HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 28, 2016 Budget & implementationCOMM-BI-00033
Tara Byerly
From: Tara Byerly
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 7:03 AM
To: Tara Byerly
Cc: Jennifer Harmon
Subject: RCTC: Budget and Implementation Committee Agenda - 03.28.2016
Importance: High
Good morning 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, March 28.
http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/budget-and-implementation-committe-march-28-2016.original.pdf
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Zara S. Oyercy
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
(951)787-7141
1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
www.rctc.orq
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
9:30 a.m.
Monday, March 28, 2016
BOARD ROOM
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.ora.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal
Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance
is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services.
Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist
staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ATTENDANCE / 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.
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.
Budget and Implementation Committee
March 28, 2016
Page 2
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 22, 2016
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. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Page 1
1) Adopt Resolution No. 16-007, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission Regarding the Revised Investment Policy";
2) Adopt the revised annual Investment Policy; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE OF 2009 MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDS TO
THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Page 15
1) Approve Agreement No. 16-72-074-00, for advancement of 2009 Measure A Local
Streets and Roads (LSR) funds to advance up to $1,167,000 to the city of Jurupa
Valley (Jurupa Valley) utilizing funding from the 2009 Measure A Western County
Regional Arterial (MARA) program;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. 2009 MEASURE A MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT BASE YEAR ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF
BLYTHE
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Page 44
1) Approve the adjustment to the city of Blythe's (Blythe) 2009 Measure A
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year amount to $170,000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee
March 28, 2016
Page 3
10. 2016 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVISION UPDATE
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Page 48
1) Receive and file the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Update; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file an update on state legislation;
2) Adopt the following bill positions:
a) AB 1569 (Steinorth) — Support
b) SB 1197 (Cannella) — Support;
c) AB 2783 (E. Garcia) — Support in Concept, Seek Amendments;
d) SB 901 (Bates) — Support in Concept; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
12. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
Overview
Page 50
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended
and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities.
13. ADJOURNMENT AND THE NEXT MEETING
The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at
9:30 a.m., Monday, April 25, 2016, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative
Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
MARCH 28, 2016
County of Riverside, District II
County of Riverside, District III
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 Palm Desert
City of Riverside
City of Temecula
Present
.171
O
0
O
7.
;"
Absent
0
O
O
O
0
0
Fre
O
0
0
0
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE SIGN -IN SHEET
MARCH 28, 2016
NAME
AGENCY
EMAIL ADORES
(I/ i I� ll�r
.tea V
2 Lc> At) 64.)j�i
� z I4 v Yki o )-PT
R
R%GL/at 21A M ow I G
Cam.+ .4*4F.S4-
__-- � C Lei &JO—
/C 6
g � �
44y -�/
"'
,
-�erg
"
, yam ,; _
-
� ,
AGENDA ITEM 5
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
Monday, February 22, 2016
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by
Chair Bob Magee at 9:30 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside
Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At this time, Chair Magee led the Budget and Implementation Committee in a flag
salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Rusty Bailey
Rick Gibbs
Dawn Haggerty
Douglas Hanson
Jan Harnik
Shelley Kaplan
Linda Krupa
Bob Magee
Scott Matas
Michael McCracken*
Chuck Washington
Lloyd White
Ella Zanowic
*Arrived after the meeting was called to order
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Steven Hernandez
John Tavaglione
There were no requests to speak from the public.
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 22, 2016
Page 2
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — OCTOBER 26, 2015
M/S/C (Harnik/Krupa) to approve the minutes of October 26, 2015 meeting as
submitted.
Abstain: Bailey, Washington, and White
6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to 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.
In response to Commissioner Rick Gibbs' question about the quarterly portfolio review,
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, replied staff monitors the various economic
forecasts from the Commission's investment and sales tax advisors, including quarterly
meetings. The portfolio is conservative and the advisors operate based on the
Commission's policy with the bond agreements and the Commission -wide investment
policy.
M/S/C (Gibbs/Zanowic) to approve the following Consent Calendar item(s):
7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended
December 31, 2015; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7B. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS
1) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 3 2015 (3Q 2015); and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 22, 2016
Page 3
7D. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the second
quarter ended December 31, 2015; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. FISCAL YEAR 2015/16 MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance, presented the Fiscal Year 2015/16
mid -year budget adjustments.
M/S/C (Hanson/Kaplan) to:
1) Approve an increase of $406,000 in Fiscal Year 2015/16 expenditures
for mid -year budget adjustments; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 BUDGET
Michele Cisneros presented the proposed policy goals and objectives for Fiscal Year
2016/17 Budget, highlighting the following areas:
• Budget development — Commission policy goals, department goals and
objectives, and budget development and adoption;
• Commission policy goals and objectives — Mobility, goods movement, economic
development, system efficiencies, environmental stewardship, intermodalism
and accessibility, and communications;
• Major changes — To the areas in promote mobility, communications, and
revenue policies; and
• Next steps.
In response to Commissioner Douglas Hanson's request for clarification regarding the
Financial Planning Policies, 4th bullet, Michele Cisneros stated each Measure A program
designates specific programs and projects for funding that cannot be committed to
other programs or projects.
Theresia Trevino added this policy had importance primarily as the Commission
transitioned from the 1989 Measure A to the 2009 Measure A. Any monies remaining
from the 1989 Measure A were for specific programs and projects, emphasizing both
measures needed to be kept separate. She explained the 1989 Western Riverside
County Highway Program is the only program with a remaining balance and it should be
expended in the next year or two.
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 22, 2016
Page 4
In response to Commissioner Harnik's question about the Commission's efforts related
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) modernization and reforms, Michele
Cisneros stated CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are referred to
under Promote Mobility.
Theresia Trevino added staff will place it more prominently in the document.
M/S/C (Bailey/Zanowic) to:
1) Approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the
Fiscal Year 2016/17; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVISION
Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director, presented the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) revision.
At this time, Commissioner Michael McCracken joined the meeting.
Commissioner Chuck Washington expressed concern the Interstate 15/French Valley
Parkway interchange project will lose STIP funds and discussed its importance to the
region. He suggested the Commission support the efforts to keep this project moving
forward, locate available funds, and shift STIP funds for the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road
and Franklin Street interchange project to I-15/French Valley Parkway interchange
project.
Commissioner Gibbs explained the I-15/French Valley Parkway interchange project has
been discussed several times in the past and the Commission agreed this project needed
to move forward. He suggested the Commission accept the staff's judgment and
commitment that this project will have first priority once STIP funds become available.
Councilmember Maryann Edwards, representing the city of Temecula, expressed
appreciation for Commissioner Washington's comments. She discussed her concerns
for reducing STIP funds for I-15/French Valley Parkway interchange project and the
importance of the project. She stated Senator Jeff Stone will continue to fight for
funding for Riverside County, as well as seek a funding solution for the state. She
requested the Commission to assist the city with moving through Caltran's approval
process for Phase II and to adhere to the original funding priority list once funding is
restored.
Chair Magee replied the Commission will request Senator Stone to take the lead in
Sacramento as this county needs help. He asked for staff's guidance as to possible
outreach by Commissioners to assist with the funding cuts by the California
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 22, 2016
Page 5
Transportation Commission (CTC). Chair Magee expressed the I-15/Railroad Canyon
Road interchange project is very critical and noted that while it is being referred to as a
new project, it is not. The original project study report was submitted in April 2000.
Anne Mayer explained the reason for this situation is gas prices in California continue to
fall and the STIP is funded by the excise tax of gasoline. The fix is to address how
transportation will be paid in California. She advised in the short term, the Commission
needs to reduce its STIP as requested by the CTC for review at its March 2016 meeting.
She explained staff will continue to update the Commission and a legislative update will
be presented at the March 2016 Commission meeting.
Commissioner Michael McCracken concurred with Commissioners Gibbs, Washington,
and Councilmember Edwards' comments as the I-15/French Valley Parkway interchange
project will have significant regional benefits. Commissioner McCracken expressed it is
the city of Temecula's desire once funding is available, this project be considered a
priority.
Commissioner Washington reiterated the importance of the I-15/French Valley
interchange project. He expressed appreciation to Anne Mayer for explaining the cause
of the funding shortfall. Commissioner Washington suggested the Commission needs
the political will to push the state to reach a short and long term solution to fund
infrastructure.
Chair Magee stated Senator Stone's staff as well as Commission staff is clearly hearing
the Committee's message. He suggested adding a status update to staff's
recommendation for the March 28 Budget and Implementation Committee meeting.
Chair Magee suggested if there is indeed a direction for a call to action to place it on the
committee agenda and coordinate with the Commission's state representatives. He
discussed his meeting with Mayor Brian Tisdale and Congressman Ken Calvert on
February 19 about STIP funding.
In response to Commissioner Dawn Haggerty's question about CTC representation,
Anne Mayer replied Riverside County is represented by CTC Commissioner
Joe Tavaglione. He represents this region very well and staff will seek his support for
the actions directed by the Commission.
M/S/C (Gibbs/Harnik) to:
1) Approve reducing the Interstate 15/French Valley Parkway interchange
project State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds from
$47.6 million to $15,346,000 in accordance with the California
Transportation Commission's (CTC) revised 2016 STIP Fund Estimate;
2) Transfer $2,920,000 of STIP funding from the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road
and Franklin Street interchange project to the I-15/French Valley
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 22, 2016
Page 6
Parkway interchange project or State Route 60 truck
climbing/descending lane project, as determined by staff, in the event
CTC does not allow new project programming;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to modify the STIP revision submittal
based on the ongoing nature of the CTC working with each county
transportation commission to reduce STIP programming by the required
amount of approximately $754 million statewide and the Commission's
objective to minimize reduction in STIP programming;
4) Direct staff to provide an update on the 2016 STIP revision at the
Budget and Implementation Committee meeting on March 28, 2016;
and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATION ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CYCLE 2 PROGRAM OF
PROJECTS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Shirley Medina presented the CTC's approval of the Southern California Association of
Governments Metropolitan Planning Organization Active Transportation Program Cycle
2 program of projects for Riverside County and proposed funding for the city of
Coachella's bicycle and pedestrian improvements project.
Commissioner Harnik expressed appreciation on behalf of the entire Coachella Valley
and the city of Coachella as this is an important project.
M/S/C (Hanson/Harnik) to:
1) Receive and file a report on the California Transportation Commission's
(CTC) approval of the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Active
Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 2 program of projects;
2) Approve funding the city of Coachella's ATP Cycle 2 Bicycle and
Pedestrian improvements project with $2.2 million of SB 821 funds; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
12. RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2017 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FINANCIAL RESOLUTION
Eric DeHate, Management Analyst, provided an overview for the Riverside County 2017
Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) financial resolution.
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
February 22, 2016
Page 7
M/S/C (Gibbs/Krupa) to:
1) Approve Resolution No. 16-001, "Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Certifying Riverside County has Resources
to Fund Projects in the Federal Fiscal Years 2016/17 Through 2021/22
Transportation Improvement Program and Affirming Commitment to
Implement All Projects in the Program"; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
13. CITY OF CORONA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM REPROGRAMMING
REQUEST
Grace Alvarez, Planning and Programming Manager, presented the city of Corona's
surface transportation program reprogramming request.
M/S/C (Harnik/Kaplan) to:
1) Approve the city of Corona's (Corona) request to reprogram $943,000 of
federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds from the Magnolia
Avenue landscaped median project to the Magnolia Avenue bridge
widening improvement project;
2) Authorize staff to include the Magnolia Avenue bridge widening
improvement project in the Federal Transportation Improvement
Program (FTIP), and accordingly delete the Magnolia Avenue
landscaped median project from the FTIP; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. COMMUTER RAIL GRANT RESOLUTIONS
Brenda Ramirez, Management Analyst, presented the Commuter Rail grant resolutions.
M/S/C (Kaplan/Harnik) to:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 16-002, "Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Regarding Authorization for the Execution
of the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent Forms for the
Low Carbon Transit Operation Program";
2) Adopt Resolution No. 16-003, "Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Regarding Authorization for the Execution
of the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Project: Perris Valley
Line Station Passenger Upgrades in the Amount of $391,049";
RCTC Budget and implementation Committee Minutes
February 22, 2016
Page 8
3) Adopt Resolution No. 16-005, "Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Approving the Allocation of FY 2015/16
Proposition 18-6861-0002 California Transit Security Grant Program -
California Transit Assistance Funds to the RCTC Commuter Rail Program
and Designation of Authorized Agent"; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
15. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Anne Mayer announced there will be a presentation on the 91 Steer Clear 55-hour
closure at the March Commission meeting. She provided an update on the success of
the closure and expressed appreciation to all jurisdictions and agencies involved for all
of their hard work and dedication in making this operation successful.
Chair Magee expressed appreciation to the entire team for a job well done.
16. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation
Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Harmon
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 28, 2016
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Annual Investment Policy Review
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 16-007, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission Regarding the Revised Investment Policy";
2) Adopt the revised annual Investment Policy; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Section XIV of the Investment Policy requires an annual investment policy review and
specifically states that the "Chief Financial Officer shall annually render to the Board a
statement of investment policy, which the Board must consider at a public meeting. Any
changes to the policy shall also be considered by the Board at a public meeting."
Based on a review of the Investment Policy approved by the Commission on September 10,
2014, and consideration of changes to the California Government Code as of January 1, 2016,
staff determined that no changes were necessary. However, a few minor cosmetic changes
were made for consistency purposes.
Staff consulted with the Commission's operating portfolio investment manager and financial
advisor, as well as the County Treasurer's Office, in order to determine an appropriate level of
changes primarily affecting the Commission's operating portfolio while adhering to the
investment objectives, in priority order, of safety, liquidity, and return on investment.
Attachments:
1) Resolution No. 16-007
2) Investment Policy (draft)
Agenda Item 7
1
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 16-007
RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
REGARDING THE
REVISED INVESTMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission")
currently retains the authority to add, delete or otherwise modify the Commission's
policies and procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission does
hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the
Investment Policy, as revised on April 13, 2016, and attached as Exhibit A.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April, 2016.
Scott Matas, Chair
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
Jennifer Harmon
Clerk of the Board
2
ATTACHMENT 2
IMES Mint low -
Riverside (wry Trusporia►iorl Commission
INVESTMENT POLICY
I. Introduction
The purpose of this document is to identify policies and procedures that enhance
opportunities for a prudent investment program and to organize and formalize
investment -related activities.
II. Scope
It is intended that this Policy cover all funds (except retirement funds) and
investment activities under the direction of the Commission. Investment activities
may be classified between operating and bond/debt portfolios.
III. Delegation of Authority
Pursuant to the Commission's Administrative Code, the Board's management
responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated for a one-year
period to the Executive Director who shall monitor and review all investments for
consistency with this investment policy. Subject to review, the Board may renew
the delegation of authority pursuant to this section each year. The Executive
Director may delegate these duties to his designee ("Chief Financial Officer").
The Commission may delegate its investment decision making and execution
authority to an investment advisor. The advisor shall follow this Policy and such
other written instructions as are provided.
IV. Prudence
All persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the
Commission are subject to the prudent investor standard. Investments shall be
made with care, skill, prudence and diligence under circumstances then
prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the
anticipated needs of the Commission that a prudent person acting in a like
capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a
like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the
liquidity needs of the Commission.
Authorized individuals acting in accordance with this Policy and written
procedures and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal
responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes,
provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion.
Revised September 10, 2011Apri1 13, 2016
3
V. Objective
The Commission's primary investment objectives, in priority order, shall be:
1. Safety. Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment
program. Investments of the Commission shall be undertaken in a
manner that seeks to ensure preservation of capital in the portfolio.
2. Liquidity. The investment portfolio of the Commission will remain
sufficiently liquid to enable the Commission to meet its cash flow
requirements.
3. Return on Investment. The investment portfolio of the Commission
shall be designed with the objective of maximizing return on its
investments, but only after ensuring safety and liquidity.
The Commission may from time to time sell securities that it owns in order to
better reposition its portfolio assets in accordance with updated cash flow
schedules, yield opportunities existing between market sectors, or simply market
timing.
VI. Investments
California Government Code Section 53601 governs the investments permitted
for purchase by the Commission. Within the investments permitted by Code, the
Commission seeks to further restrict eligible investments to the investments listed
in Section VI.1 below. Percentage limitations, where indicated, apply at the time
of purchase. Percentage holdings with any one non-U.S. Government issuer or
non -Federal Agency issuer are further restricted to a maximum of 10% (direct
and indirect commitments). Rating requirements where indicated, apply at the
time of purchase. In the event a security held by the Commission is subject to a
rating change that brings it below the minimum specified rating requirement, the
Chief Financial Officer shall be authorized to act immediately and to notify the
Board of any actions taken in regards to the security. The course of action to be
followed will then be decided on a case -by -case basis, considering such factors
as the reason for the rate drop, prognosis for recovery or further rate drops, and
the market price of the security.
1. Eligible Investments
A. U.S. Government Issues. United States Treasury notes, bonds,
bills, or certificates of indebtedness, or those for which the faith and
credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal
and interest.
Revised September 10, 2014Apri1 13, 2016
4
B. Federal Agency Securities. Federal agency or United States
government -sponsored enterprise obligations, participations, or
other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as
to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States
government -sponsored enterprises.
C. Municipal Bonds.
Registered treasury notes or bonds of any of the other 49 United
States, in addition to California, payable solely out of the revenues
from a revenue -producing property owned, controlled, or operated
by a state or by a department, board, agency or authority of any of
the other 49 United States, in addition to California. Such securities
must have a maximum maturity of five (5) years and ratings from at
least one Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization
(NRSRO) as follows: at least "Aa3/AA-/or AA-" which denotes "Aa3"
by Moody's Investors Service (Moody's), or "AA-" by Standard &
Poor's (S&P), or "AA-" by Fitch Ratings (Fitch); or as otherwise
approved by the Commission.
Registered general obligation treasury notes or bonds of any of
the 50 United States. Such securities must have a maximum
maturity of five (5) years and ratings from at least one NRSRO as
follows: at least "Aa3/AA-/or AA-" or as otherwise approved by the
Commission.
Taxable or tax-exempt bonds, notes, warrants, or other evidences
of indebtedness of any local agency within the State of California
with a maximum maturity of five (5) years and ratings from at least
one NRSRO as follows: at least "Aa3/AA-/or AA-" (the minimum
rating shall apply to the local agency, irrespective of any credit
enhancement), including bonds, notes, warrants, or other
evidences of indebtedness payable solely out of the revenues from
a revenue -producing property owned, controlled, or operated by
either the local agency, a department, board, agency, or authority
of the local agency, or of any local agency within this state.
Investments in municipal bonds are further limited to 25% of
surplus funds.
D. Tri-Party Repurchase Agreements. Tri-party repurchase
agreements are to be used solely as short-term investments not to
exceed 30 days. The Commission may enter into tri-party
repurchase agreements with primary government securities dealers
rated "A" or better by two NRSROs. Counterparties should also
have (i) a short-term credit rating of at least P-1/A-1/ or F-1; (ii)
minimum assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350
Revised September 10, 201/April 13.2016
5
million in capital; (iii) five years of acceptable audited financial
results; and (iv) a strong reputation among market participants.
The following collateral restrictions will be observed: Only U.S.
Treasury securities or Federal Agency securities, as described in
V.1 A and B, will be acceptable collateral. All securities underlying
tri-party repurchase agreements must be delivered to the
Commission's custodian or fiscal agent bank versus payment or be
handled under a properly executed tri-party repurchase agreement.
The total market value of all collateral for each tri-party repurchase
agreement must equal or exceed 102 percent of the total dollar
value of the money invested by the Commission for the term of the
investment. For any tri-party repurchase agreement with a term of
more than one day, the value of the underlying securities must be
reviewed on an on -going basis according to market conditions.
Market value must be calculated each time there is a substitution of
collateral.
The Commission or its trustee shall have a perfected first security
interest under the Uniform Commercial Code in all securities
subject to tri-party repurchase agreement. The Commission shall
have properly executed a PSA agreement with each counterparty
with which it enters into tri-party repurchase agreements.
E. U.S. Corporate debt. Medium -term notes, defined as all corporate
and depository institution securities with a maximum remaining
maturity of five (5) years or less, issued by corporations organized
and operating within the United States or depository institutions
licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the
United States. Eligible investment shall be rated "Aa3/AA-/or AA-"
or better by at least one NRSRO. Investments in U.S. Corporate
Debt are further limited to 25% of surplus funds.
F. Commercial Paper. Commercial paper rated in the highest
category by one or more nationally recognized statistical rating
organization (NRSRO). The entity that issues the commercial
paper shall meet all of the following conditions in either paragraph
(1) or paragraph (2):
(1) The entity meets the following criteria: (A) Is organized and
operating in the United States as a general corporation. (B) Has
total assets in excess of five hundred million dollars
($500,000,000). (C) Has debt other than commercial paper, if
any, that is rated "A" or higher by at least one NRSRO.
(2) The entity meets the following criteria: (A) Is organized within
the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or
Revised September 10, 201-4Apri] 13. 2016
6
limited liability company. (B) Has program -wide credit
enhancements, including, but not limited to, over
collateralization, letters of credit, or surety bond. (C) Has
commercial paper that is rated at least "P-1 /A-1 /or F-1 ", or the
equivalent, by at least one NRSRO.
Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 270 days
maturity nor represent more than 10 percent of the outstanding
paper of an issuing corporation. Investments in commercial paper
are limited to a maximum of 25% of surplus funds.
G. Banker's Acceptances. Banker's acceptances issued by
domestic or foreign banks, which are eligible for purchase by the
Federal Reserve System. Purchases of banker's acceptances may
not exceed 180 days maturity. Eligible banker's acceptances are
restricted to issuing financial institutions with short-term paper rated
in the highest category by one or more nationally recognized rating
service. Investments in banker's acceptances are further limited to
40% of surplus funds with no more than 30% of surplus invested in
the banker's acceptances of any one commercial bank.
H. Money Market Mutual Funds. Shares of beneficial interest issued
by diversified management companies that are money market
funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-1,
et seq.) and that invest solely in U.S. treasuries, obligations of the
U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements relating to such
treasury obligations.
The Commission may invest in shares of beneficial interest issued
by accompany shall have met either of the following criteria: (1)
Attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical
rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized rating
services. (2) Retained an investment adviser registered or exempt
from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with not less than five years' experience managing money market
mutual funds with assets under management in excess of five
hundred million dollars ($500,000,000).
The purchase price of shares of beneficial interest purchased
pursuant to this subdivision shall not include any commission that
the companies may charge. Investments in Money Market Mutual
Funds are further limited to 20% of surplus funds.
I. Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund ("RCPIF"). The
Commission may invest in the Riverside County Pooled Investment
Revised September 10, 2011April 13, 2016
7
Fund. As on -going due diligence, the Chief Financial Officer shall
obtain the information listed below:
• A description of eligible investment securities and a written
statement of investment policy.
• A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest
distributions, and the treatment of gains and losses in the
portfolio.
• A description of how often the securities are priced, how the
securities are safeguarded, and the audit arrangements.
• A description of who may invest in the program, how often they
may invest, and what size deposits and withdrawals are
allowed.
• A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings.
• A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed.
• The composition of the investment fund for each reporting
period.
J. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund ("LAIF").
The Commission may invest in LAIF. As on -going due diligence,
the Chief Financial Officer shall obtain the information listed below:
• A description � of eligible investment securities and a written
statement of investment policy.
• A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest
distributions, and the treatment of gains and losses in the
portfolio.
• A description of how often the securities are priced, how the
securities are safeguarded, and the audit arrangements.
• A description of who may invest in the program, how often they
may invest, and what size deposits and withdrawals are
allowed.
A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings.
A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed.
• The composition of the investment fund for each reporting
period.
K. Certificates of Deposit.
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (NCD's): NCDs are money
market instruments issued by a bank. They specify that a sum of
money has been deposited, payable with interest to the bearer of
the certificates on a certain date. NCDs are issued by nationally or
state chartered bank or state or federal savings and loan
Revised September 10, 2011April 13, 2016
8
association. All purchases must be from institutions rated the
highest letter and number rating (e.g., P-1/A-1/or F-1) as provided
for by at least one NRSRO, as designated by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission. The maturity of NCDs shall not
exceed 180 days to maturity, and purchases of NCDs shall not
exceed thirty percent (30%) of the Commission's investment
portfolio. NCDs shall be evaluated in terms of the credit worthiness
of the issuing institution, as these deposits are uninsured and
uncollateralized promissory notes.
FDIC -insured Certificates of Deposit: The principal amount of the
investment must be federally insured through the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC). No more than the prevailing FDIC
insured coverage amount may be invested with any one deposit.
Certificates of Deposit placed through the Certificate of Deposit
Account Registry Service (CDARS) shall be considered fully
insured, assuming that the total amount invested with any
participating bank is limited to the prevailing FDIC insured coverage
amount. Interest on the principal must be paid to the Commission
at least annually. The placement of Certificates of Deposit with
local banks that qualify in accordance with Government Code
section 53601(h) is encouraged. The Commission, at its discretion,
may invest a portion of its surplus funds in certificates of deposit at
a commercial bank, savings bank, savings and loan association, or
credit union using a private sector entity to assist in the placement
of such certificates, provided that it complies with Government
Code Section 53601.8. Such investments may not exceed in total
twenty percent (20%) of the Commission's funds invested pursuant
to Government Code Sections 53601.8, 53635.8 and 53601, and
shall have a maximum maturity of one (1) year from the date of the
deposit.
Collateralized Certificates of Deposit: For investments exceeding
$100,000, there will be a waiver of collateral for the first $100,000
deposited and protected by FDIC insurance. The remainder of the
deposit shall be fully collateralized by U.S. Treasury and Federal
Agency securities having maturities less than five years. The
District must receive written confirmation that these securities have
been pledged in repayment of the time deposit. The securities
pledged as collateral must have a current market value greater than
the dollar amount of the deposit in keeping with the ratio
requirements specified in Section 53652 of the Government Code.
Additionally, a statement of the collateral shall be provided to the
Commission on a monthly basis. Such investments may not
exceed in total fifteen percent (15%) of the Commission's funds
invested pursuant to Government Code Sections 53601.8, 53635.8
Revised September 10, 2011April 13. 2016
9
and 53601, and shall have a maximum maturity of one (1) year
from the date of the deposit.
L. Time Deposits. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insured
money market savings accounts or time deposits which
are deposited through depository institutions which are participants
of the Money Market Insured Deposit Account Service ("MMIDAS").
M. Mortgage and Asset -backed Securities. Any mortgage pass -
through security, collateralized mortgage obligation, mortgage -
backed or other pay -through bond, equipment lease -backed
certificate, consumer receivable -backed bond of a maximum
maturity of five (5) years' maturity.
Securities eligible for investment under this subdivision shall be
issued by an issuer and rated at least "A3/A-/or A-" for the issuer's
debt as provided by at least one NRSRO and rated in the rating
category of "AAA" or its equivalent (excluding U.S.
Government/Agency-backed structured products which will be
permitted with their prevailing ratings even if those ratings are
below the rating category of "AAA") by at least one NRSRO.
Purchase of these securities may not exceed 10% of the
Commission's operating investment portfolio.
2. Eligible Investments for Bond Proceeds
Bond proceeds shall be invested in securities permitted by the applicable
bond documents. If the bond documents are silent as to permitted
investments, bond proceeds will be invested in securities permitted by this
Policy.
With respect to maximum maturities, the Policy authorizes investing bond
reserve fund proceeds beyond the five (5) years if prudent in the opinion
of the Chief Financial Officer.
3. Ineligible Investments
As provided in California Government Code Section 53601.6, the
Commission shall not invest any funds in inverse floaters, range notes,
mortgage derived interest -only strips or in any security that could result in
zero interest accrual if held to maturity.
The purchase of any security not listed in Section VI.1 above, but
permitted by the California Government Code, is prohibited unless the
Board approves the investment either specifically or as a part of an
Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016
10
investment program approved by the Board.
VII. Maximum Maturities
Maturities of investments will be selected to provide necessary liquidity, minimize
interest rate risk, and maximize earnings. Current and expected yield curve
analysis will be monitored and the portfolio will be invested accordingly. Because
of inherent difficulties in accurately forecasting cash flow requirements, a portion
of the portfolio should be continuously invested in readily available funds.
Where this Policy does not specify a maximum remaining maturity at the time of
the investment, no investment shall be made in any security, other than a
security underlying a repurchase or reverse repurchase agreement authorized by
this section, that at the time of the investment has a term remaining to maturity in
excess of five (5) years.
VIII. Performance Standards
The Chief Financial Officer shall continually monitor and evaluate the portfolio's
performance.
IX. Reporting
The Chief Financial Officer shall prepare and provide to the Board and the
Executive Director, within 30 days following the end of the quarter, a portfolio
report, which includes the following information:
• Type of investment
• Name of issuer
• Date of maturity
• Date of purchase
• Par value
• Original purchase cost
• Call date (if applicable)
• Current market value of securities
• Unrealized market value gain/loss
• Coupon rate, if applicable
• Yield to maturity
Credit quality, as determined by one or more NRSROs, of each investment
Average duration of portfolio
Listing of all investment transactions during the quarter
A statement that the portfolio complies with the investment policy, or the
manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance
Revised September 10, 2011Apri1 13, 2016
11
A statement denoting the ability of the Commission to meet its liquidity
requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why
sufficient money shall, or may not be, available.
X. Investment Procedures
The Chief Financial Officer, as the Board's designee, is responsible for ensuring
compliance with the Commission's investment policies and establishing written
procedures and internal controls for the operation of the investment program. No
person may engage in investment transactions except as provided under the terms
of this Policy and the written procedures established by the Chief Financial Officer.
The written procedures should address: delegation of authority to subordinate staff
members, control of collusion, separation of transaction authority from
accounting and record keeping, written confirmations of transactions,
reconciliation of custody statements, and wire transfer procedures and
agreements. An independent analysis by an external auditor shall be conducted
annually to review internal control, account activity, and compliance with policies
and procedures.
XI. Authorized Broker Dealers and Financial Institutions
The Chief Financial Officer shall maintain a list of authorized broker/dealers and
financial institutions which are approved for investment purposes. It shall be the
Commission's policy to purchase securities only from those authorized
institutions and firms. Separate lists shall be maintained for broker/dealers and
financial institutions approved for repurchase agreements and those approved for
the purchase of other securities. If an investment advisor is used, they may use
their own list of approved broker/dealers and financial institutions for investment
purposes.
To be eligible, a firm must meet the following minimum criteria: (i) an institution
licensed by the state as a broker -dealer, or from a member of a federally
regulated securities exchange, from a national or state -chartered bank, from a
federal or state association or from a brokerage firm designated as a prirnary
government dealer by the Federal Reserve bank; and (ii) all broker/dealer firms
and individuals must be properly registered with the NASD and/or SEC to
transact business in the relevant geographic locations and product sectors. In
addition, counterparties for Repurchase Agreements shall be limited to primary
government securities dealers rated "A" or better by two NRSROs.
Counterparties shall also have (i) a short-term credit rating of at least P-1/A-1/or
F-1; (ii) minimum assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350 million
in capital; (iii) five years of acceptable audited financial results; and (iv) a strong
reputation among market participants.
The Chief Financial Officer shall select broker/dealers and other financial
institutions on the basis of the firm's expertise and credit worthiness. The
1 Revised September 10, 2014Apri1 13, 2016
12
Commission shall annually send a copy of the current investment policy to all
dealers approved to do business with the Commission. Each broker/ -dealer or
financial institution that has been authorized by the Commission shall be required
to submit and annually update a Broker/Dealer Questionnaire which includes the
firm's most recent financial statements. The Chief Financial Officer shall
maintain a file for each firm approved for investment purposes, which includes
the most recent Broker/Dealer Questionnaire.
XII. Safekeeping and Custody
To protect the Commission's assets, all securities owned by the Commission
shall be held in safekeeping in the Commission's name by a third party bank trust
department, acting as agent for the Commission under the terms of a custody
agreement executed by the bank and the Commission. All securities will be
received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment (DVP)
procedures; the Commission's safekeeping agent will only release payment for a
security after the security has been properly delivered.
Physical delivery securities shall be avoided whenever possible, as book entry
securities are much easier to transfer and account for since actual delivery of a
document never takes place. In addition, delivered securities must be properly
safeguarded against loss or destruction. The potential for fraud and loss increases
with physically delivered securities.
XIII. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest
The Commission adopts the following policy concerning conflicts of interest:
1. Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain
from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of
the investment program or which could impair their ability to make
impartial investment decisions.
2. Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall disclose
any material financial interest in any financial institution that conducts
business with the Commission, and they shall further disclose any large
personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the
performance of the Commission's portfolio.
3. Officers shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions
with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of the
Commission.
XIV. Investment Policy Review
Revised September 10, 2011FApril 13, 2016
13
The Chief Financial Officer shall annually render to the Board a statement of
investment policy, which the Board must consider at a public meeting. Any
changes to the policy shall also be considered by the Board at a public meeting.
Revised September 10, 2011April 13, 2016
14
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 28, 2016
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Agreement for Advance of 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Funds to
the City of Jurupa Valley
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 16-72-074-00, for advancement of 2009 Measure A Local
Streets and Roads (LSR) funds to advance up to $1,167,000 to the city of Jurupa Valley
(Jurupa Valley) utilizing funding from the 2009 Measure A Western County Regional
Arterial (MARA) program;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Commission established a commercial paper program in 2005 and subsequently issued
sales tax revenue bonds in 2008, 2009, and 2010 to provide advance funding for projects
included in the 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plan program. Some local jurisdictions requested
the ability to utilize the commercial paper program to advance LSR projects and highway and
regional arterial (Highway) projects. Advance funding agreements were executed with three
cities, which are the cities of Blythe, Hemet, and Indio for certain LSR projects and the Coachella
Valley Association of Governments for certain Highway projects.
As a result of the recent recession resulting in fluctuating Measure A revenues and the need to
preserve debt capacity for significant Commission highway projects, staff did not seek new
advance funding requests. However, in April 2011, the Commission approved the city of
Canyon Lake's (Canyon Lake) request for funding in an amount not to exceed $600,000, for the
Railroad Canyon Road project as an advance of its share of 2009 Measure A Western County
LSR funds. Staff evaluated this request and supported an advance funding agreement with
Canyon Lake based on the amount of advance, unique considerations of Canyon Lake and its
limited network and ability to be more cost-effective by completing additional construction
Agenda Item 8
15
work that was fully funded. There was no significant impact to Canyon Lake's ability to
maintain or construct facilities due to reduction of LSR allocation resulting from repayment
obligations.
In January, Commission staff met with Jurupa Valley staff to discuss a funding shortfall on the
Limonite Avenue widening project. The proposed projects limits are from Etiwanda Avenue to
Bain Street and will consist of widening from two to five lanes, including two mixed flow lanes
in each direction with paved shoulders and left turn bays, as necessary. All rights of way have
been secured for the project, and the project will be ready to advertise for construction in May
and begin construction this summer. The estimated construction cost is $4,207,000, and in
January 2014 the Commission approved $1,882,000 in MARA funding based on a 2013 Multi -
Funding Call for Projects (Call for Projects). The balance to be funded is $2,325,000.
In Jurupa Valley's Call for Projects application, it originally indicated it had $1.9 million in local
match funds comprised of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and Measure A LSR;
however, in order to obtain the maximum score under the local match criterion, Jurupa Valley
increased its local match to $2.3 million. In January, following the meeting with Jurupa Valley
staff, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Public Works Committee
Technical Advisory Committee approved an amendment to the Northwest Zone Transportation
Improvement Program adding $658,000 of TUMF funds for the construction phase of this
project (see attached letter).
Jurupa Valley indicated it has $500,000 available in Measure A LSR allocations received by the
city from the Commission, leaving $1,167,000 in local match funds to be identified. As a result
of extensive discussions between the Commission and Jurupa Valley staff and consideration of
other potential federal and state funding opportunities, Jurupa Valley requested consideration
of an advance of its share of Measure A LSR in order to continue progress toward construction
on this shelf -ready project. Measure A LSR allocations are disbursed monthly to eligible cities
and the county upon receipt from the State Board of Equalization.
Staff evaluated this request and supports an advance funding agreement with Jurupa Valley
based on the following.
• The project will improve safety conditions for motorists traveling on Limonite Avenue;
• Since the Commission does not have available bond proceeds to fund the advance, the
Commission can lend available MARA funds as the source to fund the advance without
having a significant, negative impact on the Commission's MARA program under the
condition that Jurupa Valley repay the advance by applying 65 percent of its monthly
Measure A LSR allocations until the advance is paid in full and no later than
June 30, 2018;
• In consideration for the advance of funds, Jurupa Valley agrees to not withdraw its
participation in the Western Riverside County TUMF and Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) programs if the advance has not
been repaid in full; and
Agenda Item 8
16
" T h e r a t e o f i n t e r e s t w i l l b e b a s e d o n t h e i n t e r e s t r a t e e a r n e d b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n
d e p o s i t s h e l d i n t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y P o o l e d I n v e s t m e n t F u n d , c u r r e n t l y 0 . 5 1 p e r c e n t ,
p l u s 0 . 5 0 p e r c e n t p e r a n n u m f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n c o s t s r e l a t e d t o t h e a d v a n c e .
I n t h e p a s t m a n y o f t h e a d v a n c e a g r e e m e n t s e n t e r e d i n t o b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n w i t h i t s m e m b e r
a g e n c i e s i n c l u d e d a l e a s e / l e a s e b a c k a g r e e m e n t t o s e c u r e t h e r e p a y m e n t o f M e a s u r e A L S R . I n
t h i s c a s e , J u r u p a V a l l e y s t a t e d t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n i t d o e s n o t o w n p r o p e r t y , w h i c h c o u l d b e
u s e d t o s e c u r e t h e a d v a n c e i n t h i s m a n n e r . T h e r e f o r e , t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t h a s b e e n d e l e t e d f r o m
t h e a g r e e m e n t . W h i l e t h i s m a k e s t h e a d v a n c e s o m e w h a t l e s s s e c u r e , s t a f f b e l i e v e s t h e s h o r t
r e p a y m e n t t e r m , a s w e l l a s J u r u p a V a l l e y ' s l o n g - t e r m c o m m i t m e n t t o t h e T U M F a n d M S H C P
p r o g r a m s p r o v i d e s a d e q u a t e s e c u r i t y t o s u p p o r t t h e t r a n s a c t i o n .
S i n c e t h i s r e q u e s t b y J u r u p a V a l l e y i s c o n s i d e r e d a s p e c i a l s i t u a t i o n , s t a f f c o n d u c t e d p r e l i m i n a r y
d u e d i l i g e n c e p r o c e d u r e s w i t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e a d v a n c e f u n d i n g g u i d e l i n e s a p p r o v e d b y t h e
C o m m i s s i o n i n S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 5 . S t a f f i s r e q u e s t i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l o f t h i s a d v a n c e
f u n d i n g a g r e e m e n t ; h o w e v e r , s u c h a p p r o v a l s h o u l d n o t b e i n t e r p r e t e d b y o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s a s
a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f f u n d s f o r n e w a d v a n c e f u n d i n g r e q u e s t s .
F i n a n c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n
I n F i s c a l Y e a r B u d g e t :
N / A
Y e a r :
F Y 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
A m o u n t :
$ 1 , 1 6 7 , 0 0 0
S o u r c e o f F u n d s :
2 0 0 9 W e s t e r n C o u n t y M e a s u r e A
R e g i o n a l A r t e r i a l f u n d s a s a n a d v a n c e o f
L o c a l S t r e e t s a n d R o a d s f u n d s
B u d g e t A d j u s t m e n t :
N / A
G L / P r o j e c t A c c o u n t i n g N o . :
2 6 6 1 2 4 0 1
F i s c a l P r o c e d u r e s A p p r o v e d :
\ 1 1 / c : 4 1
D a t e :
0 3 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 6
A t t a c h m e n t s :
1 ) F e b r u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 L e t t e r F r o m W R C O G t o C i t y o f J u r u p a V a l l e y
2 ) A g r e e m e n t N o . 1 6 - 7 2 - 0 7 4 - 0 0 ( D r a f t )
A g e n d a I t e m 8
1 7
Western Riverside. Council of Governrnen :s
County of Riverside • City of Banning • City of Cakes° • City of Canyon lake • City of Corona • City of Eastvale • City of Hemet • City of Jurupa Valley
City of Lake Elsinore • City of Menifee • City of Moreno Valley • City of Murrieta • City of Norco • City of Perris • Ciiy of Riverside • Cily of San Jacinto
City of Temecula • City of Wildomar • Eastern Municipal Water District • Western Municipal Water District • Morongo Band of Mission Indians
t iviST[RNA�*xirot= Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
February 18, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Gary S. Thompson
City Manager
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5183
Subject: #11-NW-JVL-1150 Limonite Avenue Widening (Etiwanda Avenue to Bain Street)
Request to Program Construction Funding
Dear Mr. Tho
-I
This letter serves as documentation of the Northwest Zone TAC's approval of your request to
allocate funding for the Limonite Avenue (Etiwanda Avenue to Bain Street) widening Project. Based
on their approval of your request at the January 14, 2016, Northwest Zone TAC meeting, the
Northwest Zone TIP was amended to indicate that the $658,000 is currently programmed for the
widening of Limonite Avenue during Fiscal Year 2018/2019.
We ask that your staff coordinate with WRCOG Transportation staff to prepare the appropriate
documentation to allow processing of your invoices approximately nine months prior to the
commencement of the 2018/2109 Fiscal Year. As WRCOG's Fiscal Year begins in July, the City
could execute a Reimbursement Agreement with WRCOG in fall of 2017. WRCOG will then be able
to process your invoices for reimbursement beginning in July 2018.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (951) 955-8303 or
bishop(c�wrcog.coq.ca.us.
Sine/erely,
f
y t� t,"�-
Rick Bishop
Executive Director
cc: Christopher Gray, WRCOG Director of Transportation
Jim English, City of Jurupa Valley Public Works Director/City Engineer
Project file
4080 Lemon: Street, 3rd Floor Annex, MS1032 • Riverside, CA 92501-3609 • 19511 955.7/45 • Fax 19511 787-7991 • www.wrcog.ceg.ca.us
ATTACHMENT 2
Agreement No. 16-72-074-00
AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCEMENT OF 2009 MEASURE "A"
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDS
1. Parties and Date. This Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into as of this day
of , 2016, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission
("RCTC" or "Commission") and the City of Jurupa Valley ("City") located in the County of
Riverside, State of California:
2. Recitals.
2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing
pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5.
2.2 The City is a municipality with one local road requiring maintenance,
development and rehabilitation hereunder.
2.3 In 1988, RCTC enacted and the voters of Riverside County ("County")
approved Measure "A" (1989 Measure `A') which authorized RCTC to impose a retail
transaction and use tax of one-half percent (.5%) throughout the County of Riverside for up to
twenty years. This tax is popularly known as a one-half cent sales tax.
2.4 The 1989 Measure "A" tax was due to expire in June 2009, but on
November 5, 2002, a thirty year extension of the half -cent sales tax was approved by voters of
the County ("2009 Measure `A'").
2.5 The Transportation Improvement Plan ("Plan") implementing the 2009
Measure "A" provides that its tax funds are to be used for transportation purposes in the County
and further provides that $970 million of the these funds are to be distributed to the cities in the
Western County area. for local street and road improvements ("Local Streets and Roads
Funding") in amounts based on both proportionate population and contribution to 2009 Measure
"A" tax revenue.
2.6 The proceeds of the retail transaction and use tax ("2009 Measure `A'
Funds") are collected by the California Board of Equalization pursuant to a contract between
RCTC and the Board of Equalization, and paid to RCTC monthly.
2.7 The Plan implementing the 2009 Measure "A" also provides that an
estimated $300 million of these funds are to be available to widen existing roads and construct
new roads on the regional arterial system ("Regional Arterial Funding"). A portion of the
Regional Arterial Funding will provide funding for the advance provided herein.
1 of 8
19
2.8 The City has requested and RCTC has agreed that RCTC will advance to
the City certain amounts which the City and RCTC anticipate RCTC would otherwise collect and
allocate to the City as its share of Local Streets and Roads Funding, as allocated pursuant to the
formula set forth in the Plan.
2.9 In consideration for the advance of funds referenced in Section 2.8, the
city agrees to not withdraw its participation in the Western Riverside County or Coachella Valley
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and the Western Riverside County Multi -
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) programs if any amounts remain unpaid hereunder.
2.10 The funds shall be used to finance a portion of the cost of improvements to
the Limonite Avenue Widening Project more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto ("Project").
2.11 The City agrees that it will repay to RCTC the advance and costs
associated therewith described herein from Local Streets and Roads Funding and shall secure
such repayment obligation by way of an acceptable security arrangement if requested by RCTC.
3. Terms.
3.1 Advance of 2009 Measure "A" Funds.
A. Amount of Advance. RCTC agrees to distribute to the City, on
terms and conditions set forth herein, a sum not to exceed One Million One Hundred Sixty -
Seven Thousand Dollars ($1,167,000) (the "Advance").
B. Interest. The Advance shall only accrue interest on that portion of
the Advance actually distributed to the City. Once any portion of the Advance is distributed to
the City, interest shall accrue from this date and said interest shall be payable by the City at a rate
of 'A percent per annum over the applicable interest rate earned by RCTC on deposits held in the
Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund. The above -described % percent interest rate shall
reimburse RCTC for _the _cost of administering .the Advance.
C. Repayment of Advance. The City shall repay the Advance,
together with all accrued and unpaid interest, to RCTC in monthly installments commencing the
month following the final payment of the Advance to the City, amortized over the period from
the date of this Agreement until June 30, 2018 (the "Maturity Date") to be calculated by RCTC
based on the amount of the Advance, with each installment due no later than the thirtieth (30tn)
of each month, until the Maturity Date or repayment in full of all outstanding principal and
accrued and unpaid interest, whichever is earlier.
D. Early Repayment. The City shall have the right to repay the entire
unpaid principal balance of the Advance, plus accrued interest, without penalty. The City
intends, but is not obligated to, seek funding from alternative sources to repay Advance. Such
alternative sources include eligible TUMF funds, as well as grants and appropriations as well as
applicable state and federal programs. At the City's reasonable request and to the extent possible,
RCTC will cooperate in assisting the City to obtain and utilize these alternative funding sources
for early repayment of Advance.
2of8
20
3.2 Repayment.
A. Authorization to Apply Local Streets and Roads Funding to
Payments; Pledge of Additional Security. For so long as any obligation of the City under this
Agreement remains outstanding, the City hereby instructs RCTC to apply 65% of the City's
portion of any Local Streets and Roads Funding which would otherwise be distributed to the City
as Local Streets and Road Funding under the 2009 Measure "A" Plan to pay any due but unpaid
obligations of the City to RCTC under this Agreement. To further secure the City's repayment
obligation, the City shall, unless otherwise agreed to enter into a security arrangement if
requested by RCTC ("Additional Security"). The parties acknowledge that the Advance is not a
general obligation of the City, but is rather a special obligation of the City payable solely from
the City's portion of any Local Streets and Roads Funding which would otherwise be distributed
to the City under the 2009 Measure "A". The parties further acknowledge that the Additional
Security is not a debt for purposes of the California Constitution. Consequently, neither the full
faith and credit nor the taxing powers of the City are pledged for repayment of the Advance or
the Additional Security.
B. Remaining Balance Payable. RCTC shall notify the City of the
calculation and application of funds made under Section 3.2(B) above, and any amounts then due
to RCTC from the City, within thirty (30) days of RCTC's calculation and application of such
amounts. RCTC's calculations shall be final, absent clerical or mathematical error. The City
shall pay to RCTC any balance due within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice from RCTC
of such amount.
3.3 Conditions of the Advance. The obligation of RCTC to make the
Advance shall be subject to the condition precedent that RCTC shall have received, in form and
substance satisfactory to RCTC, all of the following:
A. Duly executed copies of this Agreement, Additional Security and
such other documents as RCTC may request in order to fully effectuate the purposes and intent
of this Agreement.
B. Such documents and certificates regarding the existence, authority
and power of the City to execute this Agreement and any related documents as RCTC deems
reasonably necessary.
3.4 City's Representations and Warranties. The City hereby makes the
following representations and warranties which shall be deemed to be continuing representations
and warranties so long as the Advances remains outstanding:
A. Agreement Authorized. The execution, delivery and performance
of this Agreement, the Additional Security and any and all related documents (collectively
"Advance Documents") are duly authorized and do not require the further consent or approval of
any body, board or commission or other authority.
B. No Default. The City is not in default, nor is it aware of any
events that, with the passage of time or the giving of notice, would constitute an event of default
on any obligation of the City to RCTC or on any existing public debt issuance of the City.
3 of 8
21
i
C. No Conflict. The execution, delivery and performance of the
Advances Documents does not contravene or conflict with any constitutional provision, law,
statute, regulation, or any agreement, indenture or undertaking to which the City is a party or by
which it or the 2009 Measure "A" Funds may be bound or affected, and does not and will not
cause any lien, charge or other encumbrance to be created or imposed upon the 2009 Measure
"A" Funds by reason thereof.
D. Solvency. The City is solvent and has not undertaken any actions
to declare bankruptcy and does not intend to do so during the duration of the Advance.
E. No Violation of RCTC Measure "A" Advance Policies. The City
is not in violation of the policies of RCTC for recipients of an Advance, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "C."
F. Litigation: There is no litigation or other proceeding pending or
threatened against or affecting the City and/or relating to the Advance, or the Advance
Documents, or the transactions contemplated herein or thereby, or that would materially impact
the City's ability to repay the Advance.
G. Financial Condition. All financial statements and data submitted
in writing by the City to RCTC in connection with the request for Advance are true and correct,
and said statements truly represent the financial condition of the City as of the date thereof and
the results of the operations of the City for the period covered thereby and have been prepared in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles on a basis consistently maintained, and
that since such date there have been no materially adverse changes in the ordinary course of
business. The City has no knowledge of any liabilities, contingent or otherwise, at such date not
reflected in said statements, and the City has not entered into any special commitments or
substantial contracts which are not reflected in said statements other than in the ordinary and
normal course of business, which may have a materially adverse effect upon its financial
condition or operations as now conducted.
3.5 - --City's Affirmative- Covenants. The City agrecs that so long as the
Advance is outstanding, it will, unless RCTC shall otherwise consent in writing:
A. Use of Advance. Use the Advance only for the purpose and
project identified in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. In addition, the City recognizes that under
2009 Measure "A" Plan the purpose of Local Streets and Roads Funding is to assist with the
maintenance, development, and rehabilitation of the existing the City and County road system in
Western Riverside County, and the City agrees that the Advance shall only be used in a manner
consistent with the portions of the 2009 Measure "A" Plan related to Western County Local
Streets and Road Funding.
B. Records and Reports. Maintain a standard and modern system of
accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles on a basis consistently
maintained and furnish RCTC annual audited financial statements and such other information
relating to the affairs of the City or the uses of the Advance as RCTC reasonably may request
from time to time.
4of8
22
C. Inspection. Permit, at any reasonable time, upon reasonable
notice, qualified personnel designated by RCTC in writing, to inspect any projects funded by the
Advance and any records maintained in connection therewith. RCTC shall have no duty to make
any such inspection and shall not incur any liability or obligation by reason of making or not
making any such inspection.
D. Notice of Default. Promptly notify RCTC in writing of the
occurrence of any Event of Default hereunder or of any event which would become an Event of
Default hereunder upon giving of notice, lapse of time, or both.
3.6 City's Negative Covenants.
A. The City will not, so long as the Advance remains outstanding,
without RCTC's prior written consent create, incur, assume or permit to exist any mortgage,
deed of trust, security interest (whether possessory or nonpossessory) or other lien upon or on the
City's Local Share of the 2009 Measure "A" Funds other than liens in favor of RCTC.
B. The City shall not withdraw its participation in the TUMF and the
MSHCP programs prior to the repayment in full of all outstanding principal and accrued and
unpaid interest on the Advance.
3.7 Rights and Remedies.
A. RCTC shall at all times have the rights and remedies of a secured
party under the California Commercial Code ("Code") in addition to the rights and remedies
provided herein or in any other agreement or document executed by the City.
B. The rights and remedies of RCTC under this Agreement shall not
be exhausted by the exercise of any of the rights or remedies of RCTC pursuant to this
Agreement or any other agreement between the City and RCTC or any action, proceeding or any
number of successive actions or proceedings, unless and until all of the sums owing RCTC by
the City shall be fully paid, performed and discharged. All rights and remedies afforded to
RCTC pursuant hereto or under any other agreement at any time in effect between the City and
RCTC (whether or not there are other parties in addition to the City and RCTC) shall be separate
and cumulative and in addition to any and all rights or remedies available at law, in equity or
otherwise, and no one of such rights or remedies, whether exercised or not, shall be deemed to be
in exclusion of any other right or remedy available and shall in no way limit or prejudice any
other right or remedy. The exercise of any one of such rights or remedies shall not be deemed a
waiver of, or an election not to exercise, any other right or remedy.
3.8 Events of Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following
events shall, at RCTC's option, constitute an event of default (each an "Event of Default") and
the City shall provide RCTC with immediate notice thereof.
A. Any warranty, representation, statement, report or certificate made
or delivered to RCTC by the City or any of the City's officers, employees or agents now or
hereafter which is incorrect, false, untrue or misleading in any material respect; or
5 of 8
23
B. The City shall fail to pay, perform or comply with, or otherwise
shall breach, any obligation, warranty, term or condition in this Agreement or any amendment to
this Agreement, or any agreement delivered pursuant hereto; or
C. There shall occur any of the following: dissolution, termination Of
existence or insolvency of the City; the commencement of any proceeding under any bankruptcy
or insolvency law by or against the City; entry of a court order which enjoins, restrains or in any
way prevents the City from paying any sums owed by the City to RCTC.
3.9 Indemnification. The City shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend
RCTC from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses,
including interest, penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, incurred or suffered, which
arise, result from, or relate to City's breach of or failure to perform any of its agreements,
covenants, obligations, representations, or warranties contained herein. Such indemnity shall
survive the termination or discharge of this Agreement.
3.10 Procedures for Distribution of the Advance.
A. Initial Payment by the City. The City shall be responsible for
initial payment of all the Project costs as they are incurred. Following payment of such Project
costs, the City shall submit invoices to RCTC requesting reimbursement of those eligible costs
described in section 3.5.A. of this Agreement. Each invoice shall be accompanied by detailed
contractor invoices, or other demands for payment addressed to the City, and documents
evidencing the City's payment of the invoices or demands for payment. The City shall submit
invoices not more often than monthly and not less often than quarterly.
B. Review and Reimbursement by RCTC. Upon receipt of an invoice
from the City, RCTC may request additional documentation or explanation of the Project costs
for which reimbursement is sought. Undisputed amounts shall be paid by RCTC to the City
within thirty (30) days. In the event that RCTC disputes the eligibility of the City for
reimbursement of all or a portion of an invoiced amount, the Parties shall meet and confer in an
attempt to resolve the dispute. If the meet and confer process is unsuccessful in resolving the
dispute, the City may appeal RCTC's decision as to the eligibility of one or more invoices to
RCTC's Executive Director. The City may appeal the decision of the Executive Director to the
full RCTC Board, the decision of which shall be final. Additional details concerning the
procedure for the City's submittal of invoices to RCTC and RCTC's consideration and payment
of submitted invoices are set forth in Exhibit "D", attached hereto.
C. Funding Amount/Adjustment. If a post Project audit or review
indicates that RCTC has provided reimbursement to the City in an amount in excess of the
Advance, or has provided reimbursement of ineligible Project costs, the City shall reimburse
RCTC for the excess or ineligible payments within 30 days of notification by RCTC.
3.11 Miscellaneous.
A. No Waiver. No waiver of any Event of Default or breach by the
City hereunder shall be implied from any omission by RCTC to take action on account of such
default, and no express waiver shall affect any def It specified in the
6 of 8
24
waiver and the waiver shall be operative only for the time and to the extent therein stated.
Waivers of any covenant, term, or condition contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver
of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition. The consent or approval by
RCTC to or of any act by the City requiring further consent or approval shall not be deemed to
waive or render unnecessary the consent or approval to or of any subsequent similar act.
B. No Third Parties Benefited. This Agreement is made and entered
into for the sole protection and benefit of RCTC and the City and no third person, other than a
permitted assignee or successor hereunder, shall have any right of action under this Agreement.
C. Notices. All notices or other communication required or permitted
to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be considered as properly given if mailed by
first class United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified with return receipt
requested, or by express courier delivery or personal delivery to the addressee. Notice mailed by
U.S. mail shall be effective only if and when received at the addressee's address. For purposes of
notice, the addresses of the parties shall be as follows:
RCTC: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502-2208
Attn: Executive Director
CITY:
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Attn: City Manager
Each party shall have the right to change its address for notice hereunder to any other
location by the giving of notice to the other party in the manner set forth above.
D. Applicable Law. This Agreement and all documents provided for
herein shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
E. Time. Time is of the essence in this Agreement, and each and
every provision hereof in which time is an element.
F. Amendment and Waiver. This Agreement and each provision
hereof may be amended, changed, waived, discharged or terminated only by an instrument in
writing signed by the parties hereto.
G. Attorney's Fees. The prevailing party in any action arising out of
this Agreement shall be entitled to its actual attorney's fees and other related expenses actually
incurred.
H. Severability. The invalidity and unenforceability of any one or
more provisions of this Agreement will in no way affect any other provision.
7of8
25
I. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in three or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.
J. Headings. The various headings used in this Agreement are
inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this
Agreement or any provision hereof.
K. Further Assurances. At any time or from time to time upon the
request of RCTC, the City will execute and deliver such further documents and do other acts and
things as RCTC may reasonably request in order to effect fully the purposes of this Agreement,
and any other Advances Documents and to provide for the payment of the Advances and interest
thereon in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date
first herein above written.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: By:
Scott Matas, Chair Mayor
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED ATTEST:
FOR APPROVAL:
By: By:
Anne Mayer, Executive Director City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM
By: By:
Best Best & Krieger LLP, Counsel
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
8of8
26
, City Attorney
Exhibit List
Exhibit A Description of Project
Exhibit B N/A
Exhibit C Commission Policies
Exhibit D Procedures for Submittal,
Consideration and Payment
of Invoices
EXHIBIT "A"
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY 2009 MEASURE "A" ADVANCE PROJECT:
[ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE]
A-1
28
Limonite Avenue Widening Project Description
Limonite Avenue Widening from Etiwanda Avenue to Bain Street: Widening from two to five
lanes, including two travel lanes in each direction with paved shoulders and left turn bays, as
necessary. As used in this Agreement, `Work' does not include preparation of preliminary
engineering studies, preparation of environmental review documentation for the Work. right-of-
way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for
condemnation procedures if authorized by the City and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers
for property acquisition, condemnation proceeds, preparation of plans, specifications, and
estimates by City or consultants, bidding, advertising and awarding of the Work contracts.
Estimated construction cost of $4,207,000
A-2
29
EXHIBIT "B"
Not used
30
EXHIBIT "C"
COMMISSION POLICIES
1. Local agencies are required to submit Five Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) to the
RCTC in order to qualify for Measure A Streets and Roads funds. In order to be eligible
to receive monthly disbursements of funding beginning at the start of a fiscal year,
agencies are required to submit their CIPs to the RCTC no later than May 31St
The first year of an agency's annual CIP update will include a list of the specific projects
planned to be constructed in that year including projects in Year 1 of the current CIP
which will not be under contract by June 30th of the current year. Year 1 of the CIP will
also show expenditures for multi -year projects which are expected to be spent for project
development work.
Projects to be constructed in Years 2-5 of the CIP are to be listed along with their
estimated costs. The specific year for construction may be included, if available, but is
not required in the CIP. Costs for multi -year projects, excluding project development
costs shown in Year 1, are to be included in the list of Year 2-5 projects.
2. Cities not participating in the Western Riverside County or Coachella Valley
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and the Western Riverside County
Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) program do not qualify to receive
Measure A Streets and Roads allocations (2009 Measure A).
3. Local agencies which are entitled to Measure A funding allocations must demonstrate
that they continue to be committed to using their local discretionary funds for local streets
and road improvement and maintenance. The local agencies must provide the RCTC with
an annual certification that the Measure A funds they are allocated will not replace
existing local discretionary funds being used for local transportation purposes. The
RCTC cannot issue funds for a new fiscal year until it has received certification of
maintenance of effort from the respective agencies. Calculations supporting the MOE
certification may be noted by staff as preliminary pending adoption of the annual budget
and completion of the annual audit. If the audit or the budget process results in a
significant modification to the MOE calculations of CIP, revisions are to be submitted to
the RCTC for processing.
33
EXHIBIT "D"
PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL, CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT OF INVOICES
1. RCTC recommends that the City incorporate this Exhibit "D-1" into its contracts with
any subcontractors to establish a standard method for preparation of invoices by
contractors to the City and ultimately to RCTC for reimbursement of City contractor
costs.
2. Each month the City shall submit an invoice for eligible Project costs incurred during the
preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to RCTC's Executive Director
with a copy to RCTC's Project Coordinator. Each invoice shall be accompanied by a
cover letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit "D-2".
3. Each invoice shall include documentation from each contractor used by the City for the
Project, listing labor costs, subcontractor costs, and other expenses. Each invoice shall
also include a monthly progress report and spreadsheets showing the hours or amounts
expended by each contractor or Contractor for the month and for the entire Project to
date. Samples of acceptable task level documentation and progress reports are attached
as Exhibits "D-4" and "D-5". All documentation from the City's contractors should be
accompanied by a cover letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit "D-3".
4. If the City is seeking reimbursement for direct expenses incurred by City staff for eligible
Project costs, the City shall detail the same level of information for its labor and any
expenses in the same level of detail as required of contractors pursuant to Exhibit "D"
and its attachments.
5. Charges for each task and milestone listed in Exhibit "A" shall be listed separately in the
invoice.
6. Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the City Representative or his or her
designee which reads as follows:
"I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates submitted for reimbursement in this
invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the contractors or contractors
listed.
Signed
Title
Date
Invoice No.
7. RCTC will pay the City within 30 days after receipt by the Commission of an invoice. If
RCTC disputes any_portion of an invoice, payment—f-ed—that-portion will be withheld,
1
34
without interest, pending resolution of the dispute, but the uncontested balance will be
paid.
8. The final payment under this Agreement will be made only after: (i) the City has obtained
a Release and Certificate of Final Payment from each contractor or contractor used on the
Project; (ii) the City has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment; and (iii) the
City has provided copies of each such Release to RCTC.
2
35
EXHIBIT D-1
Elements of Compensation
For the satisfactory performance and completion of the Services under this Agreement,
the Commission will pay the Contractor compensation as set forth herein. The total
compensation for this service shall not exceed ( INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR
AMOUNT ) ($ INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT ) without written
approval of the Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation").
1. ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION.
Compensation for the Services will be comprised of the following elements: 1.1 Direct
Labor Costs; 1.2 Fixed Fee; and 1.3 Additional Direct Costs.
1.1 DIRECT LABOR COSTS.
Direct Labor costs shall be paid in an amount equal to the product of the Direct
Salary Costs and the Multiplier which are defined as follows:
1.1.1 DIRECT SALARY COSTS
Direct Salary Costs are the base salaries and wages actually paid to the
Contractor's personnel directly engaged in performance of the Services
under the Agreement. (The range of hourly rates paid to the Contractor's
personnel appears in Section 2 below.)
1.1.2 MULTIPLIER
The Multiplier to be applied to the Direct Salary Costs to determine the
Direct Labor Costs is , and is the sum of the
following components:
1.1.2.1 Direct Salary Costs
1.1.2.2 Payroll Additives
The Decimal Ratio of Payroll Additives to Direct Salary Costs. Payroll
Additives include all employee benefits, allowances for vacation, sick
leave, and holidays, and company portion of employee insurance and
social and retirement benefits, all federal and state payroll taxes, premiums
for insurance which are measured by payroll costs, and other contributions
and benefits imposed by applicable laws and regulations.
1
36
1.1.2.3 Overhead Costs
The Decimal Ratio of Allowable Overhead Costs to the Contractor Firm's
Total Direct Salary Costs. Allowable Overhead Costs include general,
administrative and overhead costs of maintaining and operating
established offices, and consistent with established firm policies, and as
defined in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations, Part 31.2.
Total Multiplier
(sum of 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3)
1.2 FIXED FEE.
1.2.1 The fixed fee is $
1.2.2 A pro-rata share of the Fixed Fee shall be applied to the total Direct Labor Costs
expended for services each month, and shall be included on each monthly invoice.
1.3 ADDITIONAL DIRECT COSTS.
Additional Direct Costs directly identifiable to the performance of the services of this
Agreement shall be reimbursed at the rates below, or at actual invoiced cost.
Rates for identified Additional Direct Costs are as follows:
ITEM
REIMBURSEMENT RATE
[_insert charges J
Per Diem $ /day
Car mileage $ /mile
Travel $ /trip
Computer Charges $ /hour
Photocopies $ /copy
Blueline $ /sheet
LD Telephone $ /call
Fax $ /sheet
Photographs $ /sheet
Travel by air and travel in excess of 100 miles from the Contractor's office nearest to the
Commission's office must have the Commission's prior written approval _tobe reimbursed
under this Agreement.
2
37
2. DIRECT SALARY RATES
Direct Salary Rates, which are the range of hourly rates to be used in determining Direct
Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the following:
2.1 Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable to both straight time and overtime work,
unless payment of a premium for overtime work is required by law, regulation or
craft agreement, or is otherwise specified in this Agreement. In such event, the
premium portion of Direct Salary Costs will not be subject to the Multiplier
defined in Paragraph 1.1.2 above.
2.2 Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in effect for one year following the effective
date of the Agreement. Thereafter, they may be adjusted annually to reflect the
Contractor's adjustments to individual compensation. The Contractor shall notify
the Commission in writing prior to a change in the range of rates included herein,
and prior to each subsequent change.
POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES
[ _sample [
Principal $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Project Manager $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Sr. Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Project Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Assoc. Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Technician $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Drafter/CADD Operator $ .00 - $ .00/hour
Word Processor $ .00 - $ .00/hour
2.3 The above rates are for the Contractor only. All rates for subcontractors to the
Contractor will be in accordance with the Contractor's cost proposal.
3. INVOICING.
3.1 Each month the Contractor shall submit an invoice for Services performed during
the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to the Commission's
Executive Director with two (2) copies to the Commission's Project Coordinator.
3.2 Charges shall be billed in accordance with the terms and rates included herein,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Commission's Representative.
3.3 Base Work and Extra Work shall be charged separately, and the charges for each
task and Milestone listed in the Scope of Services, shall be listed separately. The
3
38
charges for each individual assigned by the Contractor under this Agreement shall
be listed separately on an attachment to the invoice.
3.4 A charge of $500 or more for any one item of Additional Direct Costs shall be
accompanied by substantiating documentation satisfactory to the Commission
such as invoices, telephone logs, etc.
3.5 Each copy of each invoice shall be accompanied by a Monthly Progress Report
and spreadsheets showing hours expended by task for each month and total
project to date.
3.6 Each invoice shall indicate payments to DBE subcontractors or supplies by dollar
amount and as a percentage of the total invoice.
3.7 Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the Contractor's
Representative or an officer of the firm which reads as follows:
I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this
invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the
employees listed.
Signed
Title
Date
Invoice No.
4. PAYMENT
4.1 The Commission shall pay the Contractor within four to six weeks after receipt by
the Commission of an original invoice. Should the Commission contest any
portion of an invoice, that portion shall be held for resolution, without interest, but
the uncontested balance shall be paid.
4.2 The final payment for Services under this Agreement will be made only after the
Contractor has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment.
4
39
EXHIBIT D-2
Sample Cover Letter to RCTC
Date
Ms. Anne Mayer
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502
ATTN: Accounts Payable
Re: Project Title - Invoice #_
Enclosed for your review and payment approval is the City's invoice for professional and
technical services that was rendered by our contractors in connection with the 2002 Measure "A"
Local Streets and Roads Funding per Agreement No. effective (Month/Day/Year) .
The required support documentation received from each contractor is included as backup to the
invoice.
Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year .
Total Authorized Agreement Amount:
Total Invoiced to Date:
Total Previously Invoiced:
Balance Remaining:
Amount due this Invoice:
$0,000,000.00
$0,000,000.00
$0,000,000.00
$0,000,000.00
S0,000,000.00
I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates
worked and paid to the contractors listed.
By:
cc:
Name
Title
40
i
EXHIBIT D-3
Sample Letter from Contractor to City/County
Month/Date/Year
Ms. Anne Mayer
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
P.O. BOX 12008
Riverside, CA 92502-2208
Attn: Accounts Payable
Invoice #
For [type of services] rendered by [contractor name] in connection with [name of project]
This is per agreement No. XX-XX-XXX effective Month/Date/Year .
Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year
Total Base Contract Amount:
Authorized Extra Work (if Applicable)
$000,000.00
$000,000.00
TOTAL AUTHORIZED CONTRACT AMOUNT: $000,000.00
Total Invoice to Date:
Total Previously Billed:
Balance Remaining:
$000,000.00
$000,000.00
$000,000.00
Amount Due this Invoice: $000,000.00
I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates
worked and paid to the employees listed,
By:
Name
Title
EXHIBIT D-4
SAMPLE TASK SUMMARY SCHEDULE
42
EXHIBIT D-5
Sample Progress Report
REPORTING PERIOD: Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year
PROGRESS REPORT: #1
A. Activities and Work Completed during Current Work Periods
TASK 01 — 100% PS&E SUBMITTAL
1 Responded to Segment 1 comments from Department of Transportation
2. Completed and submitted Segment 1 final PS&E
B. Current/Potential Problems Encountered & Corrective Action
Problems
None
C. Work Planned Next Period
Corrective Action
None
TASK O1 —100% PS&E SUBMITTAL
1. Completing and to submit Traffic Signal and Electrical Design plans
2. Responding to review comments
RVPUB \DAB \ 68 81 80.1
43
AGENDA ITEM 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 28, 2016
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort Base Year Adjustment for the City of
Blythe
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the adjustment to the city of Blythe's (Blythe) 2009 Measure A Maintenance of
Effort (MOE) base year amount to $170,000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
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 Measure A funds
supplement current expenditures, not supplant ongoing, local infrastructure investment. 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. Blythe is requesting an adjustment to its base year level, as its street
maintenance has been reduced during FY 2008/09 through FY 2010/11 due to the layoff of
45 percent of the street maintenance staff as a result of deficit spending. Blythe's current 2009
Measure A MOE base year is $520,192, which also included approximately $164,000 of
non -recurring or extraordinary expenditures when it was originally calculated. Blythe is
requesting that the 2009 Measure A MOE base year be adjusted to $170,000, which
approximates the current average annual recurring street maintenance expenditures.
Staff supports Blythe's request to adjust its 2009 Measure A MOE base year to $170,000
effective beginning in FY 2016/17, as it is consistent with the MOE guidelines and continues to
uphold a basic MOE principle, which requires local jurisdictions to continue to invest in local
Agenda Item 9
44
infrastructure. Should the Commission approve this recommendation, staff will request Blythe
to submit its FY 2016/17 MOE certification to reflect the adjusted amount. The annual Measure
A audit process will review Blythe's MOE 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 Blythe's 2009
Measure A MOE base year.
Attachment: City of Blythe Correspondence
Agenda Item 9
45
CITY OF BLYTHE
235 North Broadway / Blythe, California 92225
Phone (760) 922-6161 / Fax (760) 922-4938
UO6
February 4, 2016
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Attn: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer
4080 Lemon Street, 3' Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Ms. Trevino,
Subject: Measure "A" Load Streets and Roads Maintenance of Effort Adjustment Request
The City of Blythe's (the> City) reason for this letter is to ask. Riverside County Transportation
Commission (RCTC) for its consideration in re-evaluating and adjusting the City's current
required Maintenance of Effort (VIOE). Blythe is Et small community with a population of
approximately 13,000 (excluding those incarcerated); that receives Measure "A" fiuuls for the
use of transportation purposes. Ordinance No. 02-001, Section V11 -- MOE of RCTC, requires
that agencies receiving Measure "A" funds shall maintain their existing commitment of local
funds for street, highway and public transit purposes. While the City of Blythe has continued to
tnalce every effort to meet these requiretnents, it is proving more and more difficult for the City
to do so.
The City's 2009/2010 fiscal year was established as the MOE base year and the City's general
ledger information for transportation expenditures during the base year now requires the City to
spend $520,192 in local funds. After careful review, the City sees several factors they would
like to point out for the consideration in adjusting the current MOE.
A. The City received new management in August of 2008, shortly before the base year was
established at which time management determined the City was deficit spending. The
City took immediate action to rectify the situation and in doing so was forced to lay off
numerous employees, five of which were being funded for street maintenance. The City
still today has been unable to rehire four of the five positions. The reduction in street
maintenance staff has reduced the Agencies cogs to maintain local roads dining the
recent years.
B. During the base year, the City was still operating the Local Transportation Fund (LIT), in
46
•
which no funding had been received for several years. The fund was used to record the
City's local street and highway expenditures. The City has since rectified this fund at the
direction of RCTC and all expenses now reside under the City's general fund. The
expenditures for 2009/2010 totaled $ 520,192 and are the reason the City now must spend
$520,192 of local funds to receive Measure "A" funding. However, the City would like
to point out that the expenditures during this time consisted of extraordinary items as
noted below:
Local Actual. Maintenance Expenditures: 356,465
Non -Recurring Contribution to Gas Talc Fund: 104,709
Non Recurring Contribution to LTF Fund: 59,018
520,192
The actual expenditures that are considered nonrecurring (extraordinary) were $163,727
of the $520,192, making $356,465 a more realistic amount for determining the 'base year
MOE.
C. In the last several years the City has received on average approximately $900,000 in
Measure "A" funds each year, but must spend $520,192 of local funds to continue
receiving Measure ".A" funding. This amount equates to over 50% of the Measure "A
funding received.
D. The City prepares the street maintenance. budget annually allocating enough local funds
to give every effort in meeting the MOE but falls short annually. In the last several year's
approximately $170,000 of these local funds are recurring routine maintenance
expenditures. The remaining $350,000 budgeted to meet the MOE arenon-recurring
(extraordinary) items budgeted with intent to meet MOE and prevent the City from losing
Measure "A"'funding. Most of these extraordinary items are capital equipment purchases
or capital projects that in some cases get delayed causing the City's actual being less than
budgeted. Even with the City's attempt to place capital expenditures within the budget to
rneet MOE, they still fall short anm ally and only expend approximately $350,000, which
are verifiable from Independent Accountant's Report prepared on RCTC's behalf..
In closing, the City is asking that RCTC re-evaluate and adjust the current MOE amount of
$520,192. Based on the information the City has provided in this letter, the City's approximate
actual recurring street maintenance expenditures in recent years is $170,000. Please consider
this request as this is truly a more realistic amount for the City of Blythe. Should you have any
question or requests for further information, please feel free to contact me at (760) 922-6161 ext.
1230 or celms@cityofblythe:ca.gov;.
Sincerely,.
Christa Elms
Interim Director ofFinance_
47
AGENDA ITEM 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 28, 2016
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director
THROUGH:
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
2016 State Transportation Improvement Program Revision Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Update;
and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:'
As previously reported, at the January 2016 California Transportation Commission's (CTC)
meeting the 2016 STIP Fund Estimate was revised to reflect the adjustment to the gasoline
excise tax. This adjustment, which is statutorily required each year by the State Board of
Equalization, decreased the STIP Fund Estimate by $754 million. As a result, each region was
required to revise its 2016 STIP submittal and remove projects and/or decrease funding. CTC
staff provided the regions with a fair share target of the reduction with Riverside County's share
identified at $32 million.
At the February 22 Budget and Implementation Committee and the March 9 Commission
meetings, staff presented its recommendation to reduce construction funding on the
I-15/French Valley Parkway interchange project from $47.6 million to $15,356,000, and
forwarded this revision to the CTC.
At the March 16-17 CTC meeting, CTC staff indicated the regions submitted a total of
approximately $550 million in reductions. CTC staff also commented that the CTC was
continuing to work with the regions to identify the additional $200 million needed in
reductions.
The Southern California 2016 STIP hearings were also held on March 17, 2016. The STIP
hearings provide the regions the opportunity to highlight respective STIP submittals (how the
projects meet local, regional, and state goals for improving the transportation system and
SB 375 greenhouse gas reduction targets) to the CTC. Caltrans also presented the Interregional
Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP), which accounts for 25 percent of STIP funding,
Agenda Item 10
48
reduction recommendations. There were no recommended reductions in ITIP programming in
Riverside County.
At this time, the results of the $754 million reduction in 2016 STIP funding are not finalized.
However, staff will immediately inform the Commission if any additional reductions are made
to Riverside County projects by the CTC. The adoption of the 2016 STIP is currently scheduled
for the May 18-19, 2016 CTC meeting.
Agenda Item 10
49
AGENDA ITEM 11
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
March 28, 2016
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager
THROUGH:
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
State Legislative Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file an update on state legislation;
2) Adopt the following bill positions:
a) AB 1569 (Steinorth) — Support
b) SB 1197 (Cannella) — Support;
c) AB 2783 (E. Garcia) — Support in Concept, Seek Amendments;
d) SB 901 (Bates) — Support in Concept; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State Update
AB 1569 (Steinorth) — Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT
This bill provides an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for
inspection, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or removal of transportation projects, such as
highways, roads, bridges, culverts, tunnels, transit systems, bike, and walkways. Auxiliary lane
additions also qualify for the exemption if it is within existing right of way and the areas
surrounding the right of way are returned to their original condition after the project is
complete. Although these projects are exempted from CEQA, the project sponsor must still
notify public agencies with authority over the project and comply with any local laws. These
projects are not exempted from the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the California
Endangered Species Act, and other state and federal laws.
AB 1569 is narrowly written and applies to projects in existing rights of way, thereby limiting
the potential environmental and public impacts. Moreover, the types of projects exempted
allow for public safety to be better maintained by ensuring necessary inspection, repair, and
maintenance take place without delay. This bill is consistent with the Commission's legislative
platform, which encourages modernization of CEQA to reduce the costs and delays of
transportation infrastructure projects.
Agenda Item 11
50
SB 1197 (Cannella) — Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT
This bill allows for the expansion of intercity passenger rail service beyond the boundaries of
three existing joint powers authorities (JPAs) that currently operate intercity rail service.
Current law establishes the Los Angeles -San Diego -San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) JPA and authorizes
the state to contract with the JPA to operate the popular Pacific Surfliner Amtrak route. The
Commission is a member agency of the LOSSAN JPA. This bill would provide the opportunity for
the future Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass intercity rail corridor to be operated by LOSSAN.
While the governance of the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass rail corridor service has not
been fully vetted at this point in time, SB 1197 creates an opportunity that could be utilized in
the future if it is determined by the Commission and the other LOSSAN member agencies it is
best to incorporate the new corridor into the existing JPA, rather than creating a new agency or
allowing Caltrans Division of Rail to operate this rail service. The bill is authored by Members of
the Legislature from Central and Northern California who are seeking to expand the reach of
intercity rail in that part of the state. Staff believes this bill has potential future benefits to
Inland Southern California as well.
AB 2783 (E. Garcia) — Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT IN CONCEPT, SEEK AMENDMENTS
This bill directs the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to amend the guidelines for the Affordable
Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. The AHSC program is funded from
Greenhouse Gas Reduction funds, otherwise known as cap and trade. AB 2783 allows projects
in rural areas to meet lower housing density thresholds more consistent with rural
development patterns. Current guidelines place rural areas of Riverside County at a
competitive disadvantage for AHSC funding since Riverside County and the cities surrounding
local rural areas are considered urban or suburban by the current program guidelines. Urban
and suburban areas are required to have housing densities higher than what the market will
typically support in a rural area. The Commission and several other agencies in the Inland
Empire and throughout California have commented to the SGC about this issue in the AHSC
guidelines. Therefore, this provision of AB 2783 is consistent with the Commission's previous
publicly articulated position.
The Commission also sought changes to how high quality transit is defined by SGC, which
eliminates consideration of all transit infrastructure in Riverside County (including Commuter
Rail stations and bus routes) for transit oriented development funding from the AHSC program.
The Commission also sought a process for ensuring regional equity in the distribution of AHSC
funding. Staff recommends seeking amendments to AB 2783 to include items such as the
above to ensure the AHSC program is more accessible to Inland Empire communities.
Nonetheless, the bill takes a significant step as -is towards increasing competitiveness for
infrastructure and housing funding in some of Riverside County's most disadvantaged
communities.
AHSC is one of the three major programs that provide funding to implement the Sustainability
Communities Strategies mandated by_t.he state via SB 375 (Steinberg). The intent of these
Agenda Item 11
51
programs is to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets set by the California Air Resources
Board pursuant to AB 32, California's legislation to combat climate change. The stated
objective of these funding programs is to ensure communities and the infrastructure that
support these programs are planned in a sustainable fashion as the County's population
inevitably grows. The Inland Empire is identified by the state as one of the regions expected to
grow the most in the coming decades compared to other regions, yet the strategic growth
funding to assist the Inland Empire is unlikely to materialize without an adjustment of current
policy. AB 2783 takes a step towards correcting that. Additional efforts in the Legislature and
with the Administration will be necessary.
SB 901 (Bates) — Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT IN CONCEPT
This bill creates an advanced mitigation program at Caltrans to account for the future impacts
on the environment from transportation projects. This concept is similar to Riverside County's
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and the California Transportation Commission's
annual report recommendations to the Legislature. SB 901 is similar to AB 1833 (Linder), which
the Commission took action to support in March 2016, and is consistent with the Commission's
legislative platform, which encourages policies that expedite projects and reduce costs. SB 901
is slightly different in that it calls for $30 million to be taken from the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) and State Highway Operations Preservation and Protection
(SHOPP) program to pay for the advanced mitigation program. Given the dire condition of the
STIP and SHOPP due to declining fuel tax revenues, and the consequences it is having on
transportation projects in Riverside County, staff believes this portion of the bill may need to be
reevaluated. Nonetheless, the concept of the bill is in alignment with the Commission's goals.
Attachment: Legislative Matrix
Agenda Item 11
52
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION — April 2016
Legislation/
Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board
Adoption
AB 4 (Linder)
This bill would bring truck weight fees back to transportation accounts and
would prohibit weight fee revenues from being transferred from the State
Highway Account to the Transportation Debt Service Fund, the Transportation
Bond Direct Payment Account, or any other fund or account for the purpose of
payment of the debt service on transportation general obligation bonds, and
would also prohibit loans of weight fee revenues to the General Fund.
Died pursuant to Article IV,
Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.
(January 1, 2016)
SUPPORT
3/11/15
AB 194
(Frazier)
This bill provides a uniform, less -political process for tolling projects to be
reviewed and approved by the state. Today, each tolling project must be
approved via a bill in the Legislature. AB 194 provides the California
Transportation Commission (CTC) with the authority to review and approve
tolling projects, subject to specified conditions that provide for public
transparency and collaboration between state and regional governments. The
most important aspect of this bill is it rests decision -making authority over
tolling projects with the governmental entity financially responsible for the
project. The bill is sponsored by the Self -Help Counties Coalition, of which the
Commission is a member.
Approved by the Governor.
Chaptered by Secretary of
State —Chapter 687, Statutes
of 2015. (October 9, 2015).
SUPPORT
3/11/15
AB 218
(Melendez)
This bill allows for the relinquishment from state to local control of State
Route 74 in the area between the cities of Lake Elsinore and Perris. This bill is
sponsored by the county of Riverside and is championed by First District
Supervisor and Commissioner Kevin Jeffries.
Approved by the Governor.
Chaptered by Secretary of
State —Chapter 553, Statutes
of 2015. (October 7, 2015).
SUPPORT
3/11/15
AB 914
(Brown)
AB 914 authorizes San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to
implement tolling on Interstate 10 and Interstate 15 within the County of San
Bernardino. The bill contains language that requires cooperative agreements
between SANBAG and the Commission prior to construction commencing on
SANBAG's 1-15 project.
Approved by the Governor.
Chaptered by Secretary of
State —Chapter 702, Statutes
of 2015. (October 9, 2015).
SUPPORT
4/08/15
53
Legislation/
Author
AB 1171
(Linder)
AB 1569
(Steinorth)
AB 1780
(Medina)
AB 1833
(Linder)
Description
This bill authorizes the widespread use of an alternative contracting method
known as construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) for projects not
on the state highway system. Like design -build, CM/GC offers a streamlined
private sector risk -transfer in project delivery that is capable of saving time
and money on complex transportation projects. In short, CM/GC allows a
project sponsor (such as the Commission) to enter into a preconstruction
contract with a private entity to provide services that assist in preparing a
design and schedule for the project, while reserving the option to allow that
contractor to bid on the actual construction of the project.
This bill provides an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) for inspection, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or removal of
transportation projects, such as highways, roads, bridges, culverts, tunnels,
transit systems, bike, and walkways. ALIxiliary lane additions also qualify for
the exemption if it is within existing right of way and the areas surrounding the
right of way are returned to their original condition after the project is
complete. Although these projects are exempted from CEQA, the project
sponsor must still notify public agencies with authority over the project and
comply with any local laws. These projects are not exempted from the Porter -
Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and
other state and federal laws.
This bill, beginning in the 2016-17 fiscal year, would continuously appropriate
25 percent of the annual proceeds of the fund to the California Transportation
Commission for the Sustainable Trade Corridors Program, which the bill would
establish, thereby making an appropriation.
This bill seeks three distinct policies that would create greater efficiencies in
delivering transportation projects: Create an advanced mitigation program at
Caltrans similar in concept to Riverside County's Multiple -Species Habitat
Conservation Plan; remove the sunset date on California's participation in the
federal program that allows the State to assume responsibility for review of
federal environmental documents; and authorizes the State to participate in
the new pilot program that allows States to substitute state environmental
laws, such as the CEQA in lieu of NEPA.
Bill
Status
Approved by the Governor.
Chaptered by Secretary of
State — Chapter 413, Statutes
of 2015. (October 1, 2015).
Position
SUPPORT
Date of Board
Adoption
4/08/15
In committee: Set, first
hearing. Hearing canceled at
the request of author.
(March 7, 2016).
SUPPORT
Pending
In committee: Set, first
hearing. Hearing canceled at
the request of author.
(March 10, 2016).
SUPPORT
3/09/16
Referred to Com. On Trans.
And Nat. Res.
(February 25, 2016).
SUPPORT
3/09/16
Lei, .ion/
Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
::la Board
Adoption
AB 1943
(Linder)
This bill provides technical amendments to a previous bill sponsored by the
Commission in 2014, SB 953 (Roth) providing the Commission with authority
to establish parking regulations at its rail stations. Legislature edits to the bill's
language prevented the Commission from enforcing parking regulations. AB
1943 clarifies the law with its amendments and provides the Commission with
the power to establish and enforce its rules. The bill also allows the
Commission to use a third -party private party to cite and tow violators.
Referred to Com. On Trans.
(February 25, 2016).
SPONSOR
3/09/16
AB 2014
(Melendez)
This bill would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol, in
coordination with the Department of Transportation and in consultation with
regional and local entities, to complete a workload study to assess resource
needs to supervise existing and expanded freeway service patrols identified by
regional and local entities and to submit the study to the Senate Committee
on Budget and Fiscal Review and the Assembly Committee on Budget. The bill
would also require the departments to prepare their annual budget requests
to the Legislature to accommodate the Department of the California Highway
Patrol's oversight of increased freeway service patrols identified in the study.
Referred to Com. on TRANS.
(February 29, 2016).
SPONSOR
3/09/16
AB 2170
(Frazier)
This bill is similar to AB 1780 ;Medina) in that it directs new sources of funding
to the successful TCIF program. AB 2170 directs federal formula funding for
goods movement into the TCIF program. The Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act, approved by Congress in 2015, creates a new
formula funding program for freight projects. The funds are apportioned to
the states. This bill ensures that funding is distributed equitably throughout
the state where regional governments such as the Commission will have a
voice at the table.
Referred to Com. on TRANS.
(February 29, 2016).
SUPPORT
3/09/16
AB 2452
(Quirk)
I
This bill proposes a helpful reform to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) that would limit the exposure of transportation projects to delays and
costly litigation. AB 2452 by East Bay Assemblyman Bill Quirk would prohibit a
judge from stopping the construction or implementation of a transportation
project on solely on the basis of the project's potential contributions to
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Referred to Coms. on NAT.
RES. and JUD.
(March 8, 2016).
SUPPORT
3/09/16
55
LLegislation/
. Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board
Adoption
AB 2783
(E. Garcia)
This bill directs the Strategic Growth Council
the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities
program is funded from Greenhouse Gas
known as cap and trade. AB 2783 allow
housing density thresholds more consistent
Current guidelines place rural areas of
disadvantage for AHSC funding because
surrounding local rural areas are considered
program guidelines. Urban and suburban
densities higher than what the market will
(SGC) to amend the guidelines for
(AHSC) program. The AHSC
Reduction Funds (GGRF), otherwise
projects in rural areas to meet lower
with rural development patterns.
Riverside County at a competitive
Riverside County and the cities
urban or suburban by the current
areas are required to have housing
typically support in a rural area.
Referred to Com. on H. & C.D.
(March 10, 2016).
SUPPORT IN
CONCEPT, SEEK
AMENDMENTS
_
Pending
SB 39 (Pavley)
This bill raises the maximum number
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for
those vehicles to travel in high -occupancy
the number of occupants. SB 39 raises the
a 112 percent increase in green stickers
sticker program expires on January 1, 2019.
of green stickers issued by the
plug-in hybrid vehicles, which allow
vehicle (HOV) lanes regardless of
cap to 85,000.. This bill represents
over a two-year period. The green
Referred to Com. On TRANS.
(May 22, 2015).
OPPOSE
6/10/15
SB 321 (Beall)
This bill allows the BOE to adjust the price -based excise tax using a five-year
forecast period instead of just a one-year period, thereby reducing the impact
of short-term disruptions in fuel prices. SB 321 also extends the revenue-
neutrality requirement to cover a three-year period instead of just one year,
offering another opportunity for the BOE to smooth -out dramatic revenue
swings. Finally, the bill allows the BOE to adjust the price -based excise tax
every quarter, rather than once per year.
Ordered to inactive file on
request of Senator Beall.
(September 11, 2015).
SUPPORT
3/11/15
SB 901
(Bates)
This bill creates an advanced mitigation program at Caltrans to account for the
future impacts on the environment from transportation projects. This concept
is similar to Riverside County's Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and
the California Transportation Commission's annual report recommendations
to the Legislature. SB 901 is similar to AB 1833 (Linder), which the Commission
took action to support in March 2016, and is consistent with the Commission's
legislative platform which encourages policies that expedite projects and
reduce costs. SB 901 is slightly different in that it calls for $30 million to be
taken from the State Transportation IMprovement Program (STIP) and State
Highway Operations Preservation and Protection (SHOPP) program to pay for
the advanced mitigation program.
Set for hearing March 29.
(March 10, 2016).
Referred 4, T. & H.
. 2011 T.
and E.Q. (Feb.
SUPPORT
Pending
Leg .ion/
Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Da, Board
Adoption
SB 1197
(Cannella)
This bill allows for the expansion of intercity passenger rail service beyond the
boundaries of the three existing joint powers authorities (JPAs) that operate
intercity rail service today. Current law establishes the Los Angeles -San Diego -
San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) JPA and authorizes the state to contract with the
JPA to operate the popular Pacific Surfliner Amtrak route. The Commission is a
member agency of the LOSSAN JPA. This bill would provide the opportunity
for the future Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass intercity rail corridor to be
operated by LOSSAN. While the governance of the Coachella Valley -San
Gorgonio Pass service has not been fully vetted at this point in time, SB 1197
creates an opportunity that could be utilized in the future if it is determined by
the Commission and the other LOSSAN member agencies it is best to
incorporate the new corridor into the existing JPA, rather than creating a new
agency or allowing Caltrans Division of Rail to operate the service.
Referred to Com. on T. & H.
(March 3, 2016).
SUPPORT
Pending
H.R. 2497
(Denham)
H.R. 2497 creates a program to be administered by the U.S. Secretary of
Transportation that eliminates duplicative environmental reviews and
approvals of transportation projects under state and federal laws.
Importantly, the bill sets a 90-day deadline for the Secretary to render a
decision on applications for the program.
Referred to House
subcommittee on Highway
and Transit. (May 22, 2015).
Referred to House
subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment.
(May 22, 2015).
SUPPORT
9/9/15
H.R. 4441
Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), known as the
Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act
Ordered to be Reported
(Amended) by the Yeas and
Nays: 34 - 25.
(February 11, 2016).
SEEK
AMENDMENTS
3/09/16
57