HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 7, 1998 Budget and FinanceRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE 044100
(COMMISSIONERS WILL KLEINDIENST, JACK VAN HAASTER, JIM VENABLE)
* VIDEO CONFERENCE SITE
12:30 P.M.
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1998
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, RIVERSIDE 92501
PALM SPRINGS CITY HALL*
3200 TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL ITEMS.
5A. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports
Overview
Staff is requesting that the Commission receive and file the attached material depicts the
current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and
cooperative agreements executed by the Commission.
5B. SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring Funds
O vervie w
Staff is requesting that the Commission: 1) Approve the use $447,648 of SB 45 2%
Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to support the SB 45 staff position for a
period of 4 years; 2) Approve the use of $425,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming
and Monitoring funds to support a Project Study Report (PSR) for Route 79; 3) Approve
the use of $1,500,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds and
lead the effort to plan and identify transportation corridors through the Community &
Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process; and, 4) Approve entering into an
agreement with the State of California to receive the SB 45 2% Planning, Programming
and Monitoring funds.
5C. SCAG Annual Assessment Dues
O vervie w
Authorize staff to annually pay assessment dues for our participation on the SCAG
Regional Council beginning with the current 98/99 assessment of $15,000.
00 0,
Page 2
Agenda - Budget/Finance Committee
October 7, 1998
5D. City of Moreno Valley Request to Reprogram - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds
(CMAQ)
Overview
The City of Moreno Valley has requested to reprogram Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) funds made available through a cost savings on the Heacock Street
Interconnect project to another interconnect project on Pigeon Pass Road.
5E. WRCOG Contract for Accounting Services
O vervie w
Authorize the Executive Director to execute the attached contract amendment with
WRCOG to provide accounting services for a period of three years, with the first year set
at $60,000.
5F. Inland Empire Modeling Center - Fee for Service Program Guidelines
O vervie w
Recommend RCTC approval of the MOU and fee for services program guidelines and rate
structure for the Inland Modeling Center.
5G. RCTC Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance Policy
O vervie w
That the Commission: 1) Adopt the RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program including the
policy statement and schedule implementation; )2 Instruct staff to develop an inventory
of systems and bring back a specific action plan for review and approval; 3) Appoint a
Y2K team consisting of the Executive Director, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Bechtel
Program Manager.
6. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/BICYCLE.
6A. Payment of Interest for Reserved Transportation Development Act Funds
O vervie w
That the Commission approve the accrual of interest on operating funds specifically
reserved for a transit agency but held at the County, retroactive to the start of the 1998-
99 fiscal year.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
AGENDA ITEM 2
SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 2, 1998
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee was called to order by Chairman Jack
van Haaster at 12:30 p.m., Riverside County Transportation Commission Offices, 3560
University Avenue, Riverside.
Members Present:
William Kleindienst
Jack van Haaster
Jim Venable
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
M/S/C (Venable/Kleindienst) to approve the minutes of the August 5, 1998
meeting as submitted.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
There were no comments from the public.
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS.
Agenda items 6B and 6C were pulled from the agenda for consideration at a later date.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL ITEMS.
5A. Contract with Ernst & Young LLP for Cost Allocation Plan
M/S/C (KleindienstNenable) that the Commission authorize the
Executive Director to enter into a contract with Ernst & Young LLP to
develop Cost Allocation Plans and Indirect Cost Rates consistent with
OMB Circular A-87 for RCTC and WRCOG. This would be subject to
WRCOG Executive Committee approval, execute an amendment to the
WRCOG contract for accounting services to share the costs with the
Commission up to $35,000.
5B. Selection of Commission Financial Advisor
M/S/C (Venable/Kleindienst) that the Commission select Charles Bell
Securities, Inc. as the Commission's Financial Advisor and send a
letter of thanks to the firm for Montague DeRose for their time and
effort.
0 'J C
Budget and Finance Committee Minutes
September 2, 1998
Page 2
5C. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports
M/S/C (KleindienstNenable) that the Commission receive and file the
monthly cost and schedule reports which depict current costs and
schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and
cooperative agreements executed by the Commission.
5D. Quarterly Financial Reports
M/S/C (KleindienstNenable) that the Commission receive and file the
combining statements of revenues and expenditures and changes in
fund balances (unaudited) and the highway and rail projects quarterly
budget report for the quarter ending June 30, 1998.
6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS.
6A. Award of Landscaping Project 1-15 Yuma Drive Interchanges
M/S/C (KleindienstNenable) that the Commission award Contract No.
RO-9926 for the Interstate 15 Landscape Project at the Yuma Drive
Interchange, in the Cities of Corona and Norco and Riverside County
to Terra -Cal Construction Inc. for the amount of $304,000 and a
contingency amount of $45,500 authorized to cover potential change
orders encountered during construction.
7. SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES.
7A. Consultant Evaluation of Options to Enhance Access to Call Boxes for
Speech/Hearing Impaired Motorists
M/S/C (KleindienstNenable) that the SAFE Board authorize the
Riverside County SAFE to participate in a Consultant Evaluation of
Options to Enhance Access to CaII Boxes for Speech/Hearing Impaired
Motorists at a cost not to exceed $15,000.
8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Finance Committee,
the meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Na
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 5A
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 7, 1998
TO:
Budget & Finance Committee
FROM:
William Hughes, Measure A Project Manager
Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports
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 August 31, 1998.
Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and cooperative agreements
is available from Bechtel staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission receive and file.
Attachments
OWJO)5
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS
BUD GET REPORT BY ROUTE
COM MISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE F OR % EXPENDITURES
PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION August 31, 1998 TO DATE C OMMITMNTS TO DATE
ROUTE 60 PROJECTS
Park'n' Ride Lot Final Design (R09738) $39,697 $39,697 100.0 % $34,158
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 86.0 %
ROUTE 79 PROJECTS
Engineering/Environ./RO W
(R09111,9301,9302, 9306,9337,9735, 9329,9737)
Project Is Complete. Performing project close-
out tasks and consultant performing on -going
environmental Inspect Ions..
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79
ROUTE 111 PROJECTS
(R0 9219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538)
9635,9743,9849-9851
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111
ROUTE 91 PRO JECTS
Soundwall design and construction
(R09101, 9337,9827)
Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91
1-215 PROJECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R0 9008, 9018)
$39,697
$9,696,360
539,697 100.0%
$9,696,360 100.0%
39,6.96,360 $9,696,360 100.0%
$10,334,000 $10,334,000 100.0 %
$10,334,000 $10,334,000 190.0 %
$2,608,424 $2,539,519 97 .4 %
$2,300,000 $2,300,000 100 .0%
$4,906,424 $4,839,5119 98.6%
$6,726,504 $5,878,173 87.4%
SUBTOTAL 1-216 $6,726,504 $5,$78,173 87.4%
Page 1 of 3
50
$1,468
$1.468
$92,661
$92,661
$9,730
$9.730
$0
$34,158
$9,634,337
$9,634,337
$6,914,974
56,914,974
$1,486,499
$1,229,442
$2,716,941
$5,697,757
$5,697,157
86.0%
99 .4%
99.4%
66 .9 %
66 .9%
58 .5 %
96.9%
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
COMMISSION
PROJECT AUTHORIZED
DESCRIPTION ALL OCATION
INTERCHANGE I MPROV . PRO GRA M
Yuma IC Final Design (PS&E) (R09428)
Yuma IC Constr. Mgmt (R09631)
Yuma IC Construction (R09636)
(Pro ject is complete - doing contract
c lose-out)
SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE
PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV.
(R09800, 9900)
SUBTOTAL BECHTEI
PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES
Special Study (ITS Plan - R09727)
SUBTOTAL PROGRAM PLAN & SVCS.
PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM
(RO 9801 thru 9812) (9740-9742)
SUBTOTAL PARK -N - RIDE
COMMUTER RAIL
Studies/Engineering
(RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854)
Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/M aint. Costs
(RO 0000, 9820, 9836, 9843,9845)
SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL
TO TALS
CD
$1,364,508
$1,023,500
$6,600,000
$8,988,008
$1,600,000
$1,600,000
$450,000
$450,000
$1,683,280
$1.683,280
$1,433,202
$9,207,502
$10,640,704
$55,066,977
CONTRACTUR AL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR
C OM MITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED
TO DATE ALLOCATION August 31, 1998
$1,364,508
$988,050
$6,359,649
$8,712207
$1,456,568
$1,456,569
$450,000
$450;000
$1,683,280
$1,683,280
$1,413,716
$8,226,000
$9,639,716
$52,729,620,
Page 2 of 3
100 .0%
96 .5%
96.4 %
989%
91.0%
91.0%
100 .0 %
100.0%
100 .0%
100.0%
98.6 %
89.3%
90.6%
98.8%
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
$o
$0
$108,142
$108;142
$81,791
$711,346
$793,137
$1,005,139
% EXPENDITURES
EXPENDIT URES TO -DATE A GAINST
TO DATE COMMIT MNTS TO DATE
$1,355,132 99.3 %
$979,358 99 .1%
$6,353,072 99.9 %
$8,687,1562 99.7%
$o 0.0 %
$0 0.0%
$347,499
$347,499
$1,574,022
$1,574,022
$1,338,770
$4,832,609
$6,471,379
77 .2 %
77.2%
93 .5 %
93 .5%
94 .7%
58 .7 %
64.0%
541,777,629 79.2%
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
CITY OF MURRIETA
Loan Agreement 1-15/1-215 (1) ** *
Interchange improvements (R09334)
(Loan Agree ment is Terminat ed)
SUBTOTAL MURRIETA LOAN
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements (R0 9422)
SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN.
CITY OF CORONA
Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges &
Storm drainage structure
SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA
CITY OF PERRIS
Local streets & road improvements
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Local streets & road Improvements
CITY OF TEMECULA
Local streets & road Improvements
(1)
CITY OF NORCO
Yuma I/C & Lo cal stre ets and road Imprints
EXPENDITURE F OR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % EXPENDITURES
APPR OVED M ONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST
COMMITMENT A ugust 31, 1998 _ ADVANCES BALANCE COM MIT MENT APPR OVED C OM MIT.
117,000,000
$17,009,000
11,600,000
10
11,377,000 $0
$1,317,000 10
11,600,000 11,389,151
$1,600,0001 10 11,600,000
15,212,623 15,212,623
$5,212,823 10 $6,212,623
11,936,419 11,936,419
11,324,500 11,324,500
15,094,027 15,094,027
12,139,067 12,139,067
51,389,151
$4,326,8811
$4;326,881
$1,794,057
11,227,125
14,719,523
$1,981,807
$0
10
10
10
$0
10
10
10
$0
TOTALS $32,167,689, $0 116,544,689 113,456,857 10
NOTE: (1) Loan against inte rchange improvement programs.
All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
"' Total advances of $1. 377M represents the total M easure "A" previous advances under this agreement . This amt . was paid in full by the
City of Murrieta November 1995.
8 .1 %
8.1%
100 .0%
100.0 %
100.0 %
100.0%
100 .0%
100.0%
100.0%
100 .0%
51.4 %
Page 3 of 3
Status as of 0fl/31/P8
AGENDA ITEM 5B
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 7, 1998
TO:
Budget and Finance Committee
FROM:
Hideo Sugita, Director Plans and Programs
THROUGH:
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
1 SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring Funds
As allowed under SB 45, RCTC, at our March 11, 1998 meeting, approved an "off the
top" set aside of 2% of the 1998 Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds to
support planning, programming and monitoring. SB 45 empowers local decision
makers by granting them broader authority on transportation improvements. RCTC
now has greater responsibility to insure that projects recommended and subsequently
programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) are delivered on
time and within budget.
We are now required to monitor both local agency and Caltrans performance on project
delivery for RIP funded projects. In light of this the RCTC previously approved the
addition of a staff position to support the SB 45 requirements.
The California Transportation Commission's (CTC) Interim Guidelines for the STIP
allow use of these funds for regional transportation planning, project planning (e.g.
Project Study Reports (PSRs)), program development (e.g. development of STIP
proposals, development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP),
and monitoring projects (e.g. CTC policies on timely use of funds, project delivery,
compliance with State law and CTC guidelines).
Attached is an agreement with the State of California which would allow RCTC to fund
the SB 45 position, as well as, determine the use of the balance of the funds. It is
important to note that these funds are being made available on a reimbursement basis.
It is also important to point out that the FY 1998-99 funds are available now and we
have a specific time frame to expend these funds which is the year of allocation
(1998-99) plus 2 years.
The agreement requires the development of a "STIP Planning, Programming and
Monitoring Activities Plan". The plan must outline the major activities and sub -
activities that will be accomplished with the current allocation of funds and identify
approximate time frames and cost for each major activity. Please note that the SB
45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) funds are being made available
in 2 equal amounts. $ 1,376,000 currently available for FY 1998-99 and $ 1,376,000
which is scheduled to be available in FY 1999-00. The information which follows
00 !IA
treats the available funds as a lump sum. Staff, depending on what the RCTC
approves, will have to work out cash flow issues and or request a STIP amendment.
Staff has provided a one page summary which identifies a recommended 4 year
Activities Plan, given requests received to date. The staff support costs (salary and
benefits only, no agency overhead) for the 4 year period are projected to be $447,648.
The staff support cost is the Subtotal line on the "RCTC STIP Planning, Programming
and Monitoring Activities Plan" (Attached). Please note the 1998 STIP is a 6 year
program and the following recommendations assumes RCTC will approve funds made
available in the 1998 STIP Amendment to support staff costs in FYs 2002-03 and
2003-04.
CTC is currently on a path to amend the 1998 STIP by March 30, 1999. This is
moving forward because TEA 21 funding is now fully known and due to the funding
assumptions used for developing the 1998 STIP being conservative, there is capacity
to program additional projects now, rather than waiting for the 2000 STIP cycle.
Staff estimates there will be $500,000 of new SB 45 2% PPM funds made available
in the 1998 STIP Amendment. Given the $2,752,000 made available from the 1998
STIP and assuming a conservative estimate of $500,000 made available in the 1998
STIP Amendment, there is $3,252,000 to work with.
Staff recommends approval of funding to support the previously approved staff
position for 4 years ($447,648) recognizing that two years additional support for the
position will be requested from funds made available through the 1998 STIP
Amendment. Staff costs for FY 2002-03 and 2003-04 are estimated at $245,000,
which if approved, would provide an estimated $255,000 of additional SB 45 2% PPM
funds to program.
We have received a request for SB 45 planning, programming and monitoring (SB45
PPM) funds. Supervisor Venable has requested $425,000 to support the development
of a Project Study Report (PSR)for Route 79 which is a TEA 21 demonstration project
(letter attached).
Given the regional nature of the Route 79 request (Hemet, San Jacinto, County) and
the traffic impacts expected due to the East Side Reservoir project, staff recommends
approval of funds to support the Route 79 PSR.
The County of Riverside is in the process of forwarding a letter requesting RCTC to
provide $1,500,000 over 3 years and lead the Community & Environmental
Acceptability Process (CETAP) component of the County's effort to update the General
Plan and develop a Multi -Species Habitat Plan. (The letter will be available at the
Budget and Finance Committee meeting)
We are aware of the significant regional transportation impacts resulting from
00,J610
population growth in Western Riverside County and our desire to develop a
transportation system which supports economic growth and improves the quality of
life for residents. With respect to other RCTC interests, this effort will assist RCTC
in identifying transportation improvements which could be included in the development
of future funding measures.
Staff recommends approval of the County of Riverside's request of $1,500,000 over
three years to have RCTC participate in an effort to plan for and identify, new
transportation corridors in concert with the County's efforts to update the General Plan
and develop a Multi -Species Habitat Plan.
While we recognize this as a very ambitious effort there is a well established
compendium of data which clearly identifies we will have significant population growth
in Western Riverside County which brings major transportation impacts.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
Up to $2,752,000
Source of Funds
SB 45 Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
N
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programmed
1998-99
1999-00
Approved Allocation
Y
Year of Allocation
1998-99
1999-00
Budget Adjustment Required Y
Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Budget and Finance Committee recommend RCTC approval of:
1) $447,648 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to
support the SB 45 staff position for a period of 4 years.
2) $425,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to
support a Project Study Report (PSR) for Route 79.
3) $1,500,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds and
lead the effort to plan and identify transportation corridors through the
Community & Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process.
4) Entering into an agreement with the State of California to receive the SB 45 2%
Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds.
00Li' 0 11 2
STIP PLANNING, PROGRAMMING & MONITORING PROGRAM
FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT
Agreement No. PPM98-6054 (001) Location: 08-RIV-0-RCTC
Project Number: PPM98-6054(011) EA: 08-46860G
THIS AGREEMENT entered into on , 199_ is between the State of California,
acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as STATE,
and Riverside County Transportation Commission, a local public agency, hereinafter referred
to as AGENCY.
WHEREAS the California State Budget Act of 1998 appropriates State Highway funds under
local assistance for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning,
Programming and Monitoring Program (PPM), and
WHEREAS PPM is defined as the project planning, programming and monitoring activities
related to development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program and the State
Transportation Improvement Program required by Government Code Section 14527, et. seq.
and for the monitoring of project implementation for projects approved in these documents,
hereinafter referred to as PPM PROJECT, and
WHEREAS the Department of Transportation is tasked to apportion these funds in accordance
with the amounts approved in the 1998 STIP in accordance with section 14527 (h) of the
California Government code:
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
SECTION I
STATE AGREES:
1. As authorized by Section 14527(h) of the Government Code and the California
Transportation Commission Interim STIP Guidelines, Section 12, dated January 15, 1998
and included in item 2660-101-0042 of Chapter 324 of the Statutes of 1998, to reimburse
AGENCY for its PPM PROJECT in an amount not to exceed $1,.376,000 from moneys
appropriated in Fiscal Year 1998/99 for the local assistance.
For Caltrans Use Only
I hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance
Chapter Statutes
324 1998
324 1998
2
1-0042
2660-101-042
Accountin• Officer
1 Year Program
Date 94/$
BC
$1+3%iC00.0C
Calory Fund Source S
/99 20.30.600.670
98/99
20.30.600.670
N
$
262040 102-042-T
262040 102-042-T
1376,e490.00
98/99 PPM
9/15/98
0000i 3
2. To make reimbursements to AGENCY as promptly as state fiscal procedures will permit,
but not more often than monthly in arrears. upon receipt of an original and two copies of
signed invoices in the proper form of covering actual allowable costs incurred for the
period of the Progress Payment Invoice.
3. When conducting an audit of the costs claimed under the provisions of this Agreement, to
rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of AGENCY pursuant to the
provisions of State and federal laws. In the absence of such an audit, work of other
auditors will be relied upon to the extent that work is acceptable to STATE when planning
and conducting additional audits.
SECTION II
AGENCY AGREES.
1 To use all state funds paid hereunder only for eligible PPM PROJECT specific work
activities as defined Attachment A to this Agreement.
2_ To use all state funds paid hereunder only for those transportation purposes that conform
to Article XIX of the California State Constitution.
3. To prepare and submit to STATE an original and two copies of signed invoices for
reimbursement of allowable costs incurred by Agency.
4. To repay to State any costs for which AGENCY receives payment that are determined by
subsequent audit to be unallowable within thirty
audit findings. Should AGENCY fail to reimburse e moneys due STATE within ) days of AGENCY receiving
30 notice) of
demand, or within such other period as may be agreed between both parties hereto, days of
STATE reserves the right to withhold future payments due AGENCY from any source,
including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer and the State Controller.
5. To maintain all source documents, books and records connected with its performance
under this Agreement for a minimum of three years from the date of Final Report of
Expenditures submittal to State or until audit resolution is achieved and to make all such
supporting information available for inspection and audit by representatives of the
STATE. Copies will be made and fumished by AGENCY upon request.
6. To establish and maintain an accounting system conforming to Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP) to support reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices
which segregate and accumulate costs of PPM PROJECT work elements and produce
monthly reports which clearly identify reimbursable costs, matching costs, and other
expenditures by AGENCY.
98/99 PPM
9/1S/98a
G0UU_� 1
3
7. To prepare a Final Report of Expenditures including a final invoice reporting actual costs
expended in accordance with Attachment A and submit that Report and invoice no later
than 60 days following the completion of expenditures or August 31. 2001 whichever is
earlier. The Final Report of Expenditures must state that the PPM funds were used in
conformance with Article XIX of the California State Constitution and for PPM purposes
as defined in this Agreement. Three copies of this report shall be submitted to STATE.
8 To obtain an audit for PROJECTS in excess of $300,000. The AGENCY and its
subcontractors may fulfill the audit requirement by either contracting with an accounting
firm to do a project specific audit or arrange to have the project audited concurrently with
its independent annual audit, fi performed. The audit must state that project funds were
used in conformance with Article XIX of the California State constitution. Three copies of
this report shall be submitted to STATE.
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the availability
of the state funds encumbered under this Agreement.
2. In the event that AGENCY fails to implement or complete the PPM PROJECT
commenced under this Agreement, fails to perform any of the obligations created by this
agreement or fails to comply with applicable State laws and regulations, STATE reserves
the right to terminate funding for the PPM PROJECT or portions thereof, upon written
notice to AGENCY. An audit may be preformed as provided in Section II, Article (4) of
this agreement.
3. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage
or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
AGENCY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.4, AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save
harmless the State of California, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or
actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as
defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or
omitted to be done by AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or
jurisdiction delegated to AGENCY under this Agreement.
98/99 PPM
9/15/98a
OO' Oi5
4
4. As a condition of acceptance of the State funds provided for under this Agreement,
AGENCY will abide by all State policies and procedures pertaining to the PPM
PROJECT.
5. This Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2001.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation Riverside County Transportation Commission
By: By:
Chief, Office of Local Programs Title:
Project Implementation
Date:
Date:
Attest:
Title:
98/99 PPM
9/15/98
60.;6 y.6
RIVERSIDE OFFICE:
4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor
Mailing Address: P.O.Box 1486
Riverside, CA 92502-1486
(909) 955.1030
Fax (909) 955-2194
HEAMET OFFICE:
880 N. State Street
Hemet. CA 92543
(909) 766-2470
Fax (909) 766-2445
September 23, 1998
Mr. Eric Haley
Executive Director
RCTC
3560 University Avenue, Ste. 100
Riverside, CA 92501
JIM VENABLE
THIRD DISTRICT SUPERVISOR
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
043844
r .• r ._.i t ti l
?5
`:3
-�,\.
tom:
SUBJECT: Request for SB 45 — 2% Planning Funds for SR 79 Project Study Report (PSR).
Dear Mr. Haley:
As you are aware, the SR 79 realignment in Hemet - San Jacinto Valley is crucial to improve the traffic
flow and to reduce air pollution. Additionally, with the opening of the Metropolitan Water District's
Eastside Reservoir in 2001, the realignment is essential to -handle the additional traffic that will be
generated.
I am requesting an allocation of SB 45 — 2% Planning Funds for a Project Study Report for SR 79. I
estimate a need of $425,000 to prepare the necessary reports.
Much work has already been done by RCTC, the County of Riverside, and the cities of Hemet and San
Jacinto, toward this badly needed realignment project. SB 45 Planning Funds are expressly
designated for project development work, and the realignment meets that requirement. These funds
would be part of the local match necessary for the $4.5 million in Federal funds allocated to this project.
I appreciate the Commission's consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Riverside County Supervisor, Third District
JV:tg
CC: City of Hemet
City of San Jacinto
DA...ltgrandelLetters.981SR 79
Rick Hoffman
LrRulnnr Assuunt
Mary Moreland
LepAunr **animal
Elaine Johnson
Board Ammon'
Nancy Nlaich
Board Aaaum
Valerie Chase
Board Assisi/rat
111yfy Todd
Board Assam/km
INTERNET: district3@co.riverside.ca.us
RCTC STIP PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES PLAN
ACTIVITY
Review Project Study Reports
STIP Dev elo pment/Amendment(s)/Mo nitor
Local Agency Coordination
CTC/Caltrans Coordination
Development and Processing
RTIP Amendment (s)
Including: Local Agency Coordin.
SCAG Caltrans Coordin.
Project Monitoring and Implemen tation
Plan ning Fu nds Requested to Date
Transportation Corridor Planning Request
Route 79 Project Study Report Request
TIME FRAME
7/01/98 to 6/30/02
ng
7/01/98 to 6/30/02
7/01/98 to 6/30/02
7/01/98 to 6/30/02
7/01/98 to 6/30/02
7/01/98 to 6/30/02
FY 1998-99
FY1999-00 FY 2000-01
FY 2001-02
$17,120 $17,634 $18,163 $18,707
$17,120 $17,634 $18,163 S18,707
$17,120
$8,560
$17,634 $18,163 $18,707
$8,817 $9,081 S9,354
S21,400 $22,042 $22,703 S23,384
S25,680 $26,450 $27,244 $28,061
1SubtotalI $107,0001 $110,2101 $113,5161 $116,9221
7/01/98 to 6/30/01
7/01/98 to 6/30/00
S500,000
$212,500
$500,000 S500,000
$212,5001
Total
$819,500
$822,710
$613,516
$116,922
AMOUNT AVAILABLE FY 1999 & 2000
ESTIMATED 1998 STIP AMENDMENT 2% $'S
FUNDS AVAILABLE
FUNDS REQUESTED TO DATE
* *BALANCE IF APPROVE
$2,752,000
$500,000
$3,252,000
($2,372,648:
$879.352
* Staff costs are based on salary and benefits, no overhead is included. Staff costs are escalated at 3% per year.
** Additional staff costs of $245,000 will be requested when the 1998 STIP Amendment is approved to support FYs 2002-03
and 2003-04
October 1, 1998
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
File
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Hideo Sugita,.IDirector of Planning and Programming
r:
SUBJECT: October 7, 1998 Budget and Finance Committee Agenda Item 58 SB45 2%
Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) Funds
Attached is the letter, referenced in Item 5B, from the Board of Supervisors requesting SB 45 2%
PPM funds.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BOB BUSTER
275.1010
JOHN F. TAVAGLIONE
275.1020
JAMES A. VENABLE
275.1030
ROY WILSON
275.1040
TOM MULLEN
275.1050
October 1, 1998
Mr. Eric Haley
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Community & Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP)
Dear Mr. Haley:
Riverside County faces a number of critical issues as we approach the beginning of a new century.
Population projections anticipate an increase of more than one million new residents in the County
over the next 20 years. The County Board of Supervisors proposes to pro -actively plan for the future
of Riverside County by pursing a three pronged planning effort over the next 24 to 36 months. The
goal of the County is to coordinate and integrate planning efforts for new transportation corridors
together with land use planning for an update of the County General Plan, and development of a
Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Through the development of this comprehensive
effort, the needs of the future residents of the County can best be integrated with the need to protect
sensitive habitat and endangered species and the continuation of a range of lifestyles that have made
Riverside County a desirable place to live work and raise a family.
CETAP refers primarily to the transportation corridor planning component of this integrated planning
process although the basic concepts envisioned in the process will be cornerstones of all three
planning efforts. This process has been developed over the past several months with input from a
wide group of stake holders including the RCTC Board, its member agencies and staff. We appreciate
the support that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has given to this effort
thus far.
The purpose of this letter is request that the Riverside County Transportation Commission lead the
CETAP portion of the planning effort. It is further requested that the RCTC commit a total of
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER • FOURTEENTH FLOOR • 4080 LEMON STREET • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
RCTC-CETAP Proposal
October 1, 1998
Page 2
$1,500,000 in SB 45 Planning, Programming and Monitoring Funds($500,000 per year for three
consecutive years) to support the transportation corridor planning efforts, and cooperate in attempts
to secure other funding through such programs as the Federal Transportation and Community and
System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP) and the SCAG Overall Work Program (OWP).
Attached for your information is an overview of the CETAP process. The planning for new corridors
will be integrated into the broader planning effort that also encompasses development of a MSHCP
for Western Riverside County and a new General Plan for the unincorporated portion of Riverside
County. The Board of Supervisors strongly supports this comprehensive planning effort and commits
to work closely with RCTC and its members and staff.
Also attached is a work program that has been jointly developed by County and RCTC staff to avoid
duplication and assure coordination between the County's Circulation Element update and the
planning for new corridors. As proposed, RCTC would have primarily responsible for corridor
planning and coordination with regional and sub -regional systems, while the Transportation
Department County would have primary responsibility for the update of the County Circulation
Element, and coordination with other local circulation plans as well as with the planned corridors.
Considerable coordination with all stakeholders, particularly the western County cities, is anticipated
throughout the process
RCTC Responsibility:
RCTC would have primary responsibility for the CETAP process and for data collection and
modeling that would support both CETAP and the update to the circulation Element.
County Responsibility:
The County would be responsible for the development of the County's General Plan Circulation
Element. Data collection or modeling that would be above that required for CETAP would be the
responsibility of the County whether performed by or through RCTC or under a separate contract.
To the greatest extent possible common base of data and modeling would be utilized to support both
portions of the Transportation planning effort.
I. Consultant Selection:
At present it is being suggested that the comprehensive planning efforts (transportation corridor
planning, multi -species habitat planning and general plan update) be developed by one team all
operating under a prime or lead consulting firm. Alternately, these major components may have
individual consulting firms, with or without a lead consulting firm to aid in project management and
coordination. It is anticipated that the RCTC and the County would be jointly responsible for
consultant selection relative to transportation issues.
RCTC-CETAP Proposal
October 1, 1998
Page 3
II. Data Collection:
The CETAP process proposes the development of a common data base to be used by all three
concurrent planning efforts. Information for this data base will be drawn from various sources such
as existing city and County general plans, biological data bases and other sources discovered through
the CETAP process, such as existing city and County general plans, biological data bases and other
sources discovered through the CETAP process. It is envisioned that this comprehensive data base
will be compiled using GIS technology. The primary transportation analysis could be drawn from the
refined RIVSAN model maintained by SCAG or, if funding is available, a new integrated land use and
transportation model. The development of a new model could aid in the coordinated analysis of
alternatives and allow more alternatives to be analyzed in a relatively short time. It is anticipated that
multiple alternatives will be developed based upon evolving land use assumptions, network
alternatives and environmental constraints. It is expected that the RCTC and the County will jointly
share responsibility for the development of network alternatives, with input from local agencies and
Caltrans, as the local network will require modification to address corridor location options and
alternative land use assumptions.
III. Alternatives Analysis:
Part of the Alternatives Analysis will entail the development of traffic forecasts based upon various
factors. It is anticipated that the RCTC and County will jointly share responsibility for reviewing
model results with input from all stakeholders, including the western County cities, SCAG and
Caltrans. However, the RCTC will be primarily concerned with forecast volumes on the planned
transportation corridors, while the County and cities will be reviewing impacts to the local network.
Joint effort will be required throughout this stage of the process due to the interrelationship the
regional corridors and the local highway system. We anticipate a great deal of coordination with local
agencies and other stakeholders in evaluating corridor alternatives.
The Alternatives Analysis will also be looking at design standards and other engineering
considerations. The corridor elements of this aspect of the process will be conducted under the
direction of the RCTC, while local network concerns will be addressed by the County. Features of
the local network to be addressed by the County for inclusion in the Circulation Element Update will
include: a review and update County transportation policies and improvement standards, as well as
refinement of the local transportation network. An important aspect of this effort will involve a
comparison of local circulation plans and standards with recommendations for conflict resolution in
order to achieve cross jurisdictional consistency.
IV. Public Involvement:
Public involvement is a key component of the CETAP process. It is envisioned that public
involvement will overlap all three major components of the CETAP process. However, the RCTC
will be responsible for public involvement directly related to the transportation corridors. Public
RCTC-CETAP Proposal
October 1, 1998
Page 4
involvement on local circulation issues will be addressed primarily through the County's General Plan
update.
V. Plan Adoption:
The transportation corridor component and the local circulation component will diverge at the
conclusion of the process to take two distinct routes to plan adoption. The transportation corridors
component will, under RCTC direction, take a path that leads to Route Adoption as prescribes by
Section 75 of the Streets and Highways Code and California Transportation Commission Policies and
Procedures. The Circulation Element, which will incorporate the proposed regional transportation
corridors, together with the land use and other elements of the County General Plan will proceed
through Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings and adoption, as is the
normal procedure prescribed by State Law and County Ordinances.
The MSHCP, which will greatly influence both the transportation corridor plan and the County
General Plan, will also be presented for adoption by the Board of Supervisors. However, it is likely
that significant elements of the MSHCP will be incorporated into the transportation corridor plan and
the County General Plan.
This division of responsibility is presented graphically in attached Exhibit A. We trust that this
proposal agrees with your understanding of the CETAP process and RCTC's involvement therein.
We look forward to working cooperatively on this comprehensive and innovative planning program.
Sincerely,
ES:es
Attachments
Tavag one, a' an
e Cou ty Bo •f Supervisors
EXHIBIT A
CETAP PROCESS
TRANSPORTATION COMPONENTS
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Riverside County Transportation Department
i
RCTC Role
CETAP Lead
i
I. Consultant Selection
Define and review
transportation corridor
parameters
II. Data Collection
Coordinate regional &
local data collection
III. Alternatives Analysis
Review and approve
transportation corridor
alternatives and designs
IV. Public Involvement
Conduct workshops on
transportation corridors,
respond to concerns
V. Plan Ado
tion
Usher corridor plan
through RCTC/CTC
Route Adoption
procedures
Joint review of
RFQ/RFP' s,
jointly define
final Scope of
Work
Jointly determine
model inputs and
highway network
alternatives
County Role
County Circulation
Element Lead
Define and review local
circulation element
parameters
Coordinate with RCTC
on data for local
circulation element
Review and approve
circulation element
recommendations
Participate in General
Plan (GP) public
involvement program
1
Incorporate new
Circulation Element,
including corridors, into
GP update, follow
through to Board
adoption
A Preliminary Overview for
cC ]ETA]P'
Community & Environmental
Transportation Acceptability Process
RCTC
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
Riverside County
Southern California Association
of Governments
CETAP
Community & Environmental Transportation Acceptability
Process
SUMMARY
Western Riverside County faces a critical transportation problem. At the present
time the area lacks the transportation infrastructure necessary to accommodate
projected regional traffic demands for the near future. In addition, long-term
repercussions from the diminishing transportation infrastructure could threaten
the region's economic stability andjeopardize important natural habitat lands as
well as restrict access to the County's developing recreational areas. Within the
context of fiscal constraints and the sensitivity of Riverside County's natural
environment, a strategy has been crafted to identify new transportation solutions
that address this crisis while self -mitigating the environmental risks within the
process.
The objective of this effort will be the approval of a system of phased
transregional corridors with tie-ins to the existing road network that interconnect
strategic Western Riverside County centers so that travel, commerce,
communication and services will continue to flourish in the area. The envisioned
Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP)
provides a means for accomplishing this objective. The CETAP process will
incorporate citizen and agency involvement from beginning -to -end to ensure a
broad -based constituency of stakeholders and to expedite the acceptance
process. Linkage with the County's General Plan Update and the Western
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan (WRHCP) will provide the
opportunity to integrate CETAP with County land use, environmental and
transportation goals and policies while ensuring a more solidified and legally
consistent transportation solution.
The effort will involve a multidisciplinary team coordinated through the Riverside
County Transportation Commission. The CETAP transportation corridor
planning process will interface with the Southern California Association of
Government (SCAG) as a component of the next update of the Regional
Transportation Plan slated for November, 2000. Timing and coordination with
the County's General Plan Update and the SCAG RTP documentation will, in
part, define the overall duration of the CETAP effort as well as determine
progress milestones to ensure that critical interfaces between the planning
efforts are met.
A. BACKGROUND
In the Draft 1997 RTP produced by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), a critical transportation predicament was identified for the
Western Riverside County area. The combination of projected growth trends,
increased number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the area's share of
increased freight traffic - matched against the existing capacities for key
corridors in the region suggest that severe congestion is eminent in the near
future for several of the major arteries that serve the area. This forecast initiated
dialogue between SCAG planners and representatives of Riverside County.
Initial coordination meetings were subsequently conducted between Mark Pisano
of SCAG, Riverside County Supervisor Toni Mullen, Pete Dangermond of
Dangermond & Associates and others to discuss the need for, and the
necessary content of a transportation planning effort.
These early discussions led to preliminary investigations regarding the nature of the
transportation problems and what the scope of possible strategies should be to resolve
the infrastructure shortfalls. Knowledge of projects with similar scope that became
entangled in contentious and factional infighting or bureaucratic red tape, helped steer
the initial planning discussions towards an approach that could build support,
conciliate dissension and expedite processing as a part of the planning effort. Also, the
need for environmental sensitivity as well as the understanding of a sharpened public
awareness about regional environmental issues has been an integral part of the
conceptual development of the planning process from its very inception. The CETAP
process was conceived as the means of addressing the multifaceted nature of an
environmentally and socially responsive transportation planning process.
Consequently, early outreach meetings were held with County and city
representatives, environmental groups, builder representatives, farmland
representatives and other local interests to identify the issues and solicit input for the
planning process. A common denominator of the various groups and individuals
contacted was the acknowledgment of the need for the project and concurrence
regarding an inclusive public participation process. Another predominant response to
these early sessions was the insistence for coordination with the Riverside County
General Plan Update and the Western Riverside Habitat Conservation Plan (WRHCP)
planning processes.
Early contact was made with strategic Federal and State representatives including
John Garamendi, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior, Mike Huerta with
Federal Highways Commission, Caftans, the California Transportation Commission
and other Federal & State interests to discuss support for the planning effort and
potential funding. Again, there was a recognition of a need for the project and
assurances of support from Federal and State agencies.
1
A formal presentation was made to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors
requesting the Board's concurrence regarding the need for a coordinated effort
between CETAP and the County's General Plan Update. CETAP was also
presented to the Riverside County Planning Commission.
Preliminary investigations were made regarding funding options and funding
requirements. Preliminary indications suggest that there are various potential
funding sources from Federal, State and local levels. Simultaneously, initial
inquiries were made regarding the procedural requirements to conform to the
mandated legal processing requirements of CEQA and NEPA. Additionally,
requirements for SCAG's RTP documentation and approval were also identified.
As the responsible agency for Riverside County transportation matters and the
agency involved with the preparation of the transportation element for the County
General Plan Update, RCTC has been identified as the probable lead agency for
the CETAP effort.
Other inquiries include an initial assessment of mapping, modeling and spatial
analysis capabilities of County and other map/analysis providers. Coordination
sessions have been held with representatives of key agencies to identify data
adequacy and to determine possible ways of coordinating information exchange
and augmentation for the CETAP planning effort.
3
B. PROBLEM DEFINITION
(Evidence of the need for comprehensive transportation planning in Western
Riverside County)
The following factors are listed as primary indicators of the need for a
comprehensive transportation planning effort for Western Riverside County:
• SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) projects that the seven -
county SCAG region population will have increased 7 million people by
the year 2020.
• Much of the projected growth is expected in the Inland Empire and the
Western Riverside County area (18% of the region's entire population
increase).
• Only 12% of the job market increase for the region is projected for the
Western Riverside County area, suggesting that new residents will be
employed outside the sub -region and thereby will add to the commuting
pool.
• There are increasing inter -regional and interstate demands on the area's
existing traffic corridors.
• It can be assumed that there will be greater difficulty in attracting
businesses and jobs to the area due to severe transportation
infrastructure deficiencies.
• The Inland Empire sub -region suffers with some of the region's worst air
quality in the northern two thirds of the area, and enjoys some of the
better air quality in the lower third of the area.
• Air particulants from mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks and
busses are thought to be the leading contributor to air quality degradation
in the greater Los Angeles Region and Western Riverside County area.
• Western Riverside County contains a rich diversity of habitats and
landscapes that are highly sensitive to development impacts. This unique
topography and landscape contains habitat and open space with multiple
threatened and endangered plant and animal species. Some of these
highly sensitive lands and resources have been preserved, but many are
still in need of protection.
• The region's broad valleys and generally unconstrained landscape is
subject to the undifferentiated sprawl pattern that typifies much of the
greater Los Angeles region - a growth pattern that has been singled out
as contributory to the transportation and air quality woes that plague much
of the region.
It can be conjectured that the consequences of taking no action with regard to
comprehensive transportation planning to lead to a situation in which there will
be:
4
• Continued air quality deterioration associated with the increasing
frequency, delays and length of vehicular trips - and resulting in the
increase in greenhouse effects, global warming and lung -related
disorders;
• More and more traffic congestion with increased gridlock and lost time,
necessitating increasingly drastic corrective measures such as
commuting tax, toll roads, higher parking fees, driving time regulations
and other remedial solutions;
• Increased consequential injuries and deaths due to automobile -related
accidents;
• Spin-off strain on community services such as police and fire protection
due to increased response times to emergencies;
• Irreversible loss of open space and critical habitat lands due to un-
planned growth;
• Housing markets will deflate and desirability to live in the area will
decrease because of poor access stigmas resulting from congested
corridors; and
• An escalating decline in a sense of place that distinguishes the Western
Riverside County area from the amorphous expanse of sprawl.
In short, a significant decline in the quality of life in the Western Riverside
County area can be expected.
C. NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
(Preliminary considerations regarding the specific issues and identified needs)
Given the problem recognition as defined above, the dynamics of this sub -region
and the interrelationships between new transportation corridors and their
subsequent impacts on the region, it is evident that the formula for coherent
transportation strategies, viable economic development and meaningful
environmental protection must be carefully interpreted and developed. The
following preliminary needs, in terms of targeted goals, have been determined
for the planning effort:
• Based on a preliminary assessment of primary traffic flows within, and
through the Western Riverside County region, it is assumed that there is a
need for two new transportation corridors given the continuation of the
present modes of transportation.
- a north south corridor route
- an east -west corridor route
• To achieve long-term congestion management and air quality goals and to
address the multiple categories of trip generators including shipping,
regional commuting, interstate travel and daily trips to the regional urban
centers, there is a need to evaluate multimodal options such as light rail,
5
heavy rail, parkways and MAGLEV as well as other innovative
transportation alternatives.
• There is a need to plan for improved access to new recreation destinations
such as the Eastside Reservoir in Hemet.
• There is a need to stimulate economic development to improve the
jobs/housing balance within the area.
• Critical habitat areas potentially impacted by new corridor routes need
better mapping and qualitative assessment to be able to provide more
informed judgments about the potential impacts or risks of encroachments
from development on these lands.
6
D. APPROACH
The approach formulated to date has evolved from preliminary planning
discussions and input solicited from the numerous groups and individuals
contacted. The approach, as described above is intended to unite diverse
interests towards a common goal and is structured around an assembly of
stakeholders that is capable of arriving at consensus at each critical decision
point in the process. A built-in conflict resolution apparatus will be created to
ensure that consensus can be reached at each milestone point. The essential
components to the participatory portion of the planning process include:
• Broad community participation,
• Agency engagement throughout the process,
• Environmental responsiveness,
• Streamlined and concurrent processes,
• Recognition of and responsiveness to local issues and concerns,
• Achievement of regional objectives and compliance with RTP
requirements and
• Streamlined and expedited project approval process.
The planning process has been laid out to enable coordination between the three
concurrent planning efforts: the proposed General Plan Update process, the
proposed Western Riverside County Habitat Conservation Management Plan
(WRHCP) and CETAP. Coinciding milestone points with similar planning
phases will facilitate that objective. The following planning steps are envisioned
for CETAP community engagement process:
Planning Approach
• Project initiation
• Technical support mobilization
• Assembly of public interest participants
• Problem analysis
• Process detailed scoping
• Preliminary Goals and Objectives
• Assignment of tasks for interest groups
• Stakeholder review and input
Data Collection and Inventory
• Formation of topic focus groups including:
- Air quality
- Habitat & open space
- Land use
- Corridor needs
- Transportation mode altematives
- Energy conservation
- Environmental justice
- Economic development
• G/S and other data assembly
• Collection of relevant background reports and studies
Formulation of Goals and Objectives
• Respond to findings from data collection phase
• Refine & develop project goal & objectives
• Coordination with and input to Riverside County General Plan
• Coordination with and input to Western Riverside County Habitat
Conservation Plan
• Stakeholder review and input
Alternative Plan Development
• Break out into focus groups
• Prepare preliminary altemative scenarios
• Prepare detailed route concepts & features
• Alternatives coordination with Riverside County General Plan
• Altematives coordination with Westem Riverside County Habitat
Conservation Plan
• Public outreach engagement
• Stakeholder review and input
Plan Review Selection and Refinement
• Provide feedback and comments regarding preliminary conceptual work
• Prepare revised altemative scenarios
• Prepare detailed route concepts & features etc.
• Agency review and Input
• Stakeholder review and input
Final Plan Selection
• Select final altemative plan(s)
• Stakeholder review and decision process
• Stakeholder consensus on Final Plan Selection
8
E. CETAP MISSION, PRINCIPAL GOALS & PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Mission
To develop a transportation plan for Western Riverside County that meets
future traffic demands while supporting habitat protection and quality of
life objectives
Principal Goals and Standards for Measurement of Project Success
• Enhance quality of life
• Enable employment opportunities
• Achieve cost effective planning
• Encourage Commerce
• Realize air quality goals
• Protect wildlife habitats
• Reduce traffic congestion
• Set the stage for managing growth wisely and support sustainable growth
Project Objectives
CETAP will be a comprehensive and interrelated analysis of
transportation needs, environmental conditions and land use options. It
will be an iterative process and will be directed toward obtaining
environmental clearances for corridors that meet transportation needs.
Project objectives are outlined as follows:
• Enhance environmental mitigation and subsequent environmental
clearances through a combination of avoidance and mitigation;
• Identify critical habitat areas and agree upon mitigation strategies;
• Identify air quality parameters and agree upon mitigation strategies to
achieve air quality goals;
• Identify NEPA compliance requirements, agree upon mitigation
approaches, and satisfy NEPA requirements more efficiently;
• Be a locally driven process that allows for innovation and locally -tailored
solutions;
• Facilitate federal, state, regional and local agency buy -in to the planning
process and recommended project alternatives;
Provide cost savings to agencies at all levels of government in terms of
resources committed to project processing;
9
• Provide time savings in the project implementation process due to the
early and continuous engagement and buy -in by the project stakeholders;
• Ensure community buy -in and endorsement of new transportation
corridors, environmental preservation and inter -related general plans and
• Achieve regional and local objectives for developing transportation
solutions that promote synergy between life style and environmental and
economic goals.
10
F. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
(Underlying assumptions supporting the need for, and direction of the CETAP
effort)
The CETAP planning effort is premised on the following assumptions:
• The project will be a multidisciplinary and participatory process.
• The County General Plan Update and the Western Riverside Habitat
Conservation Plan (WRHCP) will be integrated and coordinated concurrent
processes.
• The CEQA/NEPA processes will also be coordinated for the three planning
efforts.
• CEQA will serve as the documentation framework for the integrated planning
processes.
• Existing physiographic and habitat mapping with augmentation will be used
as baseline data.
• The CETAP process will include funding strategies for implementation of the
preferred concept(s).
• Corridor planning input for the updated RCTP will be the first target for
CETAP process
• SCAG will use the RCTP to update the RTP.
• Final Adoption by the California Transportation Commission will subsequently
follow the plan's inclusion in the RTP.
11
G. PROJECT PRODUCTS, OUTCOMES & BENEFITS
Anticipated Products Include:
• Enhanced environmental protection and subsequent environmental
clearances through a combination of avoidance and mitigation
• Defined regional and transregional transportation corridors
• A handbook on minimizing environmental and associated social impacts
of new transportation corridor development
Anticipated Benefits:
• A locally driven process that allows for innovation and locally -tailored
solutions
• Secured protection of sensitive habitats and wildlife corridors
• The melding of broad objectives including improving quality of life, air quality and
ensuring environmental protection
• Potential to save costs to agencies at all levels of government
• Potential to save time in project implementation due to early and
continuous process of engagement and buy -in
• Federal, state, regional and local agency buy -in
• Community buy -in and endorsement of new transregional corridors,
environmental preservation and inter -related general plans
• Achievement of regional and local objectives of developing transportation
solutions that promote synergy between lifestyle, environmental and economic
goals.
H. CONTRAST WITH MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY (MIS)
Typical large scale transportation planning efforts begin with a Major Investment
Study (MIS). The purpose of the MIS is provide sufficient environmental and
other background information about a project to determine whether it should
qualify for financial commitment. CETAP is intended to be broader in scope and
more comprehensive in detail in order to streamline later NEPA/CEQA
processing. Distinctive characteristics of CETAP include:
• CETAP will be comprehensive in scope and detail.
• The process will look at modal alternatives to address transportation problems.
• CETAP will also consider, at an early stage in the process, a full range of
environmental issues.
12
AGENDA ITEM 5C
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 7, 1998
TO:
Budget & Finance Committee
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
SCAG Annual Assessment Dues
Prior to last year, the Southern California transportation commissions did not have a
direct role at SCAG despite SCAG's significant involvement in transportation planning
and policy development. Thus major decisions were being made impacting
transportation with no formal and direct input from those agencies most affected.
After considerable discussion and negotiation, it was agreed that transportation
commissions would be invited as formal members of the Regional Council. Supervisor
Tom Mullen currently serves as the Commission's representative on the Council.
The annual dues for our participation are $15,000. Staff has received a request from
SCAG to pay our annual dues assessment. Staff is recommending payment of this
amount for fiscal year 1998/99, and that the Commission provide authorization for
annual ongoing payment for the SCAG dues assessment unless the Commission takes
action otherwise.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize staff to annually pay assessment dues for our participation on the SCAG
Regional Council beginning with the current 98/99 assessment of $15,000.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
Main Office
818 West Seventh Street
12th Floor
Los Angeles, California
90017-3435
t (213) 236-1800
f (213) 236-1825
www.scag.ca.gov
Officers: • President: Mayor, Bob Bartlett, City of
Monrovia • First Vice President: Supervisor Yvonne
Brathwaite Burke. Los Angeles County • Second
Vice President:: Councilmember Ron Bates. City of
Los Alamitos • Immediate Past President:
Supervisor Judy Mikels, Ventura County
Counry of Imperial: Tom Vessey, Imperial County
• David Dhillon. El Centro
Counry of Los Angeles Yvonne Brathwaite Burke.
Los Angeles County • Richard Alarcon. Los Angeles
• Richard Alatorre. Los Angeles • Eileen Ansari,
Diamond Bar • Bob Barlett, Monrovia • Bruce
Barrows. Cerritos • George Bass, Bell • Sue Bauer.
Glendora • Hal Bernson, Los Angeles • Robert
Bruesch, Rosemead • Laura Chick. Los Angeles
•Gene Daniels. Paramount • Doug Drummond,
Long Brach • John Ferrara. Los Angeles • Michael
Feuer. Los Angeles • Jane Friedkin, 51 Segundo •
Ruth Galanter, Los Angeles • Eileen Givens.
Glendale • Jackie Goldberg, Los Angeles • Garland
Hardemau. Inglewood • Mike Hernandez. Los
Angeles • ate Holden. Los Angeles • Keith
McCarthy, Downey • Barbara Messina. Alhambra -
undo Miscrkowski, Los Angeles • David Myers,
Palmdale • George Nakano. Torrance • Pam
O'Connor. Sans Monica • Jenny Oropeza, Long
Brach • Beatrice Proo, Pico Riven • Mark Ridley -
Thomas. Los Angeles • Diann Ring. Claremont -
Rnhard Riordan. Los Angeles • Marcine Shaw.
Compton • Rudy Svonnich, Los Angeles • loel
Wachs. Los Angeles • Rua Walters. Los Angeles •
Dennis Washburn, Calabasas • Paul Zee, South
Pasadena
County of Orange: William Steiner. Orange
County • Steve Apodaca. San Clemente • Ron Bates,
Los Alamitos • Art Brown. Buena Park • Jan Debay,
Newport Beach • Richard Dixon. lake Forest •
Charlene Haiakeyama, La Palma • Bev Perry: Brea
County of Riverside: James Venable. Riverside
Count, • Ian Lela, Beaumont • Dick Kelly. Palm
Desert • Ron Lover:dge Riverside • .Andrea Puga.
Corona • Ron Roberts.Temecula
County of San Bernardino: Larry Walker. San
Brrnaraino County • Bill Alexander. Rancho
Cucamonga • Jim Bagley. Twentyine Palms •
Davin Eshleman, Fontana • Lee Ann Garcia. Grand
Terrace • Gwenn Nonon-Perry, Chino Hills • John
Saarhuck. Highland
Counry of Ventura: Judy M,kels. Ventura County •
Andrew Fox. Thousand Oaks • John Melton.
Santa Pauia• Toni Young. Fort Hueneme
August 26, 1998
Mr. Eric Haley
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Ave., Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Mr. Haley:
We are enclosing the 1998-99 dues assessment invoice for your
membership on the Regional Council. The annual fixed assessment is
based on total population using an assessment table contained in SCAG
by-laws.
Your continued support and participation in SCAG for 1998-99 is
important. Should you have any questions regarding SCAG, please call
Al Fuentes, Manager of Government and Public Affairs.
If you have any questions about your dues assessment, please refer them
to Betty Araos, Senior Accountant at (213) 236-1864 or Ralph M. Levy -
Manager of Human and Program Resources at (213) 236-1824.
LOUIS F. MORE', DPA
Chief Operation Officer
Enclosure
000020
4
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATIONofGOVERNMENTS
818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 • t (213) 236-1800 • f (213) 236-1825
Mr. Eric Haley
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Ave., Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
DATE: August 26, 1998
INVOICE: 900159
Description
Amount
Membership dues for Fiscal Year
1998-99
$15,000.00
Please send check/warrants to the above address. ATTN: Finance Office
Thank you.
cfFt a e use only
AGENDA ITEM 5D
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 7, 1998
TO:
Budget and Finance Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst II
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
City of Moreno Valley Request to Reprogram Congestion Mitigation
The City of Moreno Valley has requested to reprogram Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) funds made available by combining a signal interconnect project with
another ongoing project on Heacock Street, thereby reducing the costs of the
interconnect project. The city has requested to reprogram the cost savings, in the
amount of $63,000, to another signal interconnect project on Pigeon Pass Road.
This request is consistent with the RCTC Substitution Policy, however, the policy only
applies to Surface Transportation Program (STP) discretionary and formula funded
projects. At the time the policy was established, it was the desire of the STP/CMAQ
Policy Committee to not apply it to CMAQ funded projects and that any changes to
the CMAQ Program would be brought to the committee on a case -by -case basis. In
the past when balances were available due to project rescoping and deletion of
projects, the Commission approved projects from the previous call for projects which
were below the funding level available. Staff has reviewed the list to identify the next
potential project which is a PM 10 paving project on Briggs Road submitted by the
County of Riverside. The cost of the project is $1,814,250 which far exceeds the
$63,000 available.
This request was brought forward to the Technical Advisory Committee which met
on August 3, 1998. The TAC reviewed the above information and recommended
approval of the City of Moreno Valley's request recognizing that the cost savings was
a result of efficient planning on the city's behalf. The TAC also recommended that
a policy be considered for CMAQ funded projects. Given the circumstances, cost
savings through efficient construction management, the next project on the existing
CMAQ list far exceeds the amount of funds which are available, and that the an
additional signal interconnect project will be completed, TAC and staff recommend
an exception be made.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$63,000
Source of Funds Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
n/a
Included in Program Budget
n/a
Year Programmed
Year
Approved Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Financial Impact Not Applicable
n/a
no
no
Year of Allocation
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve the City of Moreno Valley's request to reprogram
CMAQ funds in the amount of $63,000 to the interconnect project on Pigeon Pass
Road.
000,:.3
AGENDA► ITEM 5E
T RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 7, 1998
TO:
Budget & Finance Committee
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
WRCOG Contract for Accounting Services
Since October 1998, the Commission has been providing basic accounting services
to the Western Riverside Council of Governments. The arrangement has proven to
be relatively successful with the combined efforts of WRCOG management and RCTC
accounting staff. I believe those combined efforts have introduced fiscal discipline
to WRCOG, improved record keeping, averted a financial crisis, and made strides
toward improved management reporting.
Staff members from WRCOG and RCTC are recommending that this arrangement be
continued for the foreseeable future. Attached is an amendment to the contract that
will provide for accounting services from RCTC for a period of three years. The
amount for fiscal year 1998/99 is set at $60,000 , with subsequent years subject to
annual negotiation. Either party may cancel the arrangement with six months
notification.
Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Executive Director to execute the attached contract amendment with
WRCOG to provide accounting services for a period of three years, with the first year
set at $60,000.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT FOR ACCOUNTING SERVICES
BETWEEN
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
AND
THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1. Parties and Date.
This First Amendment is made and entered into this day of , 1998 by
and between the WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ("WRCOG") and
the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("CONSULTANT").
2. Recitals.
2.1 Agreement.
WRCOG and CONSULTANT entered into that certain Accounting Services Agreement
dated October 1, 1997 ("Agreement").
2.2 Amendment.
WRCOG and CONSULTANT desire to enter into this Amendment for the purpose of
extending the term of the Agreement and providing for additional compensation.
3. Terms.
3.1 Term.
Section I.2. of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
"2. The initial term of this Agreement shall be from October 1, 1997, to June 30,1998.
The Agreement shall be extended from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2001 ("Extended Term"), unless
earlier terminated as provided herein."
3.2 Schedule of Services.
Section II.7. of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
"7. Schedule of Services. CONSULTANT shall perform all required services as
directed by WRCOG, but no later than June 30, 2001."
RVPUB\SMY\48248
3.3 Compensation.
Section III.1. of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
"1. Compensation. CONSULTANT's compensation, including
reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement for the initial term shall
not exceed $80,000. CONSULTANT's annual compensation, including reimbursements,
for all Services rendered under this Agreement for the first year of the Extended Term
(July 1, 1998 -June 30, 1999) shall be in a not -to -exceed amount of $60,000.
CONSULTANT's annual compensation, including reimbursements, for all Services
rendered under this Agreement for the second (July 1, 1999 -June 30, 2000) and third (July
1, 2000 -June 30, 2001) years of the Extended Term shall be negotiated and agreed upon
by the parties. CONSULTANT shall be paid pursuant to Section III.2.
3.4 Termination.
A new Section V.13. of the Agreement is added to read as follows:
"13. Termination.
A. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon six (6) months written
notice to the other party.
B. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time upon a breach by
the other party of any of the other party's obligations under this Agreement and the
defaulting party's failure to cure such breach within ten (10) days after receipt of written
notice from the nondefaulting party or, if such cure cannot be completed within ten (10)
days, the defaulting party's failure to commence such cure within ten (10) days after its
receipt of written notice and thereafter diligently prosecute such cure to completion."
3.5 Continuation of Existing Provisions.
Except as amended by this First Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions ofWRCOG and
CONSULTANT under this First Amendment. From and after the date of this First
Amendment, whenever the term "Agreement" appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the
Agreement as amended by this First Amendment.
3.6 Counterparts.
This First Amendment may be executed in duplicate originals, each of which is
deemed to be an original, but when taken together shall constitute but one and the same
instrument.
[Signatures on following page]
RVPUB\SMY\48248 2
000026
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL CONSULTANT:
OF GOVERNMENTS:
By: By:
Andrea Puga, Chair Robert Buster, Chair
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED
FOR APPROVAL: FOR APPROVAL:
By: By: -
Alan Crouse, Executive Director Executive Director
REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT:
By:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: -
Best Best & Krieger LLP
RVPUB\SMY148248 3
O!J,3U.-r!
AGENDA ITEM 5F
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 7, 1998
TO:
Budget and Finance Committee
FROM:
Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director of Planning and Programming
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Inland Empire Modeling Center - Fee for Service Program
The SCAG Riverside office functions as the Inland Empire Modeling Center. The
establishment of this office back in 1990 has proven to be an excellent resource in
supporting Inland Empire transportation modeling needs. The attached guidelines and
rate structure is being recommended for approval to support the continued operation
of the office.
As you may be aware the office is conveniently located in our region and assists local
governments, developers etc. with transportation modeling for projects. The past few
years, we have had to advocate for continued SCAG support for the operation of the
modeling center.
As our economy continues to improve, it is staff's belief that the importance of this
office will increase. SANBAG is currently developing a comprehensive transportation
plan and RCTC may perform an update of the Measure A Strategic Plan. This effort
may require modeling support with respect to internal Riverside County transportation
impacts and on connectivity issues with our neighboring counties. Additionally,
SCAG is underway on performing an update of the recently adopted Regional
Transportation Plan which is scheduled to be completed in December 1999.
The guidelines and rate structure (attached) are designed to only recover costs
associated with providing modeling services rather than fully allocated costs. The
primary goals for developing the fee are to maintain the Inland Modeling Center as a
resource in the Inland Empire and to provide more certainty to those who use the
model. More certainty means that modeling requests will be treated in a business like
fashion and users will have a schedule for when SCAG can either make the model
available to users for their use or when modeling runs can be scheduled by SCAG
staff.
The attached MOU, guidelines and fee for service rate schedule was drafted by
SCAG, RCTC, WRCOG and Sanbag staff. These documents have been reviewed by
the RIVSAN Model User Group and the RCTC TAC. Staff recommends the Budget
0 t3
and Finance Committee approve a $5,000 augmentation of the 1998-99 RCTC Budget
to facilitate modeling requests which may be required before the end of calendar year
1998 from unallocated Local Transportation Planning funds.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
Estimated at $5,000
Source of Funds
LTF Planning
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
N
Year
Included in Program Budget
Approved Allocation
N
Year Programmed
N
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Y
Financial Impact Not Applicable
Reviewed by Chief Financial
Officer for Availability of Funds
RCTC TAC AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend RCTC approval of the MOU and fee for services program guidelines and
rate structure for the Inland Modeling Center.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Inland Empire Modeling Center
WHEREAS, it is recognized by all signatories that the development, maintenance, and operation
of consistent regional, subregional and local transportation models is essential to all parties
to support their transportation planning, programming, and project development, and
WHEREAS, it is further recognized by all parties that the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) with the support of its subregional partners (the San Bernardino
Associated Governments (SANBAG), and the Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has supported
a subregional modeling program through the Inland Empire Office, and
WHEREAS, the continuation of that modeling service, as well as development and management
of the data utilized by transportation models, is vital to support subregional input to regional
transportation plans, regional transportation improvement programs, and transportation
management programs, and
WHEREAS, limitations of resources available to SCAG may result in a reduction of staff
support for the Inland Empire Office and reduce capacity to conduct these transportation
modeling and data management functions, and
WHEREAS, all parties desire to continue the subregional modeling and data management
services in an Inland Empire Modeling Center, and
WHEREAS, SANBAG and WRCOG are prepared to offer support to develop revenues for the
Inland Empire Modeling Center to insure it can provide the needed level of service,
including the development of fee for service arrangements with their local government
members, and
WHEREAS, RCTC supports these joint efforts and agrees to cooperate fully in their
implementation,
THEREFORE, the Executive Directors of SCAG, SANBAG, WRCOG, and RCTC agree to
establish the Inland Empire Modeling Center with the following joint program to achieve our
mutual goals:
1. SCAG will continue to provide the needed level of staff support in the Inland Empire
Modeling Center to provide modeling and data management framework and support for the
area's long range planning, project planning, project programming, transportation
management and environmental reviews.
O�J 63O
2. SANBAG and WRCOG agree to establish modeling and management systems which will
process model run requests, collect agreed upon fees, and provide an interface with the
requesting local government or agency.
3. SCAG, SANBAG, WRCOG and RCTC agree to meet annually to prepare a work program
and financial plan, including fee structure, for the annual operation of the Modeling Center.
4. SANBAG and WRCOG agree to work with their member local governments to insure all
local modeling is coordinated with regional and subregional models.
5. RCTC agrees to participate with SANBAG and WRCOG in the efforts under (2) and (4).
6. SCAG, to insure consistent transportation modeling capability agrees to include in its Overall
Work Program sufficient resources to provide data that are needed for consistent subregional
and local modeling activities in a timely manner.
7. SANBAG and WRCOG, in support of SCAG's commitment, agree to gather needed data
from member jurisdictions in a format and protocol agreed upon in the annual work plan to
support the consistent transportation models.
8. SANBAG and RCTC state their intent to utilize, to the maximum extent feasible, the
Modeling Center for project review and plan model runs.
This agreement is entered into this day of
Mark Pisano
Executive Director
Southern California
Association of Governments
Norm King
Executive Director
San Bernardino
Associated Governments
Alan Crouse
Interim Executive Director
Western Riverside
Council of Governments
Eric Haley
Executive Director
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
o:i J1
INLAND MODELING CENTER
Fee for Service Program Guidelines
The Inland Modeling Center (IMC) is a focal point in the development, maintenance and operation
of consistent regional, subregional and local transportation models and data management in the
Inland Empire. The IMC's services provide vital support for planning, programming and project
development activities for a range of public and private users.
In Summer of 1996,' a Memorandum of Understanding was approved between the Southern
California Associated Governments (SCAG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC), the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the Western Riverside
Council of Governments (WRCOG), setting forth management responsibilities for the continued
effective operation of the IMC. Those responsibilities included the establishment of a Fee for
Service Program to insure adequate resources to support data distribution and project modeling
requests. Following are the Guidelines for the operation of the Fee for Service Program.
A. FEES FOR SERVICE
1. Setting of Fees, Fees will be set and may be revised in response to a semi-annual
Operations/Progress Report in consultation with and by authority of the "IMC
Management Agencies" herein defined as: SCAG, RCTC, SANBAG and WRCOG.
Service fee rates will be established and differentiated between "Member Agencies"
and "Non -Member Agencies" in recognition of their respective roles in maintaining
the underlying data bases, adherence to transportation planning and programming
requirements, and participation in IMC Management Agency activities. Fees are
intended to offset costs to provide requested service, not to generate revenues for the
Management Agencies.
2. Membership Categories. "Member Agencies" are all city and county members of
respective councils of governments or county transportation commissions. A private
consultant under contract to a "Member Agency" for the delivery of a specific service
or product may be assessed "Member Agency" rates for service requests associated
with the contract service or product delivery, at the request of the Member Agency.
'Non -Member Agencies" are all other public or private, profit or not -for-profit
organizations or agencies.
3. Requests from Non -Member Public Ageiu es. Public, Non -Member Agencies with
which the IMC Management Agencies have/are actively engaged in the cooperative
exchange of information may exchange equivalent value services or data in lieu of
cost reimbursement at Non -Member Agency rates.
O3uU3-
Page 2
IMC Fee for Service Program Guidelines
4. Service Requests. All service requests shall be submitted in writing in the form of
a purchase order or contract, as appropriate. Service requests from Member Agencies
shall first be reviewed by the appropriate IMC Management Agency to confirm
Member Agency status, proposed work scope and deliverables, and cost of requested
services, in consultation with SCAG staff as required. All parties must agree with
the written scope of services, deliverables and cost prior to commencing any work.
5. Non-Fec,Based Service ,Activities. Per SCAG's role as the Metropolitan Plan nig
Organization, the IMC will continue to perform model development, maintenance
and coordination activities in support of regional, subregional and local modeling
activities and provide technical modeling support at no cost to Member Agencies
consistent with the IMC Management Matrix. Non -fee based modeling support will
also include local model consistency reviews and model applications for sub -regional
planning as input to the regional planning process.
6. Fee Based Service Activities. Service fees will be assessed for requested project
modeling or data distribution in accordance with the fee structure identified in the
current IMC Fee for Service Rate Schedule. Project modeling applications for which
fees will be assessed include all applications other than those specified above as Non -
Fee supported services, such as: traffic impact analysis (TIA) modeling studies,
other transportation analyses and project design forecasts.
B. SCHEDULING
1. Service Priorities. The IMC Management Agencies and/or Member Agencies shall,
have first priority for all service requests of the IMC. In the event the IMC is unable
to respond to the number of service requests with the allocated staff and other
resources available, and such scheduling problems cannot be worked out to the
satisfaction of the Member Agencies, the IMC Management Agencies shall be
requested to set project priorities and seek remedial actions, as appropriate.
C. OPERATION, MANAGEMENT AND PROGRESS REPORTING
1. Operations. SCAG will provide the staff resources for the daily operation of the
IMC and continued subregional modeling and data management services in support
of the area's planning, programming and transportation management activities.
00.033
Page 3
IMC Fee for Service Program Guidelines
2. Management Oversight, Representatives of the IMC Management Agencies, shall
meet on a bi-monthly basis to review operational issues associated with the Fee For
Service Program, and to ensure adequate management systems and resources for the
successful operation of the IMC.
3. Progress Reports. The IMC Management Agencies will jointly prepare a semi-
annual Operations/Progress Report on the Fee for Service Program indicating the
volume and types of service requests, product delivery response time, user
satisfaction, cost recovery and benefits to Member Agencies.
D. CONFLICT RESOLUTION
1. The IMC Management Agencies are responsible for interpreting the Fee For Service
Program Guidelines and Rate Schedule in a fair and practical a manner so that all
requests are served to best advantage.
H:IGUIDELINJMC
June 9, 1998
0 J6u34
IUD MODELING CENTER
Fee for Service Program Rate Schedule
The purpose of the Fee for Service Program is to create a cost recovery mechanism at the Inland
Modeling Center to support data distribution and project model
Guidelines. Examples of project model applications for which fees will be assessed include: traffic
impact analysis (TIA) modeling studies, other transportation analyses and project design forecasts.
The Fee for Service Program is designed to provide the resources required for professional staff to
perform the requested services, and will not to be used for general services. Resources may be used
to secure contract professional staff to augment frill -time employees at the Inland Modeling Center
(IMC). The fee structure described below is designed to cover the following costs: 1) the
professional servicesrequired to perform requested tasks, 2) a charge to compensate for
administrative costs, and 3) a nominal charge to cover computer time and materials.
Explanation of Charges:
Hourly Model Charge -
Cost Breakdown:
Contract Employee Rate -
Administrative Costs -
Computer Costs -
Total Costs -
Member Agencies
$80.00 per hour
$60.00 per hour
$10.00 per hour
$10.00 per hour
$80.00 per hour
Non -Member Agencies
$100.00 per hour
$60.00 per hour
$20.00 per hour
$20.00 per hour
$100.00 per hour
Upon approval by all "Inland Management Center
SANBAG and RCTC) the above will be effective October 1998 thro) at Agencies"
encase" (SLAG, RCTC,
99.
The fees may be revised in response to a semi-annual Operations/Progress Report by authority March 11 of
IMC Management Agencies pursuant to the Fee for Service Pro of the
t� Guidelines.
Project Cost Estimation :
Project charges will be determined based on an estimation of the
required
required to produce the data, and desired products. Charges will be discussed an , ld evel of effort
the modeling work proceeds Additions to the original work requests for sub
request or upa� model
runs will be charged at the standard rates listed below. sequent model
Paee 2
IMC Fee for Service Rate Schedule
Caution - Use of Modeling Results:
Travel demand forecasting models are abstractions. While they take into account many empirical
factors associated with travel within the region, they are limited in their ability to replicate traffic
conditions on highways and transit systems. Outputs taken directly from a model are not perfect
reflections of reality and should be reviewed for "reasonableness" by an analyst familiar with the
principles of traffic engineering. NCHRP Report #255 describes post processing procedures to
interpret and refine raw model output for use in project level forecasting.
Model Products and Rates:
1. Data Distribution: The fee for data distribution will be based on the amount of time required
to generate the desired data file, report, or plot. "Off the self' data and existing reports will
generally be available at no charge. Any request that takes more than 1\2 hour to fill will
require a charge.
A. Simple data requests involving off the self data and existing reports. - Free of charge
B. Data requests requiring more than 112 hour to fill. - Charged the hourly rate
C. GIS Data - GIS maps and data will be charged the hourly rate.
D. Model Plots - Plots of model inputs and model results will be charged the hourly rate.
E. TAZ Plots - Will be available free of charge.
F. CTP Model Documentation - Free of charge.
2. Meetings and Coordination
A. Initial telephone conversation to discuss charges and methodology - Free of charge
B. General telephone support and questions - Free of charge
C. Additional meetings - Charged the hourly rate.
3. Model Input Data Development
A. Socioeconomic Data development and reformatting - Charged the hourly rate
B. Highway network editing - Charged the hourly rate
4. Complete Model Runs - Typical Hours to Perform
A. Program development and model setup - 3 hours
B. Run and monitor the model run - 3 hours
C. Produce model output - 1 hour
D. Project Documentation - 1 hour
Page 3
IMC Fee for Service Rate Schedule
5. Other Model Procedures - Typical Hours to Perform
A. Sub -area extraction and analysis - 4 hours*
B. Select zone analysis - 2.5 hours*
C. Select link analysis - 3 hours*
D. Trip table analysis - 2 hours* •
E. Model Choice analysis -1.5 hour
F. Turning movement analysis - $201intersection (additional to cost of base model run)
* Includes one hour for documentation and producing output
Sample Project Costs:
Example 1. Complete model run with changes requested to SED and highway network:
Change SED -
Edit Network -
Model Setup and Run -
Produce Output\.Products -
Documentation
Total hours and Charge -
Example 2. Select Link Analysis:
Model Setup and Run -
Model Output & Document
Total hours and Charge -3 hours ,
4 hours
2 hour
6 hour
1 hours
1 hour
14 hours,
Charge for Member Agencies = $1,120.00
Charge for Non Member Agencies = $1,400.00
2 Hours
1 Hour
Charge for Member Agencies = $240.00
Charge for Non Member Agencies = $300.00
Example 3. Data Distribution: ,
Plot using Existing Model Run - Y2 hour
Charge for Member Agencies =
Charge for Non Member Agencies=
$40.001Plot
$50.001P1ot
x:►RATESCHEIMC
000037
AGENDA ITEM 5G
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 7, 1998
TO:
Budget and Finance
FROM:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Program Manager
THROUGH
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
RCTC Year 2000(Y2K) Compliance Policy
The year 2000, just around the corner, poses significant challenges and potential threats
to systems and operations of the entire business and government community. With much
of our daily lives and activities subject to the smooth operation of computers and other
technology based applications, failure of any of these to perform adequately or at all would
create significant disruptions. The historical configuration of the internal date mechanism
of computers makes the possibility of such a disruption a distinct possibility if not
probability.
The attached draft RCTC Year2000 Compliance Program provides the historical backdrop
to this potential problem. In brief, what it outlines is the inability of many of today's
computers to recognize the year 2000. Computer application date capabilities were
designed to recognize a two digit date (i.e., 1998 as 98). Therefore, in computer jargon
the year 2000 would be recognized as 00, with the computer unable to distinguish between
1900 and 2000, or causing it to shut down entirely.
Major efforts are underway worldwide to assess the universe of systems that possess this
problem and how to correct it now in hopes of avoiding major shutdowns come January 1,
2000. RCTC must also review all of its applications in an attempt to ensure that our
internal systems are 2000 compatible. RCTC is in the enviable position of operating in a
PC based system utilizing Windows 95 which is more Y2K friendly, although some
modifications may still be required. However, as mentioned the Y2K problem extends
beyond RCTC and all of our vendors/suppliers/consultants upon which we rely, can also
negatively impact our operations if any of their systems are not 2000 compliant or fail to
operate in the year 2000(e.g., telephone system, security systems, bank accounts).
Staff is now designing a Y2K Compliance Action Plan consisting of three phases —The
Inventory and Assessment Phase, The Renovation Phase, and The Validation and Testing
Phase. Once finalized the Action Plan will be brought to the Commission for review and
approval. Section 9 of the Compliance Program includes a Schedule for implementation
and completion. The major milestones of the Facilities Compliance Schedule are as
follows:
Compliance Activity
Complete inventory and assessment of systems
Identify compliant/non-compliant systems
Renovate or replace non -compliant systems
Complete test of all systems
Certify systems as compliant
Monitor systems
Completion Date
By November 1998
By December 1998
By March 1999
By June 1999
By August 1999
Through December 1999
To guide staff in this effort, staff is proposing that the Commission adopt Section 3: Year
2000 Compliance Statement included in the attached RCTC Year 2000 Compliance
Program as policy. That statement is as follows:
A product, application, or system is "Year 2000 Compliant" if, when
configured and used according to documented instructions, it will, without
manual intervention or interruption:
1. Correctly handle and process date information before, during, and after
January 1, 2000, accept date input, provide date output, and perform
calculations, including but not limited to, sorting and sequencing on
dates or portions of dates;
2. Function according to the product documentation during and after
January 1, 2000 without changes in operation resulting from the advent
of the new century;
3. Where appropriate, respond to two digit date input in a way that
resolves any ambiguity as to the century in a disclosed, defined, and
predetermined manner;
4. Store and provide output of date information in ways that are
unambiguous as to the century; and
5. Manage the leap year occurring in the year 2000, following the
quadcentennial rule:
• If the year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year, unless
The year is also divisible by 100, then it's not a leap year, unless
• The year is also divisible by 400, then it is a leap year.
In addition to the attached Compliance Program, staff asked Legal Counsel to develop a
draft letter for notification to all Commission vendors/consultants/other agencies requesting
assurance from them that this issue is being addressed and that they will be 2000
compliant.
Staff is further proposing a Y2K team consisting of the Executive Director, the Chief
Financial Officer, and the Bechtel Program Manager (who essentially directs all of the
Commission's data processing functions).
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
To be determined
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Year
Included in Program Budget
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission:
1.
2.
3.
Adopt the RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program including the policy statement
and schedule of implementation.
Instruct staff to develop an inventory of systems and bring back a specific action
plan for review and approval.
Appoint a Y2K team consisting of the Executive Director, the Chief Financial
Officer, and the Bechtel Program Manager.
Oduii4►
RCTC Year 2000
Compliance Program
Draft
Draft 9/18/1998
D:ly2klrctcy2k.DOC
000041
RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program
Contents
Section 1: Purpose 1
Section 2: Definition of the Year 2000 Issue 1
Section 3: Year 2000 Compliance Statement 2
Section 4: Compliance Scope 3
Section 5: Year 2000 Compliance Program 4
Section 6: Inventory and Assessment Phase 4
Section 7: Renovation Phase 7
Section 8: Validation and Testing Phase 7
Test Plan and Test Dates 8
Section 9: Compliance Schedule 9
Section 10: New Purchases 9
Section 11: Training 10
Appendices 10
Draft 9/18✓1998
D:Iy2klrctcy2k.DOC
036042
RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program
Section 1: Purpose
The purpose of this plan is to provide year 2000 (Y2K) compliance for all RCTC
computer and electronic systems. The Year 2000 problem can pose a significant
threat to the continuation and functionality of both facilities and computer systems
beyond the year 2000 since many of these systems are maintained by embedded
programmed chips or software code that rely on dates to correctly perform their
function. These embedded systems can be included with either computer hardware
and software, or multi -purpose computerized devices that are literally embedded
within some larger piece of equipment. These embedded systems include
components and sub -components that may control computer hardware, software, fire
safety systems, security systems, telephone communications systems, and many
others. The failure of these systems could cause direct impact on employees and
indirect impact on operations by causing a failure to meet required performance
standards.
This Compliance Plan provides the road map on how the year 2000 Compliance
Process will be completed to assure RCTC's facilities, equipment, computer systems
and infrastructure systems are year 2000 compliant. The Plan's emphasis is to
provide guidance leading to the lowest cost approach to making systems year 2000
compliant before the century change impacts operations.
Section 2: Definition of the Year 2000 Issue
In order to understand the year 2000 problems, the issue needs to be defined in
understandable terms.
When the majority of existing systems were first created, the original designers
defined the year field by a two -digit format. This means that 1998 looks like a "98" to
the majority of computer programs. When the computer compares one date to another
date occurring after December 31, 1999, a "00" as opposed to a "2000" in the year
field will distort the computer's concept of time.
This situation evolved over the past 50 years due to shorthand representation of the
date fields due to memory limitation on systems available 20-30 years ago, and the
program system designers tended to continue this practice on into the 1990s.
Embedded systems in equipment are prone to have problems with dates past the
year1999.
In the Personal Computer Industry, the Year 2000 issue encompasses hardware,
firmware, and software. Personal Computer giant Compaq Corporation explains the
Year 2000 issue as the following:
Draft 9/18/1998
D:Iy2k%rctcy2k.DOC
1
0 6i' 6,
RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program
• A transition problem occurs when a PC is unable to determine the correct date
when the year advances from December 31, 1999, to January 1, 2000. To
keep track of the current date and time, PCs use a battery -backed -up RTC
(real time clock). To comply with the AT -compatible specification for PCs, the
standard RTC was designed to store only the last two digits of the year. This
limited storage is the hardware issue.
• To overcome the hardware limitation, a static CMOS byte was allocated to
track the century information. When the PC is turned on, the ROM BIOS
combines the CMOS century information with the RTC's decade information to
yield a four -digit year. Unfortunately, when the RTC rolls forward from 11:59
P.M. December 31, 1999 to 12:00 A.M. January 1, 2000, the decade
information, 99, correctly increments to 00, but the CMOS century information
remains at 19. The inability of the ROM BIOS to increment the century byte is
the firmware issue.
• The operating system (OS) software is initialized immediately following the
completion of the hardware power -on self -test (POST) routine. The operating
system is capable of handling the century roll-over and updating the date. In
some instances, the OS vendor may have generated software upgrades to
handle roll-over. Applications typically acquire date information from the OS.
However, many older applications could be at risk because they may track the
date as a two -digit number or bypass the OS and query the BIOS directly. The
capabilities and interaction of the OS and applications define the software
issues.
Section 3: Year 2000 Compliance Statement
There are no broadly accepted American standards for year 2000 compliance. RCTC
could adopt a widely accepted standard developed by the British Standards Institute
which is summarized below. In addition to the British Standards Institue requirements
it is also necessary to add requirements to properly handle the leap year
determination.
When a system meets the following criteria, the system is considered year 2000
compliant. The Compliance Statement is as follows:
Draft 9/18/1998
D:1y2klrctcy2k.DOC
2
UUUU 44
RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program
A product, application, or system is "Year 2000 Compliant" if, when configured and
used according to documented instructions, it will, without manual intervention or
interruption:
1. Correctly handle and process date information before, during, and after
January 1, 2000, accept date input, provide date output, and perform
calculations, including but not limited to, sorting and sequencing on dates or
portions of dates;
2. Function according to the product documentation during and after January 1,
2000 without changes in operation resulting from the advent of the new
century;
3. Where appropriate, respond to two -digit date input in a way that resolves
any ambiguity as to the century in a disclosed, defined, and predetermined
manner;
4. Store and provide output of date information in ways that are unambiguous
as to the century; and
5. Manage the leap year occurring in the year 2000, following the quad -
centennial rule:
• If the year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year, unless
• The year is also divisible by 100, then it's not a leap year, unless
• The year is also divisible by 400, then it is a leap year.
Source: British Standards Institute
Section 4: Compliance Scope
Every electronic system defined as necessary to supporting business operations will
need to be identified and made year 2000 ready. Those systems that are not already
year 2000 compliant will either be made ready, replaced, retired, or a contingency
plan developed and implemented as a means to lessen the impact of failure.
The operation of RCTC's offices and functions requires the support of many vendors
and consultants. It is imperative that these entities understand the importance of
being Y2K compliant.
The RCTC Y2K compliance scope spans the following areas:
1. Office Facilities (Environmental Controls, Security, Basic Building
Infrastructure, etc.)
Draft 9/18/1998
D: %y2klrctcy2k.DOC
3
0Ju045
RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program
2. Office Equipment (Computers, Software, Copiers, Fax Machines, phone
systems, etc.)
3. Telecommunications Equipment and Software (Phone Systems, Pagers,
Cell Phones, etc.)
4. Materials and Service Providers (office supplies, records storage, etc.)
5. Consultants and Vendors
6. Interagency Coordination with other public entities.
Section 5: Year 2000 Compliance Program
The basic approach of the program is to identify systems that are not Y2K compliant
and make sure they are made compliant, or take action to have them replaced with
year 2000 compliant systems. The three phases of the Program are as follows:
1. The Inventory and Assessment Phase
2. The Renovation Phase
3. The Validation and Testing Phase
Section 6: Inventory and Assessment Phase
The primary purpose of the inventory and assessment process is to gather and
analyze information about each system so that non -compliant systems can be
identified for action in the Renovation Phase. During this phase Cost estimates will
be prepared if necessary to determine which systems will be updated, or replaced.
There will be some instances where direct coordination with vendors or consultants
will be required. In these instances, it will be necessary for RCTC to work closely with
the vendors and consultants to obtain the necessary information. See Appendix A for
the proposed inventory list.
A complete inventory of all servers, workstations, desktops, portables, network
components, facility systems, office equipment, communications equipment, software
any electronic interfaces with outside consultants and public agencies is the basis for
the Y2K Compliance program. After the inventory is complete, triage ranking will be
performed if necessary. The triage ranking approach requires that systems are
ranked by their value and importance to RCTC. The cost of failure or inoperability of
Draft 9/18/1998
D:1y2klrcfcy2k.DOC
4
0:iJO46
RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program
each system must also be considered. Some systems are mission critical, i.e., failure
has a direct negative impact on RCTC operations, whereas the failure of some
systems may result in a tolerable level of disruption.
Failure of a system can result in both direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include
negative impact on personal safety or property damage, while indirect costs include
public embarrassment and a negative impact on the operations. Once all of the costs
are known and considered, the RCTC Staff can determine which hardware devices
must be compliant and which devices can be bypassed or retired if resources are not
available to undergo the renovation process.
The evaluation and development of a triage strategy can proceed in parallel with other
assessment and estimation activities. The triage ranking process is then joined with
the cost estimates to determine which systems that will be fixed, retired or replaced.
The starting point of the Hardware Inventory Process begins with the server. The
server is the nucleus of the client/server and file/print architecture. It is also the home
of the standard databases and application programs.
Workstations, servers, desktops and laptops that share common attributes, can be
grouped together during the inventory process.
The inventory for servers, desktops and laptops should contain the following
attributes.
• Manufacturer
■ CPU model number
• Serial number
• Network address (TCP/ IP address)
• Domain name
• Office location
• Firmware revision (BIOS date)
• Operating system software revision and service pack
■ Hard Drive Size
• Amount of RAM
• Hardware compliant status (Y/ N/ blank)
■ Planned retirement date*
• Remediation requirements*
■ Date remediation completed*
Draft 9/18/1998
D:1y2klrctcy2k.DOC
5
Oacu47
RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program
• Date testing completed*
(*) Denotes update to inventory after the assessment phase.
The attributes for routers, hubs and switches are as follows:
• Vendor
• Product type
■ Model number
• Serial number
• Product/family name
• Component number
• Software Revision number
■ RAM
• Location
• Year 2000 disposition
Note: The above checklists relate to computer hardware. Similar checklists will be
constructed for each category of items inventoried.
A BIOS upgrade is not necessarily required on all servers, desktops and laptops to
make a non -compliant machine, Year 2000 compliant. However, for systems where
BIOS upgrades are available and are required, it is very important to make sure you
know precisely which motherboard you have and what BIOS you are downloading.
Even though the date is handled correctly on the individual notebook or desktop,
either automatically by the BIOS, or manually with the DATE command, this date can
then be erroneously changed by network software if it does not support the Year 2000
correctly. In the compliance process, we need to make sure that we have inventoried
our servers and made each of them Year 2000 compliant as a first step.
The tests that will be used to determine Year 2000 compliance are discussed below in
the validation and testing phase.
Draft 9/18/1998
D:Iy2klrctcy2k.DOC
6
RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program
Section 7: Renovation Phase
During this phase all systems that have been identified as being non -compliant with
the Y2K criteria and that will be required to perform their function after the year 2000
will be either upgraded or replaced with a new system that will meet the Y2K criteria
specified in Section 3.
Year 2000 Compliance by manufacturers will be certified in accordance with the following:
• Workstations and servers (i.e., desktop and laptop systems, Intel based servers) NSTL
(National Software Testing Laboratories) YMARK2000 test
• Network devices (i.e. routers, switches, and hubs) ITAA (Information
Technology Association of America) standards
Section 8: Validation and Testing Phase
The importance of testing and validation is to assure the existing system will function
accurately when the century changes. Existing systems judged to be compliant during
assessment, systems having undergone a year 2000 upgrade, and vendor systems
(whether a vendor claims compliance or not) should be tested, whenever possible.
The test plan and the test plan results of any tested system will be documented. Any
system failing to meet the required Y2K criteria will be referred back to the Renovation
Phase for further action.
A complete testing process generally has the following phases:
• Phase 1: Unit Testing - Unit testing is performed by the hardware operator after
changes have been made
• Phase 2: Integration Testing - Integration testing includes testing of the
hardware, firmware and operating system, in order to check that the interfaces
are defined and implemented correctly
• Phase 3: System Testing - System testing includes testing of all hardware
components, services, and user accounts. The system test determines whether
all the changes within a single piece of hardware work well together
• Phase 4: Acceptance Testing - Acceptance testing is performed to ascertain
the hardware's readiness for deployment to production
Depending on the system being tested, some or all of the above testing phases will be
performed.
Draft 9/18/1998
D:Iy2klrctcy2k.DOC
7
RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program
Test Plan and Test Dates
Even though it is important to test every system, every system may not need to be
tested to the same degree. System test plans will include, as appropriate, the
following dates for assessment and testing of the system to assure year 2000
compliance:
1. January 1, 1999
2. September 9, 1999
3. September 10, 1999
4. December 31, 1999
5. January 1, 2000
6. February 28, 2000
7. February 29, 2000
8. March 1, 2000
9. December 31, 2000
10. January 1, 2001
Optional Test Dates for Software Applications:
1. April 9, 1999
2. September 30, 1999
3. October 1, 1999
4. September 30, 2000
5. October 1, 2000
6. December 30, 2000
Draft 9/18/1998
D:Iy2klrctcy2k.DOC
8
RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program
Section 9: Compliance Schedule
The major milestones of the Facilities Compliance Schedule are as follows:
Compliance Activity
Complete inventory and assessment of systems
Identify compliant/non-compliant systems
Renovate or replace non -compliant systems
Complete test of all systems
Certify systems as compliant
Monitor systems
Completion Date
By November 1998
By December 1998
By March 1999
By June 1999
By August 1999
Through December 1999
Section 10: New Purchases
Before purchase, all new systems will be certified as Y2K compliant. Consideration
should be given to testing newly procured systems whenever possible prior to taking
delivery or installation.
Effective immediately, any computer product, application, or system furnished to
RCTC will be furnished in accordance with the following:
• Computer product, application, or system will be Year 2000 Compliant to the
extent that compliance is certified by the manufacturer
• Year 2000 Compliance by manufacturers will be certified in accordance with
the following:
Workstations and servers (i.e., desktop and laptop systems, Intel based
servers) NSTL (National Software Testing Laboratories) YMARK2000 test
Network devices (i.e. routers, switches, and hubs) ITAA (Information
Technology Association of America) standards
Draft 9/18/1998
D:1y2k%rctcy2k.DOC
9
000051
RCTC Year 2000 Compliance Program
Section 11: Training
The plan described above will address the Y2K problem as it relates to the electronic
hardware and software systems and devices that are made available to the RCTC
Staff to perform their functions. It does not address the Y2K problem as it relates to
individual programming of dates into spreadsheets and tables. The reprogramming of
existing and future spreadsheets that span the year 2000 will be up to the individual
Staff member that uses the spreadsheet to develop work products. RCTC will provide
assistance as necessary to help individual Staff members identify and convert any
spreadsheet or table that relies on date calculations and that will be required to
perform calculations beyond the year 2000. Instructions will also be provided for any
date entries to be the full four digit to eliminate any possibility of year 2000
compliance problems occurring in the future.
Appendices
A. System/Equipment List (to be supplied later)
Draft 9/18/1998
D:Iy2klrcfcy2k.DOC
10
[RCTC Letterhead]
[Date]
[Provider Name/Address]
Re: Year 2000 Compliance
Dear [Provider]:
RCTC is contacting you and our other equipment, product and service providers
("providers") to make sure that all systems and equipment RCTC uses are Year 2000 compliant,
and that RCTC will continue to receive services from all providers before, during and after the
turn of the century. RCTC is sending you this letter to ask for your help in our Year 2000
assessment, testing and correction process.
We know you are working on your own Year 2000 compliance program, and we
wish to obtain information regarding your efforts so we can incorporate it into our own Year
2000 compliance effort. To that end, we request that you review the Year 2000 compliance
provisions on the attached Compliance Statement and provide written concurrence with those
provisions. The intent of these provisions is to ensure that, under the stated conditions as defined
by the British Standards Institute, (1) your products or services will function in accordance with
the enclosed Compliance Statement and (2) your internal systems will remain viable. Once we
have your concurrence with these provisions, they may be formally incorporated into our
agreement with you.
RCTC requests your written response by , 1998. RCTC is
looking forward to working closely with you in its own Year 2000 compliance effort and in
continuing a mutually beneficial relationship with your organization. Please contact me at (909)
[ ] or by e-mail at [ ] with any questions or comments.
Truly yours
[signature]
RI/PUB \PBC\5o4o1
" u u3
YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
Riverside County Transportation Commission Product and Service Providers
Reference: ["Contract No. " or "Agreement for
dated
Name and telephone number of person designated as provider's Year 2000 compliance
coordinator:
„11
Provider represents and warrants that all equipment, systems, products and/or
services referenced, delivered or used pursuant to the above agreement are "Year 2000
Compliant." As used in this statement, the term "Year 2000 Compliant" means that the
equipment, systems, products or services, and/or the equipment, systems or products used to
provide the services, when configured and used according to the documented instructions, will
without manual intervention or interruption:
1. Correctly handle and process date information before, during and after January 1, 2000,
accepting date input, providing date output, and performing calculations, including but not
limited to, sorting and sequencing on dates or portions of dates.
2. Function according to the documentation before, during and after January 1, 2000,
without changes in operation resulting from the advent of the new century.
3. Where appropriate, respond to two -digit date input in a way that resolves any ambiguity
as to century in a disclosed, defined, and predetermined manner.
4. Store and provide output of date information in ways that are unambiguous as to century.
5 Manage the leap year occurring in the year 2000, following the quad -centennial rule,
meaning (a) if the year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year, unless (b) the year is also divisible
by 100, then it is not a leap year, unless (c) the year is also divisible by 400, then it is a
leap _year.
Note. RCTC may accept a definition of "Year 2000 Compliant" that is the substantive equivalent
of the definition above.
Signature Date
RVPUBIPBC1S0402
0J(3 54
AMENDMENT NO. TO AGREEMENT FOR
1. Parties and Date. This Amendment to the Agreement for
dated , (the "Master Agreement") is entered into this day of
199_, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") and
("Provider").
2. Recitals.
2.1 The Parties have entered into the Master Agreement [describe services or
products/equipment].
2.2 [Describe any previous amendments]
2.3 The Parties now desire to [again] amend the Master Agreement so that
Provider will representand warrant that its software, hardware, equipment, systems, products or
services are Year 2000 compliant, and that Provider will indemnify RCTC for any damages RCTC
might incur for any failure by Provider to be Year 2000 compliant.
3. Terms. The Master Agreement [and any amendments thereto] is hereby amended
(and to the extent in conflict with this Amendment, is superseded) by adding the following:
3.1 Provider represents and warrants that all software, hardware, equipment,
systems, products or services delivered or used pursuant to the Master Agreement are now and
shall continue to be "Year 2000 Compliant."
3.2 "Year 2000 Compliant" shall mean that the software, hardware, equipment,
systems, products or services, and/or the software, hardware, equipment, systems or products
used to provide the services, when configured and used according to the documented instructions,
will without manual intervention or interruption:
A. Correctly handle and process date information before, during and
after January 1, 2000, accepting date input, providing date output,
and performing calculations, including but not limited to, sorting
and sequencing on dates or portions of dates.
B. Function according to the documentation before, during and after
January 1, 2000, without changes in operation resulting from the
advent of the new century.
RVPUB\PBC\50667
036055
C. Where appropriate, respond to two -digit date input in a way that
resolves any ambiguity as to century in a disclosed, defined, and
predetermined manner.
D. Store and provide output of date information in ways that are
unambiguous as to century.
E. Manage the leap year occurring in the year 2000, following the
quad -centennial rule, meaning (a) if the year is divisible by 4, it is a
leap year, unless (b) the year is also divisible by 100, then it is not a
leap year, unless (c) the year is also divisible by 400, then it is a leap
year.
3.3 Provider shall notify RCTC, within sixty days after the date of this
Amendment of the date -format which Provider will use externally to achieve Year 2000
Compliance and of the date -format which Provider will use for any automated interface with
RCTC. Both such date -formats shall utilize four digits to represent the year.
3.4 Notwithstanding any liability limitations set forth in the Master Agreement,
Provider shall provide RCTC, at no additional charge, with any new versions, upgrades, "patches"
or releases, including engineering changes, etc. of software, hardware, equipment, systems,
products or services which prevent or correct a breach of warranties contained in this
Amendment. [If software agreement, add: "At no additional charge, RCTC shall have the right to
the number of copies of new versions, upgrades, "patches" or releases of software (including
those designed to prevent or correct a breach of the types of warranties contained in this
Amendment) that is equal to the number of copies of software licensed or maintained pursuant to
the Master Agreement at the time Provider makes such new version, upgrade, "patches" or
release of software available to its customers."]
3.5 Provider hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers,
employees and agents, against any loss, cost, damage, expense (including reasonable attorneys' _
fees) or other liability incurred or imposed upon. RCTC by reason of any person, firm, corporation
or governmental entity claiming any right of recovery against RCTC for damages arising out of
the Year 2000 problem.
3.6 Except to the extent in conflict with this Amendment, all provisions of the
Master Agreement remain in full force and effect.
RVPUBWBC150667
3 656
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date
first written above.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROVIDER
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: By:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT:
By:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By-
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Counsel to the Riverside County
Transportation Commission
RVPUB\PBCl50667
(Title)
0J'33Jd
C -i
AGENDA ITEM 6A
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 7, 1998
TO:
Budget & Finance Committee
FROM:
Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Payment of Interest for Reserved Transportation Development
Act Funds
The Commission is charged with administration of all Transportation Development Act
(TDA) funds available to public transit operators. The TDA created a Local
Transportation Fund (LTF) in each county which receives 1/4 cent of retail sales tax
collected in that county for use to support public transit. The State Board of
Equalization returns the money to the County, where it is held until the Commission
provides written allocation instructions for its disbursement.
In Riverside County, there are three apportionment areas for the TDA funds: Western
Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and the Palo Verde Valley. The TDA funds are
apportioned to the three areas based on population. Interest earned on the funds held
at the County are currently apportioned to each area using the population formula.
Interest earned is added to the new years apportionment of tax revenues and made
available for programming by the transit operators.
Riverside Transit Agency currently has approximately $2.7M in allocated, but
unprogrammed, Local Transportation Funds for operating purposes which are
reserved in their name but held at the County. They recently expressed to staff a
request to have the interest accrued on these reserved operating funds added to their
reserved levels. Staff requested that Legal Counsel research our ability to support
this request and found no prohibitions in the law.
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the accrual of interest on operating
funds specifically reserved for a transit agency but held at the County, retroactive to
the start of the 1998-99 fiscal year. The interest amount will be determined by the
Commission based on its estimate of the average rate of interest earned by the fund
in the prior fiscal year.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
approx. $135,000 based on assumed interest rate of 5%
Source of Funds
Local Transportation Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget n/a
Included in Program Budget Y
Year
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
99
Year of Allocation
99
Budget Adjustment Required N
Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve the accrual of interest on operating funds specifically
reserved for a transit agency but held at the County, retroactive to the start of the
1998-99 fiscal year.
aju059
ATTENDANCE ROSTER
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, October 7, 1998
NAME
ca crc Ec2E
kt a6gm
REPRESENTING
TELEPHONE
117 r 7
787- 7/ y/
77F-7- 79(14.
7,1V(