Loading...
06 June 25, 2012 Budget & Implementation• TIME: DATE: LOCATION: • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9:30a.m. Monday, June 25, 2012 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside ~ COMMITTEE MEMBERS ~ Rick Gibbs, Chair/ Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Ella Zanowic Vice Chair I Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Roger Berg I Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Mary Craton I Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis I Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez I Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Scott Matas, I Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs Larry Smith I Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson I Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Bob Magee I Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Steve Adams I Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Ron Roberts I Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside, District II Jeff Stone, County of Riverside, District Ill ~STAFF~ Anne Mayer, Executive Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer ~ AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY ~ Annual Budget Development and Oversight Competitive Federal and State Grant Programs Countywide Communications and Outreach Programs Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Public Communications and Outreach Programs Short Range Transit Plans RECORDS Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. Tara Byerly From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Tara Byerly Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:55 PM Tara Byerly RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Agenda-06.25.2012 High Good Afternoon Budget and Implementation Committee Members: Attached below is the link to the Budget and Implementation Committee agenda for the meeting scheduled @ 9:30 a.m. on Monday, June 25. http://www. rete .org/uploads/media items/budget-and-implementation-march-26-201 2-ipad-compatible- agenda.original.pdf. Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, TaraS. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc. org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30a.m. Monday, June 25, 2012 BOARDROOM County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside, California 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 you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Cleik 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 Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, 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. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Budget and Implementation Committee June 25, 2012 Page 2 Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters • raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -MAY 21, 2012 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee 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 Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee 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 pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 1. Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1 ) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 2012; and 2) ·Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. REVISED PROCUREMENT POLICY MANUAL PageS Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) 2) 3) Approve the revised Riverside County Transportation Commission Procurement Policy Manual for the procurement and contracting activities undertaken by the Commission, subject to final review by legal counsel as to conformance to state and federal law; Adopt Resolution No. 12-018, "Resolution of the Riverside . County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Procurement Policy Manual"; and Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • • Budget and Implementation Committee June 25, 2012 Page 3 9. FISCAL YEARS 2013-17 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Page62 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY s 201 3-1 7 Measure A Five-Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) for Local Streets and Roads as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. 2009 MEASURE A MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT BASE YEAR ADJUSTMENT FOR CITY OF BANNING Page 67. Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1 ) 2) Approve the adjustment to the city of Banning's (Banning) 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year; and Forward to the Commission for final action. 11 . PROPOSITION 1 B STATE-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FORMULA PROGRAM -COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS' PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Page 67 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1 ) Approve programming State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP) formula funds for the following six Coachella Valley projects as submitted by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG): • Monterey Avenue interchange loop ramp; • Varner Road/Jefferson Street intersection improvements; • Monroe Street widening and intersection improvements (Avenue 49 to Avenue 52); • Fred Waring Drive median widening (Adams Street to Port Maria Road); Highway 111 widening and intersection improvements (Cook Street to Hospitality Row); • Highway 111/Washington Street intersection improvements; Budget and Implementation Committee June 25, 2012 Page 4 2) Authorize staff per CVAG direction to submit additional eligible projects • or revise funding amounts to the above projects in the event additional SLPP funds are available through project savings or California Transportation Commission (CTC) formula allocations; 3) Submit the CV AG SLPP formula projects to the CTC for programming; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 Page 70 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1 ) 2) 3) Conduct a public hearing at the July Commission meeting on the proposed Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP); Approve the FY 2012/13 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 5311 POP for Riverside County; Approve the FY 2012/13 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State 4) Transit Assistance (ST A) fund allocations for transit; • Direct staff to add projects into the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP); 5) Adopt Resolution No. 12-022, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds"; and 6) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. 2012 UPDATE COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 90 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) 2) 3) 4) Approve the update to the 2012 Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (2012 Coordinated Plan); Authorize staff to prepare the evaluation criteria and application package to support the 2013 Specialized Transit Universal Call for Projects (20 1 3 Call for Projects); Authorize staff to conduct the 2013 Call for Projects; and Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • • Budget and Implementation Committee June 25, 2012 Page 5 14. AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO FUND THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF AN INLAND EMPIRE 511 MOBILE APPLICATION Page 150 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 1 2-45-089-00 with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AOMD) for the Commission to receive $100,000 in grant funding for the development and deployment costs of an Inland Empire 511 (IE511) mobile application; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 16. COMMISSIONERS I STAFF REPORT 17. Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Monday, July 23, 2012, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside . RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ROLL CALL JUNE 25, 2012 County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District Ill City of Beaumont · City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Lake Elsinore City of Murrieta City of Riverside City of Temecula Absent jli' D (] D (] D (] D (] D (] D (] D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE SIGN-IN SHEET JUNE 25, 2012 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS sL ... .... \~~""A' ~t:4.LL..__.JM.. L.Ai.-"-'1 s Wl<-t--'~ H-c~AA-cr- /Ju~~~ A f?~J.£ ·z;;, -; ~ c ,_'7 t.n'J-y, ' - /)t~ VLIL0.t~-(/?t(~ t-1/?~ }S..· __.,G;= I I -::::-/{..;__\ 4 ' (' c 0 r--.1 AJP e9~Cr~ t< r c~ G·; fi~_5 rt 4/ /{£2 ( ,e:::;;s-ct:-- ht..-A 2~ O..VJ e.-' ~;~.4.- -~ u _. .. ~n ~,d(~ "J:~T l ...ul ~x~ A ~~::~.A 7 £~L C;JL4 ~~L-~.?::TO A, ""'"" 0"£.);;::;, .. ~ 5.>".t--:. ~ _\ ~?eitts r ~-\f=-()(L.(} r c; 1 7 {loi~YL l;;&)t,b 6 -5.1JLIJ11oYI / l Jow:::.t-A..r I~. ~~n~ T"'""U~n v.JQ.l \1 rA.. --' • • • AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, May 21, 2012 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chair Rick Gibbs at 9:30a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501 . 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. 4. At this time, Commissioner Ron Roberts led the Budget and Implementation Committee in a flag salute . ROLL CALL Members/Atternates Present Members Absent Roger Berg Steve Adams Mary Craton Greg Pettis Rick Gibbs Larry Smith Douglas Hanson Jeff Stone Steven Hernandez* Bob Magee Yvonne Parks Ron Roberts John Tavaglione* Ella Zanowic *Arrived after the meeting was called to order PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public . RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes May 21,2012 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-APRIL 23, 2012 M/S/C (Zanowic/Roberts) to approve the minutes of April 23, 2012 meeting as submitted. Abstain: Parks 6. ADDITIONS I REVISIONS There was a revised Agenda Item 11 , "Fiscal Year 20 12!13 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funding Recommendations". 7. CONSENT CALENDAR -All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion-at the end of the agenda. M/S/C (Craton/Hanson) to approve the following Consent Calendar item(s): 7 A. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS 1) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4 (04) 2011; and; 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 78. APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 1) Approve Resolution No. 12-017, ~~Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 20 12/13"; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7C. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW 1) Adopt Resolution No. 12-016, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Investment Policy"; 2) Adopt the Annual Investment Policy; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • • • • RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes May 21, 2012 Page 3 7 D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2012; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. At this time, Commissioner John Tavaglione arrived at the meeting. 8. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012113 Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager, presented the proposed Budget for FY 2012/13, and discussed the following areas: • • • • • • • • Budget process; Budget adjustments; Budget summary; Funding sources and funding sources comparison; Summary of uses -Management services, regional programs, capital program; Capital projects and operations expenditures; Capital project expenditure highlights; Functional uses breakdown; • Measure A management services; and • Next steps in the budget process. Chair Gibbs expressed appreciation to Michele Cisneros and Theresia Trevino for their exceptional work on the Budget for FY 2012/13. At this time, Commissioner Steven Hernandez arrived at the meeting. MJS/C (ZanowicJBerg) to: 1 ) Receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2 0 12/13; and 2) Forward to the Commission to close the public hearing to receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2012/13; and 3) Adopt the proPQsed Budget for FV 2012/13. 9. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 Marla Modell, Procurement Administrator, presented the recurring contracts for FY 2012/13 . RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes May 21, 2012 Page 4 MIS/C (Zanowic/Craton) to: 1) Approve the recurring contracts for FV 2012/13; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 1 0. AGREEMENT WITH PLANET BIDS FOR ONLINE VENDOR AND BID MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Marla Modell provided a brief overview for the scope of the agreement with PlanetBids, Inc. for online vendor and bid management system. In response to Commissioner Mary Craton's concern about disclosure of data, Marla Modell replied the module will be customized to the Commission's needs so the competitors will only view the appropriate information. In response to Chair Gibbs' question to Commissioners Bob Magee and Ron Roberts as to their cities experience using Planetbids, Commissioner Magee replied he is not aware of any issues and Commissioner Roberts was uncertain . Anne Mayer expressed this is one of the many efforts to focus on disadvantaged businesses to make sure the Commission's outreach is extensive and enables more opportunities to do business with the Commission. Commissioner Roger Berg stated it will be helpful for the Commission's federal certification and concurred with this approach. MIS/C (Berg/Zanowic) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 12-19-091-00 with PlanetBids, Inc. (PianetBids) for the use of the PlanetBids BidsOnline vendor and bid management system software for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $65,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • • • • RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes May 21, 2012 Page 5 11. FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS 12 . 13. Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst, provided an overview for the FY 2012/13 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program funding recommendations. Commissioner Craton referred to the FY 2012/13 recommended project funding attachment and asked for clarification on the total costs. Jillian Edmiston replied the difference between the estimated funding available and the amount recommended for funding is due to cost savings on previously claimed projects. MIS/C (Tavaglione/Zanowic) to: 1) Approve the· FY 2012/13 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program (SB 821 program) recommended funding; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. COMMISSIONERS I EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT There were no comments by Commissioners or staff. 14. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:01 a.m. The next meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee is scheduled for June 25, 2012 at 9:30a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 7 A • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 2012; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND /NFORMA TION: During the last nine months of the fiscal year, staff monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements present the revenues and expenditures for the nine months of FY 2011/12. Period· closing accrual adjustments are not included for revenues earned but not billed and expenditures incurred for goods and services received but not yet invoiced, as such adjustments are normally made during the year-end closing activities. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the third quarter at 61 percent of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales tax revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of sale. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure A funds and remits these funds to the Commission after. the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two-month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections through January 2012. On a cash basis, the Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (L TF) sales tax revenues are 10.36 percent and 10.26 percent higher, respectively, than the same period last fiscal year. This continued increase is an encouraging sign that economic recovery in the region is occurring. Staff will continue to monitor the trends in the sales tax receipts and will report to the Commission any necessary adjustments to the FY 2011/12 budget sales tax revenues . Agenda Item 7 A 1 Federal, state, and local revenues are on a reimbursement basis, and the Commission will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced to the respective agencies. During the FY 2011/12 budget process, the Commission took a conservative approach in estimating the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) receipts as a result of the housing crisis and significant impact this had on the Inland Empire's local economy. TUMF reimbursements related to the State Route 74/lnterstate 215 interchange project are within the budget amount. Overall the operating statement shows the TUMF revenues at 54 percent of the budget, and staff will continue to monitor these revenues. Other revenues include $440,325 from the proceeds related to the sale of land at the West Corona Station and easement on the San Jacinto Branch Line property. • The Commission took a conservative approach in estimating interest income for FY 2011/12, due to flat interest yields on invested balances. Additionally, the 2010 Build America Bonds (BABs) subsidy payments were reflected as a reduction of interest payments in the FY 2011/12 budget; however, generally accepted accounting principles require such payments to be accounted for as revenues. During December 2011, the Commission received approximately $1.5 million in BABs subsidy payments. Interest income is at 227 percent of the budget as a result of the conservative approach to estimating interest income, as well as the • accounting for BABs subsidy payments. Other than the capital project expenditures that are discussed separately, the other expenditures are in line overall with the expectations of the budget with the following exceptions: • Professional services are under budget due to ongoing contract negot1at1ons with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway regarding the 4 1h Main track and significant legal and advisory services related to the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) design-build procurement being delayed until a full project funding commitment from the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program has been secured. In the fourth quarter, the Commission received an invitation to the TIFIA program. • Support costs are under budget due to unused budget authority for station · maintenance and repair, and utilities. • Program operations expenditures are under budget and reflect vendor invoices for program management submitted through February 2012. • Operating and capital disbursements are made as claims are submitted to the Commission by transit operators. Agenda Item 7 A 2 • • • • • • • • Special studies are under budget due to the unused budget authority for Caltrans project initiation documents (PIDs). Due to the state's budget issues, funds were budgeted in FY 2011/12 should the Commission be required to reimburse Caltrans for PIDs. Local streets and roads expenditures are related to the timing of Measure A sales tax revenues as previously explained. These financial statements reflect expenditures made to the local jurisdictions related to collections through January 2012. Regional arterial expenditures primarily represent expenditures for the highways and regional arterial program administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). CVAG requests reimbursements from the Commission based on available funds and sufficient budget authority. Capital outlay expenditures are under budget due to unexpended authority for financial software improvements, regional rideshare hardware improvements, and station security improvements. This category is expected to remain under budget for lower costs related to the financial software improvements and not requiring the regional rideshare hardware. At its February meeting, the Commission approved a new model for operating the regional rideshare system that does not require hardware. Debt service interest expenditures on the 2010 Bonds are made in December and June, while interest expenditures on the 2009 Bonds are made monthly due to the variable rate nature of the bonds. Principal payments on the 2009 Bonds and the 2010 Bonds are made in June. The retirement of $40 million of commercial paper notes is included in principal payments. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and will notify the Commission of any unusual events. Listed below are the significant capital projects and the status. Capital project expenditures are generally affected by lags in invoices submitted by contractors and consultants, as well as issues encountered during certain phases of the projects. The capital projects budgets tend to be based on aggressive project schedules. Highway Engineering/Construction/Design-Build/Right of Way/Land 74/215 Interchange Project -Construction is substantially completed, and a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the opening to traffic was held on February 16; one right of way acquisition is currently in condemnation proceedings . Agenda Item 7 A 3 SR-79 Realignment Project -The draft project report and environmental document • is being reviewed by Caltrans to receive approval to release for public circulation. Due to the size and complexity of the project, this phase has taken longer than anticipated. SR-91 /Van Buren Boulevard Interchange Project -The city of Riverside is the lead agency for this project. Construction started in March 2010 and the project is substantially completed and open to traffic. The Measure A funded portion of construction is $5 million; only $3 million in costs have been submitted by the city of Riverside with the remaining $2 million expected to be billed in the fourth quarter of FY 2011/12. SR-91 HOV Lanes Project -Caltrans has completed design work. Expenditures remain within the budget authority. Utility relocation contractors continue to perform relocation of utilities. Staff is performing right of way acquisition, and negotiations continue to progress and are on schedule; several acquisitions are pending settlements. Construction managed by Caltrans was awarded and started in March 2012. 71/91 Interchange Project -The preliminary engineering and environmental phase was completed in late FY 201 0/11 . The availability of federal earmark funds allowed the final design phase of work ·to move forward. Procurement for the design consultant was awarded at the February Commission meeting, and a notice • to proceed was issued in March 201 2. SR-91 CIP (design-build) -A Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Ill grant application and letter of interest for a TIFIA loan were submitted in October 2011 and December 2011, respectively. In December 2011, the Commission was selected to receive a $20 million TIGER Ill TIFIA grant that will translate into a TIFIA loan to partially fill the remaining funding gap for the project. In April, the Commission was notified that it received an invitation to the 2012 TIFIA program. This invitation, combined with the TIGER Ill TIFIA grant, provided the final piece needed for full funding of the project. Early right of way acquisition work was approved by Caltrans in April 2011. Following the public comment period ending in July 2011, early acquisition work began. Right of way expenditures for FY 2011/12 are lagging due to the long lead time to close escrow on property purchases. Staff anticipates that the right of way acquisition program will accelerate due to completion of required documentation to close out escrows in early FY 2012/13. The design-build request for proposals is being finalized for issuance in first quarter of FY 2012/13. Agency, utility, and railroad agreement work continues with certain agreements now completed and with others in various stages of completion. Agenda Item 7 A 4 • • • • 1-15 CIP -Work on the environmental phase continues. Toll feasibility work continues to evaluate various project options in the Commission's current funding environment. Staff has used toll feasibility work to develop a scoping and implementation plan that was presented to the 1-1 5 CIP Ad Hoc Committee. Comments were received and action items were developed to perform further analysis and to make further project recommendations to the ad hoc committee in the second quarter of FY 201 2/1 3. 1-21 5 South Widening Project from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road - Construction began in July 2011 and is on schedule. 1-21 5 Central Widening Project from Scott Road to Nuevo Road -Final design and right of way acquisitions related to the project are on schedule. 1-215/Van Buren Interchange -This project is managed by the county of Riverside (County), and construction bids were received in February 2012. The County awarded a contract in April 2012 with construction scheduled to start in June 2012. Mid County Parkway Project ~ Right of way acqUISitions have been curtailed as property development has subsided, and the critical need to acquire property for protection has been delayed due to the substantial rescoping of the project . Rail Engineering/Construction/Right of Way/land Perris Valley Line Project -·Advance preliminary engineering is approximately 90 percent complete and right of way acquisition has started. Federal environmental clearance was obtained in the fourth quarter of FY 2011/12, which will release activity for final right of way procurement and start of the final design phase. Attachment: Quarterly Budget Vs. Actual -3'ct Quarter Agenda Item 7 A 5 . RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 3RDQUARTER • FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED 3/31/2012 FY 2011/12 3rd QUARTER REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues Sales tax $ 194,537,000 $ 118,506,939 $ (76,030,061) 61% Federal reimbursements 23,650,700 ·6,655,333 (16,995,367) 28% State reimbursements 23,935,100 10,645,623 (13,289,477) 44% Local reimbursements 1,081,800 956,882 (124,918) 88% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 6,784,300 3,673,741 (3,110,559) 54% Other revenues 592,400 874,978 282,578 148% Interest 1,824,000 4,145,852 2,321,852 227% Total revenues 252,405,300 145,459,348 (106,945,952) 58% Expenditures Salaries and benefits 6,576,900 4,895,830 1,681,070 74% Professional and support Professional services 17,149,100 7,514,078 9,635,022 44% Support costs 5,068 900 2,672 013 2,396 887 53% Total Professional and support costs 22,218,000 10,186,091 12,031,909 46% Projects and operations Program operations -general 16,827,000 6,449,306 10,377,694 38% Engineering 41,568,800 13,242,903 28,325,897 32% Construction 41,777,600 16,429,710 25,347,890 39% Design Build 14,438,000 7,755,479 6,682,521 54% Right of way/land 76,127,000 33,773,057 42,353,943 44% Operating and capital disbursements 109,547,300 50,152,934 59,394,366 46% Special studies 770,000 80,537 689,463 10% Local streets and roads 36,025,000 22,169,286 13,855,714 62% Regional arterials 16 262 000 4 947 613 11,314 387 30% • Total projects and operations 353,342,700 155,000,825 198,341,875 44% Debt service Principal 46,500,000 40,000,000 6,500,000 86% Interest 16,495,000 8,736,463 7,758,537 53% Total debt service 62,995,000 48,736,463 14,258,537 77% Capital outlay 516,200 128,368 387,832 25% Total Expenditures 445 648 800 218 947 577 226 701 223 49% Excess revenues over (under) expenditures (193,243,500) (73,488,229) 255,027,120 38% Other financing sources/( uses) Operating transfer in 169,739,100 75,930,416 (93,808,684) 45% Operating transfer out (169,739,100) (75,930,416) 93,808,61}4 45% Debt proceeds 38 000 000 40 000 000 2 000 000 105% Total financing sources/(uses) 38,000,000 40,000,000 (2,000,000) 105% Net change in fund balances (155,243,500) (33,488,229) 253,027,120 22% Fund balance July 1, 2011 530,978,300 589,364,644 58,386,344 111% Fund balance March 31,2012 $ 375,734,800 $ 555,876,415 $ 311,413,464 148% • 6 • Revenues Sales tax Federal reimbursements Stale reimbursements Local reimbursements Transportation Uniform Mrtigation Fee Other revenues Interest Total revenues Expenditures Salaries and benefits Professional and support Professional services Support costs Total Professional and support costs Projects and operations Program operations· general Engineering Construction Design Build Right of way/land Operating and capital disbursements Special studies Local streets and roads Regional arterials Total projects and operations Debt service Principal Interest Cost of issuance Payment to escrow agent Total debt service Capital outlay Total Expenditures Excess revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing source$/( uses) Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Debt proceeds Bond discount Total financing sources/(uses) Net change m fund balances Fund balance July 1, 2011 Fund balance March 31, 2012 GENERAL FUND 1,890.000 5,385 102,264 84,070 12,026 29 575 2,123.320 3,101,866 794,392 2,051.641 2,846,033 884.364 5.557,893 33.227 6,475,484 33,963 FSPf SAFE 1,965,480 211,943 583 14,136 '2.192,142 99,429 564,737 260,071 824,808 1.520,988 1,520,988 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUOGETVS ACTUAL$ BY FUND 3RO QUARTER FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED 3131/2012 MEASURE A SA~ES TAX WESTERN COUNTY PALO VERDE VALLEY 55,457,273 $ 498,605 6,530,188 8,577,879 660,869 860,024 578 664 72,664,897 498,605 1,606,699 5.910.298 360,069 6,270,367 3,898,803 10.379,622 16.193,833 7,755,479 30,504,617 3,070,882 47,310 15,676,679 498,605 B'7:'527,22s 498,605 94,405 COACHELLA VALLEY ~OCA~ TRANSPORTATION FUND 17,125,721 $ 36.788,300 25,970 17,151.691 779 1,973 1,973 3,192.661 5,994,002 4,947,613 14,.134,276 165,802 36,954,102 37,026,463 37,026,463 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE 6,747,040 94,989 6.842,029 1,305,035 1,305,035 TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 119,760 3,673,741 178,273 3,971,774 87,057 242,678 232 242,910 145.151 2,744.176 235,877 846,240 3.~'71':444 COMMERCIAL PAPER 1,424,859 1,424,859 40,000,000 3,803 4o:Oo3To3 SALES TAX BONDS 2,345 48,878 51.223 119,105 2,422.200 2,541,305 DEBT SERVICE 1,584,706 1,584,706 8,732.660 8,732,660 • COMBINED TOTAL 118,506.939 6.655.333 10,645,623 956,882 3,673,741 874,978 4,145,852 145,459,348 4,895,830 7,514,078 2,672,013 10,186,091 6,449.306 13,242,903 16.429,710 7.755,479 33,773.057 50,152.934 80,537 22.169,286 4,947,613 155,000,825 40,000,000 8,736,463 48,736,463 128,368 12,457,346 2,445,225 -~~498,696 498,605 14,137,028 37,026,463 t,M~_§-'-o_35 4,~Q1AJ1_ ------.!Q.._003,B03 ______ 2.541,305 8 732,~60 __ 2_18.947,577 (10,334,026) (253,083) 11.507,169 800,000 (1,114,300) (22,833,799) 33.798,172 (15,937,229) 3,014,663 54 (54) (72,361) (11,032,869) 5,536,994 (329,637) 818,590 (38,578,944) 3,803 (30) 40,000,000 (2,490,082) 14,381,746 (33,464, 1 87) (7,147,954) 14,620,882 (14,381,747) 11,507,169 (314,300) 17-:-a60,943 (11,032:869) &J.M~O _____±Q.J.J03,773__ (19,082,441) ________f1_!t_135 1 '173, 143 (567,383) (4,972,856) 3,014,663 (11 '105,230) 5,536,994 488,953 1,424,829 (21 ,572,523) (6,908,8 19) 13 524,354 7,046,938 258,599.521 556 10,162,008 82,210,219 32 178,629 73,294,737 33,227,032 25,226,581 53,894 069 14,697,497 $ 6,479,555 $ 253,626,665 $ 556 $ 13,176,671 $ 71,104,989 __ $~ 37,715,623 $ 73,783,690 $ 34,651.861 $ 3,654,058 $ 46,985,250 7 (73,488,229) 75,930,416 (75,930,416) 40,000,000 40.000,000 (33,488,229) 589,364,644 ~ • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION June 25, 2011 Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Revised Procurement Policy Manual STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the revised Riverside County Transportation Commission Procurement Policy Manual for the procurement and contracting activities undertaken by the Commission, subject to final review by legal counsel as to conformance to state and federal law; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 12-018, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Procurement Policy Manual"; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMA T/ON: As a result of the Federal Transit Administration's (FT A) FY 2006 Triennial Revi·ew in August 2006, FTA staff identified the Commission needed to develop more formal written procurement policies and procedures that conform to applicable state and federal laws. At the Commission's April 2007 Executive Committee meeting, a Procurement Policy Manual was adopted. Over the past four years since the manual was adopted, the Finance Department has established a Procurement Division, which includes a Procurement Manager and a Procurement Administrator. In addition to centralizing the procurement function, a goal was to update the Procurement Policy Manual so that it serves as a comprehensive guide that includes relevant local, state, and federal procurement guidelines and regulations. The Commission's legal counsel and management staff has reviewed preliminary drafts of the manual, and a peer review by the Orange County Transportation Authority's procurement department was performed . Agenda item 8 8 Procurement Policies Manual Highlights The revised Procurement Policy Manual outlines a comprehensive procurement program that incorporates the key elements needed to comply with FT A, Federal Highway Administration, Caltrans, and other state and federal regulations. It also incorporates Commission policies, including the single signature policy. It has been reorganized to be user friendly for staff and to meet the needs of the Commission. · The Procurement Policy Manual includes a variety of procurement related issues including: 1) Procurement Processes and General Guidelines; 2) Sealed Bids; 3) Design-Build Contracts; 4) Competitively Negotiated Procurements; 5) Simplified Purchase Procedures; 6) Non-Competitive and Emergency Procurements; 7) References to Applicable Laws and Regulations; 8) Disposal of Surplus Property; and 9) Procurements Using Federal Funds. • The revised Procurement Policy Manual provides the Commission with· a comprehensive, formal set of policies and procedures that will assist all aspects of the organization with guidance regarding best procurement practices. With the • increasing number of projects using federal funding sources, the Procurement Policy Manual provides a framework to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Attachments: 1) Procurement Policy Manual 2) Resolution No. 12-018 • Agenda item 8 9 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Procurement Policy Manual • • 10 • • • CHAPTER 1 -PROCUREMENT PROCESS 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE A. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (hereinafter "RCTC" or "Commission") procures goods and services using public funds. It has a responsibility to uphold the public trust and maximize the value of public funds by using them as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. B. This Procurement Policy Manual (Manual) sets forth a general procurement policy and set of standards that will govern the conduct of Commission procurement activities and of Commission personnel engaged in those activities. The policies contained herein are advisory, not mandatory, and any deviation therefrom shall not render any contract of the Commission void or voidable. This manual is for Commission internal purposes only and shall not create any rights in any third parties. C. This Manual is intended to supersede, in its entirety, the Commission's Procurement Policies Manual which was adopted on April 1 1, 2007, and Resolution No. 98-013, adopted December 9, 1998, entitled Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Executive Director to Sign Certain Commission Contracts. 2.0 PROCUREMENT POLICY STATEMENT A . The Commission procurement policies establish the guidelines and policies for procuring the goods and services necessary for the Commission to carry out its responsibilities and duties. The policies are intended to maintain the integrity of the Commission's procurement process, while ensuring that purchases are made in a cost effective, timely manner; with fair and open competition; and in accordance with all applicable Jaws and regulations. B. The objectives of the Commission's Procurement Policy Manual are'to: 1. Maximize the value received for the Commission's expenditure of public funds. 2. Protect assets and/or services purchased with public funds and ensure their application in the Commission's interests. 3. Provide all vendors an equal opportunity to provide needed goods and/or services. 4. Protect the integrity and reputation of the Commission, its officers, and its employees. 3.0 PROCUREMENT STANDARDS A. GENERAL 1. Contract Administration System. The Commission will maintain a contract administration system that helps ensure that contractors perform 13 in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their respective contracts. 2. A void Duplicative Purchases. Commission staff should regularly review proposed and planned procurements to avoid purchase of unnecessary or duplicative items. 3. Lease vs. Purchase Analysis. Where appropriate, an analysis should be made of lease versus purchase alternatives and any other appropriate analysis to determine the most economical procurement approach. 4. Value Engineering. When appropriate and in the Commission's best interests, the Commission will encourage the use of value engineering by including applicable clauses in contracts for appropriate equipment purchases and construction projects. 5. Award to Responsive and Responsible Contractors. The Commission will make awards only to responsive and responsible contractors, as determined by the Commission, possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed contract. Consideration will be given to such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy as implemented by applicable Jaws and regulations, record of past performance, and financial and technical resources. 6. Commission Rejection ofBids, Quotes, and/or Proposals. The Commission, to the extent permitted by applicable laws, may reject any and all bids, quotes and/or proposals and re-advertise at its sole discretion. The Commission should ensure that such rights are clearly stated in all Commission bid documents. 7. Procurement Records. Records sufficient to document the significant history of each procurement activity should be maintained and retained by the Commission in accordance with the Commission's records retention policy. 8. Written Selection Procedures. The Commission will have written selection procedures for formal procurements that help ensure fair, unbiased evaluation of competing proposals. 9. Conflicts oflnterest. All Commission Members, employees and other agents must conduct the procurement process so as to avoid conflicts of interest, real or apparent. To maintain full and open competition, no Commission member, employee or other agent is permitted to give preferential treatment to any contractor, nor to influence or participate in any Commission transaction in which such person has a financial interest. All procurements must be conducted in accordance with the Commission's Resolution No. 10-038, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending the Appendix of the Conflict oflnterest Code Pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 (as amended)," as may be amended. 2 14 • • • • • 4.0 • 10. Lobbying and Gifts. Commission officers, employees, agents and Commission members must comply with applicable state and federal law regarding acceptance of gifts, gratuities, or favors from contractors, potential contractors, or parties to subcontractor agreements. 11. Audit Provisions. Every Commission contract wherein contractor or other entity is receiving Commission funds in excess of $10,000 should include a provision allowing examination and audit of records related to the contract by the Commission's auditor for a period ofthree years after final payment under the terms of the contract. 12. Termination Clause. All contracts in excess of $25,000, and public works contracts in excess of$2,000, should provide for the termination of the contract for the Commission's convenience, and all contracts should provide for the termination of the contract for default in cases of contractor breach or non-performance. · 13. Issues not Included in the Procurement Policy Manual. If a policy, procedure or particular strategy or practice is in the best interest ofthe Commission and is not specifically addressed, nor prohibited by statute or case law, users ofthis Manual should not assume it is prohibited. Rather, the absence of direction should be interpreted as permitting the Executive Director to innovate and use sound business judgment that is otherwise consistent with law and within the limits of his or her authority . TYPES OF CONTRACTS A. General Provisions 1. The Procurement Officer should use the types of contracts described in this Chapter for most types of procurement, except as otherwise provided for certain small purchases described hereunder in Chapter 6. Innovative contracting arrangements are not prohibited, but require the advance approval of the Executive Director or the Commission, as specified herein. 2. The cost-plus-percentage-of-cost method of contracting shall not be used for state or federally funded contracts. 3. The Procurement Officer, in consultation with the Project Manager, should select the type of contract that is most appropriate to the circumstances of each procurement, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 4. In procurements by other than competitive sealed bidding, the Procurement Officer may negotiate a contract type and price (or estimated cost and fee) that will result in reasonable contractor risk and provide the contractor with the greatest incentive for efficient and economical performance. B. Selecting Contract Types 3 15 1. When procurement is by competitive sealed bidding, the Procurement Officer must use a firm fixed-price contract. The type of contract to be used should be determined prior to the solicitation, and the solicitation should inform bidders of the type of contract that will be used. 2. Except when procurement is by competitive sealed bidding as required by law, the Procurement Officer should select the most effective contract type and should consider contract type together with the issues of price, risk, uncertainty, and responsibility for costs. The type of contract used should reflect the cost risk and responsibility assumed by the contractor or supplier. 3. The Procurement Officer should avoid the continued use of a cost reimbursement or time-and-materials contract after experience provides a basis for firmer pricing. 4. The Procurement Officer should include documentation in each contract file to show why the particular contract type was selected, except for purchase orders under the small purchase threshold. C. Fixed-Price Contracts 1. Fixed-price contracts may provide for a firm price or, in appropriate cases, an adjustable price. 2. Fixed-price contracts providing for an adjustable price may include a ceiling price, a target price (including target cost), or both. Unless otherwise specified in the contract, the ceiling price or target price '-':ill be subject to adjustment only by operation of contract clauses providing for equitable adjustment or other revision of the contract price under stated circumstances. 3. A firm-fixed-price contract should provide for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor's cost experience in performing the contract. 4. A firm-fixed-price contract should be used for acquiring commercial products or commercial-type products, or for acquiring other supplies or services, on the basis of reasonably definite functional or detailed specifications if the Procurement Officer can establish fair and reasonable prices at the outset, including the following circumstances: a. When there is adequate price competition; b. When there are reasonable price comparisons with prior purchases of the same or similar supplies or services made on a competitive basis; c. When available cost or pricing information permits realistic estimates of the probable costs of performance; d. When performance uncertainties can be identified and reasonable estimates of their cost impact can be made, and the contractor is willing to accept a firm-fixed-price contract; or 4 16 • • • • • • D. e. When required by law unless a sole source exception applies. Cost Reimbursement Contracts I. Cost reimbursement contracts provide for payment of the contractor's reasonable, allocable and allowable incurred costs plus a negotiated fixed fee, to the extent prescribed in the underlying contract and Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 3 1 . 2. A cost reimbursement contract establishes an estimate of total cost for the purpose of obligating funds and establishing a ceiling on expenditures that the contractor may not exceed without the approval of the Commission. 3. Cost reimbursement contracts are suitable for use when the uncertainties of performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use a fixed-price contract. 4. The Commission must determine the adequacy of the contractor's accounting system for cost-type contracts before awarding such a contract. E. Time-And-Materials Contracts 1. A time-and-materials contract should be used only after the Procurement Officer determines, in writing, that no other type of contract is suitable. 2. A time-and-materials contract should be used only when it is not possible at the time of executing the contract to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of certainty or confidence. 3. A time-and-materials contract should include direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates that include wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses, profit, and materials required at cost. 4. The user department/project manager should ensure that there is adequate surveillance of contractor performance when a time-and-materials type contract is used. F. Labor-Hour Contracts I. When materials are not required, the Procurement Officer may use a labor- hour contract, a variation of the time~and-materials contract. 2. The use of a labor-hour contract should be in accordance with the above- referenced provisions related to time-and-materials contracts . 5 17 G. Letter Contracts (Letter Oflntent Contracts) • 1. A letter contract is an interim type of contractual agreement that gives the contractor a limited Notice of Award for the delivery of the required goods/supplies or the performance of services. 2. The Procurement Officer may use a letter contract when the Commission's interests demand that the contractor be given a binding commitment so that work can start immediately and executing a definitive contract is riot possible in sufficient time to meet the requirement. Each letter contract should be as complete and definitive as possible under the circumstances and should include clauses approved and required by the Procurement Officer. 3. The estimated cost of the definitive contract should determine the type and level of review and approval required for approval of a letter contract. 4. A letter contract may not be entered into without competition except as provided for under Non-Competitive and/or Emergency Procurements provisions of this Manual. 5. A letter contract may not be amended to satisfy a new requirement unless the new requirement is inseparable from the existing contract. Any amendment should be subject to the same requirements as a new Jetter contract. 6. The total value of the letter contract should be the estimated sum • necessary·to cover the contractor's requirement for funds before execution of the definitive contract. However, the total value of a letter contract should not, under any circumstances, exceed fifty percent (50%) of the overall price ceiling for the term ofthe final negotiated (i.e., definitive) contract. 7. A letter contract should contain a negotiated schedule for execution of the definitive contract, including dates for submission of the contractor's price proposal, cost or pricing data (if required), a date for start of negotiations, and a target for execution of the definitive contract. 8. The letter contract should provide that if the Procurement Officer and the contractor cannot negotiate a definitive contract because of failure to reach agreement regarding price or fee: 1) the Procurement Officer may terminate the letter contract; or 2) if a "contract definitization" clause is included in the letter contract, the Commission may unilaterally require the contractor to continue the work and the Procurement Officer may, with the approval of the Executive Director, determine a reasonable price or fee. H. Multiple Year Contracts Multiple year contracts may be used with competitive sealed bids, competitive proposals, or by non-competitive procurement. Multiple year contracting is a method by which the Commission awards a contract for a base period of one or 6 • 18. • • • I. more years, with option provisions for future years' requirements. The option provision in the contract should provide for unilateral exercise at the discretion of the user department/project manager, as additional requirements and funding become available. See below under Section 5.0 of this Chapter for further information regarding Options. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contracts 1. The Procurement Officer may use an ID/IQ type of contract when the Commission anticipates a recurring requirement, but cannot predetermine the precise quantities of supplies or services at the time of contract award. 2. ID/JQ contracts should specify maximum or minimum estimated quantities that the Commission may require during the term of the agreement. An ID/IQ contract should make no promise of exclusivity and may in fact be one of several (multiple) contracts awarded for the same item or service. 3. There are several types ofiD/JQ contracts, including: 4. a. Definite-quantity contracts b. Requirements contracts c. Indefinite quantity (IQ) contracts (commodities) d. Task order contracts (services) · If possible under the circumstances, the Procurement Officer should ensure that original solicitation and resultant ID/JQ contract contain both a minimum and a maximum quantities, which represent the reasonably foreseeable needs of the parties to the solicitation, and a clause stating that the estimate is not a representation to a bidder, offeror, or consultant that the estimated quantity or dollar amount above the estimated minimum will actually be required or ordered by the Commission. 5.0 OPTIONS A. General 1. When it is in the best interest ofthe Commission, a contract option may be included providing the Commission the unilateral right to extend the term of the contract and/or to purchase additional supplies or services called for by the contract. 2. Any written findings required for a contract option shall specify both the base requirement(s) and the increase permitted by subsequent options. Contract provisions setting forth the cost of the option may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. A specific dollar amount; 7 19 b. An amount to be determined by applying provisions (or a formula) • provided in the basic contract, but not including renegotiation of the price for work in a fixed-price type contract; c. In a cost-type contract, a stated fixed or maximum fee, or a fixed or maximum fee amount determinable by applying a formula contained in the basic contract; d. A specific price that is subject to an economic price adjustment provision; or e. A specific price that is subject to change as a result of changes to the prevailing labor rates provided by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) or the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) prevailing rates, whichever is applicable. B. Solicitation of Contracts with Options 1. If a contract provides for an option, the solicitation should include appropriate option clauses. 2. Each contract should state the period within which an option may be exercised. 3. In order to meet the requirements of this Manual for full and open competition, the option should be evaluated as part of the initial competition and be exercisable at an amount specified from the terms of the basic contract. When options have not been evaluated as part of the award, the exercise of such options will be considered a non-competitive procurement and must comply with the non-competitive procurement policies in described in this Manual. C. Exercise of Options 1. The user department/project manager, in cooperation with the Procurement Officer, should initiate the exercise of an option only after determining the following: a. That sufficient budget authority is available; b. That the requirement covered by the option fulfills an existing Commission need; and c. That the exercise of the option will be the most advantageous method of fulfilling the Commission's needs, when price and other factors are considered. 2. The Procurement Officer, after considering price and other factors, should make the determination whether to recommend exercising the option on the basis of one of the following: a. A new solicitation fails to produce a better price or a more advantageous offer than that offered by the option; provided, that if it is anticipated that the best price available is the option price (or that 8 20 • • • • • the option provides the more advantageous offer), the Procurement Officer should not use this method to test the market; b. An informal analysis of prices or an examination of the market indicates that the option price is better than prices available in the market or that the option is the most advantageous offer; or c. The short time between the award of the contract containing the option and the exercise of the option indicates that the option price is the lowest price obtainable or the most advantageous. 3. The contract modification or other written document, which notifies the contractor of the exercise of the option, shall cite the option provision as authority for the action and should be issued within the time period specified in the contract. 6.0 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS A. Memorandum ofUnderstanding B. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is a contract document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement outlining the terms and details of an arrangement between the parties to the MOU, including each party's requirements and responsibilities. An MOU is used when substantial involvement is expected between the Commission and another agency or entity when carrying out the activity contemplated in the MOU, and there exists some public or mutually beneficial purpose in carrying out this activity. Piggybacking 1. Piggybacking is the post-award use of an acceptable contract/solicitation process that allows an entity not contemplated in the original procurement to purchase the same supplies or equipment under the original contract/solicitation process. 2. Piggybacking is permissible when: a. The underlying solicitation document and the resultant contract contain an assignability clause that provides for the assignment of all or part of the specified deliverables as originally advertised, competed, evaluated, and awarded; and b. For federally funded agreements, the original solicitation and resultant contract contain a minimum and a maximum quantity, which represent the reasonably foreseeable needs of the parties to the solicitation. C. California Multiple Award Schedule and State Master Agreements I. A California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) and State Master Agreements are agreements established between the California Department of General Services (DGS) and multiple vendors who agree to the State of California terms and conditions, and may be used by the Commission . 9 21 2. Acquisitions based on CMAS or State Master Agreements shall be competitively bid so as to result in offers from three or more vendors including. one small business, if available. Ifless than three offers are received, documentation of solicitation methods must be included with the contract documentation. 3. Three offers are not required for CMAS and State Master Agreements based on competition, such as Cal-Store, the Master Rental Agreement, Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA), etc. Information on specific CMAS and State Master Agreements are available on DGS-PD's website at: www.dgs.ca.gov/pd. 10 22 • • • • • • CHAPTER 2 -PROCUREMENT GENERALLY 1.0 IMPLEMENTATION BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; COMMISSION CONTROLS AND LIMITATIONS A. Final authority for purchasing actions and decisions rests with the Commission, except as delegated by the Commission to the Executive Director. B. The Executive Director may designate the Deputy Executive Director, Chief Financial Officer or Directors to execute contracts under his or her signature authority on his/her behalf. C. The policies set forth herein will be implemented by the Chief Financial Officer. The Chief Financial Officer has primary responsibility for ensuring that the Commission's procurement process is in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, as interpreted by the General Counsel and Commission policy. D. The Executive Director is authorized to approve and enter into contracts on behalf of the Commission under his/her single signature authority as follows:· E. 1. When the expenditure is Jess than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for the purchase of all supplies, equipment, materials and for the construction of all facilities and works in accordance with California PUC § 130232; and 2. When the expenditure is less than one hundred thousand dollars ($ 1 00,000) for the purchase of services; however, (i) the aggregate amount of contracts executed under the single signature authority shall not exceed $1,000,000 in any given fiscal year; (ii) the aggregate value of all contracts awarded to any one entity under the Executive Director's single signature authority shall not exceed $150,000 in any fiscal year; and (iii) the Executive Director may execute contract amendments for existing contracts that do not exceed $100,000. Such authority however, such authority may not be exercised more than once during the life of any contract and may not be used to amend contracts originally executed under the Executive Director's single signature authority. The powers of the Executive Director pursuant to paragraph 'D' above are subject to: (i) the existence and provisions of a Commission approved budget; and (ii) applicable laws and regulations. F. The Executive Director must provide the Commission with a regular report of all contracts entered into pursuant to the single signature authority, and must report to the Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting each new contract awarded on an emergency basis or other agreements in excess of the Executive Director's single signature authority . 11 23 G. APPROVAL LIMITS AND SOLICITATION TYPES •• 1. Supplies, Equipment, and Materials (California PUC § 130232) PURCHASE SOLICIT AT ION SOLICITATION PROCESS APPROVER AMOUNT TYPE Less than $1 ,000 Micro-purchase Informal: Commercial availability, Procurement Rotate Vendors Officer* $1,000 to $25,000 Small Purchase Informal: Three (3) Quotes Procurement Officer* $25,001 to $50,000 Formal Procurement Formal: Advertisement, Clauses, Executive Sealed Bids Director Greater than $50,000 Formal Procurement Formal: Advertisement, Clauses, Commission Sealed Bids 2. Public Works (California PUC § 130232) PURCHASE SOLICITATION SOLICITATION PROCESS APPROVER AMOUNT TYPE Less than $1 ,000 Micro-purchase Informal: Commercial availability, Procurement Rotate Vendors, Non-Collusion Officer* Affidavit, Insurance $1,000 to $25,000 Small Purchase Informal: Three (3) Quotes, Procurement Prevailing Wage, Clauses, Insurance, Officer* License, Non-Collusion Anidavit $25,00 I to $50,000 Formal Procurement Formal: Advertisement, Clauses, Executive • Prevailing Wage, Insurance, License, Director Sealed Bids, Payment Bond, Non- Collusion Affidavit Greater than $50,000 Formal Procurement Formal: Advertisement, Clauses, Commission Prevailing Wage, Insurance, License, Sealed Bids, Payment Bond, Non- Collusion Affidavit * As delegated by the Executive Director • 12 24 • • • 3. Services PURCHASE SOLICITATION SOLICITATION PROCESS APPROVER AMOUNT TYPE Less than $3,000 Micro-purchase Informal: Commercial availability, Procurement Rotate Vendors, Insurance Officer $3,000 to $50,000 Small Purchase Informal: Three (3) Quotes, Procurement Insurance, Clauses, Insurance Officer $50,001 to $100,000 Small Purchase Informal: Three (3) Quotes, Executive Insurance, Clauses, Insurance; or Director Formal: Advertisement, Clauses, Insurance, Negotiated Agreement, Sealed Bids, AlE Contract Greater than Formal Procurement Formal: Advertisement, Clauses, Commission $100,000 Insurance, Negotiated Agreement, Sealed Bids, A/E Contract, Certifications 2.0 PROCUREMENT OFFICER-DESIGNATION AND DELEGATION 3.0 The Chief Financial Officer is the designated "Procurement Officer" for the Commission. The Chief Financial Officer may delegate all or part of the Procurement Officer duties described in this Manual. PROCUREMENT OFFICER-DUTIES A. The Procurement Officer has the duty to oversee all procurement activities of the Commission, and to implement the policies and standards set forth in this Manual, subject to the limitations of the authority that has been delegated to the Procurement Officer by the Commission or the Executive Director. B. The Procurement Officer may issue instructions for the implementation of Commission procurement policies. C. The Procurement Officer has the duty to ensure Commission contracts, purchase orders, modifications, and supplemental agreements are executed in accordance with established thresholds and delegated authority. D. The Procurement Officer should ensure that a complete record of each procurement action is maintained in accordance with the Commission's records retention policy by establishing files containing the records of all major procurements and contractual actions pertinent to that office's responsibilities. I. The Procurement Officer is responsible for maintaining the original contract file pursuant to applicable state and/or federal records retention policies. 2. The documentation in each contract file maintained by the Procurement Officer should be sufficient to constitute a complete history of the transaction for the following purposes: 13 25 a. Providing a complete background as a basis for informed decisions at • each step of the procurement process; b. Supporting actions taken; c. Providing information for reviews, audits, and investigations; and d. Furnishing essential facts in the event oflitigation. 4.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES The Procurement Officer, in his or her discretion and subject to the review and concurrence ofthe Commission's General Counsel, may adopt procurement and materials management procedures and guidelines needed to implement and supplement the policies and standards set forth in this Manual. Any such procedures and guidelines should provide for timely review and processing of all procurement actions, and should ensure that procurements proceed timely, efficiently and economically, while adhering to principles of good public policy practices and sound business judgment. 5.0 AUTHORIZED METHODS OF PROCUREMENT; SELECTION A. Selection. As part of the procurement initiation process, the Procurement Officer will determine which method of procurement is appropriate. B. Authorized Methods. The following methods of procurement may be used, as appropriate, in accordance with the policies and procedures included in the Procurement Manual: I. Sealed Bid, pursuant to Chapter 3 of this Manual; 2. Design-build, pursuant to Chapter 4 of this Manual; 3. Competitively Negotiated Procurement, pursuant to Chapter 5 of this Manual; 4. Small Purchase Procedures, pursuant to Chapter 6 of this Manual; and 5. Non-Competitive and Emergency Procurement, pursuant to Chapter 7 of this Manual. 6.0 INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATE A. An independent cost estimate is a determination of price reasonableness prepared prior to and independent of any input from a potential offeror. The term independent means an assessment without reliance on a contractor's bid or proposal, therefore, the independent estimate should be completed prior to the receipt ofbids or proposals. B. The method and means of establishing the independent estimate may vary based on the circumstances and can range from checking historical records or published price guides to a detailed estimate in the same level of detail that is required for contractors submitting proposals. 14 26 • • • • • C. The independent estimate provides the Procurement Officer with essential input during the solicitation process. Independent cost estimates may be used by the Commission to: I. Provide a determination of value (i.e., do benefits warrant the cost); 2. Support procurement planning; 3. Establish the competitive range and supplement the evaluation process; 4. Provide a basis for a price analysis, which may eliminate the need for a more burdensome cost analysis; 5. Provide a basis for development of a pre-negotiation objective; 6. Support the Commission's negotiation position with contractor; and/or 7. After contract award, provide essential input with respect to contract amendments, change orders and claims. 7.0 COST/PRICE ANALYSIS A. The Procurement Officer should perform a cost/price analysis in connection with every procurement action, including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation . B. If the contract being awarded is a cost-reimbursement type, the cost/price analysis should address the realism of the various cost elements proposed, and where the costs are unrealistically low, an adjustment should be made to reflect what the Commission believes the effort will actually cost given that offeror's specific technical approach as well as its direct and indirect cost rates. 1. The Commission should, when applicable, or must, if required by law, utilize the guidelines provided in the Federal Acquisition Regulations Part 31 to determine whether ofthe contractor's proposed costs are reasonable, allowable and allocable. 8.0 VENDOR CONTACTS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SOLICITATION Informational and market research contacts with prospective contractors/vendors should be circumscribed based upon legitimate, identifiable business purposes and guided by the exercise of sound judgment. The primary pitfalls to be avoided are promises or implications from Commission staff of a future contract, development by a vendor of a specification or scope of services to be used as part of a Commission solicitation that vendor intends to participate in, requests from Commission staff for complimentary services or supplies, and other activities that may create a real or apparent conflict of interest or the impression of an obligation on the part of the Commission . 15 27 9.0 10.0 ADVERTISING I PUBLICIZING PROCUREMENTS A. The Procurement Officer should use the most efficient and effective means to publicize contract actions to increase competition in accordance with the requirements of the specific procurement. B. California PUC§ 130232, applicable to the purchase of all supplies, equipment, materials and for the construction of all facilities and works when the expenditure exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), requires that notice requesting bids shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation. The publication must be made at least 10 days before the date for the receipt of the bids. The Commission, at its discretion, may reject any and all bids andre- advertise. c. California PUC § 130238 for the purchase of computers, telecommunications equipment, microwave equipment, and other related electronic equipment and apparatus that is not available in substantial quantities to the general public requires (i) the procurement be conducted through competitive negotiation, after a finding by the Commission by a two-thirds vote that this particular procurement qualifies under California PUC § 130238, and (ii) notice of the request for proposals be published at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation, at least 10 days before the date for receipt of the proposals. D. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Section 9.c ofFTA Circular 4220.1F requires that invitations for bids are to be "publicly" advertised, and Section 9.d of FT A Circular 4220.1 F requires that requests for proposals are to be publicized . E. Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Chapter 15, paragraph 15.3 Project Advertisement, ofthe Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual provides detailed guidance regarding advertising ofFHWA-and/or Caltrans- funded projects. F. Pre-solicitation advertising prescribed in this section is not required for non- competitive, sole source, or emergency procurements processed in accordance with this Manual. NON-DISCRIMINATION IN PROCUREMENT All formal contracts entered into by the Commission should contain appropriate clauses prohibiting discrimination by the contractor against any person or group of persons on account of race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, age, marital status, sex or sexual orientation in the performance of the contract. 11.0 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST An unfair competitive advantage could result if a contractor were allowed to submit a bid or proposal for work described in a specification or statement of work that the contractor itself dev.eloped. For the purpose of eliminating a potential unfair competitive advantage, and in compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations, a contractor that develops or assists in developing specifications, requirements, statements of work, 16 28 • • • • invitation for bids, and/or request for proposals for a Commission procurement is excluded from competing for the resultant procurement, unless an appropriate waiver is issued by the Commission. All waivers will be assessed by the Commission on a case- by-case basis. • • 12.0 DUTIES OF COMMISSION STAFF REGARDING PROCUREMENTS A. General Procuring goods, services, and contracts for the Commission must be a cooperative effort, and it will be the responsibility of all Commission staff involved in procurement to employ sound business judgment and appropriate standards of ethics and fairness to procure goods and services in a manner most advantageous to the Commission. All employees and departments are instructed to follow the procedures set forth in the Procurement Policy Manual, as well as any instructions issued by the Procurement Officer regarding procurements. B. In order to initiate a procurement action (including amendments, procurements, exercising of available options, etc.), the user department/project manager should, at a minimum, provide the Procurement Officerwith the following items, as applicable: 1. 2. Specification, Scope of Services, or Statement of Work For a new procurement, a complete and clearly written specification, purchase description, or statement of work suitable for either competition or for negotiation with a sole source contractor, if justified. a. Amendments If a contract amendment has been negotiated based upon an existing advanced pricing arrangement or labor rates/categories included in the underlying agreement, the user department/project manager should provide the Procurement Officer with a copy of the final negotiated scope of services for the extra work, associated pricing terms, and/or schedule. b. Change Orders If a construction change order has been negotiated based upon an existing advanced pricing arrangement or labor rates/categories included in the underlying agreement, the user department/project manager should maintain a record of the change order and supporting documentation in the project files. Agreement Summary Sheet The user department/project manager must provide a complete and executed Agreement Summary Sheet for all procurement actions, including applicable small purchases, formal procurements, MOUs, agreements, change order modifications and the like. The Agreement Summary Sheet identifies the nature of funding for the subject goods/services, provides a record that the requirement was budgeted and 17 29 3. properly approved before the procurement process began, and ensures that the procurement action is assigned a unique agreement number for purposes of contract administration, payment, and recordkeeping. Independent Cost Estimate The user department/project manager should provide the Procurement Officer with an independent cost estimate for the anticipated procurement of goods/services. In order to avoid an apparent or actual conflict of interest, the estimate must be developed independent of any potential offerors. See paragraph 6.0 above for additional guidance regarding the development of an independent cost estimate. 4. Justification for Sole Source/Non-competitive Procurement (if applicable) The user department/project manager must prepare and submit to the Procurement Officer a written statement recording all the facts that provide justification for avoiding mandated competitive procurement practices· explicitly defined in this Manual and/or required by relevant state and federal law in favor of a non-competitive/sole source award. The Procurement Officer must approve the sole source procurement methodology before the procurement can proceed. 13.0 INSURANCE A. B. Contractors providing goods and services should be required to carry sufficient insurance to protect the Commission from third party lawsuits for personal injury (including death) and property damage. Insurance may also be required for damage to Commission property and for errors and omissions in the provision of professional services. The following types of procurement actions should be reviewed by the Procurement Officer for appropriate levels, types and limits of coverage on a case-by-case basis: 1. All Operations and Non-Operational Construction Contracts. 2. All Professional Services Contracts. 3. All contracts where work will be performed within "50 feet" of railroad. 4. All Environmental Contracts, including engineering services. 5. All procurement contracts and/or purchase agreements where outside vendors will be conducting work or performing installation services on Commission premises. 6. All procurement contracts and/or purchase agreements where outside vendors will be delivering products to a Commission facility. C. The contract documents should ensure that Commission contractors will be required to comply with insurance requirements imposed by state and local governments. 18 30 • • • • • • D. At a minimum, the contract documents should require the contractor and subcontractor to carry general liability, workmen's compensation, and automobile insurance coverages for public works contracts. E. In certain limited cases, the Commission may permit the contractor to substitute an approved program of self-insurance in order to obtain such approval. The contractor will have to demonstrate that it can sustain the potential losses being self-insured. F. The Procurement Officer should include insurance and indemnification provisions in equipment, supply, and services contracts in accordance with Commission policies described herein. 14.0 SUBCONTRACTING A. The Commission may consider requiring a prime contractor to perform certain tasks or a minimum percentage of the work, in order to ensure that the prime contractor maintains a specified degree of control over the project. B. Approval of contractor. proposed subcontractors usually involves an evaluation of three primary areas: 1. Assurance that the prime contractor has included the required "flow- down" provisions (clauses) from the prime contract in the subcontract. 2. 3. The prime contractor's compliance with the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements in its prime contract . Assurance that the prime contractor has selected its critical subcontractors in a prudent fashion, so as to proteCt the Commission's interests. 15.0. DETERMINATION OF FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE A. The Procurement Officer should determine, in writing, that the price to be paid to the successful offeror is fair and reasonable. Typically, adequate price competition is sufficient to establish price reasonableness; however, price reasonableness may also be established through: 1. Prices established by law or regulation; 2. Published catalog or market price for commercial product sold to the public in substantial quantities; 3. Previous or relevant historical pricing for same or similar terms; 4. Valid independent cost estimate; 5. Value analysis; or 6. Cost/price analysis. B. Single Offer/Lack of Adequate Competition 1. When only one response is received after a public solicitation for offers or the price variance between multiple responses reflects a lack of adequate competition, the Procurement Officer may resolicit quotes or, if 19 31 appropriate, recommend an award of the agreement to the single offeror, or to the lowest or best offeror, as determined by the Commission, in accordance with this Manual and in accordance with applicable legal requirements. a. A recommendation for award under either of the above circumstances should include a statement in the contract file giving the basis for the determination that the pricing terms are fair and reasonable. 16.0 CONTRACT APPROVAL, A WARD AND EXECUTION A. Following authorization for contract award by the Commission, the following actions should be taken: 1. The Procurement Officer requests all Commission required documents and contract contingency requirement (e.g., bonds, proof of insurance) from the successful contractor. 2. The Procurement Officer conforms and sends copies of the final contract or amendment to the contractor for signature, and obtains the appropriate Commission authorization by ensuring full execution of the contract. 3. After full execution of the contract and the contractor's submittal of the required contract contingency items, unless otherwise agreed, the Procurement Officer coordinates with the user department/project manager to prepare a "Notice to Proceed" Jetter, if required. 4. The Procurement Officer transmits a fully executed original copy of the contract to the contractor. Conformed copies should be sent to the project manager for use in the administration of the contract. 5. Contract Administration Responsibilities a. The user department/project manager conducts all further coordination on technical issues between the contractor and the Commission, subsequent to the issuance of the "Notice to Proceed" letter. b. Issues affecting the business or legal terms in the contract and/or requests for modification or supplemental agreements to the contract should immediately be brought to the attention of the Procurement Officer. c. The contract and all documents pertaining thereto should be maintained by the Procurement Officer, except for construction change orders which will be maintained by the project management team. 17.0 PROTEST PROCEDURES A. Under formal procurement processes described under this Manual, an interested party that has timely submitted a bid or proposal in response to any procurement of the Commission may file a protest objecting to the award of a contract. B. In order for a protest to be considered properly and timely filed, the protest must: 20 32 • • • • • c. D. E. • 1. Be filed in writing with the Executive Director of the Commission, within seven (7) calendar days after (i) all requests for clarifications and requests for approved equals have been answered by the Commission or, if no requests for clarification or approved equals are received, after the period for requests for clarifications or approved equals has closed; (ii) after the Commission takes action, or such other time period as may be specified in the solicitation document; or (iii) the date certain contained in the solicitation for any solicitation for which a contract award is not made by the Commission. 2. Be filed by an actual bidder or proposer responding to the procurement and signed by a properly authorized representative. No other party has standing to protest or is considered an interested party. 3. Identify the specific procurement number involved. 4. Identify the specific recommended action or decision being protested. 5. Specify in detail the grounds for the protest, the facts supporting the protest and the status of the protester. 6. Include all relevant supporting documentation with the protest at the time of submittal. 7. Describe the resolution to the protest desired by the protesting party. If a protest does not comply with each of the seven (7) requirements listed above, the protest will not be considered and will be returned to the protester. The Procurement Officer will attempt to resolve a properly filed protest or perform additional fact-finding, including establishing a protest evaluation team to evaluate the merits of the protest. The Procurement Officer, in consultation with the Commission's General Counsel, will prepare a recommended resolution of the protest for consideration by the Executive Director. The Executive Director will review the recommendation of the evaluation team and will render a determination to uphold or deny the protest. If the Executive Director's decision is to deny the protest, the solicitation may be continued without further delay or the contract will be recommended to the Commission for award, or executed, if previously awarded by the Commission subject to resolution of the protest. If the Executive Director's decision is to uphold the protest, a recommendation will be made to the Commission to amend the solicitation and the date for receipt of proposals or bids, reject all proposals or bids, cancel the Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids and solicit new proposals or bids, award the contract to another proposer, or other such actions as he/she deems appropriate. The Executive Director's decision shall be final, and there shall be no further administrative recourse at the local level, except for protests related to federally funded procurements . 21 33 18.0 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS All requests for procurement related records and/or information must be submitted to the Commission's Office and Board Services Manager for appropriate action. Procurement related records should not be disclosed as public information until staff recommendation for award has been forwarded to all interested parties or as otherwise appropriate under the California Public Records Act and applicable state and federal laws, guidelines and requirements. 22 34 • • • • • • CHAPTER 3 -SEALED BIDS A. Public Utilities Code Section 130232 requires that the purchase of all supplies, equipment, and materials, and the construction of all facilities and works, when the expenditure required exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), must be by competitive sealed bidding, also known as "low bid", contracting, with the contract let to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Notice requesting bids must be published in at least one newspaper of general circulation. The publication must be made at least ten ( 1 0) days before the date for receipt of bids. The resulting contract will be a fixed price contract. B. In order for sealed bidding to be most effective, the foliowing conditions should be present in the development of an Invitation for Bids (IFB): 1. A complete, adequate and sufficiently generic specification is developed; 2. Adequate competition is available in the marketplace (two or more responsive and responsible bidders will compete); and 3. The procurement lends itself to a firm-fixed price contract. C. Discussions and Communications 1. Bids shall be evaluated without discussions with bidders. 2. Information concerning proposed procurements should not be released outside the Commission before an Invitation for Bids is released, except for pre-solicitation notices and publicly available general project information. D. Pre-Bid Conferences 1. The Contracting Officer may use pre-bid conferences to explain procurement requirements. 2. If the Commission requires any type of mandatory pre-bid conference, site visit, or meeting, the IFB should include the time, date, and location of the mandatory pre-bid site visit, conference or meeting, and when and where project documents, including final plans and specifications are available. Any mandatory pre-bid site visit, conference or meeting should be no sooner than a minimum of five (5) calendar days following the publication ofthe IFB. E. Bid Addenda 1. If it becomes necessary to make changes in quantity, specifications, delivery schedules, opening dates, or other items, or to correct a defective or ambiguous IFB, the change should be accomplished by addendum of the IFB. 2. Addenda to an IFB should be identified as such and should require the bidder to acknowledge receipt of all addenda issued . 23 35 F. Time Of Bid Receipt The IFB should specify a time for receipt of bids. Bids must be received in the office designated in the IFB not later than the time identified in the IF B. G. Late Bids Unless otherwise specified in a particular bid solicitation, bids are considered late based on the time clock at the 3rd floor Commission Receptionist Desk, located at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501. Bids are considered late ifthe time stamped by the Commission upon receipt of the bid is later than the deadline/time identified in the lFB. Late bids will not be accepted by the Commission, unless a bid is late owing solely to Commission mishandling or some other legitimate extenuating factor, as determined in the Commission's sole discretion. H. Receipt Of Bids As bids are received, the Procurement Officer should secure and safeguard the bids until the established time for bid opening. I. Opening Of Bids The Procurement Officer will coordinate the bid opening. All bids over $25,000 for construction received prior to the bid opening will be publicly opened, read aloud to the persons present, and recorded. J. Recording Of Bids Construction bids over the small purchase threshold of $25,000 that are publicly opened will be recorded on a Bid Summary or Bid Tabulation sheet. The Procurement Officer should certify the accuracy of the Bid Summary Sheet by placing his/her signature thereon. The Commission's Procurement Officer should ensure that these results are posted on the Commission internet site within a reasonable time after bid opening. 24 36 • • • • • • CHAPTER 4 -DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS 1.0 PURPOSE A. As set forth in Public Contract Code (PCC) Section 6800 et seq., the legislature has determined that the design-build method of procurement should be evaluated for the purposes of exploring whether the potential exists for reduced project costs, expedited project completion, or design features that are not achievable through the traditional design-bid-build method. The Commission has been selected, as one of a limited number of participants, to participate in the Design- Build demonstration program with the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR- 91 CIP). B. For the purposes ofthis Chapter, "Design-Build" means a method of procuring design and construCtion from a single source. The selection of the single source occurs before the development of complete plans and specifications. 2.0 PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS A. The Executive Director may adopt any lawful methods, procedures and criteria that he or she determines are in the best interest of the Commission. B. The Toll Program Director, through coordination with the Procurement Officer, will cause to be prepared estimates and prepare documents for the solicitation of proposals for the SR-91 CIP . 25 37 • • • CHAPTER 5 -COMPETITIVELY NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS 1.0 NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS -GENERAL A. This Chapter outlines the Commission's procedures for competitively negotiated procurements for contracts: 1. Not legally required to be procured through the low-bid competitive procurement method pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 130232; and 2. Intended to be awarded on the basis ofboth price and non-price factors. B. A procurement is "negotiated" if discussions, negotiations, or other exchanges between the Commission and the offerors are anticipated and planned in order to maximize the Commission's ability to communicate, understand, and obtain the best value for contract award. c. 1. The exchanges involve bargaining, persuasion, alteration of assumptions and positions, and give-and-take applied to price, schedule, technical requirements, type of contract, and other proposed terms. 2. The exchanges after establishment of the competitive range of price and terms are done with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal, once and potentially several times. Though not an all-inclusive listing, competitively negotiated procurements can be used for the following types of procurements: 1. Professional services contracts for non-architect-engineer related services; miscellaneous service contracts; 2. Architect-Engineer and related services contracts as further defined and subject to the limitations specified in Section 6.0 of this Chapter; 3. Specialized equipment, computers, telecommunications equipment, microwave equipment and other related electronic equipment and apparatus; or 4. Best Value, Design-build contracts described in Chapter 4. 2.0 SOURCE SELECTION TECHNIQUES A. The Procurement Officer can choose from a range of source selection techniques for the competitively negotiated process based on: 1. What is suitable for the specific circumstances of a requirement, and 2. Which technique provides the best opportunity to tradeoff price/cost and qualitative benefits in order to gain the best value for the Commission. B. In acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, and excluding contracts for 26 38 3.0 Architect-Engineer and related services, cost or price may play a dominant role as • a significantly important evaluation factor for award. C. On the other hand, the less definitive the requirement, a requirement for technical superiority, more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, then the technical or past performance considerations play a more dominant role as significantly important evaluation factors for award. D. The Commission obtains best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of selection approaches wherein the relative importance of cost or price may vary with other non-cost or price factor(s). The Procurement Officer and user department/project manager should select an approach that will provide the Commission with the best offer based on the requirements, and on applicable legal requirements. E. All evaluation factors associated with a particular proposal should be identified along with their relative importance. The Procurement Officer, in cooperation with the user department/project manager, may utilize explicit factors, price performance trade off, technically qualified/lowest price or other reasonable and appropriate means of evaluating proposers. F. Proposals will be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources. In determining sources to solicit, the Procurement Officer should use all reasonable means available to ensure that an adequate number of potential qualified proposers receive the solicitation in order to obtain maximum fair and open competition. PROPOSAL EVALUATION A. The evaluation factors that will be considered in evaluating proposals should be tailored to each procurement and should include only those factors that will have an impact on the source selection decision. The evaluation factors that apply to a particular procurement and the relative importance of those factors are within the broad discretion of the Procurement Officer and/or the user department/project manager. B. The Procurement Officer may establish a formal evaluation committee, referred to as the "Evaluation Committee," which will be charged with responsibility for evaluating proposals, short listing firms, establishing a competitive range, and/or recommending a firm or firms for contract award. 1. Personnel engaged in the evaluation process should not discuss or reveal information concerning the evaluations except to those individuals participating in the same proceedings and ·only to the extent that information is required in connection with such proceedings. 2. Divulging information during the evaluation, selection, and negotiation phases to offerors or to personnel not having a need to know is prohibited as it could jeopardize the evaluation process and resultant award. C. The Evaluation Committee will evaluate each proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The Evaluation Committee's selection 27 39 • • • 4.0 5.0 • 6.0 • decision is subject to the final approval of the Commission or the Executive Director, as required under this Manual. REJECTION OF PROPOSALS A. The Evaluation Committee may reject all proposals received that are determined not to be in the competitive range, including those proposals made by offerors who refuse to execute any reasonably required representations and/or certifications. B. The Commission, based upon the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee or the Executive Director, may reject any or all proposals received. The Evaluation Committee or Executive Director may recommend rejection by the Commission because: 1. All otherwise acceptable proposals received are at unreasonable prices; 2. The proposals were not independently arrived at in open competition, were collusive or were submitted in bad faith; or 3. For other reasons, rejection is clearly in the Commission's best interest. NEGOTIATION; SELECTION The methods and procedures for selection and negotiation will be determined by the Procurement Officer, in coordination with the user department/project manager, and set forth in the request for proposals . SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ARCHITECT -ENGINEER AND RELATED SERVICES A. This Section prescribes guidelines and requirements for the procurement of Architectural-Engineering ("A-E") and related services. A-E Services are defined as professional services of an architectural or engineering nature that are required by law to be performed by a registered or licensed architect or engineer. Related services include: land surveying and construction project management. For the procurement of A-E and related services, the Procurement Officer should follow the procedures set forth in this Section 8.0, in addition to the pertinent procedures set forth elsewhere in. this Chapter. B. Ifthe procurement is for A-E and related services, the selection must be based on the demonstrated competence and qualifications of prospective contractors, and should follow the procedures set forth in Government Code 4525, et seq., and, when applicable, the laws and regulations that govern the procurement of design- related services with federal funds (see e.g., Title 23 U.S.C. 112, Letting of Contracts and 23 CFR 172, Administration of Engineering and Design Related Service Contracts). These services should be acquired based on a two-step, sealed bidding procedure, whereby qualifications are presented in a separate sealed envelope from a firm's price proposal. The proposals should be initially evaluated based on qualifications only, and price negotiations should be commenced with the proposer determined by the Commission to be most 28 40 qualified. If the Commission is unable to negotiate satisfactory terms, at a fair and reasonable price, with the proposer considered to be most qualified, then negotiations should be terminated with that proposer and commenced with the next most qualified proposer. 29 41 • • • • • • CHAPTER 6-SIMPLIFIED PURCHASE PROCEDURES 1.0 GENERAL A. Procurement of materials, supplies, or services by the Commission should adhere to the procedures in this Manual, as described in Chapter 2, Section G. The procedures ensure that the appropriate authorizations are secured for the type of procurement made, and that the minimum requirements associated with the materials, equipment, supplies or services requested are procured in a fair and open manner. B. This Chapter sets forth the procedures for small purchases and other simplified purchase procedures. These purchases should be made competitively except where it is in the best interests of the Commission to accomplish such purchases non-competitively. Justification for such non-competitive procurement should be made, in writing, and maintained in the procurement record. 2.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR MICROPURCHASES A. B. If the purchase price for required supplies, equipment, services and/or materials is considered a micropurchase as defined in Chapter 2, Section G, then multiple quotes are not required; however, such purchases should be fairly priced using a purchase technique that best serves the needs of the Commission, and rotated among commercial vendors offering competitive pricing . Micropurchases may be accomplished by securing one proposal or quotation from a commercial vendor offering supplies, equipment or materials to the public in substantial quantities and the price is deemed to be fair and reasonable. C. If oral quotes are obtained, written record of the quotes should be retained. The record should include, at a minimum, vendor name, telephone number and address, name of person providing the quote, and terms. 3.0 USE OF SMALL PURCHASE PROCEDURES A. For small purchases as defined in Chapter 2, Section G, staff should obtain a minimum of three (3) written quotations with reasonable efforts to include at least one Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) vendor and, when practicable and appropriate, an award should be made on the basis oflowest price. B. For public works projects (i.e., maintenance, repair or construction work) and planned solicitations for services defined as small purchases in accordance with Chapter 2, Section G, review by the Procurement Officer prior to the solicitation of quotes is required in order to ensure compliance with relevant insurance requirements, applicable legal mandates, e.g., insurance, bonding, prevailing wage, and payroll records. C. The Procurement Officer should use and/or authorize the Small Purchase Procedures that are most suitable, efficient, and economical based on the circumstances of each procurement. 30 42 4.0 PROHIBITED USE OF SMALL PURCHASE PROCEDURES The Procurement Officer and or Commission staff may not divide, split or fragment a procurement totaling more than the Commission's small purchase limitation into several purchases that are less than the limit in order to use the Small Purchase Procedures. 31 43 • • • • • • CHAPTER 7-NON-COMPETITIVE AND EMERGENCY PROCUREMENTS 1.0 NON-COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENTS A. The non-competitive procurement of goods and services, which otherwise require competitive procurement may be authorized under one or more of the following circumstances: 1. The Commission has advertised the contract as required by this Manual and has undertaken reasonable efforts to solicit potential contractors, but has determined that competition is inadequate; 2. There is only a single source of supply available, or only one contractor is qualified to provide the service or product; 3. The goods or services are to be provided by a government or other public entity; _ 4. 5. The goods or services are to be provided pursuant to an amendment of an existing contract that does not materially alter the terms and conditions of the contract (other than to extend the term and/or increase compensation to provide for the extended term or for additional goods/services to be provided under substantially the same terms of the original contract), provided that such renewal, extension or amendment is authorized or permitted by the contract; The equipment to be purchased is of a technical nature and the procurement thereof without advertising is necessary in order to assure standardization of equipment and interchangeability of parts; 6. The item to be purchased is a capital maintenance item that is available only from the original manufacturer or supplier or is required to maintain system operational compatibility and connectivity with the existing system(s); 7. The contract is for employment services; 8. The contract is one for which only per diem and travel expenses are paid and there is no payment for services rendered; and 9. The Commission is piggybacking on an existing agreement between a contractor and any public agency or entity within the County of Riverside and/or the County of San Bernardino, or other public entities if: (a) the proposed Commission contract is for the same material scope of work as the other contract; (b) the proposed Commission contract contains substantially the same terms as the other contract; and (c) the other contract was competitively procured in accordance with requirements applicable to such other agency's procurements; or 32 44 10. The provisions listed under Chapter 8, Section 3.0 regarding federally funded sole source, non-competitive, sole source procurements are applicable. 11. Except as may otherwise be limited by applicable law, the Commission determines that a non-competitive procurement is in the public interest and in the best interest of the Commission. C. The Executive Director shall have authority to determine that non-competitive procurements are permitted under paragraph A, subparagraphs (I) through (11) for contracts for amounts less than or equal to $100,000. Commission approval is required for contracts over $100,000. Each decision to proceed with a non- competitive procurement must be supported by a written justification that is approved by the Executive Director or Procurement Officer, as required under this Manual. D. The Procurement Officer will take action, whenever possible and in coordination with the user department/project manager, to avoid the need to continue to procure the same supply, service, or construction without competition. E. A non-competitive or sole source procurement, where competition is legally required, should not be justified on the basis of any of the following circumstances: 1. The lack of adequate advance planning for the procurement of the required commodities, services, or other items; 2. Delays in the procurement caused by administrative delays, lack of sufficient procurement personnel, or improper handling of procurement requests or competitive procedures; or 3. Pending expiration of budget authority. F. The Procurement Officer should ensure that each non-competitive contract contains all ofthe required clauses, representations, and certifications, in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations, or Commission adopted policy. G. The Procurement Officer should ensure that proper records of each non- competitive procurement are maintained. 2.0 EMERGENCY PROCUREMENTS A. The Commission may award a contract on an emergency basis if the requirement is essential to deal with an existing emergency condition, as defined below in Paragraph "B." The emergency procurement of supplies or services should be limited to quantities and time periods sufficient to meet the immediate threat and should not be used to meet long-term requirements. B. For purposes of an emergency procurement under this Chapter, an "emergency condition" is a situation (such as a flood, epidemic, riot, equipment failure, or any other reason declared by the Executive Director) which creates an immediate threat to the public health, welfare, or safety. The existence of an emergency condition creates an immediate need for supplies, services, or construction which 33 45 • • • • • • cannot be met through normal.procurement methods, and the Jack of which would seriously threaten one (1) or more of the following: 1. The health or safety of any person; 2. The preservation or protection of property; 3. The continuation of necessary Commission functions; or 4. Contract delays that could result in an increase to the cost of the project. C. A contract procured on an emergency basis should not be modified to expand the scope or extend the time of the procurement unless a limited number of additional commodities, services, or other items are needed to fill an ongoing emergency requirement until regular procurement action procedures initiated under other Chapters in this Manual can be completed. D. The Executive Director must, after an emergency expenditure in excess of his/her delegated signature authority, submit to the Commission a procurement summary explaining the necessity for the expenditure. E. F. The Procurement Officer should ensure that each emergency procurement contract contains the required clauses, representations, and certifications, in accordance with the requirements of this Manual. The Procurement Officer should ensure that proper records of each non- competitive procurement are maintained in accordance with the requirements of this Manual. 3.0 WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION FOR EMERGENCY AND OTHER NON- COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENTS A. In each instance where the non-competitive procurement procedures set forth in this Chapter are used, the user department/project manager is required to prepare a written statement recording all ofthefacts that provide justification for proceeding with the non-competitive or emergency procurement. B. The Procurement Officer must approve the justification for all non-competitive procurements described under this chapter before such a procurement can proceed . 34 46 CHAPTER 8-REFERENCES TO APPLICABLE LAWS /REGULATIONS 1.0 GENERAL A. This Manual lists references to the various federal, state, and local regulations, to which the Manual was written to conform and/or comply. B. The Procurement Officer will be responsible, in cooperation with the Commission's General Counsel, for reviewing these references from time to time in order to review new requirements and to note updates to the existing regulations. 2.0 REFERENCES A. B. For the Commission's capital projects and contracts for goods and services utilizing Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) or Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds, the provisions included in the Manual will apply only to the extent that they do not conflict with FT A or FHW A requirements, including the standards of FT A Circular 4220.1 f, or the most current version thereof, entitled "Third Party Contracting Requirements" or FHW A Form FHWA-1273 entitled "Required Contract Provisions Federal-Aid Construction Contracts." In case of any conflict, the applicable federal standards shall govern. The foregoing documents, though not all-inclusive, set forth requirements that the Commission must comply with in the solicitation, selection and administration of contracts funded by the FT A and FHW A, respectively. For projects funded by Caltrans and/or FHW A, the selection process shall be in accordance with Chapter 10 of Cal trans' Local Assistance Procedures Manual. http://www .dot.ca.gov /hg/LocaiPrograms/Jam/prog p/p l Oconsl.pdf. C. FTA Circular 4220.1 f (or the most current version thereof) sets forth the requirements the Commission must adhere to in the solicitation, award, and administration of its third party contracts. FT A Circular 4220.1 f applies to all FTA grantees and subgrantees that contract with third parties under FT A assistance programs. · a. In addition to the requirements set forth in this Chapter 8, the FT A standards for competi~ion are set forth generally in Chapter 1 hereof and the FTA procedures for sealed bid procurements and competitively negotiated procurements are set forth in Chapters 3 and 5 hereof, respectively. D. Some of the requirements include the following: 1. Pre-Award Audits. A pre-award (pre-negotiation) audit shall be completed, as required based on the participating state or federal funds, for each consultant contract, including those contracts where the consultant was previously identified as a "high-risk" recipient as described in 49 CFR Partl8.12. 2. Brooks Act Provisions. The provisions ofthe Brooks Act (40 USC 544) require local agencies to award federally funded engineering and design 35 47 • • • • • • 3. 4. contracts on the basis of fair and open competitive negotiations, demonstrated competence, and professional qualifications (23 CFR, Section 172). Required Contract Provisions/Forms include: a. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise · • Notice to Proposers Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Information • Standard Agreement for Subcontractor/DEE Participation • Local Agency Proposer UDBE Commitment (Consultant Contracts) • Local Agency Proposer DBE Information (Consultant Contract) • Final Report-Utilization ofDisadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), First-Tier • Subcontractor Listing b. Federal Lobbying Restrictions, Title 31 U.S.C. Section 1352 • Non-lobbying Certification for Federal-aid Contracts • Disclosure of Lobbying Caltrans/FWHA Authorization to Proceed. FHW A or Caltrans acting in FHWA 's behalf must give the local agency an "Authorization to Proceed" with a project prior to the performance of any work for which federal reimbursement is to be requested, including the pre-award audit. Copies of the "Authorization to Proceed" and the consultant contract must be retained in the project files for future audit purposes. 5. Certification of Consultant and Local Agency. The Procurement Officer will be responsible for ensuring that, when required, the certifications shown in Exhibits 10-F, "Certification ofConsultant," and 10-G, "Certification ofLocal Agency" of the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual are incorporated into the solicitation and executed by the appropriate signatories. a. The certifications must be executed by a principal or authorized corporate official of the consultant, and by a principal administrative officer of the governmental agency responsible for the selection of the consultant. It is essential that these certifications be preserved in the project files. D. Though not an all-inclusive listing, the following laws, regulations and code sections are applicable to Commission contracts: Federal Statute, Regulations, Policies, and Agreements 36 48 Subject ,....----·-·-----·-----·~·····--------···-·-··--·-·-··-·--·---····-··----·····-·--···-··--···-···-··-···----·----·---···------·-·--·--···---···-:. i 49 CFR Part 18 i Administrative Requirements for Grants & Cooperative l i i Agreements . I r;f(TcFR-P;rt-26-·--··--·---···-·---·-·--···--·-·rr;;rticip~ti~~-by-Mi;~~ityB~~-i~~-~~-·£;~"t~·;j;·~i;-~~-;-·-· .. --···--·--·--·····-······--··1 i ! Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) Program ! [~..I~-grcu~~-422~!.i=:~~:~~~~~~J:!J!T.~~-~~i~Y~~~~~Y-~~!J..~gi~~g_~I~~~~~~-~-~~~:~~:~=~:~:~~:=~:~::~~~~::::~::=~~~] i FTA Circular 5010.1 x i Grant Management Guidelines i ! M~s~7Ag~~~~-;;-~"t···------.. -.... -----·-l·-:r;;--~~-&-·c~·;:;-dit·i~~~-~T6;~;!~~ .. f\cl;:;·;;:;-;-~t~~1i~;:;--;;TI>~~j~ct~ .. -·-·l i i Supported & Funded by the FT A I , ...... -...... -... -... ----.. --.. ---·--....... -.. -·-.. ·-·---·T ............ _ .................................................................................................................................................. -......................................... . ! Federal Acquisition Regulation i Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 31 -Contract I I j Cost Principles and Procedures j ~----·---~~--~--~----··------~--·---·-----···+·····-----············-·-···········-··········-···········-··················-····---·------·--·······-··--··-·············-··········-·--················-·---·-············~ t 23 U.S.C. 114 I 23 CFR 633 t Form FHWA-1273 entitled "Required Contract Provisions t L~~ .. Y..:~ .. :.~:} ... !.~ ... !._'!2.~.£.~ ... !.::!.~ ..... J.x~~~~~!.=!.E~ .. f:5?.!l:~!E.l!.~!.ig~ ... ~.~~!E.~~.~~-::'. ....................................................... _,,_, ................ J CA State Codes Section(s) Sub.iect 37 49 CA State Codes Section(s) ' Public Utilities Code 130232- 130239 Other Persons Award of Contracts Based On Price or Price and Other Factors; Bid Security; Emergency Procurements; Advertising; immediate Remedial Measures; Rejecting Bids Subject Public Utilities Code 130232(c) Authorization of Executive Director for Bid Expenditures <$50,000. Public Utilities Code 130232(d) Bid Security for Construction Work >$25,000 3.0 PROCUREMENT BY NON-COMPETITIVE (SOLE SOURCE) PROPOSALS A. Non-competitive or sole source procurements are accomplished through solicitation of a proposal from only one source, or after solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. A contract change that amounts to a "cardinal change" as defined in FTA Circular 4220.1 f that involves a major deviation from the original purpose is considered a sole source procurement that must comply with this subparagraph. 1. Procurement by noncompetitive proposals may be used only when the award of a contract is infeasible under small purchase procedures, sealed bids, or competitive proposals and at least one of the following circumstances applies: a. The item is available only from a single source; b. The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from competitive solicitation; c. FTA authorizes noncompetitive negotiations--e.g., if FTA provides a joint procurement grant or a research project grant with a particular firm or combination of firms, the grant agreement is the sole source approval; d. After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate; or e. The item is an associated capital maintenance item as defined. in 49 U.S.C. §5307(a)(1) that is procured directly from the original manufacturer or supplier of the item to be replaced. The grantee must first certify in writing to FTA: i. that such manufacturer or supplier is the only source for such item; and ii. that the price of such item is no higher than the price paid for such item by like customers: 2. A cost analysis, i.e., verifying the proposed cost data, the projections of the data, and the evaluation of the specific elements of costs and profit, is required. 38 50 4.0 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE A. In order to ensure the Commission's compliance with the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program on all applicable procurements funded with United States Department of Transportation (DOT) dollars, the Commission will make reasonable efforts to utilize disadvantaged business enterprises in compliance with applicable federal regulations. B. The Commission's procurement process is structured to ensure that its DBE Program supports the Commission's commitment to promote, foster and utilize disadvantaged business enterprises as required and defined by applicable federal regulations. C. As a condition of funding assistance, and in accordance with DOT Disadvantaged Business Enterprise regulations published in applicable federal regulations, the Commission is required to submit for approval a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and regular DBE goals, which it will make good faith efforts to achieve through procurement actions carried out under this Manual. 5.0 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS The Commission shall comply with applicable federal statutory and regulatory requirements (such as Davis-Bacon Act, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Debarment and Suspension, Clean Air, Environmental and Conservation Requirements, Buy America and Cargo Preference) in carrying out federally-funded procurement actions under this Manual. 39 51 • • • • • • CHAPTER 9-DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY 1.0 DEFINITIONS "Surplus personal property" shall mean personal property of the Commission which is no longer needed or fit for its intended purpose or has exceeded its usefuf life. "Surplus real property" shall mean real property of the Commission. 2.0 DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY A. Upon recommendation by the Executive Director, designated Commission staff may dispose of surplus real property in accordance with the RCTC Right of Way Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 8.5, Disposal of Surplus Properties. 3.0 DISPOSAL OF PERSONAL PROPERTY A. Upon recommendation by the Executive Director and in accordance with applicable state or federal funding requirements, designated Commission staff may dispose of all surplus and obsolete personal property by donation, bid, . auction, negotiated sale or exchange. Jf the disposal of such items is conducted by bid, the sale shall be conducted in accordance with generally accepted best practices and applicable laws and regulations. The Commission staff shall attempt to obtain the best value for the property that can reasonably be obtained . 40 52 CHAPTER 10-OTHER PROCUREMENT MATTERS 1.0 DISPUTES, CLAIMS AND CHANGES -DEFINITIONS A. Change Orders-the commercial and technical resolution of a contract modification that is within the original scope of the contract. The change order document can be unilateral or bilateral in execution. B. Potential Claim ~written notice provided to the Commission by the contractor when the: 1. Parties are unable to reach bilateral agreement on a change andthe contractor is provided a unilateral change order ("protest"); or, 2. Contractor perceives that it is entitled to additional compensation (time or money) for something it believes to constitute extra work performed or to be performed. C. Claim -differences that have developed during the cont~act, under protest or under notice of potential claim, which are not resolved at the time the contractor returns the proposed final pay estimate. D. Dispute -a disagreement between the parties as to the merits, amount or remedy arising out of an issue in controversy, including a disagreement regarding a Claim or asserted default. E. Amendment - a modification considered outside the original contract scope and formalized with a bilateral contract change document only. Both parties are required to execute the document. 2.0 DISPUTES, CLAIMS AND CHANGES -GENERAL A. The Procurement Officer is responsible for documenting negotiation activities for the record, and should be present at all professional services and construction contract negotiations. B. The Procurement Officer or project manager, as required, prepares the appropriate documentation (e.g., Change Order Forms) for review and approval by the Commission's Executive Director or Commission, prior to issuance to the consultant/contractor for signature. This document includes full definition of work scope, impact on DBE goals, definition of time and schedule impacts, and price. The change order language stipulates that the agreed-upon terms are all inclusive, and no other relief will be available regarding this work. 3.0 TERMINATION A. All Commission contracts exceeding $25,000 must contain provisions enabling the Commission to terminate such contracts for the convenience of the Commission. These provisions should specify the manner in which such termination will be effected and the basis for settlement. There should also be included in such contracts appropriate provisions specifying causes for which the contracts may be terminated for default. 41 53 • • • • • • B. Te.rminations for Convenience of the Commission 1. Commission contracts will be terminated for convenience only when this is determined to be in the best interests of the Commission. In lieu of issuing a notice of termination for convenience, the Procurement Officer will effect a no-cost settlement agreement where possible and appropriate. 2. Formal written notice to the contractor is necessary to terminate a contract for convenience. Such notice will state that the contract is being terminated pursuant to the termination for convenience provision of the contract, the effective date, the extent of termination and instructions to the contractor to cease performance under the contract. 3. The Procurement Officer will negotiate a no-cost settlement with the contractor if possible. Otherwise, the Procurement Officer will negotiate an appropriate settlement agreement with the contractor pursuant to the provisions of the termination for convenience clause of the contract. C. Terminations For Default 1. 2. If a contractor's right to proceed is terminated for default, the Commission may take over and complete the work or cause it to be completed, and the contractor and his sureties, if any, shall be liable to the Commission for any increased costs caused thereby. The contractor and his sureties should, in addition to increased costs in completing the work, be liable for liquidated damages, ifliquidated damages are provided in the contract, or for actual damages, if liquidated damages are not so provided. If the Procurement Officer determines that the contractor's failure to perform arises from causes which are excusable under the terms of the contract, the Procurement Officer shall not terminate the contractor's right to proceed, nor shall he/she charge the contractor with liquidated damages (or if no liquidated damages, then actual damages) because of any delays occasioned by such causes. 3. Where the surety does not complete performance of the contract, the Procurement Officer normally will complete the performance of work by awarding a new contract based on the same plans and specifications. Such award may be the result of competitive bidding or negotiation; whichever procedure is most appropriate under the circumstances. The Procurement Officer must use reasonable diligence to obtain the lowest price available for completion. 4. If, after due consideration, the Procurement Officer determines that termination is not in the best interest of the Commission although the contractor is in default, the Procurement Officer may permit the contractor to continue the work, and the contractor and his sureties shall be liable to the Commission for liquidated damages, as specified in the contract, or if liquidated damages are not so specified, for any actual damages occasioned by the failure of the contractor to complete the work in accordance with the terms of the contract. 42 54 4.0 5.0 BONDS, OTHER SECURITIES AND INSURANCE A. The Commission shall should specify bonding, in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements for all public works contracts. B. The Procurement Officer may require any of the following types of security for any solicitation or contract subject to this Manual, other than a small purchase, regardless of the estimated amount ofthe contract: 1. Bid bonds; 2. Other bid or proposal security; 3. Construction performance and payment bonds; and 4. Performance or payment bonds or other security on non-construction contracts. C. Requirement for Bonds To Be Executed By An Admitted Surety Insurer I. California Code of Civil Procedure § 995.311 calls for any bond required on a public works contract to be executed by an admitted surety insurer. 2. The Commission has a duty to verify that an admitted surety insurer executes the bond. The Procurement Officer shall print out information from the website of the California Department oflnsurance (http://www. insurance.ca.gov I docs/FS-CompanyProfiles.htm) confirming that the surety is an admitted surety insurer and attach it to the bond. CONTRACT CLOSEOUT A. A completed contract is one which is both physically and administratively complete and in which all aspects of contractual performance have been accomplished, terminated, or otherwise disposed of by contract modification. A contract is physically complete only after all articles and services called for under the contract, including such related items as reports, spare parts, and exhibits, have been delivered to and accepted by the Commission, including those articles and services for which no specific compensation may have been stipulated. A contract is administratively complete when all payments have been made and administrative actions accomplished. B. The project manager, in cooperation with the Procurement Officer, is responsible for review of the contract file and obtaining all necessary documentation to ensure that: (1) all deliverables and/or services (including any reports) required under the contract have been received and accepted; (2) the terms and conditions of the contract have been complied with; (3) disposition of accountable property under the contract has been accomplished; all necessary actions including final payment and releases required to close the contract are completed and documented. C. Small purchase files should be cons·idered closed when the Procurement Officer receives evidence of receipt of property and final payment. D. A contract file should not be closed in any of the following situations: 43 55 • • • • • • 1. If the contract is the subject of a claim or dispute; 2. If the contract is in litigation or under appeal; or 3. In the case of a termination, ifall termination actions have not been completed. 4. If state or federal approval is required and has not been received . 44 56 • CHAPTERll-PAYMENT • • 1.0 COMMISSION PAYMENT PROCESS A. The Commission will promptly process all contract payments with necessary controls to assure compliance with all contract terms and conditions in accordance with internal procedures recommended by the ChiefFinancial Officer and authorized by the Executive Director. B. The Procurement Officer should clearly specify in solicitations and contracts the form and content of an acceptable invoice, including a requirement that invoices be sequentially numbered, that they contain a date and contract number and the services for which theyare invoicing, the period of performance being invoiced, and to whom invoices are to be sent. 2.0 PROGRESS PAYMENTS A. The Commission may provide for progress payments under contracts that require long time periods to complete contract performance or ifthe use of progress payments contributes to the effective and efficient administration of consultant/contractor work. Progress payments will be made on the basis of allowable costs incurred by the consultant/contractor, and the stage of completion of the contract. I. Criteria-Contract clauses providing for progress payments should be used when the investment in work and progress is expected to be great enough to add substantial costs to the contract or strain the consultant/contractor's cash flow or ability to obtain financing. Under no circumstances should payments exceed the consultant/contractor's physical completion of the Work, nor should they amount to advance payments. Progress payments can be based on a periodic voucher for expenditures, a milestone, or the Commission's estimate of work accomplished as defined in the contract. 2. For Federally funded procurements, the Commission must obtain adequate security (i.e., title to work in progress; letter of credit) for any progress payments made. B. Progress Payments on Public Works In accordance with California Public Contract Code§ 20104.50, the Commission must make progress payments within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted payment request from a contractor on a construction contract. If the Commission fails to make timely payment, the Commission may be required to pay interest to the contractor equivalent to the legal rate set forth in subdivision (s) of Section 685.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure . 45 57 c. Progress Payments and Retentions on Architect, Engineer, and Land Surveyor Contracts Pursuant to California Civil Code §3320, for any contract for public works or improvement, the Commission shall pay to the prime design professional any progress payment within 30 days of receipt of a written demand for payment in accordance with the contract, and the final retention payment, if applicable, within 45 days of receipt of a written demand for payment in accordance with the contract. If any amount is wrongfully withheld or is not timely paid, the prime design professional should be entitled to a penalty of 1 Y2 percent for the improperly withheld amount, in lieu of any interest otherwise due, per month for every month that payment is not made. 3.0 PROMPT PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTORS A. B. In accordance with 49 CFR part 26, Commission contracts above the small purchase threshold must require that the prime contractor or subcontractor shall pay to any subcontractor, not later than 7 days of receipt of each progress payment from the Commission, unless otherwise agreed to in writing, the respective amounts paid to the contractor on account for the work performed by the subcontractors, to the extent of each subcontractor's interest therein. The Commission contract may provide that, in the event that there is a good faith dispute over all or any portion of the amount due on a progress payment from the prime contractor or subcontractor to a subcontractor, then the prime contractor or subcontractor may withhold no more than 150 percent of the disputed amount. The Commission must also require the prompt return ofretainage payments from the prime contractor to the subcontractor within 10 days after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed. 4.0 PAYMENT OF RETENTION ON PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS Pursuant to California Public Contract Code § 7107, within 60 days after the date of completion ofthe work of improvement, the Commission must release any retention withheld except funds withheld to satisfy outstanding stop notices or otherwise properly withheld. In the event of a dispute between the Commission and the original contractor, the Commission may withhold from the final payment an amount not to exceed 150 percent ofthe disputed amount. 5.0 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT CERTIFICATION A. All contracts above the small purchase threshold may contain a clause, which requires the contractor to submit with each request for payment, a certification that the claim for payment is true, correct, and for services rendered and/or supplies delivered in accordance with the contract. B. The user department/project manager will disapprove and Accounts Payable will return unpaid any request for payment which does not contain the certification when required. 46 58 • • • • REVISION HISTORY: Revision Revisions Adopted No. 0 Adopted by the Commission 7/11/12 • • 47 59 • • • RESOLUTION NO. 12-018 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE REVISED PROCUREMENT POLICY MANUAL WHEREAS, the Commission previously adopted Resolution No. 98-013, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Executive Director to Sign Certain Commission Contracts"; and WHEREAS, the Executive Committee adopted a Procurement Policies Manual on April 11, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to update its procurement policies and procedures to be a comprehensive, useful framework for the Commission's procurements. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The previously adopted Resolution No. 98-013 regarding single signature authority over certain professional services and administrative contracts is hereby superceded as a result of its incorporation in the revised Procurement Policies Manual. Section 2. The Procurement Policies Manual previously adopted on April 11, 2007 is hereby replaced in its entirety by the revised Procurement Policies Manual, set forth in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 3. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby approves and adopts the Procurement Policies Manual, as revised, to be effective immediately . 60 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11 1h day of July, 2012. ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board John J. Benoit, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission 61 • • • • AGENDA ITEM 9 •• • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: June 25, 2012 Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager Cathy Bechtel, Project Devejopment Director Fiscal Years 2013-17 Measure A Five-Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FYs 2013-17 Measure A Five-Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) for Local Streets and Roads as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMA T/ON: Measure A imposes several requirements on local agencies in order to receive local streets and roads funds. First, the Coachella Valley and Western County cities and the county must participate in either the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. Western County agencies must also participate in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan managed by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). Staff is in the process of obtaining confirmation from CVAG, WRCOG, and RCA regarding the current participation in their programs. The cities of Beaumont and La Quinta are not TUMF participants. Additionally, agencies are required to annually provide to the Commission a CIP detailing how those funds are to be expended and an annual certification of maintenance of effort (MOE). On March 6, 2012, staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist in preparation of the required CIP. The required CIP and supporting documentation have been received from the following local agencies for approval: 62 Agenda Item 9 Western County: • Banning • Canyon lake • Eastvale • Hemet • Perris • Riverside • San Jacinto Eastern County: • • • • Cathedral City Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells • • • • • • • • • Menifee Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Temecula Wildomar Indio Palm Desert Rancho Mirage late submittals for the remaining cities of Blythe, Calimesa, Corona, Jurupa Valley, lake Elsinore, and Palm Springs, and the county will be presented to the Commission for approval at subsequent meetings. The FY 2012/13 Measure A local Streets and Roads disbursements to local agencies with Commission- approved CIPs are expected to begin in September 2012. Attachment: FYs 2013-17 Measure A Five-Year CIPs -Posted on the Commission Website 63 Agenda Item 9 • • • • AGENDA ITEM 1 0 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort Base Year Adjustment for City of Banning STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the adjustment to the city of Banning's (Banning) 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMA T/ON: Measure A imposes several requirements on local agencies in order to receive local streets and roads funds. The 2009 Measure A ordinance continued the ·requirement for local agencies to maintain the current commitment of local discretionary expenditures toward transportation construction and maintenance activities. This requirement is to ensure that Measure A funds supplement current expenditures, not supplant. In accordance with the 2009 Measure A ordinance, if a local agency does not meet its respective MOE base year level in a given year, Measure A Local Streets· and Roads disbursements will be withheld the following year. -At its July 13, 2011 meeting, the Commission approved the 2009 Measure A MOE base years for each local agency. Banning is requesting an adjustment to its base year level, as it did not take into consideration deductions for engineering/administrative overhead costs that are allowed by the Commission's MOE guidelines. Banning's current 2009 Measure A MOE base year is $316,181, which is the amount of engineering/administrative overhead costs that Banning could have deducted in calculating its 2009 Measure A MOE base year. Banning realizes that requesting this entire amount as a deduction would bring its 2009 Measure A MOE base year to zero; therefore, the City is requesting that the 2009 Measure A MOE base year be adjusted to $164,325, which is Banning's 1989 Measure A MOE base year . Agenda Item 1 0 64 Staff supports Banning's request to adjust its 2009 Measure A MOE base year to • $164,325 effective beginning in FY 2011/12, as it is consistent with the MOE guidelines and is a reasonable amount compared to its 1 989 Measure A MOE base year and to other cities of similar size and revenue generation. Should the Commission approve this recommendation, staff will request Banning to submit its FY 2012/13 MOE certification to reflect the adjusted amount. The Measure A audit process will review Hanning's Measure A Capital Improvement Plan expenditures to ensure the 2009 Measure A MOE base year is met. There is no financial impact to the Commission related to the adjustment of the Banning's 2009 Measure A MOE base year. Attachment: City of Banning Correspondence Agenda Item 1 0 65 • • • • • June 18, 2012 Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 Dear Theresia, City of Banning Finance Department The City of Banning would like to request an adjustment to our 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort Base Year Amount of $316,181. When we prepared the original MOE worksheet we did not exercise our option to take a deduction for engineering/administrative overhead expenses not allocated to specific projects. Not taking this deduction caused our MOE requirement to almost double from what it was previously ($164,325) . During these difficult economic times the City's General Fund finds itself unable to maintain this higher level of commitment. We realize that taking a deduction of the entire $316,181 in engineering/administrative costs would not be feasible as it would leave us with no MOE requirement, however, we would like to request that we be allowed to exercise a deduction of $151,856 in engineering/administrative overhead expenses not allocated to specific projects, which would return our MOE requirement to its previous amount of $164,325. Thank you for your consideration. 9------11-()wb lt- V June Overholt Administrative Services Director 99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • {951) 922-3110 • Fax (951) 922-3165 66 • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director Proposition 1 B State-Local Partnership Program Formula Program - SUBJECT: Coachella Valley Association of Governments' Project Recommendations STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve programming State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP) formula funds for the following six Coachella Valley projects as submitted by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG): • • • Monterey Avenue interchange loop ramp; Varner Road/Jefferson Street intersection improvements; Monroe Street widening and intersection improvements (Avenue 49 to Avenue 52); • Fred Waring Drive median widening (Adams Street to Port Maria Road); • Highway 111 widening and intersection improvements (Cook Street to Hospitality Row); • Highway 111 /Washington Street intersection improvements; 2) Authorize staff per CVAG direction to submit additional eligible projects or revise funding amounts to the above projects in the event additional SLPP funds are available through project savings or California Transportation Commission (CTC) formula allocations; 3) Submit the CVAG SLPP formula projects to the CTC for programming; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1 B on November 7, 2006, authorized $1 billion to be deposited in the SLPP account. The CTC is responsible for administering and allocating these funds over a five-year period between 2009 and 2013. The funds are divided between two programs -competitive and formula. The competitive grant program is a discretionary program, and projects are Agenda Item 11 67 submitted by local agencies directly to the CTC for selection. For the formula • program, the CTC determines a funding share for each eligible applicant with a voter-approved tax or toll that was approved prior to the adoption of the funding. Therefore, the Commission is the eligible applicant for programming the SLPP formula funding share in Riverside County.· SLPP guidelines require formula funds to be matched on s 50-50 basis (match must be Measure A funds) and used for the construction phase only. To date, the Commission's SLPP formula programming balance is. $42,294,000. SLPP bond funding expires on December 31, 2013. The CTC requires all programming and allocation requests be made by June 2013, to prevent the bond funds from lapsing. At its March meeting, the Commission approved the following four Western County projects as candidates for SLPP funding: • Perris Valley Line; • SR-91 Capital Improvement Project; • Interstate 21 5 Central widening from Scott Road to Nuevo Road; and • Foothill Parkway extension. CVAG submitted the following projects for programming SLPP formula funding: Estimated Measure A SLPP Agency Project Improvements Construction Share Share Cost Palm Desert Monterey Avenue interchange loop ramp $ 5,600,000 $ 2,800,000 $ 2,800,000 Indio Varner Road/Jefferson Street intersection 4,500,000 2,250,000 2,250,000 Indio Monroe Street (Ave 49 to 52) widening and intersection 2,750,000 1,375,000 1,375,000 Riverside Fred Waring Drive County (Adams Street to Port Maria Road) median widening 8,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Indian Wells Highway 111 /Cook Street to Hospitality Row widening and intersection 3,100,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 La Quinta Highway 111 I Washington Street intersection 566,000 283,000 283,000 Total $ 24,516,000 $ 12,258,000 $ 12,258,000 Agenda Item 11 68 • • • • • Projects completing the environmental phase can be submitted to the CTC for programming. Once projects complete the design and right of way phases, project sponsors can request allocation of funds. Projects can begin advertisement after the CTC allocates the funds. Staff recommends approval of CVAG' s proposed projects for SLPP Formula funding totaling $12,258,000. Staff will monitor the projects to ensure that the allocation deadline is met and will report on the progress of all SLPP projects by the January 2013 Commission meeting. There is no financial impact to the Commission . Agenda Item 11 69 • AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Josefina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Riverside County Transit Services Funding Allocation for Fiscal Year 2012/13 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Conduct a public hearing at the July Commission meeting on the proposed Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP); 2) Approve the FY 2012/13 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 5311 POP for Riverside County; 3) Approve the FY 2012!13 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (ST A) fund allocations for transit; 4) 5) 6) Direct staff to add projects into the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP); Adopt Resolution No. 12-022, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds"; and Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission maintains its immediate focus by providing basic mobility services to county residents and commuters, improving the quality and cost effectiveness of the county's transit system, maximizing ridership potential and sustaining on-going service coordination efforts. Through the annual Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) process, transit operating and capital subsidies consisting of federal, state, and local revenues are allocated to eight transit operators providing public transportation in Riverside County. At its June 7 meeting, the Commission approved in concept the FY 2012/13 -FY 2014/15 SRTPs for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Riverside; the Commission's Commuter Rail Program; Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA); Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); and Sunline Transit Agency (Sunline). The approved SRTPs identify each agency's operating and capital needs and funding sources providing the basis for Agenda Item 1 2 70 the Commission's oversight actrvrtres to ensure regulations, the Transportation Development Act Commission-adopted guidelines and policies. compliance with federal (TDA), state law, and In January 2012, the Commission received information on the FY 2012/13 revenue projections, which indicated an increase of approximately 8 percent in both L TF and Measure· A funding compared to the FY 2011/12 original estimates. The California State Controller's office also released the ST A preliminary . allocation estimates for the region for FY 201 2/1 3 providing a second year continuation of STA funding for transit since the temporary allocation freeze in 2010 and 2011. Recently, Caltrans and California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) also started distributing partial Proposition 1 B funding for transit based on available proceeds. from the most recent bond sale. With these recent gains in transit revenues, public operators are able to continue implementing the planned capital procurements that have been placed on hold during the recession period. However, the progress in the local economic outlook cannot allow the Commission to discontinue the current conservative management of transit funds in Riverside County. There is a need to continue these practices to ensure that bus and rail services in the county are operating in a cost-effective and efficient manner in order to sustain and improve current service and avoid any further cuts in trans.it provision. SRTP Financial and Ridership Overview Approximately $372 million in total funding is required to support the operating and capital requests for the provision of Riverside County transit services. The following table provides an overview of the total operating and capital costs together with projected ridership levels by apportionment area. Agenda Item 1 2 71 • • • • • • FY 2012113 Operating, Capital and Ridership Projections Western Riverside Coachella Palo Verde Total Expense Type Bus I Rail Valley Valley Operating $ 66,108,1821 $ 20,655,900 $ 22,276,993 $ 885,799 $ 109,926,874 Capital 21 .oo8,448 I 202,672,276 2,734,038 336,728 226,751,490 Total (Operating & Capital) $ 87,116,630 1 $ 223,328,176 $ 25,011,031 $1,222,527 $ 336,678,364 Leverage of Commuter I $ · 35,035,2oo Rail Funds* $ 35,035,200 GRAND TOTAL $ 87,116,630 I $ 258,363,376 $25,011,031 $1,222,527 $ 371,713,564 FY 2012113 Projected I Ridership 9,455,1791 3,175,076 4,636,918 44,459 17,311,632 * LA Metro, OCTA & SANBAG's share and passenger fare re\€nues for Commuter Rail expenses Despite a lagging economy that remained constrained and unstable, FY 2011/12 is showing an all-time ridership record of about 17 million passengers in Riverside County, an increase of 7 percent over FY 2010/11. Likewise, the funding plan for FY 2012/13 as shown in Attachment 4 is projected to generate 17.3 million in ridership, slightly 1.7 percent higher than the ridership forecast for FY 2011/12 . Funding levels for next year's transit operations reflect a systemwide increase of 7.8 percent in total operating expenses and a substantial jump of 1 22 percent in capital expenditures mainly due to expenses associated with the completion of preliminary engineering and final design, right of way acquisition and completion of environmental assessment for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) extension project funded with a combination of federal Section 5309, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Measure A funds. RT A is continuing to implement a major vehicle purchase of heavy duty buses funded with a combination of state, local and federal sources including available local fund reserves. FY 2012/13 Operating and Capital Costs To implement the SRTPs for FY 2012/13, the request is to utilize approximately $110 million for operating and $227 million for capital in addition to the $35 million share from Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to leverage the Commuter Rail Program. The chart below provides an overview of the operating and capital costs by funding source required to support the county's transit operations . Agenda Item 1 2 72 !RIVERSIDE COUNTY: FY 2012/13 OPERATING and CAPITAL COSTS I TDA (LTF & STA $72,655,630' 20% Carryover Funds (L TF/5307/5309/Sec5316 5317/TUMF/CMAQ}, $8,771,230' 2% Passenger $37,059,203' 10% Sec 5316 & 5317, $1,083,315, less than CMAQ & SliP Funds, $85,069,000' 23% Federal Formula Funds (Sec 5307 & 5311), $19,702,324 ' 5% Federa~Oiscretionary Funds (Sec5309), $73,376,000' 20% Proposition 18 '-.(C:apit;>I+Se'curi1ty), $2,011,382 ,1% Of the $372 million operating and capital costs identified in the chart, approximately $67.5 million ( 18 percent) is funded by: • Passenger fares -$37 million; • Commuter rail member agencies' revenue share -$19 million; • Carryover funds -L TF/5307 /5309/5316 and 5317 /CMAQ/Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees -$8.8 million; and • Miscellaneous other revenues -bus shelter advertising, general fund contributions, Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project revenue, Southern California Regional Rail Authority pass-through funds for security guards, pass-through funds from Measure A Western County Commuter Assistance funds for the Perris Station Transit Center, compressed natural gas sales, CaiPERS reimbursement, and interest income -$2.7 million. The remaining balance of approximately $304 million (82 percent) consists of federal, state, and local funds, including Proposition 1 B, CMAQ and STIP funds that are primarily allocated through Commission action. Agenda Item 1 2 73 • • • • • • Transportation Development Act Funding A mainstay of funding for transit programs in California is provided by TDA, which provides two funding sources -L TF and ST A for transit capital, operations, and planning. The L TF funds are generated by a quarter cent of the statewide retail sales tax collected in each county. The State Board of Equalization returns the sales tax revenues to the county of Riverside where it is held until the Commission provides written allocation instructions for disbursement. It is estimated that L TF revenue for transit services for FY 2012/13 will be $56,840A90, reflecting a 7. 7 percent increase compared to the original projected amount for FY 2011/12, and is consistent with the revenue projection provided at its January 2012 Commission meeting. ST A funding is derived from sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Fifty percent of ST A funds are allocated according to population and the other fifty percent is allocated according to the ratio of fare revenues generated in each area during the prior fiscal year. For Riverside County, there is approximately $24.7 million in STA unallocated reserve funds projected at the end of FY 2011/12. Additional revenues of $12.8 million are anticipated in FY 2012/13 for a total available amount of $37.5 million. About $7.7 million of this fund balance will be utilized by county transit operators for various capital projects in FY 2012/13. Prior to approving the STA allocations, the Commission must adopt the attached resolution as specified in the TDA statutes and California Code of Regulations. In March 2010, the Commission adopted a revised policy requiring all operators to spend down existing capital balances prior to requesting additional funds. In order for the public transit operators to claim L TF and/or STA funds, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the FY 2012/13 SRTPs. The requested allocations need to be consistent with the approved SRTPs, and the funds are explicitly for the projects stated in the approved plans. Attachment 3 outlines the TDA allocations for FY 201 2/13 requested by each operator. Measure A Funding Another primary source of funding for transit comes from Measure A -the half cent sales tax transportation initiative in Riverside County. The public transit programs in Western County and Coachella Valley provide funding for commuter rail, public bus and specialized transit, and intercity bus services. About 13 percent of the FY 2012/13 proposed operating and capital spending plan will be covered by Measure A funds. Measure A amounts programmed for public transit are outlined as follows: Agenda Item 1 2 74 Agency Commuter Rail RTA Sun Line Total Proposition 1 B Funding Measure A Requested Funds $ $ Amount 43,052,000 2,675,640 4,500,000 50,227,640 Proposition 1 B approved by California voters in November 2006, authorizes the sale of $20 billion in state general obligation bonds for transportation purposes. Sale of the bonds is subject to annual appropriations in the state budget and is expected to be spread across several fiscal years. Bond proceeds are to fund various transportation programs, including the Proposition 1 B Public Transportation, Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement program administered by Caltrans and the California Transit Security Grant Program managed by Cal EMA. For FY 2011/12, Riverside County was appropriated approximately $1.8 million in Proposition 1 B Security funds. About $44.6 million in Proposition 1 B Capital funding was also appropriated to the region to cover a three-year spending plan for FY 2010/11 -FY 2012/13. Although each region is guaranteed a share of • Proposition 1 B funds by formula, these funds will be distributed as honds are sold. • Recent release of Proposition 1 B funds in May 201 2 from Caltrans included about $16.3 million awarded to some transit agencies in Riverside County for various capital projects. Outlined below are amounts of Proposition 1 B funds programmed by agencies for FY 2012/13: Proposition 1 B Agency Capital Security City of Corona $ 217,497 $ City of Riverside 979,650 47,545 Commuter Rail 350,248 Sunline 394,714 PVVTA 21,728 Total $ 1,197,147 $ 814,235 The Proposition 1 B program does not require agencies to provide matching funds.· The city of Corona programmed its Proposition 1 B FY 2009/1 0 capital allocation to purchase a new reservation and dispatch system. The city of Riverside partially programmed its FY 2011/12 funds to procure six dial-a-ride replacement vehicles and the remaining funds including previous FY 2009/1 0 funding will be spent to modernize and expand its operations facility. Approximately $350,000 in Agenda Item 1 2 75 • • Proposition 1 B Security funds are programmed by the Commission's Commuter Rail for station surveiUance and security upgrades. Sunline, PVVT A, and the city of Riverside will use approximately $464,000 for transit stop enhancements and various security projects. • • FY 2012/13 Federal Funds Section 530 7 Formula Funds FTA's Section 5307 funds .are provided to urbanized areas, as identified by the Census Bureau, with a population of 50,000 or more. These federal funds are allocated by formulas to each of the four urbanized areas (UZA) in Riverside County, namely: • Riverside/San Bernardino; • Hemet/San Jacinto; • Temecula/Murrieta; and • Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs. The Commission must develop and approve a POP for each UZA and conduct a public hearing prior to an operator submitting its Section 5307 grant application to FTA. If the draft POP is not amended through the public hearing process, the POP will become final as presented and will be included in an approved RTIP, which is subsequently forwarded to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) far review and processing. Attachment 2 shows the proposed Section 5307 POP for Riverside County. Requested Section 5307 funds by operator are shown below: Agency City of Riverside RTA Sun line Total FY 2012/13 Section 5307 Requested Funds $ $ Amount 336,000 14,079,287 4,596,263 19,011,550 The actual Section 5307 apportionments for FY 2012/13 will not be known until later this calendar year when final appropriations are made by Congress. The POP was developed at the highest anticipated funding amount based on actual available apportionments for FY 2011/12. This will allow the operators to proceed with the grant applications and to avoid delays associated with program amendments should the actual apportionments come in lower than estimated. Any excess funds will be carried over to the subsequent fiscal year and will be made available to cover future projects . Agenda Item 1 2 76 Section 5309 Discretionary Funds-New Starts and Fixed Guideway Modernization • FTA Section 5309 New Starts funding is used for building new rail, bus rapid transit, or extensions to existing systems. These funds are extremely competitive and funds are earmarked directly by Congress. For FY 2012/13, the Commission's Commuter Rail will be programming approximately $73 million in Section 5309 New Starts funds and $336,000 in Fixed Guideway Modernization funds that were previously awarded and accumulated during the last three years. These Section 5309 earmark funds will be used toward engineering and construction of the PVL project and for the Commuter Rail Five-Year Rehabilitation program. The projects must be included in an approved RTIP before the operators can access these funds. Agency Commuter Rail Total Section 5311 Funds FY 2012/13 Section 5309 Earmark $ Amount 73,376,000 73,376,000 Federal transit funding for rural areas is provided through the FT A Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program. Administered by Caltrans, a majority of • these funds are passed through to counties based on a population formula. Any remaining funds are awarded in a statewide discretionary program for rural capital projects and intercity bus programs. The financial plan for this year's program assumes the same funding level as in FY 2011/12 for transit operations since the actual apportionments will not be known until the final appropriations are released. This year's program allocates $690,774 in formula funds for Riverside County, of which 61.7 percent will be allocated to RTA and 38.3 percent for Sunline. The 61.7 percent/38.3 percent formula was approved by the Commission in 1987, and was based on the level of service each agency operated in the non-urbanized areas of the county. As in previous years, both RT A and Sunline identified the use of Section 5311 formula funds for operating. The Commission must develop and approve a Section 5311 POP before grants are approved. Agency RTA Sun line Total Agenda Item 1 2 FY 2 0 12/13 Section 5 311 Requested Funds $ $ Amount 426,208 264,566 690,774 77 Percent Allocation 61 . 7 percent 38.3 percent 100.0 percent • • Section 5316 & 5317 Formula Funds • • Two federal programs, namely Section 5316 -Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and Section 5317 -New Freedom (NF), were established to meet the transportation needs of the low-income population, welfare recipients, and persons with disabilities. All projects funded under this program must be derived from a locally-developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation planning process. Under the 2011 Specialized Transit Universal Call for Projects, RTA, Sunline, and PVVT A were awarded federal JARC and NF funds intended for programming for FY 2011/12 and FY 2012/13 specialized transit operations. Funding allotments for FY 2012!13 are as follows: Agency RTA Sunline PVVTA Total Section 5316 (JARC) $ 844,149 6,253 45,455 $ 895,857 Section 5317 (NF) $ 112,200 60,106 15,152 $ 187,458 These funds will be used to cover expenses for RT A's Commuter Link 21 2 and 21 7, extended fixed route services and travel training; Sunline' s commuter service to Banning (originally planned to start last year) and taxi voucher program; and PVVT A's mobility management program. Since the planned commuter service was not implemented last year, carryover JARC and NF funding amounts of about $160,902 will be used to fund the service in FY 2012/13. CMAQ and STIP Funding The CMAQ program helps fund regional and local efforts to attain compliance with national air quality standards set under the Clean Air Act. CMAQ funds are largely spent on transportation control measures such as improving public transit service, traffic flow improvements, trip reduction and other ridesharing initiatives aimed at relieving congestion and improving air quality. Through SCAG, these federal funds are distributed every two years through a project selection process, according to the priorities of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Regional Transportation Plan. The STJP is a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded with revenues from the Transportation Investment funds. Projects are adopted by the California Transportation Commission from different projects nominated by the regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions, and the metropolitan planning organizations. STIP programming generally occurs every two years . Agenda Item 1 2 78 About 42 percent of the total combined funding of approximately $201 million • programmed for the PVL project in FY 2012/13 comes from CMAQ and STIP funds . a~ follows: Agency Commuter Rail Total $ $ CMAQ 32,091,000 32,091,000 STIP $ 52,978,000 $ 52,978,000 The remaining 58 percent comes from Measure A -$43 million and federai Section 5309 earmark funding -$73 million. Summary Staff recommendation is to approve the TDA and FTA funds as presented. If any additional funding revenues becomes available during the budget year, transit operators will prepare the necessary SRTP amendments, as appropriate, to reflect new or modified revenue amounts. Modifications in farebox revenues, federal grants, Measure A funding, or carryover funds may require operators to revise their services to operate within the available funding .. Fiscal Impact Funding allocations are based on the revenue estimates developed for the • FY 2012/13 Commission budget. The budget adopted at the June 7 Commission meeting included $61.9 million in L TF transit operating expenditures, $10.7 million in L TF transit capital expenditures, and $14.4 million in STA capital expenditures. These budgeted expenditures, which include use of prior year capital allocations, are expected to be funded by FY 201 2/1 3 revenues, as well as available fund balances. Based on these recommended allocations, no budget adjustments are required. • Agenda Item 1 2 79 • • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes I Year: I FY 2012/13 I $64,978,940 (L TF) Amount: $ 7,676,690 (STA) Source of Funds: TDA: L TF and ST A Budget Adjustment: I No GLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE No.: Western County Bus Western County Bus 601 62 86101 P2210 $ 35,967,054 241 62 86102 P2201 $6,643,825 601 62 86102 P2210 $ 7,674,644 241 62 861 02 P2204 $ 250,000 Western County Rail Coachella Valley 601 62 86101 P2213 $ 9,899,400 241 62 861 02 P2202 $ 467,865 Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley 601 62 86101 P2211 $ 10,718,420 241 62 861 02 P2203 $ 315,000 Palo Verde Valley 601 62 86101 P2212 $ 719,422 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~~ I Date: 1 06/25/12 Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 12-022 2) Section 5307 Program of Projects 3) TDA Spreadsheets (L TF and ST A) 4) FY 2012/13 and FY 2011/12 Operating and Capital Requests and Ridership Projections Agenda Item 1 2 80 • • • RESOLUTION NO. 12-022 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has examined the Short Range Transit Plans and Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for claimants to meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268.9, as applicable; and WHEREAS, the claimant is making full use of federal funds available under the Federal Transit Act; and WHEREAS, the sum of the claimant's allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority regional, countywide, or area-wide public transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 99244; and WHEREAS, the claimant is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979, from employing part-time drivers or contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license; and WHEREAS, operators are in full compliance with Section 18081. 1 of the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code Section 99251 . 81 ATTACHMENT 1 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County • Transportation Commission to allocate State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 2012/13 as detailed in Exhibit "A". This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2012. John J. Benoit, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 82 • • • AGENCY/APPORTIONMENT AREA City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona Riverside Special Services • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING FY 2012/13 TRANSIT ALLOCATIONS STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS $ ESTIMATED STA OPERATING ~ - $ ESTIMATED STA CAPITAL COSTS - $ 150,000 382,503 4,000 ESTIMATED STA CARRY OVER FUNDS RECOMMENDED STA TRANSIT ALLOCATIONS FOR FY 2012J13 - $ 150,000 382,503 4,000 TOTAL: WESTERN RIVERSIDE-BUS 250 Sunline Transit 467 LLA VALLEY 467 467 Palo Verde Val TOTAL: PALO VERDE VALLEY 83 EXHIBIT A • STA Operating FY 2012113 $ - $ STA Capital FY 2012/13 150,000 382,503 4,000 322 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS • FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2012/13 URBANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO Total Apportionment (Projection based on FY11-12 Fed Register & InterCounty Allocation) Bus Rail Total Apportionment $ 10,332,340 $ 4,798,476 $ 15,130,816 Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover (Estimate) 5,171,715 5,852,981 11,024,696 Total Funds Available 15,504,055 10,651,457 26,155,512 Less Current Requests (SRTP programmed) 9 565 287 9 565 287 Balance (Projected) $ 5,938,768 $ 10,651,457 $ 16,590,225 Sub Area Allocation Riverside, City of $ 336,000 Riverside Transit Agency 9 229 287 TOTAL $ 9,565,287 FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS TOTAL AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT Riverside, Citll of • 1) Preventive Maintenance $ 400,000 $ 320,000 Capital/Operating SCAG 2) Lease of Office Equipment 20,000 16,000 Capital SCAG TOTAL: City of Riverside $ 420,000 $ 336,000 Riverside Transit Agencll 3) Capitalized Preventive Maintenance $ 6,875,000 $ 800,000 Capital/Operating SCAG 4) Capital Cost of Contracting 5,500,000 3,000,000 Capital SCAG 5) Revenue Vehicles -DO Heavy Duty 16,174,644 3,000,000 Capital SCAG 6) Revenue Vehicles -(7) COFR Aero Elite 1,176,088 940,870 Capital SCAG 7) Non-Revenue Vehicles-(1) Support Vehicle 24,200 19,360 Capital SCAG 8) Capital Maintenance Spares 1,241,000 992,800 Capital SCAG 9) Capitalized Tire Lease 263,617 210,8~4 Capital SCAG 10) TE -Bus Stop Amenities 150,000 120,000 Capital SCAG 11) Maintenance Equipment 145,650 116,520 Capital SCAG 12) Information Systems 36,054 28,843 Capital SCAG TOTAL: Riverside Transit Agency $ 31,586,253 $ 9,229,287 GRAND TOTAL $ 32,006,253 $ 9,565,287 Updated: 6/25/2012 Approved: 7/11/2012 {Pending) • V:IJCiernenteiSRTP 12 .13\POP J6-5-12\Riv-San Bernardino 1213.xls 84 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 URBANIZED AREA: HEMET/SAN JACINTO RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FY 2012/13 Total Apportionment (Estimate based on FY 11/12 FR actuals} Apportionment Carryover (estimate} Transfer of Funds (CMAQ} Total Funds Available Less Current Requests Balance (Projected} TOTAL NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMOUNT 1) Operating Assistance $ 28,573,575 $ 1,903,760 1,033,603 2,937,363 1,700,000 $ 1,237,363 FEDERAL SHARE $ 1,700,000 TOTAL: $ 28,573,575 $ 1 '700,000 Updated: 6/25/2012 Approved: 7/11/12 (pending) PROJECT TYPE Operating ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 of 4 DESIGNATED RECIPIENT Caltrans V:\JCiemente\SRTP 12.13\POPJ6-5-12\Hemet-San Jacinto UZA12-13.xls 85 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FT A SECTION 5307 FY 2012/13 URBANIZED AREA: INDIO/CATHEDRAL CITY/PALM SPRINGS RECIPIENT: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Estimate based on FY 11/12 Fed Register actuals) Apportionment Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover (Estimate) Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available Less Current Requests Balance (Projected) NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS 1) Operating Assistance 2) Preventive Maintenance 3) Bus Rehabilitation 4) Replacement Service Vehicles 5) Thousand Palms Yard Repaving 6) Facility Improvement 7) Office Furniture 8) ITS Projects 9) New Agency Phone System 10) Spare Fareboxes (5) 11) Rider Survey Study 12) Maintenance Tools & Equipment 13) Special Fuel Provision-Capital Maintenance TOTAL: Updated: 6/25/2012 Approved: 7/11/2012 (Pending) $ $ TOTAL FEDERAL AMOUNT SHARE 20,378,228 $ 924,804 1,800,000 1,800,000 50,000 40,000 220,000 176,000 900,000 720,000 200,000 160,000 100,000 80,000 105,000 84,000 115,000 . 92,000 60,000 48,000 100,000 80,000 50,000 40,000 439,324 351,459 24,517,552 $ 4,596,263 $ 3,878,954 1,709,384 5,588,338 4,596,263 $ 992,075 PROJECT TYPE Operating Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital ATTACHMENT 2 Page 3 of4 DESIGNATED RECIPIENT SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG V:\JCiemente\SRTP 12.13\POPJ6-5-12\Indio-Coachella-P Springs 12-13.xls 86 • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FT A SECTION 5307 URBANIZED AREA: TEMECULA/MURRIETA RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FY 2012/13 Total Apportionment (Estimate based on FY 11/12 Fed Register actuals) Apportionment $ 3,225,286 Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover 362,710 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available 3,587,996 Less Current Requests 3,150,000 Balance (Projected) $ 437,996 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 4 of4 TOTAL AMOUNT FEDERAL SHARE PROJECT DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS TYPE RECIPIENT 1) Capitalized Preventative Maintenance $ 6,875,000 $ 3,150,000 Capital/Operating SCAG TOTAL: $ 6,875,000 $ 3,150,000 Updated: 6/25/2012 Approved: 7/11112 (pending) V:\JCiemente\SRTP 12.13\POP J6-5-12\Temecula-Murrieta 12-13.xls 87 • AGENCY/APPORTIONMENT AREA City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona Riverside Special Services TOTAL: WESTERN RIVERSIDE· BUS • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING FY 2012/13 TRANSIT ALLOCATIONS LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS RECOMMENDED LTFTRANSIT • ATTACHMENT 3 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATEQ TOTA\-ESTIMATED NON ALLOCATIONS FOR I LTF OPERATING LTF CAPITAL OPERATING COSTS CAPITAL COSTS COSTS LTF REVENUES FY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 $ 1,310,135 $ 1,417,500 2,001,936 3,305,143 150,000 600,000 1,047,195 -$ 1,310,135 $ 1,567,500 2,601,936 4,352,338 140,030 $ 329,280 1,000,388 1,734,322 1.170,105 I $ 1,238,220 1,601,548 2,618,016 1,170,105 $ 1,238,220 1,601,548 2,618,016 * Commuter Rail's operating costs are estimated at $55.7 million per Table 4 of SRTP. Of this amount, $20,655,900 is RCTC's share of operating costs. ~ 88 • • • ATTACHMENT 4 Comparison of FY 2012/13 & FY 2011/12 Operating & Capital Costs and Ridership Projections OPERATING FY12/13 FY11/12 % lncr/Decr CAPITAL TOTAL COST FY12/13 FY11/12 % lncr/Oecr FY12/13 FY11/12 FY 12113 FY 11112 Leverage of Commuter Rail Funds' $ 35,035,200 $ 32,703,100 Total: $ 371,713,564 $ 236,645,556 RIDERSHIP FY12/13 FY11/12 % lncr!Decr 7.13% 57.08% 'Commuter Rail's costs include RCTC's share of approximately $20.7 million plus approximately $35 million in additional operating subsidy from partner agencies ($19,060,000) and Rail fare box revenue ($15,975,200). Note: FY 2012/13 total. cost includes $8,771,230 in LTF/ 5307/5309/CMAQ/TUMF/5316 & 5317 carryover funds from previous year. 89 % 1.68% Budget and Implementation Committee R"werside County llliiiSPortatian Commission FY 2012/13 Funding Allocation for Riverside County Transit Services June 25, 2012 ··<)<, ,~,.. .. SRTPs Approved in concept by Commission: 6/7/12 "City of Banning ~ l Riverside Transit Agency v-..... ·············----\ l City of Beaumont ~ ~ Sun line Transit Agency ~ r. --------,,------------------'.,. l City of Corona l City of ~i~~r~i~~ ... . . . ---J Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency ~---· ------------... RCTC Rail Commuter Program ··-----------.-----~-. -----y_---------~----• ---. ·-- ( ...... ···----···----\ FY 2012/13 Funding Request by 8 County Transit Operators "--------Commuter Rail Program Share From Metrolink Partners FY 2012/13 TOTAL FUNDING SUPPORT FOR TRANSIT SERVICES + $337 million -~ 35 million $372 million '--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ BUS SERVICE RAIL SERVICE TOTAL EXPENSE BUS & RAIL FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 % Ch FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 % Ch TYPE (mil) (mil) o a nge (mil) (mil) 0 ange %CHANGE OPERATING $85.2 $89.3 5% $16.8 $20.6 23% 8% COST .. CAPITAL COST 56.4 24.1 -57% 45.6 202.7 345% 122% TOTAL $141.6 $113.4 -20% $62.3 $223.3 258% 65% TDA (LTF & STA Funds), $72,6551630 1 20% Carry Over Funds (LTF/5307/5309/Sec 5316 & l 5317 /TUMF/CMAQ), $8177112301 2% Add'l Rail Operating Subsidy paid by SAN BAG, OCTA & LA Metro, $1910601000 1 5% Other Revenues, $216971840 1 1% Passenger Fares, $3710591203 1 10% Sec 5316 & 5317, $110831315 I less than 1% Measure A, ________ $5012271640 1 13% ---CMAQ & STIP Funds, $8510691000 I 23% Federal Formula Funds (Sec 5307 & 5311), $19,7021324 1 5% Federal-Discretionary Funds (Sec 5309), $7313761000 1 20% Proposition 18 (Capital & Security), $2101113821 1% 0 0 0 ... 0 ~ en ... 0 M "(/). a.n M a.n ... ~ 00 I" ... N a.n "(/). N M """""' M M 0 N >-LL ~ \.0 N ... M *-en I" M ... N M "(/). .____ 0 0 0 ... *-N m M 00 • 00 ... M M "(/). 0 en ~ ... *-0 ~ I" 00 • I" ... \.0 a.n "(/). m Q) M """""' t:lO N c M ro 0 ..c N u >-*-LL • AGENDA ITEM 13 · • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Officer SUBJECT: 2012 Update Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the update to the 2012 Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (2012 Coordinated Plan); 2) 3) 4) Authorize staff to prepare the evaluation criteria and application package to support the 2013 Specialized Transit Universal Call for Projects (2013 Call for Projects); Authorize staff to conduct the 2013 Call for Projects; and Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND JNFORMA TJON: With the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) several years ago, two funding sources for transit service were made available to transportation planning and programming entities across the nation. These sources are identified as Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) Section 5316 and New Freedom Section 5317 funds. At its April 2008 meeting, the Commission approved the Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan for Riverside County (2008 Coordinated Plan), which made the Commission eligible to receive and allocate the JARC and New Freedom funds. With the approval of the 2008 Coordinated Plan, the Commission 9lso adopted a strategy for developing and conducting a call for projects for both the Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County. This process was intended to be used to competitively disburse the JARC and New Freedom funds as well as Measure A Specialized Transit funds . Agenda Item 13 90 At its September and October 2008 meetings, the Commission approved the first • suite of the call for projects from the 2009 Call for Projects involving the use of the federal funds for implementation with a funding allocation totaling $7.8 million dollars. Following this action, the Commission approved a second suite of call for projects from the 2011 Call for Projects at its April 2011 meeting totaling $6.8 million dollars. This second suite of projects is set to expire on June 30, 2013, and requires that the 2013 Call for Projects be conducted to continue funding specialized transit services. Lastly and before additional JARC and New Freedom funds can be disbursed, a required update to the 2008 Coordinated Plan needs to be approved. DISCUSSION: In accordance with the provisions of SAFETEA-LU, recipients under these programs must comply with all federal coordinated planning requirements to be eligible for funds. The reauthorization stipulates that projects selected for funding under these programs must be derived from a locally coordinated, public transit-human services transportation plan (Coordinated Plan). Moreover, the Coordinated Plan must be developed through a process that includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human service providers and participation by the • public. Requirements further state that the Coordinated Plan must be updated at least every four years. Given that the Coordinated Plan was approved in 2008 and acknowledging the need for an update, staff initiated the process in which the update will take place in August of 2011. This was done in anticipation of conducting another call for projects in late November 2012. With this process, it was not the intent of staff to replace the 2008 Coordinated Plan in its entirety, but rather the update was visualized as a document that would augment and add to the extensive work already performed in the development of the 2008 Coordinated Plan. This 2012 Coordinated Plan is intended to bring current the Coordinated Plan and keep the Commission in compliance so that the federal funds continue to be utilized and disbursed for specialized transit service through the call for projects. Plan Update Process Federal requirements dictate that the Coordinated Plan process, as well as any plan updates, be conducted publicly and therefore, a methodology for obtaining community input was deemed an essential element of staff's planning for the 2012 Coordinated Plan. As a result, staff and its consultant, AMMA Transit Planning, Agenda Item 13 91 • • • • conducted five community workshops across the county, met with several individual stakeholder groups, and also utilized an email contact list to mail . an invitation for comment to over 650 community and non-profit organizations countywide. A 2012 Coordinated Plan specific email account was set up to receive comments from those that could not attend the workshops. Bus seat drops, flyers, and community advertisements were also utilized to inform the public of the workshops. 2 0 12 Coordinated Plan Update Overall, 120 individuals attended the five workshops, 25 emailed comments were received by staff, and four stakeholder meetings were held with 75 people representing the four groups attending. This amount of public input continued to identify needs by sub-areas of the county, by trip type, and within the target populations. Despite documented growth of public transit ridership countywide, the update process continued to identify new unmet transportation needs and service gaps for the target populations. Numerous sub-groups were identified beyond those previously identified in the 2008 Coordinated Plan, some with unique trip needs. Groups both previously identified and new consist of the following: • • • • • • • • • • Homeless veterans seeking employment; Newly returning veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres and their families; Agricultural workers traveling from isolated areas to social services and grocery stores; Low-income workers living in outlying rural areas, traveling to retail and hospitality employment; Individuals without cars traveling to regional destinations; Unemployed parents traveling to job interviews but also with day care needs; Students traveling to community colleges and high schools without funds for fuel; Older adults decreasing driving and exploring new mobility choices; Persons with disabilities living just beyond transit's % mile Americans with Disabilities Act boundaries; and Families seeking reunification with children placed outside of the home . The 2012 Coordinated Plan ultimately describes an environment where, as a result of the great recession, transit operators experienced reduced levels of funding and revenue streams while undergoing a period of population growth leading to a vigorous demand for public transit service. The county's population has increased by almost 40 percent during this past decade, adding almost a half-million more Agenda Item 13 92 residents. Within this growth and as identified in the 2012 Coordinated Plan, the • population of low-income individuals has gr?wn at a higher rate, a 46 percent increase. Persons over age 65 have increased by 30 percent, a somewhat lower rate of growth. Adults with disabilities are almost 9 percent of the county's overall population. This context of a growing population with greatly varying needs by the target groups of interest and extremely constrained resources is what defines the goals and objectives of the 201 2 Coordinated Plan to the Coordinated Plan in moving forward. Implementing the 2 0 12 Coordinated Plan I 2 013 Universal Call for Projects The 2008 Coordinated Plan and the 2012 Coordinated Plan do not provide funding but serve as a guide for funding decisions to be made, specifically those related to the federal JARC and New Freedom funds. The 2008 Coordinated Plan and the 2012 Coordinated Plan also serve as guidance documents for the disbursement of Western County Measure A Specialized Transit funds. As such, it is a call for projects that serves as the implementing vehicle for the funding of projects deemed consistent with the 2008 Coordinated Plan and the 2012 Coordinated Plan. Staff prepared a preliminary fund estimate for both Western County and the Coachella Valley to support the 2013 Call for Projects, which is attached. While funds have been identified, this estimate has been derived early in the process and • the amounts, specifically the federal funds, are subject to change prior to staff conducting the call. Additionally and with respect to the recommended funding amounts contained in the table on Attachment 1, it should be noted that the Commission previously approved a Western County Measure A reserve of $2 million to be carried over from the 2011 Call for Projects. This reserve consisted of the remainder of 1989 Measure A accumulated funds set aside for specialized transit. Given that 2009 Measure A is not accumulating at a pace consistent with past growth and program funding allocations, the reserve was intended to provide stability to the funding levels contained in subsequent calls. As a point of reference, while the table identifies another recommended carryover in the amount of $1 million, the estimated amount available for funding is slightly more than that contained in the 2011 Call for Projects. Staff continues to recommend that a modest reserve be carried over in order to provide for ongoing funding stability. In order to conduct the 2013 Call for Projects, evaluation criteria and an application package are required. Evaluation criteria resultant from the first and second call for projects, as well as that developed from the 2008 Coordinated Plan and the 2012 Coordinated Plan will continue to be refined by staff and will be used to develop the grant application package. This will allow proposers a complete and Agenda Item 13 93 • • • • full understanding of the grant application process as well as allow those projects most consistent with the goals and objectives contained in the 2008 and 2012 Coordinated Plans to rise to the top for funding. Staff upon Commission approval will develop the evaluation criteria and the application package. Staff expects to release the 2013 Call for Projects in late November/early December 2012, which is consistent with previous timeframes. This schedule should result in staff presenting a recommendation for funding to the Commission in or around April 2013. Given the current suite of projects expires on June 30, 2013, staff is confident that this process will allow for no interruption of specialized transit services currently provided to the community. There is no financial impact related to the staff recommendations, as approval of the update to the Coordinated Plan does not involve a funding commitment at this time. Additionally, the 2013 Call for Projects funds will be programmed and budgeted through the normal budgeting process for FY 2013/14 and FY 2014/15. Attachments: 1 ) 2013 Call for Projects Fund Estimate 2) 2012 Coordinated Plan Agenda Item 13 94 • • • Attachment 1 FY 2013 SPECIALIZED TRANSIT CALL FOR PROJECTS AVAILABLE FUNDING ESTIMATED CARRYOVER MEASURE A FUNDS AVAILABlE FOR FY 2013 CAll .$ A VAllABLE JARC/NF fOR FY 2013 CAU FOR PROJECTS {ESTIMATES} JARC 2011 1Nestern County JARC 2012. \A/estern County (100% estimate based on SO% release} 0Ji: 2011 Western County 757,578 823,563 345,334 ~£-~~-~~-'!.~~~_!:~-~~-s~?-~-~~~r.J~QQ~~-~~-~~~~-~~-?-~-~~~-?-~-~~2~-~~-~~-~-~~L--------------------------------~~?-'-~-~?.­ JARc 2011 Coachella Valley JARC 2012 CV (100% estimate b NF 2011 Coachella Valley TOTALJARC/NF JARC/NF 6% ADr•iiiN FEES 2011 JARC/NF 6% ADMiN FEES 2012 (Estirnate} TOTAUARC/NF AVAILABlE FOR FY 2013 CAll 1 0?'-'a release) TOTAl MEAS A/JARC/NFAVAilABlE FOR FY 2013 CAll RECOMMENDED SET-ASIDE FOR FY 2015 CAll RECOMMENDED FUNDING FOR FY 2013 CAll FOR PROJECTS 208,115 233,318 106A69 116,464 2,968,376 85,050 93,053 $ 2,790,2.73 $ Notes: 1. $5,163,478 carry over consists of $2 million reserve set aside (from 1989 Measure A) from 2011 Call for Projects along with accumulated 2009 Measure A. 2. 3 . Administrative fees are distributed at a rate of 3% each to RTA, Sunline and the Commission in return for processing offederal funds to subrecipients. Coachella Valley does not accumulate Measure A specialized transit. 95 • • • Prepared for: Robert Yates, Multi Modal Services Director Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: Riverside, CA Final May 16, 2012 96 • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Executive Summary Plan Update Requirement This document brings current the 2008 Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County. Required for update every four years, this augments but doesn't replace the extensive work done for Riverside County's first coordinated plan. These Coordinated Plans are intended to promote mobility by identifying needs and transportation service gaps of three targeted populations: • older persons • persons with disabilities, and • persons of limited means. The Coordinated Plan does not provide for funding, but helps to guide funding decisions, specifically those related to FTA 5316-Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC}, 5317-New Freedom program and the 5310 Capital Program for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. Projects funded from these programs must be "derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan." This plan can also help support and provide rationale for additional funding requests, both by public transit providers and by its human services partners. Population and Demographic Changes Most notably, Riverside County has grown by almost 40% in the past decade, adding another 600,000 new residents. The 2010 Census identified Riverside County as among the two fastest growing counties in the State of California, growing from 1.5 million persons to 2.1 million residents. Within this growth, there have been important changes among the target group populations: • Low-income adults, ages 18 to 64, are a fast growing sub-group, increasing by 46% over the past decade and adding 52,000 individuals. • Adults with disabilities, ages 18 to 64, represent 8.5 percent of the adult population or 110,000 persons. • Older adults, ages 65 and up, are now 11.7 percent of the County's total population, or 253,000 persons. 98 Exhibit ES-1, Percent Change in Population by California Counties ,.,,~,'?<,-.:,p< -~::~: ' {~ ~~--~-· ' ~':"' ·~ A:R'.i::'*"t<•-*~ iii 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside Co • Oldest adults, ages 85 and older are the fastest growing sub-group, increasing to 1.4% of the County's total population, over 30,000 individuals. Analysis of work area profiles from 2010 Census information reported Riverside County had a total of 564,071 jobs, with the heaviest concentration of these, not surprisingly, in the urbanized areas and along the County's major travel corridors. The distribution of jobs by industry shows the largest proportion of these jobs were in Retail (13.2%}, followed by Educational Services (12.4%} and by Health Care and Social Assistance (12.3%}. Actions Since 2008 Coordinated Plan The 2008 Plan called out four goals by which to improve the mobility of the three target groups, along with eighteen objectives and dozens of possible implementing strategies. This Update reports on a wide range to activities -spearheaded by RCTC and its many partners -and undertaken during these past four years, responsive to the 2008 Coordinated Plan direction. Among many, two important initiatives include: • RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program -Growing by over 300% and now providing 2% of all public transportation trips, this mix of Federal and local funding provided for 257,000 trips in FY 10- 11 through community shuttles, mileage reimbursement, bus pass and rideshare projects, and special fixed-route services. Travel training and mobility management projects were also supported. • IE 511 Program -Initiated on February 1, 2011 this telephone and web-based information capability provides real-time information for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, with 302,498 unique web visits and 838,657 total phone calls in its first 15 months of operation. Exhibit ES-2, Riverside County Comparison of Trips Provided j; "i / .; \)\'1 .. ·l\·1· \ r ~ .. ~ ... ~;~ .. ~A~!-·~~ 99 Across Modes Over Four Years This Update documents the overall volume of public transportation trips provided in Riverside County, compared to four years ago. The countywide total increased from almost 13.9 million trips to 16.1 million trips, a 16% increase. This is notable given that while population increased, the public transit funding base declined during this same period. It is, therefore, impressive that during this same period, trips per capita increased 5%, from 6.9 to 7.2 trips per capita for all modes across the county. iv • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Current Mobility Needs This Update involved five community workshops across the county, several stakeholders meetings and an invitation for comments from RCTC's Transportation Stakeholders Database, with 661 organizational entries. Discussions identified needs by sub-areas of the County, by trip-type and within the target populations. Despite the growing public transit ridership that this 2012 Update documents, there are continuing and some new unmet transportation needs and service gaps for the target populations. Numerous sub-groups were identified, some with unique trip needs and including several new groups: • homeless veterans seeking employment • newly returning veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres and their families • agricultural workers traveling from isolated areas to social services and grocery stores • low-income workers living in outlying rural areas, traveling to retail and hospitality employment • individuals without cars traveling to regional destinations • unemployed parents traveling to job interviews but also with day care needs • students traveling to community college and high schools without funds for fuel • older adults decreasing driving and exploring new mobility choices • persons with disabilities living just beyond transit's% mile ADA boundaries • families seeking reunification with children placed outside of the home. Exhibit ES-3, Compiled Unmet Transportation Needs 1. Expanded transit service operating hours and frequencies . 2. Increasing transit's speed so that trips to regional destinations (work, 3. Addressing unserved geographic pockets, including areas where transit services were reduced. 5. Services targeted to specialized needs: non-emergency medical tran ion and other alized shuttles and services. 6. Improved connections between services: rail and transit; between · urisdictions. 7. Building capacity of human service providers to address specialized populations' trips through non-traditional modes. 1. Maintaining and expanding existing transit information tools. 2. Addressing safety and security concerns, through bus stop amenities, and of access. 3. Trove/training to individuals and agency stakeholders to learn about and to use available blic transit. 4. Expanding information tools supporting specialized populations' travel, including veterans, older adults decreasing driving and non- residents and other ta 5. Supporting vehicle equipment that ensures lift-equipped vehicle availability that is safe and reliable. 6. Supporting technology innovations promoting service reliability, safety and cost-effectiveness . 100 v 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Establishing 2012 Coordinated Plan Priorities This 2012 Coordinated Plan Update process identified a multiplicity of needs, consolidated into the previously presented, Exhibit E-3 and grouped in two areas: 1) Maintaining and Building Capacity, trip-related activities, and in 2) Promoting Transportation Access and Information Portals, various infrastructure-related activities. These two areas point to important priorities for this 2012 Update. The Coordinated Plan is required by regulation to establish priorities that can guide future funding decisions. Exhibit ES-4 presents the three recommended priority areas with possible implementing objectives to provide Riverside County with direction for improving mobility of the three target populations. To the two priority areas developed through this Update process, a third is added, 3) Coordination Leadership, brought forward from the 2008 Coordinated Plan process. This third goal, and its three related objectives, provides for continuing leadership important to moving the other two goals ahead. Exhibit ES-4, 2012 Coordinated Plan Update Prioritized Transportation Goals and Objectives GOALl: MAINTAINING AND BUILDING CAPACITY TO MEET INDIVIDUALIZED NEEDS 1.1 Expanded fixed-route services 1.2 Improved interconnectivity 1.3 Purpose-specific regional services 1.4 Expanded capacity of targeted human service transportation GOAL2: PROMOTING TRANSPORTATION ACCESS AND INFORMATION PORTALS 2.1 Expanded transit information portals 2.2 Promoting travel training 2.3 Targeted mobility management initiatives 2.4. Capital projects supporting transit accessibility or safety for use by the target populations 2.5 Capital projects for innovative technology to improve reliability or cost-effectiveness of services to.the target populations G0Al3: COORDINATION lEADERSHIP 3.1 Continuing to promote coordination between public transit & human services organizations 3.2 Continuing Specialized Transportation Call for Project administration 3.3 Reporting on outcomes and successes for transit funding invested RCTC anticipates a future Call for Projects for its Specialized Transportation Program, late in 2012, involving JARC, New Freedom and Measure A funds. This Coordinated Plan Update provides direction to those interested, willing and able partners who may be applying for funds available under the Call. These priority areas of Exhibit ES-4 suggest the types of project objectives that will be in line with Riverside County priorities. Prospective applicant agencies will want to carefully review Chapter V of this Coordinated Plan to help build projects and grant requests that are more likely to secure the always too-limited funding. vi 101 • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE UPDATE? Federal Statute and Requirement Riverside County's 2008 Coordinated Plan Update's Approach II. WHAT POPULATIONS DOES THIS UPDATE CONSIDER? Riverside County Population Changes Riverside County Work Area Profiles Ill. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS SINCE THE 2008 COORDINATED PLAN? Actions Taken on 2008 Coordinated Plan Goals and Objectives RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program-Services, Trips Provided and Lessons Learned Ill 1 1 1 2 3 3 6 10 10 15 Existing Public Transportation Resources 18 IV. WHAT NEEDS ARE REPORTED Now? 19 Community Outreach Approach 19 What Did We Learn-What Needs Were Reported? 21 V. WHAT PRIORITIES WILL ADDRESS IDENTIFIED TRANSPORTATION GAPS? 28 Themes in Unmet Transportation Needs and Service Gaps 28 Establishing 2012 Coordinated Plan Priorities 30 Implementing 2012 Priorities 33 APPENDICES 35 Appendix A: 2010 Census, Riverside County Work Area Profile Report 36 Appendix B: RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program FY 09/10 Trips and Cost Detail by Project 38 Appendix C: Workshop Announcement Invitation and Spanish-Language Flyer 39 Appendix D: Summary of Comments Received by RCTC Via Email 41 Appendix E: Riverside County Transportation Stakeholder Database Agencies, 45 2011 102 vii 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit ES-1: Percent Change in Population by California Counties Exhibit ES-2: Riverside County Comparison of Trips Provided Across Modes Over Four Years Exhibit ES-3: Compiled Unmet Transportation Needs Exhibit ES-4: 2012 Coordinated Plan Update-Prioritized Goals and Objectives Exhibit 1: Percent Change of Population in California's Counties Exhibit 2: Target Populations for JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 Exhibit 3: Riverside County Target Populations, Proportions of Total Population and Percent Change Exhibit 4: 2010 Riverside County Jobs by Industry Sector, US Census Exhibit SA: West Riverside County Employment Estimates Map Exhibit SB: East Riverside County Employment Estimates Map Exhibit 6: Actions Taken Addressing 2008 Coordinated Transportation Plan Exhibit 7: RCTC Specialized Transportation Program, Trips by Project Type Exhibit 8: 2010 RCTC Subsidy per Trip by Project Type Exhibit 9: Specialized Transportation Program Project Types and Trips Provided Exhibit 10: Public Transit and Other Specialized Transportation Trips Provided Exhibit 11: Compiled Unmet Transit Needs Exhibit 12: Recommended 2012 Coordinated Plan Update Priority Areas 103 3 4 5 7 8 9 11 15 15 16 18 30 31 viii • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County I. What is the Purpose of the Update? This introductory chapter sets forth statutory and local planning purposes that require and shape this 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan. Federal Statute and Requirement The passage of The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A legacy for Users (SAFETEA-lU, Public law 109-059), signed into law in August 2005, established a new planning requirement at the local level. Federal authorizing legislation of SAFETEA-lU linked two existing programs, §5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute and §5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities capital program, with a third, a new initiative called §5317 New Freedom program, through a coordination plan. The intent was to identify the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults and persons with low incomes. By identifying such needs -and resources in place to address these -it was anticipated that the two service sectors of public transportation and human services could coordinate to better meet such needs. Specifically, federa·l guidance requires the Plan to identify strategies for meeting local needs, including coordination strategies; and to prioritize transportation needs and projects for funding through §5310, 5316 or 5317. 1 ' 2 ' 3 Riverside County's 2008 Coordinated Plan In 2007, Riverside County Transportation Commission began an extensive coordinated planning process. Almost a year-long process, it included extensive p~blic outreach and an analysis of resources, needs and gaps that resulted in identified priorities described in terms of four goals, eighteen objectives and 59 possible implementation actions, strategies or projects. The culminating document was approved by the Commission in April 2008: the Public-Transit Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County.4 This plan enabled RCTC to competitively allocate JARC and New Freedom funds apportioned to the region by conducting specialized transportation Calls for Projects. RCTC directed 1 CIRCUlAR. FTA C 9070.1F. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit. Administration. May 1, 2007 ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES PROGRAM GUIDANCE AND APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS. 2 CIRCUlAR. FTA C9050.1. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit. Administration. May 1, 2007. Subject: THE JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE (JARC) PROGRAM GUIDANCE AND APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS. 3 CIRCUlAR. FTA C 9045.1. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit. Administration. May 1, 2007. Subject: NEW FREEDOM PROGRAM GUIDANCE AND APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS. 4 Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County, April 2008. Prepared by AMMA Transit Planning, Judith Norman-Transportation Consulting and Transportation Policy and Planning. 104 1 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination ~lan for Riverside County significant attention to developing willing and able partners through numerous outreach processes in order to develop viable grant applications. The first Universal Call for Specialized Transportation Projects was held in 2009. Western Riverside County's allocation included Measure A specialized transportation funds along with its Western Riverside JARC and New Freedom.apportionments while Coachella Valley's was only for federal funding. A total of twenty-two projects were awarded through the 2009 Call, seventeen in Western Riverside County and five in Coachella Valley; these projects concluded their two-year terms on June 30, 2011. A second Specialized Transportation Call for Projects, announced in November, 2010, awarded twenty projects for a two-year cycle beginning implementation on July 1, 2011 and running through June 2013. The 2008 Coordinated Plan has, therefore, been used in support of projects derived from the Coordinated Plan, now over two competitive cycles, providing guidance and rationale for new transportation service or improved services oriented towards the three target populations-individuals with disabilities, older adults and persons of low income. Update's Approach This Update is prepared to augment the 2008 Public Transportation-Human Services Coordination Plan and serve several purposes: 1) To perform the update per FTA circulars' requirement that these should be completed every four years, at a minimum. 2) To reflect the changing and evolving needs within the county with regard to transportation demand and resources related to the target populations. 3) To document new unmet transportation needs while validating those identified previously. 4) To continue supporting and improving RCTC's specialized transportation program, including: > Review of the Call for Projects selection criteria, priorities and program evaluation; > Examination of the administrative challenges faced by both RCTC and human service transportation providers associated with the specialized transportation program. This Update does not replace the 2008 Coordinated Plan as much of that still stands, remaining as a resource document for coordination of public transit and human service transportation in Riverside County. The Update documents current unmet transit needs on behalf of the three target populations, older persons, persons with disabilities and persons of low-income. The Update identifies priorities that reflect 2012 funding and service realities, providing future guidance for use of scarce resources. To develop this 2012 Coordinated Plan Update, RCTC staff and the consultant team undertook various activities: updating demographic information to include 2010 Census information; conducting five public workshops and community meetings around the County; and conducting outreach through Riverside County's Transportation Network Database via email to almost 300 agency contacts and physical mailings to 660 agency representatives. The resultant recommended priorities set forth in Section V of this document were developed from an analysis of information received from these multiple sources . 2 105 • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County II. What Populations Does this Update Consider? Changes in the county's demographics over the past ten years and images of current employment density are presented here, to frame an understanding of mobility needs of three target. groups. Riverside County Population Changes Population assessments provide a . basis for estimating the demand for transportation services. Measuring population growth for a given target group provides insight into which modes of transportation may require future enhancement. To assess population growth in Riverside County, estimates from the 2010 American Community Survey five-year estimates (ACS) are contrasted with counts from the 2000 U.S. Census. Current estimates place the county's total population at nearly 2.2 million residents, representing an increase of almost 40 percent over the past decade. This makes Riverside County, along with Placer County, one of _the two fastest growing California counties by percent of increase, as reported by the U.S. Census. Changes in population between these two reporting periods are shown in Exhibit 2 following. At the time of this writing the recently collected 2010 Census demographics have not been fully tabulated and results are not available for many population subgroups. In Exhibit 2 following, Riverside County's population is analyzed for change among subgroups, considered for the adult population ages 18-64 and for the senior Exhibit 1 Percent Change of Population in California's Counties 5 \. rt;n;lll ('hw)t~ •Y.~t.~.u~ 1~.C 1>>:!<1,<1 L,·,,-liHI>'!t.l<) ('C~,,)_(J , "''-·X<>t:;>..f._l population ages 65 and over. These two groups are then detailed in relation to two of the target populations of SAFETEA-LU: low-income persons and persons with disabilities. 5 Census 2010: California Counties by Growth, By Kevin Roderick, LA Observed, 1 March 8, 2011 http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2011/03/census 2010 california co.php 106 3 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Low-income is defined as being at or below the national threshold for poverty based on income and the number of individuals in a household. Population estimates for persons with disabilities are available from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) but cannot be directly compared to Census 2000 disability figures due to changes in the way these characteristics are enumerated. This newer approach relates to individual physical limitations rather than the 2000 classifications of disability that were more generalized. Specifically, the 2008 Public Transit-Human Services Coordination Plan utilized the 2000 census attribute "go-outside-home" disability characteristic which was not continued with the 2010 Census or the 2007-2010 ACS enumerations. Exhibit 2 TARGET POPULATIONS for JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 Programs (2000 Census] Riverside %of Total County County People by Population 2000 Census Attribute, Summary File 3 2010 American Community Survey 3-year Estimates Category (non-institutionalized) Ages 16-64 "go-outside-home" disability (2000) Disability (non-institutionalized) Ages 18-64 (2010) [4) with % of all seniors Seniors, ages 75-84 with % of all seniors Seniors, ages 85+ with % of all seniors Disability (non-institutionalized) Ages 65+ "go-outside-home" disability (2000) [4) Disability (non-institutionalized) Ages 65+ (2010) [4) with [1) Census 2000 Summary File 3, P001 Total Population, 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-year Estimates (2010 ACS] Riverside County People by Category 11.9% 19,821 7.8% (2) Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, P008 Sex by Age 1 901001 Sex by Age, 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-year Estimates %of Total % Change County from 2000 Population to 2010 0.9% 37.3% [3) Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, P087 Poverty Status in 1999 by age 1817001 Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Sex by Age 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-year Estimates (4} Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, P047 Age by types of disability for the civilian non-institutionalized population 5 years & over with disablities I S1810 Disability Characteristics-2008- 2010 American Community Survey 3-year Estimates Al\: ·1·1\·1· ·i\ .A.'. _J..-·'"" . • .... A"'"'' .... ~ ...... -.. ~ 107 4 • • • • Jl,. 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 • Exhibit 3 • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Riverside County Target Populations Proportions of Total Population and Percent Change Total Population ~1% of Total Pop [ 52%... ! ~-~~~~w-~---~---.....1 Adults w/Disabilities* Ill 2000 Census • 2010 ACS Estimates 7.6% of Total Pop 46% ... Adults Low-Income 11.7% ofTotal Pop Older Adults 65+ *Methods for collecting and reporting disability characteristics changed between 2000 Census and 2010 ACS. i\~r~r·:\ 5 108 • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County As previously presented in Exhibit 2 and depicted in Exhibit 3, the overall County population growth of a 39 percent increase is a very significant rate of increase. This represents the addition of almost a half- million more individuals to Riverside County over ten years. Findings among the subgroups indude: • The adult population ages 18-64 increased by more than 45 percent, adding 400,000 individuals. This age group encompasses 1.3 million persons and represents almost 60 percent of the County's total population. • Law-income adults are the fastest growing group in Riverside County, increasing by 46 percent since the 2000 Census, to add almost 52,000 individuals and representing 7.6 percent of the County's total population. • Adults with disabilities, below age 65 total 8.5 percent of the adult population or 110,000 persons and 5.1 percent of the County's total population. • The older adult population ages 65 or older has increased by 30 percent, adding 58,000 persons. These 253,000 persons represent 11.7 percent ofthe County's total population. Older adults are further examined by age group, detailed in Exhibit 2 previously, given that frailty increases with age and assuming that the oldest seniors will present greater need for more specialized transportation options than younger seniors. For Riverside County's older adults, this analysis indicates: • Youngest seniors, ages 65 to 74 are the largest senior group representing 54 percent of all seniors . • Oldest seniors, ages 85 and older, were the fastest growing sub-group among seniors, increasing at a rate of almost 50 percent. • The 2010 ACS estimates indicate that seniors reporting some form of disability represent almost one-third of all seniors. As a group these seniors represent more than four percent of the Riverside County's total population. The disabilities most frequently reported among older persons with disabilities are difficulty walking and living independently. Riverside County Work Area Profiles In 2010 there were an estimated total of 564,071 jobs in Riverside County according to the State of California unemployment insurance wage records. This information was recently compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau and published in their "OnTheMap" online mapping and reporting application. The distribution of these jobs is shown on maps at the end of this section. Not surprisingly, these depict the heavy concentration of employment in the urbanized areas of Riverside County and along its major thoroughfares. Riverside County's working population is comprised of slightly more female workers than male workers. Hispanics and Latinos account for 39 percent of the labor force. The majority (56%) of all jobs were held by individuals between the ages of 30 and 54 years with an additional 27 percent held by people under the age of 30, and 17 percent by people 55 years of age and older. Additionally, 33 percent workers 6 109 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County earned over $3,333/month, 39 percent earned between $1,251/month and $3,333/month and 28 percent earned less than $1,251/month. The distribution of jobs by industry sector, from which income data is derived, is shown below in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 4 2010 Riverside County Jobs by Industry Sector, U.S. Census Count Share Retail Trade 74,519 13.2% Educational Services 69,885 12.4% Health Care and Social Assistance 69,428 12.3% Accommodation and Food Services 65,422 11.6% Manufacturing 37,378 6.6% Construction 35,135 6.2% Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation . 32,081 5.7% Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 27,174 4.8% Public Administration 22,903 4~1% Wholesale Trade 21,066 3.7% .. Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 20,871 3.7% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 20,068 3.6% Transportation and Warehousing 17,918. 3.2% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 14,693 2.6% Finance and Insurance 11,589 2.1% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 8,410 1.5% Information 6,933 1.2% Utilities 4,703 0.8% Management of Companies and Enterprises 3,355 0.6% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 540 0.1% This analysis, summarized in Exhibit 4, indicates that the largest concentration of jobs were in retail trade which accounted for 13 percent of all workers. This was followed by educational services, health care and social assistance and accommodation and food services, each of which represented about 12 percent of the labor force. Exhibits SA-Western Riverside County and SB-East Riverside County presented on the following pages map the density of jobs available in Riverside County's Eastern and Western regions, working from the industry sector information shown in Exhibit 4. In Western Riverside County, employment was concentrated along Interstate 15 through Temecula, State Route 91 through Riverside and Corona and State Route 60 through Moreno Valley. Most jobs in East Riverside County were found along State Route 111 through the desert communities from Palm Springs to Coachella. These depictions affirm and support the public transit's primary corridors of service. A summary of the data from which this information is derived is provided as Appendix A. 7 110 • • • • ~··~ ~=~::::::}:;._-<1\ \1\. ;[.1\ ![· '\ j ~---~·~! ... : -~ ·West Riverside • Exhjbit SA • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County nty EmployrneHt Estimates 111 Rlv~rsidl! county 8 East Riverside County Employment Estimates 2010 Emr>fcvmenl data is derived from State Unempfoymim( ~\l\· rf·l\'f \ • -~.; .. ! : .. ?.: Reporl:!i & U.S, Census Bureau. By: GISWS.com Exhibit SB • 2 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County 9 • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Ill. Implementation Actions Since the 2008 Coordinated Plan? This chapter reiterates the 2008 priority responses to needs identified through the Coordinated Plan efforts and reports on relevant actions taken during the intervening four years. Actions Taken on 2008 Coordinated Plan Goals and Objectives The 2008 Coordinated Plan set forth four goal areas by which to organize responses to identified unmet transportation needs in Riverside County. These were: Goall: Coordination Leadership Goal 2: Capacity Building Goal3: Information Portals Goal 4: Coordination Policy The eighteen objectives associated with these goals, as proposed in the 2008 Coordinated Plan, and the 59 accompanying strategies, actions and possible projects were all suggestions. These offered guidance . . both to RCTC and to its many stakeholders as to how to improve the mobility of the three target groups. Clearly, the intent of the Human Services-Public Transportation coordinated planning process is to share the responsibility of addressing the mobility needs of older adults, persons with disabilities and individuals of low-income. Exhibit 6 following presents a four-page matrix that revisits the 2008 Coordinated Plan goals and objectives, reiterating these and summarizing related actions taken during the ensuing four years. While these activities are many and varied, there is always more that remains to be done. That helps to focus the priorities for this 2012 Coordinated Plan Update . AI\: -1· ··.l\, if. ·• ~\ A.. .J.. ... J.. .. ·-""' ..... ~'. '""~ .... "''"'4- 10 113 • '"~ ~·~ • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Exhibit 6, Actions Taken Addressing 2008 Riverside County Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan 1.1 Establish a Regional Mobility Manager capability to provide leadership on coordination around specialized transportation needs in Riverside County. 1.2 Establish the Regional Mobility Manager's role in developing, "growing" and strengthening projects responsive to coordination goals and objectives. 1.3 Promote sub-regional mobility managers in Western Riverside, Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley through the Call for Projects and through outreach by Regional Mobility Manager. 1.4 Promote human services agency-level mobility managers through the Call for Projects and through outreach by Regional Mobility Manager. · 1.5 Develop visibility around specialized transportation issues and needs, encouraging high level political and agency leadership. \·}\1[·1\i[·;\ }\~.:.~ ~ .... :.~~ RCTC has become the regional mobility manager with its administration of RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program and annual funds of approximately $2.5 million in County Measure A and approximately $1.2 million in Federal JARC and New Freedom programs.· Now into the second cycle of projects, the program currently involves 21 individual projects in Western Riverside and Coachella Valley providing a mix of services: dial-a-ride and shuttle services for targeted populations bus pass distribution to low-income individuals rideshare program travel training activities mileage reimbursement program inter-city, fixed-route commuter service Projects are run by a mix of public and non-profit organizations and serve a breadth of populations, including: low-income adults, youth and children; frail elderly persons; persons with disabilities; and able-bodied older persons. Palo Verde Valley Transportation Authority has a three-year mobility manager project in Blythe, successfully expanding local and regional connections for area residents by encouraging and promoting various mobility strategies. Several Western Riverside mobility manager· initiatives were undertaken in the first Specialized Transportation Program, but, in light of the economic circumstances that caused a reduction in funding, the program directed more resources to trip-making in the second grant cycle. RCTC convenes its Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), at least once per year as required by laW, and regularly participates in several regional groups focused on target group issues. This includes making presentations to promote public transit issues, as with the Inland Empire Disabilities Collaborative (IEDC) annual conference, and continuing representation at county wide committees, including IEDC and ADRC SAG (Aging and Disability Resource Connection Stakeholder Advisory Group), ad-hoc presentations at various collaborative groups and the new IE Vet Trans One-Call/ One-Click initiative. RCTC also conducts at least one unmet transportation needs hearing per year, as required by law. 114 11 ;1nt~ -~~>--:,~ ".,),,,.-. ..... ~'""'*'-:;~·-*' 2.1 Promote the QUANTITY of public transit, paratransit and specialized transportation provided in each of the three apportionment areas. 2.2 Promote the QUALITY of public transit, paratransit and specialized transportation through str.ategies to improve services with attention to meeting individualized needs. 2.3 Develop strategies for improving transportation solutions between county subareas and between counties. 2.4 Support transportation services provided by human services agencies. ~ 1\:~.;1~1..'\ 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Exhibit 6, page two continued RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program provided over 465,000 specialized transportation trips in FY 2010/11. These trips are additional to existing demand response, fixed route and rail trips provided to Riverside residents, estimated in FY 2010/11 at 16 million trips. RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program quality-related initiatives included requiring that extensive internal procedures are in place for its non-profit, sub-recipient providers to ensure compliance with Federal audit processes. These include oversight of safety and security oversight around driver training, driver drug-free workplace with drug and alcohol testing and vehicle maintenance, risk management and emergency preparedness and help to ensure that riders have a safe and reasonably reliable trip. RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program ensures projects are directed to a wide range of individualized transportation needs of the target populations. RCTC continues its attention to promoting connections through: Requiring the annual SRTP process where new services can be considered • Brokering planning discussions with RTA and Sunline about transportation between the Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County. Within the Specialized Transportation Call for Projects process, awarding evaluation points for inter-jurisdictional projects or projects that seek out ways to partner or ublic transit resources. RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program now involves: 1. RCTC staff support to human services organizations in developing grant requests for capital531 0 program and state-wide rural/ small urban JARC and New Freedom (NF) grant applications. 2. RCTC annually conducts its Transportation Network update process, to ensure current contact information with human service agencies and personnel concerned about transportation matters. 3. RCTC undertakes a monthly invoice concurrence process that represents regular and consistent RCTC technical assistance to human service agencies around their fiduciary responsibilities and on-going program fiscal management. 4.. RTA's field visits to first cycle sub-recipients helped to ensure conformance with Federal JARC and NF 12 .5 • • '":~ ~ ...... ~;>/ 2.5 Promote capital improvements-to support safe, comfortable, efficient rides for the target populations. 2.6 Measure the quantities of trips provided in Riverside County, through new and existing procedures. 3.1 Integrate and promote existing inforOJation strategies, including 211/ 511, web-based tools and paper products to get transit and specialized transportation information to consumers. 3.2 Develop information portal tools for wide distribution of information. • Exhibit 6, page three continued • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County RCTC staff provides continuing support around the capital FTA 5310 statewide competitive procurement process to all applicants. RCTC prepared its first "lessons learned" at the end of the first cycle "RCTC Specialized Transportation Program-Year End Report, FY 201 0." This reported almost 380,000 trips fuQded under this program. The regular monthly invoicing concurrence process supported by RCTC has helped to ensure that human service agencies are appropriately counting and reporting trips. RCTC initiated its IE-511, in collaboration with SAN BAG [San Bernardino Associated Governments] on April 7, 2010. Since that time, there have been 302,498 unique web visits and 838,657 total phone calls to the IE 511 system. This telephone and web-based information capability provides real-time information for Riverside and San Bernardino transportation network, including freeways and public transit. RCTC, including RTA, is a partner in the new IE Veterans Transportation One-Call/ One-Click initiative, led by San Bernardino County's 2-1-1 United Way and anticipating involvement of f------------------------1 the Riverside County 2-1-1. This initiative will help provide improved transportation 3.3 Promote information opportunities for human information in formats more readily accessible to Inland Empire veterans, their families and services staff and direct service workers and expand survivors. travel training options for consumers. 1-------------------------1 The IE-511 project is regularly reported on to the RCTC Board of Directors and the new IE 3.4 Report on project successes and impacts at direct Veterans Transportation One-Calli One~Ciick project is developing its reporting protocols. service levels, at sub-regional levels and at county wide levels; pursue opportunities to promote project successes at state and federal levels. \ l\l·lVf"\ .i .·~·.~~u.·~ ~·~~~:,~~ RCTC continues to use its Transporlation Network of Specialized Transporlation Stakeholders and Human Services Agencies, updated annually, to communicate critical information to contacts interested in a ranoe of transportation matters. 116 13 4.1 Work to establish non-emergency medice~l transportation (NEMT) policies and more cost-effectively meet medically-related trip needs. Exhibit 6, page four continued 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Selected Specialized Transportation projects are addressing NEMT needs, including the Riverside County Medical Center program, Hemet's HOPE Bus/ Care-A-Van, Care Connexxus, and the nationally-known TRIP mileage reimbursement program. The Blythe mobility management activities continue to address regional NEMT needs. 4.2 Establish a Universal Call for Projects process RCTC has committed considerable resources to its competitive offering termed the "Universal sufficiently flexible for applicants to construct and Call" completing two two-year cycles with a third cycle now in the planning stage. Early efforts implement projects responsive to identified needs in were' administratively-intensive with the shift from an advance-payment to a reimbursement-a broad range of ways. based program and establishment of multi-party agreements with the direct recipient public transit operators and the sub-recipient grantees. 4.3 Establish processes by which implemented projects are evaluated with successes and failures reported. ~JyrlVI)~ In both cycles, the program has been substantially oversubscribed. The first cycle administered a $7.8 million JARC, New Freedom and Measure A annual program. The second cycle had less Measure A funding available and the total program cost is $6.8. The second cycle of the Specialized Transportation Program focused on trips over most other initiatives, to help fill growing gaps caused by the expanding population. This program leverages other non-transportation funded resources and dollars. Its FY 2010 "lessons learned" report documented $2.2 million in match from other such sources that included: city general funds, community development block grants, The California Foundation, Riverside County Dept. of Mental Health funds, Older American Act funds, State Adult Education funds, Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds and California Local Transportation Funds (l TF). 14 • 7 • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program Call for Projects- Services, Trips Provided and Lessons Learned Exhibit 7 RCTC Specialized Transportation Program, FY 09/10 Trips By Projeci"JYpe Fixed Rollte Services (3) ~----·1n> [sus Passes/ Taxi/ RJdeshare (4) ~--•••••••21% Mllea~ Reimbwsement (3) ~-••••••••••• 25% Projects funded in the first cycle of RCTC's Specialized . Transportation Program were in the categories presented in Exhibit 7. More than one-third were on shuttle-based services, a quarter by mileage reimbursement and additional trips provided by bus pass, taxi, ride share or fixed route. 20,000 40.000 {;0,000 80.000 100,001) 120.000 140.000 160,000 363,"684 One-Way Pass.enger Trips Exhibit 8 6 shows the comparative cost-effectiveness of these projects, by type and in terms of their subsidy per trip. Exhibit 8 FY 2010 RCTC Subsidy Per Trip By Project Type Measure A, .JARC or New Freedom Funding as Subsidy ILP"s TRIP Volunteer Escort-Driver I SunLine ILP"s TRIP Volunteer Escort-Driver I Western Riv Court Appointed Special Advocates [CASAJ ~ $2.25 ~ $6.34 ~ $10.21 $0.43 Fm $2.68 "$5.64 Weighted Average Mileage Reimbursement Subsidy Per $25.23 "$2.07 Weighted Average RCTC's Commuter Benefits/Coachella rideshare trips Volunteer Center/ TAP -Bus pass trips Desert Samaritans -Taxi trips Beaumont Adult School -Bus pass trips $25.60 Bus P~ss/Van Pool! Taxi Subs~dy Per Tr~""' CVAG Roy"s Desert Resource Center Boys & Gir1s Club of Southwest County Friends of Moreno Valley-MoVan Care Connexxus Care-A-Van I HOPE Bus VVildomar Senior Community Jefferson Trans ltional -JTP Shuttle Riversi~ County Regional Medical center Inland AIDS Project City of Norco -Senior Shuttle Operation Safehouse RT A Extended Services RTA Commuter Unk SunLine Extended Services Ill $1.69 -$3.97 $13.13 "$10.42 Weighted Average $15.02 Para transit Subsidy Per Trip $17.69 $23.20 $27.45 $35.38 $35.50 $57.49 $71.47 --$6.96 0 $16.19 Weighted Average FL<d..''ri FZ~-::J~t.;:; Per ' $24.88 """-'~,' $38.41 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 6 Cost per subsidy for Sunline Extended Late Night Service only represents 10 months of service, with a subsidy calculated as a monthly average based on the total project subsidy over a 19 month period covering two fiscal years . 15 118 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Exhibit 8 does report a significant range in per trip subsidy costs, even within similar project types. Nonetheless, the weighted averages reflect very cost-effective per trip subsidies of $5.64 per mileage reimbursement trip; $2.07 per bus pass or rideshare trip; $10.42 per community shuttle trip; and $16.19 per fixed-route trip. These weighted averages reflect the volume of trips provided at the varying per- project costs. Appendix B presents the data from which these averages and weighted averages were derived. Exhibit 9, following, presents the three-year history of trips by project, providing 365,455 trips in the Specialized Transportation Program's first year, growing to 474,560 in its second year and with a slight decrease projected for its third calendar year, 461,990. The decrease in the number of trips projected for this most recent year reflect the fact that two projects by Sun line a.nd three human service agency projects chose not to seek funding in this most recent cycle. Exhibit 9 [1] Volunteer bus pass trips are for RTA fixed-Route service 16 119 • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Tran~it-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Call for Projects' Administrative Requirements RCTC formally reported to its Board of Directors on its Specialized Transportation program following its first year. The Specialized Transportation Program Year-End Report, FY 2010 (Rev Feb. 2011} included discussion of the extensive administrative responsibilities of all players: the grantees, Sun line and RTA as the designated recipients through whom the FTA funding flowed, and RCTC staff. For many of the grantees, this was the first time they had received Federal Transit Administration funding. FTA requirements, coupled with RCTC's reporting expectations, were significant. Administrative support included the monthly invoice concurrence process RCTC established, to assist grantees in providing payment claims that could be easily paid by the direct recipients: Sun line and RTA. This concurrence process has continued beyond that first year, in part to assure the direct recipients of a reasonable budget oversight, but also to provide the grantee agencies with a monthly technical assistance opportunity relating to budget and other issues that arise from time-to-time. Additionally, with RCTC assistance, RTA and Sunline performed field audits of the grantees receiving Federal funding. These field audits examined numerous items, including regular and preventative maintenance schedules, drug and alcohol testing procedures, Title VI and disadvantaged business enterprise procedures-all among the regulatory assurances required by FTA. • Call for Projects' Recommendations Made at the End of First Year • Six.recommendations were offered, drawn from the first year experience of what has also been termed the Universal Call bringing together local Measure A funding dedicated to specialized transportation with the two federal funding sources, JARC and New Freedom programs. The recommendations were: 1. Primary focus of the second-cycle call should be on provision of trips. 2. Capacity building of grantees, particularly related to agency training, recommended to help grow RCTC's investment in human services transportation. 3. Awarded projects should be required to demonstrate ability both to provide service but also to administer their project consistent with Federal regulations and RCTC requirements. 4. Mobility management projects were shown, in that reporting period, to have mixed results and more limited, definable success. These were recommended for lowest-level priority during a period of significant, continuing population growth. 5. Local match requirements have been extremely difficult for human service agencies to attain and a continued emphasis on in-kind versus "cash" match is appropriate. 6. Modest support of vehicle capital projects may be appropriate but should be steered towards JARC projects, encouraging services oriented to persons with disabilities or older persons to go· after Section 5310 capital funding through Caltrans' statewide competitive offering . Al\: 1J·l\· i( ·t\ ..... ' .. J..-...... . .. .,. ... _,.,. "'~""'"' ... ~ 17 120 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Existing Public Transportation Resources This 2012 Update is considering primarily public transit resources, as well as those provided through RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program, discussed previously. Notably, reflecting the general economic downturn of recent years, the public transit entities each saw significant revenue declines during the past several years. Services were cut and operating hours reduced. Exhibit 10 shows that ridership on public transportation in Riverside County nonetheless increased, from 13.9 million trips in FY 05/06 to 16 million trips in FY 10/11. Due partly to the growing population and in part a consequence of increasing fuel prices, more trips are being taken and more individuals are finding their way to the County's public transportation network. The indicator of trips per capita also saw an increase in this four year period from 6.9 to 7.4 trips per capita, a notable increase over four years. Exhibit 10 [1] RCTC Transtrack SRTP Service Summary-FY 05/06 Audited, FY 10111 [2] Specialized Transportation trips subsidized by The Volunteer Center are already reported in RTA fixed route trip data. [3] Stale of California, Department of Finance, July 2007, aM July 2011 121 18 • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County IV. What Needs Are Reported Now? This chapter reports on processes to validate previously identified needs and to surface new needs, resources, project ideas, and opportunities. The first section of this chapter identified the outreach methods. The second section summarizes needs made known through five workshops across the county, selected stakeholder meetings and email comments received from a range of stakeholders. Community Outreach Approach Key to this 2012 Coordinated Plan Update was an extensive outreach process, utilizing various strategies to engage stakeholders. Community outreach activities included: • Five public workshop across the county • Stakeholders meetings • Email invitation for comments .>:, r-it1-.>•n•t• t:<l'oH>h' lor"S:u-.(>rt:anc-*0 'I>""~'*''~'• !<:> ;~-M~ ·~"''-'~ ~.-),,.,·,~"'t~~·v~-''""''~~"~ ·"~""'~"·'"'h .. 1.'10"' .. ~ t~·~~~.r<N"tJo~H>" "''\"'.f' .... :~~., . ., a,,..,.,.";..," ""'"""""f Public Workshops across the County ··--~-.:~~~~~-~:~_~_::._~_:.:._-~~~~~:.::~:_:>~:~~~L~::.:~_:..::::~.~~:~~::~.:~:.~-. Five workshops were held in various areas of Riverside County: initially four in January, with a final evening workshop held in April. Workshop locations included: • Blythe for the Palo Verde Valley; • Palm Desert for the Coachella Valley; • The City of Riverside for Western Riverside; • Wildomarfor Southwestern Riverside County; Coordinated Plan Update Workshops l•t::>tt~ Jt>;"-::-ti'-$'!"~~ <:'·1<--<.W ~h~ ..... ., t'n~$il'<i}'.} ·~:-;.~ r.f;{><l'>:~.v·. ~1: -:~-~ 0. ~··1-,'>;>·U~n-,.-,....,. !, r.l:> t'l' ">rn'·''..m ~_;,~ tbi!IUI}'I.iill~.e~:t1>tm•li .. o.Dnt >.v't4 f«b•w••• 1}, lOll ;<.,•v~ ·---~--·---·-----------·----·--·--~~~ t~~f~:~~a:r~=·:~~~ • North Shore of the Salton Sea where an evening workshop was scheduled for a community unable to attend the day-time Palm Desert workshop. Participants included representatives of the Inland Congregations United for Change and California Rural Legal Assistance. This workshop focused on informing the community and its leaders about planning activities, hearing about mobility needs of residents and exploring transit solutions for this community's many low- income agricultural workers and their families. In general, these workshops provided forums for informing both members of the public and agencies on: 1) Reviewing funding realities of public transportation in Riverside County; 2) Identifying initiatives and service enhancements launched since the 2008 Coordinated Plan; 3) Identifying new funding grant opportunities connected with the Coordinated Plan at county, state and federal levels; 4) Inviting input about service needs and service gaps in existing transit programs; 5) Reinforcing education/awareness about transportation services currently in-place . 19 122 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Importantly, participants at the workshops offered comments on transportation needs and engaged in • conversation with RCTC and with transit agency staff. Workshops concluded with brief project development conversations, brainstorming with participants about what alternatives might work in their communities. Appendix C includes the Workshop letter of invitation and the Spanish-Language flyer. A total of 120 individuals participated in these public workshops. The workshops were promoted through attractive flyers and half-sheet seat drop flyers, in both English and Spanish. Flyers were posted in buses by Riverside Transit Agency and Sunline Transit Agency across many of the County's transit routes. They were also distributed via email to organizations in the Riverside County Transportation Stakeholders Database which includes non-profits, human and social services, private transportation companies, public agencies, and specialized transportation providers as previously described in Section I. Agency recipients were invited to post the workshop flyers at their facilities and to forward the email to colleagues. A physical mailing, including an invitational letter and copies of the workshop announcement, was sent to 177 Coachella Valley and Blythe stakeholders and 484 Western and Southwestern Riverside County agencies and organizations, a total of 661 entities. Additionally, the Inland Empire Disability Collaborative (IEDC) distributed an early notice of the public workshop schedule to its several hundred agency members. Email Invitation for Comments An easy-to-remember hotmail account was established to invite participation from individuals who couldn't attend one of the public workshops. The email address, PlanUpdate@hotmail.com, was advertised on workshop flyers and at each of the workshops through a take-away flyer and a verbal announcement. Twenty-five comments received were incorporated into the discussion of needs, goals and objectives along with comments from the public workshops, summarized in Appendix D. Additional Stakeholder Meetings As part of the update process, team members attended meetings of several existing groups for discussion opportunities about unmet transportation needs in February and March. Although the format of these meetings varied, where possible the study team provided a brief introduction about the Coordination Plan and Update process, also educating stakeholder participants about RCTC's functions and transportation planning responsibilities. The following groups offered comment on transportation needs and mobility issues of their clients: • Inland Empire Veterans Collaborative on Homelessness • Riverside County DPSS, Children Services, System Improvement Plan Subcommittee • The Galilee Center and F.I.N.D. Food Bank in Eastern Coachella Valley • Riverside County Office on Aging's Aging and Disability Resource Center, Stakeholder Advisory Group 20 123 • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County What Did We Learn-What Needs Were Reported? Summarized needs reported at the Community Workshops, through emails and at additional stakeholder meetings follow. Need-related findings are organized by five sub-areas of the County, then by trip type and target population within sub-area. Palo Verde Valley -Blythe 1. NEEDS BY TRIP TYPE • Need increased morning service and expanded evening hours to Chuckwalla and Ironwood State Prisons for employees. PVVTA currently offers 4 morning and 4 evening runs; however, the 7:20am run is at capacity, so many potential riders cannot take the bus. Also, the last bus leaves at the Prisons at 4:30 pm, but there are employees who end work at 10:00 pm who would potentially ride the bus if available. • Need expanded evening hours serving Palo Verde College and Mesa Verde. DPSS clients take classes that may end at 8:45 am or 9:45 pm and need transportation home. • • • Need expanded evening hours from DPSS offices (near Blythe Transit Center) to remote areas of Ripley, Mesa Verde, and Palo Verde. DPSS has trainings that run weekdays until 4 pm and clients need transportation home. Evening hours needed in Ripley and Mesa Verde . Transportation for medical appointments in Imperial Valley, Coachella Valley. Destinations include Eisenhower in Palm Desert, JFK in Indio, and Desert Regional in Palm Springs. • Need transportation for employees to Chiraco Summit and Desert Center, east of Blythe. • Need increased frequency within Blythe. The wait can be 2 hours. 2. NEEDS BY TARGET POPULATION OLDER ADULTS/ PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES: • Residents of Blythe Nursing Care Center often need non-emergency transportation from local Palo Verde Hospital to the Care Center. • Residents of Blythe Nursing Care Center often need non-emergency transportation from Coachella Valley to Care Center . 21 124 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Western Riverside County 1. NEEDS BY TRIP TYPE • Lack of evening transportation. There are 2-1-1 callers needing to get to a shelter for the evening, but there is often no service past 7 pm. Additionally, social service agencies may host parenting classes and counseling at churches and community center. These locations are often not served by public transit in the evening (or routes differ during evening hours) and clients have no transportation home. • Lack of accessibility due to information public transportation. Riders report lack of information regarding trip planning, especially for indivicjuals without internet access. Also due to a lack of information, riders report hesitation related to not knowing where and how to start and concerns about getting lost, particularlyat night. • Route from Moreno Valley Mall to Box Springs and Eucalyptus in the City of Riverside to provide access to employment and access to Platt College for students. • Expanded evening hours serving Fox Theatre in Downtown Riverside so residents can attend evening events. • Need increased frequency on RT A Route 1. • More service is needed along River Road in Coron~. 2. NEEDS BY TARGET POPULATION . LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS • Fares are too high for homeless clients trying to get into the workforce and for families traveling with children. Individuals who are trying to find work as a way out of homelessness need transportation for work and work activities. • A free bus pass does not fix everything-is not a complete solution. Riders still have to walk to the stop or transit center and may have to transfer to arrive at their destination. Carpools and rideshares are an efficient way to get many people to the same location. • Need additional transportation in evening hours to accommodate non-traditional work hours. • Corona Cruiser and RTA should honor each other's' bus passes for round trip service, not just 1 way. DPSS customers who live in Corona end up needing 2 bus passes to get around. • Individuals who live in Rubidoux and Mira Lorna area need transportation for job and job- related activities. • Eastvale residents need Saturday transportation to Ontario and Montclair for work. • Eastvale residents need connections with Omnitrans to connect to business districts. 22 125 • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County HOMELESS VETERANS • Residentsof US Vets Center March AFB need early morning serviCe (6:00 am) to employment locations. • Existing fixed route service to VA lorna linda Hospital can take up to 2 Yz hours and 3 buses from the US Vets location. PEOPLE WITH DISABiliTES • Shared-ride paratransit trips can run late, but people with disabilities need transportation to enter the workforce. • Need expanded evening service hours until 5:30 pm. • RTA needs more vehicles to accommodate riders who use wheelchairs an~ may have to wait for the next bus. • Paratransit doesn't always work for dialysis patients due to fluctuation of appointment schedules or due to a patient's medical condition. • There still remain gaps in service, especially adequate and timely transportation services on weekends for persons with disabilities who are interested in participating in regular scheduled social service activities that: 1) occur on weekends, 2) occur at different locations, 3) require a driver/partner. South Western Riverside County-Wildomar 1. NEEDS BY TRIP TYPE • lack of transportation in unincorporated communities, particularly the Temescal Valley. • There are pockets of need in Menifee: • There is no service in the area North of McCall Blvd to Ethanac Road in Menifee. • There is no service in the area along 1-215 to the base of the mountains. • Service is needed between Newport Road and Scott Road and along both sides of 1-215. • Need increased frequency of routes 208 and 212 for afternoon trips into downtown Riverside. • Transportation needed along the 1-15 corridor. • Need connections between Corona and lake Elsinore along 1-15. • Need improved connections to the Corona Cruiser, from areas just beyond its service area. • Need connections to Corona Metrolink from Sycamore Creek and Trilogy, Temescal Valley • Al\l ,J' . ·l\1'· t\ A. . ~.~ .. . .. t .. ~" "'' .... _., .. ., ... ;. 23 126 2012 Upd<Jte to the Public Tr<Jnsit-Hum<~n Services Tr<~nsport<Jtion Coordin<~tion Pl<~n for Riverside County • Pockets of need in Sycamore Creek in the Temescal Valley. There is a need for connections to • the transit system so people can move independently to medical and social security appointments, etc. METROLINK-RELATED NEEDS • Need more weekend trains directly to LA. • In Pedley, there is need for increased frequency of trains. • Need Metrolink to extend South of Menifee to Murrieta. 2. NEEDS BY TARGET POPULATION LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS • Teenagers in the Temescal Valley need transportation in order to get jobs. • Students from the Temescal Valley need transportation to Riverside City College and UCR in Riverside. Morning classes begin at 8:00am. • Students need transportation from Riverside City College to Trilogy at 9:00pm. PEOPLE WITH DISABILITES • People with disabilities who live in the Temescal Valley have no transportation to work, school, shopping, or doctor's appointments. • People with disabilities need a central place to make connections. OLDER ADULTS • Residents of Trilogy/ Temescal Valley need transportation to doctor appointments and to Dos Lagos. Residents would like to be able to age-in-place. OLDER ADULTS, PEOPLE WITH DISABILITES, and LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS • Care A Van and other-such small providers report increasing difficulty in securing match for grant requests. Donations are down. • In order to expand, Care A Van needs equipment that is "flexible." Measure A funding expanded what services (and to whom) Care A Van can provide. • Transportation needs haven't changed; they are even greater since RTA reduced services. Care A Van regularly has 60-75 trip denials per month. Al\1 il.·l\, if .. i\ ..... J.. .. J. .... --"~" .. "'y "'•"""'""c>•<>- 24 127 • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Coachella Valley-Palm Desert 1. NEEDS BY TRIP TYPE • Lack of transportation in unincorporated areas, including the North Shore Area and communities of Mecca, Oasis and Thermal. • Lack of transportation in isolated communities, including pockets of need in Indio near the Jackson Street Bridge, Desert Edge and Thousand Palms. • Long walks to nearest bus stop in Thousand Palms, often in very high temperatures. • Need for Park & Ride lots in Desert Edge to connect it to existing services. There are many senior residents who drive, as well as 26 mobile home parks in this area. 2. NEEDS BY TARGET POPULATION LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS • Clients of Martha's Village in Indio need transportation to destinations in Western Riverside County, especially in Riverside and Moreno Valley • • PATH residents, several of whom have disabilities, need local transportation from the PATH facility in Indian Canyon, Palm Springs for shopping and medical trips. • Need transportation from Oasis to Coachella Valley for grocery shopping, appointments and work. This isolated, rural community only has a school, a clinic, and a fire station. Indio is the closest hospital. People do carpool to get to work or pay a neighbor $25 to get from North Shore to Coachella. • Need transportation for children in North Shore to get to the new Boys & Girls Club in Mecca. PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES • Desert ARC clients in rural areas can't access SunDial as they live beyond the% mile boundary. • Need evening transportation (10 pm) for clients to get home from non-traditional employment. Common job sites where clients need late night transportation are Eisenhower Medical Center, Ramon Road in Cathedral City, and JFK in Indio. • SunDial pick up window has too much variance and can be a very long wait for some riders. OLDER ADULTS • Older adults have to walk too far, often in the sun, to the closest bus stop in Thousand Palms area. The walk to the nearest bus stop for residents of Tri Palms, a senior community is% miles . 128 25 Coachella Valley-North Shore MEDICALLY RELATED TRIPS 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County • Need transportation for medical appointments from North Shore to Mecca, JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage, and to the Comprehensive Cancer Center Desert Regional Medical Center in Palm Springs, and the VA in Palm Desert. One pregnant resident needs to travel to Indio four times per week for prenatal appointments, twice per week to see her regular doctor, and twice per week to see a specialist for gestational diabetes. Another resident reported needing to travel to the Palm Springs Cancer Center once per week for chemotherapy treatments. Residents report needing to travel to the Palm Desert VA two times per month • Need transportation for medical appointments to Western Riverside County or out-of-county destinations, including Riverside County Medical Center in Moreno Valley and the VA in lorna linda. Residents report needing to travel to the lorna Linda VA two times per month. • Need transportation to pharmacies to purchase medications, including during the evening. Pharmacies are located in Coachella, Indio, Mecca and the Walmart in La Quinta. SHOPPING RELATED TRIPS • Need transportation, including during the evenings, to go grocery shopping in Coachella, Indio, • and the La Quinta Walmart. There is only one market in North Shore and it is very expensive • and offers limited choices. WORK RELATED TRIPS • Need transportation to the hotels in La Quinta for residents that are employees. • Need transportation for work related purposes, such as looking for work and interviews. • Farmworkers need transportation to farms along Highway 86 and in Mecca and Indio. SOCIAL I LIFE ENRICHING I ACTIVITIES-TYPE TRIPS?? • Need transportation to public parks in Mecca and Coachella. UNSERVED RURAL COMMUNITIES • Need transportation in Oasis, Mecca, Thermal, and the communities North of Highway 111, which are not served by public transit. • Need transportation in Palo Verde and Mesa Verde where only limited bus service is available . A)/Ll\. 'I'!\ .. LlJ .. ·""-. ·"'··· . . .L ..... ,. ''""'"~ 26 129 • • • • NEEDS BY TARGET POPULATION COLLEGE STUDENTS 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County • College students need transportation two to four times a week, including in the evenings, to College of the Desert in Palm Desert, as well as the Mecca-Thermal Center and the Eastern Valley Center in Indio. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS • Elementary school students need evening transportation (after 6 pm} home from the Boys and Girls Club in Mecca to North Shore. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS • The leaders of the North Shore community want to work with RCTC and Sun line to develop a plan for rural transportation because transportation is needed for medical, social, and educational purposes. Funds go to urban areas so these communities are underserved or unserved . 27 130 • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County V. What Priorities Will Address Identified Transportation Gaps? This concluding chapter summarizes the need and service gaps in terms of themes that surfaced through this Update effort. Priorities and steps for moving forward are enumerated. Themes in Unmet Transportation Needs and Service Gaps This 2012 Update provides a status report to Riverside County in relation to addressing mobility needs of its older residents, those with disabilities and persons of low-income. Sobering realities are reported. In relation to "demand," the county's population has increased by almost 40% during this past decade, adding almost a half-million more residents. Within this growth, the population of low-income individuals has grown at a higher rate, a 46% increase. Persons over age 65 have increased by 30%, a somewhat lower rate of growth. Adults with disabilities are almost 9% of the county's overall population, though changes in census reporting make it difficult to compare rates of change. Such population growth, generally and among these target groups, presents significant challenges to all public systems, including public transportation. This has been particularly so with the region's experience of the Great Recession. Public transportation, a significant part of the "supply side" in this equation, has realized continuing revenue losses. Though there may now be modest signs of recovery, the future funding base is far from certain. Reductions of the past several years in both Federal and State resources, as well as lower receipts on local transit funding, such as Measure A, all contributed to across-the-board measures to do more with less. Despite adding substantially more persons and grappling with revenue reductions over several years, Riverside County's public transit operators, along with a growing number of Specialized Transportation Projects, collectively increased the County's trips per capita measure by almost five percent during the past four years. More transit trips were taken, keeping pace with and even growing despite the significant population increases. Transit ridership grew in this four-year period from 13.9 million to 16 million passenger trips, with the trips per capita indicator growing also, from 6.9 trips per capita against the 2006 population of 2.0 million persons to 7.2 trips per capita against the 2011 Department of Finance population of 2.2 million residents. During this same period, RCTC has provided leadership that addresses issues raised in the 2008 plan. Significant initiatives were reported on in Section Ill previously. Three critical areas should be restated: >-RCTC has developed a vigorous 5-1-1 system for the Inland Empire that is fielding thousands of website hits and telephone calls monthly, from area residents and visitors in need of transportation information . 28 131 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County ~ · RITC has supported its public transit providers through difficult seasons of declining and uncertain revenues by assisting with cash flow issues, helping to back-fill lost revenues where possible and continuing to articulate a regional vision of mobility with supportive policy. ~ RITC has administered a complex Specialized Transportation Program, now anticipating its third two-year cycle that is directly addressing, in cost-effective ways, the types of trip need and transportation access issues laid out in the 2008 Coordinated Plan. The combined impact of these initiatives and those of Riverside County's public transit operators have contributed then to increasing transit ridership and a positive growth in the County's trips per capita indicator. Growing from 6.9 to 7.2 trips per capita, this almost a 5% increase is very encouraging, particularly in light of the reductions in transit service during this same period. Broad-based initiatives to increase transit utilization, probably coupled with concerns about rising gasoline prices, appear to be leading more people to the public transportation network. Despite growing ridership, this 2012 Update nonetheless identifies continuing and/or new unmet needs and service gaps for the target populations. Again, as in 2008, there was considerable attention to individualized needs in comments offered to the Update. Numerous sub-groups were identified among the Update's three target groups, including several new groups: • homeless veterans seeking employment • • • • • • • • • newly returning veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres, and their families; agricultural workers traveling from isolated areas to social services and grocery stores; low-income workers living in outlying rural areas and traveling into retail and hospitality employment; individuals without cars traveling to regional destinations; unemployed parents traveling to job interviews but also with day care needs; students traveling to community college and high schools without funds for fuel; older adults decreasing driving and exploring new mobility choices; persons with disabilities living just beyond transit's% mile ADA boundaries; families seeking reunification with children placed outside of the home, usually at some physical distance from the parents. This context of a growing population, increasing and greatly varying needs by the target groups of interest and extremely constrained resources must lay the foundation for priorities for moving forward. Exhibit 11 presents a compilation of the need and service gap categories enumerated in Section IV. This begins to suggest an outline for this 2012 Update of priority areas for improving the mobility of the target populations. 29 132 • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County 8. 9. Exhibit 11, Compiled Unmet Transportation Needs Expanded transit service operating hours and frequencies. Increasing transit's speed so that trips to regional destinations (work, medical) are not so long. 10. Addressing unserved geographic pockets, including areas where transit services were reduced. 11.. Improved interconnectivity. 12. Services targeted to specialized needs: non-emergency medical transportation and other specialized shuttles and services. 13. Improved connections between services: rail and transit; between jurisdictions. 14. Building capacity of human service providers to address specialized populations' trips through non-traditional modes. 7. Maintaining and expanding existing transit information tools. 8. Addressing safety and security concerns, through bus stop amenities, lighting and paths of access. 9. Travel training to individuals and agency stakeholders to learn· about and to use available public transit. 10. Expanding information tools supporting specialized populations' travel, including veterans, older adults decreasing driving and non-English speaking residents and other targeted sub-groups. 11. Supporting vehicle equipment that ensures lift-equipped vehicle availability that is safe and reliable. 12. Supporting technology innovations that promote service reliability, safety and cost-effectiveness. Establishing 2012 Coordinated Plan Priorities Exhibit 11 above consolidates the many issues raised by commenters during this update process into two general areas. One, Maintaining and Building Capacity to Meet Individualized Needs speaks to getting transit services on the street responsive to the breadth and types of needs and service gaps raised. The second, Promoting Transportation Access and Information Portals, addresses various infrastructure requirements that either aid and support vehicle operations or are important to bringing more members of the target groups to public transportation. To move to the Plan's required prioritization, Exhibit 12 following over the next three pages, reworks the user-based information set forth previously and addresses other themes raised in this concluding section. Presented here are three goals, associated objectives and possible solutions or projects. These represent this Update's revisited priorities reflecting current conditions . A l\; ..... l\/1· !\ ... . . . ....... . t ~ ~ .... " "'~ .. "' .,, .. ,.. 30 133 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Exhibit 12, Recommended 2012 Coordinated Plan Update Priority Areas PRIORITIZED TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND PROJECTS OBJECTIVES GOALl: MAINTAINING AND BUILDING CAPACITY TO MEET INDIVIDUALIZED NEEDS 1.1 Expanded fixed-route services -Increase operating hours to address 200 and 3rcr shift travel and Sunday or early-morning employment -Increase service frequencies on routes with high employment densities and/or medical or educational facilities to shorten trips and improve connections -Address unserved pockets, expanding fixed-route where feasible and where high transit dependence suggests sustainable ridership levels 1.2 Improved interconnectivity -Projects improving transit between jurisdictions and sub- regions -Increased transit frequencies with attention to tighter connections with Metrolink and Greyhound 1.3 Purpose-specific regional services -Non-emergency medical transportation projects -Veterans or other special group shuttles -Agricultural workers' shuttles -Riders with disabilities living outside the ADA % mile boundary 1.4 Expanded capacity of targeted human -Client-group specific transportation projects that do not service transportation duplicate or supplant existing services and address unmet transportation needs -Client-group specific transportation projects that provide high levels of personal assistance to riders with such needs -Support agency-based training oriented t'o improving the reliability, safety and cost-effectiveness of human service agency transportation 31 134 • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Exhibit 12, page two continued PRIORITIZED TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND PROJECTS STRATEGIES GOAL2: PROMOTING TRANSPORTATION ACCESS AND INFORMATION PORTALS 2.1 Expanded transit information portals -Information project continuing support for IE-511 and of RCTC's web-based links to specialized transportation -Support of IE Veterans One-Call/ One-Click initiative -Support of human service agency-based initiatives that link to public transportation resources -Support of individualized rider-based information, such as Google Transit and othertrip planner initiatives 2.2 Promoting travel training -Travel training targeted to particular markets: non-English speaking individuals, older persons reducing driving, low- income youth, persons using ADA but who could use fixed- route for some trips -Travel training tools for gatekeeper staff, human service agency personnel who interact with consumers and who would benefit from a rudimentary knowledge of available public transit in Riverside County 2.3 Targeted mobility management -Developing mobility management tools where these can initiatives address particular service gaps or unserved trip needs for the target population or sub-groups 2.4. Capital projects supporting transit -Capital requests that provide lift-equipped vehicles and accessibility or safety for use by the target increasing accessibility populations -Capital projects that support bus stop accessibility, improved path-of-access or bus stop safety through lighting, shelter and bus stop amenities 2.5 Capital projects for innovative technology -Capital requests for technology that can improve on-time to improve reliability or cost-effectiveness of performance or service reliability services to the target populations -Capital requests that increase cost-effectiveness by improving efficiencies 32 135 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Exhibit 12, page three continued PRIORITIZED TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND PROJECTS STRATEGIES GOAL 3: COORDINATION LEADERSHIP 3.1 Continuing to promote coordination between public transit and human services organizations -Continuing maintenance of Transportation Network- Stakeholders database and promotion of its value to human service agencies and other networks -Participation by transit representatives in various coalitions and collaborative groups such as the Veterans Homeless Coalition, the Inland Empire Disabilities Collaborative and others 3.2 Continuing Specialized Transportation Call -Continuing biennial or every three-year call for RCTC's for Project administration Specialized Transportation Call for Projects to invite grant applications for funds available -Continuing RCTC technical assistance to agencies proposing projects consistent with identified needs -Continuing RCTC administrative support to ensure that successful Call recipients can comply with relevant Federal regulation, through field audits and invoice concurrence process 3.3 Reporting on outcomes and successes for -Continued periodic summary reports on RCTC's Specialized transit funding invested Implementing 2012 Priorities Transportation Program -Ensuring "credit" to the public transit operators for initiatives that promote coordination with human service organizations around addressing needs of the target populations -Promoting the initiatives of human services agencies that work effectively with Riverside County public transit operators Underlying this Update process is the challenge of needs versus resources. Needs will always exceed resources given that public transportation funding will never be sufficient even with an improving economy. This is particularly so in the large geographic areas comprising Riverside County. The other reality underlying this picture is that population growth has been substantial over the past decade and does not appear to be abating, given Riverside County's mantle as the State's single-fastest growing county in terms of percentage increases. This continuing growth in population underscores the legitimacy of a continuing emphasis on trips. Provision of trips, trips, trips remains an important first-level priority, given the overall increases in \ l\: 11 ·1\~1· · 1\ _ .. _. . ... ~.-. r ··-········--··· 33 136 • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County population, the growth among the target populations and the challenges of simply staying even. The trips per capita measure, which is an indicator of the "volume" of transit services in relation to population, becomes one means by which to assess whether Riverside County is holding its own in relation to specialized transportation or not, given this continuing population growth. In Exhibit 12, Goal 1-Maintaining and Building Capacity to Meet Individualized Needs supports this continued orientation to the provision of trips. But also important to the provision of trips are those infrastructure and administrative actions that enable trips to be provided. Exhibit 12's Goal 2-Promoting Transportation Access and Information Portals and Goal 3-Coordination Leadership reflect various strategies and projects that support and enable target group members to safely access available public transportation. In terms of establishing project evaluation criteria, assuming that the levels of funding available will always be less than funds requested, one approach will be to ensure that the majority of funds go to support trips (Goal1) but that some portion is reserved in the event there are viable projects in support of Goal 2 or Goal3. This could follow the current funding allocation which, in the most recent two~year cycle, provided about 85% of total awarded funds to operations, Goall type projects, and less than 15% of total funds to Goals 2 and 3 infrastructure-related projects. The single most important consideration, in selecting projects for funding, will continue to be the extent to which the project satisfactorily addresses and/or resolves identified transportation needs of the targeted group of prospective riders. Criteria of continuing importance to be considered in project selection are the following: 1. Project derived from the locally developed coordinated plan/plan update. 2. Project adequately addresses the unmet/underserved and individualized needs of the target population. 3. Project leverages from sources, including non-transit funding sources, and maximizes available funding by ensuring a cost-effective project. 4. Project does not duplicate existing public transportation services and clearly demonstrates why these trips cannot be provided by or on existing public transportation. 5. Project maintains consistency with current Federal and State funding regulations and requirements 6. Project includes measurable goals and objectives. In the evaluation process, both for new projects and for continuing projects, attention should be paid to the relative cost-effectiveness of a project. Define how much is being secured for the funds provided. And the historical experience of the project is particularly important for continuing initiatives. Determine whether the project achieved or came close to its previously stated goals. Determine whether there were extenuating circumstances as to why that was not possible. These considerations are particularly important when funds are limited . 34 137 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Appendices Appendix A: 2010 Census, Riverside County Work Area Profile Report Appendix B: RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program FY 09/10 Trips and Cost Detail by Proj~ct Appendix C: Workshop Announcement Invitation and Spanish Flyer Appendix D: Summary of Comments Received by RCTC Via Email Appendix E: Riverside County's Transportation Stakeholder Database Agencies, 2011 Al\c ,•1' . ·l\·1• 1\ . .l--. .l ....... . • .... ... "' .. , y "'~ .. "' .... ...: 138 35 • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Appendix A: 2010 Census, Riverside County Work Area Profile Report Work Area Profile Report Total All Jobs Total All Jobs Jobs by Worker Age Age 29 or younger Age30to54 Age 55 or older Jobs by Earnings $1 ,250 per month or less $1,251 to $3,333 per month More than $3,333 per month Jobs by NAICS Industry Sector Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Mining, Qua~T}ing, and m and Gas Extraction utilities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Reta~ Trade Transportation and Warehousing Information Finance and Insuran-ce Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Management of Companies and Enterprises Adrninistralion & Support, Waste Management and Remediatton Educational Services Health Care and Social Assistarce Arts, Entertainment, and Recreatton Acrommodatioo and Food Services Other Services (excluding Public Administration) Public Administration 139 2010 Count Share 564,071 100J)% 2010 Count Share 152,729 27.1% 313,312 5£.4% 93,030 16.5% 2010 Count Share 157,800 28.0% 221,603 39_3% 184,578 32.7% 2010 Count Share 14)}93 2.6% 540 0.1% 4,703 !18% 35,135 6.2% 37,373 6.6% 21,006-3.7% 74,519 13.2% 17,918 3.2% 6,933 1.2% 11,589 2.1% 8,410 1.5% 20,871 3.7% 3,355 0_6% 32,081 5.7% 69,1385 12.4% 69.428 123% 20,068 3.6% 65,422 11.6% 27,174 4.8% 22,903 4.1% GISWS-1 of 2 . 36 Jobs by Worker Race White Alone Black or Amcan American Alone American Inman or Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone Two or More Race Groups Jobs by Worker Ethnidty Not Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino Jobs by Worker Educational Attainment less than high school High school or equivalent, oo college Some college or Associate degree Bachelor's degree or adv-anced degree 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County 2010 Count Shate 400,747 31.7% 37,637 tU% 8,019 1.4% 43,916 7.8% 2,155 0.4% 11,547 2.0% 2010 Count Shate 342,358 60.7% 221,713 39.3% 2010 Count Shate 89j117 15.9% 91,030 HU% 129,618 23.0% 100,727 17.9% Educational attainment not available (workers aged 29 or younger) 152,729 27_1nk Jobs by Worker Sex Male Female A·l\, il' ·}\: ;T. !\ A. • .. J.. l . .~o. .. ·'"'""'"'""""""'"''"'"" 140·, 2010 Count Shate 278,765 49.4% 285,306 50.6% GIS'.VS -2 of 2 37 • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Appendix B: RCTC Specialized Transportation Program, FY 09/10 Trip and Cost Detail ~ [1] Volunteer bus pass trips are for RTA fixed-Route service *Cost per subsidy for Sun line Extended Late Night Service only represents 10 months of service, with a subsidy calculated as a monthly average based on the total project subsidy over a 19 month period covering two fiscal years. ~~ ·1\,1-lVf ·A .i. '\ ...... ' •••• ., .. 141 38 • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Appendix C: Workshop Announcement Invitation and Spanish- Language Flyer January 3, 2012 To: Agency I Organization Representatives 4080 Lemon St.·w, 3rd f!oor • Rivers;de, CA /Aoil;ng Addres.' f' 0. Box 170GB • Riverside, CA 9'250'2-2208 (95Jt 78 7-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rcl<.org From: Robert Yates, Multi Modal Services Director Subject: Public Workshops for the 2012 Update to the Coordinated Plan The Riverside County Transportation Commission is updating The Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County. This plan, originally developed in 2008, addresses unmet specialized transportation needs in relation to several Federal funding sources: • Section 5316-Job Access and Reverse Commute program: provides funding to improve transportation services for employment and employment related activities for eligible low- income individuals; • Section 5317-New Freedom program: provides funding to support new alternatives to public transportation that extend beyond the ADA for persons with disabilities; and • Section 5310-Seniors and Persons with Disabilities capital program: awards capital funding to private, non-profit organizations serving the transportation needs of older adults and persons with disabilities. These funding sources rely on a competitive process through a Commission-approved application that occurs every two years. The results of public workshops are factored into the applications so that the funding addresses the identified needs. A significant portion of the Coordinated Plan relies upon public outreach to identify unmet specialized transportation needs for older adults, persons with disabilities, and persons of low- income. Please help us in spreading the word about several public workshops happening across Riverside County in January. The enclosed flyers can be posted at your locations or passed onto colleagues who work with the target populations. Thank you for your partnership in promoting these important public workshops. Robert Yates 142 39 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Denos a conocer sus preocupaciones de transportacion! Esta es su opor:tunidad para ayudarnos a actualizar el Plan de Coordination de Servicios de Transporte/ Transporte Publico del Condado de Riverside Ayudenos a identificar sus necesidades de tranSeporte y contribuya a los esfuerzos de planeaci6n del Condado de Riverside para Ia proxima decada. Unase a Ia Comision de Transj:wrte del Condado de Riverside para comunicarnos sus preocupaciones de transporte: • Falta de enlace en el servicio (lD6nde hace falta el servlcio?) • Necesidades de transportaci6n que no han sido atendidas dentro del Condado de River£ide • Necesidades de movilizacion de personas mayores, gentes con incapaddades y personas de bajos ingresos Talleres Coordinados de ActuaUzaci6n del Plan . . Blythe i1 de £nero, 1012-Miercoles, 10 am-12 pm City of Blythe council chambers .1:?5 N. Broadway, Blythe, CA 92225 Palm Desert 1r d~ ~~ero, ~12:-Miercoles, 1:30pm ~;4:30pm Pa'fh,>i~w Btilli:liog, Conference Room 119 .. 73-710Fr~d wartng Drive, Palm De.sert,(.A:922oo Partic.ipantes lnvita.dos: Usu.a-rios doe trans--porte pUbHco,. r-epr~sen.tant-es de las ag-e-ncias de servicios soc:iat:e-s .. ==...,.,..~_,__Pr~~·e~~o!:~~~!!!!,~P.5?~~~!'"~!s*~d~~~~.n Ia co~~!~~ d" a.g~~!!!-.~"'~"~~ por!!_,~~--~~_y _ _!!:_,.P_?_~iic~--~" ge n:~~l :,.--.~~. <_No puede a:sistir affinguna de est-as rew»ones? Puede-envi:amru sus COl'JlentaTios acerca de sus nec.esidade:s. de trarupcrt-e pe-r ctxTeo etec::trOnico a: PlanUpdate@hotmaij.rom, ttasta ~ 15 de Febn>ro del .ID12. .P~ra mayor iMonm;;o,dOr~ por ~~ Jb.me ~: f951}7S7·71411 RCTC-jo~n•O~~te.o (951} 784-1333 t AMMA T~n.ut ?l .. •nlhS:-tk-.ther Me!Y'§~e 143 40 • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Appendix D: Summary of Comments Received by RCTC via Email Palo Verde Valley 1} Buses going from Blythe to Ironwood and Chuckawalla Valley State Prisons are at capacity. More employees would use it if there was a larger bus (7:20 Route Red). There is also a need for 1 or two more runs as there isn't public transportation for some shifts: many employees get off at 2pm. 2) Suggest adding one run to Chuckawalla Valley State Prison that would get people to work a little before 2pm and pick them up at lOpm. Coachella Valley 1) Service from Palm Springs Airport to eastern valley destinations. 2) Improved Sunline bus stop amenities including lighting and shading. 3) Increased bus stops. 4) Transportation needed, including a stop, in Thermal (Vista Santa Rosa neighborhood on Jackson St. and Airport Blvd.) for low-income families, students and working teenagers, many who have to walk along dangerous roads. 5) Currently, a study is being conducted of the unmet transportation needs of some communities in the Eastern Coachella Valley. We suggest that RCTC and CVAG should work with HARC and others involved in that project to expand the investigation to the entire Coachella Valley. Western Riverside 1} Request a route from Moreno Valley (Mall) to or near Box Springs and Eucalyptus in the City of Riverside to provide access to employment. There is also a new college in this area, Platt College, and many students may want to get to this area by bus. 2) Request for evening transportation, or weekend evenings, serving Fox theatre, so residents can return home from event. 3} Increased frequency on RTA Line 1. 4} RTA should not charge a fare for babies that don't walk. 5} RTA needs more vehicles to accommodate riders who use wheelchairs and may have to wait for the next bus . 41 144 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County 6) Suggest Corona Cruiser and RTA honor each other's bus passes for round trip service, not just 1 way. We have many customers who live in Corona who end up needing 2 bus passes to get around. · Southwestern Riverside 1) In Norco: Along Sixth Street (business area) a bus line is needed so it is possible to transfer to route# 3 for seniors, students with disabilities, residents, business employees. 2) A tunnel between Route 5 and Route 15 (connecting to Irvine and Riverside) instead of Ortega Highway, which can be a difficult road for many seniors to drive. 3) Parents cannot get children classes at Saint Frances of Rome in Wildomar because there is no transportation. 4) Transportation is needed at Indian Truck Trail. 5) There are pockets of need in Lake Elsinore Area: • Quail Valley -In order to get to MSJC or 215/Haun (the big Target Plaza) from Quail Valley- riders have to make a transfer and the trip takes 1 hour and 15. • Bus services in that area stops at 6:00 pm. Those who have later jobs and school schedules can't get back into Quail Valley. Transportation has always been very limited there. There is still only one bus stop in the whole city. • Lake Elsinore DPSS-A stop is needed in front of the DPSS building to make traveling there easier and safer for clients. There is no sidewalk from Chaney along Minthorn to the DPSS building and many clients walk with strollers along the road. Clients with children also walk from Main or Collier to the DPSS office on muddy, unpaved sidewalks. 6) In Temecula, there is very little bus service. My high schooler has to walk 3.3 miles one way to school and then home again. The best that they could do was pick up in front of the school and then drop off 1 mile down the road so my high schooler still had to walk 2.3 miles one way. That is a long way given their heavy load with school books etc. 7) Could we make this more appealing and doable for teenagers? I feel like the community in Temecula/Murrieta drive everywhere because they have to. I love public transportation but feel that we are losing an entire generation because they do not even understand how it works or why it benefits them. We need to invite teenagers to ride the bus, not discourage them. 8) Need more bus lines up the 15 freeway from Elsinore to Corona/Norco, ie: Dawson Canyon, Eagle Glen, etc. Many of our customers live in the newer housing tracks off the 15 freeway in that stretch, and buses are few, are far between, or non-existent. I would like to see more bus routes in Eastvale. 42 145 • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County 9) Pockets of Need in Temescal Valley I Sycamore Creek I Trilogy: • Please consider having at least one evening and one morning bus from Sycamore creek/Trilogy and/or Horsethief into Corona so those of us at or near retirement age can connect with public transportation, such as Metrolink into Corona and Riverside so we can keep our tax spending dollars in our own county. • Residents in Sycamore Creek without cars are isolated from any city. Transportation needs to be provided for the disabled, those with illnesses, and older adults. • We need transportation in this area. We had good representation at the Riverside Public Workshop to state we needed transportation in the Temescal Valley. • We need some type of public transportation in the Temescal Valley area. There are teens that would like to go shopping to the movies or visit friends. Transportation does not have to be a large bus but a small van with a schedule that is agreeable upon by the residents. The bus only has to go to a nearby high public area. • I serve on the Board of Emissaries of Divine light who owns and operates The Glen Ivy Center, a spiritual conference and retreat center, residential community and which includes Glen Ivy Farm. I also sit on the Board of Glen Ivy Hot Springs Spa. These two operations, together, occupy 82 acres in Temescal Valley and employ over 250 people. The improvement of public transportation in our area of Riverside County would certainly enhance the attractiveness and profitability of the region. I support an effort to improve our infrastructure. I look forward to further developments . • Glen Ivy Hot Springs participates in various Employee Ride-Share Programs and would certainly welcome any expanded opportunities for public transportation that might better serve our employees and guests. • I have lived in Temescal Valley for about 14 years and I am also legally blind. Without public transportation I am unable to get to stores, doctor appointments, school or even to work. I also know that I am not the only person in this area who wants or needs public transportation. • Trilogy of Glen Ivy is a 55 and older complex where public transportation is badly needed. Residents need to get to Dos Lagos and to doctor appointments. People with Disabilities 1) There still remain gaps in service, especially adequate and timely transportation services on weekends for persons with disabilities who are interested in participating in regular scheduled social service activities that: 1) occur on weekends, 2) occur at different locations, 3) require a driver/partner. Funding 1) Suggest make funding available to private non-profit corporations (such as Blindness Support Services) to provide private transportation service to eligible consumers involved in social service activities. For instance, funds can be used to hire 5 part-time drivers/guides who will be responsible for 43 146 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County picking up program participants, serve as guides, and returning them home once the organized activities are completed. 2) We urge that the Coachella Valley Association of Governments reconsider the manner in which Measure A funds are currently passed on to Sunline and Coachella Valley cities to insure that at least a reasonable portion of Measure A funds are used to insure that accessible, acceptable and affordable specialized service options are available for older adults, people with disabilities and persons of low- income in the Desert. 44 147 ·--"4- • • • • • • 2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Appendix E: Transportation Stakeholder Database Agencies, 2011 [Note; email arid surface mail distribution lists were larger than this. The following organizations responded to RCTC's 2010 invitation to be listed in Riverside County's Transportation Stakeholder Database.] ,A~Pi!'~~" 'Ba-~~~ fass_1_:r~~~!~rl ;_s..-.n~ir9_ Un~~-~--9.tst0,ct Riverside County Transportation Commission. Network Card Stakeholder Agencies v~re~, ~; ~~ ~~~M~~~~~v ~o w._'h:ii~~E-.t·=-~" , ~~h:}'~~" ""wm~;,« QL27'Q~,,.,., '""~-~?>~~~~~---QN,U 0 ~,~-:_1-~<<y _ea~f.liT!~L~-.. -~~!9"~Uc CA CA "" 51~??g" j~s_i,~.}?S~~~~~~~--"~""~--~u" "'"''~-~''''' "y"~<~__..:1.~!~-~ ·--~~"~ .~"-""''~:!~~-~-~!X,.,,.~"=-~~·"""'·«·• E:~-.,,~'""''~ CA ~?All"o'~"'-'" l Beaumon: !Jrn'!W<:I Schod D3v'.d Williams PO Box 18.7 Baauroom CA 92223 !lll€~S '{:?'!.,~~!,.,~·" Hbry?l)~~~ §.~~ ~WWON -~;!,,,~~" '"~1~-~y }~'~~~s.-~--~~~.n<>es ;~~~~~p~~-~Ro/-'. ~=~vl~P"'"~'"~UN Oru::. -.~:~-~-~i~-~!~-~-~~~S?~~- __ Cahu;i!!~!'..$~~-~~J~"""'w' i~!~i'nr!'~~}?.!~o£~.~~-~"•'<~~<'<o~ff,­ :~,~~I~~M~S Prow~v~~~~wr : C:;:-l,:!,.C,onnexxus:_.~:/~'~~~,~Y-~,~-~ w< ·ca~,~t!~ ot~~~~~~ ,C?athcti:!,~,~-~~, ; ~~hclic ~~!!~~s 'Cathdic Charities :~a)!ld~~~Eti<es-~~n ~~~~iv~-~e, Sit>J,~~,~,,,, cr.;-o;rye:!!~ Ci~· ?!'.~~'"'? v~ _C!~ of N~ ~a~~ ~S:~Io/. o! ~~00-~~~~ru~ ;~1':)' o~-~~'e;~~~-~~~~-!~~-~t.?n.~~~~ }£~,cl1ei~X~~~~~A~~F~!;._, ;~~-~~Of !~3=.~.~ ;,~mu~!~.:~:;~~.!~r»>Y C~~~t!y Acti~-~~-~Ep C:ommu.~}.o/,~.~ Coar:try Vii!i~Q'2 Senror Service-s ~nr.5 ~-B~~d?'.il Dep~~~~,~bi>C~I-~~-~s c -~p.'i-"!"lrneflt ~ ~~~~-~~ ~~}~w•r ;De-.s..=n.Atc ~~--~~-}~?!,~~rif!Qs:?~~~ent~, [);e.s.~--~T~~.sr,s ~<?: Th~ _E~y~ De-sert :'E..:iir-,ds Unifie-d SchOO U:s1rict <OPS-S ,. '' "' ~EMQ ~a<T~iliE-$ Firs! :~:<~EEi? 'Fir~ 5-~~ve~id~ (~r-'imd~ nt Ma-~c ',i~ey ~'"!i?' ~~~-}~: ~f~:~:.?~tt~~ .. ~~:!1.1 oaxc-.are-~~-~ ~ ~ ui.urc-!ntan~Ef '~'EChA~Vrv~ ' '''~~~!ru ~~'""''' ,T~~~v • \~~v '~ ' -~ ~~·~!"?vr r ~~=v=,, < _K~og-~~:~E,, •••~~~~·,,~v-,L~':'? •.. ~ .. ~~ ~~rry ~~~-- Da~.~-W·ilscn "~?a-, Marque-z -~~~~ ~.-·-o~-~"~-~~~0.:, .. ~ , ... !>~ .. "v "~~~'!~11 '~~~':~'­ .~, t.j~rc ~~~~-e Pat ~' ~-~~'~ , .. !?Ja-aion! ._,t~r~ .. ~'"'!!' E~r." Aw~-~~~n -~yyt~son --~"~??~.~~a~ , ~~... ,-~-~~s, ~-,~~ro:, ,.,,~tOCC<;J. Het"tTiiim ~., ~-&~-!- Gary 'Hhite .. ~tt ~!~ .~~~-~~- L~ .~~-~~ .J.-Unkp~' ~r:~s-~rc ..... ,_DD~y--~ '" _Greu_~~~, ~~J """~~..t~' Teri· Amikhan ~696 ~~N~.;~, 3~!?~~~,Q_~~v~~~ ,,P·?· .. ~-~-~~ f!?I.~ .. ~!:Y!f:f __ 3J,1 ... , '~ ~!..~:!2~~!~ .. ~~vt 41:30~.,~--~~~·;.. ~ ?~~~~sa~-~~~. ,__,_ .. ?,~ .. ! ,~· ,o, ~~ !'~·-~~ .... ,-~'( ~ 11 .. , ........ Ri~ ~~R!¥~~~' ,~,~~y~_y ~,~"~''"~'""'~ .~iV£?~ '''""'~·~, ~~~~-.~ CA _?-af!.B~~':'.~':l9 , ,~, P-.i·~~ CA ~~~s.Y~~.Y c ' r 0 ""' ,~?~~.~ 2:!-621-~un~~E:.~ ~t··?;. SW E v':'(~ s_ '{~a.~,~~'!"" .. 44f!E.F~J;-;~, .. , ... c~:·:r~~=-=" CA . ~ ~ 9?~.,a7~~2~11?Z '" '""' """~~<=WhW CA w ??~~' P.q-. Bo~-~-~?~w. "~' ~ ~??~,~~':"'~AVEnUe "'"'~~~~)' vh~r 92552..0005 ?,~~!} ~~~ A--.;e ~,c~e--u~~.:~··~.J~!4~:,!:: "_73··? ~0 Fre-d_ ~~~.,~;,.§u~, 2.~ , ~'~~~~,~lon~=~~-,.-·~ '38:4? M~g~(':~~ ._3-te. t50 ~ro~.t .. ~~~ St ~e 51~2, Norco CA ,g?~ .. , Nowo !3!.~~l~~.. fA p~~~Wr<~,~~~.!:!:,._ r , Pa~, 9e'~~~--N« , "" ._ ,~!+-;._ .~2~ 02.."00 \12200 P.O. B"OX 5:!?.~~,w~,--'~~;?,~,, ~G24l Coenhy C!:uh nn .. ~. Sur-.e-S ft.-lVa Lorna ,CA CA . CA , .. :9?:.~~; ·?,~:n,_ 9t752 ~23~ Arim~~,~~; 7~.~ c•c ,.:4~c,~~c~~~"'?" 7:!-~!·5 t;:CX!~.~~u?. ?~2~-~~Ciub~ t ~-~i?.!!'~~v~~ '"~,-~'~-~''' -~!~~"~" CA g251)3 ~"NE.~~;....~~'~ CA .??:g___~""N Palm De-sert CA fl2200 .P.O._B_?~:p~7 Palm-Des~~. '"~~·~,,, Y,2,;_?_5-??6! 47-950 Dune P.sms R03d La Quinta CA {:1225-3 2~} t J Cc!~~-~t; ~ldg-~ .2J:d -~to~-"=~,'i,~~ CA -925fr5 "~·~"?N.~~~.~~L~te,."~ «·-s~g-em~"~ttlnO <;A "924P1 .. , 12.~-!.:~.,Santa~_e •w--.. ~-~~~, CA Q;l54~"' 2t.'9.?~:!owa A'.<-enve-Slll>b? 1C<O RiversidE? CA ~?,§~?!:.. -~ 26075 F~r A~~---~~10:~ Vai-ley CA Q255} 700 V¥":5t -~~~-~~:e;-~-uit'! ,!03 , , ~ ., CA gz~? "1Et''-'~e~r~:=:,!!~-...#1:o 9::'.?:·u> C.ll. {}1?_82 8~-:0.!::::...~~~e St.~ He-mel: CA Q2543 45 148 2012 Update. to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County Riverside County Transportation Commission Network Card Stakeholder Agencies Address l!'~~~ent-~,~~!'~~!R-~ "~'A-w~~~~~~., ,,NN~~~~~~ ~ t~~~~-~-~~-"''"~ t!~~~?!l~,~~~.fl~-~-'P -~,~~t_l~Nji!_i(P~~ . ._ .,,~.~~!!<» '-~~~-!,=~o•=•• '13~5fiive!'C~,?!i'~n~~-E-=nw '"'"'".V.~·~,::~n-~ ~~.'!:~~'"'N·"""'"" \ !rnand NOS Pro~""1 l t~~-d_Ery:~.~~lt~:,..~~", _D. Joy Gould .~~~ .•.....•• !,'~ :i~!~~;~~~~L2!;~!~rANV< :T~~}~~~p~n~~ .A.I1! .. dw.~.n)"t~""&i~~ ~~~-w~·nnv =-~==~- t~'ish ~-a:mi~_Y.~_p_f_~}?.~'! --,~--=-~ Lois :~~VN~-~01~ MicheUe i ~ ~"~r:~y .~:O~li'.E of tlle __ ~-~r;m l.L.~n Social S€"f';ices t N .oo.o_, :~fj_ ~~'@ry~er" 'Mi'?'ll? .. ~ .. P\~'."CY~Y. '(Ol:~5??~0!tf~-~:-!'"'" '~~~~~-~~~®ws ~~ ~E?UP. :03fo: -~~ Cent~r }~~~ v~ yn!~ -~choof D's~'"""' i Path of Uh: Ministrie-.-s r-••UA C" c -,~-v· '~" ~~~nt-Qj~,%.:v,<~v=u.vw·~=~'"N< ~cy .. ~!~~~"M. ~a. . ~. , l>-!?!~~·:~L , Wasker ~ .. R~S:~-,.~ ~1?,~~-' ,~./~~~''' ~~s~~-Y!,~~!.~<r.~~~~ ,-RnOOa --~itt;,, l-~!£3~~c ... ,A·~~h·"-~====«~.<>~ '"~'''~V<=<o•=-=-~~CO ,~?£~. '~\~.~Co~E~!.~~:~~Offic:E~~"'""m~•~"~~~S, ... ~P~~~~"" t~~~~~-~~tJ~~~.t~.A~~~e~~~--, ,,~, '""'··~--~~~«~ t~r~J?e ~E.!P~!?!.Pu?!ic)~~~. c;~~~·'" --~,~~~~ :~~~-~~-~t,. _Dep~';!.?!~~?jli!a:Wr;, ~i~i_?e:.~tf Dept. 9~~~-t:!~~::. ~Et~~~~ttP1~ ,~~4=-·"'·' ·~·~"" ',~~~ .. ~-~ty P.e-pton~£~~ .. £~.ter," ~~~ .. ~~ide ~o/ .. ~::s~ta~ ~$e ~~i~e~~ ~Y~~e~--~~--~f, , ~~r~ .... ,_ .. lisa ·~~" ~Jeidlinper Dar-Khan .~trYNi ... '"'='~"""'~"""'"' . . ?.0. Bo;lt 6~27 383:9 Bf'tX::k:ton A>H!: ' ' --, o~~,~.,~;,!.~,~.!ov ~8:-:~~'£-dJey~ 61~!1?D~rCa~B~!i ,?-~· ~-~. _":JTi2 Taft Str~ 5270 _Ari~T~~$100 A~ • Z26~~~ess..mdro .. ~~~_;__£,"~~-~~·w•, :~~~~'!~?cit?~ ae.~-~p.,.,,. :?4::75 J~f!'-2-f"'SOr.. Avenue P.O. B<»t 1445 ' -' . -· }3,~ ~~-39"~ -~·~·" ":::..~,~~,~~:-~~::!~~:.:~~" <P;9o~.x,.goo~". "' 47-~~ 0?~-~ s~~ ~ ~7~8~ ~~~"~; .. 28520 C_a-:t~s Av~ M~ ~oo, .~?~! ~t~:na.A.:"~·-·. ~-~: 0:-1 ~-~~~~~~-Drive-#K "' ~ B2~· lt-olird St. ~~·~·-· ..!:~Mir."'l" • ."'.~Y!!~X -···-···-······~ San Marcos '~' ""'~'"'"~'"'"'~'" -.a CA ...... El't"?! .• _ •.•... -·-CA ---~~~Y.¥~Y~~ .. --~~~~- Rivefside CA m='h~~-~z RiveBide • ·~·-• •,m=•·vu~·"-'· P..iven.lde , ~i:~!~ ... ::~~Slt_~~­ ~~~-~~!~~~ .. ~-~ '""'0''"""~00-00~0'"""="'"-''N'"-A'''> ~,~ H~;~~.E~ ?.~~-··"··-················ l ~!~J~t-c_of_?.~~~~ ~-~ ..... , l [~~ ~~eopcy Co:rrter, h~--~~~-it:f, of CA, ~~~~~Wh"Ncu.­ Lt~~ ~w..'"~~:~.9!'!~ c~. '; ... J •' Al\. ·J·· ·l\. ·J· \ ~.: ... ~ .. ;~~ -~ lrmah·· , Jon '~"}~.~~~.~·. ·-·· ., .. ,.,' ""'"~"'f??!5!~-~;!~~' ... j,~~~ .. !-~~ :~~~,_£.?,..!~, . 9154G3i-enaSl '"'"' ..... ,,' "'""'""' 149 ······"···············-~· RiVHS"ide- ~iv~. ~Jv~ .. , RF~ide 46 • • • •• AGENDA ITEM 14 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Agreement With South Coast Air Quality Management District to Fund the Development and Deployment of an Inland Empire 511 Mobile Application STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) 2) 3) Approve Agreement No. 12-45-089-00 with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) for the Commission to receive $100,000 in grant funding for the development and deployment costs of an Inland Empire 511 (IE511) mobile application; Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal · counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, in partnership with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SAN BAG), operates and maintains the IE511 traveler information system. The system provides motorists with access to real-time freeway travel information and incident information on Southern California highways via the telephone service by dialing 511 from land line, cell phone, or accessing the map on the companion website, (www.ie511.org). IE511 is designed to promote mobility by fostering more informed travel. decisions to avoid congestion, as well as provide more choices for the individual commuter by identifying all travel options available to Riverside and San Bernardino County residents. Inland Empire commuters can access transit, Metrolink, carpooling, vanpooling, carpool lane, and toll road information, as well as detailed park and ride lot information for the entire Southern California region. IE511 serviced nearly 932,000 telephone users and 585,000 web visits since its launch in April 2010 . Agenda Item 14 150 DISCUSSION: The development of a mobile application was the next logical enhancement for the program given the continued growth of smartphones and the actual usage of IE511 on smartphone platforms observed by staff. While the development of an IE511 mobile application was budgeted for in FY 2011/12 using Measure A funds, other funding opportunities arose within the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC), a committee of the AOMD. At its July 2011 meeting, the MSRC recommended an allocation of its FY 2010/11 work program for the implementation of 511 mobile applications. In September 2011, the AQMD approved a $100,000 sole source agreement with the Commission and a $123,000 agreement with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) for the development and deployment of a 511 mobile application for the IE511 system and G0511 system, respectively. In anticipation of this funding, staff began work with IE511 consultants on this project as contract terms were being finalized. The new IE511 mobile application successfully launched and was demonstrated at the February 2012 Commission meeting. To date, the mobile application has been downloaded by over 7, 700 users. • IE511 has proven to be a valuable tool for Inland Empire residents and constituents for managing travel and commute efforts. The launch of the new mobile application further enhanced this experience and additional enhancements to the mobile application will be implemented overtime. Staff recommends approval of • Agreement No. 12-45-089-00 with the AQMD for the Commission to receive $1 00,000 in grant funding for the development and deployment costs of an IE511 mobile application. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: I No I Year: I FY2011/12 Amount: I $100,000 Source of Funds: I MSRC Grant Budget Adjustment: I Yes GLA No.:. 1202 45 41203 Fiscal Procedures Approved: I ~~ I Date: I 06/18/2012 Attachment: Agreement No. 12-45-089-00 • Agenda Item 14 151 •• • • ' South Coast . t\ir Quality Mana2ement District ~ Contract No. MS11057 Clean Transportation ~!.!."-9.J.!~~!.. .. ~ CONTRACT 1. PARTIES -The parties to this Contract are the South Coast Air. Quality Management District (hereinafter referred to as "AQMDH) whose address is 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765-4178, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR") whose address is 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California.92502. 2. RECITALS A. AQMD is the local agency with primary responsibility for regu1ating stationary source air pollution within the geographical boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in the State of California (State). AQMD is authorized under State Health & Safety Code Section 44225 (Assembly Bill (AB) 2766) to levy a fee on motor vehicles for the purpose of reducing air pollution from such vehicles and to implement the California Clean Air Act. B. Under AB 2766 the AQMD'S Governing Board has authorized the imposition of the statutorily set motor vehicle fee. By taking such action the State's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is required to collect such fee and remit it periodically to AQMD. C. AB 2766 further mandates that thirty (30) percent of such vehicle registration fees be placed by AQMD into a separate account for the sole purpose of implementing and monitoring programs to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. D. AB 2766 creates a regional Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) to develop a work program to fund projects from the separate account. Pursuant to approval of the work program by AQMD'S Governing Board, AQMD Board authorized a contract with CONTRACTOR for services described in Attachment 1 -Statement of Work, expressly incorporated herein by this reference and made.a part hereof of this Contract. CONTRACTOR warrants that it is well qualified, experienced, and has the expertise to provide such services on . the terms set forth here. 3. DMV FEES -CONTRACTOR acknowledges that AQMD cannot guarantee the amount of fees to be . collected under AB 2766 will be sufficient to fund this Contract. CONTRACTOR further acknowledges that AQMD'S receipt of funds is contingent on the timely remittance by State's DMV. AQMD assumes no responsibility for the collection and remittance of motor vehicle registration fees by DMV to AQMD in a timely manner. 4. AUDIT-Additionally, CONTRACTOR shall, at least once every two years, or within two years of the termination of the Contract if the term is less than two years, be subject to an audit by AQMD or its authorized representative to determine if the revenues received by CONTRACTOR were spent for the reduction of pollution from Motor Vehicles pursuant to the Clean Air Act of 1988. AQMD shall coordinate such audit through CONTRACTOR'S audit staff. If an amount is found to be inappropriately expended, AQMD may withhold revenue from CONTRACTOR in the amount equal to the amount which was inappropriately expended. Such withholding shall not be construed as AQMD'S sole remedy and shall not relieve CONTRACTOR of its obligation to perform under the terms of this Contract. 152 Contract No. MS11057 of any work on this Contract. AQMD shall be named as an additional insured on any such liability • policy, and thirty (30} days written notice prior to cancellation of any such insurance shall be given by CONTRACTOR to AQMD. C. CONTRACTOR shall furnish evidence to AQMD of automobile liability insurance with limits of at least $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident for bodily injuries, and $50,000 in property damage, or $1,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury or property damage, prior to commencement of any work on this Contract. AQMD shall be named as an additional insured on any such liability policy, and thirty (30} days written notice prior to cancellation of any such insurance shall be given by CONTRACTOR to AQMD. D. If CONTRACTOR fails to maintain the required insurance coverage set forth above, AQMD reserves the right either to purchase such additional insurance and to deduct the cost thereof from any payments owed to CONTRACTOR or terminate this Contract for breach. E.. All insurance certificates should be mailed to: AQMD Risk Management, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178. The AQMD Contract Number must be included on the face of the certificate. F. CONTRACTOR must provide updates on the insurance coverage throughout the term of the Contract to ensure that there is no. break in coverage during the period of contract performance. Failure to provide evidence of current coverage shall be grounds for termination for breach of Contract. 10. INDEMNIFICATION -CONTRACTOR agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify AQMD, its officers, employees, agents, representatives, and successors-in-interest against any and all loss, damage, costs, lawsuits, claims, demands, causes of action judgments, attorney's fees, or any other • expenses arising from or related to any third party claim against AQMD, its officers, employees,· agents, representatives, or successors in interest that arise or result in whole or in part, from any actual or alleged act or omission of CONTRACTOR, its employees, subcontractors, agents or representatives in the performance of. this Contract. 11. PAYMENT A. AQMD shall reimburse CONTRACTOR up to a total amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) in accordance with Attachment 2-Payment Schedule, expressly incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof of this Contract. Any funds not expended upon early contract termination or contract completion shall revert to the AB 2766 Discretionary Fund. Payment of charges shall be made by AQMD to CONTRACTOR within thirty (30} . days after approval by AQMD of an itemized invoice prepared and furnished by CONTRACTOR, referencing the task completed or. a percent of work accomplished and detailing line item expenditures as listed in Attachment 2, Costs by Category, and the amount of charge claimed. B. An invoice submitted to AQMD for payment must be prepared in duplicate, on company letterhead, and list AQMD'S contract number, period covered by invoice, and CONTRACTOR'S social security number or Employer Identification Number and submitted to: South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Attn: Cynthia Ravenstein, MSRC Contract Administrator C. AQMD'S payment of invoices shall be subject to the following limitations and requirements: 3 153 • • • • CONTRACTOR: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 Attn: Robert Yates 14. EMPLOYEES OF CONTRACTOR Contract No. MS11057 A. CONTRACTOR warrants that it will employ no subcontractor without written approval from AQMD. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the cost of regular pay to its employees, as well as cost of vacation, vacation replacements, sick leave, severance pay and pay for legal holidays. B. CONTRACTOR shall also pay all federal and state payroll taxes for its employees and shall maintain workers' compensation and liability insurance for each of its employees. C. CONTRACTOR, its officers, employees, agents, or representatives shall in no sense be considered employees or agents of AQMD, nor shall CONTRACTOR, its officers, employees, agents, or representatives be entitled to or eligible to participate in any benefits, privileges, or plans, given or extended by AQMD to its employees. D. CONTRACTOR warrants that it has no interest and shall not acquire any interest; direct or ·indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this Contract. CONTRACTOR further represents that in performance of this Contract, no person having any such interest shall be employed by CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor. E. AQMD requires CONTRACTOR to be in compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations with respect to CONTRACTOR's employees throughout the term of this Contract, including state minimum wage laws and OSHA requirements . 15. CONFIDENTIALITY -It is expressly understood and agreed that the information which either CONTRACTOR or AQMD designates as confidential or proprietary information must be clearly identified as such by means of restrictive stamp, legend, or marking. With respect to such designated information the parties agree to: A. Observe complete confidentiality with respect to such information, including without limitation, agreeing not to disclose or otherwise permit access to such information by any other person or entity in any manner whatsoever, except that such disclosure or access shall be permitted to employees and subcontractors of either party requiring access in fulfillment of the services provided under this Contract. Such information may be used by either party as follows: 1. only be used, duplicated and/or disclosed by the receiving party solely for the purposes of performance under this Contract and for no other purpose whatsoever; and 2. ·not be used, duplicated and/or disclosed by the receiving party for any other purpose whatsoever, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, for manufacture or procurement except as may be specifically granted under Clause 17, below entitled - Ownership; and 3. not be duplicated, reproduced or copied, in whole or in part, unless the sending party's restrictive legend or marking is prominently displayed on said copy or reproduction. B. Oral or visual communications, identified by either party at the time of disclosure as confidential or proprietary information, shall be protected by the receiving party according to the terms hereof, provided that the disclosing party confirms in writing to the receiving party the 5 154 Contract No. MS11 057 J. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein is intended to abrogate or modify the provisions of • Government Code Section 6250 et.seq. (Public Records Act}. 16. PUBLICATION A. Information, data, documents, or reports developed by CONTRACTOR for AQMD, pursuant to. this Contract, shall be part of AQMD'S public record excepting data provided under Clause 15 above, entitled Confidentiality. CONTRACTOR may use or publish, at its own expense, such information provided to AQMD. The following acknowledgment of support and disclaimer must appear in each document disseminated, whether copyrighted or not, and based upon the work performed under this Contract. · "This report was prepared as a result of work sponsored by the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee {MSRC}. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of AQMD. AQMD, its officers, employees, cOntractors, and subcontractors make no warranty, expressed or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report. AQMD has not approved or disapproved this report, nor has AQMD passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information contained herein." B. CONTRACTOR shall inform its officers, employees, and subcontractors involved in the performance of this Contract of the restrictions contained herein and require compliance with the above publication terms. C. AQMD shall have the right of prior written approval of any document which shall be disseminated to the public by CONTRACTOR in which CONTRACTOR utilized information obtained from AQMD in connection with performance under this Contract. 17. OWNERSHIP -Title and full ownership rights to any products purchased or developed under this Contract shall at all times remain with CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall also retain title and full ownership rights to any documents or reports developed under this Contract. All of the above shall be subject to the following limitations: A PATENT RIGHTS-CONTRACTOR shall have patent rights, as well as title and ownership rights, for the Inland Empire 511 smartphone mobile application developed under this Contract (the "Mobile Application"), to the extent such rights are legally granted to CONTRACTOR; except as limited by CONTRACTOR's agreement . with its consultant relating to the development and deployment of the Mobile Application, and any other consultant agreement of CONTRACTOR for underlying programs or software upon which the Mobile Application is based (colle.ctively, the "CONTRACTOR consultant agreements"). CONTRACTOR agrees to grant AQMD a no-cost nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable license to use the Mobile Application to the fullest extent allowable under the CONTRACTOR consultant agreements. AQMD acknowledges and agrees that pursuant to the CONTRACTOR consultant agreements, CONTRACTOR may only grant AQMD the right to use the Mobile Application for the purpose of operating and maintaining the Inland Empire 511 System on behalf of CONTRACTOR. Previously documented {whether patented or unpatented under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq., or any foreign country) inventions are exempt from this provision. CONTRACTOR shall submit a written report to AQMD's agent disclosing each subject invention and specifying patents applied for, patents issued, and patent application(s) abandoned and/or co~sponsored participants on subject invention(s), if applicable. 1 155 • • Contract No. MS11057 • 22. NON-EFFECT OF WAIVER -CONTRACTOR'S or AQMD'S failure to insist upon the performance of • • any or all of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Contract, or failure to exercise any rights or remedies hereunder, shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of the future performance of any such terms, covenants, or conditions, or of the future exercise of such rights or remedies, unless otherwise provided for herein. 23. A TIORNEYS' FEES -In the event any action (including arbitration) is filed in connection with the enforcement or interpretation of this Contract, each party in said action shall pay its own attorneys' fees and costs. 24. FORCE MAJEURE -Neither AQMD nor CONTRACTOR shall be liable or deemed to be in default for any delay or failure in performance under this Contract or interruption of services resulting, directly or indirectly, from acts of God, civil or military authority, acts of public enemy, war, strikes, labor disputes, shortages of suitable parts, materials, labor or transportation, or any similar cause beyond the reasonable control of AQMD or CONTRACTOR. 25. SEVERABILITY -In the event that any one or more of the provisions contained in this Contract shall for any reason be held to be unenforceable in any respect by a court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect any other provisions of this Contract, and the Contract shall then· be construed as if such unenforceable provisions are not a part hereof. 26. HEADINGS-Headings on the clauses of this Contract are for convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify, or aid in the interpretation, construction, or meaning of the provisions of this Contract. 27. DUPLICATE EXECUTION-This Contract is executed in duplicate. Each signed copy shall have the force and effect of an original. 28. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS-CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations and orders of public authorities in the performance of this Contract and to ensure that the provisions of this clause are included in all subcontracts. 29. GOVERNING LAW-This Contract shall be construed and interpreted and the legal relations created thereby shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. · Venue for resolution of any dispute shall be Los Angeles County, California. 30. PRECONTRACT COSTS -Any costs incurred by CONTRACTOR prior to CONTRACTOR receipt of a fully executed Contract shall be incurred solely at the risk of the CONTRACTOR. In the event that a formal Contract is not executed, neither the MSRC nor the AQMD shall be liable for any amounts expended in anticipation of a formal Contract. If a formal Contract does result, precontract cost expenditures authorized by the Contract will be reimbursed in accordance with the cost schedule and payment provision of the Contract. 9 156 Contract No. MS11057 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Contract have caused this Contract to be duly executed on their behalf by their authorized representatives. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT By:--------,--'------- Dr. William A. Burke, Chairman, Governing Board Date: _____________ _ ATTEST: Saundra McDaniel, Clerk of the Board By: _____________ _ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kurt R. Wiese, General Counsel By~ IIMSRC06Standard8oilerplate Revised 24 October 2008 11 157 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: ____________ _ Name: Tille: Date: _________ ---'---- • • • • • • Attachment 1-Statement of Work Riverside County Transportation Commission Hereinafter Referred to as CONTRACTOR Contract Number MS11057 Project Description The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) will develop and d~ploy a mobile application to distribute Inland Empire 511 (IE 511) website content to mobile devices using the Apple iOS operating system (iPhone and iPad) and Android OS operating system. This "smartphone" mobile application (Application or App) will be available for free download in the Apple App Store and Android Market. The graphical interface and aesthetics of the Application will be based on and derived from the current IE 511 website branding. The following Statement of Work becomes an integral part of the Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees to perform all work within the term of the contract and to expend funds as set forth in Attachment 2-Cost Schedule. Statement of Work CONTRACTOR shall perform the following tasks: Task 1-Engineering & Programming CONTRACTOR shall design and develop an IE 511 Application compatible with the Apple iOS and Android OS operating systems. CONTRACTOR shall perform the necessary engineering and programming to replicate commuter services accessible through the IE 511 website. The commuter services features of the Application shall include, but not be limited to: • Graphic to launch application • Real-time traffic & incident information • Floodgate information • Toll road information Task 2-Testing • Bus-rail trip planner • Transit provider information • Rideshare information • Park & Ride lot information • HOV lane information CONTRACTOR shall test the IE 511 Application. CONTRACTOR shall ensure that: a. the Application is compatible with the Apple iOS and Android OS operating systems; and b. the commuter service features delineated in Task 1 function correctly in both the Apple iOS and Android operating systems . 1 158 Attachment 2 -Cost Schedule Riverside County Transportation Commission Hereinafter Referred to as CONTRACTOR Contract Number MS11057 The following table shows the maximum MSRC costs by task: Maximum A82766 Estimated Discretionary CONTRACTOR Project Costs by Task Funds or Other payable Funding under this Contract Task 1-Engineering & Programming $25,000 $50,000 Task 2-Testing $25,000 $25,000 Task 3 -IE511 Smartphone Mobile App $0 $25,000 Delivery Task 4-Marketing & Promotion $50,000 $25,000 Task 5-Final Report $0 $5,000 Totals $100,000 $130,000 Estimated Total Costs $75~000 $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 $5,000 $230,000 All payments to CONTRACTOR shall be on a reimbursement basis upon submission of an invoice with adequate documentation of expenditures. At a minimum, documentation of expenditures shall include the invoice(s) and/or receipt(s) from the provider ,of the equipment or service with sufficient detail to establish the nature thereof. AQMD/MSRC reserve the right to request additional documentation substantiating and specifying CONTRACTORs expenditures. 3 159 • • • • OPID:CB CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE I DATE (MMIODIYYYY) 10/21111 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISS.l/EO AS A MATTER OF.INF()RMA TION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS uPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMAiiVEL'I" OR NEGATIVElY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BEL()W. THIS CERTIFICATE OF lt-iSQ~~q¥ DQE~ t{OT :C.ONS:nTUTE A CONTRACT S,i:TWEEN THE IS~UING INSU~(S}, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ORPRODUCER~·ANOTHE .cERilFfCATEHOU)ER. IMPQRTANT: If fue "ertl~ i;otd~ds ~n;Abdti'ieAAi :lNSU~Eo,the p'Oiicy(ies) inl:iStba endotie~. lfSUBf{®AtiON IS WAMill; subie~;t: to the terms and conditions of the. policy, certain pQHci~ !nay re!!Uire·an enJ[or.;ei'neri,. A statement on this c~rtifioate does not ·C()nfer fights to the certificate holder in lieu ofsuch·endorseme~.tls). 1: PRODUCER 7'1li•256;;9SOD CT s·chrimmer.£avanagh . 7·14-256-~G . ~.-£Xt-,,.---------'----,l-. ;F,tf.-ie:...-No-l::--------1 Insurance Agency, Inc. · 601-ALunarAvenue ~'~------------------------------~ Brea, CA 92821 ~cus~ro[;!!M!!!;ER;!!.·l.I,ID!..!!fls::RI:::..:.VE.=R:..,.:~2::.:_ ________________ ....,... _____ --I ;loan S Cavanagh . INSUREruSIAm:iRDIHGCCiVERAGE •wsuRED Riverside Count:y Trans Corrim INSURER'A·oSc-c>t(sdate Insurance .comi>anv 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 INSUltER B: INSUREAC·: .INSURERD: INSURERE: INSURERF: COVERAGE_§ CERTtFICATE t.IIIMRI=~· R2~·~· 41297 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF IN.~IIRANrF LISTED.BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO TH!= INSURED ~EO ABOVE FOR THE POLICY ('>ERI()O INDICATED. NOTWTHSTANOING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPE"CT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THe INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXClUSIONS AND CONOJTIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID ClAIMS. ! 'rl: riPE OF I GENERAL LIABILITY f--A . X . GENERAllfABILrrY r-D ClAIMS-MADE 00 oCCUR r----------------------- Pi~~~::_fr~;~ Apn::;· ,.uTOMOlliLE UAiiiUlY r- A ~ ANYAUTO f-.-All OWNED AlfTOS f-.-SCHEDULED AUTOS ~ HIRED AlJTOS ~ NON-OWNED AUTOS --' IIURI>"• LIAB l J OCCUR EXCESS LIAB n r.o ,,.,.,. an f--DEDUCTIBLE $ WORKERS(, AND.EMPLOYERS'liABIUTY Y(N ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNERJEXEClfTIVE 0 ! •• , • OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? I ,. '" (Mandalory in NH) I it ve•. descriti~ '07".:~. , be- POLICY NUMBER LIMITS EACH . 1,000,001 07(08/11 07/08/12 5,00( 1,000,00( ?nnnnnr .rnUO"'D ,,-., $ ? nnn.nnr $ . I ':l1MIT $ -t.nnnnnr 07101)111 ~!NiiJRn~«P<!=n1 .5 ...,..,·._$ Is ! EACH S Is Is Is I E.l ~.;,L ~CCIDENT s I E.L DISEASE • EA c""' m I $ I E.l. DISEASE -pOLICY UMIT l s DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS /LOCA nONS I VEHICLES (Attoch ACORD 101, ·AddiUonal Remarils S<:hodule,lr more op;ocols requirvdj CERTIFICATE 1-lnl nf:R I AQMD AQMD Risk rw1anagemeot 21865 Copley·onve Diamond Bar, CA91765 ACORD 25 (2009/09) SHOULD ANY OF. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POUCIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THe '$0':i~'tio# ri!<l£ 'n:tEREoi=;, NoncE · wuj_ se oEuVEREo IN ACCORDANCEWITH.THE.POLICVPROVISIONS. . . I Ht:PRt,i:NTA II VI: . JoanS. Cav<Jmigh 4 .. - \ TiOt-i. All rights resei'Ved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD 160