The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About10 October 11, 2000 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 LOCATION: Chancellor's Conference Room, #207 University of California @ Riverside 1201 University Avenue, Riverside 92507 Commissioners Chairman: Tom Mullen Vice Chairman: William G. Kleindienst Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside James A. Venable, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Tom Mullen, County of Riverside John Hunt / Jan Wages, City of Banning Gerald Zeller / Larry Dressel and Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / Gary Grimm, City of Blythe John M. Chlebnik / Gregory V. Schook, City of Calimesa Gene Bourbonnais / Cora Sue Barrett, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Sarah DiGrandi, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Jeffrey P. Bennett / Andrea Puga, City of Corona Greg Ruppert / Jerry Pisha, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin ReeserLowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Conrad Negron, City of Indian Wells Mike Wilson / Marcos Lopez, City of Indio John J. Pena / Ron Perkins, City of La Quinta Kevin W. Pape / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Bill Batey, City of Moreno Valley Jack F. van Haaster, City of Murrieta Frank Hail / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert William G. Kleindienst / Deyna Hodges, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Phil Stack/Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore, City of Riverside Patrick Williams / Chris Carlson-Buydos / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Director Stan Lisiewicz, Ca'trans District #8 Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 A.M. Wednesday, October 11, 2000 CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM University of Califomia @ Riverside 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the Agenda. An action adding an item to the Agenda requires a 2/3 vote of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the Agenda. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the Agenda requires a unanimous vote.) 7. CONSENT CALENDAR (All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioners) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Page 1 Overview This item is to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending August 31, 2000. 7B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Page 5 Overview This item is to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months of July and August, 2000. Riverside County Transportation Commission October 11, 2000 Page 2 7C. PROPOSITION 35 Page 7 Overview The proposed Proposition 35 will guarantee the right of the State and local governments to use private sector engineers and architects. The current policy and court decisions require the use of State engineers and architects for all State -funded transportation projects, with few exceptions, which sometimes hinder the timely completion of projects. It is recommended that the Commission take a support position for Proposition 35. 7D. FY 00/01 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS AND RESOLUTION NO. 00-016, "A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS" Page 16 Overview This item is to: 1) Approve the FY 00/01 State Transit Assistance Fund allocations in Riverside County as presented on the table attached to the staff memorandum; and, 2) Adopt Resolution No. 00-016, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds". 7E. PROPOSED FY 2000-2001 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM (DBE) AND OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED DOT - ASSISTED PROJECTS Page 21 Overview This item is to: 1) Approve RCTC's FY 2000-2001 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program; 2) Set 17.8% for its DBE participation overall annual goal for federally funded and DOT -assisted projects; 3) Authorize staff to submit its DBE Program to Caltrans District 08's Local Assistance and to the FTA for approval; and, 4) Authorize staff to make necessary revisions to the consultant/contractor model agreements to comply with necessary Federal contract clause revisions. 7F. FY 2000-01 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATION FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE PALO VERDE VALLEY APPORTIONMENT AREA Page 47 Overview This item is to allocate the FY 2000-01 Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for streets and roads proposed in the Palo Verde Valley, as shown on the table in the agenda packet. Riverside County Transportation Commission October 11, 2000 Page 3 7G. ADVANCE OF MEASURE "A" FUNDS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF HEMET Page 48 Overview This item is to: 1) Grant the City of Hemet an advance of $730,000 from Measure "A", Local Streets and Roads funds; 2) Increase the Local Streets and Roads appropriation in Fund 222 - Measure "A" Western budget by .$730,000; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute a Measure "A" advancement agreement between the Commission and the City: 7H. CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK AGREEMENT WITH PEPE'S TOWING SERVICE Page 55 Overview This item is to: 1) Amend the Freeway Service Patrol tow truck contract with Pepe's Towing Service; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the contract on behalf of the Commission, subject to Legal Counsel review. 71. CETAP INTERNAL CORRIDORS SCHEDULE AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PLAN Page 57 Overview This item is to receive and file the CETAP Internal Corridors Schedule and Community Outreach Plan, 7J. FY 2000-01 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY Page 60 Overview This item is to: 1) Amend the FY 2000-01 Short Range Transit Plan for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency to allow implementation of a pilot program for transportation of veterans from the Palo Verde Valley into the Coachella Valley and Loma Linda for medical needs; and, 2) Allocate an additional $ 10,000 in Local Transportation Funds to pay for this pilot program. 7K. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 63 Overview This item is to receive and file the Rail Program Update as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission October 11, 2000 Page 4 8. FUNDING OF THE 1-215 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BETWEEN THE EAST AND WEST JUNCTIONS WITH STATE ROUTE 60 15 Minutes Page 65 Overview At the last meeting, Caltrans District 8 informed the Commission of the $49 million cost increase to deliver the 1-215 projects. The cost estimate includes: 1) adding the HOV lane between University Avenue and the State Route 60/91/215 interchange; 2) two direct fly over connectors; 3)truck bypass; 4) new interchanges at Martin Luther King and Box Springs; and, 4) new Spruce Street interchange on Route 91. The Ad Hoc Committee will present their recommendations to address the currently projected shortfall of funding. 9. CMAQ CLEAN FUELS OPPORTUNITY FUND CATEGORY 2 & 3 PROJECT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS 5 Minutes Page 66 Overview This item is to: 1) Award $50,000 in Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds to the County of Riverside for its electrification project at Costco - Mira Loma under Category 2; and, 2) Award $75,000 each in CMAQ funds to Riverside Community College and Mt. San Jacinto Community College for their vocational training programs under Category 3. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 00-017, RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SUPPORTING CONTINUATION OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD'S ZEROS EMISSION' 5 Minutes Page 78 Overview The resolution is to support the California Air Resources Board's mandate for zero emissions vehicles. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 00-018, "ESTABLISHING AN EMISSIONS STANDARD REQUIREMENT FOR URBAN TRANSIT BUSES" 5 Minutes Page 81 Overview This item was presented to the Commission at their June 14, 2000 meeting for its consideration to set an emissions standards requirement for the purchase or lease of urban transit buses within Riverside County. An Ad Hoc Committee was appointed to review the issues and resolution. 12. 2001 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE 5 Minutes Page 87 Overview This item is to provide an update on the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan to receive and file. Riverside County Transportation Commission October 11, 2000 Page 5 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 14. PRESENTATION - STATUS REPORT ON CLEAN AIR RULES AND CLEAN FUELS TECHNOLOGIES 15 Minutes Overview Based on a request from Commissioners for an update on air quality regulations affecting the region and current status of clean fuel technologies with a focus on heavy duty vehicles, the Commission's air quality consultant, Ray Gorski, will be attending the meeting to make a presentation. 15. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 5 Minutes Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. Commissioners Ron Roberts and Robin Lowe will report on the RailVolution Conference that they attended in Denver, Colorado. Eric Haley will report on the STIP formula adjustment. 16. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 8, 2000, at the University of California @ Riverside, Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Riverside, California. Weighted Vote of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Test Y A NPIC Tot Req Result 1 Supervisors 0 0 0 0 0 1 fail 2 City Vote 0 0 0 0 0 1 fail \\Ix ''°.(c 3 Population Test 1 0 0 0 NA 0 1 fail Results Quorum 0 FAIL Supervisor Y N A NPIC ? 1 1st District Check (//z. 2 2nd District Check 3 3rd District Check 4 4th District Check 5 5th District Check Results 0 0 0 01 0 Check Supervis Vote Test 2&3 Cities Y N A NPIC ? Current Yes,/ No Abstain 1 Banning Check 25,300 2 Beaumont Check 10,850 3 Blythe Check 20,950 v/ 4 Calimesa Check 7,650 5 Cnyn Lake Check 11,850 6 Cath. City Check 36,750 7 Coachella Check 22,200 _ �r- 8 Corona Check 117,300 9 Dsrt Ht Sp. Check 15,400 rr . 10 Hemet _ Check 61,100 / J 11 Indian Well Check 3,410 121ndio 13 — Check 44,500 La Quinta Check 21,750 14 Lake Els. Check 29,300 15 Moreno Vy Check 139,100 16 Murrieta Check 41,550 17 Norco Check 25,500 Q- 18 Palm Dsrt Check 36,300 19 Palm Spr Check 42,900 20 Perris Check 31,550 21 Rancho Mir. Check 11,400 22 Riverside Check 254,300 / 23 San Jacinto Check 25,250 24 Temecula Check 48,850 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 1,085,010 0 0 0 Check Cities Total = 0 Majority Requires I 1 10/10/2000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: /0/ 100 SIGN -IN SHEET IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY,CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION • NAM AGENCY le-0#4/2-‘1,7 411 frie9 , en1 ‘ta Ic7 3-rti6 -t,r4 f C (-65-5 2, 42. /v dcat..) P /45 ne Kg ken 5e ($2_ Allijo 4A Je..-7. Y.k & - Signing is not required TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER 2s6 737 1172.5- 9'g I .t • eobt__ ',Leo-7 CAI Pi- 6--- 760 34-6 I I( a.7 ?V-ij-Sszi cc <01" k i ?--"T Ale-)E0/%-i 19 0 /61,6,420e-- 677 / 953 4/ 8,d2r/e /7ieete- '5? 9c5'0- '16- 7 ---As- 004)-- Sc4- 6- 72'4 - /57 7d <-1 -3 ?-es-- 61' /-7 c' . 35- C46))24 I) (9093m,-ze 36_5 vpi a i 56-( / RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Tom Mullen called the meeting of the -Riverside County Transportation Commission to order at 9:15 a.m. at the University of California, Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Riverside, California 92507. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Daryl Busch Bob Buster Percy L. Byrd Frank Hall * John Hunt Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Stan Lisiewicz Ameal Moore Tom Mullen Kevin W. Pape * John J. Pena Gregory S. Pettis Andrea Puga Robin ReeserLowe Ron Roberts Greg Ruppert John F. Tavaglione * James A. Venable Frank West Patrick Williams * Mike Wilson Roy Wilson * Gerald Zeller * Arrived after start of meeting. 3. PRESENTATIONS Gene Bourbonnais John M. Chlebnik Robert Crain Juan M. DeLara Phil Stack Jack F. van Haaster Chairman Mullen presented a plague to retiring employee, Susan Cornelison, recognizing her services as a Commissioner for 11 years and as RCTC employee since July 1993. He pointed out her contributions to initiating the Metrolink services in the inland Empire. RCTC Meeting Minutes September 13 2000 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Garry Grant, Meadowbrook, presented a petition signed by citizens for safety on Route 74 to the Commission. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (June 14, 2000 and July 12, 2000) M/S/C (Hunt/Kleindienst) to approve the minutes of the June 14, 2000 and July 12, 2000, meeting. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, noted changes to Agenda Item Nos. 11 and 13, and changes to these items are reflected on the amended memorandum that were distributed to the Commissioners . 7. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Lowe/Kleindienst) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. MONTHLY CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending July 31, 2000. 7B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Financial Statements for the quarter ending June 30, 2000. 7C. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the single signature authority report as of June 30, 2000. 7D. INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Investment Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2000. 7E. ERNST & YOUNG AUDIT CONTRACT Approve the contract with Ernst and Young to provide audit services for Measure "A" and TDA recipients. RCTC Meeting Minutes September 13 2000 Page 3 7F. PROPOSED RATE INCREASE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICE To: 1) Increase the hourly labor rates for Geographics professional services included in RCTC Contract RO-2060; 2) Direct staff to process an agreement amendment.to the existing contract; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the on behalf of the Commission. 7G. RCTC PERFORMANCE AUDIT FOR FISCAL YEARS 97198, 98199 AND 99100 To: 1) Release a Request for Proposal to conduct a performance audit of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's activities and for the seven public transit operators providing services in Riverside County; 2) Direct the Chairman to appoint an Ad Hoc Subcommittee to select the consultant to conduct the audits; and, 3) Amend the FY 2001 budget to cover the cost of the performance audit, 7H. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SECTION 21335 (3% ANNUAL COST -OF -LIVING ALLOWANCE INCREASE BASE YEAR 1999) FOR LOCAL MISCELLANEOUS MEMBERS To approve: 1) Resolution No. 00-015, "Resolution Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission" and, 2) Amendment to the Contract. 71. AMENDMENT OF SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS CONTRACTS FOR STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES To extend: 1) The shared State Legislative Advocacy Services Contract No. 00- 051 between RCTC and SanBAG for a two-year period in an amount not to exceed $48,750 annually; 2) The shared Federal Legislative Advocacy Services Contract No. 00-047 between RCTC and SanBAG in an amount not to exceed $56,000 annually; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7J. FY 1997-98 SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE To grant the County of Riverside a 12-month extension to .tune 30, 2001 to complete the Serfas Club Drive sidewalk project. 7K. FOUR CORNERS TRANSPORTATION STUDY FINAL REPORT To receive and file the Four Corners Transportation Study Final Report; and, 2) Direct staff, upon conclusion of the CETAP process, to review the Four Corners RCTC Meeting Minutes September 13 2000 Page 4 Implementation Strategies and identify any actions that may be appropriate for consideration by the Commission. 7L. REVISED CETAP WORKPLAN AND BUDGET To approve the revised CETAP WorkPlan and budget totaling $12.334 million 7M. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO CVAG AND WRCOG To approve the Local Transportation Fund allocation of $188,472 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and $372,550 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the work programs included in the agenda packet. 7N. REALLOCATE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FROM FY 2000 TO FY 2001 FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND AMEND THEIR SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN To: 1) Reallocate $28,000 from FY 2000 to FY 2001 for the City of Riverside to purchase computer equipment and software; and, 2} Amend the City of Riverside's FY 2001 Short Range Transit Plan to reflect the purchase of additional equipment. 70. RIDESHARE WEEK OVERVIEW That the Commission receive and file the Rideshare Week Overview report as an information item. 7P. MEASURE "A" STRATEGIC PLAN COMPLETION - WESTERN COUNTY HIGHWAY/RAIL To approve the possible use of $28.4 million in Western County Measure "A" funds currently identified as available in the Strategic Plan for unidentified Commuter Rail projects. 7Q. FY 2001-05 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF CATHEDRAL CITY, HEMET, MURRIETA AND RANCHO MIRAGE To approve the FY 2001-05 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Hemet, Indio, Murrieta, and Rancho Mirage as submitted. RCTC Meeting Minutes September 13 2000 Page 5 7R. ADVANCE OF MEASURE "A" FUNDS - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AGREEMENT To: 1) Grant the City of Lake Elsinore an advance of Measure "-A" Local Streets and Roads funds; 21 Increase the Local Streets and Roads appropriation in Fund 222 - Measure "A" Western Riverside County budget by $1,500,000; 31 Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute a Measure "A" advancement agreement between the Commission and the City of Lake Elsinore. 7S. QUARTERLY CALL BOX ACTIVITY Receive and file the operational statistics for the Riverside County Motorist Aid Call Box System for the quarter ending June 30, 2000. 7T. AMENDMENT TO COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AND SUB -LEASE BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES To approve: 1 j An amendment to the communications site lease between the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies; and, 21 An amendment to the sub -lease between the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies and Lodestar Towers California, Inc. 7U. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY To: 11 Enter into an agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation, in an amount of $929,000, in State funding for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol Program for FY 2000-01; and, 2] Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7V. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF CALTRANS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTER SITES AND SMART CALL BOXES Contingent upon Legal Counsel review, award a contract to: 1 j Peek Traffic - Signal Maintenance, Inc. for the installation of Caltrans Traffic Management Center Sites; and, 2) Comarco Wireless Technologies for the installation of Smart Call Boxes along the Congestion Management Program System. RCTC Meeting Minutes September 13 2000 Page 6 7W. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE To: 1) Direct staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal; and, 2) Select a consultant to provide engineering services related to the San Jacinto Branch Line. 7X. AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. RO. 2061 TO PROVIDE ON -CALL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES Based upon the RFP process, to: 1) Approve awarding a contract to SC Engineering for small engineering support needs, in an amount not to exceed $300,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute a contract, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. 7Y. AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-2028 TO POUNTNEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR THE PROPOSED VAN BUREN METROLINK STATION To: 1) Concur with the proposed conceptual plan and staging for the proposed Metrolink commuter rail station in Riverside near Van Buren Boulevard and Route 91; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to continue negotiations with adjacent owners for State II parking; 3) Award Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2028 to Pountney and Associates, Inc, for final plans, specifications, and estimate, and environmental clearance for Stage 1 of the proposed Van Buren Metrolink Commuter Rail Station for an amount of $740,000; and, 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7Z. AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. RO-2127 TO HOLMES AND NARVER INFRASTRUCTURE TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 PHASE I PROJECT To: 1) Award contract No. RO-2127 to Holmes and Narver Infrastructure to provide construction management support services for construction of the State Route 74 Measure "A" Phase I Project from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road for a base work amount of $1,054,800 and an extra work amount of $95,200 for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,150,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the contract on behalf of the Commission. 7AA. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH GLADSTEIN & ASSOCIATES IN SUPPORT OF THE INTERSTATE CLEAN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT To: 1) Enter into a consultant agreement with Gladstein & Associates to implement the FY 00/01 Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor (ICTC) scope of work; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Approve the allocation of $25,000 from Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for the work effort. RCTC Meeting Minutes September 13 2000 Page 7 7AB. CaIACT CONFERENCE SPONSORSHIP To: 1) Co -host the California Association for Coordinated Transportation (CaIACT) Spring 2001 Conference; and, 2) Provide up to $1,200 in Measure "A" funds to cover the cost of sponsoring a workshop. 7AC. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE To receive and file the Rail Program Update. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO FY 00101 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY AND RCTC'S COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM AND SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS Chairman Mullen opened the public hearing. Hearing or seeing no one requesting to speak on the item, the public meeting was closed. MISIC (Wilson/Roberts) to amend: 1) SunLine Transit Agency FY 01 Short Range Transit Plan to purchase two additional paratransit vehicles and increase its operating budget by $215,108; 21 RCTC's Commuter Rail Program's FY 01 SRTP to increase its federal share of the Tier 11 Station Project from $6M to $9M increasing the overall cost of the project (Van Buren and Corona North Main Stations) from $13M to $16M; and, 3) Section 5307 Program of Project and the RTIP to reflect the changes. 9. RESTRUCTURING THE CITIZENS ADVISORY C0MMITTEEIS0CIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Eric Haley reported that the proposed restructuring of the Committee will broaden citizen input. MISIC (Pupa/Huntl to approve the recommendation by the Ad Hoc Committee to: 1) Refocus the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (CACISSTAC) from operational transit issues to a broader based, policy oriented committee; 2) Terminate existing membership of the CAC/SSTAC; 3) Request Commissioners to submit names and completed application forms of potential candidates to the Ad Hoc Sub Committee for review and recommendation; 41 Establish membership of the CACISSTAC at 15 members; 5) Direct staff to prepare letters of appreciation to members of the CACISSTAC. Letters will be signed by the RCTC Chairman; and 6) Direct legal counsel to amend the by-laws of the CACISSTAC and RCTC's administrative by-laws to reflect these changes. RCTC Meeting Minutes September 13 2000 Page 8 10. ALAMEDA CORRIDOR -EAST TRADE CORRIDOR PLAN Stephanie Wiggins, Project Manager, explained RCTC's participation in a four -party Steering Committee is essential because the Alameda Corridor is a major public works project serving the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach which will consolidate all freight train movements the area. Once the plan is implemented, Riverside County will notice increased rail traffic and grade crossing delays. The Governor's Transportation Congestion Relief Program (AB 2928) provides a total of $273 million for grade separation projects on the Alameda Corridor -East to three southern California counties (Orange County Transportation Authority $28 million, San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments $150 million, and San Bernardino Associated Governments $95 million). A rail -over -rail separation project at Colton Junction is included, which RCTC has sought to assist the development of intercity passenger rail service to the Coachella Valley. Principals of the three named agencies have begun meeting to develop a scope of work and to determine logistics for completing the Corridor Plan within a year. In early discussions, they agreed to include the Riverside County Transportation Commission as an ex-officio participant since the Trade Corridor Plan passes through Riverside County. AB2928 trailer bill language has been submitted adding the Riverside County Transportation Commission in the legislation to participate in the Steering Committee. The Alameda Corridor and its eastern extensions are corridors with national economic significance, worthy of federal, state and private investment. The 55 at -grade rail crossings in Western Riverside County should be addressed within the region's Corridor Plan, as well as Coachella Valley at -grade crossings. Though Riverside County does not have any call on the Governor's currently proposed funding, the Corridor Plan will be used to leverage additional investment from Other funding sources, specifically through possible funding in the 2003 re -authorization of. federal transportation legislation, TEA21. It has also been recognized that the funding provided under AB 2928 addresses only a small portion of the region's rail crossing needs and falls far short of addressing the broader infrastructure needs and quality of life issues of the region. On a local and regional level these issues include: interchange reconstruction needs and priorities; the feasibility and desirability of separated truck lanes; airport ground access for freight; possible rail/truck productivity enhancements; truck impacts on road maintenance costs, and air quality issues. The response to these challenges can impact current operations and trends so as to change regional transportation demands and investment priorities. The development of the Plan will be directed by a Steering Committee composed of Chief Executive Officers, or their designees, of the participating agencies. A phased work program has been proposed to address the long-range issues while not causing delay to the AB 2928 program. Chairman Mullen indicated that electrification of this system should be reviewed as well as the noise level as the number of trains continue to grow. Eric Haley agreed and added that 60% of the rail traffic goes through Riverside County. Therefore, it is key that RCTC be part of this process to fully identify the issues, such as air pollution and alternative fuels. RCTC Meeting Minutes September 13 2000 Page 9 Commissioner Lowe informed the Commission that this item was also discussed at SCAG and that San Gabriel believes that they are at the end of the line. There is a need to ensure that Congress is on board and hear the area's concerns. MIS/C (Byrd/Kelly) to: 1) Participate in a four -party Alameda Corridor -East Trade Corridor Steering Committee; and, 2) Fund up to $25,000 to develop the Corridor Plan. 11. 2000 STIP AUGMENTATION Garry Cohoe and Cliff Shieh, Caltrans District 08, informed the Commission that the new cost estimate for the 60/91 /215 Interchange and related projects is $48 million, which is higher than previous estimates. The new cost estimate increased due to staff errors in making the original estimate, additions to the original project and to new requirements for the storm drainage. District 08 have submitted a request to the State for an additional $20 million but is not certain of the outcome of the request at this time. At this time, the Commissioners were briefed on the on the entire 60/91 /215 Interchange project. Commission Kelly noted his concern on the delay for determining and allocating the discretionary funds. Commission Lowe expressed the importance of the 60/91 /215 project to be underway in pursuing an extension of Measure "A". Commissioner Stan Lisiewicz stated that most of the increase in project cost related to the expanded scope of the project and the new requirements for the storm drainage. In response to Commissioner Byrd if the new estimates included escalation costs to which Garry Cohoe indicated that it did. Commissioner Pape stated that in awarding project contracts, contingency costs are usually included. He then asked Caltrans staff at what percentage of the project cost is included as contingency. Garry Cohoe responded that contracts usually include a 20% contingency. At this time, Commissioner Pape indicated that if there were no other changes to the design, etc., and there was no need for contingency, $9.6 million could reduce the $48 million project estimate. Commission Kleindienst asked what the estimation was to complete the project and its start date to which Eric Haley stated that the project would take approximately 6-7 years to complete and could be started within four weeks. MIS/C (Mullen/Hunt) to: 1) Amend the Ramon Road STIP Project to identify the project cost as $20M; 2) Program the STIP formula funds available in the Coachella Valley as outlined by CVAG and included in the agenda packet; 3) Reserve the STIP RCTC Meeting Minutes September 13 2000 Page 10 formula funds available in the Palo Verde Valley for projects to be recommended by the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside; and, 4) Initiate project application for those TCRP projects for which RCTC is identified as dead and to include all Riverside TCRP projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. 12. MEADOWBROOK/GREENWALD REALIGNMENT Commissioner Lowe commented that local agencies' planning commissions need to be aware of the Countywide transportation plan and should keep it in mind when app►oving new developments within 25 feet of the corridors. MISIC (Mullen/Lowe) to approve: 1) Commit to funding the costs associated with a separate project for the realignment of Meadowbrook/Greenwald Avenues. The estimated cost is an additional S475,000; 2) Commit to being the lead agency to perform PS&E and delivery of the realignment project would begin within 2 years of the end of construction of the State Route 74 Measure "A" project; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with Ca!trans consistent with the above conditions pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review. Nay: Pape 13. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY M1S/C (Hunt/Byrd) to: 1) Review and discuss the proposed Bus Emissions Memorandum of Understanding between the Riverside Transit Agency and the Commission as presented by Staff, and 2) Consider taking action regarding the MOU. 14. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA None. 15. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT ❑ Commission Byrd informed the Commissioners of the SunLine Transit Agency's first zero emissions bus and extended an invitation to view it. ❑ Commissioner Mullen noted that staff will be making changes to the staff memorandum format wherein it will highlight impacts and changes to existing and future policies. ❑ Commissioner Kleindienst stated that the RCTC Ad Hoc Committee met in August 2$"' with representatives of the OCTA to discuss CETAP and corridors. They were RCTC Meeting Minutes September 13 2000 Page 11 quite supportive of this effort and another meeting with OCTA is in the process of being scheduled. ❑ Eric Haley announced that the December California Transportation Commission meeting will be held in Riverside. A reception will be held on December 5th to honor Bob Wolf for his contributions. This will provide an opportunity and will be honoring Bob Wolf and asked the Commission to assist staff in highlighting projects. He also noted that State Assemblyman Pacheco resurrected AB 2091 which would provide $500,000 for Route 91 however, the Governor has not yet signed it. ❑ Commission Kleindienst, as Chair of the Mobile Source Review Committee, inforrned the Commissioners that: 1) Funds are available for alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure. Applications for funding must be submitted by October 5, 2000; and, 2) The California Air Resource Board held a hearing on zero emissions vehicles (ZEV). There is a long stating debate as to whether the mandates were too high regarding the percentage of vehicles sold in California to be ZEV. There are more people asking for ZEV than exist for acquisition. MSRC requested the Board to force higher percentages from manufactures. He requested staff to develop a resolution to support this mandate for the Commission's next meeting. ❑ Chairman Mullen spoke of Commissioner Wolf's tenure with the California Transportation Commission to end at the end of the year and a possibility of a nominee from the Inland Empire. 16. ADJOURNMENT With no other items to be discussed by the Commission, Chairman Mullen adjourned the meeting at 1 1:00 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 11, 2000 at the University of California Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, #f207, Riverside, California. Respectfully submitted, CLAA-LjL Nat Clerof t`e Boa RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending August 31, 2000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending August 31, 2000. Attachments E 40 Z GBPd 9'00'48 %07L % Z'SS 'Yo 6' St %6' LL %1:8L L66'1178'014 ts'eo6' s ZZS'99Z' $ LEL'49$ 99'EEZ' 481/ Z E Lt'ZLS .179S'ZZ8 9tV861$ LEV1.98 Aft6 •.". •.• % t'L6 %.17•86 %0' 001 %0-001 %if 86 %6'06 ZOS'OtrZl$ 009'St9'Z$ 4 46'6 6 Z $ 000'9Z tO LC'L 000'00 t $ 009'889'Z $ LIWE6VZS MOO!: 000`9Z LS 000' OS L' l $ 0 00 0 t $ • 11RS (ZL66'ZE66'LS66'ES66'91786'6Z66`9Z0VOZOZ'0000) MOO lu!eiNists00 d 0/133V ei!siuogels LZOZ' 4SOZOH (8ZOZ'986617886%7t86'EE86'ZE86‘4EL6'Olt6 010 13upaaupu31saprus llVkl ininvimoo (L166) (9t0Z) (E486) (•17 LOZ-100Z1 (6886 08) INV80014c1.1N33N1/3C111:114-)81Vd {96660H) Aprils JoN.100 LlInGSAIVGN 8331M13S Nifld INV890Ild 1.400.4.7**.i61060 (001Z 0):1) IIAIDIN '8,LSN03 .1.03rOkld (91766'9Z6608) BuldeosPuel 01 PuinA 3ONVH31:13.1N1 31.V0 01 S1Nift1llARN00 31V0 01 00/ le/80 Nolivaoliv 31tf0 01 NOI1Y0011V 1SNIVDV 3.1%/0 01 931:111110N3dX3 030N3 H.LNOVI 'Hinv1SNIVSY Slr,a11111V411/100 03Z11101-1111V S31K11I0N3c1X3 % 1:10d 3Uf1110N3dX3 03.LLINIVY00 96 Toldril0Y41N00 NOISSIININ00 NOW:11240SM 103r08d 31nou A8 .1.1:10d3U 13ot:ins SIO3rOild ANYNIHOIH .V.. 311118%91N 010k1 00/1E/L la gR SnMS •sla6pnq JeaA ieosg. poleiaa iou pue loe.iluopmefoid !elm .101 eie sonieA !Iv •sweiEload luawanoadwi of3Liegoielu!lsu!el3e ueoi t} :310N %-1:•*8L Totei3L %-t7'8L 91317'8L %TOL %9'-t7L 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ OS 0$ bLe9L9'18 60 L r£66'£$ 09Zr8£0'1.$ ZZWLLS'LS . i9..E4$ L90'199t$ 17013'Z6 L$ L90'6SVZ$ LZ01760`9$ 009't7ZE`L$ 61.17`9E6'1-$ CZ9'ZLVS$ 000'ooe'L$ L90'6EL'Z$ Lzo`tso's5 009'.17Z6r1.8 6417'966' L $ £Z9'ZI.VSS 000'009'1 $ IL) seuudwi pew pue sleek pool oti ewnA 03/JON JO A113 situnuenoidue pew 72 $1,00.119 1@301 tr1n031A131 JO A113 swewenwdue pew vg slams pool oiNiavr NVS dO A113 slueLuanoadue pew Ts. soans pool SIIJE13d AO A113 einpnils el3euleAp awns Tg saflueuomui upoun eideiN '1.04Las VNO/J03 dO A113 swawenwdwi pa uoAueD peoiliea 351V1 NOAN113 dO A.LIO '11V416100 03A0IdeldY IN3IN.LIVON00 3ONV9Y9 S30NYA00' 00/LE/80 IN3VNI1IWINO0 1SNIVOV 3.1.V0-01 emoNyisino NY01 .V. RirISV3V4 030N31-11NOIN 03/101:IddY 30NV1V9 NV01 % ONI0NVIS1110 1V101 tIOA MIII1I0N3dX3 1o3road AB 1E10d3k1 13oan8 S133rOkld SC/YOU S1331:11S 1V301/AVMHOIN .V,, 3/111SV3IN 3131J N01.1.410$313 1.031"Obld RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months of July and August 2000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all contracts which have been executed under the Single Signature Authority. There have been no new contracts in the last two months, however, we have listed ongoing contracts from prior fiscal year. Since these contracts will be paid in the current fiscal year, the amounts remaining have been put against the current year. The remaining unused capacity is $467,282. Attachment ve•tu` e $ 9078e/9f S tr u`Z£ $ oo•000`oos $ oor000`oos $ 33NV1VS 1Nnowv ONINIVIN3d 030143dX3 1Nf10WV 13V211N00 ONINIV►N3a 1Nnoon, 13Va1NO3 1VNIONO ?�:0°0k „ Aq pameineu • Lopsumdpgupdaid‘siesnyl Aq peiede.id IOU `0£ sung' Nonot Hl ONINIVW3a 1Nf10WV 03Sf1 1Nnowv Hoz `4 AIng' TISVIIVAV 1Nf10WV S331Aa3S 3O NOIldIa3S30 INV11f1SN03 000z `6£ 1snonv 30 SV AiNoHlnV 32InivNeis 31ONIS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Support of Proposition 35 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt a support position for Proposition 35. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Of the ballot propositions facing voters in November, Proposition 35 is by far the most significant in its future transportation policy implications. Proposition 35 will guarantee the right of the state and local governments to use private sector engineers and architects. Currently, state policy and court decisions require the use of state engineers and architects for all state -funded transportation projects with few exceptions. The requirement can sometimes hinder the timely completion of projects. While the Commission enjoys an excellent partnership with Caltrans, District 8, statewide there is a significant concern regarding extensive workload facing Caltrans. Thanks to local transportation sales taxes such as Measure A and the Governor's recent action to enhance transportation spending, the number of public works projects requiring design work has increased significantly. Augmenting Caltrans staff with the work of capable private sector engineering, design and architectural firms could speed project delivery and even lower the overall cost. Given the priority to move projects forward a significant number of public and private agencies throughout the state and in Riverside County have already endorsed a Yes vote on Proposition 35. Supporters include the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, and the California Chamber of Commerce. Locally, the Proposition has been endorsed by the Cities of Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Palm Springs. The County of Riverside and SunLine Transit have also signed on as endorsers. An analysis of Proposition 35 by the Legislative Analyst's Office has been attached • along with information from the Secretary of State including the text of the proposed law changes. yposition 35 Pubiics Works Projects Itttp:r'www.Iao.ca.lovlinitiatives12000135. 11 2000.1)1m1 Proposition 35 Public Works Projects. Use of Private Contractors for Engineering and Architectural Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Background Under California constitutional law, services provided by state agencies generally must be performed by state civil service employees. These services cover a broad range of activities --such as clerical support, building maintenance and security, and legal services. In some cases, however, the state may contract with private firms to obtain services. Such contracting is allowed, for example, if services needed by the state are: (1) of a temporary nature, (2) not available within the civil service, or (3) of a highly specialized or technical nature. Unlike the state, local governments are not subject to constitutional restrictions on contracting for services. The state and local governments frequently contract with private firms for construction -related services, which include architectural, engineering, and environmental impact studies. State and local governments enter into these contracts through a competitive process of advertising for the service, selecting the firm determined to be best qualified, and negotiating a contract with that firm. However, neither the state nor most local government entities use a bidding process for these services. By comparison, bidding generally is used to acquire goods and for construction of projects. Proposal This proposition amends the State Constitution to allow the state and local governments to contract with qualified private entities for architectural and engineering services for all phases of a public works project. Thus, governments could decide to contract out for these specific services in any case, rather than just on an exception basis. The proposition also enacts statutory laws which: • Define the term "architectural and engineering services" to include all architectural, landscape architectural, environmental, engineering, land surveying, and construction project management services. • Specify that all projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) are covered by the requirements of the proposition. The STIP is the state's transportation plan that includes public works projects to increase the capacity of the state's highways and provide transit capital improvements (such as new freeways, new interchanges, and passenger rail rights -of -way). The STIP is the state's largest ongoing capital improvement program. Thus, the proposition would roposition 35 Publics Works Projects http:iiwww_luo.ca.boviinitiativcs/2000135 11 2000.111ml probably have the greatest impact in the transportation area. • Require architectural and engineering services to be obtained through a fair, competitive selection process that avoids conflicts of interest. Fiscal Effect Impacts on State Costs Eliminating restrictions on contracting out for architectural and engineering services would make it easier for the state to enter into contracts with private individuals or firms to obtain these services. As a result, the state would likely contract out more of these services. This could affect state costs in two main ways. Cost of the Services. The fiscal impact would depend on the cost of salaries and benefits for state employees performing architectural and engineering services compared to the cost of contracts with private firms. These costs would vary from project to project. In some cases, costs may be higher to contract out. It may still be in the state's best interest to do so, however, because of other considerations. For instance, during times of workload growth (such as a short-term surge in construction activity), contracting for services could be faster than hiring and training new state employees. In addition, contracting can prevent the build-up of a "peak -workload" staff that can take time to reduce once workload declines. For these reasons, the proposition's net impact on state costs for architectural and engineering services is unknown, and would depend in large part on how the state used the flexibility granted under the measure. Impact on Construction Project Delivery. The ability to contract for architectural and engineering services could also result in construction projects being completed earlier. As noted above, during times of workload growth, the ability to contract for these services could result in projects' completion earlier than through the hiring and training of new state employees. This, in turn, could have state fiscal impacts --such as savings in construction -related expenses. In these cases, faster project completion would also benefit the public as capital improvements would be in service sooner. Impacts on Local Government Costs There should be little or no fiscal impact on local governments because they generally can now contract for architectural and engineering services. Return to Initiatives and Propositions Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page allol Measure - CA Secretary of State - General Election 2000 I 1p://vote2000.ss,ca.govNoterGuidcltextilext title summ 35_1tm Vote 2000 Home 1 Ballot Pamphlet Home I Campaign Finance I Secretary of State Home 32 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 PROPOSITION' PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS., USE OF PRIVATE CONTRACTORS FOR ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES. OffideiTitle and Summar E Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS. USE OF PRIVATE CONTRACTORS FOR ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. • Amends constitution to provide that in the design, development and construction of public works projects, state government may choose to contract with private entities for engineering and architectural services without regard to certain existing legal restrictions which apply to the procurement of other services. • Specifies that local governments may also choose to contract with private entities for engineering, architectural services. • Imposes competitive selection process, which permits but does not require competitive bidding, in awarding engineering and architectural contracts. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: • Unknown fiscal impact on state spending for architectural and engineering services and construction project delivery. Actual impact will depend on how the state uses the contracting flexibility granted by the proposition in the future. • Little or no fiscal impact on local governments because they generally can now contract for these services. Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Argument in Favor of Proposition 35 Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 35 Argument Against Proposition 35 Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 35 Vote 2000 Home I Ballot Pamphlet Home I Campaign Finance 1 Secretary of State Home allot Measure - CA Secretary of State - General Election 2000 imp:Gvote2000.ss.ca.gov'VoterGuide/text/text proposed law 35.htm Vote 2000 Home Ballot Pamphlet Home I Campaign Finance I Secretary of State Home 32 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 PROPOSITION PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS. USE OF PRIVATE CONTRACTORS FOR ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTLIRAL SERVICES. Ten of Pros ns%a This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. This initiative measure adds sections to the California Constitution and the Government Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW FAIR COMPETITION AND TAXPAYER SAVINGS INITIATIVE SECTION 1. TITLE This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act." SEC. 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the intent of the people of the State of California in enacting this measure: (a) To remove existing restrictions on contracting for architectural and engineering services and to allow state, regional and local governments to use qualified private architectural and engineering firms to help deliver transportation, schools, water, seismic retrofit and other infrastructure projects safely, cost effectively and on time; (b) To encourage the kind of public/private partnerships necessary to ensure that California taxpayers benefit from the use of private sector experts to deliver transportation, schools, water, seismic retrofit and other infrastructure projects, (c) To promote fair competition so that both public and private sector architects and engineers work smarter, more of iciently and ultimately deliver better value to taxpayers; (d) To speed the completion of a multi -billion dollar backlog of highway, bridge, transit and other projects; (e) To ensure that contracting for architectural and engineering services occurs through a fair, competitive selection process, free of undue political influence, to obtain the best duality and value for California taxpayers; and (t) To ensure that private firms contracting for architectural and engineering services with governmental entities meet established design and construction standards and comply with standard accounting practices and permit financial and performance audits as necessary to 'allot Measure - CA Secretary of State - General l?leetion 2000 httpi/ vote20(Hiss.c.a.gm VoterGilide/text/text_proposed law 35.11tm ensure contract services are delivered within the agreed schedule and budget. SEC. 3. Article XXII is added to the California Constitution, to read: SECITON I. The State of California crud all other governmental entities, including, but not limited to, cities, counties, cities and counties, .school districts and other special districts, local and r•egiorral agencies and_ joint power agencies, shall be allowed to contract with qualified private entities for architectural and engineering services for all public works of improvement. The choice and authority to contract shall extend to all phases of project development inclining permitting and environmental studies, rights -of -way services, design phase services and construction phase services. The choice and authority shall exist without regard to . finding sources whether, federal., state, regional., local or private, whether or not the project is programmed by a state, regional or local governmental entity, and whether or not the completed project is a part of any state owned or state operated system or facility. SEC. 2. Nothing contained in Article VII of this Constitution shall he construed to limit, restrict or prohibit the State or any other governmental entitles, including, but not limited to, cities, counties, cities and counties, school districts and other special districts, local and regional agencies and joint power agencies from contracting with private entities for the performance of architectural and engineering services•. SEC. 4. Chapter 10.1 (commencing with Section 4529.10) is added to Division 5 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read: 4529.10. For purposes of Article XXII of the California Constitution and this act, the teen' "architectural and engineering services" .shall include all architectural, landscape architectural environmental, engineering, land surveying, and construction project management services. 4529.11. All projects included in the State Transportation improvement Program programmed and funded as interregional improvements or as regional improvements shall be subject to Article XXII of the California Constitution. the .sponsoring governmental entity shall have the choice and the authority to contract with qualified private entities for architectural and engineering .services. For projects programmed and funded as regional improvements, the sponsoring governmental entity shall be the regional or local project sponsor. For projects programmed and funded as interregional improvements, the sponsoring governmental entity shall he the State of California, unless there is a regional or local project Sponsor, in which cask the sponsoring governmental entity shall be the regional or local project sponsor. the regional or local project sponsor shall he a regional or local governmental entity. 4529.12. All architectural and engineering services shall be procured pursuant to a fair, competitive .selection process which prohibits governmental agency employees,from participating in the .selection process when they, have a financial or business relationship with any private entity seeking the contract, and the procedure shall require compliance with all laws regarding political contributions, conflicts of interest or tmlaltfill activities. 4529.13. Nothing contained in this act shall he construed to change project design standards, Seisnmic safety .standards or pr•o ject construction standards estalblished by state, regional or local governmental entities. Nor .shall any provision of this act be construed to prohibit or restrict the authority of the Legislature to statutorily provide different procurement methods allot MCUM re. - CA Secretary of Stale - General Ileetion 2000 hap:,/vole2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuideitextitext_proposed law 35.111n for designs -build projects or designs -build- and -operate projects. 4529.14. Architectural and engineering services contracts procured by public agencies shall be subject to standard accounting practices and may require financial and performance audits as necessary to ensure contract services are delivered within the agreed schedule and budget. 4529.15. This act only applies to architectural and engineering services defined in Government Code Section 4529.10. Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to expand or restrict the authority of governmental entities to contract. for, fire, ambulance, police, .sheriff, probation, corrections or other peace officer .services. Nor shall anything in this act be construed to expand or restrict the authority of governmental entities to contract for education services including but not limited to, teaching services, services of classified school personnel and school administrators. 4529.16. This act .shall not be applied in a manner that will result in the loss of federal funding to any governmental entity. 4529.17. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. 4529.18. Prato/ act of the Legislature cortflicts with the provisions of this act, this act shall prevail. 4529.19. This act shall be liberally construed to accomplish its purpose.s. 4529.20. This act seeks to comprehensively regulate the matters which area contained within its provisions. These are matters of statewide concern and when enacted are intended to apply to charter cities as well as. all other governmental entities. SEC. 5. This initiative may be amended to further its purposes by statute, passed in each house by roll call vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, and signed by the Governor. SEC. 6. if there is a conflicting initiative measure on the same ballot, which addresses and seeks to comprehensively regulate the same subject, only the provisions of this measure shall become operative if this measure receives the highest affirmative vote. Vote 2000 Home I Ballot Pamphlet Home I Campaign Finance Secretary of state Home aalio! Measure - CA Secretary of State - General Idection 2000 bl1p://vote2000.ss.ca.govNoterGuide/textltexl summary 35.1uu Vote 2000 Home I Ballot Pamphlet Home I Campaign Finance I Secretary of State Home 32 33 134 135 136 137 138 139 PROPOSZTTON PUBLIC WORKS PRO3ECTS. USE OF PRIVATE CONTRACTORS FOR ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES. eallet.Measure Summar PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS. USE OF PRIVATE CONTRACTORS FOR ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures. SUMMARY Amends Constitution eliminating existing restrictions on state, local contracting with private entities for engineering, architectural services; contracts awarded by competitive selection; bidding permitted, not required. Fiscal Impact: Unknown impact on state spending for architectural and engineering services and construction project delivery. Actual impact will depend on how the state uses the contracting flexibility under the proposition. WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this measure means: The state could contract with private individuals or firms for architectural and engineering services in all situations rather than only under certain conditions (such as when the work is of a temporary nature or of such a specialized nature that it cannot be provided by state employees). NO A NO vote on this measure means: The state could contract with private individuals or firms for architectural and engineering services only under certain conditions. ARGUMENTS PRO Prop. 35—Supported by hundreds of taxpayer groups, seniors, schools, local governments, business, labor, highway/earthquake safety engineers. Restores government's ability to engage in public/private partnerships with qualified engineers to speed up thousands of backlogged highway and other public works projects. Creates 40,000 jobs. Saves taxpayers $2.5 billion annually. CON Proposition 35 changes the Constitution to benefit one special interest at taxpayer expense. Like other states, California currently awards engineering contracts based on cost, qualifications, and experience. Prop. 35 replaces that with an undefined contracting process which allows overpriced government contracts based on campaign contributions and political influence. Vote No! FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR Taxpayers for Fair Competition— A coalition of taxpayers, engineers, seniors, schools, local government, business, labor, highway safety experts and frustrated commuters. 11300 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 840 Los Angeles, CA 90064 alio( Measure - CA Secretary of State - General Election 2000 http:rivote.2000.ss.ca.gov%VoterGufdelteatltexl summary 35.111.m (310) 996-2671/Info@YesProp35.com www.YesProp35.com AGAINST Steve Hoperaft No On Prop. 35 3551 N St. Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 446-0512 noonprop35@cwo.com noonprop35.org 32 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 Vote 2000 Home I Ballot Pamphlet Home I Campaign Finance I Secretary of State Home RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 00101 State Transit Assistance Allocations and Resolution No. 00-016, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds" PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Commission approve the FY 00101 State Transit Assistance Fund allocations in Riverside County as presented on the attached table, and adopt Resolution No. 00- 016, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds." BACKGROUND INFORMATION In order for the public transit operators to claim State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the approved FY 2001-2007 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) identified for funding with State Transit Assistance funds. When the SRTP was prepared, the operators assumed for planning purposes that the State appropriation of funds would be the same as the previous year. According to the State Controller's Office, the amount of STA funds that are expected to be received in Riverside County for FY 01 is $2,478,010 ($2,237,813 discretionary pot, $240,197 operators specific pot). An additional $1 15,246 in unapportioned STA funds (reference RCTC's FY 99 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) and $921,203 in western Riverside county STA funds is also available (reference RCTC's FY 01 Revenue Estimates) bringing the total to $3,514,459. The attached table outlines the specific operator allocations which need to be approved by the Commission. The State allocated non -discretionary funds will be used first with the balance derived from the discretionary allocation. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 01 Amount Requested: $3,315,500 Source of Funds: State Transit Assistance Funds Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA Acct: 241-62-86301 $1,265, 500 GLA Acct: 241-62-86302 $2,050,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 9/19/00 I Attachment A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FY 01 ALLOCATION Current Year Allocation Requests per SRTP Western Riverside Bus Western Riverside Rail Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Banning $170,000 Beaumont $100,000 Blythe $0 Commuter Rail $450,000 Corona $100,000 Riverside Special Services $42,500 Riverside Transit Agency $1,973,000 SunLine Transit Agency $480,00 0 Total Current Year Funding Requests Per Area $2,385,500 $450,000 $480,00 0 $0 Total Current Year Funding Requests All Areas $3,315,500 .nsRs, WHEREAS, operators are in full compliance Section 1808.1 of the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code section 99251. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allocate State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 00101 as detailed in Attachment A. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Approved and adopted this 1 1 th day of October, 2000 Tom Mullen, Chairperson Riverside County Transportation Commission Attest: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission RESOLUTION NO. 00-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has examined the Short Range Transit Plan and Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for claimants to meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268.9, as applicable; and WHEREAS, the claimant is making full use of federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended; and WHEREAS, the sum of the claimant's allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority regional, countywide, or area -wide public transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 99244; and WHEREAS, the claimant is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979 from employing part-time drivers or contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 1 1, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed FY 2000-2001 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Overall Annual Goal for Federally Funded DOT Projects Program - Assisted PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIO : To: 1) 2) 3) Approve RCTC's FY 2000-2001 Disadvantaged Business Ent rprise (DBE) Program; Set 17.8% for its DBE participation overall annual goal or federally funded and DOT -assisted projects; Authorize staff to submit its DBE Program to Caltrans Distri+t 08's Local Assistance and to the FTA for approval; and 4) Authorize staff to make necessary revisions to the consulta model agreements to comply with necessary Federal co revisions. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The purpose of the DBE Program is to ensure equal opportunity in tr contracting markets, address the effects of discrimination in tr contracting, and promote increased participation in federally funded contr socially and economically disadvantaged businesses, including minority owned enterprises. DBEs must be certified by the California De Transportation (Caltrans), or by a local agency with a reciprocity agr Caltrans, in order to be eligible as a DBE. Changes to the DBE Program, as set forth in the Federal Register 49 must be incorporated in the agency's program. An agency receiving must submit its revised program that meets the federal requirements t October 1 . Changes to the Program includes how local agencies rec funds develop its DBE participation goal, documentation requirement ticontractor tract clause nsportation nsportation cts by small, and women artment of ement with FR Part 26, deral funds Caltrans by iving federal before and during the construction phase of a project, addition of language in proje that relates to contract assurance and payment to subcontractors, and t follow the federal fiscal year (October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001) Therefore, in order for the Commission to be eligible to receive federal f fiscal year, the Commission must submit its DBE Program no later tha 2000. Because the changes were published in such a late date, Caltran they would accept a draft DBE Program. However, if a draft Program is n Caltrans cannot obligate any funds to RCTC. In addition, it is required notice be posted on RCTC's proposed DBE Program/Goal and to allow public comments. Methodology Used in Determining the DBE Participation Goal As required by federal regulations 49 CFR Section 26, a public agency rec DOT assisted funds, must set its annual overall DBE goal using every e its goal through race -neutral measures. Only in those instances where measures are inadequate to meet the agency's overall goal may the age specific contract goals, including goals, for particular projects through su opportunities. Using the methodology outlined in the federal regulations, goal was derived as follows: The first step was to determine a base f relative availability of DBEs by using local DBE directories as well as Bureau Data. Staff also reviewed the data collected by the Southe regions, specifically Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego and Vent The Southern California region data was used in determining the base historically the Commission receives a percentage of bids on its proje contractors located in these counties. In determining the number of DBE California, staff calculated the number of Caltrans certified DBEs which lis of the counties in the region as an area where they were available to w certified DBEs which are located in the area and have shown availab anywhere in the State are also included in the total number of DBEs California. In addition, staff used the Census Bureau Data to determin of construction companies listed in each county within the region. In de FY 2000/2001 DBE Program overall goal, the most current information a the Census Bureau is for the year 1997. The population incre percentages shown in the Census Bureau date from that year 1997 to 19 to determine the projected change in the number of construction corn t contracts e fiscal year nds for this October 1, stated that t submitted, that a legal 45 days for iving federal fort to meet race neutral cy establish contracting he proposed gure for the the Census n California ra Counties. figure since is from the in Southern at least one rk. Caltrans lity to work in Southern the number ermining the ailable from se/decrease $ were used anies within each county in the region from the year 1997 to the year 2000. It is projected that the number of construction companies would increase/decrease at a ra same as the general population increase/decrease. This information project the number of total contractors in the region for the year 2000. A may be made to the overall goal by reviewing the volume of work perfor on Commission projects in recent years to determine if an adjustment i e that is the as used to adjustment ed by DBEs needed. Proposed Goal for FY 2000-2001 and DBE Attainment for FY 1999-20 0 For FY 2000-2001, the Commission is projected to receive and awa • a total of $2,882,000 ($1,426,000 - construction, $1,446,000 - professional servic-s, $10,000 - materials/supplies). Using the above -mentioned information, re iewing and assessing known relevant evidence to determine additional prior year adju .tments, the proposed annual overall goal for FY 2000-2001 for DBE participation is 7.8% ( see attached). For FY 1999-2000, the Commission has set its goal at 11.6 %. Through award of projects, the Commission's attained 18% DBE participation goal last fiscal year. In reviewing the federally funded projects for the upcoming fiscal year, the ommission should be able to attain the 17.8% DBE participation goal. Calculating the Overall DBE Goal for October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001 Construction Professional Services Materials/Supplies Base = {73.40} DBEs in WCC C99 + {25.91} DBEs in WCC C87,V8999 + {0.69} DBEs in WCC F50 x 100 Figure CBPs in SIC 15,16,17 BPs in SIC 47,64,73,81,87,87,89 CBPs in SIC 50 Construction Professional Services Materials/Supplies Base = {73.40} 397 + {25.91} 1581 + {0.69} 143 x 100 Figure 26965 62806 21865 Base — 17.8% Figure WCC - Caltrans Work Category Codes CBP - Census Bureau County Business Pattern SIC - Standard Industrial Classification RCTC Projected Contracting Opportunities For Fiscal Year 2000-2001 CATEGORY OPPORTUNITIES FEDERAL CAPITAL FUNDS FEDERAL OPERATING FUNDS FEDERAL FUND ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDS WITH CONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES Construction $1,426,000.00 $0.00 $1,024,000.00 $1,024,000.00 Professional Services $1,446,000.00 $0.0 $ 361, 500.00 $ 361, 500.00 Materials/Supplies $ 10,000.00 $0.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Total $ 2,882,000.00 $0.00 $1,395,000.00 $1,395,000.00 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION This Program is in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulation s Part 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS i Policy Statement Page 1 I Definition of Terms Page 2 II Objectives/Policy Statement Page 2 III NonDiscrimination Page 3 IV DBE Program Updates Page 3 V Quotas Page 3 VI DBE Liaison Officer Page 3 VII Other Support Personnel Page 4 VIII Federal Financial Assistance Agreement Assurance Page 5 IX DBE Financial Institutions Page 5 X Directory Page 5 XI Overconcentration Page 6 XII Business Development Programs Page 6 XIII Required Contract Clauses Page 6 (1) Contract Assurance Page 6 (2) Prompt Payment Page 6 XIV Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms Page 7 A. Construction Contract Monitoring Page 9 B. Substitution Page 9 C. Record Keeping and Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Page 9 XV Contract Goals Page 1 XVI Overall Goals Page 1 XVII Counting DBE Participation Page 1 XVIII Certification Page 1 XIX Information Collection and Reporting Page 1 STATEMENT OF POLICY The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is c carrying out all of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) require CFR 26 "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in the D Transportation Programs", effective October 1, 2000. The procedures the DBE Program shall assure that all contracts and procedures shall be without discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. ensure that DBEs have an equal opportunity to compete for and parti performance of all contract and subcontracts awarded by RCTC. The Executive Director is responsible for adherence to this policy. of Administrative Services shall be responsible for the development, im and monitoring of this program. It is the expectation of the River Transportation Commission and the Executive Director that the stip provisions contained in this DBE Program shall be adhered to both in t letter by all RCTC personnel. RCTC shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national in the award and performance of any federally assisted contrac administration of its DBE Program or the requirements of 49 CFR P recipient shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part nondiscrimination in the award and administration of federally fund assisted contracts. The recipient's DBE Program, as required by 49 CF as approved by the DOT, is incorporated by reference in this Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to th failure to carry out its approved program, RCTC may impose sanctions as under Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases,, refer the matter for enforc 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 et. seq.). This policy shall be circulated to the members of RCTC Board, its e business organizations that perform work that are federally funded and contracts. mmitted to ents of 49 partment of ontained in dministered RCTC shall ipate in the he Director lementation ide County lations and e spirit and rigin, or sex or in the rt 26. The 6 to ensure d and DOT Part 26 and agreement. ut its terms RCTC of its provided for ment under .S.C. 3801 ployees and OT assisted Passed and adopted by the Riverside County Transportation Com ission as of the 1 1 th day of October, 2000. ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board 1 Tom Mullen, Chairman RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRA I DEFINITION OF TERMS The terms used in this program have the meanings defined in 49 FR §26.5. II OBJECTIVES/POLICY STATEMENT (§ § 26.1, 26.23) The Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereinafter re erred to as RCTC, has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program, in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR Part 26. RCTC has received Federal financial assistance frm the DOT, and as a condition of receiving this assistance, RCTC will sign an asurance that it will comply with 49 CFR Part 26. It is the policy of RCTC to ensure that DBEs, as defined in Part equal opportunity to receive and participate in DOT -assisted contra its policy to: 6, have an ts. It is also • Ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of OT-assisted contracts; • Create a level playing field on which DBE can compete fai ly for DOT - assisted contracts; • Ensure that the DBE Program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable law; • Ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR Part 26 eligibili y standards are permitted to participate as DBEs; • Help remove baniers to the particliDatiOn of DBEs in OT-assisted contracts; and, " • Assist the development of firms that can compete succe-sfully in the market place outside the DBE Program. Eric Haley, RCTC's Executive Director, shall appoint a Disadvanta Enterprise Liaison Officer (DBELO). In that capacity, the DB responsible for implementing all aspects of the DBE Program. Im of the DBE Program is accorded the same priority as compliance legal obligations incurred by RCTC in its financial assistance agre the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). ed Business LO shall be lamentation ith all other ments with RCTC shall disseminated this policy statement to the Board of t e Riverside County Transportation Commission and all components of its orga ization. This statement shall be distributed to DBE and non -DBE business com unities that perform work for us on DOT -assisted contracts by publishing this .tatement in general circulation, minority -focused and trade association public.tions. 2 III NONDISCRIMINATION 026.7) RCTC will never exclude any person from participation in, deny an, person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connect on with the award and performance of any contract covered by 49 CFR Part 26 on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. In administering its DBE Program, RCTC will not, directly or throug contractual or other arrangements, use criteria or methods of administration t at have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of t e objectives of the DBE program with respect to individuals of a particular racy, color, sex, or national origin. IV DBE PROGRAM UPDATES 026.21) RCTC will continue to carry out this program until it has establishe setting methodology or until significant changes to this DBE adopted. RCTC will provide to Ca!trans a proposed overall goal and methodology and other program updates by June 1 of every year V QUOTAS (§ 26.43 ) a new goal rogram are goal setting RCTC does not use quotas or set asides in any way in the administ ation of this DBE Program. VI DBE Liaison Officer (DBELO) (§26.45) The Executive Director has designated Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services ,>>as,ithe DBE :Liaison Officer (DBELO). Sh has direct, independent access to the Executive Director concerning DBE Prog am matters. In this capacity, she is responsible for: (1) Implementing all aspects of the DBE Program and shall enure that the Riverside County Transportation Commission complies with . II provisions of 49 CFR Part 26 (available on the i ternet at osdbuweb.dot.govlmain.cfm); and, (2) Developing, implementing and monitoring the DBE 'rogram in coordination other appropriate officials. Duties and re ponsibilities include the following: (1) Gathers and reports statistical data and other in ormation as required; (2) Reviews third party contracts and purchase re • uisitions for compliance with this program; (3) Works with all departments to set overall ann al goals; (4) Ensures that bid notices and requests for p oposals are 3 available to DBEs in a timely manner; Identifies contracts and procurements so that included in solicitations (both race -neutral contract specific goals) and monitors results; Analyzes RCTC's progress toward goal att identifies ways to improve progress; Participates in pre -bid meetings; Advises the Executive Director, Committe Commission on DBE matters and achievement Participates with legal counsel and project determine contractor compliance with good fa Provides DBEs with information and assistant bids, obtaining bonding and insurance; Participates in DBE training seminars; and, Provides outreach to DBEs and community org advise them of opportunities. VII OTHER SUPPORT PERSONNEL To ensure effective implementation of the DBE Program, the follow' will provide active support as follows: (1) The Legal Counsel shall: (1) Render legal opinions regarding the interpretation of DBE bid specifications and contract provisions. (2) Advise the Executive Director, DBELO and the C-pital Project Management Unit regarding matters dealing with i position of administrative sanctions against contractors who vi•late any part of the DB`t1Pragrani requirements. (3) Represent RUC in legal actiphs inSlving DBE issue (2) BE goals are ethods and inment and s and the • director to th efforts; in preparing nizations to g personnel The Capital Project Management Unit, consisting of the Dep Director and Project Engineers, shall: (1) Provide to the DBELO, on a timely basis, copies of al Proposals (RFPs) and Request for Interest and (RFIQs). Incorporate DBE goals and appropriate DBE contrac language into the RFPs and RFIQs. Inform the DBELO of any changes to the RFPs and t Send RFPs and RFIQs to DBEs identified by the DBE Place RFPs and RFIQs notices in general, trade focused newspapers. Notify the DBELO of scheduled pre -bid, pre -prop construction conferences. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (3) All RCTC Project Managers shall: ty Executive Request for ualifications compliance the RFIQs. O. nd minority sal and pre- 4 (1 ) Develop a working knowledge of RCTC's DBE Prog am, policies and procedures for implementation. (2) For contracts with DBE goals, ensure that: (1) DBEs are used in accordance with the terms of the contract (2) Refer potential DBE utilization problems to the DBELO. VIII FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT ASSURANCE § 26.13j RCTC will sign the following assurance, applicable to all FH A -assisted contracts and their administration as part of the program suppleme t agreement for each project: "The recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, n. tional origin, or sex in the award and performance of any DOT -assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE Program or the requirements of 49 CFR "art 26. The recipient shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of POT -assisted contracts. The recipient's DBE Program, as required by 49 CFR Part 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notif cation to the recipient of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Dep impose sanctions as provided for under Part 26 and may, in appro refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.). IX DBE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS rtment may riate cases, the Program RCTC shall investigate and provide Ihformation on the full exten of services offered by financial institutions o„v ned and controlled by-ocially and economically disadvantaged individuals in the community, mak- reasonable efforts to use these institutions, and to encourage prime co tractors on federally -assisted contracts to make use of these institutions. Information on the availability of such institutions can be obtained rom the DBE Liaison Officer. The Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise "rogram may offer assistance to the DBE Liaison Officer. X DIRECTORY 026.31) RCTC will refer interested persons to the DBE directory availa • le from the Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program website at www.dot.ca.gov/holbep. 5 XI OVERCONCENTRATION 026.33) Currently, RCTC has not identified any types of work in DOT -assist that have an over -concentration of DBE participation. If in the identifies the need to address over -concentration, measures for add concentration will be submitted to the DLAE for approval. XII BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 026.35) Currently, RCTC does not have a business development or men program. If RCTC identifies the need for such a program in th rationale for adopting such a program and a comprehensive descrip be submitted to the DLAE for approval. XIII REQUIRED CONTRACT CLAUSES (§ § 26.13, 26.29) CONTRACT ASSURANCE d contracts uture RCTC essing over - or -protegee future, the ion of it will RCTC ensures that the following clause is placed in every DOT-assi ted contract and subcontract: The contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate on race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of t The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contract the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material contract, which may result in the termination of this con other remedy as recipient deems appropriate. PROMPT PAYMENT RCTC ensures that the following clauses or equivalent will be incl ded in each DOT -assisted prime contract: the basis of is contract. CFR Part 26 . Failure by reach of this act or such Satisfactory Performance The prime contractor agrees to pay each subcontractor un contract for satisfactory performance of its contract no I days from the receipt of each payment the prime contra from RCTC. Any delay or postponement of payment fro referenced time frame may occur only for good cause folio approval of RCTC. This clause applies to both DBE subcontractors. er this prime ter than 10 for receives the above ing written nd non -DBE 6 Release of Retainage The prime contractor agrees further to release retainage •ayments to each subcontractor within 30 days after the subcontracts is work is satisfactorily completed. Any delay or postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good caua following written approval of RCTC. This clause applies to both DBE . d non -DBE subcontractors. XIV MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS 026.37) RCTC will assign the Capital Project Management Unit (CPMU) to onitor and track actual DBE participation through contractor and subcontract r reports of payments in accordance with the following: After Contract Award After the contract award the RCTC will review the award doc ments and identify the portion of items each DBE and first tier subcontra for will be performing and the dollar value of that work. With these doc ments the RE/Contract Manager will be able to determine the work to be perfo med by the DBEs or subcontractors listed. Preconstruction Conference A preconstruction conference will be scheduled between staff of the Capital Project Management Unit (CPMU) and the contractor or their repre-entative to discuss the work each DBE subcontractor will perform. Before work can begin on a'"subcontract', the local agency will contractor to submit a completed "Subcontracting Request" ( Exhi the CPMU receives the completed form, it will be checked for consi the agreements of the first tier subcontractors and DBEs. The CP approve the request when it identifies someone other than the DB subcontractor listed in the previously completed "Local Agency Information" (Exhibit II). The "Subcontracting Request" will not until any discrepancies are resolved. If an issue cannot be resolved or there is some other concern, the CPMU will require the c eliminate the subcontractor in question before signing the su request. A change in the DBE or first tier subcontractor may b during a substitution process at a later date. require the it I). When tency with U will not or first tier Bidder DBE e approved t that time, ntractor to contracting addressed Suppliers, vendors, or manufacturers listed on the "Local Agency Bidder DBE Information"will be compared to those listed in the completed "Notice of Materials To Be Used" (Exhibit III). Differences must be resolved by either making corrections or requesting a substitution. 7 Substitutions will be subject to the Subletting and Subcontracting Act (FPA). Local agencies will require contractors to adhere to t within Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (State L 4100-4144. FPA requires the contractor to list all subcontractors one half of one percent (0.5%) of the contractor's total bid whichever is greater. The statute is designed to prevent bid contractors. The FPA explains that a contractor may not subcontractor listed in the original bid except with the approval of authority. The CPMU will give the contractor a blank "Final Report Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, First Tier Subcontractors" (Ex will explain to them that the document will be required at the end o in conformance with the contract and that failure to submit th result in withholding of payments to the contractors. Construction Contract Monitoring The CPMU will ensure that its staff (inspectors) know what it each DBE is responsible for performing. Inspectors will notif immediately of apparent violations. When a firm other than the listed DBE subcontractor is found p work, the CPMU will notify the contractor of the apparent dis potential loss of payment. Based on the contractor's response, t take appropriate action: The DBE Liaison Officer will perform investigation to identify any potential issues related to the DBE s performing a commercially useful function. Any substantive i forwarded to the Caltrans Disadvantaged Buainess 'Enterprise Pr contractor fails to adequately explain why there Is a discrepancy, the work will be withheld and a letter will be sent to the contract the applicable specification violation and the required withholding If the contract requires the submittal of a monthly truck do contractor will be required to submit documentation to the CPMU owner's name; California Highway Patrol CA number; and the DB number of the owner of the truck for each truck used during th which DBE participation will be claimed. The trucks will be listed Highway Patrol CA number in the daily diary or on a separate piec documentation. The numbers are checked by inspectors regular compliance. Providing evidence of DBE payment is the responsibility of the c air Practices e provisions w) Sections in excess of r $10,000, hopping by ubstitute a he awarding tilization of ibit IV) and the project, Report can ms of work the CPMU rforming the repancy and e CPMU will preliminary bcontractor sues will be ram. If the payment for r referencing of payment. ument, the showing the certification t month for by California of paper for y to confirm ntractor. 8 Substitution When a DBE substitution is requested, the CPMU will request a let contractor explaining why substitution is needed. The CPMU mus letter to be sure names and addresses are shown, dollar values are i the reason for the request is explained. If the CPMU agrees to the the CPMU will notify, in writing, the DBE subcontractor regarding t substitution and procedure for written objection from the DBE sub accordance with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices contractor is not meeting the contract goal with this substitution, th must provide the required good faith effort to the CPMU for I consideration. er from the review the cluded, and ubstitution, e proposed ontractor in Act. If the contractor cal agency If the CPMU's has any doubts or concerns mind regarding the eed for the requested substitution, he/she may contact the Legal Counsel and she DLAE for assistance and direction. Record Keeping and Final Report Utilization of Disadvantag: d Business Enterprises The contractor shall maintain records showing the name and add ess of each first -tier subcontractor. The records shall also show: (A) The name and business address, regardless of tier, of every DBE subcontractor, DBE vendor of materials and DBE trucking c+mpany. (B) The date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to each •f the firms. (C) The DBE prime contractor shall also show the date of work •erformed by their own forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the work claimed toward DBE goals. When a contract has been completed, the contractor will provide a summary of the records stated above. The DBE utilization information will be documented on the "DBE Utilization Information Report" and will be submitted attached to the Report of Expenditures. The Project Manager will completed "DBE Utilization Information Report" to the contractor "Local Agency's DBE Bidders Information" and, if applicable, to t "Subcontractors Form". The DBEs shown on the completed "D Information Report"should be the same as those originally list o the CPMU compare the s completed e completed E Utilization d unless an authorized substitution was allowed, or the contractor used more DBEs and they were added. The dollar amount should reflect any changes ma work done by the DBE. The contractor will be required to explain i the names of the subcontractors, the work items or dollar figures from what was originally shown on the completed "Local Agency Information" form when: (1) There have been no changes made by the Project Manage e in planned writing why are different DBE Bidders 9 (2) The contractor has not provided a sufficient explanation in th section of the completed DBE Utilization Information Repor (3) The explanation will be attached to the completed DB Information Report for submittal. The Project Manager will f project records. RCTC's Liaison Officer will keep track of the DBE certification s Internet at www.dot.ca.gov/hd/bea and keep the CPMU informe that affect the contract. The Liaison Officer will use the PS&E checklist to monitor RCTC's to require bidders list information to be submitted to RCTC from prime and subcontractors as a means to develop a bidders list. Thi will only take place if the bidders list information is required to be stipulated in the special provisions. RCTC will bring to the attention of the DOT through the Liaiso false, fraudulent, or dishonest conduct in connection with the pro DOT can take the steps (e.g., referral to the Department of Justic prosecution, referral to the DOT Inspector General, action under su debarment or Program Fraud and Civil Penalties rules) provided RCTC also will consider similar action under its legal authoriti responsibility determinations in future contracts. XV CONTRACT GOALS 026.51) RCTC will use contract goals in order to meet its overall goal wh meet its overall goal by race -neutral means. Contract goals may b so that, over the peri 'd'tp which the'ever9E11 goal p'plies, they will result in meeting any portion of the ovaraIl goal that is not projec through the use of race -neutral 'means.' Contract goals will be established only on those federally funded c have subcontracting possibilities. Contract goals need not be e every such contract, and the size of contract goals will be ad circumstances of each such contract (e.g., type and locati availability of DBEs to perform the particular type of work). The items will be compared with eligible DBE contractors willing to project. A determination will also be made to decide which item be performed by the prime contractor and which ones are likely to by the subcontractor(s). The goal will then be incorporated into documents. Contract goals will be expressed as a percentage amount of a federally -assisted contract. comments Utilization le this in the atus on the of changes ommitment he awarded monitoring ubmitted as Officer any ram, so that for criminal pension and in §26.109. s, including re it cannot established cumulatively d to be met ntracts that tablished on pted to the n of work, ntract work work on the are likely to e performed the contract of the total 10 Information to be Submitted RCTC treats bidders/offerors' compliance with good faith effort requirements as a matter of responsiveness. A responsive proposal is me ting all the requirements of the advertisement and solicitation. Each solicitation for which a contract goal has been established wi bidders/offerors to submit the following information to 3560 Univer Riverside, California 92501 no later than 4:00 p.m. on or before th not including Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, following bi (1) The names and addresses of known DBE firms that will part contract; (2) A description of the work that each DBE will perform; (3) The dollar amount of the participation of each DBE firm pa (4) Written and signed documentation of commitment to subcontractor whose participation it submits to meet a co (5) Written and signed confirmation from the DBE that it is pa the contract as provided in the prime contractor's commit (6) If the contract goal is not met, evidence of good faith effo Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts The obligation of the bidder/offeror is to make good faith e bidder/offeror can demonstrate that it has done so either by contract goal or documenting good faith efforts. Examples of goo are found in Appendix A to Part 26 which is attached. I require the ity Avenue, fourth day, opening: cipate in the ticipation; use a DBE tract goal; ticipating in ent; and ts. forts. The meeting the faith efforts RCTC will ensure that ail information°s compiete„and accurate an adequately documents the bidderloffirth''sfaith efforts before a commi ment to the performance of the contract by the bidder/offeror is made. Administrative Reconsideration Within 10 days of being informed by RCTC that it is not responsi has not documented sufficient good faith efforts, a bidder/offeror administrative reconsideration. Bidder/offerors should make th writing to the following reconsideration official: Eric Haley, Execu 3560 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501. The reconsiderati not have played any role in the original determination that the bidd not make document sufficient good faith efforts. As part of this reconsideration, the bidder/offeror will have the o provide written documentation or argument concerning the issue met the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do so. The will have the opportunity to meet in person with the reconsiderat e because it may request s request in ive Director, n official will rlofferor did portunity to f whether it idderlofferor on official to 11 discuss the issue of whether it met the goal or made adequate good to do. RCTC will send the bidder/offeror a written decision on rec explaining the basis for finding that the bidder did or did not mee make adequate good faith efforts to do so. The result of the re process is not administratively appealable to Caltrans, FHWA or t Good Faith Efforts when a DBE is Replaced on a Contract faith efforts nsideration, the goal or onsideration e DOT. RCTC will require a contractor to make good faith efforts to replac- a DBE that is terminated or has otherwise failed to complete its work on a c+ntract with another certified DBE, to the extent needed to meet the contrast goal. The prime contractor is required to notify the CPMU immediately •f the DBE's inability or unwillingness to perform and provide reasonable docu entation. In this situation, the prime contractor will be required to obtain fro RCTC prior approval of the substitute DBE and to provide copies of new or amended subcontracts, or documentation of good faith efforts. If the contractor fails or refuses to comply in the time specified, RCTC's contracting office will issue an order stopping all or part of payment/work until satisfactory acti+n has been taken. If the contractor still fails to comply, the contracting offic-r may issue a termination for default proceeding. XVI OVERALL GOALS (§26.45) The RCTC shall establish contract goals only on those federally funded contracts that have subcontracting possibilities. RCTC need no establish a contract goal on every such contract, and the size of contract • oals will be adapted to the circumstances of each such contract (i.e., type an • location of work, availability of DBEs to perforrtt€,the particular type of work). The RCTC will compare the contract vvoi-k iteMS''witih dligii3le DBE contract+.rs willing to work on the project. A °determination wilralso be made to decide which items are likely to be performed by the prime contractor and which one are likely to be performed by subcontractors. The goal will then be incorpor.:ted into the contract documents. RCTC will express its contract goals as a •ercentage to the total amount of federally assisted contracts. Amount of Goal RCTC's overall goal for the Federal FY 2000-2001 is the followi g: 17.8% of the Federal financial assistance in FHWA-assisted contracts. RC C estimates that 26% of this overall goal will be reached through race-neutr.I means and 74% will be met through contract goals. Methodology (1) Projecting DOT -Assisted Contract Expenditures 12 In conjunction with the preparation and adoption of the bud fiscal year, the CPMU, in consultation with the appro departments responsible for contracting activities, shall thorough analysis of the projected number, type of work amounts of contacting opportunities that shall be funded, part, by DOT federal assistance for that fiscal year. This a exclude projected contract expenditures with Tran Manufacturers, who are exempt from the Program as desc (2) Establishing a Base Figure Pursuant to 49 CFR 26.45, RCTC shall develop a base figur the availability of DBEs as a percentage of all subcontractors, and suppliers in the relevant contracting m RCTC shall follow one of the methodologies provided in th or develop an alternative methodology and provide the documentation in the Annual Overall Goal Report described Program. (1) Analyzing Available Businesses in Relevant Contract' The CPMU, in conjunction with the appropriate depart conduct a thorough analysis of the relevant contractin which RCTC shall solicit participation from subcontractors, manufacturers and suppliers for the This analysis shall include a description of geographic of the solicitations, the relevant Standard Industry (SIC) codesfor the types of work to be contracte indicators that RCTC determines to be relevant to contracting markets for the fiscal year. The CPM determine the available businesses according to contracting markets. The CPMU shall consult a variet including, but not limited to the RCTC bidderslpropo County Business Pattern Database and relevant disp RCTC shall utilize statistics from the Census Bureau, and certified DBEs in the categories of construction, services, and materials/supplies. Consultation shall minority, women and general contractor groups, as community organizations in an effort to establish a le field. (2) Analyzing Available DBEs in Relevant Contracting M The DBELO and the CPMU shall conduct a similar determine the DBEs that are available to participate as et for each riate RCTC conduct a and dollar in whole or alysis shall it Vehicle ibed herein. to express ontractors, rkets. The regulations appropriate in this DBE g Market ents, shall markets in ontractors, fiscal year. I boundaries lassification and other defining its shall then he relevant of sources ers list, the rity studies. idders' list, rofessional e held with ell as other el of playing rkets analysis to ontractors, 13 subcontractors, manufacturers and suppliers in t contracts for the fiscal year. The analysis sha description of the available DBEs relative to the boundaries of the solicitation, the SIC for the types o contracted, and any other factors as described above shall consult a variety of sources including, but not li DBE Directory, the Bidders' List, the County Busin Database and any relevant disparity studies. (3) Calculating the Base Figure The DBELO and the CPMU shall compare the numbe DBEs in the relevant contracting markets for the fisc total available businesses in the relevant contracting the fiscal year. The calculation shall include a according to the contract expenditure pattern: (1) Adjusting the Base Figure: Pursuant to 49 CFR 26.45(d), RCTC shall adj figure based on demonstrable evidence indica number of available DBEs for federally funded contracts for the fiscal year may be higher of to base figure indicates. At a minimum, the DB CPMU shall analyze the results of RCTC' contract with DBEs for the past two years, and relevant results of other, similar DOT recip to contract with DBEs, any relevant factor o from DBE professional; organizations or others. Using the data collected regarding over-conce availability of firms ready, willing and abl necessary adjustments, a goal shall be set a DBE participation expected absence the discrimination. XVII COUNTING DBE PARTICIPATION 026.55) e projected I include a eographical work to be The RCTC ited to, the ss Patterns of available I year to the markets for eight factor st the base ing that the OT-assisted er than the LO and the efforts to ny available ents' efforts projections tration, DBE , and other the level of effects of RCTC will count DBE participation toward overall and contract goalas provided in the contract specifications for the prime contractor, subcon rector, joint venture partner with prime or subcontractor, or vendor of materi.l or supplies. XVIII CERTIFICATION (§26.83(a)] RCTC ensures that only DBE firms currently certified on the Caltrns' directory will participate as DBEs in its program. 14 XIX INFORMATION COLLECTION AND REPORTING Dated; Bidders List RCTC will create and maintain a bidders list, consisting of informati•n about all DBE and non -DBE firms that bid or quote on its DOT -assisted con racts. The bidders list will include the name, address, DBE/non-DBE status, age and annual gross receipts of firms. Monitoring Payments to DBEs Prime contractors are required to maintain records and documents to DBEs for three years following the performance of the contr records will be made available for inspection upon request by an representative of the RCTC, Caltrans or FHWA. This reporting requ extends to any certified DBE subcontractor. f payments ct. These authorized cement also Payments to DBE subcontractors will be reviewed by RCTC to en ure that the actual amount paid to DBE subcontractors equals or exceeds the do lar amounts stated in the schedule of DBE participation. Reporting to Caltrans RCTC will submit the report on final utilization of DBE participatio to Caltrans District 08 Local Assistance Confidentiality RCTC will safeguard from dislosure to third parties informati.n that may reasonably be regarded a's corifidenti 1, bUsi'rfess„,information, con.istent with Federal, state, and local 1av►i'S. Tom Mullen, Chairman Riverside County Transpor ation Commission This Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program is accepted by: Dated: 15 Caltrans District 08 Local Assistance PUBLIC NOTICE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Riverside County Tr Commission has established an Overall Annual Disadvantaged Busines Goal, applicable to contracting opportunities scheduled to be awarded dun of October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001. The River Transportation Commission's proposed Overall Annual Goal and its ra developed in response to U.S. Department of Transportation's New Di Business Enterprise Program Final Rule (49 CFR Part 26) and are inspection for thirty (30) days following the date of this Notice, from 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at its principal place of business locat Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue Riverside, California 92501 Website Address: www.rctc.org nsportation Enterprise g the period ide County ionale were advantaged vailable for :00 a.m. to d at: Comments will be accepted on the proposed annual goal for 45 d,.ys from the date of this Notice. Comments can be forwarded to the River ide County Transportation Commission, at the above -stated address or to the Regional Civil Rights Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administra ion, 980 9t" Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814-2724. Dated at Riverside, California, ;,this 1 1 to day of October 2000. By: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Board Eric Haley, Executive Direc or 16 EXHIBIT II LOCAL AGENCY BIDDER - DBE - INFORMATION This information may be submitted with your bid proposal. If it is not, and you are the apparent low bidder or the second or third low bidder, it must be submitted and received as specified in Section 2-1.02B of tke Special Provisions. Failure to submit the required DBE information will be grounds for finding the proposal nonresponsive. CO.-RTE.-IC.P.: CONTRACT NO.: BID AMOUNT: $ BID OPENING DATE: BIDDER'S NAME: DBE GOAL FROM CONTRACT: DBE PRIME CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION I: CONTRACT ITEM NO. ITEM OF WORK AND DESCRIPTION OR SERVICES TO BE SUBCONTRACTED OR MATERIALS TO BE PROVIDED r DBE CERT. NO. NAME OF DBEs {Mast be certified on the date bids are opened - include DBE address and phone number) DOLLAR AMOUNT DBE' IMPORTANT: Identify all DBE firms being claimed for credit, regardless of tier. Copies of the DBE quotes are required Names of the First Tier DBE Subcontractors and their respective item(s) of work listed above shall be consistent, where applicable, with the nitres and items of work in the "List of Subcontractors" submitted with your bid pursuant to the Subcontractors Listing Law and Section 2-1.01, "General," of the Special Provisions. 1. DBE prime contractors shall enter their DBE certification number. DBE prime contractors shall indicate ail work to be performed by DBEs including worst performed by its own forces. i. if 1005E of item is not to be performed or furnished by DBE describe exact portion of item to be performed or famished by DBE 3. See Section .?-1.02. "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise," to determine the credit allowed for DBE firms. Total Claimed Participation Signature of Bidder Date (Area Cole ) Tel. No. Person to Contact (Please T *pc or Print) CT Bidder - DBE lnforreau\n 1 Rev 09-28.991 EXHIBIT III Fromm. summer►• usittrrima o. TINNOP arrArion NOTICE OF 11112e:its TO WE MOD meama,e, tatroitas NW ,estiq rsnano To: sssssavow Yau me brat NOW rat rusiwI It torful sd Per use under Cabot t No. rartom volt n et new t9 in Dia Ce irrs P At MO Oo sutred tops t#e t•11,04 t solsass: oerrI.ar nw eo. reiswL me +w.e ..o.osRe.. or ra.ec1111.1 ern x i rrr++sy tAsryseswelss fir..rntik9. +rmAv and ntpdm ar InaiVtata prior v doMryA1 aorerdaneo WW1 7ealle1t t el Sese•enr Sasotoratana MAWS the apso in p eneoh a and h eamN one your notey.. x is ondr7t od that *MP tiywass doss ess ne/his am of iho tilt eimepnrbiWyldrhwlaiegi it M tho Mork 41.1etsR that scall r1 h IF noepa0fe nth fh mehrof Srh and edsdta/ens, nor doss a prdyoe uie awD.opwn ryenlen a/wntnisia found b he u'sriY4. Yaws May, w1e1C -e1V, OF Aryli0101OlOer. wlewtree rwsAePN ONO MUM 'LW. MlrRrllp. Oe olen vas.** • Owen rra.41 eesN • WMTIVICRf ray Rt•[-ettecr &saw= Atldros Bsr comas Phone ( } eeea�n �talser+� EXHIBIT IV iaaulllu;l raw d'll) • Adto Iil haw I+aNud A Isioda pool •Ado,) imamIlIoaaV Pun untrerl 101101111 In aa11XlsasaPoAS Jo uolsuKi as Porom+g lawStiol smai +uadal Jn podia alP w MN"! IN k1 n1 Fdnl auo said maw) 11138PII1N 3N0FidSs3NlsllaI 103111100 ONV 3131d1100 SI NOUVNI110dN13A08V 314130031MONS ANI 11011138 3111 Ol :IKipuVu0NI i1UnivNO13 H33NION31N30193i1 103111100 ONV 313141N100 SI NOILV11110#l113A08V 3F11 AVM A1118301 epa o 1so6 Jol pales) Alleut6P0 ueW HMV" P p ua a '380 ore a Awl Junowe mum 1et7 1ptird swedes a uo siuewwoa eppwid memo to swim le pa soudde Ju►+1J uew imago SEW (woo Jo was, • Jo) uaeemin 380 Nabs B 'memo lea Jol pose Agee B!+o west swill aIp lou avow., 'aelJ M ssepaBai (saw) sesudeaiu3 ssewsn8 peBewenpesfa 'slolnequoogng lam 1 e4g He Iso 'ton Lae 916 Bums° Aq uO I0e11x31100100 e4i IS IIPeeIlu A0P Pus (nieglblimo6'solop•mmi hrd114? einsgeµ si46111 solo aql Buls110330 Aq pauislgo aq Aew snisis wsi6oud 380 'also uosesdx3 swill aqi ss pm SO swig unuBoxd J1041 semis Mtn Hun 911161U IND 641 Ag e1e31111160r penssl sl Will Palyllea 641 '001103 Aua3 le e0111 le saness Iaiuoo Pus 3aMa saws ieaae>rvs'saa _ *swum) ')apua6 'AIlolu4le uo pessq 1iuf1 uopooluao sig691 pit o e41 Aq PeumuislaP ep smelt we16o)d situ. 'PB1sNa3 - Al - t - —t SI WM a41(s}wsi8ad Ielia) uo pessq sl amen ussop 38U 041801leiue lO1 Paw eq of uum163 4314m 100010130p eql. tfwt'tfO No t :1N3W11 W1100 l V N101 HO .s s 1N3WAVd 1VNIA d0 31)/O 3131dW00 Ht10M altla .38MS '39WS'390 .39MS' 390 1 s .a9Ws'39O 91N3WAVd13VH1N00 s .390 1V101 380•110N 'ON '1H3O 390 5S3H0051553NIsne 9S31100V SS3Nisne ONV 3WVN HOlOVu1Nooans 0301AOdd S1VIH31VW ONV 03WHO1H3d 11HOM AO NOI1dIH3530 ON 11311 11010tlH1NO3 amid Nf10Wtl 131H1NO3 031tl6I1S3 VO N01131dW0313VH1N00 AON3DV ONIH3ISINIWOV 'oN 13a1'OHd On11i113133 W31311011)11SOdIS3l11N 1SOd 31flOH l A1Nf103 1139WIiN LOVH1NO3 31 OIIV Z-Z05E-16SL Yi3 166101 'AeH) IdlZOYZ•030'd0 IS1331.0ad 03ONf)d AllVH30331 SH0.1.3VNiN03911S li311-1S!!ld l380) S3SIdd1131N3 SS3NIS118 030V1NVN0VS10 d0 NOi1VWl u a'v dOd314 oVNis RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 2000-01 Local Transportation Fund Allocation for Local Streets and Roads for the Palo Verde Valley Apportionment Area BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the allocation of the FY 2000-01 Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for streets and roads, proposed in the Palo Verde Valley, as shown on the attached table. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Palo Verde Valley apportionment area is the only area in the County in which LTF funds are still allocated for streets and roads purposes. The attached table shows the allocations for the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside based upon a formula previously approved by the Commission. Population figures are taken from the State Department of Finance E-5 report dated January 1, 2000, and have been adjusted to credit the prison population (3,515) at Chuckawala to the County. The Commission approved the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) Short Range Transit Plan on June 14, 2000, allocating $195,400 to PVVTA. An additional $10,000 allocation is being requested, through a separate agenda item on the Plans and Programs Committee, leaving a balance of $951,551 available for local streets and roads purposes in the Palo Verde Valley area. Financial information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: 2000-01 Amount: $951,551 Source of Funds: LTF Fiscal Procedures Approved: t Budget Adjustment: No Date: 9-20-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Advance of Measure A Funds Agreement with the City of Hemet BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Grant the City of Hemet (City) an advance of $730,000 from Measure A, Local Streets and Roads funds; 2) Increase the Local Streets and Roads appropriation in Fund 222 - Measure A Western budget by $730,000; and 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute a Measure A advancement agreement between the Commission and the City. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On August 31, 2000, staff received a letter from the City of Hemet to advance $730,000 from Measure A - Local Streets and Roads allocation for FY 2001-2002. This advance is for a large street paving project to be done later this year. Attached as Exhibit A is their request and background as to the reasons for their request. Staff has negotiated with the City a 6.5% percent interest rate on the advance. The interest rate charged to the City is based upon the current interest income on Commission funds. The City will have a fixed payment and will repay this advance in one year. Staff will withhold the advance payment prior to the remittance of the Local Streets and Roads funds to the City. Attached is Exhibit B outlining the City's payment schedule. Legal Counsel is working with the City to finalize the terms of the agreement between the Commission and the City. Staff is also requesting a budget adjustment. The budget adjustment will provide sufficient expenditure authority to make the advance to the City. Attachment Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2000-2001 Amount: $730,000 Source of Funds: Current Reserves Budget Adjustment: Y GLA Account: A22-71-86104 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/15/2000 37771NDUSTRIAL AVENUE - '7r:'`, CALIFOkNIA 92545 • (909)765-3712 From the Office of PUBLIC WORKS August 29, 2000 Eric Haley, Executive Director RCTC 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: Measure A - Advance of Funds Dear Mr. Haley: .1 • 2JUU )04- The City of Hemet is in the process of assembling a large street paving project to be done later this year. This project, totaling about $2,650,000, will require funding from a variety of sources, including all of our Measure A allocation for FY 200 - 2001. I have been authorized by the City Council to formally request an advance of $730,000 in Measure A Funds from our 2001-2002 allocation. We would need to have the funding available for our use in December, 2000. Please advise of the process for evaluating this request. I appreciate your assistance on this matter, and your on -going courtesies and cooperation. Sincerely, c. Se-e �� Juan C. Perez Director of Public Works JCP:ag cc: City Council Steve Temple, City Manager I: WSERSACONZALE5WPWIN LElTEN.OITEHALEY.7LP AGENDA # q TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Juan C. Perez, Director of Public Works; Steve Temple, City Manager • DATE: August S, 2000 RE: 2000 Paving Project - RECOMMENDATION; Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council establish a total budget of $2,650,000 for the 2000 paving project out of Measure A, Gas Tax, Federal ISTEA funds, and Public Works Administration funding and conceptually approve the attached proposed project list. Staff further recommends that the City Council authorize staff to formally request an advance of $730,000 from RCTC from 2001-02 Measure A funds. ANALYSIS: Staff and the Council Public Works Committee have reviewed numerous candidate streets to be included into a paving project to be done later this year. The Committee has invested substantial time and effort selecting projects totaling $2,650,000 from a proposed project list of over $3,500,000. The paving project addresses the Council's goal of having "A community with well maintained streets". The recommended strategy is to do a large-scale pavement project every two years, which will allow us to bid larger quantities and therefore do more work with better prices, while still maintaining funding to do strategic projects in the year in between. The recommendation is to prepare plans and bid the project as shown. After bids are opened, the City Council will have the option to add, delete from, or revise the project list based on actual bid prices. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding of $2,650,000 is anticipated to be needed for this project. The recommendation is to provide this funding through a combination of sources as shown on the attached Exhibit A. It is also recommended to establish a $50,000 budge# for contract engineering from Measure A out of the $2,650,000 budget to assist City staff in preparing the plans and specs. Respectfully s/ubmitted, Juan C. Perez Director of Public Works Proposed Street Segments � PreMow Cost Estimates for the 2000 Paring holed !Street OMfla' and Shirr' Seaa Overlay Street Segment Cost Estimate 11 Stetson - Warren to Cawston 2) Menlo - Lyon to Palm 31 Kirby - Fruitvale to Esplanade 41 Palm - Fruitvale to Esplanade 5) Berkley - Meridian to Hemet 6) Soboba - Florida to Berkley 71 Merrily Way Area 8) Yale - S. City Limit to Florida 9) Columbia - Florida to Devonshire 10) Latham - Buena Vista to San Jacinto 11) Sanderson - Eaton to Esplanade 12) Sierra Dawn Area 13) Panorama Area 14) Hamilton - Acacia to Florida 15) Stetson - B. V. to Santa Fe (Ramps) 16) Thompson Area 17) Elk - Johnston to Whittier 18) Whittier - Arbor to Lyon 191 7-hills Dr. - Apple Tree to Stetson 201 Brentwood - Dogwood to Blue Spruce 21) Buena Vista - Mayberry to Florida 22) Kimball - Gilbert to State 23) Wesley Place Area 24) Taylor - Whittler to Mayberry 25) State - Johnston to Central NACMNGs\5392\oo-sidadwp Roc 2aup00 Um $ 262,979 $ 149,869 $ 140,028 $ 68,188 $ 41,780 $ 94,216 $ 21,108 $ 59,296 $ 45,000 $ 132,243 $ 146,510 $ 258,407 $ 188,356 $ 35,920 $ 15,000 $ 51,168 $ 38,408 $ 22,464 $ 141,440 $ 57,945 $ 125,000 $ 43,940 $ 73,508 $ 34,848 $ 142,789 Total: $2,388,390 Slurry Street Segment A) Mirabella Area B) Via Capri Area C1 Madrid/Seattle Area D1 Via Hermosa Area E) Lewis Homes Area (South) F1 Lewis Homes Area (North) G1 Juanita - Whittier to Florida HI Park Hill off Columbia Area I) Park HUI off Berkley Area Cost Estimate $ 34,468 $ 7,347 $ 55,986 $ 62,664 $ 28,364 $ 35,397 $ 19,983 $ 10,679 $ 8,722 Total : $ 261,610 pogo 2 of 2 MAKE AYE OCAMONI FAUN ME MION AYE. EIRATYALE AYE IMO AYE QAKLAID AYE QEYONSWE AYE, I AIIiAY AYE CSIRAL AYE tY AYE WITHER AYE. 41,1•15 1 AYE E TS OIL ME HARIRSQN AYE. NOT 10�SCALE Q� O A 71 r�r.. r3 � MACK AYE 0 4 I� tti 4 0 o� 9 eli PARKWAY 1 ck--r fi kind moms Overlay Ares Slurry Arse Proposed Street Segments for the 2000 Paving PioJect /Street Orei/sr and Slurry Sea/I M\DWG9\0392\CC-EXHDYYG Mod.2Aapp0ly� BERKIEY AYE. FLORIM ME./2 paps 1 of 2 wysiwyg:i/0/http:i/www.bankrate.co...w 21~Kecalculate+Amortization+ I aeie EXHIBIT "B" Amortization Table for $730000.00 borrowed on Nov 14, 2000 Month Year 12 2000 1 2001 2 2001 3 2001 4 2001 r m 5 2001 q 6" 2001 7 2001 8 2001 9 2001 . _ 10` 2001 11 2001 Payment ($) 62996.38 62996.38 62996.38 62996.38 a 62996.38 62996.38 62996.38 62996.38 62996.38 62996.38 62996.38 62996.38 Principal Paid ($) 59042.22 59362.03 59683.57 60006.86 60331.90 60658.70 60987.26 61317.61 61649.75 61983.68 .62319.43 62656.99 ' Interest Paid ($) 3954.17 3634.35 3312.81 2989.52 2664.49 " 2337.69 2009.12 1678.77 1346.64 1012.70 676.96 339.39 Total Interest ($) 3954.17 7588.52 10901.33 13890.86 16555.34 18893.03 20902.15 22580.93 23927.56 24940.26 25617.22 25956.61 Balance ($) 670957.78 611595.75 551912.18 491905.32 431573.42 370914.73 309927.46 248609.85 186960.10 124976.42 62656.99 0.00 1 of 1 9/14/00 11:01 AM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission , FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Contract Amendment to Freeway Service Agreement with Pepe's Towing Service Patrol Tow Truck BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1 j Approve the amendment to the Freeway Service Patrol tow truck contract with Pepe's Towing Service; and 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the contract on behalf of the Commission, subject to Legal Counsel review. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program currently contracts with two tow truck. companies, Hamner Towing and Pepe's Towing, to provide the roving tow truck service on five segments or beats of SR-91, 1-215/60, and 1-15. The agreements cover the normal days and hours of operation, reimbursements and penalties, and uniform and equipment requirements of the program. At its September 8, 1999 meeting, the Commission approved a cooperative agreement between the State of California Department of Transportation and RCTC to fund an additional vehicle on I-21 51SR-60 during the construction period of the truck climbing lane. The contract with Pepe's Towing must now be amended to included the additional truck since construction on the truck climbing lane is schedule to begin within one month. The agreement provides for 100% reimbursement to RCTC for the hourly cost of the vehicle, miscellaneous operating expenses, and RCTC's overhead costs. The amount of the agreement is $88,000 plus an $8,000 contingency, for a total of $96,000. RCTC will not incur any additional costs as a result of this contract amendment. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: 2000-01 Amount: $96,000 Source of Funds: State of Calif. Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No. 201-45-81014 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 9-18-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 1 1, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: CETAP Internal Corridors Schedule and Community Outreach Plan PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to receive and file the CETAP Internal Corridors Schedule and Community Outreach Plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached is the planned schedule for the environmental study work required on the Banning/Beaumont to Temecula Corridor and the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor. The required work on the two inter -county corridors (Riverside to Orange County and Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County) will proceed under separate schedules as determined by the bi-county coordinating committee for each corridor. The schedule highlights major milestones we need to meet in order to complete the Draft EIR/EIS by mid -July for the public hearing phase. During the month of October we will begin circulating a working paper to assist in the evaluation of initial alternatives within each of the internal corridors. The CETAP Advisory Committee will first see this document on October 3'd. Follow-up meetings have been scheduled for October 12' to allow additional opportunity for questions and answers from the Advisory Committee. Additionally, we have a meeting on October 16t' with RCTC's Technical Advisory Committee to allow the Public Works Directors the opportunity to provide comment. Three public meetings will also be scheduled in late October. The recommendations on alternatives to be evaluated in greater detail as part of the EIRIEIS process will come forward to the Commission at the November 8th meeting. Also attached for your review is the Community Outreach Plan for the two intra-county corridors. In order to complete the EIRIEIS process, it is critical that we share what we are planning with the public and provide opportunities for their input. In addition to public meetings, we are planning to provide briefings to the City Councils, develop two newsletters, as well continue to post information on the RCIP web site. SCHEDULE FOR CETAP CORRIDOR EVALUATIONS BANNING/BEAUMONT TO TEMECULA CORRIDOR AND HEMET TO CORONA/LAICE ELSINORE CORRIDOR This schedule identifies current -major target dates for the CETAP corridor environmental studies for the two intra-county corridors. The Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County and Orange County corridors will proceed under separate schedules as identified by the bi-county committees_ for each corridor. October 3, 2000 - Present working papers (one for each of the internal corridors) to the CETAP Advisory Committee on evaluation of initial alternatives. The objective of the working papers is a further screening of the alternatives to allow a narrowing down of the alternatives to those that will be carried into more detailed evaluation in the EIR/EIS. October 12 - Follow-up Question/Answer session on the working papers for the CETAP Advisory Committee and other interested parties Late October - Hold three public meetings to allow the public to review the results of the working papers and to provide input to which alternatives should be carried further. These public meetings will also serve as the scoping meetings under NEPA/CEQA. November 7 - Present recommendations to the CETAP Advisory Committee on alternatives to be evaluated in greater detail in the EIR/EIS for each corridor. The hope is to obtain concurrence on the alternatives to move forward at that meeting. Immediately thereafter, we would provide that information to the appropriate Federal and State agencies to initiate their concurrence process. The target would be to carry three alternatives into more detailed evaluation in each corridor. Each alternative may have a highway and transit element. End of December - NEPA/404 agencies provide concurrence on Purpose and Need, evaluation criteria, and alternatives. Early January 2001 - Detailed engineering and environmental studies are initiated for the more limited number of alternatives. CETAP Advisory Committee meets every other month from January to July. Mid July - Complete the Draft EIR/EIS for each corridor and release to public. Late July - Hold second set of public meetings to obtain input on evaluation of detailed alternatives. October - RCTC and Board of Supervisors recommend a preferred alternative for each corridor. November - Engineering completed on right-of-way for preferred alternative December - Final EIR/EIS completed April, 2002 - Record of Decision prepared and published COMMUNITY OUTREACH PLAN FOR CETAP CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES BANNING/BEAUMONT TO TEMECULA CORRIDOR AND HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CORRIDOR The Community Outreach plan for the two CETAP infra -county corridors is organized around the schedule for those corridors. The plan involves the following: • Two sets of public meetings. The first set is scheduled for late October 2000, and the second set will be held in July 2001, following the publication of the draft EIR/EIS's. The objective is to schedule the meetings prior to major CETAP decision points. The October 2000 meetings will be held prior to the decision on the alternatives to be forwarded to further evaluation. The July 2001 meetings will be held prior to the recommendation of a preferred alternative. Three meetings will be held in each set: one in the Murrieta/Temecula area, one in the Hemet or Perris area, and one in the Lake Elsinore area. Each public meeting would address both of the infra -county corridors. • Briefings of City Councils on a periodic basis • Speakers Bureau, with individuals from the CETAP team available to speak at meetings of community groups and other functions. • Two newsletters, one prior to the October 2000 public meetings, and one prior to the July 2001 public meetings • Information on the RCIP web site: reports, newsletters, etc. The public meetings will be held in workshop format, with a presentation on study status and analysis results, and several formats for individuals to provide input. These formats may include a combination of breakout discussion groups (similar to the RCP workshops), forms on which to provide written comments, and manned display stations to address more specific questions. Two sessions are anticipated at each meeting, a late afternoon session and an evening session, to maximize options for access. Outreach to minority and low-income populations will also be emphasized. A possible agenda for such meetings would include: Session 1 — 4 to 6 p.m. 4 to 4:30 — Displays open 4:30 to 4:50 — Presentation on corridor status and analyses conducted 4:50 to 5:45 — Breakout discussion groups 5:45 to 6:00 — Reporting and wrap-up 6:00 to 6:30 — Displays open between meetings Session 2 — 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Repeat the same schedule RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 2000-01 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission amend the FY2000-01 Short Range Transit Plan for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency to allow implementation of a pilot program for transportation of veterans from the Palo Verde Valley into the Coachella Valley and Loma Linda for medical needs, and allocate an additional $10,000 in Local Transportation Funds to pay for this pilot program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) is requesting an amendment to their FY 2000-01 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to support implementation of a pilot program to serve veterans needing to obtain medical services in the Coachella Valley and at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Loma Linda. As you will recall, the need for this service was raised at the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing held by the Commission in March of this year. Representatives from the V.A. Hospital, County Veteran's Services, the Blythe Outpatient Committee, and the PVVTA have been discussing the best way to meet these travel needs in a cost effective manner. The Veteran's Transportation Program is being recommended as a pilot program which would run for a period of a year in order to determine its feasibility. The Government Services Agency has agreed to provide a vehicle for this service. The PVVTA is requesting approval to use $10,000 in Local Transportation Funds available in the Palo Verde Valley to support the maintenance and operation of the vehicle and the operator's wages for this fiscal year. The service is initially planned to operate twice per month into the Coachella Valley and once per month into Loma Linda. The details of the service operation are still being refined and the actual number of trips may change in response to demand. Also, PVVTA staff will develop service standards to assist in the evaluation of service effectiveness. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY2000-01 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Fiscal Procedures Approved: L__..,.62,a;J512.--- Amount: $10,000 Budget Adjustment: Y Date: 9/19/00 ALLOCATION OF LTF FUNDS FOR STREETS AND ROADS PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA FY 2000-01 AVAILABLE TOTAL LESS FOR STREETS AGENCY POPULATION PERCENTAGE SHARE PVVTA AND ROADS Blythe 17,938 66.0% $763,891 $102,700 $661,191 Riverside Co. 9,230 34.0% $393,060 $102,700 $290,360 TOTAL 27,168 100,0% $1,156,951 $205,400 $951,551 NOTE: Population for City of Blythe excludes prison population of 3,515 for Chuckawala which is included in County population. Prison population obtained from State Dept. of Finance, Demographics Division. Approved by RCTC: PENDING J R: 9/19/00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning & Programming SUBJECT: Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file the Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: MTA Strike Update: The first full business day of the MTA strike was Monday, September 18. SCRRA Executive Director, David Solow, reports that "Metrolink and the MTA ran two routes to downtown locations. Ridership on the buses was more than 5,200/a.m. peak period riders. Our Metrolink ridership was only down 2-3% but it is difficult to determine at this time how much our normal ridership is down versus "fill-in" from new MTA pass holders. We expect ridership to stabilize and bus ridership to increase over the next several days if the strike continues. We will be assessing whether additional buses are needed over the next 2-3 days." Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Ridership on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of August averaged 4,133, a decrease of 5 % from the month of July. Unfortunately, this summer we have experienced serious performance problems on the Line. In recent weeks, the number and duration of delays has increased significantly resulting in Metrolink's service deteriorating to unacceptable levels for our riders. In response to delays, Metrolink is offering a 2 for 1 monthly pass discount to Riverside Line riders only. The offer provides the December monthly pass free to purchasers of a November Riverside Line monthly pass. This discount is available only by mail. Metrolink staff continues to work with Union Pacific (UP) on a number of strategies to address the problems, including but not limited to, possible capital projects, legal remedies, and performance mitigation. As stated above, it is too early to tell if the MTA strike will have an impact on the ridership for this Line. Inland Empire - Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Ridership on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of August averaged 2,610, an increase of 4% from the month of July. This increase continues the ridership trend and represents a 48% increase from August 99 to August 00. The Line should not be negatively impacted by the MTA strike because there are no destinations in Los Angeles County. Special Trains Beach Trains: Over 8,900 tickets have been sold for the Beach Trains. Tickets still remain for the final train date, Sunday, October 8. 1E0C Midday Train: The August 2000 average weekday trips on the IEOC of 2,610 continue to surpass the ridership performance target of 2,264. The demonstration period adding the midday train began November 1999 and ends March 2001. These ridership numbers need to be sustained for the next 7 months in order for the Midday service to be included in the regular Metrolink budget for FY2001 /02. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Funding of the 1-215 Improvement Projects Between the East and AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation will be presented at the meeting. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Commission's September 13"' meeting, Ca!trans District 8 made a presentation on the full scope of the 1-215 Improvement project which include a High Occupancy Vehicle lane between University Avenue and the SR 60/1-215 interchange, two direct fly over connectors at the SR 60/91 /1-215 interchange, truck bypass at the SR 60/1- 21 5 interchange, new 1-215 Interchanges at Martin Luther King and Box Springs, and a new Spruce Street Interchange on SR 91. At that time, they indicated that there is currently a $49 million cost increase in the estimated price to deliver the 1-215 Improvement project. An Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Chair following the meeting to review all pertinent information and bring back a recommendation to the Commission on how best to address the currently projected short fall of funding for these important Measure "A" projects. An Ad Hoc Committee meeting was held on September 27, 2000 and attended by Commissioners Dick Kelly, Tom Mullen, Kevin Pape, Ameal Moore, John Tavaglione and Frank West. The Ad Hoc Committee was provided a detailed project segment presentation by Ca'trans District 8 design team. Another meeting is on October 6 to review additional information and potential funding scenarios that can be considered, given actual resources available and pending discretionary requests that could be directed to address the cost increase. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: CMAQ Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund Category 2 & 3 Project TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1 j Award $50,000 in Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds to the County of Riverside for its electrification project at Costco - Mira Loma under Category 2; and 2) Award $75,000 each in CMAQ funds to Riverside Community College and Mt. San Jacinto Community College for their vocational training programs under Category 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July meeting, the Commission took action to award Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in an amount not to exceed $1 .75 M under the Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund Call for Projects to the highest priority projects under Category 1 - Alternative Fuel Infrastructure including Riverside County Waste Management Department, Riverside Transit Agency, City of Banning, and City of Riverside, Category 2 - Truck Stop or Warehouse/Distribution Center Electrification At the same time, the Commission directed staff to revise the Category 2 final application submittal date from August 14, 2002 to August 1 1 , 2000. A letter dated July 13, 2000 was distributed to the CMAQ call for projects mailing list announcing the Category 2 change. One Category 2 project application was received from the County of Riverside in partnership with Costco Wholesale and Southern California Edison Company. The $100,000 project entitled "Electrification of Refrigeration Trailers at Costco Mira Loma Depot: A Project to Reduce Idling Emissions from Diesel Trailers" is seeking $50,000 in CMAQ funding. The Commission's technical consultant, Mr. Ray Gorski, completed a technical analysis of the project, attached as Exhibit A, which concludes that the total emissions benefit of the project is 6.441 kg/day having a cost effectiveness of $7.87/kg or $3.57/1b. The project represents a unique opportunity to demonstrate the practical application of retrofitting electrification services in existing warehousing operations and at the same time documenting actually emissions reduction as a result of the demonstration. Given the Commission's July actions to close Category 2 and assuming that funding in the amount of $50,000 is awarded to the County of Riverside's electrification project, the balance of funds ($250,000) set aside for Category 2 will be automatically reallocated to Category 1. The balance of funds will be distributed as follows: $90,000 to fully fund project #4 - City of Riverside; $1 13,250 to fully funding project #6 - UCR/CE-CERT; and $46,750 to partially fund project #6 - WRCOG/Waste Management whose original CMAQ funding request was $150,000. Category 3 - Alternative Fuel Vocational Trainginq Program Under Category 3, two projects have been submitted to date from: Riverside Community College (RCC) and Mt. San Jacinto Community College (MSJC). Scopes of work are attached as Exhibits B and C respectively. Each is seeking $75,00 in CMAQ funding which would fully draw down the $150,000 set aside for this Category. Upon completing the technical review of the proposed projects, RCTC staff initiated individual discussions with college staff to develop specific scopes of work and budgets. In addition to discussions with RCTC, the two colleges have been in discussions with each other to ensure that the two proposed vocational training programs do not compete with each other given their proximity and student target markets. Generally, the RCC program will focus on the light and medium duty vehicle curriculum while the MSJC program will focus on the heavy duty vehicle in partnership with the Riverside Transit Agency at their Hemet facility. Each of the colleges have also committed to seeking input and guidance from the California Community College Economic Development Network's Advance Transportation Technology Program which has established ten technology centers throughout the state offering alternative fuels training programs. As a note, only Category 4 - Research, Development and Demonstration of Emerging Clean Fuel Technologies remains open under the Call for Projects. One project has been submitted to date from UCR/CE-CERT requesting the full set -aside amount of $100,000. Staff is currently in the process of performing its technical analysis and is in discussions with the proposer regarding documentation of co -funding as well as other Category 4 requirements. Staff's final recommendation will be brought forward upon completion of discussions with CE-CERT. EXHIBIT A Riverside County Transportation Commission's CMAQ Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund Quantitative Evaluation of the County of Riverside's Refrigeration Trailer Electrification Project RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 18, 2000 Raymond J. Gorski • Escondido, California • (760) 738-8392 Introduction This report documents the results of an independent evaluation of applications received in response to the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund for Western Riverside County. One (1) application was received in response to Category 2: Implementation and Demonstration of Truck Stop Electrification or Warehouse/Distribution Center Electrification. This application has been evaluated in accordance with the Objective Evaluation Criteria adopted by the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee at their May 15, 2000 meeting. These objective criteria quantify each project's potential to displace conventional fuels and reduce motor vehicle air pollution emissions. Emissions reductions were calculated using methodologies recommended by the California Air Resources Board for estimating NO„ reductions from heavy-duty on -road vehicles. For the purpose of this evaluation, emissions factors derived from EPA certification testing of a representative diesel -fueled trailer refrigeration unit were used in performing the emission reduction and cost-effectiveness calculations. Technical Approach The following technical approach was used to quantify each application relative to each adopted quantitative evaluation criteria: • Review application to ensure all necessary input data and mandatory project elements are included; • Scrutinize application's input data for reasonableness, consistency, and traceability to proper source materials; • In cases were input data is missing, apply Caltrans or GARB -recommended default input data or other appropriate values; • Document source for all default input data; • Evaluate application using appropriate CMAQ calculation methodology. Category 2 Proposal Evaluation: County of Riverside Project Title: Electrification of Refrigeration Trailers at Costco Mira Loma Depot: A Project to Reduce Idling Emissions from Diesel Trailers. Project Description: The County of Riverside, in cooperation with Southern California Edison, Costco Wholesale, and Clean Fuel Connection, Inc., propose to implement a distribution center electrification project. The proposed project will convert up to twenty-four (24) refrigerated truck trailers at the Costco Wholesale Mira Loma facility to draw power from the utility grid when parked in the vehicle staging area. Currently, the refrigerated trailers remain in the staging area for approximately 3-4 hours. During this period, the trailer refrigeration units must operate to keep incoming or outbound products chilled. The electrical power will be used in lieu of on- board diesel -fueled Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) as the means to power the trailer refrigeration units. 2 Proposal Quantitative Assessment: 1. Representative Diesel Fueled APU Technical Specifications: • Engine manufacturer: • Model year: • Engine displacement: • EPA certification: • Fuel system: • Estimated service life: • Rated horsepower: Yanmar Diesel Engine Company 1999 2.19 liters Non -road Mechanical direct injection 7 years/5,000 hours 409 hp 2. APU Emissions Factors based upon EPA Certification Test Data: • Hydrocarbons HC): • Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,): • Carbon Monoxide (CO): • Particulate Matter (PAU): 3. Project -Specific Data: • Number of trailer units: • Average hours of operation: • Days of operation annually: • Diesel fuel consumption: 0.60 g/kW-hr 7.177 g/kW-hr 3.947 g/kW-hr 0.546 g/kW-hr Twenty-four (24) 50-foot refrigerated trailers Three (3) hours of operation per day 260 days per year (5 days/week x 52 weeks/year) 0.8 gallon per engine -hour 4. Assumptions & Dimensional Equivalents: • Diesel fuel density: • Specific fuel consumption: • "Horsepower" to "kilowatts": 7.05 lb./gallon 0.411 lb./bhp-hr 0.746 hp/kW 5. Estimated Emissions Reductions: a) Hydrocarbons (HC): {24 trailers x [(0.8 gallon/hour) x (3 hours/day) x (5 days/week) x (52 weeks/year) x (7.05 lb./gallon) x (1/0.411 bhp-hr/lb.) x (0.746 kW-hr/bhp-hr) x (0.60 g/kW-hr)]/1000} = 115 kg HC per year. b) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx): {24 trailers x [(0.8 gallon/hour) x (3 hours/day) x (5 days/week) x (52 weeks/year) x (7.05 lb./gallon) x (1/0.411 bhp-hr/lb.) x (0.746 kW-hr/bhp-hr) x (7.177 g/kW-hr)]/1000} = 1,375 kg NO„ per year. Emission factors based upon EPA certification test data over an eight -mode cycle. Values include deterioration factors. 3 c) Carbon Monoxide (CO): {24 trailers x [(0.8 gallon/hour) x (3 hours/day) x (5 days/week) x (52 weeks/year) x (7.05 lb./gallon) x (1/0.411 bhp-hr/lb.) x (0.746 kW-hr/bhp-hr) x (3.947 g/kW-hr)]/1000) = 756 kg CO per year. d) Particulate Matter (PMio): {24 trailers x [(0.8 gallon/hour) x (3 hours/day) x (5 days/week) x (52 weeks/year) x (7.05 lb./gallon) x (1/0.411 bhp-hr/lb.) x (0.746 kW-hr/bhp-hr) x (0.546 g/kW-hr)]/1000{ = 105 kg PK° per year. 6. Cost-effectiveness based on Emissions Reduction Potential: Emissions reduction cost- effectiveness is determined by dividing the annualized CMAQ funds by the annual emission reductions. This project has a minimum demonstration period of three (3) years. Annualized emissions reduction cost-effectiveness is calculated as follows: Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) = (1+03(i) (1+03-1 where i = discount rate (assume 5% or 0.05) project life = three years (as specified by applicant) CRF = (1+0.05A0.05) (1+0.05)n - 1 Emission Reduction Cost-effectiveness = (CRF*CMAQ Project Costs) (ROG+NOx+CO+PM10) Emission Reduction Cost -Effectiveness = [(0.37)($50,000)1/(2,351 kg) = $7.87/kg, or $3.57 per pound of emissions reduced. 7. Summary: The quantitative assessment of the proposed trailer electrification project is summarized in the following table: Hydrocarbons (HC) Oxides of Nitrogen (NO.) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Particulate Matter (PM,o) Emissions Reductions (kg/day) 0.315 3.767 2.071 0.288 Emissions Reductions (kg/year) 115 1,375 756 105 Cost - Effectiveness (CMAQ $Ikg) 160.87 13.45 24.47 176.19 Cast - Effectiveness (CMAQ $Ilb.) 72.97 6.10 11.10 79.92 TOTALS 6.441 kg/day 2,351 kg/year $7.871 kg $3.5711b. 4 EXHIBIT "B" RCTC CMAQ CLEAN FUELS OPPORTUNITY FUND Riverside Community College District Hereinafter referred to as RECIPIENT Project Scope of Work Project Description: Riverside Community College (RCC) will expand their current Automotive Technology Curriculum to include alternative -fuel vehicle and infrastructure education and vocational training. The curriculum development process will build upon RCC's existing corporate partnerships with Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Toyota, and GFI Control Systems, Inc. These relationships will allow RCC to identify the types of alternative -fuel training in demand within the automotive industry, and tailor the curriculum to best satisfy these needs. The curriculum materials, laboratory equipment, and facility improvements developed and implemented under this project will result in expansion of RCC's existing Automotive Technology Program to include an Alternative Fuels Training Program. The goal is to continue development of this training program into several distinct courses leading to an alternative -fuels technology certificate or degree. Also, an alternative - fuels overview will be incorporated into RCC's Auto 50 class curriculum; this class serves as a prerequisite to most of RCC's Automotive Technology classes and programs. Scope of Work: Task 1. Curriculum Development: Recipient shall develop an Alternative Fuels Vehicle and Infrastructure Training Program (Alternative Fuels Program) instructional curriculum and coordinate said development with the California Community Colleges Economic Development Network's Advanced Transportation Technology Program. Curriculum development shall include, at a minimum, the following Subtasks: 1.a. Curriculum Development Point of Departure: Recipient shall utilize the existing Ford Curriculum on Alternative Fuels as the basis for developing the Alternative Fuels Program curriculum. Recipient shall obtain all necessary licenses, authorizations, and approvals from Ford Motor Company prior to proceeding with Subtask 1.b., below. 1.b. Curriculum Revision/Development of Additional Curriculum Materials: Recipient shall develop an amendment to the Ford Curriculum on Alternative Fuels that conform to the California Education Code and the academic and format requirements of Riverside Community College. Recipient shall development additional instructional materials, as necessary, to supplement the Ford Curriculum. 1.c. Alternative Fuels - Vehicles: In developing instructional materials as they relate to Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) light and medium duty vehicles, Recipient shall include, as a minimum, the following alternative fuels: Compressed Natural Gas (CNG); Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG); methanol; ethanol; and electricity. In developing the curriculum on electric vehicles, Recipient shall address both battery -electric vehicles and internal combustion engine -hybrid electric vehicles. 1.d. Alternative Fuels — Infrastructure: In developing instructional materials as they relate to refueling infrastructure, Recipient shall include, as a minimum, the following types of alternative fuel refueling infrastructure: CNG; LPG; Level II conductive electric vehicle recharging (SAE J1772); and Level II inductive electric vehicle recharging (SAE J1773). In addition, Recipient shall include, at a minimum, an introduction into Level III conductive charging. Task 1 Deliverable: Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Infrastructure Training Program instructional curriculum. Task 2. Development of Prerequisite Alternative Fuels Training Curriculum. Recipient shall develop two introductory curriculum courses to serve as prerequisite options to participation in the Alternative Fuels Program as follows: 2.a. An "Introduction to Alternative Fuels" course that draws upon curriculum materials developed in Subtasks 1.a. through 1.d., above. 2.b. An "Alternative Fuels Training Overview" to be integrated into Riverside Community College's existing Auto 50 class curriculum. The module will draw upon curriculum materials developed in Subtasks 1.a. through 1.d., above. Task 2 Deliverable: Alternative Fuels Training Overview curriculum materials corresponding to Subtasks 2.a. and 2.b. above. Task 3. Curriculum Approval: The Alternative Fuels Program curriculum, including all related instructional materials developed in Tasks 1 and 2, above, shall undergo an academic review and approval by the Riverside Community College District. Task 3 Deliverable: Curriculum approval by the Riverside Community College District Board of Trustees. Task 4. Identification of Course Instructors: Recipient shall identify the classroom and laboratory instructor(s) for the Alternative Fuels Program. Recipient shall ensure that all instructors identified to perform classroom and/or laboratory training and instruction hold all requisite alternative fuels training certifications. Task 4 Deliverable: Roster of designated classroom and laboratory instructors. Task 5. Risk/Safety Assessment: Prior to the initiation of laboratory instruction, Recipient shall conduct a risk assessment to ensure that all planned instructional and training activities conform to the policies, procedures, and practices set forth by the Riverside Community College Risk Management Department. Task 6. Training Center Development: Recipient shall identify and configure classroom and laboratory facilities to allow implementation of the Alternative Fuels Program. This shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following Subtasks: 6.a. Facility Identification: Recipient shall perform an assessment of classroom and laboratory facility requirements necessary to successfully implement the Alternative Fuels Program. Recipient shall identify new or existing classroom and laboratory facilities that will be configured to support alternative fuels instruction and training. Recipient shall develop classroom and laboratory facility specifications, including itemized list(s) of training -specific equipment required to implement the alternative fuels training curriculum. This equipment may include, but not necessarily be limited to, electric vehicle charging station hardware, gaseous fuel venting station, OEM - specific pressure testing tools, and GFI Control Systems, Inc. diagnostic software. 6.b. Procurement of Capital Equipment: Recipient shall procure the training -specific classroom and laboratory equipment as identified in Subtask 6.a., above. 6.c. Equipment Installation: Recipient shall install the training -specified equipment procured under Subtask 6.b., above, in accordance with the facility specifications developed under Subtask 6.a. Task 6 Deliverables: Fully configured classroom and laboratory facilities. Task 7. Marketing & Outreach: Recipient shall actively market the Alternative Fuels Program within the Western Riverside community. Marketing and outreach activities shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following Subtasks: 7.a. Marketing & Recruiting Strategy Development: Recipient shall coordinate with the Riverside Community College Marketing Department to develop marketing and recruitment strategies. Recruiting strategies may include media advertisements, including newspaper, radio, and television promotion, as well as directed outreach to identified groups. 7.b. Design and Development of Promotional Materials: Utilizing the resources of the Riverside Community College Graphics Technology Department, Recipient shall design and produce materials that promote the Alternative Fuels Program. Promotional materials may include brochures, media copy, etc. 7.c. Dissemination of Promotional Materials: Recipient shall disseminate the promotional materials developed in Subtask 7.b., above, in accordance with the marketing and recruiting strategies developed in Subtask 7.a. 7.d. Website Development and Augmentation: Recipient shall modify the existing Riverside Community College Internet website to include information on the Alternative Fuels Program. In addition, Recipient shall identify and establish links to other relevant websites. Task 7 Deliverables: Samples of promotional materials; website modifications and link expansion. EXHIBIT "C" RCTC CMAQ CLEAN FUELS OPPORTUNITY FUND Mt. San Jacinto College District Hereinafter referred to as RECIPIENT Project Scope of Work Project Description: Mt. San Jacinto Community College will expand their current Transportation Technologies Program to include alternative -fuel vehicle and infrastructure education and vocational training. The curriculum development process will build upon Mt. San Jacinto's existing partnership with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). Mt. San Jacinto Community College is partnering with RTA to develop and implement a series of entry-level courses focusing on bus servicing and maintenance. The curriculum materials, laboratory equipment, and facility improvements developed and implemented under this project will result in the expansion of Mt. San Jacinto's existing Transportation Technologies Program to include both entry-level and advanced courses in alternative fuels. The alternative fuels curriculum will focus on a thorough development of fundamental mechanic skills applicable to all heavy-duty vehicle original equipment manufacturers (OEM). Scope of Work: Task 1. Curriculum Development: Recipient shall develop an Alternative Fuels Vehicle and Infrastructure Training Program (Alternative Fuels Program) instructional curriculum and coordinate said development with the California Community Colleges Economic Development Network's Advanced Transportation Technology Program. Curriculum development shall include, at a minimum, the following Subtasks: 1.a. Curriculum Development Point of Departure: Recipient shall utilize, as applicable, the alternative fuels curriculum developed by the Advanced Transportation Technology Program as the basis for its Alternative Fuels Program curriculum development. 1.b. Curriculum Revision/Development of Additional Curriculum Materials: Recipient shall expand the existing curriculum as referenced in Subtask 1.a., above, to include instruction and training relative to alternative fuel heavy-duty vehicles and refueling infrastructure. Recipient shall include, as a minimum, the following alternative fuels: Compressed Natural Gas (CNG); Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). Task 9 Deliverable: Alternative Fuels Program instructional curriculum. Task 2. Curriculum Approval: The Alternative Fuels Program curriculum, including all related instructional materials developed in Task 1, above, shall undergo an academic review and approval by the Mt. San Jacinto College District. Task 2 Deliverable: Curriculum approval by the Mt. San Jacinto College District Board of Trustees. Task 3. Identification of Course Instructors: Recipient shall identify the classroom and laboratory instructor(s) for the Alternative Fuels Program. Recipient shall utilize selected RTA staff or mutually approved Mr. San Jacinto faculty as instructors. Recipient shall ensure that all instructors identified to perform classroom and/or laboratory training and instruction hold all requisite alternative fuels training certifications. Task 3 Deliverable: Roster of designated classroom and laboratory instructors. Task 4. Risk/Safety Assessment: Prior to the initiation of laboratory instruction, Recipient shall conduct a risk assessment to ensure that all planned instructional and training activities conform to the policies, procedures, and practices set forth by the Mt. San Jacinto Community College Risk Management Department. Task 5. Training Center Development: Recipient shall identify and configure classroom and laboratory facilities to allow implementation of the Alternative Fuels Program. This shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following Subtasks: 5.a. Facility Preparation: Recipient shall perform an assessment of classroom and laboratory facility requirements necessary to successfully implement the Alternative Fuels Program. Recipient shall identify new or existing classroom and laboratory facilities that will be configured to support alternative fuels instruction and training. Recipient shall develop classroom and laboratory facility specifications, including itemized list(s) of training -specific equipment required to implement the alternative fuels training curriculum. This equipment may include, but not necessarily be limited to, OEM -specific tools, diagnostic software, etc. 5.b. Procurement of Capital Equipment: Recipient shall procure the training -specific classroom and laboratory equipment as identified in Subtask 5.a., above. 5.c. Equipment Installation: Recipient shall install the training -specified equipment procured under Subtask 5.b., above, in accordance with the facility specifications developed under Subtask 5.a. Task 5 Deliverables: Fully configured classroom and laboratory facilities. Task 6. Marketing & Outreach: Recipient shall actively market the Alternative Fuels Program within the Western Riverside community. Marketing and outreach activities shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following Subtasks: 6.a. Marketing & Recruiting Strategy Development: Recipient shall coordinate with the Mt. San Jacinto Community College Marketing Department to develop marketing and recruitment strategies. Recruiting strategies may include media advertisements, including newspaper, radio, and television promotion, as well as directed outreach to identified groups. 6.b. Design and Development of Promotional Materials: Utilizing the resources of the Mt. San Jacinto Community College Graphics Department, Recipient shall design and produce materials that promote the Alternative Fuels Program. Promotional materials may include brochures, media copy, etc. 6.c. Dissemination of Promotional Materials: Recipient shall disseminate the promotional materials developed in Subtask 7.b., above, in accordance with the marketing and recruiting strategies developed in Subtask 7.a. 6.d. Website Development and Augmentation: Recipient shall modify the existing Mt. San Jacinto Community College Internet website to include information on the Alternative Fuels Program. In addition, Recipient shall identify and establish links to other relevant websites. Task 6 Deliverables: Samples of promotional materials; website modifications and link expansion. rojss/wwdJ rope}.odsycuy domorj.sPls asli ms 000Z `I. !. aagopO uoissRuwoo uogepodsuaal Alunoo emsaan!N auk uogewesead sa0o1outpal 'an j unaufo aims aip y sa1ng qv 1171a1d uo podag swing v NOsSPUNIO MOIMOotJsubuy Ofriori ap/ala2 .sa!bolouuoal land uaalo angeleH suono paid unei-aaaN log suoRanaasgo mad a u inn apniouoo •saibolompal land uaalo 64..iewp'g Tuauno ssassd •••sainpua suo!Tein6a� Amend aid aanTnd 'g luauno movuano ua °woad .Apo (sasne pue slow! fra) suoisswg aid uan Aina-AnaaH `paoj-uo uo snood uofioluaseid jalaq situ uoganpoajui Current CARB Emission Standards for on -Road, Heavy -Duty Engines Mandatory Emissions Standards Model Year NO. and PM Emission Standards (g/bhp-hr)a Heavy -Duty Vehicles Urban Transit Buses NO. PM NO. PM 1998-2002 4.0 0.10 4.0 0.05 a) g/bhp-hr = grams per brake -horsepower -hour CARE "Optional NO," Emission Credit Standards Model Year NO. and PM Emission Standards (g/bhp-hr) Heavy-Dut Vehicles Urban Transit Buses NO. PM NO. PM 1998-2002 <2.5* 0.10 <2.5* 0.05 * CARB's Optional NOx Credit Standards Start at 2.5 g/bhp-hr and Decrease in 0.5 g/bhp-hr Increments trem etConnty Trawsportattow Oonnitsstoo Impact of the EPA/CARB Consent Decree • The EPA/CARB Settlement Against HD Engine Manufacturers Resulted in Acceleration of the 2004 On -Road HD Emissions Standards - Engines Manufactured for Sale in California After October 2002 Must Meet the More Stringent 2004 EPA Emissions Standards Model Year NO), and PM Emission Standards (g/bhp-hr) Heavy -Duty Vehicles Urban Transit Buses NOX PM NOx PM 2003+ 2.4b or 2.5b 0.10 2.4b or 2.5b 0.05 b) NO. plus non -methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) c) NO. plus NMHC with 0.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC cap • CARB Optional NO. Emissions Standards Will Also Become More Stringent - Projected to Start at 1.8 g/bhp-hr NOx+NMHC R/irrside Conn TraNsportalio* ComindssfoN roies=wra/J ronmmothistuj. dW,.dj apisr ila 1111111111 LUG:1541d aaA-oW Pee OW 0 b Isaoo Loos pua 8d ya eLll iepun sanfluaoui fiurpund - sweiBoad aamunuo0 Marnaa uorlonpaa uo►lnljod ar y winos airgoyv a yl Japun sanrluaour 5urpund - G allrl Lop aapun (spagsyv) warp uorlonpad uorss ..u3 aoanos argon -- :aoj Amen° saui6u3 paweo xON louoRdp alVO Aiu0 ...8ivo waif. uoReub!saa snoiNsaid o Tsnr uaul sji . auealiruBis uo eollll'a3 au►5u3;ON lauond0„ sl ALIM spaepuels uoissiur3 "ON leu000 EILIVO South Coast AQMD Fleet Rules ("1190 Rules') Rule Title Effective Date Comments Rule 1192 Clean On -Road Transit Buses 16- Jun-00 Transit Fleets > 100 Buses 01-Jul-01 Transit Fleets > 15 Buses Rule 1193 Clean On -Road Refuse Collection Vehicles 1-Jul-01 Fleets > 50 Collection Trucks 1-Jul-02 Fleets > 15 Collection Trucks PR 1196 Clean On -Road Heavy -Duty Public Fleets 1-Jul-02 Proposed Rule Under Development Rule 1186.1 Alternative -Fuel Sweepers 1-Jul-02 AR 431.2 Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels 1-Sep-05 Amended Rule Fuel Sulfur Content < 15 ppm • AQMD Rules Require Use of Alternative Fuels - CNG, LNG, Propane, Methanol, Electricity, or Fuel Cells • Rule 1192 is More Stringent than CARB Transit Rule - Does Not Allow "Diesel Path" Compliance Option hersldeCouwtp Trouperfarrow Cpmrwtsslow ro1rsfreuop ronvpodrrwd 4prru3 apicratta .:.,..,.wry Aepol emelian b All a►oaacucuo p paapuelS "oN l euoildo ZOOZ siEldV0 Jaen lacll seui5u3 ifinp-AnaaH cunlpepv - OHWN + "ON nu-dug/0 jo paepuels "ON leu000 B:IVO ZOOZ leow o sau!6u3 land emeweily lean molly II!M luewdolanaa aapun AguennO se!Oolougoei alalnolued auld pua `epixouon uoweo `uogaaooap,4H `xoN .goy spaapualS (1700Z Vci3) ZOOZ E'LI VO - salnd 06 l l 0010 b' lsaop Loos pesodoid )s) ,6u►lsix311 V - spaepualS "4N Mol lauorldo luauno s‘88V0 - : aaW Tan Aepol elgelieny aye seu!Ou3 len j ennewaily �(�nQ_�CneaH pa!�! aO siand angeuaaij y - Xficijoutpai siand uealo jo aiels ayl rss7,? Kopvi+*"`"1Ettto Pdac `5u. uall uo►loatui aiga«eA — uoilainaijoad sae isnetix3 uaua�aaa-aa�d Tsnaux3 swauaanoadwi auibu3 j.o uopuigwoo e ubnoaul luawaiinbeH 82:Ido ZOOZ TaaW II!M sau!6u3 iasa!Q ZOOZ Jacopo u! 6upu!ba8 paepuelS ay-duq/b 9'Z TaaW sauOu3 lasaiCl nnaN "oN au-duq/b 017 — la PewlJao saui6u3 laseu bugsix3 • • sap6o/ouyoa1 pese/a 1.10!ssicu3 aaM07 - siand ueaio jo aiejS ayl Livd savoy) ifoua!oyd3 deal anoidcul )s) uollecuiod Wd alejins eonpad of land jaseia anfins-Mol cuoad Neuae — 881/0 „lueu►cueluoa J!v o col„ e se pajeufiisea s! (uoioicu g z) aleinoped 1aseia — Jellen emnoiped euH of uoponpad / gS < Jo] ierlualod - sdeal aleirloP d • sa!Baieils wewleaaj-Jeuv 4snegx3 lasem (penulluoo) sapfiopuipal leseia uoissiva3 .►aM07 - siand uealo jo ajejs ayl Mo)ss)u Niu3 rommods esuol. ,ComoDapit iatja y 091 s► saomap;uaw;ea,ij aayyJo if;yigeanQ ;sod (saseo;sow ui) 6u!uosiod is/(ieleo juanaad o; paijnbaa land lasaiQ anjins Mod b00Z-lsod 17OOZ-ZOOZ VON 000Z (Wdd Oti >) yBIH (wdd 05>) aleJapon (wdd 0C>) leo!IPO (wdd 40g>) wnipaNl %0L - %09 %0L - %OS %06 - %05 %05 - %9Z lsAlele0 xON/ewSeld uoiionpa001e1e0 ani109193 Jagaosgy xON IsAiele0 xON ueal annoy peperoad I[imsues'nilns lePue4od uolpnpaN "ON ABolouyoal sal6olouuoa1 uoilonpa"ON • sa0al eils luauuleaa sally isneux3 lasem (penuiluoo) saifioloutpal leseia uoissiva3 aamo7 - siand ueaio Jo axis ayl Z:ZI:Vavm`wirmul (t) sluewaainbasuoiss!w3 ZOOZ EIHVO '8 ❑WOdoS aaW Tegl Aepol algaliany AIla!a lowwo0 saloivan 'S saulfiuD lan j anpuaaTIV mollod o siaaid of jgnd - saadaaMs hags `sago► ieA asnjad `sasng ilsuaal JOJ paldop y /Wally saind - siand aAllauiew Jo asn a unbad - sluawalinba�l ems paaox3 saln!:1 laaU ainiov Tsa00 ulnoS 000Z aagopo o spaapuals uotssicue 'awed Ap-ip-AAeeH 1700Z Jo uoponpoajuj palaaapooy - uolTaN u! Tuafiupis isoW salnH Jid uaalo epopeo • tiewums slangy aNiewew uiiM ennedwoo osid aaa laseu a01 padolanaa 6upg saftlougoa1 wewlaaij-Jew isnaux3 ayuo /Wen • spite/ suoiss w3 "oN leuolldp laalli leselaGG1 - lend leseu andlns mo7 way .11jauag - peuijea ij aay y isne yx3 )s) sguacueu ea au 5u3 jo uopeu woo - ZooZ aag0100 Aq %08< Aq JallalN avalnowed `%09 paonpa j aq Minn suoiss!w3 "ON lasalQ • spiepuels "ON-A407 ZodZ -10en mill ex/wily Alle iatinuo0 Apea w are seu!Bu3 land anyeuaaw ifinp-iti► eaN cunipen - paapualS «"ON Iau000„ ZOOZ bui.aalN Aijnapo oN aneH wogs sauPu3 land amawew RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Commissioner William Kleindienst, Vice Chairman SUBJECT: Resolution No. 00-017 Supporting Continuation of the California Air Resource Board's Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate RECOMMENDATION: Based on the importance of ensuring the continuance of the ZEV mandate and taking a formal position on public policy issues. That the Commission adopt Resolution No. 00-017, "Supporting Continuation of the California Air Resource Board's Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate" BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Commission's September meeting, I reported on an opportunity that l had to speak at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) hearing on September 8, 2000 during their biennial review of the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program. The existing ZEV mandate requires that 10 percent of the new light -duty vehicles offered for sale in California for model year 2003 be zero emitting. The 1990 adoption of the mandate included a commitment for a biennial review of the progress made toward meeting the program's ambitious goals. I was asked to speak in my role as Chairman of the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) and was given the opportunity to open the public testimony. Representing the Commission on the MSRC, it was a pleasure for me to highlight its strong commitment to the ZEV mandate through provision of financial subsidies for passenger ZEV's, purpose-built ZEV's, public and private recharging stations, and recharging station signage. Consistent with its partnership emphasis, the MSRC is also providing funding support to the California Energy Commission's neighborhood electric vehicle demonstration program. The CARB unanimously affirmed its ZEV mandate and directed staff to develop proposals that would increase near -term availability of ZEV's, increase public awareness and mitigate differential costs associated with initial low -volume production. To facilitate public input including manufacturers and EV drivers, the CARB will hold a public workshop on October 25, 2000 and is scheduled to consider staff developed proposals at its January 25, 2001 hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 00-017 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SUPPORTING CONTINUATION OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD'S ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE MANDATE WHEREAS, motor vehicle exhaust continues to be a major source of ground level ozone and toxic air contaminants as well as other air pollutants, which are major contributors to asthma and other lung disease; and WHEREAS, over ninety-five percent of Californians live in areas that do not meet health -based federal or state air quality standards; and WHEREAS, passenger cars and light trucks contribute approximately 35 + percent of the ozone forming gases in the South Coast Air Quality Management District; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission recognizes and supports the need to reduce the use of petroleum -based fuels and promote the use of alternative methods of transportation, especially zero and near zero emission technologies; and WHEREAS, zero emission vehicles have no tailpipe exhaust, no evaporative emissions from fuel systems, no emissions from the refining of fuel and do not have emission control systems that can degrade over time; and WHEREAS, electric power plants in California are among the cleanest in the world, and even when taking power plants emissions into account, zero emission vehicles are over ninety percent cleaner than the cleanest gasoline powered vehicle; and WHEREAS, using current projections, major auto manufacturers will need to produce and offer for sale approximately 20,000 electric vehicles to comply with the state regulations that are required for the 2003 model year; and WHEREAS, owners of more than a thousand electric vehicles, being operated daily in California, have demonstrated that electric vehicles are safe, reliable, and an environmentally sound transportation solution for a vast majority of trips made by California drivers; and WHEREAS, the electric vehicle technology and the 2003, ten percent (10%) state requirement for zero emission vehicles (effectively reduced to 4% when credits for certain super ultra low emission vehicles is accounted for) is driving automotive manufacturers to develop ultra -clean gasoline, hybrid electrics and ultimately fuel cell vehicles; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Riverside County Transportation Commission urges its legislative delegation in Sacramento to ask the Governor for his support of the existing electric vehicle mandate; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Riverside County Transportation Commission encourages Governor Gray Davis and his appointed members of the California Air Resources Board to take a strong stand on environmental health and the future of air quality for all Californians and uphold the current zero emission mandate. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 1 1 th day of October, 2000. Tom Mullen, Chairperson Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Commissioner Percy Byrd, Ad Hoc Chairman SUBJECT: Resolution No. 00-018, "Establishing an Requirement for Urban Transit Buses" Emissions Standards ALTERNATIVE FUELS AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt Resolution No. 00-018, "Establishing an Emissions Standards Requirement for the Acquisition of Urban Transit Buses with Federal, State or Local Funds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Commission's June 2000 meeting, I provided an overview of the Alternative Fuels Ad Hoc Committee efforts to review, assess and determine a course of action regarding the use of diesel and alternative fuels by the various public transit operators in Riverside County. Serving on the Committee were John Hunt, Will Kleindienst, Ameal Moore, Ron Roberts, John Tavaglione, Roy Wilson, and myself as Chairman. During the presentation, 1 highlighted that a series of three meetings had been held by the Committee to review the issues and seek a cross section of input by various stakeholders including transit operators, regulators, researchers, and advocates. Based on the Committee's effort, Resolution No. 00-018 as presented to the Commission for their consideration that would set an emissions standards requirement for the purchase or lease of urban transit buses within Riverside County. After significant discussion, the Commission directed staff to meet with representatives of the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to work through their agency's concerns regarding the Resolution. Working collective to find common ground, RCTC and RTA staff prepared a Memorandum of Understanding regarding RTA's purchase of 94 buses and emissions factors to be met over a period of time. That MOU was approved by RCTC at its September 2000 meeting. Given the resolution of RTA's concerns and in my role as Committee Chairman, reviewed the original Resolution No. 00-018 and revised language in Section 5 to eliminate any conflict between the Resolution and the MOU. The language changes are noted in strikeout and italics format on the attached updated Resolution. The importance of the Resolution has not changed since first introduced to the Commission. It sets emissions standards to be met by all transit operators and allows the Commission to demonstrate its leadership and commitment to meeting air quality mandates. RESOLUTION NO. 00-018 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING AN EMISSIONS STANDARDS REQUIREMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF URBAN TRANSIT BUSES WITH FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL FUNDS WHEREAS, Riverside County is located within the area of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD); and WHEREAS, the SCAQMD has adopted its Air Quality Management Plan which identifies the urgent need to reduce emissions from motor vehicles, especially diesel vehicle emissions; and WHEREAS, the SCAQMD has recently published a report, "Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study", which found that over 70% of total airborne cancer risk is directly associated with diesel particulate; and WHEREAS, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has recently identified diesel particulate as a Toxic Air Contaminant due to its carcinogenic and other severe health effects; and WHEREAS, CARB is authorized to adopt standards, rules, and regulations, and has taken action to adopt motor vehicle emission standards, in -use performance standards and test procedures which it finds to be necessary, cost-effective and technologically feasible; and WHEREAS, the federal Clean Air Act dictates that the South Coast Air Basin meet national ambient air quality standards for ozone by 2010; and WHEREAS, the South Coast Air Basin is the only area in the nation classified as "extreme non -attainment" under the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; and WHEREAS, the South Coast Air Basin's ability to meet federal conformity requirements is critical to the Commission's future ability to construct transportation infrastructure throughout Riverside County, and WHEREAS, under AB 1246, the county transportation commissions are charged with the responsibility for short range transit planning (PUC130303), selection and approval of mass transit hardware and technology (PUC130303e), and adoption of rules and regulations for the submission of claims under the Transportation Development Act (PUC99261 and 99285); and WHEREAS, the Orange County Transportation Authority and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has each recently taken action to adopt alternative fuels bus purchase policies, liquefied natural gas and compressed natural gas respectively; and WHEREAS, the Commission applauds the leadership of the Riverside County public transit operators in adopting and implementing bus procurement practices that will significantly reduce harmful pollutants typically generated by diesel powered transit buses; and WHEREAS, the Commission acknowledges the importance of fuel neutrality given the unique service area and operating conditions of the County's public transit operators. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: All full size urban public transit buses (as defined by CARB) purchased or leased with federal, state or local funds granted or programmed by the Commission shall meet the urban bus optional, reduced -emission standards as set by CARB for oxides of nitrogen and non -methane hydrocarbons as follows: (a) 2000 through September 2002 - 2.5 (or below) grams/brake horsepower -hour oxides of nitrogen (b) October 2002 through 2006 - 1.8 (or below) grams/brake horsepower -hour oxides of nitrogen plus non -methane hydrocarbons (c) 2007 and beyond - as may be adopted in the future Section 2: Operators of urban buses may select from any low emissions technology that meets the CARB standards as described in Section 1 above. Section 3: This requirement shall apply to purchase or lease of urban buses defined as a heavy heavy-duty passenger carrying vehicle ( + 33,000 pounds GVW) with a load capacity of fifteen or more passengers. Public transit operators using smaller buses are encouraged to purchase or lease the best available emissions control technology that meets CARB's emissions standards as described in Section 1 above. Section 4: All urban buses must meet the CARB emissions standards as described in Section 1 above in effect at the time of manufacturer delivery to the transit operator. Section 5: This requirement shall apply to all urban buses ordered reeei-ver} by public transit operators within Riverside County after October 11, 2000. beginning .duly 1, 2000 Section 6: Questions as to the application of this Resolution shall be resolved by the Commission's Executive Director. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1 1' day of October, 2000. Tom Mullen, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: 2001 Regional Transportation Plan Update - 2025 Plan PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission to receive the report on the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan Update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) - 2025 Plan is currently being developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The RTP is a long range transportation plan covering the years 2001 through 2025. It is required to be in conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) in accordance to EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule. Adoption of the 2001 RTP is scheduled for April, 2001. The lapse date for the current RTP is June 30, 2001. In order to continue the flow of federal funds to the region SCAG must adopt the 2001 RTP and the federal agencies must approve the plan before June 30, 2001. Therefore, these next few months will be critical as policy decisions are being formulated that would allow the 2001 RTP to achieve the mobility and environmental needs of the region over the next 25 years. SCAG began the RTP development last year and has established several committees to provide input and develop recommendations on the following plan areas: • Goods Movement (Truck and Rail) • Highway and Local Arterial • Transit Restructuring (Bus and Rail) • Growth Forecasts • Aviation • Financing • Transportation Corridors • High Speed Rail Members of the various committees include County Transportation Commissions, Subregional Agencies, Transit Operators, local agencies, including private sector agencies. A presentation will be made at the meeting on the status of the RTP development summarizing key issues that must be resolved in order for the 2001 RTP to meet air quality conformity requirements and adhere to the adoption schedule. (alepuein lepueuu) Bupunj pau!Eulsuo3 (aiepuevii itmeno .yid) sa mseavy aaueu roped sweiBoad pue sPeroad dl� p u a tp.mcu o A1111901N «��d Bu!ouele8 &LH wily, pimunj Jo ssaipre5ag) S103Paid 4oudeD -Om ON 1 dI.L2i ON 1 2up.,thiojuop-uoN suograndun 06Cgt79`L z6i`ioz`s 17T eZ80‘0 I StS`OL6‘9 L LTZ`LW9I L661 spjouasnoH luaigoickug uogeindod (SZOZ) lguaaioLi tllmoi9 Regional Checkbook Revenues and Costs.: constant 2001 RTP Checkbook 1997 dollars (in billions) Draft 2001 RTP AO Impacts Baseline Revenues $99.8 Add' 1 Revenues $40.1 * Total Revenues $139.9 Baseline Costs ($110.5) Net Available for $29.4 RTP Projects * Alternative funding strategy approved by the RTP TAC and TCC. Regional Checkbook by County a County Regional Checkbook: Baseline Revenues Revenues In Billions (1997 Add! Revenues* with Air Quality Dollars) Total Revenues Impacts Total Baseline Costs Net Available for RTP Projects (1997-2025) Imperial $ 0.725 $ 0.395 $ 1.120 $ 0.742 0.38 Los Angeles $ 65.535 $ 16.775 $ 82.310 $ 73.761 8.55 Orange $ 15.426 $ 8.327 _ $ 23.753 $ 16.496 7.26 Riverside $ 6.355 $ 5.789 $ 12.144 $ 6.901 5.24 San Bernardino_ $ 9.105 $ 6.452 $ 15.557 $ 10.258 5.30 Ventura $ 2.648 $ 2.383 $ 5.031 $ 2.395 2.64 Total $ 99.794 $ 40.121 $ 139.915 $ 110.553 29.36 * Alternative funding strategy approved by the RTP TAC and TCC. " uomIci sajulaua3 X3ajuils " x�� ian�� aspxa alujs aqj 2upealauI :t, luopmijauad lanf avnuetaiin u{o4fgutl1nsad sanuanad fo sso1 dnoda r off) xuj ian3 anioulajp uu &issassy : � 114111,120.16 .8110111f uoMMIodSliVij so1014,0409 dip guzpualxa) auilosa uo xnj saps awls auj uuoij uopuliodsuull ioj suogelidoidde punj piaua2 auk 3uinuijuoa : z leCiunok) v rn;uaA uz xi); saws vfo uoznsodiuz alp guTpnpuz) saxuj saes uopupodsuea; paoi 3umupuop : i Silapujs ��uipun,�� aAptquany paAoiddv " so!Baluils 5u!punj alp Jo uoguluauzaidtui otp awoonpe of slsonlur olunt.td puu suolBoicins 3111 `s6310 `DVDS &utnionuI dpitsJouliud Ieuot2al oleo D sluouta ilnba l asom ssa mpu o papaau suopdo 2utpunj puu sluatuaimboi uogupodsuaij tzr��a��- uoi s uoI2aN otp umdxa uo!2oli alp Butluosa ida.t owls ti Im suotluoiunu utoo auo-uo-auo `ssooa.t anguisI0oi lua uno auk &tpnp `alupluI -am jo Xmunb otp. puu Supcipm ottuouooa `Xl!pcioui Ieuo123.1 solSo ijs 2utpunj Jo aouniodcut alp puu otp ui passalppu 2upq sanss! jo SIONE111 WILT o OZpUtltuIEJ o ute laid ssouonmu otland . oX9Inul `apinnuo!23.1 ovpapun . " Lum2old 2umunj Jo uopuluatuoIdLut Iiunno auk o stsuq 2u!nupuoo uo uoiloa im ag clIg opuai apIAaKi siactumut itounoa Iguo!2all Jo oopItuwoo aluao . :XIalegraLuuri ono pap.tua aq ontu samnpar IV.I3A3S 4saPialuils tuipunj alunjaajja oZ spnj applan _Know uo aspxa ales alp asvanuI •17 •sasodand uoimpodsuull auilos.e5 jo airs auk uzo.0 palenua sanuanai xvi sans II -pal alms jo uogepdozdde auuo uoRenutluo3 •£ stumBo.KI xel sans uogepodsua4 pool jo uoilunuiluoo acn J03 wauzazmbaz aeon kitlofetu e .cod uogezuomne ureTgo o� sdnoi2 INTo pue sapunop diaH IIas auk utof 'Z •salattpA pnj aniTEuJOUE sanuaAa i page(' Josn pajloa stueBaid 2u9uatuaidua! JOJ stusiuNaatu sno-pvA Jo puu luatudojanap atp Joj 134ng 31-MS ZO- t 00Z ui 2utpunj ansind • I suopay jo amranbas aOuMuzzoJ.zad lisuezZ. agepous Oumund. XiIten6 Jtir. spa foud kiunoonlui. ssaooy azis podw. sloafoid posug 0011UuI.zoJJ3d. &TINT OSEOJOUI - 3011MuNuiEW .10j Xiptopd. 5umunj asuanut - sOuissoij apeJD ag. sjeT.zapy Xlpopd. saum7 Norui - Joj Xvpopd . pawcpa t`mact sanssi pucOall 1 Agenda Item #15. Executive Director's Report RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 9, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT:. SB45 Funds Formula Adjustment • The 15`h, 1998 MOU among RCTC, WRCOG, and CVAG for the distribution of SB 45 funds commits 75.8% in the form of a "formula" share with the remaining 24.2% left for programming via a "discretionary pot". The MOU identifies the 75.8% formula allocation among three areas: (1) Western Riverside County, (2) Coachella Valley, and (3) Palo Verde Valley. The formula share is to be consistent with the current apportionment of Measure A funds among these three areas. The existing formula divides the SB 45 funds among the three County areas as follows: Western Riverside County: Coachella Valley: Palo Verde Valley: 72.23% 26.39% 1.38% Per the MOU, every two years beginning in February 2000, the percentages set forth above shall be adjusted to remain consistent with the apportionment of Measure A funds. Based on the year 2000 review cycle, the "adjusted" formula allocation is indicated below and would become the revised formula for the period February 2000 through February 2002: Western Riverside County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Existing 72.23% 26.39% 1.38% Adjusted 72.08% 26.91 % 1.01% Change % Change - 0.15 + 0.52 - 0.37 - 0.21 % + 0.19% - 26.8% Example of the adjustment impact: For the current 2000 STIP augmentation, the total available funds for formula allocation were $36,679,954. An illustration of the impact by the adjusted formula is shown on the next page: Existing Adjusted +!- Change Western Riverside County $26,493,931 $26,438,910 - $ 55,021 Coachella Valley $ 9,679,840 $ 9,870,576 + $190,736 Palo Verde Valley $ 506,183 $ 370,468 - $135,715 The additional $190,736 will be made available to the Coachella Valley for the current (year 2000) STIP cycle. However, no adjustment will be made to the Palo Verde Valley until the 2002 STIP cycle. A reserve and unprogrammed commitment of western County funds exists that are not expected to be programmed .this STIP cycle enabling the Palo Verde Valley to keep their formula allocation for the current 2000 STIP augmentation. 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGARDING ALLOCATION OF SB 45 FUNDS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU") is made by and among the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the Western Riverside Counsil of Gov meets and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments as of this IS day of { ,, 1998. WHEREAS, the legislature has adopted SB 45 (Chapter 622, Statutes of 1997) authorizing the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") to allocate certain state transportation improvement program ("STIP") funds within Riverside County and; WHEREAS, the parties to this MOU have agreed to a formula allocation of certain funds as between Western Riverside County, the Coachella Valley, and the Palo Verde Valley as described herein; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and the Western Riverside Council of Governments hereby agree as follows: Section 1: 75.8% of the SB 45 funds allocated to RCTC for capital improvement projects under Section 164(a)(2) of the. Streets and Highways Code ("Regional Choice Funds ")shall be apportioned by RCTC for projects located throughout the County as follows: Western Riverside County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley 72.23 % 26.39% 1.38% As used in this MOU, "Western Riverside County," "Coachella Valley," "Palo Verde Valley," shall have the same meanings as that in the Measure "A" Transportation Improvement Plan dated July 13, 1988 and adopted by the voters of Riverside County November 8, 1988. The apportionment of funds in this Section.1 among Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley and Paio Verde Valley is consistent with the current apportionment of Measure "A" Funds among those areas. Every two years starting in February 2000, the percentages set forth above shall be adjusted to remain consistent with the then current R VPUBASCIM 1875 apportionment of Measure "A" funds (or if Measure "A" has expired, using the Measure "A" formula) between Westem Riverside County, the Coachella Valley and the Palo Verde Valley. Changes to the apportionment percentages stated herein (other than the adjustments authorized in the prior sentence) shall be made only by written amendment to this Agreement signed by each party, thereto. Section 2: 24.2% of the SB 45 Regional Choice Funds (as defined above) may be programmed at the discretion of RCTC for transportation projects throughout the County and without regard to the percentages set forth in Section 1, above. In programming these funds, RCTC may take into account one or more ot the following: safety, congestion, economic development, and other special conditions Which -have arisen since the passage of Measure "A" in 1988. Section 3: Should any party to this MOU be dissolved or disbanded without the designation of a successor agency, such party shall be deemed no longer to be a party of this MOU and the consent of such party shall not be required for an amendment to the MOU. The reorganization of RCTC to expand its membership (currently SB 1851( Kelley)) shall not be considered a dissolution or disbanding under this Section. Section 4: This MOU shall not effect any monies other than funds allocated under Section 164(a)(2) of the Streets and Highways Code, or a successor section, if any. Section 5: This Memorandum of Understanding shall be deemed effective March 11, 1998. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION COMMISSION: OF GOVERNMENTS By: /iivti? . Robert Buster, Chairperson WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS By: (17-$4,2eV /77//144,,"--/ Andrea Puga, Chairperson R VPUBlSCD14I B75 By: David Berry, Chairperson '4444•••°'w-- 'wgiger,""- -"441I" -"ger" i i TRUCK CLIMBING LANE GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONY 10:30 A.M. OCTOBE R 11, 2000 MORENO VALLEY PARK N' RIDE LOT (ADJACENT TO SR 60 ON PIGEON PASS ROAD) i THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WARMLY INVITES YOU TO ATTEND A GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONY FOR THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TRUCK CLIMBING LANE. THE NEW TRUCK CLIMBING LANE WILL BE ADDED TO THE EASTBOUND 1-215 AND STATE ROUTE 60 THROUGH THE CITIES OF MORENO VALLEY AND RIVERSIDE. REFRESHMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION, CONTACT JOHN STANDIFORD RCTC PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AT (909)787-7141 i PROGRAM SPEAKERS SUPERVISOR & RCTC CHAIRMAN TOM MULLEN MORENO VALLEY COUNCILMAN & RCTC COMMISSIONER FRANK WEST MORENO VALLEY MAYOR RICHARD A STEWART RIVERSIDE COUNCILMAN & RCTC COMMISSIONER AMEAL MOORE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEMBER BOB WOLF v ...411"1116.,„ ICDONNELL MAP/DIRECTION TO TRUCK CLIMBING LANE GROUND BREAKING CEREMONY Wednesday, October 11, 2000 IYENN 51—99ARBAPA ST�— xIiDGARIX ST PHYLLIS FREDERICK NE71 1101.11 ,q r Eacr 111110ELL OR —J. 14 GR WI FIEIOP.RES7 cT 011111106 DEEP RO 1 ST 11L wnrrm; . MEIN, PASS _ EY From Riverside, take Route 60 East. Take Pigeon Pass/Frederick Street turn off. Turn left towards Pigeon Pass and then take an immediate left towards the Home Depot parking lot. From there, there is a driveway to the Park 'N Ride lot. msua ^ FL ea.,, ur UM c snam is a � � c PIGEON PASS. PARK N' RIDE LOT DIVA LM