HomeMy Public PortalAbout07 July 11, 2012 CommissionComments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission,
please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board.
MEETING AGENDA
TIME/DATE: 9 :3 0 a.m. / Wednesday, July 11, 201 2
LOCATION: BOARD ROOM
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside
COMMISSIONERS
Chair – John J. Benoit
First Vice Chair – Karen Spiegel
Second Vice Chair – Marion Ashley
Bob Buster, County of Riverside
John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside
Jeff Stone, County of Riverside
John J. Benoit, County of Riverside
Marion Ashley, County of Riverside
Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning
Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont
Joseph DeConinck / To Be Appointed, City of Blythe
Ella Zanowic / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa
Mary Craton / Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake
Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City
Steven Hernandez / Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella
Karen Spiegel / Eugene Montanez, City of Corona
Scott Matas / Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs
Adam Rush / Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale
Larry Smith / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet
Douglas Hanson / Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells
Glenn Miller / Michael Wilson, City of Indio
Frank Johnston / Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley
Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta
Bob Magee / Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore
Darcy Kuenzi / Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee
Marcelo Co / Richard Stewart, City of Moreno Valley
Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta
Berwin Hanna / Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco
Jan Harnik / William Kroonen, City of Palm Desert
Ginny Foat / Steve Pougnet, City of Palm Springs
Daryl Busch / Al Landers, City of Perris
Gordon Moller / Scott Hines, City of Rancho Mirage
Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside
Andrew Kotyuk / Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto
Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar
Basam Muallem, Governor’s Appointee
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
9:30 a.m.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
BOARD ROOM
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials
distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session
agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at
the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the
Commission’s website, www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2,
if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk
of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will
assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the
meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2 . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3 . ROLL CALL
4 . PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous
minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority
vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the
number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her
discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition,
the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30)
minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments
become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of
the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission
shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and
comments on Agenda Items.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
July 11, 2012
Page 2
Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters
raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda.
Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be
placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration.
5 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JUNE 7 , 2012
6 . PUBLIC HEARING – RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES FUNDING
ALLOCATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/13
Page 1
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Conduct a public hearing at the July Commission meeting on the proposed
Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP);
2) Approve the FY 2012/13 Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section
5307 and 5311 POP for Riverside County;
3) Approve the FY 2012/13 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State
Transit Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit;
4) Direct staff to add projects into the Federal Transportation Improvement
Program (FTIP); and
5) Adopt Resolution No. 12-022, “Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds”.
7 . ADDITIONS / REVISIONS – The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after
making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the
item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda.
An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there
are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda
requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the
agenda.
8 . 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.
8 A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Page 21
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial
Statements for the period ended March 31, 2012.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
July 11, 2012
Page 3
8 B. REVISED PROCUREMENT POLICY MANUAL
Page 28
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve the revised Riverside County Transportation Commission
Procurement Policy Manual for the procurement and contracting
activities undertaken by the Commission, subject to final review by
legal counsel as to conformance to state and federal law; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. 12-018, “Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Procurement
Policy Manual”.
8 C. 2012 STATE ROUTE 91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Page 32
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the 2012 State Route
91 Implementation Plan.
8 D. FISCAL YEARS 2013 -17 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
Page 65
Overview
This item is for the Commission to approve the FYs 2013-17 Measure A
Five-Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) for Local Streets and Roads as
submitted.
8 E. 2009 MEASURE A MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT BASE YEAR ADJUSTMENT
FOR CITY OF BANNING
Page 67
Overview
This item is for the Commission to approve the adjustment to the city of
Banning’s (Banning) 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base
year.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
July 11, 2012
Page 4
8 F. PROPOSITION 1B STATE-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FORMULA
PROGRAM - COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS’
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 70
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve programming State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP)
formula funds for the following six Coachella Valley projects as
submitted by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments
(CVAG):
• Monterey Avenue interchange loop ramp;
• Varner Road/Jefferson Street intersection improvements;
• Monroe Street widening and intersection improvements
(Avenue 49 to Avenue 52);
• Fred Waring Drive median widening (Adams Street to Port
Maria Road);
• Highway 111 widening and intersection improvements (Cook
Street to Hospitality Row);
• Highway 111/Washington Street intersection improvements;
2) Authorize staff to submit additional eligible projects or revise funding
amounts to the Western and Eastern (per CVAG direction) SLPP
candidate projects in the event additional SLPP funds are available
through project savings or California Transportation Commission
(CTC) formula allocations; and
3) Submit the CVAG SLPP formula projects to the CTC for
programming.
8 G. AGREEMENT WITH NINYO & MOORE TO MANAGE AND IMPLEMENT
PROPERTY REMEDIATION
Page 73
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 12-73-110-00 with Ninyo & Moore to
manage and implement the approved Department of Toxic
Substances Control Remedial Action Plan for the Liston Aluminum
Brick Company property in an amount not to exceed $835,595; and
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
July 11, 2012
Page 5
8 H. AGREEMENT WITH RBF/BAKER CONSULTING FOR CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE
ROUTE 74 CURVE WIDENING PROJECT
Page 97
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Award Agreement No. 12-31-056-00 to RBF/Baker Consulting (RBF)
to provide construction management (CM), materials testing, and
construction surveying services for the State Route 74 curve
widening project, in the amount of $373,223, plus a contingency
amount of $37,322, for a total amount not to exceed $410,545;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as
may be required for the project.
8 I. 2012 UPDATE TO THE COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT -HUMAN
SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Page 151
Overview
This item is for the Commission to
1) Approve the update to the Coordinated Public Transit-Human
Services Transportation Plan (2012 Coordinated Plan);
2) Authorize staff to prepare the evaluation criteria and application
package to support the 2013 Specialized Transit Universal Call for
Projects (2013 Call for Projects); and
3) Authorize staff to conduct the 2013 Call for Projects.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
July 11, 2012
Page 6
8 J. AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT TO FUND THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF AN
INLAND EMPIRE 511 MOBILE APPLICATION
Page 157
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 12-45-089-00 with the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (AQMD) for the Commission to receive
$100,000 in grant funding for the development and deployment
costs of an Inland Empire 511 (IE511) mobile application; and
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission.
8 K. FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 AGREEMENTS FOR REGIONAL RIDESHARE
SERVICES
Page 168
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 12-41-111-00 with the San Bernardino
Associated Governments (SANBAG) as part of the Commission’s
continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG to deliver
commuter/employer rideshare services, regional ridematching
services, and operation of an Inland Empire 511 (IE511) system for
FY 2012/13;
2) Approve the following FY 2012/13 agreements for regional
ridematching services:
• Agreement No. 09-41-075-03, Amendment No. 3 to
Agreement No. 09-41-075-00, with the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro);
• Agreement No. 11-41-139-01 and No. 11-41-139-02,
Amendment No. 1 and No. 2 to Agreement No.
11-41-139-00, with the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA); and
• Agreement No. 06-41-082-07, Amendment No. 7 to
Agreement No. 06-41-082-00, with the Ventura County
Transportation Commission (VCTC) for regional ridematching
services; and
3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreements on behalf of the Commission.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
July 11, 2012
Page 7
8 L. AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY
PATROL TO FUND ADDITIONAL CHP SERVICES
Page 188
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 10-45-084-02, Amendment No. 2 to
Agreement No. 10-45-084-00, with the California Highway Patrol
(CHP) for the addition of one-half of a full-time equivalent CHP
officer position for the supervision and operation of a Freeway
Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County in the amount of
$78,751; and
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission.
9 . MOTORIST ASSISTANCE PROGRAM UPDATE
Page 194
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive an update for the Motorist Assistance
program.
10. MAP-21 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Page 195
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive an update on federal surface
transportation authorizing legislation, “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century” (MAP-21).
11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the
Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other
items related to Commission activities.
• Report on the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Rail
Conference 2012, by Commissioners Daryl Busch, Greg Pettis,
Ron Roberts, and Karen Spiegel.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
July 11, 2012
Page 8
13. CLOSED SESSION
13A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Case Number(s): Case No. RIC 10013327
13B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Item APN(s) Property Purchaser(s)
1
234-240-011
234-250-016
234-250-018
234-250-024
Steven Walker Communities
Steve Berzansky and David Peery, Principals
1 4 . ADJOURNMENT
The next Commission meeting and is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m.,
Wednesday , August 8 , 2012, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative
Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
AGENDA ITEM 5
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
Thursday, June 7, 2012
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by
Chair John J. Benoit at 9:31 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of
Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California,
92501.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At this time, Chair Benoit led the Commission in a flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent
Steve Adams Frank Johnston Roger Berg
Marion Ashley Andrew Kotyuk Rick Gibbs
Ben Benoit Darcy Kuenzi Douglas Hanson
John J. Benoit Bob Magee Scott Hines
Bob Botts Scott Matas Jeff Stone
Daryl Busch Glenn Miller
Bob Buster Ron Roberts
Marcelo Co Syed Raza
Mary Craton Adam Rush
Joseph DeConinck Larry Smith
Kathleen DeRosa Karen Spiegel
Ginny Foat John F. Tavaglione
Berwin Hanna Ella Zanowic
Jan Harnik
Terry Henderson
Steven Hernandez
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Anne Mayer, Executive Director, explained the equipment in the Board Room
was upgraded and asked to provide feedback if there are any technical
difficulties.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 2
Anne Mayer then presented five-year service awards to staff analysts
Grace Alvarez and Joe Colayco.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MAY 9, 2012
M/S/C (Henderson/Kuenzi) to approve the minutes as submitted.
6. PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/13
Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager, presented the
proposed Budget for FY 2012/13, noting a revision to the item, and
discussed the following areas:
Budget adjustments;
Budget summary;
Funding sources and comparison;
Summary of uses;
Management services;
Regional programs;
Capital program uses;
Capital projects and operations expenditures and highlights;
Functional uses breakdown;
Measure A management services; and
Final steps.
Chair Benoit announced the continuance of the public hearing from the
May 9 meeting and requested comments from the public at this time. No
comments were received from the public and the Chair closed the public
hearing.
Chair Benoit commended Michele Cisneros for a thorough presentation and
budget document.
Commissioner Marion Ashley concurred with Chair Benoit’s comment.
M/S/C (Ashley/Spiegel) to:
1) Receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2012/13;
2) Close the public hearing on the proposed Budget for
FY 2012/13; and
3) Adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2012/13.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 3
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, presented the Government
Finance Officers Association and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
awards to Michele Cisneros and Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer.
7. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS
There was a revision to Agenda Item 6, “Public Hearing – Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012/13”, as previously noted.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Ashley expressed appreciation to Caltrans and Commission
staff for Agenda Item 8K, “State Route 60 Truck Climbing/Descending Lane
Project – Project Approval and Environmental Document”.
Commissioner Karen Spiegel expressed appreciation for Agenda Item 8L,
“City of Corona Funding Request for Foothill Parkway”, as this is a critical
project for the city of Corona and will provide traffic relief for State Route
91.
M/S/C (Henderson/Spiegel) to approve the following Consent Calendar
items:
8A. FISCAL YEAR 2010/11 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND
MEASURE A AUDIT RESULTS
Receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and
Measure A audit results report for the FY 2010/11.
8B. APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/13
Adopt Resolution No. 12-017, “Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission’s
Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2012/13”.
8C. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW
1) Adopt Resolution No. 12-016, “Resolution of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised
Investment Policy”; and
2) Adopt the Annual Investment Policy.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 4
8D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
8E. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS
Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4 (Q4) 2011.
8F. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/13
1) Approve the recurring contracts for FY 2012/13; and
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission.
8G. AGREEMENT WITH PLANETBIDS FOR ONLINE VENDOR AND BID
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
1) Approve Agreement No. 12-19-091-00 with PlanetBids, Inc.
(PlanetBids) for the use of the PlanetBids BidsOnline vendor and
bid management system software for a three-year term, and
two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount
not to exceed $65,000; and
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
8H. STATE ROUTE 91 PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
SERVICES
1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-081-01, Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement No. 09-31-081-00, with Parsons Transportation
Group, Inc. (Parsons) to provide additional services for Phase 1
of the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP)
widening and extension of the 91 Express Lanes in the amount
of $18,434,545, plus a contingency of $1,850,000, for a total
amount not to exceed $20,284,545, and a total authorized
contract value of $60,084,545;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve
contingency work as may be required for the project.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 5
8I. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 12-021 FOR COMMISSION ELECTION TO
HEAR FUTURE RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE STATE
ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND DESIGNATION
OF COMMISSION’S GENERAL COUNSEL
Adopt Resolution No. 12-021, “Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Electing to Hear Future Resolutions of
Necessity for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project and
Designation of Commission’s General Counsel to Process Resolution of
Necessity Packages for the Project”.
8J. STATE ROUTE 91 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE PROJECT
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
1) Reprogram federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) funds from construction savings to cover the increase
in Caltrans’ expenditures for the plans, specifications, and
estimates (PS&E) related to the State Route 91 high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes project;
2) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-062-02, Amendment No. 2 to
Agreement No. 06-31-062-00, to increase funding by the
amount of $1,225,534 for the PS&E phase for the SR-91 HOV
lanes project; and
3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
8K. STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK CLIMBING/DESCENDING LANE PROJECT –
PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
1) Agree to sponsor the project approval and environmental
document (PA&ED) phase of the State Route 60 truck climbing
lane project;
2) Approve the programming of Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
(CMAQ) funds in the amount of $3,006,000 for PA&ED;
3) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 12-31-092-00 with
Caltrans for the PA&ED phase for the SR-60 truck climbing lane
project;
4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute any future non-funding related amendments.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 6
8L. CITY OF CORONA FUNDING REQUEST FOR FOOTHILL PARKWAY
1) Approve programming $7 million of Western County’s
2009 Measure A Regional Arterial (MARA) funds as local match
to $7 million of Proposition 1B State-Local Partnership Program
(SLPP) formula funds for the city of Corona’s (Corona) Foothill
Parkway westerly extension project;
2) Submit the Foothill Parkway project nomination forms for SLPP
funding of $7 million to the California Transportation
Commission;
3) Approve Agreement No. 12-72-093-00 with Corona to program
$7 million in MARA funds;
4) Approve reprogramming approximately $7 million of TUMF
regional arterial funds from Foothill Parkway right of way phase
to the construction phase;
5) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-540-03, Amendment No. 3 to
Agreement No. 06-72-540-00, with Corona to reflect the
reprogramming of right of way savings to construction; and
6) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreements.
8M. FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 – FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 SHORT RANGE
TRANSIT PLANS
Review and approve, in concept, the FY 2012/13 - FY 2014/15 Short
Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for the cities of Banning, Beaumont,
Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA),
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine),
and the Commission’s Commuter Rail Program, as presented.
8N. FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the FY 2012/13 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Program recommended funding of $1,389,433.
8O. FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE
BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS
1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month maximum subsidy per
buspool for the period July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, to the
existing Corona, Mira Loma, and Riverside buspools; and
2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting
requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 7
8P. CITY OF LA QUINTA’S AMENDED BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
This item is for the Commission to approve the city of La Quinta’s
(La Quinta) amended Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) as submitted.
8Q. IOWA AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
Allocate $500,000 in federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
(CMAQ) funds to the city of Riverside (Riverside) to provide a match,
if needed, in support of the Iowa Avenue grade separation project.
9. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/13
Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager, stated Gray Crary, Chief Strategy Officer,
and Nancy Weiford, Chief Financial Officer, are available for questions and to
provide expert resources. He then presented the proposed FY 2012/13
Metrolink Budget, highlighting the following areas:
Operating Budget for FY 2012/13;
Service expansion for FY 2012/13;
Fare increase;
Metrolink update; and
Commission impacts.
Commissioner Adam Rush expressed appreciation for Sheldon Peterson’s
presentation and asked if there was data available on the ridership impacts
specifically related to the fare increase from last fiscal year as well as public
outreach.
Sheldon Peterson replied there was no fare increase last fiscal year.
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) prepared extensive
analysis to show the ratio of fare increases and ridership, which is minimal,
and the Metrolink Board supports the fare increase. Additionally, Metrolink’s
staff conducted extensive public outreach.
At Commissioner Ron Roberts’ request, Sheldon Peterson provided additional
information on the Tier IV locomotives including reliability, rehabilitation,
emissions, availability, and funding.
In response to Anne Mayer’s question regarding Tier IV costs, Gray Crary
replied the cost is $116 million. He explained in February, the Metrolink
Board adopted a fleet plan that included components of useful life
improvements. The Tier IV locomotive upgrades include 30 locomotives of
Metrolink’s fleet of 52 locomotives.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 8
In response to Chair Benoit’s question regarding Tier IV locomotives currently
in service, Mr. Crary stated there are Tier IV locomotives in service,
particularly in transfer service at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
He discussed the operations and differences of these Tier IV locomotives.
The request for proposal (RFP) to upgrade part of Metrolink’s fleet to Tier IV
will be available at the end of June 2012 to prequalify manufacturers and tie
the procurement with the application to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (AQMD) for funding.
In response to Commissioner Terry Henderson’s question regarding subsidy
per rider, Sheldon Peterson replied Metrolink calculates that figure, however,
due to the approved fare increase, that figure needs to be recalculated. He
will report back to the Commission when the figure becomes available.
Anne Mayer added Metrolink farebox recovery is typically in the over 45
percent range. She stated from a subsidy standpoint, the Commission
subsidizes the Metrolink system on a percentage basis much less than the
Commission does for bus service as bus service farebox recovery is under 20
percent.
Commissioner Spiegel briefed the Commission on the public hearings for the
fare increase and then discussed the matter of the Tier IV upgrade and the
importance of obtaining funding from the South Coast AQMD.
Mr. Crary stated Metrolink submitted an application to the South Coast
AQMD for $52 million for Tier IV locomotives and provided the structure of
the RFP.
M/S/C (Busch/Adams) to:
1) Adopt the preliminary FY 2012/13 Southern California Regional
Rail Authority (SCRRA) operating and capital budget with
anticipation of a 5 to 9 percent fare increase;
2) Approve the additional Inland Empire Orange County (IEOC)
service with an additional peak period round trip and expanded
year round weekend service; and
3) Allocate the Commission’s funding commitment to the SCRRA
in an amount not to exceed of $7,575,300 in Local
Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for train operations and
maintenance of way plus a contingency of $2,424,700 in LTF
funds for new service options and $250,000 for capital projects
to be funded by State Transit Assistance funds (STA).
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 9
10. STATE ROUTE 91 DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT
Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director, presented the SR-91 design-build
procurement, highlighting the following areas:
Benefits of best value design-build strategy;
Design-build authority – SB X2 4 (Cogdill) and AB 2098 (Miller);
Two-step design-build procurement;
Industry review;
Factors for selection;
Who evaluates and recommends approval;
Proposal evaluation – Goal: Fair Competition;
Selection formula: Highest score wins, schedule adjustments, and
example;
Best and final offer;
Proposal stipends: What, why, when, and how much;
Commission approvals; and
Procurement schedule.
At this time, Commissioners Ginny Foat and John Tavaglione left the
meeting.
At Commissioner Henderson’s request, Michael Blomquist provided details
regarding the development of the RFP, including the involvement of the
consultant advisory team.
In response to Commissioner Spiegel’s concern regarding the amount of the
stipend and how it may impact the response to the RFP, Michael Blomquist
stated staff met with three of the four teams and staff will meet with the
fourth team on June 8. The teams’ input is very topical and each of the
three teams consistently stated the Commission’s stipend is too low, which
staff expected. He explained the stipend is at the lower end of the range
and understanding the purpose of industry review, the proposers are
attempting to influence the content of the RFP. He then discussed the
competitive bidding environment for the design-build level of projects,
including the Interstate 215 Devore project.
In response to Commissioner Spiegel’s question that 0.08 percent stipend is
competitive, Michael Blomquist concurred.
Commissioner Henderson asked if Commissioner Spiegel was suggesting an
increase to the stipend amount.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 10
Commissioner Spiegel expressed concern that if the stipend is too low, it
may exclude qualified proposers and the Commission’s desire is to build the
best project.
Chair Benoit requested Anne Mayer to comment and asked if the stipend
could be increased at a future point if appropriate.
Anne Mayer replied the Commission can choose to increase the stipend as
the RFP will be released in its final form in July 2012. There will be a series
of meetings between July and October where there will be opportunities to
speak with the proposers and staff can issue a final addendum in December.
She recommended the Commission approve the $650,000 stipend as
recommended or provide additional discretion.
In response to Chair Benoit’s question, Michael Blomquist replied a team
dropping out would not necessarily be due to a single issue. He stated as far
as knowing when a proposer may drop out, he does not have a definitive
answer as it is up to each team.
Anne Mayer noted for the I-215 Devore project, the teams that dropped out
did so close to the deadline so there was no time to consider any
adjustments. She expressed the Commission does not want the stipend to
be the deciding factor for any of the proposers.
Commissioner Bob Magee expressed support for staff’s recommendation and
made the motion to approve.
Commissioner Spiegel suggested amending staff’s recommendation and add
discretion for staff to increase the stipend if necessary.
Commissioner Magee stated he would not support this addition to staff’s
recommendation.
Chair Benoit suggested maintaining staff’s recommendation.
Commissioner Darcy Kuenzi concurred with Commissioner Magee’s motion
and suggested if there is a need to revisit the stipend amount, it could be
done at a committee or ad hoc committee.
Steve DeBaun, legal counsel, stated if this is an action taken by the
Commission, no other committee or ad hoc committee has separate authority
to amend this action.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 11
M/S/C (Magee/Adams) to:
1) Authorize staff, subject to approval by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), to issue a request for proposal
(RFP) and future addenda for design-build services in
accordance with Public Contract Code sections 6800 et seq. for
the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) to
the four pre-qualified design-build teams;
2) Approve the selection criteria and process for selection of the
pre-qualified firm providing the best-value to the Commission,
otherwise known as apparent best value (ABV) proposer;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to select the three top-ranked
ABV Proposers for design-build services, based on the criteria
and selection procedures identified in the RFP and any
addendum(s) thereto, and subsequently to conduct limited
negotiations with the top-ranked ABV proposer;
4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to negotiate with
the second-ranked ABV proposer if negotiations fail with the
top-ranked ABV proposer and with the third-ranked ABV
proposer should negotiations fail with both the top-ranked and
second-ranked ABV proposers;
5) Authorize the Executive Director to issue a request for a best
and final offer (BAFO) to the proposers if found to be in the best
interests of the Commission, to make changes to the RFP,
solicit BAFOs from proposers, evaluate revised proposals, select
an ABV proposer, negotiate with the top-ranked proposer and
second and third-ranked if necessary, and make a
recommendation of contract award based upon the revised
proposals in accordance with 23 CFR Part 636;
6) Authorize the Executive Director to return to the Commission
with a recommendation to award a contract for design-build
services. The recommendation shall be accompanied by a
written decision supporting the recommendation and stating the
basis for the award;
7) Authorize the Executive Director to pay a stipend to
unsuccessful proposers that meet the RFP criteria for stipend
payment up to $650,000 per unsuccessful proposers or a total
not to exceed of $2.6 million for all unsuccessful proposers
after final action by the Commission on the RFP; and
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 12
8) Approve and find, based on the facts set forth in the staff
report, that particular materials, products, or services that are
elements of the proposed design-build services for the SR-91
CIP are to be designated in the RFP by specific brand names or
trade names to match and be interoperable with other products
used by the Commission and other related facilities as
authorized by Public Contracts Code, section 3400(c).
At this time, Commissioner Ashley and Chair Benoit left the meeting. Vice
Chair Spiegel assumed the chair for the remainder of the meeting.
11. RCTC 91 EXPRESS LANES TOLL POLICY
Michael Blomquist presented the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy (Toll
Policy).
Steve Abendschein, Stantec, explained the process to develop the proposed
Toll Policy, including the differences between the OCTA Toll Policy monitoring
process and the Commission’s proposed enhanced toll policy monitoring
process.
At this time, Commissioners Steve Adams and Bob Buster left the meeting.
Commissioner Henderson expressed appreciation for the thorough
presentation, however, she expressed concern that the toll formulas are
confusing. She stated there must be a simpler way of reaching a finite
figure so constituents, drivers, and the Commissioners understand it and
does not support this item.
Commissioner Andrew Kotyuk expressed support for the Toll Policy and its
methodology. He then suggested the Commission include an inflation rider.
Michael Blomquist explained the OCTA policy for the peak periods does not
use inflation to increase the toll rates as the traffic dictates the rate. For the
off peak periods, OCTA increases the rates annually based on an inflation
rate. He stated in the Commission’s proposed policy, there would be no
annual adjustment by inflation rates as supply and demand for the lanes
would through those formulas result in the prices going up or down based on
the volume in the lanes. The only inflation factor that is needed is for the
holiday schedule.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 13
Steve Abendschein added there is an inflation adjustment built in for rates
that are not increased so if the category remains consistent period after
period, it will be adjusted by inflation at the end of the year by a review of
regional cost of living adjustment and a weighted average between CPI and
other economic metrics that are judged regionally.
Anne Mayer stated the Commission has the ability to modify the policy as
the development of the project moves forward. Anne Mayer acknowledged
Commissioner Henderson’s concern and stated one of the reasons the Toll
Policy is set up to be an automated decision tree is so that users and others
know exactly what determines a toll rate increase. The Commission has a
flow chart that can be used to demonstrate the objectivity and criteria to
change the toll rates. She suggested staff can meet with the Commissioners
individually to discuss this matter in depth about the Toll Policy, how it has
been crafted, and the customer results from OCTA’s surveys.
Commissioner Henderson expressed serious concern about the Commission’s
approach to manage each individual hourly toll rate. She stated that while
she understands the Commission’s need to cover its costs and that excess
revenue will return to the corridor for further improvements, she
recommended a simpler toll rate schedule such as one rate for peak hours
and another rate for off peak hours, similar to the part-time high occupancy
vehicle lane schedule, with an average inflation rate.
Anne Mayer stated she understands and appreciates Commissioner
Henderson’s comments. She expressed this enhanced Toll Policy is being
recommended to ensure the Commission has a project that is financially
feasible, and there is a project that the Commission can pay to build,
operate, and maintain over the life of the project. She discussed the future
excess revenue and managing the demand on the corridor.
In response to Commissioner Jan Harnik’s question regarding the number of
toll rates and the communications with drivers regarding the toll rates, Steve
Abendschein stated the policy creates a uniform system to minimize the
number of different rates, starting with six rate categories, which are
anticipated to grow over time.
Michael Blomquist added the toll rates are published in various areas and the
rates only change at maximum once a quarter.
Vice Chair Spiegel referred to Commissioner Henderson’s comments and
stated regular commuters learn the rate structure and peak periods and begin
to make educated decisions about their travel.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 14
Commissioner Darcy Kuenzi stated it is a commuter’s choice to utilize the toll
lanes. She commended staff for its development process for the Toll Policy
and discussed applications being developed for mobile devices to help
commuters utilize toll lanes more effectively. She expressed support for the
staff recommendation.
M/S/C (Busch/Kotyuk) to:
1) Adopt Resolution 12-019, “Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Regarding the RCTC 91 Express
Lanes Toll Policy”; and
2) Adopt the Riverside County 91 Express Lanes Extension
Investment Grade Study (Traffic and Revenue Study).
No: Henderson and Hernandez
At this time, Commissioner Ella Zanowic left the meeting.
12. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
There are no items pulled from the Consent Calendar.
13. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
13A. Vice Chair Spiegel announced she attended the Transportation
Foundation luncheon and the Commission received the Operational
Efficiency Program of the Year for the Inland Empire Transportation
Management.
13B. Anne Mayer announced:
The California Transportation Commission allocated
approximately $114 million for the I-215 Central widening
project from Scott to Nuevo Roads;
The Van Buren Interchange project ground breaking ceremony is
scheduled for June 8; and
Welcomed and introduced William Von Klug, Right of Way
Manager, for the Commission.
At this time, Commissioners Kathleen DeRosa, Ron Roberts, and Syed Raza
left the meeting.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 15
14. CLOSED SESSION
14A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Existing Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a)
Case Number(s): Case No. RIC 10013326, RIC 10013327, and
RIC 1113896
14B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee
Property Owners: See the List Below
Item APN(s) Property Owner(s)
1 327-200-001
327-020-009 Intex Properties Perris Valley, L.P.
2 311-100-021 County of Riverside
3 313-114-005 American Legion Perris Post 595
4 313-114-001 Jorge A. Caldera
Jorge A. and Maria Alcantar
5 310-150-002 Orlando and Matilde Sanchez
6 313-282-048 Apolinar and Florinda Sanchez
7 313-272-009 Pentecostal Church of God
8 310-140-019 Arturo and Isabel Munoz
Sal and Frances Gonzalez
9 310-160-065 Richard and Marianne Stamper
10 247-170-024 Chapman Brothers Partnership
11 251-032-004 City of Riverside
12 251-060-016
251-070-006 Riverside City School District
Commissioner Kotyuk recused himself from Closed Session Item 14A,
Case No. RIC 1113896.
Commissioner Daryl Busch recused himself from Closed Session
Item 14B.
There were no announcements from the Closed Session items.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
June 7, 2012
Page 16
15. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County
Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 12:07 p.m.
The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, July 11, 2012, in the Board Room, at the County of Riverside
Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Harmon
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 6
PUBLIC HEARING
Agenda Item 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
Josefina Clemente, Transit Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Riverside County Transit Services Funding Allocation for Fiscal
Year 2012/13
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Conduct a public hearing at the July Commission meeting on the proposed
Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP);
2) Approve the FY 2012/13 Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section
5307 and 5311 POP for Riverside County;
3) Approve the FY 2012/13 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit
Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit;
4) Direct staff to add projects into the Federal Transportation Improvement
Program (FTIP); and
5) Adopt Resolution No. 12-022, “Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds”.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Commission maintains its immediate focus by providing basic mobility services
to county residents and commuters, improving the quality and cost effectiveness of
the county’s transit system, maximizing ridership potential and sustaining on-going
service coordination efforts. Through the annual Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)
process, transit operating and capital subsidies consisting of federal, state, and
local revenues are allocated to eight transit operators providing public
transportation in Riverside County. At its June 7 meeting, the Commission
approved in concept the FY 2012/13 – FY 2014/15 SRTPs for the cities of
Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Riverside; the Commission’s Commuter Rail
Program; Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA); Riverside Transit Agency
(RTA); and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). The approved SRTPs identify each
agency’s operating and capital needs and funding sources providing the basis for
1
Agenda Item 6
the Commission’s oversight activities to ensure compliance with federal
regulations, the Transportation Development Act (TDA), state law, and
Commission-adopted guidelines and policies.
In January 2012, the Commission received information on the FY 2012/13 revenue
projections, which indicated an increase of approximately 8 percent in both LTF
and Measure A funding compared to the FY 2011/12 original estimates. The
California State Controller’s office also released the STA preliminary allocation
estimates for the region for FY 2012/13 providing a second year continuation of
STA funding for transit since the temporary allocation freeze in 2010 and 2011.
Recently, Caltrans and California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) also
started distributing partial Proposition 1B funding for transit based on available
proceeds from the most recent bond sale. With these recent gains in transit
revenues, public operators are able to continue implementing the planned capital
procurements that have been placed on hold during the recession period. However,
the progress in the local economic outlook cannot allow the Commission to
discontinue the current conservative management of transit funds in Riverside
County. There is a need to continue these practices to ensure that bus and rail
services in the county are operating in a cost-effective and efficient manner in
order to sustain and improve current service and avoid any further cuts in transit
provision.
SRTP Financial and Ridership Overview
Approximately $372 million in total funding is required to support the operating and
capital requests for the provision of Riverside County transit services. The
following table provides an overview of the total operating and capital costs
together with projected ridership levels by apportionment area.
2
Agenda Item 6
Despite a lagging economy that remained constrained and unstable, FY 2011/12 is
showing an all-time ridership record of about 17 million passengers in Riverside
County, an increase of 7 percent over FY 2010/11. Likewise, the funding plan for
FY 2012/13 as shown in Attachment 4 is projected to generate 17.3 million in
ridership, slightly 1.7 percent higher than the ridership forecast for FY 2011/12.
Funding levels for next year’s transit operations reflect a systemwide increase of
7.8 percent in total operating expenses and a substantial jump of 122 percent in
capital expenditures mainly due to expenses associated with the completion of
preliminary engineering and final design, right of way acquisition and completion of
environmental assessment for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) extension project funded
with a combination of federal Section 5309, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ), State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Measure A funds.
RTA is continuing to implement a major vehicle purchase of heavy duty buses
funded with a combination of state, local and federal sources including available
local fund reserves.
FY 2012/13 Operating and Capital Costs
To implement the SRTPs for FY 2012/13, the request is to utilize approximately
$110 million for operating and $227 million for capital in addition to the
$35 million share from Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro),
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and San Bernardino Associated
Governments (SANBAG) to leverage the Commuter Rail Program. The chart below
provides an overview of the operating and capital costs by funding source required
to support the county’s transit operations.
Expense Type Bus Rail
Operating 66,108,182$ 20,655,900$ 22,276,993$ 885,799$ 109,926,874$
Capital 21,008,448 202,672,276 2,734,038 336,728 226,751,490
Total (Operating & Capital)87,116,630$ 223,328,176$ 25,011,031$ 1,222,527$ 336,678,364$
Leverage of Commuter
Rail Funds*35,035,200$ 35,035,200$
GRAND TOTAL 87,116,630$ 258,363,376$ 25,011,031$ 1,222,527$ 371,713,564$
FY 2012/13 Projected
Ridership 9,455,179 3,175,076 4,636,918 44,459 17,311,632
* LA Metro, OCTA & SANBAG's share and passenger fare revenues for Commuter Rail expenses
Western Riverside Coachella
Valley
Palo Verde
Valley Total
FY 2012/13 Operating, Capital and Ridership Projections
3
Agenda Item 6
Of the $372 million operating and capital costs identified in the chart,
approximately $67.5 million (18 percent) is funded by:
• Passenger fares – $37 million;
• Commuter rail member agencies’ revenue share – $19 million;
• Carryover funds – LTF/5307/5309/5316 and 5317/CMAQ/Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fees – $8.8 million; and
• Miscellaneous other revenues – bus shelter advertising, general fund
contributions, Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project
revenue, Southern California Regional Rail Authority pass-through funds for
security guards, pass-through funds from Measure A Western County
Commuter Assistance funds for the Perris Station Transit Center,
compressed natural gas sales, CalPERS reimbursement, and interest income
– $2.7 million.
The remaining balance of approximately $304 million (82 percent) consists of
federal, state, and local funds, including Proposition 1B, CMAQ and STIP funds
that are primarily allocated through Commission action.
TDA (LTF & STA Funds),
$72,655,630 , 20%
Measure A,
$50,227,640 , 13%
Federal Formula Funds
(Sec 5307 & 5311),
$19,702,324 , 5%
Federal - Discretionary Funds
(Sec 5309),
$73,376,000 , 20%
Proposition 1B
(Capital+Security), $2,011,382
, 1%
CMAQ & STIP Funds,
$85,069,000 , 23% Sec 5316 & 5317,
$1,083,315 , less than 1%
Passenger Fares,
$37,059,203 , 10%
Other Revenues,
$2,697,840 , 1%
Add'l Rail Operating Subsidy
paid by SANBAG, OCTA &
LA Metro,
$19,060,000 , 5%
Carryover Funds
(LTF/5307/5309/Sec 5316 &
5317/TUMF/CMAQ),
$8,771,230 , 2%
RIVERSIDE COUNTY: FY 2012/13 OPERATING and CAPITAL COSTS
4
Agenda Item 6
Transportation Development Act Funding
A mainstay of funding for transit programs in California is provided by TDA, which
provides two funding sources – LTF and STA for transit capital, operations, and
planning.
The LTF funds are generated by a quarter cent of the statewide retail sales tax
collected in each county. The State Board of Equalization returns the sales tax
revenues to the county of Riverside where it is held until the Commission provides
written allocation instructions for disbursement. It is estimated that LTF revenue
for transit services for FY 2012/13 will be $56,840,490, reflecting a 7.7 percent
increase compared to the original projected amount for FY 2011/12, and is
consistent with the revenue projection provided at its January 2012 Commission
meeting.
STA funding is derived from sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Fifty percent of
STA funds are allocated according to population and the other fifty percent is
allocated according to the ratio of fare revenues generated in each area during the
prior fiscal year. For Riverside County, there is approximately $24.7 million in STA
unallocated reserve funds projected at the end of FY 2011/12. Additional revenues
of $12.8 million are anticipated in FY 2012/13 for a total available amount of
$37.5 million. About $7.7 million of this fund balance will be utilized by county
transit operators for various capital projects in FY 2012/13. Prior to approving the
STA allocations, the Commission must adopt the attached resolution as specified in
the TDA statutes and California Code of Regulations. In March 2010, the
Commission adopted a revised policy requiring all operators to spend down existing
capital balances prior to requesting additional funds.
In order for the public transit operators to claim LTF and/or STA funds, the
Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects
contained in the FY 2012/13 SRTPs. The requested allocations need to be
consistent with the approved SRTPs, and the funds are explicitly for the projects
stated in the approved plans. Attachment 3 outlines the TDA allocations for
FY 2012/13 requested by each operator.
Measure A Funding
Another primary source of funding for transit comes from Measure A – the half
cent sales tax transportation initiative in Riverside County. The public transit
programs in Western County and Coachella Valley provide funding for commuter
rail, public bus and specialized transit, and intercity bus services. About
13 percent of the FY 2012/13 proposed operating and capital spending plan will be
covered by Measure A funds. Measure A amounts programmed for public transit
are outlined as follows:
5
Agenda Item 6
Measure A Requested Funds
Agency Amount
Commuter Rail $ 43,052,000
RTA 2,675,640
SunLine 4,500,000
Total $ 50,227,640
Proposition 1B Funding
Proposition 1B approved by California voters in November 2006, authorizes the
sale of $20 billion in state general obligation bonds for transportation purposes.
Sale of the bonds is subject to annual appropriations in the state budget and is
expected to be spread across several fiscal years. Bond proceeds are to fund
various transportation programs, including the Proposition 1B Public Transportation,
Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement program administered by
Caltrans and the California Transit Security Grant Program managed by Cal EMA.
For FY 2011/12, Riverside County was appropriated approximately $1.8 million in
Proposition 1B Security funds. About $44.6 million in Proposition 1B Capital
funding was also appropriated to the region to cover a three-year spending plan for
FY 2010/11 – FY 2012/13. Although each region is guaranteed a share of
Proposition 1B funds by formula, these funds will be distributed as bonds are sold.
Recent release of Proposition 1B funds in May 2012 from Caltrans included about
$16.3 million awarded to some transit agencies in Riverside County for various
capital projects.
Outlined below are amounts of Proposition 1B funds programmed by agencies for
FY 2012/13:
Proposition 1B
Agency Capital Security
City of Corona $ 217,497 $ —
City of Riverside 979,650 47,545
Commuter Rail — 350,248
SunLine — 394,714
PVVTA — 21,728
Total $ 1,197,147 $ 814,235
The Proposition 1B program does not require agencies to provide matching funds.
The city of Corona programmed its Proposition 1B FY 2009/10 capital allocation to
purchase a new reservation and dispatch system. The city of Riverside partially
programmed its FY 2011/12 funds to procure six dial-a-ride replacement vehicles
and the remaining funds including previous FY 2009/10 funding will be spent to
modernize and expand its operations facility. Approximately $350,000 in
6
Agenda Item 6
Proposition 1B Security funds are programmed by the Commission’s Commuter Rail
for station surveillance and security upgrades. SunLine, PVVTA, and the city of
Riverside will use approximately $464,000 for transit stop enhancements and
various security projects.
FY 2012/13 Federal Funds
Section 5307 Formula Funds
FTA’s Section 5307 funds are provided to urbanized areas, as identified by the
Census Bureau, with a population of 50,000 or more. These federal funds are
allocated by formulas to each of the four urbanized areas (UZA) in Riverside
County, namely:
• Riverside/San Bernardino;
• Hemet/San Jacinto;
• Temecula/Murrieta; and
• Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs.
The Commission must develop and approve a POP for each UZA and conduct a
public hearing prior to an operator submitting its Section 5307 grant application to
FTA. If the draft POP is not amended through the public hearing process, the POP
will become final as presented and will be included in an approved RTIP, which is
subsequently forwarded to the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) for review and processing. Attachment 2 shows the proposed Section
5307 POP for Riverside County. Requested Section 5307 funds by operator are
shown below:
FY 2012/13 Section 5307 Requested Funds
Agency Amount
City of Riverside $ 336,000
RTA 14,079,287
SunLine 4,596,263
Total $ 1 9,011,550
The actual Section 5307 apportionments for FY 2012/13 will not be known until
later this calendar year when final appropriations are made by Congress. The POP
was developed at the highest anticipated funding amount based on actual available
apportionments for FY 2011/12. This will allow the operators to proceed with the
grant applications and to avoid delays associated with program amendments should
the actual apportionments come in lower than estimated. Any excess funds will be
carried over to the subsequent fiscal year and will be made available to cover future
projects.
7
Agenda Item 6
Section 5309 Discretionary Funds–New Starts and Fixed Guideway Modernization
FTA Section 5309 New Starts funding is used for building new rail, bus rapid
transit, or extensions to existing systems. These funds are extremely competitive
and funds are earmarked directly by Congress. For FY 2012/13, the Commission’s
Commuter Rail will be programming approximately $73 million in Section 5309
New Starts funds and $336,000 in Fixed Guideway Modernization funds that were
previously awarded and accumulated during the last three years. These Section
5309 earmark funds will be used toward engineering and construction of the PVL
project and for the Commuter Rail Five-Year Rehabilitation program. The projects
must be included in an approved RTIP before the operators can access these funds.
FY 2012/13 Section 5309 Earmark
Agency Amount
Commuter Rail 73,376,000
Total $ 73,376,000
Section 5311 Funds
Federal transit funding for rural areas is provided through the FTA Section 5311
Nonurbanized Area Formula Program. Administered by Caltrans, a majority of
these funds are passed through to counties based on a population formula. Any
remaining funds are awarded in a statewide discretionary program for rural capital
projects and intercity bus programs. The financial plan for this year’s program
assumes the same funding level as in FY 2011/12 for transit operations since the
actual apportionments will not be known until the final appropriations are released.
This year’s program allocates $690,774 in formula funds for Riverside County, of
which 61.7 percent will be allocated to RTA and 38.3 percent for SunLine. The
61.7 percent/38.3 percent formula was approved by the Commission in 1987, and
was based on the level of service each agency operated in the non-urbanized areas
of the county. As in previous years, both RTA and SunLine identified the use of
Section 5311 formula funds for operating. The Commission must develop and
approve a Section 5311 POP before grants are approved.
FY 2012/13 Section 5311 Requested Funds
Agency Amount Percent Allocation
RTA $ 426,208 61.7 percent
SunLine 264,566 38.3 percent
Total $ 690,774 100.0 percent
8
Agenda Item 6
Section 5316 & 5317 Formula Funds
Two federal programs, namely Section 5316 – Job Access Reverse Commute
(JARC) and Section 5317 – New Freedom (NF), were established to meet the
transportation needs of the low-income population, welfare recipients, and persons
with disabilities. All projects funded under this program must be derived from a
locally-developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation planning
process. Under the 2011 Specialized Transit Universal Call for Projects, RTA,
SunLine, and PVVTA were awarded federal JARC and NF funds intended for
programming for FY 2011/12 and FY 2012/13 specialized transit operations.
Funding allotments for FY 2012/13 are as follows:
Agency Section 5316 (JARC) Section 5317 (NF)
RTA $ 844,149 $ 112,200
SunLine 6,253 60,106
PVVTA 45,455 15,152
Total $ 895,857 $ 187,458
These funds will be used to cover expenses for RTA’s Commuter Link 212 and
217, extended fixed route services and travel training; SunLine’s commuter service
to Banning (originally planned to start last year) and taxi voucher program; and
PVVTA’s mobility management program. Since the planned commuter service was
not implemented last year, carryover JARC and NF funding amounts of about
$160,902 will be used to fund the service in FY 2012/13.
CMAQ and STIP Funding
The CMAQ program helps fund regional and local efforts to attain compliance with
national air quality standards set under the Clean Air Act. CMAQ funds are largely
spent on transportation control measures such as improving public transit service,
traffic flow improvements, trip reduction and other ridesharing initiatives aimed at
relieving congestion and improving air quality. Through SCAG, these federal funds
are distributed every two years through a project selection process, according to
the priorities of the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Regional Transportation
Plan.
The STIP is a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects
funded with revenues from the Transportation Investment funds. Projects are
adopted by the California Transportation Commission from different projects
nominated by the regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation
commissions, and the metropolitan planning organizations. STIP programming
generally occurs every two years.
9
Agenda Item 6
About 42 percent of the total combined funding of approximately $201 million
programmed for the PVL project in FY 2012/13 comes from CMAQ and STIP funds
as follows:
Agency CMAQ STIP
Commuter Rail $ 32,091,000 $ 52,978,000
Total $ 32,091,000 $ 52,978,000
The remaining 58 percent comes from Measure A – $43 million and federal Section
5309 earmark funding – $73 million.
Summary
Staff recommendation is to approve the TDA and FTA funds as presented. If any
additional funding revenues becomes available during the budget year, transit
operators will prepare the necessary SRTP amendments, as appropriate, to reflect
new or modified revenue amounts. Modifications in farebox revenues, federal
grants, Measure A funding, or carryover funds may require operators to revise their
services to operate within the available funding.
Fiscal Impact
Funding allocations are based on the revenue estimates developed for the
FY 2012/13 Commission budget. The budget adopted at the June 7 Commission
meeting included $61.9 million in LTF transit operating expenditures, $10.7 million
in LTF transit capital expenditures, and $14.4 million in STA capital expenditures.
These budgeted expenditures, which include use of prior year capital allocations,
are expected to be funded by FY 2012/13 revenues, as well as available fund
balances. Based on these recommended allocations, no budget adjustments are
required.
10
Agenda Item 6
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2012/13 Amount: $64,978,940 (LTF)
$ 7,676,690 (STA)
Source of Funds: TDA: LTF and STA Budget Adjustment: No
GLA
No.:
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
Western County Bus
601 62 86101 P2210 $ 35,967,054
601 62 86102 P2210 $ 7,674,644
Western County Rail
601 62 86101 P2213 $ 9,899,400
Coachella Valley
601 62 86101 P2211 $ 10,718,420
Palo Verde Valley
601 62 86101 P2212 $ 719,422
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE
Western County Bus
241 62 86102 P2201 $6,643,825
241 62 86102 P2204 $ 250,000
Coachella Valley
241 62 86102 P2202 $ 467,865
Palo Verde Valley
241 62 86102 P2203 $ 315,000
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/25/12
Attachments:
1) Resolution No. 12-022
2) Section 5307 Program of Projects
3) TDA Spreadsheets (LTF and STA)
4) FY 2012/13 and FY 2011/12 Operating and Capital Requests and Ridership
Projections
11
BLANK
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO . 12-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is
designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of State Transit
Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has
examined the Short Range Transit Plans and Transportation Improvement
Program; and
WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in
conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for claimants to
meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections
99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268.9, as applicable; and
WHEREAS, the claimant is making full use of federal funds available
under the Federal Transit Act; and
WHEREAS, the sum of the claimant’s allocations from the state transit
assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the
amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset
reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in
the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to
meet high priority regional, countywide, or area-wide public transportation
needs; and
WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort
to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to
Public Utilities Code Section 99244; and
WHEREAS, the claimant is not precluded by any contract entered into
on or after June 28, 1979, from employing part-time drivers or contracting
with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license; and
WHEREAS, operators are in full compliance with Section 18081.1 of
the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code Section 99251.
12
ATTACHMENT 1
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County
Transportation Commission to allocate State Transit Assistance Funds for
FY 2012/13 as detailed in Exhibit “A”.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2012.
John J. Benoit, Chair
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Transportation Commission
13
14
BLANK
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 1 of 4
URBANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO
Bus Rail Total
Apportionment 10,332,340$ 4,798,476$ 15,130,816$
Lapsing Funds (per FTA)---
Carryover (Estimate)5,171,715 5,852,981 11,024,696
Total Funds Available 15,504,055 10,651,457 26,155,512
Less Current Requests (SRTP programmed)9,565,287 - 9,565,287
Balance (Projected)5,938,768$ 10,651,457$ 16,590,225$
Sub Area Allocation
Riverside, City of 336,000$
Riverside Transit Agency 9,229,287
TOTAL 9,565,287$
NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS TOTAL AMOUNT
FEDERAL
SHARE
PROJECT
TYPE
DESIGNATED
RECIPIENT
Riverside, City of
1) Preventive Maintenance 400,000$ 320,000$ Capital/Operating SCAG
2) Lease of Office Equipment 20,000 16,000 Capital SCAG
TOTAL: City of Riverside 420,000$ 336,000$
Riverside Transit Agency
3) Capitalized Preventive Maintenance 6,875,000$ 800,000$ Capital/Operating SCAG
4) Capital Cost of Contracting 5,500,000 3,000,000 Capital SCAG
5) Revenue Vehicles - DO Heavy Duty 16,174,644 3,000,000 Capital SCAG
6) Revenue Vehicles - (7) COFR Aero Elite 1,176,088 940,870 Capital SCAG
7) Non-Revenue Vehicles - (1) Support Vehicle 24,200 19,360 Capital SCAG
8) Capital Maintenance Spares 1,241,000 992,800 Capital SCAG
9) Capitalized Tire Lease 263,617 210,894 Capital SCAG
10) TE - Bus Stop Amenities 150,000 120,000 Capital SCAG
11) Maintenance Equipment 145,650 116,520 Capital SCAG
12) Information Systems 36,054 28,843 Capital SCAG
TOTAL: Riverside Transit Agency 31,586,253$ 9,229,287$
GRAND TOTAL 32,006,253$ 9,565,287$
Updated: 6/25/2012
Approved: 7/11/2012 (Pending)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 2012/13
Total Apportionment (Projection based on FY11-12 Fed Register & InterCounty Allocation)
V:\JClemente\SRTP 12.13\POPJ6-5-12\Riv-San Bernardino1213.xls
15
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2 of 4
URBANIZED AREA: HEMET/SAN JACINTO
RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
Total Apportionment (Estimate based on FY 11/12 FR actuals)
1,903,760$
1,033,603
Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) -
Total Funds Available 2,937,363
Less Current Requests 1,700,000
1,237,363$
NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
FEDERAL
SHARE
PROJECT
TYPE
DESIGNATED
RECIPIENT
1) Operating Assistance 28,573,575$ 1,700,000$ Operating Caltrans
TOTAL:28,573,575$ 1,700,000$
Updated: 6/25/2012
Approved: 7/11/12 (pending)
Carryover (estimate)
Balance (Projected)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 2012/13
Apportionment
V:\JClemente\SRTP 12.13\POPJ6-5-12\Hemet - San Jacinto UZA12-13.xls
16
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 3 of 4
URBANIZED AREA: INDIO/CATHEDRAL CITY/PALM SPRINGS
RECIPIENT: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY
Total Apportionment (Estimate based on FY 11/12 Fed Register actuals)
3,878,954$
Lapsing Funds (per FTA)-
1,709,384
-
5,588,338
4,596,263
992,075$
NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
FEDERAL
SHARE
PROJECT
TYPE
DESIGNATED
RECIPIENT
1)20,378,228$ 924,804$ Operating SCAG
2)1,800,000 1,800,000 Capital SCAG
3)50,000 40,000 Capital SCAG
4)220,000 176,000 Capital SCAG
5)900,000 720,000 Capital SCAG
6)200,000 160,000 Capital SCAG
7) Office Furniture 100,000 80,000 Capital SCAG
8)105,000 84,000 Capital SCAG
9)115,000 92,000 Capital SCAG
10)60,000 48,000 Capital SCAG
11)100,000 80,000 Capital SCAG
12)50,000 40,000 Capital SCAG
13)Special Fuel Provision-Capital Maintenance 439,324 351,459 Capital SCAG
24,517,552$ 4,596,263$
Updated: 6/25/2012
Approved: 7/11/2012 (Pending)
Transfer of Funds (CMAQ)
Total Funds Available
Less Current Requests
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 2012/13
Apportionment
Carryover (Estimate)
Balance (Projected)
Operating Assistance
Preventive Maintenance
New Agency Phone System
Spare Fareboxes (5)
Maintenance Tools & Equipment
Rider Survey Study
TOTAL:
Bus Rehabilitation
Replacement Service Vehicles
Thousand Palms Yard Repaving
Facility Improvement
ITS Projects
V:\JClemente\SRTP 12.13\POPJ6-5-12\Indio-Coachella-P Springs 12-13.xls
17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 4 of 4
URBANIZED AREA: TEMECULA/MURRIETA
RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
Total Apportionment (Estimate based on FY 11/12 Fed Register actuals)
Apportionment 3,225,286$
Lapsing Funds (per FTA) -
Carryover 362,710
-
Total Funds Available 3,587,996
Less Current Requests 3,150,000
Balance (Projected)437,996$
NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
FEDERAL
SHARE
PROJECT
TYPE
DESIGNATED
RECIPIENT
1)Capitalized Preventative Maintenance 6,875,000$ 3,150,000$ Capital/Operating SCAG
TOTAL: 6,875,000$ 3,150,000$
Updated: 6/25/2012
Approved: 7/11/12 (pending)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 2012/13
Transfer of Funds (CMAQ)
V:\JClemente\SRTP 12.13\POPJ6-5-12\Temecula-Murrieta12-13.xls
18
19
BLANK
ATTACHMENT 4
AGENCY/APPORTIONMENT AREA FY12/13 FY11/12
%
Incr/Decr FY12/13 FY11/12 % Incr/Decr FY12/13 FY11/12
%
Incr/Decr
FY12/13
(Projection)
FY11/12
(Estimate)
%
Incr/Decr
City of Banning 1,310,135$ 1,260,587$ 3.93%-$ -$ 1,310,135$ 1,260,587$ 3.93% 144,091 136,256 5.75%
City of Beaumont 1,417,500 1,402,000 1.11% 150,000 50,000 200.00% 1,567,500 1,452,000 7.95% 184,256 179,909 2.42%
City of Corona 2,001,936 1,964,663 1.90% 600,000 998,448 -39.91% 2,601,936 2,963,111 -12.19% 213,700 212,909 0.37%
Riverside Special Services 3,305,143 3,179,017 3.97% 1,047,195 950,000 10.23% 4,352,338 4,129,017 5.41% 178,088 171,239 4.00%
Riverside Transit Agency 58,073,468 54,123,083 7.30% 19,211,253 33,966,053 -43.44% 77,284,721 88,089,136 -12.27% 8,735,044 8,714,258 0.24%
Western County: Bus 66,108,182 61,929,350 6.75% 21,008,448 35,964,501 -41.59% 87,116,630 97,893,851 -11.01% 9,455,179 9,414,571 0.43%
Western County: Rail 20,655,900 16,789,900 23.03% 202,672,276 45,556,255 344.88% 223,328,176 62,346,155 258.21% 3,175,076 2,985,552 6.35%
WESTERN COUNTY: TOTAL
(Bus & Rail) 86,764,082 78,719,250 10.22%223,680,724 81,520,756 174.38%310,444,806 160,240,006 93.74%12,630,255 12,400,123 1.86%
SunLine Transit Agency 22,276,993 22,261,052 0.07% 2,734,038 19,815,779 -86.20% 25,011,031 42,076,831 -40.56% 4,636,918 4,582,449 1.19%
COACHELLA VALLEY: TOTAL 22,276,993 22,261,052 0.07%2,734,038 19,815,779 -86.20%25,011,031 42,076,831 -40.56%4,636,918 4,582,449 1.19%
Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 885,799 960,322 -7.76% 336,728 665,297 -49.39% 1,222,527 1,625,619 -24.80% 44,459 43,583 2.01%
PALO VERDE VALLEY: TOTAL 885,799 960,322 -7.76%336,728 665,297 -49.39%1,222,527 1,625,619 -24.80%44,459 43,583 2.01%
TOTAL: ALL AREAS 109,926,874$ 101,940,624$ 7.83%226,751,490$ 102,001,832$ 122.30%336,678,364$ 203,942,456$ 65.08%17,311,632 17,026,155 1.68%
FY 12/13 FY 11/12 % Incr/Decr
Leverage of Commuter Rail Funds*35,035,200$ 32,703,100$ 7.13%
Total:371,713,564$ 236,645,556$ 57.08%
*Commuter Rail's costs include RCTC's share of approximately $20.7 million plus approximately $35 million in additional operating subsidy from partner agencies ($19,060,000) and Rail farebox revenue ($15,975,200).
Note: FY 2012/13 total cost includes $8,771,230 in LTF/ 5307/5309/CMAQ/TUMF/5316 & 5317 carryover funds from previous year.
OPERATING CAPITAL TOTAL COST RIDERSHIP
Comparison of FY 2012/13 & FY 2011/12 Operating & Capital Costs and Ridership Projections
20
Commission Meeting
FY 2012/13 Funding Allocation for
Riverside County Transit Services
July 11, 2012
Short Range Transit Plans
FY 2012/13 –FY 2014/15
City of Banning
City of Beaumont
City of Corona
City of Riverside
SRTPs Approved in concept by Commission: 6/7/12
Riverside Transit Agency
SunLine Transit Agency
Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency
RCTC Rail Commuter Program
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FY 2012/13
TRANSIT FUNDING REQUEST
FY 2012/13 Funding Request
by 8 County Transit Operators $ 337 million
Commuter Rail Program Share
From Metrolink Partners +35 million
FY 2012/13 TOTAL FUNDING SUPPORT
FOR TRANSIT SERVICES $372 million
FY 2011/12 and FY 2012/13
OPERATING & CAPITAL COSTS
EXPENSE
TYPE
BUS SERVICE RAIL SERVICE TOTAL
BUS & RAIL
% CHANGEFY 2011/12
(mil)
FY 2012/13
(mil)% Change FY 2011/12
(mil)
FY 2012/13
(mil)% Change
OPERATING
COST $85.2 $89.3 5%$16.8 $20.6 23%8%
CAPITAL COST 56.4 24.1 -57%45.6 202.7 345%122%
TOTAL $141.6 $113.4 -20%$62.3 $223.3 258%65%
State and Local RevenuesRIVERSIDE COUNTY: FY 2012/13 EXPENDITURES BY FUNDING SOURCE
TDA (LTF & STA Funds),
$72,655,630 , 20%
Measure A,
$50,227,640 , 13%
Federal Formula Funds
(Sec 5307 & 5311),
$19,702,324 , 5%
Federal-Discretionary Funds
(Sec 5309),
$73,376,000 , 20%
Proposition 1B
(Capital & Security),
$2,011,382 , 1%
CMAQ & STIP Funds,
$85,069,000 , 23%
Sec 5316 & 5317,
$1,083,315 , less than 1%
Passenger Fares,
$37,059,203 , 10%
Other Revenues,
$2,697,840 , 1%
Add'l Rail Operating Subsidy
paid by SANBAG, OCTA &
LA Metro,
$19,060,000 , 5%
Carry Over Funds
(LTF/5307/5309/Sec 5316 &
5317/TUMF/CMAQ),
$8,771,230 , 2%
Year LTF
Measure A
(Transit)STA
FY 2011/12 $52,784,515 $10,940,000 $12,666,230
FY 2012/13 $56,840,490 $11,832,000 $12,791,264
% Change 7.7%8.1%1%
FY 2012/13 Transit Revenue Outlook:
LTF, Measure A and STA
AGENDA ITEM 8A
Agenda Item 8A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial
Statements for the period ended March 31, 2012.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During the last nine months of the fiscal year, staff monitored the revenues and
expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements present the
revenues and expenditures for the nine months of FY 2011/12. Period closing
accrual adjustments are not included for revenues earned but not billed and
expenditures incurred for goods and services received but not yet invoiced, as such
adjustments are normally made during the year-end closing activities.
The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the third quarter at
61 percent of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales tax revenue
to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of sale. The State
Board of Equalization collects the Measure A funds and remits these funds to the
Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a
two-month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these
financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections through
January 2012.
On a cash basis, the Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax
revenues are 10.36 percent and 10.26 percent higher, respectively, than the same
period last fiscal year. This continued increase is an encouraging sign that
economic recovery in the region is occurring. Staff will continue to monitor the
trends in the sales tax receipts and will report to the Commission any necessary
adjustments to the FY 2011/12 budget sales tax revenues.
21
Agenda Item 8A
Federal, state, and local revenues are on a reimbursement basis, and the
Commission will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced
to the respective agencies.
During the FY 2011/12 budget process, the Commission took a conservative
approach in estimating the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) receipts
as a result of the housing crisis and significant impact this had on the Inland
Empire’s local economy. TUMF reimbursements related to the
State Route 74/Interstate 215 interchange project are within the budget amount.
Overall the operating statement shows the TUMF revenues at 54 percent of the
budget, and staff will continue to monitor these revenues.
Other revenues include $440,325 from the proceeds related to the sale of land at
the West Corona Station and easement on the San Jacinto Branch Line property.
The Commission took a conservative approach in estimating interest income for
FY 2011/12, due to flat interest yields on invested balances. Additionally, the
2010 Build America Bonds (BABs) subsidy payments were reflected as a reduction
of interest payments in the FY 2011/12 budget; however, generally accepted
accounting principles require such payments to be accounted for as revenues.
During December 2011, the Commission received approximately $1.5 million in
BABs subsidy payments. Interest income is at 227 percent of the budget as a
result of the conservative approach to estimating interest income, as well as the
accounting for BABs subsidy payments.
Other than the capital project expenditures that are discussed separately, the other
expenditures are in line overall with the expectations of the budget with the
following exceptions:
• Professional services are under budget due to ongoing contract negotiations
with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway regarding the 4th Main track and
significant legal and advisory services related to the SR-91 Corridor
Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) design-build procurement being delayed
until a full project funding commitment from the Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program has been secured. In the
fourth quarter, the Commission received an invitation to the TIFIA program.
• Support costs are under budget due to unused budget authority for station
maintenance and repair, and utilities.
• Program operations expenditures are under budget and reflect vendor
invoices for program management submitted through February 2012.
• Operating and capital disbursements are made as claims are submitted to the
Commission by transit operators.
22
Agenda Item 8A
• Special studies are under budget due to the unused budget authority for
Caltrans project initiation documents (PIDs). Due to the state’s budget
issues, funds were budgeted in FY 2011/12 should the Commission be
required to reimburse Caltrans for PIDs.
• Local streets and roads expenditures are related to the timing of Measure A
sales tax revenues as previously explained. These financial statements
reflect expenditures made to the local jurisdictions related to collections
through January 2012.
• Regional arterial expenditures primarily represent expenditures for the
highways and regional arterial program administered by the Coachella Valley
Association of Governments (CVAG). CVAG requests reimbursements from
the Commission based on available funds and sufficient budget authority.
• Capital outlay expenditures are under budget due to unexpended authority
for financial software improvements, regional rideshare hardware
improvements, and station security improvements. This category is
expected to remain under budget for lower costs related to the financial
software improvements and not requiring the regional rideshare hardware.
At its February meeting, the Commission approved a new model for
operating the regional rideshare system that does not require hardware.
Debt service interest expenditures on the 2010 Bonds are made in December and
June, while interest expenditures on the 2009 Bonds are made monthly due to the
variable rate nature of the bonds. Principal payments on the 2009 Bonds and the
2010 Bonds are made in June. The retirement of $40 million of commercial paper
notes is included in principal payments.
Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and will notify the
Commission of any unusual events.
Listed below are the significant capital projects and the status. Capital project
expenditures are generally affected by lags in invoices submitted by contractors
and consultants, as well as issues encountered during certain phases of the
projects. The capital projects budgets tend to be based on aggressive project
schedules.
Highway Engineering/Construction/Design-Build/Right of Way/Land
74/215 Interchange Project – Construction is substantially completed, and a
ribbon-cutting ceremony for the opening to traffic was held on February 16; one
right of way acquisition is currently in condemnation proceedings.
23
Agenda Item 8A
SR-79 Realignment Project – The draft project report and environmental document
is being reviewed by Caltrans to receive approval to release for public circulation.
Due to the size and complexity of the project, this phase has taken longer than
anticipated.
SR-91/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange Project – The city of Riverside is the lead
agency for this project. Construction started in March 2010 and the project is
substantially completed and open to traffic. The Measure A funded portion of
construction is $5 million; only $3 million in costs have been submitted by the city
of Riverside with the remaining $2 million expected to be billed in the fourth
quarter of FY 2011/12.
SR-91 HOV Lanes Project – Caltrans has completed design work. Expenditures
remain within the budget authority. Utility relocation contractors continue to
perform relocation of utilities. Staff is performing right of way acquisition, and
negotiations continue to progress and are on schedule; several acquisitions are
pending settlements. Construction managed by Caltrans was awarded and started
in March 2012.
71/91 Interchange Project – The preliminary engineering and environmental phase
was completed in late FY 2010/11. The availability of federal earmark funds
allowed the final design phase of work to move forward. Procurement for the
design consultant was awarded at the February Commission meeting, and a notice
to proceed was issued in March 2012.
SR-91 CIP (design-build) – A Transportation Investment Generating Economic
Recovery (TIGER) III grant application and letter of interest for a TIFIA loan were
submitted in October 2011 and December 2011, respectively. In December 2011,
the Commission was selected to receive a $20 million TIGER III TIFIA grant that
will translate into a TIFIA loan to partially fill the remaining funding gap for the
project. In April, the Commission was notified that it received an invitation to the
2012 TIFIA program. This invitation, combined with the TIGER III TIFIA grant,
provided the final piece needed for full funding of the project. Early right of way
acquisition work was approved by Caltrans in April 2011. Following the public
comment period ending in July 2011, early acquisition work began. Right of way
expenditures for FY 2011/12 are lagging due to the long lead time to close escrow
on property purchases. Staff anticipates that the right of way acquisition program
will accelerate due to completion of required documentation to close out escrows
in early FY 2012/13. The design-build request for proposals is being finalized for
issuance in first quarter of FY 2012/13. Agency, utility, and railroad agreement
work continues with certain agreements now completed and with others in various
stages of completion.
24
Agenda Item 8A
I-15 CIP – Work on the environmental phase continues. Toll feasibility work
continues to evaluate various project options in the Commission’s current funding
environment. Staff has used toll feasibility work to develop a scoping and
implementation plan that was presented to the I-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee.
Comments were received and action items were developed to perform further
analysis and to make further project recommendations to the ad hoc committee in
the second quarter of FY 2012/13.
I-215 South Widening Project from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road –
Construction began in July 2011 and is on schedule.
I-215 Central Widening Project from Scott Road to Nuevo Road – Final design and
right of way acquisitions related to the project are on schedule.
I-215/Van Buren Interchange – This project is managed by the county of Riverside
(County), and construction bids were received in February 2012. The County
awarded a contract in April 2012 with construction scheduled to start in June
2012.
Mid County Parkway Project – Right of way acquisitions have been curtailed as
property development has subsided, and the critical need to acquire property for
protection has been delayed due to the substantial rescoping of the project.
Rail Engineering/Construction/Right of Way/Land
Perris Valley Line Project – Advance preliminary engineering is approximately
90 percent complete and right of way acquisition has started. Federal
environmental clearance was obtained in the fourth quarter of
FY 2011/12, which will release activity for final right of way procurement and start
of the final design phase.
Attachment: Quarterly Budget Vs. Actual – 3rd Quarter
25
BLANK
Revenues
Sales tax 194,537,000$ 118,506,939$ (76,030,061)$ 61%
Federal reimbursements 23,650,700 6,655,333 (16,995,367)28%
State reimbursements 23,935,100 10,645,623 (13,289,477)44%
Local reimbursements 1,081,800 956,882 (124,918)88%
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 6,784,300 3,673,741 (3,110,559)54%
Other revenues 592,400 874,978 282,578 148%
Interest 1,824,000 4,145,852 2,321,852 227%
Total revenues 252,405,300 145,459,348 (106,945,952)58%
Expenditures
Salaries and benefits 6,576,900 4,895,830 1,681,070 74%
Professional and support
Professional services 17,149,100 7,514,078 9,635,022 44%
Support costs 5,068,900 2,672,013 2,396,887 53%
Total Professional and support costs 22,218,000 10,186,091 12,031,909 46%
Projects and operations
Program operations - general 16,827,000 6,449,306 10,377,694 38%
Engineering 41,568,800 13,242,903 28,325,897 32%
Construction 41,777,600 16,429,710 25,347,890 39%
Design Build 14,438,000 7,755,479 6,682,521 54%
Right of way/land 76,127,000 33,773,057 42,353,943 44%
Operating and capital disbursements 109,547,300 50,152,934 59,394,366 46%
Special studies 770,000 80,537 689,463 10%
Local streets and roads 36,025,000 22,169,286 13,855,714 62%
Regional arterials 16,262,000 4,947,613 11,314,387 30%
Total projects and operations 353,342,700 155,000,825 198,341,875 44%
Debt service
Principal 46,500,000 40,000,000 6,500,000 86%
Interest 16,495,000 8,736,463 7,758,537 53%
Total debt service 62,995,000 48,736,463 14,258,537 77%
Capital outlay 516,200 128,368 387,832 25%
Total Expenditures 445,648,800 218,947,577 226,701,223 49%
Excess revenues over (under) expenditures (193,243,500)(73,488,229)255,027,120 38%
Other financing sources/(uses)
Operating transfer in 169,739,100 75,930,416 (93,808,684)45%
Operating transfer out (169,739,100)(75,930,416) 93,808,684 45%
Debt proceeds 38,000,000 40,000,000 2,000,000 105%
Total financing sources/(uses)38,000,000 40,000,000 (2,000,000)105%
Net change in fund balances (155,243,500)(33,488,229)253,027,120 22%
Fund balance July 1, 2011 530,978,300 589,364,644 58,386,344 111%
Fund balance March 31, 2012 375,734,800$ 555,876,415$ 311,413,464$ 148%
QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANPORTATION COMMISSION
3RD QUARTER
FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED 3/31/2012
FY 2011/12
BUDGET
3rd QUARTER
ACTUAL
PERCENT
UTILIZATION
REMAINING
BALANCE
26
BLANK
Revenues
Sales tax 1,890,000$ -$ 55,457,273$ 498,605$ 17,125,721$ 36,788,300$ 6,747,040$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 118,506,939$
Federal reimbursements 5,385 - 6,530,188 - - - - 119,760 - - - 6,655,333
State reimbursements 102,264 1,965,480 8,577,879 - - - - - - - - 10,645,623
Local reimbursements 84,070 211,943 660,869 - - - - - - - - 956,882
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee - - - - - - - 3,673,741 - - - 3,673,741
Other revenues 12,026 583 860,024 - - - - - - 2,345 - 874,978
Interest 29,575 14,136 578,664 - 25,970 165,802 94,989 178,273 1,424,859 48,878 1,584,706 4,145,852
Total revenues 2,123,320 2,192,142 72,664,897 498,605 17,151,691 36,954,102 6,842,029 3,971,774 1,424,859 51,223 1,584,706 145,459,348
Expenditures
Salaries and benefits 3,101,866 99,429 1,606,699 - 779 - - 87,057 - - - 4,895,830
Professional and support
Professional services 794,392 564,737 5,910,298 - 1,973 - - 242,678 - - - 7,514,078
Support costs 2,051,641 260,071 360,069 - - - - 232 - - - 2,672,013
Total Professional and support costs 2,846,033 824,808 6,270,367 - 1,973 - - 242,910 - - - 10,186,091
Projects and operations
Program operations - general 884,364 1,520,988 3,898,803 - - - - 145,151 - - - 6,449,306
Engineering - - 10,379,622 - - - - 2,744,176 - 119,105 - 13,242,903
Construction - - 16,193,833 - - - - 235,877 - - - 16,429,710
Design Build - - 7,755,479 - - - - - - - - 7,755,479
Right of way/land - - 30,504,617 - - - - 846,240 - 2,422,200 - 33,773,057
Operating and capital disbursements 5,557,893 - 3,070,882 - 3,192,661 37,026,463 1,305,035 - - - - 50,152,934
Special studies 33,227 - 47,310 - - - - - - - - 80,537
Local streets and roads - - 15,676,679 498,605 5,994,002 - - - - - - 22,169,286
Regional arterials - - - - 4,947,613 - - - - - - 4,947,613
Total projects and operations 6,475,484 1,520,988 87,527,225 498,605 14,134,276 37,026,463 1,305,035 3,971,444 - 2,541,305 - 155,000,825
Debt service
Principal - - - - - - - - 40,000,000 - - 40,000,000
Interest - - - - - - - - 3,803 - 8,732,660 8,736,463
Cost of issuance - - - - - - - - - - - -
Payment to escrow agent - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total debt service - - - - - - - - 40,003,803 - 8,732,660 48,736,463
Capital outlay 33,963 - 94,405 - - - - - - - - 128,368
Total Expenditures 12,457,346 2,445,225 95,498,696 498,605 14,137,028 37,026,463 1,305,035 4,301,411 40,003,803 2,541,305 8,732,660 218,947,577
Excess revenues over (under) expenditures (10,334,026) (253,083) (22,833,799) - 3,014,663 (72,361) 5,536,994 (329,637) (38,578,944) (2,490,082) (7,147,954) (73,488,229)
Other financing sources/(uses)
Operating transfer in 11,507,169 800,000 33,798,172 - 54 - - 818,590 3,803 14,381,746 14,620,882 75,930,416
Operating transfer out - (1,114,300) (15,937,229) - (54) (11,032,869) - - (30) (33,464,187) (14,381,747) (75,930,416)
Debt proceeds - - - - - - - - 40,000,000 - - 40,000,000
Bond discount - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total financing sources/(uses)11,507,169 (314,300) 17,860,943 - - (11,032,869) - 818,590 40,003,773 (19,082,441) 239,135 40,000,000
Net change in fund balances 1,173,143 (567,383) (4,972,856) - 3,014,663 (11,105,230) 5,536,994 488,953 1,424,829 (21,572,523) (6,908,819) (33,488,229)
Fund balance July 1, 2011 13,524,354 7,046,938 258,599,521 556 10,162,008 82,210,219 32,178,629 73,294,737 33,227,032 25,226,581 53,894,069 589,364,644
Fund balance March 31, 2012 14,697,497$ 6,479,555$ 253,626,665$ 556$ 13,176,671$ 71,104,989$ 37,715,623$ 73,783,690$ 34,651,861$ 3,654,058$ 46,985,250$ 555,876,415$
GENERAL FUND FSP/
SAFE
WESTERN
COUNTY
PALO
VERDE
VALLEY
COACHELLA
VALLEY
LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION
FUND
SALES TAX
BONDS
COMMERCIAL
PAPER DEBT SERVICE COMBINED
TOTAL
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUALS BY FUND
3RD QUARTER
FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED 3/31/2012
STATE TRANSIT
ASSISTANCE
TRANSPORTATION
UNIFORM MITIGATION
FEE (TUMF)
MEASURE A SALES TAX
27
BLANK
AGENDA ITEM 8B
BLANK
28
Agenda Item 8B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Matthew Wallace, Procurement Manager
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Revised Procurement Policy Manual
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve the revised Riverside County Transportation Commission
Procurement Policy Manual for the procurement and contracting activities
undertaken by the Commission, subject to final review by legal counsel as to
conformance to state and federal law; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. 12-018, “Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Procurement Policy
Manual”.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
As a result of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) FY 2006 Triennial Review
in August 2006, FTA staff identified the Commission needed to develop more
formal written procurement policies and procedures that conform to applicable
state and federal laws. At the Commission’s April 2007 Executive Committee
meeting, a Procurement Policy Manual was adopted.
Over the past four years since the manual was adopted, the Finance Department
has established a Procurement Division, which includes a Procurement Manager
and a Procurement Administrator. In addition to centralizing the procurement
function, a goal was to update the Procurement Policy Manual so that it serves as
a comprehensive guide that includes relevant local, state, and federal procurement
guidelines and regulations. The Commission’s legal counsel and management staff
has reviewed preliminary drafts of the manual, and a peer review by the Orange
County Transportation Authority’s procurement department was performed.
29
Agenda Item 8B
Procurement Policies Manual Highlights
The revised Procurement Policy Manual outlines a comprehensive procurement
program that incorporates the key elements needed to comply with FTA, Federal
Highway Administration, Caltrans, and other state and federal regulations. It also
incorporates Commission policies, including the single signature policy. It has been
reorganized to be user friendly for staff and to meet the needs of the Commission.
The Procurement Policy Manual includes a variety of procurement related issues
including:
1) Procurement Processes and General Guidelines;
2) Sealed Bids;
3) Design-Build Contracts;
4) Competitively Negotiated Procurements;
5) Simplified Purchase Procedures;
6) Non-Competitive and Emergency Procurements;
7) References to Applicable Laws and Regulations;
8) Disposal of Surplus Property; and
9) Procurements Using Federal Funds.
The revised Procurement Policy Manual provides the Commission with a
comprehensive, formal set of policies and procedures that will assist all aspects of
the organization with guidance regarding best procurement practices. With the
increasing number of projects using federal funding sources, the Procurement
Policy Manual provides a framework to ensure compliance with federal regulations.
Attachments:
1) Procurement Policy Manual – Posted on the Commission Website
2) Resolution No. 12-018
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Procurement Policy Manual
(July 11, 2012)
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Procurement Policy Manual July 2012
Revision: 0
i
CHAPTER 1 - PROCUREMENT PROCESS ........................................................................... 1
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................. 1
2.0 PROCUREMENT POLICY STATEMENT .................................................................... 1
3.0 PROCUREMENT STANDARDS ................................................................................... 1
4.0 TYPES OF CONTRACTS ............................................................................................... 3
5.0 OPTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 7
6.0 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS .................................................................................. 9
7.0 RECURRING CONTRACTS ........................................................................................ 10
CHAPTER 2 – PROCUREMENT GENERALLY .................................................................. 11
1.0 IMPLEMENTATION BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; COMMISSION CONTROLS
AND LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................... 11
2.0 PROCUREMENT OFFICER - DESIGNATION AND DELEGATION ....................... 13
3.0 PROCUREMENT OFFICER - DUTIES ....................................................................... 13
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES .. 14
5.0 AUTHORIZED METHODS OF PROCUREMENT; SELECTION ............................. 14
6.0 COST ESTIMATE ......................................................................................................... 15
7.0 COST/PRICE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 15
8.0 VENDOR CONTACTS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SOLICITATION .................... 16
9.0 ADVERTISING / PUBLICIZING PROCUREMENTS ................................................ 16
10.0 NON-DISCRIMINATION IN PROCUREMENT ......................................................... 17
11.0 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .................................................... 17
12.0 DUTIES OF COMMISSION STAFF REGARDING PROCUREMENTS ................... 17
13.0 INSURANCE ................................................................................................................. 18
14.0 SUBCONTRACTING ................................................................................................... 19
15.0. DETERMINATION OF FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE ...................................... 19
16.0 CONTRACT APPROVAL, AWARD AND EXECUTION .......................................... 20
17.0 PROTEST PROCEDURES ........................................................................................... 21
18.0 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS ................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER 3 – COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS (“LOW BID”) .......................................... 23
CHAPTER 4 - DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS ..................................................................... 26
1.0 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................... 26
2.0 PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS ............................................... 26
CHAPTER 5 - COMPETITIVELY NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS ........................... 27
1.0 NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS - GENERAL ........................................................ 27
2.0 SOURCE SELECTION TECHNIQUES ....................................................................... 27
3.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 28
4.0 REJECTION OF PROPOSALS ..................................................................................... 29
5.0 NEGOTIATION; SELECTION .................................................................................... 29
6.0 SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ARCHITECT - ENGINEER AND
RELATED SERVICES .................................................................................................. 29
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Procurement Policy Manual July 2012
Revision: 0
ii
CHAPTER 6 – SIMPLIFIED PURCHASE PROCEDURES ................................................. 31
1.0 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................... 31
2.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR MICROPURCHASES ........................................................... 31
3.0 USE OF SMALL PURCHASE PROCEDURES ........................................................... 31
4.0 PROHIBITED USE OF SMALL PURCHASE PROCEDURES ................................... 32
CHAPTER 7 - NON-COMPETITIVE AND EMERGENCY PROCUREMENTS AND
REMEDIAL MEASURES ......................................................................................................... 33
1.0 NON-COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENTS .................................................................. 33
2.0 EMERGENCY PROCUREMENTS; REMEDIAL MEASURES ................................. 34
3.0 WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION FOR EMERGENCY AND OTHER NON-
COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENTS ............................................................................ 35
CHAPTER 8 – REFERENCES TO APPLICABLE LAWS /REGULATIONS ................... 37
1.0 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................... 37
2.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 37
3.0 FTA/FHWA-FUNDED PROCUREMENT BY NON-COMPETITIVE (SOLE
SOURCE) PROPOSALS ............................................................................................... 40
4.0 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) ............................................. 41
5.0 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 41
CHAPTER 9 - DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY ........................................................ 42
1.0 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................... 42
2.0 DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY ............................................................ 42
3.0 DISPOSAL OF PERSONAL PROPERTY .................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 10 – OTHER PROCUREMENT MATTERS ...................................................... 43
1.0 DISPUTES, CLAIMS AND CHANGES - DEFINITIONS ........................................... 43
2.0 DISPUTES, CLAIMS AND CHANGES - GENERAL ................................................. 43
3.0 TERMINATION ............................................................................................................ 43
4.0 BONDS, OTHER SECURITIES AND INSURANCE .................................................. 45
5.0 CONTRACT CLOSEOUT ............................................................................................ 45
CHAPTER 11 – PAYMENT ...................................................................................................... 47
1.0 COMMISSION PAYMENT PROCESS ....................................................................... 47
2.0 PROGRESS PAYMENTS ............................................................................................. 47
3.0 PROMPT PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTORS--FEDERALLY-FUNDED
AGREEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 48
4.0 PAYMENT OF RETENTION ON PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS ........................ 48
5.0 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT CERTIFICATION ......................................................... 48
1
CHAPTER 1 - PROCUREMENT PROCESS
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
A. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (hereinafter “RCTC” or
“Commission”) procures goods and services using public funds. It has a
responsibility to uphold the public trust and maximize the value of public funds
by using them as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.
B. This Procurement Policy Manual (Manual) sets forth a general procurement
policy and set of standards that will govern the conduct of Commission
procurement activities and of Commission personnel engaged in those activities.
The policies contained herein are advisory, not mandatory, and any deviation
therefrom shall not render any contract of the Commission void or voidable. This
manual is for Commission internal purposes only and shall not create any rights in
any third parties.
C. This Manual is intended to supersede, in its entirety, the Commission’s
Procurement Policies Manual which was adopted on April 11, 2007, and
Resolution No. 98-013, adopted December 9, 1998, entitled Resolution of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Executive Director
to Sign Certain Commission Contracts.
2.0 PROCUREMENT POLICY STATEMENT
A. The Commission procurement policies establish the guidelines and policies for
procuring the goods and services necessary for the Commission to carry out its
responsibilities and duties. The policies are intended to maintain the integrity of
the Commission’s procurement process, while ensuring that purchases are made
in a cost effective, timely manner; with fair and open competition; and in
accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
B. The objectives of the Commission’s Procurement Policy Manual are to:
1. Maximize the value received for the Commission’s expenditure of public
funds.
2. Protect assets and/or services purchased with public funds and ensure their
application in the Commission’s interests.
3. Provide all vendors an equal opportunity to provide needed goods and/or
services.
4. Protect the integrity and reputation of the Commission, its officers, and its
employees.
3.0 PROCUREMENT STANDARDS
A. GENERAL
1. Contract Administration System. The Commission will maintain a
contract administration system that helps ensure that contractors perform
2
in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their
respective contracts.
2. Avoid Duplicative Purchases. Commission staff should regularly review
proposed and planned procurements to avoid purchase of unnecessary or
duplicative items.
3. Lease vs. Purchase Analysis. Where appropriate, an analysis should be
made of lease versus purchase alternatives and any other appropriate
analysis to determine the most economical procurement approach.
4. Value Engineering. When appropriate and in the Commission’s best
interests, the Commission will encourage the use of value engineering by
including applicable clauses in contracts for appropriate equipment
purchases and construction projects.
5. Award to Responsive and Responsible Contractors. The Commission will
make awards only to responsive and responsible contractors, as
determined by the Commission, possessing the ability to perform
successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed contract.
Consideration will be given to such matters as contractor integrity,
compliance with public policy as implemented by applicable laws and
regulations, record of past performance, and financial and technical
resources.
6. Commission Rejection of Bids, Quotes, and/or Proposals. The
Commission, to the extent permitted by applicable laws, may reject any
and all bids, quotes and/or proposals and re-advertise at its sole discretion.
The Commission should ensure that such rights are clearly stated in all
Commission bid documents.
7. Procurement Records. Records sufficient to document the significant
history of each procurement activity should be maintained and retained by
the Commission in accordance with the Commission’s records retention
policy.
8. Written Selection Procedures. The Commission will have written
selection procedures for formal procurements that help ensure fair,
unbiased evaluation of competing proposals.
9. Conflicts of Interest. All Commission Members, employees and other
agents must conduct the procurement process so as to avoid conflicts of
interest, real or apparent. To maintain full and open competition, no
Commission member, employee or other agent is permitted to give
preferential treatment to any contractor, nor to influence or participate in
any Commission transaction in which such person has a financial interest.
All procurements must be conducted in accordance with the
Commission’s Resolution No. 10-038, “Resolution of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission Amending the Appendix of the
Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 (as
amended),” as may be amended.
3
10. Lobbying and Gifts. Commission officers, employees, agents and
Commission members must comply with applicable state and federal law
regarding acceptance of gifts, gratuities, or favors from contractors,
potential contractors, or parties to subcontractor agreements.
11. Audit Provisions. Every Commission contract wherein contractor or other
entity is receiving Commission funds in excess of $10,000 should include
a provision allowing examination and audit of records related to the
contract by the Commission’s auditor for a period of three years after final
payment under the terms of the contract.
12. Termination Clause. All contracts in excess of $25,000, and public works
contracts in excess of $2,000, should provide for the termination of the
contract for the Commission’s convenience, and all contracts should
provide for the termination of the contract for default in cases of
contractor breach or non-performance.
13. Issues not Included in the Procurement Policy Manual. If a policy,
procedure or particular strategy or practice is in the best interest of the
Commission and is not specifically addressed, nor prohibited by statute or
case law, users of this Manual should not assume it is prohibited. Rather,
the absence of direction should be interpreted as permitting the Executive
Director to innovate and use sound business judgment that is otherwise
consistent with law and within the limits of his or her authority.
4.0 TYPES OF CONTRACTS
A. General Provisions
1. The Procurement Officer should use the types of contracts described in
this Chapter for most types of procurement, except as otherwise provided
for certain small purchases described hereunder in Chapter 6. Innovative
contracting arrangements are not prohibited, but require the advance
approval of the Executive Director or the Commission, as specified herein.
2. The “cost-plus-percentage-of-cost” method of contracting shall not be
used for state or federally funded contracts.
3. The Procurement Officer, in consultation with the Project Manager,
should select the type of contract that is most appropriate to the
circumstances of each procurement, in accordance with the provisions of
this Chapter.
4. In procurements by other than competitive sealed bidding, the
Procurement Officer may negotiate a contract type and price (or estimated
cost and fee) that will result in reasonable contractor risk and provide the
contractor with the greatest incentive for efficient and economical
performance.
4
B. Selecting Contract Types
1. The type of contract to be used should be determined prior to the
solicitation, and the solicitation should inform bidders of the type of
contract that will be used.
2. When procurement is by competitive sealed bidding, the Procurement
Officer must use a firm fixed-price contract.
3. Except when procurement is by competitive sealed bidding as required by
law, the Procurement Officer should select the most effective contract type
and should consider contract type together with the issues of price, risk,
uncertainty, and responsibility for costs. The type of contract used should
reflect the cost risk and responsibility assumed by the contractor or
supplier.
4. The Procurement Officer should avoid the continued use of a cost
reimbursement or time-and-materials contract after experience provides a
basis for firmer pricing.
5. The Procurement Officer should include documentation in each contract
file to show why the particular contract type was selected, except for
purchase orders under the small purchase threshold.
C. Fixed-Price Contracts
1. Fixed-price contracts may provide for a firm price or, in appropriate cases,
an adjustable price.
2. Fixed-price contracts providing for an adjustable price may include a
ceiling price, a target price (including target cost), or both. Unless
otherwise specified in the contract, the ceiling price or target price will be
subject to adjustment only by operation of contract clauses providing for
equitable adjustment or other revision of the contract price under stated
circumstances.
3. A firm-fixed-price contract should provide for a price that is not subject to
any adjustment on the basis of the contractor's cost experience in
performing the contract.
4. A firm-fixed-price contract should be used for acquiring commercial
products or commercial-type products, or for acquiring other supplies or
services, on the basis of reasonably definite functional or detailed
specifications if the Procurement Officer can establish fair and reasonable
prices at the outset, including the following circumstances:
a. When there is adequate price competition;
b. When there are reasonable price comparisons with prior purchases of
the same or similar supplies or services made on a competitive basis;
c. When available cost or pricing information permits realistic estimates
of the probable costs of performance;
5
d. When performance uncertainties can be identified and reasonable
estimates of their cost impact can be made, and the contractor is
willing to accept a firm-fixed-price contract; or
e. When required by law unless a sole source exception applies.
D. Cost Reimbursement Contracts
1. Cost reimbursement contracts provide for payment of the contractor’s
reasonable, allocable and allowable incurred costs plus a negotiated fixed
fee, to the extent prescribed in the underlying contract and Federal
Acquisition Regulation Part 31.
2. A cost reimbursement contract establishes an estimate of total cost for the
purpose of obligating funds and establishing a ceiling on expenditures that
the contractor may not exceed without the approval of the Commission.
3. Cost reimbursement contracts are suitable for use when the uncertainties
of performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient
accuracy to use a fixed-price contract.
4. The Commission must determine the adequacy of the contractor's
accounting system for cost-type contracts before awarding such a contract.
E. Time-And-Materials Contracts
1. A time-and-materials contract should be used only after the Procurement
Officer determines, in writing, that no other type of contract is suitable.
2. A time-and-materials contract should be used only when it is not possible
at the time of executing the contract to estimate accurately the extent or
duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of
certainty or confidence.
3. A time-and-materials contract should include direct labor hours at
specified fixed hourly rates that include wages, overhead, general and
administrative expenses, profit, and materials required at cost.
4. The user department/project manager should ensure that there is adequate
surveillance of contractor performance when a time-and-materials type
contract is used.
F. Labor-Hour Contracts
1. When materials are not required, the Procurement Officer may use a labor-
hour contract, a variation of the time-and-materials contract.
2. The use of a labor-hour contract should be in accordance with the above-
referenced provisions related to time-and-materials contracts.
6
G. Letter Contracts (Letter Of Intent Contracts)
1. A letter contract is an interim type of contractual agreement that gives the
contractor a limited Notice of Award for the delivery of the required
goods/supplies or the performance of services.
2. The Procurement Officer may use a letter contract when the Commission's
interests demand that the contractor be given a binding commitment so
that work can start immediately and executing a definitive contract is not
possible in sufficient time to meet the requirement. Each letter contract
should be as complete and definitive as possible under the circumstances
and should include clauses approved and required by the Procurement
Officer.
3. The estimated cost of the definitive contract should determine the type and
level of review and approval required for approval of a letter contract.
4. A letter contract may not be entered into without competition except as
provided for under Non-Competitive and/or Emergency Procurements
provisions of this Manual.
5. A letter contract may not be amended to satisfy a new requirement unless
the new requirement is inseparable from the existing contract. Any
amendment should be subject to the same requirements as a new letter
contract.
6. The total value of the letter contract should be the estimated sum
necessary to cover the contractor's requirement for funds before execution
of the definitive contract. However, the total value of a letter contract
should not, under any circumstances, exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
overall price ceiling for the term of the final negotiated (i.e., definitive)
contract.
7. A letter contract should contain a negotiated schedule for execution of the
definitive contract, including dates for submission of the contractor's price
proposal, cost or pricing data (if required), a date for start of negotiations,
and a target for execution of the definitive contract.
8. The letter contract should provide that if the Procurement Officer and the
contractor cannot negotiate a definitive contract because of failure to reach
agreement regarding price or fee: 1) the Procurement Officer may
terminate the letter contract; or 2) if a “contract definitization” clause is
included in the letter contract, the Commission may unilaterally require
the contractor to continue the work and the Procurement Officer may, with
the approval of the Executive Director, determine a reasonable price or
fee.
H. Multiple Year Contracts
Multiple year contracts may be used with competitive sealed bids, competitive
proposals, or by non-competitive procurement. Multiple year contracting is a
method by which the Commission awards a contract for a base period of one or
7
more years, with option provisions for future years' requirements. The option
provision in the contract should provide for unilateral exercise at the discretion of
the user department/project manager, as additional requirements and funding
become available. See below under Section 5.0 of this Chapter for further
information regarding Options.
I. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contracts
1. The Procurement Officer may use an ID/IQ type of contract when the
Commission anticipates a recurring requirement, but cannot predetermine
the precise quantities of supplies or services at the time of contract award.
2. ID/IQ contracts should specify maximum or minimum estimated
quantities that the Commission may require during the term of the
agreement. An ID/IQ contract should make no promise of exclusivity and
may in fact be one of several (multiple) contracts awarded for the same
item or service.
3. There are several types of ID/IQ contracts, including:
a. Definite-quantity contracts
b. Requirements contracts
c. Indefinite quantity (IQ) contracts (commodities)
d. Task order contracts (services)
4. If possible under the circumstances, the Procurement Officer should
ensure that original solicitation and resultant ID/IQ contract contain both a
minimum and a maximum quantities, which represent the reasonably
foreseeable needs of the parties to the solicitation, and a clause stating that
the estimate is not a representation to a bidder, offeror, or consultant that
the estimated quantity or dollar amount above the estimated minimum will
actually be required or ordered by the Commission.
5.0 OPTIONS
A. General
1. When it is in the best interest of the Commission, a contract option may be
included providing the Commission the unilateral right to extend the term
of the contract and/or to purchase additional supplies or services called for
by the contract.
2. Any written findings required for a contract option shall specify both the
base requirement(s) and the increase permitted by subsequent options.
Contract provisions setting forth the cost of the option may include, but
are not limited to, the following:
a. A specific dollar amount;
8
b. An amount to be determined by applying provisions (or a formula)
provided in the basic contract, but not including renegotiation of the
price for work in a fixed-price type contract;
c. In a cost-type contract, a stated fixed or maximum fee, or a fixed or
maximum fee amount determinable by applying a formula contained
in the basic contract;
d. A specific price that is subject to an economic price adjustment
provision; or
e. A specific price that is subject to change as a result of changes to the
prevailing labor rates provided by the U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL) or the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR)
prevailing rates, whichever is applicable.
B. Solicitation of Contracts with Options
1. If a contract provides for an option, the solicitation should include
appropriate option clauses.
2. Each contract should state the period within which an option may be
exercised.
3. In order to meet the requirements of this Manual for full and open
competition, the option should be evaluated as part of the initial
competition and be exercisable at an amount specified from the terms of
the basic contract. When options have not been evaluated as part of the
award, the exercise of such options will be considered a non-competitive
procurement and must comply with the non-competitive procurement
policies in described in this Manual.
C. Exercise of Options
1. The user department/project manager, in cooperation with the
Procurement Officer, should initiate the exercise of an option only after
determining the following:
a. That sufficient budget authority is available;
b. That the requirement covered by the option fulfills an existing
Commission need; and
c. That the exercise of the option will be the most advantageous method
of fulfilling the Commission's needs, when price and other factors are
considered.
2. The Procurement Officer, after considering price and other factors, should
make the determination whether to recommend exercising the option on
the basis of one of the following:
a. A new solicitation fails to produce a better price or a more
advantageous offer than that offered by the option; provided, that if it
is anticipated that the best price available is the option price (or that
9
the option provides the more advantageous offer), the Procurement
Officer should not use this method to test the market;
b. An informal analysis of prices or an examination of the market
indicates that the option price is better than prices available in the
market or that the option is the most advantageous offer; or
c. The short time between the award of the contract containing the option
and the exercise of the option indicates that the option price is the
lowest price obtainable or the most advantageous.
3. The contract modification or other written document, which notifies the
contractor of the exercise of the option, shall cite the option provision as
authority for the action and should be issued within the time period
specified in the contract.
6.0 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
A. Memorandum of Understanding
A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is a contract document describing a
bilateral or multilateral agreement outlining the terms and details of an
arrangement between the parties to the MOU, including each party’s requirements
and responsibilities. An MOU is used when substantial involvement is expected
between the Commission and another agency or entity when carrying out the
activity contemplated in the MOU, and there exists some public or mutually
beneficial purpose in carrying out this activity.
B. Piggybacking
1. Piggybacking is the post-award use of an acceptable contract/solicitation
process that allows an entity not contemplated in the original procurement
to purchase the same supplies or equipment under the original
contract/solicitation process.
2. Piggybacking is permissible when:
a. The underlying solicitation document and the resultant contract
contain an assignability clause that provides for the assignment of all
or part of the specified deliverables as originally advertised, competed,
evaluated, and awarded; and
b. For federally funded agreements, the original solicitation and resultant
contract contain a minimum and a maximum quantity, which represent
the reasonably foreseeable needs of the parties to the solicitation.
C. California Multiple Award Schedule and State Master Agreements
1. A California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) and State Master
Agreements are agreements established between the California
Department of General Services (DGS) and multiple vendors who agree to
the State of California terms and conditions, and may be used by the
Commission.
10
2. Acquisitions based on CMAS or State Master Agreements shall be
competitively bid so as to result in offers from three or more vendors
including one small business, if available. If less than three offers are
received, documentation of solicitation methods must be included with the
contract documentation.
3. Three offers are not required for CMAS and State Master Agreements
based on competition, such as Cal-Store, the Master Rental Agreement,
Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA), etc. Information on specific
CMAS and State Master Agreements are available on DGS-PD’s website
at: www.dgs.ca.gov/pd.
7.0 RECURRING CONTRACTS
The Commission may, on an annual basis, evaluate existing contracts for professional
services that are due to expire within the next fiscal year. While some of these contracts
may be placed on the calendar for a new procurement solicitation or allowed to expire
because they are no longer required, notwithstanding any other provision herein, some
contracts may be included in an annual recurring contracts list that must be approved by
the Commission. Most contracts for professional services should be subject to a
competitive process; however, there may be limited circumstances in which staff believes
it is more efficient and cost effective to retain such consultants on the recurring contracts
list rather than rebidding the services. Those circumstances generally are due to the
consultant’s historical knowledge, unique experience, and understanding of the
Commission and/or specific Commission projects. Approval of the recurring contracts
list allows the Commission to continue work on existing projects without interruptions
and maintain consistency.
11
CHAPTER 2 – PROCUREMENT GENERALLY
1.0 IMPLEMENTATION BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; COMMISSION
CONTROLS AND LIMITATIONS
A. Final authority for purchasing actions and decisions rests with the Commission,
except as delegated by the Commission to the Executive Director.
B. The Commission authorizes the Executive Director to execute contracts approved
by the Commission. The Executive Director may designate the Deputy Executive
Director, Chief Financial Officer or Directors to execute contracts under his or her
signature authority on his/her behalf.
C. The policies set forth herein will be implemented by the Chief Financial Officer.
The Chief Financial Officer has primary responsibility for ensuring that the
Commission’s procurement process is in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations, as interpreted by the General Counsel and Commission policy.
D. The Executive Director is authorized to approve and enter into contracts on behalf
of the Commission under his/her single signature authority as follows:
1. When the expenditure is less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for the
purchase of all supplies, equipment, materials and for the construction of
all facilities and works in accordance with California PUC § 130232; and
2. When the expenditure is less than one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000) for the purchase of services; however, (i) the aggregate
amount of contracts executed under the single signature authority shall not
exceed $1,000,000 in any given fiscal year; (ii) the aggregate value of all
contracts awarded to any one entity under the Executive Director’s single
signature authority shall not exceed $150,000 in any fiscal year; and (iii)
the Executive Director may execute contract amendments for existing
contracts that do not exceed $100,000. Such authority however, may not
be exercised more than once during the life of any contract and may not be
used to amend contracts originally executed under the Executive
Director’s single signature authority.
The Commission’s fiscal year is from July 1 to June 30.
E. The powers of the Executive Director pursuant to Paragraph “D” above are
subject to: (i) the existence and provisions of a Commission approved budget; and
(ii) applicable laws and regulations.
F. The Executive Director must provide the Commission with a regular report of all
contracts entered into pursuant to the single signature authority provided in
Paragraph “D” above, and must report to the Commission at its next regularly
scheduled meeting each new contract awarded on an emergency basis or other
contracts in excess of the Executive Director’s single signature authority.
12
G. APPROVAL LIMITS AND SOLICITATION TYPES
1. Supplies, Equipment, and Materials (California PUC § 130232)
PURCHASE
AMOUNT
SOLICITATION
TYPE SOLICITATION PROCESS APPROVER
Less than $1,000 Micro-purchase Informal: Commercial availability,
Rotate Vendors
Procurement
Officer*
$1,000 to $25,000 Small Purchase Informal: Three (3) Quotes Procurement
Officer*
$25,001 to $50,000 Formal Procurement Formal: Advertisement, Clauses,
Competitive Sealed Bids
Executive
Director
Greater than $50,000 Formal Procurement Formal: Advertisement, Clauses,
Competitive Sealed Bids
Commission
2. Public Works (California PUC § 130232)
PURCHASE
AMOUNT
SOLICITATION
TYPE SOLICITATION PROCESS APPROVER
Less than $1,000 Micro-purchase Informal: Commercial availability,
Rotate Vendors, Non-Collusion
Declaration, Insurance
Procurement
Officer *
$1,000 to $25,000 Small Purchase Informal: Three (3) Quotes,
Prevailing Wage, Clauses, Insurance,
License, Non-Collusion Declaration
Procurement
Officer*
$25,001 to $50,000 Formal Procurement Formal: Advertisement, Clauses,
Prevailing Wage, Insurance, License,
Competitive Sealed Bids, Payment
Bond, Non-Collusion Declaration
Executive
Director
Greater than $50,000 Formal Procurement Formal: Advertisement, Clauses,
Prevailing Wage, Insurance, License,
Competitive Sealed Bids, Payment
Bond, Non-Collusion Declaration
Commission
* As delegated by the Executive Director
13
3. Services
PURCHASE
AMOUNT
SOLICITATION
TYPE SOLICITATION PROCESS APPROVER
Less than $3,000 Micro-purchase Informal: Commercial availability,
Rotate Vendors, Insurance
Procurement
Officer
$3,000 to $50,000 Small Purchase Informal: Three (3) Quotes, Clauses,
Insurance
Procurement
Officer
$50,001 to $100,000 Small Purchase Informal: Three (3) Quotes, Clauses,
Insurance; or
Formal: Advertisement, Clauses,
Insurance, and Negotiated
Agreement, or Competitive Sealed
Bids, or A/E Contract procedures
Executive
Director
Greater than
$100,000
Formal Procurement Formal: Advertisement, Clauses,
Insurance, Certifications, and
Negotiated Agreement, or
Competitive Sealed Bids, or A/E
Contract procedures
Commission
H. In addition to the authority granted above, and except as otherwise prohibited by
applicable state or federal law, the Executive Director is authorized to approve
and enter into contracts on behalf of the Commission, under his/her single
signature authority, where the relevant contract is directly related to and necessary
to implement a project that has been approved by the Commission, the contract is
within the approved project budget and, based on the circumstances, exercise of
this authority is in the best interest of the Commission.
2.0 PROCUREMENT OFFICER - DESIGNATION AND DELEGATION
The Chief Financial Officer is the designated “Procurement Officer” for the Commission.
The Chief Financial Officer may delegate all or part of the Procurement Officer duties
described in this Manual.
3.0 PROCUREMENT OFFICER - DUTIES
A. The Procurement Officer has the duty to oversee all procurement activities of the
Commission, and to implement the policies and standards set forth in this Manual,
subject to the limitations of the authority that has been delegated to the
Procurement Officer by the Commission or the Executive Director.
B. The Procurement Officer may issue instructions for the implementation of
Commission procurement policies.
C. The Procurement Officer has the duty to ensure Commission contracts, purchase
orders, modifications, and supplemental agreements are executed in accordance
with established thresholds and delegated authority.
14
D. The Procurement Officer, subject to the review of the Commission’s General
Counsel, has the authority to draft and determine the final form of the contract to
be used for each procurement.
E. The Procurement Officer should ensure that a complete record of each
procurement action is maintained in accordance with the Commission’s records
retention policy by establishing files containing the records of all major
procurements and contractual actions pertinent to that office's responsibilities.
1. The Procurement Officer is responsible for maintaining the original
contract file pursuant to applicable state and/or federal records retention
policies.
2. The documentation in each contract file maintained by the Procurement
Officer should be sufficient to constitute a complete history of the
transaction for the following purposes:
a. Providing a complete background as a basis for informed decisions at
each step of the procurement process;
b. Supporting actions taken;
c. Providing information for reviews, audits, and investigations; and
d. Furnishing essential facts in the event of litigation.
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES AND
GUIDELINES
The Procurement Officer, in his or her discretion and subject to the review and
concurrence of the Commission’s General Counsel, may adopt procurement and
materials management procedures and guidelines needed to implement and supplement
the policies and standards set forth in this Manual. Any such procedures and guidelines
should provide for timely review and processing of all procurement actions, and should
ensure that procurements proceed timely, efficiently and economically, while adhering to
principles of good public policy practices and sound business judgment.
5.0 AUTHORIZED METHODS OF PROCUREMENT; SELECTION
A. Selection. As part of the procurement initiation process, the Procurement Officer
will determine which method of procurement is appropriate.
B. Authorized Methods. The following methods of procurement may be used, as
appropriate, in accordance with the policies and procedures included in the
Procurement Manual:
1. Competitive Sealed Bid (“Low Bid”), pursuant to Chapter 3 of this
Manual;
2. Design-build, pursuant to Chapter 4 of this Manual;
3. Competitively Negotiated Procurement, pursuant to Chapter 5 of this
Manual;
15
4. Small Purchase Procedures, pursuant to Chapter 6 of this Manual; and
5. Non-Competitive and Emergency Procurement, pursuant to Chapter 7 of
this Manual.
6.0 COST ESTIMATE
A. A cost estimate is a determination of price reasonableness. The cost estimate
should be completed prior to the receipt of bids or proposals.
B. The method and means of establishing the estimate may vary based on the
circumstances and can range from checking historical records or published price
guides to a detailed estimate in the same level of detail that is required for
contractors submitting proposals.
C. The estimate provides the Procurement Officer with essential input during the
solicitation process. Cost estimates may be used by the Commission to:
1. Provide a determination of value (i.e., do benefits warrant the cost);
2. Support procurement planning;
3. Determine the appropriate solicitation type and process based on the
approval limits set forth in Chapter 2, 1.0(G);
4. Establish the competitive range and supplement the evaluation process;
5. Provide a basis for a price analysis, which may eliminate the need for a
more burdensome cost analysis;
6. Provide a basis for development of a pre-negotiation objective;
7. Support the Commission’s negotiation position with contractor; and/or
8. After contract award, provide essential input with respect to contract
amendments, change orders and claims.
7.0 COST/PRICE ANALYSIS
A. The Procurement Officer should perform a cost/price analysis in connection with
every procurement action, including contract modifications. The method and
degree of analysis is dependent on the facts surrounding the particular
procurement situation.
B. If the contract being awarded is a cost-reimbursement type, the cost/price analysis
should address the realism of the various cost elements proposed, and where the
costs are unrealistically low, an adjustment should be made to reflect what the
Commission believes the effort will actually cost given that offeror's specific
technical approach as well as its direct and indirect cost rates.
1. The Commission should, when applicable, or must, if required by law,
utilize the guidelines provided in the Federal Acquisition Regulations Part
16
31 to determine whether of the contractor’s proposed costs are reasonable,
allowable and allocable.
8.0 VENDOR CONTACTS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SOLICITATION
Informational and market research contacts with prospective contractors/vendors should
be circumscribed based upon legitimate, identifiable business purposes and guided by the
exercise of sound judgment. The primary pitfalls to be avoided are promises or
implications from Commission staff of a future contract, development by a vendor of a
specification or scope of services to be used as part of a Commission solicitation that
vendor intends to participate in, requests from Commission staff for complimentary
services or supplies, and other activities that may create a real or apparent conflict of
interest or the impression of an obligation on the part of the Commission.
9.0 ADVERTISING / PUBLICIZING PROCUREMENTS
A. The Procurement Officer should use the most efficient and effective means to
publicize contract actions to increase competition in accordance with the
requirements of the specific procurement.
B. California PUC § 130232, applicable to the purchase of all supplies, equipment,
materials and for the construction of all facilities and works when the expenditure
exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), requires that notice requesting
bids shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation. The
publication must be made at least 10 days before the date for the receipt of the
bids. The Commission, at its discretion, may reject any and all bids and re-
advertise.
C. California PUC § 130238 for the purchase of computers, telecommunications
equipment, microwave equipment, and other related electronic equipment and
apparatus that is not available in substantial quantities to the general public
requires (i) the procurement be conducted through competitive negotiation, after a
finding by the Commission by a two-thirds vote that this particular procurement
qualifies under California PUC § 130238, and (ii) notice of the request for
proposals be published at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation, at least
10 days before the date for receipt of the proposals.
D. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Section 9.c of FTA Circular 4220.1F
requires that invitations for bids are to be "publicly" advertised, and Section 9.d of
FTA Circular 4220.1F requires that requests for proposals are to be publicized.
E. Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Chapter 15, paragraph
15.3 Project Advertisement, of the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual
provides detailed guidance regarding advertising of FHWA- and/or Caltrans-
funded projects.
F. Pre-solicitation advertising prescribed in this section is not required for non-
competitive, sole source, or emergency procurements processed in accordance
with this Manual.
17
10.0 NON-DISCRIMINATION IN PROCUREMENT
All formal contracts entered into by the Commission should contain appropriate clauses
prohibiting discrimination by the contractor against any person or group of persons on
account of race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap,
medical condition, age, marital status, sex or sexual orientation in the performance of the
contract.
11.0 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
An unfair competitive advantage could result if a contractor were allowed to submit a bid
or proposal for work described in a specification or statement of work that the contractor
itself developed. For the purpose of eliminating a potential unfair competitive advantage,
and in compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations, a contractor that
develops or assists in developing specifications, requirements, statements of work,
invitation for bids, and/or request for proposals for a Commission procurement is
excluded from competing for the resultant procurement, unless an appropriate waiver is
issued by the Commission. All waivers will be assessed by the Commission on a case-
by-case basis.
12.0 DUTIES OF COMMISSION STAFF REGARDING PROCUREMENTS
A. General
Procuring goods, services, and contracts for the Commission must be a
cooperative effort, and it will be the responsibility of all Commission staff
involved in procurement to employ sound business judgment and appropriate
standards of ethics and fairness to procure goods and services in a manner most
advantageous to the Commission. All employees and departments are instructed
to follow the procedures set forth in the Procurement Policy Manual, as well as
any instructions issued by the Procurement Officer regarding procurements.
B. In order to initiate a procurement action (including amendments, procurements,
exercising of available options, etc.), the user department/project manager should,
at a minimum, provide the Procurement Officer with the following items, as
applicable:
1. Specification, Scope of Services, or Statement of Work
For a new procurement, a complete and clearly written specification,
purchase description, or statement of work suitable for either competition
or for negotiation with a sole source contractor, if justified.
a. Amendments
If a contract amendment has been negotiated based upon an existing
advanced pricing arrangement or labor rates/categories included in the
underlying agreement, the user department/project manager should
provide the Procurement Officer with a copy of the final negotiated
scope of services for the extra work, associated pricing terms, and/or
schedule.
18
b. Change Orders
If a construction change order has been negotiated based upon an
existing advanced pricing arrangement or labor rates/categories
included in the underlying agreement, the user department/project
manager should maintain a record of the change order and supporting
documentation in the project files.
2. Agreement Summary Sheet
The user department/project manager must provide a complete and
executed Agreement Summary Sheet for all procurement actions,
including applicable small purchases, formal procurements, MOUs,
agreements, change order modifications and the like. The Agreement
Summary Sheet identifies the nature of funding for the subject
goods/services, provides a record that the requirement was budgeted and
properly approved before the procurement process began, and ensures that
the procurement action is assigned a unique agreement number for
purposes of contract administration, payment, and recordkeeping.
3. Cost Estimate
The user department/project manager should provide the Procurement
Officer with a cost estimate for the anticipated procurement of
goods/services. See paragraph 6.0 above for additional guidance
regarding the development of a cost estimate.
4. Justification for Sole Source/Non-competitive Procurement (if applicable)
The user department/project manager must prepare and submit to the
Procurement Officer a written statement recording all the facts that
provide justification for avoiding mandated competitive procurement
practices explicitly defined in this Manual and/or required by relevant
state and federal law in favor of a non-competitive/sole source award. The
Procurement Officer must approve the sole source procurement
methodology before the procurement can proceed.
13.0 INSURANCE
A. Contractors providing goods and services should be required to carry sufficient
insurance to protect the Commission from third party lawsuits for personal injury
(including death) and property damage. Insurance may also be required for
damage to Commission property and for errors and omissions in the provision of
professional services.
B. The following types of procurement actions should be reviewed by the
Procurement Officer for appropriate levels, types and limits of coverage on a
case-by-case basis:
1. All Operations and Non-Operational Construction Contracts.
2. All Professional Services Contracts.
19
3. All contracts where work will be performed within “50 feet” of railroad.
4. All Environmental Contracts, including engineering services.
5. All procurement contracts and/or purchase agreements where outside
vendors will be conducting work or performing installation services on
Commission premises.
6. All procurement contracts and/or purchase agreements where outside
vendors will be delivering products to a Commission facility.
C. The contract documents should ensure that Commission contractors will be
required to comply with insurance requirements imposed by state and local
governments.
D. At a minimum, the contract documents should require the contractor and
subcontractor to carry general liability, workmen's compensation, and automobile
insurance coverages for public works contracts.
E. In certain limited cases, the Procurement Officer may permit the contractor to
substitute an approved program of self-insurance in order to obtain such approval.
The contractor will have to demonstrate that it can sustain the potential losses
being self-insured.
F. The Procurement Officer should include insurance and indemnification provisions
in equipment, supply, and services contracts in accordance with Commission
policies described herein.
14.0 SUBCONTRACTING
A. The Commission may consider requiring a prime contractor to perform certain
tasks or a minimum percentage of the work, in order to ensure that the prime
contractor maintains a specified degree of control over the project.
B. Approval of contractor proposed subcontractors usually involves an evaluation of
three primary areas:
1. Assurance that the prime contractor has included the required “flow-
down” provisions (clauses) from the prime contract in the subcontract.
2. The prime contractor’s compliance with the Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) requirements in its prime contract.
3. Assurance that the prime contractor has selected its critical subcontractors
in a prudent fashion, so as to protect the Commission’s interests.
15.0. DETERMINATION OF FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE
A. The Procurement Officer should determine, in writing, that the price to be paid to
the successful offeror is fair and reasonable. Typically, adequate price
competition is sufficient to establish price reasonableness; however, price
reasonableness may also be established through:
1. Prices established by law or regulation;
20
2. Published catalog or market price for commercial product sold to the
public in substantial quantities;
3. Previous or relevant historical pricing for same or similar terms;
4. Valid cost estimate;
5. Value analysis; or
6. Cost/price analysis.
B. Single Offer/Lack of Adequate Competition
1. When only one response is received after a public solicitation for offers or
the price variance between multiple responses reflects a lack of adequate
competition, the Procurement Officer may resolicit quotes or, if
appropriate, recommend an award of the agreement to the single offeror,
or to the lowest or best offeror, as determined by the Commission, in
accordance with this Manual and in accordance with applicable legal
requirements.
a. A recommendation for award under either of the above circumstances
should include a statement in the contract file giving the basis for the
determination that the pricing terms are fair and reasonable.
16.0 CONTRACT APPROVAL, AWARD AND EXECUTION
A. Following authorization for contract award by the Commission, the following
actions should be taken:
1. The Procurement Officer requests all Commission required documents and
contract contingency requirement (e.g., bonds, proof of insurance) from
the successful contractor.
2. The Procurement Officer conforms and sends copies of the final contract
or amendment to the contractor for signature, and obtains the appropriate
Commission authorization by ensuring full execution of the contract.
3. After full execution of the contract and the contractor’s submittal of the
required contract contingency items, unless otherwise agreed, the
Procurement Officer coordinates with the user department/project
manager to prepare a "Notice to Proceed" letter, if required.
4. The Procurement Officer transmits a fully executed original copy of the
contract to the contractor. Conformed copies should be sent to the project
manager for use in the administration of the contract.
5. Contract Administration Responsibilities
a. The user department/project manager conducts all further coordination
on technical issues between the contractor and the Commission,
subsequent to the issuance of the “Notice to Proceed” letter.
b. Issues affecting the business or legal terms in the contract and/or
requests for modification or supplemental agreements to the contract
21
should immediately be brought to the attention of the Procurement
Officer.
c. The contract and all documents pertaining thereto should be
maintained by the Procurement Officer, except for construction change
orders which will be maintained by the project management team.
17.0 PROTEST PROCEDURES
A. Under formal procurement processes described under this Manual, an interested
party that has timely submitted a bid or proposal in response to any procurement
of the Commission may file a protest objecting to the award of a contract.
B. In order for a protest to be considered properly and timely filed, the protest must:
1. Be filed in writing with the Executive Director of the Commission, within
seven (7) calendar days after (i) all requests for clarifications and requests
for approved equals have been answered by the Commission or, if no
requests for clarification or approved equals are received, after the period
for requests for clarifications or approved equals has closed; (ii) after the
Commission takes action, or such other time period as may be specified in
the solicitation document; or (iii) the date certain contained in the
solicitation for any solicitation for which a contract award is not made by
the Commission.
2. Be filed by an actual bidder or proposer responding to the procurement
and signed by a properly authorized representative. No other party has
standing to protest or is considered an interested party.
3. Identify the specific procurement number involved.
4. Identify the specific recommended action or decision being protested.
5. Specify in detail the grounds for the protest, the facts supporting the
protest and the status of the protester.
6. Include all relevant supporting documentation with the protest at the time
of submittal.
7. Describe the resolution to the protest desired by the protesting party.
If a protest does not comply with each of the seven (7) requirements listed above,
the protest will not be considered and will be returned to the protester.
C. The Procurement Officer will attempt to resolve a properly filed protest or
perform additional fact-finding, including establishing a protest evaluation team
to evaluate the merits of the protest. The Procurement Officer, in consultation
with the Commission’s General Counsel, will prepare a recommended resolution
of the protest for consideration by the Executive Director. The Executive
Director will review the recommendation of the evaluation team and will render a
determination to uphold or deny the protest.
D. If the Executive Director’s decision is to deny the protest, the solicitation may be
continued without further delay or the contract will be recommended to the
22
Commission for award, or executed, if previously awarded by the Commission
subject to resolution of the protest. If the Executive Director’s decision is to
uphold the protest, a recommendation will be made to the Commission to amend
the solicitation and the date for receipt of proposals or bids, reject all proposals or
bids, cancel the Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids and solicit new
proposals or bids, award the contract to another proposer, or other such actions as
he/she deems appropriate.
E. The Executive Director’s decision shall be final, and there shall be no further
administrative recourse at the local level, except for protests related to federally
funded procurements.
F. The procedures set forth in this Chapter 2, Section 17.0 are not intended to reduce
or restrict protest rights specifically provided under applicable funding
agreements, or state or federal laws authorizing the use of money funding
applicable contracts.
18.0 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS
All requests for procurement related records and/or information must be submitted to the
Commission’s Office and Board Services Manager for appropriate action. Procurement
related records should not be disclosed as public information until staff recommendation
for award has been forwarded to all interested parties or as otherwise appropriate under
the California Public Records Act and applicable state and federal laws, guidelines and
requirements.
23
CHAPTER 3 – COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS (“LOW BID”)
A. Public Utilities Code Section 130232 requires that the purchase of all supplies,
equipment, and materials, and the construction of all facilities and works, when
the expenditure required exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), must be
by competitive sealed bidding, also known as “low bid”, contracting, with the
contract let to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Notice requesting bids
must be published in at least one newspaper of general circulation. The
publication must be made at least ten (10) days before the date for receipt of bids.
The resulting contract will be a fixed price contract.
B. In order for competitive sealed bidding to be most effective, the following
conditions should be present in the development of an Invitation for Bids (IFB):
1. A complete, adequate and sufficiently generic specification is developed;
2. Adequate competition is available in the marketplace (two or more
responsive and responsible bidders will compete); and
3. The procurement lends itself to a firm-fixed price contract.
C. Discussions and Communications
1. Bids shall be evaluated without discussions with bidders.
2. Information concerning proposed procurements should not be released
outside the Commission before an Invitation for Bids is released, except
for pre-solicitation notices and publicly available general project
information.
D. Pre-Bid Conferences
1. The Contracting Officer may use pre-bid conferences to explain
procurement requirements.
2. If the Commission requires any type of mandatory pre-bid conference, site
visit, or meeting, the IFB should include the time, date, and location of the
mandatory pre-bid site visit, conference or meeting, and when and where
project documents, including final plans and specifications are available.
Any mandatory pre-bid site visit, conference or meeting should be no
sooner than a minimum of five (5) calendar days following the publication
of the IFB.
E. Bid Addenda
1. If it becomes necessary to make changes in quantity, specifications,
delivery schedules, opening dates, or other items, or to correct a defective
or ambiguous IFB, the change should be accomplished by addendum of
the IFB.
2. Addenda to an IFB should be identified as such and should require the
bidder to acknowledge receipt of all addenda issued.
24
F. Time Of Bid Receipt
The IFB should specify a time for receipt of bids. Bids must be received in the
office designated in the IFB not later than the time identified in the IFB.
G. Late Bids
Unless otherwise specified in a particular bid solicitation, bids are considered late
based on the time clock at the 3rd floor Commission Receptionist Desk, located at
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501. Bids are considered late if the time
stamped by the Commission upon receipt of the bid is later than the deadline/time
identified in the IFB. Late bids will not be accepted by the Commission, unless a
bid is late owing solely to Commission mishandling or some other legitimate
extenuating factor, as determined in the Commission’s sole discretion.
H. Receipt Of Bids
As bids are received, the Procurement Officer should secure and safeguard the
bids until the established time for bid opening.
I. Opening Of Bids
The Procurement Officer will coordinate the bid opening. All bids over $25,000
for construction received prior to the bid opening will be publicly opened, read
aloud to the persons present, and recorded.
J. Recording Of Bids
Construction bids over the small purchase threshold of $25,000 that are publicly
opened will be recorded on a Bid Summary or Bid Tabulation sheet. The
Procurement Officer should certify the accuracy of the Bid Summary Sheet by
placing his/her signature thereon. The Commission’s Procurement Officer should
ensure that these results are posted on the Commission internet site within a
reasonable time after bid opening.
K. Tie Bids
If two or more responsible and responsive bids are received for the same total or
unit price, quality and service being equal, the Commission may, at its discretion,
do any of the following:
1. Accept the one it chooses;
2. Accept the lowest bid made by negotiation with the tied bidders; or.
3. Establish a date and time to draw lots, which may be accomplished by
tossing a coin or pulling bidder names out of a hat, to determine the
winner. If this process is selected, the Commission should:
a. Advise the tied bidders in writing that a tie has occurred, advise them a
winner will be determined by drawing lots, and invite them to attend
the drawing.
b. Conduct the drawing of lots on the date and time previously
established with at least two individuals as witnesses. The
procurement file should reflect the names, titles, and departments of
25
the witnesses. If the witnesses are not Commission staff, the name,
organization, address, and telephone number of the individuals should
be listed.
26
CHAPTER 4 - DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS
1.0 PURPOSE
A. As set forth in Public Contract Code (PCC) Section 6800 et seq., the legislature
has determined that the design-build method of procurement should be evaluated
for the purposes of exploring whether the potential exists for reduced project
costs, expedited project completion, or design features that are not achievable
through the traditional design-bid-build method. The Commission has been
selected, as one of a limited number of participants, to participate in the Design-
Build demonstration program with the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-
91 CIP).
B. For the purposes of this Chapter, “Design-Build” means a method of procuring
design and construction from a single source. The selection of the single source
occurs before the development of complete plans and specifications.
2.0 PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS
A. The Executive Director may adopt any lawful methods, procedures and criteria
that he or she determines are in the best interest of the Commission.
B. The Toll Program Director, through coordination with the Procurement Officer,
will prepare documents for the solicitation of proposals for the SR-91 CIP design-
build procurement.
C. The documents prepared for the SR-91 CIP design-build procurement shall
control over any conflicting provisions contained herein.
27
CHAPTER 5 - COMPETITIVELY NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS
1.0 NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS - GENERAL
A. This Chapter outlines the Commission's procedures for competitively negotiated
procurements for contracts:
1. Not legally required to be procured through the low-bid competitive
procurement method pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 130232;
and
2. Intended to be awarded on the basis of both price and non-price factors.
B. A procurement is “negotiated” if discussions, negotiations, or other exchanges
between the Commission and the offerors are anticipated and planned in order to
maximize the Commission’s ability to communicate, understand, and obtain the
best value for contract award.
1. The exchanges involve bargaining, persuasion, alteration of assumptions
and positions, and give-and-take applied to price, schedule, technical
requirements, type of contract, and other proposed terms.
2. The exchanges after establishment of the competitive range of price and
terms are done with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its
proposal, once and potentially several times.
C. Though not an all-inclusive listing, competitively negotiated procurements can be
used for the following types of procurements:
1. Professional services contracts for non-architect-engineer related services;
miscellaneous service contracts;
2. Architect-Engineer and related services contracts as further defined and
subject to the limitations specified in Section 6.0 of this Chapter;
3. Specialized equipment, computers, telecommunications equipment,
microwave equipment and other related electronic equipment and
apparatus; or
4. Best Value, Design-build contracts described in Chapter 4.
2.0 SOURCE SELECTION TECHNIQUES
A. The Procurement Officer can choose from a range of source selection techniques
for the competitively negotiated process based on:
1. What is suitable for the specific circumstances of a requirement, and
2. Which technique provides the best opportunity to tradeoff price/cost and
qualitative benefits in order to gain the best value for the Commission.
B. In acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of
unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, and excluding contracts for
28
Architect-Engineer and related services, cost or price may play a dominant role as
a significantly important evaluation factor for award.
C. On the other hand, the less definitive the requirement, a requirement for technical
superiority, more development work required, or the greater the performance risk,
then the technical or past performance considerations play a more dominant role
as significantly important evaluation factors for award.
D. The Commission obtains best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or
a combination of selection approaches wherein the relative importance of cost or
price may vary with other non-cost or price factor(s). The Procurement Officer
and user department/project manager should select an approach that will provide
the Commission with the best offer based on the requirements, and on applicable
legal requirements.
E. All evaluation factors associated with a particular proposal should be identified
along with their relative importance. The Procurement Officer, in cooperation
with the user department/project manager, may utilize explicit factors, price
performance trade off, technically qualified/lowest price or other reasonable and
appropriate means of evaluating proposers.
F. Proposals will be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources. In
determining sources to solicit, the Procurement Officer should use all reasonable
means available to ensure that an adequate number of potential qualified
proposers receive the solicitation in order to obtain maximum fair and open
competition.
3.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION
A. The evaluation factors that will be considered in evaluating proposals should be
tailored to each procurement and should include only those factors that will have
an impact on the source selection decision. The evaluation factors that apply to a
particular procurement and the relative importance of those factors are within the
broad discretion of the Procurement Officer and/or the user department/project
manager.
B. The Procurement Officer may establish a formal evaluation committee, referred to
as the “Evaluation Committee,” which will be charged with responsibility for
evaluating proposals, short listing firms, establishing a competitive range, and/or
recommending a firm or firms for contract award.
1. Personnel engaged in the evaluation process should not discuss or reveal
information concerning the evaluations except to those individuals
participating in the same proceedings and only to the extent that
information is required in connection with such proceedings.
2. Divulging information during the evaluation, selection, and negotiation
phases to offerors or to personnel not having a need to know is prohibited
as it could jeopardize the evaluation process and resultant award.
C. The Evaluation Committee will evaluate each proposal in accordance with the
evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The Evaluation Committee’s selection
29
decision is subject to the final approval of the Commission or the Executive
Director, as required under this Manual.
4.0 REJECTION OF PROPOSALS
A. The Evaluation Committee may reject all proposals received that are determined
not to be in the competitive range, including those proposals made by offerors
who refuse to execute any reasonably required representations and/or
certifications.
B. The Commission, based upon the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee
or the Executive Director, may reject any or all proposals received. The
Evaluation Committee or Executive Director may recommend rejection by the
Commission because:
1. All otherwise acceptable proposals received are at unreasonable prices;
2. The proposals were not independently arrived at in open competition,
were collusive or were submitted in bad faith; or
3. For other reasons, rejection is clearly in the Commission’s best interest.
5.0 NEGOTIATION; SELECTION
The methods and procedures for selection and negotiation will be determined by the
Procurement Officer, in coordination with the user department/project manager, and set
forth in the request for proposals.
6.0 SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ARCHITECT - ENGINEER AND
RELATED SERVICES
A. This Section prescribes guidelines and requirements for the procurement of
Architectural-Engineering (“A-E”) and related services. A-E Services are defined
as professional services of an architectural or engineering nature that are required
by law to be performed by a registered or licensed architect or engineer. Related
services include: land surveying and construction project management. For the
procurement of A-E and related services, the Procurement Officer should follow
the procedures set forth in this Section 6.0, in addition to the pertinent procedures
set forth elsewhere in this Chapter.
B. If the procurement is for A-E and related services, the selection must be based on
the demonstrated competence and qualifications of prospective contractors, and
should follow the procedures set forth in Government Code 4525, et seq., and,
when applicable, the laws and regulations that govern the procurement of design-
related services with federal funds (see e.g., Title 23 U.S.C. 112, Letting of
Contracts and 23 CFR 172, Administration of Engineering and Design Related
Service Contracts). These services should be acquired based on a two-step, sealed
bidding procedure, whereby qualifications are presented in a separate sealed
envelope from a firm’s price proposal. The proposals should be initially
evaluated based on qualifications only, and price negotiations should be
commenced with the proposer determined by the Commission to be most
30
qualified. If the Commission is unable to negotiate satisfactory terms, at a fair
and reasonable price, with the proposer considered to be most qualified, then
negotiations should be terminated with that proposer and commenced with the
next most qualified proposer.
31
CHAPTER 6 – SIMPLIFIED PURCHASE PROCEDURES
1.0 GENERAL
A. Procurement of materials, supplies, or services by the Commission should adhere
to the procedures in this Manual, as described in Chapter 2, Section 1.G. The
procedures ensure that the appropriate authorizations are secured for the type of
procurement made, and that the minimum requirements associated with the
materials, equipment, supplies or services requested are procured in a fair and
open manner.
B. This Chapter sets forth the procedures for small purchases and other simplified
purchase procedures. These purchases should be made competitively except
where it is in the best interests of the Commission to accomplish such purchases
non-competitively. Justification for such non-competitive procurement should be
made, in writing, and maintained in the procurement record.
2.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR MICROPURCHASES
A. If the purchase price for required supplies, equipment, services and/or materials is
considered a micropurchase as defined in Chapter 2, Section 1.G, then multiple
quotes are not required; however, such purchases should be fairly priced using a
purchase technique that best serves the needs of the Commission, and rotated
among commercial vendors offering competitive pricing.
B. Micropurchases may be accomplished by securing one proposal or quotation from
a commercial vendor offering supplies, equipment or materials to the public in
substantial quantities and the price is deemed to be fair and reasonable.
C. If oral quotes are obtained, written record of the quotes should be retained. The
record should include, at a minimum, vendor name, telephone number and
address, name of person providing the quote, and terms.
3.0 USE OF SMALL PURCHASE PROCEDURES
A. For small purchases as defined in Chapter 2, Section 1.G, staff should obtain a
minimum of three (3) written quotations with reasonable efforts to include at least
one Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) vendor and, when practicable and
appropriate, an award should be made on the basis of lowest price.
B. For public works projects (i.e., maintenance, repair or construction work) and
planned solicitations for services defined as small purchases in accordance with
Chapter 2, Section 1.G, review by the Procurement Officer prior to the solicitation
of quotes is required in order to ensure compliance with relevant insurance
requirements, applicable legal mandates, e.g., insurance, bonding, prevailing
wage, and payroll records.
C. The Procurement Officer should use and/or authorize the Small Purchase
Procedures that are most suitable, efficient, and economical based on the
circumstances of each procurement.
32
4.0 PROHIBITED USE OF SMALL PURCHASE PROCEDURES
The Procurement Officer and or Commission staff may not divide, split or fragment a
procurement totaling more than the Commission’s small purchase limitation into several
purchases that are less than the limit in order to use the Small Purchase Procedures.
33
CHAPTER 7 - NON-COMPETITIVE AND EMERGENCY
PROCUREMENTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES
1.0 NON-COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENTS
A. The non-competitive procurement of goods and services, which otherwise require
competitive procurement may be authorized under one or more of the following
circumstances, subject to any minimum Commission vote required by applicable
law:
1. The Commission has advertised the contract as required by this Manual
and has undertaken reasonable efforts to solicit potential contractors, but
has determined that competition is inadequate;
2. There is only a single source of supply available, or only one contractor is
qualified to provide the service or product;
3. The goods or services are to be provided by a government or other public
entity;
4. The goods or services are to be provided pursuant to an amendment of an
existing contract that does not materially alter the terms and conditions of
the contract (other than to extend the term and/or increase compensation to
provide for the extended term or for additional goods/services to be
provided under substantially the same terms of the original contract),
provided that such renewal, extension or amendment is authorized or
permitted by the contract;
5. The equipment to be purchased is of a technical nature and the
procurement thereof without advertising is necessary in order to assure
standardization of equipment and interchangeability of parts;
6. The item to be purchased is a capital maintenance item that is available
only from the original manufacturer or supplier or is required to maintain
system operational compatibility and connectivity with the existing
system(s);
7. The contract is for employment services;
8. The contract is one for which only per diem and travel expenses are paid
and there is no payment for services rendered; and
9. The Commission is piggybacking on an existing agreement between a
contractor and any public agency or entity within the County of Riverside
and/or the County of San Bernardino, or other public entities if: (a) the
proposed Commission contract is for the same material scope of work as
the other contract; (b) the proposed Commission contract contains
substantially the same terms as the other contract; and (c) the other
contract was competitively procured in accordance with requirements
applicable to such other agency’s procurements; or
34
10. The provisions listed under Chapter 8, Section 3.0 regarding federally
funded sole source, non-competitive, sole source procurements are
applicable.
11. Except as may otherwise be limited by applicable law, the Commission
determines that a non-competitive procurement is in the public interest and
in the best interest of the Commission.
C. Except as limited by applicable law, the Executive Director shall have authority to
determine that non-competitive procurements are permitted under paragraph A,
subparagraphs (1) through (11) for contracts for amounts less than or equal to
$100,000. Commission approval is required for contracts over $100,000. Each
decision to proceed with a non-competitive procurement must be supported by a
written justification that is approved by the Executive Director or Procurement
Officer, as required under this Manual.
D. The Procurement Officer will take action, whenever possible and in coordination
with the user department/project manager, to avoid the need to continue to
procure the same supply, service, or construction without competition.
E. A non-competitive or sole source procurement, where competition is legally
required, should not be justified on the basis of any of the following
circumstances:
1. The lack of adequate advance planning for the procurement of the required
commodities, services, or other items;
2. Delays in the procurement caused by administrative delays, lack of
sufficient procurement personnel, or improper handling of procurement
requests or competitive procedures; or
3. Pending expiration of budget authority.
F. The Procurement Officer should ensure that each non-competitive contract
contains all of the required clauses, representations, and certifications, in
accordance with the applicable laws, regulations, or Commission adopted policy.
G. The Procurement Officer should ensure that proper records of each non-
competitive procurement are maintained.
2.0 EMERGENCY PROCUREMENTS; REMEDIAL MEASURES
A. The Commission may award a contract on an emergency basis if the requirement
is essential to deal with an existing emergency condition, as defined below in
Paragraph “B”, and the Executive Director may award a contract when necessary
as a remedial measure as defined below in Paragraph “C”. The emergency
procurement of supplies or services and procurements as a remedial measure
should be limited to quantities and time periods sufficient to meet the immediate
threat and should not be used to meet long-term requirements.
B. For purposes of an emergency procurement under this Chapter, an “emergency
condition” is a situation (such as a flood, epidemic, riot, equipment failure, or any
other reason declared by the Commission) which creates an immediate threat to
35
the public health, welfare, or safety. The existence of an emergency condition
creates an immediate need for supplies, services, or construction which cannot be
met through normal procurement methods, and the lack of which would seriously
threaten one (1) or more of the following:
1. The health or safety of any person;
2. The preservation or protection of property;
3. The continuation of necessary Commission functions; or
4. Contract delays that could result in an increase to the cost of the project.
In the case of contracts for services, the Executive Director may declare the
emergency condition.
C. The Executive Director may authorize th expenditure of funds previously
appropriated by the Commission for the direct purchases of goods and services,
without following bid requirements (i) when a finding is made that immediate
remedial measures are necessary to avert or alleviate damage to property, or to
replace, repair, or restore damaged or destroyed property, of the Commission and
are necessary in order to ensure that the facilities of the Commission are available
to serve the transportation needs of the general public, and upon determining that
available remedial measures, including procurement or construction in
compliance with Public Utilities Code Sections 130232, 130233, and 130234, are
inadequate.
D. A contract procured on an emergency basis or as a remedial measure should not
be modified to expand the scope or extend the time of the procurement unless a
limited number of additional commodities, services, or other items are needed to
fill an ongoing emergency requirement until regular procurement action
procedures initiated under other Chapters in this Manual can be completed.
E. The Executive Director must, after an emergency expenditure in excess of his/her
delegated signature authority, and after an expenditure necessary as a remedial
measure, submit to the Commission a procurement summary explaining the
necessity for the expenditure.
F. The Procurement Officer should ensure that each emergency procurement
contract and/or contract entered into as a remedial measure contains the required
clauses, representations, and certifications, in accordance with the requirements of
this Manual.
G. The Procurement Officer should ensure that proper records of each non-
competitive procurement are maintained in accordance with the requirements of
this Manual.
3.0 WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION FOR EMERGENCY AND OTHER NON-
COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENTS
A. In each instance where the non-competitive procurement procedures set forth in
this Chapter are used, the user department/project manager is required to prepare
36
a written statement recording all of the facts that provide justification for
proceeding with the non-competitive or emergency procurement.
B. The Procurement Officer must approve the justification for all non-competitive
procurements described under this chapter before such a procurement can
proceed.
37
CHAPTER 8 – REFERENCES TO APPLICABLE LAWS /REGULATIONS
1.0 GENERAL
A. This Manual lists references to the various federal, state, and local regulations, to
which the Manual was written to conform and/or comply.
B. The Procurement Officer will be responsible, in cooperation with the
Commission’s General Counsel, for reviewing these references from time to time
in order to review new requirements and to note updates to the existing
regulations.
2.0 REFERENCES
A. For the Commission's capital projects and contracts for goods and services
utilizing Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) or Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) funds, the provisions included in the Manual will apply
only to the extent that they do not conflict with FTA or FHWA requirements,
including the standards of FTA Circular 4220.1F, or the most current version
thereof, entitled “Third Party Contracting Requirements” or FHWA Form
FHWA-1273 entitled “Required Contract Provisions Federal-Aid Construction
Contracts.” In case of any conflict, the applicable federal standards shall govern.
The foregoing documents, though not all-inclusive, set forth requirements that the
Commission must comply with in the solicitation, selection and administration of
contracts funded by the FTA and FHWA, respectively.
B. For projects funded by Caltrans and/or FHWA, the selection process shall be in
accordance with Chapter 10 of Caltrans’ Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/prog_p/p10consl.pdf.
C. FTA Circular 4220.1F (or the most current version thereof) sets forth the
requirements the Commission must adhere to in the solicitation, award, and
administration of its third party contracts. FTA Circular 4220.1F applies to all
FTA grantees and subgrantees that contract with third parties under FTA
assistance programs.
a. In addition to the requirements set forth in this Chapter 8, the FTA standards
for competition are set forth generally in Chapter 1 hereof and the FTA
procedures for competitive sealed bid (“low bid”) procurements and
competitively negotiated procurements are set forth in Chapters 3 and 5
hereof, respectively.
D. Some of the requirements include the following:
1. Pre-Award Audits. A pre-award (pre-negotiation) audit shall be
completed, as required based on the participating state or federal funds, for
each consultant contract, including those contracts where the consultant
was previously identified as a “high-risk” recipient as described in 49 CFR
Part 18.12.
38
2. Brooks Act Provisions. The provisions of the Brooks Act (40 USC 544)
require local agencies to award federally funded engineering and design
contracts on the basis of fair and open competitive negotiations,
demonstrated competence, and professional qualifications (23 CFR,
Section 172).
3. Required Contract Provisions/Forms include:
a. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Notice to Proposers Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Information
Standard Agreement for Subcontractor/DBE Participation
Local Agency Proposer UDBE Commitment (Consultant
Contracts)
Local Agency Proposer DBE Information (Consultant Contract)
Final Report-Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
(DBE), First-Tier
Subcontractor Listing
b. Federal Lobbying Restrictions, Title 31 U.S.C. Section 1352
Non-lobbying Certification for Federal-aid Contracts
Disclosure of Lobbying
4. Caltrans/FWHA Authorization to Proceed. FHWA or Caltrans acting in
FHWA’s behalf must give the local agency an “Authorization to Proceed”
with a project prior to the performance of any work for which federal
reimbursement is to be requested, including the pre-award audit. Copies of
the “Authorization to Proceed” and the consultant contract must be
retained in the project files for future audit purposes.
5. Certification of Consultant and Local Agency. The Procurement Officer
will be responsible for ensuring that, when required, the certifications
shown in Exhibits 10-F, “Certification of Consultant,” and 10-G,
“Certification of Local Agency” of the Caltrans Local Assistance
Procedures Manual are incorporated into the solicitation and executed by
the appropriate signatories.
a. The certifications must be executed by a principal or authorized
corporate official of the consultant, and by a principal administrative
officer of the governmental agency responsible for the selection of the
consultant. It is essential that these certifications be preserved in the
project files.
D. Though not an all-inclusive listing, the following laws, regulations and code
sections are applicable to Commission contracts:
39
Federal Statute, Regulations,
Policies, and Agreements Subject
49 CFR Part 18 Administrative Requirements for Grants & Cooperative
Agreements
49 CFR Part 26 Participation by Minority Business Enterprises;
Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) Program
FTA Circular 4220.1x Third Party Contracting Requirements
FTA Circular 5010.1x Grant Management Guidelines
Master Agreement Terms & Conditions of Grantee Administration of Projects
Supported & Funded by the FTA
Federal Acquisition Regulation Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 31 – Contract
Cost Principles and Procedures
23 U.S.C. 114 / 23 CFR 633
23 U.S.C. 315 / 49 CFR 1.48
Form FHWA-1273 entitled “Required Contract Provisions
Federal-Aid Construction Contracts.”
CA State Codes Section(s) Subject
Civil Code 3247-3248 Payment Bond
Civil Code 3320 Payments to Prime Design Professionals
Code of Civil
Procedure
995.311 Bond Issuer Requirements
Government Code 4525 et seq. Architect & Engineering Services
Government Code 6250 - 6270 Public Records Disclosure
Government Code 5956 et seq. Infrastructure Projects
Labor Code 1777.1 Debarment by California Labor Commissioner
Labor Code 1770-1780 Prevailing Wage, Work Hours, Certified Payroll
Records, Apprentices
Public Contract Code 1103 Responsibility on Public Works Contracts
Public Contract Code 1104 Plans and Specifications
Public Contract Code 3300 Contractor’s License
Public Contract Code 3400 Brand Name OR Equal; Restrictive Clauses
Public Contract Code 4100 - 4114 Subcontracting
Public Contract Code 5100 - 5107 Relief of Bidders
Public Contract Code 6100 - 6610 Awarding of Contracts
Public Contract Code 6800-6813 Design/Build Demonstration Program
Public Contract Code 7100 - 7200 Contract Clauses, Non-Collusion Affidavit
Public Contract Code 7103 Payment Bond for Public Works >$25,000
Public Contract Code 9201 - 9203 Claims and Disputes
Public Contract Code 10335 et seq. Service Contracts
Public Contract Code 20101 Prequalification
Public Contract Code 20103.6 Limitation on Architect’s Indemnity Obligation
Public Contract Code 20103.8 Alternative Bids
Public Contract Code 20104 Resolution of Construction Claims
Public Contract Code 20104.50 Progress Payments on Public Works
40
CA State Codes Section(s) Subject
Public Contract Code 22300 Substitution of Securities
Public Utilities Code 130221 Contracting With Other Government Agencies and
Other Persons
Public Utilities Code 130232 -
130239
Award of Contracts Based On Price or Price and
Other Factors; Bid Security; Emergency
Procurements; Advertising; Immediate Remedial
Measures; Rejecting Bids
Public Utilities Code 130232(c) Authorization of Executive Director for Bid
Expenditures <$50,000.
Public Utilities Code 130232(d) Bid Security for Construction Work >$25,000
3.0 FTA/FHWA-FUNDED PROCUREMENT BY NON-COMPETITIVE (SOLE
SOURCE) PROPOSALS
A. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, federally funded contracts must
comply with the federal requirements for non-competitive or sole source
procurements. Non-competitive or sole source procurements are accomplished
through solicitation of a proposal from only one source, or after solicitation of a
number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. A contract change that
amounts to a “cardinal change” as defined in FTA Circular 4220.1f that involves a
major deviation from the original purpose is considered a sole source procurement
on a federally funded contract that must comply with this paragraph.
1. Procurement by noncompetitive proposals may be used only when the
award of a contract is infeasible under small purchase procedures,
competitive sealed bids, or competitive proposals and at least one of the
following circumstances applies:
a. The item is available only from a single source;
b. The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit
a delay resulting from competitive solicitation;
c. FTA/FHWA, as applicable, authorizes noncompetitive negotiations—
e.g., if FTA/FHWA, as applicable, provides a joint procurement grant
or a research project grant with a particular firm or combination of
firms, the grant agreement is the sole source approval;
d. After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined
inadequate;
e. The item is an associated capital maintenance item as defined in 49
U.S.C. §5307(a)(1) that is procured directly from the original
manufacturer or supplier of the item to be replaced. The grantee must
first certify in writing to FTA:
i. that such manufacturer or supplier is the only source for such item;
and
41
ii. that the price of such item is no higher than the price paid for such
item by like customers; or
f. Any other circumstance justifying sole source procurement set forth in
the applicable federal rules and regulations.
2. A cost analysis, i.e., verifying the proposed cost data, the projections of
the data, and the evaluation of the specific elements of costs and profit, is
required.
4.0 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
A. In order to ensure the Commission’s compliance with the federal Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) Program on all applicable procurements funded with
United States Department of Transportation (DOT) dollars, the Commission will
make reasonable efforts to utilize disadvantaged business enterprises in
compliance with applicable federal regulations.
B. The Commission’s procurement process is structured to ensure that its DBE
Program supports the Commission’s commitment to promote, foster and utilize
disadvantaged business enterprises as required and defined by applicable federal
regulations.
C. As a condition of funding assistance, and in accordance with DOT Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise regulations published in applicable federal regulations, the
Commission is required to submit for approval a Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Program and regular DBE goals, which it will make good faith efforts
to achieve through procurement actions carried out under this Manual.
5.0 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
The Commission shall comply with applicable federal statutory and regulatory
requirements (such as Davis-Bacon Act, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Debarment
and Suspension, Clean Air, Environmental and Conservation Requirements, Buy
America and Cargo Preference) in carrying out federally-funded procurement actions
under this Manual.
42
CHAPTER 9 - DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
1.0 DEFINITIONS
“Surplus personal property” shall mean personal property of the Commission which is no
longer needed or fit for its intended purpose or has exceeded its useful life.
“Surplus real property” shall mean real property of the Commission which is no longer
needed for a specified project.
2.0 DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY
A. Upon recommendation by the Executive Director, designated Commission staff
may dispose of surplus real property in accordance with the RCTC Right of Way
Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 8.5, Disposal of Surplus Properties.
3.0 DISPOSAL OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
A. Upon recommendation by the Executive Director and in accordance with
applicable state or federal funding requirements, designated Commission staff
may dispose of all surplus and obsolete personal property by donation, bid,
auction, negotiated sale or exchange. If the disposal of such items is conducted
by bid, the sale shall be conducted in accordance with generally accepted best
practices and applicable laws and regulations. The Commission staff shall
attempt to obtain the best value for the property that can reasonably be obtained.
43
CHAPTER 10 – OTHER PROCUREMENT MATTERS
1.0 DISPUTES, CLAIMS AND CHANGES - DEFINITIONS
A. Change Orders – the commercial and technical resolution of a contract
modification. The change order document can be unilateral or bilateral in
execution.
B. Potential Claim – written notice provided to the Commission by the contractor
when the:
1. Parties are unable to reach bilateral agreement on a change and the
contractor is provided a unilateral change order (“protest”); or,
2. Contractor perceives that it is entitled to additional compensation (time or
money) for something it believes to constitute extra work performed or to
be performed.
C. Claim – differences that have developed during the contract, under protest or
under notice of potential claim, which are not resolved at the time the contractor
returns the proposed final pay estimate.
D. Dispute - a disagreement between the parties as to the merits, amount or remedy
arising out of an issue in controversy, including a disagreement regarding a Claim
or asserted default.
E. Amendment – a modification considered outside the original contract scope or
terms and formalized with a written agreement signed by both parties.
2.0 DISPUTES, CLAIMS AND CHANGES - GENERAL
A. The Procurement Officer is responsible for documenting negotiation activities for
the record, and should be present at all professional services and construction
contract negotiations.
B. The Procurement Officer or project manager, as required, prepares the appropriate
documentation (e.g., Change Order Forms) for review and approval by the
Commission’s Executive Director or Commission, prior to issuance to the
consultant/contractor for signature. This document includes full definition of
work scope, impact on DBE goals, definition of time and schedule impacts, and
price. The change order language stipulates that the agreed-upon terms are all
inclusive, and no other relief will be available regarding this work.
3.0 TERMINATION
A. All Commission contracts exceeding $25,000 should contain provisions enabling
the Commission to terminate such contracts for the convenience of the
Commission, and all federally funded contracts must contain such provisions.
These provisions should specify the manner in which such termination will be
effected and the basis for settlement. There should also be included in such
contracts appropriate provisions specifying causes for which the contracts may be
terminated for default.
44
B. Terminations for Convenience of the Commission
1. Commission contracts will be terminated for convenience only when this
is determined to be in the best interests of the Commission. In lieu of
issuing a notice of termination for convenience, the Procurement Officer
will effect a no-cost settlement agreement where possible and appropriate.
2. Formal written notice to the contractor is necessary to terminate a contract
for convenience. Such notice will state that the contract is being
terminated pursuant to the termination for convenience provision of the
contract, the effective date, the extent of termination and instructions to
the contractor to cease performance under the contract.
3. The Procurement Officer will negotiate a no-cost settlement with the
contractor if possible. Otherwise, the Procurement Officer will negotiate
an appropriate settlement agreement with the contractor pursuant to the
provisions of the termination for convenience clause of the contract.
C. Terminations For Default
1. If a contractor's right to proceed is terminated for default, the Commission
may take over and complete the work or cause it to be completed, and the
contractor and his sureties, if any, shall be liable to the Commission for
any increased costs caused thereby. The contractor and his sureties
should, in addition to increased costs in completing the work, be liable for
liquidated damages, if liquidated damages are provided in the contract, or
for actual damages, if liquidated damages are not so provided.
2. If the Procurement Officer determines that the contractor's failure to
perform arises from causes which are excusable under the terms of the
contract, the Procurement Officer shall not terminate the contractor's right
to proceed, nor shall he/she charge the contractor with liquidated damages
(or if no liquidated damages, then actual damages) because of any delays
occasioned by such causes.
3. Where the surety does not complete performance of the contract, the
Procurement Officer normally will complete the performance of work by
awarding a new contract based on the same plans and specifications. Such
award may be the result of competitive bidding or negotiation; whichever
procedure is most appropriate under the circumstances. The Procurement
Officer must use reasonable diligence to obtain the lowest price available
for completion.
4. If, after due consideration, the Procurement Officer determines that
termination is not in the best interest of the Commission although the
contractor is in default, the Procurement Officer may permit the contractor
to continue the work, and the contractor and his sureties shall be liable to
the Commission for liquidated damages, as specified in the contract, or if
liquidated damages are not so specified, for any actual damages
occasioned by the failure of the contractor to complete the work in
accordance with the terms of the contract.
45
4.0 BONDS, OTHER SECURITIES AND INSURANCE
A. The Commission should specify bonding, in compliance with applicable federal
and state requirements for all public works contracts.
B. The Procurement Officer may require any of the following types of security for
any solicitation or contract subject to this Manual, other than a small purchase,
regardless of the estimated amount of the contract:
1. Bid bonds;
2. Other bid or proposal security;
3. Construction performance and payment bonds; and
4. Performance or payment bonds or other security on non-construction
contracts.
C. Requirement for Bonds To Be Executed By An Admitted Surety Insurer
1. California Code of Civil Procedure § 995.311 calls for any bond required
on a public works contract to be executed by an admitted surety insurer.
2. The Commission has a duty to verify that an admitted surety insurer
executes the bond. The Procurement Officer should print out information
from the website of the California Department of Insurance
(http://www.insurance.ca.gov/docs/FS-CompanyProfiles.htm) confirming
that the surety is an admitted surety insurer and attach it to the bond.
5.0 CONTRACT CLOSEOUT
A. A completed contract is one which is both physically and administratively
complete and in which all aspects of contractual performance have been
accomplished, terminated, or otherwise disposed of by contract modification. A
contract is physically complete only after all articles and services called for under
the contract, including such related items as reports, spare parts, and exhibits,
have been delivered to and accepted by the Commission, including those articles
and services for which no specific compensation may have been stipulated. A
contract is administratively complete when all payments have been made and
administrative actions accomplished.
B. The project manager, in cooperation with the Procurement Officer, is responsible
for review of the contract file and obtaining all necessary documentation to ensure
that: (1) all deliverables and/or services (including any reports) required under the
contract have been received and accepted; (2) the terms and conditions of the
contract have been complied with; (3) disposition of accountable property under
the contract has been accomplished; all necessary actions including final payment
and releases required to close the contract are completed and documented.
C. Small purchase files should be considered closed when the Procurement Officer
receives evidence of receipt of property and final payment.
D. A contract file should not be closed in any of the following situations:
46
1. If the contract is the subject of a claim or dispute;
2. If the contract is in litigation or under appeal; or
3. In the case of a termination, if all termination actions have not been
completed.
4. If state or federal approval is required and has not been received.
47
CHAPTER 11 – PAYMENT
1.0 COMMISSION PAYMENT PROCESS
A. The Commission will promptly process all contract payments with necessary
controls to assure compliance with all contract terms and conditions in accordance
with internal procedures recommended by the Chief Financial Officer and
authorized by the Executive Director.
B. The Procurement Officer should clearly specify in solicitations and contracts the
form and content of an acceptable invoice, including a requirement that invoices
be sequentially numbered, that they contain a date and contract number and the
services for which they are invoicing, the period of performance being invoiced,
and to whom invoices are to be sent.
2.0 PROGRESS PAYMENTS
A. The Commission may provide for progress payments under contracts that require
long time periods to complete contract performance or if the use of progress
payments contributes to the effective and efficient administration of
consultant/contractor work. Progress payments will be made on the basis of
allowable costs incurred by the consultant/contractor, and the stage of completion
of the contract.
1. Criteria – Contract clauses providing for progress payments should be
used when the investment in work and progress is expected to be great
enough to add substantial costs to the contract or strain the
consultant/contractor’s cash flow or ability to obtain financing. Under no
circumstances should payments exceed the consultant/contractor’s
physical completion of the Work, nor should they amount to advance
payments. Progress payments can be based on a periodic voucher for
expenditures, a milestone, or the Commission’s estimate of work
accomplished as defined in the contract.
2. For Federally funded procurements, the Commission must obtain adequate
security (i.e., title to work in progress; letter of credit) for any progress
payments made.
B. Progress Payments on Public Works
In accordance with California Public Contract Code § 20104.50, the Commission
must make progress payments within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and
properly submitted payment request from a contractor on a construction contract.
If the Commission fails to make timely payment, the Commission may be
required to pay interest to the contractor equivalent to the legal rate set forth in
subdivision (s) of Section 685.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
48
C. Progress Payments and Retentions on Architect, Engineer, and Land Surveyor
Contracts
Pursuant to California Civil Code §3320, for any contract for public works or
improvement, the Commission shall pay to the prime design professional any
progress payment within 30 days of receipt of a written demand for payment in
accordance with the contract, and the final retention payment, if applicable, within
45 days of receipt of a written demand for payment in accordance with the
contract. If any amount is wrongfully withheld or is not timely paid, the prime
design professional should be entitled to a penalty of 1½ percent for the
improperly withheld amount, in lieu of any interest otherwise due, per month for
every month that payment is not made.
3.0 PROMPT PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTORS—FEDERALLY FUNDED
AGREEMENTS
A. In accordance with 49 CFR part 26, Commission contracts above the small
purchase threshold must require that the prime contractor or subcontractor shall
pay to any subcontractor, not later than 7 days of receipt of each progress
payment from the Commission, unless otherwise agreed to in writing, the
respective amounts paid to the contractor on account for the work performed by
the subcontractors, to the extent of each subcontractor’s interest therein. The
Commission contract may provide that, in the event that there is a good faith
dispute over all or any portion of the amount due on a progress payment from the
prime contractor or subcontractor to a subcontractor, then the prime contractor or
subcontractor may withhold no more than 150 percent of the disputed amount.
B. The Commission must also require the prompt return of retainage payments from
the prime contractor to the subcontractor within 7 days after the subcontractor’s
work is satisfactorily completed.
4.0 PAYMENT OF RETENTION ON PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS
Pursuant to California Public Contract Code § 7107, within 60 days after the date of
completion of the work of improvement, the Commission must release any retention
withheld except funds withheld to satisfy outstanding stop notices or otherwise properly
withheld. In the event of a dispute between the Commission and the original contractor,
the Commission may withhold from the final payment an amount not to exceed 150
percent of the disputed amount.
5.0 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT CERTIFICATION
A. All contracts above the small purchase threshold may contain a clause, which
requires the contractor to submit with each request for payment, a certification
that the claim for payment is true, correct, and for services rendered and/or
supplies delivered in accordance with the contract.
B. The user department/project manager will disapprove and Accounts Payable will
return unpaid any request for payment which does not contain the certification
when required.
49
REVISION HISTORY:
Revision
No.
Revisions Adopted
0 Adopted by the Commission 7/11/12
BLANK
RESOLUTION NO. 12-018
RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
REGARDING THE
REVISED PROCUREMENT POLICY MANUAL
WHEREAS, the Commission previously adopted Resolution No.
98-013, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission
Authorizing the Executive Director to Sign Certain Commission Contracts”;
and
WHEREAS, the Executive Committee adopted a Procurement Policies
Manual on April 11, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to update its procurement policies
and procedures to be a comprehensive, useful framework for the
Commission’s procurements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission
does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. The previously adopted Resolution No. 98-013 regarding single
signature authority over certain professional services and
administrative contracts is hereby superceded as a result of its
incorporation in the revised Procurement Policies Manual.
Section 2. The Procurement Policies Manual previously adopted on April
11, 2007 is hereby replaced in its entirety by the revised
Procurement Policies Manual, set forth in Attachment A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Section 3. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby
approves and adopts the Procurement Policies Manual, as
revised, to be effective immediately.
30
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2012.
__________________________________________
John J. Benoit, Chair
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Jennifer Harmon
Clerk of the Board
31
AGENDA ITEM 8C
BLANK
Agenda Item 8C
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: David Thomas, Toll Project Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the 2012 State Route 91
Implementation Plan.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In 2002, AB 1010 authored by former Assemblyman Lou Correa allowed the
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to purchase the 91 Express Lanes
franchise from the California Private Transportation Company. The purchase
agreement was completed in January 2003, at a cost of $207.5 million. AB 1010
also eliminated the existing non-compete clause in the franchise agreement that
prohibited any capacity-enhancing improvements from being made to SR-91 until
the year 2030. SB 1316 passed in August 2008, authorized the Commission to
impose tolls for 50 years on transportation facilities on its portion of SR-91, and
authorized toll revenues to be used for constructing and operating toll facilities on
SR-91 in Riverside County.
The purchase of the 91 Express Lanes and the elimination of the non-compete
clause has allowed much needed improvements to be planned and implemented
within the SR-91 corridor. OCTA, the Commission, and Caltrans Districts 8 and 12
have been coordinating these improvements. SB 1316 required creation of a new
advisory committee with specific responsibilities appointed by board members from
OCTA and the Commission. SB 1316 also required the continuation of annual
updates of an implementation plan of SR-91 improvements for the Legislature. As
spelled out in the legislation, the 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan was
completed by OCTA, in consultation with Caltrans and the Commission, and details
proposed projects and completion schedules for transportation improvements to
Metrolink, express bus, freeways and interchanges, new east-west highway
corridors, and high-speed rail.
Attachment: 2012 State Route 91 Implementation Plan
32
BLANK
33
BLANK
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN i
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ I
SECTION 1: 2012 STATUS REPORT AND UPDATE ............................................................................................ 1
SECTION 2: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................................................................................. 8
BY YEAR 2015 ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
BY YEAR 2025 ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
BY YEAR 2035 ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
SECTION 3: COMPLETED PROJECT EXHIBITS APPENDIX ............................................................................ 26
SECTION 4: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 30
34
BLANK
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1
SECTION 1: 2012 Status Report and Update
INTRODUCTION
Previous law authorized the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to enter into franchise
agreements with private companies to construct and
operate four demonstration toll road projects in California.
This resulted in the development of the 91 Express Lanes
facility in Orange County. The four-lane, 10-mile toll road
runs along the median of the Riverside Freeway (State
Route 91) in northeast Orange County between the
Orange/Riverside County Line and the Costa Mesa
Freeway (State Route 55). Since the 91 Express Lanes
carried its first vehicle on December 27, 1995, the facility
has saved users tens of millions of hours of commuting
time.
While the 91 Express Lanes facility has improved travel
time along the State Route 91 (SR-91) corridor, provisions
in the franchise agreement between Caltrans and the
private franchisee, the California Private Transportation
Company (CPTC), prohibited Caltrans and county
transportation agencies from adding transportation
capacity or operational improvements to the SR-91
corridor from the Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15) in
Riverside County to the Orange/Los Angeles Counties
border through the year 2030. Consequently, the public
agencies were barred from adding new lanes, improving
interchanges, and adding other improvements to decrease
congestion on the SR-91 freeway.
Recognizing the need to eliminate the non-compete
provision of the franchise agreement, Governor Gray
Davis signed Assembly Bill 1010 (Lou Correa) (AB 1010)
into law in September 2002, paving the way for much-
needed congestion relief for thousands of drivers who use
SR-91 to travel between Riverside and Orange Counties
each day. The bill allowed the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) to purchase the 91
Express Lanes franchise and eliminate the existing clause
that prohibited any capacity-enhancing improvements
from being made to SR-91 until the year 2030. The
purchase agreement for the 91 Express Lanes was
completed in January 2003, placing the road in public
hands at a cost of $207.5 million. With the elimination of
the non-compete provision through AB 1010 and the
subsequent 91 Express Lanes purchase by the OCTA,
Orange County and Riverside County public officials and
Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 have been coordinating
improvement plans for SR-91.
Senate Bill 1316 (Lou Correa) (SB 1316) was signed into
law in August 2008 as an update to the provisions of AB
1010. SB 1316 authorizes OCTA to transfer its rights and
interests in the Riverside County portion of SR-91 toll
lanes by assigning them to the Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC), and authorizes
RCTC to impose tolls for 50 years. SB 1316 also requires
OCTA, in consultation with Caltrans and RCTC, to
annually issue a SR-91 Implementation Plan (Plan) and a
proposed completion schedule for SR-91 improvements
from State Route 57 (SR-57) to Interstate 15 (I-15). The
Plans prior to adoption of SB 1316 included a westerly
project limit of State Route 55 (SR-55). The Plan
establishes a program of projects eligible for funding by
the use of potential excess toll revenue and other funds.
This 2012 Plan is the result of the requirement to provide
the State Legislature with an annual Implementation Plan
for SR-91 improvements and builds on the 2011 report,
which was a major update of the previous annual
Implementation Plans. This year’s update includes
projects identified in the Riverside County – Orange
County Major Investment Study (MIS) as well as other
project development efforts and funding programs such as
the RCTC 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery
Plan that outlines a number of projects such as the
extension of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes from the
Orange/Riverside County Line to I-15, the California
Transportation Commission (CTC) Corridor Mobility
Improvement Account (CMIA) that provides a funding
source for transportation projects, the extension of the
Measure A program that provides funding for
transportation projects in Riverside County, and the
Renewed Measure M program that provides funding for
transportation projects in Orange County. The 2012 Plan
includes an overview, identification of issues and needs,
time frames for project packages to improve mobility on
35
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2
SR-91, and are listed based on a logical sequence for
implementation. Project descriptions include conceptual
lane diagrams (as appropriate), cost estimates (in 2012
dollars, or as noted), and discussion of key considerations
that need to be addressed in the planning and
development of each project. This Plan will provide
OCTA, RCTC, and Caltrans with a framework to
implement SR-91 and other related improvements. Future
annual Plan updates will continue to refine the scope,
cost, and schedule of each project included in this version
of the Plan.
SR-91 CORRIDOR CONDITIONS
Project Limits
The project study limits encompass the segment of SR-91
from west of the junction of SR-57 and SR-91 in the City
of Anaheim in Orange County, to east of the junction of
SR-91 and I-15 in the City of Corona in Riverside County.
The freeway segment is approximately 20.3 miles long,
and includes approximately 12.7 miles within Orange
County and approximately 7.6 miles within Riverside
County.
Traffic Conditions Summary
A review of traffic conditions in the Corridor indicates that
the existing carrying capacity of the facility is inadequate
to accommodate current and future peak demand
volumes, and that Level of Service (LOS) F prevails in the
peak direction during the entire peak period, where LOS F
is defined as the worst freeway operating condition and is
defined as a density of more than 45 passenger
cars/lane/mile. The results also indicate that there are
several physical constraints that generate unacceptable
traffic queues. The following list summarizes the
deficiencies identified along the SR-91 Corridor:
Heavy traffic volumes from I-15 (North and South)
converge with SR-91. The weaving and merging
condition is complicated by the close proximity of the
Westbound (WB) Main Street off-ramp.
High demand from several on-ramps within the
eastern segment exacerbates traffic conditions during
peak hours.
High traffic volumes from Gypsum Canyon Road and
Santa Ana Canyon Road contribute to congestion on
the mainline.
The Eastern Transportation Corridor (State Route
241) merges with SR-91 causing additional
congestion in the EB direction. One of the two EB
lanes from State Route 241 (SR-241) is dropped at
the merge to State Route 91 (SR-91).
Heavy traffic reentering the freeway merges at slow
speeds from existing WB and EB truck scales,
impacting the general-purpose lanes.
SR-55 merges with SR-91. An EB lane on SR-91 is
dropped at Lakeview Avenue and a second EB lane
is dropped at Imperial Highway creating a severe
merge condition.
WB SR-91 drops a GP lane and a 91 Express Lane to
SB SR-55, which contributes to mainline congestion.
This drop also occurs on the left-hand side of SR-91
as opposed to the typical right-hand exit.
High demand from Weir Canyon Road, Imperial
Highway and Lakeview Avenue increases delay
during the peak hours.
WB traffic entering SR-91 at Lakeview Avenue to
southbound (SB) SR-55 contributes to mainline
congestion by weaving through three lanes from WB
SR-91.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Many of the projects identified in this 2012 Plan are based
on the MIS that was completed in January 2006. The
projects are presented based on potential implementation
schedules and priorities established in the MIS as well as
through subsequent project development. Table 1
summarizes the various projects in the 2012 Plan, and
they are outlined below by implementation schedule (see
Section 2 for detailed project summaries):
The first set of projects is anticipated to be completed
by 2015 and includes three improvements at a total
cost of approximately $170.5 million. The projects
include new travel lanes between SR-55 and SR-241,
the Metrolink short-term expansion plan, and a new
WB lane at Tustin Avenue. These projects are in the
process of final design, construction, or procurement
and implementation, as noted in the project
summaries.
Five projects for implementation by 2025 include
interchange improvements at SR-71/SR-91; the Initial
SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) that will
36
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 3
widen SR-91 by one GP lane in each direction
east of the County Line, add collector-distributor
(CD) roads and direct south connectors at I-15/SR-
91, and extend the 91 Express Lanes to I-15, and
provide system/local interchange improvements;
Express Bus improvements; a SR-241/SR-91
Express Lanes connector; and SR-91 widening
improvements between SR-57 and SR-55. OCTA,
RCTC, and Caltrans have initiated preliminary
planning activities for these projects to ensure
readiness when local, state, or federal funding
becomes available. Preliminary engineering has
been initiated for the highway improvement
projects. Consequently, there may be
opportunities to advance these projects if
additional funding is made available. Projects for
implementation by 2025 would cost approximately
from $1.86 billion up to $2.08 billion.
Projects for implementation by 2035 focus on
longer-lead time projects and include: a potential
new interchange or overcrossing at Fairmont
Boulevard; the Ultimate CIP that widens SR-91 by
one GP lane in each direction from
SR-241 to SR-71, I-15/SR-91 Direct North
Connector, extension of Express Lanes on I-15
and SR-91 improvements east of I-15; a significant
expansion of Metrolink service; an elevated 4-lane
facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to
I-15; the Anaheim to Ontario International Airport
Maglev High Speed Rail; and Irvine-Corona
Expressway (ICE) 4-lane facility from SR-241/SR-
133 to I-15/Cajalco Road (formerly known as MIS
Corridor B). The Fairmont Boulevard interchange
project and the other four, multi-billion dollar potential
projects require a significant amount of planning,
design, and future policy and public input. In some
cases, these projects may include previous projects
as project components, such that all projects may not
be implemented within this project summary.
Traffic Analysis
For the 2012 Plan, the traffic analysis for major SR-91
capacity projects has been updated from the 2011 Plan.
This analysis used the latest freeway operations software
model available from UC Berkeley and traffic data
calibrated to reflect new traffic patterns since the 2011
Plan. This freeway operations model provides a better
depiction of actual travel delays experienced by motorists
compared to traditional travel demand models. The model
can be used to analyze freeway bottlenecks sometimes
neglected in traditional travel demand models. This
approach is especially important given high SR-91 traffic
volumes and the potential for relatively few vehicles to
significantly slow down traffic. For example, a minor
freeway merging area can cause many vehicles to slow,
cascading delay through the traffic stream, and suddenly
both speed and volume rapidly decrease for major
segments of the freeway.
Table 1 – SR-91 Implementation Plan Projects
Project
No. Project Summary (Implementation Year) Cost
($M)
By Year 2015
1 Widen SR-91 between SR-55 and SR-241 by Adding a
5th GP Lane in Each Direction (2012)
85.2
2 Metrolink Short-Term Expansion Plan (2014) 35.4
3 SR-91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue (2015) 49.9
SUBTOTAL 170.5
By Year 2025
4 SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements (2017) 122.7
5 Initial Phase CIP: Widen SR-91 by One GP Lane in Each
Direction East of County Line, CD Roads and I-15/SR-91
Direct South Connector, Extension of Express Lanes to
I-15 and System/Local Interchange Improvements (2017)
1,345
6 Express Bus Improvements Between Orange County
and Riverside County (2017)
9.5
7 SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector (2018) 135-180
8 SR-91 between SR-57 and SR-55 (2025) 253-425
SUBTOTAL 1,865 –
2,082
By Year 2035
9 Fairmont Boulevard Improvements (Post-2025) 76.8
10 Metrolink Service and Station Improvements (2030) 335
11 Ultimate CIP: Widen SR-91 by One GP Lane in Each
Direction from SR-241 to SR-71, I-15/SR-91 Direct North
Connector, Extension of Express Lanes on I-15 and SR-
91 Improvements East of I-15 (2035)
TBD
12 Elevated 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to
I-15 (TBD)
2,720
13 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High
Speed Rail (Post-2030)
TBD
14 Irvine-Corona Expressway (ICE) 4-Lane Facility from
SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road ( Post-2030)
8,855
SUBTOTAL 12,000+
37
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4
The operations analysis quantified travel time savings for
WB morning and EB afternoon conditions for the following
major capacity enhancing projects:
New WB/EB lanes from SR-55 to SR-241 by 2012
(Project 1).
New WB/EB lanes from SR-71 to I-15 by 2017 (Initial
CIP, Project 5).
SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes connector with lanes to
Coal Canyon on SR-91 by 2018 (Project 7).
EB lane between SR-57 and SR-55 by 2025 (Project
8).
New WB/EB lanes, various segments, from SR-241 to
I-15 by 2035 (Ultimate CIP, Project 11).
New capacity provided by Corridor A and Irvine-
Corona Expressway (ICE) by 2035 (Projects 12 and
14).
The WB morning traffic analysis results indicate that the
year 2015 forecasts, bottlenecks are shown at the
Orange-Riverside County line and at the SR-55
interchange. A minor bottleneck is shown at the SR-241
interchange. The main bottlenecks in Riverside County
have decreased because of the completion of proposed
projects, though some congestion is still forecasted. In
the year 2025 forecast, WB bottlenecks occur at Main
Street, the Orange-Riverside County Line, at the SR-241
interchange, and at the SR-55 interchange. Assuming
Corridor A and the ICE are not constructed by the year
2035, bottlenecks appear at Main Street, just east of the
SR-71 interchange, at the Orange-Riverside County Line,
at the SR-241 interchange, and at the SR-55 interchange.
For the year 2035, the construction of Corridors A and ICE
is forecast to notably improve WB operations along the
SR-91 freeway. A bottleneck is shown at the SR-55
interchange.
The EB evening traffic analysis indicates that the year
2015 forecasts, bottlenecks are shown shortly before the
SR-55 interchange, at the Orange-Riverside County Line,
and at Lincoln Avenue. In the year 2025 forecast, EB
bottlenecks are still shown west of the SR-55 interchange
and at the Orange-Riverside County Line. The bottleneck
at Lincoln Avenue and queuing in Riverside County have
largely decreased because of the completion of proposed
projects, though some congestion is still forecasted.
Assuming Corridors A and ICE are not constructed by the
year 2035, bottlenecks appear at SR-55, at the SR-241
interchange, and at Lincoln Avenue. For the year 2035,
the construction of Corridor A and the ICE is forecast to
notably improve EB operations along the SR-91 freeway.
A bottleneck is shown before the SR-55 interchange, and
some minor congestion is shown at the SR-241 and in
short stretches within Riverside County.
The current design of the SR-55/SR-91 interchange limits
the ability to move traffic into north and central Orange
County via SR-55, and significant future vehicle delays
may result without major interchange improvements and
downstream capacity increases or diversion to other
corridors.
The introduction of Corridors A and ICE by 2035 offers the
potential capacity to manage future SR-91 traffic demand
in both directions. While both of these corridors are still
concepts, they provide substantial relief to EB and WB
traffic congestion in the future. Further feasibility studies
will determine if one or both concepts move forward in the
project development process. The charts below describe
the travel time benefits by year including these various
project concepts.
38
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5
PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Much progress has been made since the initial 2003
SR-91 Implementation Plan was approved. The 2012
Plan includes select completed project exhibits as a
historical reference, see Section 3.
Recently Completed Construction/Improvement
Projects
As of June 2012, the following physical improvements
have been constructed/implemented:
Repave and seal pavement surfaces, restripe, and
replace raised channelizers on the 91 Express Lanes.
EB SR-91 restripe and median barrier reconstruction
project that removed the CHP enforcement area and
extended the EB auxiliary lane from SR-71 to the
Serfas Club Drive off-ramp.
WB auxiliary lane extension between the County Line
and SR-241. This project eliminated the lane drop at
the 91 Express Lanes and extended the existing
auxiliary lane from the County Line to SR-241 in the
Figure 1-2 – Mainline Eastbound SR-91 from SR-57 to I-15 P.M. Peak Hour Average Travel Time
Figure 1-1 – Mainline Westbound SR-91 from I-15 to SR-57 A.M. Peak Hour Average Travel Time
39
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 6
westbound direction. This improvement minimized
the traffic delays at the lane drop area, resulting in
improved vehicle progression.
WB restripe project extended the auxiliary lane
between SR-71 and the County Line resulting in a
new continuous auxiliary lane between SR-71 &
SR-241.
Express Bus improvements are implemented for the
Galleria at Tyler to South Coast Metro route.
Safety Improvements at the Truck Scales. Existing
shoulders were improved, lanes were re-striped,
illumination improved, and signage was modified into
and out of the EB facilities.
Green River Road overcrossing replacement (See
Section 3).
Metrolink parking structure at the North Main Street
Corona Metrolink Station (See Section 3).
EB SR-91 lane addition from SR-241 to SR-71 (See
Section 3).
These projects provide enhanced freeway capacity and
improved mobility for one of the most congested segments
of SR-91.
The recently completed EB SR-91 lane addition project
from SR-241 to SR-71 (See Section 3) has greatly
enhanced highway operations. This accounts for some of
the improvement in existing EB p.m. peak hour travel time
from approximately 70+ minutes in 2010 to approximately
50 minutes as shown in Figure 1-2.
In addition, there are two projects that are currently in the
project development or environmental phase that have a
direct impact upon SR-91 widening projects. The first is
the $2 billion U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Santa
Ana River Mainstem (SARM) improvement project that
provides flood protection from the recently improved
Prado Dam (near SR-71) to the Pacific Ocean. As part of
the Corps’ project, existing riverbanks are being improved
due to the increased capacity of the Prado Dam outlet
works, which can now release up to 30,000 cubic feet per
second (cfs) compared to the previous facility capacity of
10,000 cfs. The only remaining segment of the Santa Ana
River to be improved is Reach 9 Phase 2A, which includes
areas along SR-91 from just east of the Coal Canyon
Wildlife Corridor Crossing to SR-71. SR-91 project design
teams have coordinated with the Corps, Caltrans, and
other federal, regional, and local agencies in order to
accommodate future SR-91 improvements by the Corps
bank protection project within Reach 9 by relocating the
Santa Ana River. This will greatly enhance the ability of
Caltrans and other regional transportation agencies to
implement many of the SR-91 improvement projects listed
herein. The Corps SARM Reach 9 improvements were
under construction as of September 2009 with American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) “stimulus”
funding and will be completed by October 2012.
The other project with a direct impact to SR-91 is the $120
million Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) sewer trunk
line relocation. The existing SARI line is within the Santa
Ana River floodplain and is in jeopardy of failure due to
scour from the potential increased flood releases by the
aforementioned Corps project. In order to relocate the
proposed 48-inch diameter SARI line outside of the
floodplain, which is immediately adjacent to SR-91,
highway R/W was relinquished to the Orange County
Flood Control District (OCFCD) for location of the SARI
line. SR-91 project teams have coordinated with the
OCFCD, Caltrans, and other federal, regional, and local
agencies in order to accommodate planned SR-91
improvements within the remaining State R/W subsequent
to relinquishment. This project completed the preliminary
engineering phase and construction is scheduled to be
completed by March 2013.
Recently Completed PSRs and other Reports
In addition to the physical improvements in the corridor,
there are several reports and PSRs that are completed, in
draft form, or anticipated to be approved that identify
improvements that will provide improved mobility. The
reports and PSRs include (also see Section 4):
MIS – Final Project Report: Locally Preferred Strategy
Report (January 2006).
Project Study Report “On Route 91 from State Route
241 in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of
Riverside in Riverside County” (October 2006).
Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan
(November 2006).
Project Study Report for SR-71/SR-91 Interchange
(December 2006).
RCTC 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery
Plan (December 2006).
91 Express Lanes Extension and State Route 241
Connector Feasibility Study (March 2009).
Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for
Eastbound SR-91 lane addition from SR-241 to
SR-71 (May 2009).
40
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 7
SR-91 Feasibility Study from SR-57 to SR-55 (June
2009).
SR-91/Fairmont Boulevard Feasibility Study
(December 2009).
Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Orange
County SR-91 Corridor Final Report (August 2010).
PS&E “On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55
Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in
Orange County” (April 2011).
Renewed Measure M Early Action Plan, approved
August 2007 and subsequently renamed as the
Capital Action Plan (April 2011).
Updates from the 2011 SR-91 Implementation Plan
In addition to the improvements and progress noted
above, the following items that were included in the 2011
SR-91 Implementation Plan have been modified for the
2012 Plan update:
Project schedules have been revised such that the
implementation of projects has moved some of them
into new horizon years.
Various project descriptions, costs, and schedules
have been updated from the 2011 Plan based on
continued project development.
ICE status summary
The ICE project concept (see Project #14) was conceived
as part of the 2006 Riverside County – Orange County
Major Investment Study (MIS) and was established as part
of a suite of projects to support future peak demand
volumes between Riverside and Orange Counties. ICE
was further evaluated in 2009 for financial and
geotechnical feasibility. Seven (7) primary feasibility
issues were considered:
Geologic, Hydrogeologic/Hydrologic, and
Geotechnical Conditions
Corridor Concepts (full tunnel and partial
tunnel/partial surface road)
Tunnel Configuration
Tunnel excavation and support Methods
Tunnel Systems (e.g. Ventilation, Emergency fire
system, operation building, toll system, etc.)
Construction Considerations
Construction, Operation & Maintenance (O&M)
Costs
At the conclusion of the financial and geotechnical
feasibility study in 2010, Riverside Orange Corridor
Authority Board (ROCA) directed staff to shelve the
project due to its high construction cost and the difficult
economic climate, and to reevaluate the project on an
annual basis during the preparation of the SR-91
Implementation Plan.
The National Forest Service has continued monitoring of
the ground water level along the preliminary alignment of
the tunnel and has not found any significant changes
since 2010. The technological ability to construct the
large-diameter tunnels is currently available; however, the
cost of tunnel boring machines (TBM) required to
construct this project has not been reduced significantly.
In general, no significant changes on the seven feasibility
issues considered for the project have occurred over the
last year.
Conclusion
An assessment of current economic conditions, lack of
state and federal transportation funding; and the high
construction cost is hampering the ability of OCTA and
RCTC to implement this project. Until considerable
advancements are made in regards to efficient and
affordable tunneling technology, and more state and
federal funding are made available, the project will be a
challenge to construct.
41
BLANK
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 8
SECTION 2: Implementation Plan
OVERVIEW
The 2012 Plan describes projects, implementation
schedules, key consideration, benefits, and costs (in 2012
dollars, or as noted) for major projects through 2035.
Most of the projects identified in this Implementation Plan
are based on the MIS that was completed in January
2006. The projects are presented based on potential
implementation schedules and priorities established in the
MIS. The schedules for implementation of the packages
of projects include 2015, 2025, and 2035. The 2015
projects are capable of being implemented through the
project development process with minimal to moderate
environmental constraints. Some of the longer-range
projects for 2025 and 2035 require more significant
planning and environmental assessment prior to design.
Each of the project improvements includes an estimate of
project schedules. It is important to note that
implementing various time saving measures, such as
design-build or contractor incentives for early completion,
may potentially reduce project schedules. The
implementation phases are defined as follows:
Conceptual Engineering = Pre-Project Study
Report (Pre-PSR) – Conceptual planning and
engineering for project scoping and feasibility prior to
initiating the PSR phase.
Preliminary Engineering = Project Study Report
(PSR) – Conceptual planning and engineering phase
that allows for programming of funds.
Environmental = Project Report/Environmental
Documentation (PR/ED) – The detailed concept
design that provides environmental clearance for the
project and programs for final design and right of way
acquisition. The duration for this phase is typically 2-3
years.
Design = Plans, Specifications and Estimates
(PS&E) – Provide detailed design to contractors for
construction bidding and implementation.
Construction = The project has completed
construction and will provide congestion relief to
motorists.
The intent of these Implementation Plan project packages
is to provide an action list for OCTA, RCTC and Caltrans
to pursue in the project development process or for
initiating further studies.
Figure 2-1 – SR-91 Project Study Area from SR-57 to I-15
42
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 9
By Year 2015
The first set of projects will be completed by 2015 and includes three (3) improvements at a total cost of approximately $170
million (in 2012 dollars, or as noted). The projects that will be completed in this time frame include widening SR-91 from SR-
55 to SR-241 by adding a 5th general purpose lane in each direction, the Metrolink short-term expansion plan, and the SR-91
WB lane at Tustin Avenue. Further details for each of the projects are included following the summary below.
Project No. Project Summary (Implementation Year) Cost ($M)
1 Widen SR-91 between SR-55 and SR-241 by Adding a 5th GP Lane in Each Direction (2012) 85.2
2 Metrolink Short-Term Expansion Plan (2014) 35.4
3 SR-91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue (2015) 49.9
SUBTOTAL 170.5
Figure 2-3 – Summary of Projects for Implementation By 2015
43
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 10
44
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 11
45
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 12
46
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 13
By Year 2025
Projects for implementation by 2025 include the interchange improvements at SR-71/SR-91; the Initial Phase SR-91 Corridor
Improvement Project (CIP) that includes widening SR-91 by one general purpose (GP) lane in each direction east of the
County Line, collector-distributor (CD) roads and direct south connectors at I-15/SR-91, extension of 91 Express Lanes to I-15,
and system interchange improvements; Express Bus improvements; the SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes direct connector; and
SR-91 improvements between SR-57 and SR-55. OCTA, RCTC, and Caltrans have initiated preliminary planning activities for
these projects to ensure readiness when local, state, or federal funding becomes available. Consequently, there may be
opportunities to advance these projects if additional funding is made available. Projects for implementation by 2025 are
expected to cost approximately $1.87 to $2.08 billion (in 2012 dollars, or as noted). Some of these projects may become
components of 2035 projects.
Project No. Project Summary (Implementation Year) Cost ($M)
4 SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements (2017) 122.7
5 Initial Phase CIP: Widen SR-91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction East of County Line, CD Roads and I-15/SR-
91 Direct South Connector, Extension of Express Lanes to I-15 and System/Local Interchange Improvements
(2017)
1,345
6 Express Bus Improvements Between Orange County and Riverside County (2017) 9.5
7 SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector (2018) 135-180
8 SR-91 between SR-57 and SR-55 (2025) 253-425
SUBTOTAL 1,865 – 2,082
Figure 2-4 – Summary of Projects for Implementation By 2025
47
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 14
48
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 15
49
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 16
50
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 17
51
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 18
52
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 19
By Year 2035
Projects for implementation by 2035 focus on longer-lead time projects. This multi-billion dollar program includes: a potential
new interchange or overcrossing at Fairmont Boulevard; a significant expansion of Metrolink service and station
improvements; the Ultimate CIP that widens SR-91 by one GP lane in each direction from SR-241 to SR-71, I-15/SR-91 Direct
North Connector, extension of Express Lanes on I-15 and SR-91 improvements east of I-15; an elevated 4-lane facility (MIS
Corridor A) from SR-241 to I-15; the Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High Speed Rail; and the Irvine-Corona
Expressway (ICE) 4-lane facility from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road (formerly known as MIS Corridor B). The $77
million dollar Fairmont Boulevard interchange project and the other four, multi-billion dollar potential projects include significant
environmental constraints and right of way requirements in addition to requiring a significant amount of planning, design, and
future policy and public input. The Corridor A project may incorporate projects being developed in the earlier programs as
project components.
Project No. Project Summary (Implementation Year) Cost ($M)
9 Fairmont Boulevard Improvements (Post-2025) 76.8
10 Metrolink Service and Station Improvements (2030) 335
11 Ultimate CIP: Widen SR-91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction from SR-241 to SR-71, I-15/SR-91 Direct
North Connector, Extension of Express Lanes on I-15 and SR-91 Improvements East of I-15 (2035)
TBD
12 Elevated 4-Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to I-15 (TBD) 2,720
13 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High Speed Rail (Post-2030) TBD
14 Irvine-Corona Expressway (ICE) 4-Lane Facility from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road (Post-2030) 8,855
SUBTOTAL 12,000+
Figure 2-5 – Summary of Projects for Implementation by 2035
53
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 20
54
2012 SR-91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 21
55
2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 22
56
BLANK
2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 23
57
2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 24
58
2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 25
59
2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 26
SECTION 3: COMPLETED PROJECT EXHIBITS
APPENDIX
The following exhibits represent completed projects from previous Plans and are intended to be used as a reference to
illustrate the progress made since the inception of the Plan. Note, some projects listed in the Plan as completed (see Section
1, Project Accomplishments) are not included herein since there was no exhibit created for use with prior Plans (such as for
restriping projects, various safety enhancements, minor operational improvements, etc.).
Appendix
Project No. Project Improvements Constructed
A Green River Road Overcrossing Replacement March 2009
B North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure June 2009
C Eastbound Lane Addition from SR-241 to SR-71 September 2010
60
2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 27
61
2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 28
62
2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 29
63
2012 SR-91 Implementation Plan 30
SECTION 4: REFERENCES
The following documents and resources were used in the development of the 2012 Plan. Data was provided by OCTA,
RCTC, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), and other agencies.
PS&E “On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55 Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in Orange County”
(April 2011)
Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Orange County SR-91 Corridor Final Report, August 2010
Project Study Report/Project Report “Right of Way Relinquishment on Westbound State Route 91 Between Weir Canyon
Road and Coal Canyon”, May 2010
SR-91/Fairmont Boulevard Feasibility Study, December 2009
SR-91 Feasibility Study from SR-57 to SR-55, December 2009
Feasibility Evaluation Report for Irvine-Corona Expressway Tunnels, December 2009
Renewed Measure M Strategic Plan, June 2009
Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for Eastbound SR-91 lane addition from SR-241 to SR-71, May 2009
Project Study Report “On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55 Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in
Orange County”, April 2009
91 Express Lanes Extension and State Route 241 Connector Feasibility Study, March 2009
Project Study Report/Project Report “On Gypsum Canyon Road Between the Gypsum Canyon Road/SR-91 Westbound Off-
Ramp (PM 16.4) and the Gypsum Canyon Road/SR-91 Eastbound Direct On-Ramp (PM 16.4)”, June 2008
California Transportation Commission, Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA), February 2007
Project Study Report “On Route 91 from Green River Road to Serfas Club Drive in the City of Corona in Riverside County”,
December 2006
Orange County Transportation Authority Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan, November 2006
Project Study Report “On Route 91 from State Route 241 in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in
Riverside County”, October 2006
Riverside County-Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) – Final Project Report: Locally Preferred Strategy Report,
January 2006
Preliminary design plans for Eastbound Lane Addition from SR-241 to SR-71, 2006
Project Study Report “Westbound State Route 91 Auxiliary Lane from the NB SR-55/WB SR-91 Connector to the Tustin
Avenue Interchange”, July 2004
California – Nevada Interstate Maglev Project Report, Anaheim-Ontario Segment; California-Nevada Super Speed Train
Commission, American Magline Group, August 2003
Route Concept Reports for SR-91, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12
Various Preliminary Drawings and Cross Sections, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12
64
AGENDA ITEM 8D
BLANK
65
Agenda Item 8D
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2013-17 Measure A Five-Year Capital Improvement
Plans for Local Streets and Roads
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to approve the FYs 2013-17 Measure A Five-Year
Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) for Local Streets and Roads as submitted.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Measure A imposes several requirements on local agencies in order to receive local
streets and roads funds. First, the Coachella Valley and Western County cities and
the county must participate in either the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments (CVAG) or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. Western County agencies
must also participate in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan managed by the Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority (RCA). Staff is in the process of obtaining confirmation
from CVAG, WRCOG, and RCA regarding the current participation in their
programs. The cities of Beaumont and La Quinta are not TUMF participants.
Additionally, agencies are required to annually provide to the Commission a CIP
detailing how those funds are to be expended and an annual certification of
maintenance of effort (MOE).
On March 6, 2012, staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue
projections for local streets and roads to assist in preparation of the required CIP.
The required CIP and supporting documentation have been received from the
following local agencies for approval:
66
Agenda Item 8D
Western County:
• Banning
• Canyon Lake
• Eastvale
• Hemet
• Menifee
• Moreno Valley
• Murrieta
• Norco
• Perris
• Riverside
• San Jacinto
• Temecula
• Wildomar
Eastern County:
• Cathedral City
• Coachella
• Desert Hot Springs
• Indian Wells
• Indio
• Palm Desert
• Rancho Mirage
Late submittals for the remaining cities of Blythe, Calimesa, Corona, Jurupa Valley,
Lake Elsinore, and Palm Springs, and the county will be presented to the
Commission for approval at subsequent meetings. The FY 2012/13 Measure A
Local Streets and Roads disbursements to local agencies with Commission-
approved CIPs are expected to begin in September 2012.
Attachment: FYs 2013-17 Measure A Five-Year CIPs – Posted on the Commission
Website
STAGECOACH TOWI USA
ESTABLISHED 1913
May 8, 2012
City of Banning
Public Works Department
Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMM!SSlON 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92502
Subject: Five-Year Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan
Dear Mrs. Medina:
The City of Banning respectfully submits its Five-Year Measure "A" Capital
Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2012/2013 -2016/2017 as approved by the City
Council during its regular meeting on April 24, 2012. Also enclosed with this letter you
will find the City's MOE Certification Statement, Project Status Report for FY 2011/2012
along with a certified copy of the Resolution and Minute Order approving the Five-Year
Measure "A" CIP Plan.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to
call me at (951) 922-3130.
Sincerely,
/4-d
Art Vela, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Copy: Duane Burk, Director of Public Works
File
Enc. Five-Year Measure "A" Plan
MOE Certification Statement
Project Status Report
Certified Resolution
Certified Minute Order
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141
Agency:
Page:
Prepared By:
Phone No.
Date:
ITEM
NO.
MEASURE"A"LOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013-2016/2017
City of Banning
1 of5
Arturo Vela
(951) 922-3130
May 8, 2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $0.00
Estimated FY 2012/2013 Measure A Allocation: $398,000.00
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012/2013 Projects: $398,000.00
FY 2012/2013 PROJECT TOTAL MEASURE
TYPE COST "A" FUND
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS ($1,000) ($1,000)
1. Westward A venue from Highland Home Rd to Street 1,000 398
Sunset A venue Construction
TOTALS 1,000 398
Agency:
Page:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE"A"LOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 -2016/2017
City of Banning
2 of5
Prepared By: Arturo Vela
(951) 922-3130
May 8, 2012
Phone No.
Date:
ITEM
NO.
1.
2.
3.
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $0.00
Estimated FY 2013/2014 Measure A Allocation: $410,000.00
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2013/2014 Projects: $410,000.00
FY 2013/2014 PROJECT TOTAL MEASURE
TYPE COST "A" FUND
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS ($1,000) ($1,000)
Hoffer Street: Alessandro Road to Hargrave A.C. Overlay 130 130
Street
Alessandro Road: Williams Street to Ramsey A.C. Overlay 50 50
Street
Ramsey Street: Hargrave Street to San Gorgonio A.C. Overlay 230 230
Avenue
TOTALS 410 410
Agency:
Page:
Prepared By:
Phone No.
Date:
ITEM
NO.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 -2016/2017
City of Banning
3 of5
Arturo Vela
(951) 922-3130
May 8, 2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $0.00
Estimated FY 2014/2015 Measure A Allocation: $422,000.00
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2014/2015 Projects: $422,000.00
FY 2014/2015 PROJECT TOTAL MEASURE
TYPE COST "A" FUND
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS ($1,000) ($1,000)
1. Cherry Street: Hoffer Street to George Street A.C. Overlay 100 100
2. Lincoln Street: San Gorgonio A venue to Hargrave A.C. Overlay 255 255
Street
3. City Wide Slurry Seal Slurry Seal 67 67
TOTALS 422 422
Agency:
Page:
Prepared By:
Phone No.
Date:
ITEM
NO.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013-2016/2017
City of Banning
4 of5
Arturo Vela
(951) 922-3130
May 8, 2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $0.00
Estimated FY 2015/2016 Measure A Allocation: $435,000.00
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2015/2016 Projects: $435,000.00
FY 2015/2016 PROJECT TOTAL MEASURE
TYPE COST "A" FUND
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS ($1,000) ($1,000)
1. Allen Street: Hoffer Street to George Street A.C. Overlay 70 70
2. Nicolet Street: Sims Street to Sunset A venue A.C. Overlay 305 305
4. City Wide Slurry Seal Slurry Seal 60 60
TOTALS 435 435
Agency:
Page:
Prepared By:
Phone No.
Date:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 -2016/2017
City of Banning
5 of5
Arturo Vela
(951) 922-3130
May 8, 2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $0.00
ITEM
NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Estimated FY 2016/2017 Measure A Allocation: $448,000.00
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2016/2017 Projects: $448,000.00
FY 2016/2017 PROJECT TOTAL MEASURE
TYPE COST "A" FUND
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS ($1,000) ($1,000)
Ramsey Street: San Gorgonio A venue to 8th A.C. Overlay 210 210
Street
8tn Street: Lincoln Street to Westward Avenue A.C. Overlay 130 130
Charles Street: Hargrave Street to 103 7 E. A.C. Overlay 54 54
Charles Street
Wesley Street: Hargrave Street to 1401 E. Wesley A.C. Overlary 54 54
Street
TOTALS 448 448
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2011-2012
Agency: City of Banning
Page: 1 of 1
Prepared by: Arturo Vela
Phone#: (951) 922-3130
Date: May 8, 2012
Item Project Name/Limits
No.1
1 Project No. 2011-06, "RAC Overlay and Street
Improvements along Wilson Street from Stargaze
Way to Mountain Avenue". The limits are as
mentioned in the title as well as Sunset Avenue
from Wilson Street to the northerly city limits
(Approx. 2 miles).
Project Total Cost Measure A
Type ($000's) Funds
($000's)
Rubberized $1,250 820
Asphalt
Concrete
(RAC)
Overlay
*The Notice of Completion for this project is scheduled to be presented to City Council on May 8, 2012.
Estimated Status
Completion
May, 2012* 99%
Complete
BLANK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Page 1 of 5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone#: (951) 943-6504
Date: 413012012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 422000
Estimated FY 2012-2013 Measure A Allocation: 127000 ------
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012-2013 Projects: 549000
Item Total Cost
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's)
2012-2013
Railroad Canyon Road Widening 9000
TOTALS 9,000
Note: Canyon Lake received an advance of $557,00 on Measure A funds for this project.
This balance is paid down starting with the 2012-13 allocation.
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
979
979
--------------------------------
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Page 2 of 5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone#: (951) 943-6504
Date: 4/3012012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: -430000
Estimated FY 2013-2014 Measure A Allocation: 131000 ---~..:...;;...;;....;....
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2013-2014 Projects: -299000
Item Total Cost Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
2013-2014
No new projects
2013-14 allocation goes toward
paying for Railroad Cyn Rd project
TOTALS 0 0
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Page 3 of 5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone#: (951) 943-6504
Date: 413012012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: -299000
Estimated FY 2014-2015 Measure A Allocation: 135000 ___ .....;..;;..;;,.,;;,....;;~
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2014-2015 Projects: -164000
Item I 01a1 vOSl measure"
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
2014-2015
No new projects
2014-15 allocation goes toward
paying for Railroad Cyn Rd project
TOTALS 0 0
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Page4 of5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone#: (951) 943-6504
Date: 413012012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: -164000
Estimated FY 2015-2016 Measure A Allocation: 139000 ------
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2015-2016 Projects: -25000
,nem I Otal '-'OSt Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
2015-2016
No new projects
2015-16 allocation goes toward
paying for Railroad Cyn Rd project
TOTALS 0 0
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Page 5 of 5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone#: (951) 943-6504
Date: 413012012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: -25000
Estimated FY 2016-2017 Measure A Allocation: 143000 ____ ..:....;,_;;_
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2016-2017 Projects: 118000
Item TOTaTl,;OST measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
2016-2017
Funds advanced for 2012 Railroad
Canyon Rd project are fully paid
back as of 2016-17 FY
TOTALS 0 0
Agency: CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Page 1 of 1
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone#: (951) 943-6504
Date: 413012012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
1 Railroad Canyon Rd
-
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2011-2012
Total Cost Measure A
Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Widening 9000 979
TOTALS 9 000 979
Estimated
Completion Status
2012 Under construction:
40% complete as of
Apri12012
I
May 21,2012
Shirley Medina
RCTC
PO Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502-2208
Dear Ms. Medina:
The City of Coachella Engineer's Department would like to submit an updated 5-Year
FY 2013-2017 Measure A Local Funds Program.
If you have any question please do not hesitate to contact me.
Lynn Germain
Senior Management Analyst
City of Coachella
760-398-3502 X 178
lgermain@coachella.org
Agency:
Page 1 of3
Prepared by:
Phone#:
Date:
Fiscal Year
2012/13
Five-Year CIP Measure A
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Measure A Local Funds Program
City of Coachella
Jonathan Hoy, P.E. City Engineer
760-398-3502
4/24/2012 Revised on 5/21112
Project Name I Limits
Street Resurfacing Phase 8 & 9 -(1)
112 mile Van Buren from Ave. 52 to
Ave. 51; (2) Ave. 51 from Van Buren
to Harrison; (3) Frederick from Ave.
51 to Ave. 49; (4) Frederick from Ave.
52 to Ave. 53; (5) Grapefruit from
Ave. 52 to Harrison; ( 6) Dillon Road
Agreement with County of Riverside
and City of Indio
FY 2013-2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 465,000
Estimated FY 2012-2013 Measure A Allocation: 477,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012-2013 Projects: 942,000
Project Type
The project will improve the street pavement
throughout the City. This will include repair
or replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalks, new
overlay, and the installation of handicap
ramps as required. The street pavements are
identified from the Pavement Management
Update.
Total Cost
(1)-177,400
(2) -177,400
(3)-177,400
(4)-177,400
(5)-177,400
(6)-55,000
Measure A Funds
942,000
Agency: City of Coachella Page 2 of 3
Fiscal Year
2013114
Fiscal Year
2014115
Project Name I Limits
Street Resurfacing Phase 10 -(1)
Naomi Court from La Ponderosa to
East End; (2) Perez from Naomi Court
to La Hernandez; (3) Romaulda from
Perez to La Hernandez East End; ( 4)
Ortiz from Perez to La Hernandez.
Project Name I Limits
Street Resurfacing Phase 11 -(1) Via
Conchilla from A venida De Plata to
A venida De Platina; (2) A venida De
oro from Ave. 50 to Guitron; (3)
Avenida Cortez from Ave. 50 to Calle
Leon.
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:
Estimated FY 2013-2014 Measure A Allocation: 491,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2013-2014 Projects: 491,000
Project Type
The project will improve the street pavement
throughout the City. This will include repair
or replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalks, new
overlay, and the installation of handicap
ramps as required. The street pavements are
identified from the Pavement Management
Update.
Total Cost
(1)-147,000
(2) -160,000
(3)-92,000
(4)-92,000
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:
Measure A Funds
491,000
Estimated FY 2014-2015 Measure A Allocation: 506,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2014-2015 Projects: 506,000
Project Type
The project will improve the street pavement
throughout the City. This will include repair
or replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalks, new
overlay, and the installation of handicap
ramps as required. The street pavements are
identified from the Pavement Management
Update.
Total Cost
(1)-43,000
(2) -240,000
(3) -223,000
Measure A Funds
506,000
Agency: City of Coachella Page 3 of 3
Fiscal Year
2015116
Fiscal Year
2016117
Project Name I Limits
Street Resurfacing Phase 12-(1) Calle
Vega from Calle Leon to Paseo
Laredo; (2) Paseo De Laredo from
Frederick to Avenida Cortez; (3) Via
Durango from A venida Coez to End;
(4) Ave. 48 from Van Buren West 114
mile.
Project Name I Limits
Street Resurfacing Phase 13-(1) Via
Hermosa from A venida Cortez to End;
(2) Vera Cruz from A venida Cortez to
End; (3) Frederick From Ave. 50 to
Ave. 49; (4) Ave. 49 from Harrison to
Van Buren.
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:
Estimated FY 2015-2016 Measure A Allocation: 521,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2015-2016 Projects: 521,000
Project Type
The project will improve the street pavement
throughout the City. This will include repair
or replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalks, new
overlay, and the installation of handicap
ramps as required. The street pavements are
identified from the Pavement Management
Update.
Total Cost
(1)-66,000
(2)-88,000
(3)-75,000
(4)-292,000
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:
Measure A Funds
521,000
Estimated FY 2016-2017 Measure A Allocation: 537,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2016-2017 Projects: 537,000
Project Type
The project will improve the street pavement
throughout the City. This will include repair
or replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalks, new
overlay, and the installation of handicap
ramps as required. The street pavements are
identified from the Pavement Management
Update.
Total Cost
(1)-59,000
(2)-60,000
(3) -260,000
(4)-158,000
Measure A Funds
537,000
Agency: City of Coachella
Page 1 of 1
Prepared by: Jonathan Hoy, P.E. City Engineer
Phone#: 760-398-3502
Date: 4/24/2012
Fiscal Year
2011/12
Project Name/
Limits
Street Resurfacing Phase 8 - ( 1)
1/2 mile Van Buren from Ave. 52
to Ave. 51; (2) Ave. 51 from Van
Buren to Harrison; (3) Frederick
from Ave. 51 to Ave. 49; (4)
Frederick from Ave. 52 to Ave.
53.
Five-Year CIP Measure A
Project Status Report
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Measure A Local Funds Program
Project Status Report for FY 2011-2012
Measure A
Project Type Total Cost Funds
The project will improve the street pavement
throughout the City. This will include repair
or replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalks, new
overlay, and the installation ofhandicap
ramps as required. The street pavements are
identified from the Pavement Management
Update.
465,000 465,000
Estimated
Completion Status
Project will be
FY 12/13 completed with Phase 9
fiscal year 2012/2013
BLANK
,'
City of Desert Hot Springs
65-950 Pierson Blvd. • Desert Hot Springs • CA • 92240
(760) 329-6411
May 3, 2012
Shirley Medina
Programming and Planning Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502-2208
www. cityofdhs. org
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
iRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
RE: City ofDesert Hot Springs Measure "A" Five-Year Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) 2012-2017
Dear Ms Medina,
Attached is the City of Desert Hot Springs' Measure "A" Five-Year Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP 2013-2017), a Project Status Report for our FY 2011/12 plan projects and the
City's Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Certification and MOE Base Year Calculation and
supporting documents.
If you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
Richard Kopecky at (760) 329-6411 Ext. 218.
Sincerely,
Steve Elam
Interim Administrative Services Director
Attachments
cc: Hal Goldenberg, Public Works Manager
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: The City of Desert Hot Springs
Page 1of 6
Prepared by: Richard Kopecky
Phone #: (760) 329-6411
Date:April 26, 2012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 0
Estimated FY 2012-2013 Measure A Allocation: 346,000 ____ ....;...__
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012-2013 Projects: 346,000
Item Total Cost Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Citywide Slurry Sealing and Sidewalk
1 lmprovmements Maintenance 1,300 246
Debt Service for T.R.I.P (Total Road
Improvement Program) Services 2012A
2 COP's (Certificate of Participation) DIS 100 100
TOTALS 1,400 346
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: City of Desert Springs
Page 2of6
Prepared by: Richard Kopecky
Phone#: (760) 329-6411
Date: April 26, 2012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 0
Estimated FY 2013-2014 Measure A Allocation: ___ .;:.;35::.:6~,0::.:0:..::...0
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2013-2014 Projects: 356000
Item Total Cost Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Proiect Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Citywide Roadway Rehab/Slurry
1 Sealing Maintenance 27,400 256
Debt Service for T.R.I.P (Total
Road Improvement Program)
Services 2012A COP's (Certificate
2 of Participation) DIS 100 100
TOTALS 27,500 356
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: City of Desert Hot Springs
Page 3of6
Prepared by: Richard Kopecky
Phone #: (760) 329-6411
Date: April 26, 2012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 0
Estimated FY 2014-2015 Measure A Allocation: 367,000 ----"'---
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2014-2015 Projects: 367000
Item Total cost Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Citywide Roadway Rehab/Slurry
1 Sealing Maintenance 400 267
Debt Service for T.R.I.P (Total
Road Improvement Program)
Services 2012A COP's (Certificate
2 of Participation) 0/S 100 100
TOTALS 500 367
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: City of Desert Hot Springs
Page 4 of 6
Prepared by: Richard Kopecky
Phone #: 760-329-6411
Date: April 26, 2012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 0
Estimated FY 2015-2016 Measure A Allocation: 378,000 ___ .;;..;....;;..:...;;,..;....;;_
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2015-2016 Projects: 378000
[Item I Otal \,;OSt Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($OOO's) Funds ($000's)
Citywide Roadway Rehab/Slurry
1 Sealing Maintenance 400 278
Debt Service for T.R.I.P (Total
Road Improvement Program)
Services 2012A COP's (Certificate
2 of Participation) DIS 100 100
TOTALS 500 378
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2011-2012
Agency: City of Desert Hot Springs
Page 6 of 6
Prepared by: Richard Kopecky
Phone #: (760) 329-6411
Date: April 26, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
Citywide Slurry Sealing and
1 Sidewalk lmprovmements
Debt serv1ce for T.R.I.P (Total
Road Improvement Program)
Services 2012A COP's (Certificate
2 of Participation)
Total Cost Measure A
Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Maintenance 1,300 220
DIS 100 100
TOTALS 1,400 320
Estimated
Completion Status
I
Jun-12 Being Constructed
On-going Debt
1-Jun Service
BLANK
City of Eastvale
12363 Limonite Ave. Suite 910, Eastvale, CA 91752
City of Eastvale
Measure A Expenditure Plan
Fiscal Year 2012/13 – 2016/17
`
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:980,500$
Estimated FY 2012-2013 Measure A Allocation:639,000$
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012-2013 Projects:1,619,500$
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
1 Accessibility Improvements
Program
Accessibility improvements
including sidewalk repairs
and replacements, new
sidewalk construction,
pedestrian/ADA
improvements
150,000$ 150,000$
2 Road Safety/Traffic
Improvements
Remove, replace, install
signs, pavement markings,
related roadway safety and
traffic improvements; traffic
signal synchronization.
100,000$ 100,000$
3 Street Improvement Program Widen, repair, or reconstruct
roadways as needed.
200,000$ 200,000$
4 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance
and repair to include but not
limited to: striping, stenciling;
repairs to streets and
culvert/drainage facilities;
storm damage/flood control
projects; widening streets
275,000$ 275,000$
5 Indirect/Admin Cost (up to 5%)Administration 31,950$ 31,950$
TOTALS 606,950$ 606,950$
2012-2013
Prepared by: George Alvarez, Public Works Director
Phone #: (714) 615-0883
Date: May 11, 2012
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: City of Eastvale
Page: 2 of 6
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:1,012,550$
Estimated FY 2013-2014 Measure A Allocation:658,000$
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2013-2014 Projects:1,670,550$
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
1 Road Safety/Traffic
Improvements
Remove, replace, install
signs, pavement markings,
related roadway safety and
traffic improvements; traffic
signal synchronization.
70,000$ 70,000$
2 Street Improvement Program Widen, repair, or reconstruct
roadways as needed.
1,216,840$ 1,216,840$
3 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance
and repair to include but not
limited to: striping, stenciling;
repairs to streets and
culvert/drainage facilities;
storm damage/flood control
projects;
275,000$ 275,000$
4 Indirect/Admin Cost (up to 8%)Administration 32,900$ 32,900$
TOTALS 1,594,740$ 1,594,740$
Phone #: (714) 615-0883
Date: May 11, 2012
2013-2014
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: City of Eastvale
Page: 3 of 6
Prepared by: George Alvarez, Public Works Director
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:75,810$
Estimated FY 2014-2015 Measure A Allocation:678,000$
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2014-2015 Projects:753,810$
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
1 Road Safety/Traffic
Improvements
Remove, replace, install
signs, pavement markings,
related roadway safety and
traffic improvements; traffic
signal synchronization.
70,000$ 70,000$
2 Street Improvement Program Widen, repair, or reconstruct
roadways as needed.
340,000$ 340,000$
3 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance
and repair to include but not
limited to: striping, stenciling;
repairs to streets and
culvert/drainage facilities;
storm damage/flood control
projects;
275,000$ 275,000$
4 Indirect/Admin Cost (up to 8%)Administration 33,900$ 33,900$
TOTALS 718,900$ 718,900$
Phone #: (714) 615-0883
Date: May 11, 2012
2014-2015
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: City of Eastvale
Page: 4 of 6
Prepared by: George Alvarez, Public Works Director
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:34,910$
Estimated FY 2016-2016 Measure A Allocation:698,000$
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2015-2016 Projects:732,910$
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
1 Road Safety/Traffic
Improvements
Remove, replace, install
signs, pavement markings,
related roadway safety and
traffic improvements; traffic
signal synchronization.
70,000$ 70,000$
2 Street Improvement Program Widen, repair, or reconstruct
roadways as needed.
-$ -$
3 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance
and repair to include but not
limited to: striping, stenciling;
repairs to streets and
culvert/drainage facilities;
storm damage/flood control
projects;
275,000$ 275,000$
4 Indirect/Admin Cost (up to 8%)Administration 34,900$ 34,900$
TOTALS 379,900$ 379,900$
Phone #: (714) 615-0883
Date: May 11, 2012
2015-2016
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: City of Eastvale
Page: 5 of 6
Prepared by: George Alvarez, Public Works Director
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:353,010$
Estimated FY 2016-2017 Measure A Allocation:719,000$
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2016-2017 Projects:1,072,010$
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
1 Road Safety/Traffic
Improvements
Remove, replace, install
signs, pavement markings,
related roadway safety and
traffic improvements; traffic
signal synchronization.
70,000$ 70,000$
2 Street Improvement Program Widen, repair, or reconstruct
roadways as needed.
-$ -$
3 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance
and repair to include but not
limited to: striping, stenciling;
repairs to streets and
culvert/drainage facilities;
storm damage/flood control
projects;
275,000$ 275,000$
4 Indirect/Admin Cost (up to 8%)Administration 35,950$ 35,950$
TOTALS 345,000$ 345,000$
Phone #: (714) 615-0883
Date: May 11, 2012
2016-2017
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: City of Eastvale
Page: 6 of 6
Prepared by: George Alvarez, Public Works Director
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
Estimated
Completion/Exp
ended to Date Status
1 Road Safety/Traffic Improvements Remove, replace, install
signs, pavement
markings, related
roadway safety and
traffic improvements;
traffic signal
synchronization.
$ 390,000 $ 390,000
Currently being
determined
This is an annual
program.
Unexpended costs
are carried over to
next FY.
2 Street Improvement Program Widen, repair, or
reconstruct roadways
as needed.
150,000$ 150,000$
Currently being
determined
This is an annual
program.
Unexpended costs
are carried over to
next FY.
3 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way
maintenance and repair
to include but not
limited to: striping,
stenciling; repairs to
streets and
culvert/drainage
facilities; storm
damage/flood control
projects;
500,000$ 300,000$
Currently being
determined
This is an annual
program.
Unexpended costs
are carried over to
next FY.
Phone #: (714) 615-0883
Date: May 11, 2012
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2011-2012
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Agency: City of Eastvale
Page: 6 of 6
Prepared by: George Alvarez, Public Works Director
4 Accessibility Improvements Accessibility
improvements including
sidewalk repairs and
replacements, new
sidewalk construction,
pedestrian/ADA
improvements
100,000$ 100,000$
Currently being
determined
This is an annual
program.
Unexpended costs
are carried over to
next FY.
5 Indirect Costs Administration 82,000 82,000
1,222,000 1,022,000
BLANK
Agency: City of Indian Wells
Page of 1 of 1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORT AT/ON COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2011-2012
Prepared by: Paul Goble, P.E., T.E., Public Works Director/Building Official
Phone #: (760) 776-0237
Date: April 26, 2012
Item
No.
2011-12
Project Name I Limits
Citywide Traffic Services
C'-l ..--= ,.-....:
c:::l c:·
[~ ·"~
(,J 1:;\ . ._ ~) ......
'.~-y_l
:::.::.:::~
z:
0
lf.i U?
!;'::::2 z~ ::::)0 0<:..) 0z
LJ..Jo 0--l-U?<:C 0::1---
LJ..JO:::: >O -u_ ~ c.r_;
-;;>''
~
Total Cost Measure A
Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Mowing, tree triming, 194 194
and watering within
right of way. Replace
top soil, shrubs, trees
and irrigation facilities,
etc.
TOTALS $ 194 $ 194
Estimated
1 Completion Status
6/30/2012 Ongoing .
.
I
I
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 -2017
Agency: City of Indian Wells
Page of 1 of 1
Prepared by: Paul Goble, P.E., T.E., Public Works Director/Building Official
Phone #: (760) 776-0237
Date: April 26, 2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 0
Estimated FY 2012-2013 Measure A Allocation: $185,000 ----'-""""'-'""'-"--
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012-2013 Projects: $185,000
Item Total Cost Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, tree triming, 630/year 185
2012-2013 and watering within
right of way. Replace
top soil, shurbs,
trees, and irrigation
facilities, etc.
TOTALS $630 $185
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Indian Wells
Page of 1 of 1
FY 2013 -2017
Prepared by: Paul Goble, P.E., T.E., Public Works Director/Building Official
Phone#: 760-776-0237
Date: April 26, 2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 0
Estimated FY 2013-2014 Measure A Allocation: $191,000 __ __;__..;;_..:...;._;....;.._
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2013-2014 Projects: $191,000
Item Total Cost Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, tree triming, 630/year 191
2013-2014 and watering within
right of way. Replace
top soil, shurbs,
trees, and irrigation
facilities, etc.
TOTALS $630 $191
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Indian Wells
Page of 1 of 1
FY 2013 -2017
Prepared by: Paul Goble, T. E., P.E., Public Works Director/Building Official
Phone #: (760) 776-0237
Date: April 26, 2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 0
Estimated FY 2014-2015 Measure A Allocation: $197,000 ----'---'---
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2014-2015 Projects: $197,000
Item I Otal (.;OSt Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, tree triming, 630/year 197
2014-2015 and watering within
right of way. Replace
top soil, shurbs,
trees, and irrigation
facilities, etc.
TOTALS $630 $197
...__ _______________________________________________ _
------------------~------
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Indian Wells
Page of 1 of 1
FY 2013 -2017
Prepared by: Paul Goble, P.E., T.E., Public Works Director/Building Official
Phone#: (760) 776-0237
Date: April 26, 2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 0
Estimated FY 2015-2016 Measure A Allocation: $203,000 __ ___::..::;:.:_;~~
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2015-2016 Projects: $203,000
litem I otal t;OSt Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, tree triming, 630/year 203
2015-2016 and watering within
right of way. Replace
top soil, shurbs,
trees, and irrigation
facilities, etc.
TOTALS $630 $203
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Indian Wells
Page of 1 of 1
FY 2013 -2017
Prepared by: Paul Goble, P.E., T.E., Public Works Director/Building Official
Phone #: (760) 776-0237
Date: April 26,2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 0
Estimated FY 2016-2017 Measure A Allocation: $209,000 __ ____:._ __ .:..___
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2016-2017 Projects: $209,000
Item Total cost Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, tree triming, 630/year 209
2016-2017 and watering within
right of way. Replace
top soil, shurbs,
trees, and irrigation
facilities, etc.
TOTALS $630 $209
L.__ _________________ -----
May 8, 2012
Ms. Shirley Medina
Planning and Programming Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Public Works Department
RIVERSI'DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C0~,~MISf:i(IN
Subject: Five Year Measure A Capital Improvement Plan (FY 2012-2018)
Dear Ms. Medina:
Enclosed is the City of Indio's submittal of the Five Year Measure A Capital Improvement Plan
for Fiscal Years 2012-2018 to the Riverside County Transportation Commission for review and
approval. The City's Maintenance of Effort certification is also enclosed, as well as a status
report for projects utilizing Measure A funds in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
If you have any questions, please call me at (760) 391-4017.
Sincerely,
cc: Grant Eklund, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Brian Kinder, Accountant
p: 760.391.4000 · f: 760.391.4008 · 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 · www.INDIO.org
Agency:
Page:
City of Indio
1 of6
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Measure A Local Funds Program
FY 12113 to FY 16117
Prepared by: Tom Rafferty, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
(760) 391-4017 Phone Number:
Date: May 8, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type
1. Pavement Rehabilitation Construction $
2. Miles Avenue Bridge and Widening of Miles Payment
Avenue and Clinton Street Debt Repayment $
3. Measure A Advance Debt Repayment Payment $
GRAND TOTAL $
Total Cost Measure A
($000's} Funds ($000's)
1,756 $ 1,756
1,500 $ 1,500
3,365 $ 3,365
6,621 $ 6,621
r--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Measure A Local Funds Program
FY 2012-2013
Agency:
Page:
City of Indio
2 of 6
Prepared by: Tom Rafferty, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
(760) 391-4017 Phone Number:
Date: May 8, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
1. Pavement Rehabilitation
2. Miles Avenue Bridge and Widening of Miles
Avenue and Clinton Street Debt Repayment
3. Measure A Advance Debt Repayment
Project Type
Payment
Construction Debt
Payment
GRAND TOTAL
$
$
$
$
----
Total Cost Measure A
($000's} Funds ($000's}
274 $ 274
300 $ 300
673 $ 673
1,247 $ 1,247
Agency:
Page:
City of Indio
4 of6
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Measure A Local Funds Program
FY 2013-2014
Prepared by: Tom Rafferty, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
(760) 391-4017 Phone Number:
Date: May 8, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type
1. Pavement Rehabilitation Construction $
2. Miles Avenue Bridge and Widening of Miles Payment $
Avenue and Clinton Street Debt Repayment
3. Measure A Advance Debt Repayment Payment $
GRAND TOTAL $
Total Cost Measure A
($000's} Funds ($000's)
291 $ 291
300 $ 300
673 $ 673
1,264 $ 1,264
Agency:
Page:
City of Indio
5 of6
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Measure A Local Funds Program
FY 2014-2015
Prepared by: Tom Rafferty, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
(760) 391-4017 Phone Number:
Date: May 8, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type
1. Pavement Rehabilitation Construction $
2. Miles Avenue Bridge and Widening of Miles $
Avenue and Clinton Street Debt Repayment Payment
3. Measure A Advance Debt Repayment Payment $
GRAND TOTAL $
-~--
Total Cost Measure A
($000's) Funds ($000's)
350 $ 350
300 $ 300
673 $ 673
1,323 $ 1,323
Agency:
Page:
City of Indio
6 of6
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Measure A Local Funds Program
FY 2015-2016
Prepared by: Tom Rafferty, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
(760) 391-4017 Phone Number:
Date: May 8, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type
1. Pavement Rehabilitation Construction $
2. Miles Avenue Bridge and Widening of Miles
Avenue and Clinton Street Debt Repayment Payment $
3. Measure A Advance Debt Repayment Payment
$
GRAND TOTAL $
Total Cost Measure A
($000's) Funds ($000's)
390 $ 390
300 $ 300
673 $ 673
1,363 $ 1,363
Agency:
Page:
City of Indio
6 of6
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Measure A Local Funds Program
FY 2016-2017
Prepared by: Tom Rafferty, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
(760) 391-4017 Phone Number:
Date: May 8, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type
1. Pavement Rehabilitation Construction $
2. Miles Avenue Bridge and Widening of Miles
Avenue and Clinton Street Debt Repayment Payment $
3. Measure A Advance Debt Repayment Payment
$
GRAND TOTAL $
Total Cost Measure A
($000's) Funds ($000's)_
431 $ 431
300 $ 300
673 $ 673
1,404 $ 1,404
CITY OF INDIO
MEASURE "A" PROJECT STATUS REPORT
MAY2012
Measure A Advance Repayment
Indio continued with its annual payment of $673,000 to Measure A for an advance which was
previously taken by the City of Indio to perform street improvement projects. These projects
have been completed.
Miles Avenue Bridge and Widening of Miles Avenue and Clinton Street
The City made its first payment this year of approximately $300,000 toward a $3,000,000 loan
from CV AG for the construction of the above improvements. These projects have been
completed.
Pavement Rehabilitation and Street Improvements
The City continued with plans for pavement rehabilitation and street improvements throughout
the City. This year projects included work on Dillon Road, Highway 111 and Varner Road.
Prepared by: Don Allison, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost Measure A
Funds
$2,023
2011-2012 $968
BALANCE $2,991
1 Slurry Seal Program Preparation Street Maintenance $57 $57
2 Bradley Rd - Newport Rd to Potomac
Rd AC Overlay Street Maintenance $284 $284
3 Encanto Rd - Shadel Rd to Ethanac
Rd AC Overlay Street Maintenance $300 $300
TOTAL $641 $641
CARRY OVER $2,350
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISION
CITY OF MENIFEE PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET
FY 2011 - 2012
2010-2011 Carryover
Phone #: 951-672-6777
Date: June 6, 2012
Agency: City of Menifee
Page 1 of 1
Prepared by: Don Allison, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
2011-2012 Carryover $2,350
2012-2013 $1,054
BALANCE $3,404
1 Newport Road, Antelope to Menifee Design $250 $250
2 Newport Road, Antelope to Menifee Traffic Signal $200 $200
3 Newport Road, Antelope to Menifee Street Maintenance $900 $900
4 Slurry Seal Bid Preparation Street Maintenance $60 $60
5 Cape Slurry Seal Street Maintenance $400 $400
6 Holland Rd Overcrossing Design $300 $300
7 Newport Road I-215 Interchange Trip Repayment $400 $400
\
TOTAL $2,510 $2,510
CARRY OVER $894
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Phone #: 951-672-6777
Date: June 6, 2012
Agency: City of Menifee
Page 1 of 5
CITY OF MENIFEE PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET
FY 2012 - 2013
Prepared by: Don Allison, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
$894
$1,086
$1,980
1 Slurry Seal Program Street Maintenance $1,200 $1,200
2 Newport Road I-215 Interchange TRIP Repayment $400 $400
TOTALS $1,600 $1,600
CARRYOVER $380
BALANCE
Date: June 6, 2012
Page 2 of 5
Phone #: 951-672-6777
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Menifee
FY 2013 - 2014
2013-2014
2013 Carryover
Prepared by: Don Allison, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
$380
2014-2015 $1,119
$1,499
1 Slurry Seal Program,
Homeland/Romoland Area Street Maintenance $800 $800
2 Newport Road I-215 Interchange TRIP Repayment $400 $400
TOTALS $1,200 $1,200
CARRY OVER $299
BALANCE
Date: June 6, 2012
Page 3 of 5
Phone #: 951-672-6777
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Menifee
FY 2014 - 2015
2013-2014 Carry over
Prepared by: Don Allison, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
$299
2015-2016 $1,153
$1,452
1 Slurry Seal Program, Area South of
Newport Street Maintenance $1,000 $1,000
2 Newport Road I-215 Interchange TRIP Repayment $400 $400
TOTALS $1,400 $1,400
CARRY OVER $52
Date: June 6, 2012
2014-2015 Carry over
BALANCE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2015 - 2016
Agency: City of Menifee
Page 4 of 5
Phone #: 951-672-6777
Prepared by: Don Allison, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
$52
2016-2017 $1,188
$1,240
1 Slurry Seal Program, Area South of
Newport Street Maintenance $800 $800
2 Newport Road I-215 Interchange TRIP Repayment $400 $400
TOTALS $1,200 $1,200
CARRY OVER $40
Date: June 6, 2012
2015-2016 Carry over
BALANCE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2016 - 2017
Agency: City of Menifee
Page 5 of 5
Phone #: 951-672-6777
TEL: 951.413.3100
FAX: 951.413.3279
WWW.MOVAL.ORG
May 8, 2012
VALLEY
WHERE DREAMS SOAR
14177 FREDERICK STREET
P.O. Box 88005
MORENO VALLEY, CA 92552-0805
Ms. Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
rm~ (Q; ~ 0 \'{/ @["'"•,
lffi MAY r.J \J ?!lr! w
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
fRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 4080 Lemon Street, 3rct Floor
Riverside, California 92502
Subject: Fiscal Year 2013-2017 Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Capital
Improvement Plan and Maintenanee of Effort Certification Statement
Dear Ms. Medina:
The City of Moreno Valley is pleased to submit its Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2017 Measure "A"
Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The City Council reviewed and
approved the Five-Year Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads CIP and Maintenance of Effort
(MOE) Certification Statement on April24, 2012
For questions regarding the Measure "A" CIP please contact Linda Wilson, Senior Management
Analyst, at (951) 413-3132 or by email at lindawi~@moval.org.
Sincerely,
inda Wilson
Senior Management Analyst
Enclosmes: MOE Certification Statement (Atta~~hment "A'~)
c: File
Measure "A" Local Funds Program FY 2010-2011 Project Status Report
(Attachment "B")
Measure "A" Local Funds Prograrn FY 2012-2016 (Attachment "C")
MOE Projection for FY 2010-2011 <Attachme~nt "D")
Prem Kumar, Deputy Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer
Rick Teichert, Financial and Administrathie Services Director
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
)>
~ ()
:::c
s:: m z -I
~
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2011-2012
Agency: City of Moreno Valley
Page 1 of 2
Prepared by: Linda Wilson
Phone No: 951-413-3132
Date: May 11, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
Measure A Program Budget
Provide cost effective administrative functions for essential
1 transportation projects and services.
2 Indirect Cost Rate
3 Alessandro Boulevard Median/Indian Street to Perris Boulevar
4 Annual ADA Compliant Curb Ramp Upgrades
5 Citywide Annual Pavement Resurfacing Program
6 Citywide Traffic Sign Retro-reflectivity Inventory
7 Dracaea Ave. Sidewalk/Morrison St. to Mascot Ln.
8 Heacock St. Bridge/PVSD Lateral "A"
9 Heacock Street Sidewalk/Atwood Avenue to Myers Avenue
10 Heacock Street South Extension
11 Indian St./Aiessandro Blvd Sidewalk Improvements
12 Indian Street Bicycle Lanes/Iris Avenue to Katrina Street
13 Indian Street/Manzanita Avenue Intersection Reconfiguration
14 Nason St./Riverside Co. Regional Medical Center TS
15 Nason Street/Cactus Avenue Street Improvements
Project Type
Program
Budget
Overhead
Street
Improvements
Street
Improvements
Street
Improvements
Traffic Signal
Street
Improvements
Bridge
Street
Improvements
Street
Improvements
Street
Improvements
Street
Improvements
Street
Improvements
Traffic Signal
Street
Improvements
Total Cost Measure A Estimated
($000's) Funds ($000's) Completion
350 350 NA
215 215 NA
1,000 100 Dec-13
326 126 NA
1,822 730 NA
75 75 Dec-12
31 31 Jun-12
2,724 466 Oct-12
200 200 Jun-12
134 134 Jun-15
6 6 Feb-11
165 17 Mar-12
25 25 Jun-13
300 50 Jun-13
25,183 3,100 Jun-13
Status
On-going annual program
On-going
Design scheduled for completion December 2012.
Construction schedule: July 2013 to December 2013.
On-going program for design and construction of ADA
compliant curb ramps.
On-going annual program.
Complete inventory December 2012.
Construction completed June 2012. Carryover funds
were for project closeout and warranty period.
Design completed January 2011. Construction
schedule: January 2012 to October 2012.
Design completed January 2012. Construction
scheduled for completion June 2012.
Design scheduled for completion June 2013.
Construction on hold, subject to available funding.
Construction completed in February 2011. Carryover
funds were for project closeout and warranty period.
Construction completed March 2012.
Design completed December 2012. Construction
schedule: Apri12013 to June 2013.
Design and right-of-way completed. Construction
schedule: October 2015 to January 2017.
Construction contract awarded. Construction scheduled
for completion June 2013.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2011-2012
Agency: City of Moreno Valley
Page 2 of2
Prepared by: Linda Wilson
Phone No: 951-413-3132
Date: May 11, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
16 Pavement Rehabilitation Program {formerly Slurry Seal Progra
17 Perris Blvd Southbound Lane to SR-60 Westbound On-Ramp
18 Reche Vista Dr. RealignmenUPerris Blvd./Heacock St. to NCL
19 Residential Traffic Management Program (Speed Hump Progr<
20 SR-60/Nason St. Interchange
21 Street Improvement Program (SIP)
Project Type
Resurface
Street
Improvements
Street
Improvements
Street
Improvements
Street
Improvements
Street
Improvements
TOTALS
Total Cost Measure A Estimated
($000's) Funds ($000's) Completion
126 110 NA
438 438 Jul-12
237 237 Jun-17
95 95 NA
10,826 382 Jan-12
1,843 696 NA
46,121 7,583
Status
On-going annual program.
Design and right-of-way completed. Construction
schedule: March 2012 to July 2012.
Design and right-of-way completed. Construction on
hold, subject to available funding.
On-going annual program for design and construction of
speed humps.
Construction schedule: February 2011 to May 2012.
On-going annual program.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: City of Moreno Valley
Page 1 of 5
Prepared by: Linda Wilson
Date: April 24, 2012
FY 2013-2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $3,348,000
Estimated FY 2012-2013 Measure A Allocation: $2,655,000 --=-="==""="=-=--Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012-2013 Projects: $6,003,000
Item Total Cost Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
2012-2013
Program
1 Measure A Program Budget Budget 350 350
2 Indirect Cost Rate Overhead 212 212
3 Operating transfer to pay COPs debt service. Debt Service 1,322 1,322
Alessandro Boulevard Median/Indian Street to Perris Street
4 Boulevard Improvements 995 99
Street
5 Citywide Annual Pavement Resurfacing Program Improvements 600 600
Traffic
6 Citywide Traffic Sign Retro-reflectivity Inventory Signal 70 70
7 Heacock St. Bridge/Perris Valley Storm Drain Lateral "A" Bridge 1,044 20
Heacock Street Sidewalk/Atwood Avenue to Myers Street
8 Avenue Improvements 5 5
Street
9 Heacock Street South Extension Improvements 534 534
Indian Street I Manzanita Avenue Intersection Street
10 Reconfiguration Improvements 100 100
Street
11 Indian Street Bicycle Lanes /Iris Avenue to Katrina Street Improvements 2 2
12 Nason St./Riverside Co. Regional Medical Center TS Traffic Signal 290 40
Street
13 Nason Street/Cactus Avenue Street Improvements Improvements 8,900 1,725
Pavement Rehabilitation Program (formerly Slurry Seal
14 Program) Resurface 60 119
Street
15 Perris Blvd SB Lane to SR-60 WB On-Ramp Improvements 88 88
Reche Vista Dr. Realignment/Perris Blvd./Heacock St. to Street
16 North City Limits Improvements 6 6
Residential Traffic Management Program (Speed Hump Street
17 Program) Improvements 55 55
Street
18 SR-60/Nason St. Interchange Improvements 30 30
Street & Storm
19 Street Improvement Program (SIP) Drain lmprv 1,447 626
Totals 16,110 6,003
ATTACHMENT "C"
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013-2017
Agency: City of Moreno Valley
Page 2 of 5
Prepared by: Linda Wilson
Date: April 24, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2013-2014
20 Measure A Program Budget
21 Indirect Cost Rate
22 Operatinq transfer to pay COPs debt service.
23 Citywide Annual Pavement Resurfacing Program
Pavement Rehabilitation Program (formerly Slurry Seal
24 Program)
Residential Traffic Management Program (Speed Hump
25 Program)
26 Street Improvement Program (SIP)
Project Type
Program
Budget
Overhead
Debt Service
Rehabilitation
Resurface
Speed Hump
Street
Improvements
Totals
Total Cost
($000's)
350
219
1,322
550
60
50
200
2,751
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
350
219
1,322
550
44
50
200
2,735
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 -2017
Agency: City of Moreno Valley
Page 3 of 5
Prepared by: Linda Wilson
Date: April 24, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2014-2015
27 Measure A Program Budget
28 Indirect Cost Rate
29 Operating transfer to pay COPs debt service.
30 Citywide Annual Pavement Resurfacing_ Program
Pavement Rehabilitation Program (formerly Slurry Seal
31 Program)
Residential Traffic Management Program (Speed Hump
32 Program)
33 Street Improvement Program (SIP)
Project Type
Program
Budget
Overhead
Debt Service
Rehabilitation
Resurface
Speed Hump
Street
Improvements
Totals
Total Cost
($000's)
350
225
1,322
626
60
50
200
2,833
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
350
225
1,322
626
44
50
200
2,817
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Moreno Valley
Page 4 of 5
Prepared by: Linda Wilson
Date: April24, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2015-2016
34 Measure A Program Budget
35 Indirect Cost Rate
36 Operating transfer to pay COPs debt service.
FY 2013 -2017
37 Citywide Annual Pavement Resurfacing Program
Pavement Rehabilitation Program (formerly Slurry Seal
38 Program)
Residential Traffic Management Program (Speed Hump
39 Program)
40 Street Improvement Program (SIP)
Total Cost
Project Type ($000's)
Program
Budget 350
Overhead 232
Debt Service 1,322
Rehabilitation 704
Resurface 60
Speed Hump 50
Street
Improvements 200
Totals 2,918
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
350
232
1,322
704
44
50
200
2,902
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Moreno Valley
Page 5 of 5
Prepared by: Linda Wilson
Date: April24, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2016-2017
41 Measure A Program Budget
42 Indirect Cost Rate
43 Operating_ transfer to pay COPs debt service.
FY 2013-2017
44 Citywide Annual Pavement Resurfacing Program
Pavement Rehabilitation Program (formerly Slurry Seal
45 Program)
Residential Traffic Management Program (Speed Hump
46 Program)
47 Street Improvement Program (SIP)
Total Cost
Project Type ($000's)
Program
Budget 350
Overhead 239
Debt Service 1,322
Rehabilitation 784
Resurface 60
Speed Hump 50
Street
Improvements 200
Totals 3,005
Measure A
Funds ($000'sl
350
239
1,322
784
44
50
200
2,989
CITY OF MURRIETA
May 24,2012
Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502
Subject: Proposed Measure A Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan
Dear Shirley:
Enclosed is the proposed Measure A Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP),
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Certification Statement and Project Status Report
for the City of Murrieta for your consideration and approval. Since the City
Council has not adopted a formal Capital Improvement Plan budget for FY 2013-
17, the enclosed Five-Year CIP is based on staff recommendation and may be
subject to change upon further consideration by the City Council. We will contact
you if there are any changes requested by the City Council.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please
contact me at your convenience.
~~ Pat;~~~.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Attachments
cc: Rick Dudley, City Manager
Jim Holston, Assistant City Manager
Joy Canfield, Finance Director
l Town Square, 24601 Jefferson Avenue • Murrieta, California 92562
phone: 95l.304.CITY (2489) • fax: 951.698.4509 • web: murrieta.org
BLANK
CllY Of PAlm Of~fRl
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-desert.org
May 14, 2012
Shirley Medina
Planning and Program Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, California 92502-2208
~1iVERSIO£ COUNfr'
fRANSPORTAYION COMMISSlON
Subject: Five-Year Measure A Capital Improvement Program
Dear Shirley,
Enclosed for Commission consideration is the City of Palm Desert's proposed
2012/2013-2016/2017 Five-Year Measure A Capital Improvement Program (Five-Year
Program), as well as the Maintenance of Effort Certification Statement and calculation
documentation.
This Five-Year Program will be reviewed in the near future by our City Council as part of
the City of Palm Desert Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. If the City Council
makes any changes to the CIP that affects Measure A funding, a revised Five-Year
Program will be submitted to you for approval. If no changes are made, please treat
this as the official submittal.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at (760)
776-6469.
Enclosure
cc: John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
J. Luis Espinoza, Assistant Director of Finance
OPRINTEDONRECVCLEOPAPER
Agency: City of Palm Desert
Page: 1 of 1
Prepared by: Mark Greenwood
Phone #: 760-776-6469
Date: May 11, 2012
ITEM PROJECT NAME I LIMITS NO.
1. Portola Interchange@ 1-10
2. Monterey Avenue /1-10 Intersection
Improvements
3. Monterey Avenue Widening from Fred
Waring to Country Club
4. Fred Waring Drive Right Tum Pocket at
Hwy.111
5.
Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue
Improvements
6. Street Resurfacing
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2011-2012
MEASURE
PROJECT TYPE TOTOALCOST A
($000's) FUNDS
($000's)
ESTIMATED
COMPLETION
On-ramp/Off-ramp construction 74,500 69 September 2018
On-ramp/Off-ramp construction 12,000 250 April2014
Roadway Widening 6,500 -June 2016
Street Project 775 27 July 2013
Street Project 3,123 84 August2013
Street Project 4,000 735 June 2013
TOTALS 100,898 1,165
STATUS
In Environmental and preliminary
engineering phase. NCR conditionally
approved by FHWA. Anticipate
Environmental and PE phase completion
by December 2012.
Completing design, ROW and utility
work.
Developing concept alignment plans.
Design 90% complete. Acquiring ROW.
Design 90% complete.
In design.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
FY 2013 -2017
Agency: City of Palm Desert
Page: 1 of 5
Prepared by: Mark Greenwood
Phone#: 760-776-6469
Date: May 11, 2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 19,948,592
Estimated FY 2012-2013 Measure A Allocation: 2,050,000 ___ ___;;~~....;....;_
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012-2013 Projects: 21,998,592
ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME I LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE A FUNDS
($000's) ($000's)
2012-2013
1. Portola Interchange @ 1-10 On-ramp/Off-ramp 74,500 120 Estimated Carryover FY 11/12 $120 construction
Monterey Avenue I 110 Interchange
2. Improvements On-ramp/Off-ramp 12,000 8,830 Estimated Carryover FY 11/12 $8,096,329 construction
FY 12/13 request $733,179
Monterey Avenue Widening from Fred Waring
3. Drive to Country Club Drive Roadway Widening 6,500 4,500 Estimated Carryover FY 11/12 $2,500
FY 12/13 request $2,000
Fred Waring Drive Right Turn Pocket at Hwy.
4. 111 Street Project 775 689
Estimated Carryover FY 11/12 $688,651
Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue
5. Improvements Street Project 3,123 2,846
Estimated Carryover FY 11/12 $2,845,773
Street Resurfacing Maintenance
6. Estimated Carryover FY 11/12 $265 Street Project 4,000 2,165
FY 12/13 request $1,900
7. Bridge Inspection Program Maintenance Project 100 100 FY 12/13 request $100
8. Date Palm Drive /110 Interchange Interchange 14,800 80 FY 12/13 request $80
TOTALS 115,798 19,330
FY 12-13 YR 1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
FY 2013 -2017
Agency: City of Palm Desert
Page: 2 of 5
Prepared by: Mark Greenwood
Phone#: 760-776-6469
Date: May 11, 2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 2,669,460
Estimated FY 2013-2014 Measure A Allocation: 2,112,000 ____ .;;;;..:..;.~~-
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2013-2014 Projects: 4,781,460
ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME I LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE A FUNDS
($000's) ($000's)
2013-2014
1. Street Resurfacing Maintenance Street Project 4,000 1,900
2. Monterey Avenue Widening from Fred Waring Roadway Widening 6,500 2,000 Drive to Country Club Drive
3. Bridge Inspection Program Maintenance Project 100 100
TOTAL 10,600 4,000
FY 13-14 YR 2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
FY 2013 -2017
Agency: City of Palm Desert
Page: 3 of 5
Prepared by: Mark Greenwood
Phone#: 760-776-6469
Date: May 11,2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 781,460
Estimated FY 2014-2015 Measure A Allocation: 2,175,000 ___ ___;;;;.:_...;..:..;...;....;..._
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2014-2015 Projects: 2,956,460
ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME I LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE A FUNDS
tSOOO'sl ($000'sl
2014-2015
1. Street Resurfacing Maintenance Street Project 4,000 1,900
2. Bridge Inspection Program Maintenance Project 100 100
TOTAL 4,100 2,000
FY 14-15 YR 3
Agency:
Page:
Prepared by:
Phone#:
Date:
ITEM NO.
2015-216
1.
2.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
City of Palm Desert
4 of5
Mark Greenwood
760-776-6469
May 11, 2012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 956,460
Estimated FY 2015-2016 Measure A Allocation: 2,240,000 ----~-:"":"'~:-
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2015-2016 Projects: 3,196,460
PROJECT NAME I LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE A FUNDS
lSOOO's\ CSOOO's)
Street Resurfacing Maintenance Street Project 4,000 1,900
Bridge Inspection Program Maintenance Project 100 100
TOTAL 4,100 2,000
FY 15-16 YR 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
FY 2013 -2017
Agency: City of Palm Desert
Page: 5 of 5
Prepared by: Mark Greenwood
Phone#: 760-776-6469
Date: May 11,2012
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 1,196,460
Estimated FY 2016-2017 Measure A Allocation: 2,307,000 -----:-'-=-:-:-"-:-:-:-
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2016-2017 Projects: 3,503,460
ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME I LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE A FUNDS
($000's) ($000's)
2016-2017
1. Street Resurfacing Maintenance Street Project 4,000 1,900
2. Bridge Inspection Program Maintenance Project 100 100
3. Cook Street Widening -Phase II Roadway Widening 6,100 1,503
TOTAL 10,200 3,503
FY 16-17 YR 5
BLANK
CITY OF PERRIS
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
101 North 'D' Street, Perris, CA 92570-2200
TEL: 951-943-4610 FAX: 951-943-5065
May 8, 2012.
Theresia Trevino
Chief Financial Officer
Riverside County of Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502-2208
Attn: Shirley Medina
Re: FY 2013-2017 Measure" A" Improvement Plan
~rg~ t~.o ~~~@]
.. __ , M,A, q j L_,
i~iVERSIDE COUNTY
i fi.A.NSPORTAriON COMMISSlON
Enclosed, please find City of Perris proposed 5-year capital improvement plan. Also enclosed,
please find an exhibit depicting the status of the currently adopted 5-year plan and the MOE
prepared by the Finance Department and signed by the City Manager.
Please call if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Cc: Ron Carr, Assistant City Manager
Misty Cheng, Interim Finance Director
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
Estimated
Completion Status
1 Annual Slurry Seal & Overlay Pavement Rehab 2,000 1,200 Fall 2012 Preparing to Bid
2 Ramona Expressway Median Median/Landscaping 1,414 0 n/a Complete
3 Perris Blvd rehab over I-215 Pavement Rehab 115 115 n/a Complete
TOTALS 3,529 1,315
Note: Measure A funding was not required for Project 2, Ramona Ex Medians.
Funding originally allocated to this project will be re-allocated elsewhere
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Agency: CITY OF PERRIS
Page 1 of 1
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone #: (951) 943-6504
Date: 4/30/2012
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2011-2012
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:$2,600,000
Estimated FY 2012-2013 Measure A Allocation:$1,003,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012-2013 Projects:$3,603,000
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
2012-2013
1 Murrieta Rd Extension over Sunset New road/storm drain 150 150
2
Annual Slurry Seal & Overlay and
Miscellaneous Sidealk Improvements Pavement Rehab 2,000 1,100
3 Metz Rd Improvements New paving 200 200
4 Encanto Drive New paving 220 220
5 Placentia Ave. / Murrieta Road New paving 450 450
TOTALS 3,020 2,120
Phone #: (951) 943-6504
Date: 4/30/2012
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: CITY OF PERRIS
Page 1 of 5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:$1,483,000
Estimated FY 2013-2014 Measure A Allocation:$1,033,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2013-2014 Projects:$2,516,000
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
2013-2014
1 Placentia Ave (I-215 to Indian)New road 600 500
2 Goetz Rd Improvements Int Impts & Widening 200 200
3 Annual Slurry Seal & Overlay Pavement Rehab
1,000 500
4 Downtown Improvements
Pavement
Rehabilitation, Minor
Widening
1,000 1,000
TOTALS 2,800 2,200
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: CITY OF PERRIS
FY 2013 - 2017
Date: 4/30/2012
Page 2 of 5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone #: (951) 943-6504
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:$316,000
Estimated FY 2014-2015 Measure A Allocation:$1,064,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2014-2015 Projects:$1,380,000
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
2014-2015
1 Annual Slurry Seal & Overlay Pavement Rehab 1200 600
2 Ethanac & Barnett Intersection Signal, Int. Impts. 450 200
3 Ethanac Signal, Int. Impts. 400 300
4 Rider Street Widening Pavement Widening
400 280
TOTALS 2,450 1,380
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: CITY OF PERRIS
FY 2013 - 2017
Date: 4/30/2012
Page 3 of 5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone #: (951) 943-6504
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:$0
Estimated FY 2015-2016 Measure A Allocation:$1,096,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2015-2016 Projects:$1,096,000
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
2015-2016
1 Annual Slurry Seal & Overlay Pavement rehab 1,000 700
2 Ramona Expressway Pavement Rehab. 1,000 300
TOTALS 2,000 1,000
Phone #: (951) 943-6504
Date: 4/30/2012
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: CITY OF PERRIS
Page 4 of 5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:$96,000
Estimated FY 2016-2017 Measure A Allocation:$1,129,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2016-2017 Projects:$1,225,000
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
2016-2017
1 Annual Slurry Seal & Overlay Pavement rehab 1,000 500
2 Perris Blvd. Pavement Rehab. Pavement rehab 1,200 725
TOTALS 2,200 1,225
Phone #: (951) 943-6504
Date: 4/30/2012
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: CITY OF PERRIS
Page 5 of 5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
BLANK
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:$2,129,167
Estimated FY 2012-2013 Measure A Allocation:689,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012-2013 Projects:2818167
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
2012-2013
1 Citywide slurry seal, crack seal, AC overlays and AC overlays and striping on various Preventative Maintenance 800 800
public streets identified by MicroPaver
2 Monterey Avenue Street Improvements (Gerald Ford to Monterey) Widening/Reconstruction
1,100 250
3 Highway 111/Frank Sinatra Drive Intersection Improvements Safety and Capacity
1,200 300
4 Frank Sinatra Bridge at Whitewater Channel (PA&ED) Replace Low Water Xing
1,200 35
5 Desert Sun Ranch Street Improvements Curbs/A.C. Reconstruction
600 500
TOTALS 4,900 1,885
Phone #: (760) 770-3224
Date: May 10, 2012
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: Rancho Mirage
Page 1 of 6
Prepared by: Bruce B. Harry, Jr.
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:$933,167
Estimated FY 2013-2014 Measure A Allocation:$710,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2013-2014 Projects:1643167
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A Funds
($000's)
2013-2014
1 Citywide slurry seal, crack seal, AC overlays and striping on various Preventative Maintenance 800 800
public streets identified by MicroPaver.
2 Bob Hope/Frank Sinatra Intersection Improvements Safety & Capacity
1,300 400
3 Monterey Avenue ( Avenida Las Palmas to South City Limit) Pavement Reconstruction
350 350
TOTALS 2,450 1,550
Date: May 10, 2012
Page 2 of 6
Prepared by: Bruce B. Harry, Jr.
Phone #: (760) 770-3224
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: Rancho Mirage
FY 2013 - 2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:$93,167
Estimated FY 2014-2015 Measure A Allocation:731,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2014-2015 Projects:824167
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A Funds
($000's)
2014-2015
1 Citywide slurry seal, crack seal, AC overlays and striping on various Preventative Maintenance 600 300
public streets identified by MicroPaver
2 Highway 111 (Bob Hope to East City Limit) Pavement Reconstruction
900 450
TOTALS 1,500 750
Date: May 10, 2012
Page 3 of 6
Prepared by: Bruce B. Harry, Jr.
Phone #: (760) 770-3224
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: Rancho Mirage
FY 2013 - 2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:$74,167
Estimated FY 2015-2016 Measure A Allocation:753,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2015-2016 Projects:827167
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A Funds
($000's)
2015-2016
1 Citywide slurry seal, crack seal, AC overlays and striping on various Preventative Maintenance 600 600
public streets identified by MicroPaver
TOTALS 600 600
Phone #: (760) 770-3224
Date: May 10, 2012
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: Rancho Mirage
Page 4 of 6
Prepared by: Bruce B. Harry, Jr.
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:$227,167
Estimated FY 2016-2017 Measure A Allocation:$776,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2016-2017 Projects:1003167
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A Funds
($000's)
2016-2017
1 Citywide slurry seal, crack seal, AC overlays and striping on various Preventative Maintenance 600 600
public streets identified by MicroPaver.
TOTALS 600 600
Phone #: (760) 770-3224
Date: May 10, 2012
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: Rancho Mirage
Page 5 of 6
Prepared by: Bruce B. Harry, Jr.
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
Estimated
Completion Status
1 Citywide slurry and crack seal on various public streets Preventative Maintenance 1,349 1,133 May-12 Complete
2 Monterey Ave. ( Hovely Lane to Whitewater Bridge) Pavement Reconstruction 250 250 Dec-11 Complete
3 Monterey Ave. (Dinah Shore to Gerald Ford) Widening/Pavement Rehab.950 100 Dec-13 In Design
TOTALS 2,549 1,483
Phone #: (760) 770-3224
Date: May 10, 2012
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2011-2012
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Agency: Rancho Mirage
Page 6 of 6
Prepared by: Bruce B. Harry, Jr.
BLANK
Public Works
Department
111VERSIDE COUNTY
1 RANSPORTAT!ON COMMISS!O~J
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn.: Ms. Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Manager
Subject: Measure A Maintenance of Effort, CIP and Project Status Report
Enclosed are the City of Riverside's FY 2012/13 Maintenance ofEffort Certification Statement,
Measure A Local Funds Capital Improvement Program for FY 2012/13 through FY 2016/17 and
a status report for FY 2011112.
If you have any questions, please contact Patrick Keeney at (951) 826-2406.
s?~l
Thomas J. Boyd
Public Works Director
Attachments
G:/Admin!Common/Measure ofEffort/1112 FY/RCTC 1112 MOE & CIP for 1213 Letter 05082012
3900 Main Street • Riverside, CA 92522 • 951.826.5341 • fax 951.826 5542 • www.riversideca.gov
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone#: (951) 826-2406
Date: May 4, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2012-2013
1 Arlington Ave-Van Buren to SR 91
2 Collett Extension -Napa to Buchanan
3 Indiana Widening@ Pierce
4 Jurupa Ave Extension -Van Buren to Rutland
5 Jurupa Ave Extension -Rutland to Crest
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 20,548
Estimated FY 2012-2013 Measure A Allocation: 5,009
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012-2013 Projects: 25,557
Total Cost Measure A
Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Street Resurfacing 2,100 50
*50
New Street Construction 2,485 400
*10
Street Widening and Improvements 1,540 *429
New Street Construction 4,954 *1
New Street Construction 300 300
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\ 11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017 Page 1 of 15
------------------------------------~-~---~---
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone#: (951) 826-2406
Date: Mav 4. 2012 ---
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2012-2013
6 Lime & University
7 Main Street Reconstruction -SR 60 to 1st
8 Major Street Rehabilitation 1 0/11
9 Major Street Rehabilitation 11/12
10 Misc. Railroad Project Management
11 Mission Blvd Bridge Repalcement
12 Myrtle @ Victoria Intersection
13 Paving Projects Bonds -Debt Service
FY 2013 -2017
Project Type
Intersection Improvements
Street Reconstruction and Improvements
Street Resurfacing
Street Resurfacing
Grade Separation
City Contribution for County Bridge Replacement
Intersection Improvements
Street Paving
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017
Total Cost
($OOO's)
156
2,500
1,824
1,400
360
100
154
3,000
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
*156
*2,500
*1,390
*1,400
*24
100
*150
3,000
Page 2 of 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone#: (951) 826-2406
Date: Mav 4. 2012 '-
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2012-2013
14 Quiet Zone/BNSF -Buchanan to Jane
15 Quiet Zone/BNSF & UPRR-Cridge & Panorama
16 Railroad Grade Separation -Iowa
17 Railroad Grade Separation -Madison
18 Railroad Grade Separation -Mary
19 Railroad Grade Separation -Riverside
20 Railroad Grade Separation -Streeter
21 Railroad Grade Separations -Debt Service
FY 2013 -2017
Project Type
Railroad Quiet Zone
Railroad Quiet Zone
Grade Separation
Grade Separation/Preliminary Design
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017
Total Cost Measure A
($000's) Funds ($000's)
17,000 *9
1,700 *92
32,056 *356
35,000 *31
35,000 *175
31,860 *538
37,425 *1 ,645
883 504
*379
Page 3 of 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone#: (951) 826-2406
M ------------. ----
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2012-2013
22 Tequesquite Park Street Improvements
23 Tyler Widening -Wells to Hole
24 Van Buren -Garfield to Wells
25 Van Buren -Indiana to South City Limit
26 Van Buren -Jurupa to Santa Ana River
27 Van Buren -Wells to Jackson
28 Arlington -Van Buren to La Sierra
29 Arterial Interconnections
FY 2013 • 2017
Project Type
Street Reconstruction and Improvements
Street Widening and Improvements
Street Resurfacing
Street Widening
Street Widening
Street Resurfacing
Traffic Signal Coordination
Traffic Signal Coordination
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\ 11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017
Total Cost Measure A
($000's) Funds ($000's)
1,000 1,000
8,000 *2,927
2,025 *525
26,750 *468
1,605 *1 ,467
1,900 *1 ,900
40 *40
342 100
*242
Page 4 of 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone#: (951) 826-2406
Date: Mav 4. 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2012-2013
30 California -Arlington to Tyler
31 CaiTrans Ramps Coordination
32 Chicago -Central to Martin Luther King
33 Fiber Optic Line to CaiTrans
34 Iowa-Cirus
35 Miscellaneous Traffic Designs
36 Multi-Agency Traffic Coordination
37 New Traffic Signals -Prioritized Locations
FY 2013 • 2017
Project Type
Traffic Signal Coordination
Traffic Signal Coordination
Traffic Signal Coordination
Traffic Signal Coordination
New Traffic Signal
Traffic Projects Design
Traffic Signal Coordination
New Traffic Signal Installation
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017
Total Cost Measure A
.($000's) Funds ($000's)
40 *40
53 *2
40 *22
50 *50
250 250
100 *100
822 *216
700 250
*450
Page 5 of 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone#: (951) 826-2406
LIGL'W. IVICIY "T1 'VI L.
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2012-2013
38 Traffic Management Center
39 Traffic Signal Revisions
40 University-Fairmount
41 Transportation Planning
42 Pavement Management Program
43 Transportation Planning/Investigation
44 Controller Assembly Replacement
45 LED Signal Lenses Replacement
FY 2013 -2017
Project Type
Traffic Signal Coordination
Traffic Signal Revision
New Traffic Signal
Engineering Planning
Ongoing Annual Expenditure
Traffic Engineering
Ongoing Traffic Signal Maintenance
Ongoing Traffic Signal Maintenance
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017
Total Cost Measure A
($000's) Funds ($000's)
239 50
*189
664 100
*564
200 200
50 50
105 105
300 300
40 40
50 50
Page 6 of 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone#: (951) 826-2406
Date: Mav 4. 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2012-2013
46 Spread Spectrum Radio Replacement
47 Traffic Signal Loop Replacement
FY 2013 -2017
Project Type
Ongoing Traffic Signal Maintenance
Ongoing Traffic Signal Maintenance
TOTALS
*Indicates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years and not expended at 7/1/11.
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017
Total Cost Measure A
($000's) Funds ($000's)
10 10
35 35
J
I
257,207 25,431 I
Page 7 of 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone#: (951) 826-2406
Date: May 4, 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2013-2014
1 Collett Extension -Napa to Buchanan
2 Market Street Bridge Repalcement
3 Paving Projects Bonds -Debt Service
4 Sidewalk Trail Construction 13/14
5 Traffic Signal Improvements
6 Railroad Grade Separations -Debt Service
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 126
Estimated FY 2013-2014 Measure A Allocation: 5, 159
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2013-2014 Projects: 5,285
Total Cost Measure A
Project Type ($000'sl Funds ($000's)
New Street Construction 2.485 250
City Contribution for County Bridge Replacement 100 100
Street Paving 3,000 3,000
Sidewalk Construction 500 500
Traffic Signal Coordination/Revision 435 435
Grade Separation 514 514
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017 Page 8 of 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone #: (951) 826-2406
Date: Mav 4. 2012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
2013-2014
7 Transportation Planning
8 Pavement Management Program
9 Transportation Planning/Investigation
FY 2013 -2017
Project Type
Engineering Planning
Ongoing Annual Expenditure
Traffic Engineering
TOTALS --------··--·-
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017
-·
Total Cost Measure A
($OOO's}_ Funds ($000'sl
50 50
105 105
300 300
7,489 5,254
Page 9 of 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone #: (951) 826-2406
Date: May 4, 2012
litem
No. Project Name I Limits
2014-2015
1 Paving Projects Bonds -Debt Service
2 Traffic Signal Improvements
3 Traffic Signal -Prioritized Locations
4 Railroad Grade Separations -Debt Service
5 Transportation Planning
6 Pavement Management Program
FY 2013 • 2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 31
Estimated FY 2014-2015 Measure A Allocation: 5,314
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2014-2015 Projects: 5,345
Total cost Measure A
Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Street Paving 3,000 3,000
Traffic Signal Coordination/Revision 435 435
New Traffic Signal Installation 250 250
Grade Separation 524 524
Engineering Planning 50 50
Ongoing Annual Expenditure 105 105
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\ 11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017 Page 10 of 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone#: (951) 826-2406
Date: Mav 4. 2 ------. ---
J --·-
FY 2013 -2017
Item Total Cost
No. Project Name I Limits Project Tvoe ($000's)
2014-2015
7 Transportation Planning/Investigation Traffic Engineering 300
8 Unallocated for Projects Funds to be designated for future projects 250
TOTALS 4,914
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
300
250
4,914
Page 11 of 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone #: (951) 826-2406
Date: May 4, 2012
litem
No. Project Name I Limits
2015-2016
1 Paving Projects Bonds -Debt Service
2 Traffic Signal Improvements
3 Traffic Signal -Prioritized Locations
4 Railroad Grade Separations -Debt Service
5 Transportation Planning
6 Pavement Management Program
7 Transportation Planning/Investigation
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 431
Estimated FY 2015-2016 Measure A Allocation: 5,473
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2015-2016 Projects: 5,904
I otal (;OSt Measure A
Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Street Paving 3,000 3,000
Traffic Signal Coordination/Revision 435 435
New Traffic Signal Installation 250 250
Grade Separation 535 535
Engineering Planning 50 50
Ongoing Annual Expenditure 105 105
Traffic Engineering 300 300
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\ 11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017 Page 12 of 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone#: (951) 826-2406
----------2 -~ --. -
FY 2013 -2017
Item Total Cost
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's)
2015-2016
8 Unallocated for Projects Funds to be designated for future projects 800
TOTALS 5,475
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
800
5,475
Page13of15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone#: (951) 826-2406
Date: May 4, 2012
litem
No. Project Name I Limits
2016-2017
1 Paving Projects Bonds -Debt Service
2 Traffic Signal Improvements
3 Traffic Signal -Prioritized Locations
4 Railroad Grade Separations -Debt Service
5 Transportation Planning
6 Pavement Management Program
FY 2013 • 2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 429
Estimated FY 2016-2017 Measure A Allocation: 5,637
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2016-2017 Projects: 6,066
rotal (;Ost Measure A
Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
Street Paving 3,000 3,000
Traffic Signal Coordination/Revision 435 435
New Traffic Signal Installation 250 250
Grade Separation 545 545
Engineering Planning 50 50
Ongoing Annual Expenditure 105 105
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017 Page 14 of 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
Agency: City of Riverside
Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney
Phone#: (951) 826-2406
Date: Mav 4. 2012
FY 2013 -2017
Item Total Cost
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's)
2016-2017
7 Transportation Planning/Investigation Traffic Engineering 300
8 Unallocated for Projects Funds to be designated for future projects 950
TOTALS 5,635
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\ 11 12 FY\Measure A CIP 2013-2017
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
300
950
5,635
Page 15 of 15
~~
Agency: City of Riverside
Pag;; 1 of4
Prepared by: Patrick Keeney
Phone No.: (951) 826-2406
Date: MayS, 2012
Item
No. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
1 Arlington Ave Rehab -Van Buren to SR 91
2 Carob Way -La Verne to Norwood
3 Collett Extension -Napa to Buchanan
4 Indiana Widening @ Pierce
5 Jurupa Extension -Van Buren to Rutland
6 Lime and University
7 Main Street -SR 60 to 1st Street
8 Major Street Rehabilitation 10/11
9 Major Street Rehabilitation 11/12
10 Miscelllaneous Railroad Project Management
11 Myrtle @ Victoria Intersection
12 Orange Terrace Parkway Parking
13 Quiet Zone/BNSF -Buchanan to Jane
14 Quiet Zone/BNSF/UPRR-Cridge & Panorama
* Prior years unexpended funds at July 1, 2011.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
STATUS FY 2011-12
TOTAL COST MEASURE A
PROJECT TYPE ($000'S) FUNDS ($000'S)
Street Resurfacing 2,100 *50
Street Resurfacing 167 *85
New Street Construction 2,485 *10
Street Widening and Improvements 1,540 *429
New Street Construction 4,954 *1
Intersection improvements 156 *156
Street Resurfacing 2,500 2,500
Street Resurfacing 1,824 *1,390
Street Resurfacing 1,400 1,400
Grade Separations 360 *24
Intersection Improvements 154 *150
Street Widening 216 *184
Quiet Zone for BNSF Railroad 17,000 *9
Quiet Zone for BNSF & UP Railroads 1,700 *92
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A Status 2012
STATUS
Design in progress.
Project is complete.
Right-of-Way acquisition in progress.
Project to be completed with construction of
new school, anticipated in 2012.
Construction contract awarded in May
2011.
Project delayed pending construction of
new office building on corner.
Design in progress.
Construction contract awarded in July
2011.
Design in progress.
Ongoing project management.
Project cancelled.
Project is complete.
Project is underway.
Delayed by SR 91 HOV project.
Agency: City of Riverside
Page 2 of4
Prepared by: Patrick Keeney
Phone No.: (951) 826-2406
Date: May 8, 2012
Item
No. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
15 RR Grade Separation -Iowa Avenue
16 RR Grade Separation -Madison Street
17 RR Grade Separation -Magnolia Avenue
18 RR Grade Separation -Mary Street
19 RR Grade Separation -Riverside Avenue
20 RR Grade Separation -Streeter Avenue
21 Railroad Grade Separations -Debt Service
22 SR 91 Aux Lane-La Sierra to Tyler
23 Tyler Widening -Wells to Hole
24 Van Buren Blvd. Improvements-Garfield to
Wells
25 Van Buren Blvd. Improvements-Wells to
Jackson
* Prior years unexpended funds at July 1, 2011.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
STATUS FY 2011-12
TOTAL COST MEASURE A
PROJECT TYPE ($000'S) FUNDS ($000'S)
Grade Separation -Iowa @ BNSF 32,056 *356
Grade Separations -Madison @ BNSF 35,000 *31
Grade Separation-Magnolia@ UPRR 56,297 *69
Grade Separation -Mary @ BNSF 35,000 *175
Grade Separation-Riverside @ UPRR 31,860 *538
Grade Separation-Streeter@ UPRR 37,425 *1 ,645
Grade Separations 349 349
Addition of Auxiliary Lane 2,450 -
Street Widening and Improvements 8,000 *2,927
Street Resurfacing 2,025 400
*125
Street Resurfacing 1,900 *1 ,900
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A Status 2012
STATUS
Construction award anticipated for June
2012.
Project on hold pending availability of
funding.
Project is complete.
Project on hold pending availability of
funding.
Design and right-of-way acquisition in
progress.
Design and right-of-way acquisition in
progress.
For debt service or allocation to specific
projects.
Project is complete.
Design and right-of-way acquisition in
progress.
Project split into phases (formerly Garfield
to Jackson). Contract award April2012.
Project split into phases (formerly Garfield
to Jackson). Design in progress.
Agency: City of Riverside
Page3 of4
Prepared by: Patrick Keeney
Phone No.: (951) 826-2406
Date: May8, 2012
Item
No. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
26 Van Buren Blvd. Widening-Indiana to South City
Limit
27 Van Buren Blvd. Widening-Jurupa to Santa
Ana River BridQe
28 Van Buren Blvd I 91 Frwy Interchange
29 Arlington @ Horace
30 Arlington -Van Buren to La Sierra
31 Arterial Interconnections
32 California -Arlington to Tyler
33 CaiTrans Ramps Coordination
34 Chicago -Central to Martin Luther King
35 De Anza @ Central
36 Fiber Optic Line to Caltrans
37 La Cadena @ Spruce
38 Miscellaneous Signal Revisions
* Prior years unexpended funds at July 1, 2011.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
STATUS FY 201I-12
TOTAL COST MEASURE A
PROJECT TYPE ($000'S) FUNDS ($000'S)
Street Widening 26,750 *468
Street Widening 1,605 1,200
*267
Interchange Improvements 35,050 *5
Signal Modification --
Signal Coordination 40 *40
Signal Coordinations 639 100
*142
Signal Coordination 40 *40
Signal Coordinations 53 *2
Signal Coordination 40 *22
Signal Modification 95 *83
Signal Coordination 50 *50
Signal Modification --
Signal Modifications 774 100
*464
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A Status 2012
STATUS
Project cancelled.
Bid award anticipated for June 2012.
Project is complete.
Project included in Mise Signal Revisions.
Design in progress.
Project is underway.
Equipment ordered April 2012.
On-going signal coordination work.
Design in progress. I
Project is complete.
Design in progress.
Project included in Mise Signal Revisions.
Project is underway.
Agency: City of Riverside
Page4 of4
Prepared by: Patrick Keeney
Phone No.: (951) 826-2406
Date: May 8, 2012
Item
No. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
39 Miscellaneous Traffic Designs
40 Multi-Agency Traffic Coordination
41 New Traffic Signals
42 Transportation Planning
43 Pavement Management Program
44 Controller Assembly Replacement
45 Spread Spectrum Radio Replacement
46 Traffic Management Center
47 Traffic Signal Loop Replacement
48 Transportation Planning/! nvestigations
* Prior years unexpended funds at July 1, 2011.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
STATUS FY 2011-12
TOTAL COST MEASURE A
PROJECT TYPE ($000'S) FUNDS ($000'S)
Traffic Projects Design 100 *100
Signal Coordination 822 *216
Signal Installation 450 200
*250
Engineering Planning 40 40
Ongoing Annual Expenditure 75 75
Ongoing Traffic Signal Maintenance 15 15
Ongoing Traffic Signal Maintenance 10 10
Signal Coordination 189 50
*139
Ongoing Traffic Signal Maintenance 35 35
Traffic Engineering 300 300
G:\Admin\Common\Measure of Effort\11 12 FY\Measure A Status 2012
STATUS
Project is underway.
Design in progress.
Design in progress.
Ongoing annual expenditure.
Ongoing annual expenditure.
Ongoing annual expenditure.
Ongoing annual expenditure.
Ongoing annual expenditure.
Ongoing annual expenditure.
Ongoing annual expenditure.
May 22, 2012
Ms. Andrea Zureick
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Re: Amended FY 13-17 Measure "A"
The City of San Jacinto has revised the attached Measure "A" submittal
(sheets 1 and 2 of 5) as follows:
• Sheet 1 of 5 -added items 5 & 6
• Sheet 2 of 5-Added item 2
If you have any questions about our amendment, please feel free to
contact me at (951) 943-6504.
abib Motlagh
City Engineer
Cc: Tom Prill, Accounting Manager
City Engineer's Office
P.O. Box 488 • San Jacinto, CA 92581 • Ph (951) 654-3592 • Fax (951) 654-3728
www.ci.san-jacinto.ca.us
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2011-2012
Agency: CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Page 1 of 1
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone#: (951) 943-6504
Date: 413012012
Item
No. Project Name I Limits
1 De Anza Dr Street Improvements
2 Esplanade Ave Pvmt Rehab and
Sidewalks
3 Traffic Control Devices/Studies
4 Esplanade I Mountain Signal
Project Type
Pavement rehab,
minor street
improvements
Pavement rehab,
sidewalk installation
Traffic Control lmpts
across town
Signal Upgrade
TOTALS
Total Cost Measure A
($000's) Funds ($000's)
400 160
327 327
175 48
20 10
922 545
Estimated
Completion Status
Design complete
2012-13 construction in fall
2012
2011-12 Project is complete
ongoing Work is ongoing, no
fixed timeline
ongoing Completed
I
I
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
FY2013 -2017
Agency: CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Page 1 of 5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone#: (951) 943-6504
Date: 413012012 (Revised 5121112)
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $2,200,000
Estimated FY 2012-2013 Measure A Allocation: -----=-$5.::...:8:....:1..?...:, 0:..::.0.::..0
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012-2013 Projects: $2,781,000
Item Total Cost Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
2012-2013
1 Warren Rd Pavement Rehab Pavement Rehab 1500 850
Ramona Exway Pavement Rehab and Pavement Rehab. &
2 Widening (Sanderson to Esplanade) Widening 17,000 750
3 Lake Park Bridge Rehab. Minor Bridge Repair 250 250
Pavement Rehabilitation & Sidewalk Pavement Repair &
4 Improvements (City Wide) Minor Widening 500 500
Road Extension &
5 Eagle Road Extension Signal 1,000 100
Sidewalk
6 Ramona Exp./San Jacinto Ave. Sidewalk Improvements 190 140
TOTALS 20,440 2,590
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Page 2 of5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone#: (951) 943-6504
Date: 413012012 (Revised 5-21-12)
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $191,000
Estimated FY 2013-2014 Measure A Allocation: --~$5::..:9:..::8.!.:,0:..::.00.::..
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2013-2014 Projects: $789,000
Item Total Cost Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's)
2013-2014
1 Mise city-wide pavement rehab Pavement Rehab 600 460
Esplanade Avenue (Warren Road to
2 Ramona Expressway Pavement Rehab 600 329
TOTALS 1,200 789
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Page 3 of5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone #: (951) 943-6504
Date: 413012012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $0
Estimated FY 2014-2015 Measure A Allocation: __ _;:.$.;:.61.:...:6:.!.:,0:...::0..:...0
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2014-2015 Projects: $616,000
!If em Total cost Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($000's) Funds ($OOO's)
2014-2015
1 Ramona Expressway Pavement
Rehabilitation & Widening (Eagle Widening & Pavement
to Esplanade) Rehabilitation 9,000 616
TOTALS 9,000 616
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Page4 of5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone#: (951) 943-6504
Date: 413012012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $0
Estimated FY 2015-2016 Measure A Allocation: __ __;::,$6.:;.;3::....:4~,0;..;;.0..;;_0
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2015-2016 Projects: $634,000
flfem lotal Cost Measure A
No. Project Name /limits Project Tvoe ($000's) Funds ($000's)
2015-2016
Mise city-wide pavement rehab Pavement Rehab. &
1 (Downtown) Minor Widening 1,000 550
2 Citywide Traffic Signs & Striping Striping I Signage 100 84
TOTALS 1,100 634
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASUREALOCALFUNDSPROGRAM
Agency: CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Page 5 of5
Prepared by: Habib Motlagh
Phone #: (951} 943-6504
Date: 413012012
FY 2013 -2017
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $0
Estimated FY 2016-2017 Measure A Allocation: $653,000 __ ___:;,.,;;,;;,..;;..:....;;.,.;;.,;;_
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2016-2017 Projects: $653,000
litem IOtal \;OSt Measure A
No. Project Name I Limits Project Type ($DOD's) Funds ($DOD's)
2016-2017
1 Sanderson Avenue Pavement Rehab. 700 653
TOTALS 700 653
BLANK
City of Temecula
Department of Public Works
41 000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 • Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Phone (951) 694-6411 • Fax (951) 694-64 75 • www.cityoftemecula.org
May 4, 2012
Shirley Medina, Planning and Program Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, California 92502-2208
~~ ~ ~Y [~0° ,~ f~ f~)
.. . !•1.4 J t::IJil
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
rRAIIJSPORTATION C0MMISSION
Re: FY2013-2017 Measure 'A' Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Plan
Dear Ms. Medina;
Attached is the City of Temecula's Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Measure 'A' funds, including our
Project Status Report. The City's Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Certification Statement is also enclosed for your
review and approval.
All of the projects submitted are included in the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, scheduled for
approval by City Council at their regular meeting of June 12, 2012. If any changes are incorporated
subsequent to this session, a revised five-year plan will be submitted to you.
If you require any additional information, please contact me at (951) 506-5168.
Sincerely,
~' ,.;::> 1/. -~~
Gre Butler
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Beryl Yasinosky-Management Analyst
Genie Wilson -Director of Finance
Rudy Graciano -Revenue Manager
® Printed on Recycled Paper
R:\dauerj\PUBWKS\MeasureA13-17 coverltr&MOE.jcd.doc
FY 2012-2013 PROJECTS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
MEASURE A
FISCAL YEAR 2013-2017
May 4, 2012
French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements-Phase I
Project includes the design and construction to include a new southbound off-ramp from I -15 to French Valley Parkway,
construct the northern half ofFrench Valley Parkway from off-ramp to Jefferson Avenue, widen the existing southbound
off-ramp from 1-15 to Winchester Road and construct a new auxiliary lane between French Valley Parkway and the
Winchester Road southbound off-ramp. This project requires Caltrans approval and has been desigried to complement the
ultimate freeway interchange project. The design process is now complete and we have awarded a construction contract.
Work is scheduled to begin in June 2012.
This project is included in the City's current Measure 'A' Five-Year Plan.
Pavement Rehabilitation Program -Citywide
The City's Pavement Rehabilitation Program is to include streets as part of the City's maintained system and a five-year
street maintenance program. Current projects for Fiscal Year 12/13 are estimated at $9,120,875 and will include the
necessary environmental processing, design, construction of pavement rehabilitation, and reconstruction of various
streets. These projects are included in our Pavement Management System and are in conformance with a Pavement
Rehabilitation Program. The 2012/2013 projects will be advertised within the coming fiscal year.
This project is included in the City's current Measure 'A' Five-Year Plan.
Citywide Street Maintenance Program
The Citywide Street Maintenance Program provides right-of-way maintenance and repairs which include striping and
stenciling of various streets and intersections, Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) and Asphalt Concrete (A C) repairs and
street and right-of-way maintenance of drainage facilities throughout the City.
This program is included in the City's current Measure 'A' Five-Year Plan.
R:\dauetj\PU BWKS\Msr AProjectStatusFY 13-17 .jed. doc
FY 2013-2014 PROJECTS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
MEASURE A
FISCAL YEAR 2013-2017
May 4, 2012
Pavement Rehabilitation Program -Citywide
The priorities for the various streets for this fiscal year will be based on a thorough review of our Pavement
Rehabilitation Program-Citywide. Each project will be advertised and awarded according to our standard contracting
procedures.
The Pavement Rehabilitation Program-Citywide is included in the City's current Measure 'A' Five-Year Plan.
Citywide Street Maintenance Program
On-going Citywide Street Maintenance Program provides right-of-way maintenance and repairs to include striping and
stenciling of various streets and intersections, PCC and AC repairs and street and right-of-way maintenance of drainage
facilities.
This program is included in the City's current Measure 'A' Five-Year Plan.
R:\daueij\PUBWKS\Msr AProjectStatusFY 13-17 .jed. doc
FY 2014-2015 PROJECTS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
MEASURE A
FISCAL YEAR 2013-2017
May 4, 2012
Pavement Rehabilitation Program -Citywide
The priorities for the various streets for this fiscal year will be based on a thorough review of our Pavement
Rehabilitation Program -Citywide. Each project will be advertised and awarded according to our standard contracting
procedures.
The Pavement Rehabilitation Program-Citywide is included in the City's current Measure 'A' Five-Year Plan.
Citywide Street Maintenance Program
On-going Citywide Street Maintenance Program provides right-of-way maintenance and repairs to include striping and
stenciling of various streets and intersections, PCC and AC repairs and street and right-of-way maintenance of drainage
facilities.
This program is included in the City's current Measure 'A' Five-Year Plan.
R:\dauetj\PUBWKS\MsrAProjectStatusFY 13-17.jcd.doc
FY 2015-2016 PROJECTS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
MEASURE A
FISCAL YEAR 2013-2017
May 4, 2012
Pavement Rehabilitation Program -Citywide
The priorities for the various streets for this fiscal year will be based on a thorough review of our Pavement
Rehabilitation Program -Citywide. Each project will be advertised and awarded according to our standard contracting
procedures.
The Pavement Rehabilitation Program-Citywide is included in the City's current Measure 'A' Five-Year Plan.
Citywide Street Maintenance Program
On-going Citywide Street Maintenance Program provides right-of-way maintenance and repairs to include striping and
stenciling of various streets and intersections, PCC and AC repairs and street and right-of-way maintenance of drainage
facilities.
This program is included in the City's current Measure 'A' Five-Year Plan.
R:\dauelj\PUBWKS\Msr AProjectStatusFY 13-17 .jed. doc
FY 2016-2017 PROJECTS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
MEASURE A
FISCAL YEAR 2013-2017
May4, 2012
Pavement Rehabilitation Program -Citywide
The priorities for the various streets for this fiscal year will be based on a thorough review of our Pavement
Rehabilitation Program -Citywide. Each project will be advertised and awarded according to our standard contracting
procedures.
The Pavement Rehabilitation Program-Citywide is included in the City's current Measure 'A' Five-Year Plan.
Citywide Street Maintenance Program
On-going Citywide Street Maintenance Program provides right-of-way maintenance and repairs to include striping and
stenciling of various streets and intersections, PCC and AC repairs and street and right-of-way maintenance of drainage
facilities.
This program is included in the City's current Measure 'A' Five-Year Plan.
R:\dauetj\PUBWKS\MsrAProjectStatusFY 13-17 .jed. doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
MEASURE A
FISCAL YEAR 2012-2016
May 4, 2012
Prior Year Plan-FYE June 30, 2012
Pavement Rehabilitation Program -Citywide
Design and construction of pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction of major streets identified as proposed streets
for FY2011/2012 have been completed.
Reference Project Status for FY2012/13-2016/17 Projects
French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements-Phase I
The design was completed in the 201112012 fiscal year and the construction phase is scheduled to begin in June
2012.
Reference Project Status for FY2012/2013 Projects
Citywide Street Maintenance Program
FY20 11 I 12Citywide Street Maintenance Program was included in the Five Year Measure A program to facilitate the on-
going right-of-way maintenance and repairs which including, street striping and stenciling, PCC and AC repairs, and the
maintenance of street and right-of-way drainage facilities.
Reference Project Status for FY2012/2013-2016/2017 Projects
R:\daueJj\PUBWKS\Msr AProjectStatusFY 13-17 .jed. doc
City of Wildomar
Measure A Expenditure Plan
Fiscal Year 2012/13 – 2016/17
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:749,470$
Estimated FY 2012-2013 Measure A Allocation:413,000$
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2012-2013 Projects:1,162,470$
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
1 Accessibility Improvements Sidewalk, ramps, repairs,
pedestrian and ADA
improvements
20,000$ 20,000$
2 Road Safety Improvements Remove, replace, install
signs, pavement markings,
related roadway safety
improvements
40,000$ 40,000$
3 Slurry Seal and Overly Program Remove, Repair, Crack Fill,
Slurry Seal as needed
350,000$ 350,000$
4 Roadway Improvement to
Unpaved Rds & Drainage
Repair or reconstruct
unpaved roadways
100,000$ 100,000$
5 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance
and repair to include but not
limited to: striping, stenciling;
repairs to streets and
culvert/drainage facilities;
storm damage/flood control
projects; widening streets
247,000$ 247,000$
6 Public Works Cost Allocation
(8% off the top Measure A)
Inter Transfer Funds 33,040$ 33,040$
TOTALS 790,040$ 790,040$
2012-2013
Prepared by: Tim D'Zmura, Public Works Director
Phone #: 951.677.7751
Date: June 4, 2012
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: City of Wildomar
Page: 1 of 6
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:372,430$
Estimated FY 2013-2014 Measure A Allocation:425,000$
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2013-2014 Projects:797,430$
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
1 Accessibility Improvements Sidewalk, ramps, repairs,
pedestrian and ADA
improvements
20,000$ 20,000$
2 Road Safety Improvements Remove, replace, install
signs, pavement markings,
related roadway safety
improvements
40,000$ 40,000$
3 Slurry Seal and Overly Program Remove, Repair, Crack Fill,
Slurry Seal as needed
250,000$ 250,000$
4 Roadway Improvement to
Unpaved Rds & Drainage
Repair or reconstruct
unpaved roadways
33,000$ 33,000$
5 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance
and repair to include but not
limited to: striping, stenciling;
repairs to streets and
culvert/drainage facilities;
storm damage/flood control
projects; widening streets
127,000$ 127,000$
6 Public Works Cost Allocation
(8% off the top Measure A)
Inter Transfer Funds 34,000$ 34,000$
TOTALS 504,000$ 504,000$
Phone #: 951.677.7751
Date: June 4, 2012
2013-2014
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: City of Wildomar
Page: 2 of 6
Prepared by: Tim D'Zmura, Public Works Director
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:293,430$
Estimated FY 2014-2015 Measure A Allocation:438,000$
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2014-2015 Projects:731,430$
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
1 Accessibility Improvements Sidewalk, ramps, repairs,
pedestrian and ADA
improvements
20,000$ 20,000$
2 Road Safety Improvements Remove, replace, install
signs, pavement markings,
related roadway safety
improvements
40,000$ 40,000$
3 Slurry Seal and Overly Program Remove, Repair, Crack Fill,
Slurry Seal as needed
250,000$ 250,000$
5 Roadway Improvement to
Unpaved Rds & Drainage
Repair or reconstruct
unpaved roadways
33,000$ 33,000$
6 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance
and repair to include but not
limited to: striping, stenciling;
repairs to streets and
culvert/drainage facilities;
storm damage/flood control
projects; widening streets
127,000$ 127,000$
7 Public Works Cost Allocation
(8% off the top Measure A)
Inter Transfer Funds 35,040$ 35,040$
TOTALS 505,040$ 505,040$
Phone #: 951.677.7751
Date: June 4, 2012
2014-2015
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: City of Wildomar
Page: 3 of 6
Prepared by: Tim D'Zmura, Public Works Director
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:226,390$
Estimated FY 2016-2016 Measure A Allocation:451,000$
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2015-2016 Projects:677,390$
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
1 Accessibility Improvements Sidewalk, ramps, repairs,
pedestrian and ADA
improvements
20,000$ 20,000$
2 Road Safety Improvements Remove, replace, install
signs, pavement markings,
related roadway safety
improvements
40,000$ 40,000$
3 Slurry Seal and Overly Program Remove, Repair, Crack Fill,
Slurry Seal as needed
250,000$ 250,000$
4 Roadway Improvement to
Unpaved Rds & Drainage
Repair or reconstruct
unpaved roadways
33,000$ 33,000$
5 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance
and repair to include but not
limited to: striping, stenciling;
repairs to streets and
culvert/drainage facilities;
storm damage/flood control
projects; widening streets
127,000$ 127,000$
6 Public Works Cost Allocation
(8% off the top Measure A)
Inter Transfer Funds 36,080$ 36,080$
TOTALS 506,080$ 506,080$
Phone #: 951.677.7751
Date: June 4, 2012
2015-2016
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: City of Wildomar
Page: 4 of 6
Prepared by: Tim D'Zmura, Public Works Director
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance:171,310$
Estimated FY 2016-2017 Measure A Allocation:465,000$
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2016-2017 Projects:636,310$
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
1 Accessibility Improvements Sidewalk, ramps, repairs,
pedestrian and ADA
improvements
20,000$ 20,000$
2 Road Safety Improvements Remove, replace, install
signs, pavement markings,
related roadway safety
improvements
40,000$ 40,000$
3 Slurry Seal and Overly Program Remove, Repair, Crack Fill,
Slurry Seal as needed
250,000$ 250,000$
4 Roadway Improvement to
Unpaved Rds & Drainage
Repair or reconstruct
unpaved roadways
33,000$ 33,000$
5 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way maintenance
and repair to include but not
limited to: striping, stenciling;
repairs to streets and
culvert/drainage facilities;
storm damage/flood control
projects; widening streets
127,000$ 127,000$
6 Public Works Cost Allocation
(8% off the top Measure A)
Inter Transfer Funds 37,200$ 37,200$
TOTALS 507,200$ 507,200$
Phone #: 951.677.7751
Date: June 4, 2012
2016-2017
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2013 - 2017
Agency: City of Wildomar
Page: 5 of 6
Prepared by: Tim D'Zmura, Public Works Director
Item
No.Project Name / Limits Project Type
Total Cost
($000's)
Measure A
Funds ($000's)
Estimated
Completion Status
1 Accessibility Improvements Sidewalk, ramps,
repairs, pedestrian and
ADA improvements
$ 28,000 $ 28,000 $ - This is an ongoing program
at City. Unexpended funds
have been carried over into
FY 12/13.
2 Road Safety Improvements Remove, replace, install
signs, pavement
markings, related
roadway safety
improvements
50,000$ 50,000$ 22,900$ This is an ongoing program
at City. Unexpended funds
have been carried over into
FY 12/13.
3 Slurry Seal and Overly Program Remove, Repair, Crack
Fill, Slurry Seal as
needed
155,000$ 155,000$ 105,800$ This is an ongoing program
at City. Unexpended funds
have been carried over into
FY 12/13.
4 Roadway Improvement to Unpaved
Rds & Drainage
Repair or reconstruct
unpaved roadways
33,000$ 33,000$ 8,800$ This is an ongoing program
at City. Unexpended funds
have been carried over into
FY 12/13.
Phone #: 951.677.7751
Date: June 4, 2012
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2011-2012
MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Agency: City of Wildomar
Page: 6 of 6
Prepared by: Tim D'Zmura, Public Works Director
5 Citywide Maintenance Program Right-of-way
maintenance and repair
to include but not
limited to: striping,
stenciling; repairs to
streets and
culvert/drainage
facilities; storm
damage/flood control
projects; widening
streets
127,000$ 127,000$ 61,500$ This is an ongoing program
at City. Unexpended funds
have been carried over into
FY 12/13.
6 Public Works Cost Allocation (8%
off the top Measure A)
Inter Transfer Funds 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ This is an ongoing program
at City. Unexpended funds
have been carried over into
FY 12/13.
393,000$ 393,000$
AGENDA ITEM 8E
BLANK
Agenda Item 8E
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort Base Year Adjustment for
City of Banning
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to approve the adjustment to the city of Banning’s
(Banning) 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year.
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 that Measure A funds supplement current
expenditures, not supplant. In accordance with the 2009 Measure A ordinance, if
a local agency does not meet its respective MOE base year level in a given year,
Measure A Local Streets and Roads disbursements will be withheld the following
year.
At its July 13, 2011 meeting, the Commission approved the 2009 Measure A MOE
base years for each local agency. Banning is requesting an adjustment to its base
year level, as it did not take into consideration deductions for
engineering/administrative overhead costs that are allowed by the Commission’s
MOE guidelines. Banning’s current 2009 Measure A MOE base year is $316,181,
which is the amount of engineering/administrative overhead costs that Banning
could have deducted in calculating its 2009 Measure A MOE base year. Banning
realizes that requesting this entire amount as a deduction would bring its
2009 Measure A MOE base year to zero; therefore, the City is requesting that the
2009 Measure A MOE base year be adjusted to $164,325, which is Banning’s
1989 Measure A MOE base year.
67
Agenda Item 8E
Staff supports Banning’s request to adjust its 2009 Measure A MOE base year to
$164,325 effective beginning in FY 2011/12, as it is consistent with the MOE
guidelines and is a reasonable amount compared to its 1989 Measure A MOE base
year and to other cities of similar size and revenue generation. Should the
Commission approve this recommendation, staff will request Banning to submit its
FY 2012/13 MOE certification to reflect the adjusted amount. The Measure A
audit process will review Banning’s Measure A Capital Improvement Plan
expenditures to ensure the 2009 Measure A MOE base year is met.
There is no financial impact to the Commission related to the adjustment of the
Banning’s 2009 Measure A MOE base year.
Attachment: City of Banning Correspondence
68
69
BLANK
AGENDA ITEM 8F
BLANK
Agenda Item 8F
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Proposition 1B State-Local Partnership Program Formula Program -
Coachella Valley Association of Governments’ Project
Recommendations
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve programming State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP) formula funds
for the following six Coachella Valley projects as submitted by the Coachella
Valley Association of Governments (CVAG):
• Monterey Avenue interchange loop ramp;
• Varner Road/Jefferson Street intersection improvements;
• Monroe Street widening and intersection improvements (Avenue 49 to
Avenue 52);
• Fred Waring Drive median widening (Adams Street to Port Maria
Road);
• Highway 111 widening and intersection improvements (Cook Street to
Hospitality Row);
• Highway 111/Washington Street intersection improvements;
2) Authorize staff to submit additional eligible projects or revise funding
amounts to the Western and Eastern (per CVAG direction) SLPP candidate
projects in the event additional SLPP funds are available through project
savings or California Transportation Commission (CTC) formula allocations;
and
3) Submit the CVAG SLPP formula projects to the CTC for programming.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of
2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, authorized
$1 billion to be deposited in the SLPP account. The CTC is responsible for
administering and allocating these funds over a five-year period between 2009 and
2013. The funds are divided between two programs – competitive and formula.
70
Agenda Item 8F
The competitive grant program is a discretionary program, and projects are
submitted by local agencies directly to the CTC for selection. For the formula
program, the CTC determines a funding share for each eligible applicant with a
voter-approved tax or toll that was approved prior to the adoption of the funding.
Therefore, the Commission is the eligible applicant for programming the SLPP
formula funding share in Riverside County.
SLPP guidelines require formula funds to be matched on s 50-50 basis (match must
be Measure A funds) and used for the construction phase only. To date, the
Commission’s SLPP formula programming balance is $42,294,000. SLPP bond
funding expires on December 31, 2013. The CTC requires all programming and
allocation requests be made by June 2013, to prevent the bond funds from lapsing.
At its March meeting, the Commission approved the following four Western County
projects as candidates for SLPP funding:
• Perris Valley Line;
• SR-91 Capital Improvement Project;
• Interstate 215 Central widening from Scott Road to Nuevo Road; and
• Foothill Parkway extension.
CVAG submitted the following projects for programming SLPP formula funding:
Agency Project Improvements
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Measure A
Share
SLPP
Share
Palm Desert Monterey Avenue
interchange loop ramp $ 5,600,000 $ 2,800,000 $ 2,800,000
Indio Varner Road/Jefferson
Street intersection 4,500,000 2,250,000 2,250,000
Indio Monroe Street (Ave 49
to 52) widening and
intersection 2,750,000 1,375,000 1,375,000
Riverside
County
Fred Waring Drive
(Adams Street to Port
Maria Road) median
widening 8,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Indian Wells Highway 111/Cook
Street to Hospitality
Row widening and
intersection 3,100,000 1,550,000 1,550,000
La Quinta Highway 111/
Washington Street
intersection 566,000 283,000 283,000
Total $ 24,516,000 $ 12,258,000 $ 12,258,000
71
Agenda Item 8F
Projects completing the environmental phase can be submitted to the CTC for
programming. Once projects complete the design and right of way phases, project
sponsors can request allocation of funds. Projects can begin advertisement after
the CTC allocates the funds.
Staff recommends approval of CVAG’s proposed projects for SLPP Formula funding
totaling $12,258,000. Staff will monitor the projects to ensure that the allocation
deadline is met and will report on the progress of all SLPP projects by the January
2013 Commission meeting.
There is no financial impact to the Commission.
72
BLANK
AGENDA ITEM 8G
BLANK
Agenda Item 8G
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Agreement with Ninyo & Moore to Manage and Implement
Property Remediation
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 12-73-110-00 with Ninyo & Moore to manage and
implement the approved Department of Toxic Substances Control Remedial
Action Plan for the Liston Aluminum Brick Company property in an amount
not to exceed $835,595; and
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In August 2006, the Commission entered into a purchase and sale agreement to
purchase the Liston Aluminum Brick Company property at 3710 Temescal Canyon
Road in Corona. This property had been identified as a core parcel for the original
Mid County Parkway project and was for sale on the open market. As part of the
Commission’s required due diligence for property purchase, the Commission
conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. From the results of that
assessment, and in consultation with the County of Riverside Department of
Environmental Health, Hazardous Material Division (County), it was determined that
a geophysical survey and limited subsurface investigation must be completed. The
Commission contracted with Ninyo & Moore, an on-call right of way environmental
services consultant, to complete that work which included soil borings, sampling,
and analyses. All work was reviewed and completed in consultation with the
County. In the midst of the soil investigation, jurisdiction over the property
remediation was transferred to the State Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC).
73
Agenda Item 8G
On behalf of the Commission, Ninyo & Moore prepared a remedial action plan (RAP)
for the property, which was reviewed and approved by DTSC. Per the purchase
and sale agreement for the property, all costs associated with the cleanup will be
deducted from the $8,420,530 purchase price. An escrow holdback of
approximately 200 percent of the estimated remediation costs is being executed.
Escrow on the property is expected to close shortly. Once that occurs, the
Commission can proceed with remediation of the property.
Staff believes it is in the Commission’s best interest to retain Ninyo & Moore
because of its significant historical knowledge of the property through its
investigation and analysis completed to date and the close consultation it has had
with DTSC. Further, Ninyo & Moore is well-qualified to manage and implement the
RAP, and the Commission has had success working with Ninyo & Moore. Finally,
Commission staff has determined that Ninyo & Moore’s rates are fair and
reasonable. Therefore, staff is recommending a sole source agreement be executed
with Ninyo & Moore to manage and implement the RAP for this property. The
estimated cost to implement and manage the RAP is $835,595, which includes a
20 percent contingency. The property purchase and associated remediation was
included in the FY 2011/12 budget, as staff anticipated escrow closing by
June 2012. Since the remediation was not included in the FY 2012/13 budget, a
budget adjustment is required.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $835,595
Source of Funds: TUMF CETAP Budget Adjustment: Yes
GL/Project Accounting No.: 005123 81401 210 73 81401
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/18/12
Attachments:
1) Draft Agreement
2) Estimated Site Remediation Costs
74
17336.00000\7415357.1
Agreement No. 12-73-110-00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR REMEDIATION OF PROPERTY SERVICES
WITH NINYO & MOORE
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2012,
by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the
Commission") and NINYO & MOORE ("Consultant").
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the
provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the
terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a
professional consultant, experienced in managing and implementing property
remediation to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the
plans of Commission.
2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain
consulting services to manage and implement the approved Department of Toxic
Substances Control Remedial Action Plan for the Liston Brick property ("Project") as set
forth herein.
3. TERMS.
3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to
furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and
customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting
services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding
the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter
referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to,
and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules
and regulations.
3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first
specified above to _______, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant
75
17336.00000\7415357.1 2
shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other
established schedules and deadlines.
3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services
expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of
Services set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to
perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate
Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to
Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission,
Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet
the Schedule of Services.
3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates.
The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will
determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the
requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent
contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains
the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this
Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on
behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be
under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages,
salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of
Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible
for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not
limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and
workers' compensation insurance.
3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by
Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission.
3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to
Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under
this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable,
Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience
upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant
cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to
terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this
Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows:
__________________________________.
3.7 Commission’s Representative. Commission hereby designates
[___INSERT NAME OR TITLE___], or his or her designee, to act as its representative
for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission’s Representative"). Commission's
representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes
76
17336.00000\7415357.1 3
under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than
Commission's Representative or his or her designee.
3.8 Consultant’s Representative. Consultant hereby designates
[___INSERT NAME OR TITLE___], or his or her designee, to act as its representative
for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant’s Representative"). Consultant’s
Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant
for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant’s Representative shall supervise
and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be
responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the
satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement.
3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with
Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's
staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times.
3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services
under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard
generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the
State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the
professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all
employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the
Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and
subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever
nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and
approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall
perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any
Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant’s
failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully
responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant’s errors and
omissions.
3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of
and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any
manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA
requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all
violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant
performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and
without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for
all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its
officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any
failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.
77
17336.00000\7415357.1 4
3.12 Insurance.
3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work
under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that
it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not
allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all
insurance required under this section.
3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense,
procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with
the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives,
employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to
procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such
insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage:
(A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at
least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance
Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2)
Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number
CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability:
Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s
Liability Insurance.
(B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall
maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance
or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit
shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be
twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for
bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers’
Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation limits as required by
the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer’s Practices Liability limits of
$1,000,000 per accident.
3.12.3 Professional Liability. [___INCLUDE ONLY IF
APPLICABLE - DELETE OTHERWISE___] Consultant shall procure and maintain,
and require its sub-consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years
following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate
to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000
[___INCREASE IF NECESSARY - OTHERWISE LEAVE AS IS AND DELETE THIS
NOTE___] per claim.
3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall
contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms
approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies:
78
17336.00000\7415357.1 5
(A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall be
endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees
and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or
operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or
equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall
be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers,
employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage
excess of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-
insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and
agents shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not be called upon to
contribute with it in any way.
(B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy
shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers,
employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the
ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned,
leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible;
and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission,
its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an
unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage.
Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials,
officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall
not be called upon to contribute with it in any way.
(C) Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability
Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid
under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the
Consultant.
(D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this
Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended,
voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail,
return receipt requested, has been given to the Commission; and, (B) any failure to
comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of
warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials,
officers, employees and agents.
3.12.5 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles
or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the
Commission does not approve the deductibles or self-insured retentions as presented,
Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the
79
17336.00000\7415357.1 6
Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses.
3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with
insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in
California, and satisfactory to the Commission.
3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish
Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage
required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates
and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by
that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be
received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
at any time.
3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to
avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the
Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal
laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety
of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the
work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be
limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B)
instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe
walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space
procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and
wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries;
and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety
measures.
3.14 Fees and Payment.
3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation,
including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at
the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not
exceed [___INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT___] ($[___INSERT NUMERICAL
DOLLAR AMOUNT___]) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director
(“Total Compensation”). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if
authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to
Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of
Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services
and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the
subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement.
80
17336.00000\7415357.1 7
Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and
pay all approved charges thereon.
3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be
reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission.
3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement,
Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra
Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the
proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate
would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform,
nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's
Executive Director.
3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and
accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged
under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall
allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit,
and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created
pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data,
documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three
(3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.
3.16 Termination of Agreement.
3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written
notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and
without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying
the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for
those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through
the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further
compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause.
3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as
provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or
unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind
prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this
Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other
information within fifteen (15) days of the request.
3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is
terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such
terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those
terminated.
81
17336.00000\7415357.1 8
3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such
other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
CONSULTANT: COMMISSION:
Ninyo & Moore Riverside County
475 Goddard, Suite 200 Transportation Commission
Irvine, CA 92618 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Nancy Anglin Attn: Executive Director
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when
mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid
and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed
adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality.
3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive
and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub-license any
and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings,
estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any
tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data
magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or
caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”).
Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that
Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data
the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement.
Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal
right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data.
Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data
which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to
Consultant by the Commission.
Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the
Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes
intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission’s sole risk.
3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have
and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other
proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials,
data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and
any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including
82
17336.00000\7415357.1 9
but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on
computer media (“Intellectual Property”) prepared or developed by or on behalf of
Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property
prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement.
The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in
Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid
for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with
Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute
separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual
Property upon request of Commission.
Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate
written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right
to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or
following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above-referenced
Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission.
All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by
the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are
not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer
applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless
otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant
represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license
for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein.
Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and
perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub-license any and all Intellectual Property
otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative,
collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement.
3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans,
procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written
information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant
in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by
Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission,
be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services.
Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the
performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is
otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the
related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's
name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services
or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production
or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission.
83
17336.00000\7415357.1 10
Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this
Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written
notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission in order to allow the
Commission to pursue legal remedies designed to limit any confidential information
required to be disclosed or to assure the confidential treatment of the information
following disclosure. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order
until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with
the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order.
3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with
one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as
may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the
other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with
this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and
recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions.
3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify and hold the
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and
volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action,
costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or
persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged
negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officials, officers,
employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the
performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation,
the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and
expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant’s own cost, expense and risk, any
and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may
be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents,
consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment,
award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials,
officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or
other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors,
officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal
expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by each of them in
connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant’s
obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by
the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and
volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are
subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent
required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to
the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. This Section 3.21
shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement.
84
17336.00000\7415357.1 11
3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement
of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior
negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by
a writing signed by both parties.
3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County.
3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every
provision of this Agreement.
3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The
Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this
Project.
3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the
successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without
the prior written consent of Commission.
3.27 Prohibited Interests.
3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has
not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant
warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than
a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or
making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall
have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability.
3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no
member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with
Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or
anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an
equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex
or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related
to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provi-
sions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action
Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or
hereinafter enacted.
85
17336.00000\7415357.1 12
3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the
work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without
prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision
making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement.
3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant
certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et
seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000
et seq. (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates
and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance”
projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or
“maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total
compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing
Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing
rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant
shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification
or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon
request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the
project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected
officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities,
costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the
Prevailing Wage Laws.
3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the
employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor
Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified
employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the
ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice
shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or
trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to
which he or she is registered.
If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services,
Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any
apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering
applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub-consultant for the
employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant
and any sub-consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as
well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or
trade in the area of the work hereunder.
The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance
with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the
California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant.
86
17336.00000\7415357.1 13
3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion
upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not
be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or
relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be
deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or
times.
3.33 Eight-Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor
Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of
any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during
any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment
for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours
worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight-Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the
Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission
as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by
him, or by any sub-consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such
workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day
and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime
violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the
Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law.
3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a
subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project,
Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the
Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until
notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the
Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order.
3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature
are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not
limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related
to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination.
3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party
beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.
3.37 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies
that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.
3.38 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts,
each of which shall constitute an original.
3.39 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and
correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
87
17336.00000\7415357.1 14
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
88
17336.00000\7415357.1 15
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR REMEDITATION OF PROPERTY SERVICES
WITH NINYO & MOORE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first
written above.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY NINYO & MOORE
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By:__________________________ By:________________________
John J. Benoit Signature
Chair ________________________
Name
________________________
Title
Approved as to Form: Attest:
By: ____________________________ By:________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP Its: Secretary
General Counsel
89
17336.00000\7415357.1 C-1
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE AND SCHEDULE OF SERVICES
90
June 19, 2012
Project No. 207492007
Mr. Gustavo Quintero
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, California 92502
Subject: Cost Estimate for Implementation of Draft Remedial Action Plan
Liston Aluminum Brick Company
3710 Temescal Canyon Road
Corona, California
Dear Mr. Quintero:
On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Ninyo & Moore pre-
pared a Draft Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Liston Aluminum Brick Company property at
3710 Temescal Canyon Road in Corona, dated January 12, 2011. The Draft RAP was submitted
to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for the mitigation of impacted soil. The
Draft RAP was conditionally approved by the DTSC in their letter dated January 20 , 2011. The
Draft RAP selected Remedial Alternative (RA) Number 2 as the preferred RA, which consists of
“hot spot” removals and off-site disposal of impacted soil. This letter presents estimated costs for
implementation of the RAP.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Based on the DTSC-approved RAP, and the conditional requirements of the January 20, 2011,
approval letter, the following scope of services is provided:
Field Preparation, Permits, and Plans
Attend up to three public participation meetings.
Coordinate with RCTC the preparation of a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) for implementation by the remediation contractor.
Notification of the local Underground Service Alert and the identification of utilities on the
site.
Obtain a permit for the abandonment of three groundwater monitoring wells.
91
3710 Temescal Canyon Road June 19, 2012
Corona, California Project No. 207492007
207492007 L Cost Estimate.doc 2
Secure the site by a chain-link fence along the perimeter. Access to the site work areas will
be through gates and restricted to authorized personnel only.
Remediation Activities
Prior to equipment mobilization, site preparation activities include acquisition of necessary
permits, site visual inspections, removal areas boundary staking, establishment of staging
areas and construction traffic patterns, and subsurface utility clearance.
Site stockpile management activities will consist of oversight and direction of stockpile seg-
regation into five main categories:
Construction debris for disposal or recycling;
Personal protective equipment for disposal at a sanitary landfill;
Non-hazardous waste destined for off-site disposal or recycling;
Non-RCRA, California hazardous waste destined for off-site disposal or recycling; and
RCRA hazardous waste destined for off-site disposal or recycling.
Dust control measures will be performed at the site during remedial activities to reduce the
potential for fugitive dust and migration of contamination in compliance with requirements
contained in SCAQMD Rule 403.
Air monitoring will be conducted during site remediation activities to assess the effectiv e-
ness of the various control measures. Vapor monitoring will be conducted as described
below and in accordance with the general conditions of SCAQMD Rule 1166.
Three existing groundwater monitoring wells will be abandoned.
Excavated soil will be managed in general accordance with the transportation plan, which is
presented in Appendix A of the RAP.
Upon completion of the excavation to their planned horizontal and vertical extents, confi r-
mation soil samples will be collected from the exposed excavation sidewalls and bottoms.
The number of soil samples collected from each excavation will vary, depending on the d i-
mensions of the excavations. In general, confirmation soil sampling is anticipated to be
conducted at a frequency of one sample per 20 linear feet of excavation sidewall and bot-
tom. Confirmatory sampling and analyses of the bottom and sidewalls of each removal area
for the full suite of Title 22 Metals.
92
3710 Temescal Canyon Road June 19, 2012
Corona, California Project No. 207492007
207492007 L Cost Estimate.doc 3
It is expected that additional excavation and sampling will be required based on confirma-
tion and sampling results. The costs include up to 50 percent for supplemental excavation
and sampling conducted as described above.
Upon completion of soil removal activities, the excavations will be graded so that sidewall
slopes do not exceed 1:1. The surface of the site will be graded and prepared to prevent run-
off in accordance with a SWPPP.
Post-Remediation Activities
After the remedial actions are completed, a Removal Action Completion Report (RACR)
will be submitted to the DTSC for review and approval. The RACR will be prepared expedi-
tiously following completion of field activities and receipt of final analytical data. At the
minimum, the RACR will include the following information:
Site description and background;
Description of soil removal and confirmation sampling activities;
Analytical results for soil confirmation sampling, including copies of laboratory reports;
Quality assurance review and data validation memoranda;
As-built diagrams of soil removal excavations;
Volumes of soil removed and treatment/disposal methods, including copies of mani-
fests;
Discussion of variances to the RAP, if any;
Post remedial health risk evaluation, including tabulation of on-site analytical results for
evaluation that remediation has been completed to acceptable levels;
Summary and conclusions; and
Appendices and other supporting documentation.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Ninyo & Moore estimates the costs for the implementation of the RAP to be approximately
$835,595 (eight hundred and thirty-five thousand five hundred and ninety-five dollars), as out-
lined in the attached table. The charges will be billed monthly on a time -and-materials basis. In
accordance with discussions with RCTC, the estimated charges include a 20 percent contingency.
93
3710 Temescal Canyon Road June 19, 2012
Corona, California Project No. 207492007
207492007 L Cost Estimate.doc 4
UNDERSTANDINGS
In order to prepare the cost estimate, many assumptions have been made, which may or may not
be valid, including:
DTSC will approve the RAP for final implementation with no modifications.
Work will be completed during the summer of 2012.
No more than 50 percent additional excavation and sampling will be required.
The estimated volumes of non-hazardous, non-RCRA hazardous, and RCRA hazardous
wastes mentioned in the RAP will not exceed 50 percent of that described in the RAP.
Additional costs may occur for changes, such as additional removals, changed conditions
added by the DTSC, etc.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the Riverside County Transportation Commi s-
sion. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the undersigned at your
convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
NINYO & MOORE
John Jay Roberts, PG, CEG
Senior Geologist
Walter R. Crone, PG, REA
Principal Environmental Geologist
JJR/NA/WRC/lr/mlc
Attachment: Table 1 – Estimated Remedial Alternative No. 2 Cost
Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail)
94
3710 Temescal Canyon Road
Corona, California
June 19, 2012
Project No. 207492007
Geophysical Survey 1 site $7,500.00 $7,500
Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 40 hrs $154.00 $6,160
Senior Project Eng./Geo./Env. Scientist 60 hrs $148.00 $8,880
Senior Staff Eng./Geo./Env. Scientist 120 hrs $128.00 $15,360
Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 120 hrs $120.00 $14,400
PID Rental 2 weeks $500.00 $1,000
Dust Monitor 2 weeks $2,000.00 $4,000
Miscellaneous Field Supplies (Ice chest, ice, decon water, camera,
gloves, batteries, etc.)10 days $50.00 $500
Hand Auger/Core Sampler Kit 10 days $75.00 $750
Sample Rings, Teflon, 2 Plastic End Caps 100 samples $15.00 $1,500
Mileage 1,000 miles $0.555 $555
Supplemental Remediation Oversight, Environmental Sampling
Costs (Assume 50% of Initial Costs)$30,303
Subtotal $90,908
EPA Method 8015 (petroleum hydrocarbons)26 samples $66.00 $1,716
EPA Method 8260 (VOCs)16 samples $75.00 $1,200
EPA Method 8270 (polyaromatic hydrocarbons)16 samples $97.00 $1,552
EPA Method 6010/7470 (Title 22 Metals)60 samples $60.00 $3,600
EPA Method 6010/7470 - Waste Extraction Test, STLC, TCLP 38 samples $30.00 $1,140
Assume 100% Surcharge for 24 hr TAT $9,208
First Supplemental Sample Analysis (assume 50% of initial cost) $9,208
Second Supplemental Sample Analysis (assume 50% of initial cost) $9,208
Laboratory Data Validation (assume 3% of laboratory analysis total)$1,105
Subtotal $37,937
Soil Excavation/Grading and Dust Suppression (OU1-5)1,640 tons $61.00 $100,040
Transportation and Disposal - Non-Hazardous Waste (OU1, OU4)650 tons $100.00 $65,000
Transportation and Disposal - Non-RCRA Hazardous Waste (OU-2)235 tons $140.00 $32,900
Transportation and Disposal - RCRA Hazardous Waste (OU-3)10 tons $580.00 $5,800
Transportation and Disposal - Petroleum Contaminated Soil (OU-5)750 tons $95.00 $71,250
Imported Soil for OU-5, import, place and 90% compaction 750 tons $20.00 $15,000
Supplemental Excavation, Grading, Transportation, Disposal Costs
(Assume 50% of Initial Costs)$144,995
Equipment Standby Time 2 days $4,000.00 $8,000
Well Abandonment 1 event $25,000.00 $25,000
Subtotal $467,985
Site Remediation (Estimated two weeks)
TABLE 1 – ESTIMATED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 COSTS
Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
Site Remediation Oversight, Environmental Sampling
(Ninyo & Moore)
Laboratory Analysis
(Subcontracted Analytical Laboratory)
Contractor Estimates
(Subcontracted Equipment and Operators, Trucking, and Disposal)
Task
204174007 Remediation Cost Estimate
95
3710 Temescal Canyon Road
Corona, California
June 19, 2012
Project No. 207492007
Site Remediation (Estimated two weeks)
TABLE 1 – ESTIMATED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 COSTS
Quantity Units Unit Cost TotalTask
Project Coordination 1 $18,000 $18,000
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 1 plan $12,000 $12,000
Compaction Testing and Report (OU-5)1 event $10,000 $10,000
Field Sampling Layout and Excavation Boundary Markout 1 event $2,500 $2,500
Human Health Risk Assessment and Report 1 report $25,000 $25,000
Closure Report 1 report $15,000 $15,000
Public Meeting Preparation and Participation 3 meetings $4,000 $12,000
Subtotal $94,500
License, Permits, Fees 1 project $5,000 $5,000
Subtotal $5,000
Total Cost Before Contingency $696,329
Contingency (approximately 20 percent)$139,266
ESTIMATED TOTAL $835,595
Notes:
Costs are based on current rates and are subject to change.
Project Coordination and Reports
(Ninyo & Moore)
Alternative 2 - Soil Excavation, Off-Site Disposal, Sludge Disposal, Vault Removal, and Groundwater Monitoring
Well Abandonment
Indirect Costs
204174007 Remediation Cost Estimate
96
AGENDA ITEM 8H
BLANK
Agenda Item 8H
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Patti Castillo, Capital Projects Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Agreement with RBF/Baker Consulting for Construction
Management Services for the Construction of the State Route 74
Curve Widening Project
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Award Agreement No. 12-31-056-00 to RBF/Baker Consulting (RBF) to
provide construction management (CM), materials testing, and construction
surveying services for the State Route 74 curve widening project, in the
amount of $373,223, plus a contingency amount of $37,322, for a total
amount not to exceed $410,545;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be
required for the project.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The SR-74 curve widening project located near the city of Hemet in Riverside
County is one of the last remaining highway projects in the 1989 Measure A
expenditure plan. The project consists of widening the highway to provide
standard lane and shoulder widths and a paved median, from Calvert Avenue to
California Avenue near the city of Hemet. The design consultant, AECOM, is
currently completing the plans, specifications, and estimates, and the Commission
is in the process of acquiring the last remaining right of way parcel needed to
construct the project.
97
Agenda Item 8H
Selection Process
A request for qualifications (RFQ) for CM, material testing, and construction
surveying services for the project was issued on February 13, 2012, with
consultant statement of qualifications (SOQ) due March 5. The Commission
received four SOQs – Elie Farah, Inc.; RBF; Southstar Engineering and Consulting,
Inc.; and Transtech Engineers, Inc.
An evaluation committee was appointed to review the SOQs received and to
conduct firm interviews. The evaluation committee members included
representatives from Commission staff, Bechtel, and Caltrans. Based on the
committee’s evaluation of written SOQ submittals, and pursuant to the terms of
the RFQ, the committee shortlisted two of the four offerors and invited those firms
to the interview portion of the evaluation and selection process. The short listed
firms included:
• RBF
• Southstar Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
Interviews with the above-referenced firms were conducted on April 5, and, after
final scoring by the evaluation committee, RBF was ranked the most qualified firm
under the terms of the RFQ.
Subsequently, staff negotiated the scope (including the appropriate level of effort,
labor categories/mix, etc.), cost, and schedule proposal with RBF for the project
services and established a fair and reasonable price. A pre-award audit of RBF’s
payroll, including overhead rates, and accounting system is unnecessary since there
is no state or federal funding on the project.
Recommendation
Staff recommends award of Agreement No. 12-31-056-00 to RBF to perform CM,
materials testing, and construction surveying services for the SR-74 curve widening
project, based on the final project scope and cost included with Attachment 1, in
the amount of $373,223, plus contingency amount of $37,322 for unanticipated
changes, for a total amount not to exceed $410,545.
98
Agenda Item 8H
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A Year: FY 2012/13
FY 2013/14 Amount: $266,300
$144,245
Source of Funds: 1989 Measure A Western County
highway funds Budget Adjustment: No
N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 003035 81302 00000 0000 222 31 81302
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/18/12
Attachment: Draft Agreement No. 12-31-056-00
99
BLANK
AGREEMENT NO. 12-31-056-00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT WITH
RBF/BAKER CONSULTING
FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, MATERIALS TESTING AND CONSTRUCTION
SURVEYING SERVICES
FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 WIDENING BETWEEN CALVERT AVENUE AND
CALIFORNIA AVENUE IN HEMET, CA
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this ___ day of _______, 2012,
by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the
Commission") and RBF/BAKER CONSULTING ("Consultant"), a [___LEGAL STATUS
OF CONSULTANT e.g., CORPORATION___].
2. RECITALS.
2.1 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved
Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2 %) retail transactions
and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the
County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement
Plan (the "Plan").
2.2 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., the
Commission is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan.
2.3 On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved an
extension of the Measure A tax for an additional thirty (30) years for the continued
funding of transportation and improvements within the County of Riverside.
2.4 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the
provision of certain professional services required by the Commission on the terms and
conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is experienced in
providing construction management, engineering surveying and testing services to
public clients, is licensed in the State of California (as necessary), and is familiar with
the plans of the Commission.
DRAFT
100
2.5 The Commission desires to engage Consultant to render such
services for the Widening of State Route 74 between Calvert Avenue and California
Avenue ("Project"), as set forth in this Agreement.
3. TERMS.
3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant shall furnish all technical
and professional services, including labor, material, equipment, transportation,
supervision and expertise, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and
adequately supply the professional construction management, engineering surveying
and testing services necessary for the Project ("Services"). The Services are more
particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this
Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all
applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
3.2 Commencement of Services. The Consultant shall commence
work upon receipt of a written "Notice to Proceed" or "Limited Notice to Proceed" from
Commission.
3.3 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of
execution of this Agreement or the date of issuance of the Notice to Proceed by the
Commission, whichever occurs first, to the issuance by the Commission to Consultant
of a Notice of Final Acceptance, as defined in paragraph 3.12 below, or unless earlier
terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term
of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. All
applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following
the termination of this Agreement.
3.4 Commission's Representative. The Commission hereby designates
the Commission's Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its
Representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission’s
Representative"). Commission’s Representative shall have the authority to act on
behalf of the Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Commission's
Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of
Consultant's work as it progresses. Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from
any person other than the Commission’s Representative or his or her designee.
3.5 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Mike
Tylman to act as its Representative for the performance of this Agreement
("Consultant’s Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to
act on behalf of Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant’s
Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his professional skill and
attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and
procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this
Agreement. Consultant shall work closely and cooperate fully with Commission's
DRAFT
101
Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over, or an interest
in, the Services. Consultant's Representative shall be available to the Commission staff
at all reasonable times. Any substitution in Consultant's Representative shall be
approved in writing by Commission's Representative.
3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to the
Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under
this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable,
Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written
approval by the Commission. In the event that the Commission and Consultant cannot
agree as to the substitution of the key personnel, the Commission shall be entitled to
terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.14. The key
personnel for performance of this Agreement are identified in the attached organization
chart.
3.7 Preliminary Review of Work. All reports, working papers, and
similar work products prepared for submission in the course of providing Services under
this Agreement shall be submitted to the Commission's Representative in draft form,
and the Commission may require revisions of such drafts prior to formal submission and
approval. In the event plans and designs are to be developed as part of the Project,
final detailed plans and designs shall be contingent upon obtaining environmental
clearance as may be required in connection with the Project. In the event that
Commission's Representative, in his sole discretion, determines the formally submitted
work product to be not in accordance with the standard of care established under this
agreement, Commission's Representative may require Consultant to revise and
resubmit the work at no cost to the Commission.
3.8 Appearance at Hearings. If and when required by the Commission,
Consultant shall render assistance at public hearings or other meetings related to the
Project or necessary to the performance of the Services. However, Consultant shall not
be required to, and will not, render any decision, interpretation or recommendation
regarding questions of a legal nature or which may be construed as constituting a legal
opinion.
3.9 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant represents and maintains
that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform all Services, duties and
obligations required by this Agreement to fully and adequately complete the Project.
Consultant shall perform the Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with
the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same
discipline in the State of California. Consultant warrants that all employees and
subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services
assigned to them. Consultant further represents and warrants to the Commission that
its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and
approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that
such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement.
Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from
DRAFT
102
the Commission, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are
caused by the Consultant’s failure to comply with the standard of care provided for
herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other
liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from
the Consultant’s errors and omissions. Any employee of Consultant or its sub-
consultants who is determined by the Commission to be uncooperative, incompetent, a
threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of
persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a
manner acceptable to the Commission, shall be promptly removed from the Project by
the Consultant and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work
on the Project.
3.10 Opportunity to Cure. Commission may provide Consultant an
opportunity to cure, at Consultant's expense, all errors and omissions which may be
disclosed during Project implementation. Should Consultant fail to make such
correction in a timely manner, such correction may be made by the Commission, and
the cost thereof charged to Consultant.
3.11 Inspection of Work. Consultant shall allow the Commission's
Representative to inspect or review Consultant's work in progress at any reasonable
time.
3.12 Final Acceptance. Upon determination by the Commission that
Consultant has satisfactorily completed the Services required under this Agreement and
within the term set forth in Section 3.3, the Commission shall give Consultant a written
Notice of Final Acceptance. Upon receipt of such notice, Consultant shall incur no
further costs hereunder, unless otherwise specified in the Notice of Final Acceptance.
Consultant may request issuance of a Notice of Final Acceptance when, in its opinion, it
has satisfactorily completed all Services required under the terms of this Agreement. In
the event copyrights are permitted under this Agreement, then in connection with
Federal funding, it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that the United States
Department of Transportation shall have the royalty-free non-exclusive and irrevocable
right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the work
for governmental purposes.
3.13 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of
and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any
manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA
requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. For example, and not by way
of limitation, Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all
implementing regulations, design standards, specifications, previous commitments that
must be incorporated in the design of the Project, and administrative controls including
those of the United States Department of Transportation. Compliance with Federal
procedures may include completion of the applicable environmental documents and
approved by a governmental body. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be
contrary to the requirements of laws, rules and regulations and without giving written
DRAFT
103
notice to the Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising
therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials,
directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any
failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.
3.14 Termination.
3.14.1 Notice; Reason. Commission may, by written notice to
Consultant, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time by giving written
notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof
(“Notice of Termination”). Such termination may be for Commission's convenience or
because of Consultant's failure to perform its duties and obligations under this
Agreement, including, but not limited to, the failure of Consultant to timely perform
Services pursuant to the Schedule of Services described in Section 3.15 of this
Agreement. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause.
3.14.2 Discontinuance of Services. Upon receipt of the written
Notice of Termination, Consultant shall discontinue all affected Services as directed in
the Notice or as otherwise provided herein, and deliver to the Commission all
Documents and Data, as defined in this Agreement, as may have been prepared or
accumulated by Consultant in performance of the Services, whether completed or in
progress.
3.14.3 Effect of Termination For Convenience. If the termination is
to be for the convenience of the Commission, the Commission shall compensate
Consultant for Services fully and adequately provided through the effective date of
termination. Such payment shall include a prorated amount of profit, if applicable, but
no amount shall be paid for anticipated profit on unperformed Services. Consultant shall
provide documentation deemed adequate by Commission's Representative to show the
Services actually completed by Consultant prior to the effective date of termination.
This Agreement shall terminate on the effective date of the Notice of Termination.
3.14.4 Effect of Termination for Cause. If the termination is for
cause, Consultant shall be compensated for those Services which have been fully and
adequately completed and accepted by the Commission as of the date the Commission
provides the Notice of Termination. In such case, the Commission may take over the
work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise. Further,
Consultant shall be liable to the Commission for any reasonable additional costs
incurred by the Commission to revise work for which the Commission has compensated
Consultant under this Agreement, but which the Commission has determined in its sole
discretion needs to be revised, in part or whole, to complete the Project because it did
not meet the standard of care established in Section 3.9. Termination of this Agreement
for cause may be considered by the Commission in determining whether to enter into
future agreements with Consultant.
DRAFT
104
3.14.5 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the
Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies
provided by law or under this Agreement.
3.14.6 Procurement of Similar Services. In the event this
Agreement is terminated, in whole or in part, as provided by this Section, the
Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it deems
appropriate, services similar to those terminated.
3.14.7 Waivers. Consultant, in executing this Agreement, shall be
deemed to have waived any and all claims for damages which may otherwise arise from
the Commission's termination of this Agreement, for convenience or cause, as provided
in this Section.
3.15 Schedule and Progress of Services.
3.15.1 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services
expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of
Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel to perform
the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's
conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's
submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of Commission's Representative,
Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet
the Schedule of Services.
3.15.2 Modification of the Schedule. Consultant shall regularly
report to the Commission, through correspondence or progress reports, its progress in
providing required Services within the scheduled time periods. Commission shall be
promptly informed of all anticipated delays. In the event that Consultant determines that
a schedule modification is necessary, Consultant shall promptly submit a revised
Schedule of Services for approval by Commission's Representative.
3.15.3 Trend Meetings. Consultant shall conduct trend meetings
with the Commission’s Representative and other interested parties, as requested by the
Commission, on a bi-weekly basis or as may be mutually scheduled by the Parties at a
standard day and time. These trend meetings will encompass focused and informal
discussions concerning scope, schedule, and current progress of Services, relevant
cost issues, and future Project objectives. Consultant shall be responsible for the
preparation and distribution of meeting agendas to be received by the Commission and
other attendees no later than three (3) working days prior to the meeting.
3.15.4 Progress Reports. As part of its monthly invoice, Consultant
shall submit a progress report, in a form determined by the Commission, which will
indicate the progress achieved during the previous month in relation to the Schedule of
DRAFT
105
Services. Submission of such progress report by Consultant shall be a condition
precedent to receipt of payment from the Commission for each monthly invoice
submitted.
3.16 Delay in Performance.
3.16.1 Excusable Delays. Should Consultant be delayed or
prevented from the timely performance of any act or Services required by the terms of
the Agreement by reason of acts of God or of the public enemy, acts or omissions of the
Commission or other governmental agencies in either their sovereign or contractual
capacities, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes or
unusually severe weather, performance of such act shall be excused for the period of
such delay.
3.16.2 Written Notice. If Consultant believes it is entitled to an
extension of time due to conditions set forth in subsection 3.16.1, Consultant shall
provide written notice to the Commission within seven (7) working days from the time
Consultant knows, or reasonably should have known, that performance of the Services
will be delayed due to such conditions. Failure of Consultant to provide such timely
notice shall constitute a waiver by Consultant of any right to an excusable delay in time
of performance.
3.16.3 Mutual Agreement. Performance of any Services under this
Agreement may be delayed upon mutual agreement of the Parties. Upon such
agreement, Consultant's Schedule of Services shall be extended as necessary by the
Commission. Consultant shall take all reasonable steps to minimize delay in
completion, and additional costs, resulting from any such extension.
3.17 Status of Consultant/Subconsultants.
3.17.1 Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed
by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods
and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement.
Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an
employee, agent or representative of the Commission. Consultant retains the right to
perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any
additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control.
Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in
connection with their performance of Services and as required by law. Consultant shall
be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including but
not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholdings, unemployment insurance,
disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance.
DRAFT
106
3.17.2 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement,
Consultant certifies that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code
Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title
8, Section 16000 et seq. (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of
prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public
works” and “maintenance” projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an
applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage
Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully
comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem
wages are on file at the Commission’s offices. Consultant shall make copies of the
prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed
to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post
copies at the Consultant’s principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant
shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers,
employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or
interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage
Laws. Certified Payrolls are to be submitted whenever required by Prevailing Wage
laws.
3.17.3 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign,
hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any
interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do
so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire
no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
3.17.4 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion
of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein,
without prior written approval of the Commission. If Consultant wishes to use a firm as
a subcontractor which is not specified in the proposal upon which this Agreement was
awarded, prior written approval must be obtained from the Commission. The
Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions
stipulated in this Agreement.
Consultant has, as part of its proposal, identified certain
companies/firms that will be subconsultants utilized by Consultant (“Subconsultants”) for
Project delivery. A list of said Subconsultants is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” Part 2
and made a part hereof. The Commission hereby approves the use by Consultant of
the Subconsultants identified in Exhibit “C” Part 2. In the event and prior to the
replacement of any Subconsultant approved herein, the Consultant shall seek and
obtain the Commission's written approval. Exhibit “C” Part 2 also sets forth the rates at
which each Subconsultant shall bill the Consultant for Services and that are subject to
reimbursement by the Commission to Consultant. The cost of Addition Direct Costs, as
defined in exhibit “C,” shall be the same for both the Consultant and all subconsultants,
unless otherwise identified in Exhibit “C” Part 2.
DRAFT
107
Consultant acknowledges that approval of Consultant's utilization of
the identified Subconsultants together with the incorporation of Subconsultants' rate
schedules and cost proposals into this Agreement shall in no way be construed to
create any contractual relationship between any Subconsultant and the Commission.
The Subconsultant rate schedules and cost proposals contained herein are for
accounting purposes only. In the event that any Subconsultant shall bring any action,
claim or proceeding purporting to enforce any right purportedly arising under this
Agreement, the Consultant shall be responsible for the Commission's reasonable legal
fees without regard to the merits of any such claim.
3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality.
3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive
and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub-license any
and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings,
estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any
tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data
magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or
caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”).
Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that
Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data
the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement.
Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal
right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data.
Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data
which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to
Consultant by the Commission.
Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the
Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes
intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission’s sole risk.
3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have
and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other
proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials,
data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and
any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including
but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on
computer media (“Intellectual Property”) prepared or developed by or on behalf of
Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property
prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement.
The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in
Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid
DRAFT
108
for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with
Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute
separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual
Property upon request of Commission.
Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate
written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right
to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or
following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above-referenced
Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission.
All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by
the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are
not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer
applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless
otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant
represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license
for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein.
Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and
perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub-license any and all Intellectual Property
otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative,
collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement.
3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans,
procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written
information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant
in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by
Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission,
be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services.
Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the
performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is
otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the
related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's
name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services
or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production
or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission.
3.19 Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant
shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers,
employees, consultants, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all
claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in
law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising
out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions, or willful misconduct of
Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising
out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this
DRAFT
109
Agreement, including without limitation the payment of consequential damages, expert
witness fees, and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant
shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid
suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted
against Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, or
volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may
be rendered against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees,
consultants, agents, or volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding.
Consultant shall reimburse Commission and its directors, officials, officers, employees,
consultants, agents, and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs,
including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith
or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall
not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission, its directors,
officials officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, to the extent Consultant’s Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8,
the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section
2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness,
or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
3.20 Insurance.
3.20.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work
under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that
it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not
allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all
insurance required under this section.
3.20.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense,
procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with
the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives,
employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to
procure and maintain the same types of insurance for the duration of the Agreement.
Consultant’s insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage:
(A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the
latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office
Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2)
Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form
number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) if Consultant has employees,
Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation
insurance as required and Employer’s Liability Insurance.
(B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less
than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
and advertising injury and property damage. If General Liability Insurance or
DRAFT
110
includes a general aggregate limit, either the general aggregate limit shall apply
separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be
twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per
accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) Workers’ Compensation
and Employer’s Liability: Statutory Workers’ Compensation limits as required by
the applicable Labor Code and Employer’s Liability limits of no less than
$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
3.20.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and
maintain, and require its sub-consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5)
years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance
appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than
$2,000,000 per claim.
3.20.4 Aircraft Liability Insurance. [If applicable] Consultant,
prior to the direct or indirect use of any civil aircraft to provide Service under this
Agreement, shall procure and maintain, or cause to be procured and maintained,
aircraft liability insurance or equivalent form, with a single limit of not less than
$5,000,000 per each occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned,
hired and non-owned aircraft and passengers, and shall name, or be endorsed to name,
the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, and agents as
additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf
of the Consultant.
3.20.5 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall
contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms
approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies:
(A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state
that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents
shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or
equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors,
officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken
chain of coverage excess of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage.
Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors,
officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant’s
insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way.
(B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to
state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and
agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership,
operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased,
hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible;
and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the
DRAFT
111
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess,
shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant’s
scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by
the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be
excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute
with it in any way.
(C) Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer
shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its
directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the
terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant.
(D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be
endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided or canceled
except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, has been given to the Commission; and (B) any failure to comply with
reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties,
shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials,
officers, employees and agents.
3.20.6 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles
or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the
Commission does not approve the deductibles or self-insured retentions as presented,
Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or (2) the
Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses.
3.20.7 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with
insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than A: VIII, licensed to do business in
California, and satisfactory to the Commission.
3.20.8 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish
Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage
required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates
and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by
that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be
received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
at any time.
3.20.9 Other Insurance. At its option, the Commission may require
such additional coverage(s), limits and/or the reduction of deductibles or retentions it
considers reasonable and prudent based upon risk factors that may directly or indirectly
impact the Project. In retaining this option Commission does not warrant Consultant’s
DRAFT
112
insurance program to be adequate. Consultant shall have the right to purchase
insurance in addition to the insurance required in this Section.
3.21 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as
to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the
Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal
laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety
of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the
work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be
limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B)
instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe
walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space
procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and
wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries;
and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety
measures.
3.22 Fees and Payment.
3.22.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation,
including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at
the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The total compensation shall be on the basis of direct costs plus a fixed fee as further
set forth in Exhibit “C” and shall not exceed the maximum amount of Four Hundred
Twenty Two Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Nine Dollars ($422,299), without written
approval of Commission's Executive Director.
3.22.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit a
monthly itemized statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services
rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and
supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the
subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the Statement. Charges
specific to each Milestone listed in the Schedule of Services shall be listed separately
on an attachment to each statement. Each statement shall be accompanied by a
monthly progress report and spreadsheets showing hours expended for each task for
each month and the total Project to date. Each statement shall include a cover sheet
bearing a certification as to the accuracy of the statement signed by the Consultant's
Project Manager or other authorized officer.
3.22.3 Additional Work. Any work or activities that are in addition
to, or otherwise outside of, the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement
shall only be performed pursuant to a separate agreement between the parties.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission’s Executive Director may make a
change to the Agreement as permitted by law or authorized by the Commission. .
DRAFT
113
(a) In addition to the changes authorized above, a modification which is
signed by Consultant and the Commission’s Executive Director, other than
a Cardinal Change, may be made in order to: (1) make a negotiated
equitable adjustment to the Agreement price, delivery schedule and other
terms resulting from the issuance of a Change Order, (2) reflect definitive
letter contracts, and (3) reflect other agreements of the parties modifying
the terms of this Agreement (“Bilateral Agreement Modification”).
(b) Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for any change,
without written authorization from the Commission’s Executive Director as
set forth herein. In the event such a change authorization is not issued
and signed by the Commission’s Executive Director, Consultant shall not
provide such change.
3.22.4 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be
reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by the Commission's
Representative.
3.23 Prohibited Interests.
3.23.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has
not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant
warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than
a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or
making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission
shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability.
3.23.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no
member, officer or employee of the Commission, during the term of his or her service
with the Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any
present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
3.23.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of
personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the
performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of
the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time.
Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the
Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement,
where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing
this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited.
3.23.4 Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant
represents and warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or
person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Consultant, to solicit or secure
DRAFT
114
this Agreement, and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person,
other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift,
or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or formation of
this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the
right to terminate this Agreement without liability pursuant to Section 3.14, or at its
discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover,
the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent
fee.
3.23.5 Covenant Against Expenditure of Local Agency, State or
Federal Funds for Lobbying. Omitted Intentionally
3.24 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete
and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged
under this Agreement. The Federal Acquisition Regulations in Title 48, CFR 31 shall be
the governing factors regarding allowable elements of cost. All such records shall be
clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of the Commission or any
duly authorized representative of the Commission during normal business hours to
examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of any and all ledgers and books of
account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and any other records or documents
created pursuant to this Agreement. All such information shall be retained by
Consultant for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement.
3.25 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that
it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any
subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color,
national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be
limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer,
recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.
3.26 Right to Employ Other Consultants. Commission reserves
the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. As required,
Consultant shall cooperate fully with any other consultant engaged by the Commission
on the Project.
3.27 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County.
3.28 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action
against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in
connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to
have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and, all other costs of
such actions.
3.29 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every
provision of this Agreement.
DRAFT
115
3.30 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph
captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only
and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein.
3.31 Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such
other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
CONSULTANT: COMMISSION:
RBF/Baker Consulting Riverside County
3300 Guasti Road, Suite 100 Transportation Commission
Ontario, CA 91761 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Mike Tylman Attn: Executive Director
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-
eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, and
addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed
adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.32 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any
attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the
language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions
and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding
concerning the performance of the Services.
3.33 Amendment or Modification. No supplement, modification,
or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed
by both Parties.
3.34 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire
agreement of the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior
negotiations, agreements or understandings.
3.35 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is
declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,
the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.36 Provisions Applicable When Federal Department of
Transportation Funds Are Involved. Omitted Intentionally
3.37 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one
occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof
shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver
or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be
DRAFT
116
deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or
times.
[Signatures on following page]
DRAFT
117
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written
above.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY RBF/BAKER
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By:__________________________
John J. Benoit By:
Chair __________________________
Signature
__________________________
Name
__________________________
Title
Approved as to Form:
By: ____________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
General Counsel
DRAFT
118
MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
[___INSERT___]
DRAFT
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF SERVICES
[___INSERT___]
DRAFT
141
142
BLANK
MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
[___INSERT___]
DRAFT
143
BLANK
144
145
146
147
148
149
BLANK
MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT "D"
CERTIFICATE OF COMMISSION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the ________________________ of the
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, and that the consulting firm
of ______________________________ or its representative has not been required
(except as herein expressly stated), directly or indirectly, as an express or implied
condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this Agreement to:
(a) employ, retain, agree to employ or retain, any firm or person; or
(b) pay or agree to pay, to any firm, person or organization, any fee,
contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind.
I acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in connection with this Agreement involving
participation of federal-aid Highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and
Federal laws, both criminal and civil.
By: ____________________________
Signature
____________________________
Name
____________________________
Title
____________________________
Date
DRAFT
150
AGENDA ITEM 8I
BLANK
151
Agenda Item 8I
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: 2012 Update to the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services
Transportation Plan
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve the update to the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services
Transportation Plan (2012 Coordinated Plan);
2) Authorize staff to prepare the evaluation criteria and application package to
support the 2013 Specialized Transit Universal Call for Projects (2013 Call
for Projects); and
3) Authorize staff to conduct the 2013 Call for Projects.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
With the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) several years ago, two funding sources for
transit service were made available to transportation planning and programming
entities across the nation. These sources are identified as Jobs Access Reverse
Commute (JARC) Section 5316 and New Freedom Section 5317 funds.
At its April 2008 meeting, the Commission approved the Coordinated Public Transit
– Human Services Transportation Plan for Riverside County (2008 Coordinated
Plan), which made the Commission eligible to receive and allocate the JARC and
New Freedom funds.
With the approval of the 2008 Coordinated Plan, the Commission also adopted a
strategy for developing and conducting a call for projects for both the Coachella
Valley and Western Riverside County. This process was intended to be used to
competitively disburse the JARC and New Freedom funds as well as Measure A
Specialized Transit funds.
152
Agenda Item 8I
At its September and October 2008 meetings, the Commission approved the first
suite of the call for projects from the 2009 Call for Projects involving the use of the
federal funds for implementation with a funding allocation totaling $7.8 million
dollars.
Following this action, the Commission approved a second suite of call for projects
from the 2011 Call for Projects at its April 2011 meeting totaling $6.8 million
dollars. This second suite of projects is set to expire on June 30, 2013, and
requires that the 2013 Call for Projects be conducted to continue funding
specialized transit services. Lastly and before additional JARC and New Freedom
funds can be disbursed, a required update to the 2008 Coordinated Plan needs to
be approved.
DISCUSSION:
In accordance with the provisions of SAFETEA-LU, recipients under these programs
must comply with all federal coordinated planning requirements to be eligible for
funds. The reauthorization stipulates that projects selected for funding under these
programs must be derived from a locally coordinated, public transit-human services
transportation plan (Coordinated Plan). Moreover, the Coordinated Plan must be
developed through a process that includes representatives of public, private, and
nonprofit transportation and human service providers and participation by the
public.
Requirements further state that the Coordinated Plan must be updated at least
every four years. Given that the Coordinated Plan was approved in 2008 and
acknowledging the need for an update, staff initiated the process in which the
update will take place in August of 2011. This was done in anticipation of
conducting another call for projects in late November 2012.
With this process, it was not the intent of staff to replace the 2008 Coordinated
Plan in its entirety, but rather the update was visualized as a document that would
augment and add to the extensive work already performed in the development of
the 2008 Coordinated Plan. This 2012 Coordinated Plan is intended to bring
current the Coordinated Plan and keep the Commission in compliance so that the
federal funds continue to be utilized and disbursed for specialized transit service
through the call for projects.
Plan Update Process
Federal requirements dictate that the Coordinated Plan process, as well as any plan
updates, be conducted publicly and therefore, a methodology for obtaining
community input was deemed an essential element of staff’s planning for the 2012
Coordinated Plan. As a result, staff and its consultant, AMMA Transit Planning,
153
Agenda Item 8I
conducted five community workshops across the county, met with several
individual stakeholder groups, and also utilized an email contact list to mail an
invitation for comment to over 650 community and non-profit organizations
countywide. A 2012 Coordinated Plan specific email account was set up to
receive comments from those that could not attend the workshops. Bus seat
drops, flyers, and community advertisements were also utilized to inform the public
of the workshops.
2012 Coordinated Plan Update
Overall, 120 individuals attended the five workshops, 25 emailed comments were
received by staff, and four stakeholder meetings were held with 75 people
representing the four groups attending. This amount of public input continued to
identify needs by sub-areas of the county, by trip type, and within the target
populations. Despite documented growth of public transit ridership countywide, the
update process continued to identify new unmet transportation needs and service
gaps for the target populations. Numerous sub-groups were identified beyond
those previously identified in the 2008 Coordinated Plan, some with unique trip
needs. Groups both previously identified and new consist of the following:
• Homeless veterans seeking employment;
• Newly returning veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres and their
families;
• Agricultural workers traveling from isolated areas to social services and
grocery stores;
• Low-income workers living in outlying rural areas, traveling to retail and
hospitality employment;
• Individuals without cars traveling to regional destinations;
• Unemployed parents traveling to job interviews but also with day care needs;
• Students traveling to community colleges and high schools without funds for
fuel;
• Older adults decreasing driving and exploring new mobility choices;
• Persons with disabilities living just beyond transit’s ¾ mile Americans with
Disabilities Act boundaries; and
• Families seeking reunification with children placed outside of the home.
The 2012 Coordinated Plan ultimately describes an environment where, as a result
of the great recession, transit operators experienced reduced levels of funding and
revenue streams while undergoing a period of population growth leading to a
vigorous demand for public transit service. The county’s population has increased
by almost 40 percent during this past decade, adding almost a half-million more
154
Agenda Item 8I
residents. Within this growth and as identified in the 2012 Coordinated Plan, the
population of low-income individuals has grown at a higher rate, a 46 percent
increase. Persons over age 65 have increased by 30 percent, a somewhat lower
rate of growth. Adults with disabilities are almost 9 percent of the county’s
overall population. This context of a growing population with greatly varying needs
by the target groups of interest and extremely constrained resources is what
defines the goals and objectives of the 2012 Coordinated Plan to the Coordinated
Plan in moving forward.
Implementing the 2012 Coordinated Plan / 2 013 Universal Call for Projects
The 2008 Coordinated Plan and the 2012 Coordinated Plan do not provide funding
but serve as a guide for funding decisions to be made, specifically those related to
the federal JARC and New Freedom funds. The 2008 Coordinated Plan and the
2012 Coordinated Plan also serve as guidance documents for the disbursement of
Western County Measure A Specialized Transit funds. As such, it is a call for
projects that serves as the implementing vehicle for the funding of projects deemed
consistent with the 2008 Coordinated Plan and the 2012 Coordinated Plan.
Staff prepared a preliminary fund estimate for both Western County and the
Coachella Valley to support the 2013 Call for Projects, which is attached. While
funds have been identified, this estimate has been derived early in the process and
the amounts, specifically the federal funds, are subject to change prior to staff
conducting the call. Additionally and with respect to the recommended funding
amounts contained in the table on Attachment 1, it should be noted that the
Commission previously approved a Western County Measure A reserve of
$2 million to be carried over from the 2011 Call for Projects. This reserve
consisted of the remainder of 1989 Measure A accumulated funds set aside for
specialized transit. Given that 2009 Measure A is not accumulating at a pace
consistent with past growth and program funding allocations, the reserve was
intended to provide stability to the funding levels contained in subsequent calls. As
a point of reference, while the table identifies another recommended carryover in
the amount of $1 million, the estimated amount available for funding is slightly
more than that contained in the 2011 Call for Projects. Staff continues to
recommend that a modest reserve be carried over in order to provide for ongoing
funding stability.
In order to conduct the 2013 Call for Projects, evaluation criteria and an application
package are required. Evaluation criteria resultant from the first and second call for
projects, as well as that developed from the 2008 Coordinated Plan and the
2012 Coordinated Plan will continue to be refined by staff and will be used to
develop the grant application package. This will allow proposers a complete and
155
Agenda Item 8I
full understanding of the grant application process as well as allow those projects
most consistent with the goals and objectives contained in the 2008 and 2012
Coordinated Plans to rise to the top for funding.
Staff upon Commission approval will develop the evaluation criteria and the
application package. Staff expects to release the 2013 Call for Projects in late
November/early December 2012, which is consistent with previous timeframes.
This schedule should result in staff presenting a recommendation for funding to the
Commission in or around April 2013. Given the current suite of projects expires on
June 30, 2013, staff is confident that this process will allow for no interruption of
specialized transit services currently provided to the community.
There is no financial impact related to the staff recommendations, as approval of
the update to the Coordinated Plan does not involve a funding commitment at this
time. Additionally, the 2013 Call for Projects funds will be programmed and
budgeted through the normal budgeting process for FY 2013/14 and FY 2014/15.
Attachments:
1) 2013 Call for Projects Fund Estimate
2) 2012 Coordinated Plan – Posted on the Commission Website
BLANK
Attachment 1
Notes:
1. $5,163,478 carry over consists of $2 million reserve set aside (from 1989 Measure A) from 2011
Call for Projects along with accumulated 2009 Measure A.
2. Administrative fees are distributed at a rate of 3% each to RTA, SunLine and the Commission in
return for processing of federal funds to subrecipients.
3. Coachella Valley does not accumulate Measure A specialized transit.
156
BLANK
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
Prepared for:
Robert Yates, Multi Modal Services Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Prepared by:
Riverside, CA
Final May 16, 2012
This page intentionally left blank
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
iii
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
Executive Summary
Plan Update Requirement
This document brings current the 2008 Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for
Riverside County. Required for update every four years, this augments but doesn’t replace the extensive
work done for Riverside County’s first coordinated plan. These Coordinated Plans are intended to promote
mobility by identifying needs and transportation service gaps of three targeted populations:
• older persons
• persons with disabilities, and
• persons of limited means.
The Coordinated Plan does not provide for funding, but helps to guide funding decisions, specifically those
related to FTA 5316-Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC), 5317-New Freedom program and the 5310
Capital Program for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. Projects funded from these programs must be
“derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan.” This plan
can also help support and provide rationale for additional funding requests, both by public transit providers
and by its human services partners.
Population and Demographic Changes
Exhibit ES-1, Percent Change in Population by
California Counties
Most notably, Riverside County has grown by almost 40% in the
past decade, adding another 600,000 new residents. The 2010
Census identified Riverside County as among the two fastest
growing counties in the State of California, growing from 1.5
million persons to 2.1 million residents.
Within this growth, there have been important changes among
the target group populations:
• Low-income adults, ages 18 to 64, are a fast growing
sub-group, increasing by 46% over the past decade and
adding 52,000 individuals.
• Adults with disabilities, ages 18 to 64, represent 8.5
percent of the adult population or 110,000 persons.
• Older adults, ages 65 and up, are now 11.7 percent of
the County’s total population, or 253,000 persons.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
iv
% Increase
Service by Mode Trips %of Total
Trips Trips %of Total Trips
Rail [1]2,700,117 19%2,909,872 18%8%
RCTC Commuter Rail - Riverside 1,101,646 1,304,219
RCTC Commuter Rail - Inland Empire Orange County 1,066,541 1,025,883
RCTC Commuter Rail - 91 531,930 579,770
Public Bus, Fixed Route [1]10,575,445 76%12,264,950 76%16%
RTA FR 5,718,234 6,299,800
SunLine FR 3,474,361 4,045,018
RTA Contract FR 916,366 1,462,330
Banning FR 183,265 120,018
Corona FR 146,983 152,568
Beaumont FR 89,962 148,099
Palo Verde Valley FR 46,274 37,117
Public Demand Responsive [1]548,845 4%687,065 4%25%
RTA DAR 199,322 322,611
Riverside Special Transportation Services DAR 145,223 161,242
Sunline DAR 83,956 110,462
Corona DAR 58,892 58,153
Beaumont DAR 28,656 18,892
RTA Taxi 18,536 7,479
Banning DAR 9,463 8,226
Palo Verde Valley DAR 4,797 0
Specialized Transportation Program [2]61,859 0.4%257,210 2%316%
ALL TRIPS: Including Rail, Public Transit, Measure A ,
JARC and New Freedom 13,886,266 100%16,119,097 100%16%
Trips per Capita for 2006 Total Population (2,005,477 persons) [3]6.9
Trips per Capita for 2011 Total Population (2,226,552 persons) [3]7.2
Notes:
[1] RCTC Transtrack SRTP Service Summary - FY 05/06 Audited, FY 10/11
[3] State of California, Department of Finance, July 2007, and July 2011
Universal Call Projects
Public Transit and Other Specialized
Transportation Trips Provided
[2] Specialized Transportation trips subsidized by The Volunteer Center are already reported in RTA fixed route trip data.
FY 05-06 FY 10-11
2008 Coordinated Plan 2012 Plan Update
5%
• Oldest adults, ages 85 and older are the fastest growing sub-group, increasing to 1.4% of the
County’s total population, over 30,000 individuals.
Analysis of work area profiles from 2010 Census information reported Riverside County had a total of
564,071 jobs, with the heaviest concentration of these, not surprisingly, in the urbanized areas and along the
County’s major travel corridors. The distribution of jobs by industry shows the largest proportion of these
jobs were in Retail (13.2%), followed by Educational Services (12.4%) and by Health Care and Social
Assistance (12.3%).
Actions Since 2008 Coordinated Plan
The 2008 Plan called out four goals by which to improve the mobility of the three target groups, along with
eighteen objectives and dozens of possible implementing strategies. This Update reports on a wide range to
activities – spearheaded by RCTC and its many partners – and undertaken during these past four years,
responsive to the 2008 Coordinated Plan direction. Among many, two important initiatives include:
• RCTC’s Specialized Transportation Program – Growing by over 300% and now providing 2% of all
public transportation trips, this mix of Federal and local funding provided for 257,000 trips in FY 10-
11 through community shuttles, mileage reimbursement, bus pass and rideshare projects, and
special fixed-route services. Travel training and mobility management projects were also supported.
• IE 511 Program – Initiated on February 1, 2011 this telephone and web-based information capability
provides real-time information for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, with 302,498 unique web
visits and 838,657 total phone calls in its first 15 months of operation.
Exhibit ES-2, Riverside County Comparison of Trips Provided
Across
Modes Over Four Years
This Update documents the
overall volume of public
transportation trips provided in
Riverside County, compared to
four years ago. The countywide
total increased from almost 13.9
million trips to 16.1 million trips,
a 16% increase. This is notable
given that while population
increased, the public transit
funding base declined during
this same period. It is,
therefore, impressive that
during this same period, trips
per capita increased 5%, from
6.9 to 7.2 trips per capita for all
modes across the county.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
v
Current Mobility Needs
This Update involved five community workshops across the county, several stakeholders meetings and an
invitation for comments from RCTC’s Transportation Stakeholders Database, with 661 organizational entries.
Discussions identified needs by sub-areas of the County, by trip-type and within the target populations.
Despite the growing public transit ridership that this 2012 Update documents, there are continuing and some
new unmet transportation needs and service gaps for the target populations. Numerous sub-groups were
identified, some with unique trip needs and including several new groups:
• homeless veterans seeking employment
• newly returning veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres and their families
• agricultural workers traveling from isolated areas to social services and grocery stores
• low-income workers living in outlying rural areas, traveling to retail and hospitality employment
• individuals without cars traveling to regional destinations
• unemployed parents traveling to job interviews but also with day care needs
• students traveling to community college and high schools without funds for fuel
• older adults decreasing driving and exploring new mobility choices
• persons with disabilities living just beyond transit’s ¾ mile ADA boundaries
• families seeking reunification with children placed outside of the home.
Exhibit ES-3, Compiled Unmet Transportation Needs
1. Expanded transit service operating hours and frequencies.
Maintaining and
Building Capacity to
Meet Individualized
Needs
2. Increasing transit’s speed so that trips to regional destinations (work,
medical) are not so long.
3. Addressing unserved geographic pockets, including areas where transit
services were reduced.
4. Improved interconnectivity.
5. Services targeted to specialized needs: non-emergency medical
transportation and other specialized shuttles and services.
6. Improved connections between services: rail and transit; between
jurisdictions.
7. Building capacity of human service providers to address specialized
populations’ trips through non-traditional modes.
1. Maintaining and expanding existing transit information tools.
2. Addressing safety and security concerns, through bus stop amenities,
lighting and paths of access. Promoting
Transportation
Access and
Information Portals
3. Travel training to individuals and agency stakeholders to learn about
and to use available public transit.
4. Expanding information tools supporting specialized populations’
travel, including veterans, older adults decreasing driving and non-
English speaking residents and other targeted sub-groups.
5. Supporting vehicle equipment that ensures lift-equipped vehicle
availability that is safe and reliable.
6. Supporting technology innovations promoting service reliability, safety
and cost-effectiveness.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
vi
Establishing 2012 Coordinated Plan Priorities
This 2012 Coordinated Plan Update process identified a multiplicity of needs, consolidated into the previously
presented, Exhibit E-3 and grouped in two areas: 1) Maintaining and Building Capacity, trip-related
activities, and in 2) Promoting Transportation Access and Information Portals, various infrastructure-related
activities. These two areas point to important priorities for this 2012 Update.
The Coordinated Plan is required by regulation to establish priorities that can guide future funding decisions.
Exhibit ES-4 presents the three recommended priority areas with possible implementing objectives to provide
Riverside County with direction for improving mobility of the three target populations. To the two priority
areas developed through this Update process, a third is added, 3) Coordination Leadership, brought forward
from the 2008 Coordinated Plan process. This third goal, and its three related objectives, provides for
continuing leadership important to moving the other two goals ahead.
Exhibit ES-4, 2012 Coordinated Plan Update
Prioritized Transportation Goals and Objectives
GOAL 1: MAINTAINING AND BUILDING CAPACITY TO MEET INDIVIDUALIZED NEEDS
1.1 Expanded fixed-route services
1.2 Improved interconnectivity
1.3 Purpose-specific regional services
1.4 Expanded capacity of targeted human service transportation
GOAL 2: PROMOTING TRANSPORTATION ACCESS AND INFORMATION PORTALS
2.1 Expanded transit information portals
2.2 Promoting travel training
2.3 Targeted mobility management initiatives
2.4. Capital projects supporting transit accessibility or safety for use by the target populations
2.5 Capital projects for innovative technology to improve reliability or cost-effectiveness of
services to the target populations
GOAL 3: COORDINATION LEADERSHIP
3.1 Continuing to promote coordination between public transit & human services organizations
3.2 Continuing Specialized Transportation Call for Project administration
3.3 Reporting on outcomes and successes for transit funding invested
RCTC anticipates a future Call for Projects for its Specialized Transportation Program, late in 2012, involving
JARC, New Freedom and Measure A funds. This Coordinated Plan Update provides direction to those
interested, willing and able partners who may be applying for funds available under the Call. These priority
areas of Exhibit ES-4 suggest the types of project objectives that will be in line with Riverside County
priorities. Prospective applicant agencies will want to carefully review Chapter V of this Coordinated Plan to
help build projects and grant requests that are more likely to secure the always too-limited funding.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
vii
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III
I. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE UPDATE? 1
Federal Statute and Requirement 1
Riverside County’s 2008 Coordinated Plan 1
Update's Approach
2
II. WHAT POPULATIONS DOES THIS UPDATE CONSIDER? 3
Riverside County Population Changes 3
Riverside County Work Area Profiles 6
III. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS SINCE THE 2008 COORDINATED PLAN? 10
Actions Taken on 2008 Coordinated Plan Goals and Objectives 10
RCTC’s Specialized Transportation Program – Services, Trips
Provided and Lessons Learned
15
Existing Public Transportation Resources 18
IV. WHAT NEEDS ARE REPORTED NOW? 19
Community Outreach Approach 19
What Did We Learn – What Needs Were Reported? 21
V. WHAT PRIORITIES WILL ADDRESS IDENTIFIED TRANSPORTATION GAPS? 28
Themes in Unmet Transportation Needs and Service Gaps 28
Establishing 2012 Coordinated Plan Priorities 30
Implementing 2012 Priorities 33
APPENDICES 35
Appendix A: 2010 Census, Riverside County Work Area Profile Report
Appendix B: RCTC’s Specialized Transportation Program FY 09/10 Trips and
Cost Detail by Project
36
38
Appendix C: Workshop Announcement Invitation and Spanish-Language Flyer 39
Appendix D: Summary of Comments Received by RCTC Via Email 41
Appendix E: Riverside County Transportation Stakeholder Database Agencies,
2011
45
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
viii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit ES-1: Percent Change in Population by California Counties
Exhibit ES-2: Riverside County Comparison of Trips Provided Across Modes
Over Four Years
Exhibit ES-3: Compiled Unmet Transportation Needs
Exhibit ES-4: 2012 Coordinated Plan Update- Prioritized Goals and Objectives
Exhibit 1: Percent Change of Population in California’s Counties 3
Exhibit 2: Target Populations for JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 4
Exhibit 3: Riverside County Target Populations, Proportions of Total Population
and Percent Change 5
Exhibit 4: 2010 Riverside County Jobs by Industry Sector, US Census 7
Exhibit 5A: West Riverside County Employment Estimates Map 8
Exhibit 5B: East Riverside County Employment Estimates Map 9
Exhibit 6: Actions Taken Addressing 2008 Coordinated Transportation Plan 11
Exhibit 7: RCTC Specialized Transportation Program, Trips by Project Type 15
Exhibit 8: 2010 RCTC Subsidy per Trip by Project Type 15
Exhibit 9: Specialized Transportation Program Project Types and Trips Provided 16
Exhibit 10: Public Transit and Other Specialized Transportation Trips Provided 18
Exhibit 11: Compiled Unmet Transit Needs 30
Exhibit 12: Recommended 2012 Coordinated Plan Update Priority Areas 31
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
1
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
I. What is the Purpose of the Update?
This introductory chapter sets forth statutory and local planning purposes that require and shape this
2012 Update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan.
Federal Statute and Requirement
The passage of The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU, Public Law 109-059), signed into law in August 2005, established a new planning
requirement at the local level. Federal authorizing legislation of SAFETEA-LU linked two existing
programs, §5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute and §5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities
capital program, with a third, a new initiative called §5317 New Freedom program, through a
coordination plan. The intent was to identify the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities,
older adults and persons with low incomes. By identifying such needs – and resources in place to
address these – it was anticipated that the two service sectors of public transportation and human
services could coordinate to better meet such needs. Specifically, federal guidance requires the Plan to
identify strategies for meeting local needs, including coordination strategies, and to prioritize
transportation needs and projects for funding through §5310, 5316 or 5317. 1,2,3
Riverside County’s 2008 Coordinated Plan
In 2007, Riverside County Transportation Commission began an extensive coordinated planning process.
Almost a year-long process, it included extensive public outreach and an analysis of resources, needs
and gaps that resulted in identified priorities described in terms of four goals, eighteen objectives and
59 possible implementation actions, strategies or projects. The culminating document was approved
by the Commission in April 2008: the Public-Transit Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan
for Riverside County.4 This plan enabled RCTC to competitively allocate JARC and New Freedom funds
apportioned to the region by conducting specialized transportation Calls for Projects. RCTC directed
1 CIRCULAR. FTA C 9070.1F. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit. Administration. May 1, 2007
ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES PROGRAM GUIDANCE AND APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS.
2 CIRCULAR. FTA C 9050.1. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit. Administration. May 1, 2007. Subject: THE JOB ACCESS AND
REVERSE COMMUTE (JARC) PROGRAM GUIDANCE AND APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS.
3 CIRCULAR. FTA C 9045.1. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit. Administration. May 1, 2007. Subject: NEW FREEDOM PROGRAM
GUIDANCE AND APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS.
4 Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County, April 2008. Prepared by AMMA Transit Planning, Judith
Norman-Transportation Consulting and Transportation Policy and Planning.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
2
significant attention to developing willing and able partners through numerous outreach processes in
order to develop viable grant applications.
The first Universal Call for Specialized Transportation Projects was held in 2009. Western Riverside
County’s allocation included Measure A specialized transportation funds along with its Western
Riverside JARC and New Freedom apportionments while Coachella Valley’s was only for federal funding.
A total of twenty-two projects were awarded through the 2009 Call, seventeen in Western Riverside
County and five in Coachella Valley; these projects concluded their two-year terms on June 30, 2011.
A second Specialized Transportation Call for Projects, announced in November, 2010, awarded twenty
projects for a two-year cycle beginning implementation on July 1, 2011 and running through June 2013.
The 2008 Coordinated Plan has, therefore, been used in support of projects derived from the
Coordinated Plan, now over two competitive cycles, providing guidance and rationale for new
transportation service or improved services oriented towards the three target populations – individuals
with disabilities, older adults and persons of low income.
Update’s Approach
This Update is prepared to augment the 2008 Public Transportation-Human Services Coordination Plan
and serve several purposes:
1) To perform the update per FTA circulars’ requirement that these should be completed every
four years, at a minimum.
2) To reflect the changing and evolving needs within the county with regard to transportation
demand and resources related to the target populations.
3) To document new unmet transportation needs while validating those identified previously.
4) To continue supporting and improving RCTC's specialized transportation program, including:
Review of the Call for Projects selection criteria, priorities and program evaluation;
Examination of the administrative challenges faced by both RCTC and human service
transportation providers associated with the specialized transportation program.
This Update does not replace the 2008 Coordinated Plan as much of that still stands, remaining as a
resource document for coordination of public transit and human service transportation in Riverside
County. The Update documents current unmet transit needs on behalf of the three target populations,
older persons, persons with disabilities and persons of low-income. The Update identifies priorities that
reflect 2012 funding and service realities, providing future guidance for use of scarce resources.
To develop this 2012 Coordinated Plan Update, RCTC staff and the consultant team undertook various
activities: updating demographic information to include 2010 Census information; conducting five public
workshops and community meetings around the County; and conducting outreach through Riverside
County’s Transportation Network Database via email to almost 300 agency contacts and physical
mailings to 660 agency representatives. The resultant recommended priorities set forth in Section V of
this document were developed from an analysis of information received from these multiple sources.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
3
II. What Populations Does this Update
Consider?
Changes in the county’s demographics over the past ten years and images of current employment
density are presented here, to frame an understanding of mobility needs of three target groups.
Riverside County Population Changes
Population assessments provide a basis for estimating the demand for transportation services.
Measuring population growth for a given target group provides insight into which modes of
transportation may require future enhancement. To assess population growth in Riverside County,
estimates from the 2010 American Community Survey five-year estimates (ACS) are contrasted with
counts from the 2000 U.S. Census.
Exhibit 1
Percent Change of Population in California's Counties 5
Current estimates place the county's total
population at nearly 2.2 million residents,
representing an increase of almost 40 percent
over the past decade. This makes Riverside
County, along with Placer County, one of the
two fastest growing California counties by
percent of increase, as reported by the U.S.
Census.
Changes in population between these two
reporting periods are shown in Exhibit 2
following. At the time of this writing the
recently collected 2010 Census demographics
have not been fully tabulated and results are
not available for many population subgroups.
In Exhibit 2 following, Riverside County’s
population is analyzed for change among
subgroups, considered for the adult
population ages 18-64 and for the senior
population ages 65 and over. These two groups are then detailed in relation to two of the target
populations of SAFETEA-LU: low-income persons and persons with disabilities.
5 Census 2010: California Counties by Growth, By Kevin Roderick, LA Observed,| March 8, 2011
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2011/03/census_2010_california_co.php
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
4
Low-income is defined as being at or below the national threshold for poverty based on income and the
number of individuals in a household. Population estimates for persons with disabilities are available
from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) but cannot be directly compared to Census 2000
disability figures due to changes in the way these characteristics are enumerated. This newer approach
relates to individual physical limitations rather than the 2000 classifications of disability that were more
generalized. Specifically, the 2008 Public Transit-Human Services Coordination Plan utilized the 2000
census attribute "go-outside-home" disability characteristic which was not continued with the 2010
Census or the 2007-2010 ACS enumerations.
Exhibit 2
2000 Census Attribute, Summary File 3
2010 American Community Survey 3-year Estimates
[2000 Census]
Riverside
County
People by
Category
% of Total
County
Population
[2010 ACS]
Riverside
County
People by
Category
% of Total
County
Population
% Change
from 2000
to 2010
TOTAL POPULATION [1]1,545,387 100%2,153,256 100%39.3%
ADULTS 18-64 [2]883,475 57.2%1,283,467 59.6%45.3%
Low-income (ages 18-64) [3]112,564 7.3%164,382 7.6%46.0%
with % of Adults 18-64 12.7%12.8%
Disability (non-institutionalized) Ages 16-64 "go-outside-home" disability (2000)
[4]72,519 4.7%
with % of Adults 18-64 8.2%
Disability (non-institutionalized) Ages 18-64 (2010) [4]110,011 5.1%
with a hearing difficulty 21,469 1.0%
with a vision difficulty 19,734 0.9%
with a cognitive difficulty 41,896 1.9%
with an ambulatory difficulty 54,757 2.5%
with a self-care difficulty 22,551 1.0%
with an independent living difficulty 39,330 1.8%
SENIORS [2]194,833 12.6%252,587 11.7%29.6%
Seniors, ages 65-74 103,117 136,549
with % of all seniors 52.9%54.1%
Seniors, ages 75-84 71,192 85,867
with % of all seniors 36.5%34.0%
Seniors, ages 85+20,524 30,171
with % of all seniors 10.5%11.9%
Low Income Seniors [3]14,437 0.9%19,821 0.9%37.3%
with % of all seniors 7.4%7.8%
Disability (non-institutionalized) Ages 65+ "go-outside-home" disability (2000) [4]35,593 2.3%
with % of all seniors 18.3%
Disability (non-institutionalized) Ages 65+ (2010) [4]91,532 4.3%
with a hearing difficulty 38,235 1.8%
with a vision difficulty 17,877 0.8%
with a cognitive difficulty 23,044 1.1%
with an ambulatory difficulty 59,302 2.8%
with a self-care difficulty 21,740 1.0%
with an independent living difficulty 40,124 1.9%
[1] Census 2000 Summary File 3, P001 Total Population, 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-year Estimates
TARGET POPULATIONS for JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 Programs
[2] Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, P008 Sex by Age / B01001 Sex by Age, 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-year Estimates
[3] Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, P087 Poverty Status in 1999 by age / B17001 Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Sex by Age 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-year
Estimates
[4] Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, P047 Age by types of disability for the civilian non-institutionalized population 5 years & over with disabilities / S1810 Disability Characteristics - 2008-
2010 American Community Survey 3-year Estimates
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
5
Exhibit 3
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
Total Population Adults w/Disabilities*Adults Low-Income Older Adults 65+
*Methods for collecting and reporting disability characteristics changed between 2000 Census and 2010 ACS.
Riverside County Target Populations
Proportions of Total Population and Percent Change
2000 Census
2010 ACS Estimates
2,153,256 persons
39%
5.1% of Total Pop
52% 7.6% of Total Pop
46%
11.7% of Total Pop
30%
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
6
As previously presented in Exhibit 2 and depicted in Exhibit 3, the overall County population growth of a
39 percent increase is a very significant rate of increase. This represents the addition of almost a half-
million more individuals to Riverside County over ten years.
Findings among the subgroups include:
• The adult population ages 18-64 increased by more than 45 percent, adding 400,000
individuals. This age group encompasses 1.3 million persons and represents almost 60 percent
of the County's total population.
• Low-income adults are the fastest growing group in Riverside County, increasing by 46 percent
since the 2000 Census, to add almost 52,000 individuals and representing 7.6 percent of the
County’s total population.
• Adults with disabilities, below age 65 total 8.5 percent of the adult population or 110,000
persons and 5.1 percent of the County's total population.
• The older adult population ages 65 or older has increased by 30 percent, adding 58,000
persons. These 253,000 persons represent 11.7 percent of the County’s total population.
Older adults are further examined by age group, detailed in Exhibit 2 previously, given that frailty
increases with age and assuming that the oldest seniors will present greater need for more specialized
transportation options than younger seniors. For Riverside County’s older adults, this analysis indicates:
• Youngest seniors, ages 65 to 74 are the largest senior group representing 54 percent of all
seniors.
• Oldest seniors, ages 85 and older, were the fastest growing sub-group among seniors,
increasing at a rate of almost 50 percent.
• The 2010 ACS estimates indicate that seniors reporting some form of disability represent
almost one-third of all seniors. As a group these seniors represent more than four percent of
the Riverside County's total population. The disabilities most frequently reported among older
persons with disabilities are difficulty walking and living independently.
Riverside County Work Area Profiles
In 2010 there were an estimated total of 564,071 jobs in Riverside County according to the State of
California unemployment insurance wage records. This information was recently compiled by the U.S.
Census Bureau and published in their “OnTheMap” online mapping and reporting application. The
distribution of these jobs is shown on maps at the end of this section. Not surprisingly, these depict the
heavy concentration of employment in the urbanized areas of Riverside County and along its major
thoroughfares.
Riverside County’s working population is comprised of slightly more female workers than male workers.
Hispanics and Latinos account for 39 percent of the labor force. The majority (56%) of all jobs were held
by individuals between the ages of 30 and 54 years with an additional 27 percent held by people under
the age of 30, and 17 percent by people 55 years of age and older. Additionally, 33 percent workers
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
7
earned over $3,333/month, 39 percent earned between $1,251/month and $3,333/month and 28
percent earned less than $1,251/month. The distribution of jobs by industry sector, from which income
data is derived, is shown below in Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 4
2010 Riverside County Jobs by Industry Sector, U.S. Census
Count Share
Retail Trade 74,519 13.2%
Educational Services 69,885 12.4%
Health Care and Social Assistance 69,428 12.3%
Accommodation and Food Services 65,422 11.6%
Manufacturing 37,378 6.6%
Construction 35,135 6.2%
Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 32,081 5.7%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 27,174 4.8%
Public Administration 22,903 4.1%
Wholesale Trade 21,066 3.7%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 20,871 3.7%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 20,068 3.6%
Transportation and Warehousing 17,918 3.2%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 14,693 2.6%
Finance and Insurance 11,589 2.1%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 8,410 1.5%
Information 6,933 1.2%
Utilities 4,703 0.8%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 3,355 0.6%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 540 0.1%
This analysis, summarized in Exhibit 4, indicates that the largest concentration of jobs were in retail
trade which accounted for 13 percent of all workers. This was followed by educational services, health
care and social assistance and accommodation and food services, each of which represented about 12
percent of the labor force.
Exhibits 5A-Western Riverside County and 5B-East Riverside County presented on the following pages
map the density of jobs available in Riverside County's Eastern and Western regions, working from the
industry sector information shown in Exhibit 4. In Western Riverside County, employment was
concentrated along Interstate 15 through Temecula, State Route 91 through Riverside and Corona and
State Route 60 through Moreno Valley. Most jobs in East Riverside County were found along State Route
111 through the desert communities from Palm Springs to Coachella. These depictions affirm and
support the public transit’s primary corridors of service.
A summary of the data from which this information is derived is provided as Appendix A.
BLANK
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
8
Exhibit 5A
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
9
Exhibit 5B
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
10
III. Implementation Actions Since the 2008
Coordinated Plan?
This chapter reiterates the 2008 priority responses to needs identified through the Coordinated Plan
efforts and reports on relevant actions taken during the intervening four years.
Actions Taken on 2008 Coordinated Plan Goals and Objectives
The 2008 Coordinated Plan set forth four goal areas by which to organize responses to identified unmet
transportation needs in Riverside County. These were:
Goal 1: Coordination Leadership
Goal 2: Capacity Building
Goal 3: Information Portals
Goal 4: Coordination Policy
The eighteen objectives associated with these goals, as proposed in the 2008 Coordinated Plan, and the
59 accompanying strategies, actions and possible projects were all suggestions. These offered guidance
both to RCTC and to its many stakeholders as to how to improve the mobility of the three target groups.
Clearly, the intent of the Human Services-Public Transportation coordinated planning process is to share
the responsibility of addressing the mobility needs of older adults, persons with disabilities and
individuals of low-income.
Exhibit 6 following presents a four-page matrix that revisits the 2008 Coordinated Plan goals and
objectives, reiterating these and summarizing related actions taken during the ensuing four years.
While these activities are many and varied, there is always more that remains to be done. That helps to
focus the priorities for this 2012 Coordinated Plan Update.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
11
Exhibit 6, Actions Taken Addressing 2008 Riverside County Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan
2008 RIVERSIDE COUNTY COORDINATED
PLAN GOALS
ACTIONS TAKEN
SINCE 2008 COORDINATED PLAN
GOAL 1.0: COORDINATION LEADERSHIP
1.1 Establish a Regional Mobility Manager
capability to provide leadership on coordination
around specialized transportation needs in
Riverside County.
RCTC has become the regional mobility manager with its administration of RCTC’s
Specialized Transportation Program and annual funds of approximately $2.5 million in
County Measure A and approximately $1.2 million in Federal JARC and New Freedom
programs.
Now into the second cycle of projects, the program currently involves 21 individual projects in
Western Riverside and Coachella Valley providing a mix of services:
- dial-a-ride and shuttle services for targeted populations
- bus pass distribution to low-income individuals
- rideshare program
- travel training activities
- mileage reimbursement program
- inter-city, fixed-route commuter service
Projects are run by a mix of public and non-profit organizations and serve a breadth of
populations, including: low-income adults, youth and children; frail elderly persons; persons
with disabilities; and able-bodied older persons.
1.2 Establish the Regional Mobility Manager’s role
in developing, “growing” and strengthening
projects responsive to coordination goals and
objectives.
1.3 Promote sub-regional mobility managers in
Western Riverside, Coachella Valley and Palo
Verde Valley through the Call for Projects and
through outreach by Regional Mobility Manager.
1.4 Promote human services agency-level
mobility managers through the Call for Projects
and through outreach by Regional Mobility
Manager.
Palo Verde Valley Transportation Authority has a three-year mobility manager project in
Blythe, successfully expanding local and regional connections for area residents by
encouraging and promoting various mobility strategies.
Several Western Riverside mobility manager initiatives were undertaken in the first
Specialized Transportation Program, but, in light of the economic circumstances that caused
a reduction in funding, the program directed more resources to trip-making in the second
grant cycle.
1.5 Develop visibility around specialized
transportation issues and needs, encouraging
high level political and agency leadership.
RCTC convenes its Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), at least once per year as required
by law, and regularly participates in several regional groups focused on target group issues.
This includes making presentations to promote public transit issues, as with the Inland
Empire Disabilities Collaborative (IEDC) annual conference, and continuing representation at
county wide committees, including IEDC and ADRC SAG (Aging and Disability Resource
Connection Stakeholder Advisory Group), ad-hoc presentations at various collaborative
groups and the new IE Vet Trans One-Call/ One-Click initiative. RCTC also conducts at least
one unmet transportation needs hearing per year, as required by law.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
12
Exhibit 6, page two continued
GOAL 2.0: CAPACITY BUILDING ACTIONS TAKEN SINCE 2008 COORDINATED PLAN
2.1 Promote the QUANTITY of public transit,
paratransit and specialized transportation provided
in each of the three apportionment areas.
RCTC’s Specialized Transportation Program provided over 465,000 specialized
transportation trips in FY 2010/11. These trips are additional to existing demand response,
fixed route and rail trips provided to Riverside residents, estimated in FY 2010/11 at 16
million trips.
2.2 Promote the QUALITY of public transit,
paratransit and specialized transportation through
strategies to improve services with attention to
meeting individualized needs.
RCTC’s Specialized Transportation Program quality-related initiatives included requiring that
extensive internal procedures are in place for its non-profit, sub-recipient providers to ensure
compliance with Federal audit processes. These include oversight of safety and security
oversight around driver training, driver drug-free workplace with drug and alcohol testing and
vehicle maintenance, risk management and emergency preparedness and help to ensure
that riders have a safe and reasonably reliable trip.
RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program ensures projects are directed to a wide range of
individualized transportation needs of the target populations.
2.3 Develop strategies for improving transportation
solutions between county subareas and between
counties.
RCTC continues its attention to promoting connections through:
• Requiring the annual SRTP process where new services can be considered
• Brokering planning discussions with RTA and SunLine about transportation
between the Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County.
• Within the Specialized Transportation Call for Projects process, awarding evaluation
points for inter-jurisdictional projects or projects that seek out ways to partner or
leverage existing public transit resources.
2.4 Support transportation services provided by
human services agencies.
RCTC’s Specialized Transportation Program now involves:
1. RCTC staff support to human services organizations in developing grant requests
for capital 5310 program and state-wide rural/ small urban JARC and New Freedom
(NF) grant applications.
2. RCTC annually conducts its Transportation Network update process, to ensure
current contact information with human service agencies and personnel concerned
about transportation matters.
3. RCTC undertakes a monthly invoice concurrence process that represents regular
and consistent RCTC technical assistance to human service agencies around their
fiduciary responsibilities and on-going program fiscal management.
4. RTA’s field visits to first cycle sub-recipients helped to ensure conformance with
Federal JARC and NF requirements.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
13
Exhibit 6, page three continued
GOAL 3.0: INFORMATION PORTALS ACTIONS TAKEN SINCE 2008 COORDINATED PLAN
3.1 Integrate and promote existing information
strategies, including 211/ 511, web-based tools and
paper products to get transit and specialized
transportation information to consumers.
RCTC initiated its IE-511, in collaboration with SANBAG [San Bernardino Associated
Governments] on April 7, 2010. Since that time, there have been 302,498 unique web visits
and 838,657 total phone calls to the IE 511 system. This telephone and web-based
information capability provides real-time information for Riverside and San Bernardino
transportation network, including freeways and public transit.
RCTC, including RTA, is a partner in the new IE Veterans Transportation One-Call/ One-Click
initiative, led by San Bernardino County’s 2-1-1 United Way and anticipating involvement of
the Riverside County 2-1-1. This initiative will help provide improved transportation
information in formats more readily accessible to Inland Empire veterans, their families and
survivors.
The IE-511 project is regularly reported on to the RCTC Board of Directors and the new IE
Veterans Transportation One-Call/ One-Click project is developing its reporting protocols.
RCTC continues to use its Transportation Network of Specialized Transportation
Stakeholders and Human Services Agencies, updated annually, to communicate critical
information to contacts interested in a range of transportation matters.
3.2 Develop information portal tools for wide
distribution of information.
3.3 Promote information opportunities for human
services staff and direct service workers and expand
travel training options for consumers.
3.4 Report on project successes and impacts at direct
service levels, at sub-regional levels and at county
wide levels; pursue opportunities to promote project
successes at state and federal levels.
GOAL 2.0: CAPACITY BUILDING, CONTINUED ACTIONS TAKEN SINCE 2008 COORDINATED PLAN
2.5 Promote capital improvements to support safe,
comfortable, efficient rides for the target
populations.
RCTC staff provides continuing support around the capital FTA 5310 statewide competitive
procurement process to all applicants.
2.6 Measure the quantities of trips provided in
Riverside County, through new and existing
procedures.
RCTC prepared its first “lessons learned” at the end of the first cycle “RCTC Specialized
Transportation Program-Year End Report, FY 2010.” This reported almost 380,000 trips
funded under this program. The regular monthly invoicing concurrence process supported by
RCTC has helped to ensure that human service agencies are appropriately counting and
reporting trips.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
14
Exhibit 6, page four continued
GOAL 4.0: COORDINATION POLICY ACTIONS TAKEN SINCE 2008 COORDINATED PLAN
4.1 Work to establish non-emergency medical
transportation (NEMT) policies and more cost-
effectively meet medically-related trip needs.
Selected Specialized Transportation projects are addressing NEMT needs, including the
Riverside County Medical Center program, Hemet’s HOPE Bus/ Care-A-Van, Care Connexxus,
and the nationally-known TRIP mileage reimbursement program. The Blythe mobility
management activities continue to address regional NEMT needs.
4.2 Establish a Universal Call for Projects process
sufficiently flexible for applicants to construct and
implement projects responsive to identified needs in
a broad range of ways.
RCTC has committed considerable resources to its competitive offering termed the “Universal
Call”, completing two two-year cycles with a third cycle now in the planning stage. Early efforts
were administratively-intensive with the shift from an advance-payment to a reimbursement-
based program and establishment of multi-party agreements with the direct recipient public
transit operators and the sub-recipient grantees.
In both cycles, the program has been substantially oversubscribed. The first cycle administered
a $7.8 million JARC, New Freedom and Measure A annual program. The second cycle had
less Measure A funding available and the total program cost is $6.8. The second cycle of the
Specialized Transportation Program focused on trips over most other initiatives, to help fill
growing gaps caused by the expanding population.
This program leverages other non-transportation funded resources and dollars. Its FY 2010
“lessons learned” report documented $2.2 million in match from other such sources that
included: city general funds, community development block grants, The California Foundation,
Riverside County Dept. of Mental Health funds, Older American Act funds, State Adult
Education funds, Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds and California Local
Transportation Funds (LTF).
4.3 Establish processes by which implemented
projects are evaluated with successes and failures
reported.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
15
RCTC’s Specialized Transportation Program Call for Projects –
Services, Trips Provided and Lessons Learned
Exhibit 7
Projects funded in the first
cycle of RCTC’s Specialized
Transportation Program were
in the categories presented in
Exhibit 7. More than one-third
were on shuttle-based
services, a quarter by mileage
reimbursement and additional
trips provided by bus pass,
taxi, ride share or fixed route.
Exhibit 8 6 shows the comparative cost-effectiveness of these projects, by type and in terms of their
subsidy per trip.
Exhibit 8
$38.41
$24.88
$6.96
$71.47
$57.49
$35.50
$35.38
$27.45
$23.20
$17.69
$15.02
$13.13
$3.97
$1.69
$25.60
$25.23
$2.68
$0.43
$10.21
$6.34
$2.25
$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90
SunLine Extended Services
RTA Commuter Link
RTA Extended Services
Operation Safehouse
City of Norco - Senior Shuttle
Inland AIDS Project
Riverside County Regional Medical Center
Jefferson Transitional - JTP Shuttle
Wildomar Senior Community
Care-A-Van / HOPE Bus
Care Connexxus
Friends of Moreno Valley- MoVan
Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County
CVAG Roy's Desert Resource Center
Beaumont Adult School - Bus pass trips
Desert Samaritans - Taxi trips
Volunteer Center/ TAP - Bus pass trips
RCTC's Commuter Benefits/Coachella rideshare trips
Court Appointed Special Advocates [CASA]
ILP's TRIP Volunteer Escort-Driver / Western Riv
ILP's TRIP Volunteer Escort-Driver / SunLine
FY 2010 RCTC Subsidy Per Trip By Project Type
Measure A, JARC or New Freedom Funding as Subsidy
$10.42 Weighted Average Paratransit Subsidy Per Trip
$2.07 Weighted Average
Bus Pass/Van Pool/ Taxi Subsidy Per Trip
$5.64 Weighted Average
Mileage Reimbursement Subsidy Per
$16.19 Weighted Average
Fixed Route Subsidy Per Trip
6 Cost per subsidy for SunLine Extended Late Night Service only represents 10 months of service, with a subsidy calculated as a monthly average
based on the total project subsidy over a 19 month period covering two fiscal years.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
16
Exhibit 8 does report a significant range in per trip subsidy costs, even within similar project types.
Nonetheless, the weighted averages reflect very cost-effective per trip subsidies of $5.64 per mileage
reimbursement trip; $2.07 per bus pass or rideshare trip; $10.42 per community shuttle trip; and $16.19
per fixed-route trip. These weighted averages reflect the volume of trips provided at the varying per-
project costs. Appendix B presents the data from which these averages and weighted averages were
derived.
Exhibit 9, following, presents the three-year history of trips by project, providing 365,455 trips in the
Specialized Transportation Program’s first year, growing to 474,560 in its second year and with a slight
decrease projected for its third calendar year, 461,990. The decrease in the number of trips projected
for this most recent year reflect the fact that two projects by SunLine and three human service agency
projects chose not to seek funding in this most recent cycle.
Exhibit 9
Fixed Route Services % of All
Trips % of All Trips % of All Trips
RTA Extended Services 33,520 85,547 93,588
RTA Commuter Link 27,546 42,968 54,440
SunLine Extended Services 3,146 10,663 0
64,212 18%139,178 29%148,028 32%
Paratransit/ Community Shuttle Services
Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County 68,862 57,498 57,012
Care-A-Van / HOPE Bus 18,207 21,551 19,258
Care Connexxus 16,222 15,317 15,788
City of Norco - Senior Shuttle 1,302 1,405 1,500
CVAG Roy's Desert Resource Center 13,505 23,922 29,694
Friends of Moreno Valley- MoVan 4,455 5,279 5,752
Jefferson Transitional - JTP Shuttle 1,018 0 0
Inland AIDS Project 1,970 2,434 2,404
Operation Safehouse 257 235 514
Riverside County Regional Medical Center 7,868 8,469 9,782
Wildomar Senior Community 268 491 330
133,934 37%136,601 29%142,034 31%
Mileage Reimbursement
Court Appointed Special Advocates [CASA]4,368 8,092 9,096
ILP's TRIP Volunteer Escort-Driver / Western Riv 65,443 69,242 80,000
ILP's TRIP Volunteer Escort-Driver / SunLine 19,326 19,482 0
89,137 24%96,816 20%89,096 19%
Bus Passes/ Taxi Vouchers/ Van Pools
Beaumont Adult School - Bus pass trips 705 960 0
Desert Samaritans - Taxi trips 606 1,104 0
RCTC's Commuter Benefits/Coachella van pool trips 27,517 21,490 17,856
Volunteer Center/ TAP - Bus pass trips [1]49,344 78,411 64,976
78,172 21%101,965 21%82,832 18%
TOTAL TRIP-MAKING OPERATIONS 365,455 474,560 461,990
Mobility Management & Training Projects
Care Connexxus - Driver Sensitivity Training New curriculum / 56 drivers New curriculum / 56 drivers 55 Drivers
Blindness Support Services - Travel Training 57 consumers trained 138 Contacts per Period 139 Contacts per Period
Blindness Support Services - Mobility Management 32 agencies 30 Contacts per Period 60 Contacts per Period
RTA - Travel Training 169 consumers trained
Notes:
[1] Volunteer bus pass trips are for RTA fixed-Route service
FY 10/11 Project
Reported Total Trips
FY 11/12 Projected
Total Trips
One-way trips
One-way trips
One-way trips
FY 09/10 Project
Reported Total Trips
Specialized Transportation Program Project
Types and Trips Provided
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
17
Call for Projects’ Administrative Requirements
RCTC formally reported to its Board of Directors on its Specialized Transportation program following its
first year. The Specialized Transportation Program Year-End Report, FY 2010 (Rev Feb. 2011) included
discussion of the extensive administrative responsibilities of all players: the grantees, SunLine and RTA
as the designated recipients through whom the FTA funding flowed, and RCTC staff. For many of the
grantees, this was the first time they had received Federal Transit Administration funding. FTA
requirements, coupled with RCTC’s reporting expectations, were significant.
Administrative support included the monthly invoice concurrence process RCTC established, to assist
grantees in providing payment claims that could be easily paid by the direct recipients: SunLine and RTA.
This concurrence process has continued beyond that first year, in part to assure the direct recipients of a
reasonable budget oversight, but also to provide the grantee agencies with a monthly technical
assistance opportunity relating to budget and other issues that arise from time-to-time.
Additionally, with RCTC assistance, RTA and SunLine performed field audits of the grantees receiving
Federal funding. These field audits examined numerous items, including regular and preventative
maintenance schedules, drug and alcohol testing procedures, Title VI and disadvantaged business
enterprise procedures – all among the regulatory assurances required by FTA.
Call for Projects’ Recommendations Made at the End of First Year
Six recommendations were offered, drawn from the first year experience of what has also been termed
the Universal Call bringing together local Measure A funding dedicated to specialized transportation
with the two federal funding sources, JARC and New Freedom programs. The recommendations were:
1. Primary focus of the second-cycle call should be on provision of trips.
2. Capacity building of grantees, particularly related to agency training, recommended to help
grow RCTC’s investment in human services transportation.
3. Awarded projects should be required to demonstrate ability both to provide service but also to
administer their project consistent with Federal regulations and RCTC requirements.
4. Mobility management projects were shown, in that reporting period, to have mixed results and
more limited, definable success. These were recommended for lowest-level priority during a
period of significant, continuing population growth.
5. Local match requirements have been extremely difficult for human service agencies to attain
and a continued emphasis on in-kind versus “cash” match is appropriate.
6. Modest support of vehicle capital projects may be appropriate but should be steered towards
JARC projects, encouraging services oriented to persons with disabilities or older persons to go
after Section 5310 capital funding through Caltrans’ statewide competitive offering.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
18
Existing Public Transportation Resources
This 2012 Update is considering primarily public transit resources, as well as those provided through
RCTC’s Specialized Transportation Program, discussed previously. Notably, reflecting the general
economic downturn of recent years, the public transit entities each saw significant revenue declines
during the past several years. Services were cut and operating hours reduced.
Exhibit 10 shows that ridership on public transportation in Riverside County nonetheless increased, from
13.9 million trips in FY 05/06 to 16 million trips in FY 10/11. Due partly to the growing population and in
part a consequence of increasing fuel prices, more trips are being taken and more individuals are finding
their way to the County’s public transportation network. The indicator of trips per capita also saw an
increase in this four year period from 6.9 to 7.4 trips per capita, a notable increase over four years.
Exhibit 10
% Increase
Service by Mode Trips %of Total
Trips Trips %of Total Trips
Rail [1]2,700,117 19%2,909,872 18%8%
RCTC Commuter Rail - Riverside 1,101,646 1,304,219
RCTC Commuter Rail - Inland Empire Orange County 1,066,541 1,025,883
RCTC Commuter Rail - 91 531,930 579,770
Public Bus, Fixed Route [1]10,575,445 76%12,264,950 76%16%
RTA FR 5,718,234 6,299,800
SunLine FR 3,474,361 4,045,018
RTA Contract FR 916,366 1,462,330
Banning FR 183,265 120,018
Corona FR 146,983 152,568
Beaumont FR 89,962 148,099
Palo Verde Valley FR 46,274 37,117
Public Demand Responsive [1]548,845 4%687,065 4%25%
RTA DAR 199,322 322,611
Riverside Special Transportation Services DAR 145,223 161,242
Sunline DAR 83,956 110,462
Corona DAR 58,892 58,153
Beaumont DAR 28,656 18,892
RTA Taxi 18,536 7,479
Banning DAR 9,463 8,226
Palo Verde Valley DAR 4,797 0
Specialized Transportation Program [2]61,859 0.4%257,210 2%316%
ALL TRIPS: Including Rail, Public Transit, Measure A ,
JARC and New Freedom 13,886,266 100%16,119,097 100%16%
Trips per Capita for 2006 Total Population (2,005,477 persons) [3]6.9
Trips per Capita for 2011 Total Population (2,226,552 persons) [3]7.2
Notes:
[1] RCTC Transtrack SRTP Service Summary - FY 05/06 Audited, FY 10/11
[3] State of California, Department of Finance, July 2007, and July 2011
Universal Call Projects
Public Transit and Other Specialized
Transportation Trips Provided
[2] Specialized Transportation trips subsidized by The Volunteer Center are already reported in RTA fixed route trip data.
FY 05-06 FY 10-11
2008 Coordinated Plan 2012 Plan Update
5%
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
19
IV. What Needs Are Reported Now?
This chapter reports on processes to validate previously identified needs and to surface new needs,
resources, project ideas, and opportunities. The first section of this chapter identified the outreach
methods. The second section summarizes needs made known through five workshops across the county,
selected stakeholder meetings and email comments received from a range of stakeholders.
Community Outreach Approach
Key to this 2012 Coordinated Plan Update was an
extensive outreach process, utilizing various strategies to
engage stakeholders. Community outreach activities
included:
• Five public workshop across the county
• Stakeholders meetings
• Email invitation for comments
Public Workshops across the County
Five workshops were held in various areas of Riverside
County: initially four in January, with a final evening
workshop held in April. Workshop locations included:
Blythe for the Palo Verde Valley;
Palm Desert for the Coachella Valley;
The City of Riverside for Western Riverside;
Wildomar for Southwestern Riverside County;
North Shore of the Salton Sea where an evening workshop was scheduled for a community
unable to attend the day-time Palm Desert workshop. Participants included representatives of
the Inland Congregations United for Change and California Rural Legal Assistance. This
workshop focused on informing the community and its leaders about planning activities, hearing
about mobility needs of residents and exploring transit solutions for this community’s many low-
income agricultural workers and their families.
In general, these workshops provided forums for informing both members of the public and agencies
on:
1) Reviewing funding realities of public transportation in Riverside County;
2) Identifying initiatives and service enhancements launched since the 2008 Coordinated Plan;
3) Identifying new funding grant opportunities connected with the Coordinated Plan at county,
state and federal levels;
4) Inviting input about service needs and service gaps in existing transit programs;
5) Reinforcing education/awareness about transportation services currently in-place.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
20
Importantly, participants at the workshops offered comments on transportation needs and engaged in
conversation with RCTC and with transit agency staff. Workshops concluded with brief project
development conversations, brainstorming with participants about what alternatives might work in their
communities. Appendix C includes the Workshop letter of invitation and the Spanish-Language flyer.
A total of 120 individuals participated in these public workshops.
The workshops were promoted through attractive flyers and half-sheet seat drop flyers, in both English
and Spanish. Flyers were posted in buses by Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency across
many of the County’s transit routes. They were also distributed via email to organizations in the
Riverside County Transportation Stakeholders Database which includes non-profits, human and social
services, private transportation companies, public agencies, and specialized transportation providers as
previously described in Section I. Agency recipients were invited to post the workshop flyers at their
facilities and to forward the email to colleagues. A physical mailing, including an invitational letter and
copies of the workshop announcement, was sent to 177 Coachella Valley and Blythe stakeholders and
484 Western and Southwestern Riverside County agencies and organizations, a total of 661 entities.
Additionally, the Inland Empire Disability Collaborative (IEDC) distributed an early notice of the public
workshop schedule to its several hundred agency members.
Email Invitation for Comments
An easy-to-remember hotmail account was established to invite participation from individuals who
couldn't attend one of the public workshops. The email address, PlanUpdate@hotmail.com, was
advertised on workshop flyers and at each of the workshops through a take-away flyer and a verbal
announcement. Twenty-five comments received were incorporated into the discussion of needs, goals
and objectives along with comments from the public workshops, summarized in Appendix D.
Additional Stakeholder Meetings
As part of the update process, team members attended meetings of several existing groups for
discussion opportunities about unmet transportation needs in February and March. Although the
format of these meetings varied, where possible the study team provided a brief introduction about the
Coordination Plan and Update process, also educating stakeholder participants about RCTC's functions
and transportation planning responsibilities. The following groups offered comment on transportation
needs and mobility issues of their clients:
• Inland Empire Veterans Collaborative on Homelessness
• Riverside County DPSS, Children Services, System Improvement Plan Subcommittee
• The Galilee Center and F.I.N.D. Food Bank in Eastern Coachella Valley
• Riverside County Office on Aging's Aging and Disability Resource Center, Stakeholder Advisory Group
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
21
What Did We Learn – What Needs Were Reported?
Summarized needs reported at the Community Workshops, through emails and at additional stakeholder
meetings follow. Need-related findings are organized by five sub-areas of the County, then by trip type
and target population within sub-area.
Palo Verde Valley - Blythe
1. NEEDS BY TRIP TYPE
• Need increased morning service and expanded evening hours to Chuckwalla and Ironwood
State Prisons for employees. PVVTA currently offers 4 morning and 4 evening runs; however,
the 7:20 am run is at capacity, so many potential riders cannot take the bus. Also, the last bus
leaves at the Prisons at 4:30 pm, but there are employees who end work at 10:00 pm who
would potentially ride the bus if available.
• Need expanded evening hours serving Palo Verde College and Mesa Verde. DPSS clients take
classes that may end at 8:45 am or 9:45 pm and need transportation home.
• Need expanded evening hours from DPSS offices (near Blythe Transit Center) to remote areas
of Ripley, Mesa Verde, and Palo Verde. DPSS has trainings that run weekdays until 4 pm and
clients need transportation home.
• Evening hours needed in Ripley and Mesa Verde.
• Transportation for medical appointments in Imperial Valley, Coachella Valley. Destinations
include Eisenhower in Palm Desert, JFK in Indio, and Desert Regional in Palm Springs.
• Need transportation for employees to Chiraco Summit and Desert Center, east of Blythe.
• Need increased frequency within Blythe. The wait can be 2 hours.
2. NEEDS BY TARGET POPULATION
OLDER ADULTS / PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES:
• Residents of Blythe Nursing Care Center often need non-emergency transportation from local
Palo Verde Hospital to the Care Center.
• Residents of Blythe Nursing Care Center often need non-emergency transportation from
Coachella Valley to Care Center.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
22
Western Riverside County
1. NEEDS BY TRIP TYPE
• Lack of evening transportation. There are 2-1-1 callers needing to get to a shelter for the
evening, but there is often no service past 7 pm. Additionally, social service agencies may host
parenting classes and counseling at churches and community center. These locations are often
not served by public transit in the evening (or routes differ during evening hours) and clients
have no transportation home.
• Lack of accessibility due to information public transportation. Riders report lack of information
regarding trip planning, especially for individuals without internet access. Also due to a lack of
information, riders report hesitation related to not knowing where and how to start and
concerns about getting lost, particularly at night.
• Route from Moreno Valley Mall to Box Springs and Eucalyptus in the City of Riverside to
provide access to employment and access to Platt College for students.
• Expanded evening hours serving Fox Theatre in Downtown Riverside so residents can attend
evening events.
• Need increased frequency on RTA Route 1.
• More service is needed along River Road in Corona.
2. NEEDS BY TARGET POPULATION
LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS
• Fares are too high for homeless clients trying to get into the workforce and for families traveling
with children. Individuals who are trying to find work as a way out of homelessness need
transportation for work and work activities.
• A free bus pass does not fix everything—is not a complete solution. Riders still have to walk to
the stop or transit center and may have to transfer to arrive at their destination. Carpools and
rideshares are an efficient way to get many people to the same location.
• Need additional transportation in evening hours to accommodate non-traditional work hours.
• Corona Cruiser and RTA should honor each other’s’ bus passes for round trip service, not just 1
way. DPSS customers who live in Corona end up needing 2 bus passes to get around.
• Individuals who live in Rubidoux and Mira Loma area need transportation for job and job-
related activities.
• Eastvale residents need Saturday transportation to Ontario and Montclair for work.
• Eastvale residents need connections with Omnitrans to connect to business districts.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
23
HOMELESS VETERANS
• Residents of US Vets Center March AFB need early morning service (6:00 am) to employment
locations.
• Existing fixed route service to VA Loma Linda Hospital can take up to 2 ½ hours and 3 buses
from the US Vets location.
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITES
• Shared-ride paratransit trips can run late, but people with disabilities need transportation to
enter the workforce.
• Need expanded evening service hours until 5:30 pm.
• RTA needs more vehicles to accommodate riders who use wheelchairs and may have to wait for
the next bus.
• Paratransit doesn't always work for dialysis patients due to fluctuation of appointment
schedules or due to a patient's medical condition.
• There still remain gaps in service, especially adequate and timely transportation services on
weekends for persons with disabilities who are interested in participating in regular scheduled
social service activities that: 1) occur on weekends, 2) occur at different locations, 3) require a
driver/partner.
South Western Riverside County - Wildomar
1. NEEDS BY TRIP TYPE
• Lack of transportation in unincorporated communities, particularly the Temescal Valley.
• There are pockets of need in Menifee:
There is no service in the area North of McCall Blvd to Ethanac Road in Menifee.
There is no service in the area along I-215 to the base of the mountains.
Service is needed between Newport Road and Scott Road and along both sides of I-215.
Need increased frequency of routes 208 and 212 for afternoon trips into downtown
Riverside.
• Transportation needed along the 1-15 corridor.
• Need connections between Corona and Lake Elsinore along I-15.
• Need improved connections to the Corona Cruiser, from areas just beyond its service area.
• Need connections to Corona Metrolink from Sycamore Creek and Trilogy, Temescal Valley.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
24
• Pockets of need in Sycamore Creek in the Temescal Valley. There is a need for connections to
the transit system so people can move independently to medical and social security
appointments, etc.
METROLINK-RELATED NEEDS
• Need more weekend trains directly to LA.
• In Pedley, there is need for increased frequency of trains.
• Need Metrolink to extend South of Menifee to Murrieta.
2. NEEDS BY TARGET POPULATION
LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS
• Teenagers in the Temescal Valley need transportation in order to get jobs.
• Students from the Temescal Valley need transportation to Riverside City College and UCR in
Riverside. Morning classes begin at 8:00 am.
• Students need transportation from Riverside City College to Trilogy at 9:00 pm.
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITES
• People with disabilities who live in the Temescal Valley have no transportation to work,
school, shopping, or doctor's appointments.
• People with disabilities need a central place to make connections.
OLDER ADULTS
• Residents of Trilogy/ Temescal Valley need transportation to doctor appointments and to Dos
Lagos. Residents would like to be able to age-in-place.
OLDER ADULTS, PEOPLE WITH DISABILITES, and LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS
• Care A Van and other-such small providers report increasing difficulty in securing match for
grant requests. Donations are down.
• In order to expand, Care A Van needs equipment that is "flexible." Measure A funding
expanded what services (and to whom) Care A Van can provide.
• Transportation needs haven't changed; they are even greater since RTA reduced services. Care
A Van regularly has 60-75 trip denials per month.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
25
Coachella Valley - Palm Desert
1. NEEDS BY TRIP TYPE
• Lack of transportation in unincorporated areas, including the North Shore Area and
communities of Mecca, Oasis and Thermal.
• Lack of transportation in isolated communities, including pockets of need in Indio near the
Jackson Street Bridge, Desert Edge and Thousand Palms.
• Long walks to nearest bus stop in Thousand Palms, often in very high temperatures.
• Need for Park & Ride lots in Desert Edge to connect it to existing services. There are many senior
residents who drive, as well as 26 mobile home parks in this area.
2. NEEDS BY TARGET POPULATION
LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS
• Clients of Martha's Village in Indio need transportation to destinations in Western Riverside
County, especially in Riverside and Moreno Valley.
• PATH residents, several of whom have disabilities, need local transportation from the PATH
facility in Indian Canyon, Palm Springs for shopping and medical trips.
• Need transportation from Oasis to Coachella Valley for grocery shopping, appointments and
work. This isolated, rural community only has a school, a clinic, and a fire station. Indio is the
closest hospital. People do carpool to get to work or pay a neighbor $25 to get from North Shore
to Coachella.
• Need transportation for children in North Shore to get to the new Boys & Girls Club in Mecca.
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
• Desert ARC clients in rural areas can't access SunDial as they live beyond the ¾ mile boundary.
• Need evening transportation (10 pm) for clients to get home from non-traditional employment.
Common job sites where clients need late night transportation are Eisenhower Medical Center,
Ramon Road in Cathedral City, and JFK in Indio.
• SunDial pick up window has too much variance and can be a very long wait for some riders.
OLDER ADULTS
• Older adults have to walk too far, often in the sun, to the closest bus stop in Thousand Palms
area. The walk to the nearest bus stop for residents of Tri Palms, a senior community is ¾ miles.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
26
Coachella Valley – North Shore
MEDICALLY RELATED TRIPS
• Need transportation for medical appointments from North Shore to Mecca, JFK Memorial
Hospital in Indio, Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage, and to the Comprehensive
Cancer Center Desert Regional Medical Center in Palm Springs, and the VA in Palm Desert.
One pregnant resident needs to travel to Indio four times per week for prenatal appointments,
twice per week to see her regular doctor, and twice per week to see a specialist for gestational
diabetes. Another resident reported needing to travel to the Palm Springs Cancer Center once
per week for chemotherapy treatments. Residents report needing to travel to the Palm Desert
VA two times per month
• Need transportation for medical appointments to Western Riverside County or out-of-county
destinations, including Riverside County Medical Center in Moreno Valley and the VA in Loma
Linda. Residents report needing to travel to the Loma Linda VA two times per month.
• Need transportation to pharmacies to purchase medications, including during the evening.
Pharmacies are located in Coachella, Indio, Mecca and the Walmart in La Quinta.
SHOPPING RELATED TRIPS
• Need transportation, including during the evenings, to go grocery shopping in Coachella, Indio,
and the La Quinta Walmart. There is only one market in North Shore and it is very expensive
and offers limited choices.
WORK RELATED TRIPS
• Need transportation to the hotels in La Quinta for residents that are employees.
• Need transportation for work related purposes, such as looking for work and interviews.
• Farmworkers need transportation to farms along Highway 86 and in Mecca and Indio.
SOCIAL / LIFE ENRICHING / ACTIVITIES- TYPE TRIPS??
• Need transportation to public parks in Mecca and Coachella.
UNSERVED RURAL COMMUNITIES
• Need transportation in Oasis, Mecca, Thermal, and the communities North of Highway 111,
which are not served by public transit.
• Need transportation in Palo Verde and Mesa Verde where only limited bus service is available.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
27
NEEDS BY TARGET POPULATION
COLLEGE STUDENTS
• College students need transportation two to four times a week, including in the evenings, to
College of the Desert in Palm Desert, as well as the Mecca-Thermal Center and the Eastern
Valley Center in Indio.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
• Elementary school students need evening transportation (after 6 pm) home from the Boys and
Girls Club in Mecca to North Shore.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
• The leaders of the North Shore community want to work with RCTC and SunLine to develop a
plan for rural transportation because transportation is needed for medical, social, and
educational purposes. Funds go to urban areas so these communities are underserved or
unserved.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
28
V. What Priorities Will Address Identified
Transportation Gaps?
This concluding chapter summarizes the need and service gaps in terms of themes that surfaced through
this Update effort. Priorities and steps for moving forward are enumerated.
Themes in Unmet Transportation Needs and Service Gaps
This 2012 Update provides a status report to Riverside County in relation to addressing mobility needs of
its older residents, those with disabilities and persons of low-income. Sobering realities are reported.
In relation to “demand,” the county’s population has increased by almost 40% during this past decade,
adding almost a half-million more residents. Within this growth, the population of low-income
individuals has grown at a higher rate, a 46% increase. Persons over age 65 have increased by 30%, a
somewhat lower rate of growth. Adults with disabilities are almost 9% of the county’s overall
population, though changes in census reporting make it difficult to compare rates of change.
Such population growth, generally and among these target groups, presents significant challenges to all
public systems, including public transportation. This has been particularly so with the region’s
experience of the Great Recession. Public transportation, a significant part of the “supply side” in this
equation, has realized continuing revenue losses. Though there may now be modest signs of recovery,
the future funding base is far from certain. Reductions of the past several years in both Federal and
State resources, as well as lower receipts on local transit funding, such as Measure A, all contributed to
across-the-board measures to do more with less.
Despite adding substantially more persons and grappling with revenue reductions over several years,
Riverside County’s public transit operators, along with a growing number of Specialized Transportation
Projects, collectively increased the County’s trips per capita measure by almost five percent during the
past four years. More transit trips were taken, keeping pace with and even growing despite the
significant population increases. Transit ridership grew in this four-year period from 13.9 million to 16
million passenger trips, with the trips per capita indicator growing also, from 6.9 trips per capita against
the 2006 population of 2.0 million persons to 7.2 trips per capita against the 2011 Department of
Finance population of 2.2 million residents.
During this same period, RCTC has provided leadership that addresses issues raised in the 2008 plan.
Significant initiatives were reported on in Section III previously. Three critical areas should be restated:
RCTC has developed a vigorous 5-1-1 system for the Inland Empire that is fielding thousands of
website hits and telephone calls monthly, from area residents and visitors in need of
transportation information.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
29
RCTC has supported its public transit providers through difficult seasons of declining and
uncertain revenues by assisting with cash flow issues, helping to back-fill lost revenues where
possible and continuing to articulate a regional vision of mobility with supportive policy.
RCTC has administered a complex Specialized Transportation Program, now anticipating its
third two-year cycle that is directly addressing, in cost-effective ways, the types of trip need and
transportation access issues laid out in the 2008 Coordinated Plan.
The combined impact of these initiatives and those of Riverside County’s public transit operators have
contributed then to increasing transit ridership and a positive growth in the County’s trips per capita
indicator. Growing from 6.9 to 7.2 trips per capita, this almost a 5% increase is very encouraging,
particularly in light of the reductions in transit service during this same period. Broad-based initiatives
to increase transit utilization, probably coupled with concerns about rising gasoline prices, appear to be
leading more people to the public transportation network.
Despite growing ridership, this 2012 Update nonetheless identifies continuing and/or new unmet needs
and service gaps for the target populations. Again, as in 2008, there was considerable attention to
individualized needs in comments offered to the Update. Numerous sub-groups were identified among
the Update’s three target groups, including several new groups:
homeless veterans seeking employment
newly returning veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres, and their families;
agricultural workers traveling from isolated areas to social services and grocery
stores;
low-income workers living in outlying rural areas and traveling into retail and
hospitality employment;
individuals without cars traveling to regional destinations;
unemployed parents traveling to job interviews but also with day care needs;
students traveling to community college and high schools without funds for fuel;
older adults decreasing driving and exploring new mobility choices;
persons with disabilities living just beyond transit’s ¾ mile ADA boundaries;
families seeking reunification with children placed outside of the home, usually at
some physical distance from the parents.
This context of a growing population, increasing and greatly varying needs by the target groups of
interest and extremely constrained resources must lay the foundation for priorities for moving forward.
Exhibit 11 presents a compilation of the need and service gap categories enumerated in Section IV. This
begins to suggest an outline for this 2012 Update of priority areas for improving the mobility of the
target populations.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
30
Exhibit 11, Compiled Unmet Transportation Needs
8. Expanded transit service operating hours and frequencies.
MAINTAINING AND
BUILDING CAPACITY TO
MEET INDIVIDUALIZED
NEEDS
9. Increasing transit’s speed so that trips to regional destinations
(work, medical) are not so long.
10. Addressing unserved geographic pockets, including areas where
transit services were reduced.
11. Improved interconnectivity.
12. Services targeted to specialized needs: non-emergency medical
transportation and other specialized shuttles and services.
13. Improved connections between services: rail and transit; between
jurisdictions.
14. Building capacity of human service providers to address
specialized populations’ trips through non-traditional modes.
7. Maintaining and expanding existing transit information tools.
8. Addressing safety and security concerns, through bus stop
amenities, lighting and paths of access.
PROMOTING
TRANSPORTATION ACCESS
AND INFORMATION PORTALS
9. Travel training to individuals and agency stakeholders to learn
about and to use available public transit.
10. Expanding information tools supporting specialized populations’
travel, including veterans, older adults decreasing driving and
non-English speaking residents and other targeted sub-groups.
11. Supporting vehicle equipment that ensures lift-equipped vehicle
availability that is safe and reliable.
12. Supporting technology innovations that promote service
reliability, safety and cost-effectiveness.
Establishing 2012 Coordinated Plan Priorities
Exhibit 11 above consolidates the many issues raised by commenters during this update process into
two general areas. One, Maintaining and Building Capacity to Meet Individualized Needs speaks to
getting transit services on the street responsive to the breadth and types of needs and service gaps
raised. The second, Promoting Transportation Access and Information Portals, addresses various
infrastructure requirements that either aid and support vehicle operations or are important to bringing
more members of the target groups to public transportation.
To move to the Plan’s required prioritization, Exhibit 12 following over the next three pages, reworks the
user-based information set forth previously and addresses other themes raised in this concluding
section. Presented here are three goals, associated objectives and possible solutions or projects. These
represent this Update’s revisited priorities reflecting current conditions.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
31
Exhibit 12, Recommended 2012 Coordinated Plan Update Priority Areas
PRIORITIZED TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND PROJECTS
GOAL 1: MAINTAINING AND BUILDING CAPACITY TO MEET INDIVIDUALIZED NEEDS
1.1 Expanded fixed-route services - Increase operating hours to address 2nd and 3rd shift travel
and Sunday or early-morning employment
- Increase service frequencies on routes with high
employment densities and/or medical or educational
facilities to shorten trips and improve connections
- Address unserved pockets, expanding fixed-route where
feasible and where high transit dependence suggests
sustainable ridership levels
1.2 Improved interconnectivity - Projects improving transit between jurisdictions and sub-
regions
- Increased transit frequencies with attention to tighter
connections with Metrolink and Greyhound
1.3 Purpose-specific regional services - Non-emergency medical transportation projects
- Veterans or other special group shuttles
- Agricultural workers’ shuttles
- Riders with disabilities living outside the ADA ¾ mile
boundary
1.4 Expanded capacity of targeted human
service transportation
- Client-group specific transportation projects that do not
duplicate or supplant existing services and address unmet
transportation needs
- Client-group specific transportation projects that provide
high levels of personal assistance to riders with such needs
- Support agency-based training oriented to improving the
reliability, safety and cost-effectiveness of human service
agency transportation
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
32
Exhibit 12, page two continued
PRIORITIZED TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND
STRATEGIES
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND PROJECTS
GOAL 2: PROMOTING TRANSPORTATION ACCESS AND INFORMATION PORTALS
2.1 Expanded transit information portals - Information project continuing support for IE-511 and of
RCTC’s web-based links to specialized transportation
- Support of IE Veterans One-Call/ One-Click initiative
- Support of human service agency-based initiatives that link
to public transportation resources
- Support of individualized rider-based information, such as
Google Transit and other trip planner initiatives
2.2 Promoting travel training - Travel training targeted to particular markets: non-English
speaking individuals, older persons reducing driving, low-
income youth, persons using ADA but who could use fixed-
route for some trips
- Travel training tools for gatekeeper staff, human service
agency personnel who interact with consumers and who
would benefit from a rudimentary knowledge of available
public transit in Riverside County
2.3 Targeted mobility management
initiatives
- Developing mobility management tools where these can
address particular service gaps or unserved trip needs for
the target population or sub-groups
2.4. Capital projects supporting transit
accessibility or safety for use by the target
populations
- Capital requests that provide lift-equipped vehicles and
increasing accessibility
- Capital projects that support bus stop accessibility,
improved path-of-access or bus stop safety through lighting,
shelter and bus stop amenities
2.5 Capital projects for innovative technology
to improve reliability or cost-effectiveness of
services to the target populations
- Capital requests for technology that can improve on-time
performance or service reliability
- Capital requests that increase cost-effectiveness by
improving efficiencies
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
33
Exhibit 12, page three continued
PRIORITIZED TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND
STRATEGIES
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND PROJECTS
GOAL 3: COORDINATION LEADERSHIP
3.1 Continuing to promote coordination
between public transit and human services
organizations
- Continuing maintenance of Transportation Network-
Stakeholders database and promotion of its value to human
service agencies and other networks
- Participation by transit representatives in various coalitions
and collaborative groups such as the Veterans Homeless
Coalition, the Inland Empire Disabilities Collaborative and
others
3.2 Continuing Specialized Transportation Call
for Project administration
- Continuing biennial or every three-year call for RCTC’s
Specialized Transportation Call for Projects to invite grant
applications for funds available
- Continuing RCTC technical assistance to agencies
proposing projects consistent with identified needs
- Continuing RCTC administrative support to ensure that
successful Call recipients can comply with relevant Federal
regulation, through field audits and invoice concurrence
process
3.3 Reporting on outcomes and successes for
transit funding invested
- Continued periodic summary reports on RCTC’s Specialized
Transportation Program
- Ensuring “credit” to the public transit operators for
initiatives that promote coordination with human service
organizations around addressing needs of the target
populations
- Promoting the initiatives of human services agencies that
work effectively with Riverside County public transit
operators
Implementing 2012 Priorities
Underlying this Update process is the challenge of needs versus resources. Needs will always exceed
resources given that public transportation funding will never be sufficient even with an improving
economy. This is particularly so in the large geographic areas comprising Riverside County. The other
reality underlying this picture is that population growth has been substantial over the past decade and
does not appear to be abating, given Riverside County’s mantle as the State’s single-fastest growing
county in terms of percentage increases.
This continuing growth in population underscores the legitimacy of a continuing emphasis on trips.
Provision of trips, trips, trips remains an important first-level priority, given the overall increases in
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
34
population, the growth among the target populations and the challenges of simply staying even. The
trips per capita measure, which is an indicator of the “volume” of transit services in relation to
population, becomes one means by which to assess whether Riverside County is holding its own in
relation to specialized transportation or not, given this continuing population growth. In Exhibit 12,
Goal 1-Maintaining and Building Capacity to Meet Individualized Needs supports this continued
orientation to the provision of trips.
But also important to the provision of trips are those infrastructure and administrative actions that
enable trips to be provided. Exhibit 12's Goal 2-Promoting Transportation Access and Information
Portals and Goal 3-Coordination Leadership reflect various strategies and projects that support and
enable target group members to safely access available public transportation.
In terms of establishing project evaluation criteria, assuming that the levels of funding available will
always be less than funds requested, one approach will be to ensure that the majority of funds go to
support trips (Goal 1) but that some portion is reserved in the event there are viable projects in support
of Goal 2 or Goal 3. This could follow the current funding allocation which, in the most recent two-year
cycle, provided about 85% of total awarded funds to operations, Goal 1 type projects, and less than 15%
of total funds to Goals 2 and 3 infrastructure-related projects.
The single most important consideration, in selecting projects for funding, will continue to be the extent
to which the project satisfactorily addresses and/or resolves identified transportation needs of the
targeted group of prospective riders.
Criteria of continuing importance to be considered in project selection are the following:
1. Project derived from the locally developed coordinated plan/plan update.
2. Project adequately addresses the unmet/underserved and individualized needs of the target
population.
3. Project leverages from sources, including non-transit funding sources, and maximizes
available funding by ensuring a cost-effective project.
4. Project does not duplicate existing public transportation services and clearly demonstrates
why these trips cannot be provided by or on existing public transportation.
5. Project maintains consistency with current Federal and State funding regulations and
requirements
6. Project includes measurable goals and objectives.
In the evaluation process, both for new projects and for continuing projects, attention should be paid to
the relative cost-effectiveness of a project. Define how much is being secured for the funds provided.
And the historical experience of the project is particularly important for continuing initiatives.
Determine whether the project achieved or came close to its previously stated goals. Determine
whether there were extenuating circumstances as to why that was not possible. These considerations
are particularly important when funds are limited.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
35
Appendices
Appendix A: 2010 Census, Riverside County Work Area Profile Report
Appendix B: RCTC’s Specialized Transportation Program FY 09/10 Trips
and Cost Detail by Project
Appendix C: Workshop Announcement Invitation and Spanish Flyer
Appendix D: Summary of Comments Received by RCTC Via Email
Appendix E: Riverside County’s Transportation Stakeholder Database
Agencies, 2011
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
36
Appendix A: 2010 Census, Riverside County Work Area Profile
Report
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
37
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
38
Appendix B: RCTC Specialized Transportation Program, FY 09/10 Trip and Cost Detail
Total Cost Subsidy
Total
Cost
With Agency
Match Per Trip Per Trip
Fixed Route Services One-way trips % of All
Trips
RTA Extended Services 33,520 $95,310 $137,959 $6.96
RTA Commuter Link 27,546 $421,172 $264,290 $24.88
SunLine Extended Services 3,146 120833 $38.41
64,212 64,212 18%$516,482 $523,082 $16.19
Paratransit/ Community Shuttle Services One-way trips
Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County 68,862 $273,083 $409,689 $3.97 $5.95
Care-A-Van / HOPE Bus 18,207 $322,008 $494,732 $17.69 $27.17
Care Connexxus 16,222 $225,000 $18,731 $368,752 $15.02 $22.73
City of Norco - Senior Shuttle 1,302 $74,852 $113,412 $57.49 $87.11
CVAG Roy's Desert Resource Center 13,505 $22,789 $45,580 $1.69 $3.38
Friends of Moreno Valley- MoVan 4,455 $58,500 $82,973 $13.13 $18.62
Jefferson Transitional - JTP Shuttle 1,018 $10,827 $17,115 $47,150 $27.45 $46.32
Inland AIDS Project 1,970 $69,926 $106,052 $35.50 $53.83
Operation Safehouse 257 $18,367 $27,550 $71.47 $107.20
Riverside County Regional Medical Center 7,868 $176,876 $101,483 $400,850 $35.38 $50.95
Wildomar Senior Community 268 $6,217 $12,434 $23.20 $46.40
133,934 133,934 37%1,229,440 22,789 143,546 $2,109,174 $10.42 $15.75
Mileage Reimbursement One-way trips supported
Court Appointed Special Advocates [CASA]4,368 $44,618 $143,756 $10.21 $32.91
ILP's TRIP Volunteer Escort-Driver / Western Riv 65,443 $414,940 $1,163,795 $6.34 $17.78
ILP's TRIP Volunteer Escort-Driver / SunLine 19,326 $43,500 $231,105 $2.25 $11.96
89,137 89,137 24%$459,558 $43,500 $1,538,656 $5.64 $17.26
Bus Passes/ Taxi Vouchers/ Van Pools One-way trips supported
Beaumont Adult School - Bus pass trips 705 $18,048 $24,090 $25.60 $34.17
Desert Samaritans - Taxi trips 606 $15,290 $30,580 $25.23 $50.46
RCTC's Commuter Benefits/Coachella van pool trips 27,517 $11,761 $47,175 $0.43 $1.71
Volunteer Center/ TAP - Bus pass trips [1]49,344 $132,163 $234,907 $2.68 $4.76
78,172 78,172 21%$150,211 $11,761 $336,752 $2.07 $4.31
TOTAL TRIP-MAKING OPERATIONS 365,455 $2,355,690 $557,632 $187,046 $3,984,582 $6.45 $10.90
Mobility Management & Training Projects
Care Connexxus - Driver Sensitivity Training New curriculum / 56 drivers $18,731 $34,684
Blindness Support Services - Travel Training 57 consumers trained
Blindness Support Services - Mobility Management 32 agencies
RTA - Travel Training
Notes:
[1] Volunteer bus pass trips are for RTA fixed-Route service
FY 09/10 Project Reported Total
Trips
Specialized Transit Program Project Types
and Trips Provided
$92,312
JARC
Subsidy
Measure A
Subsidy
New
Freedom
Subsidy
$55,387 $182,852
*Cost per subsidy for SunLine Extended Late Night Service only represents 10 months of service, with a subsidy calculated as a monthly average based on the total project subsidy over a 19 month
period covering two fiscal years.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
39
Appendix C: Workshop Announcement Invitation and Spanish-
Language Flyer
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
40
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
41
Appendix D: Summary of Comments Received by RCTC via Email
Palo Verde Valley
1) Buses going from Blythe to Ironwood and Chuckawalla Valley State Prisons are at capacity. More
employees would use it if there was a larger bus (7:20 Route Red). There is also a need for 1 or two
more runs as there isn't public transportation for some shifts: many employees get off at 2pm.
2) Suggest adding one run to Chuckawalla Valley State Prison that would get people to work a little
before 2pm and pick them up at 10pm.
Coachella Valley
1) Service from Palm Springs Airport to eastern valley destinations.
2) Improved SunLine bus stop amenities including lighting and shading.
3) Increased bus stops.
4) Transportation needed, including a stop, in Thermal (Vista Santa Rosa neighborhood on Jackson St.
and Airport Blvd.) for low-income families, students and working teenagers, many who have to walk
along dangerous roads.
5) Currently, a study is being conducted of the unmet transportation needs of some communities in the
Eastern Coachella Valley. We suggest that RCTC and CVAG should work with HARC and others involved
in that project to expand the investigation to the entire Coachella Valley.
Western Riverside
1) Request a route from Moreno Valley (Mall) to or near Box Springs and Eucalyptus in the City of
Riverside to provide access to employment. There is also a new college in this area, Platt College, and
many students may want to get to this area by bus.
2) Request for evening transportation, or weekend evenings, serving Fox theatre, so residents can return
home from event.
3) Increased frequency on RTA Line 1.
4) RTA should not charge a fare for babies that don't walk.
5) RTA needs more vehicles to accommodate riders who use wheelchairs and may have to wait for the
next bus.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
42
6) Suggest Corona Cruiser and RTA honor each other’s bus passes for round trip service, not just 1 way.
We have many customers who live in Corona who end up needing 2 bus passes to get around.
Southwestern Riverside
1) In Norco: Along Sixth Street (business area) a bus line is needed so it is possible to transfer to route #
3 for seniors, students with disabilities, residents, business employees.
2) A tunnel between Route 5 and Route 15 (connecting to Irvine and Riverside) instead of Ortega
Highway, which can be a difficult road for many seniors to drive.
3) Parents cannot get children classes at Saint Frances of Rome in Wildomar because there is no
transportation.
4) Transportation is needed at Indian Truck Trail.
5) There are pockets of need in Lake Elsinore Area:
• Quail Valley – In order to get to MSJC or 215/Haun (the big Target Plaza) from Quail Valley –
riders have to make a transfer and the trip takes 1 hour and 15.
• Bus services in that area stops at 6:00 pm. Those who have later jobs and school schedules
can't get back into Quail Valley. Transportation has always been very limited there. There is
still only one bus stop in the whole city.
• Lake Elsinore DPSS – A stop is needed in front of the DPSS building to make traveling there
easier and safer for clients. There is no sidewalk from Chaney along Minthorn to the DPSS
building and many clients walk with strollers along the road. Clients with children also walk
from Main or Collier to the DPSS office on muddy, unpaved sidewalks.
6) In Temecula, there is very little bus service. My high schooler has to walk 3.3 miles one way to school
and then home again. The best that they could do was pick up in front of the school and then drop off 1
mile down the road so my high schooler still had to walk 2.3 miles one way. That is a long way given
their heavy load with school books etc.
7) Could we make this more appealing and doable for teenagers? I feel like the community in
Temecula/Murrieta drive everywhere because they have to. I love public transportation but feel that
we are losing an entire generation because they do not even understand how it works or why it benefits
them. We need to invite teenagers to ride the bus, not discourage them.
8) Need more bus lines up the 15 freeway from Elsinore to Corona/Norco, ie: Dawson Canyon, Eagle
Glen, etc. Many of our customers live in the newer housing tracks off the 15 freeway in that stretch, and
buses are few, are far between, or non-existent. I would like to see more bus routes in Eastvale.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
43
9) Pockets of Need in Temescal Valley / Sycamore Creek / Trilogy:
• Please consider having at least one evening and one morning bus from Sycamore
creek/Trilogy and/or Horsethief into Corona so those of us at or near retirement age can
connect with public transportation, such as Metrolink into Corona and Riverside so we can
keep our tax spending dollars in our own county.
• Residents in Sycamore Creek without cars are isolated from any city. Transportation needs to
be provided for the disabled, those with illnesses, and older adults.
• We need transportation in this area. We had good representation at the Riverside Public
Workshop to state we needed transportation in the Temescal Valley.
• We need some type of public transportation in the Temescal Valley area. There are teens
that would like to go shopping to the movies or visit friends. Transportation does not have to
be a large bus but a small van with a schedule that is agreeable upon by the residents. The
bus only has to go to a nearby high public area.
• I serve on the Board of Emissaries of Divine Light who owns and operates The Glen Ivy
Center, a spiritual conference and retreat center, residential community and which includes
Glen Ivy Farm. I also sit on the Board of Glen Ivy Hot Springs Spa. These two operations,
together, occupy 82 acres in Temescal Valley and employ over 250 people. The improvement
of public transportation in our area of Riverside County would certainly enhance the
attractiveness and profitability of the region. I support an effort to improve our
infrastructure. I look forward to further developments.
• Glen Ivy Hot Springs participates in various Employee Ride-Share Programs and would
certainly welcome any expanded opportunities for public transportation that might better
serve our employees and guests.
• I have lived in Temescal Valley for about 14 years and I am also legally blind. Without public
transportation I am unable to get to stores, doctor appointments, school or even to work. I
also know that I am not the only person in this area who wants or needs public
transportation.
• Trilogy of Glen Ivy is a 55 and older complex where public transportation is badly needed.
Residents need to get to Dos Lagos and to doctor appointments.
People with Disabilities
1) There still remain gaps in service, especially adequate and timely transportation services on weekends
for persons with disabilities who are interested in participating in regular scheduled social service
activities that: 1) occur on weekends, 2) occur at different locations, 3) require a driver/partner.
Funding
1) Suggest make funding available to private non-profit corporations (such as Blindness Support
Services) to provide private transportation service to eligible consumers involved in social service
activities. For instance, funds can be used to hire 5 part-time drivers/guides who will be responsible for
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
44
picking up program participants, serve as guides, and returning them home once the organized activities
are completed.
2) We urge that the Coachella Valley Association of Governments reconsider the manner in which
Measure A funds are currently passed on to SunLine and Coachella Valley cities to insure that at least a
reasonable portion of Measure A funds are used to insure that accessible, acceptable and affordable
specialized service options are available for older adults, people with disabilities and persons of low-
income in the Desert.
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
45
Appendix E: Transportation Stakeholder Database Agencies, 2011
[Note; email and surface mail distribution lists were larger than this. The following
organizations responded to RCTC’s 2010 invitation to be listed in Riverside County’s
Transportation Stakeholder Database.]
2012 Update to the Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County
46
BLANK
AGENDA ITEM 8J
BLANK
Agenda Item 8J
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Agreement With South Coast Air Quality Management District to
Fund the Development and Deployment of an Inland Empire 511
Mobile Application
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 12-45-089-00 with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (AQMD) for the Commission to receive $100,000 in
grant funding for the development and deployment costs of an Inland Empire
511 (IE511) mobile application; and
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Commission, in partnership with the San Bernardino Associated Governments
(SANBAG), operates and maintains the IE511 traveler information system. The
system provides motorists with access to real-time freeway travel information and
incident information on Southern California highways via the telephone service by
dialing 511 from land line, cell phone, or accessing the map on the companion
website, (www.ie511.org). IE511 is designed to promote mobility by fostering
more informed travel decisions to avoid congestion, as well as provide more
choices for the individual commuter by identifying all travel options available to
Riverside and San Bernardino County residents. Inland Empire commuters can
access transit, Metrolink, carpooling, vanpooling, carpool lane, and toll road
information, as well as detailed park and ride lot information for the entire Southern
California region. IE511 serviced nearly 932,000 telephone users and 585,000
web visits since its launch in April 2010.
157
Agenda Item 8J
DISCUSSION:
The development of a mobile application was the next logical enhancement for the
program given the continued growth of smartphones and the actual usage of IE511
on smartphone platforms observed by staff. While the development of an IE511
mobile application was budgeted for in FY 2011/12 using Measure A funds, other
funding opportunities arose within the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction
Review Committee (MSRC), a committee of the AQMD. At its July 2011 meeting,
the MSRC recommended an allocation of its FY 2010/11 work program for the
implementation of 511 mobile applications. In September 2011, the AQMD
approved a $100,000 sole source agreement with the Commission and a
$123,000 agreement with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) for the development and deployment of a 511 mobile application
for the IE511 system and GO511 system, respectively. In anticipation of this
funding, staff began work with IE511 consultants on this project as contract terms
were being finalized. The new IE511 mobile application successfully launched and
was demonstrated at the February 2012 Commission meeting. To date, the mobile
application has been downloaded by over 7,700 users.
IE511 has proven to be a valuable tool for Inland Empire residents and constituents
for managing travel and commute efforts. The launch of the new mobile
application further enhanced this experience and additional enhancements to the
mobile application will be implemented overtime. Staff recommends approval of
Agreement No. 12-45-089-00 with the AQMD for the Commission to receive
$100,000 in grant funding for the development and deployment costs of an IE511
mobile application.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $100,000
Source of Funds: MSRC Grant Budget Adjustment: Yes
GLA No.: 202 45 41203
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/18/2012
Attachment: Agreement No. 12-45-089-00
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
BLANK
AGENDA ITEM 8K
BLANK
Agenda Item 8K
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2012/13 Agreements for Regional Rideshare Services
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 12-41-111-00 with the San Bernardino Associated
Governments (SANBAG) as part of the Commission’s continuing bi-county
partnership with SANBAG to deliver commuter/employer rideshare services,
regional ridematching services, and operation of an Inland Empire 511
(IE511) system for FY 2012/13;
2) Approve the following FY 2012/13 agreements for regional ridematching
services:
• Agreement No. 09-41-075-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement
No. 09-41-075-00, with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro);
• Agreement No. 11-41-139-01 and No. 11-41-139-02, Amendment
No. 1 and No. 2 to Agreement No. 11-41-139-00, with the Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA); and
• Agreement No. 06-41-082-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement
No. 06-41-082-00, with the Ventura County Transportation
Commission (VCTC) for regional ridematching services; and
3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreements on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Since 1993, SANBAG has contracted with the Commission to develop, implement,
and manage a commuter assistance program (CAP) for San Bernardino County
commuters. The program consists of several projects:
168
Agenda Item 8K
• The first, Rideshare Incentives, developed as a sister incentive project to the
Commission’s Measure A commuter incentive project, focuses on
encouraging solo drivers to try alternative commute modes.
• RidesharePlus, modeled after the Commission’s rideshare rewards program,
provides Entertainment discounts to local and national merchants for
long-term ridesharers.
• Inland Empire Commuter Services (IECS) was jointly established by SANBAG
and the Commission in FY 1995/96 when it was determined by the two
agencies that the Inland Empire would assume direct responsibility for the
provision of local employer rideshare services. IECS provides various
services to employers in the bi-county area including the provision of
marketing promotions, rideshare survey processing, technical assistance,
employer network meetings, and newsletters.
• In FY 2002/03, the Commission and SANBAG began providing Ridematching
and Information Services directly.
• In FY 2009/10, IE511 was implemented to provide traveler information to
Riverside and San Bernardino County commuters.
In partnership with SANBAG, a FY 2012/13 work plan and budget for continuation
of SANBAG’s CAP and the ongoing maintenance and operation of a 511 travel
information services system was developed by Commission staff. The proposed
agreement between SANBAG and the Commission is scheduled to be presented at
the next SANBAG Board meeting following approval of the agreement by the
Commission. Staff is seeking Commission approval for an agreement with
SANBAG for a total not to exceed amount of $1.8 million to be reimbursed to the
Commission.
The Commission’s role in transportation demand management also extends beyond
the boundaries of the Inland Empire. Since 2002, the Commission has led the way
in implementing, operating, and maintaining the regional rideshare database
(regional database) to support a coordinated and efficient ridematching service
throughout a five-county region. Specifically, this entails processing commuter
surveys, data retrieval, project reporting, rideguide generation, network security,
system maintenance, and operation through transportation demand management
consultants and ridematching software vendors. In February 2012, the Commission
approved an agreement with Basetech for the provision and hosting of new
ridematching software. The transition from the current rideshare software to
Basetech’s software is scheduled to occur at the beginning of 2013.
Metro, OCTA, SANBAG, and VCTC have contracted with the Commission for the
administration of the regional database for the past 10 years. Funding of the
regional ridematching system ($299,000) is split among the five county
transportation commissions based on the population percentage split as defined by
the most recent census. SANBAG’s portion of this work ($34,040) is included in
169
Agenda Item 8K
the rideshare/IE511 agreement discussed above. Metro and VCTC are in the
process of amending and seeking approval of their respective agreements with the
Commission to extend the term through FY 2012/13. OCTA is in the process of
amending the current agreement with the Commission to extend the term through
December 31, 2012, and then enter into another amendment that reflects the
change in the rideshare software provider for the balance of FY 2012/13. Staff is
seeking Commission approval to enter into these agreements with Metro, OCTA,
and VCTC for FY 2012/13 services provided by the Commission for an aggregate
amount not to exceed $228,337 as reimbursements to the Commission.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2012/13 Amount: $2,028,337
Source of Funds: SANBAG, Metro, OCTA and VCTC
funds Budget Adjustment: No
GLA No.:
002111 002112 632113 002139 002146 002178 002182 002188
002191 416 41605 0000 263 41 41203
452124 416 41605 0000 202 45 41203
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/18/12
Attachments:
1) FY 2012/13 SANBAG Agreement and Scope of Work
2) FY 2012/13 Regional Ridematching Services Scope of Work
170
BLANK
ATTACHMENT 1
AGREEMENT C12553
BY AND BETWEEN
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FISCAL YEAR
2012/2013 EMPLOYER AND COMMUTER
TRIP REDUCTION/RIDESHARE PROGRAMS
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of this 1st day of July 2012, in the
State of California by and between SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED
GOVERNMENTS, referred to herein as “SANBAG,” and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, referred to herein as “RCTC.”
WHEREAS, SANBAG approved allocation of Measure I - Valley Traffic Management
Systems (VTMS) funds, and Victor Valley Traffic Management Systems funds, and Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy to Users (SAFE-
TEA LU) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, the allocation of
SAFE-TEA LU (initially approved in October of 2005 by SANBAG board), to provide
trip reduction services as well as incentives for the commuter programs.
WHEREAS, SANBAG receives SAFE-TEA LU and other federal funds and may use
these funds to reimburse RCTC for its services in performing Employer and Commuter
Trip Reduction/Rideshare Services.
WHEREAS, SANBAG requires professional and consulting services with respect to the
provision of commuter services and programs within San Bernardino County.
WHEREAS, RCTC has managed the bi-county Inland Empire Commuter Services
program since November 3, 1993, and has the expertise and resources necessary to
manage such services for SANBAG.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
A. Contract Services.
1. RCTC will administer, market, and implement a commuter
services and 511 programs in coordination with RCTC’s commuter services program and
in coordination with the regional ridesharing core services program in compliance with
and as specified in the scope of work, Attachment “A,” attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
2. RCTC shall provide program administration and oversight and
assure that its consultants and/or staff performs its services within the budgets set forth in
171
C12553.docx Page 2 of 9
the scope of work, Attachment “A.”
3. RCTC shall provide SANBAG with a monthly statistical report
of progress relative to tasks identified in the scope of work, Attachment “A” to this
Agreement, in such detail as SANBAG may reasonably require.
4. SANBAG shall timely respond to RCTC on matters requiring
RCTC to coordinate with SANBAG, as set forth in Attachment “A”.
B. Compensation.
1. It is understood that SANBAG funding for the program under
this Agreement will not exceed one million eight hundred thousand, and no cents
($1,800,000.00) and is being provided from the following sources:
(a) One million five hundred and ninety-three
thousand, five hundred and forty dollars and no cents ($1,593,540) from CMAQ funds,
and
(b) Two hundred and six thousand, four hundred, sixty
dollars and no cents ($206,460.00) from San Bernardino County local ½ cent sales tax,
Measure I-Valley Funds.
2. SANBAG receives SAFETEA-LU and other federal funds and
may use these funds to reimburse RCTC for its services in performing Employer and
Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Services.
3. It is agreed that SANBAG Measure I Funds will reimburse
RCTC for the cost of purchasing any items not reimbursable by CMAQ, and invoices
submitted to SANBAG shall clearly delineate CMAQ non-reimbursable expenditures. It
is agreed that in the event sufficient funds from the sources set forth in (a) and (b) above
do not become available to SANBAG for this Agreement, SANBAG may immediately
terminate this Agreement with written notice, but shall pay to RCTC from other sources
any amounts required to cover RCTC’s costs to the date of Agreement termination.
4. SANBAG shall pay RCTC on a cost-reimbursement basis,
based upon invoices which delineate charges based on tasks identified in the scope of
work, Attachment “A.” All invoices shall be provided to SANBAG no more frequently
than on a bi-monthly basis and no less than a quarterly basis. All invoices must be
received by SANBAG no later than 60 days after the quarter.
5. SANBAG shall be fully responsible for obtaining cost
reimbursements of CMAQ funds. SANBAG shall ensure that the SAFE-TEA LU funds
are used for authorized purposes in compliance with laws, regulations, and the provision
of the terms in this agreement, and that performance goals are achieved
6. SANBAG shall review all billings submitted by RCTC for
accuracy and process payment based thereon to RCTC in a timely manner.
172
C12553.docx Page 3 of 9
7. RCTC shall maintain during the term of this Agreement and for
three years thereafter accounting records which cover the receipt and disbursement of all
funds provided for the programs administered and implemented under this Agreement.
Such records shall be made available for inspection during normal business hours by duly
authorized representatives of SANBAG, SANBAG’s auditors, Caltrans, Federal Highway
Administration, and the United States Department of Transportation, so that SANBAG
can comply with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular No. A-133.
C. Term.
1. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2012 and terminate
on June 30, 2012, unless it is extended by a written amendment approved by the parties.
2. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty
(30) days written notice to the other for no or any reason, including, but not limited to,
changes in legislation, rules and regulations impacting trip reduction programs.
SANBAG shall pay for any service provided up to the effective date of the termination.
3. The Executive Directors of both RCTC and SANBAG shall
have the authority in their sole discretion to give notice of termination on behalf of their
respective agencies.
D. Indemnification and Insurance.
1. (a) It is understood and agreed that neither RCTC nor any
officer, official, employee, director, consultant, agent, or volunteer thereof is responsible
for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done
by SANBAG under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to
SANBAG under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.4, SANBAG shall fully defend, indemnify and save
harmless RCTC, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims,
suits or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury
(as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or
omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work, authority or
jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement.
(b) It is understood and agreed that neither SANBAG nor any
officer, official, employee, director, consultant, agent, or volunteer thereof is responsible
for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done
by RCTC under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to
RCTC under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government
Code Section 895.4, RCTC shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless SANBAG,
and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims, suits or actions of
every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in
Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
done by RCTC or its consultants under or in connection with any work, authority or
jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement.
2. Insurance Requirements
173
C12553.docx Page 4 of 9
Without anyway affecting the indemnity provision identified in this Contract, RCTC
shall, at the RCTC’s sole expense, and prior to the commencement of any work, procure
and maintain in full force, insurance through the entire term of this Agreement. and shall
be written with at least the following limits of liability:
(a) Professional Liability - Shall be provided in an amount not less than
$1,000,000, per claim and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. RCTC shall secure
and maintain this insurance or “tail” coverage provided throughout the
term of this Contract and for a minimum of three (3) years after Contract
completion.
(b) Workers' Compensation - Worker’s Compensation insurance shall be
provided in an amount and form to meet all applicable requirements of the
Labor Code of the State of California, including Employers Liability with
$250,000 limits, covering all persons providing services on behalf of
RCTC and all risks to such persons under this Agreement.
(c) Commercial General Liability - To include coverage for Premises
and Operations, Contractual Liability, Personal Injury Liability,
Products/Completed Operations Liability, Broad-Form Property Damage
and Independent Contractors' Liability, in an amount of not less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence, combined single limit, and $2,000,000 in the
aggregate written on an occurrence form. For products and completed
operations a $2,000,000 aggregate shall be provided.
(d) Automobile Liability - To include owned, non-owned and hired
automobiles, in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence,
combined single limit, and in the aggregate written on an occurrence form.
(e) Network and Privacy Insurance. RCTC shall carry, or shall cause its
third party contractor to carry, Network and Privacy (Errors and
Omissions) insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per
claim and $1,000,000 in the annual aggregate, protecting RCTC and
SANBAG from the following exposures relating to RCTC’s or any of
its subcontractors performance under the Agreement:
(i) the theft, dissemination and/or unauthorized disclosure of use of
confidential information and personally identifiable information
(not to be limited bank information, social security numbers, health
information, credit card account information, and confidential
corporate information). Such insurance shall also include coverage
for credit monitoring, notification expenses and other related costs
associated with mitigating a data security or privacy breach; and
(ii) the introduction of a computer virus into, or otherwise causing
damage to, a computer, computer system, network or similar
174
C12553.docx Page 5 of 9
computer-related property and the data, software, and programs
used herein.
If such insurance is maintained on an occurrence basis, RCTC or its third party contractor
shall maintain such insurance for an additional period of one year following the end of
the applicable Term. If such insurance is maintained on a claims-made basis, RCTC or
its third party contractor shall maintain such insurance for an additional period of three
year following the end of the applicable Term.
(f). Umbrella/Excess Liability Insurance:
Proof of Coverage- RCTC shall furnish certificates of insurance to
SANBAG evidencing the insurance coverage required above, prior to the
commencement of performance of services hereunder, and such
certificates shall include San Bernardino Associated Governments/San
Bernardino County Transportation Authority) as additional insured on
Comprehensive General Liability Insurance or Commercial General
Liability Insurance and auto insurance. Prior to commencing any work,
RCTC shall furnish SANBAG with a certificate(s) of insurance, executed
by a duly authorized representative of each insurer, showing compliance
with the insurance requirements set forth in this Article. If the insurance
company elects to cancel or non-renew coverage for any reason, the
CONSULTANT will provide SANBAG 30 days’ notice of such
cancellation or nonrenewal. If the policy is cancelled for nonpayment of
premium, the RCTC will provide SANBAG ten (10) days’ notice. RCTC
shall maintain such insurance from the time RCTC commences
performance of services hereunder until the completion of such Services.
All certificates of insurance are to include the contract number and Project
Manager’ name.
(g) Additional Insured- All policies, except for Workers Compensation
and Professional Liability policies, shall contain endorsements naming
SANBAG and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional
insureds with respect to liabilities arising out to the performance of
Services hereunder. The additional insured endorsements shall not limit
the scope of coverage for SANBAG to vicarious liability but shall allow
coverage for SANBAG to the full extent provided by the policy.
(h) Waiver of Subrogation Rights - RCTC shall require the carriers of
the above required coverages to waive all rights of subrogation against
SANBAG, its officers, employees, agents, volunteers, contractors, and
subcontractors. All general auto liability insurance coverage provided
shall not prohibit RCTC or CONSULTANT’S employees or agents from
175
C12553.docx Page 6 of 9
waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss or claim. CONSULTANT
hereby waives all rights of subrogation against SANBAG.
(i) All policies required herein are to be primary and non-contributory
with any insurance carried or administered by SANBAG.
(j) Certificates/Insurer Rating/Cancellation Notice.
(1) RCTC shall maintain and shall require its
consultants to maintain such insurance from the time the Services commence until the
Services are completed, except as may be otherwise required by this Section.
(2) RCTC may legally self-insure, but shall require its
consultants to place insurance with insurers having an A.M. Best Company rating of no
less than A: VIII and licensed to do business in California.
(3) RCTC and its consultants shall replace certificates,
policies and endorsements for any insurance expiring prior to completion of the Services.
E. Rights of SANBAG and RCTC.
The Executive Directors of both SANBAG and RCTC shall have full authority to
exercise their respective entity’s rights under this contract.
F. Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality/Use of Data.
(1) Ownership. All materials and data, including data on magnetic
and electronic media, prepared by RCTC or subconsultant under this Agreement
pertaining to or for the benefit of SANBAG, excluding any source code, shall become the
common property of the RCTC and SANBAG. RCTC and SANBAG shall not be limited
in any way in its use of such data at any time, provided that any such use not within the
purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at the respective party’s sole risk and
provided that the other party shall be indemnified against any damages resulting from
such use, including the release of this material to third parties for a use not intended by
this Agreement. Neither party to this Agreement shall sell the data or other materials
prepared under this Agreement without the written permission of both parties.
(2) Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans,
procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written
information, and other materials described in subsection (1) either created by or provided
to RCTC in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential
by RCTC. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of SANBAG, be
used by RCTC for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall
such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of
the Services. Nothing furnished to RCTC that is otherwise known to RCTC or is
generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed
confidential. RCTC shall not use SANBAG’s name or insignia, photographs of the
project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services in any magazine, trade paper,
176
C12553.docx Page 7 of 9
newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior
written consent of SANBAG.
(3) Use of Data. All data shall be provided to SANBAG in hard copy
and electronic media. Data in electronic media shall be provided in a form that will allow
SANBAG to use, access, and manipulate the data to prepare reports and perform other
ride matching activities contemplated by this Agreement. All San Bernardino data, hard
copy and electronic format, shall be provided to SANBAG within 30 days upon written
notice.
(4) Limitations on SANBAG Ownership Rights and Rights to Data.
SANBAG’s rights under Section F(1) and (F)(3) above shall be in accordance with and
subject to any limitations contained in RCTC’s agreement(s) with its subcontractors
retained for the performance of the services under this Agreement. The terms of such
subcontracts shall control over the terms of this Agreement.
G. Independent Contractor. SANBAG retains RCTC on an independent
contractor basis and RCTC and its consultants shall not be employees of SANBAG. The
consultants and other personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf
of RCTC shall at all times be under RCTC's exclusive direction and control. RCTC shall
pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due its employees in connection with their
performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. RCTC shall be
responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such employees, including, but not
limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and
workers' compensation insurance.
H. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action is instituted to enforce or
declare any party's rights hereunder, each party, including the prevailing party, must bear
its own costs and attorneys' fees. This paragraph shall not apply to those costs and
attorneys' fees directly arising from any third party legal action against a party hereto and
payable under Paragraph D(1), Indemnification and Insurance.
I. Consent. Whenever consent or approval of any party is required under
this Agreement, that party shall not unreasonably withhold nor delay such consent or
approval.
[Signatures on following page]
177
C12553.docx Page 8 of 9
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AGREEMENT C12553
BY AND BETWEEN
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FISCAL YEAR
2012/2013 EMPLOYER AND COMMUTER
TRIP REDUCTION/RIDESHARE PROGRAMS
IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE AUTHORIZED PARTIES HAVE BELOW SIGNED
AND EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE:
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY
GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
___________________________________
Larry McCallon, President John J. Benoit, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
FORM SANBAG FOR RCTC
_______________________________ _________________________________
Penny Alexander-Kelley, SANBAG Counsel Best, Best & Krieger, LLP, General
Counsel
CONCURRENCE:
Kathleen Murphy-Perez
Contracts Manager
178
C12553.docx Page 9 of 9
Attachment “A ”
Scope of Work
San Bernardino Employer and Commuter Assistance Programs
Fiscal Year 2012-13
Inland Empire Rideshare Services
Provide a variety of services to employers and commuters, who participate in trip
reduction activities. Activities shall include, but not be limited to: RideGuide/survey
services, employer technical assistance, promotions, RideGuide production,
coordination/dissemination of surveys and resulting report analysis for target marketing,
Rideshare Connection broadcast e-mails, CommuteSmart News, networking meetings
and coordination with other rideshare agencies and service providers. Assist multi-site
and multi-jurisdictional headquarters employers within the County as well as related
worksites outside of the County. Oversee and maintain a regional website
(CommuteSmart.info), IE511.org website, social media platforms, and other regional
products/outreach as assigned. Respond and coordinate inquiries with SANBAG that are
San Bernardino specific generated from 511, 1-800-COMMUTE, 1-866-RIDESHARE,
CommuteSmart.info, as well as direct referrals. Oversee and maintain a regional
database of commuters, working with the five county transportation commission’s
(CTCs) throughout the region, with SANBAG owning all data and records (hard copy
and electronic formats) related to San Bernardino County, subject to the limitations
contained in Section F(4) of the Agreement. Market the regional Guaranteed Ride Home
Program to employers in San Bernardino County. Assist in the County’s leased
Park’N’Ride lot program. Operate the 511 program through phone and web services,
providing enhancements, resolving issues, conducting marketing and periodic surveys.
Conduct special projects and studies, as assigned, and coordinate with/inform SANBAG
rideshare staff if special projects and/or studies impact the San Bernardino Rideshare
Program.
Related Expenses ($1,035,774):
Includes labor, office expenses, marketing materials, office equipment, computer
programming, telephone and other direct expenses.
Goals:
1. Implementation of commuter assistance programs to approximately 380 regulated and
non-regulated employer worksites in San Bernardino County, to assist in the
development and implementation of trip reduction programs and for technical
assistance.
2. Work with 90 employers on AVR/Transportation surveys and AVR calculations.
179
C12553.docx Page 10 of 9
3. Maintain an accurate database of 52,000 active San Bernardino County commuter
registrants, resulting from completed commuter surveys at 90 San Bernardino County
employers.
4. Disseminate 7,800 RideGuides to San Bernardino County commuters at 380
worksites.
5. Provide assistance to six multisite/multijurisdictional headquarters located in
San Bernardino County representing 47 worksites in San Bernardino, Riverside, as
well as Los Angeles and Orange counties.
6. Develop and implement three employer transportation network meetings, one
promotional marketing campaign at San Bernardino employer worksites, and other
events.
7. Produce and disseminate other regional marketing materials, as standalone campaigns
within the Inland Empire or regional campaigns in coordination with the five CTCs.
8. Broadcast 14 Rideshare Connection e-mails to San Bernardino County employers.
9. For the two-county area, respond to 1,300 inquires/calls from commuters who work
or reside in San Bernardino or Riverside counties, via 1-866-RIDESHARE, 1-800-
COMMUTE, CommuteSmart.info, 511, direct referrals and other internet sources. Of
these 1,300 inquiries, 325 RideGuides will be generated. In addition, 500 Inland
residents will register in the database via the www.ridematch.info and the
www.ie511.org website. SANBAG will be copied on responses that are specific to
San Bernardino County.
10. Manage and operate the 511 system which will be available to commuters 24 hours a
day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year.
11. The 511 phone system will provide assistance to 29,000 callers per month throughout
the year. The system will have the capacity to handle 100,000 concurrent callers.
12. The www.ie511.org website will potentially receive 19,000 unique visitors per
month. Website will be able to handle 100,000 concurrent users.
13. Continue 511 marketing/outreach and coordinating development of the marketing
plan, campaign themes, surveys, studies and potential collateral materials which
include San Bernardino County with SANBAG rideshare staff, before the tasks are
implemented.
14. Conduct and coordinate periodic surveys with SANBAG to determine the 511
program use, effectiveness and customer satisfaction.
15. Provide website and phone enhancements/upgrades as needed.
Rideshare Incentive Programs
Option Rideshare offers San Bernardino County residents who commute to work, up to
$2 a day (in local merchant gift cards) for each day they participate in a rideshare mode,
during a three-month period. The Vanpool Incentive Program provides up to $1,800 over
nine months in discounted vanpool fares. Team Ride provides ongoing ridesharers who
reside in San Bernardino County a Rideshare Plus Rewards Book, with discount coupons
from more than 135,000 merchants throughout the southland. RCTC to manage and
operate the Incentive Programs listed above, and to coordinate and discuss with
SANBAG when potential changes to San Bernardino County Incentive Programs are
being considered.
180
C12553.docx Page 11 of 9
Related Expenses ($764,226):
Includes labor, office expenses, marketing materials, office equipment, computer
programming, telephone, direct commuter incentives (gift cards/ subsidies) and other
direct expenses.
Goals:
1. The Option Rideshare program will enlist 1,500 County residents, who commute to
work to 145 employers in Southern California. These participants on average have a
one-way commute distance of 27.59 miles and the goal is to reduce 145,000 one way
vehicle trips from the roadways.
2. Team Ride registrants will consist of 7,000 members when the program is at its
highest membership. Members will work at employment sites from 380 employers
throughout Southern California.
181
BLANK
ATTACHMENT 2
1
Riverside County Transportation Commission
REGIONAL RIDEMATCH DATABASE SERVICES
FY 12/13 SCOPE OF WORK – Trapeze Software
Manage the regional ridematch database system and parallel school database system on
behalf of and in partnership with the County Transportation Commission’s (CTC’s).
Each database will be secured from tampering yet accessible to users needs with timely
and accurate software. Monitor and maintain the performance of the hardware and
connectivity software of the regional ridematch local area network, web facing servers,
Citrix servers, ridematching website and Exchange server. Maintenance of the
ridematching and school software will be coordinated with the software vendor, Trapeze,
and their designated product support staff. Monitor network and server performance to
ensure that quality and throughput are optimum and that system integrity is maintained.
Task 1: Manage and coordinate the regional rideshare database system in partnership
with the CTC’s to ensure the effective delivery of ridematching services to employers,
TMA’s and commuters of the five county region. Coordinate software and database
maintenance and installation of enhancements. Work with CTC staffs to identify needs
or program refinements on an annual basis, including AVR Program refinements as
required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and/or
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD). Work with Trapeze staff to
develop programs to satisfy identified needs, and to install and test them. Install periodic
updates from Trapeze. Monitor the system and augment security and data access controls
as needed to maintain the confidentiality of information, including an annual
vulnerability and penetration test by a contractor secured by Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC). Task includes travel expense for three visits per
year to each CTC office, if necessary, and annual license maintenance fees. Also
includes the annual cost of testing for web site security against a hack attack.
a. Review RidePro error logs on a daily basis, assess error messages to determine
next steps, take action with the appropriate entities (i.e., internal action, CTC’s or
Trapeze support staff) to secure resolution of issues.
b. Install product updates and enhancements including customized programming
authorized by CTC’s. Provide testing of new programs and enhancements to
ensure that programs are functioning correctly and that any program compatibility
issues are resolved.
c. Monitor performance of the servers, routers and switches to ensure system is
operating at peak performance.
d. Review all security logs as they are collected via GFI.
e. Report any system downtime to CTC’s.
182
2
f. Facilitate collective policy decisions relating to operational and procedural
functionality of the system.
g. Provide liaison between the CTC’s and the SCAQMD for maintenance and
required updates to the AVR functions of the databases.
h. Coordinate with CTC technical staffs regarding hardware specifications and
conformity.
i. Produce Monthly Rideshare Services Report of regional ridematching activity.
Task 2: Maintain the address geo-coding database for translation of street addresses and
intersections into geographic references for ridematching, mapping, and other geographic
referential products. On a bi-annual basis include a zip code overlay in the update of the
digital base maps. Zip code overlay will be purchased and implemented by Trapeze.
a. Coordinate annual updates of digital base maps with CTC’s and Trapeze.
b. Identify and resolve any discrepancies in digital base maps in response to
geocoding anomalies.
Task 3: Maintain computer software (i.e., RidePro administrative tracking) to accurately
and concisely track rideshare database activities and services for reporting to CTC’s.
a. Quarterly rideshare database report including website activity.
Task 4: Provide technical and help desk support services to CTC staffs. Provide
assistance with troubleshooting of problems related to functionality of software and/or
wide area network connectivity. Provide training or instructional materials on new
programs and functions within the RidePro and AVR databases to CTC staffs.
a. Respond daily to on-line and telephone technical inquires and trouble reports.
b. Assess source of reported problems, determine appropriate actions, and facilitate
resolution by appropriate staff.
c. Prepare and distribute quarterly summary of reported problems and actions taken.
d. Provide “help” information as needed to all users.
e. Provide liaison between CTC’s and Trapeze product support staff.
183
3
Task 5:
A. Operating Equipment
Maintain computer system hardware, consistent with the specifications provided by
Trapeze Software and agreed to by the CTC’s, to accommodate the regional rideshare
database, and the implementation and operation of the LocalArea Network. Repair or
replace hardware items as needed or as recommended by the “End of Life” (EOL) cycle
by the product manufacture (no longer supported).
1. Periodic hardware and software maintenance of Database Servers, Storage Area
Network, two Citrix Terminal Services Servers for remote access, Web Server,
Job Process Server, workstation for network administration, and various routers,
firewalls and switches as needed.
B. Network Connectivity
Maintain the configuration of four bonded T1 lines, connection to efficiently operate the
LAN/WAN.
1. Monitor and troubleshoot operation of four bonded T1 Circuits for Ridematching
Website access and for access to Terminal Services Server via Citrix.
2. Monitor and troubleshoot access lines to ensure operational integrity and security.
On-going analysis of capacity issues and recommendations for additions or
improvements.
184
BLANK
4
Riverside County Transportation Commission
REGIONAL RIDEMATCH DATABASE SERVICES
FY 12/13 SCOPE OF WORK – Basetech Software
Manage the regional ridematch database system on behalf of and in partnership with the
County Transportation Commissions (CTCs). The system will be secured from
tampering yet accessible to multiple users’ needs with timely and accurate software.
Monitor and maintain the performance of the hardware and connectivity software of the
regional ridematch local area network and ridematching website. Maintenance of the
ridematching software and associated modules will be coordinated with the software
vendor, Base Technologies, Inc. (BaseTech), and their designated product support staff.
Monitor bandwidth and website load times to ensure that quality and throughput are
optimum and that system integrity is maintained.
Task 1: Day to Day Operations
Manage and coordinate the regional rideshare database system in partnership with the
CTCs to ensure the effective delivery of ridematching services to employers, TMAs and
commuters of the five county region.
j. Review application error logs on a daily basis, assess error messages to determine
next steps, take action with the appropriate entities (i.e., internal action, CTCs or
BaseTech support staff) to secure resolution of issues.
k. Review all security logs as they are collected through the dedicated firewall, web
server, and database logs.
l. Report any scheduled or unscheduled system downtime to CTCs, troubleshoot as
necessary and identify reason for downtime and estimated time to be back on line.
Task 2: Upgrades, Patches, and System Administration
Coordinate software and database maintenance and installation of enhancements. Work
with CTC staffs to identify needs or program refinements on an annual basis, including
AVR Program refinements as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) and/or Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD).
Work with BaseTech staff to develop programs to satisfy identified needs, and to
coordinate the installation and testing of periodic updates from BaseTech on an as-needed
basis.
Coordinate the monitoring of the system and augmenting of security and data access
controls as needed to maintain the confidentiality of information, including an annual
185
5
vulnerability and penetration test by a contractor secured by Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC).
Task includes annual license maintenance fees. Also includes the annual cost of testing
for web site security.
a. Facilitate collective policy decisions relating to operational and procedural
functionality of the system.
b. Coordinate feedback from CTCs regarding programming functionality,
programming issues and development ideas. Provide testing of new programs and
enhancements as well as custom ad-hoc reporting to ensure that all program
modules are functioning correctly and that any program compatibility issues are
resolved.
c. Provide liaison between the CTCs and the SCAQMD for maintenance and
required updates to the AVR functions of the databases.
d. Coordinate changes to reporting and functionality between internal staff, CTCs,
SCAQMD, and selected vendors.
e. Work with selected contractor to facilitate web testing for security and to monitor
performance of the servers, routers and switches to ensure system is operating at
peak performance.
f. Perform ongoing analysis of capacity issues and recommendations for additions
or improvements.
Task 3: Support Roles
Provide technical and help desk support services to CTC staffs. Provide assistance with
troubleshooting of problems related to functionality of software. Provide training or
instructional materials on new programs and functions within the Komotor rideshare web
application and associated modules to CTC staffs.
a. Respond daily to on-line and telephone technical inquires and trouble reports.
b. Assess source of reported problems, determine appropriate actions, and facilitate
resolution by appropriate staff.
c. Prepare and distribute quarterly summary of reported problems and actions taken.
d. Provide “help” information as needed to all users.
e. Provide liaison between CTCs and BaseTech product support staff.
186
6
Task 4: Operating Equipment and Network Connectivity
A. Operating Equipment
Monitor server performance and bandwidth use, consistent with the specifications
provided by BaseTech, to accommodate the regional rideshare database and associated
modules. Rackspace, the selected server management company, will be responsible for
repair or replacement of all hardware items to be handled on an as-needed basis or as
recommended by the “End of Life” (EOL) cycle by the product manufacture on a
365/24/7 basis with a one hour replacement time guarantee. Rackspace will also be
responsible for security patches, updates for server operating system and core system
applications as well as firewalls, network switches, and load balancers.
B. Network Connectivity
Keycard protocols, biometric scanning prototcols and round-the-clock interior and
exterior surveillance monitor access to every Rackspace data center. To provide multiple
redundancies the data center housing the regional ridematch local area network is also
linked to the internet through a minimum of 5-9 different internet service providers on
high performance bandwidth. Rackspace will monitor and troubleshoot access lines to
ensure operational integrity and security.
187
BLANK
AGENDA ITEM 8L
BLANK
Agenda Item 8L
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to the Agreement with the California Highway Patrol
to Fund Additional CHP Services
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 10-45-084-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
No. 10-45-084-00, with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for the addition
of one-half of a full-time equivalent CHP officer position for the supervision
and operation of a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County
in the amount of $78,751; and
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The FSP program is responsible for quickly finding and clearing congestion-causing
incidents and providing direct assistance to stranded motorists, thereby maintaining
optimal capacity of the highway system and increasing public safety. Acting in its
capacity as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) for Riverside
County, the Commission operates a FSP program in partnership with Caltrans and
CHP. The Commission’s role is to contract with tow service providers and other
consultants that may be necessary for the successful implementation of the
program. Caltrans is responsible for the administration of funding, statewide
planning, and conducting special studies to support local FSP programs. Finally,
the CHP is generally responsible for individual tow operator training and supervision
of the day to day FSP field operations to ensure that services provided by tow
contractors are of the highest quality feasible. Caltrans allocates funds to the CHP
for dedicated CHP resources to support FSP operations.
188
Agenda Item 8L
The Inland CHP division, which has jurisdiction over both the SANBAG and the
Commission FSP programs, applied the Caltrans FSP funding allocation to
determine staffing for the two FSP programs with three full-time FSP CHP officers.
Ultimately, this allocation provides the Commission’s FSP program with a full-time
equivalent (FTE) of only 1.5 officers.
Over the past five years, the Commission has added beats and expanded its FSP
coverage area; however, the number of officers for the program has remained flat.
Currently, the 1.5 FTE officer allocation supports a program that spans a large and
very active coverage area of over 80 centerline miles of highway in Riverside
County and provides nearly 46,000 assists to motorist each year.
DISCUSSION:
The CHP has supplemental agreements with various SAFEs statewide for overtime
and/or additional personnel. Since 2001, the Commission has executed
agreements with CHP due to the limited personnel and nature of the FSP program.
In addition to field supervision during FSP operating hours (5:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
and 3:00 p.m. [1:00 p.m. on Fridays] to 7:00 p.m.) there are services performed
between operating hours that support the program, therefore requiring CHP officers
to work overtime. Below is a sample of the services performed by FSP CHP
officers:
In-field Supervisory Services Provided During FSP Operating Hours:
(not all inclusive)
• Provide in field, on scene, program supervision;
• Provide “real time” decisions to incidents occurring in the field;
• Enforce program rules and guidelines through in field supervision;
• Conduct all investigations with regard to equipment, personnel, damage,
complaints;
• Inspect tow trucks on a spot check basis as needed;
• Serve as a FSP liaison between agencies, such as with other CHP personnel,
Caltrans, cities, counties, etc.; and
• Be available to the public for FSP concerns/questions/comments/complaints.
Administrative Supervisory Services Provided During Non-FSP Hours:
(not all inclusive)
• Conduct background checks, testing, fingerprinting, and certifications for
new FSP drivers;
• Prepare training class materials (binders and maps);
• Conduct training classes;
189
Agenda Item 8L
• Track extra truck time, fines, penalties, and certificates (driver license, DL64,
medical cards, and motor carrier permits);
• Prepare monthly billing;
• Maintain the standard operating procedures manual;
• Maintain drop point maps to include changing local regulations;
• Monitor the automatic vehicle locator system, personal digital assistant
(PDA) items, radios, and any other computer related FSP equipment;
• Maintain required “field ready” equipment such as backup PDA items, safety
vests, brochures, survey forms, and magnetic signs;
• Participate in the RFP process for new vendors and beats;
• Maintain driver files, records, etc. for all FSP drivers;
• Track FSP driver’s tenure and performance with regard to driver recognition
and rewards;
• Attend various FSP related required meetings and training (Technical
Advisory Committee and quarterly drivers’ meeting).
The current CHP agreement, which was approved by the Commission in May
2010, was initiated for an amount not to exceed $200,295 for a term of three
years covering FY 2009/10 through FY 2012/13. This agreement was
subsequently amended in February 2011, to add $57,648 for incremental hours
required for the I-215 South widening construction project. Accordingly, the not to
exceed amount for the amended agreement for both regular and construction
related FSP services shall not exceed $257,943.
The 2009 Statewide FSP Staffing Analysis of CHP provided a recommendation for
the Riverside and San Bernardino programs, as a whole, to add an additional CHP
officer for optimal staffing levels. The addition of a fourth officer would provide
each program with a total of two dedicated officers per program. This would
ensure that each county could be covered with an officer on both the morning and
evening shifts, instead of splitting time between the two programs. This also
allows for 1) greater access for the FSP drivers to contact either officer with
in-field questions, 2) coverage for officer time off, and 3) CHP to become more
proactive with enforcement of the program policies and contract compliance.
Staff discussed the recommendation with CHP and SANBAG and recommends
amending the current CHP agreement to add $78,751 for a one-half FTE CHP
officer position to implement the study’s recommendation and maintain optimal
levels of CHP supervision for the FSP program for the remainder of the contract
term ending June 30, 2013. The other one-half FTE CHP officer position would be
funded by SANBAG through a separate agreement with CHP. The new total not to
exceed amount for the CHP agreement including the addition of a one-half FTE CHP
190
Agenda Item 8L
officer position shall not exceed $336,694. Staff also recommends incorporating
language into the amendment to provide for flexibility in the usage of overtime
hours for construction projects between fiscal years, as long as the total contract
amount is not exceeded.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2012/13 Amount: $78,751
Source of Funds: DMV User Fees Budget Adjustment: No
GLA No.: 201 45 81016
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/18/12
Attachment: Agreement No. 10-45-084-02
191
Agreement No. 10-45-084-02
CHP# 10R061002
1
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
AGREEMENT NO. 10R061002
FUNDING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 is made and entered into this ____day of ________, 2012,
by and between the California Highway Patrol, hereinafter called CHP, and the
Riverside County Transportation Commission hereinafter called RCTC, acting in its
capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies.
WHEREAS, by Agreement No. 10R061002, effective July 1, 2010, through
June 30, 2013, RCTC and CHP entered into an agreement for overtime supervision
and operation of a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County; and
WHEREAS, RCTC desires and CHP agrees to increase the maximum expenditures
for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 by $78,750.66;
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed by RCTC and CHP that
Agreement No. 10R061002 is hereby amended in the following particulars only:
Amend GENERAL PROVISIONS, Page 2 of 5, paragraph 5, to add “RCTC also
agrees to reimburse the CHP for one half of a full-time officer position. For a total of
$78,750.66 for Fiscal Year 2012-2013.
Amend GENERAL PROVISIONS, Page 2 of 5, paragraph 6, “in no event shall the
total amount exceed $257,942.76.” in lieu of insert “in no event shall the total amount
exceed $336,693.42.”
192
Agreement No. 10-45-084-02
CHP# 10R061002
2
The balance of said Agreement remains unchanged.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
John J. Benoit, Chair
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Best, Best & Krieger LLP
General Counsel
Date
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA
HIGHWAY PATROL
T. L. Anderson, Assistant Chief
Administrative Services Division
Date
193
AGENDA ITEM 9
Agenda Item 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Motorist Assistance Program Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive an update for the Motorist Assistance
program.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In 1986, the Commission established itself as the Riverside County Service
Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) after the enactment of SB 1199 in
1985. Acting in its capacity as a SAFE, the Commission is responsible for
providing a motorist aid system for Riverside County. Funding for SAFE is derived
from a one dollar per vehicle registration fee on vehicles registered in the county.
Initially, these funds were used solely to operate a call box program. Over time,
the program has expanded to include Freeway Service Patrol and Inland Empire 511
traveler information services as part of a comprehensive motorist aid system in
Riverside County. A presentation with an update on these three program elements
of Motorist Assistance will be provided to the Commission.
194
Motorist Assistance Update
Brian Cunanan
Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
July 11, 2012
=
Service Authority
for Freeway
Emergencies for
Riverside County
(1986)
RC SAFE receives $1 for every vehicle registered in
Riverside County to provide a motorist aid system.
•Riverside County’s Motorist Assistance Program
1990’s
2000’s
2010’s
•Launch Call Box Program
•Launch FSP Program
•Call Box Reductions
•ADA Compliance
•Digital Upgrade
•FSP Service Expansions
•Paper to Digital
•Automatic Vehicle Locator •Launch IE511 Traveler
Information Service
•Launch Mobile Application
Motorist Assistance Program
Timeline
•Riverside County’s Motorist Assistance Program
•Call boxes
provide a
lifeline to
motorist,
especially
those without
cell phones or
in rural areas
Motorist Assistance
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
$1,450,000
$1,500,000
$1,550,000
$1,600,000
$1,650,000
$1,700,000
FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
SAFE Revenue Total Call Box Calls
# of Call Boxes 1,045 975 742 660 617 613 611
Call Box Program
FY13 Budget
Call Box Maintenance/Reduction $510,000
Administration Transfer Out $152,000
Operating Costs $115,000
Wages/Benefits $ 41,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 39,000
Call Box Budget $857,000
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Call Box Program
FY13 Budget
Call Box Maintenance/Reduction $510,000
Administration Transfer Out $152,000
Operating Costs $115,000
Wages/Benefits $ 41,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 39,000
Call Box Budget $857,000
SAFE
Funds
Funding:
Call Box Program
FY13 Budget
Call Box Maintenance/Reduction $510,000
Administration Transfer Out $152,000
Operating Costs $115,000
Wages/Benefits $ 41,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 39,000
Call Box Budget $857,000
CASE Systems,
Call Box Maintenance Services
$250K (Approved June 2012)
FY13 Budget Placeholders:
-Prevailing wage impact
-Potential call box reductions
Call Box Program
FY13 Budget
Call Box Maintenance/Reduction $510,000
Administration Transfer Out $152,000
Operating Costs $115,000
Wages/Benefits $ 41,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 39,000
Call Box Budget $857,000
Support Administrative
Management Services
departments.
Call Box Program
FY13 Budget
Call Box Maintenance/Reduction $510,000
Administration Transfer Out $152,000
Operating Costs $115,000
Wages/Benefits $ 41,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 39,000
Call Box Budget $857,000
AT&T,
Access Charges
$70K
SANBAG ,
Call Answering Center Services
$29K (Approved Dec 2011)
CHP,
Call Box Coordinator
$7K
Call Box Program
FY13 Budget
Call Box Maintenance/Reduction $510,000
Administration Transfer Out $152,000
Operating Costs $115,000
Wages/Benefits $ 41,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 39,000
Call Box Budget $857,000
Paladin,
Call Box Recovery Services
$10K (Approved Jun 2012)
Legal Services
$14K
FY13 Budget Placeholders:
-Call box reduction planning
•Riverside County’s Motorist Assistance ProgramFreeway Service Patrol IS Motorist Assistance
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
21 Tow
Trucks
81 Miles
Covered
46,000
Assists
FY11
10.83
Benefit
Cost Ratio
•Provide a jump start
•Change a flat tire
•Gallon of gas
•Refill radiator/
tape hoses
•Tow vehicles off
the freeway
•Remove small
debris from
freeways
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Towing $2,200,000
Operating Costs $ 205,000
Administration Transfer Out $ 175,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 57,000
Wages/Benefits $ 50,000
Brochures, Supplies, Misc $ 35,000
Baseline FSP Budget $2,722,000
Construction FSP Budget $500,000
Total FY13 FSP Budget $3,222,000
Freeway Service Patrol
FY13 Budget
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Towing $2,200,000
Operating Costs $ 205,000
Administration Transfer Out $ 175,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 57,000
Wages/Benefits $ 50,000
Brochures, Supplies, Misc $ 35,000
Baseline FSP Budget $2,722,000
Construction FSP Budget $500,000
Total FY13 FSP Budget $3,222,000
Freeway Service Patrol
FY13 Budget
Excess
SAFE
Funds
Caltrans
FSP
Funds
Construction
Reimbursement
Funding:
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Towing $2,200,000
Operating Costs $ 205,000
Administration Transfer Out $ 175,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 57,000
Wages/Benefits $ 50,000
Brochures, Supplies, Misc $ 35,000
Baseline FSP Budget $2,722,000
Construction FSP Budget $500,000
Total FY13 FSP Budget $3,222,000
Freeway Service Patrol
FY13 Budget
Bt 1 -Pepe's Tow $296K (Approved May 2010)
Bt 2 -Tri City Tow $190K (Approved May 2011)
Bt 4 -Pepe's Tow $200K (Approved Oct 2011)
Bt 7 -Roy and Dot's Tow $203K (Approved Oct 2011)
Bt 8 -Navarro's Tow $183K (Approved Oct 2011)
Bt 18 -Pepe's Tow $310K (Approved Apr 2012)
Bt 19 -Pepe's Tow $206K (Approved Apr 2012)
Bt 25 -Roy and Dot's Tow $299K (Approved May 2011)
Bt 26 -Pepe's Tow $197K (Approved May 2010)
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Towing $2,200,000
Operating Costs $ 205,000
Administration Transfer Out $ 175,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 57,000
Wages/Benefits $ 50,000
Brochures, Supplies, Misc $ 35,000
Baseline FSP Budget $2,722,000
Construction FSP Budget $500,000
Total FY13 FSP Budget $3,222,000
Freeway Service Patrol
FY13 Budget
CHP,
FSP Supervision
$148K (Pending Jul 2012)
Lucky’s Two Way Radio,
Digital Radio Services
$7K (Approved Apr 2012)
Webtech,
Automatic Vehicle Location
Services
$8K
Misc: Communication, Radio/PDA
Equipment, DB Server Hosting and
DSL, Maintenance, etc.
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Towing $2,200,000
Operating Costs $ 205,000
Administration Transfer Out $ 175,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 57,000
Wages/Benefits $ 50,000
Brochures, Supplies, Misc $ 35,000
Baseline FSP Budget $2,722,000
Construction FSP Budget $500,000
Total FY13 FSP Budget $3,222,000
Freeway Service Patrol
FY13 Budget
Support Administrative
Management Services
departments.
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Towing $2,200,000
Operating Costs $ 205,000
Administration Transfer Out $ 175,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 57,000
Wages/Benefits $ 50,000
Brochures, Supplies, Misc $ 35,000
Baseline FSP Budget $2,722,000
Construction FSP Budget $500,000
Total FY13 FSP Budget $3,222,000
Freeway Service Patrol
FY13 Budget
DKS Associates,
Benefit Cost Assessment
$25K (Approved May 2012)
Bernard Arroyo,
Motorist Assistance
Consulting Services
$25K (Approved Jun 2012)
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Towing $2,200,000
Operating Costs $ 205,000
Administration Transfer Out $ 175,000
Professional & Legal Services $ 57,000
Wages/Benefits $ 50,000
Brochures, Supplies, Misc $ 35,000
Baseline FSP Budget $2,722,000
Construction FSP Budget $500,000
Total FY13 FSP Budget $3,222,000
Freeway Service Patrol
FY13 Budget
Caltrans,
Construction Freeway
Service Patrol
$500K (Approved Apr 2012)
•Riverside County’s Motorist Assistance ProgramInland Empire 511 IS Motorist Assistance
296K
Web Visits
FY11
431K
Phone Calls
FY11
7,700
Downloads
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 2011 2012Web Visits
Promoting mobility
with travel
information
•Fosters more
informed travel
decisions
•Provides
commuters with
travel options
Inland Empire 511
FY13 Budget
Professional & Legal Services $ 643,000
Media $ 348,000
Wages/Benefits $ 85,000
Freeway Signs $ 20,000
IE511 Budget $1,096,000
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Inland Empire 511
FY13 Budget
Benefit
Cost
RatioExcess
SAFE
Funds
SANBAG
Reimbursement
Funding:
•Costs split 50/50 with SANBAG
Professional & Legal Services $ 643,000
Media $ 348,000
Wages/Benefits $ 85,000
Freeway Signs $ 20,000
IE511 Budget $1,096,000
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Inland Empire 511
FY13 Budget
Iteris,
Operations and maintenance
services for the traffic map and IVR
$422K
Geographics,
Web operations and technical
consulting/programming
$147K (Approved Jun 2012)
Hosting services
$56K
Professional & Legal Services $ 643,000
Media $ 348,000
Wages/Benefits $ 85,000
Freeway Signs $ 20,000
IE511 Budget $1,096,000
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Inland Empire 511
FY13 Budget
•Radio $67K
•Online $57K
•Print $119K
•Television $62K
Professional & Legal Services $ 643,000
Media $ 348,000
Wages/Benefits $ 85,000
Freeway Signs $ 20,000
IE511 Budget $1,096,000
Motorist Assistance Program
•Prevailing Wage Decision
by DIR–Assess Impact to
Program
•Call Box Reduction Plan
•RFP for Call Box
Maintenance Services
•Continue Monitoring
Program Performance
•Digital Radio System
•Increase CHP Resource
•Assess and Adjust
Existing Program
•Explore Funding
Opportunities and
Program Expansion
•Launch New IVR ✔
•Enhance Traffic Coverage
in Coachella Valley
•Mobile Application
Enhancements
•Continue to Grow User
Base
Motorist Assistance Program
What’s Next
SAFE Reserve Applications
$6 million SAFE fund balance projected at the end of FY 2012;
Future applications of this reserve may include:
•Coordinate with Caltrans to investigate supplemental detection opportunities
to address detection gaps in IE511 system
•IE511 program enhancements (custom text messaging, mobile app)
•New technology that integrates and streamlines various FSP functions
(AVL, processing assists, surveys, reporting)
Motorist Assistance ProgramSAFE Reserves
Motorist Assistance ProgramMotorist Assistance Update
Questions?
AGENDA ITEM 10
Agenda Item 10 195
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: MAP-21 Federal Legislative Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive an update on federal surface
transportation authorizing legislation, “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century” (MAP-21).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On Friday June 29, Congress approved the nation’s next surface transportation
authorizing law, dubbed MAP-21. At the time this report was written, the bill was
headed to President Obama’s desk for signature. MAP-21 came more than 1,000
days and nine short-term extensions after the last surface transportation law, Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) expired in 2009. This bill’s passage is welcome news to the
Commission and the transportation industry.
Policy highlights of the 599-page bill include:
• Significant strides to accelerate the time needed to approve transportation
projects through environmental reviews;
• Establishment of a national freight policy; and
• Expanded, flexible credit assistance through the Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program.
California Senator Barbara Boxer, Chair of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, played a central role in negotiating the final bill between both
the House and Senate and Democrat and Republican caucuses. In Conference
Committee, the House and Senate made significant compromises from the policies
in their chamber’s respective versions of the bill.
The final product of the intense negotiations was made available to the public only
hours before votes took place. Therefore, Commission staff and lobbyists were still
analyzing the provisions of the bill at the time this report was written.
A full overview of MAP-21 will be presented to the Commission by federal
lobbyists Cliff Madison and Kathy Ruffalo.
MAP-21
27 month legislation –through federal FY 2014
Current funding levels plus inflation
Consolidate programs
Project delivery streamlining, TIFIA expansion,
goods movement and other policy changes
Funding Levels
Highway funding levels:
FY 2013 -$40 billion
FY 2014 -$40.6 billion
Transit funding levels:
FY 2013 -$10.6 billion
FY 2014 -$10.7 billion
Consolidation
Eliminates or consolidates more than 60 programs
4 core programs
National Highway Performance Program
Surface Transportation Program
Highway Safety Improvement Program
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program
Project Delivery
Early ROW acquisition prior to NEPA completion
Expanded use of categorical exclusions
Expanded NEPA delegation
Resource agency deadlines for reviews and financial
penalties for missing deadlines
4 year timeline to complete NEPA process for “ongoing”
EIS for “complex” projects
Judicial challenges under NEPA must occur within 150
days
Ability to issue combined EIS and ROD
TIFIA
Program funding increased
Current annual funding -$122 million
FY 2013 -$750 million
FY 2014 -$1 billion
Timelines for application approval or disapproval
Increase in amount of project cost covered
Goods Movement
Establishes goals of a national freight policy
Requires DOT to design a National Freight Network
Requires DOT to establish a National Freight
Strategic Plan
Allows DOT to increase federal share for freight
projects
Encourages states to develop State Freight Plans
and Freight Advisory Committees
Transit Highlights
Bus and Bus Facilities program
New Starts/Small Starts program
What’s Next?
Implementation –many new rules and regulations
will be written to implement program and policy
changes –important to remain engaged
Congress will begin to hold hearings on MAP-21
and…… start to outline next bill
And…….the lame duck session and/or
comprehensive tax reform could impact
transportation programs
Lame Duck Session
Items that may be on the agenda:
Appropriations bills
Various expiring tax cut provisions
Payroll tax cuts, “doc fix”, and unemployment
insurance extensions that expire
Sequester
Debt ceiling increase
Next year –comprehensive tax reform?
AGENDA ITEM 12
COMMISSIONERS REPORT
Agenda Item 12
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 11, 2012
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Commissioners Daryl Busch, Greg Pettis, Ron Roberts, and
Karen Spiegel
SUBJECT: American Public Transportation Association Rail Conference 2012
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The passage of Assembly Bill 1234 requires a report on trips that are made by an
elected official on behalf of a public agency. The purpose of this report is to
provide information on the recently-completed American Public Transportation
Association (APTA) Rail Conference in Dallas TX, June 3-6, 2012. On an annual
basis, the APTA Rail Conference is held to address nearly every aspect of
commuter rail and rail transit. With all the recent activity in high-speed rail,
positive train control (PTC), federal funding and other issues impacting the industry,
this year had record attendance with over 1,400 participants. In addition, there
was significant Southern California presence including board members and staff
from the other partner Metrolink agencies. This conference provides a great
opportunity to learn more about the industry’s latest trends and challenges to
developing effective transportation alternatives. Also being in Texas, the group
had the opportunity to experience the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) commuter rail
service with a run to Fort Worth.
ATTENDEES:
Commission members Daryl Busch, Greg Pettis, Ron Roberts, and Karen Spiegel
participated in the APTA Rail Conference.
WORKSHOPS AND SEMINARS:
There was a full assortment of workshops that directly related to Metrolink
Commuter Rail operations, Safety, PTC, high-speed rail, transit oriented
development, and topics that relate to the development of the Perris Valley Line.
The following list provides some examples:
• PTC Policy;
• Major Transit Agencies Move to Driverless Operation;
• Traction Power;
• Rail Standards;
• Analyze This! Tools for Reducing Accidents and Minimizing Hazards;
196
Agenda Item 12
• Technologies Supporting Rail Security…What Works?
• How is the Rail Market Changing?
• Integrating High-Speed Rail in Existing Corridors;
• Streamlining Project Development in a Multimodal Environment;
• Signal Systems;
• Energy, Environment and Rail;
• Rolling Stock Equipment: Vehicle Technology & Procurement;
• Maintenance Practices for Reliability;
• Cyber Security & Hacking: Should Rail Systems be Concerned?
• Engaging Diverse Communities in the Planning Process;
• Alternative Delivery;
• PTC; and
• DBE and Small Business Programs Compliance — How Are We Doing?
SUMMARY:
This year’s conference once again provided useful and timely information related to
Metrolink and the Commission’s Commuter Rail operations. This was a particularly
informative conference that started off with a Host Forum Presentation with the
Chairman of APTA from Texas along with the Federal Railroad Administration and
Federal Transit Administration representatives, who emphasized the need for
improved rail transportation and discussed funding challenges in operations and
capital improvements. There were a number of workshop and luncheon events.
One such luncheon speech was titled “What's Next? Game Changers for Rail
Service”, this discussion tried to forecast the value and impact of rail in the future.
The closing session discussion of “The Role of the Rail System, Suppliers and
Counsel in an NTSB Accident Investigation” addressed the cooperation required in
the accident investigation process.
In addition to these sessions, the conference provided a unique opportunity for
networking and to discuss the issues related to rail service with others throughout
the country. During the trade show, it was useful to learn about the new tools that
vendors are using for corridor development and rail planning. Also it was
encouraging to talk to others regarding PTC, safety, funding, and the challenges of
providing reliable service in tough economic times. Overall, the conference was a
success and provided a great opportunity to keep up with the ever changing
industry trends.
197
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager
DATE: July 2 , 2012
SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues – Riverside County Transportation
Commission Agenda of July 11 , 2012
The July 11 , 2012 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission
includes items which may raise pos sible conflicts of interest. A RCTC member may
not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a
campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3
months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed.
Agenda Item No. 8G – Agreement With Ninyo & Moore to Manage and Implement
Property Remediation
Consultant(s): Ninyo & Moore
475 Goddard, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Walter R. Crone, Principal Environmental Geologist
Agenda Item No. 8H – Agreement with RBF/Baker Consulting for Construction
Management Services for the Construction of the State Route 74 Curve Widening
Project
Consultant(s): RBF/Baker Consulting Twining, Inc.
40810 County Center Drive, Suite 100 2883 E. Spring Street
Temecula, CA 92591 Long Beach, CA 90806
Michael Tylman, Senior Vice President Chris Gerber, Vice President
MBI Media
957 S. Village Oaks Drive
Covina, CA 91724-0607
Mary McCormick, President and CEO