a thought that if the call center is locally operated the
staff will know the area better. However, most people do not know their own county
geography all that well; they know a lot about the areas they travel and not much
about the rest. It is possible to operate a call center remotely, as demonstrated by
Orange County Transportation Authority's transit information center that is operated
out of Los Angeles County. Observations at both the CHP call center and the
privatized San Diego SAFE call center verify that knowledge of local geography
plays virtually no role in the handling of a call.
It is strongly recommended that SAFE put highest priority on experience and proven
expertise rather than emphasizing local presence. By staying open to the possibility
of contracting with a firm that isn't local, SAFE will have the potential to save the
greatest amount of money and have the shortest possible start-up lead time and well
as the smoothest possible transition, without compromising service quality
6b — Multiple Agencies
Due to the large expanse of territory, there are multiple CHP dispatch centers which
are currently involved in SAFE call answering. Each CHP dispatch center may have
slightly different needs and preferences for coordination with a new privatized SAFE
call center. The data that the new contractor needs to commence operations will
come from the various CHP centers and may be in different formats, etc. It will be
important to identify the key people and involve them in the process from the
beginning in order to avoid surprises later on that can affect the contractor's ability to
start on time and stay within the budget, as well as meet performance requirements.
Of the two known contractors who have experience with SAFE programs, only the
one in northern California has experience with multiple agencies, and they are not
yet operational, therefore this aspect of the project may introduce some new and
relatively unknown risk.
000032
7
If San Bernardino and Riverside Counties are jointly operating the call center there
will be a need for formalized agreements covering funding, operations and reporting
policies as agreed to by both county Commissions. Information that explains this
relationship to potential bidders should be included in the Request for Proposal
(RFP).
It has been suggested by managers of the San Diego SAFE program that
consideration be given to reimbursing CHP for the time they invest in working on this
transition. However, this is not recommended unless it is absolutely necessary in
order to expedite the process.
7. Implementation Logistics
Interviews with the San Diego SAFE managers indicate that a one-year lead time is
reasonable to expect. However, the lead time for an inexperienced contractor versus
an experience contractor would likely vary significantly. The RFP should state a desired
start-up lead time and the selection criteria should be weighted to favor a contractor
who can do a faster start-up that will save time and money.
7a. — Time to Contract
Present until 12/4/00
12/18/00 and 12/20/00
1/3/01 and 1/10/01
1/11/01
1/30/01
3/19/01
3/20/01 — 4/4/01
By 4/4/01
4/11/01 and 4/22/01
5/2/01 and 5/12/01
5/12/01 to 6/30/01
By 6/30/01
Develop draft RFP, scope of work, contract
and bid list, working with CHP and Caltrans
RCTC and SANBAG Plans and Programs Committee
(PPC) Review
SANBAG and RCTC Board Review
RFP is released
Bidders Conference
Proposals are due into SANBAG by 4:00 pm
Evaluate, interviews, site visits and develop a
recommendation
Develop SANBAG and RCTC Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU)
SANBAG and RCTC PPC Review
SANBAG and RCTC Board Review
Execute Contract
Develop new contracts with CHP phasing out their
current staffing completely by the end of FY
2001/2002
Note: CHP requires in current contract, a six month notice to phase out their
dispatchers when transitioning calls to a new privatized call answering center
7b. — Lead Time for Contractor (assuming an existing operation)
Some of these processes will run in tandem rather than sequentially, and are
based upon date of contract execution identified in 7a above:
00003.2
8
•
•
•
2 months to develop and approve detailed cut -over plan and schedule
3 months to develop policies, procedures
3 months to finalize system designs — telephone, computers, software
2 months to customize software, interfaces
4-6 months to obtain, update, or develop databases
4-10 weeks to order, receive, install and test hardware, software, networking
equipment and software, telephone transfer links (depending on what is being
added to contractor's existing operation)
If the contractor does not have an existing operation or if an out -of -area
experienced contractor is required to set up a local operation, it would take a
minimum of 2-4 months to secure a location, get it ready for occupancy, and to
hire and train local staff.
7c. — Cut -over Plan
A significant amount of system installation and testing can be done off-line.
Once everything is ready for the telephone system cut -over it may not be
technically possible or financially beneficial to run the CHP operation and the
new operation in tandem for a few days to smooth the transition, since the
callbox calls must be "pointed" to one place, not two. The contractor should be
required to submit, as part of their proposal, the outline of a cut -over plan that
adequately exhibits their knowledge of how to manage a cut -over. As part of
their contract after selection, a more detailed cut -over plan should be required.
The plan should cover the sequencing and coordination of all systems that
support the call center, and clearly identify anticipated issues and plans for back-
ups when things go wrong. The plan should also clearly identify who is
responsible for what, as well as the timelines for review and approval cycles that
. can hold up the process.
8. Contract Considerations
These types of contracts are generally priced on a per -call basis. However it
may be advantageous to be a bit flexible as follows:
1. Require the contractor to establish a timeline and deliverables with payment
milestones for pre -start-up activities. Even an experienced contractor will
need to invest a significant amount of time to determine details of software
customizations, and iron out CHP requirements for calls that will be
forwarded to them. Setting up a mechanism for covering pre -operational
expenses will make overall pricing more transparent since these costs will
not be folded into the per -call cost. It also gives the contractor a reasonable
incentive to do a thorough job on the pre -implementation work.
2. Provide a mechanism that will support later system enhancements or add-
ons that SAFE may request after operations commence. This should be
000034 9
contractual, rather than a part of the original scope so contractors don't low -
ball their initial pricing with the expectation that they could later ask for more
money. The objective here is to provide SAFE, not the contractor, with a
mechanism to request and pay for unanticipated enhancements that were
not included in the original scope.
Require that the contractor make call box calls top priority over any other types of calls
that come in. This way SAFE gets good service at a low price because the contractor
can spread some of their operating costs over their other business activities, as
opposed to doing a 100% pass -through.
000035
10
•
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 12
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 23, 2000
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
Amendment to City of Palm Desert's FY 2001 Measure "A' Capital.
Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) The amendment to FY 2001 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for
Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert, as submitted; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to
annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be
expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities
in the .Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the
Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation.
The City of Palm Desert's Measure "A" Plan was approved by the Commission at its
July 12, 2000 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted Plan must be returned to the
Commission for approval. The City has submitted a revised Plan for FY 2000-01 and
is seeking Commission approval.
000036
Agency:
Prepared by:
Phone No.:
Date:
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 20 nn - 20 ni
City of Palm Desert
Richard ]. F olkers
760/346-0611 ext. 561
Qctober 16. 2000
Page 1 of 1
ITEM
NO.
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
PROJECT TYPE
TOTAL COST
($000'S)
MEASURE A
FUNDS ($000'SL
1.
2.
3.
4.
Plaza Way at Highway 111
Fre d Waring Drive from Highway 111
to To wn Center Way
Gera ld Fo rd Drive - Por tola Ave nue
to Cook Street
Cook Street - Doyley Lan e to
Fre d Waring Drive
Intersection
71
2,000
657
400
71
1,711
657
400
improv ement
Street a nd bridg e widening
St re et widening
Stre et imp rov ement s and
cr oss street r ealignment
0002-91-130
3I19fid 1b3S30
10/13/00 - G 1PubWorks\RCTC Funds Program Fan) d oc - td