Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 April 13, 2011 Commission90758 RECORDS Riverside County Transportation Carnrission MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside 40 COMMISSIONERS Chair - Greg Pettis First Vice Chair - John J. Benoit Second Vice Chair - Karen Spiegel Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / To Be Appointed, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Steve Nolan, City of Corona Scott Mates / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush / Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Larry Smith / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson / Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Michael Wilson, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi / Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Marcelo Co / Richard Stewart, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Jan Harnik / William Kroonen, City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Al Landers, City of Perris Scott Hines / Gordon Moller, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Scott Miller / Andrew Kotyuk, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Raymond Wolfe, Governor's Appointee Comments are welcomed by the Commission. if you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.00 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 12:52 PM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC - Commission Agenda - April 13, 2011 Importance: High Good Afternoon Commission Alternates: Attached below is the link to the April 13, 2011 Commission Meeting Agendas. Please copy the link and paste it into a web page. http://www.rctc.org/downloads/current/agenda 2011 04.pdf Thank you. Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 Riverside County Transportatkm Commission TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager DATE: April 5, 2011 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues - Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda of April 13, 2011 The April 13, 2011 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. A RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 8 - 2011 Specialized Transit Call For Projects - Jobs Access Reverse Commute, New Freedom, and Measure A Specialized Transit Grant Awards Consultant(s): Blindness Support Services, Inc. 3696 Beatty Drive Riverside, CA 92506 Peter Benavidez, CEO Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County P.O. Box 892349 Temecula, CA 92589 Maryann Edwards, CEO Care Connexxus, Inc. 4130 Adams Street, Suite B Riverside, CA 92504 Jeanne Klingenberger, Executive Director Care -A -Van Transit, Inc. P.O. Box 1301 San Jacinto, CA 92581 Ron Cole, Program Director Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, #200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Tom Kirk, Executive Director Court Appointed Special Advocates, (CASA) For Riverside County, Inc. P.O. Box 3008 Indio, CA 92202 Deborah Sutton, Executive Director Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center, Inc. 25075 Fir Avenue Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Dorothy Grzeskowiak, President Independent Living Partnership 6235 Rivercrest Drive, Suite C Riverside, CA 92507 Richard Smith, Executive Director Inland AIDS Project 3770 Elizabeth Street Riverside, CA 92506 D. Joy Gould, CEO Operation SafeHouse, Inc. 9685 Hayes Street Riverside, CA 92503 Kathy McAdara, Executive Director Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507 Larry Rubio, CEO SunLine Transit Agency 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail Thousand Palms, CA 92276 C. Mikel Oglesby, General Manager Volunteer Center of Riverside County 2060 University Avenue, Suite 212 Riverside, CA 92507 Roberta Neff, CEO Wildomar Senior Center 32365 S. Pasadena Street Wildomar, CA 92595 Vicky Grigoli, Administrator Agenda Item No. 12 -Closed Session - Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Owner(s): • Kamensky Family Trust, et al • Hickory Investors, LLC and Steven C. Wellington • Daniel Duane Koby and Alan Edward Koby • Hemet Highlands Associates, LLC and Randall W. Blanchard, Agent for Service • Joan M. Borba and Joseph A. Borba, Jr. • DBA The Grove Business Park, LLC and the principals James T. Rountree, Trustee of the James T. Rountree Revocable Trust Darrell A. Butler Rufus C Barkley, Ill, CWT Barkley Family, LLC RCTC Conflict of Interest Form Purpose: This form is provided to assist members of the RCTC Commissioners in meeting requirements of 87100 in documenting conflict of interests as related to RCTC RCTC Commission may be required to disclose and disqualify or voting on an agenda item due to personal income, real positions, or receipt of campaign contributions. If applicable, the following information, for entry into the public record, prior to itemis) and turn in the completed form to the Clerk of the Board RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past conclusion from any entity or individual. Government Code Section 84308 and Commission/Committee agenda items. Instructions: Under certain circumstances, themselves from participating in, influencing, property interests, investments, business Commissioners must personally state consideration of the involved agenda prior to leaving the meeting. An concerning a contract or amendment if 12 months or 3 months following the I. Board Member Information Board Member Name City/County Name Meeting Date Suif I-LAe 5 —7—Ct.AiAk_o 11tkf `r r r., Wi 0/ II. Campaign Contributions (J 1. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation 2. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation 3. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation 4. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation of over $250 from , (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: . of over $250 from , (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: . of over $250 from , (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: . of over $250 from , (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: . III. Financial Interest 1. I have a financial interest of Ccf,-ns/.(-„kk 1,e0.0-.rk___ , from/in Avv.eN�Ogb (State income, and therefore I am abstaining from participation 2. I have a financial interest of real protv4rty interest, investment or business position) (Identify name of company or property location) on Agenda Item6/z/ , Subject:-T-4x; I/muriIA.4.r ,Pparml , from/in (State income, and therefore I am abstaining from participation real property interest, mvestment or business position) (Identify name of company or property location) on Agenda Item , Subject: IV. Signature Board Member Signature: �-�"" '/ " (,ii,;`‘P-4) Date: y/Riii Please remember you must state the information into the public record prior to consideration of the involved agenda item(s) and turn in the completed form to the Clerk of the Board prior to leaving the meeting. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, April 13, 2011 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the: number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 13, 2011 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY WORKSHOP 10-11, AND MARCH 9, • 2011 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 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR — All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items puffed from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. RESOLUTION COMMEMORATING THE 100T" ANNIVERSARY OF THE INCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PERRIS Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 1 1-005, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Honoring the 100' Anniversary of the City of Perris. 7B. AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE OF MEASURE A FUNDS TO CITY OF CANYON LAKE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 3 1) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-71-091-00, "Agreement for Advancement of 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Funds,' to advance up to $600,000 of 2009 Measure A funds to the city of Canyon Lake (Canyon Lake) utilizing proceeds from the 2010 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf the Commission. " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 13, 2011 Page 3 7C. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY SERVICES FOR THE PERRIS PRELIMINARY AND FINAL CONSTRUCTION, AND PROPERTY Overview This item is for the Commission to: WITH BURLINGTON NORTHERN TO PROVIDE RAILWAY FLAGGING VALLEY LINE PROJECT DURING ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, MAINTENANCE WORK Page 49 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-33-013-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 09-33-013-00, with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Company to extend the term for an additional three years and two one-year options, and additional compensation in the amount of $250,000 for the continued provision of railway flagging services; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. 7D. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 56 1) Approve the following bill positions: " AB 1308 (Miller) - Support; " AB 105 (Committee on Budget) - Support; and 2) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislative activities. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 13, 2011 Page 4 8. 2011 SPECIALIZED TRANSIT CALL FOR PROJECTS - JOBS ACCESS REVERSE • COMMUTE, NEW FREEDOM, AND MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT GRANT AWARDS Page 62 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the grant awards totaling $7,729,126 for the provision of specialized transit service; 2) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-073-00 with Care -A -Van Services, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Care -A -Van project) in the amount of $691,993 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 3) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-074-00 with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for the provision of directly operated transportation services ,(extended late night service project) in the amount of $562,915 in Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant funds, $366,671 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds and $180,130 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 4) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-075-00 with Inland Aids Project for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Inland Aids Project Transportation program) in the amount of $164,932 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 5) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-076-00 with RTA for the provision of directly operated transportation services (CommuterLink service, routes 212 and 214) in the amount of $628,179 in JARC grant funds, $408,575 in LTF funds, and $212,868 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 6) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-077-00 with Care Connexxus, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Specialized Shuttle project) in the amount of $400,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 7) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-078-00 with the Riverside County Regional Medical Center for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Specialized Non Emergency Medical Transportation program) in the amount of $396,997 in New Freedom grant funds; 8) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-079-00 with Operation SafeHouse, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Main Street Transitional Living program) in the amount of $38,700 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 13, 2011 Page 5 • 9) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-080-00 with city of Norco Parks Department for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Norco Senior Shuttle Service program) in the amount of $140,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 10) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-081-00 with Wildomar Senior Community for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Senior Community Transportation program) in the amount of $20,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 1 1) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-082-00 with Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Before and After School Transportation program) in the amount of $444,170 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 12) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-083-00 with the Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Mo Van transit service) in the amount of $129,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 13) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-084-00 with Court Appointed Special Advocates for Riverside County, Inca (C.A.S.A.) for Riverside County for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services (Specialized Transportation Service for Abused Children program) in the amount of $120,420 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds 14) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-086-00 with the Volunteer Center of Riverside County for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services (Transportation Access program) in the amount of $330,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 15) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-085-00 with the Independent Living Partnership for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services (Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project - TRIP) in the amount of $1,136,302 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 161 Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-087-00 with RTA for the provision of mobility management and travel training service (RTA Travel Training project) in the amount of $233,887 in JARC grant funds, $233,888 in New Freedom grant funds, $58,472 in LTF funds and $58,472 in Measure A Consolidated Transportation Services Agencies (CTSA) funds; 17) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-088-00 with Care Connexxus, Inc. for the provision of mobility management and travel training services (Driver Sensitivity Training project) in the amount of $21,582 in New Freedom grant funds; 18) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-068-00 with Blindness Support Services, Inc. for the provision of mobility management and travel training services (Travel Training program) in the amount of $149,067 in Measure A • Specialized Transit grant funds; Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 13, 2011 Page 6 19) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-069-00 with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) for the provision of directly operated transportation services (specialized transit program) in the amount of $101,809 in JARC grant funds; 20) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-070-00 with SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) for the provision of directly operated transportation services (SunLine commuter service) in the amount of $219,030 in JARC grant funds and $40,000 in New Freedom grant funds; 21) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-071-00 with SunLine for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services (SunLine Taxi Voucher program) in the amount of $161,067 in New Freedom grant funds; 22) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-072-00 with SunLine for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services (RCTC-Coachella Valley Rideshare program) in the amount of $80,000 in JARC grant funds; and 23) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf the Commission, 9. 2011 CORRIDOR MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT - CALL FOR PROJECTS Page 76 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the nomination and application submittal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for the Interstate 215 Central widening project from Scott Road to Nuevo Road for Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds. 10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 11. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 13, 2011 Page 7 • 12. CLOSED SESSION • • 12A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Item APN(s) Property Owner(s) 1 458-193-002 Kamensky Family Trust, et al 2 465-040-005 Hickory Investors, LLC Steven C. Wellington 3 465-040-018 465-040-019 465-040-020 Daniel Duane Koby and Alan Edward Koby 4 465-040-008 465-040-009 465-040-010 Hemet Highlands Associates, LLC Randall W. Blanchard, Agent for Service 5 465-040-021 Joan M. Borba and Joseph A. Borba, Jr. 6 249-070-042 DBA The Grove Business Park, LLC James T. Rountree, Trustee of the James T. Rountree Revocable Trust Darrell A. Butler Rufus C. Barkley, III, CWT Barkley Family, LLC Item APN(s) Property Purchaser(s) 1 313-271-018 City of Perris 2 102-420-008 City of Corona 3 294-070-002 294-140-004 County of Riverside 12B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) Case No. RIC 1104363 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 11, 2011, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON MINUTES Thursday, February 10, 2011 WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW The Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop was called to order by Chair Greg Pettis at 2:10 p.m., at the Hilton Palm Springs 400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA. Chair Pettis provided welcoming comments. Anne Mayer, Executive Director, provided an overview of the topics for discussion at the workshop. CITY OF BLYTHE TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY UPDATE Commissioner Joseph DeConinck and David Lane, Blythe City Manager, presented a transportation and community update on the city of Blythe. PASSENGER RAIL ISSUES Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager, presented a detailed report on rail matters, discussing the following areas: " Historical overview; " 1993 Atchison Topeka Santa Fe rail purchase (presented by Steven DeBaun, legal counsel); " Current Burlington Northern Santa Fe negotiations; " Metrolink overview  system, ridership, and lines serving Riverside County; " Revenue and expenses; " Capital projects; " Safety initiatives; " Rail car fleet management; " H.R. 304 (Gallegly); " Perris Valley Line overview, facts, funding, schedule, stations, and service plan; " Local rail studies; " Intercity rail to the Coachella Valley; " High-speed rail update; " Commission track rights; " Las Vegas high-speed rail service; " Los Angeles -San Diego -San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency  overview, membership, and motivation. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 10-11, 2011 Page 2 Tom Kirk, Executive Director of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, discussed the efforts for rail service to the Coachella Valley. Chair Pettis discussed the potential issues and impacts of a Las Vegas high-speed rail service on Riverside County. M/S/C (Busch/Spiegel) to: 1) Receive an oral report on rail matters that affect the Commission and specifically issues regarding rail operating rights and Commission -owned rail property; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 11-001, `Resolution In Support of Amtrak's Sunset Limited Plan to Provide Daily Intercity Rail Service from Los Angeles to San Antonio via the Coachella Valley"; 3) Transmit Resolution No. 11-001 to the Federal Department of Transportation, the National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), and the Rail Division of the California Department of Transportation; 4) Transmit Resolution No. 11-001 to the Inland Empire's legislative delegations in Sacramento and Washington D.C. and others to show local support for the project; 5) Authorize the Chair to submit a letter requesting the Commission to be included as a voting member in the Los Angeles -San Diego -San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency; and 6) Authorize the Chair to serve as the Commission's representative on the LOSSAN Board of Directors if membership is obtained. PANEL DISCUSSION: FINANCING THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, acted as the moderator for the panel discussion. The panel consisted of Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director; Dan Wiles, Fieldman Rolapp & Associates; Corey Boock, Nossaman LLP; and Anne Mayer. Michael Blomquist provided an overview of the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP), discussing the following areas: • Project description, study limits, and alternatives; • Phases of work - Design -build, financing, environmental permitting, right of way acquisition; • Design -build procurement; and • Milestones. Dan Wiles discussed how this project will be financed. " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 10-11, 2011 Page 3 At Commissioner Jeff Stone's request, Anne Mayer explained how toll fees will be collected and divided and what the system will look like to its users. Commissioner Stone then asked about the length of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan and revenue bonds. Dan Wiles stated the revenue bonds are 40-year bonds. Corey Boock stated the TIFIA loan can be up to 35 years after substantial completion of the project. Corey Boock provided an overview of the TIFIA and its importance to the SR-91 CIP. Anne Mayer discussed the Commission's approach to educating delegation members in Washington, D.C. about the SR-91 CIP and our need for a TIFIA loan. She then discussed the Commission's approach for submission of the TIFIA letter of interest. At Commissioner Rick Gibbs' request, Anne Mayer outlined the development process for the TIFIA letter of interest. She then invited any interested Commissioners to review and comment on the letter prior to submittal. Commissioner Gibbs as well as Commissioners Steve Adams and Karen Speigel requested review of the TIFIA letter of interest. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the workshop adjourned at 6:05 p.m. The Commission workshop will continue at 9:00 a.m., Friday, February 11, Hilton Palm Springs, 400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL APRIL 13, 2011 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I .e2' 0 County of Riverside, District II ..,;..1 , /12( County of Riverside, District III 0 County of Riverside, District IV � 0 County of Riverside, District V e O City of Banning /Or 0 City of Beaumont 0 ,171 City of Blythe 0 City of Calimesa )71-4 0 City of Canyon Lake 2r O City of Cathedral City .21.-- 0 City of Coachella .2r O City of Corona •Se 0 City of Desert Hot Springs � 0 City of Eastvale � 0 City of Hemet A O City of Indian Wells � 0 City of Indio X 0 City of La Quinta ri2r. 0 City of Lake Elsinore 012' O City of Menifee )7r' O City of Moreno Valley ,7( 0 City of Murrieta ,)0' 0 City of Norco ,er O City of Palm Desert ,,A` 0 City of Palm Springs .2r 0 City of Perris ,17r-' 0 City of Rancho Mirage ,er O City of Riverside ,e. 0 City of San Jacinto 7( 0 City of Temecula .2r 0 City of Wildomai 0 )2' Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 .71--- 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET APRIL 13, 2011 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS ,M, urr) rees}c.›.t, I.e, a 2ft_ivitri....,.L., iAL.A.7,_'-'1,..-1:14"..:1_-_,_ 4\ vz,m_ Nok (-3 i C _.g..S /t ( !L Q- r t %.0 III 0 o 0 eLL-. / 1/ 14/te G JL h- ::/ Ad-ft ML —A `�—, �o<�= 7- 62A7�y-;77 S i}r ti.)24C C/ rfi �oHk.- ,(��'Na17- (Zia CD y1.4R- Ketiv‘e-k. e° (21119)1-4 6 for?' ...-1 ,2.174, t.1(,(E. ilt:= trbte_44. at ei., E g-os. 21,04 �t-`-� ���1 ` k s� ri,10 SC'v Ze..S _ PetAciLA AIfa __0 -. GAT,...) maw T.,-to %n A,A5 1 cr,N ,,-, J---r- ,,I . \�i). L>} f l lkian )�Gs efn ,t.)2((c/t `�L Tw f-kinit— PALM L7— � DAsF_ — s, , � r 0-4e—e-' Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 10-11, 2011 Page 4 MINUTES Friday, February 11, 2011 The Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop was called to order by Chair Greg Pettis at 9:45 a.m., at the Hilton Palm Springs, 400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA. REVIEW OF LAST YEAR'S CHALLENGES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS Anne Mayer presented a review of last year's challenges and accomplishments, discussing the following areas: • Economic crisis and its impact on the 2009 Measure A Western County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan; • Measure A revenue trends; • State funding; • Active projects under construction; • Interchange projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; • Prioritization strategy; • SR-91 CIP; and • Measure K. Commissioner Roger Berg suggested conducting regional public meetings, in coordination with the local city councils, to educate the constituents about the Commission and its projects, strategies, and goals. Anne Mayer stated Commission staff is always willing to attend city council meeting to discuss projects. DOING MORE WITH LESS — CURRENT TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, discussed the current transportation projects in Riverside County, including video presentations about the projects. He emphasized the importance of partnerships and collaboration to achieve these accomplishments. CLOSING REMARKS Chair Pettis thanked the Commissioners for their attendance and commended staff for its excellent presentations. • • " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 10-11, 2011 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the workshop adjourned at 1 1:03 a.m. Respectfully submitted, C)sui`"^"--&_ \o-a. mC3r` Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, March 9, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Greg Pettis at 9:32 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Jan Harnik led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Roger Berg Bob Botts Daryl Busch Marcelo Co Mary Craton Joseph DeConinck Berwin Hanna Douglas Hanson Jan Harnik Terry Henderson Steven Hernandez Scott Hines Darcy Kuenzi 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Magee Scott Matas Glenn Miller Scott Miller Greg Pettis Steve Pougnet Syed Raza Ron Roberts Adam Rush Larry Smith Karen Spiegel Ella Zanowic Steve Adams Marion Ashley Ben Benoit John J. Benoit Bob Buster Rick Gibbs Jeff Stone John F. Tavaglione Chair Pettis stated the five County Supervisors are in Washington, D.C. attending the National Association of Counties legislative conference. Anne Mayer, Executive Director, presented five-year service awards to Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director, and Edda Rosso, Capital Projects Manager. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 9, 2011 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 11, 2011 M/S/C (Kuenzi/Zanowic) to approve the minutes of February 11, 2011, meeting as submitted. Abstain: Busch, Henderson, Pougnet, and Smith 6. PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF FEE, SLOPE EASEMENT, AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTERESTS IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THE FOOTHILL PARKWAY WESTERLY EXTENSION FROM ITS INTERSECTION AT SKYLINE DRIVE, WEST TO GREEN RIVER ROAD AT PASEO GRANDE, IN CORONA, CALIFORNIA At this time, Chair Pettis described the purpose of this hearing, opened the public hearing, and requested legal counsel to explain the nature and scope of the hearing. • Steve DeBaun, legal counsel, explained the purpose of this hearing is for the Board to consider the adoption of Resolution of Necessity No. 1 1-002 for the acquisition of fee, slope easement, and temporary construction easement interests in certain real property located in Riverside, California by eminent domain for the construction and maintenance of improvements related to the Foothill Parkway Westerly extension project. He stated at the conclusion of this hearing, the Board will be asked to adopt the resolution of necessity and he provided the four findings. Commissioner Bob Magee recused himself due to a conflict of interest on Agenda Item 6. Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board, verified the proofs of mailing that certify notices were sent to the property owner of said parcel numbers. Min Saysay, Right of Way Manager, explained the Foothill Parkway Westerly extension is a project of the city of Corona (Corona) and Corona requested the Commission acquire the right of way on its behalf. Therefore, the Commission is requested to determine and find the full requirements for the adoption of resolution of necessity declaring its intent to acquire interest in real property through eminent domain for the construction and maintenance of the project in Corona. The project involves the extension of the Foothill Parkway as a four -lane roadway for approximately two miles. Roadway improvements include curbs, shoulders, travel lanes, landscaped medians and water lines. He• presented the following items: Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 9, 2011 Page 3 • A map depicting the project and the property to be acquired; • A photo depicting the project - ground view; • An aerial view depicting the project area, the property being acquired highlighting the location of the slope easement, slope easement subject to recapture, and the temporary construction easements; and • A review of the four required findings. At Anne Mayer's request, Min Saysay defined a slope recapture easement. Jennifer Harmon stated the Commission has not received any written objections, protests, or requests to be heard. Chair Pettis called upon any persons with an interest in any of these properties who wish to be heard on this matter. Commissioner Karen Spiegel explained this Project has been envisioned since 1985 and was originally set up as a corridor for the Corona residents. She stated this project is a high priority for Corona: With the expansion of the State Route 91 and the anticipation of additional vehicles through Corona, the connection is necessary to reduce traffic congestion through Corona. Chair Pettis then called upon all other persons who wish to be heard on this matter. There were no requests to speak. At this time, Chair Pettis closed the public hearing. M/S/C (Henderson/G. Miller) to: 1) Make the following findings as hereafter described in this report: a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; 131 The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; cl The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; d) The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner; and • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 9, 2011 Page 4 2► Adopt Resolution of Necessity No. 11-002, Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition of Fee, Slope Easement, and Temporary Construction Easement Interests in Certain Real Property, Located in Riverside County, California, by Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Portions of Assessor Parcel Numbers 275-030-006, 275-040-012, 275-040-015, and 275-050-004, Necessary for the Construction and Maintenance of the Westerly Extension of Foothill Parkway from its Intersection at Skyline Drive, West to Green River Road at Paseo Grande, in Corona, California." Abstain: Magee 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions/revisions to the agenda. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Craton/S. Milled to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 8A. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 BUDGET Approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 201 1 /12 Budget. 8B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended December 31, 2010. 8C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2010. 8D. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 3 (Q3) 2010. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 9, 2011 Page 5 8E. PROPOSITION 1 B FISCAL YEAR 2010/11 CALIFORNIA TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM - CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND AND SUPPORTING RESOLUTION FOR THE COMMISSION'S COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM 1) Adopt Resolution No. 11-003, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Approving the Allocation of FY 2010/11 Proposition 1B-6161-0002 California Transit Security Grant Program - California Transit Assistance Funds (CTSGP-CTAF) Population Funds to the RCTC Commuter Rail Program"; and 2) Allocate the CTSGP-CTAF discretionary funds totaling $266,260 for the Commission's Commuter Rail Program. 8F. CITY OF BEAUMONT'S BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Approve the city of Beaumont's adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan as submitted. 8G. CITY OF MORENO VALLEY'S AMENDED BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Approve the city of Moreno Valley's amended Bicycle Transportation Plan as submitted. 9. PERRIS VALLEY LINE UPDATE AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director, provided an update on the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project and the Commission's response regarding a proposed Metrolink station in Highgrove, which is not feasible. Cathy Bechtel referred to a map depicting station sites in the Hunter Park area located at Palmyrita, Columbia, and Marlborough Avenues. The project will serve this growing business district and is only one mile from Highgrove. Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager, presented the Quiet Zones project and the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the city of Riverside (Riverside) and highlighted the following areas: • Quiet zones; • A map depicting the PVL quiet zone and grade crossings; • PVL - Commission responsibilities to fund/construct quiet zone infrastructure and construct mitigation measures identified in environmental studies; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 9, 2011 Page 6 • PVL - Mitigation measures; • PVL Riverside responsibilities; • A map depicting the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway quiet zone; • BNSF quiet zone - Riverside responsibilities • 3`d Street grade separation project cost and recommend deferral of project; and • Project funding for BNSF and PVL quiet zones. Anne Mayer stated on February 15, the Riverside City Council unanimously approved the MOU, with considerable discussion of the importance of quiet zones to its community. She expressed appreciation to Commissioner Steve Adams for being a strong advocate for this MOU, the construction of the quiet zones, and representing the Commission's interests. Anne Mayer explained most of the recommendations are related to programming requirements. She explained the PVL project is one of the Commission's highest priorities and it will come back to the Commission for approval once the environmental documents are final in fall 2011. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's question, Sheldon Peterson replied since the quiet zone rule has been in place, there is a growing demand for quiet zones. He referred to Orange County as there are several cities that have initiated quiet zones. Commissioner Spiegel commended Riverside for stepping forward for its residents and asked about the method to add a quiet zone. Sheldon Peterson replied per the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), every grade crossing requires an assessment to identify the necessary quiet zone infrastructure. Then, an amendment could be applied for to add a grade crossing to a quiet zone. R.A. Barney Barnett, a Highgrove Municipal Advisory Committee representative, expressed that his quest for a Metrolink station in Highgrove is about location, destinations, the region, efficiency, and cost. Mr. Barnett expressed the current station locations for the PVL will only serve between Riverside and Perris whereas a station at Highgrove would serve three counties and the entire region. He expressed there should have been coordination between San Bernardino Associated Governments and the Commission to address the needs of the transportation region. " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 9, 2011 Page 7 Commissioner Bob Magee expressed sincere appreciation for Barney Barnett's passion and tenacity in pursuing a station in Highgrove. He stated the Commission has invested a significant amount of time and funding exploring a Highgrove station alternative for over nine years. Commissioner Magee stated that it is staff's recommendation is to forgo this site. He asked for an estimate of the amount of funds the Commission has spent in evaluating this alternative. Anne Mayer replied the Commission has spent approximately $200,000 addressing the feasibility of a Highgrove station, not including staff costs associated with it. She explained the Commission hired outside consultants to perform a detailed engineering analysis at this site in Highgrove at a cost of $125,000. In response to Commissioner Magee's request for clarification that the Commission performed its due diligence and staff is confident in its recommendation that a station in Highgrove is not a viable alternative, Anne Mayer concurred. She explained the engineering analysis showed the Highgrove site has several negative features associated with it and would require additional remedial work and millions of dollars more to build than sites at Marlborough and Palmyrita Avenues. She expressed she is absolutely confident the Commission has done everything possible to evaluate this location for over nine years. It has been reviewed by multiple management teams, several different project managers, and it has been reassessed without bias during the entire process. Commissioner Roger Berg stated there have been discussions regarding the potential development in the Hunter Park area and asked if a potential ridership study was conducted. Anne Mayer replied there have been years of extensive ridership projections and analysis in order to obtain the federal Small Starts funding, as well as the Federal Transit Administration vetting this analysis to ensure the ridership is there to support the service. She stated that contained within the environmental document is the discussion of the ridership. Additionally, staff prepared a comparison of the Hunter Park area versus Highgrove and the ridership numbers were five times greater for a Hunter Park station, which was presented at a previous Commission meeting. Commissioner Mary Craton concurred with Commissioner Magee's comments and explained that she was sympathetic to Mr. Barnett's proposal for a station in Highgrove until she visited the site. She explained at the proposed site in Highgrove, there would be a long distance to walk from the parking lot to the station platform, the street access to the parking lot would need to be widened, which would impact homes located along the street. She stated she Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 9, 2011 Page 8 does not support Mr. Barnett's proposal for a station in Highgrove and complimented staff for its analysis and the attached correspondence sent to Mr. Barnett, which explained all of the issues concerning a station in Highgrove. M/S/C (Magee/Henderson) to: 1) Receive an oral report on the status of the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project; 2) Receive and file the Commission's response on issues raised by Mr. Barney Barnett at the January 2011 Commission meeting; 3) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 11-33-065-00 with the city of Riverside (Riverside) regarding the PVL project and implementation of quiet zones; 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission; 5) Deprogram $7 million in federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds from the 3'd Street grade separation project and program $7 million in federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)/Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Quiet Zones project in Riverside; 6) Reprogram balance of unexpended 1989 Measure A Highway and Rail funds from the State Route 91/La Sierra Avenue and SR-91 /Van Buren Boulevard interchanges, estimated by Riverside at $7.7 million, to the BNSF/UPRR Quiet Zone projects in Riverside; 7) Approve the deletion of the 3rd Street grade separation project from the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) program of projects; 8) Defer reprogramming of $17.5 million of state TCIF funds resulting from 3rd Street grade separation deletion to ensure sufficient funding availability for balance of the program; 9) Process an amendment to the Federal Transportation Improvement Program to add BNSF/UPRR Quiet Zones project and reflect above funding changes; 10) Approve Agreement No. 07-31-118-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-31-118-00, for the SR-91/La Sierra Avenue interchange project, and Agreement No. 09-31-077-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 09-31-077-00 for the SR- 91/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project to reflect above funding changes; and 11► Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. • • • " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 9, 2011 Page 9 10. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Chair Pettis stated a delegation of six Commissioners traveled to Washington D.C. to advocate for a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan for the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP). Chair Pettis stated it was an excellent trip and expressed appreciation to Aaron Hake for putting together a great program and the lobbyists for an excellent job. Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, presented the bill positions and an overview of federal and state legislative activities. Anne Mayer provided an overview of her testimony before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works at a joint field hearing on February 23. In addition, she briefed the Commission on the Washington, D.C. advocacy trip, and the positive discussions regarding the TIFIA program and infrastructure banks. She noted the Commission received significant support letters from several delegation members and other stakeholders. She expressed appreciation to the Commissioners that traveled to Washington, D.C. as it clearly made a difference to have Commissioners from all parts of Riverside County. Commissioners Bob Botts, Magee, and Spiegel also reported on the advocacy trip. Anne Mayer stated Western Riverside County Conservation Authority (RCA) was instrumental in helping secure support from non-traditional stakeholders, noting the Commission received a letter of support from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the SR-91 CIP. She expressed appreciation to Tom Mullen and Charles Landry from RCA for their efforts. M/S/C (Spiegel/Henderson) to: 1) Approve the following bill positions: " AJR 4 (Miller) - Support: " H.R. 526 (Calvert) - Support; " H.R. 304 (Gallegly) - Oppose and Work with Author; and 2) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislative activities. 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 9, 2011 Page 10 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 12A. Chair Pettis briefed the Commission on a Coachella Valley rail meeting held on March 4 to discuss the expansion of passenger rail to the desert. 12B. Mary Craton announced: • The 2011 Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) Regional Conference and General Assembly will be held May 5-6 at the La Quinta Resort and Club; and • SCAG's 5`h Annual Compass Blueprint Recognition Awards ceremony will be held during the 2011 SCAG Regional Conference and General Assembly. Nominations for the recognition awards are due Tuesday, March 15. 12C. Anne Mayer announced effective July 1, Jurupa Valley will become a city and a member of the Commission. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:48 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 13, 2011, in the Board Room, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. Respectfully submitted, 02-x")"-q4--- Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board " " " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution Commemorating the 100"' Incorporation of the City of Perris Anniversary of the STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 11-005, A Resolution of the RiversideCounty Transportation Commission Honoring the 100h Anniversary of the City of Perris". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On May 26, 2011, the city of Perris will celebrate the 100`h anniversary of its incorporation. The city and the Commission work together on a number of transportation projects and enjoy a productive and cooperative relationship. The resolution expresses the Commission's congratulations and appreciation to the city. Attachment: Resolution No. 11-005 Agenda Item 7A 1 Resolution No. 11-005 A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Honoring the 100`h Anniversary of the City of Perris WHEREAS the Perris Town Site was founded in 1886 and was named for Fred T. Perris, Chief Engineer of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway; and WHEREAS the city of Perris was incorporated on May 26, 1911; and WHEREAS the original community of 1.25 square miles has developed and grown to a major city of 33 square miles; and WHEREAS the population of the city has grown from about 250 to more than 57,000; and WHEREAS city of Perris plays an important and diverse role in contributing to Riverside County's economy; and WHEREAS the Perris community is home to cohesive residential communities, major employers, and a number of recreational and historic attractions; and WHEREAS the importance of city of Perris as an economic engine and its location in the center of Western Riverside County insures its participation in the advancement of transportation projects; and WHEREAS planned major transportation improvements for Perris include a number of new and existing highway, rail, and bus projects; and WHEREAS the city's active involvement in planning and contributing resources for major transportation projects has benefitted the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the taxpayers of Riverside County; and WHEREAS the city of Perris will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its incorporation on May 26, 2011. NOW BE IT RESOLVED that the Riverside County Transportation Commission offers its enthusiastic congratulations to the city of Perris on this momentous anniversary; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission looks forward to an additional 100 years of a productive relationship to include the development of important projects including the Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension, the widening of Interstate 215, and the development of the Mid County Parkway. ADOPTED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at its meeting on the 13`h day of April, 2011. Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission 2 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement for Advance of Measure A Funds Canyon Lake to City of BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-71-091-00, Agreement for Advancement of 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Funds," to advance up to $600,000 of 2009 Measure A funds to the city of Canyon Lake (Canyon Lake) utilizing proceeds from the 2010 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 2005, the Commission established a commercial paper program (2005 Commercial Paper Program) to provide advance funding for projects included in the 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plan program. Some local jurisdictions requested the ability to utilize the commercial paper program to advance local streets and roads (LSR) projects and highway and regional arterial (Highway) projects. Upon developing financing guidelines under the 2005 Commercial Paper Program, advance funding agreements were executed with three cities, which are the cities of Blythe, Hemet and Indio, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments for certain LSR and Highway projects, respectively. The 2005 Commercial Paper Program is expected to be terminated in March 2012 upon the expiration of the standby letter of credit with Bank of America, as liquidity provider, since the Commission may now issue long-term sales tax revenue bonds under the 2009 Measure A. In November 2010, the Commission issued $1 50 million in 2010 Series A (Tax -Exempt), and 2010 Series B (Taxable Build America Bonds) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Bonds) to retire all of the outstanding commercial paper and fund project costs. The 2010 Series B Bonds were issued with a 6.807% coupon rate; however, the Commission expects to receive a cash Agenda Item 7B 3 subsidy from the United States Treasury equal to 35% of the interest payable on the 2010 Series B Bonds, or 45% of the interest payable on the 2010 Series B Bonds designated as Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds. Approximately $44 million of the bond proceeds is currently available for project costs. As a result of the recent recession resulting in fluctuating MeasureA revenues and< the need to preserve debt capacity for significant Commission highway projects, staff has not sought new advance funding requests. Canyon Lake recently requested funding not to exceed $600,000 from debt proceeds for the Railroad Canyon Road project as an advance of its share of 2009 Measure A Western County LSR funds. Staff has evaluated this request and supports an advance funding agreement with Canyon Lake for the following reasons: • The amount requested by Canyon Lake is small and will not significantly impact the Commission's debt capacity; • Canyon Lake is unique, as it has a limited network of LSR and related projects; • Canyon Lake can complete additional construction work on this project, which is otherwise 100% funded, in order to be more cost-effective; and • The reduction in future local street and road allocations as a result of the repayment obligations will not have a significant, negative impact on the Canyon Lake's ability to maintain and improve existing facilities or `construct new facilities. Under the agreement, Canyon Lake would be reimbursed for actual project costs after submittal of an invoice with appropriate documentation. Interest will be charged based on a rate of 7.307%, which is the equivalent of 6.807% as per the 2010 Build America Bond/Recovery Zone Bonds interest rate plus .50% as reimbursement to the Commission for the cost of issuing and administering the advance. Canyon Lake will be credited for its portion of the interest rate subsidy upon the Commission's receipt of the subsidy payment from the Internal Revenue Service. Repayments will begin immediately following the payment of the advance for a 10-year period by applying a portion of Canyon Lake's LSR funds from the 2009 Measure A to the advance payment due. To secure Canyon Lake's repayment obligation, it will enter into a lease/leaseback or another security arrangement with the Commission. Since this request by Canyon Lake is considered a special situation, staff conducted preliminary due diligence procedures with consideration of the advance funding guidelines approved by the Commission in September 2005. Staff is requesting Commission approval of this advance funding agreement; however, such approval should not be interpreted by other jurisdictions as an indication of the availability of funds for new advance funding requests. Agenda Item 7B • 4 " " Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $600,000 Source of Funds: 2010 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds proceeds Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 267 71 12301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1424,440,1 Date: 03/17/11 Attachments: 1) Canyon Lake Request for Advance dated February 23, 2011 2) Agreement No. 1 1-71-091-00 Agenda Item 7B 5 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF CANYON LAKE February 23, 2011 Anne Mayer Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 31'3 Floor P O Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502.2208 Re: Measure A funding request for Railroad Canyon Road widening project Dear Ms. Mayer: The City of Canyon Lake has been working diligently to reach the construction phase of the Railroad Canyon Road widening project. This is a necessary regional arterial connector project that will widen Railroad Canyon Road from four to six lanes between Goetz Road and Canyon Hills in the City of Lake Elsinore. (see attached) Engineering is 90 percent complete and construction is expected to begin this summer. The project currently has $8,400,000 in funding from TUMF, Prop 1B, Measure A, Traffic Congestion, and AQMD and is estimated to cost approximately $9,000,000. (see attached) After careful consideration, City staff believes additional funding of approximately $600,000 in gap funding is needed to ensure completion of this significant regional project. To accomplish this, the City of Canyon Lake respectfully requests a loan from the City's future Measure A revenues in the amount of $600,000. We understand that the loan and its conditions must be approved by the Commission as well as the City Council. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this funding request, please feel free to contact me or Habib Motlagh. Sincerely, ri oss City Manager C: Habib Motlagh Enclosures 31516 Railroad Canyon Road, Canyon Lake, CA 92587.951/244-2955 • FAX 951/246-2022 admin@cityofcanyonlakc.com • www.cilyofcanyonlake.com 6 " " " Capital Improvement Project Title: Railroad Canyon Road (Ultimate) Budget: 2009-2010 Project Description lanes in Project Design and construct roadway to facilitate circulation between Cities of Menifee and Lake Elsinore: three each direction approved by council Project Forecast Year 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 Total Expense De,01WEn2meeitn5, $ 988 0�� $ 969,000 # M ��s ,. ��_ > �� 1 36 000 b' A, Permits 4i����; '< f ;:"rs-e {-. a `'' {`i^ *.-P. =' 'tea f L Administration Inspections ,i1 -._ , .s��,"" '��`rR Constructtor ? a` fir({ g $` ��409000 $ 5'58E840 5,981840- Construction Cont in gency $ 569160 $ e69,160 _ ,vb* - L I r -��r��Y Ak ��a*�� T�� ��3 ��`��"' Y' on" Conetiuction ?xT ��a ��' 'x��S ��' �� -%cif" Total Expense $ 386,000 $ 969,000 $ 400,000 $ 6,151,000 $ 7.908,000 Revenue $, 6:151000 $ti 71508,000g _ ,l T' $ 388�� y 969000 { fi ,. F" Measure 1B $ 400,000 $ 400.000 MeasureAG-r ��e ��." ��il�� j' ", i,$. b28000��-�� ��528;000, Cong Relief $100.000 $ 8;436,000: Total Revenue $ 788,000 $ 969,000 $ 6,679,000 16,872,000 Year Identified (Construction Start Date lEst. Completion Date ! !Project Manager 2007 July 1, 2011 December 1, 2012 Habib Motlagh 7 " RAILROAD CANYON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: Railroad Canyon Road Widening Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Canyon Lake 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, California 92587 Contact: Ms. Lori Moss Phone: (951) 244-2955 Project Location: The portion of Railroad Canyon Road to be improved is generally located northeast of Interstate 15 (1-15) within the City of Canyon Lake (see Figures 1 and 2). The project is specifically located in Section 6 of Township 6 South, Range 3 West and Sections 1 and 2 of Township 6 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Canyon Lake, in the County of Riverside, California. The proposed project includes the improve- ment of approximately 1.5 miles of Railroad Canyon Road between the westem boundary of the City, near Canyon Hills Road (located within the City of Lake Elsinore), and Goetz Road to the east. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Introduction Railroad Canyon Road currently has as an existing road right-of-way of 110 feet in width, with four lanes, raised center medians, and Class II bike lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalks along portions of the roadway on both sides of the road. It is designated in the City General Plan as Arterial roadway with an ultimate width of 120 feet. Due to existing development on both sides of the Road, the roadway width is not proposed to be widened to this ultimate designated width and the General Plan was modified to establish a 110 foot right-of-way in conjunction with approval of the roadway improve- ments. With minimal exceptions, the proposed improvements will be completed within the existing Road right-of-way. The proposed roadway improvements consist of the expanding Railroad Canyon Road to six lanes with 5-foot Class II bike lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and raised curb will be utilized at existing intersections. As indicated above, all proposed improvements will be conducted within the existing 110-foot wide right-of-way. Raised medians will be utilized at the existing intersection along the project alignment. The proposed curb system will range from 6-9 inches in height. 8 For the proposed street improvements, the identified construction phases include: • Removal of existing pavement, median, curb and gutter; and sidewalk. Equipment will include wheeled loaders, dump trucks, haulers, and backhoes and grinding equipment. • Grading of the road alignment, including installation of additional utility infra- structure, minor drainage system and sidewalks, curbs and gutters. The equip- ment required for this task includes grader(s), dump truck(s), wheeled loader(s), concrete truck(s) and a roller. • Paving will be carried out by paver(s), planer(s), up to three rollers (compactors), concrete trucks, and a water truck. • Lane striping and signage installation. Traffic signal modifications. • Bus Stops. Landscaping/irrigation. Utility relocations, including above ground vault(s), poles, wires, etc. B. Purpose and Need The City of Canyon Lake is improving Railroad Canyon Road through the core area of the City to its General Plan Circulation Element build -out design. The objective is to facilitate the flow of traffic through the City's community center with minimum delays for both local and regional traffic. • 9 ATTACHMENT 2 Agreement No. l 1-71-091-00 AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCEMENT OF 2009 MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDS 1. Parties and Date. This Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into as of this day of , 2011, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC" or "Commission") and the City of Canyon Lake ("City") located in the County of Riverside, State of California: 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to Califomia Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 The City is a municipality with one local road requiring maintenance, development and rehabilitation hereunder. 2.3 In 1988, RCTC enacted and the voters of Riverside County ("County") approved Measure "A" (1989 Measure `A') which authorized RCTC to impose a retail transaction and use tax of one-half percent (.5%) throughout the County of Riverside for up to twenty years. This tax is popularly known as a one-half cent sales tax. 2.4 The 1989 Measure "A" tax was due to expire in June 2009, but on November 5, 2002, a thirty year extension of the half -cent sales tax was approved by voters of the County ("2009 Measure `A"'). 2,5 The Transportation Improvement Plan ("Plan") implementing the 2009 Measure "A" provides that its tax funds are to be used for transportation purposes in the County and further provides that $970 million of the these funds are to be distributed to the cities in the Western County area for local street and road improvements ("Local Streets and Roads Funding") in amounts based on both proportionate population and contribution to 2009 Measure "A" tax revenue. 2.6 The proceeds of the retail transaction and use tax ("2009 Measure `A' Funds") are collected by the California Board of Equalization pursuant to a contract between RCTC and the Board of Equalization, and paid to RCTC monthly. 2.7 The Commission has issued the Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, 2010 Series B Taxable Build America Bonds (2010 Series B Bonds) in November 2010. The Commission is eligible to receive a subsidy payment from the United States of America in an amount equal to 35% of the interest paid by the Commission with respect to the 2010 Series B Bonds, or 45% of the interest paid on such 2010 Series B Bonds that are additionally designated as qualified recovery zone bonds (the "Subsidy Payments"). A portion of the proceeds of the 2010 Series B Bonds will provide funding for the advance provided herein. 2.8 The City has requested and RCTC has agreed that RCTC will advance to the City certain amounts which the City and RCTC anticipate RCTC would otherwise collect and 10 allocate to the City as its share of Local Streets and Roads Funding, as allocated pursuant to the formula set forth in the Plan. 2.9 The funds shall be used to finance a portion of the cost of improvements to the Railroad Canyon Road Widening Project more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto ("Project"). 2.10 The City agrees that it will repay to RCTC the advance and costs associated therewith described herein from Local Streets and Roads Funding and shall secure such repayment obligation by way of a lease/lease-back arrangement or other acceptable security arrangement approved by RCTC. 3. Terms. 3.1 Advance of 2009 Measure "A" Funds. A. Amount of Advance. RCTC agrees to distribute to the City, on terms and conditions set forth herein, a sum not to exceed Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) (the "Advance"). B. Interest. The Advance shall only accrue interest on that portion of the Advance actually distributed to the City. Once any portion of the Advance is distributed to the City, interest shall accrue from this date and said interest shall be payable by the City at a rate of percent over the interest rate paid by RCTC on the 2010 Series B Bonds of 6.807%.'The above -described ''A percent interest rate shall reimburse RCTC for the cost of issuing and administering the Advance. Any Subsidy Payments received by the Commission in connection with the 2010 Series B Bonds will create a credit in the amount of interest owed by the ,City to the Commission hereunder in an amount to be determined by the Commission. C. Repayment of Advance. The City shall repay the Advance, together with all accrued and unpaid interest, to RCTC in one -hundred twenty (120) monthly installments commencing the month following the payment of the Advance to the City, amortized over the period from the date of this Agreement until the maturity date to be calculated by RCTC based on the amount of the Advance, with each installment due no later than the thirtieth (30th) of each month, until the maturity date or repayment in full of all outstanding principal and accrued and unpaid interest, whichever is earlier. D. Early Repayment. The City shall have the right to repay the entire unpaid principal balance of the Advance, plus accrued interest, without penalty. The City intends, but is not obligated to, seek funding from alternative sources to repay Advance. Such alternative sources include eligible TUMF funds, as well as grants and appropriations as well as applicable state and federal programs. At the City's reasonable request and to the extent possible, RCTC will cooperate in assisting the City to obtain and utilize these alternative funding sources for early repayment of Advance. 3.2 Repayment. 2of8 • • 11 " A. Authorization to Apply Local Streets and Roads Funding to Payments; Pledge of Additional Security. For so long as any obligation of the City under this Agreement remains outstanding, the City hereby instructs RCTC to apply the City's portion of any Local Streets and Roads Funding which would otherwise be distributed to the City as Local Streets and Road Funding under the 2009 Measure "A" Plan to pay any due but unpaid obligations of the City to RCTC under this Agreement. To further secure the City's repayment obligation, the City shall either (i) enter into a lease/lease-back arrangement with RCTC in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit "B" hereto or (ii) enter into another security arrangement acceptable to RCTC ("Additional Security"). The parties acknowledge that the Advance is not a general obligation of the City, but is rather a special obligation of the City payable solely from the City's portion of any Local Streets and Roads Funding which would otherwise be distributed to the City under the 2009 Measure "A". The parties further acknowledge that the Additional Security is not a debt for purposes of the California Constitution. Consequently, neither the faith and credit nor the taxing powers of the City are pledged for repayment of the Advance or the Additional Security. B. Remaining Balance Payable. RCTC shall notify the City of the calculation and application of funds made under Section 3.2(B) above, and any amounts then due to RCTC from the City, within thirty (30) days of RCTC's calculation and application of such amounts. RCTC's calculations shall be final, absent clerical or mathematical error. The City shall pay to RCTC any balance due within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice from RCTC of such amount. 3.3 Conditions of the Advance. The obligation of RCTC to make the Advance shall be subject to the condition precedent that RCTC shall have received, in form and substance satisfactory to RCTC, all of the following: A. Duly executed copies of this Agreement, Additional Security and such other documents as RCTC may request in order to fully effectuate the purposes and intent of this Agreement. B. Such documents and certificates regarding the existence, authority and power of the City to execute this Agreement and any related documents as RCTC deems reasonably necessary. 3.4 City's Representations and Warranties. The City hereby makes the following representations and warranties which shall be deemed to be continuing representations and warranties so long as the Advances remains outstanding: A. Agreement Authorized. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, the Additional Security and any and all related documents (collectively "Advance Documents") are duly authorized and do not require the further consent or approval of any body, board or commission or other authority. B. No Default. The City is not in default, nor is it aware of any events that, with the passage of time or the giving of notice, would constitute an event of default on any obligation of the City to RCTC or on any existing public debt issuance of the City. 3 of 8 12 C. No Conflict. The execution, delivery and performance of the Advances Documents does not contravene or conflict with any constitutional provision, law, statute, regulation, or any agreement, indenture or undertaking to which the City is a party or by which it or the 2009 Measure "A" Funds may be bound or affected, and does not and will not cause any lien, charge or other encumbrance to be created or imposed upon the 2009 Measure "A" Funds by reason thereof. D. Solvency. The City is solvent. E. No Violation of RCTC Measure "A" Advance Policies. The City is not in violation of the policies of RCTC for recipients of Advance Funds, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." F. Litigation. There is no litigation or other proceeding pending or threatened against or affecting the City and relating to the Advance, or the Advance Documents, or the transactions contemplated herein or thereby. G. Financial Condition. All financial statements and data submitted in writing by the City to RCTC in connection with the request for Advance are true and correct, and said statements truly represent the financial condition of the City as of the date thereof and the results of the operations of the City for the period covered thereby and have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles on a basis consistently maintained, and that since such date there have been no materially adverse changes in the ordinary course of business. The City has no knowledge of any liabilities, contingent or otherwise, at such date not reflected in said statements, and the City has not entered into any special commitments or substantial contracts which are not reflected in said statements other than in the ordinary and normal course of business, which may have a materially adverse effect upon its financial condition or operations as now conducted. 3.5 City's Affirmative Covenants. The City agrees that so Tong as the Advance is outstanding, it will, unless RCTC shall otherwise consent in writing: A. Use of Advance. Use the Advance only for the purpose and project identified in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. In addition, the City recognizes that under 2009 Measure "A" Plan the purpose of Local Streets and Roads Funding is to assist with the maintenance, development, and rehabilitation of the existing the City and County road system in Western Riverside County, and the City agrees that the Advance shall only be used in a manner consistent with the portions of the 2009 Measure_ "A" Plan related to Western County Local Streets and Road Funding. B. Records and Reports. Maintain a standard and modern system of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles on a basis consistently maintained and furnish RCTC annual audited financial statements and such other information relating to the affairs of the City or the uses of the Advance as RCTC reasonably may request from time to time. C. Inspection. Permit, at any reasonable time, upon reasonable notice, qualified personnel designated by RCTC in writing, to inspect any projects funded by the 4of8 • 13 " " " Advance and any records maintained in connection therewith. RCTC shall have no duty to make any such inspection and shall not incur any liability or obligation by reason of making or not making any such inspection. D. Notice of Default. Promptly notify RCTC in writing of the occurrence of any Event of Default hereunder or of any event which would become an Event of Default hereunder upon giving of notice, lapse of time, or both. 3.6 City's Negative Covenants. The City will not, so long as the Advance remains outstanding, without RCTC's prior written consent create, incur, assume or permit to exist any mortgage, deed of trust, security interest (whether possessory or nonpossessory) or other lien upon or on the City's Local Share of the 2009 Measure "A" Funds other than liens in favor of RCTC. 3.7 Rights and Remedies. A. RCTC shall at all times have the rights and remedies of a secured party under the Califomia Commercial Code ("Code") in addition to the rights and remedies provided herein or in any other agreement or document executed by the City. B. The rights and remedies of RCTC under this Agreement shall not be exhausted by the exercise of any of the rights or remedies of RCTC pursuant to this Agreement or any other agreement between the City and RCTC or any action, proceeding or any number of successive actions or proceedings, unless and until all of the sums owing RCTC by the City shall be fully paid, performed and discharged. All rights and remedies afforded to RCTC pursuant hereto or under any other agreement at any time in effect between the City and RCTC (whether or not there are other parties in addition to the City and RCTC) shall be separate and cumulative and in addition to any and all rights or remedies available at law, in equity or otherwise, and no one of such rights or remedies, whether exercised or not, shall be deemed to be in exclusion of any other right or remedy available and shall in no way limit or prejudice any other right or remedy. The exercise of any one of such rights or remedies shall not be deemed a waiver of, or an election not to exercise, any other right or remedy. 3.8 Events of Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall, at RCTC's option, constitute an event of default (each an "Event of Default") and the City shall provide RCTC with immediate notice thereof. A. Any warranty, representation, statement, report or certificate made or delivered to RCTC by the City or any of the City's officers, employees or agents now or hereafter which is incorrect, false, untrue or misleading in any material respect; or B. The City shall fail to pay, perform or comply with, or otherwise shall breach, any obligation, warranty, term or condition in this Agreement or any amendment to this Agreement, or any agreement delivered pursuant hereto; or C. There shall occur any of the following: dissolution, termination of existence or insolvency of the City; the commencement of any proceeding under any bankruptcy 5 of 8 14 or insolvency law by or against the City; entry of a court order which enjoins, restrains or in any way prevents the City from paying any sums owed by the City to ROTC. 3.9 Indemnification. The City shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend RCTC from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses, including interest, penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, incurred or suffered, which arise, result from, or relate to City's breach of or failure to perform any of its agreements, covenants, obligations, representations, or warranties contained herein. Such indemnity shall survive the termination or discharge of this Agreement. 3.10 Procedures for Distribution of the Advance. A. Initial Payment by the City. The City shall be responsible for initial payment of all the Project costs as they are incurred. Following payment of such Project costs, the City shall submit invoices to RCTC requesting reimbursement of those eligible costs described in section 3.5.A. of this Agreement. Each invoice shall be accompanied by detailed contractor invoices, or other demands for payment addressed to the City, and documents evidencing the City's payment of the invoices or demands for payment. The City shall submit invoices not more often than monthly and not less often than quarterly. B. Review and Reimbursement by RCTC. Upon receipt of an invoice from the City, RCTC may request additional documentation or explanation of the Project costs for which reimbursement is sought. Undisputed amounts shall be paid by RCTC to the City within thirty (30) days. In the event that RCTC disputes the eligibility of the City for reimbursement of all or a portion of an invoiced amount, the Parties shallmeet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If the meet and confer process is unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, the City may appeal RCTC's decision as to the eligibility of one or more invoices to RCTC's Executive Director. The City may appeal the decision of the Executive Director to the full RCTC Board, the decision of which shall be final. Additional details concerning the procedure for the City's submittal of invoices to RCTC and RCTC's consideration and payment of submitted invoices are set forth in Exhibit "D", attached hereto. C. Funding Amount/Adjustment. If a post Project audit or review indicates that RCTC has provided reimbursement to the City in an amount in excess of the Advance, or has provided reimbursement of ineligible Project costs, the City shall reimburse RCTC for the excess or ineligible payments within 30 days of notification by RCTC. 6of8 • 15 " " 3.11 Miscellaneous. A. No Waiver. No waiver of any Event of Default or breach by the City hereunder shall be implied from any omission by RCTC to take action on account of such default, and no express waiver shall affect any default other than the default specified in the waiver and the waiver shall be operative only for the time and to the extent therein stated. Waivers of any covenant, term, or condition contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition. The consent or approval by RCTC to or of any act by the City requiring further consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent or approval to or of any subsequent similar act. B. No Third Parties Benefited. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of RCTC and the City and no third person, other than a permitted assignee or successor hereunder, shall have any right of action under this Agreement. C. Notices. All notices or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be considered as properly given if mailed by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified with return receipt requested, or by express courier delivery or personal delivery to the addressee. Notice mailed by U.S. mail shall be effective only if and when received at the addressee's address. For purposes of notice, the addresses of the parties shall be as follows: RCTC: CITY: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Executive Director CITY OF CANYON LAKE 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 Attn: City Manager Each party shall have the right to change its address for notice hereunder to any other location by the giving of notice to the other party in the manner set forth above. D. Applicable Law. This Agreement and all documents provided for herein shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. E. Time. Time is of the essence in this Agreement, and each and every provision hereof in which time is an element. F. Amendment and Waiver. This Agreement and each provision hereof may be amended, changed, waived, discharged or terminated only by an instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto. G. Attorney's Fees. The prevailing party in any action arising out of this Agreement shall be entitled to its actual attorney's fees and other related expenses actually incurred. 7of8 16 H. Severability. The invalidity and unenforceability of any one or more provisions of this Agreement will in no way affect any other provision. I. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in three or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. J. Headings. The various headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or any provision hereof. K. Further Assurances. At any time or from time to time upon the request of RCTC, the City will execute and deliver such further documents and do other acts and things as RCTC may reasonably request in order to effect fully the purposes of this Agreement, and any other Advances Documents and to provide for the payment of the Advances and interest thereon in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Mayor REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED ATTEST: FOR APPROVAL: By: By: Anne Mayer, Executive Director City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM By: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP, Counsel Riverside County Transportation Commission 8of8 , City Attorney • 17 " " " Exhibit List Exhibit A Description of Project Exhibit B Lease/Lease-Back Agreement Exhibit C Commission Policies Exhibit D Procedures for Submittal, Consideration and Payment of Invoices 18 " EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CITY OF CANYON LAKE 2009 MEASURE "A" LOAN PROJECT: [ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE] A-1 19 " " " EXHIBIT "B" Recording requested by and return to: CITY OF CANYON LAKE 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 LEASE/LEASE-BACK AGREEMENT by and between CITY OF CANYON LAKE and RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Relating to the Advance of 2009 Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Funds Dated as of , 2011 THIS TRANSACTION IS EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX PURSUANT TO SECTION 11929 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. THIS DOCUMENT IS EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT TO SECTION 27383 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE. 20 " LEASE/LEASE-BACK AGREEMENT This Lease/Lease-Back Agreement (this "Lease") executed and entered into as of , 2011, is by and between the CITY OF CANYON LAKE (the "City"), a municipal corporation, duly organized and validly existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (the "RCTC"), a public agency, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City and RCTC have entered into the Agreement for Advance of 2009 Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Funds dated as of , 2011 (the "Advance Agreement") for the purpose of obtaining an advance of certain funds to be received by RCTC on behalf of the City in connection with 2009 Measure "A" Funds (as defined in the Advance Agreement); and WHEREAS, the Advance Agreement requires that the City repay any Advance (as defined in the Advance Agreement) by pledging the City's Local Streets and Roads Funding (as defined in the Advance Agreement); and WHEREAS, the Advance Agreement further requires that the City provide additional security to secure repayment in the event Local Streets and Roads Funding are insufficient to repay in full the City's Advance as it becomes due and payable; and WHEREAS, to provide for such additional security the City desires to enter into this Lease/Lease-Back Agreement between the City and RCTC, pursuant to which the City will lease to RCTC and RCTC will lease back to the City certain property more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, all acts, conditions and things required by law to exist, to have happened and to have been performed precedent to and in connection with the execution and entering into of this Lease do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due time, form and manner as required by law, and the parties hereto are now duly authorized to execute and enter into this Lease Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Section 1.01. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this Section 1.01 shall, for all purposes of this Lease Agreement, have the meanings herein specified or in the Advance Agreement, which meanings shall be equally applicable to both the singular and plural forms of any of the terms herein defined. Additional Rental Payments. The term "Additional Rental Payments" means all amounts payable by the City as Additional Rental Payments pursuant to Section 3.02 hereof. 1 21 Advance. The term "Advance shall have the meaning given to such term in the Advance Agreement which defines the term as $2,500,000. Advance Agreement. The term "Advance Agreement" means the Agreement for Advance of 2009 Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Funds dated as of 2011 between the City and RCTC and any amendments thereto. Advance Repayment. The term "Advance Repayment" or "Advance Repayments" means payment or payments as required to be paid by the City under Section 3.1 the Advance Agreement, as a regularly scheduled payments. Base Rental Payment Date. The term "Base Rental Payment Date" means the dates upon which the City is required to make Advance Repayments under the Advance Agreement. Base Rental Payments. The term "Base Rental Payments" means all amounts payable to RCTC from the City as Base Rental Payments pursuant to Section 3.01 hereof. Commencement Date. The term "Commencement Date" means the date of recordation of this Lease Agreement in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside, State of California. Local Streets and Roads Funding. The term "Local Streets and Roads Funding" shall have the meaning given to such term in the Advance Agreement. Independent Financial Consultant. The term "independent Financial Consultant" means a financial consultant or firm of such consultants generally recognized to be well qualified in the financial consulting field, appointed and paid by the City and who, or each of whom: (1) is in fact independent and not under the domination of the City; (2) does not have any substantial interest, direct or indirect, with the City; and (3) is not connected with the City as a member, officer or employee of the City, but who may be regularly retained to make annual or other reports to the City. Independent Insurance Consultant. The term "Independent Insurance Consultant' means a nationally recognized independent actuary, insurance company or broker that has actuarial personnel experienced in the area of insurance for which the City is to be self -insured, as may from time to time be designated by RCTC. Lease or Lease Agreement. The term "Lease" or "Lease Agreement' means this Lease/Lease-Back Agreement and any amendment or supplement hereto. Net Proceeds. The term "Net Proceeds" means any insurance proceeds or condemnation award in excess of $50,000, paid with respect to any of the Property, remaining after payment therefrom of all expenses incurred in the collection thereof. Permitted Encumbrances. The term "Permitted Encumbrances" means, with respect to a Parcel, as of any particular time: (i) liens for general ad valorem taxes and assessments, if any, not then delinquent, or which the City may, pursuant to provisions of Article V hereof, permit to remain unpaid; (ii) this Lease Agreement; (iii) any right or claim of any mechanic, laborer, 2 • 22 " " " materialman, supplier or vendor not filed or perfected in the manner prescribed by law; (iv) easements, rights of way, mineral rights, drilling rights and other rights, reservations, covenants, conditions or restrictions which exist of record as of the date of recording of this Lease Agreement; and (v) easements, rights of way, mineral rights, drilling rights and other rights, reservations, covenants, conditions or restrictions established following the date of recordation of this Lease Agreement and to which RCTC and the City consent in writing. Property. The term "Property" means those certain parcels of real property situated in the City, including all existing facilities and improvements located thereon; which are more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto, including any other parcels of real property substituted therefor, to the extent permitted by Section 8.07 hereof. Rental Period. The term "Rental Period" means the twelve-month period commencing on the Commencement Date and on each anniversary of the Commencement Date during the term of the Lease. Termination Date. The term "Termination Date" means the date upon which the Advance has been repaid in full. ARTICLE II LEASE AND LEASE -BACK OF PROPERTY; TERM Section 2.01. Lease. The City hereby leases to RCTC and RCTC hereby leases from the City the Property, and all existing facilities and improvements located thereon, to have and to hold for the Term of this Lease. RCTC shall pay to the City as and for rental hereunder the sum of $1.00, and other good and valuable consideration, on or before the date of commencement of the tern of this Lease. Such amount shall constitute prepayment in full of all rental payable by RCTC hereunder. Section 2.02. Lease -Back. RCTC hereby leases -back to the City and the City hereby leases from RCTC the Property, on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, and subject to all easements, encumbrances and restrictions that existed as of the Commencement Date. The leasing to the City from RCTC of the Property shall not effect or result in a merger of the City's leasehold estate pursuant to this Lease Agreement with its fee estate as lessor hereunder, and RCTC shall continue to have and hold a leasehold estate in the Property pursuant to the terms hereof throughout the term hereof. As to the Property, this Section 2.02 shall be deemed and constitute a sublease. Section 2.03. Term: Occupancy. (a) Term. The term of this Lease Agreement shall commence on the Commencement Date, and shall end on the Termination Date. (b) Occupancy. The City agrees to take possession of the Property on the Commencement Date. The City shall only use and occupy the Property for public purposes. 3 23 ARTICLE III RENTAL PAYMENTS Section 3.01. Base Rental Payments. (a) In General. Subject to the provisions of Sections 3.05 and 7.02 hereof, the City shall pay on each Base Rental Payment Date to RCTC as Base Rental Payments an amount equal to the difference, if any, between the amount payable as an Advance Repayment on the immediately preceding payment date and the amount of Local Streets and Roads Funding actually applied by RCTC to repay the Advance pursuant to Section 3.2.A. of the Advance Agreement . In the event Local Streets and Roads Funding is sufficient to make all required Advance Repayments on any date when such payments are due, the City shall have no obligation to make any Base Rental Payments hereunder on such dates. Base Rental Payments shall have principal and interest components which correspond to the principal and interest components of payments made under the Advance Agreement. The interest components of the Base Rental Payments shall be paid by the City as and constitute interest paid on the principal components of the Base Rental Payments to be paid by the City hereunder. The obligation of the City to make the Base Rental Payments does not constitute a debt of the City or of the State of California or of any political subdivision thereof within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limit or restriction, and does not constitute an obligation for which the City or the State of California is obligated to levy or pledge any form of taxation or for which the City or the State of California has levied or pledged any form of taxation. (b) Maximum Rent: Rental Period. All Base Rental Payments made pursuant to this Section 3.01, together with any Additional Rental paid pursuant to Section 3.02 hereof, for each Rental Period shall not exceed the fair rental value of the Property. The aggregate annual Base Rental Payments for the Property shall be for the use of the Property during the Rental Period; or portion thereof, in which such payment is scheduled to be made. Section 3.02. Additional Rental Payments. The City shall also pay, as Additional Rental Payments hereunder in addition to the foregoing Base Rental Payments, such amounts as shall be required for the payment of the following: (a) All taxes, assessments of any type or nature charged to RCTC or the City or affecting the Property or the respective interests or estates of RCTC or the City therein, or affecting the amount available to RCTC from rentals received hereunder (including taxes or assessments assessed or levied by any governmental agency or district having power to levy taxes or assessments). Lease. (b) Insurance premiums for all insurance required pursuant to Article V of this Amounts constituting Additional Rental Payments payable hereunder shall be paid by the City directly to the person or persons to whom such amounts shall be payable. The City shall pay all such amounts when due or at such later time as such amounts may be paid without penalty or, in any other case, within sixty (60) days after notice in writing from the Fiscal Agent or RCTC to the City stating the amount of Additional Rental Payments then due and payable and 4 • 24 " " the purpose thereof. Section 3.03. Fair Rental Value. Such payments of the foregoing Base Rental Payments and Additional Rental Payments for the Property during each Rental Period, during the term of this Lease Agreement, shall constitute the total rental for said Rental Period. The parties hereto have agreed and determined that the fair rental value of the Property is not less than the Advance Repayments in any given year during the Term hereof. In making such determination of fair rental value, consideration has been given to the appraised value of the Property, the estimated costs of financing the acquisition of property comparable to the Property, the uses and purposes which may be served by the Property and the benefits therefrom which will accrue to the City and the general public. Said total rental shall be paid for and in consideration of the use and occupancy of the Property and in consideration of the continued quiet use and enjoyment thereof during each Rental Period for which said rental is to be paid. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Lease Agreement, in the event that rental payments due hereunder shall be partially abated for any period of time, the rental payments due for such period of time shall not exceed the fair rental value of that portion of the Property available for use and occupancy by the City during such period of time. Section 3.04. Payment Provisions. Each installment of Base Rental Payments payable hereunder shall be paid in lawful money of the United States of America to or upon the order of RCTC, or to its assigns, or such other place as RCTC or its assigns shall designate. Each Base Rental Payment shall be made no later than the Base Rental Payment Date on which such Base Rental Payment is due. Notwithstanding any dispute between RCTC and the City, the City shall make all rental payments when due without deduction or offset of any kind and shall not withhold any rental payments pending the final resolution of such dispute. In the event of a determination that the City was not liable for said rental payments or any portion thereof, said payments or excess of payments, as the case may be, 'shall be credited against subsequent rental payments due hereunder or refunded at the time of such determination. Section 3.05. Rental Abatement. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Section 3.05 and Section 7.01 hereof, during any period in which, by reason of material damage or destruction there is substantial interference with the use and occupancy by the City of any portion of the Property, rental payments due hereunder shall be abated proportionately, and the City waives the benefits of Civil Code Sections 1932(1), 1932(2) and 1933(4) and any and all other rights to terminate the Lease by virtue of any such interference and the Lease shall continue in full force and effect. The amount of such abatement shall be agreed upon by the City and RCTC but, subject to Section 3.03 hereof, in no event shall the rental be less than the amount required for the payment of the principal and interest components of the Base Rental Payments, and the Additional Rental Payments, related thereto, as the same become due and payable. The City and RCTC shall calculate such abatement and shall prepare a certificate setting forth such calculation and the basis therefor. Such abatement shall continue for the period commencing with the date of such damage or destruction and ending with the substantial completion of the work of repair or replacement of the Property so damaged or destroyed. ARTICLE IV MAINTENANCE; ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 5 25 Section 4.01. Maintenance and Utilities. Throughout the term of this Lease Agreement, as part of the consideration for rental of the Property, all improvement, repair and maintenance of the Property shall be the responsibility of the City, and the City shall pay from sources other than from the Advance for or otherwise arrange for the payment of all utility services supplied to the Property, which may include, without limitation, janitor service, security, power, gas, telephone, light, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, water and all other utility services, and shall pay for or otherwise arrange for payment of the cost of the repair and replacement of the Property resulting from ordinary wear and tear or want of care on of the City or any assignee or sublessee thereof. In exchange for the rental herein provided, RCTC agrees to provide only the Property. Section 4.02. Additions to Property. Subject to Section 8.02 hereof, the City and any sublessee shall, at its own expense, have the right to make additions, modifications and improvements to any Property. All such additions, modifications and improvements shall thereafter comprise part of the Property and be subject to the provisions of this Lease Agreement. Such additions, modifications and improvements shall not in any way damage the Property or cause it to be used for purposes other than those authorized under the provisions of state and federal law; and the Property, upon completion of any additions; modifications and improvements made pursuant to this Section, shall be of a value which is at least equal to the value of the Property immediately prior to the making of such additions, modifications and improvements. Section 9.03. Installation of City's Equipment. The City and any sublessee may at any time and from time to time, in its sole discretion and at its own expense, install or permit to be installed items of equipment or other personal property in or upon the Property. All such items shall remain the sole property of such party, in which RCTC shall have no interest, and may be modified or removed by such party at any time provided that such party shall repair and restore any and all damage to the Property resulting from the installation, modification or removal of any such items. Nothing in this Lease Agreement shall prevent the City and any sublessee from purchasing items to be installed pursuant to this Section under a conditional sale or lease purchase contract, or subject to a vendor's lien or security agreement as security for the unpaid portion of the purchase price thereof, provided that no such lien or security interest shall attach to any part of the Property. ARTICLE V INSURANCE Section 5.01. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. The City shall maintain or cause to be maintained, throughout the term of this Lease. Agreement, a standard comprehensive general liability insurance policy or policies in protection of the City and RCTC and their respective members, officers, agents and employees. Said policy or policies shall provide for indemnification of said parties against direct or contingent loss or liability for damages for bodily and personal injury, death or property damage occasioned by reason of the use or ownership of the Property. Said policy or policies shall provide coverage in the minimum liability limits of $1,000,000 for personal injury or death of each person and $3,000,000 for personal injury or deaths of two or more persons in asingle accident or event, and in a minimum amount of $500,000 for damage to property (subject to a deductible clause of not to exceed $200,000) resulting from a single accident or event. Such public liability and property damage insurance may, however, be in the form of a single limit policy in the amount of $3,000,000 6 • • • 26 " " covering all such risks. Such liability insurance may be maintained as part of or in conjunction with any other liability insurance coverage carried or required to be carried by the City, and may be maintained in whole or in part in the form of self-insurance by the City provided such self-insurance complies with the provisions of Section 5.04 hereof. The Net Proceeds of such liability insurance shall be applied toward extinguishment or satisfaction of the liability with respect to which the Net Proceeds of such insurance shall have been paid. Section 5.02. Title Insurance. The City shall provide, at its own expense, one or more CLTA title insurance policies in form acceptable to RCTC in the aggregate amount of the principal amount of the Advance. Said policy or policies shall insure the City's leasehold estate hereunder in such Property subject only to Permitted Encumbrances. All Net Proceeds received under said policy or policies shall be used to make Advance Repayments; provided, however, that any amounts in excess of amounts necessary to make all Advance Repayments shall be retained by the City. Prior to the Termination Date, each policy of title insurance obtained pursuant hereto or required hereby shall provide that all proceeds thereunder shall be payable to RCTC or its assigns. Section 5.03. Fire and Extended Coverage Insurance. The City shall procure and maintain, or cause to be procured and maintained throughout the term of this Lease Agreement insurance against loss or damage to any structures constituting any part of the Property by fire and lightning, with extended coverage insurance and vandalism and malicious mischief insurance. A maximum deductible amount of $100,000 for any one loss shall be allowable. Such insurance shall be in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the replacement cost of the damaged Property. Such insurance may be maintained as part of or in conjunction with any other fire and extended coverage insurance carried or required to be carried by the City, and may be maintained in the form of self-insurance by the City. Section 5.04. Additional Insurance Provision: Form of Policies. The City shall pay or cause to be paid when due the premiums for all insurance policies required by Section 5.01 of this Lease, and shall promptly furnish or cause to be furnished evidence of such payments to RCTC. All such policies shall provide that RCTC shall be given thirty (30) days notice of the expiration thereof, any intended cancellation thereof or reduction of the coverage provided thereby. Section 5.05. Self -Insurance. Any self-insurance maintained by the City pursuant to this Article V shall comply with the following terns: (i) The self-insurance program shall, in the judgment of an Independent Insurance Consultant, include an actuarially sound claims reserve fund out of which each self -insured claim shall be paid; the adequacy of each such fund shall be evaluated on an annual basis by the Independent Insurance Consultant; and any deficiencies in any self - insured claims fund shall be remedied in accordance with the recommendation of the aforementioned Independent Insurance Consultant; (ii) The self -insured claims fund shall be held in a separate trust fund by an independent trustee; and 7 27 (iii) In the event the self-insurance program shall be discontinued, the actuarial soundness of its claims reserve fund, as determined by the Independent Insurance Consultant shall, be maintained. Section 5.06. Rental Interruption Insurance. The City shall procure and maintain through the Termination Date rental interruption or use and occupancy insurance, if commercially available, to cover loss, total or partial, of the use of any part of the Facilities during the Term of the Lease Agreement as a result of any of the hazards covered in the maximum remaining scheduled Lease Payments in any future 18 month period payable by the City. The Net Proceeds of such insurance shall be paid to RCTC, and shall be credited towards the payment of the Lease Payments in the order in which such Lease Payments come due and payable. ARTICLE VI DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES Section 6.01. Defaults and Remedies. (a) Defaults. If (i) the City shall fail to pay any Base Rental Payment required to be paid hereunder when the same becomes due and payable, (ii) the City shall fail to pay any item of Additional Rental as and when the same shall become due and payable hereunder, or (iii) the City shall breach any other terms, covenants or conditions contained herein, and shall fail to remedy any such breach with all reasonable dispatch within a period of 30 days after written notice thereof from RCTC, or its assignee, to the City, or, if such breach cannot be remedied within such 30 day period, shall fail to institute corrective action within such 30 day period and diligently pursue the same to completion, then and in any such event the City shall be deemed to be in default hereunder. (b) Remedies. If the City shall be in default hereunder, RCTC shall have the right, at its option, without any further demand or notice, so long as RCTC does not terminate this Lease or the City's right to possession of the Property, to enforce all of its rights and remedies under this Lease Agreement, including the right to recover Base Rental Payments as they become due under this Lease Agreement, pursuant to Section 1951.4 of the Civil Code of the State, by pursuing any remedy available at law or in equity, except as otherwise expressly provide herein. Each and all of the remedies given to RCTC hereunder or by any law now or hereafter enacted are cumulative and the single or partial exercise of any right, power or privilege hereunder shall not impair the right of RCTC to other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any or all other rights, powers or privileges. If any statute or rule of law validly shall limit the remedies given to RCTC hereunder, RCTC nevertheless shall be entitled to whatever remedies are allowable under any statute or rule of law. (c) Attorney's Fees. In the event either RCTC or the City shall prevail in any action brought to enforce any of the terns and provisions of this Lease Agreement, such prevailing party may recover from the losing party a reasonable amount as and for attorney's fees incurred in attempting to enforce any of the terms and provisions hereof. (d) Waiver. Failure of RCTC to take advantage of any default on the part of the City shall not be, or be construed as, a waiver thereof, nor shall any custom or practice which may grow up between the parties in the course of administering this instrument be construed to waive or to lessen the right of RCTC to insist upon performance by the City of any term, covenant or 8 • • 28 " condition hereof, or to exercise any rights given RCTC on account of such default. A waiver of a particular default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the same or any subsequent default. The acceptance of rent hereunder shall not be, or be construed to be, a waiver of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease Agreement. ARTICLE VII EMINENT DOMAIN; PREPAYMENT Section 7.01. Eminent Domain. If all of the Property (or portions thereof such that the remainder is not usable for public purposes by the City) shall be taken under the power of eminent domain, the term hereof shall cease as of the day that possession shall be so taken. If less than all of the Property shall be taken under the power of eminent domain and the remainder is usable for public purposes by the City at the time of such taking, then the Lease Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as to such remainder, and the parties waive the benefits of any law to the contrary, and in such event there shall be a partial abatement of the rental due hereunder in an amount to be agreed upon by the City and RCTC but, subject to Section 3.03 hereof, in no event shall the rental be less than the amount required for the payment of the principal, and interest components of the Base Rental Payments, and the Additional Rental Payments, as the same become due and payable. Prior to the Termination Date, any award made in eminent domain proceedings for the taking of the Property, or any portion thereof, shall be applied to the payment of Advance Repayments. Any amount of the award in excess of the amount needed to pay all Advance Repayments and any such award made after all of the Base Rental Payments have been fully paid or provision therefor made, shall be paid to the City. Section 7.02. Prepayment. The City may prepay, from any source of available funds, all or any portion of the Base Rental Payments becoming due hereunder to the same extent as the Advance is subject to prepayment. ARTICLE VIII COVENANTS Section 8.01. Right of Entry. RCTC and its assignees shall have the right to enter upon and to examine and inspect the Property during reasonable business hours (and in emergencies at all times) for any purpose connected with RCTC's rights or obligations under this Lease Agreement, and for all other lawful purposes. Section 8.02. Liens. In the event the City shall at any time during the term of this Lease Agreement cause any changes, alterations, additions, improvements, or other work to be done or performed or materials to be supplied, in or upon the Property, the City shall pay, when due, all sums of money that may become due for, or purporting to be for, any labor, services, materials, supplies or equipment furnished or alleged to have been furnished to or for the City in, upon or about the Property and which may be secured by a mechanics', materialmen's or other lien against the Property or RCTC's interest therein, and will cause each such lien to be fully discharged and released at the time the performance of any obligation secured by any such lien matures or becomes due, except that, if the City desires to contest any such lien, it may do so. If any such lien shall be reduced to final judgment and such judgment or such process as may be issued for the enforcement thereof is not promptly stayed, or if so stayed and said stay thereafter expires, the City shall forthwith pay and discharge said judgment. 9 29 Section 8.03. Quiet Enjoyment. The parties hereto mutually covenant that the City, by keeping and performing the covenants and agreements herein contained, shall at all times during the term of this Lease Agreement peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy the Property without suit, trouble or hindrance from RCTC. Section 8.04. Authority Not Liable. RCTC and its members, officers, agents and employees, shall not be liable to the City or to any other party whomsoever for any death, injury or damage that may result to any person or property by or from any cause whatsoever in, on or about the Property. The City shall indemnify and hold RCTC, its members, officers, agents and employees, harmless from, and defend each of them against, any and all claims, liens and judgments arising from the use of the Property, including, without limitation, death of or injury to any person or damage to property whatsoever occurring in, on or about the Property regardless of responsibility for negligence, but excepting the negligence or willful misconduct of the person or entity seeking indemnity. Section 8.05. Assignment and Subleasing. Neither this Lease Agreement nor any interest of the City hereunder shall be mortgaged, pledged, assigned, or transferred by the City by voluntary act or by operation by law or otherwise, except with the prior written consent of RCTC, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Property may not be subleased in whole or in part by the City without the prior written consent of RCTC. Any such sublease shall be subject to all of the following conditions: (i) This Lease Agreement and the obligation of the City to make all rental payments hereunder shall remain obligations of the City; (ii) The City shall, within thirty (30) days after the delivery thereof, furnish or cause to be furnished to RCTC a true and complete copy of such sublease; and (iii) No such sublease by the City shall cause the Property to be used for a purpose other than a governmental or proprietary function authorized under the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the State of California. Section 8.06. Title to Property. During the term of this Lease Agreement, RCTC shall have a leasehold interest in the Property and any and all additions which comprise fixtures, repairs, replacements or modifications thereof, except for those fixtures, repairs, replacements or modifications which are added thereto by the City and which may be removed without damaging the Property, and except for any items added to the Property by the City pursuant to Section 4.03 hereof. Upon the termination or expiration of this Lease Agreement with respect to the Property, or any portion thereof, (other than as provided in Section 6.01 and 7.01 of this Lease Agreement), all right, title and interest in and to the Property, or such portion thereof, shall vest in the City. Upon any such termination or expiration, RCTC shall execute such conveyances, deeds and other documents as may be necessary to affect such vesting of record. Section 8.07. Release and Substitution of Property. This Lease Agreement may be modified or amended at any time, if such amendment is to modify or amend the description of the Property in order to release some or all of the real property constituting the Property from the ]0 • 30 " Lease Agreement, to substitute other real property for such real property constituting said portion of the Property, provided that the City shall have filed with RCTC all of the following: (a) Executed copies of this Lease Agreement or amendments thereto containing the amended legal description of the Property; (b) Evidence satisfactory to RCTC that copies of this Lease Agreement or amendments thereto containing the amended legal description of the Property have been duly recorded in the official records of the County Recorder of the County of Riverside; (c) A certificate of the City, accompanied by evidence satisfactory to ROTC, evidencing that the annual fair rental value of the property which will constitute the Property after such release and substitution will be at least equal to the fair rental value of the Property before such release and substitution; (d) A CLTA leasehold owner's policy or an amendment or endorsement to an existingpolicy, resulting in title insurance with respect to the Property after such substitution in an amount at least equal to the amount of such insurance provided with respect to the Property prior to such substitution; each such insurance instrument, when issued, shall name RCTC or its assigns as the insured, and shall insure the leasehold estate of the City in such substituted property subject only to such exceptions as do not substantially interfere with the City's right to use and occupy such substituted property and as will not result in an abatement of Base Rental Payments payable by the City under this Lease Agreement; and (e) An opinion of counsel stating that such amendment or modification (i) is authorized or permitted by the Constitution and laws of the State of California and this Lease Agreement; (ii) complies with the terms of the Constitution and laws of the State of California and of this Lease Agreement; and (iii) will, upon the execution and delivery thereof, be valid and binding upon RCTC and the City in accordance with its terms. Section 8.08. Advance. (a) Private Activity Bond Limitation. The City shall assure that the proceeds of the Advance are not used as to cause the Bonds to satisfy the private business tests of Section 141(b) of the Tax Code or the private loan financing test of Section 141(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Tax Code"). (b) Maintenance of Tax Exemption. The City shall take all actions as necessary as directed by RCTC to assure the exclusion of interest on any tax-exempt obligations of RCTC which are the source of the funding the Advance. Section 8.09. No Purchase of RCTC Obligations. The City agrees that it will not purchase any tax-exempt obligations of RCTC the proceeds of which were used to provide any of the funds for the Advance. II 31 ARTICLE IX NO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES; USE OF THE PROPERTY Section 9.01. No Consequential Damages. In no event shall RCTC be liable for any incidental, indirect, special or consequential damage in connection with or arising out of this Lease Agreement or the City's use of the Property. Section 9.02. Use of the Property. The City will not use, operate or maintain the Property improperly, carelessly, in violation of any applicable law or in a manner contrary to that contemplated by this Lease Agreement. In addition, the City agrees to comply in all respects (including, without limitation, with respect to the use, maintenance and operation of the Property) with all laws of the jurisdictions in which its operations may extend and any legislative, executive, administrative or judicial body exercising any power or jurisdiction over the Property; provided, however, that the City may contest in good faith the validity or application of any such law or rule in any reasonable manner which does not, in the opinion of RCTC, adversely affect the estate of RCTC in and to any of the Property or its interest or rights under this Lease Agreement. ARTICLE X MISCELLANEOUS Section 10.01. Law Governing. THIS LEASE AGREEMENT SHALLBE GOVERNED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE PROVISIONS HEREOF AND BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS THE SAME FROM TIME TO TIME EXIST. Section 10.02. Notices. All notices, statements, demands, consents, approvals, authorizations, offers, designations, requests, agreements or promises or other communications hereunder by either party to the other shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given and served upon the other party if delivered personally or if mailed by United States registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid: If to the City: If to RCTC: City of Canyon Lake 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 Attn: City Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attention: Chief Financial Officer or to such other addresses'as the respective parties may from time -to -time designate by notice in writing. A copy of any such notice or other document herein referred to shall also be delivered to the Fiscal Agent. Section 10.03. Validity and Severability. if for any reason this Lease Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, voidable, or unenforceable by RCTC or by the City, or if for any reason it is held by such a court that any of the covenants and conditions of 12 • • 32 " " " the City hereunder, including the covenant to pay rentals hereunder, is unenforceable for the full term hereof, then and in such event this Lease Agreement is and shall be deemed to be a Lease Agreement under which the rentals are to be paid by the City annually in consideration of the right of the City to possess, occupy and use the Property, and all of the rental and other terms, provisions and conditions of this Lease Agreement, except to the extent that such terms, provisions and conditions are contrary to or inconsistent with such holding, shall remain in full force and effect. Section 10.04. Net -Net -Net Lease. This Lease Agreement shall be deemed and construed to be a "net -net -net lease" and the City hereby agrees that the rentals provided for herein shall be an absolute net return to RCTC, free and clear of any expenses, charges or set -offs whatsoever and notwithstanding any dispute between the City and RCTC. Section 10.05. Taxes. The City shall pay or cause to be paid all taxes and assessments of any type or nature charged to RCTC or affecting the Property or the respective interests or estates therein; provided that with respect to special assessments or other governmental charges that may lawfully be paid in installments over a period of years, the City shall be obligated to pay only such installments as are required to be paid during the term of this Lease Agreement as and when the same become due. The City or any sublessee may, at the City's or such sublessee's expense and in its name, in good faith contest any such taxes, assessments, utility and other charges and, in the event of any such contest, may permit the taxes, assessments or other charges so contested to remain unpaid during the period of such contest and any appeal therefrom unless RCTC or the Fiscal Agent shall notify the City or such sublessee that, in the opinion of independent counsel, by nonpayment of any such items, the interest of RCTC in the Property will be materially endangered or the Property, or any part thereof, will be subject to loss or forfeiture, in which event the City or such sublessee shall promptly pay such taxes, assessments or charges or provide RCTC with full security against any loss which may result from nonpayment, in form satisfactory to RCTC. Section 10.06. Headings. All section headings contained herein are for convenience of reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Lease Agreement. Section 10.07. Amendments. This Lease Agreement and any Ground Lease may be amended in writing as may be mutually agreed by RCTC and the City. Section 10.08. Execution. This Lease Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all together shall constitute but one and the same Lease Agreement. It is also agreed that separate counterparts of this Lease Agreement may separately be executed by RCTC and the City, all with the same force and effect as though the same counterpart had been executed by both RCTC and the City. 13 33 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, RCTC and the City have caused this Lease Agreement to be executed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, all as of the day and year first above written. (Seal) Attest: City Clerk (Seal) Attest: Clerk of the Board CITY OF CANYON LAKE By: Mayor RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Executive Director 14 34 " STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On , 2011, before me, personally appeared n personally known to me OR n proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. [SEAL] Signature of Notary 35 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On , 2011, before me, , personally appeared ❑ personally known to me OR ❑proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. [SEAL] Signature of Notary 36 " EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY [ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE] 37 " EXHIBIT "C" COMMISSION POLICIES 1. Local agencies are required to submit Five Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) to the RCTC in order to qualify for Measure A Streets and Roads funds. In order to be eligible to receive monthly disbursements of funding beginning at the start of a fiscal year, agencies are required to submit their CIPs to the RCTC no later than May 315t. The first year of an agency's annual CIP update will include a list of the specific projects planned to be constructed in that year including projects in Year 1 of the current CIP which will not be under contract by June 30`h of the current year. Year 1 of the CIP will also show expenses for multi -year projects which are expected to be spent for project development work. Projects to be constructed in Years 2-5 of the CIP are to be listed along with their estimated costs. The specific year for construction may be included, if available, but is not required in the CIP. Costs for multi -year projects, excluding project development costs shown in Year I, are to be included in the list of Year 2-5 projects. 2. Cities not participating in the Western Riverside County or Coachella Valley Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) program do not qualify to receive Measure A Streets and Roads allocations (2009 Measure A). 3. Local agencies which are entitled to Measure A funding allocations must demonstrate that they continue to be committed to using their local discretionary funds for local streets and road improvement and maintenance. The local agencies must provide the RCTC with an annual certification that the Measure A funds they are allocated will not replace existing local discretionary funds being used for local transportation purposes. The RCTC cannot issue funds for a new fiscal year until it has received certification of maintenance of effort from the respective agencies. Calculations supporting the MOE certification may be noted by staff as preliminary pending adoption of the annual budget and completion of the annual audit. if the audit or the budget process results in a significant modification to the MOE calculations of CIP, revisions are to be submitted to the RCTC for processing. 38 " " " EXHIBIT "D" PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL, CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT OF INVOICES 1. RCTC recommends that the City incorporate this Exhibit "D-1" into its contracts with any subcontractors to establish a standard method for preparation of invoices by contractors to the City and ultimately to RCTC for reimbursement of City contractor costs. 2. Each month the City shall submit an invoice for eligible Project costs incurred during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to RCTC's Executive Director with a copy to RCTC's Project Coordinator. Each invoice shall be accompanied by a cover letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit "D-2". 3. Each invoice shall include documentation from each contractor used by the City for the Project, listing labor costs, subcontractor costs, and other expenses. Each invoice shall also include a monthly progress report and spreadsheets showing the hours or amounts expended by each contractor or Contractor for the month and for the entire Project to date. Samples of acceptable task level documentation and progress reports are attached as Exhibits "D-4" and "D-5". All documentation from the City's contractors should be accompanied by a cover letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit "D-3". 4. If the City is seeking reimbursement for direct expenses incurred by City staff for eligible Project costs, the City shall detail the same level of information for its labor and any expenses in the same level of detail as required of contractors pursuant to Exhibit "D" and its attachments. 5. Charges for each task and milestone listed in Exhibit "A" shall be listed separately in the invoice. 6. Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the City Representative or his or her designee which reads as follows: "I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates submitted for reimbursement in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the contractors or contractors listed. Signed Title Date Invoice No. 7. RCTC will pay the City within 30 days after receipt by the Commission of an invoice. If RCTC disputes any portion of an invoice, payment for that portion will be withheld, 1 39 without interest, pending resolution of the dispute, but the uncontested balance will be paid. 8. The final payment under this Agreement will be made only after: (i) the City has obtained a Release and Certificate of Final Payment from each contractor or contractor used on the Project; (ii) the City has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment; and (iii) the City has provided copies of each such Release to RCTC. 2 • 40 " EXHIBIT D-1 Elements of Compensation For the satisfactory performance and completion of the Services under this Agreement, the Commission will pay the Contractor compensation as set forth herein. The total compensation for this service shall not exceed ( INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT ) ($_INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT ) without written approval of the Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation"). 1. ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION. Compensation for the Services will be comprised of the following elements: 1.1 Direct Labor Costs; 1.2 Fixed Fee; and 1.3 Additional Direct Costs. 1.1 DIRECT LABOR COSTS. Direct Labor costs shall be paid in an amount equal to the product of the Direct Salary Costs and the Multiplier which are defined as follows: 1.1.1 DIRECT SALARY COSTS Direct Salary Costs are the base salaries and wages actually paid to the Contractor's personnel directly engaged in performance of the Services under the Agreement. (The range of hourly rates paid to the Contractor's personnel appears in Section 2 below.) 1.1.2 MULTIPLIER The Multiplier to be applied to the Direct Salary Costs to determine the Direct Labor Costs is and is the sum of the following components: 1.1.2.1 Direct Salary Costs 1.1.2.2 Payroll Additives The Decimal Ratio of Payroll Additives to Direct Salary Costs. Payroll Additives include all employee benefits, allowances for vacation, sick leave, and holidays, and company portion of employee insurance and social and retirement benefits, all federal and state payroll taxes, premiums for insurance which are measured by payroll costs, and other contributions and benefits imposed by applicable laws and regulations. 1 41 1.1.2.3 Overhead Costs The Decimal Ratio of Allowable Overhead Costs to the Contractor Firm's Total Direct Salary Costs. Allowable Overhead Costs include general, administrative and overhead costs of maintaining and operating established offices, and consistent with established firm policies, and as defined in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations, Part 31.2. Total Multiplier (sum of 1.1.2.1,1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3) 1.2 FIXED FEE. 1.2.1 The fixed fee is $ 1.2.2 A pro-rata share of the Fixed Fee shall be applied to the total Direct Labor Costs expended for services each month, and shall be included on each monthly invoice. 1.3 ADDITIONAL DIRECT COSTS. Additional Direct Costs directly identifiable to the performance of the services of this Agreement shall be reimbursed at the rates below, or at actual invoiced cost. Rates for identified Additional Direct Costs are as follows: ITEM REIMBURSEMENT RATE [_insert charges 1 Per Diem $ /day Car mileage $ /mile Travel $ /trip Computer Charges $ /hour Photocopies $ /copy Blueline $ /sheet LD Telephone $ /call Fax $ /sheet Photographs $ /sheet Travel by air and travel in excess of 100 miles from the Contractor's office nearest to the Commission's office must have the Commission's prior written approval to be reimbursed under this Agreement. 2 • • 42 " " 2. DIRECT SALARY RATES Direct Salary Rates, which are the range of hourly rates to be used in determining Direct Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the following: 2.1 Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable to both straight time and overtime work, unless payment of a premium for overtime work is required by law, regulation or craft agreement, or is otherwise specified in this Agreement. In such event, the premium portion of Direct Salary Costs will not be subject to the Multiplier defined in Paragraph 1.1.2 above. 2.2 Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in effect for one year following the effective date of the Agreement. Thereafter, they may be adjusted annually to reflect the Contractor's adjustments to individual compensation. The Contractor shall notify the Commission in writing prior to a change in the range of rates included herein, and prior to each subsequent change. POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES [ sample J Principal $ .00 - $ .00/hour Project Manager $ .00 - $ .00/hour Sr. Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour Project Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour Assoc. Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour Technician $ .00 - $ .00/hour Drafter/CADD Operator $ .00 - $ .00/bour Word Processor $ .00 - $ .00/hour 2.3 The above rates are for the Contractor only. All rates for subcontractors to the Contractor will be in accordance with the Contractor's cost proposal. 3. INVOICING. 3.1 Each month the Contractor shall submit an invoice for Services performed during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to the Commission's Executive Director with two (2) copies to the Commission's Project Coordinator. 3.2 Charges shall be billed in accordance with the terms and rates included herein, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Commission's Representative. 3.3 Base Work and Extra Work shall be charged separately, and the charges for each task and Milestone listed in the Scope of Services, shall be listed separately. The 3 43 charges for each individual assigned by the Contractor under this Agreement shall be listed separately on an attachment to the invoice. 3.4 A charge of $500 or more for any one item of Additional Direct Costs shall be accompanied by substantiating documentation satisfactory to the Commission such as invoices, telephone logs, etc. 3.5 Each copy of each invoice shall be accompanied by a Monthly Progress Report and spreadsheets showing hours expended by task for each month and total project to date. 3.6 Each invoice shall indicate payments to DBE subcontractors or supplies by dollar amount and as a percentage of the total invoice. 3.7 Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the Contractor's Representative or an officer of the fine which reads as follows: I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed. Signed Title Date Invoice No. 4. PAYMENT 4.1 The Commission shall pay the Contractor within four to six weeks after receipt by the Commission of an original invoice. Should the Commission contest any portion of an invoice, that portion shall be held for resolution, without interest, but the uncontested balance shall be paid. 4.2 The final payment for Services under this Agreement will be made only after the Contractor has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment. 4 • • 44 " EXHIBIT D-2 Sample Cover Letter to RCTC Date Ms. Anne Mayer Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, ri Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Accounts Payable Re: Project Title - Invoice 4 Enclosed for your review and payment approval is the City's invoice for professional and technical services that was rendered by our contractors in connection with the 2002 Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Funding per Agreement No. effective (Month/Day/Year) . The required support documentation received from each contractor is included as backup to the invoice. Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year . Total Authorized Agreement Amount: Total Invoiced to Date: Total Previously Invoiced: Balance Remaining: Amount due this Invoice: $0,000,000.00 $0,000,000.00 $0,000,000.00 $0,000,000.00 $0,000,000.00 I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the contractors listed. By: cc: Name Title 45 EXHIBIT D-3 Sample Letter from Contractor to City/County Month/Date/Year Ms. Anne Mayer Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Accounts Payable Invoice # For [type of services] rendered by [contractor name] in connection with [name of project] This is per agreement No. XX-XX-XXX effective Month/Date/Year . Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to Total Base Contract Amount: Authorized Extra Work (if Applicable) TOTAL AUTHORIZED CONTRACT AMOUNT: Total Invoice to Date: Total Previously Billed: Balance Remaining: Amount Due this Invoice: Month/Date/Year $000,000.00 $000,000.00 $000,000.00 $000,000.00 $000,000.00 $000,000.00 $000,000.00 I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed, By: Name Title • 46 " " EXHIBIT D-4 SAMPLE TASK SUMMARY SCHEDULE 47 EXHIBIT D-5 Sample Progress Report REPORTING PERIOD: Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year PROGRESS REPORT: #1 A. Activities and Work Completed during Current Work Periods TASK 01 — 100% PS&E SUBMITTAL 1. Responded to Segment 1 comments from Department of Transportation 2. Completed and submitted Segment 1 final PS&E B. Current/Potential Problems Encountered & Corrective Action Problems None C. Work Planned Next Period Corrective Action None TASK 01 — 100% PS&E SUBMITTAL 1. Completing and to submit Traffic Signal and Electrical Design plans 2. Responding to review comments RVPUBIDAB1688180.1 48 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Joe Colayco, Staff Analyst Min Saysay, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company to Provide Railway Flagging Services for the Perris Valley Line Project During Preliminary and Final Engineering, Environmental, Construction, and Property Maintenance Work WESTERN " RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-33-013-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 09-33-013-00, with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Company to extend the term for an additional three years and two one-year options, and additional compensation in the amount of $250,000 for the continued provision of railway flagging services; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: BNSF requires, per the shared use agreement entered on October 30, 1992, a BNSF flagger be present during the performance of any work that has the potential to foul the railroad tracks. The BNSF flagger has direct contact with the train's engineer and can alert the engineer to the work being performed and control the movement of the trains through the work zone. This provides a safe and secure area for other contractors' field crews to work and reduces the potential for conflicts between the field crews and the train movements. BNSF requires that only trained BNSF employees perform flagging and will not allow outside consultants to perform the work. Though the labor rate and crew size varies depending on the particular project requirements, the typical cost for a BNSF flagger for an eight hour day is $1,000. Agenda Item 7C 49 At its September 10, 2008 meeting, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 09-33-013-00 to BNSF to provide flagging services for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) for a term of three years ending on September 9, 2011, for a total contract amount of $110,000. The Commission also authorized the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve amendments for potential additional work in the amount of $40,000. Pursuant to that authorization, a contract amendment was executed with BNSF on August 16, 2010, to increase the contract amount by $40,000 for a total contract value that was not to exceed $150,000. Additional flagging services will be needed beyond this initial three-year term for the remaining work in constructing the PVL, highway construction, and property maintenance work at locations intersecting the railroad, and property maintenance work on the railway itself. Staff recommends approval of this second amendment to provide an additional $250,000 to cover flagging services for an additional term of three years with two one-year options. Financial Information N/A FY 201 1 / 12 $150,000 In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: 2012/13 Amount: 50,000 N/A 2013/14 50,000 Source of Funds: Rail Measure A Budget Ad ustment: No 003823 65520 00000 0000 221 33 65520 $210,000 GLA No.: 003023 65520 00000 0000 262 31 65520 20,000 512402 65520 00000 0000 105 51 65520 10,000 522402 65520 00000 0000 105 52 65520 10,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1 „(4,4„v.Y Date: 03/15/11 Attachment: Agreement No. 09-33-013-02 Agenda Item 7C • 50 " Agreement No. 09-33-013-02 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR FLAGGING SERVICES WITH THE BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement for Flagging Services is made and entered into as of , 2011, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (the "Commission") and BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY., a Delaware corporation (the "Railway"). 2. RECITALS 2.1 The Commission and the Railway have entered into an agreement dated September 10, 2008 for the purpose of providing the Commission with railway flagging services on its railways. (the "Master Agreement"), with compensation not to exceed One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($110,000). 2.2 On August 16, 2010, the Commission and Railway entered into Agreement No. 09-33-013-01 increasing the compensation to an amount not to exceed One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000). 2.3 The Commission and Railway now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to extend the term thereof and to provide additional compensation for the continued provision of flagging services. 3. TERMS 3.1 The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Amendment No. 2 by this reference, as though fully set forth herein. 3.2 The term of the Master agreement shall be extended for an additional term of three (3) years, ending September 9, 2014, with two one-year options to extend at the discretion of the Commission's Executive Director. 17336.00603\5789833.1 1 51 3.3 Compensation for Services provided under this Amendment No. 2 shall be at the rates set forth in Exhibit "A", attached to this amendment and incorporated herein by reference. 3.4 The maximum compensation to be provided under this Amendment No. 2 shall not exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), without written authorization from the Commission's Executive Director. 3.5 The total contract value for the Master Agreement, including this Amendment No. 2, is Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000). 3.6 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 2, all provisions of the Master Agreement, as heretofore amended, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 2. 17336.00603\5789833.1 [Signatures on following page] 2 • 52 " SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 09-33-013-02 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY COMMISSION By: By: Melvin Thomas Anne Mayer Manager, Public Projects Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel 17336 0060315789833A 3 53 " " 17336.00603\5789833 _ I EXHIBIT "A" COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES (ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE) EXHIBIT A 54 EXHIBIT "A" COMPENSATION The estimated cost for one (1) flagger is approximately between $800.00-$1,600.00 for an eight (8) hour basic day with time and one-half or double time for overtime, rest days and holidays. The estimated cost for each flagger includes vacation allowance, paid holidays, Railway and unemployment insurance, public liability and property damage insurance, health and welfare benefits, vehicle, transportation, meals, lodging, radio, equipment, supervision and other costs incidental to performing flagging services. Negotiations for Railway labor or collective bargaining agreements and rate changes authorized by appropriate Federal authorities may increase actual or estimated flagging rates. The flagging rate in effect at the time of performance by the Contractor hereunder will be used to calculate the actual costs of flagging pursuant to this paragraph. Exhibit A 55 " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the following bill positions: " AB 1308 (Miller) - Support; " AB 105 (Committee on Budget) - Support; and 2) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislative activities. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State and Federal Legislative Update At the time this staff report was written, both the state and federal governments were without plans to fund their own operations through the end of the current fiscal year. In Washington, D.C. Congress approved a three-week continuing resolution to allow more time for agreement between the House, Senate, and President on spending reductions. In Sacramento, an impasse was declared with respect to the state budget; however action has been taken to approve a number of trailer bills that would implement an approved budget - including spending cuts - once action is taken. One such bill - AB 105 - is discussed in additional detail later on in this staff report. Senators Introduce Infrastructure Bank Legislation Senators John Kerry, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Mark Warner have announced their intention to introduce The Building and Upgrading Infrastructure for Long -Term Development (BUILD) Act, which would establish an infrastructure bank to help repair, modernize, and expand the nation's transportation, water, and energy infrastructure. The bill would create an American Infrastructure Financing Authority (AIFA), which would provide loans and loan guarantees for infrastructure Agenda Item 7D 56 projects. It would be independent of the political process and fund the most important and economically viable projects in the country, according to the legislation. According to the bill, the federal government would provide the authority a $10 billion upfront investment, but then the AIFA would need to become self-sustaining. In addition, the authority would rely heavily on the private sector; AIFA could not provide more than 50 percent of a project's cost and, in many cases, would provide less — just enough to bring in private investment, according to a statement on the bill. Among the BUILD Act's provisions: • The AIFA board and chief executive officer would be appointed by the President, and all candidates would have to be confirmed by the Senate; • An inspector general would oversee AIFA's operations, an independent auditor would review the authority's books and AIFA would submit an assessment of the risks of its portfolio, prepared by an independent source; • Projects would have to cost at least $100 million and be deemed of national or regional significance; • Projects would need to provide a public benefit, meet economic, technical, and environmental standards, and be backed by a dedicated revenue stream; and, • The AIFA board would be responsible for the ultimate approval of eligible projects. Text and a bill number are not yet available; a summary of the bill is attached. Once the bill is formally introduced, staff will return with a full analysis and recommended position on the bill. Of special interest will be on whether and how the bill might affect or coexist with the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program. With respect to transportation issues in Washington, D.C. in early March, the President signed a medium -term extension of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) through September 30, 2011, averting week -to -week extensions of the program and leaving agencies such as the Commission in a position of great uncertainty. In the mean time however, the House is contemplating making significant cuts to transportation programs such as high-speed rail, rail safety technology, recent U.S. Department of Transportation discretionary grants, and some transit capital funding. The core programs funded by the Highway Trust Fund remain intact in the House proposals. Agenda Item 7D • • 57 " " " Bill Positions AB 1308 (Miller)  Support This bill is consistent with the Commission's adopted platform, which calls for the Legislature to provide stable, reliable funding for transportation. AB 1308 will require that payments to local governments owed from the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) to be appropriated continuously, regardless of whether the state's budget is enacted by the June budget deadline. HUTA has been the target of arcane maneuvers by the previous Administration to assist with the state's cash flow problems. Delayed payments and borrowing from HUTA caused uncertainty and complications for local agencies relying on HUTA to keep long -planned infrastructure projects on schedule. The recent passage of Proposition 22 provided another firewall to prevent HUTA funds from being borrowed to balance the General Fund. Reflecting the new-found constitutional protection for this account and the voters' insistence that transportation funds be insulated from the General Fund, this bill would ensure that HUTA funds is continuously paid out and cannot be subjected to delays as a result of cash flow problems related to the rest of the state budget. This will create predictability and certainty that is needed for cities and counties plan for job -creating transportation projects. AB 105 (Committee on Budget)  Support This bill has been signed into law by the Governor. This bill repeals and re-enacts the fuel tax swap of 2010 by a two-thirds vote, compliant with Proposition 26. The bill also addresses truck weight fees, which will be used to offset General Fund losses incurred following the passage of Proposition 22. Both of these "plays" will avert a crisis due to occur in November that could have wiped out one-third of state transportation funding. AB 105 also holds true to an agreement from the transportation community to provide some General Fund relief for FY 2010/1 1, which is the reason the shift of weight fee revenue is included in the bill. The comprehensive approach reflects the positions of a broad coalition including the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, Transportation California, Mobility 21, and other agencies. This bill takes effect immediately, in spite of the protracted budget negotiations. Agencies across California can begin planning for a stable flow of state fuel tax funding for highway and public transit projects. Staff recommends adopting a support position and to maintain a careful watch as the budget process continues. Attachment: BUILD ACT Summary Agenda Item 7D 58 " SUMMARY The Building and Upgrading Infrastructure for Long -Term Development Act (BUILD Act) will help close America's widening infrastructure gap, create millions of jobs in the next decade, and ensure America's global competitiveness in the 21 st century. AMERICA FACES UNPRECEDENTED INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES Americans confront the need for better infrastructure every day they use our outdated roads, bridges, trains, and airports. American businesses experience it too: our economy loses $80 billion every year because of blackouts on outdated transmission and grid infrastructure and traffic on our roads and highways. And our urban sewage systems are overflowing due to aging water infrastructure. Today, the United States spends less than 40 percent of what we need to meet our infrastructure needs. The American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that in the next five years alone we'll fall $2.2 trillion short in the funding necessary to bring American infrastructure to even adequate condition. Over the next 50 years, our population will increase by 120 million people, who will require even more infrastructure for transportation, water, and energy. We need an annual investment of $250 billion from federal, state and local governments to keep up with transportation infrastructure alone. CURRENT FUNDING IS INADEQUATE AND CAN NOT KEEP PACE IN AN ERA OF FISCAL AUSTERITY We all agree that the United States needs to significantly reduce its fiscal deficit over time, but our federal budget is stretched to the limit and our states and municipalities can't afford to take on ever more expensive debt. There are other sources of funding if we think and act creatively. Hundreds of billions of dollars from global pension funds, private equity funds, mutual funds, and sovereign wealth funds are looking to invest in high -quality, low -risk infrastructure projects. Unfortunately, right now they are not investing it here in the United States. In the U.S., the private sector provides only six percent of the nation's infrastructure funding. The BUILD Act will change that. This legislation will enable us to bring that private investment here to the United States. It also addresses the market gaps, like the absence of long-term lending, which will allow us to dramatically increase private investment in American infrastructure. AN INDEPENDENT, FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, PRIVATE -SECTOR DRIVEN SOLUTION The BUILD Act is a bold solution that establishes an American Infrastructure Financing Authority (AIFA) - a type of infrastructure bank - to complement our existing infrastructure funding. This institution, which would provide loans and loan guarantees, would be both fiscally responsible and robust enough to address America's needs. 59 AIFA is independent of the political process. It would fund the most important and most economically viable projects across the country, our states, and our communities. AIFA is also fiscally responsible. While AIFA will receive initial funding from the government, after that it must become self-sustaining. AIFA closely follows the Export -Import Bank model, which has helped to boost American exports and has been profitable overall to the government since 1991. Finally, AIFA relies on the private sector. It can never provide more than 50 percent of a project's costs, and in many cases would provide much less, just enough to bring in private investment. KEY PROVISIONS OF THE BUILD ACT Independent, non partisan operations • While AIFA would be a government -owned entity, it would not be controlled by any federal agency and instead would operate independently. It would be led by a Board of Directors with seven voting members and a chief executive officer. • No more than four voting members of the board could be from the same political party. • Board members would have to be U.S. citizens with significant expertise either in the management of a relevant financial institution or in the financing, development, or operation of infrastructure projects. Strong oversight by Congress and the Federal government • The Board and CEO would be appointed by the President, with one board member designated as chairperson. All candidates would have to be confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. • The Majority Leader of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives would each recommend candidates. • For the first five years, the Department of Treasury's Inspector General would oversee AIFA's operations, an independent auditor would review AIFA's books, and AIFA would submit an assessment of the risks of its portfolio, prepared by an independent source. After five years, AIFA would establish its own Inspector General. • The Government Accountability Office (GAO) would also conduct an evaluation of AIFA and submit a report to Congress no later than five years after the date of enactment. Broad eligibility for infrastructure • Eligible projects would include transportation infrastructure, water infrastructure, and energy infrastructure. • In general, projects would have to be at least $100 million in size and be of national or regional significance. • Projects would have a clear public benefit, meet rigorous economic, technical and environmental standards, and be backed by a dedicated revenue stream. • Geographic, sector, and size considerations would also be taken into account. 2 • • 60 Unbiased project selection • The CEO would be responsible, in consultation with professional staff, for reviewing and preparing the eligible project applications. • The Board would be responsible for the ultimate approval or disapproval of the eligible projects that are submitted to the Board by the Chief Executive Officer and staff. Strong rural protections • Rural projects would only need to be $25 million in size. • Five percent of the initial funding of AIFA would be dedicated to helping rural projects. • AIFA would include an Office of Rural Assistance to provide technical assistance regarding the development and financing of rural projects. • Projects would still have to have a clear public benefit, meet rigorous economic, technical and environmental standards, and be backed by a dedicated revenue stream. Addressing market gaps for infrastructure financing • AIFA would issue loan and loan guarantees to eligible projects. • Loans issued by AIFA would use approximately the same interest rate as similar -length United States Treasury securities and would have a maturity of no longer than 35 years.. • Loans and loan guarantees could be subject to additional fees or interest rate premiums based largely on the costs of the loan to the Federal government, as determined by AIFA in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget. • AIFA would finance no more than 50 percent of the total costs of the project, in order to avoid crowding out private capital. Self-suffciency of AIFA • AIFA is set up to be self-sufficient after the first few years. • To achieve self-sufficiency, the CEO of AIFA would establish fees for loans and loan guarantees. These fees could be in the form of application fees or transaction fees, and could include an interest rate premium associated with the loan or loan guarantee. • However, AIFA would receive initial funding of $10 billion, which would earn interest. This initial funding would be used both to offset the cost of the loans to the Federal government and to cover administrative costs. • Funding under the Act would be subject to the Federal Credit Reform Act, except that it would be exempted from the requirement that appropriations are needed for subsequent loans and loan guarantees. Additional BUILD Act provisions The BUILD Act also addresses private activity bonds. These bonds are frequently used to finance infrastructure projects. Under current law, interest on tax-exempt private activity bonds is generally subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). This, in turn, limits the marketability of these bonds and causes states to issue bonds at higher interest rates. This Act would extend the exemption to bonds that are issued in 2011 or 2012. 3 61 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2011 Specialized Transit Call for Projects - Jobs Access Reverse Commute, New Freedom, and Measure A Specialized Transit Grant Awards BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the grant awards totaling $7,729,126 for the provision of specialized transit service; 2) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-073-00 with Care -A -Van Transit, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Care -A -Van project) in the amount of $691,993 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 3) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-074-00 with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for the provision of directly operated transportation services (extended late night service project) in the amount of $562,915 in Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant funds, $366,671 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds and $180,130 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 4) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-075-00 with Inland Aids Project for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Inland Aids Project Transportation program) in the amount of $164,932 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 5) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-076-00 with RTA for the provision of directly operated transportation services (CommuterLink service, routes 212 and 214) in the amount of $628,179 in JARC grant funds, $408,575 in LTF funds, and $212,868 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 6) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-077-00 with Care Connexxus, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Specialized Shuttle project) in the amount of $400,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 7) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-078-00 with the Riverside County Regional Medical Center for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Specialized Non Emergency Medical Transportation program) in the amount of $396,997 in New Freedom grant funds; Agenda Item 8 62 8) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-079-00 with Operation SafeHouse, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Main Street Transitional Living program) in the amount of $38,700 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 9) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-080-00 with city of Norco Parks Department for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Norco Senior Shuttle Service program) in the amount of $140,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 10) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-081-00 with Wildomar Senior Community for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Senior Community Transportation program) in the amount of $20,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 1 1) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-082-00 with Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Before and After School Transportation program) in the amount of $444,170 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 12) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-083-00 with the Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Mo Van transit service) in the amount of $129,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 13) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-084-00 with Court Appointed Special Advocates for Riverside County, Inc. (C.A.S.A.) for Riverside County for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services (Specialized Transportation Service for Abused Children program) in the amount of $120,420 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 14) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-086-00 with the Community Connect of Riverside County for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services (Transportation Access program) in the amount of $330,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 15) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-085-00 with the Independent Living Partnership for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services (Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project - TRIP) in the amount of $1,136,302 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 16) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-087-00 with RTA for the provision of mobility management and travel training service (RTA Travel Training project) in the amount of $233,887 in JARC grant funds, $233,888 in New Freedom grant funds, $58,472 in LTF funds and $58,472 in Measure A Consolidated Transportation Services Agencies (CTSA) funds; 17) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-088-00 with Care Connexxus, Inc. for the provision of mobility management and travel training services (Driver Sensitivity Training project) in the amount of $21,582 in New Freedom grant funds; Agenda Item 8 • 63 " 18) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-068-00 with Blindness Support Services, Inc. for the provision of mobility management and travel training services (Travel Training program) in the amount of $149,067 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 19) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-069-00 with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) for the provision of directly operated transportation services (specialized transit program) in the amount of $101,809 in JARC grant funds; 20) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-26-070-00 with SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) for the provision of directly operated transportation services (SunLine commuter service) in the amount of $219,030 in JARC grant funds and $40,000 in New Freedom grant funds; 21) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-071-00 with SunLine for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services (SunLine Taxi Voucher program) in the amount of $161,067 in New Freedom grant funds; 22) Approve Agreement No. 11-26-072-00 with SunLine for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services (RCTC-Coachella Valley Rideshare program) in the amount of $80,000 in JARC grant funds; and 23) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Providing funding for transit services for persons with disabilities and senior citizens has long been a priority of the Commission. Both voter -approved Measure A Expenditure Plans specify funding for this kind of service. In recent years, additional federal funding has been made available for similar purposes. These programs are known as the JARC and New Freedom programs. At its April 2008 meeting, the Commission approved the Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan) and adopted a strategy for developing and conducting a specialized transit call for projects program for both the Coachella Valley and Western County. This process would be used to competitively disburse the JARC and New Freedom funds received from the federal government as well as Measure A Specialized Transit funds, and to ensure that all available funding be used as efficiently and effectively as possible. At its September and October 2008 meetings, the Commission approved the first suite of specialized transit projects for implementation with a funding allocation totaling $7.8 million. The approved projects began service on July 1, 2009, and have been in operation for more than one year. It should be noted that first year performance of this program generated in excess of 363,000 one-way passenger trips and leveraged an additional $2.2 million in matching funds and in -kind services beyond those funds provided by the Commission. Agenda Item 8 64 Performance of this nature adds significantly to the annual investment made in public transit for Riverside County via the traditional Short Range Transit Plan funding process. In funding this program, a more specific service can be made available to those hard to serve people as identified in the Coordinated Plan, that cannot reasonably use existing fixed route buses, dial -a -ride (DAR) and/or trains. All projects awarded under the 2009 Specialized Transit Call for Projects (2009 Call for Projects) will conclude their two-year terms on June 30, 2011. In light of the looming expiration of the original program, the Commission, at its October 2010 meeting, approved a new fund allocation to support the next two years of the specialized transit program and directed staff to develop the application and scoring criteria, and to conduct a new call for projects. The applications were released on November 4, 2010, with a due date of January 5, 2011. Twenty-three proposals were received. DISCUSSION: 2011 Specialized Transit Call for Projects Fund Allocation Any discussion with respect to the October 2010 approval of the fund allocation for the 2011 Specialized Transit Call for Projects (2011 Call for Projects) needs to be done with a big picture focus on the overall economic landscape. Simply stated, in the current economic environment, 2009 Measure A funds in general are not accruing at the same rates as the 1989 Measure A funds and as such, funding from this locally derived source will continue to be constrained. Additionally, there has been no movement on the federal level for a reauthorization or replacement of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which impacts both the JARC and New Freedom funding sources. Commission approval of the 2009 Call for Projects allocated JARC and New Freedom funds from FFYs 2006/07 and 2007/08. Without reauthorization, the unprogrammed JARC and New Freedom funds currently allocated to Riverside County for FFYs 2008/09 - 2009/10 are the last that can be applied toward projects by the Commission, creating a potential for further constraint on the specialized transit program in future years. Based on this analysis, the following table is a summary of the fund allocation approved by the Commission in October 2010. Agenda Item 8 65 " 2011 CALL OF PROJECTS SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUND ALLOCATION FISCAL YEARS 2011 /12  2012/13 Available Funding Source: Fiscal Year Western Riverside Coachella TOTAL JARC 2009 $ 746,493 $ 204,916 $ 951,409 JARC 2010 713,735 195,923 909,658 New Freedom 2009 329,289 101,475 430,764 New Freedom 2010 323,178 99,592 422,770 1989 Measure A Reserve 4,158,313 0 4,158,313 TOTAL $6,271,008 $601,906 $6,872,914 With respect to the table, there are a couple items that need to be pointed out. Primarily, there is no funding being sourced from 2009 Measure A. The 2011 Call for Projects relies solely on 1989 Measure A Specialized Transit reserve funds in addition to the federal funds. Additionally, the Transit Vision approved by the Commission in March 2008 also reduces the percentage share of 2009 Measure A that can be devoted to specialized transit services. Given this situation, and based on Commission approval of the staff recommendation in October 2010, a balance of $2 million of the 1989 Measure A reserves will be maintained, in order to help support a future call for projects in 2013. It is envisioned that through this prudent use of 1989 Measure A reserves, time can be bought in order to accrue a sufficient balance of 2009 Measure A funds to support future specialized transit activities at or near current funding levels. By implementing this conservative funding approach, the Commission action results in the 2011 Call for Projects fund allocation that is $1 million Jess than the amount that was approved and allocated for the 2009 Call for Projects. It should also be noted for RTA's projects that using LTF and Measure A CTSA funds of $833,718 and $58,472 respectively, was proposed as match through its normal transit operating revenue stream. This results in two positive developments. First, in proposing the use of LTF and Measure A CTSA funds for its specialized transit projects, RTA essentially augments the revenue estimate for the specialized transit program. Secondly, use of LTF and Measure A CTSA leads to mainstreaming RTA projects, which increases the potential for this service to become more viable and self-sufficient. Agenda Item 8 66 2011 Call for Projects Application Development In anticipation of preparing the 2011 Call for Projects, staff conducted a lessons learned exercise. This was done in order to fully review all aspects of the 2009 Call for Projects so that po►icies and procedures could be analyzed and revised or removed, as appropriate, and to provide a basis for making future funding decisions. This document was presented as an attachment to the staff report at the October 2010 Commission meeting. In addition, it is posted on the Commission website. Given the constrained funding environment and in context with the lessons learned document, at its October 2010 meeting, the Commission approved the staff recommendation for a 2011 Call for Projects to be narrowly focused on the ability of agencies and organizations to provide directly operated transportation services to low income, disadvantaged, and disabled/elderly populations not currently served by the existing transportation network. In addition, the Commission approval in October 2010 directed staff to give preference during the evaluation phase to those agencies that seek out ways to coordinate with the existing transportation network and could demonstrate the ability to properly administer the funds in a cost effective manner. Lastly, the call for projects, while considering some level of capacity building related to travel training and mobility management, was to be kept modest in its level of 'investment for these activities until the economy recovers and training resources become more affordable. Evaluation and Scoring To evaluate and score the projects, staff invited Citizen Advisory Council (CAC) members (two votes), the two county CTSA public transit providers (Sunline with one vote and RTA with one vote) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG with one vote), to participate on the project evaluation and scoring committee. Commission staff also participated (one vote) and two additional votes were provided by outside consultants advising staff. Evaluation and scoring committee participants who also had proposals to be evaluated removed themselves from the evaluation and scoring of their proposals and consultant staff in -filled the gap so that the number of votes on each project was consistent throughout the evaluation and scoring process. Essentially, projects were evaluated by a group consisting of the applicants' peers and outside participants having no vested operational interest in the outcome of the evaluation. The intent of staff with this panel was to provide an unbiased scoring environment that would allow for the best projects to rise to the top. Agenda Item 8 • 67 " The scoring criterion utilized by the evaluation committee were developed from the goals and objectives analysis that was generated during the development of the Coordinated Plan, along with the recommendations derived from the lessons learned document. The results of the evaluation and scoring process are attached and summarize the nature of the evaluation. Process and Schedule In order to meet a service start date of July 1, 2011, staff is recommending the approval of the agreements as outlined in the recommendation. Upon receiving Commission approval, staff will develop the agreements for the approved service providers. Upon conclusion of the agreement process, service will be scheduled for implementation on or after July 1, 2011. A budget action is not necessary at this time as there is no financial impact on the current budget. Funds for projects approved by the Commission will be programmed for FYs 2011 /12 and 2012/13 through the regular budget process. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2011/12 + Amount: $7,729,126 Measure A Specialized Transit and Source of Funds: CTSA, JARC and New Freedom Budget Adjustment: N/A federal, LTF funds 225 26 86101 $4,157,582 Measure A Specialized Transit Expenditure 270 26 86101 $58,472 Measure A CTSA Operating Expenditure GLA No.: 601 62 86101 $833,718 in LTF Operating Expenditure 632184 414 41410 263 41 41401 $80,000 Federal Revenue to RCTC CAP N/A $2,679,354 Federal Funds not disbursed by RCTC Fiscal Procedures Approved: \-y%,,,,, Date: 03/16/11 Attachments: 1) Specialized Transit Funding Allocations 2) 2011 Project Evaluation and Scoring Summary Agenda Item 8 68 SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS ATTACHMENT 1 Federal CTSA Agency JARC New Freedom Measure A LTF Measure A Total Western County: Care -A -Van $ 691,993 $ 691,993 RTA Extended Service $ 562,915 180,130 $ 366,671 1,109,716 Inland Aids Project 164,932 164,932 RTA CommuterLink 628,179 212,868 408,575 1,249,622 Care Connexxus Specialized Shuttle 400,000 400,000 Riv Co Regional Medical Center $ 396,997 396,997 Operation SafeHouse 38,700 38,700 Norco Parks Department 140,000 140,000 Wildomar Senior Community 20,000 20,000 Boys & Girls Club of SW County 444,170 444,170 Friends of Moreno Valley 129,000 129,000 CASA 120,420 120,420 Volunteer Center of Riv Co 330,000 330,000 Partnership for Independent Living 1,136,302 1,136,302 RTA Travel Training 233,887 233,888 58,472 $ 58,472 584,719 Care Connexxus Driver Sensitivity 21,582 21,582 Blindness Support Services 149,067 149,067 Subtotal -Western County 1,424,981 652,467 4,157,582 833,718 58,472 7,127,220 Coachella Valley: CVAG 101,809 101,809 SunLine Commuter Service 219,030 40,000 259,030 SunLine Taxi Voucher 161,067 161,067 RCTC CV Rideshare 80,000 80,000 Subtotal -Coachella Valley 400,839 201,067 601,906 Total Specialized Transit Funding $ 1,825,820 $ 853,534 $ 4,157,582 $ 833,718 $ 58,472 $ 7,729,126 69 " " " 2011 Specialized Transit Call for Projects Coachella Valley ATTACHMENT 2 N U T o Mt '> m 2a = m Two -Year Project Type z Q w d v v m Q c c 0 Q v m a � m c Not Reco- mmeded For Brief Project Summaries Qualification for Funding Source Performance Proposed Trips / Units Service Proposed Total Subsidy Proposed Subsidy Cost per Unit of Proposed Total Cost per Unit of Proposed Subsidy Cost per Unit of Proposed Total Cost per Unit of E 15 0 Q y 0 Q V Q n a c Funding of Request Service Year 1 Service Year 1 Service Year 2 Service Year 2 at U 1- CVAG Directly Operated Trans ortation p 80.1 7 85 90 75 54 71 100 86 ---_ Supports shuttle services for homeless individuals in the Coachella Valley, with a focus on late night and weekend transportation and in areas SunLine does not now serve. Meets goals of JARC program Only met 63% of 09/10 trip o goal - At 77 /o of current 10/11 goal after six months Proposed two-year total of 43,200 trips. $101,809 $2.22 $4.18 $2.50 $4.74 Directly Operated Express service to the Pass Area with service to Morongo Casino Spa & resort, connecting with transit services New project - no past Proposed two-year total Transportation offered by cities of Banning and Fits goal of JARC program performance for analysis of 24,500 trips. $440,839 $17.89 $39.04 $18.18 $39.04 Beaumont as well as Riverside Transit Agency. SunLine Commuter Service 78.3 7 81 75 78 78 75 80 81 SunLine Taxi Voucher Mileage Reimbursement, Vouchers, Bus Passes 79.1 7 83 68 78 83 87 77 78 Taxi voucher program for Coachella Valley residents age 60 and older as well as eligible persons with disabilities. Offers a 50 percent discount on vouchers valued at $10 and $2, limiting the number sold monthly to individuals. Fits goals of New freedom program New project - no past performance for analysis Proposed two-year total of 6,500 trips. $161,067 $33.26 $66 52 $19.13 $38.25 RCTC Mileage Reimbursement, Vouchers, Bus Passes 73.3 7 -- 70 63 67 82 80 78 73 Supports the rideshare incentive program ($2/day) marketed to employers; tar targeted to low-income g individuals in the Coachella Valley. Meets goals of the JARC program Exceeded 09/10 trips goal by 76% - At 65% of current trip goal and 50% of current voucher goal after 6 months. Number of trips not specified on application. Two-year goal of 575 vouchers. $80,000 $138.18 $276.36 $140.00 $280.00 Desert Samaritans Mileage Reimbursement, Vouchers, Bus Passes 62.4 7 75 55 64 29 64 85 65 ___ X Supports provision of transportation vouchers to screened, low income seniors in the Coachella Valley in need of medical transportation and other essential appointments. Also a volunteer driver mileage reimbursement component Meets goals of New freedom program but does not meet goals of JARC program Met 09/10 trip goals. Proposed two-year total of 1,400 trips. $73,020 $52.16 $78.24 $52.16 $78.24 Requested Amount $856,735 70 2011 Specialized Year 1 Year 2 Measure A Requested Measure A Adjusted JARC Requested JARC Adjusted New Freedom Requested New Freedom Adjusted Measure A Requested Measure A Adjusted JARC Requested JARC Adjusted New Freedom Requested New Freedom Adjusted Rationale for Recommended Funding Coachella Vallev CVAG $47,859 $47,859 $53,950 $53,950 Program was started late. Insufficient data to determine level of previous contract funding. Sun Line Commuter Service $200,419 $119,057 $15,000 $15,000 $200,420 $99,973 $25,000 $25,000 JARC funding is scarce. This project applied for all of the available JARC funding. Adjusted amount reflects remaining JARC funds after successful continuing projects were funded. SunLine Taxi Voucher $86,475 $86,475 $74,592 $74,592 RCTC $38,000 $38,000 $42,000 $42,000 Program ran out of money early in 09/10 and is at 80 of current award after 6 months. Request is 3 times the previous request. Desert Samaritans $18,255 $0 $18,255 $0 $18,255 $18,255 Not recommended for funding. Requested Amount $304,533 $204,916 $119,730 $101,475 $314,625 $195,923 $117,847 $99,592 71 • • • " " " 2011 Specialized Transit Call for Projects Project Type Z E 8 1 S . 0 Ce N v > c  7, c> Q U � m c cr)V 0 N A - wQ. a U Q Q T a ��a �� `, a Not Reco- mmeded Funding Brief Project Summaries Qualification for Funding Source 8 Performance Proposed Trips / Units of Service a Two -Year Proposed Total Subsidy Request Proposed Subsidy Service erYea'r 1f Proposed Total Service erUnit Year 1f Proposed Subsidy Cost per Unit Service Year 2f Proposed Total Service a Year 2er Unit f Western Riverside Care -A -Van Directly Operated Transportation 93.3 7 99 90 92 90 82 100 100 Door-to-door transportation for low- income, underserved populations including seniors and persons with disabilities in the greater Hemet area; transports to essential services supporting quality of life. Meets Measure A program goals Good - Exceeded 09/10 goal by 66% - Has already exceeded current goal after 7 months Proposed two-year goal of 37,500 $691,993 $18.23 $27.63 $18.67 $28.28 RTA -Extended Service Directly Operated Transportation 90.6 7 92 95 85 89 98 88 87 Continued funding of extended services on five fixed routes where frequency and weekend service is deficient: RTA routes #7, 8, 41, 74 and 79. Meets goals of JARC Program Exceeded 09/10 goal by 200% - No data for current FY Proposed two-year total of 106,732 trips $1,125,829 $10.25 $11.17 $10.75 $11.71 Inland AIDS Directly Operated Transportation 87 7 94 85 85 80 82 90 93 Door-to-door transportation for individuals in Western Riverside County with Aides or who are HIV positive; trips are largely non -emergency medical purposes. Meets Measure A program goals Fell short of 09/10 goal by 30% - At 38% of current FY 10/11 goal after six months Proposed two-year total of 5,600 trips $164,932 $29.45 $44.62 $29.45 $44.62 RTA CommuterLink Directly Operated Transportation 83.3 7 78 83 79 82 88 95 78 Two RTA express CommuterLink routes: Route # 212 which starts in San Jacinto and Hemet, traveling thru Homeland, Romoland and Perris; Route # 217 traveling from San Jacinto and Hemet to Temecula and Escondido via Highway 79. Meets goal of JARC program Exceeded 09/10 trip goal by 260% - No data for current FY Proposed two-year total of 43,823 trips $1,330,433 $29.50 $31.91 $30.93 $33.45 Care COnnexxus - Paratransit Directly Operated Transportation 78.9 7 80 75 73 70 78 90 86 Door-to-door transportation for frail mentally and physically disabled passengers attending Adult Day Care Services programs in Riverside and in Sun City/ Menifee. Meets goal of Measure A Exceeded 09/10 trip goal by � � 5 /o - At 42 /o of current goal after 5 months Proposed two-year total of 33,367 trips $482,800 $14.43 $23.48 $14.51 $23.40 Riverside County Regional Medical Center Directly Operated Transportation 78 7 82 82 77 70 73 90 72 Weekday (Monday to Friday) door-to- door, non -emergency medical paratransit program for the general patient population who are transportation dependent and on Saturdays for dialysis patients. Meets goal of Measure A and New Freedom programs for persons with disabilities. 09/10 trip goal not met by 22%- Only at 34% of current goal after 6 months. Proposed two-year total of 20,565 trips $649,927 $32.46 $66.12 $30.83 $64.61 Operation Safehouse Directly Operated Transportation 77.9 7 85 80 74 68 75 95 68 Operation SafeHouse Main Street Transitional Living Program assists homeless youth ages 18 to 21 with transportation to medical appointments, court, job interviews and job training and other essential services. Many trips transport youth home after 11 p.m. when their work day ends. Meets Measure A goal of truly needy Exceeded 09/10 goal of 240 by � � 7 / - At 62 /o of current goal after 5 months Proposed two-year total of 480 trips $38,700 $77.92 $116.88 $83.33 $125.00 City of Norco Directly Operated Transportation 77.6 7 94 70 72 70 77 84 76 --- City -operated transportation service providing local essential trips for Norco seniors and persons with disabilities. Meets Measure A goal for senior transportation Fell short of 09/10 goal by � 57 / . No FY 10/11 data for analysis Proposed two-year total of 2,775 trips $166,886 $60.81 $92.13 $59.51 $90.16 Wildomar Directly Operated Transportation 75.7 7 80 78 70 70 76 90 66 Residential program (501(c)3) service low-income seniors provides non- emergency medical trips and local shopping; service open to Wildomar area residents as well. Meets Measure A program goals � Only reached 64 /o of 09/10 goal of 416 trips. Proposed two-year total of 5,200 trips $66,528 $12.08 $18.30 $13.51 $20.46 72 2011 Specialized Year 1 Year 2 Measure A Requested Measure A Adjusted JARC Requested JARC Adjusted New Freedom Requested New Freedom Adjusted Measure A Requested Measure A Adjusted JARC Requested JARC Adjusted New Freedom Requested New Freedom Adjusted Rationale for Recommended Funding Western Riverside Care -A -Van $337,309 $337,309 $354,684 $354,684 RTA - Extended Service $76,278 $70,015 $218,798 $218,798 $119,966 $110,115 $344,117 $344,117 Carried over 64% of Measure A award from 09/10 and carried over 78% of JARC for 09/10 - No data for currentFY 10/11 Inland AIDS $82,466 $82,466 $82,466 $82,466 Only used 64% of award in 09/10 - Billed 77% of current 10/11 award after six months RTA CommuterLink $89,484 $82,739 $258,561 $258,561 $140,736 $130,129 $406,655 $369,618 Carried over 25% of Measure A award ($557,329) from 09/10 and used all JARC funding ($264,290) from 09/10. Adjustment amount is educed to available funding Care Connexxus - Paratransit $239,600 $225,000 $243,200 $175,000 Invoiced all of 09/10 award. Invoiced 41% of current award after 5 months. Riverside County Regional Medical Center $190,141 $127,692 $197,452 $204,402 $127,692 $199,545 Used all funding in 09/10 - Will use all funding in 10/11 - Adjusted to a New Freedom grant without Measure A as match. The increase in New Freedom funding helps expend the available Federal dollars. Operation Safehouse $18,700 $18,700 $20,000 $20,000 Used 98 % of award in 09/10 - Billed 43 % after 5 months. City of Norco tY $82,088 $70,000 $84,798 $70,000 Used all funding in 09/10 - No current billing to base current year assumption. Wildomar $31,411 $10,000 $35,117 $10,000 Only used 41% of funding for 09/10 - Only billed 28% of current FY 10/11 award. Adjusted based on current and prior years actual funding • • • 73 " " " 2011 Specialized Transit Call for Projects Project Type Z o Is n U N -o al e v U Q ce Q 0 � c N . V a a m c a m Not Reco- mmeded Funding Brief Project Summaries Qualification for FundingProposed Source Performance Trips / Units of Service Two -Year Proposed Total RSubsidy equest Proposed Subsidy Cost Service erYea'r 1f Proposed Total Service erYea'r 1f Proposed Subsidy Service erUnit Year 2f Proposed Total Service rYealr 2f Western Riverside Valley Resource Center Directly Operated Transportation P 69.9 7 75 68 73 69.5 64 75 65 X Agency requests local funds to in -fill state deficit for transportation for consumers with developmental P disabilities. Local funds to supplant state support does not meet Measure A goals; does not meet New Freedom requirement of new service. New applicant. No past performance for analysis P Y Proposed two-year total of 377,375 trips P $215,158 Did not submit complete budget for analysis - only Y Y program deficit Did not submit complete budget for analysis - only Y Y program deficit Did not submit complete budget for analysis - only Y Y program deficit Did not submit complete budget for analysis - only Y Y program deficit Boys and Girls Club SWR Directly Operated Transportation 69.1 7 66 70 68 65 61 90 64 Operational support for the program -to - school and return transportation for youth enrolled at the B&GCSC sites of Great Oak, Old Town, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore. Only 40% of client population meets the goal of truly needy � Met 09/10 trip goal - At 45 /o of current goal after 7 months. Proposed two-year total of 186,600 trips $827 131 $4.15 $6.29 $4.71 $7.13 Friends of Moreno Valley Directly Operated Transportation 66.6 7 88 58 73 47.5 51 98 51 --- Door-to-door transportation for seniors and persons with disabilities living in Moreno Valley; many cross- jurisdictional non -emergency medical trips. Meets Measure A program goals Exceeded 09/10 goal by 24% - At 67� /o of current 10/11 goal after five months Proposed two-year total of 9,465 trips. $129,000 $13.74 $20.61 $13.52 $20.28 CASA Mileage Reimbursement, Vouchers, Bus Passes 91 7 93 90 85 88 83 100 98 Mileage reimbursement to volunteers transporting abused and neglected children to and from court and related appointments. Meets Measure A program goals � Exceeded 09/10 goals by 46 /o Proposed two-year total of 9,838 trips by way of vouchers $120,420 $12.28 $24.55 $11.06 $24.42 Independent Living Partnership Mileage Reimbursement, Vouchers, Bus Passes 90.9 7 98 85 95 85 83 95 95 --- Mileage reimbursement to volunteers providing door -through -door transportation that enables those who cannot use conventional transit or need high levels of assistance to get to essential services. Meets Measure A program goals Met 77% of 09/10 goal - At � of current goal a 40 / after 7 months Proposed two-year total of 165,000 trips $1,136,302 $6.91 $16.56 $6.86 $16.53 Volunteer Center Mileage Reimbursement, Vouchers, Bus Passes 82.7 7 95 74 68 75 84 90 93 Transit Access Program (TAP) provides public transit bus tickets and passes, distributed to 108 agencies who pass them to eligible individuals needing time limited aide. Meets Measure A program goals 09/10 Goal not met at 51%- On pace to meet goal in current FY as of 1/2011 Proposed two-year total of 177,706 trips $364,534 $2.06 $3.09 $2.05 $3.07 RTA Travel Training Mobility Management and Travel Training 78.6 7 80 68 --- 78.5 82 65 82 95 A Western Riverside County travel training program top seniors and persons with disabilities through outreach to familiarize prospective riders with fixed route service and one- to -one training for eligible ADA riders to expand their mobility choices. Meets goals of Measure A and Federal programs. New program. No past performance for comparison. Proposed two-year total of 2,500 trips $584,717 $605.73 $605.73 $140.93 $140.93 Care Connexxus Sensitivity Trainin g Mobility Management and Travel Training 67.6 7 89 50 76 53 82 76 47 --- Sensitivity training for drivers of various transportation agencies who transport the most frail riders; training enables them to better handle riders with confusion, dementia, inappropriate speech and actions. Sensitivity training meets the goals for New Freedom funding Past goal information is insufficient to complete analysis Proposed a two-year total of 130 units of service or 13 training sessions $33,000 $266.67 $447.32 $242.86 $392.31 Blindness Support Services Mobility Management and Travel Training 63.9 7 70 --- 61 60 67 65 67 57 On -going Travel Training program to persons who are blind, visually impaired and/or disabled in use of fixed -route bus service. Supporting development of a Strategic Plan for Mobility Management for Riverside County Meets the goals of the New Freedom program Set goals are not clear. Proposed 120 training/mobility contacts and 60 bus passes distributed $196,768 $1,223.86 $2,447.73 $1,260.58 $2,521.16 Requested Amount $8,325,058 Available Difference 74 2011 Specialized Year 1 Year 2 Measure A Requested Measure A Adjusted JARC Requested JARC Adjusted New Freedom Requested New Freedom Adjusted Measure A Requested Measure A Adjusted JARC Requested JARC Adjusted New Freedom Requested New Freedom Adjusted Rationale for Recommended Funding Western Riverside Valley Resource Center $67,938 $0 $34,518 $0 $74,732 $0 $37,970 $0 Not Recommended for Funding Boys and Girls Club SWR $382,961 $222,085 $444,170 $222,085 Adjusted award to 40% to correspond to low income riders. Added an additional 10 % to accommodate for unexpected growth and expenses. Has used 73% Friends of Moreno Valley $ 64,500 $64,500 $64,500 $64,500 Used all 09/10 funding and has billed 39% of current 10/11 award after five months. Adjusted increase in funding is in consideration for adding administrative CASA Used all funding for FY 09/10 and has billed 90% of current 10/11 award after $57,240 $57,240 $63,180 $63,180 seven months Independent Living Partnership Has $15K of unexpended funds from 09/10 -only invoiced 45°% of $615K award after 7 months $553,034 $553,034 $583,268 $583,268 currently. Volunteer Center Used 50% of current FY award after 7 months. 10% reduction in award due to limited funds. $178,272 $165,000 $186,262 $165,000 RTA Travel Training $233,887 $242,292 $121,146 $225,483 $112,742 Adjusted to half funding in consideration of the disabled population compared to seniors in the application. Though proportion in application was 75% seniors and 25% disabled. New program; needs to demonstrate Care Connexxus Sensitivity Training $16,000 $10,691 $17,000 $10,891 Adjusted to utilize remaining NF funds after funding agencies that scored higher. Only billed 37% ($13,114) of 09/10 NF award Blindness Support Services $23,498 $73,432 $73,432 $0 $24,203 $75,635 $75,635 $0 Program recommended for Measure A funding only and for agency to focus program activities in Western Riverside. Requested Amount $2,474,920 $2,031,520 $477,359 $711,246 $493,934 $329,289 $2,725,684 $2,126,062 $750,772 $713,735 $483,780 $323,178 Available $2,079,157 $2,079,157 $746,493 $746,493 $329,289 $329,289 $2,079,157 $2,079,157 $713,735 $713,735 $323,178 $323,178 Difference -$395,764 $47,637 $269,134 $35,247 -$164,645 $0 -$646,528 -$46,906 -$37,037 $0 -$160,602 $0 • • • 75 " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2011 Corridor Mobility Improvement Account - Call for Projects WESTERN RIVERS/DE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the nomination and application submittal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for the Interstate 215 Central widening project from Scott Road to Nuevo Road for Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In November 2006, Proposition 18 authorized $4.5 billion in general obligation bond proceeds to be deposited in the CMIA. The funding was made available for performance improvements on the state highway system, or major access routes to the state highway system on the local road system, that relieve congestion by expanding capacity, enhancing operations, or otherwise improving travel times within these high -congestion travel corridors. The CMIA funding was devoted to highway projects with a construction award date no later than December 31, 2012. Funding was allocated on a 60/40 split with a 60% share allocated in Southern California and a 40% share allocated for Northern California projects. As a result, $2.7 billion in CMIA funding was available for Southern California projects. Of that amount, two Riverside County projects received a total of $195,768,000: Project CMIA Funding 1-215 South Widening Project $ 38,570,000 SR-91 HOV/Adams Street to 60/91/215 Interchange $157,198,000 Total: $195,768,000 Agenda Item 9 76 The CTC adopted the initial CMIA program of projects in February 2007. Since that time, several of the projects awarded for construction have accrued substantial project cost savings. To address the cost savings issue, the CTC adopted Supplement 2 to the CMIA and State Route 99 Accountability Implementation Plan in December 2009. The purpose of Supplement 2 was to clarify and expand the CTC's policy regarding project cost savings for CMIA and State Route 99 projects and to communicate how project cost savings will be administered. Supplement 2 reflects the CTC's intent to program project cost savings to 1) eligible projects nominated but not programmed in the initial CMIA program; and/or 2) enhancements to existing CMIA projects. Based on the level of project cost savings accrued through March 2010, the CTC approved amendments to the CMIA program at the May and June 2010 CTC meetings, programming $227.8 million for projects located in the north and $79.6 million for projects in the south. CMIA projects delivered since March 2010 have accrued additional cost savings and as a result, the CTC is expected to approve a call for projects at its March 23-24, 2011 meeting. In anticipation, staff is seeking approval to nominate the 1-21 5 Central widening project: 1-215 Central Widening Project — Scott Road to Nuevo Road Estimated project construction cost: $95 million Seeking CMIA funds: $82 million The project consists of constructing an additional mixed flow lane in each direction and will require additional right of way to accommodate the widening. The environmental document is scheduled for approval in April 2011. Contract award is scheduled to occur in September 2012. This project is part of an overall corridor improvement that will complete a gap in the system and improve mobility within the cities of Murrieta, Perris, Temecula, and nearby unincorporated areas. Criteria for 2011 CMIA Call for Projects The complete criteria for submitting projects for the 2011 CMIA call for projects is detailed in the attached CMIA and State Route 99 Accountability Implementation Plan. The CTC requires Ca!trans and individual project sponsors to jointly propose projects that meet eligibility requirements detailed in the CMIA guidelines, including but not limited to, the following: Agenda Item 9 • • 77 " " " The proposed corridor enhancement project either 1) reduces travel time or delay; 2) improves connectivity of the state highway system between rural, suburban, and urban areas; or 3) improves the operation or safety of a highway or road segment; " The project improves access to jobs, housing, markets, and commerce; and " The project can commence construction no later than December 31, 2012. Staff believes that the 1-215 Central widening project is a prime candidate for the 2011 CMIA Call for Projects as it was originally submitted in 2007 for CMIA funding. Additionally, the project is adjacent to the 1-215 South widening project, which received $38.57 million in CMIA funding. The CTC is scheduled to approve the 2011 CMIA projects in June. It should be noted that the California Treasurer announced there will be no Proposition 1 B bond sale this spring as planned due to the State budget situation. CMIA funding availability is dependent on such bond sales and is uncertain at this time. Since this item is for approval of a nomination and application submittal, there is no financial impact at this time. Attachment: CTC CMIA and State Route 99 Accountability and Implementation Plan Supplement 2 ' Agenda Item 9 78 " California Transportation Commission Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) & State Route 99 (SR 99) Accountability Implementation Plan Supplement 2 Project Cost Savings l: General: The Accountability Implementation Plan for the CMIA and SR 99 programs was approved by the Commission in October 2007 and Supplement 1 (Financial Accountability) was approved by the Commission in June 2008. The Commission later extended the applicability of the Accountability Implementation Plan and Supplement 1 to the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF).and the Highway Railroad Crossing Safety Account (HRCSA) Proposition 1B bond programs. The purpose of Supplement 2 is to clarify and expand the Commission's policy regarding project cost savings for CMIA and SR 99'projects and to communicate to project sponsors and implementing agencies the -expectations related to financial accountability, and more specifically,, how project savings wilt be administered. Supplement 2 also addresses the special provisions for cost sayings on projects subject to Assembly. Bill.X3-20 or a private placement Bond Purchase Contract. As such, Supplement 2 revises only the Project Cost Savings provisions of Supplement 1 for CMIA and SR 99 projects with the exception of the provisions related to Cost Savings on. Projects, Subject to Assembly Bill X3-2g and. Cost. Savings on Projects Subject to a Private; Placement. Bona Purchase Contract. These provisions may also apply to certain TCIF and HRCSA projects under the. limited circumstances detailed in Supplement 2. Absent these special circumstances, the Project Cost Savingsprovisions of Supplement 1 remain in effect for TCIF and HRCSA projects as originally adopted. All other provisions of Supplement 1 remain in effect for all designated bond programs (CMIA, SR 99, TC1F and HRCSA) as originally adopted. 2. Project Cost Savings/CMIA Projects: Since the adoption of the CMIA program, the Commission approved a Financial Accountability plan (Supplement 1) that allows funds to be de -allocated from a project at contract award when the cost to award the construction contract is lower than the total sum of allocated funds. However, funds de -allocated from the project at contract award were to remain available to address potential cost increases necessary to complete the project or to supplement a funding plan for another project or contract only upon prior Commission approval. In the latter case the project sponsor would have to commit to funding any cost increases to 79 ensure the completion of both projects — the original project where the savings were realized and the resulting new project using the savings in bond funds. The Commission has continued to emphasize its intent that the use of CMIA bond funds will be limited to the cost of construction, and that bond funds will not be utilized to cover project cost increases. As a condition of adopting a project into the CMIA, the Commission resolved that all project cost increases beyond the February 2007 program adoption are the responsibility of the nominating and sponsoring agencies. When the cost to award the construction contract is lower than the total sum of allocated funds, the project sponsor is required to provide documentation identifying a proportional credit to each of the respective funds shown in the original (or amended) baseline agreement for the construction component. The project sponsor may consider crediting the funding source that contributed additional funds in preparation for contract advertisement prior to applying the proportional credits to the funding sources in the original (or amended) baseline agreement. This supplement provides that remaining bond funds de -allocated from the project at project award; and will be administered in the following manner: • Ten percent of the project's bond savings will be held in a CMIA program reserve and available, upon approval by the .Commission, to contribute to funding potential: constriction cost increases necessary to complete the project; where the savings were taken from. Upon project close-out, the remaining bond funds will be available for re -programming by the Commission. • Remaining project bond savings, beyond those reserved for potential construction cost increases and are not subject to the constraints of Assembly'Bill X3=20 or a prwateplaeement Bond Purchase Contract, will be available for programming by the Commission for additional or enhanced benefits, consistent with the statutory intent ofthe CMIA program. Under the Bond Act, a CMIA project must be on the state highway system or on a. major access route to the state highway system on: the local road system. To include a. project in the CMIAprogram, the Commission must find that it "improves mobility in a high -congestion corridor, by improving travel times or reducing the number ofdaily vehicle hours of delay, improves the connectivity of the state highway system between`mral, suburban, and urban areas, or improves the operation or safety of a highway or road segment." The Bond Act also requires the Commission, in adopting a program for the CMIA, to find that the program is geographically balanced, consistent with the north/south split that applies to the STIP (40% north, 60% south), and to find that it "provides mobility improvements in highly traveled or highly congested' corridors in all regions of Califomia." Further, the Bond Act requires the Commission to find that the program targets funding "to provide the mobility benefit in the earliest possible timeframe_" It also mandates that the inclusion of a project in the CM1A program be based on a demonstration that the project can commence construction or implementation no later than December 31, 2012. 80 In addition, Commission policies reflected in the CMIA program guidelines include provisions for program updates and allow the Department of Transportation and regional agencies to request program amendments in the same manner as for STIP amendments, except that "CMIA program amendments will not add new projects that were not included in the nominations for the initial program" received by the Commission on or before January 16, 2007. The Commission will consider proposals to program projects nominated and considered during the original CMIA process that were not programmed as part of the 2007 CMIA Adopted Program of Projects or projects which will enhance the benefits of already programmed CMIA projects. The Commission expects the Department of Transportation and individual projects sponsors to jointly propose those projects that meet eligibility requirements detailed in the CMIA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, the following: • The proposed corridor enhancement project either (1) reduces travel time or delay, (2) improvesconnectivityof the state highway system between rural, suburban, and urban areas, or (3) improves the operation or safety of a highway or road segment. • The project improves access to jobs, housing, markets, and commerce. • • The project can commence construction no •later than Deceniber 31, 2012. The Commission expects that bond fiinding contributions for these additional projects will be limited to the costs of construction and that projects will have a full funding commitment through project completion and closeout. TheCommissionalso intends to program.project savings consistent with the north/south provisions of the original CMIA Program. 3. Proiect Cost Savings/SR 99 Projects, Similar tothe CMIA program; the de - allocation of bond funds are allowed from a project in the SR 99 program at contract award whenthe cost to•award the construction contract is lower<than the total- sum of allocated funds. De -allocated funds will .remain availableto address potential cost increases -necessary to complete the project;.or.may be utilized to supplement a funding plan for another project or contractonly.upon prior Commission approval.. The SR 99. program distributed funds based on 15 percent to the north for the Sacramento Valley and counties north of Sacramento/San Joaquin County line and 85 percent to the south for the San Joaquin Valley.. Project savings wiltremain within the geographic boundaries where the savings were attained. . When the cost to award the construction contract is lower than the total sum of .. allocated funds, the project sponsor will provide documentation identifying a proportional credit to each of the respective funds shown in the original (or amended) baseline agreement for the construction component.. The project sponsor may consider crediting the funding source that contributed additional funds in preparation foicontract advertisement prior to applying the proportional credits to the funding 81 sources in the original (or amended) baseline agreement. This supplement provides that remaining bond funds will be de -allocated from the project at project award, and will be administered in the following manner • Ten percent of project bond savings will be held in a SR 99 program reserve and available, upon approval by the Commission, to contribute to funding potential construction cost increases necessary to complete construction of all programmed SR 99 projects. Upon project close-out, the remaining bond funds will be available for re -programming by the Commission. • The remainder of bond savings may also be used to add new projects or enhancements on already programmed SR 99 projects. Prior to making any proposals to program additional projects into the SR 99 program, the Department of Transportation will consult with the San Joaquin Valley and/or the Sacramento Valley Regional Transportation Planning Agencies to identify corridor priorities for the reprogramming of project savings. When proposing additional projects into the 99 Bond Program; consideration must be given to existing projects and needs identified in the SR 99 Business Plans, Corridor System Management Plans, and project detiverability within the timelines established in the SR 99 Guidelines. The following criteria will be used to reprogram any SR 99 project savings: o Proposed new project or enhancement is identified in the .SR.99 Business Plan, or in a Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) produced as a result of SR 99 bond. programming. _ o Proposed new project can begin construction byDeceinber•31, 2012.` o . SR 99 Bond funding, or a combination of bond funding and Other . committed funds, will complete the funding needs for the nevv project. o Project selection will take into consideration the priorities outlined in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Route 99 Business Plans. 4. Cost Savingson•Projects Subject to Assembly Bill X3-20: Under the provisions of Assembly Bill X3-20, if.a metropolitan -planning: organization, county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, or other local agency -uses federal; Recovery. Act funds to fund a project programmed under a Proposition I Bond Program with the effect of displacing the need for those bond funds on the project, the Commission will allocate funds for one or more qualifying projects in the appropriate program; in the jurisdiction of that agency, and in the same amount of the displaced bond funds. Requests to re -program such funds are subject to the eligibility requirements of the appropriate Proposition I B program and subject to Commission approval. S. Cost Savings on Projects Subject to a Private Placement Bond Purchase Contract: if a metropolitan planning organization, county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, or other local agency enters into -a. private placement Bond Purchase Contract with the Treasurer of the State of 82 California to secure funding for a Proposition 1B Bond Program project(s), the provisions of the Bond Purchase Contract state that if Bond proceeds remain after completion of the Projects, such proceeds will be expended for other projects qualified under the Bond Act and located in the same geographic region as the projects funded with those proceeds. 6. Cost Savings on Projects with a Letter of No Prejudice (LONP): For projects using LONPs, allocations will be adjusted to reflect the cost to award the contract, thus making the savings available for reserve and reprogramming. 7. Submittals of Project Proposals: Proposals to program additional CMIA or SR 99 projects will be evaluated on their merits if they are received by February 1, 2010. Proposals to program additional CM1A or SR 99 projects received on or after February 2, 2010 will be evaluated on an ongoing, first come, first serve basis. Proposals must include: • A cover letter from the sponsoring agency with signature authorizing and approving the proposal to program the project. • A letter from the Department of Transportation with signature authorizing and concurring with the proposal to program the project. • An updated Project Programming Request (PPR) form that describes the project scope, cost, funding plan, project delivery milestones, and major benefits. • A brief narrative (1-2 pages) that updates information submitted as part of the original nomination. The proposals must be submitted in hard copy and addressed or delivered to: Simla G. Rhinehart, Executive Director California Transportation Commission Mail Station 52, Room 2222 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 83